Having been at London Zoo on Sunday, I can say the North Bank was worse than ever! The reptile house had too many empty tanks, tanks filled with 'educational ' objects or repeated species. I didn't even bother with the Mappins to be honest because it usually depresses me! One side of the Komodo Dragon House was 'filled' by a few galapagos tortoise juveniles, too many repeat species across the zoo, meerkat x3 ( not including off show childrens zoo enclosure) , Edwards pheasant I think in 4 places. Moonlight world closed for maintenance all day( one of my favourite areas still ) Not very impressive! Only real highlights were the Okapi youngster and seeing 2 active Aye Aye on my way out!
Why would it be a good sign? I can't imagine them investing in the area. Like they haven't invested in the North Bank, which is now almost devoid of interest.
Nothing wrong with repeat exhibits, if they support ex-situ breeding programmes for critically endangered species like Edwards' Pheasant. Obviously doesn't apply to Meerkats.
You may be right, but I don't think the occasional zoo visitors would be very impressed, better to keep some offshow in my opinion and add some variety!
Multiple exhibits of the same species don't have to be identical. For example, you could have Edwards' Pheasants in four very different aviaries, with different layout, planting, furnishings and aviary companions.
Perhaps in a large bird Park, but this is London Zoo, a once great zoo which is struggling to display enough animals to live up to its past as it is! 3 plus exhibits of any animal is overdoing it in my opinion, whatever their status!
In the days of the North and South Pheasantries, there was a lot of duplication, which led, for example, to Sonneratt's Junglefowl crowing backwards and forwards across the zoo, which was nice. Unfortunately ZSL has gone from being a honeypot of biodiversity to having a few big showcase exhibits, and not a lot else.
I wouldn't disagree on this, but both mammal & bird collections are less than half they were then, which is why I find duplication of exhibits unacceptable now.
I agree with you, except that conservation breeding is very important, and I can tolerate multiple exhibits of interesting species. Even allowing for moving out species they don't have room for -- like Elephants, which really weren't appropriately housed -- there's plenty of dead space, like the North Bank and the Mappins. They could even put some animals there.....
But since importing animals from the wild (Which London did a lot of) stop, many collections started to decline in collection. I think what we are experiencing now, not only in London but other UK zoos, is all of this finally impacting zoos. Even Chester has many multiple exhibits
This is a good point. I also see a lot more completely empty exhibits than before. I guess repeat exhibits is the preferred alternative.
The multiplicity of “repeat” exhibits, or empty exhibits, has got nothing to with the decline of the importation of animals from the wild. There are still a large number of animals out there and available - the homing of “surplus”stock is a major headache for any zoo. London is facing the same issues that many other zoos face. Costs need to be kept at a minimum. The decision is therefore taken to maintain a smaller collection, with the thinking being that visitors only care about tigers, lions and giraffes - small birds and small mammals get sidelined. Given London’s closure crises of the 1990s, their timidity here is, possibly, understandable. Allied to this is, of course, a good and welcome focus on animal welfare, a desire to only maintain animals that can be properly cared for. I look back nostalgically to the London Zoo of the 1980s, but I appreciate, too, that too many animals were squeezed into the 36 hallowed acres. Finally, many (most?) Zoo people simply don’t have much interest in animals per se (however much they may genuinely love the idea of conservation, and care deeply about individual specimens). For me, the ideal would be to have a large and varied collection, with “repeats” kept off exhibit as much as possible. I have no issue at all with animals being imported from the wild - but the decline in this source of “stock” is not behind the current paucity of species at London.
While I agree with your point, Chester has space, lots of it, to allow multiple exhibits. London has no such space and being one of the uk’s most well known zoos it would be better for them to try and diversify the collection as much as possible. 3 meerkat enclosures is 2 to many! Those spaces could be used for other more interesting species the zoo have in their care. I do hope over time zoos do their best to limit this however.
I think you are going OTT here. There are grains of truth in your comments, but the picture you paint seems distorted to me. I think that there is abundant evidence that ZSL knows that visitors care about more than tigers, lions and giraffes. Consider the recent building of the lemur walk-through and the gibbon enclosure, plus the spider walk-through in B.U.G.S (which I think is really imaginative and well done). Of earlier date, but still relevant, are the redevelopment of the Blackburn Pavilion and the massive extension of the penguin pool. How can you work at a zoo, love the idea of conservation and care deeply about individual specimens, without much interest in animals? That makes no sense to me (per se or not per se ). We all know that ZSL faces the same problems as most other zoos in the country, with the extra burdens of its listed buildings and its history, while being at the focus of our London-based media. There is a lot to do, but it seems to me that mid-February is not a good time to judge the progress of any zoo: repairs and renovations are in progress, some animals are still in hibernation, others are being paired up before the breeding season and there are bird flu restrictions on top of everything else. The timetable at London must have been set back by that nasty fire too. More than 40 years ago Gerald Durrell wrote about the need for zoos to explain, and the public to accept, that empty enclosures and a number of enclosures for the same species are sometimes necessary. We must not forget that as we complain about all those meerkats.
However, six or seven meerkat enclosures (and getting rid of a number of species to make room for these meerkats) as has happened at one UK collection is going a bit far
Seven ?! I know Marwell had as many as 5 a few years ago and London 4. Paradise WP has 3 which is ridiculous in a zoo that size . But I don't think I've been anywhere with as many as 7!
To be accurate, it *was* Edinburgh - I believe they have slightly decreased the number now they still have a fair few to the best of my knowledge.
14 (6.8) in two exhibits. I like multiple exhibits with a species as long as they aren't the main focus of that exhibit
