I’m not sure what it is that you think is “OTT” in what I wrote, and what is “distorted” with just “grains of truth”. That London Zoo focuses on “key” species, at the expense of a wider, representative collection of less showy species seems, to me, to be unequivocal. The collection has shrunk hugely over the past quarter century, and the developments you mention, while mostly very welcome and usually very good, have been a part of this reduction. I can’t see that commenting on the shrinking of London’s collection is “OTT”. It may be that you thought I was being “OTT” in remarking that zoo people often have little knowledge of or interest in animals. This is obviously a more contentious statement on my behalf, but it is certainly one that I feel justified in making. Of course there are many exceptions, but over the past several decades I have been constantly shocked by the extent to which zoo employees very often know - or care - very little about animals (or zoos), even while they are wholly dedicated to making the life of Reg the capuchin monkey as good as it possibly can be. This is an opinion based on anecdote and unscientific observation, but I think it a fair opinion nonetheless. This seems, I think, a little OTT. No, February is not the best month to judge any northern hemisphere zoo - but much of London Zoo is not so seasonally dependent - houses for reptiles, birds, small mammals and fish. And the gradual decline of the northern section of the zoo, and the Mappins, is not simply a result of this being February. Even a cursory glance at the ZSL’s animal inventories (if you can find them - they’re no longer published as openly as was once the case) will show that the zoo of 2018 has but a fraction of what the zoo of 2008 or 1998 had (which may be a very good thing). I’m not sure whether this is OTT, but I do think it’s disingenuous. Durrell was not, I think, referring to an animal of such ubiquity, but rather to the sorts of species with which Jersey has made its name. Meerkat social dynamics do mean that it is probably necessary to have more than one group if one is to breed and maintain the species. But keep groups 2, 3 and 4 off-show! And meanwhile, make an effort with other small carnivore species! I don’t think it is OTT to feel some sense of regret that when grison, fanaloka and pardine genet have all recently been on show in the UK, it has not been in Regent’s Park.
Is this true or apocryphal? I visit Edinburgh pretty much annually (most recently May 2017) and I'm struggling to remember this (maybe I've repressed the memory ). Can anyone name the seven locations?
In Edinburgh, they bred very well so they reduced the number and split the remaining population into bachelor groups. I visit monthly and can't recall it getting so high. Three is the maximum I can remember
@ThylacineAlive and myself saw this one for ourselves in Aug 2016 1) Entrance area, site of old sealion pool 2) Round exhibit, formerly held souslik 3) Exhibit near sunbears, formerly held marbled polecat 4) Exhibit inside hippo house, formerly held dwarf mongoose 5) Exhibit near play area and brilliant birds, formerly held marbled polecat I cannot recall where the other two were; possibly Thylo does. I think these two were both empty but still signposted for meerkat, though.
I believe there were two side-by-side Meerkat enclosures somewhere in the zoo I think at one of the old polecat enclosures. I do not recall where the 7th was, I'd given up at that point ~Thylo
I thought I had made it clear that your comments about small mammals and birds being sidelined and about the staff at Regent's Park seem utterly wrong to me. I accept that you feel your views are fully justified, as I feel my comments are. I am tempted to write a long and detailed reply, but I think it might more prudent to avoid further disagreement here.
I think the first of these is a matter of fact, the second a matter of opinion. Going back to 2002 - so, very much in the modern era, zoo-wise, rather than the ancient history of the 1970s or before - a look at the London Zoo animal inventory reveals there were 87 mammal species (excluding domestics) and 117 bird species. At the end of 2017, there were 60 and 97, respectively - a fall of about 30% for mammals, and about 20% for birds. Amongst the less glamorous mammals, 2002 saw 6 marsupial species in Regent's Park (Kowari, Striped Possum, Feathertailed Glider, Potoroos, Brush-tailed Bettong and Red-necked Wallaby); now there are 2: Red Kangaroo (which are apparently in decline), and the (off-show) Tree Kangaroo. In 2002, there were 18 rodent species, now there are 5. Even amongst more crowd-pleasing smaller mammals there has been a sharp decline: in 2002 there were 6 lemur species, now there are 3 (although the Aye-aye having gone on display is a major plus point); the collection of Callitrichids has gone from 9 species to 5. Smaller carnivores: then - Arctic Fox, Red Panda, Kinkajou, Banded Mongoose, Cusimanse and Sand Cat, all since gone; now - new arrivals are Narrow-striped and Yellow Mongoose (with Meerkat, ASC Otter, Coati and Dwarf Mongoose all still present). Amongst the birds: hornbills - then, 5 species; now - 2. Toucans and Aracaris - then, 4 species; now, just one. The number of Passeriformes has stayed pretty stable- 27 then, 25 now. Birds of Prey have risen slightly (presumably because of the increased profile of the flying displays): then 5, now 6. But Columbiformes (then 11, now 7) and Owls (then 8, now 6) have both fallen. There is a very good argument to be made that this fall is a good thing:does the zoo need to have eight species of owl on display? Is the loss of the Potoroos such a bad thing? I have my own views on this (and I like owls and potoroos!) - but it is a valid point to be made. My second comment - about zoo staff often not being so interested in animals - is obviously a great deal less empirical, based wholly on personal observation, and subject to my own prejudices. Now is not the time to trot out a list of the occasions on which I have been surprised by the lack of knowledge or interest in the broader subject of animals from those who know everything there is to know about a very specific thing. This goes beyond zoo people, though: I have a colleague who is an inveterate birder, can identify a British warbler at 200 paces, but wouldn't know a Great Blue Turaco if it landed on his shoulder. Re-reading my original post, it does sound a little grumpy - for which I apologise. But are forums such as these not designed to be a place in which (broadly) like-minded souls can disagree about various arcane topics?
I sympathise with this view. Whenever I learn of an interesting species of small mammal arriving in the UK (e.g. quolls at Linton, grison at Hamerton, tarsiers at RSCC etc) my initial reaction is always regret that is not London Zoo receiving them. I like to visit zoos with species-rich collections. Nevertheless, I am sure it was correct to reduce the number of species, particularly of large mammals, at London Zoo. Sending the elephants to Whipsnade was a sensible decision. I certainly would NOT want a return to the early 1960s when, for example, the current Okapi House, then the Horse and Cattle House, held Cape buffalo, American bison, yak, onager, Przwalski's horse and two species of zebra (with the third species of zebra next door in the Giraffe House). With Bactrian camels, Arabian camels, llama, alpaca, vicuna and guanaco in what is now the Pygmy Hippo House, the Cotton Terraces really was grossly overcrowded Times change and, by today's standards, London hasn't the space to exhibit lots of large mammals adequately; they are best left to Whipsnade. However, London Zoo surely has the capacity to display a more varied collection of small mammals than it currently does.
I think your facts support my point. I don't disagree with figures about the small mammals and birds - and indeed I can't because I don't have the inventory for 2002, but I do have the one dated 31st December 2006. I'm going to say that anything as big as, or bigger than, a chimp is a large mammal. I know that is arbitrary, but so is the choice of 2002 as a starting point, although I can't help mentioning that it is the year after the elephants went to Whipsnade. So I reckon that the 2018 large mammal list is: gorilla, lion, tiger, Burchell's & Chapman's zebras, Malayan tapir, warthog, bearded pig, pygmy hippo, giraffe and okapi (11 species, counting the zebras separately). Species lost from the 2006 list: sloth bear, red river hog, Arabian oryx, anoa and nyala. Species lost between 2002 and 2006: chimps (moved 2005), black rhino (2002) and maned wolf (I think) and I would not be surprised if there were not one or two more. On the other hand, ZTL says that the bearded pigs arrived in 2003. That still gives a net loss of 7 species from 17, rather more than 40%. I think this is clear evidence that Regent's Park has been losing large mammal species faster than smaller ones in this period. Actually while I have been visiting the Zoo, the process of moving larger mammal species out started in the mid 1970s, when the Deer and Cattle Sheds were demolished to make way for new Lion Terraces so that the Lion House could also be demolished, a few smaller mammals went. Then the problems with the upper parts of the Mappin Terraces led to the departure of at least 8 species of bears, sheep and goats. As Tim May has said, the Cotton Terraces were also badly overcrowded, particularly the deer and antelopes where pairs of species had to use the paddocks beside the Canal on alternate days. I think that the number of smaller species only started to fall dramatically when the walls between pairs of small exhibits in the Clore were removed, doubling the size of the enclosures and halving the number of inhabitants: which certainly improved conditions for the remaining animals. Likewise changes in the Reptile House, amalgamated some of the very small exhibits, but also removed the large exhibits for giant tortoises and crocodilians on either side of the main entrance. The crocs and alligators have been partially replaced by the Komodo dragons and the new exhibit for giant tortoises was eventually constructed (after the anoas had left). I certainly miss some of these species, but I would not wish to return to the old days. Fewer species in better conditions was, and still is, the right course. I certainly don't agree with all the decisions that ZSL management have made, but as I tried to say in a previous post, I am prepared to cut them some slack at this moment. It would be very wrong to underestimate the problems that they face. The Lottery money for renovating the Snowdon Aviary will not solve all those problems. The repairs and renovations to the superstructure of the Mappins and the Aquarium underneath are probably long overdue and I hope everything will go well with them. But there will still be a lot to do on the North Bank and in the underused areas in the middle of the Zoo.
I think the Bearded pigs are another larger species that may be next to go. They are dwindling and I don't know what they will do with their area(the old Rhino enclosure) after they are all gone.
Warty Pigs would be a good choice thematically and conservationally, as well ad providing suid continuity.
I know Warty pigs are of conservaional value, but with 15 holders already in the UK, I would suggest London might be better going for something a bit more unusual .
I would like to see that area linked to the Sumatran tiger & Malayan tapir in the surrounding enclosures, creating a little S.E Asian precinct.
I might be being dim, but now I'm confused! Our original disagreement was on precisely this point, to which you responded... ...while, unequivocally, the facts show that the collection of smaller mammals has been hugely reduced since 2002 (a year I chose in part because it was the first inventory on which my hand alighted, and in part because 15 years ago seemed a tidy step in to the past). Your point appears to be that, if the collection of smaller mammals has been reduced, then the same is true of larger mammals as well. I wouldn't disagree with this - even if I would disagree with your maths (or, at least, your interpretation of the maths)!... ...7 out of 17 represents a loss of 41%, so to describe it as "rather more than 40%" depends wholly on one's definition of "rather more"! However, while the zoo has certainly lost a very large number of large mammals, those that have been retained are the focus for the several new exhibits developed over the past decade or two*: Lions, Tigers, Gorillas, Giraffes (although this is pushing the definition of a "new" exhibit}. The Clore (or whatever it is now called) does focus on smaller mammals - but not very many of them... ...and, of course, while it would be very difficult and very expensive to bring back a large mammal species - an Orang, or an Elephant, or a Pere David's Deer or two - it would, in theory, be relatively straightforward, and relatively inexpensive, to display Quolls, or Grison, or African Civets. if there was any desire to do so - which, clearly, there is not. Which may or may not be a good thing. We agree on both of these points! It is very easy to look at anyone doing a particular job and think you could do it better, so I too am loathe to be too critical of the ZSL management - even if I could never be wholly supportive of any zoo management that oversaw such developments as The Land of the Lions, the children's zoo thing, and the "Australian Outback". * To contradict my own argument, there have been developments for creatures other than the charismatic large mammals in recent years, of course. But butterflies and the Blackburn Pavilion, and the Giant Tortoises and Komodo Dragons, all seem pretty small beer. And Penguins are about as close as you can get to charismatic large mammals amongst animals that are neither especially large, nor especially mammalian. And BUGS (and that name alone is enough to make me lose sympathy for the ZSL management!) is now nearly 20 years old...
London has potential to have a world class zoo: large, rich metropolitan area with good science institutions and 9 m people who want contact with wild animals. However, the current London Zoo is very substandard and would be long closed if not for historical reasons. One can compare it to an old smelly, rotten piece of furniture in a house. It is still standing because it has been around as long as anybody remembers. But if taken on a street, nobody would put it into a house again, only burn as rubbish. Compare other old, city centre zoos in Europe which have very similar situation. Zoos in Amsterdam, Basel, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Paris-Jardin des Plantes etc. have similar limitations of space, history, legacy, scientific institutions, conservation breeding etc. But they keep much more larger animals (in good conditions!) and have much higher attendance as a percentage of population of their home cities (and therefore education impact!).
Isn't gentlelemur's point that the small mammals have taken less hits than the large mammals? And I think Jurek is very harsh. But that's fine I'm not sure though, that it makes any sense to compare the attendance by city population. Otherwise, to compete with Frankfurt London would have to attract 8 million a year!
Yes, I think this is it. But, as I wrote above, (1) depending on definitions of “small” and “large”, it’s probably similar in overall numbers but (2) in terms of emphasis, the larger mammals currently dominate (which is - possibly - as it should be). So do I! London is not the zoo I’d like it to be, and I would rather have any of those @jurek lists as my local large zoo instead of it (with the exception of the Jardin des Plantes, which I love but which could never be seen as a model of a modern European Zoo!) - but it does have many merits, still. I rather like the gorilla exhibit (even if the zoo seems to want to make it as difficult as possible to view the animals); the tiger area is excellent; what was once the Cotton Terraces has much to commend it. Aquarium, Reptile House, Invertebrate House - all pretty good. Penguins? Excellent. After that, the barrel is scraped, a little - and rather than see the place as “old, smelly and rotten” I’d regard it as being just rather dull, rather unremarkable - which, given its history, is something it really shouldn’t be.
