Whilst it's a natural instinct and always provides useful insight to consider how a zoo has changed (for the better or worse) and how we might wish it would change in the future I feel that heavily focussing on these aspects can sometimes lead to a loss of appreciation on some of the positive aspects of what a place currently offers to visitors. It's with this in mind, following a visit to Marwell three weeks ago, that I thought it a useful exercise to try to consider the place from a few different perspectives. Imagine if Marwell had never existed Consider if a new zoo appeared in an area without an abundance of zoos, at a location with the next nearest “serious sized” zoos over 50 miles away. The zoo is in a country estate type of location with a hall at it's centre. The place is well spaced out with vast paddocks, giving a great sensation of truly being in countryside and lacks an excess of some of the more over-bearing type of constructions and enclosures which feature in many other zoos. What's more the hoofstock species list is fantastic from a zoo enthusiast's perspective: Okapi, Roan and Sable antelope, Dorcas Gazelle, Arabian Oryx, Scimitar-horned Oryx, Addax, Congo Buffalo, Pygmy Hippo, Somali Wild Ass, a herd of Giraffe in double figures and all three species of Zebra! In addition to the hoofstock there's a reasonable selection of other mammals too: Fossa, a reasonable spread of bigger cats (Tiger, Amur Leopard, Snow Leopard, Cheetah) and a nice selection of smaller primates (including Dourouculli). There's also the standard selection of fillers/crowd pleasers (Meerkats, Asian Short-clawed Otters, Bennett's Wallabies, Coatis) that enthusiasts groan at and the non-mammal collection is nothing to get too excited about but that can be said about many a respected collection. Ignoring the species recently and imminent to be lost (I know that's difficult), the place still holds a solid collection that we'd all be making plans to visit if it appeared from nowhere overnight (absurd concept I know, but hopefully you'll get I'm trying to make a point). I suppose it's ultimately down to perspective -I'd choose to see the bottle as three-quarters full (admittedly with flaws, coming later) rather than a quarter empty. Joe Public Perspective Personally I think the place offers a pretty good offering to Joe Public though I can also see some legitimate scope for complaints. As mentioned above, Marwell does benefit from the great feeling of open space and it is fantastic walking inside and seeing a large group of Giraffes on the hill. I can however also see how the large space can be a little detrimental -it leads to large walks between enclosures which I'd imagine become hard work as the day progresses and could possibly plant a seed of “there's not many animals” (I think Paignton suffers something similar, to me personally anyway). This could be a major problem for the little legs and short-attention spans of some youngsters (though the playground at the far end may ameliorate this a little). Additionally the two (land and rail) trains help transport visitors round the place (and always seem popular) but I do wonder if they don't add to the impression of “we've been all the around and not seen much) -I personally think Marwell needs to be trekked around to get the best of it. Marwell does in actuality have a good spread of “ABC” animals with only Lions, Bears, Elephants, Pinnipeds and Anthropoid Apes missing (cue a smarty pants to name a species I overlooked). Whilst this might seem a sizable list, it seems only fair to point out that fewer major zoos seems to bother with Pinnipeds nowadays -I think the cost of doing it “properly” is prohibitive. Similarly the cost of housing Elephants and Anthropoid Apes well would probably be prohibitive for a collection of Marwell's size taking up many years' improvement budgets -again this is a general zoo situation, not just Marwell -as demonstrated, Noah's aside, by the lack of anyone going into these species in recent years. All said, and per Sooty's recent Trip Advisor snapshot, visitors do complain about the lack of animals at Marwell. Personally, except for the absence of Lions, I think the criticism is a little misguided and do wonder if people get lost or fail to investigate the zoo thoroughly and miss quite a few species (I can imagine, given the layout of the place, it'd be quite easy to miss a fair number of species if you weren't paying attention). Nevertheless, and regardless or my opinion, I think this is a bit of a tightrope that Marwell will need to negotiate in the near-future. I doubt bringing in (or retaining?) a large selection of hoofstock, as preferred by many zoo enthusiasts, will solve the public's perception and realistically bringing in Lions (likely) and Bears (my fantasy) might be the relatively “cheap” options. Additionally it might be a very cheap option to provide maps with suggested routes and ticklists of species to all visitors, I'd imagine having stamping posts around the zoo where youngsters get a stamp to complete a card in exchange for which they get a medal, or similar, on leaving would ensure that people get to see most of the species on offer (I've seen these schemes effectively done at a number of places). The other complaint I've seen for Marwell (and a number of other zoos) is that it's expensive. Whilst I'd argue that compared to theme parks, the cinema and sporting events the minutes per £1 ratio is superior (for Marwell and most zoos, aquariums are a different tank of fish) it's ultimately hard for me to judge this (I got in on reciprocal privileges anyway). The prices seem a little (but only a little) steep if you're comparing to what places like Chester and Colchester offer for “ballpark similar” prices but good value if you're comparing to smaller places (say “nearby” Isle of Wight Zoo which is £10 for about 20 species) -but Isle of Wight is on the doorstep and Chester and Colchester aren't. Additionally, you have to consider the location -no nearby substantial competition and down south where prices (for attractions everywhere) imply pockets are deeper. Maybe solving the “problems” outlined in the previous paragraph would in turn eliminate most rumblings about costs. Finally I would point out that the zoo does offer reasonable discounts for nuclear families (two adults, two children) which is great unless you're a single parent or have chosen to have more or less children. Personally I'd rather have the same, hopefully slightly lower, price for all adults and all children as I (perhaps) grumpily don't like the idea that as a childless adult (maybe that should be adult-aged child) I'm subsidising someone else's children (I don't eat in places where “kids eat free” for this reason). (Returning) Zoo Enthusiast View As my general views are covered in previous and later sections I thought it easiest to abandon narrative and just make bullet points for this section: Pros: 1.Still a sizeable and varied hoofstock selection; 2.Eleven Giraffe herd makes impressive viewing however you want to look at it; 3.The new walk-through aviary is good including a nice pond and a good variety of species; 4.The visitors here were impressively well behaved (children being told off, quickly, by parents was common occurrence); 5.Heresy I know, but I quite liked the “Desert House” having Dwarf Mongoose one side and Yellow Mongoose the other - like the taxonomic displays of yesteryear. Cons: 1.The big “African Plain” exhibit doesn't work, it never looks more than very sparsely populated and, as more time passes, it's seeming more like a complete white elephant; 2.The Siamang enclosure still doesn't work for the species (very few brachiating opportunities like the opposite, otter, side though; 3.Too many empty (“to be filled shortly”) reptile and amphibian tanks around the zoo; 4.“Cartoony” animal graphics on a par with those on Chester's map (same artist?); 5.The “Outback” area still not working for me -the old walk-through primate (I forget which) enclosure is now not a walk through and the reptile selection is dull. Not sure: 1.New Coati enclosure -looks reasonably good (loved the nearby Coati topiary) and functional but didn't see any animals using it so hard to conclude. Perosnally, I liked the old Coati enclosure and never really considered changing it a necessity/problem. Conclusion As alluded to before I think Marwell, as does every zoo, needs to walk a tightrope to please Joe Public and keep themselves on an even keel financially. Hopefully this will then enable them to continue to keep most, if not all, of what remains an impressive and varied hoofstock collection -this assumes that the current trustees/management have this intent (I'd sincerely hope so but have no idea on this). From a hoofstock perspective Marwell still remains a very good collection and from a general zoo perspective it's solid enough and, I would hope, a valued asset/attraction to the area. Yes, the collection is not as impressive compared with what's been held in the (fairly recent) past but that is true of pretty much all zoos nowadays. The reality is that collection sizes and variety are, with very few exceptions, shrinking to some extent everywhere -it's arguable considering these trends and looking at the species still held, that Marwell is doing very well to retain the variety of hoofstock it currently does (there only seems to be Whipsnade in the UK that is similarly trying). I think what's striking with Marwell, and probably the source of much criticism, is that other collections have perhaps shrunk naturally, as animals died out, over ten or so years whereas Marwell's has shrunk fairly rapidly and largely through planned transfers to go out of species (perhaps some at the behest of ESB's and EEP's). Whilst this is distressing to see it might be for the best -why continue to hold an animal you know you're not committed to long term (it just takes up resources and may hinder rejuvenation)? Personally, there's part of me that wishes Twycross had reduced their species (which they've now done) quicker than they had -it might have enabled them to be in a better position now than they currently are. Unlike Twycross, Marwell is currently in a financially stable position and for all I know part of the reason for these changes is to ensure that this continues. All things considered I'd say I'm happy to judge Marwell's current management in five years time and, in the meantime, continue to appreciate what still remains one of the very best hoofstock collections in the UK. Right, excuse bad spelling/grammar - a little rushing as I'm off to Twycross now (it needs the support).
Actually, that's not strictly true! What Shorts is doing, quite clearly, is offering a different perspective. The likes of me, and you too Nanook, have castigated the zoo at length elsewhere. Here Shorts is suggesting that such castigation is possibly unfair, and that if Marwell had appeared as it is as a new Zoo, we would probably find it quite exciting. It's a valid argument, and an interesting one – although not one with which I totally agree!
Put it this way; when I visited the collection this time last year I thoroughly enjoyed it for many of the reasons Shorts puts forth - as I had never visited the collection before I was viewing it as if it were indeed a "new" collection and as such I rather enjoyed what I saw.
Sorry, bit of "brain fog" there. I think it's the only error and don't think it alters the gist of my point (find another two and I'd have to concede). *now removed from original post for clarity, Okapis was not seeing things.
No problem nobody perfect,dont want to keep on but my post made before,as I said 2005 mammals species 112,total 872,last year species 72 total 340,perhaps we could start a list of new mammals species that have come in in last 5 years ? as I do this there is 1 Kudu left now due to go soon and the last serval left about a week ago not to be replaced.
Yes, fair enough, to a point. But I just think the whole "Marwell situation" has been rather exhausted in terms of discussion, we just go round and round in circles talking about things that are not going to change any time soon.
Another perspective is that Marwell is a significant UK zoo, in terms of its size and potential, and that rather too many of its visitors perceive a collection that appears, however unfairly, to have lost focus. Their concerns will ensure that this thread is likely to encourage further comments.
Yes in terms of size it is significant, potential is rather more doubtful, yes it has lost its focus, which is not really unfair, just a truthful statement. And yes people are concerned for sure, but it won`t change anything. And as I said before, do we really need so many Marwell threads?
That maybe a fair comment, but as a relatively recent visitor to Twycross, i feel much the same about there! Over the last 6 years though, no collection of those i visit reasonably often, NOWHERE has lost anywhere near the amount of its mammal collection as Marwell!
I tend to agree with you to a large extent, which is why i didn't bother responding until now. Shorts' post is well written, but i'm afraid that to me it is ultra-positive in the extreme and unjustifiably so. Only a few of us really appreciate just how far Marwell has fallen, but very few seem to agree and seem to think a loss of over a third of the mammal collection in less than 10 years is a normal occurance!
The zoo is going out of kudu?, is this a temporary state of affairs until the new housing is completed?
Nothing has been said previously that indicates this is temporary, the kudu are just the latest addition to the endless list!
I have never been to Marwell (I have been to a few other UK zoos), but I thoroughly enjoyed the book by its founder titled My Marwellous Life. I suppose the massive variety of hoofstock was his vision and the people who run it now are downsizing for various reasons? (I had no idea there was so much downsizing of species until I read this thread). Interesting statement about many zoos not getting into (or getting out of) elephants. As an American I find this interesting because elephants have been THE major push of AZA zoos for the last decade here. I am sure you are all familiar with the new multi-million dollar elephant habitats that opened in the last few years. Even the very small zoo that I live near - Reid Park Zoo - opened their largest and most expensive project ever just for African elephants. (And just for the record for you regulars, I am no longer a docent at that zoo). Anyway, I enjoyed this thread in spite of the protestations of there being too many Marwell threads. Perhaps because I have not read the other threads!
I have never visited Marwell Zoo but I truly enjoyed John Knowles's autobiography and I know the zoo fairly well via maps and online reviews on this site. I think that the opening statement by "Shorts" is informative, honest and well worth reading, but the steep drop in mammal species has been shocking. Has there not been a definitive reason put forth by the zoo in regards to the decline? Marwell not having lions is a head-scratching fact as it is certainly one of Britain's largest and best known zoos. Of the top 60 zoos in the United States (according to the book "America's Best Zoos") a grand total of 54 out of 60 have lions in their collection. Also, 52 out of the top 60 zoos have a minimum of 1 type of great ape and so again Marwell falls by the wayside. I don't have any statistics on bears but once again almost every major American zoo probably has at least one species. Elephants represent a "different kettle of fish" as while there certainly have been hundreds of millions of dollars spent at American zoos during the past decade in an effort to create modern, naturalistic elephant habitats at the same time just as many zoos have permanently phased out elephants. For Marwell to not have any great apes, lions, bears or elephants is extraordinary considering the acclaim that many folks on this site have given the establishment. Would it be a top 60 zoo in the United States? Maybe, maybe not. I personally laud the work that Marwell has done with hoofstock and the sprawling paddocks are the dream of many zoo enthusiasts, but the average zoo visitor is bored to tears by the appearance of deer and antelope in abundance. It is the #1 complaint that the Greater Vancouver Zoo receives as that zoo has close to 30 species of hoofstock and yet the average family member pushing a stroller past seemingly endless grassy fields with some kind of hooved creature on the distant horizon is not an idea of fun for 95% of the public. Zoo nerds lament over the extinction of Horn & Hoof Mesa at San Diego Zoo but the array of antelope was not appealing to the average family paying $100 to walk through the zoo. Marwell looks to be a decent zoo with a rich history and I suspect that I would personally be a fan of the park. However, the average visitor wants to get up close and personal with a range of well-known ABC animals, and without several key species and with countless grassy fields full of ungulates dotting the landscape it does not sound like a zoo that would get much more than 500,000 annual visitors. A solid, dependable zoo that has perhaps fallen off of its pedestal?
Marwell was never a top 'zoo', with the kind of infrastructure and facilities you might expect from such a title, but was for many years something akin to some of the conservation 'game farms' found in the US, albeit on a smaller footprint. For those interested in diversity of certain taxa, it was certainly unparallelled in terms of antelope and many other ungulates, and was one of the best places to see carnivores after Howletts and Port Lympne. Had Marwell remained in this form, I suspect it would have closed down by now, or have had to make some drastic changes following a threat of closure. Today's visiting public won't tolerate long outdoor walks with little undercover viewing or facilities. Over the last 15-20 years, Marwell has created a mosaic of upgraded exhibits and facilities so that there is now more to do for the public that tour the park in the open air looking through chain link at carnivores and over fences at hoofstock. At the same time, I think the herd sizes had dropped considerably, I imagine because Marwell has calculated that they can maintain a smaller number of individuals while still being acceptable to the public, while saving significant costs. Also, Marwell has always tended to keep it's hoofstock on the hardstands for around six months of the year in order to rest the grass paddocks. This isn't something I've seen at, say, Whipsnade or Port Lympne, and the majority of hardstands at Marwell are typically small, barren yards (as are most hardstands in zoos/parks). So I can also appreciate the visitor experience in winter may be different in terms of how the ungulates confined to the yards are percieved. As I've also noticed Marwell reducing this practice in recent years, I have thought perhaps the smaller herd sizes allow for increased used of the grass paddocks? For people with membership who love this zoo, I'm not defending the loss of species, but I do think that, with Longleat, Woburn etc being viable banks for many of the species previously only held between Marwell and ZSL in the UK, there just isn't the need to hold 15 roan antelope or 20 Nyala. It is interesting that visitor numbers have been declining, as mentioned in the plans for the new rhino/antelope accommodation. I also give some weight to tripadvisor reveiws, and perhaps if the next development fails to improve visitor footfall, Marwell may begin to start working with some new EEPs.
I think it has been in the process of changing from the original specialist collection into a more generalised one for some time now. But they aren't really sure how to go about it. It has shed some of its old identity without gaining a new one. So it appears to drift on in a sort of zoological limbo.
Maybe people like me go on about the past to much,but it was the passion of John Knowles that created Marwell it has to be said at not huge amount of money,and it became a very good zoo,it is still young only just over 40 years old,and maybe history will say John Knowles stayed to long 2 directors came and went in a short time,but the new regime tried I think to change things that did not need changing Marwell Zoo became Marwell Wildlife a few years ago at I wonder what cost ? but now its back to Marwell Zoo only but they just dont tell people,the valley field the other day when I was up there,all you could see was a couple of ostrich there was waterbuck hidden out of site,and is just wasted.The new Rhino,Oryx,Zebra housing will just show the 3 species with no plans to show any small species inside the house,Marwell have only 1 female cheetah now her sister died last week,and looks lost now in the cheetah area,I am sure more cheetah will come but you wonder,the future is now I think just more of the same with less species and we will have to wait and see if people still come that will decide the future of Marwell.
