ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2012

In any other country this would hardly be the subject of discussion. It's not like the money is coming out of the public purse.

I am far from being unquestioning and uncritical of London Zoo but given the restrictions of the site and the fact that it is in a major, global metropolis surrounded by countless attractions and competing destinations, means that it must, every so often, create a high profile new exhibit.

I don't think Gorilla Kingdom or the new tiger enclosure can really be compared with the grandiose but ultimately unsuitable structures around the zoo which precede them.

I do understand people's concerns but feel there is a certain amount of naïveté around what is really viable and necessary at Regents Park.

 

Frankly, if the money was coming out of the public purse I would be less concerned. It's the fact that the the capital has to be sourced from ZSL funds at a time of a deep recession that concerns me. Have you seen the state of the Aquarium roof?

Gorilla Kingdom took up a large chunk of the Sobells, and resulted in three primate species of conservation concern being evicted into cat enclosures, whilst another left the collection altogether. Add on the Amur leopards leaving the Lion Terraces to make way for the Francois' langurs and the red-faced spider monkeys and you have quite a big dent in the Zoo's educational and conservation work for the sake of a big glossy exhibit that has been a horrible failure for gorillas.

Tiger Territory, unless I'm mistaken, will result in the departure of Lowland Anoa, precisely the kind of smallish, low profile tropical animal that is poorly adapted to Whipsnade's open spaces and needing captive breeding programmes. And it will entail taking away a lot of flexible exhibit space to be replaced by a couple of tiger enclosures that will quite probably not be utilised for a lot of the time. Captive big cats simply don't move around much! I strongly suspect that fresh blood for the Sumatran tiger in the shape of animals from Indonesia (it could be arranged, surely) would do at least as much for tiger breeding at London as a big new enclosure.

Finally, Shirokuma, PLEASE don't call people like dassierat naive. He was working at London over 20 years ago as a volunteer, and what he doesn't know about the place over that time probably isn't worth knowing.

 

I don't particularly want to get involved in a discussion which has got a bit too detailed for me, but just to remind you that the new exhibit will free up for other use (though we don't know what yet) the fairly large area that the tigers currently occupy, and also use some space which is underused at the moment (eg the very broad pathway around the side and back of the Casson), so in terms of space it's perhaps not as wasteful as you imply.

 

I didn't call dassierat naive, I said there is naïveté in general. If people don't come to zoos they won't be able to do anything full stop. Zoos have to live up to expectations in terms of visitor experience or they will simply die. I also think that 'the flexible exhibit space' which will be taken up by Tiger Territory isn't that extensive and there are actually large amounts of unused space - or space with potential for different use- at the zoo.

 

Not quite fair and there is nothing wrong with "old-school" as a lot of "modern zoo concepts" aren't that modern to be honest. Heini Hediger's "Man And Animal In The Zoo" still remains an interesting a vaild document despite being published over 45 years ago.

 

Indeed. And generally lions and tigers tend to be incredibly lazy and spend a large part of the daily time budget sleeping. In fact, it's some of the smaller more hyperactive mammals that require by ratio much bigger enclosure space.

 

Is the summation of anoas leaving the collection a definite one, or just concern on the part of the writer? What is the basis for this? Plans told or not part of the unfolded Masterplan (what about the area beyond the dragons and tortoise is that not themed on S.E. Asian islands?

Anyone????

 

As per the Masterplan:-

Wild Indonesia (which covers the the Komodo Dragons, the new tiger enclosure and the area around the Casson)

Sumatran Tiger, Gibbons, Sulawesi Crested Macaques, Anoas and Bearded Pig.

The mappin terraces are either Wild China, Madagascar or part of Wild Indonesia.

 

I think Clin would have been delighted to have been described as 'old school'!

I would agree that there is a naivete to some of the discussion above: a Howletts style cat cage, or a merging together of a couple of the old Cat Terrace cages, might do fine for cat husbandry, but it would have no impact at all on the zoo or its visitors. An exciting, imaginative tiger enclosure will - however much many of us would prefer to see a development for , say, palm civets. I'd wholly agree with the hypothesis that London needs more stuff; I'd also argue, though, that it needs to have things that are a touch more showy than is the case at a Howletts or a Marwell (and I'd be very surprised if even Marwell would build a traditional Marwell-style enclosure these days). The new tiger thing will satisfy those visitors who - rightly or wrongly - just don't like the current set-up, which is pretty horrible from an aesthetic point of view.

As for the cost: is £3 million so much? House-wise, what would that buy in Camden? It seems like a drop in the ocean to me, compared to the sums that are spent on many public buildings and projects. If I were looking to build a new classroom block at my school, I would be very pessimistic about getting very much for that sort of figure - something pretty functional, perhaps, but lacking any bells or whistles.

And is Gorilla Kingdom so bad? The gorilla group hasn't thrived, yet, but is that down to the nature of the exhibit? I think it looks pretty good. The interpretation is well-done. The dwell-time of many visitors seems pretty high. The use of an older exhibit (which was well past its sell-by date) is nicely done. And while some species have been lost since the conversion, are not the mangabeys a new arrival? (I may well be wrong there). They don't seem to have got the indoors-only exhibits right (the ones that have a constantly-changing roster of species), and it's a shame the colobus didn't work out. But a disaster? I don't think so...

 

An interesting discussion, and pleasing to see a healthy, sensible interest in London Zoo, and I appreciate and respect every one's comments regarding the new tiger exhibit. My opinion, it is costing a lot of money, I do find what it costs to build these new exhibits at London astounding, however I am neither an architect or a builder so therefore I am not qualified to judge what it costs to design and build a unique structure in central London for a major zoo building project. On my visits to the zoo last year I had a positive feeling that the zoo was taking shape in the right direction, the Penguin beach is great, look at all the positive national media coverage the zoo got at this, I would think it will be even better when the new tiger house opens in an area which I think could do with livening up, face up to the fact that it is nice to have the sea lions back for a few weeks while their accommodation at Whipsnade is being refurbished, but sea lions at Regent's Park are history, just like the elephants, in my humble opinion the new tiger exhibit is very much a step in the right direction, better for the visitors, seeing and appreciating the animals in nicer surroundings and more importantly for the tigers themselves who will have far better, more comfortable living accommodation.

 

With great respect....

There ARE tigers at London already. So quite how we're going to see a big upturn in visitor numbers through a new tiger exhibit is a bit of a puzzle to me, especially as logically tigers will become harder to see in bigger enclosures. But I'm glad to know that anoa are staying, I was wrong on that count.

However, I do NOT think that I am naive in suggesting that people go to zoos to see animals, NOT buildings or interpretative displays. As sooty certainly knows, the fall in visitor numbers that London experienced from the mid 1970s to 1990 has no parallel amongst zoos sited in major European zoos, and it mirrors the slow contraction of the collection in that time. The fact that visitor numbers are still not back to the 1990 level shows that visitors are not sufficiently attracted to a zoo that still charges a lot of money (nearly £70 for the conventional 2 adult 2 child family) yet now has fewer mammal species on display than nearby Colchester or Marwell.

I am arguing, without much success apparently, that the opportunity cost of this exhibit is quite a bit more than the paper expense. With an island created in the middle, the vacated sealion pool might be used to house gibbons. The Stork and Ostrich House might look very nice as a home for Okapi or Bongo, or many other forest ungulates (Prince Alfred's Deer? Visayan Warty Pig? The whole building could be given over to Filipino fauna, with minimal change). It's hard to see that these ideas would cost as much as £3 million.

London Zoo nearly went bust twenty years ago, and exists in a country that is going to face some, long painful years ahead of it'Mervyn King warns of arduous recovery ahead as UK debt hits a trillion | Business | The Guardian

It really WOULD benefit, IMHO, from going back to the low-key inhouse developments of the decade after 1992.

 

I think both the new Tiger enclosure and Gorilla Kingdom are examples of the current ethos at ZSL, of occassionally building large spacious enclosures for high profile species, which will both impress the visitors and generate an opportunity, as Shirokuma has pointed out, for a major fresh publicity drive. To my mind, the 'performance' (e.g. breeding/suitability/ compatability) of the animals they contain is of a secondary importance as long as they provide an exhibit. Both the situation in the current Gorilla group and the unsuitability of the previous Sloth Bears to their exhibit, are recent examples of this.

There is nothing much wrong with Gorilla Kingdom as an exhibit, in fact the views offered across the water moat and through the windows of the outside enclosure are probably the best for this species anywhere in the UK, but now it seems the animals are no longer shut outside, how often do you see them actually using the large outdoor area? They are nearly always sitting in the small dayroom. But even when not using it, the public percieve what a big spacious area they have at their disposal- even if it is underused.

I think the 'Tiger Territory' will develop along similar lines, with a spacious jungle feel, waterfalls etc and excellent public viewing- of relatively inactive or hard to see tigers. I think its all far more about the quality of these major exhibits rather than the animals that live in them!

 

I understand that London Zoo are fund raising to assist with the cost of building the new tiger exhibit, does anybody know just how much has been raised in donations for this project to date?

 

From ZSL website (the original targets):-

Tiger SOS Campaign

ZSL is launching an urgent SOS call to help give tigers a tomorrow.

We need to raise £2 million to save the Sumatran tiger. Our plan is a decisive one.

We want to develop a state-of-the art Tiger Conservation Headquarters in the heart of London at ZSL London Zoo.

Its purpose - to inspire support and a lifeline of funds for our tiger conservation work in Indonesia and other key tiger ranges.

This new project at ZSL London Zoo will cost a total of £3.3 million to build.

We also need to extend the work of three of our signature tiger projects in Indonesia to stop poaching and protect tiger habitats, which will require a further £300,000 to help halt the decline of Sumatran tigers.

ZSL has already raised £1.6 million, but we urgently need to raise another £2 million to make this project a reality.

Link to the above page:- Get involved

I know it's now very out of date (this is from a post on 09-10-2011) but...

 

"We need to raise £2 million to save the Sumatran tiger. Our plan is a decisive one.

We want to develop a state-of-the art Tiger Conservation Headquarters in the heart of London at ZSL London Zoo.

Its purpose - to inspire support and a lifeline of funds for our tiger conservation work in Indonesia and other key tiger ranges.

This new project at ZSL London Zoo will cost a total of £3.3 million to build.

We also need to extend the work of three of our signature tiger projects in Indonesia to stop poaching and protect tiger habitats, which will require a further £300,000 to help halt the decline of Sumatran tigers".

As I've said before, I think this campaign is fundamentally dishonest. It seems to assume that building Tiger Territory will save the Sumatran tiger from extinction. It doesn't take into account the 245 or so captive Sumatran tigers around the world or the fact that 10 times as much money is to be dedicated to an exhibit in London, as opposed to saving tigers in Sumatra. Today's news states that the Sumatran elephant could become extinct by 2030. Once again, if ZSL want to save wild Sumatran tigers, it should be raising money to save them in the wild by protecting rainforests in Sumatra. This could also help save Sumatran elephants, as well as orang-utans etc.

There is more than enough information about tigers being threatened with extinction, as well as several charities that specialise in conserving tigers. Millions of pounds could be better spent elsewhere. May I suggest trying to save some of the wildlife threatened by the HS2 line in the Chilterns?

 

Dassie Rat, I enjoy reading what you post and having sensible discussions on here concerning the great institution of ours, London Zoo, I realise that you have a lot of respect and indeed knowledge of it, I do think however to describe what London are doing regarding tigers as fundamentally dishonest are words too strong in my opinion, and yes I agree what you say about conserving the wildlife on the Chilterns

 

Thanks Tarzan.

Please note that I said "I think this campaign is fundamentally dishonest". I didn't say that it is fundamentally dishonest. The campaign implies that without Tiger Territory, the Sumatran tiger will become extinct. First of all, ISIS states there are about 256 Sumatran tigers in zoos - the chances of them all dying out is minimal, especially as many zoos have good breeding records forbreeding tigers. Secondly, the tiger must be one of the most familiar endangered species - does ZSL really need to spend over £3 million pounds to let people know that tigers are endangered? Does anyone in the UK not know this? I would agree with ZSL raising funds to help save tigers in Indonesia and elsewhere and the fact that under 10% of the target is going in this direction seems to indicate that ZSL considers a new enclosure to be more important than wild tigers.

I did a Google search about endangered cats. According to Endangered cats around the world - Telegraph, IUCN lists 7 species. These are as follows - the figure alongside is the number of individuals listed in ISIS.

Tiger - 1694 (plus the 100,001 listed for Seoul)
Snow leopard - 408
Fishing cat - 197
Flat-headed cat - 8
Iberian lynx - 3
Bornean bay cat - 0
Andean cat - 0

This means that there are more than twice as many tigers listed on ISIS than the other 6 species put together and over 150 times as many as the 4 least exhibited species. I would much prefer ZSL trying to breed flat-headed cats, Iberian lynxes, Andean cats and Bornean bay cats. Unfortunately, these species aren't popular, many people don't even know that they exist and probably couldn't care less if they died out. I know that many of you do care about the more obscure species, but how do we persuade zoo dirrectors to? If it's any consolation, I think the flat-headed cat is far more attractive than a tiger, but I'm afraid that's another subjective opinion. Sorry.

 

I believe there will be an maintaining or upturn in visitor numbers as a result of a new Tiger exhibit. Firstly there's more publicity and more people will be tipped into visiting through curiosity and a raised profile. More important for a modern capital city zoo is the "wow" factor which creates word of mouth and even more importantly prevents bad word of mouth -I've heard so many people say something along the line of, "the zoos looking nice but the Lion/Tiger enclosures look a bit crappy". These people were Joe Public, casual visitors who really do pay for the zoos existence, not enthusiasts like ourselves. These visitors don't really have an idea about whether the enclosure is suitable for an animal's husbandry but if it looks nice/spectacular they think it's suitable and will be left with a good impression.

I don't know if you're linking the decline in species kept with falling visitor numbers, but I think you'd be wrong to do so. I think the reality is that people in the UK were visiting pretty much all zoos less during this period (as evidenced by the large number of zoos that closed over the timescale mentioned). This was probably due to a number of factors, the anti-zoo lobby probably had some impact, and leisure options for families became far more varied and easily affordable (theme parks, video films, video games, cheap foreign travel, etc.). In any sector it's often the case that larger organisations struggle to readjust to changes more than smaller ones, so it's no surprise that the biggest struggled most. I believe the average zoo visitor wants to see the ABC animals displayed well and really doesn't get excited over, say, a Cloud Rat like I would.

No, it shows the public has far, far more things to do with their leisure (especially in London) than they did in 1990. £70 is not much different from a number of other large zoos (which might not be in capital cities) and certainly cheaper,longer lasting or better value than, say, London Aquarium, London Eye or a West-end Show. Again, whilst I dearly love Colchester and Marwell I don't think the public get excited and visit because of Geoffroy's Cats, Cherry-crowned Mangabeys or three species of Zebra as such -they want Lions, Tigers & Bears (Oh My!), Apes, Giraffes, Komodos, and London offers a fair spread of those species.

Personally, I'm just very happy to see London in balance and moving forward rather than standing still and/or stagnating