ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2012

Your figures for Iberian lynx in captivity are certainly not correct vis a vis the active breeding centers. To have flat-headed or Bornean bay or any other smaller felid is somewhat unrealistic (they are not exactly found in great numbers in their countries of origins' zoological establishments. I DO would like to see clouded leopards .. (and anoas with babirusas and the macaques) et cetera.

As said before, what do you expect ... ZSL/London has to pay its way ... thanks to a none-to-caring successive line of governments. As an institution ZSL/London is doing quite a bit of conservation outreach and in situ work the world over. Also the listed building status does not help (something some of the greener countryside zoos do not have to fuss over).

I would personally like to see a more substantial chunck of the northern Regent's Park be added to ZSL/London Zoo's grounds (and that does not likely seem a reality before long .. although to be fair I dunno see too many people use that part of the park that much).

 

Thanks, Kifaru

I accept that the ISIS figures can be out of date and don't include all the captive individuals of eac species. For example, there are many 'zoos' in China that aren't included in the figures, nor do the figures include privately owned specimens nor circus animals. If they did, the gap between tigers and the other six species (including the Iberian lynx) would be far greater. I don't have figures for all the captive wild cats in the world, so used the ISIS figures as an illustration.

I know about the good work ZSL does around the world. I have read several articles, annual reports etc and I have helped provide information about black rhinos, Ganges river dolphins, pygmy hogs, hispid hares and ecology in Assam to help this work. It is a shame that ZSL doesn't promote this work more, as many people can't think beyond the zoo, rather than the people behind the scenes.

In the 1980s, when the government gave £10 million as a final gift to London Zoo, rather than continuing to pay £1 million a year, there were various grandiose plans, as Ian Robinson has stated earlier in this discussion. I went to a promotion event where Andy Grant aimed to turn the Mappin Terraces into the Szechwan Experience (cost about £30 million) and the Stork and Ostrich House into a gorilla enclosure, where visitors would walk through a tunnel and see gorillas on both sides (rather like the shark tunnels in many aquaria) - this would cost about £20 million. Andy Grant showed a slide of a monkey (I think it was a Francois leaf monkey), which he couldn't identify. As the event aimed to raise millions of pounds, I thought this omission was very lax. Why couldn't somebody have bothered identifying the monkey before the slide was shown? It made the presentation look amateur. Andy Grant got £500,000 for working 3 years at London Zoo and the £10 million from the government was spent. The government refused to give any more money (amazingly, the Royal Opera House and Collisseum continued receiving millions) and the zoo was threatened with closure. Tim May, Ian and I know the problems the zoo faced at the time, but this has been discussed in earlier threads.

Some of us at ZSL still believe that there is still a risk of closure. The zoo does look better than it did 10 years ago and the new exhibits tend to be popular, but each year, there seems to be less to see. As Ian said in an earlier post, the number of mammal species has dropped dramatically, from over 200 50 years ago to about 70 today, little more than a small zoo like Newquay, which has several interesting species that London doesn't keep.

I agree with Kifaru about the listed buildings. I asked a former director if ZSL could sell the penguin enclosure, but as it's a listed building in a royal park, it has to stay. I must admit that I would prefer the zoo to have prefabricated buildings, where enclosures could be enlarged or split with partitions to improve conditions for the animals. I know that some prefab buildings have become listed buildings, but not at the rate of expensive buildings that are no longer fit for purpose. Dudley Zoo has an even worse problem than London in this regard. Enclosures can be relatively cheap to build and shouldn't cost millions of pounds, especially in a time when the U.K's debt has risen to £1,000,000,000,000.

During the 1980s, London Zoo tried to acquire 10 acres of land, running parallel to Animal Adventure and the Casson Pavillion. Local people complained that they would have to pay to walk in an area of Regent's Park that they had been using for years. One of the zoo volunteers complained that she kept hearing abuse about this subject. The acquisition never went ahead, but ZSL could try again. I'd like to see an expasion similar to that in the Berlin Zoo several years ago.

I can understand that London Zoo needs to attract customers, but it needs to be honest about what it is trying to achieve and the fact that many people are having financial problems, which will increase over the next few years. For those people who say that the zoo has to have new exhibits featuring large, popular mammals, one of the most popular exhibits is 'Butterfly Paradise'. This is basically a large, inflatable cylindrical tent and I doubt if it ever cost anything like £3 million. The exhibit explains that the butterflies are bred in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America and the zoo receives pupae. The ZSL supports people in the tropics and the money helps pay wages and keeps the forests open as the money from selling pupae justifies keeping the forests intact. A good example of how conservation can work, while helping local people and wildlife.

 

This I believe to be the fundamental reason for the large expenditure the Zoo made on both the Gorilla Kingdom and now the new Tiger enclosure.

 

Hallo Shorts and Pertinax

I think you're probably right. While my friend and I thought the lion enclosure at Plzen's Small Mammal house was too small, being little taller than the lions and having a width little greater than the length of the lions, the lions themselves seemed unperturbed by this. As stated earlier, Clinton Keeling had a different idea about this and said that many animals didn't need large enclosures. I suspect that there are some individual animals that need larger enclosures than others. Each animal should have enough space to move about, but massive enclosures for animals that don't use most of the space are probably created more to make the public have a good opinion of the zoo, rather than for any needs of the animals. Many years ago, Glasgow Zoo tried animal enrichment by making enclosures more 3-dimensional with climbing structures etc. The enclosures were the same size, but there was a greater area to roam about. I remember old zoo enclosures with bare concrete floors and barred fronts and I don't think they were good for the animals, nor do I consider the rows of small bird cages in London Zoo's Bird House were suitable and I wasn't upset when they were removed. Zoos should keep their animals properly, but in a time when more species are threatened with extinction, zoos should show more concern with small species rather than making larger enclosures for large animals, especially if these animals aren't going to use most of the space.

 

Simple ZSL policy equation;

Tigers & Gorilla = High Profile/ABC species = Big visitor draw= priority species for major exhibits (as far as they are concerned).

 

I fear that you're right. However, it does really seem odd to pour that amount of capital towards species that are pretty well represented elsewhere in SE England.

Dassierat's point, that a cheaper upgrade of the tiger facility would mean more money being available to fund conservation work in Indonesia, is the crux of the matter to me. I have a high regard for ZSL's field work, but in Indonesia, with its burgeoning population, surely it's time to start buying up land.

Who else saw the Natural World programme last night on slow lorises in Java? (Incidentally, another taxon that London kept and bred quite recently, and no longer maintains).

The slow, remorseless rate of habitat loss and wildlife exploitation means that beasts as small and as innocuous as prosimians are now disappearing from the wild. A hundred years ago the remnant forest shown would have housed tigers, two hundred years ago rhino.

Big, glossy exhibits in Europe and North America with lots of interpretative material won't make a huge difference to the steady loss of wild habitat and the wildlife they maintain. Managed captive breeding programmes and buying up wild habitat just might.

It's all a matter of opinion. I very much hope that my forebodings about the worth of "Tiger Territory" aren't proved right.

 

I think London is in something of a bubble in this regard to be honest. It doesn't really matter how many tigers they are in the Home Counties, foreign - and domestic - tourists won't see them and many Londoners don't actually get out of town all that often.

But what about the impact on visitors? What about getting people in zoos in the first place? Zoos are facing such competition in terms of visitor attractions and London Zoo must meet expectations of visitors.

In my view zoos aren't just utilitarian institutions, they must inspire people, educate them, amaze them and offer them something that can't be found elsewhere. They have to respond to the realities of the multiple demands and attractions made on people's time and money.

And in terms of making a difference, look at the Congo Gorilla Forest at the Bronx, creating meaningful experiences and conecting visitors with conservation projects in the field; and (in an admitedly different way) Gorilla Kingdom, too educates visitors about the issues facing animals and people in the animals' home range.

I think there is a bigger discussion here, one about the purpose of zoos in general, about pragmatism and the need to attract visitors without abandonning their important scientific and conservation duties.

 

Agreed entirely, and I respect your point.

Having had to live through two successive summers' worth of closure crises at London has made me extremely wary of any expensive enclosure designs. And four years as an Education volunteer has, I'm afraid, left me rather cynical about the propensity of ZSL to tear up master plans and go back to the drawing board five years down the line!

 

I would say that although a lot of good and valid points were stressed in this topic, shirokima above has absolutely nailed the dilemma that is faced by london and the bigger zoos.
In a nutshell, to survive london has to attract more visitors, and to do this there has to be an aura of success and prosperity about the place. It has to have the feel good factor or casual zoo goers/tourists will dessert it.

 

Absolutely. And i continue to be puzzled by the perception that somehow the money donors and governments invest in zoo exhibits would somehow be available to "do conservation" by buying land etc. in range countries of endangered species.

 

People like the 'conservation theatre', glossy, exhibits, alongside the 'disneyfied', Drusillian (thats not even a term), child-friendly areas (Penguin Beach, Happy Families, Animal Adventure, Meet the Monkeys, Butterfly Paradise). I don't think the average visiting family notices the drop in mammal species if their kids are able to pop up amongst meerkats inside a perspex dome.

I hope urban zoos take a divergent path, where the above is coupled with greater banking of endangered taxa in serious numbers and breeding units, often off-exhibit. If the 'Edge' campaign ZSL is running also incorporated the sort of efforts to establish ex situ populations that the RSCC was so noticeable in organising, perhaps a new model for uban zoos would include back-up founder populations for the many small mammals, invertebrates, amphibians etc in need of management, perhaps from parts of the world where its not pracitcal (and often not successful) to lecture or police impoverished local communities on appropriate wildlife resource utilisation.

 

Thanks Johnstoni. You've given a reasoned argument. Several years ago, a zoo scientist estimated that if half the area of each zoo was given to save endangered animals, thousands of species of endangered animals could be bred to provide ex situ populations.

I understand that many people like immersion exhibits; much of my time as a zoo volunteer involves patrolling these. I also understand that visitors tend to find active animals more attractive than sluggish ones, although giant pandas and koalas are exceptions to this. If some of the common captive species were replaced by active animals that are not often seen in zoos, I suspect that visitors would still be interested in them. For example, red-backed squirrel monkeys could replace the common and Bolivian species that are usually kept.

Unfortunately, while some of us like collections of obscure species (I have fond memories of Cologne's saki and uakari house in 1982), trying to attract visitors to places like the RSSC will take some time. I don't think many people would want to see hundreds of species of endangered snails, but I wonder why so many phyla get ignored, when high-powered microscopes could be used to show a far wider range of species than are currently kept in most zoos. I quite like the Micrarium that replaced the elephant house in the Paris Menagerie and a similar structure could be built quite cheaply in even quite small zoos.

I would much prefer the concept of keeping larger collections of a variety of species at zoos, with a remit to try and save more species from extinction, rather than the current concept of succumbing to the demands of visitors who only know a relatively small number of species and expect to see them in every zoo. I don't expect visitors to be fascinated in seeing a sleeping animal in a dark corner of an enclosure, regardless of the species. I would expect them to be interested in active animals that behave naturally and have innovative display techniques, including microscopes, CCTV, audio-visual material, computers etc, as appropriate to interest visitors in a variety of animals.

 

What an interesting thread, some very good points dassie rat and others! I'd live to see more zoos concentrate on the smaller more obscure species but I guess that's not what the average zoo visited is interested in!

Dassie- I was at Pilsen a few years ago and although the inside lion house wasn't massive thought the outside enclosure was quite large unless it's changed from then?

 

I cannot but agree with your points Dassie rat and Al.

It is often the mega vertebrates that seem to count ... (or are thought that way). I see it as our common challenge to present an elephant or a cockroach - supposing both are endangered taxa - are presented by the zoo community in an equally inspiring and entertaining way ... and their equal importance to their given ecosystems / habitats in situ.

 

Yes - but. However wonderfully the bull frog is presented, it is never going to match the lion, or the bear, or the monkey, for its sheer visceral impact. At ZSL, one of the undoubted gems is the invertebrate house (despite its absurd title, "Bugs"). Lots of imagination, nicely done. The reptile house is even better - great collection, presented with panache, with some wonderful interpretation. But for practical reasons (it takes two people looking at a vivarium for it to feel crowded, whereas those microscopes in the old round house in Paris - I think they're gone now - could only hold one person at a time), and human nature reasons (99% of visitors are going to be more intrigued by the meerkats than by the Frigate island beetles), a zoo that only has such esoteric things is not going to flourish. It's possibly an unfair comparison, given its geographical isolation, but how many visitors does Jersey Zoo receive each year? And how does this compare to places like, say, Colchester, Beauval and Amneville, at which the "box office" animals are presented to visitors? Pilsen Zoo - mentioned above, and certainly one of the very best zoos in Europe, has its lions, tigers, giraffes and penguins, alongside its brilliant rodents, small carnivores and birds.

I've been ruminating on the comments, above, suggesting a cut-price alternative to Tiger Territory, a sort of Howletts-style functional cage rather than a 'fancy' design, as proposed. If I may, I'd draw a comparison with football. There are some players who are very good indeed, and will star at smaller clubs, but for some reason just don't have what it takes to really be a 'big club' player. For example, Charlie Adam was the star of the Blackpool team for two years, and a great performer, but is he really a Liverpool player? Kevin Davies has done it for many years for Bolton, but he would never have been right for a top-four team. And so on. Likewise, what is perfect for Howletts, or Colchester, or wherever, simply won't do at London. Look at the bear thing they did a few years back. It was, in many ways, quite fine - but with its cheap finish and home-made look it just didn't sit happily in a capital city zoo of London's standing (that's not to see that Wallaby Mountain is any improvement). And the cost, and whether it should be better spent in Indonesia - it's a false dichotomy, as the ever-sage reduakari points out above. It's akin to the parents' injunction to a child to eat up his dinner because there are people starving in Africa - a finished plate of vegetables will not prevent the hungry from starving on the Sahel, any more than a zoo not building an exhibit will free up money to be spent on in situ projects.

Finally, on the much-criticised Gorilla Kingdom, may I ask whether those who know their gorilas, of whom there are many on this thread, object to its fundamental design, or simply to the way that the gorillas have been managed within it? And to those who suggest that this exhibit would be better devoted to a more obscure primate species - again, as with the tigers, is this really going to work? Of course we would be more excited by, say, bearded sakis, or white uakaris, but gorillas are going to win every time in the eyes of the public - and one could hardly say that gorillas are not wonderful creatures that do not merit the attention they receive.

 

The problem with Gorilla Kingdom?, apart from a trilogy of awful bad luck with the adult males, nothing in my opinion.

 

Thanks Al. When I visited Pilsen last year, there were lions in the lion house, but there was also a pair in the Small Mammal House. Hopefully, this was temporary accommodation. A black-backed jackal was in a similarly sized enclosure. It's a long time since I saw a black-backed jackal, but I'd prefer to see one in a larger enclosure.

Thanks Sooty mangabey: I agree with you that a lot of work has been done in BUGS and the Reptile House and there are some interesting species. The Micrarium was closed when I visited the Paris Menagerie in November, as was much of the rest of the menagerie. I would have thought zoos have a more high-tech system than Paris's microscopes or the microscope in BUGS at London Zoo, so that various animals could be magnified and portrayed on a screen - perhaps by pressing a button rather than moving the microscope lens over a specimen, which may be in a state of desiccation due to the heat. Pilsen Zoo has a mixture of obscure species (including the largest number of mammal species found in no other zoo in the world, according to ISIS), but has its ABCs. I'm not saying that zoos should get rid of all their ABC animals, but that the individual species should be coordinated between zoos, so that one zoo may have a good exhibit of one species, while another zoo has a good exhibit of a different species. It seems that many visitors expect to see exactly the same species at each zoo, but the zoo community would benefit if every zoo improved, but that there was an incentive to visit other zoos. Zoo Chatters may venture around the world to see zoos, but if a family's favourite animals are at the same zoo, is there any real incentive to visit other zoos, let alone find out about other species, which could be just as interesting? If every art gallery contained the same paintings, how many people would want to visit an art gallery on their holidays? I feel this is happening to many shopping centres, as some chain stores seem to have the same items for sale, wherever they are, while the unusual shops are closing down.

Should zoos be spending millions of pounds on new exhibits and pretend that the new exhibits will save the animals in the wild? When I visited Shepreth Wildlife Park in 2010, there were several displays encouraging people to support wildlife charities. Do you really need to see a live blue whale to be able to support a charity that aims to preserve the species? Why should some species be represented by hundreds, or thousands, of individuals, while others have no captive individuals and could become extinct due to a single disaster?

I was critical about the plans for Gorilla Kingdom and the fact that London Zoo had a poor record of breeding gorillas, while it had allowed the world’s best breeding group of orang-utans to leave in the early 1990s. A few years later, London Zoo sent their young chimpanzees to Dudley, so that the chimps were represented by elderly individuals until the chimps were sent to Whipsnade as Gorilla Kingdom was built. I agree with Tarzan that the zoo has been unlucky with its male gorillas, but a track record of 5 gorilla deaths and only one birth (Tiny died last year) in the last couple of decades is nothing to be proud of. There are enough western lowland gorillas in zoos to have saved this type of gorilla. Antwerp has two female eastern gorillas and as far as I know, there are no captive Cross River gorillas in zoos, so, if any gorillas should be saved by captive breeding, these should be the priority, rather than adding to the 750 or so western lowland gorillas, not matter how spectacular they are. London has had a good track record with many species of animals, but I don’t think it’s worthwhile to keep persevering with species that have been unsuccessful, especially when other zoos have been successful. Is it really such a bad thing to encourage visitors to visit Port Lympne or Howletts to see gorillas or tigers for that matter? Tigers haven’t bred well at London Zoo for several years. I have tried to convince visitors to go to Whipsnade to see elephants and that journey is far more difficult by public transport than a trip to Bekesbourne. Similarly, visitors who come to London Zoo expecting to see giant pandas, koalas or polar bears (and they do!) have to make a long journey. Why should gorilla and tiger lovers be mollycoddled? I can’t guarantee this, but I would hope that a fantastic enclosure containing uakaris would be more interesting than an enclosure containing a bored gorilla or a far away or sleeping tiger.

 

Only that the ratio of indoor/outdoor space is wrong i.e. the dayroom where they spend most time, could have done with being larger. Possibly more planting e.g. bamboo clumps/tree cover outside and I don't know why they haven't added some more already. The views into the outside area are excellent (best in UK probably) but how often are there any Gorillas using it?

 

Just like any other modern enterprise or company, London Zoo will have done marketing surveys looking at statistics re visitors/spenders and future plans will be dictated by these facts and figures. Familys/children are without doubt the big spenders (entrance, ice cream, novelties, food etc) followed in no particular order by tourists, young couples, school groups, corporate junkets, casual visitors and down near the bottom the zoo nerd/fanatic.
The marketers and economists will advise London that big bold enclosures with gorillas, tigers and pandas plus cute meercats and baby monkeys will keep the vast majority of the visitors happy and spending. So to remain viable, London and the other big zoos will however reluctantly, continue to concentrate on the big ABC draws.
It is interesting to note that some of my favourite zoos such as Aspinals parks, Belfast and Marwell with loads of rare/unusual species and great breeding records have lower visitor numbers than the upwardly mobile zoos, such as Dublin, Chester, Bristol or some of the theme/safari parks. The marketing men take these facts and figures into account and advise accordingly.

 

I have seen the gorillas outside on my visits, but yes, they do prefer to spend a lot of time inside, I also found this to be the case with Joe at Twycross, he used to spend most of the day inside, even though he was free to go outside when he wished, just like the London gorillas. As much as I admire Gorilla Kingdom, I appreciate that it did not come cheap, fortunately most of this was financed from the generous legacy of zoo volunteer, Delaine Welch.I can also appreciate the views of the Howletts style gorilla accommodation, a functional building and as far as breeding is concerned, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!, that's my opinion anyway