ZSL London Zoo ZSL London Zoo News 2012

I strongly disagree. I think the bonobos at Twycross are stressed by their rather restricted accommodation (and probably by other factors too), so I think that a group of bonobos would need the whole gorilla island at Regents Park and an enlarged indoor area too. Plus lots more opportunities to climb.
I would much prefer to see another male gorilla arrive. I like Pertinax's idea of a subadult male, who could grow up with Kesho still in the group. Maybe Kesho's younger brother from Dublin would be an option (assuming he does not share his brother's condition).

Alan

 

How terrible. I don't wish to repeat others' points, but it might be time to consider changing plans for London's gorillas.

I think that if gorillas can get it, that actually might have been better. I think one of the reasons Kesho was chosen was because of his calm temperament. With XYY, he might still be as calm, but if not, he probably wouldn't have come to London in the first place. Also, XYY (humans) are usually fertile.

 

I agree that this has been repetitive. I know I'm not the only one who's said the same things several times and in more than one post. We may have to agree to disagree. London Zoo will continue to waste other peoples money on gorillas and tigers, rather than accepting that it may have made a mistake. Meanwhile the collection will become more depleted and there will be less to see. I think it's a great shame and I would much prefer London to follow the route taken by Plzen, where the number of mammal species has risen from 50 to 245 in about 20 years.

Years ago, ZSL had a slogan, "Every living thing is our concern". Now, it seems to be, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Please note that I think that relatively few people have been involved in the decisions and I have talked with people who are concerned about the way things are going. There are many wonderful staff who work for ZSL, as well as caring volunteers who have worked, unpaid, for many years. I feel that some members of the hierarchy have lost their way and seem more concerned about money than animals. Several years ago, I received a nomination form for the Zoo's council. One of the candidates had an asterisk by his name, indicating that Fellows were expected to vote for him. The person was a business man for Sainsbury's, if I remember correctly. His resume made no mention of zoos, animals or conservation, so why did ZSL want him to have a high powered role? Should the British Museum be run by people who aren't interested in history or the National Gallery by people uninterested in art? I would like to see a return to zoos being run by people who are passionate about animals, as well as being able to bring educational, financial and other skills to benefit the animals as well as the visitors.

 

Whether or not ZSL has "made a mistake" is a wholly subjective opinion. The opinion that it has done so is valid, of course - but it is only an opinion. Other opinions are available.

Really? Again, it's a subjective opinion - but would a range of small cat exhibits really give the average zoo visitor the experience he or she seeks? How many young children are desperate to see an ocelot? How many cuddly Pallas's cats are on sale in the average toy shop? And are small cats such a great exhibit?

A little melodramatic - and rather unfair on ZSL, I'd say. Yes, they could give up - but it would be fairly weak of them to do so, would it not? And what would such giving up do to the London 'brand' in the eyes of the world? It will, eventually, come good for the zoo and its gorillas. Even without breeding having kicked in yet, it's an area of the zoo that works well for the majority of visitors; when the gorillas are outside, they offer a superb view. I'm puzzled as to why so much vitriol is delivered against this exhibit, when Bristol receives no such criticism.

We agree on this one! I too would love to see a big collection, full of non EEP species, exhibited by people who find, say, a jackal inherently fascinating for what it is, rather than for its rarity. But this is unconnected to the is-a-new-tiger-enclosure-a-waste-of-money? debate. The down-sizing of the mammal collection has taken place. It may be reversed in the future. It is unlikely under the current regime. I fear that voices of those, like you and I, who appreciate a big collection, are rare within the zoo world - outside Berlin and the Czech Republic.

At the risk of sounding harsh, whenever change occurs in an organisation, there will be those who throw their arms in the air and blame "the management" for all the ills of the world. It is my opinion that to listen too closely to such voices is to prevent development and improvement.

But the two are inextricably linked! Without money, what can the zoo - or its various allied elements - achieve?

...but is it not because there was so little focus on the commercial side of things in the past - almost as if it were slightly vulgar to be interested in such matters - that the zoo fell into the puddle of mud from which it has taken 20 years to extricate itself?

Is London Zoo perfect? No, not at all. Is it the best in the UK? Almost certainly not. Is the collection one to set the pulses racing? Not really. But is the zoo getting better, with improved exhibitry and a better visitor experience? I'd say so. The developments of the past decade have been mostly good to excellent. When we think what could have happened to the zoo, I think we should be glad for that. But, as I said above, other opinions are available.

 

Indeed...

It is not a mark of weakness to admit that a project isn't working, even if it's a flagship. Lady Thatcher found that out the hard way with the community charge, some would say. As for the lack of criticism of Bristol's Gorilla exhibit, quite simply it works. They have a good, stable group that produces young. As for melodrama - poor old dassierat has to sit there with a smile on his face explaining away yet another London Zoo Gorilla calamity. It is a bit of a strain, you know.

If you give a Tiger an enclosure that's twice the size it really needs then by definition you are giving up the space that another species has with similar space requirements (say Jaguar). If we assume that (say) Ocelots require an enclosure half the size that Tigers do, then the space needed for 2 pairs of Ocelot has been given up. And zoos really can't bang on about their conservation work and then deliberately turn their back on those taxa that are deemed less "sexy". Especially not zoos that are operated by a scientific organisation.

sooty, you know full well that some of these unhappy people were there in 1991/2 and a lot of the current management weren't. Surely those of us who know what was promised in 1993/4 are entitled to get a bit disillusioned at the volte-face being executed? As William Rufus said as long ago as 1088, "What man can keep all his promises" ? Indeed, but it's not an admirable trait.

Is it the most expensive zoo to visit in SE England - yes. That's excepting the Aspinall collections, which have never historically had to bother overmuch about getting visitors in through the gate. In a recession as deep as this, it is risky to keep charging more and more to exhibit less and less.

 

1. Bonobos. Yes, I omitted to say the Colobus indoor area would need to be enlarged and maybe bedrooms added behind the scenes as they have done with the Gorillas. Bonobos are also far more willing to use outdoor areas than Gorillas as e.g. at Twycross, Apenheul etc.

2. I heard they don't want to move Kesho at present because they want a proper group display for tourists visiting the Zoo during the Olympics(rather than a split group undergoing introductions) True or false? Plus finding him another home would be difficult anyway. Either his 'middle' brother Alf/Sekani (provide he is normal)or ex Twycross Matadi (who is distantly related to Mjuku) or a Howletts 8 year old, could be added with relatively little major disturbance and this set-up would be good at least for a few years.

 

AFAIK they are just leaving things as they are for the present. Also(AFAIK) Kesho is totally normal in every other respect, so presumably mates the females but they don't (we presume) get pregnant. I've heard him described as 'playful' which he definately is- so neither particularly calm nor aggressive- just properly socialised (and forget what he did to 'Tiny'- that was normal too.)

 

I sometimes think(and say) the same, that the Zoo will go ahead and 'do what its going to do' anyway- but then that's what Zoochat is all about, isn't it?

 

I have read that too. In Kesho's case, I think when this all came up, they said in their statement that he is 'functionally sterile'- whatever that means exactly.

 

What a splendid suggestion, Matadi coming to Regent's Park.

 

This has turned into a most interesting debate, whatever people's views are regarding the new tiger house and Gorilla Kingdom, it is apparent to me that everyone who has contributed has the interest of London Zoo at heart, this discussion is interesting, enjoyable, informative and pleasant, just like a visit to this zoo itself

 

Unfortunately Matadi is distantly related to Mjuku (their Jersey- bred grandfathers were brothers) but does such a distant connection matter anyway? Not really.. But I'm sure Kesho would still happily accept any other younger male too, as he grew up in a group with his younger brothers and all he still wants to do is play, so they told me. Thats why I thought if Kesho had originallygone to Twycross when they wanted a new male, Matadi wouldn't have been forced to leave there. (But in hindsight, Twycross would have been stuck with a non-breeding male instead!)

Re the idea of Bonobos, I personally can't ever see ZSL replacing the Gorillas with Bonobos, they just don't have the same cachet- despite quite possily being a better, more active exhibit. I could see them keeping them as well though, and it would enhance that whole display if they could.

 

I accept that many of the opinions on Zoo Chat are subjective. That is why I said that London Zoo may have made a mistake. As Ian Robinson says, “It is not a mark of weakness to admit that a project isn't working, even if it's a flagship”. I doubt if any Zoo Chatters have never made mistakes, but when a large organisation fails to achieve what it wants, despite putting a lot of effort and money into its plans, I think (sorry, I'm being subjective again) that it should look back over the situation and decide if the goal is worth achieving. As Sooty Mangabey says, there are other options available. For example, does London Zoo need to keep gorillas and Sumatran tigers?

.


This is a very subjective opinion, Sooty Mangabey, and it makes an assumption that there is an average zoo visitor and that all average zoo visitors are seeking the same experience. If my experience in London Zoo's Information Kiosk is anything to go by, many visitors would want to see elephants back in the Casson Pavillion and would want to see giant pandas and probably polar bears as well. I've been impressed by the range of toy animals that are now available to people. I visited a toy shop in St Albans and saw a toy bilby and a toy ring-tailed mongoose. I can't say how many got sold, but if a shop can sell a toy bilby, I think there is some scope for a toy Pallas's cat.

As regards small cat exhibits, I used to like the collection of small cats at Chester Zoo and Arizona Docent listed 5 species of small cats (marbled cat, Borenan bay cat, African golden cat, guigna and Andean cat) as the animals he/she most wants to see. The term 'great exhibit' is subjective as different Zoo Chatters have visited the same zoo exhibits and some have considered the exhibits to be great, while others have considered them mediocre. Several years ago, London Zoo won an award for its dwarf mongoose exhibit, so there is a potential for an award-winning small cat exhibit.

Once again, London Zoo has given up on hundreds of species during its existence. It gave up on orang-utans, despite having the best breeding record in the world, for them. It no longer breeds giraffes, although it also was the best zoo for this. It had the only Leadbeater's possums outside Europe. It gave up on Chinese alligators due to their poor breeding record. "It will, eventually, come good for the zoo and its gorillas". Sooty Mangabey, you have been criticising me for making subjective comments - but how can you say such a thing? How do you know that it will come good for the gorillas? Over the past 20 years, London has got rid of its orang-utans and got rid of its young chimpanzees (and the older ones). This has all been done to promote gorillas and the result - 1 baby that is now dead and 4 dead adults. I don't know what's gone wrong and I'm not saying about Bristol Zoo's gorillas, as I can't make a valid comparison, but Chessington, Port Lympne and Howletts are near London and have far better breeding records for gorillas than London Zoo has. As regards overall species, I would say that London Zoo trumps the other 'local' zoos for breeding animals, but it's poor with gorillas. Surely the view would be more or less the same if gorillas were replaced with other animals.

I’m glad that we agree about having a big collection, full of non EEP species, exhibited by people who find, say, a jackal inherently fascinating for what it is, rather than for its rarity. I also suspect that the down-sizing of the mammal collection will continue under the current regime. I’m just glad that there are zoos where I can see species for the first time without having to travel long distances.

I accept your views about change. I’ve been on a change management course at a time when my manager was more averse to change than her staff. This doesn’t mean that the managers are right and the staff members are wrong. Both sides need to be listened to. In fact, during this discussion, I have been advocating change, noting that faults have been made and expressing my doubts about whether an experiment that has failed for 20 years should be continued. Surely that is one of the main reasons to introduce change into any system.

As Ian Robinson has said, he and I were around 20 years ago when the zoo was threatened with closure and I’ve already mentioned Andy Grant’s presentation about raising tens of millions of pounds without any idea about where the money would come from. At least the current regime is more realistic financially. The original estimate for the new tiger enclosure was £5-10 million. The zoo does look better now than it did 20 years ago, but the collection is less interesting. This is not to say that there are no interesting animals. I like the beaver rats, Panay cloud runners, aquatic caecilians and the bearded barbets, to name a few, but I remember the times when I could go into the Clore and see and see a species of mammal I had never seen before, but I think the last one was the Panay cloud runner. I also feel that the aye-ayes should be on display – it is several years since I saw them in the Round House and it is a shame that a large percentage of the ground floor is out of bounds to visitors.

Of course the zoo needs money to improve, but it shouldn’t be asking people for millions of pounds on a pretext that the money will save Sumatran tigers. A few years ago, I had a phone call about the RSPB. The caller said that it had obtained rain forest in Sumatra to save tigers, orang-utans etc. I joined the RSPB and am still a member; as an aside, the RSPB reserve near Rye House has water buffalo. £3 million could have been used to achieve far more than a tiger enclosure and I’m sad that the appeal wasn’t for something more important, but I’m afraid that’s another subjective statement.


I’m pleased that Tarzan is enjoying the debate. I think it’s useful to discuss things and I tend to learn a lot by hearing opposing views, but this doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them, no they with

 

(In humans,) the term 'functionally sterile' refers to a very low sperm count - effectively too low to fertilise an egg. In Klinefelter's (XXY) syndrome, there is usually little/no sperm production. This is in contrast to XYY syndrome, where testosterone levels and gonadal development can be normal, and healthy sperm can be produced.

 

Thanks for that. It seems fairly clear cut then, though I haven't quite ruled out the slim chance they get a surprise pregnancy. Though the fact that the youngest female Mjuku, who became pregnant very quickly from the previous male, has not done so with Kesho(afaik)would seem to tie in with their findings.

 

One other comment, which I really wish hadn't occurred to me: the same determination to plough on with Gorillas, in spite of all sorts of adverse publicity, was last displayed by London with regard to elephants in general, and Pole Pole in particular...

 

can i just ask, is the London Zoo Management even currently considering giving up on its Gorilla's and looking into other species?

 

Very fair point.... it is dangerous to assume we all want the same thing.

Because I combine hopeless optimism with frequent inconsistency and occasional absurdity! Of course it's only a guess - but, ultimately, there is no reason why it shouldn't come good (and animals always behave in a logical way, of course). More importantly - please don't think I'm criticisisng you. I don't always agree with you, but I'm certainly not criticising. Your writing shows your feelings for the zoo, and your knowledge of it, and I thoroughly enjoying the debate - and the opportunity to learn from what you say.

I'd certainly agree onboth these points. And I can't think that many would be able to disagree, to be honest.

Absolutely. As Tarzan says above, what is clear in all of this is the strength of feeling for London Zoo. People want it to be as good as it possibly can be (even if their definitions of what this would mean may differ!).

 

Have they ever used AI with gorillas?

I can't remember now, was Tiny born before Keshoe came? How accurate is a male gorilla at knowing what babies are his? Any born after he moves in? Any born a few months after he moves in?

 

Thanks Sooty Mangabey for your useful and interesting comments and your kind sentiments. I don't think we're that far apart. We both care about London Zoo and would like to see a more varied collection, even though neither of us think this will happen in the near future. There's no reason why we should agree on everything, but I hope we can learn from each other.

When Tiny was born, I hoped I'd been wrong about Gorilla Kingdom. I watched Tiny and Mjukuu and saw them a few days before Tiny died. Unfortunately, the rest is history.