The_melford_manatee
Well-Known Member
Certainly.The Chester enclosure is the winner on size but the Colchester exhibit is certainly the most immersive.They both offer good remounts of privacy and are likely the Top 2 in this thread.
Best UK Bush Dog enclosure
- Thread starter britishzoofan
- Start date
Is Chester the biggest? I can't remember too much about Knowsley's, but I think that can't be much different.
taun
Well-Known Member
Has anyone suggested that size should be the only determing factor?
While being the biggest certainly does not mean it should win but being far too small should definitely count against an enclosure.
Agreed, but none of the Bush dog enclosures I've seen (all apart from Axe Valley and Kirkley) are too small in my opinion
Score update. Colchester currently narrowly lead over Chester by 4 votes. Knowsley have also performed well so far and are in third position. I would be interested to hear those arguments in favour of Colchester as not many have been raised so far.
The_melford_manatee
Well-Known Member
You are right.I am not sure why I voted Colchester.I suppose it is just more immersive, it’s sizeable even though not huge, and provides better privacy for the animals.It also does a sort of Colchester classic-make the exhibit fantastic with theming.The immersion is created by the sheltered viewing area and it offers animal privacy as they can hide beneath it.
I am really not sure what makes Colchester so great.
Colchester is one of the best places to see Bush Dogs, if not the best, as they are either viewed from a walkway through the enclosure or through glass, unlike some other places which you can only see them through mesh.
I wouldn't really call it immersive, to be honest, and your mileage may vary with regards to whether Colchester's tendency to ladle on overtheming makes exhibits fantastic or flawed
As for the idea of privacy, you can't really get much better than an exhibit such as that at Chester which not only provides offshow indoor housing, but also enough space for the inhabitants to create their own burrows within the outdoor exhibit - which, incidentally, are the main location where pupping tends to occur.
Colchester's indoor housing is offshow tooI wouldn't really call it immersive, to be honest, and your mileage may vary with regards to whether Colchester's tendency to ladle on overtheming makes exhibits fantastic or flawed
As for the idea of privacy, you can't really get much better than an exhibit such as that at Chester which not only provides offshow indoor housing, but also enough space for the inhabitants to create their own burrows within the outdoor exhibit - which, incidentally, are the main location where pupping tends to occur.
I don't think it did "prove" that at all
unless you're still trying to insist that London had a bigger exhibit than Edinburgh does!
Indeed; as, I suspect, is the case for the majority of these exhibits.
My point is that if @The_melford_manatee is focusing on the issue of privacy as a "plus" for Colchester, it is an even bigger plus for Chester given the complex of burrows (both natural and artificial) within the exhibit - hence the "not only....but also" phrasing. It wasn't just a reference to Dudley Moore and Peter Cook!
I'd guess some votes in Colchester's favour are based on the photo in this thread and not having seen the exhibit in person. It's not bad by any stretch, and as @pipaluk states, it has certain viewing advantages over other exhibits. However, I would argue the enclosure's positives are somewhat undermined by its location next to the road train station, which is often busy and loud, negating the privacy offered by the offshow housing (which many other collections likely offer anyway). In addition, viewing surrounds the main enclosure space from all sides, again reducing private/retreat space.
This is absolutely true; there are far more factors influencing welfare than simply enclosure size. However, for a species that has a wild range of 4-10 square kilometres, is highly active and lives in large groups, I would argue that size is a major factor in this instance.
I don't think any enclosure offers that sort of space though!
Of course not, and it would be ridiculous to expect zoos to develop enclosures that exactly match the species' wild range. My point is that in some cases (e.g. wide-ranging, active species) bigger is sometimes better.
You could put all the enrichment and 'immersion' you wanted in the old bush dog enclosure at RSCC and still struggle to call it adequate, simply because it was so small. I appreciate that is stretching the point as none of the current holders of bush dog appear to house them in anything quite as small as that enclosure, but size is definitely relevant to this species (and aardvarks, although I haven't contributed to that poll yet!).
The_melford_manatee
Well-Known Member
Edinburgh was bigger though it was proven off.Indeed; as, I suspect, is the case for the majority of these exhibits.
My point is that if @The_melford_manatee is focusing on the issue of privacy as a "plus" for Colchester, it is an even bigger plus for Chester given the complex of burrows (both natural and artificial) within the exhibit - hence the "not only....but also" phrasing. It wasn't just a reference to Dudley Moore and Peter Cook!
The reason for making this point was as long as the enclosure is big enough for the number of inhabitants, does it really make that much difference whether it's 300 or 600 square metres as neither replicate wild conditions anyway, as most zoo enclosures don't in terms of size.
The_melford_manatee
Well-Known Member
I changed my vote to Chester as well-I did not know that Bush Dogs naturally used as much space.Although Colchester provides off show viewing(that actually increases its size)it is not as big as Chester.
Correct and in design Colchester is more appealing but the more I think about it the more I think maybe they do not enjoy having a large wooden structure in the middle of their exhibit with guests standing on it.
Doesn't seem to bother them!!
The_melford_manatee
Well-Known Member
It is difficult to identify what is bothering Bush Dogs and Chester’s enclosure appears to far better ways to avoid such a strange and unnatural presence.All the exhibits at Colchester make me think they are remarkable due to their use of foliage and theming but there are a few enclosures which are not as good as they theme, such as the wallabies and Bush Dogs.
This may just be my perspective and I still think Colchester is second but Chester appears superior.TLD has persuaded me.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Why is it...?