Exhibitry Themes/Styles You Wish Were More Common In Zoos

15399

Well-Known Member
There have been numerous threads on zoo chat discussing species that people wish were more common in zoos, and about the homogenization of zoos/species being phased out. One topic that I haven't seen discussed nearly as often is exhibit themes/design features that people wish were more common, even if the species aren't anything unique. It's, in my opinion, a worthwhile idea to discuss, as zoos have two ways to distinguish themselves from each other: collection and exhibits. While I'm sure most people on here want zoos to not all be identical clones of each other, and I generally agree that homogenization is a bad thing. In an age in which sustainable populations are of increasing priority, and it may not be possible for zoos to use collection as a means of distinguishing themselves, zoos should consider using exhibitry and exhibit theming as means of distinguishing themselves from each other. Personally, as someone who really enjoys visiting zoos, I find that the exhibitry is often just as interesting as the animals themselves, and often lends itself to different thematic and educational opportunities, as well as highlighting different natural behaviors (ex. you'd get a different experience viewing hippos from underwater viewing versus from an elevated or ground-level pathway). These ideas of using exhibitry to distinguish zoos can be on both large scale (multi-acre/multimillion dollar projects, or it could be on the level of the individual exhibit. So my question is: what styles of exhibitry do you wish more zoos utilized? Consider these exhibitry styles within the context of the species already readily available, not exhibits that rely on rare species/not in captivity species (and this is not me saying there's anything wrong with these species or zoos exhibiting them).

For me, one of the biggest types of exhibits I wish were more common are Desert-themed exhibits. While there are certainly examples of zoos building very respectable desert exhibits (Omaha and North Carolina come to mind), as a whole these kinds of exhibits are not especially common in zoos, at least in the United States. Building desert domes would be a great investment for those zoos in colder regions, as it allows an immersive, indoor experience displaying species that couldn't be displayed year-round outdoors. Furthermore, there are many smaller, popular species found in deserts that are common in zoos, meaning that a zoo could build a unique, dynamic experience for guests even if none of the species are rare in their own right. Some of these species that could be used include meerkats, fennec foxes, ocelots, and a number of different reptile and invertebrate species.
Some other types of exhibits I wish were more common include:
- Lemurs in Spiny Forest themed exhibits (ring-tailed lemurs are not from the Rainforest, and yet zoos continue to consider it naturalistic to display them as such!)
- Flamingos in netted aviaries (ideally large enough the birds can fly), rather than flight-restricted in open-topped ponds.
- Primate-Ungulate Mixed Species exhibits- since most primates tend to be arboreal, there is a lot of potential in mixing primates with ground-dwelling ungulates, such as tapirs, suids, okapi, etc. There are a number of possible ungulate species, from various different biomes and continents.
- Exhibits Taking Advantage of Topography- most zoos are not naturally located on flat pieces of land, so it's really great to see zoos that use topography to their advantage, by using particularly rocky/steep areas to display caprids, snow leopards, or other animals that naturally take advantage of uneven terrain.
 
I would love to see no flight restricted birds. The other type I'd love to see is any simulated high mountain. Give those species room to climb.
I agree with you on mountains for sure, a lot of Zoos have hilly/rocky areas already on the site, and it wouldn't take too much work/money to turn those areas into habitats for mountainous creatures. More room to display natural behaviors is almost never a bad thing!

As for bird flight restricting, at least in the AZA things are slowly moving in the right direction. There are a few taxa that I don't see anything wrong with wing clipping, but zoos should never be pinioning birds, and there are some taxa that should never be wing-clipped either (especially storks and vultures). I don't mind wing clipping for most waterfowl species, and I am not opposed to it for cranes/flamingos either in the right circumstances (large enough space, not mixed with any medium or large mammals, etc.), but the ideal is of course flighted birds, as well as providing better husbandry for those already pinioned (like getting rid of parrot on stick displays). It'll take a lot of work to completely eliminate flight restriction, but it is a noble goal and I'm optimistic that we'll eventually get there- as that's certainly the direction most AZA zoos are moving.
 
Exhibits exploring symbiotic/mutualistic relationships- cleaner fish and their larger clients, pistol shrimp and gobies, oxpeckers housed in large aviaries with ungulates, to give a few examples.

Large broad-winged birds of prey, like eagles, vultures and eagle owls, housed in huge aviaries, big enough for them to soar or at least fully show their flight capabilities. Same for hornbills.

Exhibits discussing evolution- enough threads elsewhere on here about this, but I do believe many zoos should be pushing the bounds of education more with their signage.

Tropical halls or large rainforest exhibits talking about soil invertebrate communities and nutrient cycling- deliberately or not any large tropical exhibit will have its leaflitter invertebrates, but rarely if ever are they or their roles in the ecosystem discussed.
 
Some other types of exhibits I wish were more common include:
- Lemurs in Spiny Forest themed exhibits (ring-tailed lemurs are not from the Rainforest, and yet zoos continue to consider it naturalistic to display them as such!)
This is why I absolutely love Bronx's Madagascar house. It's the only zoo I've seen that actually tries to replicate a spiny forest exhibit.
 
In my ideal world, there would be exhibits covering a wide variety of themes/habitats/biomes/regions/etc. These are just a couple of basic ideas.

A lot of areas highlight large fauna of the Serengeti (and other major African savannahs), but I think something focusing more on herps, fish, small mammals, birds and inverts would be cool. The same goes for a lot of other regions that are typically represented by zoos.

I would also love to see underrepresented regions, biomes, and habitats shown in zoos and aquariums.
 
Exhibits of disappeared biomes.
-eg. 2000 years ago, there were Yun-Meng Lakes along the Yangtze River, occupied with Pere David's deers, asian elephants, south China tigers, rhinos, buffalos and lots of birds&reptiles. Most of them are gone due to both climate change and human activities, but we can still find the same or similiar species to introduce this fauna.
 
Exhibits of disappeared biomes.
-eg. 2000 years ago, there were Yun-Meng Lakes along the Yangtze River, occupied with Pere David's deers, asian elephants, south China tigers, rhinos, buffalos and lots of birds&reptiles. Most of them are gone due to both climate change and human activities, but we can still find the same or similiar species to introduce this fauna.
These would be nice to see as well.
 
I wish more zoos had lush foliage throughout their exhibits the way St. Louis has at the Rivers Edge and Nashville has in the Bamboo Forest. That kind of exhibit makes it feel like you're genuinely walking through a forest and just stumble onto the animals and I love that feel.
 
- More exhibit buildings dedicated to amphibians and invertebrates. Putting them into reptile houses or scattering them around the zoo de-emphasizes them IMO; I understand if that's often for reasons of convenience, but it would be nice to see a larger number of zoos dedicate themselves to them.

- More large animal groups. Some of the most dynamic zoo displays I've seen are from large groups of animals: monkey and lemur troops, parrot flocks, wolf packs, frog colonies. At least in the US it seems like most zoos have few individuals of any given species, which (in my experience as a visitor) usually means less activity to watch.

- Fewer pinioned birds and more aviaries for large birds. Second everybody on this one. Flying is a part of most birds' natural behavior, which I'd like to see accommodated and encouraged rather than restricted. I also know that some bird species don't breed as well when flight-restricted, which is a problem for keeping captive populations sustainable.
Caveats: 1) flight restrictions may be okay for some species (I'm not a husbandry expert), and 2) permanent non-flyers should remain kept and cared for their whole life (but with signage clearly stating the situation).
 
- More large animal groups. Some of the most dynamic zoo displays I've seen are from large groups of animals: monkey and lemur troops, parrot flocks, wolf packs, frog colonies. At least in the US it seems like most zoos have few individuals of any given species, which (in my experience as a visitor) usually means less activity to watch.
Agree 100% with this. To add another species to the list, I really wish more zoos would keep large bloats of hippopotamus, rather than the 2-3 traditionally seen. Disney does this, and is easily the best hippo exhibit I've ever seen, unfortunately though it's only viewable for a minute on the Safaris ride. I would love to see hippos kept by less zoos in larger groups, akin to the trend seen in elephants, with less zoos keeping larger herds. I will say with primates, since you mentioned them, it depends on the individual species. While I agree large groups are great, and there are troop-living species that should be kept this way, some primate species don't live in large groups, or, more commonly, live in familial groups descended from one pair. In these sorts of species, zoos really need to start with a pair and hope to get successful offspring in an attempt to increase the group size, it's not really possible in a lot of cases to put six or seven unrelated individuals together, when a zoo is able to display a pair and their five offspring. Buttonwood Park Zoo is like this, for their callicthrids. When the Rainforests exhibit first opened, they had pairs of emperor tamarin, golden headed lion tamarin, and goeldi's monkey. Now, since the zoo has been very successful breeding, has large family groups of 6-7 emperor tamarins and a similar number of goeldi's monkeys. Unfortunately they still have only a pair of golden-headed lion tamarins as they haven't bred yet, but I'd assume if breeding occurred a similarly large group is the goal. Other than that, I completely agree that large groups, when it is natural for a given species, is the way to go.

Caveats: 1) flight restrictions may be okay for some species (I'm not a husbandry expert), and 2) permanent non-flyers should remain kept and cared for their whole life (but with signage clearly stating the situation).
I'm fairly certain a lot of waterfowl are like this, where flight restriction doesn't have a significant effect on welfare or on breeding. While I completely agree with stopping the practice on parrots, and especially vultures and storks, and generally think stopping the practice should be pursued when possible in flamingos or cranes, many waterfowl seem to thrive even when wing-clipped (not pinioned- I disagree with the permanence of that practice), and I still think it is advisable for zoos to keep waterfowl in open-topped ponds, and actually would like to see more zoos consider this when their sites include under-utilized ponds, lakes, etc. That being said, I'm not opposed to zoos keeping waterfowl flighted either- and think it's great to keep them in aviaries as well. I've seen a number of zoos with waterfowl in aviaries (Franklin Park has a lot of waterfowl in aviaries, and I've been to a few other zoos with ducks either in aviaries or indoor rainforest buildings), and only once have I seen a waterfowl species not in the water or on the ground- and it was a ringed teal perched on a branch. So I suppose some waterfowl, those species that are traditionally perching ducks/tree ducks, shouldn't be wing-clipped, but other than that I don't see anything wrong with it. Really I guess I just want more zoos keeping waterfowl, as they are a fascinating, beautiful, and diverse group of animals that can be incorporated easily into many collections, often mixing rather easily into other exhibits as well.
 
many waterfowl seem to thrive even when wing-clipped (not pinioned- I disagree with the permanence of that practice)

Counterpoint: using wing-clipping instead of pinioning means you have to catch the birds every single time they moult - which is both extremely stressful and has a chance of going wrong. Leave just a feather too much and with the right wind the bird is gone. Chasing a crane with just a bit too much wing is not an activity I would recommend!

Just keep your birds in netted enclosures.
 
Counterpoint: using wing-clipping instead of pinioning means you have to catch the birds every single time they moult - which is both extremely stressful and has a chance of going wrong. Leave just a feather too much and with the right wind the bird is gone. Chasing a crane with just a bit too much wing is not an activity I would recommend!

Just keep your birds in netted enclosures.
Counter-Counter Point: Feather clipping also means that you have to get your hands on each bird at least once a year for a physical exam, rather than just watching a pinioned bird on a pond (or a flighted one in the aviary) and assuming that it's doing fine.

It does pose risks, and I have had to chase birds who haven't been feather-clipped properly. The cranes were my least favorite. They chase back.
 
- More large animal groups. Some of the most dynamic zoo displays I've seen are from large groups of animals: monkey and lemur troops, parrot flocks, wolf packs, frog colonies. At least in the US it seems like most zoos have few individuals of any given species, which (in my experience as a visitor) usually means less activity to watch.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. Just looking at my most recent road trip, I was in awe of the large groups of animals found throughout Scandinavian zoos. Examples:

Givskud Zoo (Denmark) had 60 Humboldt Penguins in what is possibly the world's largest penguin exhibit (1.2 acres). The African Savanna had at least 6 White Rhinos, 12 Black Wildebeest, 12 Sable Antelope, some Cape Buffalo and 10 Gemsbok all together.

Ree Park Safari (Denmark) had at least 6 Rothschild's Giraffes, 20 Impala, a herd of Common Eland, 20 Blue Wildebeest, 20 Defassa Waterbuck, plus Grant's Zebras, Ostriches and even a Black Rhino all together on their African Savanna. There were other exhibits with 8 African Lions and 6 Moose in their respective enclosures.

Kolmarden Wildlife Park (Sweden) had an African Savanna with 10 species and probably 70 animals all milling about. It's spectacular! There is also an Asian Savanna with 10 Bactrian Camels, 10 Kulan and 10 Yak all together. Kolmarden has a Gondola Safari ride where visitors spend 30 minutes looking down on what probably adds up to a couple of hundred animals in a large forest setting.

Boras Zoo (Sweden) had 6 African Elephants, 4 Cape Buffalo and another 5 species all together in a glorious 5-acre paddock that was built in the 1960s. Right next door is an enclosure for 4 White Rhinos and 5 Cheetahs. Wow!

I have not even touched upon the European primate exhibits that are never seen in North America. There's loads of examples of walk-through enclosures with 20 or 30 Barbary Macaques, or 20+ lemurs all bouncing around, or 95 Squirrel Monkeys in a walk-through at Apenheul (Netherlands). Of course, NaturZoo Rheine (Germany) and it's 100+ Geladas in two enclosures is a sight to behold. That should be a walk-through. ;)

European zoos are leagues ahead in terms of large, mixed-species zoo habitats.
 
I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. Just looking at my most recent road trip, I was in awe of the large groups of animals found throughout Scandinavian zoos. Examples:

Givskud Zoo (Denmark) had 60 Humboldt Penguins in what is possibly the world's largest penguin exhibit (1.2 acres). The African Savanna had at least 6 White Rhinos, 12 Black Wildebeest, 12 Sable Antelope, some Cape Buffalo and 10 Gemsbok all together.

Ree Park Safari (Denmark) had at least 6 Rothschild's Giraffes, 20 Impala, a herd of Common Eland, 20 Blue Wildebeest, 20 Defassa Waterbuck, plus Grant's Zebras, Ostriches and even a Black Rhino all together on their African Savanna. There were other exhibits with 8 African Lions and 6 Moose in their respective enclosures.

Kolmarden Wildlife Park (Sweden) had an African Savanna with 10 species and probably 70 animals all milling about. It's spectacular! There is also an Asian Savanna with 10 Bactrian Camels, 10 Kulan and 10 Yak all together. Kolmarden has a Gondola Safari ride where visitors spend 30 minutes looking down on what probably adds up to a couple of hundred animals in a large forest setting.

Boras Zoo (Sweden) had 6 African Elephants, 4 Cape Buffalo and another 5 species all together in a glorious 5-acre paddock that was built in the 1960s. Right next door is an enclosure for 4 White Rhinos and 5 Cheetahs. Wow!

I have not even touched upon the European primate exhibits that are never seen in North America. There's loads of examples of walk-through enclosures with 20 or 30 Barbary Macaques, or 20+ lemurs all bouncing around, or 95 Squirrel Monkeys in a walk-through at Apenheul (Netherlands). Of course, NaturZoo Rheine (Germany) and it's 100+ Geladas in two enclosures is a sight to behold. That should be a walk-through. ;)

European zoos are leagues ahead in terms of large, mixed-species zoo habitats.
It's interesting you mentioned at least one elephant mix in there- that's another type of exhibit I wish was more common, so many other large African herbivores are commonly mixed together, why not add elephants to the mix as well, provided a large enough exhibit is designed and smaller animals have room to escape from the elephants. I'm not sold on all those primate walk-throughs personally, both in terms of safety and even more so disease transmission, but I'd be curious to learn more about those exhibits, as your comment makes it seem like a common occurrence in Europe.
 
More exhibits showcasing smaller animals! I see so many zoo projects these days trying to be representation of the "Asian Rainforest" and only having tigers, gibbons, and orangutans. Or African exhibits being just giraffes, lions, and hoof stock. I love exhibits like JungleWorld, Madagascar, or Congo Gorilla Forest at Bronx because they truly are a showcase of the importance of all different types of creatures from an ecosystem. Not only that, but smaller animals take up less space. I feel like if zoos really are trying to go for this "immersion" thing they preach about, we should be immersed to all the little animals that help an ecosystem, not just the headliners (which I have no problem with since they obviously bring visitors in).
 
I too would love to see larger groupings of animals. Herd, pack, and flock animals don't live in pairs. I have wondered though, are wolves kept in pairs since they tend to squabble so much in packs? Are hyenas and African wild dogs similar in that regard? I also like the idea of mixing elephants with other hoofstock but it seems risky.
 
Back
Top