Do you prefer reptile houses being the only places to see herptiles in a zoo?

Do you prefer reptile houses being the only places to see herptiles in a zoo?

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
JezP100

JezP100

Well-Known Member
I personally think that one of the best parts of a zoo is going to see the different varieties of reptiles and amphibian species.

but in most zoos they are limited to one specific region or building in which you can see them.

in my opinion, these animals should be not just exhibited inside one building but spread out throughout the zoo!

What do you think about this?
 
Most other taxonomic buildings, (monkey houses, small cat houses, parrot houses, etc.) are increasingly considered to be of a past era and phased out. A reptile house will probably always make more sense than the above on husbandry grounds, but with the shift towards ecologically- and conservation-minded exhibits, I see great value in displaying herps alongside other taxa from the same ecosystem/with a similar conservation message, rather than just alongside other herp taxa.
 
like for example, the Brookfield zoo's The Swamp exhibit used to be a primate house im pretty sure
 
As much as I love traditional Reptile Houses, with the rows of terrariums filled with interesting species giving the impression of a gallery, while (owing to the inactivity of many reptile species, and the thoughtful design that goes into most enclosures) never feeling as though they are too bad from an animal welfare perspective, I love reptile enclosures in other exhibits even more. They decorate houses well, add interest to buildings, especially when the main focus of that building is inactive, can be fascinating to watch, and make for a very efficient use of space, allowing zoos to fit in many more species without constructing new buildings.

My ideal is a zoo that does both, and although they are few and far between, such zoos exist. The best example that I have seen is Zoo Zurich, which devotes a room of their Exotarium to reptiles, but also has reptiles in the Ape House, Tortoise House, Australia House, Lewa Savanne, Kaeng Krachan Elefantenpark and even free-ranging in Masoala Regenwald. Having said that, if a zoo concentrates all of its reptile offerings in a select few areas, but does it so expertly that it is criticise them, then I will be more forgiving. At Antwerp, with seventy species in one building, or Menagerie Jardins des Plantes, with two reptile houses next door to one another, I did not find myself for a second wishing for anything different.
 
I think reptile houses are fine, like others said it makes sense to have them in one area due to their husbandry. That being said I don't see why all the reptiles in a zoo should be in one area when there is an opportunity to house them throughout the zoo to link with conservational or geographic themes.

I don't necessarily think taxonomic based exhibitry is outdated, it may be old fashioned to some and a lot of zoos are moving away from it but taxonomic exhibits can also be educational in their own way to highlight similarities and differences between certain animals and also as a way to talk about shared threats and conservation measures among certain groups.
 
The problem with reptile houses for me is that it doesn't give each species enough credit for what it is. When you have them all together in rows and rows along the walls you don't get a sense of how wonderful and unique each one is. However, if you have them elsewhere (primate houses for example) people pay attention to them when they're are only one or two species there. The reptile house format , for me, is extremely boring and needs a rethink (another reason why I'm excited for the future of zoos in a modern world). Reptile houses are good for use in winter when certain species can't be kept outside and need serviced such at heat lamps.
 
I enjoy a mix. I like seeing a reptile house (in no small part because they're often a brief respite from sun and the outdoors, and are often more quiet/lowkey) and I also like seeing them mixed in. In the MN zoo a good example of this is seen in remarkably close vicinity to each other; the closest thing to a reptile house is a collection of maybe 6 or 7 terrariums right outside the Minnesota Trail, all exhibiting native species of toad or turtle. The zoo's display of poison dart frogs, though, along the Tropics Trail- not in any particular reptile house.

The MN zoo has a super long unused hallway that I've always heard was gonna be used as a reptile hall, but it's been there truly since I was a child and it hasn't ever been anything. I wouldn't mind seeing it but I also enjoy when herptiles are built into trails or larger series of exhibits which suit a broader theme (Africa, desert, tropics, etc.). I think it's just better theme-wise and helps place the animals in their proper global context; the visitor views them not as a reptile, but as a member of the Sahara or as a resident of a rainforest.

That said I do quite like primate houses. Kinda neutral on big cat houses... I broadly prefer them in their biological context I guess. But I view primates as their own category outside of their natural habitats. I think that primate houses work particularly well for great apes specifically; other primates I think are well-suited for the habitat-focused arrangement but I think great ape houses make sense. Not sure how I feel about them from a biohazard perspective (easier to lock down? much more centralized number of animals?) but sometimes I like walking into a building and seeing a whole bunch of big ol' apes. There are of course cons to this- the viewer might be less likely to think "Orangutans live in this global area, where they're being threatened" and aren't brought to think about that kind of context- but idk. I think they work better than most other monocategorical house arrangements.
 
My favourite reptile house is the Scaly Slimy Spectacular at Zoo Atlanta. Tries to do something a little different with the traditional reptile house by adding modern architecture and a solar panelled roof.
 
Tim May said:
I know I'm probably in the minority here but I much prefer zoos to exhibit their animals taxonomically rather than zoogeographically.
Click to expand...

I love a differing opinion haha!

Can I ask why? I feel like zoogeographical organization provides an environmental context that can be helpful when trying to, say, educate from a conservation perspective. It's one thing to say "We need to protect x environment" and another to show "See all these amazing species of animals? Every one of them will die if we don't stop deforesting/overfarming/encroaching upon/burning x place."

Is your preference a personal one? Logistical- easier husbandry for the zookeepers if all the big cats/primates/birds/etc are in one place? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

(FWIW- not responding to you here Tim just a general thought- how do people feel about aquarium spaces in zoos? Should there be a designated "ocean life" space and everything else goes into zoogeographological categories, or should we put all the swimmers in one building? Perhaps worth considering how "marine" is a broad category including both more surface-level corals and tropical fish, and deep-sea jellies or anglers.)
 
Tim May said:
I know I'm probably in the minority here but I much prefer zoos to exhibit their animals taxonomically rather than zoogeographically.
Click to expand...
filovirus said:
Can I ask why?
Click to expand...
It's interesting to be able to compare and contrast closely related species; It's much easier to do so when they're housed near each other.
filovirus said:
I feel like zoogeographical organization provides an environmental context that can be helpful when trying to, say, educate from a conservation perspective.
Click to expand...
I agree that animals arranged zoogeographically can be helpful for educating about conservation but so can animals arranged taxonomically. A knowledge of taxonomy is fundamental to conservation.
filovirus said:
Is your preference a personal one? Logistical- easier husbandry for the zookeepers if all the big cats/primates/birds/etc are in one place?
Click to expand...
From a practical point of view, I imagine it probably is easier for zookeepers if animals are housed taxonomically. It's easier for visitors too; if somebody is especially interested in, say, parrots for example it's helpful if all the parrots are displayed close together.
 
I like to see them in geographically themed exhibits. Cobras in an Asian-themed area, rattlesnakes in a North American themed area, etc.
 
I'm a fan of herps anywhere in a zoo, but I am also a fan of taxonomic exhibits and I think a good reptile house is an effective way of displaying that class.

While including herps in zoogeographic exhibits isn't a bad thing, in my experience this approach often results in lower species diversity and numbers. Many zoogeographic complexes will only have 1-2 popular large reptiles. When smaller or more obscure species do get included, they can be overshadowed and kept in nondescript side tanks that get passed over by visitors.

Comparatively, even small reptile houses often boast a sizable number of species, and a well-designed reptile house sacrifices little for this increased diversity... and in my experience, other visitors will stop at most or every tank in a dedicated reptile house but will walk right past herp exhibits when there's a tiger or elephant across from them.

Also to second what @Tim May said, concentrating similar animals in one part of a zoo is useful for visitors like myself; if I have limited time at a zoo and want to see reptiles more than anything, being able to see 80 or 90% of them in one building saves me a lot of time. I'm also more likely to remember that zoo for its reptiles if they are in one standout exhibit, rather than scattered piecemeal throughout the campus.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
I'm a fan of herps anywhere in a zoo, but I am also a fan of taxonomic exhibits and I think a good reptile house is an effective way of displaying that class.

While including herps in zoogeographic exhibits isn't a bad thing, in my experience this approach often results in lower species diversity and numbers. Many zoogeographic complexes will only have 1-2 popular large reptiles. When smaller or more obscure species do get included, they can be overshadowed and kept in nondescript side tanks that get passed over by visitors.

Comparatively, even small reptile houses often boast a sizable number of species, and a well-designed reptile house sacrifices little for this increased diversity... and in my experience, other visitors will stop at most or every tank in a dedicated reptile house but will walk right past herp exhibits when there's a tiger or elephant across from them.

Also to second what @Tim May said, concentrating similar animals in one part of a zoo is useful for visitors like myself; if I have limited time at a zoo and want to see reptiles more than anything, being able to see 80 or 90% of them in one building saves me a lot of time. I'm also more likely to remember that zoo for its reptiles if they are in one standout exhibit, rather than scattered piecemeal throughout the campus.
Click to expand...
Yea, I echo what you said. If reptile exhibits aren't in their own place in the zoo they can sometimes feel like "filler" or "extras" to the big stars of the show (having a small herp display in the indoor housing of another species for example). Though this can also have some benefits, showing which smaller animals live alongside more familiar larger species and potentially interesting visitors who wouldn't have been too interested in a reptile house otherwise. I think balance is key.
 
I'm torn between the two options. Reptile Houses are amazing to visit, as making direct comparisons between species is arguably best done when there's a huge collection within a single building. Seeing 120 separate exhibits at Dallas Zoo's Reptile House, or 100 exhibits at Fort Worth Zoo's world-class MOLA, is spectacular but can also be a bit overwhelming at times. Walking around San Diego Zoo's combination Reptile Walk and Wildlife Explorers Basecamp zones can create 'terrarium fatigue'. It's one tank after another, over and over again. I know that zoo nerds have felt that way at times in Berlin Zoo's legendary Aquarium building, or at Wroclaw Zoo in Poland.

A famous zoo that, somewhat surprisingly, does not even have a Reptile House is Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo. However, during my 2012 visit I added up all the herp exhibits inside Lied Jungle, Desert Dome, Kingdoms of the Night, Exploration Station and Expedition Madagascar and the zoo had approximately 110 herp exhibits between those 5 buildings. It's probably ideal to spread out the reptile and amphibian tanks throughout the zoo if at all possible and Omaha has done an impressive job in doing just that. The zoo displays its herps in a variety of biomes and I feel that aspect helps push a conservation focus as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top