Enclosure space is overrated compared to quality of space

[15399]

We did, which is why I immediately scoffed at Neil's 200 square feet exaggeration.

I assure you, 200 square feet is not an exaggeration. While not for snow leopards, given the exhibits I've attached photos of exist, I wouldn't put it past a roadside zoo from housing a snow leopard in a cage that small:

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @TinoPup

Oh speaking of: ya, pretty much every reptile enclosure I've seen at a zoo is way too small. Way. Snakes especially.

While I agree, a lot of zoos have reptile exhibits that are too small, I want to counter the "pretty much every" part of this statement by acknowledging that some zoos excel in their reptile enclosures, such as this impressive rattlesnake habitat I saw at Toledo Zoo:

 

[La Cucaracha]

I assure you, 200 square feet is not an exaggeration. While not for snow leopards, given the exhibits I've attached photos of exist, I wouldn't put it past a roadside zoo from housing a snow leopard in a cage that small:

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @TinoPup


While I agree, a lot of zoos have reptile exhibits that are too small, I want to counter the "pretty much every" part of this statement by acknowledging that some zoos excel in their reptile enclosures, such as this impressive rattlesnake habitat I saw at Toledo Zoo:

We can all agree 200 square feet is too small for a snow leopard, bar some roadside zoos. The minimum in my state is 300 square feet, and that should really only be for separating stalls. I'm sure the AZA has a higher minimum. I would actually like to see larger indoor exhibits for animals that are often indoors in winter, ie giraffes.

That Toledo Zoo rattlesnake habitat is exactly what I think a rattlesnake exhibit should look like. It's like a natural history museum diorama.
Too often, reptiles are displayed like an art collection with a massive variety, but in cramped cages. But people will come at me if I suggest less than 20,000 square feet for 1 snow leopard, as an example. It's definitely a preference.

 

[Aardwolf]

The idea that space isn't everything in a zoo exhibit isn't really a new take - Hediger was arguing the point at least as far back as the 1950s - but if it isn't "everything" than it is at least "a really important thing." The measure of success of a zoo exhibit should be that it allows the animal to display as full a range of natural behaviors as possible, and the simple fact is that the larger a space is, the more possible that is to do, because you can fit more into that space, you can have more diverse kinds of space. There is a point of diminishing returns beyond which you aren't going to see that much more behavioral diversity, but barring some extreme cases (a 500 square meter natural exhibit vs a 1000 meter barren one), I'd have to say bigger generally is better

 

[15399]

Too often, reptiles are displayed like an art collection with a massive variety, but in cramped cages. But people will come at me if I suggest less than 20,000 square feet for 1 snow leopard, as an example. It's definitely a preference.

Note- 20,000 square feet is just the number I arbitrarily picked, I am not suggesting that's what the minimum requirement should be (in fact, I'm of the opinion we should be striving for best practices, and doing things as good as they possibly could be, rather than striving to meet minimum acceptable requirements).

There are many excellent snow leopard exhibits less than 20,000 square feet though, that do strive for best practices. Why settle for 2,000 square feet, when instead you can build one of these exhibits, and use your 2,000 square foot "Himalayan diorama" for red pandas or manul:

Photo by: @Pleistohorse

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @Dhole dude

Photo By: @mweb08

Surely each of those four exhibits is better than the following, which are closer to the 1,500-2,500 square foot range:

Photo By: @snowleopard

Photo By: @blospz (this one used to be snow leopards for many years, but now has an Amur leopard)

Photo By: @red river hog

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @TinoPup

And barring the last photo, each of these is in an AZA zoo by the way. But which set of photos should we be striving for in new snow leopard exhibits?

 

[La Cucaracha]

The idea that space isn't everything in a zoo exhibit isn't really a new take - Hediger was arguing the point at least as far back as the 1950s - but if it isn't "everything" than it is at least "a really important thing." The measure of success of a zoo exhibit should be that it allows the animal to display as full a range of natural behaviors as possible, and the simple fact is that the larger a space is, the more possible that is to do, because you can fit more into that space, you can have more diverse kinds of space. There is a point of diminishing returns beyond which you aren't going to see that much more behavioral diversity, but barring some extreme cases (a 500 square meter natural exhibit vs a 1000 meter barren one), I'd have to say bigger generally is better

You're definitely right about it not being new. I have Hediger's book as well.
I think this is the most obvious with megafauna herbivores. I was actually quite impressed North Carolina Zoo has a 40 acre pasture for their white rhinos. Too often I see overgrazed hoofstock paddocks.
However, I'm curious how rotational grazing might work out with zoo hoofstock and if that could save space.
I think someone in another thread said shifting sees the most deaths for hoofstock, but rotational grazing is common with bison and other exotic livestock on ranches.

Note- 20,000 square feet is just the number I arbitrarily picked, I am not suggesting that's what the minimum requirement should be (in fact, I'm of the opinion we should be striving for best practices, and doing things as good as they possibly could be, rather than striving to meet minimum acceptable requirements).

There are many excellent snow leopard exhibits less than 20,000 square feet though, that do strive for best practices. Why settle for 2,000 square feet, when instead you can build one of these exhibits, and use your 2,000 square foot "Himalayan diorama" for red pandas or manul:

Photo by: @Pleistohorse

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @Dhole dude

Photo By: @mweb08

Surely each of those four exhibits is better than the following, which are closer to the 1,500-2,500 square foot range:

Photo By: @snowleopard

Photo By: @blospz (this one used to be snow leopards for many years, but now has an Amur leopard)

Photo By: @red river hog

Photo By: @TinoPup

Photo By: @TinoPup

And barring the last photo, each of these is in an AZA zoo by the way. But which set of photos should we be striving for in new snow leopard exhibits?

I would simply prefer an exhibit that most replicates their natural habitat, with hiding areas and mountainous terrain. I've read having a high lookout can help alleviate the pit effect in captive big cats, as well. Like I said, it can go vertical, too. I'm aware 20,000 is an arbitrary number, as is my 2,000.

 

[Lafone]

Suit yourself, but I'm sure you know not every zoo is 100+ acres or has a SDZ budget. I don't actually suggest keeping large felids in bathroom stalls, either.

Zoos should work within the budget and space they have to keep their species appropriately and if they don't have the budget of huge zoo they should simply cut their cloth accordingly.

Zoos should not keep kangaroos in a box as illustrated above just so they can say they have kangaroos.

If you can look at that picture and don't imagine a bigger space would be better and your first thought isn't 'well at least that's not a big grassy field measuring 2k feet' I'd be surprised.

Enclosure is just one of the important factors in keeping animals and I'd say from the discussion here that, even from the points you brought up yourself about snakes, it seems there are more concerns raised more often, more vocally and more correctly about things being too small than too large. I can't recall the last time I read people saying how hateful a space was because an animal had 'too much' room. So is 'too big' a real issue after all.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Zoos should work within the budget and space they have to keep their species appropriately and if they don't have the budget of huge zoo they should simply cut their cloth accordingly.

Zoos should not keep kangaroos in a box as illustrated above just so they can say they have kangaroos.

If you can look at that picture and don't imagine a bigger space would be better and your first thought isn't 'well at least that's not a big grassy field measuring 2k feet' I'd be surprised.

Enclosure is just one of the important factors in keeping animals and I'd say from the discussion here that, even from the points you brought up yourself about snakes, it seems there are more concerns raised more often, more vocally and more correctly about things being too small than too large. I can't recall the last time I read people saying how hateful a space was because an animal had 'too much' room. So is 'too big' a real issue after all.

Can you make your point without exaggerating, or redirecting attention at obviously inadequate roadside zoos?

 

[Lafone]

Can you make your point without exaggerating, or redirecting attention at obviously inadequate roadside zoos?

You do like to offer a lot of instructions; I can suit myself, I can make my point, what do I know what do I actually know etc etc. I know it's probably tough for you to argue the premise you put forward, but I don't need your permission to reply and I said what I wanted to.

 

[La Cucaracha]

You do like to offer a lot of instructions; I can suit myself, I can make my point, what do I know what do I actually know etc etc. I know it's probably tough for you to argue the premise you put forward, but I don't need your permission to reply and I said what I wanted to.

Can you make your point without exaggerating, or redirecting attention at obviously inadequate roadside zoos?

So you can't? OK.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Here's my last hot take for now: yes, enclosures can be too big. Being able to see an animal does matter. Or is 200 square feet too small for a poor dart frog? You have to stop playing with nuances at some point.

 

[Lafone]

Or is 200 square feet too small for a poor dart frog?

Question is,

Can you make your point without exaggerating?

Conclusion is,

So you can't? OK.

 

[Aardwolf]

Here's my last hot take for now: yes, enclosures can be too big. Being able to see an animal does matter. Or is 200 square feet too small for a poor dart frog? You have to stop playing with nuances at some point.

Well, frogs - are - sometimes kept free roaming in large walkthrough forest buildings…

but to your point, I’d say an enclosure is “too big” only if its size impedes the ability of staff to take care of the animal, such as making sure it is eating adequately, or if it proves impossible to safely trap it up for medical care (though both can be alleviated through training in many cases)

 

[La Cucaracha]

Question is,

Conclusion is,

So you do see a point of diminishing returns with enclosure space. Interesting.

 

[ZooArchitect]

A quick TNT "hot take" - Most birds and reptiles are boring...

I don't think it is a hot take. I feel like many people feel that way and go through bird and reptiles much faster if at all. Are there any bird/reptile houses that stand out to you as being particularly more interesting in terms of their species or maybe a more interesting building/exhibit design?

 

[La Cucaracha]

Well, frogs - are - sometimes kept free roaming in large walkthrough forest buildings…

Do guests complain about seeing dead frogs? Legitimately curious. I've had a similar idea for green anoles.

I don't think it is a hot take. I feel like many people feel that way and go through bird and reptiles much faster if at all. Are there any bird/reptile houses that stand out to you as being particularly more interesting in terms of their species or maybe a more interesting building/exhibit design?

This is just unfortunately true. I do love a good walk through aviary, though.

 

[15399]

Here's my last hot take for now: yes, enclosures can be too big. Being able to see an animal does matter. Or is 200 square feet too small for a poor dart frog? You have to stop playing with nuances at some point.

Who said you can't see a dart frog in a large exhibit? I had a great time searching for (and seeing) multiple dart frog species in Toledo Zoo's ProMedica Museum of Natural History:

The two frog photos are mine, the exhibit photos are by @TinoPup

 

[La Cucaracha]

Who said you can't see a dart frog in a large exhibit? I had a great time searching for (and seeing) multiple dart frog species in Toledo Zoo's ProMedica Museum of Natural History:

The two frog photos are mine, the exhibit photos are by @TinoPup

Yeah, great. Not every zoo has a conservatory, though. Needless to say, it's also not the first thing that comes to mind when prescribing a dart frog enclosure, either. They can be kept in small enclosures, and they do get real interest from guests either way.

 

[Batto]

@Aardwolf I really appreciate Hediger; but if you've seen the size of some of the original enclosures he had built, you will realize his personal estimation of adequate enclosure size was also a product of his time. Our conception of an adequate enclosure size is, among others, also a cultural one, and as such influenced by the current zeitgeist.

 

[birdsandbats]

Well, frogs - are - sometimes kept free roaming in large walkthrough forest buildings…

but to your point, I’d say an enclosure is “too big” only if its size impedes the ability of staff to take care of the animal, such as making sure it is eating adequately, or if it proves impossible to safely trap it up for medical care (though both can be alleviated through training in many cases)

In my opinion, an enclosure can also be too large if it makes it practically impossible for visitors to view the animals that inhabit it. It is an exhibit, after all.

 

[La Cucaracha]

In my opinion, an enclosure can also be too large if it makes it practically impossible for visitors to view the animals that inhabit it. It is an exhibit, after all.

Those indoor jungles with free roaming dart frogs are really cool, but the practicality diminishes with less than like a dozen frogs.