Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[TeaLovingDave]

ZootierlisteHomepage
Only Berlin, maybe it is still present somewhere in private keepers' possession in Europe.

The last individual at Cologne went into private hands in 2023.

 

[StoppableSan]

I really don't like the trend of replacing moated exhibits with glass, or loose mesh. I'd rather have a clear, unobstructed view. Even better if it has a solid background that isn't a see-through fence. Not sure if that's a hot take in the community, but it seems like the zoos themselves want to go this way.

The justification for this is to provide more space to the animals in question and would also provide better drainage. I can see where zoos would come from in some instances (e.g. Bear Ridge at Cincinnati Zoo, where the moats weren't accessible and took up valuable real-estate) but can also see would ironically hinder the animals' welfare. Case in point, Bear Country at Philadelphia Zoo - the moats were accessible to the bears and could provide them a sense of privacy and agency, and while I can see one of the moats being filled in making sense (the old Andean bear exhibit, accommodating for the tunnel to the new bear exhibit across the path)... I don't see a reason for the moat to be filled in for the old sloth bear habitat. That moat gave an otherwise flat space dimension, and the bears could easily escape the public view if they so chose. Even if the argument was to accommodate for other bear species that necessitate higher barriers, considering Andean bears also had a portion of the old sloth bear exhibit when Ben the Asian black bear was still alive... I'd have kept that moat at the very least. Accessible moats are significantly better than U-moats, especially when it comes to prioritizing animal welfare and animal agency.

 

[Kudu21]

I really don't like the trend of replacing moated exhibits with glass, or loose mesh. I'd rather have a clear, unobstructed view. Even better if it has a solid background that isn't a see-through fence. Not sure if that's a hot take in the community, but it seems like the zoos themselves want to go this way.

The justification for this is to provide more space to the animals in question and would also provide better drainage. I can see where zoos would come from in some instances (e.g. Bear Ridge at Cincinnati Zoo, where the moats weren't accessible and took up valuable real-estate) but can also see would ironically hinder the animals' welfare. Case in point, Bear Country at Philadelphia Zoo - the moats were accessible to the bears and could provide them a sense of privacy and agency, and while I can see one of the moats being filled in making sense (the old Andean bear exhibit, accommodating for the tunnel to the new bear exhibit across the path)... I don't see a reason for the moat to be filled in for the old sloth bear habitat. That moat gave an otherwise flat space dimension, and the bears could easily escape the public view if they so chose. Even if the argument was to accommodate for other bear species that necessitate higher barriers, considering Andean bears also had a portion of the old sloth bear exhibit when Ben the Asian black bear was still alive... I'd have kept that moat at the very least. Accessible moats are significantly better than U-moats, especially when it comes to prioritizing animal welfare and animal agency.

In addition to the amount of extra space that moats take up, the issue with moats is that even accessible moats can pose a safety risk to both animals and staff servicing the exhibits. Accessible moats still pose a threat of falls and slips for animals and staff and of animal entrapments during aggression events or overly enthusiastic breeding pursuits when animals cannot get out of them quickly and efficiently. With ever increasing concerns and regulations for the safety of animals and staff (I know of exhibits where staff must wear safety harnesses to service accessible moats), coupled with the space usage and construction costs, it is not surprising that moats are more and more often being phased out when privacy and usable space can be provided in other ways.

 

[MC Baron]

In addition to the amount of extra space that moats take up, the issue with moats is that even accessible moats can pose a safety risk to both animals and staff servicing the exhibits. Accessible moats still pose a threat of falls and slips for animals and staff and of animal entrapments during aggression events or overly enthusiastic breeding pursuits when animals cannot get out of them quickly and efficiently. With ever increasing concerns and regulations for the safety of animals and staff (I know of exhibits where staff must wear safety harnesses to service accessible moats), coupled with the space usage and construction costs, it is not surprising that moats are more and more often being phased out when privacy and usable space can be provided in other ways.

I suppose I didn't really mean "moat" per se but rather ha-ha. For example, going with the Philadelphia zoo again, the rhino enclosure. The exhibit has a slight incline that leads up to the faux rock background, allowing for ideal, unobstructed viewing with a solid backdrop. DC's big cat exhibits seem to get a lot of criticism, but I like them since they don't obstruct the view with glass or mesh, though they aren't as natural-looking. They did add mesh in recent years, but it's easier to look past (or poke your camera lens through) since it's part of the guest barrier. It offers a much better view and photo opportunity than the recently-renovated lion exhibit in Baltimore, for example, which only uses mesh and glass viewing areas.