How to judge exhibits that are visible year round vs ones that aren't?

[mweb08]

I went to the Bronx Zoo today, and of course CGF which is great, but that, my opinion of the zoo in general, along with various discussions on here got me thinking how we should factor in the fact that some exhibits are only visible 6-9 months a year, while the animals are generally in mediocre to poor enclosures during that time.

For example, lets say we have three exhibits of the same animal:

Exhibit X: 8/10 rating, open year round.

Exhibit Y: 9/10, animals indoors and off-exhibit for 5 months.

Exhibit Z: Outdoor 8.5, Indoor(open to public) 5.

Should example Y be considered the best and X the worst? For visitor purposes, Y would be a zero for 5 months, and would lets say a 3 for the animals during that time. Should that be taken into account?

To me, it seems like exhibit Z typically gets punished on here because people see the average indoor enclosure and knock it. However they(with a few notable exceptions) typically give Y a pass for the off-exhibit area likely because all they see and analyze is the outdoor part.

This can also be taken past the individual exhibit rating and to the whole zoos rating.

One zoo is an 8.5/10 year round, while another is a 9 for 7-8 months, but a 5 during the colder months. Do you combine those numbers in anyway, or do you just give it a 9? Which zoo would you rather be your hometown zoo?

I like to rank exhibits and zoos, but I'm really not sure how to deal with this issue.

 

[Maguari]

Unless the animals are off-show for some natural reason in their life- or annual cycle (such as Edinburgh's sousliks that hibernate for several months) then animals being off-show for the winter is a design flaw in the exhibit. All animals should have privacy, of course, and we all accept that not all animals will be on show or visible every time we visit. But knowing something will be off-show for months is a bit of a nuisance. A zoo can't afford too many such exhibits as otherwise the visitor experience is much depleted in winter. Most mammals and birds (excluding those that hibernate) will use an outside enclosure in winter. If any really can't then the zoo should endeavour to provide indoor viewing as far as possible (and it usually is with a new-built exhibit).

In practice, most animals that really need to be kept in over the winter in temperate zones probably benefit from controlled conditions all year (a lot of reptiles, for example). Most animals that don't will generally use an outdoor enclosure most days in winter.



One classic winter problem, of course, is frozen water moats - which have two dangers - they might allow the animals an escape route, or might cause an animal to fall through ice into freezing water. You always know its a cold zoo day when you see all the keepers spending the morning breaking ice so they can as many animals out as possible!

 

[BlackRhino]

I don't think it should matter how often the animals go out due to the weather. A zoo can't help if it's located in New York City or San Diego. Clearly, at the zoo in San Diego the animals will be going out more but that shouldn't affect an exhibit's rating. It's not really fair. Besides what visitors can see as the indoor area at CGF is only a fraction of their winter home. Behind-the-Scenes they have tall, wide, deep indoor enclosures that are among the best gorilla holding anywhere according to zooplantman and reduakri who are both familiar with the indoor areas. I am sure the gorillas at CGF lack for nothing.

 

[Maguari]

I don't think it should matter how often the animals go out due to the weather. A zoo can't help if it's located in New York City or San Diego. Clearly, at the zoo in San Diego the animals will be going out more but that shouldn't affect an exhibit's rating. It's not really fair.

But they know where they're designing the exhibit for - it's not like they have to design it not knowing if it'll be San Diego or New York City until the design's finished. I wasn't referring to specifics but if you know you're building for a colder-winter zoo, you should make sure that you have arrangements to ensure as many animals as possible are visible indoors for the winter months. By all accounts you can see the gorillas indoors at the Bronx, so by that measure it's fine. If they'd built it with no indoor viewing knowing what the winter weather would be, then that would be a design flaw and I would certainly count it against a major new exhibit (less so against older or less high-budget ones).

 

[mweb08]

I don't think it should matter how often the animals go out due to the weather. A zoo can't help if it's located in New York City or San Diego. Clearly, at the zoo in San Diego the animals will be going out more but that shouldn't affect an exhibit's rating. It's not really fair. Besides what visitors can see as the indoor area at CGF is only a fraction of their winter home. Behind-the-Scenes they have tall, wide, deep indoor enclosures that are among the best gorilla holding anywhere according to zooplantman and reduakri who are both familiar with the indoor areas. I am sure the gorillas at CGF lack for nothing.

I wasn't trying to make this a discussion about one particular exhibit. But sticking with apes, most northern zoos that have gorillas also have indoor viewing. So that eliminates your fairness argument.

I'm leaning towards the notion that an exhibit like CGF should at least slightly be penalized for being closed for about 5 months of the year. However, as I mentioned in my first post, I would guess many on here would penalize them for having indoor viewing unless it was also top notch. All I'm saying is mediocre indoor viewing section is better than none at all.

You're right that comparing SD to the Bronx or any other northern zoo in terms of weather isn't fair to the Bronx, but it is reality, so why should I dismiss that? As someone who just moved from southern California to the east coast, I think it probably should be factored in that the SD Zoo or LA Zoo are just as desirable to visit in the winter as they are in the summer, while that is not the case for zoos around here. Everything else being equal, I'd rather be a member at a zoo which doesn't greatly decline or close during certain months, because the obvious reason that I can enjoy my membership more often.

 

[mweb08]

But they know where they're designing the exhibit for - it's not like they have to design it not knowing if it'll be San Diego or New York City until the design's finished. I wasn't referring to specifics but if you know you're building for a colder-winter zoo, you should make sure that you have arrangements to ensure as many animals as possible are visible indoors for the winter months. By all accounts you can see the gorillas indoors at the Bronx, so by that measure it's fine. If they'd built it with no indoor viewing knowing what the winter weather would be, then that would be a design flaw and I would certainly count it against a major new exhibit (less so against older or less high-budget ones).

No you can't.

Sorry, I was wrong, had never seen pictures or heard anyone talk about the indoor part of the exhibit.

Which actually goes back to the purpose of this thread, most outdoor/indoor exhibits get judged based on both factors, yet the gorilla exhibits of CGF is typically only rated on its outdoor parts.

 

[Maguari]

No you can't.

My bad - I stand corrected. I understood there was an indoor on-show area. If not then that's definitely a design flaw in my book.

 

[mweb08]

My bad - I stand corrected. I understood there was an indoor on-show area. If not then that's definitely a design flaw in my book.

I guess if you're doing some special tour or know the right people you can view the indoor area, but otherwise no.

 

[redpanda]

No you can't.

I thought you could, in an on-show day-room which has the partition pulled back in winter. Certainly, there is the ability to do this as I have seen pictures of the exhibit's fabricators interacting with gorillas in a small but naturalistic (although all quite uniformly grey) indoor enclosure from the visitor galleries.

 

[mweb08]

I thought you could, in an on-show day-room which has the partition pulled back in winter. Certainly, there is the ability to do this as I have seen pictures of the exhibit's fabricators interacting with gorillas in a small but naturalistic (although all quite uniformly grey) indoor enclosure from the visitor galleries.

Yes, you can, I stand corrected.

Anyway, I would be interested if anyone has any thoughts on ranking the examples I mentioned in my first post.

 

[reduakari]

I thought you could, in an on-show day-room which has the partition pulled back in winter. Certainly, there is the ability to do this as I have seen pictures of the exhibit's fabricators interacting with gorillas in a small but naturalistic (although all quite uniformly grey) indoor enclosure from the visitor galleries.

As Zooplantman pointed out elsewhere, there is indoor winter viewing of a portion of the much larger indoor dayroom at Congo. I would not describe it as "uniformly grey," as although the exhibit elements are constructed of concrete and epoxy, they are finely detailed with painted lichens, moss, bark textures etc, just as all of the artificial elements are in the outdoor habitats. And again, while the space visible to the public is rather small, the gorillas have the choice of being in that space or using the much larger, two-story skylighted dayroom area behind the public zone.

There is no question that Congo as a whole is a far less satisfying experience in the winter months than during the rest of the year, as the okapis, red river hogs, mandrills, DeBrazzas and colobus are not visible when the weather requires them to be kept in their off-exhibit indoor spaces. But I'll take 7 months of brilliance over 12 months of mediocrity any time--the animals have great spaces year round, but the Congo visitor immersion experience is by necessity seasonal.

 

[redpanda]

As Zooplantman pointed out elsewhere, there is indoor winter viewing of a portion of the much larger indoor dayroom at Congo. I would not describe it as "uniformly grey," as although the exhibit elements are constructed of concrete and epoxy, they are finely detailed with painted lichens, moss, bark textures etc, just as all of the artificial elements are in the outdoor habitats. And again, while the space visible to the public is rather small, the gorillas have the choice of being in that space or using the much larger, two-story skylighted dayroom area behind the public zone.

Perhaps "uniformly grey" was a bad way of putting it, as the indoor enclosure does look good - what I meant was that the lack of greenery is obvious in comparison to the magnificent outdoor exhibit.

 

[Zooplantman]

So what are we to make of the Bronx Zoo's daring idea to provide only a small winter view...and to let the gorillas choose whether or not to come into it for the visitors?

Here's a story:
I was watching visitors at this winter viewing area one day. One or two adult female gorillas were on view, sitting on the "fallen tree" or on the ground. Several younger animals were there, and a tussle broke out among the young gorillas. They were getting loud and very rambunctious...the visitors were loving it.
SUDDENLY, the silverback jumped in out of "nowhere" from between two "trees", scaring the hell out of gorillas and visitors alike! He beat his chest and stood glaring.
Everyone got quiet. He sat there for a moment, then got up, turned and left...out of sight (back to the dayroom).
That was one of my favorite all time zoo moments.

 

[mweb08]

As Zooplantman pointed out elsewhere, there is indoor winter viewing of a portion of the much larger indoor dayroom at Congo. I would not describe it as "uniformly grey," as although the exhibit elements are constructed of concrete and epoxy, they are finely detailed with painted lichens, moss, bark textures etc, just as all of the artificial elements are in the outdoor habitats. And again, while the space visible to the public is rather small, the gorillas have the choice of being in that space or using the much larger, two-story skylighted dayroom area behind the public zone.

There is no question that Congo as a whole is a far less satisfying experience in the winter months than during the rest of the year, as the okapis, red river hogs, mandrills, DeBrazzas and colobus are not visible when the weather requires them to be kept in their off-exhibit indoor spaces. But I'll take 7 months of brilliance over 12 months of mediocrity any time--the animals have great spaces year round, but the Congo visitor immersion experience is by necessity seasonal.

Can we get off the CGF topic please?

Again, not talking about CGF, what about the hypothetical I listed in my first post? My point was not to compare 7 months of brilliance over 12 months of mediocrity.

 

[reduakari]

Can we get off the CGF topic please?

Again, not talking about CGF, what about the hypothetical I listed in my first post? My point was not to compare 7 months of brilliance over 12 months of mediocrity.

Well wouldn't it be nice if the whole world had the "perfect" San diego climate (although there are plenty of animals and people for whom an over-irrigated coastal desert is probably NOT the ideal climate). If anything, exhibits that can overcome the realities of the natural climate/landscape they are located in should probably get "extra points" for successfully pulling off simulations of exotic locations. Building a "rainforest" in the Bronx is much harder than doing it in Singapore--or San Diego.

And don't forget that zoos in northern temperate climates tend to get far fewer visitors in the winter months, making any huge investment in elaborate indoor viewing areas a losing proposition. Zoos in places like Toronto, Calgary and Minnesota spent huge sums making their zoos "work" year round, but still attract the vast majority of their visitors in the summer. Conversely no one in their right mind visits the Phoenix zoo in mid-summer.

 

[mweb08]

Well wouldn't it be nice if the whole world had the "perfect" San diego climate (although there are plenty of animals and people for whom an over-irrigated coastal desert is probably NOT the ideal climate). If anything, exhibits that can overcome the realities of the natural climate/landscape they are located in should probably get "extra points" for successfully pulling off simulations of exotic locations. Building a "rainforest" in the Bronx is much harder than doing it in Singapore--or San Diego.

And don't forget that zoos in northern temperate climates tend to get far fewer visitors in the winter months, making any huge investment in elaborate indoor viewing areas a losing proposition. Zoos in places like Toronto, Calgary and Minnesota spent huge sums making their zoos "work" year round, but still attract the vast majority of their visitors in the summer. Conversely no one in their right mind visits the Phoenix zoo in mid-summer.

Ok, so given two equal zoos(during warmer months), you'd rather be a member of the one in a colder climate compared to a warmer climate since you would give that one bonus points? Interesting.

Yes, it's more challenging in northern zoos for the most part, but I don't see why that should be considered when judging which is better after the end result is produced.

When you give a list of your favorite movies, are you considering budget or challenges based on where they shot it or whatever?

I would say it's great that the movie that took 10 million to make it almost as good as the one that took 100 million, but that still doesn't change the fact that the more expensive one is better.

 

[reduakari]

Ok, so given two equal zoos(during warmer months), you'd rather be a member of the one in a colder climate compared to a warmer climate since you would give that one bonus points? Interesting.

Yes, it's more challenging in northern zoos for the most part, but I don't see why that should be considered when judging which is better after the end result is produced.

When you give a list of your favorite movies, are you considering budget or challenges based on where they shot it or whatever?

I would say it's great that the movie that took 10 million to make it almost as good as the one that took 100 million, but that still doesn't change the fact that the more expensive one is better.

I would rather visit the Bronx in July to see CGF and Phoenix to see their Deserts of the World exhibit in March than to be a member of SDZS and see Elephant Odyssey anytime of the year! Just because a great exhibit is not great 100% of the year does not take points away from it, in my book.

 

[mweb08]

I would rather visit the Bronx in July to see CGF and Phoenix to see their Deserts of the World exhibit in March than to be a member of SDZS and see Elephant Odyssey anytime of the year! Just because a great exhibit is not great 100% of the year does not take points away from it, in my book.

Not answering my question regarding the membership there, but whatever.

Ok, so just to be clear, you only judge the outdoor parts of indoor/outdoor exhibits when ranking them?

 

[reduakari]

Not answering my question regarding the membership there, but whatever.

Ok, so just to be clear, you only judge the outdoor parts of indoor/outdoor exhibits when ranking them?

I would only be a member of a zoo in a city I lived in, so your question is meaningless.

I have certainly seen some examples of places that had very good indoor AND outdoor great ape exhibits (to stick to the topic you brought up)--Leipzig's Pongoland comes to mind. But I still think CGF is a better exhibit, even though the interior EXHIBIT space (not holding area) is done in a minimal way. Again, like 80-90% of the visitors to the Bronx, I go when the weather is good, and the gorillas are outside in all the glory of the best simulation of an African rainforest ever done in a zoo.

 

[mweb08]

I would only be a member of a zoo in a city I lived in, so your question is meaningless.

I have certainly seen some examples of places that had very good indoor AND outdoor great ape exhibits (to stick to the topic you brought up)--Leipzig's Pongoland comes to mind. But I still think CGF is a better exhibit, even though the interior EXHIBIT space (not holding area) is done in a minimal way. Again, like 80-90% of the visitors to the Bronx, I go when the weather is good, and the gorillas are outside in all the glory of the best simulation of an African rainforest ever done in a zoo.

The question is not meaningless, but you apparently don't really want to address this issue much, so you just say things like that instead.

And once again, this thread isn't about CGF.