Annoying enclosures

F

foz

Well-Known Member
Waterfalls! why does every single tropical enclosure (often rainforest halls) have to feature waterfalls? okay yes they look nice and sound pretty but does every single exhibit need one? I mean really.

And temples! why are there so many ancient ruined temples in these rainforests? there are more ancient temples in zoos there there are in the actual rainforests!

Another thing: sound effects/music. why do zoos need to play music?? they just get really annoying hearing the same track again and again and they really do not enhance the experience at all!

What things annoy you with an enclosure??
 
I realize that this reply is a bit off-topic from a rant, but waterfalls and temples, specifically, are usually the response to design problems that the designers have no better idea for solving. It's not simply whether "every single exhibit need one"

That doesn't make them less annoying, of course
 
Being a photographer, I hate meshy enclosures, one of the reasons I hated Toronto's old wolf exhibit. It's far better than it used to be but there's still some of that mesh and I'd love a window viewing.

Waterfalls that come out from nowhere.
 
foz said:
What things annoy you with an enclosure??
Click to expand...

Fake Rockwork and Piped/taped Music. Both can be seen in abundance at one UK Zoo- Colchester...:D

Another thing they have is electric sliding doors activated by push buttons, to access many of the indoor exhibits- it can get seriously annoying after a while to constantly be pressing all the buttons..

I suppose I should add(yet again)- bare open enclosures for Apes(particularly Gorillas) where the animals hardly ever venture out doors because of the lack of cover, unless they are shut outside-which is then actually very stressful for them. Enclosures for Orangutans that provide only rigid or insufficient climbing equipment- there are still far too many of these about even now.
 
Last edited:
I personally dont mind waterfalls, I think they look good as well as providing some stimulation for the animals (if done properly). I really dont like too much glass in an exhibit though! some places end up looking like Aquariums without the water!
 
Vulpes said:
I personally dont mind waterfalls, I think they look good as well as providing some stimulation for the animals (if done properly). I really dont like too much glass in an exhibit though! some places end up looking like Aquariums without the water!
Click to expand...

I dont mind waterfalls, it just that practically every exhibit has one! it can get repetitive!
 
with regards to waterfalls, often they may be used to increase humidity or to mask other intrusive noises.
 
Blackduiker

Waterfalls don't bother me one bit, what really bothers me are low overhead encloses, especially for birds and primates. Or any species that should have adequate climbing space. If I were a director, I would make it one of my first priorities to raise these enclosures by at least another 5 or 6 feet. The Los Angeles Zoo has had this problem for years, and it drives me berserk. They have made some adjustments over the years, but still much more is needed. This is particularly true in several of the Roundhouses. I seldom visit certain exhibits anymore because of this; ah, if only they could all be replaced with Francois' Langur type habitats, then I'd truly be happy.
 
My pet peeve is out of place mixed-species exhibits which are supposed to indicate an actual place. If animals are mixed willy-nilly, that's fine, just don't call it an African savannah. Scimitar-horned oryx, blesbok, and Grant's zebras live further away from each other than grizzly bears and alligators do. Also, Madagascar is not Africa, lemurs don't belong with hippos! At least not in an "African Safari". I even get kinda annoyed with the treatment New Guinea gets. It is not really a part of Asia. As far as zoos should be concerned, Asia ends at Wallace's Line. Rant over. I feel better. ;)
 
As a bit of a photographer I hate enclosures full of concrete and grass NO shrubs or plantation of any sort to even resemble the actual living area of the animal in the wild.
Also old style metal fronts, mesh and bars do annoy me. This one really whines me up how about the zoo's that keep the animals outside all day long by shutting the entrances back into the night enclosures so the animal is there to view all day long no matter what! This seems to happen only in the big zoo's (from experience)
 
foz said:
Another annoyance those little rubbish signs (often for bird species) that is only a few centimeters wide/across and has the birds name, picture and a coloured in map! How on earth do you expect to visitors to learn something when you have such uninspiring rubbish signs!
Click to expand...

Indeed! Clin Keeling used to call them "Name, rank and number" style which I think is amusing & spot on.
 
Well the 17 meter high waterfall in Burgers Bush(highest waterfall in the Netherlands) is very important for the humidity, but this doesn't count for many other waterfalls in enclosure/small rainforest houses.
 
Meaghan Edwards said:
Being a photographer, I hate meshy enclosures, one of the reasons I hated Toronto's old wolf exhibit. It's far better than it used to be but there's still some of that mesh and I'd love a window viewing.

Waterfalls that come out from nowhere.
Click to expand...

For me and my lenses, meshy enclosures are fine because I'll use a tighter aperature and shot through them. However, exhibits with prison bars annoy me for this very reason. I'm also not a fan of indoor buildings with super low lights for this reason (unless for the animals, of course).

Little annoys me more in an exhibit than a lack of space on the side of the visitors. Let's face it: your a zoo. You KNOW during the dummer things are going to get crowded and some idiot (though I'm sure not snowleopard and his newest! ;)) is going to push their two-baby stroller right up to the glass. As a result, why not make SOME space for visitors to see? I've been to exhibits that can barely fit me in front of the viewing pane--let alone someone else.

Another thing is a lack of aesthetic. Hard to explain but I don't want to see large and formidable metal gates right in the middle of an exhibit. It ruins it. See the jungle-ish Islands building at the Louisville Zoo.
 
Naturalistic exhibit, but buildings, holding doors, background, boardwalk destroy the view.

Climbing structure of a few thick, vertical logs and ropes, not suitable or interesting for climbing.
 
Ituri said:
Also, Madagascar is not Africa,
Click to expand...

Except it is! Although, of course, you're absolutely right re the zoo-geographic theming of exhibits, and the way zoos play fast and loose with it...

..but not as right as those who decry piped music. Particularly when it has an, erm, ethnic flavour to add to the supposedly exotic feel of a place. Don't know if they're still doing it, but Marwell used to have this between the giraffes and the bongo house. Terrible!
 
my understanding of waterfalls and water features is to prevent animals from climbing or escaping out of the enclosure, without the need for higher fences or glass walls.

the one thing that annoys me is people who walk past an exhibit and say out aloud whats in here, i can't see anything. without looking at the display lables and pictures
 
Hannah fish said:
my understanding of waterfalls and water features is to prevent animals from climbing or escaping out of the enclosure, without the need for higher fences or glass walls.
Click to expand...
huh? This just brings to mind a bizarre image of a little island surrounded by thundering waterfalls and the animal cowering in the middle lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top