Why not the soft life like us?

[bazzoobuilder]

Now here’s a personal opinion that I would expect the vast majority of this sites members to disagree with. What would be interesting is if there is anybody who agrees with me.
The public expect to see natural or themed enclosures and most zoos have moved towards the most natural environments possible and reject interaction with animals to avoid unnecessary stress and the like. Generally I agree that enclosures look better these days but do all the animals actually prefer them?
Dose anybody remember Bristol zoos old monkey temple (It was closed years ago as totally unnatural) I think the monkeys loved it, they would swing round it and dive in and out of the doors.
My dog loves to be in the house by the fire and I’m doubtful he would prefer to roam in woods having to catch his own food.
Some people keep other animals in the house, pig’s monkeys and I suspect a lot more, all the ones I’ve seen (that are well kept) appear to love the attention and the soft life. I don’t think I would benefit much from shedding my clothing and moving into a cave.

So anybody think that there are a lot of animals that would prefer a more unnatural environment given the chance?
If not why not?

 

[Hannah fish]

I think a lot of zoo animals would love the "soft" environment as opposed to their natural environment. Have a look at how Adelaide zoo's new pandas are relating to their keepers. But isn't the idea of a zoo to help educate and contribute to conservation. We would have a generation of kids who think its normal behaviour for meerkats to play with a ball of string with their keeper or servals to b cuddling up with their keepers.

zoo animals will never lead a completely natural life, but its important to ensure their enclosure and daily activities resemble as close to nature as possible

 

[Pertinax]

Dose anybody remember Bristol zoos old monkey temple (It was closed years ago as totally unnatural) I think the monkeys loved it, they would swing round it and dive in and out of the doors.

In fact some wild Rhesus Monkeys troops live in built-up areas among buildings, so this temple effect wasn't as unnatural as the Zoo came to think. It was a good exhibit, plenty of space for the large troop of macaques. I remember the dominant male used to do a 'dance' on the dome on top.

 

[Zooplantman]

I would not be at all surprised to learn that some or many animals "prefer" the "soft life." Actually, how many obese, ill dogs do you know, enjoying that soft life?

Humans seem to and as a result (those that get to have such a life) are also obese and in poor health. The only reason we live longer than our ancestors is improved medicine and clean drinking water.

So what is the role of an animals "preference" in deciding how to best care for it?

 

[Simon McGlary]

This is probably the dilemma zoos face, replicate the animals natural environment or some kind of them within the enclosure. I think the penguin and fur seal enclosures at Bristol are really good. Even in the wild animals would use man made features to some extent if it could be to there advantage. It's pretty much about making there lives interesting whilst at the same time making the enclosure interesting to look at. The complexity involved in enclosure design is quite remarkable. One species of big cat might be quite happy in an enclosure that is too small and overgrown for, say, a family of bushdogs. Not everyone likes a "soft" life. Some people quite enjoy living from the land and are quite happy not to have satelite TV and broadband internet. Just like us, animals are very different and what is an ideal enclosure for one Amur tiger, for example, might be the worst for another individual. Whilst keepers might work with a "hands off" policy, they still have to understand and know the charecteristics of each individual in their care! I think the real trick as a zoo keeper must be to be able to provide a healthy diet with a life that is both mentally and physically stimulating for the animals.
Personally I think the best enclosures are ones that allow the animals to make choices. I now don't have a problem if I can't see an animal if I can see that it has the option to take itself away from people's gaze. I know others might think differently but it shows the difficulty any animals based "attraction" has There is no perfect enclosure, purely by that name, "enclosure". It's about making that enclosure as comfortable and as enriching for the occupants, just as we, as humans, work on getting our homes as comfortable and enriching for ourselves. It's just that the animals don't have a voice to say "I don't think I really like that shade of green after all!"

 

[Jurek7]

We talked about it before. Animals don't seem to mind eg. resting on wooden platform instead of real tree.

And good zoos combine them, making exhibit which is both naturalistic and good for animals.

 

[zelda]

Wasn't the issue with the temple exhibit that it kept slicing off the tip of the monkey's tails, not that it was too fantastical or unnatural?

I don't think animals care what it looks like, just what it does i.e. swaying branches vs rope. BUT naturalistic exhibits are often a symbol that the designers have thought about the animals needs and consdered their activity budget in the wild when furnishing the enclosure. Plus of course there's the educational aspect - ideally all enclosures would have local plants, soil etc to really teach about that habitat. Of course that's not going to happen but we can dream.

 

[Pertinax]

Wasn't the issue with the temple exhibit that it kept slicing off the tip of the monkey's tails, not that it was too fantastical or unnatural?

I never heard that, and don't remember any Monkeys with shortened tails. However I imagine if it was so it was the little swinging metal flap doors into the Temple that did it(I can still recall the sound they made..).

I always thought it was a great exhibit. Apparently sometimes in the evenings after visitors had gone, one or two Monkeys would somehow scale the wall and run around the top of the perimeter wall and then jump back in again.

 

[bazzoobuilder]

I’m an old soft living man who loves animals ( I’m overweight but my dog isn’t by the way)and am sorry to see some of the old animal contact going (From the point of view of a zoo visitor) you used to be able to touch and feed so many animals. When I was a kid you could ride on the elephants let alone touch them. A lot of exotic animals where kept as pets very successfully by caring owners in “unnatural environments” and they obviously loved it. Zoo keepers always went in with there animals whatever they were.

It’s not like that now for so many good reasons, some of the terrible places some of the animals had to live in ( sorry exist in) and the cruelty some owners inflicted was (still is and will be in the future) unimaginably horrible.
I just hope we don’t go too far with this natural environment and as nature intended thing. How could you anyway? Anybody fancy being an animal with no vets, food on a feast and faming basis starvation to control overpopulation and always something trying to eat you?

In my opinion zoos are an important tool in animal conservation, as much because they link us emotionally to animals as anything else. People who donate to conservation projects, people who are active in animal welfare even the extremist animal rights lot (who have at times done some good stuff) will have had their love of animals moulded partly by good contact with animals and the presents of so many good zoos.

Don’t keep them its cruel.
Don’t touch them there dirty.
Leave them to fend for them self’s its natural.

Sorry but I can’t agree with any of that.

 

[Panthera Puss]

I would not be at all surprised to learn that some or many animals "prefer" the "soft life." Actually, how many obese, ill dogs do you know, enjoying that soft life?

Being a child of the 70-80's, I can't help thinking of this as Tricky Woo syndrome.

Talking about a 'soft' life is an anthropomorphism that has no essential meaning for animals. Having watched an ex 'entertainment' industry tiger (who only knew how to pace up and down) be magically transformed into a real tiger happily working for his food - tiring himself out up and down hill, using all his senses and physical attributes - by use of scatter feeding in a challenging, naturalistic enclosure, I would say the only debate is about how to care well for animals by offering them the opportunities to express their natural behaviours. That doesn't mean you don't open the den door to let them go inside if they want on a rough winter's day. No different to how you bring up children, essentially - if they're never taken out to do physical stuff and learn about the countryside, etc, you end up with fat lazy kids with no interest in the world.

 

[bazzoobuilder]

Being a child of the 70-80's, I can't help thinking of this as Tricky Woo syndrome.

Talking about a 'soft' life is an anthropomorphism that has no essential meaning for animals. Having watched an ex 'entertainment' industry tiger (who only knew how to pace up and down) be magically transformed into a real tiger happily working for his food - tiring himself out up and down hill, using all his senses and physical attributes - by use of scatter feeding in a challenging, naturalistic enclosure, I would say the only debate is about how to care well for animals by offering them the opportunities to express their natural behaviours. That doesn't mean you don't open the den door to let them go inside if they want on a rough winter's day. No different to how you bring up children, essentially - if they're never taken out to do physical stuff and learn about the countryside, etc, you end up with fat lazy kids with no interest in the world.

Very good post but I had to look up "Tricky Woo"

 

[Panthera Puss]

Very good post but I had to look up "Tricky Woo"

Yes, a little obscure if you're not a certain age - Tricky Woo was the spoilt, obese & humanised pooch of Mrs Pomphrey in the James Herriott books (and particularly the All Creatures Great & Small TV series). There was one episode especially where Tricky went to stay for a while in the vets' house where he was a different animal, losing weight and running with the other dogs, generally having a different world opened up to him and enjoying 'doggy' stuff. Of course he reverted to his spoilt ways on return to Mrs Pomphrey, much to the annoyance of the vets!

 

[^Chris^]

Wasn't the issue with the temple exhibit that it kept slicing off the tip of the monkey's tails, not that it was too fantastical or unnatural?

I had read that, though can't remember where. I think pertinax is right in saying it was something to do with the doors.