Although I would be inclined to agree with Stubeanz' point about the lack of furnishing, I fail to see the points that you, snowleopard, are trying to make.
1) They are not bird houses, just generic wooden boxes (rather more like dog kennels than anything). Even if they were bird houses, that doesn't, by default, make them unusable by the porcupines. In the wild, where the climate is much harsher, they rarely have the use of a shelter at all.
2) Dead branches. Virtually all branches used as cage furnishings in every zoo in the world are dead. Once cut, the branch does not continue to live. I've seen North American Porcupines kept with both live and dead trees in other zoos and private collections and and none of them appeared to be any better or worse off. They don't seem to gnaw the bark (as I would have thought they would) so I fail to see how a living tree is better for them than dead.
3) Why do people invariably link the cost of enclosure construction to the welfare of its inmates? Does an enclosure have to cost the Earth to meet their needs? And I'm not suggesting that this enclosure neccessarily does (though I don't think it is at all bad). This is an age-old argument that will never be settled i.e. is it only the super-zoos with mega-budgets like san diego that can justify keeping animals in captivity? I like variety and accept that no two zoos are the same - so there will always be comparisons to be made.
As Zoochat supporter, snowleopard, I am dissapointed that you are not a little more objective in your criticisms.
@Paradoxurus: I've been biting my tongue lately on this forum, but this enclosure is so barren and disappointing that hopefully the owners of "Axe Valley" will read this dialogue and contemplate fixing up their sad-sack porcupine enclosure.
The reference to bird houses was done in pure jest, as the basic wooden boxes on top of the sticks do actually resemble homes for our avian friends. My personal opinion is that this is an extremely pitiful enclosure, and it is devoid of anything resembling foliage. Ideally a mature tree or two in a small wooded area would be perfect for North American porcupines, but this exhibit is as basic as it gets. Even a single bush, a strand of leaves dangling from one of the dead branches, or anything that even remotely resembles the wild rather than an exposed group of branches would be better than what is on offer here. If one believes that it is acceptable to house porcupines in such a nondescript enclosure then what sort of information does that relay back to the viewing public? This exhibit could easily be erected in someone's backyard.
I agree completely that there is nothing resemblig foliage - is that what has led you to draw the opinion that it is "extremely pitiful? My personal opinion is that it suits the animals needs pretty well to the extent that this pair have bred - quite an achievement considering the species track record in the UK. I think the term "extremely pitiful" is extreme in itself and one that I would confine to the enclosure I saw once at another collection where the tree porcupines were in a concrete pit with nothing to climb on at all. By that measure this enclosure is positively palatial and why I will staunchly defend it.
Ideally a mature tree or two in a small wooded area would be perfect for North American porcupines, but this exhibit is as basic as it gets. Even a single bush, a strand of leaves dangling from one of the dead branches, or anything that even remotely resembles the wild rather than an exposed group of branches would be better than what is on offer here.
Do you think that the animals would benefit from "a strand of leaves dangling from one of the dead branches"? Do you think they suffer from being exposed? (exposed to what? The weather? Remind me what the climate is like in this species natural range?)
For zoo animals to live fit and healthy lives does not require an exact replica of their natural environment and need not neccessarily resemble it at all. Considering how animal husbandry has changed over the years I think this enclosure does show ingenuity. Not all that long ago species lke this would have been shown (and I'm sure still are in many places in the world) in simple mesh and concrete cages with little or no furnishing at all.
As a professional keeper, I will always look at the condition of the animals as a gauge of their welfare and not their enclosure. The Porcupines here are in fine fettle - they are relaxed, breed, are in good physical shape and show no signs of abnormal behaviours.
If one believes that it is acceptable to house porcupines in such a nondescript enclosure then what sort of information does that relay back to the viewing public?
Are your complaints about the welfare or educational aspects of the enclosure? I like to think that the visitors that really are interested will leave with the notions that North American Porcupines live in trees rather than burrow in the ground, that they are not good jumpers (hence the low fence and the poximity of the branches to it.), that they can tolerate a very harsh climate so don't need a large heated house. Indeed there are many things that can be learnt about this species by looking at them and the enclosure they are kept in here.
What a meaningless thing to say. Is this a dig at its size? At the materials used to construct it? What? The fact that someone could have constructed it in their back yard = bad?
I would hope that as a forum of zoo-enthusiasts our outlook on zoos would be largely a positive one - or certainly we should be able to identify and recognise the positive aspects of zoo enclosures that are raised as topics for discussion on here. To be fair, I don't have the time to follow more than a few threads on here but most of the comments I read of yours, snowleopard, are critical of zoos to the extent that I wouldn't class you as an enthusiast at all - at the very least a supporter of only a very exclusive number of them. I'm sure PETA or Zoocheck have an online forum that would welcome you with open arms.
@Paradoxurus: I respect your opinion, and your staunch defense of what I personally believe to be a substandard porcupine enclosure (at best!) is intriguing. I have lavished praise more often than I have criticized during my years here at ZooChat, but sadly there are still far too many below average zoos in comparison to great ones. I expect the best from all zoos, and changes can be made by being critical of present conditions. In regards to this simplistic exhibit we will have to agree to disagree.
@Paradoxurus: I respect your opinion, and your staunch defense of what I personally believe to be a substandard porcupine enclosure (at best!) is intriguing. I have lavished praise more often than I have criticized during my years here at ZooChat, but sadly there are still far too many below average zoos in comparison to great ones.
You've an interesting definition of average - surely by definition there should be about as many 'above average' as 'below average' or it isn't an average!
But is it really necessary to lay into zoos for not having the money or the inclination to dress exhibits up with fancy landscaping? I'd like to see some planting in here (as would everyone who's so far posted), but it'd be mostly aesthetic and if funds are tight I'd rather the zoo spent their funds on animal care, not visitor aesthetics.
Do you have any criticisms of this exhibit that are animal welfare-related rather than based on looks? (that's not a sarcastic question, I'm interested! )
Snowleopard, I sometimes wonder if you really comprehend how zoos in the United Kingdom differ from those in the United States, and why comparisons of the type you're so fond of making are unfair.
In the United States, the overwhelming majority of zoos - in fact, all of the ones that you admire so much - are subsidised by the federal (1), state (2) or city (many) governments. The few that are private not-for-profits (like Bronx) have at their disposal enormous endowments and networks of wealthy sponsors. They do not need to fund their seven or eight figure capital investments through the gate. That allows them to be much more spend-thrift when it comes to building the mega-exhibits you like so much.
In the United Kingdom, by contrast, zoos are overwhelmingly either non-profit charitable societies, or for-profit medium or small-sized enterprises. Only a couple - Colchester and Blackpool, for example - are parts of bigger corporate entities.
Either way, the result is that zoos actually have to pay, themselves, for the exhibits they build. So no, they're not Woodland Park or Bronx. And that's perfectly fine.
This is pretty awful though, not because this species needs some simulated coniferous forest immersion experience with floor to ceiling glass viewing, but because it could easily, for the same price, have been built around one or two trees. It is pretty barren as enclosures go, although there are other collections that tend to give this species pretty basic housing. Just a missed opportunity.
And, for the record, successful breeding is not necessarily an indicator of a good enclosure.
