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.
Well, it's hard to imagine that the UK Government will ever be convinced that zoos are worthy of government investment (which is generous and abundant for museums and other cultural facilities--not to mention public services like health care) if they look at amateurish examples like this raccoon yard.
Well, it's hard to imagine that the UK Government will ever be convinced that zoos are worthy of government investment (which is generous and abundant for museums and other cultural facilities--not to mention public services like health care) if they look at amateurish examples like this raccoon yard.
The UK govermnent is unlikely to start giving zoos subsidy even if they only looked at the very best - at the Chesters and Edinburghs - for the simple reason that they will see this as a case of 'they've got by so far - why should we need to subsidise?' (particularly in a country in the midst of recovery from a recession with a likely change of government looming).
I haven't seen this exhibit in the flesh so I'm not going to defend it tooth and nail but equally I'm not going to write it off for being built on a budget. All zoos have to start somewhere.
As an aside, johnstoni offered a fair critique of the exhibit with sensible suggestions of how it could have been better within the zoo's means. Snowleopard made a cheap shot about the cost. It's not always the point you're making, but the way you make it.
EDIT: just wanted to clarify that last bit, as when I read it back it looked a bit snarky, which wasn't the intention at all. I was just saying that the reaction to snowleopard's post was so great because he made no allowance for the conditions the zoo operates under (i.e. not a lot of cash), whereas johnstoni's is much more fair because that post recognises these conditions and says, 'given that, they could still have done this...'.
A few points that spring to mind about this thread.
Yes many American zoos luxuriate with state or city funding which UK zoos do not. Which means they can spend thousands of dollars on themeing rather small pokey enclosures or barren pits.
Anyone that has kept tree porcupines knows that they would reduce living trees or plants to matchwood over night, any real trees would have to be protected and rendered un-climbable and be for aesthetics only.
Some zoo operators, large or small may be encyclopedic about the animals in their care but know jack **** about design.
A few points that spring to mind about this thread.
Yes many American zoos luxuriate with state or city funding which UK zoos do not. Which means they can spend thousands of dollars on themeing rather small pokey enclosures or barren pits.
A short flight to the east of the British Isles takes you to a land where zoos that "luxuriate" with government funding (i.e Rotterdam) and some that exist only on what they can earn (Arnhem) consistently offer exhibits that are both good for their animals AND aesthetically appealing. The sheer numbers of tiny "hobbyist" zoos in the UK virtually guarantees a large number of banal enclosures like this one.
A short flight to the west of the British Isles takes you to a land where zoos that "luxuriate" with government funding (i.e Rotterdam) and some that exist only on what they can earn (Arnhem) consistently offer exhibits that are both good for their animals AND aesthetically appealing. The sheer numbers of tiny "hobbyist" zoos in the UK virtually guarantees a large number of banal enclosures like this one.
Rotterdam and Arnhem are both excellent places and among my very favourite zoos. Just picking Rotterdam and Arnhem doesn't really give a representative spread of Dutch zoos though.
I would agree that Dutch zoos are possibly better than UK ones on average, but that doesn't mean there are no small basic collections. Again, it feels like small zoos are being picked on just for existing, like only the big, high-turnover places have a right to operate.
Out of interest snowleopard, do you really believe that "a strand of leaves" would cause visitors to walk away with a sudden respect for the tree porcupine? Even you point out the stupidity of that suggestion here, where you call the attempt at introducing "a strand of leaves" as "ridiculous":
I see that my initial comment in regards to this enclosure for porcupines has led to an interesting debate, and at least a few others have agreed with me on the status of the exhibit in question. Often if an individual on ZooChat makes a rather benign comment on a photo then nothing occurs other than a few extra viewings of that photo, but by me tossing out a word such as "pitiful" it has created a fantastic debate on the merits of aesthetically ranking zoo habitats. Also, there is now an intriguing discussion on the value of "backyard menageries" that must engage in an annual struggle for adequate finances.
On another photo I made a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from a small British zoo and to compare it to a mega-budget Texas collection. Fort Worth Zoo spent over $60 million in 2001 to open the 6-acre "Texas Wild!", which has some noteworthy sections but overall is disappointing in terms of animal exhibits and includes a terrible porcupine enclosure. Axe Valley Bird and Animal Park must have a miniscule budget in comparison to Fort Worth, and so I made a conscious effort not to just pick on a smaller establishment but also a big-name zoo. I think that I've been fair in my assessment of both porcupine enclosures, and if I had to choose I actually think that the Axe Valley exhibit is much better.
Impressive North American porcupine exhibits???:
Duisburg Zoo: (lots of climbing opportunities, but not purposefully built for porcupines)
Snowleopard - you seem congenitally incapable of praising an exhibit without referring to its cost. It's always the "$50million this" or the "$27million that".
It seems like you measure exhibits - and zoos generally - by their financial muscle.
@CGSwans: you have a valid point, but the zoos with annual budgets of $30-50 million are miles ahead of the smaller establishments and I do have my moments when I believe that the poorly designed, so-called "lesser" parks give a bad name to zoos overall and tarnish the image of wildlife attractions worldwide.
I just read John Knowles's autobiography "My Marwellous Life" and he discusss British zoos by saying: "we were amongst the poorest in the developed world, with the single exception of the two excellent John Aspinall zoos which were supported by his upmarket gambling casinos. Although able to attract occasional legacies and sponsorships we did not live in a culture of giving such as that which benefited so many of our North American colleagues". There are times when I forget how financially strapped British zoos are, which explains the lack of big-budget immersion exhibits found in U.K. zoos, as well as many of the exhibit photos found in the ZooChat gallery. I live in Canada, a massive nation that also has a plethora of small wildlife parks that struggle for cash and are generally of a subpar quality. Perhaps that explains why I have a passion for the excellent and gargantuan American zoos found south of my country's border. I'm a huge fan of the Barclays English Premiership, and the mega zoos in the United States (San Diego, Bronx, Omaha, Columbus, Miami, etc) are equivalent to the great football teams in England (Chelsea, Man United, Chelsea, Everton (my team), Arsenal, etc). Those zoos, and those football teams, are FAR superior to their peers, and while there is a place for everything positive in this world there will always be the premier organizations in all walks of life.
