isn't just dismissing the exhibit, it's also dismissing anyone who happens to think that this is perfectly acceptable. Which I do. (because it is )
I'm coming to think there are real cultural differences at work here - British zoo visitors (in my experience) simply don't react in that negative way to things that are cheap and simple unless they are far more decrepit than this. You are clearly very confident that the zoo visitors of your experience would, and you're much better placed to know that than me. Maybe it's exposure and expectations. I genuinely do not believe that this exhibit conveys anything more negative than any other small(er) aviary.
I, too, am all for freedom of speech - and that extends to our right to express our frustration!
I think the issue is almost more how the opinion is expressed than the actual opinion that leads to the frustration. Saying:
isn't just dismissing the exhibit, it's also dismissing anyone who happens to think that this is perfectly acceptable. Which I do. (because it is )
I'm coming to think there are real cultural differences at work here - British zoo visitors (in my experience) simply don't react in that negative way to things that are cheap and simple unless they are far more decrepit than this. You are clearly very confident that the zoo visitors of your experience would, and you're much better placed to know that than me. Maybe it's exposure and expectations. I genuinely do not believe that this exhibit conveys anything more negative than any other small(er) aviary.
With no disrespect intended to reduakari, please don't apply reduakari's opinion to a whole continent. While I do agree with reduakari occaisionally about some exhibit critiques, I think this one was WAY over the top. Reduakari is entitled to their opinion, just don't assume it's always shared by us all.
On a side note, this actually reminds me of exhibits in many of the smaller municipal and privately run zoos in small towns in the US. The Willow Park Zoo in Logan, UT is an example of this. VERY small budget, but they do the best with what they have. (Mostly waterfowl and a few natives)
Sorry I if offended - I wasn't actually suggesting that's how everyone in North America thinks, but was just trying to see how reduakari has come to this rather dogmatic position (I was careful to refer to the zoo visitors of reduakari's experience, not 'American zoo visitors', as there's an important difference).
One of the reasons I posted that was it has occurred to me before as an explanation for some of the more over-the-top criticisms of exhibits from small zoos, and was interested to see what other members made of it. (not much it seems! )
I guess it's just a simple case of how highly you rate the visitor's POV when rating an exhibit. To me, the acceptable/unacceptable animal exhibit boundary is at the point where the exhibit may be harmful for the animal. If the exhibit meets the animals' needs, then it is acceptable - aesthetics and good viewing and all of that are desirable but not a requirement to be an 'acceptable' exhibit. It's interesting that reduakari's criticisms here are for the most part aesthetic - the mesh, for example - whereas if I was going to criticise anything it would be the space available to the occupants.
I am with you Maguari . Blackbrook has a superb bird collection with many species not seen elsewhere in the UK . It is also developing at quite a speed with newer exhibits being more ambitious and aesthetically pleasing . The older aviaries surrounding the Car Park are not particularly small and all birds visible look to be in excellent condition , I am sure they benefit from being able to hide when they wish .
Just for the record this aviary is about 15 years old and is passed its time, but i think most of the newer enclosures at Blackbrook are at a much higher standard. As has been posted Blackbrook is only a small collection in terms of visitor attendance but has quite a large bird collection so it takes time to fund future developments. I think most zoos have older parts which look far from up to modern zoo standards.
But which is better a shoddy looking enclosure which has lots of cover and shelter for its inhabitance or a modern, visually attractive enclosure with out such cover?
I don't think the birds care very much about the gauge of the mesh or the overlapped cladding! The enclosures are well planted, look clean, and provide plenty of cover for it's inhabitants. Remember the visionary Durrell philosophy about the enclosures being made for the benefit of it's inhabitants, and not for the gawping public! I think a good few american exhibits could do with remembering that.
That bloke is just a snob, and should be heartily ignored.
That's an aviary that has been simply built to do a job- its sturdy, rustic and well vegetated(which is how you have a better chance of breeding the birds). I can't see anything faulty here at all.
I'm tempted to add that it is/was one of Blackbrook's charms (and arguably evidence of its other worldliness) that an awful lot of the collection could be seen without ever paying to go in. A shop window is one thing, but I wonder just how many "visitors" never actually handed over any money at the till?
I'm tempted to add that it is/was one of Blackbrook's charms (and arguably evidence of its other worldliness) that an awful lot of the collection could be seen without ever paying to go in. A shop window is one thing, but I wonder just how many "visitors" never actually handed over any money at the till?
I've got to admit, slightly guiltily, that we once drove there and shortly before arrival the heavens opened, a serious and heavy downpour. We strolled around the external aviaries for about twenty to thirty minutes with no let up in the weather. At that point, not wanting to stroll around such an exposed park in such weather, we decided to "bail" and not go in that day. I think we went to either Gentleshaw or Palms Tropical Oasis instead (obviously seriously jonesing for an animal fix that day).
