The information you provide is correct. I have seen them in the wild and that is exactly how they live.
However trying to replicate this in captivity is virtually impossible- they would never be seen by visitors for a start. I think we have to accept that exhibits like this are the next best thing and that the monkeys tailor their behaviour accordingly..
Why is this "the next best thing?" There are numerous primate exhibits around the world that incorporate living vegetation, minimize or totally disguise the method of containment, include well-done simulations of natural features like streams, giant buttress root trees and lianas, and encourage animal visibility through built-in enrichment features like shelter, feeding opportunities etc. The Woodland Park Zoo example submitted by Snowleopard is just one.
These crude paddocks are fine for housing and breeding animals, but they are far from the "best thing" that can be done in terms of exhibition, which is a pretty important function of any public zoo!
I would say the argument for this species being housed in open space as opposed to a cage environment is that they do not seem to be adversely affected, behaviourally, from not having overhead canopy cover. This factor, for me, is the difference between Monkey World enclosures being excellent for their chimpanzees but not at all suitable for gorillas - the latter often won't use exposed outdoor space as discussed elsewhere on this forum.
I do prefer this exhibit to Bristol or Colchester's enclosures for the same species.
However, I think its a shame that the woodland areas of howletts weren't used for some large primate reserves in the way they have done with de brazza monkeys and colobus at Port Lympne. I suspect these exhibits were inexpensive and eye-catching enough to make good commercial sense though.
I would say the argument for this species being housed in open space as opposed to a cage environment is that they do not seem to be adversely affected, behaviourally, from not having overhead canopy cover. This factor, for me, is the difference between Monkey World enclosures being excellent for their chimpanzees but not at all suitable for gorillas - the latter often won't use exposed outdoor space as discussed elsewhere on this forum.
I do prefer this exhibit to Bristol or Colchester's enclosures for the same species.
However, I think its a shame that the woodland areas of howletts weren't used for some large primate reserves in the way they have done with de brazza monkeys and colobus at Port Lympne. I suspect these exhibits were inexpensive and eye-catching enough to make good commercial sense though.
I think you are right here on all three statements. The Liontailed Macaques- at least here, seem happy to use the whole of the enclosure space- they seem bold and do not keep to the sides or stay under shelters, though I have a feeling they are shut out into it during the daytime. It is far superior to Colchester's, and better than Bristol's or Chester's- its noticeable that Chester's with 'freechoice' do tend to stay inside rather than use the open island.
I too would have preferred to see the woodland area at the back of Howletts used for these newer exhibits for Monkeys, which could then have incorporated mature trees, but I think its a case of it being simpler and less costly for them to have built new enclosures where there was suitable unused areas, rather than having to deconstruct older enclosures first. But that 'woodland' walk would have been the ideal spot.
I also wish they could develop/utilise more of the wooded areas at Port Lympne for their Monkeys, specifically the Drills and Diana monkeys, which in contrast to the modern enclosures, still live in old style ones- from which they look out at large areas of unused woodland which would be perfect for them. Cost??
