Okay, here I go again. Are ALL British zoos so amateurishly and poorly designed? I've vented about the atrocities at Colchester and other places, but this place looks equally horrific. Is it really enough to put up an ugly mesh fence, throw some junk into it and call a place a zoo? No wonder ZooCheck, Born Free and other animal rights organizations are so strong in Great Britain--they have a lot of ammunition with these awful zoos strewn about the countryside.
This place is perfectly well designed, loads of money has clearly gone into the aesthetics.
It takes a lot to keep bears in, and when they're in a tiny little zoo like this there isn't any room for moats etc.
Don't make such a harsh judgement until you see it.
You lot across the pond may be all glitzed up with you're big immersions, but you can hardly call us actrocious. For example, do you think a bear's gonna find enrichment in a woodland which has no other stimulating features after a while, or in a space that although not to aethistic tastes provides little nooks and crannies and experiences they enjoy but wouldn't find in the wild?
You've got to realise that animal welfare comes first, Howlett's gorillas being a prime example. They're enclosures are made of steel without vegatation, yet the gorillas lead a more enriched and successful life than possibly any other zoo in the World.
Please don't call the zoos I grow up with horrendous, cos even if they don't LOOK natural, by gum the animal's will enjoy it. A definition of a horrible exhibit would be some of the Spanish zoos where they're living in the 19th century.
And the exhibit is a decent size, probably a bit small though. I have no idea of the measurements. It has a lot of soil and not concrete at all, the amount of digging the bears were doing shows how important the substrate is with bears.
Theres another photo Iv'e uploaded which shows most of the exhibit, it's kind of in an L shape and has a lot of climbing poles and a small treehouse type shelter.
This place is perfectly well designed, loads of money has clearly gone into the aesthetics.
It takes a lot to keep bears in, and when they're in a tiny little zoo like this there isn't any room for moats etc.
Don't make such a harsh judgement until you see it.
What? If "loads of money has clearly gone into aesthetics" I'd hate to see the place if NO money had been used for such purposes. If the zoo is so "tiny" it should not be keeping the rather extensive collection indicated by the photos posted. My "harsh judgement" is based directly on what I'm clearly seeing in the photos.
The animals here may very well be given excellent care, but the appearance of the homes they are provided with states very clearly that there is no thought given to the message that visitors take away: animals in crappy cages. Sad
This place is perfectly well designed, loads of money has clearly gone into the aesthetics.
It takes a lot to keep bears in, and when they're in a tiny little zoo like this there isn't any room for moats etc.
Don't make such a harsh judgement until you see it.
How can you say that lots of money has gone into the aesthetics. I'm not saying it's a bad exhibit, I was just saying that it isn't aesthetically pleasing on any level.
You are completely out of order saying this, as this zoo has the most conservation messages and information about the animals habitat's that I've ever seen! There's been a lot of money spent on rockwork, great signage, walkways etc and although a lot of the exhibits are a bit too small, they all have planting and stuff for the animal's to do.
When you've visited this zoo, let me know so you can write a fair review on it.
How can you say that lots of money has gone into the aesthetics. I'm not saying it's a bad exhibit, I was just saying that it isn't aesthetically pleasing on any level.
Maybe not so much on this one, but overall it has. And apparently they had grass but it got ripped up by the bears, and it was pouring with rain so the mud made it look worse.
