I wouldn't say it was tiny, it's bigger than the Howletts cages. And the pic was taken from about 20 feet away. But I agree, it could be bigger, as could most of their exhibits.
Hardly crappy and roadside, this places actually cares about it's animals, conservation and it's getting by perfectly fine. And half dead tree? They tend to die in winter...
What a very odd person you seem to be. Your vitriol for things of which you have no experience is extraordinary, and the absurdity of what you say is, frankly, rather embarrassing.
I don't like the nationalistic tone of some of the posts in the RSCC threads - countries have got nothing to do with all of this - but as someone who loves the USA, I despair of someone like you who, on the evidence of what you are posting here, conforms to every last stereotype of the 'ugly American': brash, arrogant, ignorant. That stereotype is wholly unjustified, in my experience - certainly the Americans I call friends, the Americans with whom I work, and the Americans whose cultural offerings I enjoy have nothing "ugly" about them. But you, Mr / Ms Reduakari, are putting back the cause of the decent majority with your hectoring superiority complex.
My experience is based upon the rather extensive photographic evidence that is one of the fantastic offerings of this addictive website. Never before has it been possible to compare and virtually experience such a wide array of zoo exhibits and collections, or to engage in dialogues with others who are interested in the subject matter.
I apologize if my enthusiastic and deeply-felt personal opinions have offended you; particularly if they have been perceived as having nationalistic or jingoistic undertones. But I do not believe it is "hectoring" to simply "call it as I see it." And what I see, over and over again, is an acceptance or even celebration of crude, unsophisticated zoo design by many posters on this site.
There are examples of poor design in zoos all over the world (I know, I've had the opportunity to visit many), and many US zoos are the among the worst offenders. But from what I have seen in person, and what is overwhelmingly displayed in this gallery, is that there are many zoos in the UK that have decided that the mode of presentation of the animal collection is unimportant, and that so long as basic needs and enrichment are provided that is enough. And I simply disagree. Unless zoos are educating and inspiring people to understand and care for the wildlands that are essential to the survival of wildlife, they have no justification for holding animals in captivity for public exhibition. David Hancocks has written eloquently on the subject, and he has stated he is puzzled by the seeming pride in the "homemade" quality of many British zoos as well. If there is anything to be embarrassed about, I would suggest it is the insensitivity of those who would create and defend the existence of the many egregious examples of poor design on display in the Galleries, whatever their country of origin.
So you're saying that regardless of the amount of singage, conservation projects etc, it's not worth it just because their cage might be a bit ugly?
I know we all refer to this a lot, but it's the perfect example: The Howletts Gorilla cages are ugly as sin, but they conserve more Gorillas than any other zoo in the world and educate one hell of a lot.
And I'd rather walk around a "home made" feeling place which has had love poured into it as apposed to a big commercialised place, e.g.- west midlands safari park.
