@Riziki: you have it EXACTLY right. I gather from the 10 exclamation points in your post that you are a supporter of the RSCC establishment. However, if it is indeed struggling for cash on a tiny morsel of land then how does it expect to survive in the future? What right does it have to keep rare and endangered animals in subpar exhibits and keep afloat in tough economic times? If the conservation centre lacks financial backing then things will only get worse, and it already has some of the worst exhibits people have ever seen (gibbons, flamingos, clouded leopard, etc) according to many who have visited.
Snowleopard, I'm not a supporter of the RSCC and this is quite a poor exhibit, but the most frustrating thing in the now common UK v US debates is that examples from the Bronx, San Diego or any of the other top US establishments are often provided alongside criticism of a small zoo's exhibit.
Now to me, this is the equivalent of pitting Mike Tyson vs an elderly person. It's just not a fair standpoint due to the finances and land available to the larger US zoos. It would be like comparing Chester's exhibits with GuZoos! (yes, I know it's Canadian)
You (and reduakari in a different debate) both made the vaild point that this particular zoo shouldn't be keeping such "precious" animals in possibly sub-standard enclosures and I agree with this, so will not argue this point.
Regarding Riziki's post, I don't believe he made any reference that RSCC was struggling with its finance, but was simply saying that the same funds are not available for the RSCC that are available to the likes of San Diego
To be fair I did provide links to 5 exceptional clouded leopard exhibits, but those that know me on this forum realize that I am highly critical of subpar enclosures. My philosophy is that if a zoo cannot provide an amazingly naturalistic, spacious habitat for its animals then it should simply not bother at all. That is the trend in all the top zoos across the globe, and there are zoos that I've seen in North America that have eliminated 95% of all their bars, pits, grottoes and outdated enclosures. It is immensely frustrating to see a fairly new zoo open up with a series of what I perceive to be below standard, barely adequate exhibits. It sets the zoo industry back decades when amazingly diverse wildlife is showcased behind thick black bars or in tiny cages. How can people appreciate rare and unknown sun bears behind ugly bars when they should be held in lush, jungle-like exhibits. If a particular establishment cannot afford to construct a sun bear enclosure like the one at the Columbus or Oakland zoos then they shouldn't bother to build what is perceived as a prison by the animal rights groups. One glance at a photo of the sun bear exhibit at RSCC and it is tough to argue that the bars are a bonus to the enclosure. Any photo of the outdoor sun bear enclosure at the Columbus Zoo will show trees, plants, grass, logs, etc...but at RSCC it will show sand, mud and iron bars. That simply provides more fodder for animal lib organizations.
I've provided links to 5 awesome clouded leopard exhibits, but can anyone provide 5 links to clouded leopard exhibits that are smaller than the one at the RSCC? There are definitely poor enclosures on this side of the Atlantic, as the Toronto Zoo and Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo both have clouded leopard enclosures that are far from decent and I'd include those on any list of subpar exhibits. Also, there are loads of Canadian and American roadside zoos that are horrendous in size and quality. However, myself (and probably reduakari as well) simply cannot comprehend how intelligent zoo fans ever defend in any shape and form the numerous crappy enclosures at RSCC. ZooChat member Dan stated that "this kind of monstrosity should have been outlawed in the civilized world" and it's hard not to agree with him. The word "monstrosity" might be a bit harsh, but for the tiny 2-acre zoo in Kent maybe it is fairly appropriate.
Now this is a another thing that continues to grate with me in these debates.
What defines naturalistic? In my opinion a good enclosure should be one which allows the inhabitants to reproduce their natural behaviour, not neccesarily recreate a habitat.
Of course it is a bonus for zoos to create both and there are numerous examples from all over the globe which replicate natural environments and allow natural behaviour to occur. However there are also a good number of exhibits which attempt to recreate a habitat but neglect some behavioural aspects
I favour the exhibits which provide both, however I don't understand why a UK enclosure which doesn't look naturalistic, but allows the animal to act as it would in the wild is classed as "bad" by some members of this site. Perhaps it's just a different outlook on zoos?
N.B. I'm not referring to the RSCC here, moreso the Aspinall Parks (i've never visited, but the exhibits seem to be worlds apart in terms of quality) but it is meant to be a generalised comment.
I agree just look at the Howletts Gorilla enclosure and Leopard/Small cats enclosures Naturalistic they are not but enriching they are and the animals love them. Animals should always come first and if they love the enclosures whats the point changing it for something that looks nice? John Aspinall definately didnt work like that! if the animals liked it he built it just look at the breeding success in the two zoos and the enclosures are not that naturalistic they are what the animal wants to be happy.
Regards
Also regarding the American zoos and English Zoo comments we have all grown up within the different zoos so we need to look at the general picture.
Several people have stated that they shouldn't keep such "special" animals in the RSCC exhibits which are just average, but on the whole completely acceptable. I fail to see why everyone complains about a Clouded leopard living here, and how he should deserve a fantastic, large, naturalistic enclosure, whilst if this enclosure held an Ocelot, no one would be complaining. No, it's not like something San Diego zoo could provide, but it's a good size and obviously gives the leopard a lot of privacy as I never saw him. It does need more climbing structures and maybe more plants I agree, and I don't know why this hasn't been done as it's not a huge task. I don't think the place is struggling for money, as I get the impression the owner has quite a lot of it. However, it's unfair to say this enclosure is completely unacceptable whilst comparing it to Bronx, San Diego etc and not having even visited the zoo.
And Riziki, I agree with Aspinall's approach; Where's the point in spending a fortune on mock rock when the animals can be happier in a large, wooden cage like we see at Howletts? I agree it rockwork etc does look nice, but if the zoo can't afford it or spends it's money on better things, then I'm not going to criticise it for doing so
However, myself (and probably reduakari as well) simply cannot comprehend how intelligent zoo fans ever defend in any shape and form the numerous crappy enclosures at RSCC. ZooChat member Dan stated that "this kind of monstrosity should have been outlawed in the civilized world" and it's hard not to agree with him. The word "monstrosity" might be a bit harsh, but for the tiny 2-acre zoo in Kent maybe it is fairly appropriate.
Sorry to make another post, should pay more attention lol.
Snowleopard, I appreciate what you say and I see where you're coming from, but we can't ridicule every small zoo just because it isn't enormous and impressive like Bronx is. I do think that a lot of the exhibits where unacceptable, whilst a lot of them were fine. Yes, they could do with more plants etc but that comes with time. From what I gather building work is always going on there, and apparently this place is going to expand onto 4 more acres.
One thing I do not agree with is that "every zoo should give animals massive naturalistic enclosures or not bother". If this was the case then London zoo, Bristol zoo, Berlin zoo, and so many other huge city zoos wouldn't exist (I.e.- they have large, mostly acceptable exhibits but they're by no means huge and incredibly naturalistic).
Like Jimmy said, what defines naturalistic, and how do we know the animals are happier in an artificial rainforest than they would be in a cage with loads of climbing poles and deep litter straw? I think this is the aesthetics debate again really. I'd go to Howletts over most other zoos any day
Its hard for the general public too, but its easier for a keeper to recognise the individual being happy as they know the character of the Leopard - You would know when a clouded leopard is not happy!
You made a statement implying that the leopard is happy, so we shouldn't complain. I'm asking how you know it's happy. Ashley said she didn't see it, which could suggest it is very unhappy and sits inside in a corner all day.
