...do resemble rundown farms with immersion a word that is not in the dictionary. Do zoos really have to immerse visitors into a different world other than the rainy British countryside? Of course not, but it would be nice to see some money splashed out on some half-decent looking exhibits.
In an attempt to move the argument along a little, I propose that the term immersion should only be used for exhibits housing aquatic species, as I'm sure snowleopard's dictionary dictates.
If visitors are expected to suspend disbelief and suppose that zoo animals are inhabiting naturalistic environments, the words immersion and/or immersive ought to be decently quarantined in inverted commas or followed by a cautionary (sic).
As for looking like a pile of rocks thrown in there, is that not what the wild looks like? The rocky hillsides of Mongolia and neighboring countries are not neatly manicured. (And no I have not been to central Asia, but I have seen enough photos).
As for the danger of trees near the fence line, based on the photos they appear to be too weak to hold a snow leopard's weight in the upper branches. (I could be wrong, just a guess based on how they look in the photo).
While Bronx Zoo may have the best snow leopard exhibit in the USA, it was nowhere near as nice (or big) as I had expected it to be when I saw it in person. It is probably better than this one, but as a cat fanatic I am frustrated with the lack of any outstanding snow leopard exhibits in my country. How I wish there was something here on the order of Zoo Zurich or Kolmarden Wildlife Park.
For a complete outsider it is difficult to undrstand for me why most British zoos, especially the newer ones don't use any landscaping and almost no planned plantings in and around the exhibit? Is this soooo expensive to plant some nice Himalayan or Asian conifers, rhododendrons or high altitude bamboo among the rocks that really look like unfinished or abandoned construction site? Is glass prohibitely expensive to replace some of the chinlink?There are good examples here in Europe of good snow leopard exhibits like Rostock, Cologne, Plzen and many, many more. What also worries me is the general lack of shade on paddocks connected to lack of trees in and around paddocks. I like simplicity in zoos but that one goes too far.
For a complete outsider it is difficult to undrstand for me why most British zoos, especially the newer ones don't use any landscaping and almost no planned plantings in and around the exhibit?
Simple answer- cost and lack of interest in achieving any aesthetic completion. Get the animals into the enclosure-then move on to building something else. Pride in the display is usually more in the preserve of the older established Zoological Parks and Gardens, where there are attractive flower gardens, lawns and animal enclosure planting is taken seriously with proper attempts at landscaping enclosures to make them both naturalistic and attractive for viewing.
The newer parks often don't have(either) the cash resources or the inclination or the knowhow to do any of this, so they look tacky like this as a result. On the other hand you have Cotswold Wildlife Park- a shining example of what can be done in a Wildlife Park.
As for looking like a pile of rocks thrown in there, is that not what the wild looks like? The rocky hillsides of Mongolia and neighboring countries are not neatly manicured.
Obviously Himalayan scree slopes are jumbled rocks, like this- so the actual rocks are quite natural looking. My complaint is in the whole presentation- or rather the complete lack of it. Other zoos that exhibit Snow Leopard manage to build something naturalistic (to varying degrees) but equally important, they make an effort to present the animals in neater or more attractive surroundings, unlike this. I may be old fashioned but I think that is still important.
The presentation may also seem strange because here you are looking down onto the exhibit. Whereas I think most zoos in the UK have snow leopard exhibits that you view at ground level (e.g. Banham et al.) or look up at the leopards (e.g. Twycross, Dudley et al.) where they are presented on a slope or in a tall cage.
Simple answer- cost and lack of interest in achieving any aesthetic completion. Get the animals into the enclosure-then move on to building something else. QUOTE]
This is an accurate but sad statement as it definitely summarizes the visual appeal of countless low-budget zoos. Many American zoos are subsidized at around 50% with taxpayer funds while in other nations such a luxury is nonexistent. What I find most interesting is that an experienced zoo visitor could probably glance through a gallery of photos from a particular zoo and within minutes figure out whether that zoo was located in China, England, Germany, Russia, the United States or another country. Some zoos are very distinctive as appearing from a specific region of the world and South Lakes is an example of that. With millions coming from taxpayer sources then would the snow leopard exhibit still look the same or would aesthetics even be considered?
An amusing retort, and I have a dodgy photo of an "immersive" exhibit to present to you. The touch tank at the Portland Aquarium, a relative newcomer to the world of zoological delight, contains a watery environment where visitors literally immerse their hands into an underwater world.
