Technically no captive environment are animals roaming free. I especially hate when animal-activists say sending elephants to the elephant sanctuary is essentially setting them "free". They are not really free as it is still a captive environment.
you are right, but in a zoo you can have a small exhibit and you can have a large one
in San diego wild animal park or in the wilds the animals are in an open space area. they choose where and when to go. i like that much better than small one specie exhibits.
and i hate those activists as well........they think they know better.
I understand all of your points, (reduakari), the thing is that this forum seems to be divided, there is two groups of individuals, or maybe more, that stand out:
You have your members, that are extremely passionate about animals having the most space possible, therefore their priority are large open enclosures, i remember reading a post where a member describes his idea of a zoo as just fencing a natural wooded large piece of land and let the animals roam free. I understand where he comes from, i too place animals well being very high, and i think they deserve better, having said that i'm not a member of this group.
The Next group is the one where Ciololo seems to fit in, the same group where you will find me. I believe a zoo is more than a safari park, or an animal sanctuary. Why not call it an animal preserve, a heaven for the animals sure. Might as well take an even bigger piece of land and try to duplicate nature as a whole. But not what i believe a top zoo should look like, (this particular one is fine, since i understand what ituri means about the climate, and not having the budget for something a little more creative, we do not have to be the Bronx, but it can get a little better)
My problem comes when the same members that put down other multimillion dollar exihbits in some REAL ZOOLOGICAL PARKS, praise the natural wooded areas, as the next big thing, sure nevermind, that the landscape is all wrong. A modern day zoo needs to not only be correct about the animals geografic placement, but that of the plants and other details of the exihbit. And trust me i'm not satisfied with the job that some sub-tropical climate zoos, like my hometown zoo as an example, do. It could be much better.
In my opinion DAK is not a zoo, for other reasons that the ones mention above, but they have by far the most naturalistic looking african mixed exihbit on planet earth(other than in Africa itself), but in my opinion a real good zoo, needs much more than this. So i'm sure this particular zoo is doing the best with what it has, but we need to give credit to the ones that spend the big amounts of capital to bring us the most incredible combinations of landscape and arquitecture, since in my opinion this is what a real zoo is, a combination of many things, and almost none can be found in the back of your town, in your local forest.
I just thought of this, maybe is not the best example....but i will go with. When i lived in Germany, the first two zoos i ever visited, where Berlin Zoo, and Berlin Tierpark. The first one made an impression on me, that until this day i spend most of my free time, in zoo related activities, it will be with me until my last day in this earth, and that particular zoo did that. Shortly after i visited the Tierpark, and i left with no particular feelings, not my idea of a zoo. If the Berlin Zoo did not exist, and the first zoo i visited in germany was the tierpark, i would probably, maybe......not be in this forum today, and a lifelong passion would not have been alive. That is the difference two zoos could have, at least on me.
To judge an exhibit on the basis of a photograph (or even a series of images) is to judge a book by its cover. True, you would not find any of the plant species in this exhibit in an African savannah, and the forest in the background is obviously temperate, but I rank this VERY high on my list of savannah-type enclosures. In fact, I can't think of many (any?) that present such a sense of grandeur and made me forget that I was in a "real zoo".
As reduakari pointed out, the theming of the entire exhibit (not just this paddock) is done with an eye for detail. The majority of the "theming" is concentrated in the areas close to visitors (including, of course, the visitor pathways), which in an 18 acre savannah makes simple economic sense. An remember: this image shows only a slice of the actual paddock; there are a few "termite mounds" in the exhibit, two waterholes, and several other themed features (zebra carcass, habitat zones), on top of the lead-in to the viewing areas (and the other exhibits in the complex).
"i would never visit a zoo that looks like this, it would really be a waste of time"
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to this, but to say that you will be missing out, my friend. I believe the site was chosen with intent (it is a 15 minute walk from the rest of the zoo), and not only are the barriers hidden, but also the large winterized off-exhibit holdings that house the animals in the off season. The only clue as to where they are is the trodden earth at a gate at the back of the exhibit. Hiding a barn that houses giraffes to the degree that Binder Park does takes some serious work.
And for all of the complaints ... what would you do instead? What WOULD make this exhibit "zoo-worthy"?
"i would never visit a zoo that looks like this, it would really be a waste of time"
Hi, is this a quote? hopefully not of what i wrote, i can't find it in the text, and i do not agree with it at all, you completely missed my point.
I think is a great enclosure, by the animal wellfare standars, and even when it comes to viewing point, i will go as far as saying that probably it relaxes you more than most other african exihbits outhere. I agree with you 100% that this is the perfect spot for you to forget that it is a zoo, and believe you are sorrounded only by nature.
And about the pics part, and not judging the book by its cover, i mostly agree with you, yet a pic, or many pics can tell a very good story, a much better one than the cover of a book.
Still my observation was pointed towards the lack of appreciation of some members by expensive and complex theme enclosures, but yet their deep appreciation of very simple enclosures. Not out of criticism, but more as making reference to something that i really can't understand, i guess even zoo fanatics are poles apart.
And as far as how to make this exihbit better, i really don't think you want to hear this from me, it could take several hundred pages, and many different options, see i'm a dreamer, and the creative side of me is very difficult to control. Let's just say that this particular ZOO is doing the best it can given the resources, and most likely most of my ideas would be a little too expensive for them, but a few things they could do to better the enclosure that i think might be able to help:
behind the termite mount, in the lower part of the exihbit, i would place a realistic tree frame, artifical accasia or a baobab, the detail will not have to be extremely realistic since the distance will take care of that, and it will bring a little life to background.
closer to the fence i would place a fallen tree structure, this one will need a little more detail (it would be a little more expensive than the other) but in the front of the tree i would create a large waterhole, it would be close to the visitors and will run under the fallen tree.
The background a key area, it looks extremely out of place. You can't plant african specimens here, but you can sure find some weather resistant specimens that could survive the winter. Mix in some artificial african oil palm trees, and some other taller species(there is a company here in miami that actually recreates them very good, they could be as tall as 45 feet, and really look the part. I would add a couple of this plants also very close to the paddock fence.
With time and when funds are available, i would seriously consider including a very large baobab tree in the visitors path, it would really give them a very good idea of how magestic this trees are. And more importantly it could be used for several porpuses:
The tree could serve as just a decorative piece, and with time they could built an african hut building next to it, with an interactive exihbit inside, they could add the jeep to this scene, they already have this piece.
Then if you want to go a little further you could even include an enclosure around this tree, a mesh exihbit, using modern standars it could house, african leopards, or a smaller species.
If this can't be done, they could create life size replicas of a leopard eating a primate in the tree, and maybe a couple of hyenas looking up to the leopard from the ground, this would be great, and probably withing their budget.
Well i just wanted to point out some quick observations, did not meant to go into a masterplan of the exihbit makeover.
I think that's what got me bristling! For any/all zoo enclosures (with the exception of the aforementioned Bronx Zoo's Congo), some suspension of disbelief is needed to make the experience work. I think the clashing on this thread is based on what people are more willing to suspend their disbelief over. I will personally take out-of-place vegetation over a visible barrier any day, and I think the choice to leave the forest intact was a responsible decision on the zoo's behalf.
San Diego's palm trees seem just as out of place to me as Binder Park's deciduous woodland, but in this case the trees provide (as reduakari points out) camouflage for the barriers, to the point where you have to work (generally) to find them. Barriers are a personal pet peeve, which is perhaps one of the reasons I am so taken by this place. My preference is also to see grassland animals on grass, rather than in hard-packed dustbowls (although this is exhibit is almost too lush). And to my mind, simple is often better ... some massively expensive zoo exhibits come across as trying too hard, but not quite reaching (or perhaps overshooting) their goal which ultimately detracts from the experience.
From your comments, it sounds like you've been to the Binder Park Zoo? I was truly impressed by this exhibit complex, especially seeing that the Binder Park Zoo is not well known enough to really have any sort of reputation. I have come to expect half the quality of this complex in institutions twice as large/popular/well known ... including my own. Yet another reason why I staunchly defend it again criticism!
Okay, sorry for hijacking this photo comment thread
You are completely right, i missed the first post, wow......the comment was completely out of place, and really not directed towards this particular zoo, but more the idea of very simple enclosures, just based on space, from the average visitor's perspective.
I have never visited the Binder park zoo, i worked with the tools you proposed, to add what could make the exihbit in my opinion a little more exciting, i would not mind at all visiting this zoo or any other for that matter, let me just be clear on that, but it would just not be my first choice.
I for one would love to visit the Omaha zoo, the climate in this place most as bad if not worse than where the Binder Park Zoo is located, yet their zoological buildings look magestic, some members that dislike this particular type of zoo, might love places like Binder park, and others like it, for the same reasons, too little space, too many fake items/too few real ones, etc. But what they failed to understand is that from the design companies point of view, a lot of work goes into them, not much work goes into open wooded or grassland enclosures other than the obvious layout of the area, I'm fascinated by zoo design, old and new.
But i bet you that if i was the animal that was supposed to live there, i would much rather be at Binder Park Zoo, not that the other places are not good, but if it was my choice, and i was a zebra, i would love to go live there, just a little colder.
