Personally, I might be a little bit ambivalent about the "immersion technique" and the enormity of landscaping resources that sometimes are put into exhibits in American zoos (a phenomenon I have learned about since joining ZooChat), not least because of the incredible amounts of dollars it must cost. Dollars that otherwise could have been spent on making the enclosures much bigger and enriched in less naturalistic ways - that maybe would had benefitted the animals more?
On the other hand, of course, I deeply admire the results that are achieved. I am in fact absolutely fascinated and I can understand what an incredible experience it must be to witness this... dare I call it "art form", with one´s own eyes!
Personally, I might be a little bit ambivalent about the "immersion technique" and the enormity of landscaping resources that sometimes are put into exhibits in American zoos (a phenomenon I have learned about since joining ZooChat), not least because of the incredible amounts of dollars it must cost. Dollars that otherwise could have been spent on making the enclosures much bigger and enriched in less naturalistic ways - that maybe would had benefitted the animals more?
On the other hand, of course, I deeply admire the results that are achieved. I am in fact absolutely fascinated and I can understand what an incredible experience it must be to witness this... dare I call it "art form", with one´s own eyes!
I don't disagree with your priorities, yet if you have not spent time at an exhibit such as this, watched the animals' behavior, listened in on the visitors' conversations, you cannot appreciate the success of them. A zoo is usually limited in space, so more money will not increase the space for animals. The area taken up by landscaping is minimal compared to animal space, visitor paths and amenities so eliminating "landscape immersion" will not increase space for animals. The cost of landscaping is a small percentage of the total cost of the project, and I trust that even Swedish zoos are landscaped in some way. Yes, the artificial trees and rockwork are expensive, but again that money would not have enlarged the animals' area. Great immersion exhibits do not require vast amounts of artificial elements. Only the right ones in the right place.
The American zoo visitor does not come simply to see animals. They come for a more nuanced and complex experience that is first of all about what the visitors do with their companions (there have been studies). Simple, unadorned zoos in the US at least only exist in towns with few other entertainments. And they are not surviving well, at that.
So, in short, keep recommending the good that you know but remain open to the good that you do not know
Oh, I try to remain open - that is why I used words like "ambivalent", "maybe" and finished that part of my post with a question mark. I am deeply fascinated with the kind of landscaping efforts that are put into many American zoos, I greatly admire the results and at the same time I am, just slowly, starting to think that maybe I am seeing a cultural pattern here... how can I put it?
You know of course, Zooplantman, that USA has (in some way perhaps had) the reputation of everything accosiated with it being "bigger", more "super-sized", "on a grander scale" than in the rest of the world? You know... the sky-scrapers, the size of the cars (no longer a valid example but it sure used to be...), the levels of consumption in just about every mesaurable area, being a militarily and political superpower, winning the the two World Wars and defeating Communism... then we have Hollywood, Disneyland, Las Vegas, Broadway... putting "The First Man on The Moon" etc etc. (Most of which I love, by the way - I am a big USA-supporter).
Anyway, I am just slowly (as I put it) starting to think (dare I say "realise") that your tradition of zoo landscaping on a grand scale fits perfectly into this cultural pattern and I can´t help but think that this is an interesting observation/theory. Or is it just stupid and obvious?! Has anything been written on this subject? I would love to read it!
Of course - if I wrote better English I would be able to express these thoughts less naive and simplified than I do in this post, but you probably get the hang of my thoughts anyway? I will stubbornly submit that there are some interesting aspects to the differences between American and European zoo traditions. I only found out about his when I joined ZooBeat/Chat nine months ago and that may be why the subject fascinates me so much.
---
Last but not least I would be interested in feedback from other forumsters: are there any zoo exhibits in Europe that are designed/landscaped with the same kind of refinement that we see (for instance) in the poll on this subject that I created a couple of weeks ago (and where most nominees are American exhibits)?
---
PS
I really appreciate the way you as a zoo professional, Zooplantman, takes the time to reason and discuss with interested amateurs like me in a calm and polite way. Some other professionals on this site are less patient, to put it mildly. Thanks!
I think we are mixing two different issues as though they are one.
On the one hand: size/ambition. Yes, here in the US it has been a tradition since 1492 to want more. That's why our forebears left their homes to come here. The ethic lives on. I won't say that the Bronx Zoo didn't give serious thought to spending tens of millions of USD on Congo, but they never thought it was a ridiculous idea.
But on the other hand: beautiful immersive exhibits (which do not necessarily have to be big). From what I have seen here on Zoochat, several zoos in the Netherlands, in Germany and at least Zoo Zurich speak a similar exhibit language to the US,
So while I agree with your thinking about the US values, I think it is not unique here. Leipzig's new Gondwanaland, Chester's "Heart of Africa," Zurich's Masoala, any number of aquarium projects in Japan, Singapore, etc., all show that either the world shares this ambition or at least adopted it eagerly. Perhaps Scandinavians have some immunity?
OK - the indoor exhibits! That is another matter, I believe; I do not find big differences there. It is the difference between outdoor exhibits in Europe and The US that really fascinates me - and without having visited any of them, I can´t help but to think that there is a difference between The Bronx and Zurich, however high the ambitions in Zurich might be. You Yankees still seem to insist to go a step further !!!
Sorry...
Anyway, I have just set up a thread about this - and differences between European and US zoos in general - in the forums. Let´s continue the discussion there with more participators.
Personally, I might be a little bit ambivalent about the "immersion technique" and the enormity of landscaping resources that sometimes are put into exhibits in American zoos (a phenomenon I have learned about since joining ZooChat), not least because of the incredible amounts of dollars it must cost. Dollars that otherwise could have been spent on making the enclosures much bigger and enriched in less naturalistic ways - that maybe would had benefitted the animals more?
