And we cannot ignore that the feel, the bounce, etc. of a branch cut from a real tree is a very different thing than a shotcrete branch. To what extent does a gibbon or orang care? We can't know without some sort of behavioral study. Anyone know of such a study?
It's not just the bounce of the climbing equipment that makes me think primates would prefer real branches. Wood is dryer, warmer, and, from a management point of view, easier to replace when it gets damaged.
I haven't read through this entire arguement, but if one is discussing the value of gibbons indoors with live tres, then one ought to think hard about Bronx Zoo's JungleWorld.
And we cannot ignore that the feel, the bounce, etc. of a branch cut from a real tree is a very different thing than a shotcrete branch. To what extent does a gibbon or orang care? We can't know without some sort of behavioral study. Anyone know of such a study?
This is a very good question that I have been wondering for a while now. To me I find it very hard to do such studies with larger animals. I can only speak for the reptiles that I have cared for here, which may not serve a purpose as orangs and geckos are completely different, but I hope this can help in any way.
Phelsuma klemmeri, is a species of day gecko found in the bamboo forests of Madagascar. When keeping phelsuma and other day geckos, one usually adds bamboo poles throughout the cage as aesthetic but its almost a crime if you don't add it to a klemmeri cage. Almost 98% of the klemmeris time is spent on those bamboo poles and if they do manage to get on another branch there not on there for any significant time. I'm guessing its just a natural behavior to them to just be on bamboo. That is where they come from at least. This also applies with my lygodactylus williamsi, but in this case its with palms or dracenea's. In the wild these guys only live on the Pandanus rabaiensis, in captivity it is impossible to get such plants so draceneas and plams will do. If I place a dracenea in the tank, all will lounge around it and rarely rely on the other plants.
Now your probably asking yourself, " how does this have anything to do with orangs licking a real branch over a fake one?" Well I'll tell you. In my opinion, its a natural instinct to use the foliage and other items that best resembles their natural home. There are no concrete branches in the Indonesian jungles. If bamboo better replicates their home than malaysian drift wood than they will chose bamboo. In the wild this is what the animal has to spend its life on so it would only make since it would want to do that in captivity. Like I said, I don't know if this will carry over to primates but with an animal thats life is dependent on trees, you would think they would know the difference and care.
To be honest, comparing these exhibits to Cincinnati's exhibit is a bit ridiculous. I know that you are trying to defend the exhibit, but I think you are being ignorant of the fact that it simply is not a good exhibit. Sometimes you just have to admit that some exhibits at your home zoo are not that good (I always think about improvements that can be made at Taronga) and hope that they can be improved in the future.
The indoor exhibit at Prague is certainly more aesthetically and functional than the one at Cincinnati. I have not personally seen the exhibit, but that one photo does not show the rest of the exhibit and the possible climbing opportunities that come with it. You have to bear in mind that it is an indoor exhibit, so the orangs probably use the outdoor exhibit more than the indoor one.
As you can see, the outdoor Prague exhibit has many more climbing opportunities than Cincy. Not only does it look more natural (in comparison with Cincinnati) with the use of real wood and realistic fake trees, but the use of many ropes and nets enable alot of brachiation for the orangs, more so than Cincy. It also appears to be covered by mesh, which also enables height to be included in the exhibit as opposed to Cincy, which in turn enables alot more climbing opportunities.
As for the Tierpark Hellabrunn indoor exhibit, you can clearly see that there are many climbing opportunities for an indoor exhibit with the use of nets (and the flexible brachiating ropes that I can't think of their name). Even though it appears to have a concrete floor, you have to bear in mind that it is an indoor exhibit that is not utilised all day by the orangutans.
On the other hand, the outdoor exhibit continues with these many climbing opportunities, far superior than Cincy's in my eyes:
The exhibit is partially unattractive due to the large steel strucutres, but when you think of the animals' needs it clearly does the job well. Once again, the exhibit is covered which gives them alot of climbing space as well as the various ropes.
I personally think that the exhibit at Cincinnati is just too bare for the needs to brachiate by the orangs or gibbons. I understand that you are trying to defend it along with the indoor exhibit but I think you need to realise that there are faults with the exhibit that can be improved.
I would certainly change my view of the exhibit at Cincinnati if more climbing opportunities were added and it was netted over.
To be honest, comparing these exhibits to Cincinnati's exhibit is a bit ridiculous. I know that you are trying to defend the exhibit, but I think you are being ignorant of the fact that it simply is not a good exhibit. Sometimes you just have to admit that some exhibits at your home zoo are not that good (I always think about improvements that can be made at Taronga) and hope that they can be improved in the future.
The indoor exhibit at Prague is certainly more aesthetically and functional than the one at Cincinnati. I have not personally seen the exhibit, but that one photo does not show the rest of the exhibit and the possible climbing opportunities that come with it. You have to bear in mind that it is an indoor exhibit, so the orangs probably use the outdoor exhibit more than the indoor one.
As you can see, the outdoor Prague exhibit has many more climbing opportunities than Cincy. Not only does it look more natural (in comparison with Cincinnati) with the use of real wood and realistic fake trees, but the use of many ropes and nets enable alot of brachiation for the orangs, more so than Cincy. It also appears to be covered by mesh, which also enables height to be included in the exhibit as opposed to Cincy, which in turn enables alot more climbing opportunities.
As for the Tierpark Hellabrunn indoor exhibit, you can clearly see that there are many climbing opportunities for an indoor exhibit with the use of nets (and the flexible brachiating ropes that I can't think of their name). Even though it appears to have a concrete floor, you have to bear in mind that it is an indoor exhibit that is not utilised all day by the orangutans.
On the other hand, the outdoor exhibit continues with these many climbing opportunities, far superior than Cincy's in my eyes:
The exhibit is partially unattractive due to the large steel strucutres, but when you think of the animals' needs it clearly does the job well. Once again, the exhibit is covered which gives them alot of climbing space as well as the various ropes.
I personally think that the exhibit at Cincinnati is just too bare for the needs to brachiate by the orangs or gibbons. I understand that you are trying to defend it along with the indoor exhibit but I think you need to realise that there are faults with the exhibit that can be improved.
I would certainly change my view of the exhibit at Cincinnati if more climbing opportunities were added and it was netted over.
1. I thought this conversation ended because it was going no where.
2. On the point you said about one of the zoo's indoor exhibits not being used much, well now that the gibbons are out, none of them will use in in the daytime. And the fact or being an indoor exhibit has been my point the whole time.
3. You also pointed out that outdoor exhibits are better, which was also my point the wtime time.
4. You also point out that Prague's doesn't ha e natural structures but.it.fulfills their needs, which is exactly what I've been talking about. Cincinnatis does this very well.
5. I am actually still astonished that you say its a bad exhibit, its an indoor exhibit, it is massive, I mean huge, and its perfect for braciation, look up on Youtube of the gibbons in Jungle Trails.
I understand, but you also have to consider that the zoos that we disagreed on also had better outdoor exhibts than Cincinnati as well, therefore they are substantially greater in quality than Cincy due to that fact. But based purely on indoor exhibits, those that I mentioned are alot better than Cincinnati.
1. I thought this conversation ended because it was going no where.
2. On the point you said about one of the zoo's indoor exhibits not being used much, well now that the gibbons are out, none of them will use in in the daytime. And the fact or being an indoor exhibit has been my point the whole time.
3. You also pointed out that outdoor exhibits are better, which was also my point the wtime time.
4. You also point out that Prague's doesn't ha e natural structures but.it.fulfills their needs, which is exactly what I've been talking about. Cincinnatis does this very well.
5. I am actually still astonished that you say its a bad exhibit, its an indoor exhibit, it is massive, I mean huge, and its perfect for braciation, look up on Youtube of the gibbons in Jungle Trails.
1. I thought it was still continuing since you replied to my post.
2. This is a fair point, but I am surprised that you consider the indoor exhibit at Cincinnati to be better than the other exhibits listed, which most are more functional.
3. You seem to defend many Cincinnati exhibits (not just the orangutans) vigorously. My point was to show you that you sometimes need to take criticism on board. Bear in mind, this is a zoo that we are talking about so really you have no control as to what it does.
4. Most of Prague's structures appear to be either natural wood or rope, with two fake (yet still realistic) trees. Cincinnati exhibit is dominated by fake trees, and with little brachiation opportunities (outdoor exhibit i'm referring to). Indoor exhibit looks very fake at Cincinnati, which does not appeal to me. I would much prefer wooden (or even metal) climbing structures that are not intended to be realistic but serve a functional purpose than fake tree branches with no purpose ate all. I do admit though that I seemed to have missed the ropes in the indoor exhibit, but I would still regard the Prague exhibit as not only more aesthetically pleasing but also more functional.
5. I watched some videos of the indoor exhibit and do have to say that it looks quite fake. I would prefer if they had more ropes and nets to help with brachiation as sturdy, concrete fake tree trunks could eventually hurt their hands and it does not provide "true" brachiation. By this I mean that these sturdy branches do not enable to gibbons or orangs to grasp on to other branches, ropes, etc which is how they would get around in the wild.
Here is an example of what I think could be a more successful alternative:
Even though I still completely disagree, here's a photo of what I think the 'disagreers' were talking about. The reason I still disagree is because while Oregon's is nearly all real, the trees would get in the way for brachiation. http://www.zoochat.com/594/red-ape-reserve-new-2010-a-206579/
Edit: Jabiru96: What video did you see of the gibbons?
Edit 2: Here's a video that shows some of the few out of many movements made by the gibbons. It also shows how large it is.
Even though I still completely disagree, here's a photo of what I think the 'disagreers' were talking about. The reason I still disagree is because while Oregon's is nearly all real, the trees would get in the way for brachiation. http://www.zoochat.com/594/red-ape-reserve-new-2010-a-206579/
Edit: Jabiru96: What video did you see of the gibbons?
The one with the gibbon/orangutan mix. I also disagree with your opinion of the Oregon exhibit. Surely you have to admit that real wood is better for the animals than the fake concrete (or artificial material) that is at Cincinnati.
Not to sound offensive again, but you seem to defend EVERY Cincinnati exhibit, whether it be functionally good or bad or aesthetically good or bad, or both just like the orangutan exhibit. In my opinion, I think you can't defend every possible exhibit at Cincinnati. You have to admit sometimes that Cincinnati does have some bad exhibits but it also has some good exhibits.
At the end of the day, Cincinnati, like all other zoos, is improving which is a positive sign, but with what bad exhibits are left, you just sometimes have to admit that it is a bad exhibit. I, for one, hope that the orangutan exhibit is remodelled to suit the orangutans needs.
