For some reason random nocturnal exhibits around the zoo lately have had their day lights on. Through these three weeks I've seen the Fennec Fox, Fishing Cat, Potto, Eurasian Eagle Owl, and Feather-tail Glider exhibit lights on.
But that's what most of the comments on this site are- constructive criticism. While, yes, some are a little harsh and having visited Cincy myself I would say, while many of the criticism is justified, some of it is a bit harsh and unwarranted, most of the comments on here on just pointing out what appears to be wrong with the enclosures and exhibits. If an enclosure has an obvious fault, people can express their opinions on it, but that doesn't mean it's hate and over-negativity.
This enclosure is not the best, but it's not horrendous. It could be a lot better and most definitely would better suit another, more terrestrial species. There. That's my opinion. End of story. No need to drag on this silly discussion as it appears even what the definition of constructive criticism is is a matter of opinion and we could go on forever arguing about it. This is a very simple Prosimian enclosure, which could be better. How about we all just agree on that?
I've enjoyed reading this somewhat hilarious thread.
But let us be clear: the comments are arm chair reflex reactions to one photo. The commenters range from individuals with little knowledge of animal husbandry to those with some historical experience. None seem to be personally aware of husbandry at this institution.
Do these animals have access to other space? How often?
Are the animals in question aged and unable to benefit from larger quarters?
Is the perching shown in this photo in the process of being changed or is it what the animal staff deems ideal? (After all, the fact that the lights are on suggests work is being done in here)
My guess is that Moebelle doesn't have more experience or even first hand knowledge of the animal staff's approach to this exhibit then his opponents do.
So I would see this thread not so much as "constructive criticism" but rather zoo nerds having fun with each other for its own sake.
No one ought to take it too seriously.
Just having fun
Like sports fans debating which major league coach did the dumber play.
The meta-game around the real game
I've enjoyed reading this somewhat hilarious thread.
But let us be clear: the comments are arm chair reflex reactions to one photo. The commenters range from individuals with little knowledge of animal husbandry to those with some historical experience. None seem to be personally aware of husbandry at this institution.
Do these animals have access to other space? How often?
Are the animals in question aged and unable to benefit from larger quarters?
Is the perching shown in this photo in the process of being changed or is it what the animal staff deems ideal? (After all, the fact that the lights are on suggests work is being done in here)
My guess is that Moebelle doesn't have more experience or even first hand knowledge of the animal staff's approach to this exhibit then his opponents do.
So I would see this thread not so much as "constructive criticism" but rather zoo nerds having fun with each other for its own sake.
No one ought to take it too seriously.
Just having fun
Like sports fans debating which major league coach did the dumber play.
The meta-game around the real game
