@Sooty, and the fabulous duo from Boise, Idaho: I think that you guys might have stumbled onto something here, and that I might be mistaken in my analysis of this particular zoological exhibit. As long as there is food, water, shelter and space then everything else is irrelevant to a modern zoo, and thus I should overlook this fishbowl and its red tiles, fancy mural and 20 foot width. Perhaps aesthethics shouldn't play a part in the zoo industry, and therefore a zoo like Woodland Park in Seattle should stop winning darn AZA exhibit awards and instead should just keep on leaving its animals in outdated boxes. Philly has perfected that idea for over a century, and even now there are not that many great exhibits at that zoo other than the amazing ones in the Rare Animal Conservation Center.
Again you miss the point - who said making naturalistic exhibits was bad? What everyone's trying to get across is that a non-naturalistic exhibit is not necessarily evil, and may in some cases be necessary (or at least preferable) to keep its occupants healthy.
@ zooman - love that quote, must remember that one!
@Sooty, and the fabulous duo from Boise, Idaho: I think that you guys might have stumbled onto something here, and that I might be mistaken in my analysis of this particular zoological exhibit. As long as there is food, water, shelter and space then everything else is irrelevant to a modern zoo, and thus I should overlook this fishbowl and its red tiles, fancy mural and 20 foot width. Perhaps aesthethics shouldn't play a part in the zoo industry, and therefore a zoo like Woodland Park in Seattle should stop winning darn AZA exhibit awards and instead should just keep on leaving its animals in outdated boxes. Philly has perfected that idea for over a century, and even now there are not that many great exhibits at that zoo other than the amazing ones in the Rare Animal Conservation Center.
Snowleopard: you rub a lot of people up the wrong way with the various comments you so prolifically post on Zoochat.
In part this is due to the hubristic nature of much that you post - referring to your 'fan club', for example, or describing your own holiday travels as 'epic' - and in part due to your insistence on criticising that which you have not seen, or seen only fleetingly, in terms which are occasionally hyperbolic. Combine those two elements - the arrogance to believe that you are the font of all knowledge when it comes to the keeping of, in this case, langurs, and the harsh criticism of something which you have seen in action just once, on one trip - and throw in that sarcasm which you employ here, and you have the reason why some may find your missives objectionable.
Does this matter? Yes, I think it does. You have some interesting things to say, and some interesting experiences to share. But the value of what you say is damaged, massively, by your inability to recognise any sense of history and tradition, by your neophiliac rejection of anything that is 'old', and by your assumption that your way is the only right way. It isn't.
Snowleopard, my point was that while you are fully qualified to criticize the aesthetics of an exhibit until the cows come home, you should be very careful when making statements that criticize the husbandry. Those kind of statements thrown loosly about can have unnecessary and bad consequences for zoos and strengthen the cause of the "anti-zoo" crusaders. I've seen it happen before where someone who was not an expert in animal care made careless comments that were used by an "anti-zoo" group. This lead to several unfounded investigations and unwarranted probationary periods for animal care staff. I plead with you to temper your statements and please stick to your area of expertise which is how an exhibit is received by a well traveled zoo visitor.
What began this intriguing set of comments was me saying that there are "brutally stark enclosures" at the Philadelphia Zoo. I'm not sure that anyone in the world could offer up anything different in terms of the aesthetics of this particular exhibit, but of course this thread has been tailspinning off of that initial comment since then.
@sooty mangabey: I'd like to retort to some of your comments:
- "hubristic, missives, neophiliac", are you Sun Wukong in disguise? I'm an English teacher with 2 university degrees and yet I still had to look up the word "neophiliac". There will be many folks here that will be scratching their heads on all 3 words.
- what is wrong with calling my 30 zoo/aquarium trip or 40 zoo/aquarium trip "epic"? If you were to drive 20,000 km on one trip and then two years later drive 18,000 km with a baby then you would call your vacations epic as well! Also, I believe that it was author and zoo fan Allen W. Nyhuis who originally coined the phrase "fan club" in reference to my popular zoo road trip threads.
- in the past year I have made comments on ZooChat photos where in probably 99% of the cases I have physically visited the establishment. I have made a constructive effort to mainly comment on North American zoos, as I have visited almost all of the major ones and thus have seen the exhibits in question. The odd time that I have commented on a European zoo it is almost always to praise what I see, so that has all changed for the better. There have of course been exceptions to that rule, but can you really blame me for taking the odd potshot at a place like Colchester Zoo? It seems as if most other people already acknowledge that British zoo as being a little bizarre with its animal habitats.
- my seemingly poor lack of regard in terms of old, traditional zoo buildings stems from where I am located in the world. My home nation, Canada, was only made a country in 1867 and thus is fairly new in terms of global affairs and definitely in comparison to the rich and varied history of many European nations. In both Canada and the United States there is a tendency to not value stately old buildings, but there are of course exceptions at historic zoos such as Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Toledo, etc, where there are reptile houses, monkey houses and other buildings still actively in use.
At the same time, many other zoos simply demolish their history rather than preserving it. Woodland Park has grand plans to redo the central section of the zoo, and I was told via email with the zoo that there is a very real possibility that the 1950's-era Feline House will be bulldozed rather than renovated. We will have to wait and see if that does or does not happen in the next couple of years. Lincoln Park Zoo, another historically famous American zoo, bulldozed its great ape building a decade or so ago, and there are many other examples of older American zoo houses having been bulldozed. You would probably be outraged!
- wouldn't you rather engage in debate with me at ZooChat rather than some of the much younger members who cannot spell or write grammatically correct sentences to save their lives?
- last, but not least, is that you have been aiming criticism at me because I declare my love for modern, new, naturalistic, immersive, animal habitats, but you once started a thread here that was titled "Why I'm Quitting ZooChat". Looking back, doesn't that thread appear to be a tad on the foolish side?
What began this intriguing set of comments was me saying that there are "brutally stark enclosures" at the Philadelphia Zoo. I'm not sure that anyone in the world could offer up anything different in terms of the aesthetics of this particular exhibit, but of course this thread has been tailspinning off of that initial comment since then.
While it appears from this photo to be undeniably stark, I certainly wouldn't use the word 'brutal'/'brutally' - it's overly emotive and suggests that the zoo is uncaring, whether that's your intention or not (I suspect not, in fact).
- "hubristic, missives, neophiliac", are you Sun Wukong in disguise? I'm an English teacher with 2 university degrees and yet I still had to look up the word "neophiliac". There will be many folks here that will be scratching their heads on all 3 words.
'Hubristic' and 'missive' are not obscure words, to my mind (in the UK anyway, they may well not be in common use elsewhere, I grant you). And to be honest the word 'neophiliac' has a very clear etymology - neo- means new, -philiac means liking or loving.
- my seemingly poor lack of regard in terms of old, traditional zoo buildings stems from where I am located in the world. My home nation, Canada, was only made a country in 1867 and thus is fairly new in terms of global affairs and definitely in comparison to the rich and varied history of many European nations. In both Canada and the United States there is a tendency to not value stately old buildings, but there are of course exceptions at historic zoos such as Saint Louis, Philadelphia, Toledo, etc, where there are reptile houses, monkey houses and other buildings still actively in use.
At the same time, many other zoos simply demolish their history rather than preserving it. Woodland Park has grand plans to redo the central section of the zoo, and I was told via email with the zoo that there is a very real possibility that the 1950's-era Feline House will be bulldozed rather than renovated. We will have to wait and see if that does or does not happen in the next couple of years. Lincoln Park Zoo, another historically famous American zoo, bulldozed its great ape building a decade or so ago, and there are many other examples of older American zoo houses having been bulldozed. You would probably be outraged!
The whole basis of European culture, however, is based on the past and our history and centuries of culture and all the rest, so bear in mind that European members will tend to value big old buildings a lot more. It never ceases to surprise me how little regard there is sometimes for historical value in the US and Canada. This isn't to say all old buildings should be kept, of course, but that things shouldn't just be swept away just for being old if they're still useful or significant. I hate to see 'old' used as a criticism - 'run-down' or 'dilapidated' are criticisms, 'old' does not convey any negative meaning in itself, as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks for the very diplomatic side blow. Be reassured he isn't me, even when he uses words that are over your head. Nevertheless, I couldn't have written it better myself. Thank you @sooty mangabey.
Oh, and as you started to mention foolishness, @snowleopard: taking an infant on such an "epic" journey appears to be more than just "a tad on the foolish side"...
I think on all the other matters mentioned above, I have had my say, and have little new to add for the moment.
In response to this point, yes I did once open a thread with that title, and for a while steered clear of Zoochat for all of the reasons I stated at the time - frustration with the nature of some of the posts. But, like Oscar Wilde, I can resist everything except temptation, and there is too much good stuff on here, from brilliant, knowledgeable people - from Pertinax to Sun Wukong to Ash to Maguari to Ituri to Foz to Tarsisus to many others whose name on a new posting makes me want to click on to see what they have to say - there is too much good stuff to ignore the site. Sim made a very good point in response to the posting you mention, basically saying that as in any internet thing it was the reader's task to pick out what he or she wanted to pick out, and ignore the chaff.
This I do - and I am sure most people on here do the same. If I see a thread such as this... http://www.zoochat.com/2/what-goes-into-exhibit-design-178136/ ... I steer well clear, knowing that while for some it will bring pleasure, it simply isn't for me. And there are certain posters whose contributions I do not read.
The trouble is, Snowleopard, that your contributions are not 'chaff', at all. I sometimes wish you would pick the best of your photos to post rather than posting a dozen near-identical shots, but I have really enjoyed seeing the photographic record of your recent holiday in the USA. And, believe it or not, I often enjoy looking at what you have to say. I just get maddened by you at times! My very best friends madden me too, of course, and I am sure I madden them - and those who wade through what I say on here as well.
I posted this this quote as a contribution to the discussion.
As this thread appears to have turned into a debate on Snow Leopard. I have to say zoochat for me is a more interesting and educational place with the SL leopard family and l look forward to hearing and seeing their next Epic adventure.
Even though it has been a tad infuriating at times, I've sat back and re-read this thread and have to admit that it has also been invigorating to have a little debate here on ZooChat. According to the STATS page my contribution to this site has diminished over the past year in terms of postings per day, but that's what happens when one is a secondary school teacher with a wife (also a teacher) and a one-year old at home. I glanced through my old postings and I haven't had such a debate on ZooChat in over a year! As I stated before, in that time I've made a concentrated effort not to criticize any zoos that I have not personally visited, and thus my critical comments on photos have been reduced to the North American and Australian galleries. (Colchester is an exception, but it's been about a year and a half since I critiqued Britain's RSCC.)
At the end of the day I realize that my opinion is not the only one in the world, and that on many occasions I can be wrong on any number of subjects. As someone who has visited a tremendous number of major zoos in the past couple of years (and has spent his 34 year-old life going to zoos and aquariums) I feel that many zoos in North America have of course become much more modern and thus created many more naturalistic exhibits. There will come a day when Philadelphia's "Rare Animal Conservation Center" will either no longer contain animals or will have them in refurbished enclosures. I just have to be patient and then I can stop complaining about it.
Small mammal houses with tiled floors and painted murals will eventually become obsolete, much like bear grottoes over the next 20 or so years. Already some zoos in the United States have bulldozed their grottoes completely (Atlanta) or radically redesigned them (countless zoos, with Woodland Park and Saint Louis in the near future). So there will surely come a time when the modernization of zoos will see almost all major zoological establishments with zero bear pits, zero small grottoes, a complete absence of funky 1970's tiles, and probably all elephant paddocks will be at least 3 acres in size. It took American zoos a full 30 years to get to the point where there are now innumerable gorillas kept in troops in large, grassy, occasionally multi-acre exhibits. Everything else that I mentioned will eventually follow suit, and perhaps the great exhibits that we all take for granted now will be archaic before we can even blink our eyes.
