I have visited a few other Zoo's in the US, for some reason only the Oakland Zoo Chimp enclosure comes to mind. I hate this enclosure. They have a good amount of room to run around and rough house, but its enclosed in glass. Its like they are in a giant cube. I've only been there once and it still feels like a weird enclosure. ... I will try to post an updated photo of the Chimp grottos.
Definately puts the UKs poorer ape exhibits in a better light at least twycross has grass !
Is it just me or is the 'moat' huge ? or worse is the 'land' tiny !
Poor show really
That's what's so wasteful about Moats, whether dry or water- they use up so much of the available space, resulting in a tiny % of the area being actually for the animals themselves. Also dry moats are ugly, while watermoats are dangerous(at least for Apes) Many zoos still seem to like them even nowadays and incorporate them in modern Ape exhibits, presumably because of the unrestricted viewing for the public. But then viewing always has to be from a considerable distance. I far prefer glass viewing windows- if they are used, the animals can have the extra space and they only come up close to people if they want to by choice, and such interactions are stimulating/interesting both for the animals and people alike.
Although e.g. Twycross Ape enclosures leave much to be desired for the Apes, for the public the glass windows in the outside walls means viewing of the animals is very good.
The 'best' ape water moat I have seen is at Edinburghs Budungo trail. Being relatively shallow and cleverly and densely planted to prevent the chimps getting to close to it.
Am I right in thinking this was formally a water moat ?
I would think that given the very few climbing opportunities that the animals are given by the scaffolding they would spend far too much time flopped on the floor like a sack of potatoes.
It is not how orangutans should be kept.
Does anybody know why modern chimp/orang exhibits never got built? Or better elephant exhibits? Weren't there major plans to fix the ape and ele exhibits at some point before the elephant situation reached negative critical mass?
I will never understand why this world-class city has never managed to fix its zoo despite multiple attempts to do so.
Because the SFZOO thinks its better to present to prospective donors ideas about future new exhibits to fund than to put that on hold and concentrate on updating existing exhibits. They think their desire to expand is how the Zoo will profit in the long run. While taking care of the animal's homes that are already there continue to suffer, while they plan to bring in new animals to fill new exhibits. Its truly disgusting. If the Director presented to donors with ideas for upgrading to not only make the Zoo exhibits aesthetically more pleasing to Visitors AND more important, enrich the lives of the Animals who live there, donors would donate to those causes, but that is not what's presented to them, so therefore that's not how the money is spent. Its spent on what it was "raised" for, the new exhibits. So that's where, "we have no money for that (upgrading) comes into play.
Because the SFZOO thinks its better to present to prospective donors ideas about future new exhibits to fund than to put that on hold and concentrate on updating existing exhibits. They think their desire to expand is how the Zoo will profit in the long run. While taking care of the animal's homes that are already there continue to suffer, while they plan to bring in new animals to fill new exhibits. Its truly disgusting. If the Director presented to donors with ideas for upgrading to not only make the Zoo exhibits aesthetically more pleasing to Visitors AND more important, enrich the lives of the Animals who live there, donors would donate to those causes, but that is not what's presented to them, so therefore that's not how the money is spent. Its spent on what it was "raised" for, the new exhibits. So that's where, "we have no money for that (upgrading) comes into play.
If you end up with a zoo full of embarrassingly bad exhibits like this, the bear pits, the big cat house, the old elephant exhibits, the ramshackle primate exhibit, etc. etc. etc. then I fail to see why any sane donor would want to support your zoo. The new giraffe savanna is nice (although even it has been criticized as not adequately protecting animals from the cold San Francisco fog climate), the gorilla exhibit is okay, and the children's zoo is pretty good, but what else in this zoo is anything that any zoo management team in the first world would be proud of? I suppose the lemur complex is okay too.
From a visitor point of view, who happens to know a bit about what really goes on in that place, it appears that Management does not care about what's best for the Animals. The Keepers do, but Management doesn't. Heck most the suits there don't even know which animal is which. Regardless, you have a Director that is a Socialite with no Animal experience, who only knows how to schmooze with the rich at cocktail parties. The Director, the Board, and the Park and Rec all pat each other on the back and think they are doing a bang up job, when they are not. There are some things that can't be helped, but there are some that can. They don't see it as a priority. Its sad but the Zoo could be so much more than it is. The animals that live there are awesome and special. They have had great care because of the Keepers and Vet staff. That is why there are so many senior residents. They are the heart of the Zoo and Management doesn't get that. Believe me, I've been in their mix for sometime now. Deaf ears and they don't like outside opinions. You are welcome to voice your opinion and contact the Director Tanya Peterson, tanyap@sfzoo.org LIke I've said in some posts, I wouldn't want to see senior animals displaced by complete renovation/rebuild, but adding some landscaping to these old concrete exhibits would do wonders for the animals and the perception.
