I understand completely the aesthetic complaints about a gaudy toddler toy being put into a naturalistic exhibit. Presumably though it is in there because the animal management staff found the need to include an enrichment element that was not included in the original exhibit design for whatever reasons.
Presumably the slide is providing some enrichment that is increasing animal well-being. In this case what is more important, the illusion that you are looking at gibbons and otters in Southeast Asia instead of a zoo in Virginia or the presumed increased well-being of the otters (assuming the slide is for them)?
I honestly don't have an answer to this question as I am a fan of zoos rather than a keeper or zoo designer.
I would be very interested in hearing opinions from people who actually have to work with these questions in the real world about how you would prefer that situations like this are handled.
I understand this slide is enrichment for the otters. However, would it kill them to make a more natural slide? My Beardsley Zoo's N.A. River Otter exhibit had a slide like this only longer, but thanks to a recent renovation from the Aquarion Company, they now have a new slide and ramp that look like hollowed out logs. I'm sure something like this at the Virginia Zoo would still be fun enrichment, and wouldn't give the appearance that toddlers' toys are quite frequent in the wilds of Asia.
Yes it is as surprising as it is egregious. Hardly an otter exhibit is discussed today without talk of the slides... and whether there should be a kid's slide (for human use) alongside it. So how this came to be is a story worth hearing.
Was enrichment planned but it just wasn't used by the otters?
Did the otters tend to hide in the back of the exhibit and this is a very well intentioned effort to get them active where they can be seen?
Did some keeper simply decide that they wanted this and it has nothing to do with design or animal needs? Are the Curators, keepers and Director fighting about it to this day?
Did the gibbons order it to humiliate the otters in an effort to have them removed from the exhibit?
Was it "Playskool Day" at the zoo when @mweb08 visited? And the toy was then promptly returned to Wal-Mart for a refund?
Did an influential donor insist that the exhibit needed "some color" and this was the cheapest way to appease him/her?
Did the otters buy it themselves and Amazon had it delivered before anyone was the wiser?
The mind boggles with possibilities.
Yes it is as surprising as it is egregious. Hardly an otter exhibit is discussed today without talk of the slides... and whether there should be a kid's slide (for human use) alongside it. So how this came to be is a story worth hearing.
Was enrichment planned but it just wasn't used by the otters?
Did the otters tend to hide in the back of the exhibit and this is a very well intentioned effort to get them active where they can be seen?
Did some keeper simply decide that they wanted this and it has nothing to do with design or animal needs? Are the Curators, keepers and Director fighting about it to this day?
Did the gibbons order it to humiliate the otters in an effort to have them removed from the exhibit?
Was it "Playskool Day" at the zoo when @mweb08 visited? And the toy was then promptly returned to Wal-Mart for a refund?
Did an influential donor insist that the exhibit needed "some color" and this was the cheapest way to appease him/her?
Did the otters buy it themselves and Amazon had it delivered before anyone was the wiser?
The mind boggles with possibilities.
Very good points you brought up. I never thought of all the reasons why this might be placed here, except for the keepers placing it here. I'll use more of the knowledge of why something is there more often. Thank you.
This slide is not a permanent piece of exhibit furniture but something placed in the exhibit for a day or two at a time for enrichment.
*Insert debate about naturalistic vs. non-naturalistic enrichment*
