I was keeping them in mind, but I still believe Seattle is the #1 bear exhibit.
@Dan: These parks you are comparing with zoos are sort of a different ball-game. It was sort of be like comparing the Elephant sanctuary with the North Carolina Zoo's elephant exhibit. The places have different intentions and goals, not to mention the rural places you are bringing up have a lot more property. Zoos are generally in cities, and for the them to communicate to the public their intentions to save wildlife, participate in conservation programs, and to connect the public they cannot just simply fence off a section of land, and call it a day. They need to take the time, and money to make them look realistic as well as provide the best life possible for the animal.
Northwest Trek Wildlife Park does not have a single bad exhibit in the entire zoo, but many of the bear, canine and feline enclosures are simply fenced off sections of forest. I've visited twice and hopefully might go for a third time this summer, and it is not really a true zoo but more along the lines of a huge park with only North American animals.
Seattle's grizzly exhibit is perhaps marginally better than Minnesota's, but they are both in traditional zoos and brilliant in design. The Woodland Park Zoo is surrounded by roads, neighbourhoods and congestion, and is situated two exits from downtown Seattle and the hustle and bustle of a metropolitan population of 3 million people. Also, the WPZ is on 92 acres but only actually utilizes 65 of them.
I definitely like the Seattle enclosure WAY better, as that enclosure in the picture is incredibly ugly. There is no realism in that enclosure at all. Anyone can just fence off x amount of acres of land, and that is not what constitutes a great exhibit.
I'm gonna have to step in here. Having not seen the one in Seattle I am not going to judge which exhibit is the best. But saying that the exhibit in the Scandinavian Wild Animal Park is "unrealistic and ugly" is a direct lie. Ugly it may be, but that is a subjective opinion and depends on the eye that sees. But unrealistic? Have you ever been to a Scandinavian wilderness in, say, northern Norway or Sweden? You can find areas there looking very much like this out in the open terrain where European brown bears also venture out.
And Dan was not saying that the exhibit in Seattle was bad or small. Just not "enormous", which I completely agree in.
I agree with Toddy, it might not be immersive but at least the bears (appear to) have access to the trees in their exhibit in Scandinavia, much better IMO than having them behind a moat or hotwired.
All of you are missing my point! It is unfair to compare a zoo to a rural wildlife park that specifies in certain animals. It is like comparing apples and oranges to say the least. Quite frankly I am shocked that there is such an argument over such a spectacular enclosure, and there is always someone on here to put down a great exhibit all because of size. Personally I feel Dan relies way to much on the sizes of the enclosures in his deciding of the best exhibits. Bigger is not always better!
I don't agree it's all about size either, the sloth bears used to pace all the time at London, and yet the sun bears in the RSCC (and maybe even Berlin zoo) didn't show any stereotypic behaviour and they were in a MUCH smaller exhibit. This exhibit looks great, although it is a shame it's much smaller than it appears. Not saying it's too small by any means though
My comment to this particular picture created a very interesting debate. Thanks to all who participated.
Just a few words towards BlackRhino:
I fully appreciate your argument that zoo and wildlife parks cannot be compared. You are absolutely correct, of course. I was just so freaked out by your first comment...
And still, stubborn as I am, I cannot help but to mention that the exhibit at Woodland park (however brilliantly designed it is) just barely exceeds THE MINIMUM SIZE OF BEAR ENCLOSURES allowed in my country - Sweden.
My comment to this particular picture created a very interesting debate. Thanks to all who participated.
Just a few words towards BlackRhino:
I fully appreciate your argument that zoo and wildlife parks cannot be compared. You are absolutely correct, of course. I was just so freaked out by your first comment...
And still, stubborn as I am, I cannot help but to mention that the exhibit at Woodland park (however brilliantly designed it is) just barely exceeds THE MINIMUM SIZE OF BEAR ENCLOSURES allowed in my country - Sweden.
I have to ask: does Sweden legislate the minimum size of a human habitation? I know I would greatly prefer living in a small apartment with a terrace, ocean view, nice kitchen, radiant heat, flat screen TV, plants and and comfortable bed than in a 3000 square foot developer-built suburban box with none of those amenities. Pure area is not nearly as important as the quality and composition of space--for animals of all kinds, including us.
A clever piece of sarcasm and I get your point (though I am somewhat surprised to recieve this sarcasm from you, reduakari...). Never mind: difficult question and I have tried to debate it on numerous threads here at ZooChat. "Bigger is not always better" etc. I know.
Anyway, the Swedish laws also regulates many other factors than the mere size of the enclosures. You are probably already familiar with the thread in which I introduced this subject.
@Dan: It is INCREDIBLY annoying how you bring up Swedish laws whenever discussing good exhibits in the United States. To be perfectly honest, I could really careless about the Swedish laws on size requirement. I don't care if this is the bare minimum in Sweden, and actually you would probably hate a lot of the great exhibits in the World if you judge strictly by size as some of the absolute best exhibits are not always even close to the largest of their kind. So PLEASE, for me, STOP bringing up Swedish laws.
