Although it looks nothing like the grassland habitat of the Maned Wolf, this exhibit is nonetheless an excellent example of habitat immersion. The barrier (dry moat) is completely hidden by vegetation.
Put tapirs or okapis in this exhibit (I have no idea if it is large enough for either) and the effect would be wonderful. It's not the immersion technique that is at fault, it's species selection.
Are there not some areas which might look like this in the Pantanal?
It might not exactly replicate their usual habitat but it's not quite like having a musk ox, for example, in a rainforest habitat.
Also it looks like there is a more open space to the left of the picture, does anyone know if this is the case? i've been to Singapore but don't remember this exhibit.
Maned Wolfs in Brazil occurs in several habitats, from open grasslands to the Cerrado (similar to African Savana with trees, bushes, some forested area), note that Maned Wolfs where tought to be extinct in the Brazilian Pampa since 1973, but some months ago they found one individual again in the Pampas of South Brazil, in some areas Maned Wolfs also use forest for foraginng but never dense forest´s, his legs are not made for run in forest or even walk well there.
Yes Pantanal have such places, the only difference is that this exhibit is very "green" similar than our Equatorial Forest´s or even the Atlantic Forest in is Northern range.
This exhibit is pretty old, and it used to look more like scrub forest with low bushes and short grass. Over the years, the plants grew out naturally and Singapore Zoo doesn't seem to believe in 'mowing lawns'. To be fair, its not exactly easy to stop the plants from thriving, they grow really fast in the tropical climate!
I had no idea that there would be so many comments on my initial statement. Another example of impressive dialogue on ZooChat!
@CGSwans: money is a MAJOR issue, and while some zoos have millions upon millions to spend (ie many of the large American zoos that I frequently visit) then the minor zoos with much smaller budgets can't even begin to compete in terms of exhibit quality.
@Ash: thanks for the statistics, and I might refer to your list once or twice in the future. There are entire zoos in the world that have 95% of their enclosures surrounded by either mesh or electric fencing, and thus there is never any doubt that what one is seeing is a cage. However, if a zoo can effectively hide the barriers then greatness can sometimes be achieved in terms of exhibit quality. Hidden barriers are amazing to behold, and that is something that I see at Woodland Park in Seattle on a fairly regular basis.
There are entire zoos in the world that have 95% of their enclosures surrounded by either mesh or electric fencing, and thus there is never any doubt that what one is seeing is a cage.
I think this is part of my issue with the cost of immersion exhibits - you spend all that money and there is still no doubt that it is a cage. No-one is being fooled - they've come to a zoo.
I know it can have educational benefits but for the money it costs I wouldn't want every exhibit to be approached this way, or zoos will be forced to cut back on the number of animals and species to compensate for the cost and space requirements of these mega-exhibits.
However, if a zoo can effectively hide the barriers then greatness can sometimes be achieved in terms of exhibit quality. Hidden barriers are amazing to behold, and that is something that I see at Woodland Park in Seattle on a fairly regular basis.
And I personally don't need to be fooled into thinking I'm in the Congo rainforest to have a good day at a zoo! You may think this is the way forward and that every zoo should strive to be immersive but it's just such an unrealistic thing to expect from a lot of zoos, especially British ones which, as you know, rely entirely on entry fees and donations just to keep going.
@Ash + Maguari : I totally agree with both of you guys in terms of cost, as exhibits that hide barriers and attempt to be "immersive" are often hugely expensive. Ash, you mentioned British zoos and I'm not even sure how they stay in business without support other than charitable donations and entry fees. Yesterday the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago sent out a press release stating that it will receive over $15 million from the state of Illinois, and that money is mainly for the replacement of over a dozen roofs for various zoo buildings, and also towards a children's zoo and other repairs. That same zoo has the $27 million Great Bear Wilderness opening in a few months from now, and still plans to sink at least $100 million (or more!) into developing new exhibits in order to upgrade the zoo. Brookfield is a huge, impressive zoo, but I wouldn't place it in the 10 best in North America. How can British zoos (or any zoos relying on attendance for $$) even be in the same ballpark in terms of quality? I live 15 minutes away from the Greater Vancouver Zoo, and that establishment has been raising money for 6 months just to accumulate $40,000 thousand for a new bald eagle aviary. Brookfield probably wouldn't open a new exhibit for less than a couple of million.
Well depending on what you mean by "quality" I'd say many of ours are just as good. Chester for example. I guess we're just easier to please and are happier with our lot
