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.
This is dangerously close to turning into the regular Zoochat debate on US zoo ethics versus British/European but I would say that in the UK quality isn't measured in terms of immersive exhibits and theming but rather a far more utilitarian approach is taken instead. I don't think this has an effect on animal welfare but there is no doubt that they are very different visitor experiences.
It's interesting that this extends to many aspects of life. I would say a similar difference exists between US and UK universities. In the US campuses are mostly beautiful and many aspire to look like a 'traditional' university. In Britain there is quite a different aesthetic and sense of design and its relationship with function and people. Ultimately the buildings have the same job but the process of packaging them is completely different.
@Ash: Chester Zoo looks brilliant, and with its massive new future it will surely stamp its authority as one of the very best zoos anywhere. But how is it taking a huge step forward? Money! The big zoos literally have millions at their disposal, and so when a zoo (no matter what country it is in) can afford to open multi-million dollar exhibits every few years then the zoos relying on attendance figures struggle to compete in terms of overall quality. The same applies to football/soccer, as year after year Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, etc, are at the top and things barely ever change.
Are you still thinking that the major zoos in Britain get money from elsewhere? No zoo in Britain is funded by the government at all, due to most of them being charities. They may occasionally get donations or something but they get their money from the public, through entrance fees and adoptions.
Exactly, all (more or less) British zoos are in the same financial boat.
The different philanthropic culture we have in the UK compared with the US also means that British zoos simply function differently. Most could never hope to have exhibits on the same scale of immersion or theming as the States so it just isn't on the agenda in most cases. There are large scale developments but I would argue that they are quite different to their US equivalents.
I was going to add that it's not just about money, there is a utilitarian culture to some extent which is suspicious of anything too theme-park like, too flashy. Again, this doesn't only apply to zoos!
I was going to add that it's not just about money, there is a utilitarian culture to some extent which is suspicious of anything too theme-park like, too flashy. Again, this doesn't only apply to zoos!
Indeed - in fact it even applies to theme parks themselves - very few British ones are really theme parks - most are just funfairs really, with very little actual theming.
@Ash: I realize that Chester is not getting its millions for its future development from the government, but I was just pointing out what a zoo is capable of provided it has a boatload of cash to spend on creating top quality exhibits for its animals.
@Maguari and Shirokuma: I would argue that Colchester appears to be very "theme-park" like, with enclosures that have been ripped to shreds by people who are even fans of the zoo. The fake rocks there are horrendous. The utilitarian approach is fine as long as people don't mind cheap but useful exhibits, complete with fences and barriers that are not hidden from public view. Wouldn't you choose to have zero obvious barriers if your zoo had the money to be able to spend millions on exhibits? My local Canadian zoo (Greater Vancouver Zoo) has numerous hoofstock paddocks that look as if they belong on a farm. There are wooden fence posts with wire in between, and the carnivore enclosures are giant chain-link cages that make it difficult to see the animals. It seems to me that there are many zoos that are content to showcase their animals in such a fashion, but wouldn't most people choose an enclosure that provided excellent viewing opportunities as well as meeting the needs of the animals? Why is it that I demand the best from zoo exhibits while many others are content with what is basic and even mundane? Zoos should strive for excellence and not settle for mediocrity, and that certainly applies to many American zoos as well as others around the world. Not all of the zoos in the United States are masterpieces, as a few deserve to be tossed into the trash!
This is a great conversation, but I'm now at work and I have to teach English and Social Studies to Grade 10 students (high school - 16 years of age) for the rest of the day. To be continued by me later...I look forward to at least a few more responses.
I would argue that Colchester appears to be very "theme-park" like, with enclosures that have been ripped to shreds by people who are even fans of the zoo. The fake rocks there are horrendous. .
Yup - and it's also the zoo whose exhibits come in for the most criticism from UK users on this website. That is not a coincidence, to my eyes - to generalise wildly, UKers don't like unnecessary theming!
The utilitarian approach is fine as long as people don't mind cheap but useful exhibits, complete with fences and barriers that are not hidden from public view. Wouldn't you choose to have zero obvious barriers if your zoo had the money to be able to spend millions on exhibits?
Honestly, no - how well hidden the barrier was genuinely wouldn't come into it.
I would choose whatever barrier afforded the best view of the inhabitants - which would often mean a ha ha with a solid wall to prevent visitors falling in or glass panels at strategic points around a full-height mesh or walled exhibit. It would depend, of course, on both the species and the site for the exhibit. I certainly wouldn't banish mesh - it is invaluable for increasing the usuable space in avaries and primate or squirrel enclosures, for example.
It seems to me that there are many zoos that are content to showcase their animals in such a fashion, but wouldn't most people choose an enclosure that provided excellent viewing opportunities as well as meeting the needs of the animals? Why is it that I demand the best from zoo exhibits while many others are content with what is basic and even mundane? Zoos should strive for excellence and not settle for mediocrity, and that certainly applies to many American zoos as well as others around the world. Not all of the zoos in the United States are masterpieces, as a few deserve to be tossed into the trash!
