Seeing these views of the exhibits, it becomes apparent that the overhead hanging mesh system provides for a significant reduction in the number of poles required to support the mesh (cost savings) as well as unobstructed views of the exhibit (aesthetic purposes).
Interesting. I have only seen ratel kept behind dry moats or glass windows in the UK and Europe. They certainly don't need the climbing space provided by this enclosure: on the other hand, this enclosure could be used for many other mammal or bird species, so that in the long run its versatility may be very useful.
@Falcosparverius Such a mesh system isn't necessarily cheaper. The tall central poles would require substantially deep foundation and high strength steel, as compared with having multiple, but shorter poles. The taller the poles and deeper the foundations, the more expensive they get. Not to mention all that extra mesh above that serves no purpose. But I can see one benefit of this system in that it allows flexibility in configuring the mesh for individual enclosures.
@Zooish I'm uncertain how much more concrete is needed for the foundation in this case (per pole) but I doubt that the total amount would be greater. With the size and number of enclosures, I would argue that the system used here is more efficient than the more traditional multiple-pole construction. Similar to a cable-stayed bridge, the overhanging mesh distributes the forces in such a way that the pole only needs to carry the weight of the mesh, otherwise tension cables or bracing is required to maintain stability. Given more poles and thus more materials, the cost of installation is greater than stretching the mesh.
But anyways, I prefer this type of enclosure since the fewer poles in this case won't block any views of the exhibit and I don't think there will be as many trees to hide the poles when the exhibit matures (compared to Monkey Trails).
