I would say that it depends on the photo also and what the story is behind that particular shot. Photos can be misleading... (though I know that they are mostly not).
While I don't agree with Zebraduiker that a photo (or two) is sufficient, I absolutely agree with him that to judge and animadvert an exhibit correctly, one should have a certain background knowledge.
I often critisize enclosures here at ZooChat based only on a photo. When the photo shows the whole (or most part) pf the enclosure in question, I think it is totally reasonable to do so. Eventually, one might make the odd mistake, but in general i believe the approach is totally OK.
I will try to re-phrase and qualify my arguments a bit:
First of all, when I critize an enclosure it is always from an animal welfare perspective, unless I explicitly say otherwise.
I believe it is reasonable to do so (provided that the picture - or a combination of pictures - shows the whole enclosure) on mainly these two issues:
1. SIZE
We all have our different opinions on this subject; I have mine and so it is possible for me to judge the enclosure by my opinion.
2. THE DESIGN/FURNISHING OF THE ENCLOSURE
Based on my knowledge (limited as it may be) on for instance how a gorilla enclosure, a leopard enclosure or an elephant enclosure should be designed for the animals to live reasonably comfortable lives there, I can also judge the enclosure on this point.
Apart from this, there will be a number of X-factors about the enclosure that I won´t be able to evaluate. But I think that my own commentaries, as well as most of the commentaries made in the Gallery, are about the two points above and therefore fully valid.
Also, in response to Sun Wukong and Zebraduiker:
I think that you should keep in mind that ZooChat is an open forum, not a scientific forum. Many of us here - in fact most of us, I believe - are "amateurs". Some of the "amateurs" are exeptionally knowledgeable (I am not) but most of us are not professional zoologists. Why not let us have "our fun", so to speak, and spontaneously express our views, without demanding that we must have seen the enclosure in person before we can comment on it?
The debate would be silenced if we were to abide by your suggested harsh rules.
BTW:
We are now, in fact, debating the debate - damn us intellectuals! I actually hate that!
Why not let us have "our fun", so to speak, and spontaneously express our views, without demanding that we must have seen the enclosure in person before we can comment on it?
Because what is fun when it is quickly tapped out on a computer can be damaging. So maybe it doesn't really matter, and maybe nobody really reads what we write here apart from other like-minded people, and maybe a great zoo like the Berlin Tierpark isn't harmed by having lots of people poking it with sticks. But maybe this is not the case.
It is so very easy to criticise, and while, as you say, we need to be able to criticise, we do perhaps need to be a bit more cautious before firing off salvos in which we condemn zoos which we have not even seen.
Very often, when a zoo enclosure looks a bit dodgy, there is a very good reason why this is so. I think, for example, of Wendy, the solitary elephant at bristol Zoo who died a few years ago. Her conditions were far from ideal, and would have been easy to condemn, but she was solitary for historical reasons which the zoo management, in latter years, attempted to rectify. But someone looking at a picture on the interweb would not have had the historical background, and would have condemned and criticised something about which many people felt very passionately, and for which people had worked very hard, and in which many people had invested an awful lot of energy. And that is why I think we shouldn't always have 'our fun'.
"Our fun" was, of course, a very bad chosen phrase. I realise that now. You will simply have to excuse me and file this error in the category of "not correctly written/expressed English from the forumsters not fluent in English".
I mean this - I am definetly not trying to be funny!
As for your other arguments, I will have to think them through and comeback tomorrow - it is close to midnight now, here in Sweden...
Some countries, among others the European Member States and the US, have more or less recently published guidelines for the minimal enclosure size for various species. Though some of them are debatable, they can be used as an quite objective foundation to base an otherwise "subjective" opinion on. Alas, there are examples, both the negative and the positive ones, where qualified opinions tend to agree on when it comes to size-especially, if biological, (species-)specific parameters are taken into account.
Additionally, the pictures might be misleading when it comes to size-they might show only a part of the enclosure (see the recent Vienna Zoo Koala example) or make the exhibit appear larger than it actually is.
2. THE DESIGN/FURNISHING OF THE ENCLOSURE
Based on my knowledge (limited as it may be) on for instance how a gorilla enclosure, a leopard enclosure or an elephant enclosure should be designed for the animals to live reasonably comfortable lives there, I can also judge the enclosure on this point.
How do you want to adequately and fairly judge an enclosure with declared limited knowledge? Most pictures here are shot from the public visitor's point of view; they usually don't reveal the situation behind the scenes, working conditions for the different members of the staff, night enclosures for the animals etc. A photo might all too often be insufficient for the judgment of husbandry parameters like temperature (see my remarks on seal pools) and humidity regime, hygiene regime, vermin control etc. This might not appear to be important and obvious for the average zoo visitor, but is of immense importance for the general quality of the exhibit and the animals kept within.
As sooty mangabey correctly pointed out, such "fun" could be harmful for the individual zoo -because it is an open forum everyone can access.
You don't have to be a "zoologist" to have apt knowledge - you can also be a good and experienced zoo keeper, a qualified zoo veterinarian, a proper zoo horticulturist, a serious, reliable and dedicated private breeder of the species in question, a botanist or even a well-educated, experienced, open-minded "amateur"...But in general, you should know what you are talking about, may it be zoo exhibits, animal welfare or pancakes (Hellboy Fans might get the reference...) before you utter your opinion. Otherwise, you might do more harm than good - and as a result, put your foot all too often in your mouth...
All in all, I think some members here should be more careful in their hasty judgment of exhibts to prevent recurring discrepancies.
While I do not completely disagree with you Sun Wukong, you must remember that if we do not let the so-called "amateurs" utter their opinon, we would not have a ZooChat. Certainly not a very fun one...
If you see a post of someone critizising an exhibit/enclosure, then why not just "correct them" by posting what you know about the exhibit and express your own opinion? And if you cannot agree, then agree to disagree (this goes for everyone).
This is also why I feel that all photos should have a comment by the member that posted them. So that if there is background story or something that is important to the photo the members here will know the backgorund before they post irrational comments.
Sun Wukong:
"Additionally, the pictures might be misleading when it comes to size-they might show only a part of the enclosure (see the recent Vienna Zoo Koala example) or make the exhibit appear larger than it actually is."
That is why i frequently ask the photographer about the size of an enclosure, whenever I am in doubt.
Sun Wukong also wrote:
"How do you want to adequately and fairly judge an enclosure with declared limited knowledge? "
I have "enough" knowledge to criticize - for instance - oldschool bear grottos and lion or tiger cages as well as bull elephant enclosures consisting of a few hundred of square meters concrete floor. I have "enough" knowledge to criticize sterile and barren cages for the gret apes. Etc. In effect, enclosures that for obvious reasons are inadequate, irrespective of factors as "... temperature ... and humidity regime, hygiene regime, vermin control etc."
When Su Wong, furthermore, suggests that my humble writings would have the power to "...be harmful for the individual zoo..." I have a hard time taking him/her seriously, though.
Sooty mangabey wrote:
"Because what is fun when it is quickly tapped out on a computer can be damaging. So maybe it doesn't really matter, and maybe nobody really reads what we write here apart from other like-minded people, and maybe a great zoo like the Berlin Tierpark isn't harmed by having lots of people poking it with sticks. But maybe this is not the case."
I was, perhaps, a bit overtly sarcastic in my response to Sun Wukong´s likeminded argument. So I will a bit more polite now:
I believe that your fears, Sooty mangabey, are unfounded for the very same reasons that you yourself suggested. We are some 450+ nerds here. Nothing that we write will rock the world.
