In kind of looks like the set from the musical version of The Lion King. I don't think it looks that ugly tbh, I think it's quite cool and seems ok for the animals. Obviously it could be better though.
You are easy to please Ashley. I find that you often defend many so-called ugly exhibits here at ZooChat, including this hideous monkey island. Perhaps beauty really is in the eye of the beholder...or maybe you are a supreme optimist. Either way, keep the comments coming!
It could do with a few more climbing structures but aside from that I agree with Ashley. It looks really cool and it provides the monkeys with everything that they need.
I cannot express a single positive word about this enclosure, as it does not educate the public about the natural environment of the inhabitants nor is it asethetically pleasing to the eye. A few dead logs, 4 ropes, an actual primate "swing" and a bunch of rocks and concrete. Wheeee!! I would actually love to be able to say that this was a quality exhibit, because then I'd have no concerns with every single zoo on the planet. They'd all be okay and lack any problems, and I would accept every cage for what it was and stop looking for improvements. Each to their own indeed, but my personal standards for what I look for in a zoo are much, much higher than the average individual. It sometimes makes me a critic, but I also lavish praise on truly great exhibits.
Maybe you should read my whole post? I said it looks cool (as in the architechture. I feel the same way about the penguin pool in London), and said it's only OK for the animals, and then said it obivously could be better. Let's be honest, with macaques no vegitation would last in there, and the floor is made of sand so they have substrate. And the last time I checked, Japanese mountains are made of rock...
Edit: Snowleopard, I kind of agree with you in the respect that there's ALWAYS ways to improve something, an animal exhibit expecially. But I tend to think more along the lines of what the animals want or need as opposed to the visitor's perspective. For example, these macaques are terrestrial, and it looks as though they have a big ground area; they live on rock in the wild, although they obviously would come accross some substrate, so they have the sand which is soft and I bet they enjoy rolling in and digging in; they can swim, so I assume they use the water moat; the rock gives them elevation and a hiding place from the rain/sun/each other; and they have the trees should they wish to climb. Overall, IMO, not too bad for the monkeys, ugly as sin to most people even though I quite like the way the rock is done
they live on rock in the wild, although they obviously would come accross some substrate, so they have the sand which is soft and I bet they enjoy rolling in and digging in
Actually, they don't live on rock - you're thinking of the Barbary Ape. These guys live in evergreen and broad-leafed forests, from sealevel to about 1500 metres (albeit, they do range up to 3000 metres up the mountains). This enclosure requires a lot more climbing opportunities. While it's adequate for the animals (and they probably breed quite well here), it is an old enclosure and the zoo would benefit from building a new enclosure for the monkeys.
