This does look nice and spacious, but the thing I don't like about white oak is that they take native landscape, put a fence around it, and toss in some animals. So where is the design, or innovation? (No offense Okapikpr)
Well, does it need it? It's like polar bear's being happier in a woodland. They wouldn't live there normally, but they're much better off and more enriched than they are in, say, Seaworld.
This is an interesting debate, but in this particular instance I'd like to point out that White Oak is a Conservation Centre and not a zoo. There are zero members of the public on the grounds, unless they have an invitation from a keeper, and thus the exhibits do not have to be luxurious, innovative or geared towards immersing the average zoogoer into thinking that they are visiting Kenya or Tanzania. The breeding success rate at this centre is one of the best on the planet for many species, and there are countless paddocks that are massive in size. The herd of Grevy's zebra have 12 acres, a single tapir has a few acres, the giraffes have a multi-acre enclosure, and all of the okapi, cheetah, rhino and other animals have HUGE habitats. There is no need for the centre to spend millions in creating African Savannas because the Florida forest enclosures work well and White Oak is well known internationally within the zoo industry as an outstanding facility. If the centre were open to the public then perhaps a case could be made to create more immersive exhibits, but as it stands the animal habitats are perfectly fine. In fact, most of them are amongst the very best of their kind in terms of size, shade, terrain and herd size.
Personally I'd rather see this to a giraffe in a smaller immersion type exhibit anyway. Sure, they look nice, but whenever I see one (e.g- Gorilla kingdom), I tend to think "sure, it looks nice, but so much more of this money could have been spent on the animals".
However I think they probably help with sending out a conservation message.
Just my 2punce
