I like it better when it is disguised as it actually can add to the realism of an enclosure. I hate when they have a jumbled hot-wire mess surrounding a tree, like at Atlanta's gorilla habitat.
If the bears had been "let at the trees," the trees would be dead.
I am sure there are plenty of dead trees provided to the bears to let them scratch, chew and climb. But providing shade in the blast furnace that is an Oklahoma summer is very important, and protecting irreplaceable large living trees is the best way to accomplish that. Oh, I guess you could build an ugly shed (or mine shaft), but Oklahoma City is presenting animals in an appropriate natural habitat, and they at least tried to minimize the unattractiveness of electrical protection (pretty effectively).
See I'd rather see something themed (ugly being a matter of opinion) that could be used by the bears, and I'm sure they'd prefer it too, I think captive animals tend to stay 1 metre away from electric wire; that's a lot of space, especially in a wooded enclosure (although I realise that doesn't apply here).
Every tree and shrub in this photo is either protected by well-disguised hotwire or is on the far side of a hidden perimeter moat. Lots of natural deadfall for the animals to interact with, and shaded areas are provided by the protected trees, the viewing shelter itself and an adjacent cave. Infinitely more satisfying for visitors than seeing an animal in an obviously man-made paddock with a "functional" shed or other shelter. And the bears spend plenty of time within inches of the hotwire, the location and extent of which they very quickly surmise and gauge:
Fair point, but that's all they are: More satisfying for the visitors. If there are 30 trees that are surrounded by hotwire, to me that is (averaging each tree at 1 metre diameter) 30sqm of wasted space that could be used by the bears. I guess I just don't see the point in hidden moats and expensive hotwired trees when the enclosure could have a chain link fence (giving the bears all the wasted space of the moat) and man made shade and other forms of enrichment. But, again we reach the never ending cycle of immersion/praticality
Immersion/practicality maybe isn't the best way to frame the question. The real issue is what is the purpose of a zoo? To show animals as "happy" individuals, or to present them in the larger context of what they are: wild animals whose survival as a species is entirely dependent upon protection of their natural habitat. And as to the best way to achieve the latter we will clearly never agree.
