Vegetation in an exhibit for a Grey Seal would be entirely for the public's aesthetic benefit though - these are animals of rocky coasts, and would meet hardly any (terrestrial) vegetation in nature - I can't even imagine them having any enrichment benefit for a seal. Given that, I don't blame the Zoo for saving money for elsewhere.
I agree, re the view for the public, but at SFZOO much of the exhibit slams are based on public view. Random visitors don't know specifics about the animals individually or the species needs. They look and see and make rash comments. A better paint job and a few tree's would deflect unfounded thoughts and add just a bit more pro percentage to the Zoo.
This is true. I agree however when a facility is already financially hurting you have to make priorities. Too many people here think that money grows on trees but it just doesnt. I encourage that people who have problems with how zoos look should do what thry can to help... most zoos are non-profit and desperatly need donors of all economic levels. My view is try and help dont just complain.
@Tyrant King- Yes to it all, except I'm not complaining to complain because there is nothing the zoo can do, (if it sounded like) i was complaining, it is because the SFZOO does not want to do certain upgrades. I know for a fact that for this exhibit and a few others, suggestions were made regarding trying to get it sponsored using donated materials (paint, ect.) as well a docent offer to not only pay for the paint but to paint it herself and none of the offers were taken/used/considered.
