I know I'm going to be ripped for saying this but.... I'm currently looking up 80 ft in the air and there's an Orangutan brachiating along the cables... straight above me and out in the open. I've never seen an Orangutan exhibit that can offer this kind of experience for both the visitor and more importantly the apes. This exhibit is incredible.
Why do you think you will get ripped? The "O line" is certainly the best feature (or to some the only redeeming feature) of this exhibit. What people including myself hate are the unnecessary stuff - cathedral/spire, silly ride - and how unnatural the whole exhibit looks.
I often wondered the same thing- Orangs may be very 'sure-handed' and have a very strong grip but its only a couple of cables, with no supporting structures they can grab onto.
After their initial interest wears off, I would expect them not to use it that much, unless they could somehow be fed on the platforms to tempt them out. They will probably find that they get lazy and prefer the ground/indoors unless there is some continuing stimulus to use it.
Regarding continued usage, how does the one in Washington work? Is it a huge success or a bit of a white elephant?
The one in Washington was in regular use when I visited the National Zoo in 2011. It seemed to be a great success for both the orangs and the visitors after a decade plus of being in operation.
...either way San Diego's Elephant Odyssey just breathed a huge sigh of relief. After 5 years of abuse the baton for the most controversial zoo exhibit in America has just been passed...
One of the criticisms of anti-zoo activists is that zoos are really just about entertainment, using the claim of conservation as a guise. Exhibits like this only reinforce that stereotype and in this case I think that is actually a valid argument.
Zoos should connect people with nature and this does not do that (as far as I can tell from afar), no matter how many educational panels it has inside. Reading about how orangutans live in nature is not the same as feeling it.
Meanwhile, it is less than a two hour drive to Cincinnati Zoo, which has perhaps the most natural orangutan exhibit in America and costs half as much to enter. It is less than a four hour drive to St Louis Zoo which is free admission.
One of the criticisms of anti-zoo activists is that zoos are really just about entertainment, using the claim of conservation as a guise. Exhibits like this only reinforce that stereotype and in this case I think that is actually a valid argument.
I don't get it.
Watching an orang climbing along a wire many metres above the ground is just entertainment , but watching an orang climbing along a piece of fake tree branch in a sort of forest stage set is conservation or education or both . Is that a rational argument?
Any teacher will tell you that you have to use different strategies for different topics and different students - there is no single ideal universal method for education (or for conservation either, come to that). But the basic rule is that the teacher has to get the students interested first.
Exhibiting orangs is problematic, particularly Bornean orangs: they can be lethargic, secretive and destructive. This makes it hard to interest visitors in them and provides ammunition for the anti-zoo brigade. A good exhibit for any species must allow the animals as many opportunities as possible to show natural behaviour, that's not only best for the animal's welfare, it's also the best way to interest visitors and this leads on to learning and concern for conservation. If an artificial setting lets an animal show natural behaviour better than a more attractive but less stimulating setting does, there's only one winner.
Of course only time will tell what the orangs and the visitors make of this exhibit.
Zoo Chatters, you all have to remember that the director of the Indianapolis Zoo is perhaps the most arrogant and misguided director at any American Zoo. No doubt that he saw this exhibit as a way to leave his permanent mark - like the ancient Egyptians built pyramids as a tribute to themselves and how important they considered themselves to be. I wonder what archaeologists will think this "was" when they uncover it 2,000 years from now!
The Church of the Red Ape
I don't get it.
Watching an orang climbing along a wire many metres above the ground is just entertainment , but watching an orang climbing along a piece of fake tree branch in a sort of forest stage set is conservation or education or both . Is that a rational argument?
Any teacher will tell you that you have to use different strategies for different topics and different students - there is no single ideal universal method for education (or for conservation either, come to that). But the basic rule is that the teacher has to get the students interested first.
Exhibiting orangs is problematic, particularly Bornean orangs: they can be lethargic, secretive and destructive. This makes it hard to interest visitors in them and provides ammunition for the anti-zoo brigade. A good exhibit for any species must allow the animals as many opportunities as possible to show natural behaviour, that's not only best for the animal's welfare, it's also the best way to interest visitors and this leads on to learning and concern for conservation. If an artificial setting lets an animal show natural behaviour better than a more attractive but less stimulating setting does, there's only one winner.
Of course only time will tell what the orangs and the visitors make of this exhibit.
Alan, your points are valid, but context is also important. Is it easy for visitors to understand the connection between protecting the rainforests and saving the orangutans by viewing them against a backdrop of steel and glass?
Indianapolis clearly had money to burn for this project and it is not unreasonable to have expected that they create a stimulating AND natural-looking (as far as possible) exhibit for the apes.
