that is well good, they had a space of land and they used it well,
if you use your eyes they cannot climb it as there if a fence of sorts around each foot, they have things to climb on, the tree's and a pool, fantastic
that is well good, they had a space of land and they used it well,
if you use your eyes they cannot climb it as there if a fence of sorts around each foot, they have things to climb on, the tree's and a pool, fantastic
I don't think this enclosure can really be called fantastic (or "well good" for that matter), it's of average size with limited climbing oppurtunities and no live trees. I'm also not quite sure that an electricity pylon contributes much to the natural look.
Hideous and ugly as hell. A massive steel pylon obscuring the horizon, piles of white rocks randomly placed inside the enclosure, mud and dirt showing through thinly spread grass, a few dead tree limbs propped up against stumps...definitely nothing to look at and not even remotely close to a red panda's natural environment. This might actually be one of the worse red panda exhibits in the ZooChat galley, as there are plenty of top-notch habitats for these charismatic animals throughout the zoo world.
just to point out, chester zoo red panda enclosure isnt that different, same sort of size, its just they have taller tree's which provide a nice hiding place,
but like i said, maybe you could email in to tell them your veiws
just to point out, chester zoo red panda enclosure isnt that different, same sort of size, its just they have taller tree's which provide a nice hiding place,
but like i said, maybe you could email in to tell them your veiws
This made me laugh! How you can compare the two is beyond me, yes Chester exhibit may have a smaller footprint but for an animal that spends alot of the time in the trees do you really need a nice greed field for them to run about in?
Also the pylon should of been left out of this enclosure! They could of havled the size but more than doubled the vertical space.
