The presentation may also seem strange because here you are looking down onto the exhibit. Whereas I think most zoos in the UK have snow leopard exhibits that you view at ground level (e.g. Banham et al.) or look up at the leopards (e.g. Twycross, Dudley et al.) where they are presented on a slope or in a tall cage.
Yes, that doesn't help either and adds to the overall negative feel. I don't know if you can only view this enclosure from walkways above, or from ground level too. IMO looking down on virtually any species is a bad exhibition method- my pet hate is when it happens with Giraffe e.g. the indoor areas at Paignton, Colchester and Noahs's Ark. Here's this wonderful creature whose most noteworthy attribute is its great height, and viewing it from above entirely negates it. Not sure but I don't think South Lakes are guilty with Giraffe.
While Bronx Zoo may have the best snow leopard exhibit in the USA, it was nowhere near as nice (or big) as I had expected it to be when I saw it in person.
Put it like this- if an established urban Zoo such as London were building for Snow Leopard, it would be designed far more on aethsetic grounds. It would be called 'Realm of the Snow Leopard' or 'Himalayan Experience' or some such, cost between 2- 4 million pounds, might or might not be a good enclosure for the animals but would be beautifully landscaped, with smaller ancillary Himalayan species housed nearby to complement it, and with excellent viewing facilities for visitors. Its just that sort of difference.
An amusing retort, and I have a dodgy photo of an "immersive" exhibit to present to you. The touch tank at the Portland Aquarium, a relative newcomer to the world of zoological delight, contains a watery environment where visitors literally immerse their hands into an underwater world.
Put it like this- if an established urban Zoo such as London were building for Snow Leopard, it would be designed far more on aethsetic grounds. It would be called 'Realm of the Snow Leopard' or 'Himalayan Experience' or some such, cost between 2- 4 million pounds, might or might not be a good enclosure for the animals but would be beautifully landscaped, with smaller ancillary Himalayan species housed nearby to complement it, and with excellent viewing facilities for visitors. Its just that sort of difference.
H'mmm.I don't want to hijack this thread, but the gorilla and tiger revamps have been done at London costing a lot of money, and with minimal ancillary exhibits - none at all with the tigers, and one not wonderfully done aviary with the gorillas.
I'll pass judgement on the landscaping - in all fairness, that takes time to mature.
H'mmm.I don't want to hijack this thread, but the gorilla and tiger revamps have been done at London costing a lot of money, and with minimal ancillary exhibits - none at all with the tigers, and one not wonderfully done aviary with the gorillas.
I'll pass judgement on the landscaping - in all fairness, that takes time to mature.
Erm.... Tapirs? Anoa (for a short while)? Colobus? Mangabeys? The geographically-puzzling spider monkeys? The very-hard-to-see Congo peafowl? They do have ancillary exhibits.... (even though I'm sure we'd agree that there should be more).
I did know exactly how much London Zoo's Tiger enclosure cost, I know it was millions, but the amount they give to conservation projects is woefully small in comparison.
Yes, I can say that Colchester Zoo's fencing was woefully inadequate for some species, and that was proven - sadly.
Going back to this thread - this enclosure doesn't look good from this angle, having seen snow leopards in the wild (and yes I will be going again this year) I think they are trying to reproduce a scree slope, it could do with being bigger/higher but they could have issues with planning with a taller fence - I don't know, but I will ask that question in an email before I visit.
I think they are trying to reproduce a scree slope, it could do with being bigger/higher but they could have issues with planning with a taller fence - I don't know, but I will ask that question in an email before I visit.
There are always constraints of that type in open enclosure planning- 'mountains' can't be too high in relation to fences etc. For SnowLeopard, I think a roofed enclosure works best- the interior rockwork can be as high as you like then and the vertical space can be used, which it can't be here. My gripe with this though is not particularly its suitability for SnowLeopards, but the resulting ugliness.
I don't think that the owner of South Lakes is such a poor guy that can't afford a little landscaping, a few thick fallen tree trunk with branches and a number of conifers to begin with. Although the rock pile is widespread in snow loepard habitats it doesn't mean it is preferred by cats to walk on. Like most animals they probably choose the easies ways in their habitats (look at some animals having well defined pathways that often cover forest roads and other "easy" paths. Their habitat is much more complex with large rocks, horizontal spaces, outlooks from the highest spots (they love that) aso.
I don't think that the owner of South Lakes is such a poor guy that can't afford a little landscaping, a few thick fallen tree trunk with branches and a number of conifers to begin with.
No, but you have to look at it in the context of the whole park. Enclosures generally don't appear landscaped at all there, so this one is no different.
