Apenheul Primate Park Apenheul Primate Park News

Rayane said:
2 days a week the Talapoins are visible in the Red howler/Golden lion tamarin area, they rotate exhibit so that the talapoins can get used to the walk-through way of life.
Click to expand...
I remember it being three days (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday) from my visit today
 
I used to hold apenheul in high regards but while gaia park truely turned more and more interesting concept wise apenheul did not just stagnated but declined.

One can argue about a lot of things but one thing not even debatable any more was the lack of improovement.

There had been too small enclosures, some outdoor like the squirrel monkey forest islands for capuchin and once howler monkeys now seemingly sakis,
but in general all indoor spaces.
They are uninspired and way too small.

I have once seen a dpcumwntar avour singapores peoboscis monkeys where they stated the key to succesfull husbanrsy with this species was the enclosure design that allowed the animals privacy, that was absolutely absent from apenheuls enclosure
Too small too dark gaint windows covered in crowds some knocking on the windows.

Why do not they have as awwing indoor instalations as their unique outdoor paths.

I would like to see tropical rainforest houses.

The dismanteling of the iconic indonesian farm was unacceptable for me.

What on earth is that map.

Also what happened to the old plans.

The giant insect wall is very good but it could stay without the monkey park.

I mean I can not blame them to fail my visions of adapting all parts to the representive design their barbary macaques recieved, but I do expect a park focussing only on monkeys to offer a proper educatiobal exhibition on why neither south america nor madagascar was one enclosure, like these species did not exist in one place.
 
LARTIS said:
I used to hold apenheul in high regards but while gaia park truely turned more and more interesting concept wise apenheul did not just stagnated but declined.

One can argue about a lot of things but one thing not even debatable any more was the lack of improovement.

There had been too small enclosures, some outdoor like the squirrel monkey forest islands for capuchin and once howler monkeys now seemingly sakis,
but in general all indoor spaces.
They are uninspired and way too small.

I have once seen a dpcumwntar avour singapores peoboscis monkeys where they stated the key to succesfull husbanrsy with this species was the enclosure design that allowed the animals privacy, that was absolutely absent from apenheuls enclosure
Too small too dark gaint windows covered in crowds some knocking on the windows.

Why do not they have as awwing indoor instalations as their unique outdoor paths.

I would like to see tropical rainforest houses.

The dismanteling of the iconic indonesian farm was unacceptable for me.

What on earth is that map.

Also what happened to the old plans.

The giant insect wall is very good but it could stay without the monkey park.

I mean I can not blame them to fail my visions of adapting all parts to the representive design their barbary macaques recieved, but I do expect a park focussing only on monkeys to offer a proper educatiobal exhibition on why neither south america nor madagascar was one enclosure, like these species did not exist in one place.
Click to expand...

I didn’t enjoy my visit in Apenheul as much as I expected. It was largely due to me visiting on week-end and on a sunny day, the park was packed with people.
But I agree that the map is terrible, and the fact that you pretty much have only one way of moving around the park makes it that there are people almost everywhere, with not that many quieter zones.
I haven’t been to La vallée des Singes yet but I think I will probably enjoy it better
 
LARTIS said:
I used to hold apenheul in high regards but while gaia park truely turned more and more interesting concept wise apenheul did not just stagnated but declined.

One can argue about a lot of things but one thing not even debatable any more was the lack of improovement.

There had been too small enclosures, some outdoor like the squirrel monkey forest islands for capuchin and once howler monkeys now seemingly sakis,
but in general all indoor spaces.
They are uninspired and way too small.

I have once seen a dpcumwntar avour singapores peoboscis monkeys where they stated the key to succesfull husbanrsy with this species was the enclosure design that allowed the animals privacy, that was absolutely absent from apenheuls enclosure
Too small too dark gaint windows covered in crowds some knocking on the windows.

Why do not they have as awwing indoor instalations as their unique outdoor paths.

I would like to see tropical rainforest houses.

The dismanteling of the iconic indonesian farm was unacceptable for me.

What on earth is that map.

Also what happened to the old plans.

The giant insect wall is very good but it could stay without the monkey park.

I mean I can not blame them to fail my visions of adapting all parts to the representive design their barbary macaques recieved, but I do expect a park focussing only on monkeys to offer a proper educatiobal exhibition on why neither south america nor madagascar was one enclosure, like these species did not exist in one place.
Click to expand...

There is a very clear reason why the houses are so small and no large indoor houses are constructed: they can't. One of the perks of being located in a natural park is that the "bestemmingsplan" (law on what can be built and what not in certain areas), stipulates that only a very small percentage of the land can be covered by buildings. So that is why the indoor enclosures are so small and functional.

I am sure Singapore Zoo was heavily involved in the design of the proboscis monkey enclosure, so if these issues would appear to them, they would have been addressed.

One could actually say that the barbary macaque area is the worst part of the zoo with all its rockwork and openness. Barbary macaques much more typically live in (mountain) forest, not in rocky deserts.

And yes the map is terrible, no need to argue about that. But in general you seem overly negative about stuff and go on in rambling points that often seem to have no coherence and not based on any factual evidence, just personal preferences.
 
lintworm said:
There is a very clear reason why the houses are so small and no large indoor houses are constructed: they can't. One of the perks of being located in a natural park is that the "bestemmingsplan" (law on what can be built and what not in certain areas), stipulates that only a very small percentage of the land can be covered by buildings. So that is why the indoor enclosures are so small and functional.

I am sure Singapore Zoo was heavily involved in the design of the proboscis monkey enclosure, so if these issues would appear to them, they would have been addressed.

One could actually say that the barbary macaque area is the worst part of the zoo with all its rockwork and openness. Barbary macaques much more typically live in (mountain) forest, not in rocky deserts.

And yes the map is terrible, no need to argue about that. But in general you seem overly negative about stuff and go on in rambling points that often seem to have no coherence and not based on any factual evidence, just personal preferences.
Click to expand...

Generalisation can turn out dismissive.

quote lintworm: bestemmingsplan
Allright we got the reason, but a reason is not automaticaly an excuse. This is not just personal taste of aesthetics, but animal welfare. Some enclosures are too small, either both inside and out, or just one of them. Nobody should get themself a pet they can not provide the proper care for and claim it would but close enough and the best possible under given circumstances. Just because the housing was bts does not mean the rules that forced many other instituions to either reduce or move their collection would apply to them. So either the natural park agrees to allow submergered planted roof top houses or they combine the indoor space for fewer species, or they move. A lot is not possible until it is done.
I am personaly equaly annoyed by the reduction of species kept, tho I believed a mismanagement rather to be the issue as the other stuff was just not too arguable.

Quote lintworm: I am sure Singapore Zoo was heavily involved in the design of the proboscis monkey enclosure, so if these issues would appear to them, they would have been addressed.
So did I, but then there is the discrepancy, and the outcome is known so whats with that ? There were other Parks that have not just kept but breed members of the Presbytini including Proboscis monkeys, why were not they chosen to participate? The entire process should have been more transparent.

Quote lintworm: Barbary macaques much more typically live in (mountain)
forest, not in rocky deserts.
Got to correct my wording to "they should have aimed for a theming
like..." as I did read the enclosure as an artistic interpretatipon for
educational purpose. My interpretation might be false but I read the concept as a Gibraltar bridge to the history of non hominid primates in europe, tho I have to admit it is ironic that the only species that does at least come close to the natural forest of the region, was pretty much the only species not kept in such.

Either way the argument still stands, why neither adress their actual habitat and thr fact that these species evolved because of isolation from onw another?

Just because apenheul was among the only one of its kind did npt make it automaticaly the status quo and best. Introduce a theme and improve it.

Quote lintworm "But in general you seem overly negative about stuff..."
I can see where the impression is coming from but it is just one side of a greater picture not seen on here as I view the others member entries as representation of what I agree with otherwise I would have argued that the positive remarks would be off. In no way do I claim that the rest of the spectrum would not matter, I just saw an underrepresentation of critical commentary.

In regards of no coherence, did not you name negativity as red line, but jokes aside, what facts do you want to have, that I a private person studied, on a plattform absolutely not aimed to exchange sentiments. In my opinion you just dismissed valid points, no matter if presented in form of just a proposed theory or allready empirical proven thru generalizations, as subjective as the accusations. I do not think seeing a group of gold breasted capuchin round and round on an island was the state of art.
Like neither did I ever mean to dismiss the positive aspects of these institutions nor did I ever claim to come from an stand free of
emotional influence. As much as I can be wrong, as much this forum is meant to discuss, so all members can exchange their different views, and potentialy learn from one another. One can criticize the tone for that, but not categoricaly dismiss the criticism. I want to apoligize for the manner these comments are sometimes more or less often made, and the disruption such causes. I in no way intentionaly do so, but have a reason that would be offtopic here, so if you are interested check out
the link

Mental health awareness [New]
 
LARTIS said:
Allright we got the reason, but a reason is not automaticaly an excuse. This is not just personal taste of aesthetics, but animal welfare. Some enclosures are too small, either both inside and out, or just one of them. Nobody should get themself a pet they can not provide the proper care for and claim it would but close enough and the best possible under given circumstances. Just because the housing was bts does not mean the rules that forced many other instituions to either reduce or move their collection would apply to them. So either the natural park agrees to allow submergered planted roof top houses or they combine the indoor space for fewer species, or they move. A lot is not possible until it is done.
I am personaly equaly annoyed by the reduction of species kept, tho I believed a mismanagement rather to be the issue as the other stuff was just not too arguable.
Click to expand...

It is a reason for why there are no large indoor themed areas that you so badly wanted, so your point was not a valid point. It is not an excuse for bad enclosures and nobody used it as such, but it is a given you have to work with. While the indoor enclosures might be small, space is used optimally by always having compartmentalized indoor buildings which offer privacy and by being circles there is no way to corner a single individual in a conflict. Space is just a number if not used well, to use the gorilla indoor accomodation as an example: both keepers and gorillas are very happy with the set-up, despite its uglyness and small size. There is one place where the house is really too small and that is the gibbon indoor enclosure, for which something new would be needed....

LARTIS said:
So did I, but then there is the discrepancy, and the outcome is known so whats with that ? There were other Parks that have not just kept but breed members of the Presbytini including Proboscis monkeys, why were not they chosen to participate? The entire process should have been more transparent.
Click to expand...

Singapore used to get (and probably still gets) many questions from western zoos whether they can get some proboscis monkeys. Until Apenheul they always said no, because they had no trust in the level of care. Apenheul has an amazing track record with leaf-eating monkeys, it is the most successful keeper of woolly monkeys by far and has good track records with Javan langurs, crowned sifaka and two species of howler monkey (though at that time only 1). So from what I heard from someone at Apenheul at the time Singapore basically agreed that Apenheul would be a test case to see if long-term success was possible. The reasoning was that if they couldn't get it to work, it wasn't worth the monkeys. What in the end was the reason of the failure still doesn't seem to be quite clear. But the lack of privacy you mention is just a hunch based on something you once heard and saw. Not even close to a strong argument.

LARTIS said:
emotional influence. As much as I can be wrong, as much this forum is meant to discuss, so all members can exchange their different views, and potentialy learn from one another. One can criticize the tone for that, but not categoricaly dismiss the criticism. I want to apoligize for the manner these comments are sometimes more or less often made, and the disruption such causes. I in no way intentionaly do so, but have a reason that would be offtopic here, so if you are interested check out
the link
Click to expand...

Yes this forum is to discuss and exchange views, but if you want an engaging discussion it is best not to make rambling posts that come across as overly negative (at least to me) with multiple criticisms combined. I also often don't have a clue what it is exactly that you want to say, there might be a language barrier, but re-reading posts before posting and check the spelling would be one way to improve them. In addition the criticisms are quite often just based on personal preferences or experiences, without being backed up by more and showing a lack of knowledge. The latter is excuseable, but you get much better discussions if you would not come across so sure of your own points and phrase stuff in the tone you do. Your personal backstory in the link might be a reason, but it is not an excuse.
 
lintworm said:
It is a reason for why there are no large indoor themed areas that you so badly wanted, so your point was not a valid point. It is not an excuse for bad enclosures and nobody used it as such, but it is a given you have to work with. While the indoor enclosures might be small, space is used optimally by always having compartmentalized indoor buildings which offer privacy and by being circles there is no way to corner a single individual in a conflict. Space is just a number if not used well, to use the gorilla indoor accomodation as an example: both keepers and gorillas are very happy with the set-up, despite its uglyness and small size. There is one place where the house is really too small and that is the gibbon indoor enclosure, for which something new would be needed....



Singapore used to get (and probably still gets) many questions from western zoos whether they can get some proboscis monkeys. Until Apenheul they always said no, because they had no trust in the level of care. Apenheul has an amazing track record with leaf-eating monkeys, it is the most successful keeper of woolly monkeys by far and has good track records with Javan langurs, crowned sifaka and two species of howler monkey (though at that time only 1). So from what I heard from someone at Apenheul at the time Singapore basically agreed that Apenheul would be a test case to see if long-term success was possible. The reasoning was that if they couldn't get it to work, it wasn't worth the monkeys. What in the end was the reason of the failure still doesn't seem to be quite clear. But the lack of privacy you mention is just a hunch based on something you once heard and saw. Not even close to a strong argument.



Yes this forum is to discuss and exchange views, but if you want an engaging discussion it is best not to make rambling posts that come across as overly negative (at least to me) with multiple criticisms combined. I also often don't have a clue what it is exactly that you want to say, there might be a language barrier, but re-reading posts before posting and check the spelling would be one way to improve them. In addition the criticisms are quite often just based on personal preferences or experiences, without being backed up by more and showing a lack of knowledge. The latter is excuseable, but you get much better discussions if you would not come across so sure of your own points and phrase stuff in the tone you do. Your personal backstory in the link might be a reason, but it is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

The accusation that I would instrumentalize my mental health is just a harmfull cliche. But more on that on the other thread, as everything else could get too off topic.

Please stop fusing different elements of my critic into one false argument, trying to dismiss it as personal preference. As I stated I would like to have as engaging indoor enclosures as the outdoors are, but the critic that some enclosures are too small is a stand alone point.

The comment my critic is not valid is invalid, sorry we can agree to disagree, but not just did you confused some elements, but seemed to ignore the part where I adressed the fact that just because I habe not a study on hand does not automaticaly mean my argument is wrong.

The gorilla house specificaly had been subject of the very same debate without me being involved in any kind. And what I was able to read out of the conclusions was that there was not one consent. Some viewed the succes of gorilla husbandry as proof the care was proper while others remarked that it would automaticaly be proof as animals seemed to have "thrive" (lived long lives, reproduced, not necessarily showing any visible signs of suffering) under worse condition yet.

One can not use space beyond its limits. Sometimes a highly enriched small enclosure is as bad as a huge enclosure lacking such.

Better than... does not automaticaly equal good enough.

I was and still am a fan of apenheul, and I want it to remain, but I doubt this would work long term in the form seen now. The public narrative mooves into the direction of having higher expectations toward zoological institutions.

I have the impression that certain parks get glorified and the few yet existent issues of these are overshaddowed by the positives, as if there cpuld be some sort of compensating. There were similar facilities at other parks that were critized and changed.

I think you got the proboscis monkey argument wrong. I neither claimed that it was wrong to work with apenheul nor that this was the exact reason it failed. I never said that. I can own up to the mistakes I make. My point is that I disagree with apenheul being used as the status quo, and the in my opinion lack of transperancy. But please do not pick out certain elements, generalize just to uninentional or not dismiss everything else I said. One and the same post can include both personal opinions and criticism. Any way I adressed the my original post, and admitted my mistakes and at least I think so tried to fix the issues.
 
Earlier this week I visited the Apenheul again. Here are some changes compared to last year and/or things that caught my eye:

- In the squirrel monkey forest you don't have to walk through a tunnel anymore, but you can enter the whole area again. This means that the bearded sakis and woolly monkeys are also clearly visible again.

- The emperor tamarins have been added to the Callitrichid forest (Dwergapengebied), which they share with the white-faced saki, coppery titi and Silvery marmoset. These were always at the treetop path (Apenboompad), but the introduction with the Golden lion tamarins there did not quite work out. The Pied tamarins that were in the Callitrichid forest can now be seen at the treetop path which they share with the red howler monkeys and golden lion tamarins.

- The group of gorillas is still divided into two, like last year. A group of five animals is on the large island and a group of three animals is on a second island. One of those three animals on the second island is Jabari, a young male. He was already supposed to move to another zoo at the end of last year, but this has not happened yet. As soon as he has moved, the other two animals on that island will join the rest of the group on the big island.

- There is no barbary sheep anymore in the Barbary monkey area. Instead there are now two donkeys. The aviary for the ibises at the end of the Barbary monkey area is still closed because of bird flu. Therefore, there is only one entrance and exit to the area.

- After being closed for two years because of COVID, the treetop path (Apenboompad) was also reopened. In the house at the top, all species of poison frogs seem to have disappeared. Their terrarium was empty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top