The obvious. Replace them with the closely related Ruritanian Slowfoots, the public would probably never notice the difference. also they would be easier to catch, being unable to run as fast as the fleetfoots.
Chester Zoo Chester Zoo Discussion, Speculation & Questions 2018
- Thread starter JoeDK14
- Start date
The obvious. Replace them with the closely related Ruritanian Slowfoots, the public would probably never notice the difference. also they would be easier to catch, being unable to run as fast as the fleetfoots.
I always forget to take my Nectar card with me when I’m going to Sainsbury’s, but my other half keeps my paper Morrison’s card in his wallet so we always rack up points on that. He now works for Tesco, so should get a staff discount card after six months’ service. So I’m pretty much in the same boat as you!
Okay, time to put the 'cat amongst the pigeons' again. Assuming of course that the cat and pigeon species both come from the same geographic area or some other loose connection such as both living on an island?
What do Chester zoochatters think? and I guess this will be different according to age?
I refer to the 'Emperors New Clothes' of Chester Zoo. I'm not a fan of geographical / habitat zoning. Call me old fashioned but I'd prefer to see all the cats in the same part of the zoo, all the monkeys in the same part of the zoo, the reptiles in a reptile house etc, etc, etc....
I think it was educationally more beneficial when for example White Rhinos and Black Rhinos, [later Black and Great Indian] were alongside each other in the Rhino House. Visitors including me as a school child could make direct comparisons with size, build, lip shape etc. It was easy to see where they came from, there was a map on a sign.
The zoo is now all mixed up!
Imagine if ASDA (Sainsbury's / Waitrose if you're posh) decided to put their items on the shelves according to where they came from? The store would become a terrible mess (cf the zoo). Imagine the supermarket scenario... "Excuse me, where's the tea please?... " REPLY "Which tea were you after Sir, the Kenyan tea is over there in the African Section, your Darjeeling and Assam are on the other side of the store in the Indian Section. Ceylon Tea? well that's from Sri Lanka so you'll find that in the Islands section of the store, or was it one of the Chinese teas you were looking for? They're right at the back of the store on the same shelf as the noodles"
Far fetched, is it? Imagine the zoo scenario, a new visitor asks... "Excuse me, where are the reptiles please?"
Personally I don't believe there is a right or wrong way to arrange animals, and its part of what gives individual zoos their own character and identity. That said I do think there are drawbacks to being too strict in placing animals according to their type or habitat etc. as when you lose a species or get new additions it can create complications! Certainly comparing living animals to supermarket stock is a bit extreme!
I think the methods you describe sound more like a museum mentality, arranging the exhibits in a specific order. I quite like zoos to be a bit random actually, and it also helps with seeing fascinating things that you might not have sought out. Loads of average zoo visitors might discover species they've never heard of whilst searching for lions or giraffes, which seems like a good thing overall. I myself ended up spending quite a bit of time looking at the Golden Mantella frogs in the Tropical Realm, but really I was there to see the birds and Aye-Ayes. Had there been an amphibian house I highly doubt that I'd have visited it, yet that species was really interesting to me, so one of the zoo's big conservation projects was highlighted to me that day.
I do get the sense from you that you're a fan of an older version of Chester Zoo that has long gone and frankly isn't coming back. I'm only in my thirties but have seen in my lifetime what I consider to be big improvements at Chester, but each to their own. Obviously it isn't perfect (what zoo is?) but I love the zoo, I love the animal collection, I love the enclosures and I love the TV series.
There's no denying that the move nowadays in most zoos is toward bigger enclosures but less species.
There is a record of a spectacled bear living thirty-eight years in Italy (seven years in Naples then thirty-one years in Rome).
That’s an absolutely excellent record! Maybe it was the Mediterranean diet!
Talking about the Monkey House earlier, if you want to modify it here are some easy steps:
1. Borneo is an Island in South East Asia, not in the South Atlantic so move everything to Islands.
2. It's a tall exhibit, trees are tall. Monkeys like trees. Especially spider monkeys. Also, you have howlers so there is a space for them, oh and capuchins! You can use the other space for macaws? Also, you can use the small exhibits for small monkeys and other Amazon critters.
3. So the area with giraffes, chimps, buffalo, tropical realm etc is becoming Congo themed right?
Mandrills live there. Done.
4. What is the new lion project again? ASIATIC LIONS??? From India??? You know what else lives in India??? Lion-tailed Macaques of course. DO NOT MIX WITH LIONS!!!!
Ok now the house is empty we can see what is near it....
Asian Plains? Mainly featuring herbivores? What about carnivores? Bears are carnivores. 3 Islands on Monkey Islands. There are 4 bear species in that region. One is already on Islands. 3 bear species. 3 Islands. This is CLEARLY where 'bears of the world' is going to be! They weren't lying, and of course, Edinburgh's pandas will give birth within a year of being there because 'they just will'.
This post is sarcastic, please don't take it seriously...
1. Borneo is an Island in South East Asia, not in the South Atlantic so move everything to Islands.
2. It's a tall exhibit, trees are tall. Monkeys like trees. Especially spider monkeys. Also, you have howlers so there is a space for them, oh and capuchins! You can use the other space for macaws? Also, you can use the small exhibits for small monkeys and other Amazon critters.
3. So the area with giraffes, chimps, buffalo, tropical realm etc is becoming Congo themed right?
Mandrills live there. Done.
4. What is the new lion project again? ASIATIC LIONS??? From India??? You know what else lives in India??? Lion-tailed Macaques of course. DO NOT MIX WITH LIONS!!!!
Ok now the house is empty we can see what is near it....
Asian Plains? Mainly featuring herbivores? What about carnivores? Bears are carnivores. 3 Islands on Monkey Islands. There are 4 bear species in that region. One is already on Islands. 3 bear species. 3 Islands. This is CLEARLY where 'bears of the world' is going to be! They weren't lying, and of course, Edinburgh's pandas will give birth within a year of being there because 'they just will'.
This post is sarcastic, please don't take it seriously...
I realise that I'm probably in the minority here but I also much prefer to see zoo animals arranged taxonomically rather than zoogeographically.
I like the concept of, say, an old-fashioned Monkey House that makes it easier to compare and contrast related species.
However, I hasten to add, that doesn't mean I'm happy to see animals exhibited in small sterile cages.
Me too. I think Chester's Monkey House still works very well for the fewer species it contains nowadays. The only improvement might be a reduction in the dense foliage in the outside enclosures.
There are no excuses for over grown exhibits except for laziness or lack of interest from management.
Thanks for the joke!
When reality checks in: with the last big investment in Realm of the Great Apes finished up, it will be a far cry to expect it to go over within a week - also sarcasm ... mind - to a fan sponsored South Atlantic area over there.
Mind: not saying that any of the buildings at Chester Zoo will remain set in stone for eternity. They are not ... as very esteemed friends of mine have said on many an occasion ... no buildings at CZ / NEZS are there for ever nor outside the scope for any new development(s) on the site.
taun
Well-Known Member
Mature.....not over grown.
Rhino paddocks in the summer look great with the tall grass or is this overgrown?
The whole point is to exhibit them as close to what they would be in the wild, harder with some species than others.
I loved the old tiger exhibit and hunting for the tiger to find where they are, now may aswell be a in a concrete shell.....hopefully as it matures it will look fantastic.
Not going to please everyone but to say its laziness or lack of interest is rubbish.
Totally agree with you, the whole of islands is that that, including the boat, once all the planting has had a few years growth the whole experience will be a lot different from when it first opened.
Mature or overgrown? semantics, and not mutually exclusive. If not properly maintained and left to grow wild, there will be no point in visiting islands in the future. You might just as well visit any public park, and imagine that there are exotic wild animals behind the thick foliage. The new Islands squirrel enclosure illustrates the current problem well, and yes, it really is a 'growing' problem, just ask general members of the public if you don't believe me. Look at the plants that have been put in the border right in front of that exhibit. Tall, dense and thick growing species have been chosen, in addition to similar plant species inside the exhibit. Within a year the squirrels will not be visible, I guarantee.
Enclosures can still be naturalistic without obscuring public view. The trick is to keep the foreground clearer.
Chester has already done a fabulous job of making it difficult to view elephants indoors. However they've failed with the outside enclosure thus far, the elephants are still far too easy to see and to photograph outside. It's high time that the outside viewing area was made more 'naturalistic', I'd suggest a 6ft wooden fence along the elephant / bear bridge (like the one successfully used for the lions), and at ground level any fast growing thick tall foliage would suffice. If there are any unfortunate gaps through which public could glimpse the elephants, might I suggest breezeblocks made to look like old trees or termite mounds to complete the naturalistic theme? After all, it's not reasonable to expect to see elephants every time you visit the zoo is it? You'd have no guarantee of seeing them in the wild.
Enclosures can still be naturalistic without obscuring public view. The trick is to keep the foreground clearer.
Chester has already done a fabulous job of making it difficult to view elephants indoors. However they've failed with the outside enclosure thus far, the elephants are still far too easy to see and to photograph outside. It's high time that the outside viewing area was made more 'naturalistic', I'd suggest a 6ft wooden fence along the elephant / bear bridge (like the one successfully used for the lions), and at ground level any fast growing thick tall foliage would suffice. If there are any unfortunate gaps through which public could glimpse the elephants, might I suggest breezeblocks made to look like old trees or termite mounds to complete the naturalistic theme? After all, it's not reasonable to expect to see elephants every time you visit the zoo is it? You'd have no guarantee of seeing them in the wild.
It is the same at the new Rainbow aviaries, the plants will obscure the view of the birds in a few years. also the black rhino (ex bison paddock), shrubs and trees on the public side of the fence, the zoo does seem to have a policy of not cutting back the vegetation. It just make sthe place look untidy in my view.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
I find this sentence hard to accept.
overread
Well-Known Member
Personally I prefer seeing enclosures which offer more hidden places for the animals and which are not simply a wide open space with mown grass and a few tiny bushes.
Of course for the zoo there's several aspects to consider
1) Animal quality of life and requirements. Some species want to hide or want certain areas where there's shade or cover etc... So you've got to provide for that.
2) Visitors want to see the animals. This is expected ,they've paid their (these days not cheap) price to enter and they expect to be entertained. Conservation is nice, but the majority are going to be families with kids wanting entertainment. They expect to roll up, see and move on - often at a fairly quick pace. The idea of settling down for half an hour at one enclosure is just not on the cards for the average zoo visitor.
3) There are means and ways to get animals to appear. Keeper talks, feeding/treat times can be an ideal moment to generate not just visible, but also active animals within an enclosure. A well setup zoo can even bounce one visit to the next so that you have a rough trail through the zoo of feeds so that a block of the public can remain entertained.
I always remember the British Wildlife Centre otter enclosures as being what I'd consider good habitats for captive wildlife. A pond naturally overgrown where, honestly, you'd have to watch to spot an otter. However the keeper talk would normally get the otters out and onto the bank near the viewers, putting the otters front and centre on the clearly mown grassland and making them active in getting the food. It gave the otters something for the day and the visitors what they want whilst at the same time the otters also have a far better habitat.
It's a vast conrast to the typical zoo otter enclosure of a giant concrete bath-tub with a raised grassy island in the middle (often with a pond and some flowing water/pools); but which affords the otters almost not a single part of their enclosure with any hiding of foliage (they also tend to appear more "cramped" as the asian otters often more seen at many zoos tend to be kept in larger groups)
Of course for the zoo there's several aspects to consider
1) Animal quality of life and requirements. Some species want to hide or want certain areas where there's shade or cover etc... So you've got to provide for that.
2) Visitors want to see the animals. This is expected ,they've paid their (these days not cheap) price to enter and they expect to be entertained. Conservation is nice, but the majority are going to be families with kids wanting entertainment. They expect to roll up, see and move on - often at a fairly quick pace. The idea of settling down for half an hour at one enclosure is just not on the cards for the average zoo visitor.
3) There are means and ways to get animals to appear. Keeper talks, feeding/treat times can be an ideal moment to generate not just visible, but also active animals within an enclosure. A well setup zoo can even bounce one visit to the next so that you have a rough trail through the zoo of feeds so that a block of the public can remain entertained.
I always remember the British Wildlife Centre otter enclosures as being what I'd consider good habitats for captive wildlife. A pond naturally overgrown where, honestly, you'd have to watch to spot an otter. However the keeper talk would normally get the otters out and onto the bank near the viewers, putting the otters front and centre on the clearly mown grassland and making them active in getting the food. It gave the otters something for the day and the visitors what they want whilst at the same time the otters also have a far better habitat.
It's a vast conrast to the typical zoo otter enclosure of a giant concrete bath-tub with a raised grassy island in the middle (often with a pond and some flowing water/pools); but which affords the otters almost not a single part of their enclosure with any hiding of foliage (they also tend to appear more "cramped" as the asian otters often more seen at many zoos tend to be kept in larger groups)