Tuan, I agree. After all, the enclosures are for the animals, not the public, and whilst I can see that it potentially could give a greater respect to the animals, I just agree that it's a waste of money when you take into account what that money could do for the animals.
Different zoo traditions in Europe and The USA?
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
If enclosures are ONLY for the animals, then why let people into the zoo? As pointed out by others, why must it be one or the other, when clearly it is and should be for BOTH? The genesis of the immersion concept was to create better spaces for animals to exercise their natural behaviors, and to allow people to experience that. Early criticism of "immersion" was that it was good for the animals but not so good for the visitors because the animals were hard to see! I think it's very odd that the argument here seems to be that naturalistic exhibits are somehow "worse" for animals than traditional pens and cages???!!?
Just to add some points:
One thing in European zoos which I absolutely hate is ultra-tacky theme park design. Ruined Aztec temples, bones in piranha pools etc. Apparently some zoos decided to go for the lowest common denominator.
About outdoor exhibits - its extremely difficult to make realistic outdoor exhibit because local trees, buildings, wires etc. interfere. So Burger's savanna has lots of pine trees around etc. Normally, old trees in European cities are protected from cutting, so they are.
European zoos are generally closer to each other. In many parts of W Europe, there are 2-4 major zoos and several more small zoos within 1-2 hours distance. So European zoos have relatively less money, and they also must specialize - you shouldn't have two identical exhibits.
Also, there are local trends within Europe. What Dan said is true of British zoos. These I know didn't care much about naturalness. Enclosures are simple rectangles, design are straight beams, simple platforms, fences and doors are clearly visible. Often very good for animals, but not immersion at all. Vegetation, in contrast, is often very rich.
German-speaking zoos are strong in indoor exhibits - not surprising, considering climate. Also, certain enclosure types tend to pop up - in German area it is bear exhibit open outside the zoo, as a sort of advertisement for passersby.
Dutch zoos tend to have lots of plants and very simple architecture - sometimes it looks like everything will rot next year.
One thing in European zoos which I absolutely hate is ultra-tacky theme park design. Ruined Aztec temples, bones in piranha pools etc. Apparently some zoos decided to go for the lowest common denominator.
About outdoor exhibits - its extremely difficult to make realistic outdoor exhibit because local trees, buildings, wires etc. interfere. So Burger's savanna has lots of pine trees around etc. Normally, old trees in European cities are protected from cutting, so they are.
European zoos are generally closer to each other. In many parts of W Europe, there are 2-4 major zoos and several more small zoos within 1-2 hours distance. So European zoos have relatively less money, and they also must specialize - you shouldn't have two identical exhibits.
Also, there are local trends within Europe. What Dan said is true of British zoos. These I know didn't care much about naturalness. Enclosures are simple rectangles, design are straight beams, simple platforms, fences and doors are clearly visible. Often very good for animals, but not immersion at all. Vegetation, in contrast, is often very rich.
German-speaking zoos are strong in indoor exhibits - not surprising, considering climate. Also, certain enclosure types tend to pop up - in German area it is bear exhibit open outside the zoo, as a sort of advertisement for passersby.
Dutch zoos tend to have lots of plants and very simple architecture - sometimes it looks like everything will rot next year.
taun
Well-Known Member
And you have missed the point that I was trying to convey. Am not saying a natural exhibit is bad, its something you will see in most UK mainstream zoo's where the enclosure is natural looking (which is the most enriching surroundings an animal could have). I don't see the point in hiding the barriers, why spend millions on making the barriers that are there for our safety and the animals?
Surely those funds could be better spent? Zoo's keep animals in cages no matter how you dress it up and I wouldn't be fooled into thinking it wasn't. I see this as pointless was of money that could be spent on the animals themselves or another species or even part conservation of that species.
Redukari: My point is, yes they are for both, but at the end of the day the animals are the ones that have to live there, ergo they come first, so if they need privacy and are rarely seen by the public then so be it. If you can't see that then I'm afraid I can't help you 
And I get the whole "aesthetics = respect for animals and motivation to conserve", but I don't agree. If people want to learn about it then they'll make the effort regardless of what the enclosure is like. Bristol zoos gorilla enclosure doesn't look like the Congo but there's plenty of info, leaflets, keeper talks etc going on that educate. I believe the education can be done without out excess millions spent on visitors stuff, prime example being gorilla kingdom: Great for the public, but for the gorillas... debatable.
Edit: Tuan, we posted at the same time, but I agree: Hidden moats = waste of space for the animals, and waste of money on potential enclosure furniture
And I get the whole "aesthetics = respect for animals and motivation to conserve", but I don't agree. If people want to learn about it then they'll make the effort regardless of what the enclosure is like. Bristol zoos gorilla enclosure doesn't look like the Congo but there's plenty of info, leaflets, keeper talks etc going on that educate. I believe the education can be done without out excess millions spent on visitors stuff, prime example being gorilla kingdom: Great for the public, but for the gorillas... debatable.
Edit: Tuan, we posted at the same time, but I agree: Hidden moats = waste of space for the animals, and waste of money on potential enclosure furniture
I would not cite London's Gorilla Kingdom as a successful example of "immersion exhibits," as it appears to be a hideous mess from photos on this site (and not particularly animal-friendly). And I'd rather have a zoo "waste space" with a well-done concealed moat than to have another mediocre animal pen squeezed in. Not that I will convince many of the posters on this thread, but a zoo experience should be more than just looking at animals in cages. Full stop.
There are certain parts of the USA where zoos are close together too, around the Orlando area you could spend 14 days looking at different zoos and aquaria without having to change hotels. There is also an abundance of zoos around NYC and on the west coast. There are many areas where only one good zoo is within traveling distance but there are several roadside menageries around.
I disagree about unatural exhibit design in the UK, especially about rectangular cages, fences and doors. The UK has a strong zoo history and some of these collections have taken awhile to reinvent themselves, the city zoos especially still have examples of old school cages such as can be found at London, Bristol and Dudley for example, however none of their newer exhibits have been of the old design and when funds permit much of the history will be wiped out where it is not protected. Other zoos in the UK which would top my list of favourites certainly have moved away from this stereotype, with Whipsnade, Chester and Colchester having few unaturalistic exhibits. Some buildings still stand because they have been protected by their architectural importance such as at Whipsnade and Dudley. The buildings no longer are suitable for animal exhibits but must be maintained as they are protected.
There are plenty of zoo across the UK, mainland Europe and the USA that are local attractions, they have limited budget, limited space and will do the best they can with the funds they have available and make zoo going possible for those that have limited expectation and aren't prepared to travel great distances for a zoo experience. What I think is at discussion in this thread is the world beaters, those zoo with exhibits that they want to compete with other exhibits from outstanding collections. Its very difficult to go from being an ordinary zoo to an outstanding one, as not only do you need the funding from visitors and from corporate sponsorship you need to have innovation and I think at the moment their is more inventiveness coming form the architects of American zoos than there is in Europe, although again there are exceptions to the rule. Law also plays apart in immersion exhibits, as local laws as to which animals can be "free roaming" with the possible chance of human-animal contact also determines what animals can be placed in an immersion exhibit.
taun
Well-Known Member
Were not talking about squeezing in hundreds of enclosures with the room that’s wasted in immersion exhibits. Again look at some of the better zoos in the UK not just a small operation in Kent!
Could you explain the last comment more? As I go to the zoo for the animals and the enclosure's they are set in. However your average zoogoer is just there for the animals.
There doesn't in theory need to be an 'either/or' at all, but limitations of space and/or money often mean that in the cold light of day there need to be.
I like to see flashy, 'naturalistic' exhibits, but I also like to see different approaches to zoo design (of course, this is me the zoo enthusiast and cannot be taken as an average visitor's view). And if the best us of money and space is to build something less naturalistic but to the animals' benefit, I'd always rather that was the way zoo went. I've only done a handful of American zoos, and those more than a decade ago, but it does seem that they are often competing with each other to build the exact same basic exhibit design only better. I don't want to comment in detail without having seen it myself, but it was fascinating to see how quickly people fell upon San Diego's elephant house; often seemingly just because it was different to others that have recently been built.
I also agree with comments from my compatriots about hiding barriers. No-one is being fooled by hidden barriers into thinking they're not in a zoo. If you can do it without losing exhibit space or incurring unnecessary costs, fine. If not - just put a fence/window in.
zebedee101: I find your post about expectations very interesting; because what you say would explain many of the differences that have been discussed here.
This thread has generated a lot of interesting comments, and it has made for some great reading. Anyway, here is some food for thought...
David Hancocks, who is revered as a zoo legend for his work with the Woodland Park Zoo, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and then later on with both the Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range Zoo, wrote a fantastic book called "A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future" which was published in 2001. I'm sure that many of you own this manuscript, and there is a lot of talk about immersion landscaping and modern, naturalistic animal enclosures in zoos within the text.
Hancocks: "The most compelling and obivous impact on visitor attitudes toward wildlife is the way that zoo animals are presented. This is why quality of exhibit design is of paramount importance. The validity of the zoo experience hinges on the functional AND visual integrity of the zoo exhibits." He goes on to discuss a lengthy survey done at the Melbourne Zoo in 1988, where visitors described gorillas as "vicious, ugly, boring and stupid". Two years later, after the gorillas had been moved from a concrete pit to a large, naturalistic exhibit the responses in another survey used words such as "fascinating, peaceful, fantastic, and powerful". Hancocks states that "attention to precise detail is essential". He even mentions the "crude-looking monkey and ape exhibits at such British zoos as Twycross and Howlett's", and admits that those seeminly outdated cages are praised by English zoo "apologists". Hmmm...
David Hancocks, who is revered as a zoo legend for his work with the Woodland Park Zoo, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and then later on with both the Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range Zoo, wrote a fantastic book called "A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future" which was published in 2001. I'm sure that many of you own this manuscript, and there is a lot of talk about immersion landscaping and modern, naturalistic animal enclosures in zoos within the text.
Hancocks: "The most compelling and obivous impact on visitor attitudes toward wildlife is the way that zoo animals are presented. This is why quality of exhibit design is of paramount importance. The validity of the zoo experience hinges on the functional AND visual integrity of the zoo exhibits." He goes on to discuss a lengthy survey done at the Melbourne Zoo in 1988, where visitors described gorillas as "vicious, ugly, boring and stupid". Two years later, after the gorillas had been moved from a concrete pit to a large, naturalistic exhibit the responses in another survey used words such as "fascinating, peaceful, fantastic, and powerful". Hancocks states that "attention to precise detail is essential". He even mentions the "crude-looking monkey and ape exhibits at such British zoos as Twycross and Howlett's", and admits that those seeminly outdated cages are praised by English zoo "apologists". Hmmm...
The bronx definately feed their reptiles during public hours, biggest crowd I saw was watching a python devour a rabbit that it coiled around and dunked in its pond (no it wasnt put in live). The USA is the only place I have seen live rodents fed to reptiles. I think the number of zoos that actually feed a whole carcass to carnivores (apart from quail/chicks/rats/rabbit etc) are limited, as meat is often bought in bulk frozen to save money and there are concerns about feeding whole carcasses, especially the brain and stomach due to diseases such as BSE and EColi. There are one or two zoos that survive as they use roadkill. One of the collections in the UK did get some bad press some years ago because a wolf was munching on a complete horse hed by the viewing window. Sometimes the cruelty of nature can be difficult to explain to the very young and parents might not take their kids to the zoo if they think they may be faced with answering questions about dead cuddly animals being devoured. I really dont see any trends in feeding habits anywhere in the world, unlwith the exception of China where you can purchase a live chicken to feed the carnivores.
Redukari, you might as well just say "as long as it looks good I don't care how well the animals fare in the exhibit", because that's the message I get from your posts. I'm sorry, but the Howletts cages for their gorillas rival any nice looking, potentially lethal water moat seen in so many other zoos. The mesh at Howletts is about 2m from the safety barrier, if that were a moat on a regular exhibit that space would be 6m of space all around the edge of the enclosure that the gorillas miss out on, purely because it looks nice. Do you REALLY think that's better?
David Hancocks: "The critical importance of landscape immersion as a technique for zoo design is that it acknowledges, makes evident even, the importance and the values of natural systems. It creates opportunities for zoo visitors to experience something more meaningful than passively looking at an animal on display".
Far too many zoos have basic wire fences, outdated and ugly cages, bland fields and wooden beams all in view of visitors. Those sort of enclosures have been steadily phased out of the good zoos of the world, and there are some collections (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Woodland Park Zoo, Columbus Zoo, etc) where the establishments are not perfect but it is difficult to find wire or wooden cages, grottoes and pits are almost nonexistent, and there is an effort to create spacious, naturalistic zoo environments. That is the path towards the future, and yet there will always be subpar zoos that simply get left behind in the wave of progress.
Far too many zoos have basic wire fences, outdated and ugly cages, bland fields and wooden beams all in view of visitors. Those sort of enclosures have been steadily phased out of the good zoos of the world, and there are some collections (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Woodland Park Zoo, Columbus Zoo, etc) where the establishments are not perfect but it is difficult to find wire or wooden cages, grottoes and pits are almost nonexistent, and there is an effort to create spacious, naturalistic zoo environments. That is the path towards the future, and yet there will always be subpar zoos that simply get left behind in the wave of progress.
Okay, so maybe I'm the weird one here but.... where in the world are gorillas kept with water moats? I haven't seen a single one? I've seen dry moats. The thing you aren't taking into consideration here is an animals flight distance. The span of the moat helps to give the animals a measure of security. The public are kept further back offering the animals more security. Specifically speaking about gorillas, is that not important? Would the gorillas actually used the space offered from a filled in moat? What you claim is better for the animals, I'm not so sure that more space = better is always true, especially when we are talking usable space.
When they're in a cage they get much more usable space, so yes I do think it benefits them greatly, and the public being so close doesn't seem to bother them at all. Loads of gorilla exhibits over here have water moats: London, Bristol, Paignton, Longleat (although that's on a lake), and I now have a mental blank on zoos that have gorillas! Help lol.
Edit: Blackpool's another one, and I'm only on gorillas, most other great ape exhibits are the same.
Edit: Blackpool's another one, and I'm only on gorillas, most other great ape exhibits are the same.
Does this make Howletts and Port Lympne bad zoos?
taun
Well-Known Member
London Zoo
Bristol Zoo
Blackpool Zoo (although they do have an outside area which is surrounded by glass)
Longleat (an island in a lake)
Hancocks seems an interesting man (though I can't say I fully agree with him). However, I cannot tell you much I abhor the word 'apologist' - it's tantamount to saying that people are blindly defensive rather than presenting a reasoned 'case for the defence'. I trust you're not trying to pass those who are arguing this point off in that way.
The Melbourne survey sounds interesting; however, one niggle - if the original Melbourne exhibit really was a 'concrete pit', that's not really comparable to a large, diverse, well-furnished enclosure such as (for example) the Port Lympne/Howletts designs. Comparing a bad example of a type of exhibit you don't happen to liek with the best of the type that you do is always going to produce one result.
Reading the above back it seems more a debate on the debate than on the topic so I'll leave it there!
Regarding feeding of whole carcasses, one of my favourite zoo signs ever was the one that was on Chester's Reticulated Python exhibit for months telling visitors that the swelling halfway along the big female's body was a whole, digesting turkey!
Ahh he water moats are in British zoos. That explains it. You say it doesn't seem to bother them at all to have the public so close, but what is that based on? Personal observation? I'm not trying to impune you here, I'm just curious as to your source.
Do any of our professionals in this conversation have anything to weigh in about flight distance. I as an amateur, would be greaty interested in hearing their opinions.