Different zoo traditions in Europe and The USA?
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
Gorillas have drowned in recent years in water moats in Hannover (I'm certain) and Prague (I believe).
Unless I'm thinking of a different incident, the gorilla that drowned at Prague did not fall in a moat, but was caught (along with other animals) in the 10m deep floods that wiped out a large portion of the zoo (but, ironically, bringing as they did a large number of substantial donations, led to the dramatic resurgence of the zoo).
I'm not aware of the Hannover incident, so will have to stand corrected there.
I seem to remember that the first gorilla enclusure at DAK had a waterfall and then a stream around the bottom of the perimeter, way below the public walkway, not a taditional moat but same principle - am I thinking about somewhere else or is this the case?
Last edited:
DAK is really a dry moat with shallow water at the bottom connected to the cascades in the gorilla area above. SD Wild Animal Park had a similar design originally; now I believe it is completely dry. Jacksonville and "The Zoo" in NW Florida use full (deep) water moats for gorillas.
Bronx has a shallow moat (pond) separating two gorilla habitats that are otherwise surrounded by dry moats and walls.
Some fuel for the fire...
K.J. Polakowski's Definitions for "Natural Zoo"
-Realistic Habitat: Reproduces the real habitat in general appearance, land formation, plant life, and animal activity.
-Modified Natural Habitat: Uses the elements of the real habitat but substitutes plants and trees, uses existing or modified land forms, and intergrates the habitat into the existing surroundings.
-Naturalistic Habitat: Makes little or no attempt to duplicate elements of the real habitat. Involves a stylistic use of natural materials. Oftern the main purpose is to decorate the space.
Jon Charles Coe's Guidelines for Immerison Exhibits
1. Invent an exhibit scenario...that should establish the place being recreated. Much as a theatre stage would provide setting to the story. There may also be a cultural context.
2. Immerse the visitors into the scenario (whether it is natural or cultural)
3. Conceal all features that distract from the exhibit scenario. Essential objects (visible barriers, interpretation) must be designed to fit believably within the scenario.
4. Design the exhibit so that the animals appear to dominate the scene.
5. Control views so that visitors can never see the entire animal area.
6. Integrate many types of habitat appropriate species of animals and plant to complete the experience of a replicated habitat.
K.J. Polakowski's Definitions for "Natural Zoo"
-Realistic Habitat: Reproduces the real habitat in general appearance, land formation, plant life, and animal activity.
-Modified Natural Habitat: Uses the elements of the real habitat but substitutes plants and trees, uses existing or modified land forms, and intergrates the habitat into the existing surroundings.
-Naturalistic Habitat: Makes little or no attempt to duplicate elements of the real habitat. Involves a stylistic use of natural materials. Oftern the main purpose is to decorate the space.
Jon Charles Coe's Guidelines for Immerison Exhibits
1. Invent an exhibit scenario...that should establish the place being recreated. Much as a theatre stage would provide setting to the story. There may also be a cultural context.
2. Immerse the visitors into the scenario (whether it is natural or cultural)
3. Conceal all features that distract from the exhibit scenario. Essential objects (visible barriers, interpretation) must be designed to fit believably within the scenario.
4. Design the exhibit so that the animals appear to dominate the scene.
5. Control views so that visitors can never see the entire animal area.
6. Integrate many types of habitat appropriate species of animals and plant to complete the experience of a replicated habitat.
Most of this is fairly sensible for building that style of exhibit, but I have to take issue with this:
The 'believably' fitting-in requirement suggests that the visitors are genuinely meant to believe they are in Madagascar (or wherever), which they clearly are not going to. They know they are in a zoo. They know that putting enclosure labels and interpretation up is part of the deal. So give the signs some gentle and sympathetic theming by all means but there's no need to conceal the fact that they are enclosure labels. Excessive theming can just leave labels either unreadable (or hard to spot) or so elaborate that they're difficult to alter or replace if the collection changes.
The 'believably' fitting-in requirement suggests that the visitors are genuinely meant to believe they are in Madagascar (or wherever), which they clearly are not going to. They know they are in a zoo. They know that putting enclosure labels and interpretation up is part of the deal. So give the signs some gentle and sympathetic theming by all means but there's no need to conceal the fact that they are enclosure labels. Excessive theming can just leave labels either unreadable (or hard to spot) or so elaborate that they're difficult to alter or replace if the collection changes.
Yes, thats another difference - no major European zoo is set in subtropical climate.
I am talking about new exhibits. They may be big enclosures with lots of vegetation, but still have visible fence and climbing structures of straight beams (as opposed of tree trunks). See Chester's gibbons and orangutans.
In German speaking area there is lots of small local zoos which exhibit native animals (deer, wolves, bison, birds etc), but often in incredibly good habitats, which are, essentially, huge stockades set in the local forest. I don't know if this trend is common in Britain or USA.
Then top exhibits in Europe match USA. See Zurich's masoala, Burger's amazing halls etc.
Europe seems to have very few oceanariums and marine mammals, though.
Thats another difference. In Europe much more animals are free-roaming or walk-thru. Squirrel monkeys and lemurs are becoming almost standard.
Well, in most natural habitats visitors still walk on an asphalt pathway watching exhibit from the distance. When they turn, they see another, radically different exhibit, or some building or fence ouside the true exhibit.
So this immersion requires visitors to have lots of so-called 'suspension of disbelief'.
I prefer these great restorations of rainforests and savannahs.
But many of my best animal experiences were large areas of local forest or meadows, with exotic animals enjoying the space and lots of unnatural - to them - plant life.
So I wonder, instead of restoring rainforests, shouldn't we let chimps, gorillas and elephants roam around local woods of pines and oak? Let visitors enjoy walk in the old park or forest, not pretending it has transformed into the exotic jungle? Instead of planting exotic-looking plants, let animals climb old pines and spruces? And let big cats hide themselves in gorse and juniper? Its not ideal, but examples I saw worked surprisingly good - in terms of animal welfare and public enjoyment.
Wow what a long debate, it had 3 pages a few hours ago but now its 5... 
I'm going to bring in some history to the table. As far as exhibitry in the United States and Europe, there are a lot more city zoos in Europe than the United States. Zoos in Europe are probably much older in the sense of collecting animals have old/ancient parts of the zoos, but some European zoos are renovation. I've also noticed that in Europe there's more of this brick wall, 19th century architectural theme going on in the places that guests walk around in. This includes flowerbeds and hedges that give this "city park" sort of feel. I don't want to make large assumptions, but I do have a friend in Holand that will admit to this. I think its something that really sets aside European Zoos and American Zoos, which is, historically, the architecture is different. I think the whole European architecture plays around the fact that a lot of European Zoos do have indoor exhibts for Reptile houses, greenhouses, or barns for animals to keep in the winter months.
As far as this architecture and indoor exhibits goes, I don't mind it. I think its sort of based on the preference of the zoo visitor. Its good to have some diversity in the layout of zoos.
@ landscape immersion in European Zoos. I'd say Zoo Zurich and Blijdorp Zoo definitely do have some instances of Landscape Immersion. In a lot of European Zoos there's a lot of theme based on structures that resemble geographical locations that became popular in the mid 20th century. You can see lots of barns based off Thai and Egyptian architecture in some German zoos.
As a new Zoochat member, I see lots of instances of debate of the whole animal care vs visitor experience/ landscape immersion vs animal happiness speil thingy. A land immersion exhibit would definitely cost more money and I think its best to replicate an animals natural environment for both the animals and the guests. Animals do rip apart their exhibit so active maintenance would be needed or hidden barriers to keep animals from destroying plants. I'd also agree that there are lots of Americans who do enjoy seeing exhibits that seem like you're in the exhibit and in a different geographical place. I speak with ordinary people on it all the time, as in people who just go to the zoo for recreational purposes, and they have admitted to that. Also, I must point out that landscape immersion exhibits do help educate the public of other environments and of plants and habitats. So there is educational value as well, but how does education programs differ from European and American Zoos? Are American zoos more educational?
I disagree. I don't see the educational value in it because many zoo visitors may have a false interpretation. Some guests aren't particularly bright and don't even take the time to read signs, or even notice that there are signs meant to educate. Also some plants would be unfamiliar to animals and take away the ability to relocate them or release them in the wild to a whole different setting. Some plants might be harmful to animals; like for hear in San Diego, we have lots of eucalyptus trees that have to be removed from herbivorous animals because they're dangerous to the animals.
I'm going to bring in some history to the table. As far as exhibitry in the United States and Europe, there are a lot more city zoos in Europe than the United States. Zoos in Europe are probably much older in the sense of collecting animals have old/ancient parts of the zoos, but some European zoos are renovation. I've also noticed that in Europe there's more of this brick wall, 19th century architectural theme going on in the places that guests walk around in. This includes flowerbeds and hedges that give this "city park" sort of feel. I don't want to make large assumptions, but I do have a friend in Holand that will admit to this. I think its something that really sets aside European Zoos and American Zoos, which is, historically, the architecture is different. I think the whole European architecture plays around the fact that a lot of European Zoos do have indoor exhibts for Reptile houses, greenhouses, or barns for animals to keep in the winter months.
As far as this architecture and indoor exhibits goes, I don't mind it. I think its sort of based on the preference of the zoo visitor. Its good to have some diversity in the layout of zoos.
@ landscape immersion in European Zoos. I'd say Zoo Zurich and Blijdorp Zoo definitely do have some instances of Landscape Immersion. In a lot of European Zoos there's a lot of theme based on structures that resemble geographical locations that became popular in the mid 20th century. You can see lots of barns based off Thai and Egyptian architecture in some German zoos.
As a new Zoochat member, I see lots of instances of debate of the whole animal care vs visitor experience/ landscape immersion vs animal happiness speil thingy. A land immersion exhibit would definitely cost more money and I think its best to replicate an animals natural environment for both the animals and the guests. Animals do rip apart their exhibit so active maintenance would be needed or hidden barriers to keep animals from destroying plants. I'd also agree that there are lots of Americans who do enjoy seeing exhibits that seem like you're in the exhibit and in a different geographical place. I speak with ordinary people on it all the time, as in people who just go to the zoo for recreational purposes, and they have admitted to that. Also, I must point out that landscape immersion exhibits do help educate the public of other environments and of plants and habitats. So there is educational value as well, but how does education programs differ from European and American Zoos? Are American zoos more educational?
I disagree. I don't see the educational value in it because many zoo visitors may have a false interpretation. Some guests aren't particularly bright and don't even take the time to read signs, or even notice that there are signs meant to educate. Also some plants would be unfamiliar to animals and take away the ability to relocate them or release them in the wild to a whole different setting. Some plants might be harmful to animals; like for hear in San Diego, we have lots of eucalyptus trees that have to be removed from herbivorous animals because they're dangerous to the animals.
Last edited:
I think your second comment that I made bold is directly linked to your first paragraph!!
How are those comments linked...not all marine mammals come from (sub)tropical climates...in fact there are probably dozens of marine mammals that live in the cooler climates that could be suited for Europe (fur seal, harbor porpoise, grey seal, sea otter, beluga, walrus, etc.)
I think that there's a false dichotomy in this thread between "animal care" and "immersion". Neither a basic, no-frills "European-style" enclosure nor a hugely expensive immersion "American-style" exhibit necessarily compromise standards for animals.
The difference is purely in the budget that zoos are willing to allocate to purely visitor-focussed capital expenditure. Without having been outside Australia, I'll steer clear of comparing European, British and American zoos. However, I think you can see examples of the whole gamut of different traditions at Melbourne Zoo, and going purely by the reactions of the many non-regular zoogoers that I've talked to/overheard, I think that there are successes in every category.
American-style immersion is carried off brilliantly by the gorilla rainforest, and that works. The Great Flight Aviary is naturalistic for the birds, but visitors walk along a boardwalk and the wire mesh is in full view. It still works because the birds exhibit natural behaviours in a captive environment. The same is true of the Orang-utan Sanctuary, which doesn't attempt to *look* natural, but is still chock-full of immersive interps and has been designed to promote natural behaviours by siamangs and orang-utans in an artificial environment. Finally, even the basic wire cage that houses the lions seems to work.
An exhibit that a visitor stays at for several minutes qualifies as a 'success' by my reckoning. On that basis, Melbourne has successful enclosures of various different genres.
The difference is purely in the budget that zoos are willing to allocate to purely visitor-focussed capital expenditure. Without having been outside Australia, I'll steer clear of comparing European, British and American zoos. However, I think you can see examples of the whole gamut of different traditions at Melbourne Zoo, and going purely by the reactions of the many non-regular zoogoers that I've talked to/overheard, I think that there are successes in every category.
American-style immersion is carried off brilliantly by the gorilla rainforest, and that works. The Great Flight Aviary is naturalistic for the birds, but visitors walk along a boardwalk and the wire mesh is in full view. It still works because the birds exhibit natural behaviours in a captive environment. The same is true of the Orang-utan Sanctuary, which doesn't attempt to *look* natural, but is still chock-full of immersive interps and has been designed to promote natural behaviours by siamangs and orang-utans in an artificial environment. Finally, even the basic wire cage that houses the lions seems to work.
An exhibit that a visitor stays at for several minutes qualifies as a 'success' by my reckoning. On that basis, Melbourne has successful enclosures of various different genres.
Immersion exhibits do not neccessarily have to immerse the visitor completely into the animals natural habitat. Immersion exhibits can entirely be cultural...as long as all of the elements of the exhibit follow a reasonable storyline that can immerse the visitors. The same can apply to the animal enclosures themselves.
You are 100% right if you look at it from an animal husbandry point of view, but I was thinking about it from a business point of view. The cooler climates do not generally attract lots of vacationing tourists. The more succesful oceanariums are in vacation hotspots in sunnier climates such as San Diego, Orlando, Loro Parc in Tenerife and Australias Gold Coast. Oceanariums have higher running costs than zoos, so my thinking was that they need a high density of tourists through the pay desk to make a profit, and do that it has to be reasonably warm the entire year.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
I know I'm a little late in the game on the ape enclosure with a moat discussion, but I do know of one here in the US that does indeed have moats with water in their ape areas. That would be Fort Worth. I know that they have moats in at least the gibbon, mandrill, and orang-utan areas. I will need to check the bonobo/chimp and gorilla area to comment on them.
Isn't Fort Worth a very old zoo? Moat exhibits were common for those 2nd Generation Zoos. I don't know each Generation of animal exhibitry affects American vs European Zoos though.