Enclosure space is overrated compared to quality of space

[La Cucaracha]

{Note from mods - this thread split from here: Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes}



Enclosure space is an overrated component of overall species suitability compared to the quality of space.
David Hancocks has said this in all his books.
I.e. I would much rather see a snow leopard in a Himalayas diorama-type exhibit than a large, grassy field with little other enrichment.

You might be surprised how restrictive some animals' ranges can be in situ. Sometimes I still am. It mostly comes down to food availability.

 

[15399]

Enclosure space is an overrated component of overall species suitability compared to the quality of space.
David Hancocks has said this in all his books.
I.e. I would much rather see a snow leopard in a Himalayas diorama-type exhibit than a large, grassy field with little other enrichment.

You might be surprised how restrictive some animals' ranges can be in situ. Sometimes I still am. It mostly comes down to food availability.

I suspect most would agree that complexity and suitable habitat are more important than mere space. However, most would also likely say they'd rather see a snow leopard in a 20,000 square foot Himalayas exhibit, than a 200 square foot Himalayas exhibit. Space is still one of the very important aspects of enclosure design, specifically in terms of usable space.

 

[La Cucaracha]

I suspect most would agree that complexity and suitable habitat are more important than mere space. However, most would also likely say they'd rather see a snow leopard in a 20,000 square foot Himalayas exhibit, than a 200 square foot Himalayas exhibit. Space is still one of the very important aspects of enclosure design, specifically in terms of usable space.

Oh come on. 200 square feet isn't even the recommended minimum for one large felid. Legitimately, what is wrong with 2,000 square feet?
Usable space =/= more space

 

[Great Argus]

Enclosure space is an overrated component of overall species suitability compared to the quality of space.

Arguably, it isn't overrated - rather that space does not inherently solve problems. The quality of an exhibit may be good, but if it is cramped animals will still fight. Or the space may be large, but inadequate for the needs of the animals. It's often a species by species case quite frankly; many hoofstock species breed more successfully in larger exhibits, while conversely small antelopes often fare better in small exhibits.

You might be surprised how restrictive some animals' ranges can be in situ. Sometimes I still am. It mostly comes down to food availability.

I find it usually to be the opposite - and for most species individual range can vary tremendously depending on habitat and availability of resources, it's a bit of a moot point in terms of captive management for the majority of cases.

Legitimately, what is wrong with 2,000 square feet?

That figure is a bit below the average exhibit size for Jaguar, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Cheetah, and Cloudie in fact. Most AZA exhibits for these species sit between 2,200 and 2,800 sq ft for the main exhibit.

 

[Batto]

Oh come on. 200 square feet isn't even the recommended minimum for one large felid. Legitimately, what is wrong with 2,000 square feet?
Usable space =/= more space

If I was to dictate you how to live for the rest of your life and you had to choose between a 2000 or a 20000 *insert scale unit only a fraction of the world uses* habitat, both equally perfectly adjusted to your needs and maintained for you, which one would you choose?

 

[Lafone]

Enclosure space is an overrated component of overall species suitability compared to the quality of space.
David Hancocks has said this in all his books.
I.e. I would much rather see a snow leopard in a Himalayas diorama-type exhibit than a large, grassy field with little other enrichment.

You might be surprised how restrictive some animals' ranges can be in situ. Sometimes I still am. It mostly comes down to food availability.

Which reputable zoos keep snow leopards in a large grassy field?

Seems the ‘enclosures don’t need to be big’ argument arrived very quickly at the destination of using extremes that don’t exist to establish a point. Guess that’s the point of a ‘hot take’ but it’s not exactly novel.

Enclosures should be appropriate for the animal (indoors and out as needed) and well furnished with proper enrichment. Highlighting one facet of that is more useful if dicussing deprivation rather than ambition.

If any snow leopard currently has a larger enclosure than 2k feet should it be reduced?

 

[La Cucaracha]

That figure is a bit below the average exhibit size for Jaguar, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Cheetah, and Cloudie in fact. Most AZA exhibits for these species sit between 2,200 and 2,800 sq ft for the main exhibit.

If I was to dictate you how to live for the rest of your life and you had to choose between a 2000 or a 20000 *insert scale unit only a fraction of the world uses* habitat, both equally perfectly adjusted to your needs and maintained for you, which one would you choose?

If any snow leopard currently has a larger enclosure than 2k feet should it be reduced?

I think you're all conveniently leaving the aspect of cost out.
If the smaller exhibit is the same in quality but costs 10 times less, are you actually going to invest more in space alone? At some point in designing expansive and "natural" exhibits, you do have to worry if guests can even see the animals. Yes, really. We talked about this in zookeeping 101.

 

[Batto]

I think you're all conveniently leaving the aspect of cost out.

As someone who's actually running a zoo in real life, trust me when I tell you: I'm not. If I can't afford to keep a species properly, I will not keep said species. Maybe you overheard that bit at your zookeeping 101 class...
Another basic 101 fact in zookeeping should have been discussing the scope between giving the animal adequate retreat options and presenting it in a fishbowl.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Another basic 101 fact in zookeeping should have been discussing the scope between giving the animal adequate retreat options and presenting it in a fishbowl.

We did, which is why I immediately scoffed at Neil's 200 square feet exaggeration.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Oh speaking of: ya, pretty much every reptile enclosure I've seen at a zoo is way too small. Way. Snakes especially.

 

[Lafone]

I think you're all conveniently leaving the aspect of cost out.
If the smaller exhibit is the same in quality but costs 10 times less, are you actually going to invest more in space alone? At some point in designing expansive and "natural" exhibits, you do have to worry if guests can even see the animals. Yes, really. We talked about this in zookeeping 101.

I’d say the cost is what can be afforded to do a thing properly vs saying how small can we make a thing so we can have an animal on the cheap.

If a snow leopard needs a particular sized, particularly designed, well enriched space with housing and appropriate furniture and you can’t afford it I’d suggest not holding snow leopards.

That all comes in as a question before you can even get to ‘running costs’ of feeding it, vets bills, keeper expertise, how it is viewed and all the rest of it.

I’d hope that was also in zookeeping 101.

I’d also add that I don’t think space alone should be a question anyway. Space is just one of the parts of the equation.

 

[La Cucaracha]

I’d say the cost is what can be afforded to do a thing properly vs saying how small can we make a thing so we can have an animal on the cheap.

If a snow leopard needs a particular sized, particularly designed, well enriched space with housing and appropriate furniture and you can’t afford it I’d suggest not holding snow leopards.

That all comes in as a question before you can even get to ‘running costs’ of feeding it, vets bills, keeper expertise, how it is viewed and all the rest of it.

I’d hope that was also in zookeeping 101.

I’d also add that I don’t think space alone should be a question anyway. Space is just one of the parts of the equation.

Do you actually think 2,000 square feet is inherently like a cubicle, or is it the principle of the matter you're taking issue with?

 

[15399]

Oh come on. 200 square feet isn't even the recommended minimum for one large felid. Legitimately, what is wrong with 2,000 square feet?
Usable space =/= more space

2,000 square feet is smaller than I'd want to go with snow leopards, but here's what I'll say. I agree with you that there is a point that more space stops improving the exhibit. We can debate at what that point is, but I agree there is a point where more space alone isn't necessarily helpful to animal welfare.

For example, while a 20,000 square foot snow leopard habitat is inherently superior to a 200 square foot habitat on space alone, it isn't necessarily superior to a 10,000 square foot snow leopard habitat if that smaller habitat has some other feature(s) that make it a better home for snow leopards. I've never worked with snow leopards, so I don't want to debate where the cut-off is, but I do think there is a point where this cut-off exists.

 

[Lafone]

Oh speaking of: ya, pretty much every reptile enclosure I've seen at a zoo is way too small. Way. Snakes especially.

I don’t see why rattlesnakes and snow leopards wouldn’t be equivalent your consideration. The right space is important. If it’s too small make it the right size. Factor in all the other things needed as well to ensure balance and do those too. If you can’t afford to address an inadequacy or make a fantastic space perhaps consider keeping less things in a better way. Surely that’s the choice lots of collections are making at the moment where we can see enclosures repurposed for more appropriate inhabitants.

 

[Lafone]

Do you actually think 2,000 square feet is inherently like a cubicle, or is it the principle of the matter you're taking issue with?

The principle. I don’t think space is an isolated factor and I don’t think ‘too big’ is helpful it’s about the whole imho. As for what I ‘actually think’ well I wrote that.

 

[La Cucaracha]

If you can’t afford to address an inadequacy or make a fantastic space perhaps consider keeping less things in a better way.

I mean, that kinda is what I'm suggesting. Why have a 20,000 square foot snow leopard exhibit, and a rattlesnake in a 40 gallon tank? It doesn't make any sense to me, but the majority of AZA zoos are like this.

The principle. I don’t think space is an isolated factor and I don’t think ‘too big’ is helpful it’s about the whole imho. As for what I ‘actually think’ well I wrote that.

Suit yourself, but I'm sure you know not every zoo is 100+ acres or has a SDZ budget. I don't actually suggest keeping large felids in bathroom stalls, either.

 

[La Cucaracha]

I don’t see why rattlesnakes and snow leopards wouldn’t be equivalent your consideration. The right space is important. If it’s too small make it the right size. Factor in all the other things needed as well to ensure balance and do those too. If you can’t afford to address an inadequacy or make a fantastic space perhaps consider keeping less things in a better way. Surely that’s the choice lots of collections are making at the moment where we can see enclosures repurposed for more appropriate inhabitants.

I'm of the opinion you can make a fantastic space without having to take up so much real estate. Honestly, I think everything in infrastructure is going to have to be more space efficient in the near future out of necessity. Maybe we'll even see vertical zoos.

 

[Batto]

Maybe we'll even see vertical zoos.

They already exist...HdM in Vienna, Sunshine Aquarium in Tokyo etc.

 

[La Cucaracha]

They already exist...HdM in Vienna, Sunshine Aquarium in Tokyo etc.

Right, I should've said more.

 

[La Cucaracha]

Also, we still refer to glass tanks as cages in the context of reptile keeping in the states.