Enclosure space is overrated compared to quality of space

[Lafone]

Four pages of discussion regarding the square area of a single pen and nobody has mentioned the size of the outdoor pen, the indoor pen, the dens or burrows in both, where they shelter and sleep, the off season or foul weather protection areas and the short term storage or medical isolation spaces required to actually keep livestock healthy and safe not too many living in a part of the world that has 4 seasons I take it.

I think a couple of people mentioned the whole spaces, but I'd agree the question is about total space not just outdoor exhibits and you're quite right to highlight those things from an expert POV.

It's actually a useful point on the suggestion about rotation for grazing as well as you have to ensure routes to shelters, housing etc and that's even more fencing and movement (or you double up on it all, further increasing the cost with what seems like little return).

 

[15399]

Rotational grazing is definitely used where otherwise one singular pasture is quickly overgrazed. The point is to make grazing more efficient. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it where overgrazing is not a concern.

And how are zoos going to have the space available to rotationally graze? I don't know about you, but I go to the zoo to see animals, not see empty exhibits that sometimes have animals. Plenty of zoos don't have the luxury of having enough space to do things like this, and do we really want ungulates to be something only large zoos have the ability to keep?

 

[tigris115]

And how are zoos going to have the space available to rotationally graze? I don't know about you, but I go to the zoo to see animals, not see empty exhibits that sometimes have animals. Plenty of zoos don't have the luxury of having enough space to do things like this, and do we really want ungulates to be something only large zoos have the ability to keep?

What if zoos designed some carnivore enclosures so that herbivores can be let in at night?

So, when you shift the lions backstage, let the zebras and gazelles in for the night to graze and leave their scent.

This is only gonna be practical for a few zoos but it'd be a rad thing to implement

 

[La Cucaracha]

And how are zoos going to have the space available to rotationally graze? I don't know about you, but I go to the zoo to see animals, not see empty exhibits that sometimes have animals. Plenty of zoos don't have the luxury of having enough space to do things like this, and do we really want ungulates to be something only large zoos have the ability to keep?

Here's what I propose, but it's purely speculation:

1. Your concern about space: The point of rotational grazing is to use the forage available as efficiently as possible. Most standing ungulate paddocks might actually be good candidates.
2. Your concern about animals on exhibit: Pastoralists have already been using the Serengeti grazing model with livestock as well. Why not incorporate a real grazing model we already understand from zoo animals in the wild into rotational grazing? It would be almost like a predator rotational exhibit; there would be anticipation and mystery about what animal you might see in a given pasture on a given day.
3. Keeping large ungulates in accessible zoos: I love wild ungulates, even if I feel like most of the public would prefer to watch them be eaten by lions. There's nothing like the thundering of hooves. But. Zoos have a tendency to take a stamp collecting mentality to hoofstock, not unlike exotic trophy hunters. I would prefer they chose quality of hoofstock displays over quantity, if it had to come to that.
4. Maybe the same thing with something smaller, like an African crested porcupine?

No I have not "worked a single day in zoos" so you're totally fair to take what I say with a grain of salt if you must.
But I did go to ag college for equine science. And if it helps, not all those colts knew they weren't wild zebras.

 

[Great Argus]

Your concern about space: The point of rotational grazing is to use the forage available as efficiently as possible. Most standing ungulate paddocks might actually be good candidates.

Not really - in most cases rows of hoofstock exhibits aren't set up to be able to functionally rotate species. These are usually the ones lacking forage as well.

Your concern about animals on exhibit: Pastoralists have already been using the Serengeti grazing model with livestock as well. Why not incorporate a real grazing model we already understand from zoo animals in the wild into rotational grazing? It would be almost like a predator rotational exhibit; there would be anticipation and mystery about what animal you might see in a given pasture on a given day.

Technically there's nothing wrong with this idea. However, putting it into practice and getting the hoofstock to work with you would be difficult at best.

Keeping large ungulates in accessible zoos: I love wild ungulates, even if I feel like most of the public would prefer to watch them be eaten by lions. There's nothing like the thundering of hooves. But. Zoos have a tendency to take a stamp collecting mentality to hoofstock, not unlike exotic trophy hunters. I would prefer they chose quality of hoofstock displays over quantity, if it had to come to that

This is already largely occurring, in most cases the days of stamp-collections of ungulates has gone.

Maybe the same thing with something smaller, like an African crested porcupine?

Which for their burrowing habits, are not ideal candidates for allowing into a hoofstock exhibit.

No I have not "worked a single day in zoos" so you're totally fair to take what I say with a grain of salt if you must.

More like a pinch of salt - you continue to display a significant lack of knowledge in terms of actually putting your ideas into practice.

 

[Nile Hippo Expert]

No I have not "worked a single day in zoos" so you're totally fair to take what I say with a grain of salt if you must.

I will say that your ideas would be way better if you have sources to prove your knowledge.

 

[TinoPup]

What if zoos designed some carnivore enclosures so that herbivores can be let in at night?

So, when you shift the lions backstage, let the zebras and gazelles in for the night to graze and leave their scent.

This is only gonna be practical for a few zoos but it'd be a rad thing to implement

The carnivores leave their scent, too, and their prey isn't going to be very willing to go into those spaces.

 

[La Cucaracha]

The carnivores leave their scent, too, and their prey isn't going to be very willing to go into those spaces.

This is why I'm hesitant to add that part.

I will say that your ideas would be way better if you have sources to prove your knowledge.

On the fateful day I post a fully baked exhibit idea in the zoo design section, I will cite as many relevant sources as I can.

Not really - in most cases rows of hoofstock exhibits aren't set up to be able to functionally rotate species. These are usually the ones lacking forage as well.



Technically there's nothing wrong with this idea. However, putting it into practice and getting the hoofstock to work with you would be difficult at best.



This is already largely occurring, in most cases the days of stamp-collections of ungulates has gone.



Which for their burrowing habits, are not ideal candidates for allowing into a hoofstock exhibit.



More like a pinch of salt - you continue to display a significant lack of knowledge in terms of actually putting your ideas into practice.

Forage can be replanted.
I can only promise you it works well with bison. If I ever get the chance to try it with zebras, I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[Great Argus]

Forage can be replanted.

At great expense, yes - just to be mowed down again. There's a reason most hoofstock exhibits are limited in plantings that they can actually reach. It's very expensive to keep replanting such exhibits and to try and keep them looking nice.

If I ever get the chance to try it with zebras, I'll let you know how it goes.

I hope you learn quite a lot more before getting that chance...

 

[La Cucaracha]

At great expense, yes - just to be mowed down again. There's a reason most hoofstock exhibits are limited in plantings that they can actually reach. It's very expensive to keep replanting such exhibits and to try and keep them looking nice.



I hope you learn quite a lot more before getting that chance...

The point of rotational grazing is to prevent overgrazing. I've said enough times that I haven't seen it done with zoo animals. But soil erosion is bad for the health of the animals, and it's bad for the health of the planet.
We shouldn't turn the other way at those overgrazed paddocks just because it's minimal compared to major sources of soil erosion.

 

[Great Argus]

The point of rotational grazing is to prevent overgrazing. I've said enough times that I haven't seen it done with zoo animals.

Yes, we know. Rotational is usually used in much larger situations than the average zoo exhibit, and typically implies having multiple areas. Ie, one holding animals and the other pen is allowed a period of rest, not another species.

But soil erosion is bad for the health of the animals

Based on? Doesn't seem to bother quite a lot of species any. For many species trying to rotate them between exhibits is far more hazardous to their health than an exhibit with little grass/low foliage.

We shouldn't turn the other way at those overgrazed paddocks just because it's minimal compared to major sources of soil erosion.

You've yet to pitch any feasible idea to fix it. Erosion is a problem even for places with very large exhibits (SDZSP, Wildlife Safari, etc).

 

[La Cucaracha]

Yes, we know. Rotational is usually used in much larger situations than the average zoo exhibit, and typically implies having multiple areas. Ie, one holding animals and the other pen is allowed a period of rest, not another species.



Based on? Doesn't seem to bother quite a lot of species any. For many species trying to rotate them between exhibits is far more hazardous to their health than an exhibit with little grass/low foliage.



You've yet to pitch any feasible idea to fix it. Erosion is a problem even for places with very large exhibits (SDZSP, Wildlife Safari, etc).

Rotational grazing is used even on the smallest of grazing operations to maximize forage efficiency. Inhaling dust and ingesting sand absolutely effects animals negatively. I'd be happy to send you published papers, if you'd like.

Do you know what those larger exhibits seed with, by chance? There are several, many cultivars of sod for athletic and grazing use. I'm kind of surprised there's not one specific to zoos or safari parks.

 

[Sheather]

{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.

It's true for pets too. So many people will push a hard minimum enclosure size for a parakeet/hamster/axolotl/snake but there is nothing about setting up an enclosure to maximize usable space and incorporate enrichment. A big but totally empty cage is almost always going to be worse than a smaller but highly enriched cage for almost any animal (except maybe large ungulates that just want a field of grass or pelagic ocean fish.) Minimum care standards based only on the enclosure dimensions are almost useless.

 

[La Cucaracha]

It's true for pets too. So many people will push a hard minimum enclosure size for a parakeet/hamster/axolotl/snake but there is nothing about setting up an enclosure to maximize usable space and incorporate enrichment. A big but totally empty cage is almost always going to be worse than a smaller but highly enriched cage for almost any animal (except maybe large ungulates that just want a field of grass or pelagic ocean fish.) Minimum care standards based only on the enclosure dimensions are almost useless.

I'm absolutely going to shame people keeping ball pythons (or any similar sized snake) in a 40 gallon (or whatever they call that in Europe) enclosure, but you're right.
People often do keep pet reptiles in adequately spaced but otherwise featureless cages as often as they're kept in ones that are too small.

 

[15399]

It's true for pets too. So many people will push a hard minimum enclosure size for a parakeet/hamster/axolotl/snake but there is nothing about setting up an enclosure to maximize usable space and incorporate enrichment. A big but totally empty cage is almost always going to be worse than a smaller but highly enriched cage for almost any animal (except maybe large ungulates that just want a field of grass or pelagic ocean fish.) Minimum care standards based only on the enclosure dimensions are almost useless.

However the enrichment and complexity, while great, is useless without at least enough space for the animal to move around comfortably. Both are hugely important, and I hope we can all agree that a good exhibit is both:
A. Complex and enriching
B. Of a suitable size (however we wish to quantify that)

I'm absolutely going to shame people keeping ball pythons (or any similar sized snake) in a 40 gallon (or whatever they call that in Europe) enclosure, but you're right.
People often do keep pet reptiles in adequately spaced but otherwise featureless cages as often as they're kept in ones that are too small.

Even in zoos, it's only been recently that the cognitive abilities and importance of enrichment in reptiles has been valued. Unfortunately the world of herps is far behind the world of mammals welfare-wise, both in zoos and the exotic pet community. It was only a handful of years ago when everything said a ten-gallon tank was the gold standard for leopard geckos, and yet today I am housing mine in an 18"x30"x18" (with three hides, multiple climbing opportunities, etc.)

 

[Sheather]

I'm absolutely going to shame people keeping ball pythons (or any similar sized snake) in a 40 gallon (or whatever they call that in Europe) enclosure, but you're right.
People often do keep pet reptiles in adequately spaced but otherwise featureless cages as often as they're kept in ones that are too small.

Most ball pythons bred in the United States are kept in ten gallon tubs in rack systems!

 

[La Cucaracha]

Most ball pythons bred in the United States are kept in ten gallon tubs in rack systems!

I think that's fine for juvenille snakes, but I think it's time the 40 gallon tank for an adult ball python as a minimum standard should go the way of the goldfish bowl.

 

[Batto]

Realistic legally binding minimal enclosure specifications for pets and everything beyond would be a benefit for official veterinarians and reasonable keepers.
As mentioned in a now deleted post, we already have that in Austria in the form of the 2. Tierhaltungsverordnung. Unfortunately, this law also illustrates the shortcomings of such legislation, among others in regard to the bureaucratical slowness to react to changes, may it be due to taxonomy, new technology, new scientific evidence, zeitgeist, lack of practicality etc. Which lessens the acceptance of the law among experienced keepers.

 

[Sheather]

I think that's fine for juvenille snakes, but I think it's time the 40 gallon tank for an adult ball python as a minimum standard should go the way of the goldfish bowl.

I agree, it's a bit large in most cases for this specific snake in my opinion.

 

[La Cucaracha]

An adult male ball python might be fine in an 18"x30"x18", but I wouldn't want to keep anything larger than that in it. Kinda sad that Neil gives more space to his leopard gecko than some people give to their ball pythons lol.