Exhibits in UK Zoos

[overread]

One of my best zoo memories is being allowed to scatter-feed the bears at Whipsnade simply by getting there early in the morning and being a sweet little 9 year old boy (though I say it myself...).

Exactly - heck myself I know that for me its interaction in the form of photography that builds my engagement with the subject far more. Many times most of the adults I see at zoos who are not part of a family gathering
are often those with a camera taking photographs.

Engagement with the subjects at a zoo is critical. Simply seeing an animal isn't generally enough; you have to become involved and engaged with. Of course you have to have boundaries too as too much casual involvement can breed an atmosphere where people push at the boundaries more and more which can cause problems. However I do feel that "hands off" is a bad policy in general for visitors.

Heck I suspect a lot of the "glass bangers" would stop if they had a little involvement as they'd hopefully start to become more aware of the animals. It's easy to bash at the glass for the tiger; harder if you know the tigers name, history and suchlike.

 

[tetrapod]

I do often feel that the UK has an odd stance with captive animals in that animals which are not destined for reintroduction programs are still kept at arms length; both directly and indirectly. You hardly ever see keepers interacting with anything but the safest of animals in the open and generally even then at arms length. The only times I can recall UK staff working with more dangerous animals is on the television and in "behind the scenes". Ot herwise to the public eye we keep a distance. We don't have a Steve Irwin in the UK and I think that concept is a downside for how we view and engage with wildlife.

Are you advocating that keepers should physically go in with big cats and bears??? Er no thanks.
And no the UK does not require a Steve Irwin. There are TV personalities in the UK who do a better job without constantly harassing animals...

 

[overread]

Are you advocating that keepers should physically go in with big cats and bears??? Er no thanks.
And no the UK does not require a Steve Irwin. There are TV personalities in the UK who do a better job without constantly harassing animals...

Oddly I was thinking more the zoo side rather than the TV side when mentioning Steve. But it was more his willingness to interact with the animals in a more hands-on way than just purely having the animals shown at feeding time and coupled with a short talk.

Of course there is more that can be done aside from just being in there with the critters; more thinking along the lines of what many call enrichment methods to avoid pacing and other signs of boredom and stress. For animals not destined to be returned to the wild I see no problem in having them involved in more things not purely "wild".

Then again it depends on the enclosure; bigger ones where there is far more room don't seem to, in my view, need this as much. It's like comparing the typical size of otter pens in most zoos to say the ones at the British Wildlife Centre (and yes I realise that the BWC does more interaction such as photography days).



My point is more to try and move things away from the idea of an animal in a cage being all that you see. Bringing something in that connects the animal to the people; either keepers or toward the visitors. Trying to enrich the experience beyond just seeing things in pens - which is all too easy to dismiss today I think because many people will already be used to that sight through the television.

 

[gentle lemur]

Engagement with the subjects at a zoo is critical. Simply seeing an animal isn't generally enough; you have to become involved and engaged with. Of course you have to have boundaries too as too much casual involvement can breed an atmosphere where people push at the boundaries more and more which can cause problems. However I do feel that "hands off" is a bad policy in general for visitors.

I think I understand your point, but I don't see how you can run a reasonably-sized modern zoo without a general 'look but don't touch' principle. Virtually all the walk-through enclosures holding mammals in the UK have to be manned by zoo staff and/or volunteers to protect the visitors from the animals and vice versa. The health and safety requirements built into the Zoo Licensing Act effectively require this. A traditional petting section is not really viable in a zoo which attracts a million visitors per year, particularly as almost all the child visitors arrive at weekends in summer and in the school holidays. The Zoo Licensing Act also requires zoos to provide education and to promote conservation: stroking baa-lambs may be nice for the little ones, but it would consume a lot of resources without furthering the goals that zoos must work towards.
I agree that zoos must provide visitors with opportunities for engaging with animals - but ZooChatters know that there are many ways of doing this, for example: presenters' talks, good signage (such as a guide to identifying the individual animals in a group) and, as this thread suggests, good exhibit design which encourages interesting animal behaviour and allows good views of the animals. Zoos offer choices: visitors can take photos and videos (as previously mentioned); view from boats, monorails, safari wagons, ski lifts, trains etc; question keepers and presenters; and make the very basic decisions of which animals to look for and how long to watch them.

Alan

 

[Zooplantman]

Actually something of this sort is becoming very popular in USA zoos where "training walls" are opened at scheduled times during the day and keepers demonstrate target training and other activities with tigers, bears, elephants, etc. This gets visitors very close (in a protected setting) to big animals, reveals what is involved in modern captive animal management, shows keepers interacting with large animals. Everything you are asking for. There's hardly a major zoo in the US that doesn't include such a spot in new exhibits for suitable animals for the past ten years or so.

 

[overread]

Aye we get similar in the UK but normally its only with very limited animals - in fact from memory mostly seals and falcons are the commonly chosen ones.

Indeed Gentle raises a good point regarding scale of the operation; certainly such measures have to have caps and controls on them as well as be suited to the number of visitors. Certainly we have talks and such, however I feel that information in talks or displays is only one kind of interaction type. It can also often, but not always be rather dry or at least offers little change visit to visit (once you've heard the seal talk chances are you've heard them all unless a major news event happens regarding them).


The USA takes a very different approach, a very "new" or dangerous one that I feel the UK zoo system isn't as keen upon. Either because we've a stronger focus on trying to keep animals "wild" in captivity (which outside of reintroduction groups is a debatable topic) or because our history and perceptions are just culturally different in how we deal with zoos.

I feel as if the UK has a more studious approach to zoos whilst the USA took a more circus/entertainment approach.

 

[Zooplantman]

The USA takes a very different approach, a very "new" or dangerous one that I feel the UK zoo system isn't as keen upon.

Would you say more about these dangers?
Zoos everywhere are training animals to enable safer, better medical exams without the formerly common use of anesthesia. To my knowledge, in all cases with dangerous animals this is done in a non-contact manner. This is not unique to the US, but showing it to the public may not (yet) be common in the UK.
Or perhaps we are not speaking of the same thing?

And if this sort of thing is not what you were advocating earlier, then perhaps you could elaborate on just what you did mean?

 

[overread]

I would say that any display activity is generally more dangerous than simple interactions if because of the potential for distraction of handler/keeper and animal. Though of course many animals often show a significant amount of tolerance for ignoring the public, however it adds an element of danger beyond what is normally present.

And yes I had partly forgotten that more zoos were using different methods for handling and treatment. Although I think the only time I recall hearing it mentioned directly was in relation to wolves.


At present I'm certainly not thinking of any specific types of display/interaction just the concept in general.

 

[garyjp]

I think we are going slightly off topic here as its not as US vs UK zoo debate that might be interesting in its own right. Im certain that a lot of these big super exhibits must have started in the US with the space they have but thats a by point.
I think Gentle Lemur has hit the nail on the head it is about our own zoos uping their game and making a visit more attractive to the average punter. Unless going to the zoo is your hobby like many here, visitors have a choice where to spend their hard earned money. I think the average family zoo visitor expects to see certain animals on a visit to the zoo Lions tigers etc so one youve ticked that box then you have to tick the next box which is value for money and the experience you give to your customers. If people have a good experience and like what they see then the chances are they will come back again. A walk through being a great experience , keeper talks gets interest but is not really a take away experience , a good exhibit is a great experience people get to see what they want.Feeding animals would be a great experience but that has now been an excuse for zoos to use it as a cash cow. Alot of zoos and people on here will argue space we dont have enough room to build an "islands" but nobody is asking you too. The journey of your visit at the zoo should start as soon as you walk through the gates.