Taccachantrieri
Well-Known Member
Yes, you do have some great ideas Jurek7 
!
Besides the huge costs associated with constructing such an exhibit, its maintenance would also be prohibitive monetary wise. The exhibit you envisioned would also consume a lot of space.
In Canada where it can be extremely cold in the winter, and the climate is better suited to polar bears, you would need indoor heated facilities to keep the public comfortable. This would add even more costs to the exhibit and distract from your great design.
Some Zoos could probably afford such an exhibit, if it was constructed in stages.
The problem is how many Zoos will it take in a continental area like North America or Europe with similiar exhibits to have a self-sustaining population? I'm guessing that a maximum of six bears could be exhibited in your rotating three space design. You might need ten Zoos in North America to have a decent population of polar bears, although this would still be lower than todays population. If there is even one exhibit built like the one you described in North America or continental Europe it would put considerable pressure on other Zoos to follow suit or risk being labeled as a facility that does not feel it absolutely necessary to meet the highest regional standards.
Multiple Zoos could still theoretically build a huge arctic exhibit, but at what cost to other displays? I think your Madagascar exhibit would be considerably cheaper, take up less space, have more year round appeal, and house more animals. Both exhibits would present different conservation and education messages, but I don't think the Arctic exhibit would convey their messages that much more effectively.
What would happen if a facility like the Calgary Zoo built an exhibit meeting all your specifications and the polar bears still exhibited stereotypical behavior? Even if their behavior is the result of being born in a different and inferior zoological exhibit, what would the Calgary Zoo tell the public - the same pubic that has coughed up millions of dollars to provide for the welfare of animals? The public HATES to see stereotypical behavior in animals and catches it very easily.
Jurek7, what did you have in mind by artificial ice? I find the idea of slippery surfaces for bears to slide down intriguing. What material would you use that would still permit cleaning?
Even if a Zoo does not utilize all the facets of your design, maybe they could pick up certain ideas and incorporate them into their own designs. Instead of waiting you should e-mail your messages directly to a Zoo you like and feel would be receptive to the idea ( see my recent post about Arctic Shores).
!Besides the huge costs associated with constructing such an exhibit, its maintenance would also be prohibitive monetary wise. The exhibit you envisioned would also consume a lot of space.
In Canada where it can be extremely cold in the winter, and the climate is better suited to polar bears, you would need indoor heated facilities to keep the public comfortable. This would add even more costs to the exhibit and distract from your great design.
Some Zoos could probably afford such an exhibit, if it was constructed in stages.
The problem is how many Zoos will it take in a continental area like North America or Europe with similiar exhibits to have a self-sustaining population? I'm guessing that a maximum of six bears could be exhibited in your rotating three space design. You might need ten Zoos in North America to have a decent population of polar bears, although this would still be lower than todays population. If there is even one exhibit built like the one you described in North America or continental Europe it would put considerable pressure on other Zoos to follow suit or risk being labeled as a facility that does not feel it absolutely necessary to meet the highest regional standards.
Multiple Zoos could still theoretically build a huge arctic exhibit, but at what cost to other displays? I think your Madagascar exhibit would be considerably cheaper, take up less space, have more year round appeal, and house more animals. Both exhibits would present different conservation and education messages, but I don't think the Arctic exhibit would convey their messages that much more effectively.
What would happen if a facility like the Calgary Zoo built an exhibit meeting all your specifications and the polar bears still exhibited stereotypical behavior? Even if their behavior is the result of being born in a different and inferior zoological exhibit, what would the Calgary Zoo tell the public - the same pubic that has coughed up millions of dollars to provide for the welfare of animals? The public HATES to see stereotypical behavior in animals and catches it very easily.
Jurek7, what did you have in mind by artificial ice? I find the idea of slippery surfaces for bears to slide down intriguing. What material would you use that would still permit cleaning?
Even if a Zoo does not utilize all the facets of your design, maybe they could pick up certain ideas and incorporate them into their own designs. Instead of waiting you should e-mail your messages directly to a Zoo you like and feel would be receptive to the idea ( see my recent post about Arctic Shores).
I love the mix of wildlife and models of past creatures. 
