Indianapolis Zoo Indianapolis Zoo News 2024

I kind of respect the fact that Indianapolis ploughs its own furrow with these ape exhibits. Are they attractive to human eyes? Possibly not,although some might like them. Do the Chimps care ? Certainly not.Do they work? Only time will tell. John Aspinall in the UK was a pioneer when it came to"its not naturalistic but it supplies an animal`s needs and then some" enclosures..few,if any,had more success with Gorillas than him...(his son is the infamous anti-zoo zoo owner Damian Aspinall).
 
And possibly better to go the whole non-natural look than that incredibly ugly "wellness tree" for Bonobos at Jacksonville pretending that it somehow represents naturalness.
 
Although I do believe exhibits should be functional for the animal beyond just being appealing, I feel the new chimpanzee exhibit at Indianapolis is far too inadequate for visitors. Given whatever limitations the institution has (whether that barred them from constructing a large naturalistic exhibit akin to Kansas City Zoo), I find the images I've seen to appear incredibly lazy. There are aspects of the exhibit I highly appreciate including the use of "trails" connecting multiple exhibits (something I believe should become a staple for many species). The size of the exhibits themselves is something I don't think I can judge, but could be adequate considering all three together. In full honesty, I think what the exhibit is trying to accomplish from a husbandry/functionality perspective is very admirable.

However, the lack of care for visitor experience and education seems very apparent. As much as animal functionality and husbandry is vital to a "good" zoo, so too should be visitor experience. Zoos and aquariums don't simply exist as institutions for conservation or large housing complexes for the world's species. They are fundamentally guest-driven institutions and pretending that they are not does a disservice to their value and resources. As a conservation resource, zoos and aquariums can certainly be incredibly useful as evidenced by the reintroduction and conservation of Mexican gray wolves, scimitar-horned oryx, Mauritius kestrels, black-footed ferrets, and more (notably these species that zoos successfully conserve tend to be larger charismatic species that guests find charismatic). The ability to accomplish these conservation successes is directly linked to support from visitors (not just monetarily). The significant difference between zoos and aquariums and international conservation organizations like the WWF is that people can visit their local zoo. Zoos don't necessarily just exist like libraries of Earth's natural history either. Zoos exist to remind us of all the wonderful parts of Earth's biodiversity that inspire us but that we might not necessarily get to visit. (Granted, this definition of what a zoo can be is expanding continuously, but I find it difficult to suggest that this new definition could expand beyond a zoo's central relationship with its guests)

Looking at this chimpanzee exhibit, I struggle to see what a visitor might be inspired by or educated by. Granted, the opportunity to see chimpanzees function in large social settings and interact fully with their environment could be very special. However, the exhibit's construction (concrete walls, ugly fencing, etc) seems to detach these animals and their adaptations (physical, social, behavioral) from the context of their natural environment. I believe it would be hard for visitors to appreciate the evolutionary brilliance of the species and connect with the plight of wild chimpanzees without this natural context. I find this especially disappointing given other exhibits like Lincoln Park Zoo's Center for Great Apes which blend functionality with natural context successfully. Hopefully, the complex turns out better than it looks currently and the functionality of the exhibit works the way it was intended to. However, I do worry that exhibits like this place too little in the importance of the guest perspective. As others have said, I admire that Indianapolis Zoo has taken a swing with its Great Ape exhibits, but perhaps they're just not "my style" despite their functionality.
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Looking at this chimpanzee exhibit, I struggle to see what a visitor might be inspired by or educated by. Granted, the opportunity to see chimpanzees function in large social settings and interact fully with their environment could be very special.
Click to expand...
I think this is exactly the nail on the head. I think Indianapolis' intentions are to focus on the large social setting and, like the orangutan exhibit, I think they intend to let the animals' natural climbing ability and activity to be what inspires and educates guests about their natural behaviors. I'm not saying this as an argument against you but as part of an agreement that I think you are describing the intent here and not missing anything.

The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
However, the exhibit's construction (concrete walls, ugly fencing, etc) seems to detach these animals and their adaptations (physical, social, behavioral) from the context of their natural environment. I believe it would be hard for visitors to appreciate the evolutionary brilliance of the species and connect with the plight of wild chimpanzees without this natural context.
Click to expand...
I think you've put this perspective in much better words than a lot of zoochatters have, regarding the orangutan and chimpanzee exhibits, and what the debates around these exhibits comes down to and why they fail with many here.

While most, if not all, accredited zoos place education as a major theme or goal, I think a lot of institutions focus on different kinds of education and subthemes, not all of which will be in alignment. Do you want to teach your guests about how chimpanzees are similar to humans? Do you want to use them to illustrate how primates have evolved in different ways? Or do you want to focus on them as a keystone for broad messages about rainforest conservation? Or do you want to talk, specifically, about a particular habitat or national park where a specific subgroup of chimpanzees live? I have my pet peeves about some of these. All of these are educational themes but they could all result in different signage or a different kind of exhibit, and some may not fully align with one another - focusing on a biome globally may result in geographic issues and mixes sometimes, focusing on primates will not educate about regional bodiversity even if you use it as a vehicle to discuss biomes, so forth. Different goals produce different results.

I don't think Indianapolis has generally been as dedicated to recreation of natural habitats and biomes as a lot of other institutions -- it seems well-known on zoochat that the Desert Dome has been more of a reptile house for a long time, the International Orangutan Center follows a similar philosophy to this, and they have macaques in their Oceans building, from what I understand? I don't think this pattern of behavior is an accident.

I feel like this post may come off defensive in some way, I actually agree with Speeding Carnotaurus' points if it sounds in any way like I am arguing. I'm open to seeing this exhibit for myself and forming a fuller judgement later.
 
I went to the zoo today and saw the baby rhino running around and the baby giraffe integrated with most of the herd. You can see chimps sometime in the enclosures throughout the zoo. 1 more interesting observation is the made what was the lemur exhibit smaller by making it narrower for the chimps. Gotta love the Indy zoo!:rolleyes:
 
The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Although I do believe exhibits should be functional for the animal beyond just being appealing, I feel the new chimpanzee exhibit at Indianapolis is far too inadequate for visitors.
Click to expand...

The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
However, the lack of care for visitor experience and education seems very apparent. As much as animal functionality and husbandry is vital to a "good" zoo, so too should be visitor experience... ...they are fundamentally guest-driven institutions and pretending that they are not does a disservice to their value and resources.
Click to expand...

The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
The significant difference between zoos and aquariums and international conservation organizations like the WWF is that people can visit their local zoo. Zoos don't necessarily just exist like libraries of Earth's natural history either. Zoos exist to remind us of all the wonderful parts of Earth's biodiversity that inspire us but that we might not necessarily get to visit. (Granted, this definition of what a zoo can be is expanding continuously, but I find it difficult to suggest that this new definition could expand beyond a zoo's central relationship with its guests)
Click to expand...

The Speeding Carnotaurus said:
Looking at this chimpanzee exhibit, I struggle to see what a visitor might be inspired by or educated by. Granted, the opportunity to see chimpanzees function in large social settings and interact fully with their environment could be very special. However, the exhibit's construction (concrete walls, ugly fencing, etc) seems to detach these animals and their adaptations (physical, social, behavioral) from the context of their natural environment. I believe it would be hard for visitors to appreciate the evolutionary brilliance of the species and connect with the plight of wild chimpanzees without this natural context.
Click to expand...

If the general public cared as much about any of this as much as us on ZooChat, roadside zoos would be out of business. People wouldn't pay to pet tiger cubs. Endangered species wouldn't be kept in backyards. It's an ideal world, but not the one we live in.

The majority of guests want to see animals doing anything interesting. I have never witnessed a crowd of people at a zoo stop and silently watch in awe like I did when a large male orangutan began to use the high-line at the IOC. The high-line at the IOC is made of metal towers and rope. Connections were made that day. No conservation messaging was shared. The cost of everyone's zoo admission did more for wild orangutans than most of these people would've done with any conservation messaging thrown at them. They saw something really cool and now they might come back again. Their admissions (or even a membership) will probably do more for wild orangutans than most of those people would've done with any conservation messaging thrown at them.

AZA just posted a piece entitled "Rethinking Anthropomorphism." This stood out to me:
Studies have repeatedly shown that while sharing information about challenges animals face in the wild is important, it is insufficient to inspire behavior change.
Click to expand...
For animals that guests easily relate to and may inaccurately anthropomorphize, like great apes, it is beneficial to limit use of critical anthropomorphism. Instead, consider pointing out differences.
Click to expand...
For all of the "meh" aesthetics of this exhibit, concentrating the social groups into easy observable areas makes it easier to compare and contrast their social behaviors, groups, and tendencies to guests. And more than anything else, it's just really cool to see chimps climbing things that we can also climb! We all understand chimps climb trees and vines and things like that. But at least to me, it's really neat seeing orangutans using ladders and hanging out on I-beams in the IOC.

Clearly, Indianapolis did something right with the IOC. It may be controversial on here, but I have never seen more active orangutans anywhere else in my zoo travels and in turn, I've never seen guests more intrigued by the orangutans in front of them. I have a feeling the ICC will produce similar activity and similar connections with guests.
 
Spike said:
I went to the zoo today and saw the baby rhino running around and the baby giraffe integrated with most of the herd. You can see chimps sometime in the enclosures throughout the zoo. 1 more interesting observation is the made what was the lemur exhibit smaller by making it narrower for the chimps. Gotta love the Indy zoo!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Just wanted to clarify that I saw the babies from the train ride. Just wanted to let you know I don’t think the babies are reliably on exhibit.;)
 
Zoofan15 said:
Southern white rhinoceros birth:

Baby rhino born at the Indianapolis Zoo on Super Bowl Sunday

The Indianapolis Zoo welcomed a white rhinoceros calf at 9:13 a.m. Super Bowl Sunday. This marks the first live-birth rhinoceros calf for the zoo and the mother’s seventh calf.

Both the mom, Zenzele, and the newborn are doing well, according to the Indianapolis Zoo.
Click to expand...
Nile Hippo Expert said:
Zenzele's calf is a girl! And good news, she is nursing well with her mom and there are plans to introduce her to the zoo's other rhinos in the spring.
IT'S A GIRL! We are happy to announce our animal care team confirmed Zenzele's calf is a female and is nursing well with mom. We even got footage of her doing her first zoomies! Look at her go! ❤️ Both Zenzele and her calf will spend time together indoors and will begin introductions with the other members of the herd later this spring. by Senior Plains Keeper Amber Zoo Babies proudly presented by Primrose Schools | Indianapolis Zoo | Indianapolis Zoo · Original audio
Click to expand...
The calf has been named "Xola".
Indianapolis Zoo announces name of rhino calf | wthr.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top