Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens LA Zoo Gorilla Exhibit

[mweb08]

I went to the LA Zoo for the first time in a long time today, and didn't come away impressed although it's not a bad zoo.

This has probably been discussed before, but what I was most disappointed in was the new gorilla exhibit. It provides very good viewing and is nice and green with plenty of plants, so that's a big plus.

However, I don't think there are any real climbing opportunities, the little elevated islands(not sure what to call them) which were the most heavily planted parts of the exhibit have wires to keep the gorillas off them, and you can actually here the electricity from the hotwire in the non glass viewing spots.

The chimp exhibit, while good, also needs more climbing opportunities imo.

BTW, just posted a bunch of pictures of the gorilla exhibit along with various others.

 

[snowleopard]

You hit the nail on the head with the Campo Gorilla Reserve, as it cost millions of dollars and is pretty to look at but is subpar for the inhabitants. Most of the lush vegetation is hotwired to death, the walls dominate the skyline, the grass seems as if it is mowed, and the exhibits are not really that large and are completely devoid of climbing structures. I was also not impressed with the orangutan enclosures at all, but the chimps easily have the best exhibit of the trio of great ape species. The Los Angeles Zoo has spent a small fortune in the past 15 years, but even with all of that money lavished on new enclosures I can name at least 35 zoos that are better throughout the United States. Hopefully the $45 million elephant area will be an improvement on recent developments.

 

[mweb08]

Well I obviously haven't been to nearly as many zoos as you, but I agree, that overall, it's not a good zoo, not bad though either. Just a lot of mediocrity, to along with a few pretty good exhibits and few pretty bad ones. Pretty good collection of animals.

BTW, while the Orangutan exhibit is not great, at least it provides them with plenty of climbing opportunities.

The new exhibit originally planned for golden monkeys does look quite nice, perhaps there best, although it's not open, so I couldn't get the best vantage point.

 

[Arizona Docent]

Just a lot of mediocrity... Pretty good collection of animals.

This is L.A. in a nutshell. They are very proud of having designed their great ape exhibits in-house, but they're not that great and should have been done by an outside firm. I grew up near the L.A. Zoo and that's where I developed my passion for photographing zoo animals (and I still have relatives near there) so I really want it to be great. Sadly, it is not.

I have always thought they have so much potential being in Los Angeles. I mean with all those tourists and all those millionaires and the creative designers of theme parks and movie sets, and being a truly world-famous metropolis, the city of Los Angeles should theoretically have the best zoo in the country if not the world. Why they fall so short of so many other zoos, even ones in smaller cities, is beyond me.

 

[reduakari]

This is L.A. in a nutshell. They are very proud of having designed their great ape exhibits in-house, but they're not that great and should have been done by an outside firm. I grew up near the L.A. Zoo and that's where I developed my passion for photographing zoo animals (and I still have relatives near there) so I really want it to be great. Sadly, it is not.

I have always thought they have so much potential being in Los Angeles. I mean with all those tourists and all those millionaires and the creative designers of theme parks and movie sets, and being a truly world-famous metropolis, the city of Los Angeles should theoretically have the best zoo in the country if not the world. Why they fall so short of so many other zoos, even ones in smaller cities, is beyond me.

Sadly, all three LA Great Ape exhibits were in fact all designed by prominent US Zoo design firms. Not their finest moments, by any means, although it's no doubt in part the zoo's fault for not pushing for better results.

The Golden Monkey exhibit looks great, but will never house the species for which it was built.

LA Zoo--missed the mark when built in the 60s, and has missed its second chance despite over $150 million being invested in "rebuilding" the zoo.

 

[Arizona Docent]

I know I read something in one of their newsletters about an exhibit being designed entirely in-house. I thought it was Red Ape Forest, but maybe it was a smaller (non-ape) exhibit.

 

[MickiP65]

Saddened

I've been hanging around ZooChat for awhile, but this thread really saddens me. Why the negativity? How much time have any of you spent at LA Zoo observing their great apes? Personally, I've spent hundreds of hours observing their beautiful apes, and am so impressed with the many ways they are like those in the wild. This zoo is very dedicated to not only these animals, but those in the wild so that the world can better help the survival of these wonderful creatures. And, with all its dedication, they get negativism from not only zoo outsiders, but other zoo supporters. If you have anything negative to say, or questions about why they have done things the way they have, why don't you first ask them privately? Perhaps they can help shed light on why things were done as they have been done before you tear them down to the world when their reasoning may, in fact, be much more important.

Some of you are docents at other zoos. Would you like others to speak negatively of your zoo?

Please, let's be supportive of our zoos. If we have suggestions, bring them to the zoos first.

 

[reduakari]

I've been hanging around ZooChat for awhile, but this thread really saddens me. Why the negativity? How much time have any of you spent at LA Zoo observing their great apes? Personally, I've spent hundreds of hours observing their beautiful apes, and am so impressed with the many ways they are like those in the wild. This zoo is very dedicated to not only these animals, but those in the wild so that the world can better help the survival of these wonderful creatures. And, with all its dedication, they get negativism from not only zoo outsiders, but other zoo supporters. If you have anything negative to say, or questions about why they have done things the way they have, why don't you first ask them privately? Perhaps they can help shed light on why things were done as they have been done before you tear them down to the world when their reasoning may, in fact, be much more important.

Some of you are docents at other zoos. Would you like others to speak negatively of your zoo?

Please, let's be supportive of our zoos. If we have suggestions, bring them to the zoos first.

This is not a fan site. It is one of the only places where a wide-ranging dialogue about zoos--in fine detail--happens, and it is a global resource. Criticism is important to progress. If we just "talk nice" about anything (health care, poverty, fundamentalism of any kind etc.), no progress will be made.

Admittedly, the new LA ape exhibits are all improvements over the previous enclosures. But for a world-class city none of the new exhibits even approach world-class status. And certainly there are reasons for this: budget, bureaucracy, and lax leadership among them. Doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

 

[MickiP65]

Progress?

This is not a fan site. It is one of the only places where a wide-ranging dialogue about zoos--in fine detail--happens, and it is a global resource. Criticism is important to progress. If we just "talk nice" about anything (health care, poverty, fundamentalism of any kind etc.), no progress will be made.

Admittedly, the new LA ape exhibits are all improvements over the previous enclosures. But for a world-class city none of the new exhibits even approach world-class status. And certainly there are reasons for this: budget, bureaucracy, and lax leadership among them. Doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.

Do you truly think much progress can be made when we continually cut down our zoos, causing others to see zoos in a negative light and to send in less funding? On the contrary. It may help from time to time, but by going public with complaints first always causes a bigger hill to climb. For public complaints cause less support, less backing, and discouragement. But, if we go to the source, we may change our minds, or, if not, we can find better support for our complaint and bring it back again.

Of course, if we have criticism, it should be addressed, but lets go to the source first, as in anything we do. Perhaps, our thinking may be in error. Perhaps, there are better reasons as to why someone or some place is doing things differently than we feel they should be done. We should always address our complaints with the source first. Do you air your family's dirty laundry? If not, why?

 

[Ituri]

The question being asked here is not "should the LA Zoo be keeping gorillas", the question actually is, "what are the faults of their new exhibit and how can that be improved." Constructive criticism IS necessary for growth and development. If everything is always roses, there is no motivation for improvement. If we let the "anti-zoo" crowd dictate what we talk about and how we talk about it, they win. No one on here doubts the LA Zoo's know-how or care for there animals. No one is airing anyone's dirty laundry. They are discussing the pros and cons of a particular zoo design. No one is talking about anything behind-the-scenes that would qualify as "dirty laundry". The exhibit is there for people to see, its strengths and its flaws.

 

[MickiP65]

The question being asked here is not "should the LA Zoo be keeping gorillas", the question actually is, "what are the faults of their new exhibit and how can that be improved." Constructive criticism IS necessary for growth and development. If everything is always roses, there is no motivation for improvement. If we let the "anti-zoo" crowd dictate what we talk about and how we talk about it, they win. No one on here doubts the LA Zoo's know-how or care for there animals. No one is airing anyone's dirty laundry. They are discussing the pros and cons of a particular zoo design. No one is talking about anything behind-the-scenes that would qualify as "dirty laundry". The exhibit is there for people to see, its strengths and its flaws.

Again, constructive criticism IS good ... done within the right way. Have you gone to the zoo with these remarks? If not, why are you posting the first critical remarks here on a public forum where anti-zoo people may use these remarks (and I assure you, they do), especially if you haven't gone to the source?

How many friends or family members do you do this to? If they have a fault, do you make it public first? If you do, I doubt you are in friendly terms anymore. Or, do you go to them first? If so, you have the possibility of keeping that friendship intact, and also not allowing others to assume the worst in that person. Same with companies, non-profit organizations, etc. In fact, if you work for a company, most often you sign an agreement that you will not bad mouth that company. You may not work for the zoo, but if your purpose is to help that zoo improve, you are hindering the zoo's quicker improvements by letting everyone know you have a beef with them.

 

[Ituri]

So, we're not allowed to critique an exhibit then eh? That's a real shame. I'm afraid I spoke too soon, it appears the enemy has already won.

Those who fight against the LA Zoo (and believe me, this zoo has my sympathy more than most for what they have to deal with in that loony-bin called Los Angeles but...) my point is, a review of an exhibit doesn't implicate the zoo in wrong-doing. We can't be resonsible for what Bob Barker does with what he hears, most gets taken out of context and refined to fit their agenda. That's what they do. But if we have to pretend that this exhibit is "Congo Gorilla Forest" so that Lily Tomlin won't quote us, doesn't that seem a little rediculous? There is no point in having a discussion forum if we never say anything that could be construed negatively. There would be absolutely no point.

 

[mweb08]

I don't think saying a gorilla exhibit needs climbing structures and shouldn't have as much hot wire is going to be something that anti-zoo people are going to be inspired by or is something that will negatively affect the zoo's future.

It's also not like I said the exhibit is an abomination, just disappointing considering its new and they spent a good amount of money on it. With that said, they don't have to do much to make it a good exhibit, just stick some trees and more vegetation in there and get rid of some of the hot wire.

I'm sorry you were saddened by this thread.

 

[MickiP65]

First, I never said you were not to critique an exhibit ... just do it in the right manner ... go to the source first.

None of you have answered my question. Have you gone to the zoo about any of this? If not, why make it public first? Again, you wouldn't do this to friends ... you'd go to the friend first. And, if you would, who needs enemies? If you call yourself friends of zoos, you can definitely do so in a more "friendly" mode. Not by making your complaints or "critiques" known publicly before you have gone to them and/or attempted better modes first.

 

[mweb08]

First, I never said you were not to critique an exhibit ... just do it in the right manner ... go to the source first.

None of you have answered my question. Have you gone to the zoo about any of this? If not, why make it public first? Again, you wouldn't do this to friends ... you'd go to the friend first. And, if you would, who needs enemies? If you call yourself friends of zoos, you can definitely do so in a more "friendly" mode. Not by making your complaints or "critiques" known publicly before you have gone to them and/or attempted better modes first.

No, I haven't gone to the zoo with this, but I also don't really consider this going public. It's not like the media or anyone is going to use this for anything that's going to hurt the zoo.

I go on a baseball message board and critique my favorite teams moves, should I also contact them first?

This is what a message board is about imo, you discuss the good and the bad and you have some debates, and ultimately what we say doesn't change much if anything.

I understand this is your home zoo and/or favorite zoo, so you're going to take it more personally, but people critique zoos and exhibits all the time here, and you obviously didn't feel the need to make your point then.

And sometimes I defend the zoos/exhibits, like with Elephant Odyssey in SD, but I didn't defend it because I felt like a few people on here ripping it was going to hurt the zoo.

 

[reduakari]

First, I never said you were not to critique an exhibit ... just do it in the right manner ... go to the source first.

None of you have answered my question. Have you gone to the zoo about any of this? If not, why make it public first? Again, you wouldn't do this to friends ... you'd go to the friend first. And, if you would, who needs enemies? If you call yourself friends of zoos, you can definitely do so in a more "friendly" mode. Not by making your complaints or "critiques" known publicly before you have gone to them and/or attempted better modes first.

What do you mean "go to the source?" Ask the Zoo Director or the PR flacks "why did you build such a pedestrian gorilla exhibit when there are so many models out there for how to do it better?" Or, "why do you mow the lawns in the gorilla exhibit?;" "Is there any reason you built tall (and by the way ugly) cages for orangs and then didn't bother to put any climbing structures inside?;" "Does a single visitor understand they are supposed to believe they are in an 'abandoned logging camp taken over by nature' as they watch the chimps"....I don't think you'd get too far. Especially since decisions on all of the Great Apes exhibits were made by a prior administration. So then who would we ask? the ticket sales staff? Security guards? Docents? Would any of theme be able to answer these questions? And if they could, would they tell "us?"

 

[Ituri]

This is a forum, where quite often discussion occurs about what makes a good zoo exhibit. It is obvious that some zoo exhibits are better than others. No one is saying they have a "beef" with the zoo. They are pointing out flawed design. Discussing what makes a good zoo exhibit. If a certain exhibit is used as an example of what can be improved, that doesn't imply anything about the zoo itself. Bad design happens, for a plethora of reasons. Are the gorillas in LA cared about worse than they are in Wichita or New York City? I don't know, none of us know. I think amongst this crowd the assumption is, yes they are. Do you think the zoo director or the mayor would care if we tried to communicate to them that there are zoo exhibits where the money was better spent in the design? I don't. As we discuss what is and isn't good zoo design, we learn from one another hopefully improving all zoos with our influence within our own spheres.

 

[MickiP65]

Unfortunatley negative remarks spred like wildfire

I would defend most any zoo, if I knew enough about the zoo.

You may not know how people who are working against the zoos or other organizations work. Did you know that many of them make themselves Google Alerts, or such that will rake into their email anything said online about whatever they've made an alert about ... such as the "Gorillas," "Zoos," "Zoo," etc. Did you know some of them send reporters out to the organizations to investigate some of the negative comments made?

It is well known that if someone hears something negative about something that they've seen/heard more good about, they will probably remember the negative mention better than any of the good?

After hours of observing the Gorillas at LA Zoo, I can state very securely that its inhabitants are very content and healthy. They are a joy to watch as they go about their day in "their" territory. Of course, there is drama amongst themselves just as in the wild from time to time, but it is really something to watch the gorilla family work it out. LA Zoo enrichment staff are continually working on ways to keep them healthy, learning, and enriched.

Micki P's LA Zoo Fun: Intro to Campo Gorilla's Troop Leader Kelly

 

[snowleopard]

There are over 48,000 photos on ZooChat, and over 60,000 comments on those photos. Just about every single one of the hundreds of members here makes comments on exhibits, and there are often debates over the quality of each individual enclosure. Sometimes zoos are notified in terms of whether or not their enclosure is deemed poor, but more often than not ZooChat is a place for zoo nerds to congregate and have healthy discussions on the industry that we love. Sports sites are the same, except that on those forums specific players are named and thus "raked over the coals".

The bottom line is that the Los Angeles gorilla enclosure has been a major disappointment. It is far superior to their previous exhibit, but due to a lack of a large canopy, a ridiculously short and mowed lawn, hotwire around all of the pretty foliage, and a lack of sensitivity in creating the exhibit primarily for people instead of the inhabitants. Considering the exorbitant price tag I'd personally call the enclosure an over-priced waste of money. It is now much more evident why Los Angeles is the # 2 most populated city in the United States but has what is probably the # 40 best zoo. There has been nothing but new exhibits opening there for the last decade, and other than maybe the chimp habitat nothing is even remotely a candidate for being world class. The zoo should have spent the $150 million they were given and ripped down the awful C-section cages and started from the beginning. Oh well.

This is a brilliant gorilla habitat:

http://www.zoochat.com/547/bronx-zoo-congo-gorilla-forest-41195/

This is a brilliant gorilla habitat:

http://www.zoochat.com/277/pangani-forest-trail-54591/

 

[mweb08]

I would defend most any zoo, if I knew enough about the zoo.

You may not know how people who are working against the zoos or other organizations work. Did you know that many of them make themselves Google Alerts, or such that will rake into their email anything said online about whatever they've made an alert about ... such as the "Gorillas," "Zoos," "Zoo," etc. Did you know some of them send reporters out to the organizations to investigate some of the negative comments made?

It is well known that if someone hears something negative about something that they've seen/heard more good about, they will probably remember the negative mention better than any of the good?

After hours of observing the Gorillas at LA Zoo, I can state very securely that its inhabitants are very content and healthy. They are a joy to watch as they go about their day in "their" territory. Of course, there is drama amongst themselves just as in the wild from time to time, but it is really something to watch the gorilla family work it out. LA Zoo enrichment staff are continually working on ways to keep them healthy, learning, and enriched.

Micki P's LA Zoo Fun: Intro to Campo Gorilla's Troop Leader Kelly

I'm sure that anyone who would care to rip the zoo about not having enough climbing trees/structures and foliage would already know about it.

So if I said something to the zoo first, would it be ok to make these comments here? I really don't get why this is a big deal to you.

And I am not saying the animals are not content or healthy, just saying the exhibit is not as good as I would have hoped for.