North America's Best Okapi Exhibit?

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Premium Member
Is there an okapi exhibit in North America that is better than the one within Congo Gorilla Forest at the Bronx Zoo?

http://www.zoochat.com/547/bronx-zoo-congo-gorilla-forest-41163/

http://www.zoochat.com/547/bronx-zoo-congo-gorilla-forest-41167/

See the okapi here?:

http://www.zoochat.com/547/bronx-zoo-congo-gorilla-forest-41160/

A potential runner-up? White Oak Conservation Centre in northern Florida:

http://www.zoochat.com/620/okapi-exhibit-55425/

http://www.zoochat.com/728/okapi-exhibit-55427/
 
I wouldn't count White Oak in this discussion cause its not open to the public and they do not need immersion type exhibits that Bronx and DAK have (no offense okapikpr, lol). White Oak also has at least six different enclosures (okapikpr, how many is it total?) which no other facility in North America can compete with. But, with over a dozen okapi and producing them like no other place in North America it does deserve an honorable mention.
Bronx is the best okapi exhibit I have visited personally. The immersion feeling is amazing for visitor and the yard for the okapi is well covered from both the sun and visitors with out compromising the visitors view. It is also very naturalistic. They used to have another okapi yard where the African wild dogs are that wasn't as nice as the one in Congo Forest but still very good. Basically, Bronx's okapi exhibit is part of one of the best immersion exhibits in North America making it my personal favorite.
Columbus has my second favorite exhibit and since it is mix species gets some extra props with me. I also like how it has multiple habitats so there can be quite a few individuals on display. I also find it interesting that both Columbus and Bronx's exhibit are part of larger African rainforest exhibits. I feel that adds to the okapi exhibits.
I also hear that DAK has nice exhibits on the safari and Pagani Forest and will find out in a month about the new okapi mix species exhibit at the Lodge.
I have seen the following exhibits and they range from ok (Philly, Baltimore) to descent (Lowry, Cincy) to good(Miami).
 
I agree White Oak should not be counted (no offense okapikpr). I also think Brookfield has a nice okapi exhibit in their Habitat Africa: The Forest section.
 
The title automatically excludes White Oak because it says "Best Okapi Exhibit" not, "Best Okapi Enclosure", right? ;)
 
@Ituri: you are absolutely correct, but I tossed White Oak into the mix to gauge the reaction from others. After the Bronx's okapi habitat I've been impressed with exhibits at the Columbus Zoo, Brookfield Zoo and Disney's Animal Kingdom. I haven't visited the Dallas Zoo, but the photos that were posted look impressive.
 
My opinion: I like Dallas' okapi exhibit best. It's a very natural forested enclosure, and quite large with many different viewing points. What makes it best to me is that they have a bunch of okapis -- which increases your chances of actually seeing them.

Not in the USA, but perhaps the best I've ever seen is in Belgium, the Antwerp Zoo. Because okapis were first discovered in the "Belgian Congo", this (I believe) was the first zoo to display them, these animals from their former colony. They had more than a half dozen okapis, and best of all, they had 2 or 3 babies!
 
One problem exhibiting okapi in any educationally meaningful way is that they are very solitary and secretive by nature. When I see an exhibit with several okapi under a high canopy of trees and with grass, it gives me the impression that they are funny horses. And so the zoo has failed in its mission of conservation education. An okapi that is easy to see is a traitor to its kind! That may be annoying to I-want-it-NOW zoo visitors, but it is true to nature.
 
Zooplantman said:
An okapi that is easy to see is a traitor to its kind!
Click to expand...

Love it!
For me, Dallas and Bronx come out on top. In Dallas, there are actually spots of dense vegetation that the okapi can walk through. I found Columbus's yards very open (and I'm not a fan of viewing through fence).
 
Zooplantman said:
One problem exhibiting okapi in any educationally meaningful way is that they are very solitary and secretive by nature. When I see an exhibit with several okapi under a high canopy of trees and with grass, it gives me the impression that they are funny horses. And so the zoo has failed in its mission of conservation education. An okapi that is easy to see is a traitor to its kind! That may be annoying to I-want-it-NOW zoo visitors, but it is true to nature.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the I-want-to-see-it-NOW zoo visitors pay the bills! They pay them through their admissions, through the concessions (food, souvenirs) they spend on, and through their taxes. Therefore, whether we like it or not, zoos HAVE TO create exhibits where children and their parents can see the animals without having to spend more than a few minutes looking for them. I've seen a few ZooChat reviewers here who think an exhibit with a lot of hiding places for the animals is a good exhibit -- but for this reason, I tend to disagree.

Recently I was on a tourist website for Seattle, where tourists could post their opinions about the Woodland Park Zoo (and other attractions). At least a couple posters said that, despite the many beautiful, natural exhibits in the Zoo -- they and their children hardly saw ANY animals! I don't know if this was a rare occurrence at this zoo, but if not, it reveals a very serious problem!

I personally experienced this same problem at Philadelphia's highly-acclaimed new exhibit, Big Cat Falls. I walked through the beautiful 5 habitats and actually marvelled at how natural they looked. But one problem: the ONLY cats I saw were a pair of white lions on a hillside in the initial habitat. In the remaining 4 densely-planted habitats I saw no tigers, no leopards, no jaguars, no pumas, and no snow leopards. They may have been off exhibit, but since this was noontime, I doubt it. They were more likely taking advantage of the habitats' many, many hiding places. Is this a good thing? I'm a huge zoo fan, and after spending quite a while in the exhibit searching for cats, I left quite frustrated. I can imagine how infrequent zoo visitors would feel, coming to see the exhibit which $20 million of their tax dollars paid for. But I'll give Philadelphia the benefit of doubt and suggest that maybe this was a freak happening -- that usually the big cats are easily seen. Are they?

Back to Okapis: My point is that zoos must strike a balance. Yes, they need to emulate their secretive dense forest environment, but at the same time they need to make these beautiful rare animals easy to see. This is why Dallas is by far my favorite okapi exhibit. They do have a dense forest habitat, where the okapis can walk in an out of view from visitors. But at the same time, they have quite a few (a half dozen?) okapis, so there's always at least 1 or 2 within view.
 
ANyhuis said:
The problem is that the I-want-to-see-it-NOW zoo visitors pay the bills! They pay them through their admissions, through the concessions (food, souvenirs) they spend on, and through their taxes. Therefore, whether we like it or not, zoos HAVE TO create exhibits where children and their parents can see the animals without having to spend more than a few minutes looking for them. I've seen a few ZooChat reviewers here who think an exhibit with a lot of hiding places for the animals is a good exhibit -- but for this reason, I tend to disagree.

Recently I was on a tourist website for Seattle, where tourists could post their opinions about the Woodland Park Zoo (and other attractions). At least a couple posters said that, despite the many beautiful, natural exhibits in the Zoo -- they and their children hardly saw ANY animals! I don't know if this was a rare occurrence at this zoo, but if not, it reveals a very serious problem!

I personally experienced this same problem at Philadelphia's highly-acclaimed new exhibit, Big Cat Falls. I walked through the beautiful 5 habitats and actually marvelled at how natural they looked. But one problem: the ONLY cats I saw were a pair of white lions on a hillside in the initial habitat. In the remaining 4 densely-planted habitats I saw no tigers, no leopards, no jaguars, no pumas, and no snow leopards. They may have been off exhibit, but since this was noontime, I doubt it. They were more likely taking advantage of the habitats' many, many hiding places. Is this a good thing? I'm a huge zoo fan, and after spending quite a while in the exhibit searching for cats, I left quite frustrated. I can imagine how infrequent zoo visitors would feel, coming to see the exhibit which $20 million of their tax dollars paid for. But I'll give Philadelphia the benefit of doubt and suggest that maybe this was a freak happening -- that usually the big cats are easily seen. Are they?

Back to Okapis: My point is that zoos must strike a balance. Yes, they need to emulate their secretive dense forest environment, but at the same time they need to make these beautiful rare animals easy to see. This is why Dallas is by far my favorite okapi exhibit. They do have a dense forest habitat, where the okapis can walk in an out of view from visitors. But at the same time, they have quite a few (a half dozen?) okapis, so there's always at least 1 or 2 within view.
Click to expand...

Quite a simple solution though to seeing animals in densely planted exhibits is get to them early when the animals are almost guaranteed to be up and moving about. This is what I did when I went to Tiger River to see the tigers in their habitat with loads of hiding spots. I got there early and saw all four tigers running about. I went back a few hours later and all the tigers were hiding in various places throughout the exhibit.

Since you went at noon to BCF I would imagine it would be hard to find any big cats in any enclosure at this time as most big cats are no doubt snoozing in the shade at this time.

I agree the Dallas okapi exhibit is awesome, but the Bronx is definitely the most natural of all of them.
 
BlackRhino said:
Quite a simple solution though to seeing animals in densely planted exhibits is get to them early when the animals are almost guaranteed to be up and moving about. This is what I did when I went to Tiger River to see the tigers in their habitat with loads of hiding spots. I got there early and saw all four tigers running about. I went back a few hours later and all the tigers were hiding in various places throughout the exhibit.
Click to expand...

Mild counter-response: You're absolutely correct that this is the best way to see the animals (and we point this out in our book!), but we can't be lecturing "our paying customers" about when should be visiting the zoo. They'll visit when it's most convenient for them, and we (the zoo world) need to have a quality product (with visible animals) ready for them (and their children) when they come.
 
ANyhuis said:
Mild counter-response: You're absolutely correct that this is the best way to see the animals (and we point this out in our book!), but we can't be lecturing "our paying customers" about when should be visiting the zoo. They'll visit when it's most convenient for them, and we (the zoo world) need to have a quality product (with visible animals) ready for them (and their children) when they come.
Click to expand...

Well maybe its time people start researching things a bit (like the best time to see animals active in a zoo) than expect the animals to be entertaining them when they decide to stroll by the enclosure.
 
BlackRhino said:
Well maybe its time people start researching things a bit (like the best time to see animals active in a zoo) than expect the animals to be entertaining them when they decide to stroll by the enclosure.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good reason for them to buy "America's Best Zoos". But on the contrary, most of these moms who drop $30 or more to take their 2 or 3 kids to the zoo simply don't have time to do a lot of prior research -- and they may not think they need a book like ABZ.

I still say the answer is to build large, naturalistic habitats for the animals, but if the exhibit has hiding places, then be certain to have a large group of animals in the exhibit. That way statistical averages will dictate that at least a few will be available for visitors to see.

Another example of this is Kansas City's Chimpanzee Exhibit. It's huge (3 acres), natural (a gorgeous forested hillside), and does allow for the chimps to disappear over the hill, if they choose. Many think this is one of the best zoo exhibits anywhere. I happen to agree, with one catch. What keeps this exhibit great is that they have a large troop (almost 20) living in the habitat. If they only had 3 or 4 chimpanzees, I would criticize this exhibit!

The moral: If you're going to build a big, natural habitat with lots of hiding places -- then fill it with a large population of animal inhabitants.
 
ANyhuis said:
Sounds like a good reason for them to buy "America's Best Zoos". But on the contrary, most of these moms who drop $30 or more to take their 2 or 3 kids to the zoo simply don't have time to do a lot of prior research -- and they may not think they need a book like ABZ.

I still say the answer is to build large, naturalistic habitats for the animals, but if the exhibit has hiding places, then be certain to have a large group of animals in the exhibit. That way statistical averages will dictate that at least a few will be available for visitors to see.

Another example of this is Kansas City's Chimpanzee Exhibit. It's huge (3 acres), natural (a gorgeous forested hillside), and does allow for the chimps to disappear over the hill, if they choose. Many think this is one of the best zoo exhibits anywhere. I happen to agree, with one catch. What keeps this exhibit great is that they have a large troop (almost 20) living in the habitat. If they only had 3 or 4 chimpanzees, I would criticize this exhibit!

The moral: If you're going to build a big, natural habitat with lots of hiding places -- then fill it with a large population of animal inhabitants.
Click to expand...

Fine, if the species is one that normally lives in large social groups. But I am far less supportive of cramming naturally solitary animals together, both because it presents an unnatural picture of the "essence" of the animal (so eloquently stated by Zooplantman regarding okapis), and often leads to a greater level of stress for the animals.

I recall what both horror and some delight the sight of 40+ spider monkeys living on "Monkey Island" at the San Francisco zoo many years ago. While there was certainly always something gong on, I've now heard that dozens if not hundreds of monkeys died over the years there from fighting and stress.

Busch Gardens' "Jungala" is one of the worst offenders I know of now--keeping 6 or 7 tigers together couldn't be more unnatural.
 
ANyhuis said:
Sounds like a good reason for them to buy "America's Best Zoos". But on the contrary, most of these moms who drop $30 or more to take their 2 or 3 kids to the zoo simply don't have time to do a lot of prior research -- and they may not think they need a book like ABZ.

I still say the answer is to build large, naturalistic habitats for the animals, but if the exhibit has hiding places, then be certain to have a large group of animals in the exhibit. That way statistical averages will dictate that at least a few will be available for visitors to see.

Another example of this is Kansas City's Chimpanzee Exhibit. It's huge (3 acres), natural (a gorgeous forested hillside), and does allow for the chimps to disappear over the hill, if they choose. Many think this is one of the best zoo exhibits anywhere. I happen to agree, with one catch. What keeps this exhibit great is that they have a large troop (almost 20) living in the habitat. If they only had 3 or 4 chimpanzees, I would criticize this exhibit!

The moral: If you're going to build a big, natural habitat with lots of hiding places -- then fill it with a large population of animal inhabitants.
Click to expand...

I think this works great for animals like primates who naturally live in large social groups. Another example is Congo Gorilla Forest's gorillas. Since they have 20 something gorillas there are almost always gorillas in view despite the amount of room and hiding spots the gorillas have.

However for animals like large cats and okapis who are generally solitary it is important for them to be kept solitary. Like jacksonville having 8 jaguars makes no sense to me when jaguars are an extremely solitary territorial species. If one wants to see a solitary species active simply arrive early.
 
reduakari said:
Fine, if the species is one that normally lives in large social groups. But I am far less supportive of cramming naturally solitary animals together, both because it presents an unnatural picture of the "essence" of the animal (so eloquently stated by Zooplantman regarding okapis), and often leads to a greater level of stress for the animals.

I recall what both horror and some delight the sight of 40+ spider monkeys living on "Monkey Island" at the San Francisco zoo many years ago. While there was certainly always something gong on, I've now heard that dozens if not hundreds of monkeys died over the years there from fighting and stress.

Busch Gardens' "Jungala" is one of the worst offenders I know of now--keeping 6 or 7 tigers together couldn't be more unnatural.
Click to expand...

good point. Like I said Jacksonville's jaguar exhibit is another offender
 
Not to throw this off topic, but Rhino, you know Jacksonville doesn't have all 8 Jaguars on exhibit at once, right?

As for the topic at hand, the only Okapi exhibit I've seen is the one in Congo Gorilla Forest. As with the entire exhibit, it is an amazing experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top