North America's Gorilla Exhibits

[ANyhuis]

At least from a visitor's viewing perspective, Omaha needs to be listed among the best. I was taken through their Hubbard Gorilla Valley building by their Director, Lee Simmons, and he told me his goal for the exhibit -- "that a visitor is always within 15 feet of a gorilla". He accomplished that goal, as the gorillas are literally all around you, and you can pop up in interesting bubble window right into the gorillas' world. Also from a viewing perspective, as much as many of you like Seattle's historic gorilla habitat, there are many postings online from irritated visitors who complained that they and their kids never saw a single gorilla there. I guess they've taken the concept of "hiding places" to an extreme, and many visitors don't like it. (I can't complain, however, about the beauty of this exhibit.)

As for waterfalls, why complain? Sure, they may not be 100% accurate with nature, but they certainly don't harm the animals and they add to the aesthetic beauty for both animals and humans. Some of the most beautiful zoo exhibits feature gorgeous and refreshing waterfalls crashing into a deep pool. Miami's Wings of Asia aviary is a good example of this.

 

[groundskeeper24]

At least from a visitor's viewing perspective, Omaha needs to be listed among the best. I was taken through their Hubbard Gorilla Valley building by their Director, Lee Simmons, and he told me his goal for the exhibit -- "that a visitor is always within 15 feet of a gorilla". He accomplished that goal, as the gorillas are literally all around you, and you can pop up in interesting bubble window right into the gorillas' world. Also from a viewing perspective, as much as many of you like Seattle's historic gorilla habitat, there are many postings online from irritated visitors who complained that they and their kids never saw a single gorilla there. I guess they've taken the concept of "hiding places" to an extreme, and many visitors don't like it. (I can't complain, however, about the beauty of this exhibit.)

As for waterfalls, why complain? Sure, they may not be 100% accurate with nature, but they certainly don't harm the animals and they add to the aesthetic beauty for both animals and humans. Some of the most beautiful zoo exhibits feature gorgeous and refreshing waterfalls crashing into a deep pool. Miami's Wings of Asia aviary is a good example of this.

I suppose the criticism would be that fake waterfalls are expensive and that the money could be used on more functional exhibit features. What's a gorilla, or any animal going to do with a waterfall? It's something that is strictly for the benefit of the visitor, not the inmate.

I've read blogs from a prominent monitor keeper who absolutely hates this trend in zoos for the reason I mentioned above. He usually will say something to the effect of: "It's not a matter of whether or not it harms the animal, it's a matter of asking how exactly the animal benefits from it." I'm not sure if any real research has gone into the issue, but I doubt it makes one iota of difference, and certainly isn't yeilding any benefit worth the cost of constructing and maintaining a running water feature.

 

[ANyhuis]

I suppose the criticism would be that fake waterfalls are expensive and that the money could be used on more functional exhibit features. What's a gorilla, or any animal going to do with a waterfall? It's something that is strictly for the benefit of the visitor, not the inmate.

Groundskeeper: My main beef with you is that you already using the language of our ENEMIES -- PETA, IDA, and others whose main goal is to shut down all Zoos! The animals in Zoos are NOT "inmates"! That is adopting the IDA mentality that zoos are "animal prisons". They are not! They are "passengers" on the conservation "ark" (the equivalent of the biblical Noah's ark story), keeping them safe from the floodwaters of pollution, poaching, and habitat destruction. They are also "ambassadors", living in our world as representatives of their world -- to give us a better understanding of their world.

I urge ALL who love zoos to stop using the IDA/PETA/Hancocks language!

 

[reduakari]

I agree Omaha's gorilla exhibit creates a number of unique and fun viewing opportunities, although if one wanted to be "15 feet from a gorilla at all times" one could get that by visiting any number of old, small gorilla "houses" like the infamous one at Cincinnati. I just don't like the cold, industrial feel of the public corridor and viewing areas, or the incongruous outdoor spaces that are a confused mix of "utilitarian" (the plain concrete walls) and "naturalistic" (the weak efforts to create a sense of rainforest environment with--as I noted before--some of the most hideous fake "strangler figs" and other "trees" ever built since Brookfield's unfortunate Tropic World 30 years ago). And the cheap 1970s-looking graphics don't help.

As for waterfalls--I agree with Ungulate and Ituri and have written before about how annoyed I get when I see "waterfalls" emanating from the very tops of rocks etc. The point is that zoos spend huge amounts of money on features like streams, falls, "trees" and "rocks," all with the stated purpose of showing animals in the context of their "natural habitat." When this is well-researched and done with care it really adds to the overall experience. But too often is is just a formula--obviously fake rock walls in arrangements never seen in nature surrounding an exhibit on four sides, and water defying the principles of gravity and hydrology "spectacularly" flowing from the highest pinnacle of fake concrete rock. It's no wonder many European zoo professionals and fans look down on the "American-style" rockwork-centric approach to zoos. It's no more an accurate depiction of an animal's true habitat than the ugly but functional pens and cages more typical of--especially--British zoos.

And actually, I sometimes wonder how the animals forced to live all of their lives next to the pounding roar of "waterfalls" in places like the Lied Jungle (and even Jungleworld in the Bronx) put up with the deafening racket....I guess it drowns out the screaming school kids, but....

 

[taun]

I urge ALL who love zoos to stop using the IDA/PETA/Hancocks language!

Love is blind........

Are gorilla's free to come and go from there enclosures? NO so inmates is not a bad term to refer to them.

I love zoo's but the reason we have these "conservation ark's" is because of us.

You cannot deny the fact that an animal will allways be better in it's naturally environment because they are free.

Lets not be blind here, zoos do alot of good work but are no way near perfection and sometimes these "ENEMIES" do have a point. We should be seeking to help our zoo's to improve.

 

[Taccachantrieri]

Calgary Zoo Gorilla Exhibit

Similarly to Ungulate and ColumbusZoo001 I feel compelled to defend my local Zoo (The Calgary Zoo). This is what happens when people write "worst of lists".

First off the bat the exhibits seem to come off as being significantly more ugly in photographs than in actual life.

It's also important to know about some of the history of any exhibit under investigation. The Transalta Rainforest gorilla exhibit was originally designed quite differently and much more aesthetically pleasing and natural than the actual constructed exhibit. In fact, if the origin plans had been completed it probably could have been the most attractive and natural indoor gorilla exhibit in North America. You can make up your own mind though by clicking on this link:
http://www.bkdi.com/images/projects/Institutional/pop_up/Destination africa Calgary Zoo/VIEWL.jpg
There were also models made that I can vividly remember but I can't find any pictures of them.

I don't know the complete story behind why so many elements were changed in the gorilla exhibit, but I think this was mostly because of heavy keeper input into the design and their desire for an exhibit that catered better to the needs of the gorillas and keepers ability to take care of them.

For example, the moat was axed because of drowning concerns and other health problems, as well as to provide visitors with a closer viewing experience. A lot of climbing structures were added to the original design, which were particularly important for all the young active gorillas at the Zoo. Numerous bars and holders were added to create a more complex 3D environment of fire hoses, ropes, etc. Every day the gorilla keepers change the position of these elements and regularly add or remove others. The vast quantities of straw regularly strewn across the floor may be completely out of place in a rainforest display, but it does allow the keepers to hide food items and encourage increased foraging time. Other parts of the enclosure have a wood mulch substrate. Occasionally leaf litter or shredded paper (ZooCheck faxes) are also added. Enrichment was one of the factors prioritized in the Calgary Zoos indoor gorilla exhibit.

In the outdoor environment there was once considerably more vegetation. Only the elm trees were hotwired (unlike in most gorilla exhibits), which led to the complete destruction/consumption of everything else. Late last year staff added some barberries. Hopefully the thorns on these plants can somewhat dissuade gorilla consumption.

As far as what the gorillas think of their enclosure, well I don't know that for sure as I am not quite up to speed on GorillaComm 101. I can tell you that the gorillas explore and interact with their environment for hours every day and utilize different parts of the enclosure for different purposes (hiding, playing, resting, eating ...).

Gorilla keepers have multiple vantage points into the exhibit and gorilla management is facilitated by the design in numerous other regards, as well.

From a visitors perspective it is actually quite rare for the gorillas to be more than ten feet away from the viewing windows. I really think that visitor interactions and connections with the gorillas has been fostered in this exhibit.
In addition in both the indoor and outdoor exhibits visitors get a vague "sense" of a rainforest. Admittedly though this is much weaker than in some other gorilla exhibits.
I often find myself reluctant to attribute visitor satisfaction with attendance, but in this case the changes are too significant to ignore. After Calgary Zoo's Destination Africa exhibits (includes the gorilla exhibit to which I have been referring) opened attendance skyrocketed up nearly 50% to over 1.2 million!

Considering all the three triangular cornerstones of exhibits, (animal needs, keeper needs, visitor needs) I do not think that the Calgary Zoo's gorilla exhibit is a very good candidate for a "worst of exhibit" category. However, if someone still wants to argue this point with me I will be more than happy to oblige and am prepared to further bolster my arguments.

 

[Zooplantman]

A note about waterfalls: They are often added to mask the sounds of screaming visitors and other distractions as well as to create "ambiance" and help raise humidity.
Sometimes they create some drama.
Often they seem awfully out of place, especially when they appear to have no geological logic to them.

 

[Ungulate]

A note about waterfalls: They are often added to mask the sounds of screaming visitors and other distractions as well as to create "ambiance" and help raise humidity.
Sometimes they create some drama.
Often they seem awfully out of place, especially when they appear to have no geological logic to them.

Beautifully put, Zooplantman! (very lyrical too, I might add).

To BlackRhino, unfortunately I have not spent any time in Africa west of the Cameroon-Nigeria border. In the same breath, I will also point out that neither have any gorillas

 

[snowleopard]

I knew when I unleashed this thread onto ZooChat that there would be a flurry of responses, and it is great to see the discussions that have developed. A few random comments:

- On waterfalls I am divided. The cascading liquid can drown out screaming youngsters, add to the scenery in a particular exhibit, and often appears to be a beautiful addition to any enclosure. However, I can understand those that do not like bizarrely designed waterfalls that appear out of nowhere and use up vital energy and resources. For the most part I am happy to have them if it adds to the splendour of a habitat and does not create problems for the animals, and San Diego has a splendid waterfall that definitely adds to the dynamic of the enclosure.

- Reduakari has posted a list of the best, average and worst gorilla exhibits, and comparing it to my shorter list it is obvious that zoos like the Bronx, Woodland Park, Disney's Animal Kingdom, San Diego, Atlanta and a few others are recognized as amongst the best in North America for gorilla enclosures. Judging from other comments on this thread and in the past, it is apparent that there is a known group of zoos that specialize in gorillas and have outstanding exhibits for those great apes. Anyone that has been to those zoos will probably agree that they are all of superior quality with their gorilla habitats, and the Bronx Zoo stands out as #1 with the majority of zoo fans.

- Reduakari positioned both the Calgary and Toronto gorilla enclosures on his worst list, while I personally would have called them average. The Toronto indoor area is quite large and full of natural substrate, while the dayroom (while difficult to view) is adequate. What really does bring the habitat down is the awful outdoor yard, which as Toronto Zoo keeper Ungulate has pointed out is "an eyesore". A few years ago I used to think that the Calgary Zoo's gorilla exhibit was decent, but now after seeing many more zoos across the continent I've come to realize that Calgary is simply not in the same ballpark as the truly great gorilla enclosures that can be found at the above-mentioned zoos. The indoor area is decent, but the outdoor yard is disappointing in comparison to many other zoos.

 

[zooman]

Groundskeeper: My main beef with you is that you already using the language of our ENEMIES -- PETA, IDA, and others whose main goal is to shut down all Zoos! The animals in Zoos are NOT "inmates"! That is adopting the IDA mentality that zoos are "animal prisons". They are not! They are "passengers" on the conservation "ark" (the equivalent of the biblical Noah's ark story), keeping them safe from the floodwaters of pollution, poaching, and habitat destruction. They are also "ambassadors", living in our world as representatives of their world -- to give us a better understanding of their world.

I urge ALL who love zoos to stop using the IDA/PETA/Hancocks language!

Allot of emotion, acusation and hype.

Zoos are prisons. Noahs ark was for 314 days not life!

I would suggest that IDA/PETA/Hancocks and the like. Are the inital driving force behind all the "multi acre elephant exhibits" popping up all over the USA.

This would suggest that they do a whole lot of good!!!

Its our enemies that ensure we never rest on our laurel’s.

 

[taun]

Allot of emotion, acusation and hype.

Zoos are prisons. Noahs ark was for 314 days not life!

I would suggest that IDA/PETA/Hancocks and the like. Are the inital driving force behind all the "multi acre elephant exhibits" popping up all over the USA.

This would suggest that they do a whole lot of good!!!

Its our enemies that ensure we never rest on our laurel’s.

Hear hear,

 

[zooman]

Snowleopard you have not mentioned your rating criteria for gorilla exhibits?

 

[BlackRhino]

The waterfalls at the San Diego Zoo are certainly not fake as I just saw them the other day in person. I think they add to the realism of the exhibit, that's all, I wasn't saying every gorilla exhibit needs to have a waterfall. Just at the Gorilla Tropics, the waterfalls work real well with the exhibit.

 

[BlackRhino]

Allot of emotion, acusation and hype.

Zoos are prisons. Noahs ark was for 314 days not life!

I would suggest that IDA/PETA/Hancocks and the like. Are the inital driving force behind all the "multi acre elephant exhibits" popping up all over the USA.

This would suggest that they do a whole lot of good!!!

Its our enemies that ensure we never rest on our laurel’s.

Zoos are NOT animal prisons, and anyone that thinks otherwise does not like them.

 

[groundskeeper24]

Groundskeeper: My main beef with you is that you already using the language of our ENEMIES -- PETA, IDA, and others whose main goal is to shut down all Zoos! The animals in Zoos are NOT "inmates"! That is adopting the IDA mentality that zoos are "animal prisons". They are not! They are "passengers" on the conservation "ark" (the equivalent of the biblical Noah's ark story), keeping them safe from the floodwaters of pollution, poaching, and habitat destruction. They are also "ambassadors", living in our world as representatives of their world -- to give us a better understanding of their world.

I urge ALL who love zoos to stop using the IDA/PETA/Hancocks language!

As an avid carnivore and pet owner, I'm a bit shocked to be associated with such entities. Inmates is just a word that came to mind. I'm not here propagandizing for any group, anti-zoo or not. I wouldn't be on this forum if I didn't like zoos or see some useful purpose to them.

Zoos are what they are. Just b/c I enjoy visiting places like zoos and aquariums does not mean I'll hold my tongue when I think something is a bit goofy or in this case uneccessary. I'm not saying it's harmful to have waterfalls. I'm just asking if the expense is worth it.

As far as simulated habitats have come, there is ALWAYS room for improvement. Always. You need look no further than this forum to find examples of exhibits that were considered state of the art that became laughably inadequate when competitiors outdid them. The Cincinnati Cat House is a good example. Tropic World at Brookfield was probably seen in much the same way. I don't want to see zoos shut down. I just want to see them do better. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[groundskeeper24]

Zoos are NOT animal prisons, and anyone that thinks otherwise does not like them.

Ideally they aren't. That doesn't mean that examples do not exist of ones that could be considered as such. You can't tell me you've never been to a zoo and seen an inadequate exhibit.

 

[snowleopard]

@Zooman: I will answer your rating criteria question. I firmly believe that gorilla exhibits should be spacious and naturalistic, contain enrichment in all its wondrous forms, climbing structures (unlike the field exhibits like the one in Pittsburgh), varied terrain, and most importantly some type of canopy that covers a section of the habitat. It is well known that gorillas like to have some kind of covering above their heads, and many of the poorly designed enclosures lack that crucial element. Large troops work well in zoo environments, and thus provide stimulation to the family unit.

My original list of impressive, North American gorilla habitats included the Bronx Zoo, DAK, San Diego, Woodland Park, Atlanta and Lincoln Park. There are many average to below average gorilla enclosures in North American zoos, and I listed Brookfield, the National Zoo, and Pittsburgh as my three worst in that regard. My six favourites are ones that I have personally visited, and they have lots of enrichment, varied terrain, climbing structures, shade, canopy, large troops of apes, between 2-4 different enclosures, and are leaders in the field both aesthetically and fundamentally. The ability to rotate gorillas through different enclosures and environments is a valuable tool when keeping apes, and Zoo Atlanta's 4 yards stands out in that regard. All of those 6 zoos have small flaws with their gorilla habitats, but overall they are tremendous and the best that I've ever seen. If you were to ask anyone on ZooChat, as has been evident on this thread, there are the same zoos popping up over and over again as being the best on the continent for their gorilla habitats.

This next point some will disagree with, but myself and many others believe that gorilla exhibits in zoos should be as naturalistic as possible. Isn't that part of the purpose for all zoos? Maintaining animals in environments that simulate their natural surroundings? That is why habitats at the Columbus Zoo, and Howletts in England, have good enclosures for their apes due to the enrichment devices...but the exhibits are steel cages that are not asethetically pleasing, not natural, and thus I would never rate the Columbus Zoo's cage as one of the best gorilla habitats in North America. The enclosures at the Bronx, Woodland Park, Atlanta, DAK, San Diego and to a lesser degree Lincoln Park blow the old-style ape cages out of the water in terms of realism, natural beauty, and even enrichment. Large gorilla troops in jungle-like settings defeats large troops in steel cages in my mind, but I respectfully acknowledge the fact that there are still a few fans of the cages out there in the zoo world.

 

[Ituri]

The waterfalls at the San Diego Zoo are certainly not fake as I just saw them the other day in person. I think they add to the realism of the exhibit, that's all, I wasn't saying every gorilla exhibit needs to have a waterfall. Just at the Gorilla Tropics, the waterfalls work real well with the exhibit.

Yeah, will give you the gorilla exhibit waterfall in San Diego as a realistic waterfall. Ituri Forest on the other hand....the waterfalls on the buffalo side are insanely unrealistic looking.

I don't have a problem with the presence of waterfalls, it just bugs me a little when they don't make sense.

 

[snowleopard]

I concur with Zooman, Groundskeeper24 and Taun, as all three of you realize that zoos are not perfect nor will they ever be completely flawless. Advocating change in zoological gardens has led to postage-stamp collections being phased out and spacious, naturalistic exhibits constructed. What is wrong in critiquing a zoo and asking for improvements? What was once fantastic can rapidly turn sour, and the gorilla exhibit inside the massive Tragic World building in Brookfield is an example that we are all familiar with. The gorilla habitat at the Woodland Park Zoo was built BEFORE Tragic World and still holds up as one of the best of its kind, while the gorilla enclosure in Chicago is entirely indoors and surrounded by invasive humans.

The huge uproar over elephants has led to the statistic that by around 2013 in North America there will be approximately 17 zoos with elephant habitats that are 3.5 acres in size or LARGER. That came about due to thousands of individuals complaining about zoos. Thank goodness for change! If it takes complaints for zoos to shape up and build multi-million dollar, awesome habitats then I hope that more people jump on the bandwagon and urge change. I just hope that the next focus is on something else (bear pits/primate cages) so that eventually zoos will phase out all of their substandard exhibits.

 

[BlackRhino]

Ideally they aren't. That doesn't mean that examples do not exist of ones that could be considered as such. You can't tell me you've never been to a zoo and seen an inadequate exhibit.

Just because it is an inadequate exhibit does not make it a prison. Any zoo in the United States that is accredited by the AZA has animals that are being extremely well cared for and the animals are given top quality care.

My home Cleveland Zoo's elephant exhibit was woefully inadequate. With that said, it does not make it a prison. The elephants were still cared for by top quality keepers. In any prison, you are not cared for well at all, and are not given top quality anything.