Philadelphia Zoo Philadelphia Zoo News 2009

[Zoo Visitor]

Don't you think that exhibit is too small for a leopard? The other leopard got to move to Big Cat Falls (which I like), but this poor guy got the short end of the stick.

Like the jaguar who lived to a very old age in that exhibit, the Amur leopard seems quite content in his Carnivore Kingdom exhibit.

Part of the contentment I think is due to the wonderful, loving care of the keepers. But I also think he seems content with the amount of space.

If you observe the leopard in Big Cat Falls, you will see it does not move around that much, or really make use of the extra space it has.

By the way, I believe the Amur leopard currently in the Carnivore Kingdom will be moving to Big Cat Falls to "meet" the female sometime soon ...

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I agree with you tigertiger, and walking through CGF at Bronx Zoo one would never know they are in the middle of the nation's largest city!

I agree with that, too. And that is good.

But I still think some of the outdoor exhibit areas are too large. The animals don't seem to use all the space they have, and many times they are too far away for visitors to see or hear clearly or feel a connection with.

(Like the giraffe, lion, and large bird areas, for example. More species could be brought into those areas.)

I much prefer Jungle World, where the animals have a lot of space, but they are never to far away from visitors.

 

[reduakari]

Quote: "Jungle World does not have any piped-in sounds.

True landscape immersion exhibits, and open-air exhibits do not have any."

Jungle World and Congo both have ambient rainforest soundtracks, as does Cincy's Jungle Trails (and the latter two are both outdoors). In all cases, it adds considerably to the immersion experience. And it can be argued that these three exhibits are the very best landscape immersion exhibits in the country. But when done poorly, I agree soundtracks can be distracting and annoying. As with many exhibit elements (waterfalls, artificial trees and rocks, vegetation) it's about the quality of the execution as much as the use of the element

 

[zebedee101]

I agree with that, too. And that is good.

But I still think some of the outdoor exhibit areas are too large. The animals don't seem to use all the space they have, and many times they are too far away for visitors to see or hear clearly or feel a connection with.

(Like the giraffe, lion, and large bird areas, for example. More species could be brought into those areas.)

I much prefer Jungle World, where the animals have a lot of space, but they are never to far away from visitors.

If you are talking about the Lions at the Bronx I'd disagree, I think its deceptive exhibit given the width of the moat which in its very positioning is meant to give the impression that the lions, antelope and zebra all share an exhibit. My personal opinion is that the square feet is about right, its just an arkward exhibit to view as the island is screened from so many positions, especially by the lion house. The wasted space of the moat prevents you getting close and negates the need for fence or glass but does not give those that only visit the bronx any idea how big a lion really is, especially its paws, the national zoo has the same issue distance to its big cats. The lions exhibits at the national zoo, philadephia zoo and bronx are all a lot smaller in terms of square footage than those than I am used to seeing in the UK, especially at Whipsnade and Chester, yet there they still come close and you can be the other side of the glass/mesh to them. There are photos of these zoos in the gallery.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Quote: "Jungle World does not have any piped-in sounds.

True landscape immersion exhibits, and open-air exhibits do not have any."

Jungle World and Congo both have ambient rainforest soundtracks, as does Cincy's Jungle Trails (and the latter two are both outdoors). In all cases, it adds considerably to the immersion experience. And it can be argued that these three exhibits are the very best landscape immersion exhibits in the country. But when done poorly, I agree soundtracks can be distracting and annoying. As with many exhibit elements (waterfalls, artificial trees and rocks, vegetation) it's about the quality of the execution as much as the use of the element

I am amazed that Jungle World has soundtracks. All I have consciously heard was the sound of water flowing and rustling or footsteps and sounds I know were coming from the live animals in the exhibit.

And so many times, we have just stood very still and heard such peaceful silence. Maybe there are times when the sounds are turned on.

I guess if it can be done that well, there is no harm. But I don't think it is necessary - especially if it adds to the cost of the exhibit.

 

[reduakari]

I am amazed that Jungle World has soundtracks. All I have consciously heard was the sound of water flowing and rustling or footsteps and sounds I know were coming from the live animals in the exhibit.

And so many times, we have just stood very still and heard such peaceful silence. Maybe there are times when the sounds are turned on.

I guess if it can be done that well, there is no harm. But I don't think it is necessary - especially if it adds to the cost of the exhibit.

Many things "add to the cost of an exhibit" that are not required if all one is concerned with is a clear view of many animals (which seems to be your primary measure of what makes a zoo good). And I have never visited Congo when there weren't many gorillas within arms length of the viewing windows, but I prefer seeing them disappear and re-appear into and out of the dense forest beyond--it's much more satisfying to see animals as one might in nature than simply sitting on a platform in plain view. To see okapis, colobus, red river hogs, pythons, Congo peacock, DeBrazza monkeys, Wolf's monkeys, mandrills, monitor lizards etc. AND dozens of gorillas in the few acres that make up Congo is a richer experience than I can think of at any other zoo--it astonishes me to see you believe it is "too large" and "wastes space."

 

[tigertiger]

If you like Big Cat Falls, you must have been lucky to be there on a day when the Zoo wasn't too crowded, and the sun wasn't causing a glare on the glass that makes it difficult to see the animals.

I've never been to that zoo when it hasn't been largely packed with minions of the devil (you know, children) but I've never had a problem any of the times I've seen it.

I agree with this, not just because it destroys the hoped for peaceful atmosphere during the time the school children are there, but also because during the time the school children are there, they are NOT learning as much as they could be because they are just too noisy, and distracted.

Yes but the alternative is cutting a large portion of a zoos revenue from it. Unless you or others are interested in more closed exhibits, no zoo can ever do this.

The best time to visit any zoo I think is on weekday afternoons in the late fall and winter.

I would disagree. That's the best time to visit zoos on the Eastern seaboard when it's not a seasonal attraction (i.e. not around any holiday or promotion). There are very few days on a calendar that fit that, however.

Weekday afternoons are also the best time to visit during the spring and summer.

I'd disagree here too--the later in the day one gets to the zoo, the more school trips and parents have come out.

I want to be able to hear the sounds of animals breathing, or calling to each other, or eating, or digging ... I want to hear their footsteps, or the sounds of their wings flapping ...

So then, I'm assuming you are not a fan of any building exhibits (where you can't get this) or monorails?

Jungle World does not have any piped-in sounds.
True landscape immersion exhibits, and open-air exhibits do not have any.

I don't believe Jungleworld is immersion at all--too many doors to alert me to the fact I'm indoors.

I am surprised that your fiance can walk around the Bronx Zoo so easily. My son and I have no trouble walking far and/or fast, and my son has designed a route for seeing everything in one visit. To include the time we want to spend quietly observing animals, we must stay at least 5 hours. Also, the way the paths are layed out, it is impossible to design a route that doesn't require some backtracking.

There are routes that don't require doubling back--especially now with the closing of WoD. Even with WoD, there were only several routes that required passing three exhibit in Africa twice. I don't feel that's a large crime, however.

I understand what you mean. But the Zoo is relatively small at 45 sq. acres, so it can't really spread out. I think the Reptile and Amphibian House is perfectly designed to showcase so many different species in attractive exhibits. I also very much liked the inside of Pachyderm House, which is no longer open to the public. With its high ceilings, and large exhibits, it was a kind of immersion exhibit, although not a modern, landscape immersion exhibit. But when you were inside, you could get close to the hippos, rhinos, okapi, and elephants, and there were no glass barriers between you and the animals.

Much like Cincinnati, space is the biggest limitation at Philadelphia.

And if we could walk around the Bronx and the Philly Zoos together, we would probably realize we agree more than we think about them, too. I sounded much more critical of the Bronx Zoo than I meant to. The closing of the World of Darkness, which was also a kind of immersion (into night-time darkness) exhibit really upset me.

It was sort of like a last straw after the slow reduction in the number of animals over the past decade, and what I still believe to be an over-emphasis on conservation and education.

But, in fairness, it actually is only a part of the Wildlife Conservation Society, so at least it is true to its parent organization's name.

I think you may be forgetting that part of the reason animals have declined over the years is because that's how things happen. It's not always money. Animals die, require a zoo change, etc.

Zoos are 100% education centers. Even for someone like you who enjoys open & atmospheric feels, zoos are a chance for you to get that 'education.' For children, it's a chance to learn about something other than their pet dog. Conservation must go hand and hand with this. If we loose all of our animals, there will be nothing to give zoos atmosphere. Zoos would also be useless if either of these purposes were removed. They'd also be mildly inhumane: how can one justify keeping an animal in a cage 1,000's of miles from it's home if there's no interest in helping the animal or it's populations or learning about them?

(I also like the open-air part of the Aquatic Bird House, where the roseatte spoonbills and scarlet ibises perch on the railing inches away from visitors.)

As I often get attached by an ibis, I do not like that part lol. That whole building though requires demolition IMO. The Sea Bird Aviary next to it is however, underrated. Personally, I am surprised you have not mentioned it, especially as that plot is normally abandoned.

 

[tigertiger]

I agree with that, too. And that is good.

But I still think some of the outdoor exhibit areas are too large. The animals don't seem to use all the space they have, and many times they are too far away for visitors to see or hear clearly or feel a connection with.

(Like the giraffe, lion, and large bird areas, for example. More species could be brought into those areas.)

I much prefer Jungle World, where the animals have a lot of space, but they are never to far away from visitors.

I ask this in the most respectful manner possible but how the heck can you say your close to the animals in Jungleworld? All primates are separated from visitors by a giant lake and the tapir is too. One IS close to the first two exhibits (otters & t. kangaroo) but those seems rather pedestrian experiences, IMO.

As someone who has been to Congo well over 100 times (and I think members here who have worked there would probably agree) out of 20 something odd gorillas, there is always someone right up against the glass. How that is not 'close' enough, I do not know.

It seems to me like you would much rather sacrifice happy animals and realism in exchange for a chance to be close to animals. That is fine and dandy and all but there is no way to have atmosphere without realism and there is nothing realistic about species bound into tight spaces so that they may interact with visitors they would naturally eat in the wild.

 

[tigertiger]

Quote: "Jungle World does not have any piped-in sounds.

True landscape immersion exhibits, and open-air exhibits do not have any."

Jungle World and Congo both have ambient rainforest soundtracks, as does Cincy's Jungle Trails (and the latter two are both outdoors). In all cases, it adds considerably to the immersion experience. And it can be argued that these three exhibits are the very best landscape immersion exhibits in the country. But when done poorly, I agree soundtracks can be distracting and annoying. As with many exhibit elements (waterfalls, artificial trees and rocks, vegetation) it's about the quality of the execution as much as the use of the element

Personally, I think Jungletrails and Jungleworld's tracks are hit and miss. Sometimes they work, other times they don't. I often find that annoying when they miss but as you mentioned, they create immersion.

 

[zebedee101]

Many things "add to the cost of an exhibit" that are not required if all one is concerned with is a clear view of many animals (which seems to be your primary measure of what makes a zoo good). And I have never visited Congo when there weren't many gorillas within arms length of the viewing windows, but I prefer seeing them disappear and re-appear into and out of the dense forest beyond--it's much more satisfying to see animals as one might in nature than simply sitting on a platform in plain view. To see okapis, colobus, red river hogs, pythons, Congo peacock, DeBrazza monkeys, Wolf's monkeys, mandrills, monitor lizards etc. AND dozens of gorillas in the few acres that make up Congo is a richer experience than I can think of at any other zoo--it astonishes me to see you believe it is "too large" and "wastes space."

I agree with you, I think it depends on your zoo outlook. At one extreme you have the anti zoo brigade who think it is preferable for an animal to become extinct as they view zoo animals as prisoners who have not commited a crime. In the middle you have what makes the majority of zoobeat posters, those that like balance, enjoy seeing an animal in a naturalistic exhibit and want whats best for the animal, space, nutrition, health and stress free living, they put the animals welfare and needs before their own and are happy to visit a zoo several times if they miss a particular animal on each occasion, but are happy knowing the animal has chosen its privacy and has a choice in public viewing. My own views fall into this catagory, at a very young age I read one of the Gerald Durrell books that said he wanted to design a zoo where the animals needs came first, the keepers second and the general publics was at the end of the priorities and this has stuck with me ever since. The third outlook is where the visitor puts themselves first, selfishly want their need to be close to the animal, see it, hear it, smell it over the need of the animals privacy, flight distance and stress. While I hear the arguement that children would behave themselves if they could be immersed in an animals exhibit this unfortunately doesn't happen, animals are fed, poked, have feathers removed forcibly and in one case I heard of kids catching budgies and stamping on them. There are good parents, there are those that are scared of confrontation with their kids and will let them do anything as they dont want to deal or confront innappropriate behaviour. The attitude to conservation sounds like dont spend the money on something that will benefits the animal, spend it on something that benefits me, the visitor. There will always be those that think of animals as objects and not see them as equals. There is a reason that zoos have evolved and that is because people have wanted to better the lives of those animals in exhibits where they can mimic and see there natural behaviour. By judging an exhibit to be too large for an animal because they do not make full use of the space you have to have a full understanding of how individuals interact, how they like to put space between themselves and other animals of the same species that they might be scared of and never have investigated flight distances (as in the space they are comfortable being too humans or another animal, not how far a bird can fly). For those that have the last outlook then why not go and view the diaramas at the natural history museum, you are guaranteed to see animals, lots of them, they are displaying the same non-naturalistic behaviours as those in cramped concrete cages, the smell of decay is about the same and you can even be immersed in the exhibits. In my eyes the days of displaying animals as you would stamps or library books belongs squarely in a museum. If you are in this final group you also have extreme views. Both ends of the spectrum have the same goal, the extinction of a species, only one wont take pleasure from it, the other will and cant wait to tell their grandchild that they were lucky enough to see tha last dodo/hyalcine/aardwolf adlibitum in the zoo.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I ask this in the most respectful manner possible but how the heck can you say your close to the animals in Jungleworld? All primates are separated from visitors by a giant lake and the tapir is too. One IS close to the first two exhibits (otters & t. kangaroo) but those seems rather pedestrian experiences, IMO.

As someone who has been to Congo well over 100 times (and I think members here who have worked there would probably agree) out of 20 something odd gorillas, there is always someone right up against the glass. How that is not 'close' enough, I do not know.

It seems to me like you would much rather sacrifice happy animals and realism in exchange for a chance to be close to animals. That is fine and dandy and all but there is no way to have atmosphere without realism and there is nothing realistic about species bound into tight spaces so that they may interact with visitors they would naturally eat in the wild.

I do not like glass between visitors and any animals except reptiles because the glass prevents visitors from hearing sounds, and yes, smelling animal odors.

I just don't feel the same excitement when a gorilla or even the wonderful Red River hogs are right next to the glass that I feel in the presence of the ebony langurs, even though the langurs are farther away.


I always want happy, content animals. Realism is not quite so important to me, and I don't think to the animals, either, especially when quite a bit of that realism is artificial.

I don't dislike the Congo exhibit. But to me, Jungle World is 100% better.


And I don't like all the interactive exhibit areas in the Congo exhibit, either.

 

[BlackRhino]

I do not like glass between visitors and any animals except reptiles because the glass prevents visitors from hearing sounds, and yes, smelling animal odors.

I just don't feel the same excitement when a gorilla or even the wonderful Red River hogs are right next to the glass that I feel in the presence of the ebony langurs, even though the langurs are farther away.


I always want happy, content animals. Realism is not quite so important to me, and I don't think to the animals, either, especially when quite a bit of that realism is artificial.

I don't dislike the Congo exhibit. But to me, Jungle World is 100% better.


And I don't like all the interactive exhibit areas in the Congo exhibit, either.

Congo is more real than JungleWorld will ever be. I hope when you speak of artificial you are not speaking of Congo, as it is anything but, and is probably over 90% natural. I don't see how JungleWorld could be better than Congo, when Congo is outdoors, way more educational, actually could be mistaken for the African Rainforest, and is home to the world's best gorilla, okapi, and red river hog habitats in any zoo. Not to mention there is no better place in the United States to see gorillas up close and in an actual meaningful experience.

 

[snowleopard]

@Zoo Visitor: you think that Jungleworld is "100% better" than Congo Gorilla Forest? You also think that the Philadelphia Zoo is the #1 zoo in the United States? What is this...the twilight zone?

 

[Zooplantman]

@Zoo Visitor: you think that Jungleworld is "100% better" than Congo Gorilla Forest? You also think that the Philadelphia Zoo is the #1 zoo in the United States? What is this...the twilight zone?

I think everyone is missing the point a little. Zoo visitor appears to prefer close up direct experiences of animals more than large spacious exhibits. Philadelphia Zoo is intimate, tightly packed and heavily landscaped (well, gardened). I bet she'd love Cincinnati Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo, and maybe Akron Zoo. She would not appreciate North Carolina Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo or SDWAP. That's her preference. We each have our own. Some here only like exhibits where animals have lots of room. Some only appreciate realistic immersion exhibits. Some prefer the biggest animal collections. Whatever.

 

[zebedee101]

I do not like glass between visitors and any animals except reptiles because the glass prevents visitors from hearing sounds, and yes, smelling animal odors.

I just don't feel the same excitement when a gorilla or even the wonderful Red River hogs are right next to the glass that I feel in the presence of the ebony langurs, even though the langurs are farther away.


I always want happy, content animals. Realism is not quite so important to me, and I don't think to the animals, either, especially when quite a bit of that realism is artificial.

I don't dislike the Congo exhibit. But to me, Jungle World is 100% better.


And I don't like all the interactive exhibit areas in the Congo exhibit, either.

In the same way it doesn't stop the animals hearing human sounds, and yes, smelling human odors!!!!!!!!!!!! Zoos aren't just about the visitors, animals have needs to, I'd like to think all Zoos place a higher priority on an animals welfare than getting a return visit from a visitor

 

[tigertiger]

I do not like glass between visitors and any animals except reptiles because the glass prevents visitors from hearing sounds, and yes, smelling animal odors.

I just don't feel the same excitement when a gorilla or even the wonderful Red River hogs are right next to the glass that I feel in the presence of the ebony langurs, even though the langurs are farther away.

That's interesting. I feel the exact opposite. I feel as if at Congo, I could have an active conversation with a gorilla and it would respond to me whereas at Jungleworld the animals couldn't care less. I like interaction, I don't like being ignored lol.

I always want happy, content animals. Realism is not quite so important to me, and I don't think to the animals, either, especially when quite a bit of that realism is artificial.

And I don't like all the interactive exhibit areas in the Congo exhibit, either.

I think realism matters a good deal to the animals. You can ask Patty Cake whether she preferred her cage at central park, her depressing little land prior to Congo, or Congo next time you see her


I'm confused as to your last sentence: what interactive parts of Congo do you not like? To me, I don't understand how interactive and immersion are not close to one in the same.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Congo is more real than JungleWorld will ever be. I hope when you speak of artificial you are not speaking of Congo, as it is anything but, and is probably over 90% natural. I don't see how JungleWorld could be better than Congo, when Congo is outdoors, way more educational, actually could be mistaken for the African Rainforest, and is home to the world's best gorilla, okapi, and red river hog habitats in any zoo. Not to mention there is no better place in the United States to see gorillas up close and in an actual meaningful experience.

Unless I am observing reptiles, looking through glass always spoils the experience for me, no matter what is on the other side. And encountering educational signs, photos, and interactive exhibits as I go along also always makes the experience seem less compelling.

I do very much like the number of animals, and the number of species on exhibit in the Congo Gorilla Forest, though. And, whenever I have an opportunity to stand quietly for a while without having to worry that I will be blocking the view too long for someone else, I can sometimes focus on observing a particular animal, and try to imagine the sound of its footsteps, or its chewing on food, or the sound of the leaves rustling as it jumps from branch to branch.

I think the difference between Jungle World and the Congo Gorilla Forest is that one sparks my imagination, and the other requires me to use my imagination.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

That's interesting. I feel the exact opposite. I feel as if at Congo, I could have an active conversation with a gorilla and it would respond to me whereas at Jungleworld the animals couldn't care less. I like interaction, I don't like being ignored lol. .

I am referring to interactive exhibit areas that involve touching a computer screen, or pushing a button to make a sign pop up, things like that.

Interacting with the animals, however, would be wonderful! So I wouldn't object to that.

I'm confused as to your last sentence: what interactive parts of Congo do you not like? To me, I don't understand how interactive and immersion are not close to one in the same.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I was referring to signs, photos, and computer stations that require the visitors to read, touch a screen, or push a button.

The interaction you are referring to would be great. In fact, that reminds me that in the Philadelphia Zoo on occasion the lions in Big Cat Falls and the Amur leopard in Carnivore Kingdom rub on the glass like kitty cats rubbing against a person's legs when someone places his or her hand on the glass. (I still don't like the glass barrier, though. Imagine how wonderful it would be to actually feel the fur. I know, that would be dangerous, but still ...)

Anyway, interacting with the animals is great. And it probably happens in the Congo Gorilla Forest, too, although, so far I haven't experienced it.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I've never been to that zoo when it hasn't been largely packed with minions of the devil (you know, children) but I've never had a problem any of the times I've seen it.

Yes but the alternative is cutting a large portion of a zoos revenue from it. Unless you or others are interested in more closed exhibits, no zoo can ever do this.

You would also be cutting a large portion of a zoos expenses ...

Zoos are 100% education centers. Even for someone like you who enjoys open & atmospheric feels, zoos are a chance for you to get that 'education.' For children, it's a chance to learn about something other than their pet dog. Conservation must go hand and hand with this. If we loose all of our animals, there will be nothing to give zoos atmosphere. Zoos would also be useless if either of these purposes were removed. They'd also be mildly inhumane: how can one justify keeping an animal in a cage 1,000's of miles from it's home if there's no interest in helping the animal or it's populations or learning about them?

I want zoos to inspire me to be educated, not to educate me. Libraries, schools, universities, and wildlife conservation centers should be the ones to provide the educational materials and opportunities, as well as provide the opportunity to contribute time or money to conservation efforts.

I want zoos to just be zoos!

As I often get attached by an ibis, I do not like that part lol. That whole building though requires demolition IMO. The Sea Bird Aviary next to it is however, underrated. Personally, I am surprised you have not mentioned it, especially as that plot is normally abandoned.

Goodness - fortunately, I have never been attacked by any of the birds in the Aquatic Bird building.

You are right about the Sea Bird Aviary - it is underrated. And I am sorry I forgot to mention it as an exhibit I like at the Bronx Zoo. We do go in it whenever we visit, and I have always noted that we seem to be the only ones in there for long periods of time.

One time during the winter, it was closed due to ice on the path, which surprised me because all the other paths and areas had been cleared, and we could hear the birds, so they were out. I guess that's because the Zoo wasn't expecting many visitors to want to go in.

 

[zebedee101]

You would also be cutting a large portion of a zoos expenses ...



I want zoos to inspire me to be educated, not to educate me. Libraries, schools, universities, and wildlife conservation centers should be the ones to provide the educational materials and opportunities, as well as provide the opportunity to contribute time or money to conservation efforts.I want zoos to just be zoos!



Goodness - fortunately, I have never been attacked by any of the birds in the Aquatic Bird building.

You are right about the Sea Bird Aviary - it is underrated. And I am sorry I forgot to mention it as an exhibit I like at the Bronx Zoo. We do go in it whenever we visit, and I have always noted that we seem to be the only ones in there for long periods of time.

One time during the winter, it was closed due to ice on the path, which surprised me because all the other paths and areas had been cleared, and we could hear the birds, so they were out. I guess that's because the Zoo wasn't expecting many visitors to want to go in.

By banning kids how would you be removing a large part of the zoos expenses? Even the major zoos have a very small proportion of educators who make a poor salary and depend often on volunteers. The education budget for zoos is a tiny fraction of its running costs, school parties make the vast majority of its gate receipts
.
Kids go to school, universities etc in the week, a place where they are forced to go or under peer pressure to attend, learning is hard work, why would they go there voluntarily in their free time to learn. Going to a zoo is fun, they teach without people realising they are being taught. A zoo is being a zoo by displaying animals and educating at the same time. I took a look at your profile and see that you are a library technician, it seems you have a need for everything to have an order and want to see a zoo as a living library. Your ideas have been tried before and unfortunately didnt work, a zoo is a business at the end of the day and has to break even, if the public dont like your zoo they wont pay and it goes under, it doesnt have to mean its right, but its a hard fact.