Polar Bear Exhibits

Taccachantrieri said:
Wow, I feel like I've been a little too harsh now :(...
Click to expand...

I was sceptical about this polar bear exhibit at first too, but after seeing the bears enjoy it so much and showing so much natural behavior, fake rock and all that didn't seem to matter any more. It's easy to image their natural tundra habitat when standing on the wooden bridge in the Scandinavian Wild Animal Park. I guess you have to see it for yourself...
 
Twin polar bears now on public view at the Detroit Zoo

The Como Zoo in St. Paul, Minnesota can now be added to the long list of North American zoos that are creating/expanding/renovating polar bear exhibits. They are spending $14 million on their bear enclosure, and will be finished by 2010. For now their twin bears have been shipped to Detroit, to allow that zoo to now showcase 5 of the great white carnivores.
 
What are people's opinions..?

All these new exhibits, which will be with us for the next 25 - 50 years (the exhibit at Auckland Zoo was in use for 70+) at a minimum (most likely the most of the rest our lives), from what you have seen of the designs will:

Polar Bear breeding in zoos increase..?

There be a reduction in stereotypical behaviour in Bears who have know only these new exhibits..?

The continuation of keeping this species be "bad" for zoos and "good" for the animal libbers cause..?

Can you list the new exhibits that get your tick and those that should be stuck off..?
 
By people's opinions, you mean the public, I dont think they really care. Many would think that it is great the zoo is improving the polar bear's habitat or bringing in a new speices (in some cases). Others will complain it is a waste of taxpayer's money...but those people complain about everything anyway. Polar Bears are a huge draw to bring in people like great apes, big cats, and pachyderms. According to my data from the late 1980s to late 1990s there was a huge spike in number of new ape and large cat exhibits. Now bears and pachyderms are benifiting from a huge number of new exhibits...its just the bears' turn to have better enclosures. In the 1990s there was a drop off in bear numbers and exhibits. Now this taxa is enjoying a resurgence in popularity. Breeding seems to be acceptable but not great and there is a good number of founders for the time being. As for stereotypic behaviors, time will tell. But these new exhibits will be a lot better than what previous bears have had for the last 100 years.

Detroit, Columbus, Providence (RI) appear to be heading in the right direction.

Toledo, St Paul (MN), Louisville, Memphis aren't quite doing enough. They provide enrichment, training, and good husbandry practices; but the actual enclosure needs more attention. Zoos tend to do more for the visitors (because the bear is so popular, ie underwater viewing, tunnels, ice caves, research cabins, etc.) with this species than the animals themselves (how about dirt for a substrate rather than concrete?).
 
The Como Zoo in St. Paul, Minnesota is taking a step in the right direction, as they are ripping up all of the concrete in their polar bear exhibit and replacing it with a softer substrate. I just wish that more North American zoos would follow the lead of Detroit, where there is one concrete exhibit but one grassy, muddy, dirty exhibit. No wonder those two enclosures are so highly regarded. However, even in the best polar bear exhibits there is often a case of stereotypical behaviour (like in San Diego) and at times it is next to impossible to adequately house such massive carnivores. Access to dens and a wealth of enrichment materials are obvious keys to success.

My biggest beef are the numerous bear pits and grottoes that are in just about every zoo on the planet. The notion of having any single one of the eight bear species in some type of concrete "pit" is behind the times and should be phased out. The grizzly bear exhibit at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo isn't really that big, but its appearance on the ZooLex website illustrates how some of the best enclosures are the ones that are done with the animals in mind. The bears in Seattle have dirt, logs, rocks, a deep pool with fish, and a decent amount of soft substrate to roam around in.
 
Auckland Zoo and Polar bears

having read the book " A tiger by the tail " which is a history of the Auckland Zoo , I came to the conclusion that the bearkeeping was just more hassle for the zoo than what it was worth ..... especially in light of bear health problems
( real, or percieved by zoo visitors that commented that the polar bears were not pure white ..... )

Auckand is not a big city , and the zoo is not a large zoo . It is also an old zoo
having said that , the zoo has done a pretty good job in recent years in housing its animals , and turned the zoo from a "stamp collection" menagerie into a beautiful park that does its best to highlight conservation and recycling , anti pollution and several other environmental aspects .
The polar bear enclosure was one of the original enclosures , but I am sure that the zoo could have turned it into a state of the art enclosure if they still kept the bears ..... if one can compare the zoo from the 1960s to what it is now
pretty much every one of its current exhibits have been greatly upgraded .

Zoos need to get rid of the bear pits , have plenty of natural substrate , and provide heaps of enrichment -- even if it is just a simple thing like an old beer barrel chained from the bottom of the pool , but floats on the surface ..... and plenty of frozen fish iceblocks etc .......

I wish all the best to the zoos that are starting to do this for the polar bears
even if I never will get to see another polar bear in NZ
 
okapikpr said:
Toledo, St Paul (MN), Louisville, Memphis aren't quite doing enough. They provide enrichment, training, and good husbandry practices; but the actual enclosure needs more attention. Zoos tend to do more for the visitors (because the bear is so popular, ie underwater viewing, tunnels, ice caves, research cabins, etc.) with this species than the animals themselves (how about dirt for a substrate rather than concrete?).
Click to expand...

@okapikpr - Louisville (whenever Glacier Run is built) will have a large sand & grass area in the polar bear enclosure. As you know, it gets difficult to have both natural substrate and underwater view. Louisville tried to keep the two far enough apart to spare the water LSS too much stress. We'll see how that works out.

Polar bear exhibits without water are too boring for visitor and animal alike. And of course, its easier to chill a pool than an entire enclosure.
 
@Zooplantman: The tiny town of Cochrane in Canada is now famous for its "polar bear swim". As the photo in the link illustrates, people can swim in a small pool that is right next door to one of the polar bear pools...and being in the water and separated from the enormous bears by a pane of glass must be an exhilirating moment for people of all ages.

The centre only has 3 bears, and one of them is extremely old. If I'm not mistaken then at least one of the polar bears came from the Toronto Zoo.
 
Looks like fun, I suppose. Although given a pool filled with shrieking children or one with elderly polar bears, its a hard decision which is safer
 
Zooplantman said:
it gets difficult to have both natural substrate and underwater view
Click to expand...

Why? Aquarium tanks cope well with sand and dirt in the tank. I guess it is a problem to design the filter system beforehand to cope with sand inside the tank.
 
Jurek7 said:
Why? Aquarium tanks cope well with sand and dirt in the tank. I guess it is a problem to design the filter system beforehand to cope with sand inside the tank.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it is a different proposition to have sand in an aquarium as opposed to unpredictable quantities of sand/dirt dumped into tank and bears churning it all up. Would an aquarium use sand for species that stir things up alot?
 
NZ Jeremy said:
What are people's opinions..?
Polar Bear breeding in zoos increase..?
Click to expand...

Not much. It is limited by holding spaces for young. Polar bears even historically bred regularly. And wild bears are sometimes avialable as orphans or "problem bears".

NZ Jeremy said:
There be a reduction in stereotypical behaviour in Bears who have know only these new exhibits..?
Click to expand...

Sure, I think even with current exhibits it is falling.

NZ Jeremy said:
The continuation of keeping this species be "bad" for zoos and "good" for the animal libbers cause..?
Click to expand...

Not. Zoos wouldn't want to keep animals if they cannot do it well by their own stream. Visitors mostly overlook stereotyping animals. And animal libbers are very illogical and learn little from failures. Anyway - zoos success with apes and big cats changed them little.
 
Pygathrix said:
Why not keep them in the same pool and provide valuable enrichment for both?
Click to expand...

Two Far Side cartoons come to my mind.

One is "scorpion petting zoo" with crying children and the title "teaching children what nature is".

Second is about a family looking through the window at neighbors' house, which is overrun by wolves. Dad says to his son something like: "I'm sure you miss Browns, but they were stupid, ill and weak people, and thats why we have large predators".

:D
 
@Pygathrix: Wouldn't work. Polar Bears would be too scared to enter the pool.

Back to topic: The problem with stereotypical behaviour, especially with bears, is that an improvement of the husbandry will not result in presto! the bears shedding this bad habit. Some might lose it, some might show it less often, but quite a bunch of them keep on doing their "routine" in the new exhibit.
 
Last edited:
Once established in a individual then it is unlikely for severe stereotypy to be shaken off despite an improvement in surroundings, but one would expect new births/arrivals not to develop it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top