What's in a name? Of challenging zoo terminology

[Baldur]

Recently I began uploading photos for the first time after almost two years on ZooChat. It is a big task to upload almost 7 years of digital photos (and 13-14 years of printed photos, later, provided I can be bothered to renew the love affair I once had with my scanner).

English is my second language and as a result sometimes a challenge here on ZooChat. One particular challenge is to use the most accurate terminology to describe what is on my photos. However the problem is not the animals but rather their homes or spaces in the zoos.

No doubt are 'enclosure' and 'exhibit' most commonly used here on ZooChat to describe the spaces animals live in. I did an unscientific research in the London and Philadelphia galleries (two old zoos, hence with facilities from different times, one from the west and the other from the east) and this indeed seems to be the case. But there are so many other words we could use; even if not all are 'correct' or 'in' nowadays in an industry that seems to wish nothing more than to forget its past at times. The words are still there and describe the same as decades ago:

Pen, cage, paddock, house, building, pool, island, grotto, pit, complex, etc.

The more massive modern zoo projects make use of words such as Falls, Kingdom or Country; but they can only be used when the zoo itself uses them officially. In the past, London Zoo and others used words such as Pavilion or Terrace; still used today, but for historical reasons only. Hardly would any zoo start to use them for a new project today?

I'm not afraid of using words not 'correct' or 'in' but I want to use them only when they are truly suitable. What makes an enclosure an enclosure and an exhibit an exhibit? When is a cage not a cage but an enclosure? When is an enclosure not an enclosure but a paddock? What is the difference between a grotto and a pit?

I remember a foreword in an old Howletts or Port Lympne guidebook. John Aspinall emphasised there that his animals were living in enclosures and not exhibits. In other words, their homes were built solely with the animals' needs in mind (shelter, etc) and not those of the visitors. This makes sense; those who have visited the Aspinall parks know that spotting many animals through the thick vegetation, wire and fences has often more to do with luck and coincidences than anything else. So do we there have the definition for enclosure? Is an exhibit something built more for humans than animals? Agree or disagree with me but the word kind of gives it away, doesn't it?

And the difference between a grotto and a pit? According to the Google dictionary: "A grotto is a small cave with interesting or attractively shaped rocks." So how about San Diego's old Bear Canyon? Grottos? The bears can only be seen from one side facing the visitors, the other three are walls. And caves usually only have one side open. On animals in pits you always look at from above. Example can be seen on the old photos I uploaded recently from Aalborg Zoo in Denmark (Brown Bears and Asiatic Black Bears).

And how about the old 'Lion House' and 'Ape House'? A certified English translator once told me that the word 'house' really only qualifies for where people live. Anything else is a cabin, shed, building, etc.

I have found myself challenged by this matter since I started uploading and describing photos here, so I would love to know your thoughts, regardless of your mother language being English or not.

 

[snowleopard]

Great thread Baldur! I too am often amused and intrigued by the wide vocabulary that is available at our disposal, particulary when describing captive animals in zoos.

I agree that the Aspinall park enclosures are not exhibits, as the word exhibit when looked up in a dictionary is "to put something on public display" (verb); "a public showing, an exhibition" (noun); "to present to others to see". One could say that many zoos have hundreds of exhibits, because the animals are placed in the context of being on public display. The Aspinall parks do not always offer clear viewing opportunities, thus enclosures is the better term for Howletts and Port Lympne. However, I truly think that the word "enclosure" can still be used at any time, and it often is, and the word "exhibit" is also interchangeable.

I know many non-ZooChatters who visit zoos and persist in calling all of the enclosures "cages", while I personally use the word "cage" to reference any animal home with bars or metal grates. The sun bear enclosure at the Berlin Zoo is a cage, as it has metal bars, but at the same time it is also an enclosure. It could be called an exhibit, but it would be a crappy one.

Many zoos these days, and often zoos are attempting to become progressive, refer to animal homes as "habitats" or "environments". The 435-acre enclosure at the Northwest Trek Wildlife Park (south of Seattle) has at least 6 species of hoofstock and could perhaps aptly be called an environment or habitat. It is enormous and definitely does contain the animals' true, natural surroundings. "Jaguar Cove" at the Woodland Park Zoo is a "habitat", as it is a brilliant recreation of a tropical rainforest environment. One could claim that it is also an exhibit, an enclosure or even a cage, but habitat sounds much nicer.

I perceive the word "grotto" to be a more modern interpretation of the word "pit", which has a negative perception and thus is generally not used in zoos these days. San Diego Zoo has many grottoes, but in reality those enclosures are basically pits with a fancier name. Visitors still look down upon the animals, there are 3 walls and only one viewing angle, and the only thing that has changed over the years is that the grottoes are now well furnished with natural substrate.

Paddocks are large fields for hoofstock, and cows, sheep and goats are often kept in paddocks on farms. My local zoo, the Greater Vancouver Zoo, and most British zoos have large paddocks that could just as easily contain sheep, cows, horses and pigs as they can kudus, wildebeest, cape buffalo or addax.

 

[jbnbsn99]

For a bit of an inside perspective, at Dallas we are instructed to call the animal's exhibit a habitat. Even calling it an exhibit is frowned upon as is pointing out anything in the habitat that is unnatural (fences, non-natural enrichment, equipment, keepers, etc).

 

[phoenix]

ARGHHHHHHH! - I HATE HOW ZOOS CALL IT A "HABITAT"!

not only is it clearly INCORRECT - as a habitat specifically describes an animals natural home or environment, it also completely undermines the natural world.

its is not a habitat - its an enclosure. an enclosure thats forms an exhibit.

 

[Shirokuma]

I have to admit, I'm not keen on the word 'habitat' when used to describe an enclosure.

To me, it seems to be a euphemism implying that the user of the term - or perhaps more acurately they worry that the zoo visitor - is so uncomfortable with the concept of keeping animals in captivity that they will try to convince themselves - or the visitor - that they are in a totally natural environment. Why can't we just call a spade a spade?

I'm fine with exhibit, enclosure - cage if it's made of mesh or bars, paddock if it's a field with natural substrate for hoofstock etc. A pen implies something smaller. Yard also seems to be used in American zoos but rarely in the UK as is, interestingly, 'barn' which is almost never used in UK zoo-speak.

House doesn't always imply human habitation, for example 'Bush House' the home of the BBC world service.

 

[Chlidonias]

ARGHHHHHHH! - I HATE HOW ZOOS CALL IT A "HABITAT"!

not only is it clearly INCORRECT - as a habitat specifically describes an animals natural home or environment, it also completely undermines the natural world.

its is not a habitat - its an enclosure. an enclosure thats forms an exhibit.

I remember seeing on a zoo programme the keepers were catching a small-clawed otter and had to put it into a "temporary habitat" -- which was a cat carry box!

 

[phoenix]

....they worry that the zoo visitor - is so uncomfortable with the concept of keeping animals in captivity that they will try to convince themselves - or the visitor - that they are in a totally natural environment...

agree. *sigh*

 

[jbnbsn99]

For a bit of an inside perspective, at Dallas we are instructed to call the animal's exhibit a habitat.

I think I should clarify my statement some. The Wilds of Africa is designed around habitats. I don't mean enclosures here, but more along the lines of ecosystems. While we fully embrace that they are enclosures the concept of a habitat is sometimes more important than the animals contained therein. For instance, the 6 big "habitats" all represent real African habitats (Rainforest, mountain, woodlands, river, desert, and bush). A little bit of illusion I think needs to be created in a great zoo exhibit and if it make you think you are in an African habitat all the better I think.