Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Zooplantman said:
But it brings up questions:
  • What do we mean exactly by a "grotto" exhibit?
  • Why are they what they are? (What functions are they fulfilling?)
  • How else might those requirements be met? (After all, it ain't cheap)
Click to expand...
  • Dictionary.com has the second definition of a grotto being "an artificial cavernlike recess or structure" here is a post that discusses the true definition of a grotto but they consider the dictionary response the correct one The Definition of Grotto
  • Well they allow for good viewing for visitors as well as the animals, they can help naturalize the exhibit in a way that doesn't always feel forced, and don't need a certain type of geographical feature (they don't need it to be flat or to be backed against a hill)
  • I will assume you are referencing the original post made by Neil? You could meet those requirements with fences or moats but Grottos are special because they are natural, flexible, and provide unobstructed views.
 
Neil chace said:
1. A grotto exhibit is any exhibit of the traditional pit style in which people look at animals from a distance, usually over a moat or ditch.
Click to expand...
Westcoastperson said:
  • Dictionary.com has the second definition of a grotto being "an artificial cavernlike recess or structure" here is a post that discusses the true definition of a grotto but they consider the dictionary response the correct one The Definition of Grotto
Click to expand...
So a bit of disconnect in what makes a grotto exhibit.
Does an open top grassy enclosure of hundreds of square feet qualify as a cave?
Is it about no fence or glass barrier for visitors or is it about being a cave?
Can Brookfield's large Great Bear Wilderness be called a cave?
Dallas' Giants of the Savanna has no fence or glass viewing but is it a grotto?
Are you really just talking about Hagenbeck's barless enclosures?
Are you really talking about fabricated rockwork to keep animals in a space? (As @
zooboy28 stated in the referenced thread)

So why might there be all those tall (very costly!) rock walls around the back and sides? Certainly there is nothing immersive about them. And you can't hope to "modernize" the concept if you don't fully apprehend its function.
(Yes, I am asking you to think this through -- which both of you are well equipped to do)
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
So a bit of disconnect in what makes a grotto exhibit.
Does an open top grassy enclosure of hundreds of square feet qualify as a cave?
Is it about no fence or glass barrier for visitors or is it about being a cave?
Can Brookfield's large Great Bear Wilderness be called a cave?
Dallas' Giants of the Savanna has no fence or glass viewing but is it a grotto?
Are you really just talking about Hagenbeck's barless enclosures?
Are you really talking about fabricated rockwork to keep animals in a space? (As @
zooboy28 stated in the referenced thread)

So why might there be all those tall (very costly!) rock walls around the back and sides? Certainly there is nothing immersive about them. And you can't hope to "modernize" the concept if you don't fully apprehend its function.
(Yes, I am asking you to think this through -- which both of you are well equipped to do)
Click to expand...
I think the discussion might be closer to the concept of Hagenbeck's barless enclosures than grottos. The big reason I like grotto Exhibits is because of this lack of visible barrier, and while this can easily be achieved in grotto Exhibits I also like other Exhibits that achieve this, and while I've never seen it Gianta of the Savanna looks like it achieves this very well. The rock walls on the back sides might be a good idea to prevent escapes and they do a good job at hiding the holding buildings from public view.
 
Neil chace said:
I think the discussion might be closer to the concept of Hagenbeck's barless enclosures than grottos. The big reason I like grotto Exhibits is because of this lack of visible barrier, and while this can easily be achieved in grotto Exhibits I also like other Exhibits that achieve this, and while I've never seen it Gianta of the Savanna looks like it achieves this very well. The rock walls on the back sides might be a good idea to prevent escapes and they do a good job at hiding the holding buildings from public view.
Click to expand...
Of course there are other ways to enclose exhibits beside expensive rockwork but in most of these "grotto" exhibits holding is on the other side, hidden as you say. It also screens views if there is a road or building another exhibit etc. beyond the yard. Few natural plantings can immediately screen large unsightly views.

I bring all of this up because of the off the cuff comments about modernizing these designs. Our goals are, at minimum, to provide suitable space for the animals, great views for the visitors and to screen distracting views. All the rest is bells and whistles. Immersion is, imo, the ideal but as we have discussed often, rarely pursued and rarely achieved.
So perhaps my contribution to this "hot takes" thread is that zoo design has come pretty far and the deficiencies in exhibit design today are in fact financial more than due to lack of imagination.
 
Zooplantman said:
So a bit of disconnect in what makes a grotto exhibit.
Does an open top grassy enclosure of hundreds of square feet qualify as a cave?
Is it about no fence or glass barrier for visitors or is it about being a cave?
Can Brookfield's large Great Bear Wilderness be called a cave?
Dallas' Giants of the Savanna has no fence or glass viewing but is it a grotto?
Are you really just talking about Hagenbeck's barless enclosures?
Are you really talking about fabricated rockwork to keep animals in a space? (As @
zooboy28 stated in the referenced thread)

So why might there be all those tall (very costly!) rock walls around the back and sides? Certainly there is nothing immersive about them. And you can't hope to "modernize" the concept if you don't fully apprehend its function.
(Yes, I am asking you to think this through -- which both of you are well equipped to do)
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a disconnect between both of us and just in the general community for two reasons. One, the term "Grotto" is a misnomer because as we can see very clearly these aren't fully enclosed caves. The reason they are called grottos is based on the man you mentioned, Hagenbeck. The exhibits he built were called grottos because they were based on rock walls and semi-caverns in European gardens. So like many words it began to develop a different meaning for us zoo people over time. Two, because of the evolution of the word there is a general unknowing in the community about what a grotto is. Some people think it is a cave others believe it means an exhibit with a cliff in the back some think the entire exhibit must be surrounded by walls.
Now that being said there isn't a proper term that adequately describes our "Grottos" so yes I will just say they are indeed forms of Hagenbacks carnivore enclosures.
The purpose of the back wall of the exhibit is to create a barrier for the exhibit that ends the sightline and finishes the exhibit. It is also used to hide the animals housing area which is why most are flat faced cliffs. (written before your latest post)
Zooplantman said:
Of course there are other ways to enclose exhibits beside expensive rockwork but in most of these "grotto" exhibits holding is on the other side, hidden as you say. It also screens views if there is a road or building another exhibit etc. beyond the yard. Few natural plantings can immediately screen large unsightly views.

I bring all of this up because of the off the cuff comments about modernizing these designs. Our goals are, at minimum, to provide suitable space for the animals, great views for the visitors and to screen distracting views. All the rest is bells and whistles. Immersion is, imo, the ideal but as we have discussed often, rarely pursued and rarely achieved.
So perhaps my contribution to this "hot takes" thread is that zoo design has come pretty far and the deficiencies in exhibit design today are in fact financial more than due to lack of imagination.
Click to expand...
This is what I mean we should try to innovate more especially with open top exhibits. I've noticed zoos are starting to revert to cage exhibits by using a lot more mesh to exhibit animals instead of having clear unobstructed views.
 
Westcoastperson said:
Orcas that do tricks create revenue which is why the entire SeaWorld Orca family tree is based on the original trainable Orca Shamu (don't ask me for a source because I got that one straight from the trainers).
Click to expand...

I highly doubt you got this one straight from the trainers (and if you did, you were lied to) because it's verifiably false. First of all, and perhaps most obviously, the orca Shamu never bred. She died in 1971, whereas the first surviving orca born in captivity was Kalina in 1985. Shamu's genes aren't represented in captivity at all. Secondly, trainability doesn't rely on genetics to the extent you're implying. The orca that is most represented in SeaWorld's gene pool is Tilikum, but he isn't the basis for the entire "family tree," he's just overrepresented. In fact, the opposite of your assertion is true; Tilikum was perhaps the least trainable orca SeaWorld ever owned, and it was made known to employees that they should not enter the water with him due to improper desensitization training at his facility of origin. Furthermore, oceanariums in China and Russia are currently capturing and training wild-caught orcas, with no major incidents or failures that I'm aware of. A couple, like the Moskvarium, have been running shows for quite a few years now. Literally any orca with an appropriate temperament can be trained for shows.
 
Shellheart said:
I highly doubt you got this one straight from the trainers (and if you did, you were lied to) because it's verifiably false. First of all, and perhaps most obviously, the orca Shamu never bred. She died in 1971, whereas the first surviving orca born in captivity was Kalina in 1985. Shamu's genes aren't represented in captivity at all. Secondly, trainability doesn't rely on genetics to the extent you're implying. The orca that is most represented in SeaWorld's gene pool is Tilikum, but he isn't the basis for the entire "family tree," he's just overrepresented. In fact, the opposite of your assertion is true; Tilikum was perhaps the least trainable orca SeaWorld ever owned, and it was made known to employees that they should not enter the water with him due to improper desensitization training at his facility of origin. Furthermore, oceanariums in China and Russia are currently capturing and training wild-caught orcas, with no major incidents or failures that I'm aware of. A couple, like the Moskvarium, have been running shows for quite a few years now. Literally any orca with an appropriate temperament can be trained for shows.
Click to expand...
I did know Tilikum was widely represented but I thought Shamu was well represented as well. Maybe I mixed up her and Corky? As for the trainability, I have always heard Shamus training as being an important milestone for the park but it would shock me if it was overhyped. I'm going to try reading about the Orca family tree between the three parks and Loro Parque because it looks like there's quite a bit of overlap I'm having trouble figuring out.
 
Westcoastperson said:
The exhibits he built were called grottos because they were based on rock walls and semi-caverns in European gardens. So like many words it began to develop a different meaning for us zoo people over time. Two, because of the evolution of the word there is a general unknowing in the community about what a grotto is. Some people think it is a cave others believe it means an exhibit
Click to expand...
I have never actually heard a zoo designer say the word Grotto
Westcoastperson said:
I've noticed zoos are starting to revert to cage exhibits by using a lot more mesh to exhibit animals instead of having clear unobstructed views.
Click to expand...
There are practical reasons for that, of course.
Zoo exhibition priorities have changed in the past 20 years. For awhile the priority was immersion. Since then it has been budget and immediacy of animal experience. Today animal choice is becoming more important married to giving animals more territory to experience without taking up a bigger footprint in the zoo.
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
I have never actually heard a zoo designer say the word Grotto

There are practical reasons for that, of course.
Zoo exhibition priorities have changed in the past 20 years. For awhile the priority was immersion. Since then it has been budget and immediacy of animal experience. Today animal choice is becoming more important married to giving animals more territory to experience without taking up a bigger footprint in the zoo.
Click to expand...
Well back in the day of cages, they had practical reasons for cages as well. They were cheap and very easy to install (I'm not calling you or any institution that uses mesh bad, nor am I saying you are the same as the zoos who put animals in unhealthy cages). So the use of mesh for close proximity exhibits leaves open the ability to innovate the exhibit style. Our centuries Hagenback if you would. Someone who will create a cheap way to build close proximity exhibits that allow for great views. The mesh exhibit is good but like everything else (including grotto exhibits) it can be improved upon.
 
Astrotom3000 said:
  • NCZ's Desert was better when it just had North American Wildlife (not that there is anything wrong with it as it is now; the Ocelot did get SHea better exhibit out of the change). Also, Streamside was better when the terrariums still had water in them.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point, I think the Desert building had more impact with only Sonora animals. What Sonora animal do you think should have been put in the old Ocelot habitat? Coati?
On the second point, I visited the Zoo very recently for the first time as a guest in years and it saddened me how empty both Streamside buildings has become.
 
I don't think that having petting zoos (having domestic animals in general) in zoos are all that bad, kids love them and some people in urban areas can even get a chance to see them. There could be lots of improvements made, though.

However, it's different though seeing an entire space get dedicated to something like Ankole-Watusi cattle (like what Toronto has) when that space could be utilized for some other African hoofstock.
 
ParusMajor said:
Asian Short Clawed Otters are anything but boring and are extremely fun to watch.
Click to expand...
Allow me to add, otters in general are anything but boring and are extremely fun to watch.

Another hot take, Tropic World is a good exhibit. It is not nearly as bad as the "Tragic World" nick name makes it out to be and functional has one of the best monkey exhibits in any zoo.
 
pachyderm pro said:
Another hot take, Tropic World is a good exhibit. It is not nearly as bad as the "Tragic World" nick name makes it out to be and functional has one of the best monkey exhibits in any zoo.
Click to expand...
Another hot take I strongly agree with. I can't defend the great ape exhibits but I think the others in the building are great. Also, completely agree on the otters.
 
I think that memberships for zoos, aquariums, and safari parks should have limitations on what days you can visit or possibly require a higher tier membership for access to those blackout dates. I don’t know if there are many places that have blackout dates in the memberships other than theme parks typically. Some days, prior to COVID, were unbearable at times and I imagine some have experienced that as well in the more highly visited zoos/aquariums/safari parks. Yes I say this well aware San Diego is implementing that now with new members and will affect renewing memberships including myself, having weekend dates blacked out and certain holidays as well not available at certain levels. I avoid weekend visits in general for the aforementioned reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top