Different zoo traditions in Europe and The USA?

20-06-2009

While Howletts cages are functional, I do prefer to see gorilla to be exhibited in a more natural way. Chester seem to have it done to a tee at the moment with there current developments. While not "immersion enclosures" they are still natural looking and enriching for the inmates they house. You don't need to spend a good chuck of the budget to hide things.

Dan, this is why I didn't start this thread! (knew what would happen)

20-06-2009

Both statements definitely true, as far as I can see.

With the exception of Longleat, all of those zoos mentioned have had the gorilla exhibits extensively renovated or new-built in recent years. The idea that water moats are 'outdated' in ape enclosures also seems to be a point of continental difference of opinion. Incidentally, those are just gorilla exhibits. If we're talking great apes in general:

Chester - water moats for chimps and orangs
London - gorillas
Longleat - gorilla
Paignton - gorillas and orangs
Jersey - orangs
Edinburgh - chimps (on one side, at least)
Bristol - gorillas
Dudley - orangs
Leipzig - gorillas, orangs, chimps, bonobos
Apenheul - gorillas, orangs, bonobos
Gelsenkirchen (also very new-built) - chimps
Arnhem - gorillas, chimps


Still just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more. It's a standard exhibit technique in Europe - far from on the way out.

20-06-2009

You keep using Gorilla Kingdom as your example of an immersion exhibit. I haven't seen it myself, but from photos it looks like complete rubbish. It appears to be absolutely nothing like good immersion exhibits in the states, so if that's what you are basing this off of I think that explains a little. I DON'T think exhibits like Gorilla Kingdom are "the future". At least not here in the states.

I think we will start to see fewer and fewer multimillion dollar exhibits here in the states, as zoos find themselves having to be more accountable with how they spend their money, but I don't think that means the end of immersion exhibits. Immersion doesn't have to cost huge dollar amounts if the money is spent in the right places. Rockwork for the sake of rockwork is NOT what it takes to build an immersion exhibit.

20-06-2009

It's not complete rubbish (now it's bedded-in and been furnished a bit more), but it's not great, and certainly only a half-hearted attempt at immersion. I think ashley-h's frustration stems from the fact that it could have been much better for the space there if the designers hadn't been so conciously trying to ape (pardon the pun) the style of the American immersion exhibits.

I will pay you good money* to have this engraved on a brass plaque and sent to every zoo director in the world. Starting with Colchester.








*Disclaimer: may not be true.

20-06-2009

@Maguari: thanks for the list of "ape water moats", and I stand corrected as I said something to the effect that those types of designs were either outdated or on the way out. I stand by that statement in reference to North American zoos, but I see that it is still common practice throughout many top European zoos.

@ashley: I have to agree with Ituri in regards to "Gorilla Kingdom" at the London Zoo. This exhibit has had more criticism than just about any other in recent memory, and so immersion exhibitry it is not.

20-06-2009

Sorry, it is a bad example lol. First thing to come to my head since we were on about gorillas. An example is Realm of the red ape, not what I'd call an immersion exhibit, but it's great with no need for hotwired trees or hidden moats. We're going in circles now lol.
I think the ideas of zoos between to UK and USA are too different to compare really, America is more commercialised where as the UK is more traditional if you will.

20-06-2009

You're very wlecome - to be honest I'd never realised it was so uncommon in North America! Has it just been and gone as a style of exhibit, or did it never get to be widely used?

I think Orang-Utan Forest at Colchester and Elephant Odyssey at San Diego probably run it close in the criticism stakes!

20-06-2009

Glad you said that, but can you imagine an American attempt at this exhibit? I bet the costs would be a lot higher than what Chester used to build a top ape house that is natural for its inmates but doesn't try and hide its barriers.

20-06-2009

Wow, are you ever reading between the lines to find things I certainly have not said or implied. Designing a space that allows animals to as fully as possible express their natural behaviors is paramount. Any exhibit that fails to do this is insufficient. But even if this has been accomplished, it is not enough--the next step is making the visitor experience meaningful, which is where immersion technique come into play.

My point is that it is relatively easy to provide a space that will safely contain an animal, allow it to exercise natural choices, live in an unstressed way and reproduce. It is much more challenging to ADD TO THIS the elements that create a realistic sense of the animals natural environment and to therefore make the connection in the visitors' minds between an animal and its habitat.

Good animal husbandry is the base, but to simply provide that isn't enough to justify displaying them to the public.

20-06-2009

Indeed, that's one of my main points: Unnecessary money spent

20-06-2009

And sorry if it seems like I was reading between the lines, but I wasn't, that's just the impression I got.

20-06-2009

There have been several high profile instances of apes drowning in water moats, which in the US has led to a major decline in the use of the technique. The old Bronx Ape House originally had water moats until a gorilla drowned and more recently chimps in Detroit and a gorilla in Jacksonville drowned.....

In my book EO takes the cake, based on the huge sums expended (wasted) on it

20-06-2009

It's always interesting the role dumb luck plays in these things - I'm sure US water moats were no more dangerous that European ones but US zoos were unlucky and had accidents, in Europe it didn't happen (or, I suppose, wasn't publicised). As a result, no water moats in the States, dozens in Europe.

Puts an interesting spin on the debate - not everything comes down to cultural differences!

20-06-2009

OK, here's something 'revolutionary': I actually like the so-called ugly, unimmersive enclosures in the UK that still manage to fulfill the animals with a satisfying life. I've been to the immersive zoos like Chester and London, but I'd far rather go to Howletts and Port Lymnpe to see they're big green iron gorillariums and wood-and-wire small cat and primate enclosures. It fills me with a pleasant nostalgia, being able to see wild animals behaving happilly and naturally in what I can see is a piece of British countryside or city park and not the heart of a rainforest. It's far more leisurely and nice watching gorillas in a walled kitchen garden at Howletts, following tamarins jumping about in cages set within the Hall Garden at Marwell, seeing rhino and zebra graze placidly in front of oak trees and Bradwell Grove Manor at Cotswold Wildlife Park, then walking through a commerciallised, crowded 'super' zoo filled with exhibits of fake rock and hotwire and the smell of hot dog stalls not far away. Yes, natural exhbits are nice, but should be used relativley sparingly, for the greater sense of thrill it creates when one sees and ultimately the zoo's own funds. Not only that, is that sometimes it just doesn't work to the proposed effect. Take Marwell's African Valley: In summer it's glorious, the trees are blooming, the sun is shining off the waterhole, the grass is long and that savanna-yellow colour and the animals graze and run with content; it really isn't too far off the serengeti for what it makes. In winter, when it's cold, windy, overcast, the grass is much greener from rainfall and the animals try to stay down. Where did that African Savannah go?

My shot: Use immersion sparingly for good effect, and if you don't have it already, try to get a wider perspective on enclosures that aren't: Bear in mind zoos are for animals, not people.

20-06-2009

You make a lot of good points, Mr Dalek!

In fact, you put your finger on something I've been trying to - if a zoo is spending at it's effort making part of it look like Ngorongoro and part of it like Yosemite, while another bit is dolled up to look like it's on the road to Uluru, it can't feel like it belongs in its own environment.

Cotswold is a great example - the animals are generally very well housed, but it always feels like a Cotswold estate. It's very Cotswold, and couldn't exist anywhere else. It has nice touches, like the 'hot' planted beds around the rhino/zebra paddock, but mostly its rolling pasture, leafy woodlands and Cotswold stone buildings. And it's one of my very favourite collections.

Somewhere like Gelsenkirchen (Zoom-Erlebniswelt) is so heavily themed that, although it's very enjoyable (and it's hard to criticise any other way), you really could be anywhere - Ruhr valley, Nene valley or Rift valley.