Columbus Zoo - Gorilla Exhibit

I said every naturalistic exhibit I'VE SEEN is nothing compared to Howletts, I haven't seen the CGF, hence all the questions Howletts may be "just a cage" but it's amazing all the same.

This discussion is heading in a direction I do not fancy participating in. Nonetheless I would like to contribute this bit. Remember though that I am not a fan of political correctness one bit.

What is wrong with a cage if it works? A cage is where an animal finds security, be it your parrot at home or a lion in a zoo. After a while they realize that it is their zone, and the zone outside belongs to someone else. They may also realize that the zone outside may be dangerous, and no animal, apart from man, takes risk for no reason. Animals in the wild are always after security. Problem is they are rarely totally secure. Zebras may stay on open planes so that carnivores cannot sneak towards them unnoticed, but they will have to travel at some point, then leaving the secure zone. Their instinct tells them to travel but also that they will be in danger and have to be on alert. Cages and enclosures soon convince the inhabitants that they are secure and have nothing to fear. It makes them relaxed, which is one reason why animals in zoos usually live longer than in the wild.

We humans are in a cage. Our cage limits extend to our home, workplace, city and country limits and so forth. Our bars come in the shape of personal financial and physical ability and more. No one is free to go anywhere he or she wants and do whatever he or she wants. There are always restrictions imposed, be it by us or someone else. And even if such would not be the case, we are only animals. And what do animals desire more than anything? That is right, security (along with some risk within reason, coming for instance in the shape of summer vacations to exotic places, not too exotic though)

My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with a cage if it serves the needs of its occupants. However, I think it is important that whenever possible an animal is shown in context as best as possible rather than as an abstract concept.

There are exceptions, for example, whilst I am not convinced that a relatively small city zoo should be keeping elephants, I think the Copenhagen elephant house is very effective, largely due to the beauty of the building and the excellent educational material on display.

I don't like overly hot-wired concrete rain forests but there is a great deal to be said for inspiring visitors with a recreation of the animals habitat as much as possible, showing them as something which is part of a wider eco-system of plants, animals, water and ultimately people too. Of course it's problematic if it becomes essentially a museum diorama - I'm thinking of Fuengirola for example - but I feel that this is the direction in which we need to move. Searching for an animal through the undergrowth, hearing noises, experiencing something of that environment can be magical.

Many -most?- visitors don't read information signs so the enclosure should as much as possible show them what their habitat is like. Okapis in treeless yards spring to mind here.
Somewhere like Whipsnade is great for the animals but slightly more ambitious planting and landscaping would make such a difference without going overboard and disneyfying the place.

It's a difficult issue but ultimately I think the perfect exhibit if such a thing exists takes from both sides.

Shirokuma has contributed well to this debate. What I like also is that there are no face signs and no exclamation points. If one's argument is so weak that one feels he or she has to try and hide it with the use of auxiliary items (sometimes more than one, which is unnecessary) then why bother. While I admit I use them sometimes, I try not to in a serious discussion such as this one, and always sparingly. Rather I would use them when commenting on photos and news stories.

I agree to "I think it is important that whenever possible an animal is shown in context as best as possible rather than as an abstract concept" but I do think the boarders of the enclosure or exhibit is the least important. The interior is the most vital because it is most important that the animal feels well there. The animal will feel security in its enclosure once it has explored it and assured itself that there are no enemies there and there are places to hide for it.

I have never been to Whipsnade, and generally I do not comment on exhibits I have not seen myself, but I have seen many photos and footage over the years so I will make an exception here. The Brown Bear enclosure is large, green, offers shade and water to splash in. The bears get food. They breed there. Does it matter then if the surrounding bars could have been taken from a nearby prison when Whipsnade opened in the 1930s? The bears do not seem to mind. They feel secure. They know it is their home. And I am sure that most Whipsnade visitors are too busy observing bears at play to be bothered by the high bars.

I agree that Copenhagen Zoo should not go out of keeping elephants, even if that new elephant house will sadly be a financial shackle around their legs for long time to come. They have been keeping elephants since 1878 and have built up vast experience and knowledge in terms of elephant keeping. Their breeding has been successful in the past and hopefully continues to be.

A good point is made by "I don't like overly hot-wired concrete rain forests but there is a great deal to be said for inspiring visitors with a recreation of the animal habitat as much as possible”. Many new zoo rainforests are so expensive that zoos are nervous about the animals damaging all the expensive new bits and pieces they paid that architect huge amounts for designing. Hence the whole exhibit is covered with hot wire and the animal is restricted almost as much as in a cage in the 1880s. Cages and enclosures were smaller then, and we knew less then than we know today about animals and their needs, but at least it was the zone of the animal and it felt it was its zone. Would you feel at home in your house if there was hot wire and such to prevent you from going wherever you wanted and do whatever you wanted?

I am always uncomfortable with the use of hotwire, except when it it is applied at the top of the fence/wall etc as a tool for preventing escape. Using it to create a good looking exhibit is a whole different matter.

None at all - except for foraging, climbing, relaxing and play - in other words the gorillas at Howletts and Port Lympne spend far more of their time doing sort of things that wild gorillas do, compared to gorillas in more impoverished zoo environments (impoverished from the gorilla's point of view of course, rather than the human one ). Wouldn't that the gorillas at the Bronx want a truckload of straw, if they knew how much it would enrich their lives?

Alan

But how do you know that gorillas at the Bronx Zoo don't do as much foraging, climbing, relaxing and playing as gorillas in Howletts and Port Lympe?

A fair point! I've never seen the exhibit for myself - that's why I posed a question without actually answering it.
I can suggest an answer from the photos I've seen, but I fully accept that is not definitive. All I can say is that in all the British and European zoos that I have visited I have probably seen more gorillas than most other members here, but I have never seen more active or more contented or better socialised gorillas than the ones at Howletts and Port Lympne.

Alan

I saw a video of an interview with a gorilla keeper at the Bronx Zoo. The gorillas are givin straw to make beds there. They really like to make them right up against the windows to watch the people. The Congo Gorilla Forest is not at all impoverished from the gorillas point of view. It is anything but, and I would more describe it as a gorilla paradise.

Some excellent responses; I am enjoying this debate. Just as modern style houses are often 'cold' and hence unattractive (unless one is a Giorgio Armani type of person who actually wants to live in a home resembling a sterilized art gallery) there is often such emphasis on ‘recreating’ nature that architects and zoo professionals almost forget that there are living beings who will be occupying these areas.

We must think of the animals' physiological needs first, and they will not be met with so expensively designed exhibit items and infrastructure that they cannot be touched or played with by the animals. I am delighted if the Bronx Zoo is so relaxed about their Congo notion that they still give their gorillas straw to make beds from.