artificial rock python

March 17, 2012.
At the new elephant exhibit.

This is kind of cool, but I wonder why not build a real rock python exhibit? Budget?

That is exactly why. A lot of things were scaled back due to budget (do not ask me exactly what things because I do not know, other than underwater viewing at the front of the pool, which would have been sooooo cool).

Blackduiker

I remember older plans for Elephants of Asia, in Los Angeles, calling for underwater viewing as well. I would imagine most projects original plans get scaled back in some way or another. Or totally cancelled, as was the case recently with the Roger Williams Zoo's much anticipated Polar Bear habitat. But for Reid Park and Los Angeles, underwater viewing for elephants would have been cool.

Wow that is impressive!

Sorry, no, I would consider it ugly and not realistic (watch the orange pattern). Imo they should rather have safed the money for later for an exhibit with real animals.
Regarding to the climatics in Arizona that are comparable with those in the dry regions of Southern Africa: Would have been a(n open?) terrarium for a real rock python that much expensive?

I can understand that from a Zoochat perspective the obvious response is: get a real python. But there is another side to this. As zoos try to exhibit animals in context with their natural habitat, they want to convey that the habitat is complex and has many animals and plants interacting. In an attempt to bring that to life, zoos have (for almost twenty years now) occasionally added animal sculptures (sometimes even plant sculptures) to help tell the habitat story. This also often allows them to place these "animals" in ways that an exhibit of the live specimen would not. You might consider these 3D signs rather than a poor attempt at a python exhibit.

Fifteen years ago this was a hotly debated issue in zoos. No more. The sculptures won.

Zoos should exhibit animals in context with their natural habitat - agree so far. But they should do it with living animals (whenever possible of course). Otherwise there is no difference to a (dead) museum. And we all know that even the best immersion exhibit with dead animals in a natural history museum would never ever draw the same attention as a zoo exhibit with living animals from the same species.
If there is really no other way as using sculptures, then make them realistic please and not in that comic style as in the picture above (otherwise the nature-context value is zero).

Quote:
"Fifteen years ago this was a hotly debated issue in zoos. No more. The sculptures won."

Fortunately not, otherwise zoos would be full of sculptures and not full of living animals...

I actually kind of like the sculpture of the python, the termites, and the dung beetles. I made the original comment wondering if they had originally intended to build a python exhibit as part of the exhibit, as a python terrarium seems like something that would be pretty easy to build as commented by others.

I think that sculptures like this are especially useful when you are displaying a species or ecosystem aspect that cannot be portrayed any other way like the forest elephant-scarred tree in Congo Gorilla Forest or the extinct species in Elephant Odyssey.

What an ugly sculpture - I'm all for sculptures/statues to enhance exhibits/areas as they do add a bit of visual interest [see Chester's baby elephant, komodo dragon etc], but this one is on par with Colchester's red panda statue for the realism award

How expensive can it be to set up an African rock python exhibit anyway? - With wood and glass they could probably have had somebody to knock up a cheap but effective glass and wood vivarium [and I don't necessarily mean what would pass as a decent exhibit in the UK ].

£500 budget to set up a rock python exhibit? I reckon I could do it for that [and that's with buying a rock python].

In fact, if you're in the UK you can buy a vivarium and a pair for £350, then it's just a case of the bulbs and guards/substrates/dishes and viv locks etc.