Join our zoo community
Moebelle

Orangutan Center Walkthrough

Moebelle, 18 Sep 2017
    • Zooplantman
      @Giant Panda Dr.Shumaker (the visionary behind the O LIne and the Indy exhibit) has been working on this for 30 years. He's had plenty of time :D
    • Arizona Docent
      @Zooplantman " I share your bewilderment at this exhibit. And it was much discussed last week at the AZA conference as attendees toured the zoo. I want to point out though that rather than losing its accreditation, the Indy Zoo was honored by AZA in 2015 for this exhibit ... It takes all kinds, as they say "

      This is one more example of several reasons why I am not a fan of the AZA. Based on some personal discussions with zoo directors both inside and outside the AZA, I know there are some prominent members who feel the same. I wonder what it will take to push them over the edge and have the AZA start falling apart?

      The reason I am so harsh in my criticism is what I feel the role of a zoo should be, though it is obvious from replies that some of you do not share my vision. I live near one of the leaders in immersive, natural design: the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. As they state, "The mission of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is to inspire people to live in harmony with the natural world by fostering love, appreciation, and understanding of the Sonoran Desert." This in my opinion is the role of a zoo - to inspire appreciation of the natural world. Seeing orangutans in a natural rainforest inspires me to save their rainforest home in the Sundas. Seeing orangutans in a modern cement and steel architectural wonder does nothing of the sort.

      Drawing large numbers of visitors is not my definition of success, though I realize for the zoo staff (and city of Indianapolis) it might be. As to the argument that orangutans are difficult to house, my response would be then maybe it is better not to have them in zoos. Several members of this forum agree with this proposition when it comes to orcas, but when it comes to orangutans (or any other land mammal) it appears I stand alone.
    • Zooplantman
      @ANyhuis I don't think anyone objects to the orangs on the lines. @Arizona Docent didn't. What so many question is why was this designed so specifically to separate animals from context? The exhibit is very consciously anti-Nature in design (signage notwithstanding). A point is being made about apes. That is the objection, I believe. Many at AZA commented that all of this could have been and yet set in a naturalistic landscape to connect the orangutans and their forests in visitors' minds. Do visitors enjoy this more because the animals are in an entirely human-defined environment? If not, then why have it? The very worst are the small concrete enclosures at the base of the two towers: glass view, tall sheer concrete walls, mown grass and a cage/shift door. These are 1950 enclosures with a steel pole in the middle.
    • Giant Panda
      @Arizona Docent: Sorry, but I strongly disagree. I've spent a long time looking for compelling evidence to justify generalising statements like: "Seeing orangutans in a natural rainforest inspires me to save their rainforest home in the Sundas. Seeing orangutans in a modern cement and steel architectural wonder does nothing of the sort." Beyond the same old (verbal) arguments and confounded comparisons, however, there's precious little. To subvert @Zooplantman's logic, advocates of landscape immersion have had half a century to make a clear and consistent case that naturalistic exhibits encourage conservation. They have failed.
      Leaving that aside, even the most die-hard proponent of naturalism would be a fool to claim - as you imply - that this is the only possible role a zoo can play in conservation. Whatever your "beliefs", stating that a zoo is anti-conservation because it built a non-naturalistic exhibit is a non-sequitur. Again: this isn't the design I would have chosen, but it is (or has the potential to be) a milestone in captive orangutan care.
      Finally, to respond to a couple of your stray points, I don't believe anyone suggested orangutans are impossible to house, but instead that they are virtually impossible to house naturalistically. This is no more an argument against their captive status than elephant barns or parrot aviaries. And, if you truly believe in vacuous notions of inspiring visitors, why isn't attendance (or satisfaction) an important measure for you? You can't have it both ways: you can't justify a fundamentalist stance towards exhibitry on the basis of reaching out to visitors, whilst also ignoring how those visitors actually respond.
    • Zooplantman
      @Giant Panda Perhaps you are not looking in the right places. While these studies do not compare naturalistic exhibits to non-naturalistic exhibits, they all studied (I believe) visitors looking at naturalistic exhibits.
      Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes toward African Apes (PDF Download Available)
      Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi Biodiversity Target 1
      Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals
      https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...=Learning_about_Animals_Science_and_Conse.pdf

      Nevermind this argument:
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417194401.htm


      Still, it all begs the question whether zoo visitors actually change their conservation behaviors after a zoo visit. Some studies indicate many do. But enough to matter? Is there any reason to believe that visitors at a non-naturalistic exhibit will be more motivated?
    • Giant Panda
      @Zooplantman: Very briefly, Lukas & Ross had a sample size of one exhibit and confounded naturalism with newness (a common issue with this "research"); Moss et al. observed a (marginal) difference in knowledge, not action; Clayton et al. made no empirical link between perceptions in the zoo and post-visit actions or beliefs; I can't access you're fourth paper; and Chester's success with mandrills was the result of a visual barrier rather than the plants themselves - other zoos have achieved the same effect with distinctly non-naturalistic camouflage-netting or by boarding up viewing windows. As I said in my previous post, it's "the same old (verbal) arguments and confounded comparisons". Whilst I appreciate your expertise and holistic vision of zoo design, I remain unconvinced. None of these come close - and no study ever has - to connecting immersion/naturalism with long-term visitor participation in conservation. Over fifty years after WPZ's first long-range plan, we would have seen the substance of this argument if it existed. What has been taken as gospel by most (American) zoo folk is actually based on an unfounded myth.
    • pachyderm pro
      Another question we should ask is how it is for the animals. Something I notice in the video and other videos and pictures, the orangutans seem to be spending less time on the ground, and more time up on the O'line and other platforms and ropes. Obesity in captive orags is an issue and I am seeing a lack of it here. Something I wonder is, it the exhibit was stocked with live plants, vegetation and large trees, would we have the same results as we do with steel and concrete? I guess we may never know.

      This has to be one of the most interesting zoo exhibits to be conceived within the last decade. It reminds me a lot of Elephant Odyssey it some ways. A popular zoo spends a crazy amount of cash to build exhibits with a lot of concrete and steel, and both times Arizona Docent has hated it (;)). Similarly, have both come under major criticism from zoochatters.

      If the Indy zoo wanted to build a orangutan forest, they would have. However, that clearly was not their intention. Their intention was to build a research facility or at least something similar, and in that they succeeded.
      BenFoxster likes this.
    • Zooplantman
      @Giant Panda "None of these come close - and no study ever has - to connecting immersion/naturalism with long-term visitor participation in conservation. "
      Yes, I agree (in fact it was a point I made in an early post).Sadly, nothing has been shown to induce or support long-term participation in conservation. That is the great challenge. I do believe that proper naturalistic exhibits create a predisposition to conservation. But that is not enough (I can't tell you how much we discussed this very problem while designing Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest!)
    • Zooplantman
      @pachyderm pro Ah that is the whole issue. The exhibit did not need to be one OR the other. It could have done both well. No one (I have heard) finds fult with the existence or use of the O line. Only with the presentation and context.
    • gentle lemur
      @Zooplantman Here is Indianapolis Zoo's blog about some research on one of their orangs, for which Dr Shumaker was a co-author http://www.indianapoliszoo.com/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=236
      The full article from Nature (no less) is here Vocal fold control beyond the species-specific repertoire in an orang-utan
      There are 3 further references to papers which I presume are by him in this Bibliography from 2011.
      http://www.orangutanssp.org/uploads/2/4/9/9/24992309/o_biblio_march2011_1.pdf

      I have seen the mandrill enclosure at Chester many times, both before and after the planters were put in place. As the paper you cited reports, the mandrills did respond positively: I think because JC, the dominant male, is an unusually nervous animal (although a magnificent and prolific specimen). On the other hand, some visitors expressed frustration because they could not see the animals as clearly as they wished. The indoor exhibit is not naturalistic, although the large outdoor exhibit is thickly planted with willows and other small trees, which can make it difficult to see the animals. Design of zoo enclosures always involves compromises.
      As for the '1950 enclosures with a pole'. They appear to be small, ugly and impoverished environments, but they can be thought of in a different way - they are enrichments, because the poles are effectively permanent entrances and exits (something no 1950 enclosure had) that provide climbing exercise plus an unparalleled degree of choice for the orangs, which is particularly important for this 'solitary-but-social' species (to quote the Orangutan SSP).
      Zooplantman likes this.
    There are no comments to display.
  • Category:
    Indianapolis Zoo
    Uploaded By:
    Moebelle
    Date:
    18 Sep 2017
    View Count:
    4,017
    Comment Count:
    21