Rare Animal Conservation Center - Douc Langur Exhibit

July 31st, 2010.

There are only 3 douc langurs in all of North America, and yet the Philadelphia Zoo has these primates in brutally stark enclosures. What you see in this photo is basically the entire area for one of the langurs, while the two older langurs live in an almost identical glass tank right next door.

Douc langurs have very sensitive digestive systems, and have struggled in captivity outside their home range. Keeping them in an enclosure such as this - lacking the 'naturalistic' appearance which may appeal to some visitors, but enabling a very tight control of them and what they eat - has enabled Philadelphia (and Cologne) to maintain groups which have not died out. I'd say the people at Philadelphia know what they're doing here; I'm not sure describing them as 'brutal' is massively helpful.

@Sooty: Granted, douc langurs have struggled in captivity over the years and they are similar to proboscis monkeys in terms of rarity in zoos and ability to survive in captivity. If you think that the douc langur exhibit at the Philadelphia Zoo is acceptable for those reasons then I'm curious as to your thoughts in regards to the many other primates that are kept in Philly's "Rare Animal Conservation Center". Is the enclosure in this photo only acceptable due to the fact that there are douc langurs in it, or are all of the exhibits (which other than a layer of hay are almost identical) acceptable? If a type of lemur were in the douc langur exhibit then would you expect an improvement in the living conditions?

I think the point being, the animals needs are met by an exhibit like this. A lot of the naturalistic look that many visitors (ZooChatters especially) crave are really the most beneficial to the visitor and are of little consequence to the animals.

Are the needs of an active, intelligent mammal being met while that animal is housed in an all-indoor, tiled, glass box that is perhaps 20 feet wide and maybe 15 feet deep? Seriously?

When natural substrate and temperature fluctuations could kill it, YES!

Let's revisit ecology 101... an animal needs 4 basic things in order to survive and thrive. Access to food, water, shelter, and space. Food and water are certainly being met, there is no question there. Shelter is met, although perhaps this area could use some more secluded spots to get out of the public view, and space. Space is the most often misunderstood need when it comes to zoo exhibits. If the animals have room to act out normal social functions in their group, their space needs are met.

I think what we can say is that this exhibit fails on a presentation standpoint, but to say that it fails on husbandry standpoint is a very naive position for you to take.

A common example of animals need for space given is that elephants in the wild travel hundreds of miles daily. Yes, those in the desert do, because they have to in order to meet their food and water requirements. Yet those living in more lush environments pretty much stay where they are, year round. Because their needs are met within a very small area.

I think that the expectation for animals to need or only thrive in large exhibits is a result of our consumeristic modern society. And for some perspective, that 15 by 20 exhibit is larger than the homes of a large number of people worldwide. My ancestors lived in log cabins or sod houses of that size, and i'm sure they were as self-actualized as I. And yes, they could go elsewhere, but if food and clothing needs were met without going outside, then it would be for reasons higher on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in Man, for things like love, esteem, socialization (a need that is much different in humans than animals) and privacy. The biggest challenge for a social animal in a small space would be the ability to escape to a private space occasionally, which is something this exhibit could use more of...but the size in and of itself is most likely perfectly adequate.

About needing outdoor space, if the outdoor climate and conditions would kill the animal, heck no it doesn't need outdoor space! I get quite frustrated with this, do we need to send the tropical birds out in the snow to get fresh air so they can freeze to death?! It's an extreme example, but I think that it illustrates the thinking errors that many zoo guests fall into as they anthropomorphize the animals.

In addition to the intelligent comments form Virunga, above, i would add that this picture does not indicate either the sort of diet that the langurs receive, nor the nature of the care they get from their keepers. I'm guessing that both of these are pretty good; on balance, I think I'd trust the Philadelphia Zoo, which has been keeping animals for 136 years, more than I'd trust the verdict of someone who has been visiting zoos for a couple of years.

The 'all-indoor' complaint does not seem to have been levelled by you at, say, Omaha's jungle house. Some of the areas enjoyed by animals in that place, and in the Bronx's Jungle World, are no greater than this space here. They may look a little nicer, to human eyes, but that is really the only difference.

@Sooty, and the fabulous duo from Boise, Idaho: I think that you guys might have stumbled onto something here, and that I might be mistaken in my analysis of this particular zoological exhibit. As long as there is food, water, shelter and space then everything else is irrelevant to a modern zoo, and thus I should overlook this fishbowl and its red tiles, fancy mural and 20 foot width. Perhaps aesthethics shouldn't play a part in the zoo industry, and therefore a zoo like Woodland Park in Seattle should stop winning darn AZA exhibit awards and instead should just keep on leaving its animals in outdated boxes. Philly has perfected that idea for over a century, and even now there are not that many great exhibits at that zoo other than the amazing ones in the Rare Animal Conservation Center.