Skunk Exhibit Folly Farm

I know skunks let off a stink, but honestly, that's taking it a bit far

How many of these crappy British zoos ARE THERE????? The sheer number of these unimaginative, amateurish facilities popping up in the Gallery is mind-boggling.

^The picture doesnt even show the content of the exhibit though only the exterior.

And the rest of the pictures set it out to be possibly the best Welsh collection (thats not hard i know, but still).

And I bet there are 100 times as many in the US.
Seriously, this zoo is absolutely fine, if you're going to criticise at least say "this enclosure looks small from this picture". Don't tar every British zoo with the same brush and don't make harsh criticisms from a few photos when you haven't visited.

Be serious--what redeeming feature--if any--does this enclosure embody?

And it's not "a few photos"--it's now literally hundreds, presumably taken from the best possible angles to highlight the sheer brilliance of what has been achieved. Yes there are many terrible zoos in North America--but no one on this site is uploading hundreds of photos of them and claiming they are "absolutely fine."

As has been said - you cannot see the interior of the exhibit from this shot; so how can you judge the quality? There is NOTHING in this photo that shows an inadequate enclosure for a small mammal such as a skunk.

Also, I can only speak for myself but if I take a picture of an exhibit, it's to show how it is, not to make it look brilliant.

There is a world of difference between an ugly exhibit and a bad exhibit. A lot of negative comments against (particularly) British and European zoos on here seem to be a knee-jerk objective response to the appearance of the exhibit, without thought being given to the quality for the animals.

A case in point is fully enclosed cages - ugly as sin, in many cases, but excellent for any small mammal that climbs. Excellent if they allow cats such as leopards access to height that they would be denied in a open enclosure. Just ugly (some of the time).

And just to play Devil's advocate... are you suggesting that US members simply aren't posting shots of 'bad' exhibits, while European members are? An interesting situation, if it's true.

There is a world of difference between an ugly exhibit and a bad exhibit.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. There indeed may be a world of difference between an ugly ENCLOSURE and a bad ENCLOSURE, but an ugly exhibit is a bad exhibit, period. The word "exhibit" implies you are attempting to convey a message to a viewer/participant, not simply to house an animal. An analogy can be drawn with a valuable painting at a museum--it can be housed in storage, or put on exhibit--which means it will hung, lit and interpreted with care. To me these stark pens are just storage units for animals. And these brutally utilitarian cages--while perhaps capable of keeping alive and even propagating the animals contained within them, offer no message worth conveying to anyone other than another collector of animals.

And this particular enclosure itself is clearly bad from so many perspectives--at the most elemental level of animal welfare the animals are confined in a pit completely surrounded by people and have little or no shade. And, as an EXHIBIT, it is simply ugly and communicates nothing about what a skunk is all about, no matter how many "educational" signs may (or may not) be plastered on the the walls.

Certainly US members have posted many examples of poorly designed exhibits, (from both animal welfare and educational perspectives), but the difference is no one is vehemently defending or apologizing for them as is the case with many of the ones we've been debating here.

reduakari you have a pm

Here, you make a very good point, that was poor choice of words on my part.

First and foremost, the word "exhibit" implies you are showing the animal off. No-one expects (or should expect) to have a great view, or any view at all, of every animal on every visit, but the primary function is to show the animal. If no-one sees the animal, no-one takes anything away from the exhibit. Many big and flashy exhbits often forget this.

I haven't seen the exhibit in question in person, so don't want to get into too many specifics. However, I think you have a point on the shade, although there are clearly two dens and west Wales really isn't a particularly sunny place! Again, I don't see how you conclude it is a 'pit', we can't see the enclosure interior. This enclosure is not going to win awards in any country, but I cannot see why it offends you so. It's adequate. It's generic.

No one is blindly defending any exhibits on here, that I've seen. But people do take umbrage to exhibits/enclosures being totally condemned (particularly in such emotional terms as 'brutal') on the basis of a couple of photographs.

Just to round off a mammoth post, thanks for taking the time to reply, reduakari - I'm sure you realise there's nothing personal - it's just an interesting debate!

I was going to reply, but you beat me to it and I agree. How can a judgement be made on a wall?!
This has been said a thousand times before, and I feel that it's impossible for most zoos to re-create and immerse people in an African rainforest, but does that mean they shouldn't keep Gorillas? No, it doesn't. Surely it's more worthwhile to read education signs and listen to keeper talks than to merely see a great exhibit and just learn the animal's habitat? I've mentioned Howletts loads of times, but the Gorillas there display more natural behaviour than they do in, say, Bristol zoo which is a far more natural "pretty" enclosure, which I see as being more educational (Howletts being more educational that is). All you get in Bristol is the male sat indoors all day long doing nothing.
This discussion is about opinions though, and while I think everyone should have one, it shouldn't be a case of saying an enclosure is crap before even seeing what's inside it or visiting the zoo yourself.