Striped Hyaenas at Colchester 29/11/09

@Maguari: I was joking about the perceived "cheapness" of the hyaena den, as it appears to have been constructed out of papier mache and then tossed together using children's play-doh and silly putty. Mock-rock works great if it is realistic, as then it blends into the background and can represent the natural environment of a particular species, but done poorly can stand out as disastrous workmanship. Also, Colchester has placed the hyaena's den in a location where it appears to be totally out of place. In all honesty the den is probably perfectly well suited for its use, and the only complaint is that it looks terrible. I'd much rather the hyaena's have a nice warm place to rest rather than not be cared for in inclemental weather, and there are many more issues with zoos than the appearance of animal dens. In short the den works well, but does look awful so aesthetics are my only beef here.

This striped hyaena exhibit is basic, simple, and clearly adequate for the animals and visitors alike as it provides clear views of the creatures and is probably larger than most other hyaena enclosures. However, I would love to see the obtrusive metal fence, wooden shed, rusty gate and incongruous mock-rock structure all removed in favour of an exhibit that had zero visible barriers. It is an amazing sight to see animals in enclosures where the fences, walls, etc, are scarcely seen. That is a rare occurrence and thus most zoos don't have such immersive animal habitats, and many ZooChatters are clearly not bothered by the viewing of zoo animals over electric fences and other imposing barriers. It's not the end of the world either way as animals in captivity can be kept via a number of constraints, but when they are free-roaming in walk-through areas or kept in exhibits where there aren't giant metal fences then it is a true pleasure to see.

On a side note, I often feel that I take more interest (and many more photos) of actual exhibits rather than animals. I know that ZooChatter "phoenix" from Australia feels the same way, as for example I've seen enough red pandas to last a lifetime but each red panda enclosure at each individual zoo is unique. I take a closer look at the enclosures than at times even the animals within them, and thus everyone knows on this forum that I expect the best each and every time I visit a zoo.

There are, sadly, always more poor quality exhibits for certain species than good ones. I've seen at least 20 polar bear enclosures in North American zoos, and probably only 3-4 of them I'd call acceptable by today's standards. The same goes for elephant exhibits, with many subpar paddocks that are antiquated within the modern zoological world. Bears and elephants often receive the shaft in zoos, and don't get me started on the many other species that are rarely exhibited in top-class exhibits. I take enormous pleasure in seeing the truly great animal habitats that transcend the rubbish that is out there for all to see, and so I lavish praise on fantastic zoo exhibits probably just as often as I bash the substandard ones.

A very detailed and reasonable response, but I do want to pick up on one thing:

This is not possible. Ever. Unless every zoo is an exact carbon-copy of every other zoo they cannot all be the best.


I have noticed that your photos seldom include animals - I have always found this a little odd. I'm someone who likewise has seen more Red Pandas then he cares to remember; and definitely take a close interest in the enclosure design, but I almost get the feeling you'd quite happily wander round a zoo with no animals in it if it was built like Woodland Park!

This is rather alien to me - what's a zoo for if not animals? And I always do my best to include an animal in my exhibit shots - partly for illustration, partly for scale.

And I would deduct points from the best of exhibits if they make it unnecessarily difficult to see the animals (such as the Ruffed Lemur exhibit at Seattle I recall you describing as making it 'extremely difficult' (or words to that effect) to see the lemurs. These are not a shy species and shouldn't be that hard to see).

This exhibit is fine from my eyes.

But there is the rather ugly shelter. But surely an ugly shelter is better than no shelter at all?

The thing you have to remember is that the hyneas will be just as happy with this as if they used wood.

That's the thing really, walking through Woodland Park Zoo IS like walking through a zoo with no animals. The landscape is great, but people FREQUENTLY complain that they cannot see any animals!

They use it more like Paint- or cake icing.....

Icing - that's it exactly!



@ Ituri: What I've seen on here has left me ambivalent towards Woodland Park. The exhibits do often look spectacular but it doesn't seem to be a very good place to go to see animals. Which is what every zoo should be.

As such, it's not topping my US zoos wishlist (such as the New York zoos, Omaha, Florida for DAK, Miami et al., and a return visit to California to revisit San Diego and hit San Francisco and LA... I can dream...).

Can I ask, why would mock rock be in favour over the "obtrusive" mesh? Surely mock rock is more obtrusive seeing as it's a solid wall and all?
Also, am I the only one who is more interested in seeing the hyenas than complaining about the shelter...?

Definitely not! The only reason I took the photo at this angle at all was to try to get both species in one photo!

I would be willing to pay entrance fees to visit Woodland Park Zoo even if it had no animals! I would also be willing to pay to visit Highline Park in New York (even though you don't have to). I have payed entrance fees to visit National Parks and been happy even when the only animals I saw were a handful of birds and insects.

Ecosystems are about much more than just animals.

I see what you're saying but zoos are all about animals. We have to remember the public don't think the same as us