This is one of the ways that a very good zoo can exhibit gorillas. Or as that old French general might have said 'C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Afrique!' Alan
This exhibit, now just over 30 years old, paved the way for many others of its kind. A great number of the great gorilla habitats around the world have been constructed since then, often using Woodland Park's pair of gorilla exhibits as a model. Of course there will never be a perfect replication of an African rainforest, but seeing how many millions of dollars the Bronx Zoo's Congo Gorilla Rainforest has raised for conservation makes the huge expense of building such an exhibit worthwhile. Anyone who can find something wrong with such fantastic achievements and zoo habitats is either nitpicking at small details or clutching at straws.
Am going to nitpick, and say this is probably better now than it was 30 years ago as it has had a chance to mature (the planting). Yes this looks like a good outdoor enclosure, do the gorillas spend much time out in it?
Actually, this exhibit has looked lush right from the start, for three reasons: 1.The exhibit was built around a few mature trees, providing instant canopy cover and scale. 2. After the landscape work was done, the exhibit was allowed to sit unoccupied for over one year, allowing the new plants to establish themselves. This would almost certainly never happen today, with the huge pressure to open exhibits as soon as possible to maximize visitation/revenue etc. 3. Seattle has a very long growing season, and plenty of rain! The gorillas are out nearly every day, but often can be found in the covered area at the exhibit foreground where bedding and heat are provided.
A very vital point! I wish more zoos would do this as it improves the exhibit enormously. Copenhagen Zoo completely ruined their new savannah by being too impatient and opening the different parts of it before it was all ready.
Hmmmm, The gorilla island in Apenheul (NL) is older and better than this and doesn't have all those hideous rocks.
But it has plenty of hideous "climbing frames" and looks nothing like an African rainforest. It's a perfectly good gorilla enclosure, but misses the whole concept of attempting to represent the real places where wild gorillas live. That's not a fatal flaw, by any means, but Seattle succeeds on both levels (great living space for the animals, beautiful and educative experience for visitors), while Apenheul only achieves the former.
But how can Apenheul miss a point that they are not trying to make? It makes no attempt to look like an African rainforest and therefore cannot fail in that aspect. Apenheul specifically states that they aim for "natural" rather than "naturalistic".
Where I can't find any climbing structures or do you mean the dead trees in this picture. And I can't remember any climbing structures from my visits... http://www.zoochat.com/159/apenheul-2004-one-best-gorilla-exhibits-130805/