You've used this exact argument against Arctic Ring of Life and once again it is a complete exaggeration. As someone who has visited Brookfield on a regular basis for my entire life, I see the wolves frequently and even if they weren't visible at first, there have been numerous times they were out when I doubled back later in the day. The inhabitants not being visible is an issue for almost every wolf exhibit (as @Neil chace alluded to above) and if anything this exhibit is better in that regard compared to many others. When they can't be physically seen, the camera stations in the viewing building provide a look at spaces that are out of public view. It's also worth noting that leaving much of the enclosure hidden from the public was an intentional decision to encourage breeding. All things considered, it's probably the most thoughtfully designed wolf enclosure in North America.
Actually, it was for preventing as much human contact as possible when they’ve had wolves they’d consider introducing into the wild.
Well yes, but the lack of human contact encourages breeding as a result. This point is also very true though and as I hope I've made clear the entire exhibit was set-up to simulate a wild environment with as little guest interaction as possible.
That's all fair and pretty cool. But from a visitor standpoint, it's really just a slightly larger than normal wolf exhibit. But whereas I totally do get the arguments for the inclusion on AROL I really do not understand the inclusion of Regenstien Wolf Woods.
I've been to Brookfield 4 times and I've never failed to see the wolves. You not seeing them may just be bad luck
I have about a 50/50 success rate with them, so it admittedly could be worse. I've been to Brookfield 6 or 7 times.
50/50 isn't really a very good stat for a zoo animal, no? The entire point of a zoo is to show off animals to the public. They should really be visible so that people can enjoy them.
Very happy to see MOLA make it onto the list, the Museum of Living Art is my number 1 favorite animal exhibit at any zoo I have visited so I enjoy it whenever it gets praised!. There is 1 more Texas exhibit I hope gets mentioned in the future! PS: While the lemurs are still there and think they could get a better habitat(maybe move them to the orangutan habitat when they get moved to their new one in the Forests expansion) I think they removed the Scarlet Ibis, I haven't seen them on the last 2 visits
Enough should be visible as an average across a zoo. Like if I’m in a reptile house I hope to see reptile’s but I don’t think seeing them in each exhibit is important. In my opinion though its good that some exhibits allow more sensitive species and individuals to seclude from the public. It also creates a sense of adventure trying to find a species. It also helps with breeding of some species as was mentioned earlier. If visibility was the sole guide to a zoo’s species we would rarely see many of the niche species we appreciate on this site.
If a 50/50 situation is one where you claim an animal is unlikely to be seen, that is not the same. 50/50 would translate better to not guaranteed/not readily visible, but certainly not unlikely. Hyperbole is fun, but not in every situation Zoos should show animals to the public, but that doesn't mean you should be guaranteed to see them. Apparently not everybody has a 50/50 chance as @pachyderm pro shows. While you should have a realistic chance of seeing them, and for such a large species a pretty high chance, visibility alone ignores the merits of the exhibit as was explained in the post and by others. It is rare to see a zoo exhibit for a carnivore focused on re-introduction that has such good visibility chances (most are behind the scenes....), so has a very strong conservational focus. I just don't get why they didn't hire a landscape architect to create some hills and remove the fence from view....
The entire point of a good zoo is conservation, no? Having animals on-exhibit is for educational and inspirational purposes. Animals that are in zoos as insurance populations or participants in reintroducuction programs could be kept in non-public arrangements, but having them on display to the public is a method of funding the facilities and educating visitors in the hopes of inspiring them (us) to act environmentally justly. Providing an enjoyable experience, as you obviously know, helps.
To be honest, while the Wolf exhibit is amazing, I'm not sure why the whole "Great bear Wilderness" was not included. The whole area was exceptional to me when it first opened.
Regenstein Wolf Woods opened seven years before the rest of Great Bear Wilderness and while the area as a whole is good, it isn't nearly as well designed. The bear exhibits are pretty underwhelming and too small for my liking; plus the amount of rockwork used is unnecessary. Outside of the bison paddock there isn't much particularly distinct about the exhibit and there wasn't much care put into obscuring obvious barriers or sightlines. The complex is still respectable overall, but it lacks the attention to detail that makes the exhibit which predates it shine.
60. Elephant Odyssey San Diego Zoo, CA Opened: 2009 Size: 7 Acres (2.8 Hectares) Inhabitants: African Elephant, Asian Elephant, African Lion, Jaguar, Baird’s Tapir, Capybara, Pronghorn, California Condor, Secretary Bird, several Rattlesnake species and more. It’s not easy to take risks. When looking to design a new elephant complex, San Diego could easily have gone the route of other zoos and built a typical exhibit that wouldn't have stood out. They instead went with a completely sui generis idea; exhibiting living relatives of extinct species that lived in California during the Pleistocene era. This incredibly creative concept generated great excitement during its development, but as everyone in the zoo community knows by now the final product came out to be one of the most bizarre and controversial zoo exhibits of all time. There is no attempt at naturalism or immersion in any way, with the thematic elements of the complex consisting of a tar pit and various animal statues. For a zoo known for its lush tropical gardens, the exhibit is shockingly devoid of plant life, with steel and metal dominating the sandy landscape. The elephant complex itself is great functionally, including large pools, several acres of space and various enrichment devices, but is visually unappealing with artificial enrichment trees that are a terrible eyesore. A variety of South American species including Baird’s tapir, capybara and guanaco are featured adjacent to the elephants and while there were once plans to have them share the same space as the elephants to recreate a scene from Pleistocene California, that idea never materialized. At its opening the lion exhibit was already outdated and although it has improved since then, it’s still only average at best. The adjacent jaguar exhibit on the other hand is actually quite good with much better furnishings and great verticality. The real highlights of the area however are the small things. The streamside habitat for native herps is phenomenal, as are the spacious rattlesnake terrariums. The California condor aviary is also rather impressive. If things were handled differently this complex could have come out much better with what we have today, but everyone should see it in person to form a verdict themselves, as it seems like no two opinions of this exhibit are the same. @twilighter @Moebelle @Moebelle @Moebelle @DelacoursLangur @Moebelle @twilighter @geomorph Spoiler: Photo Key 1. African/Asian Elephant Exhibit #1 2. African/Asian Elephant Exhibit #2 3. African Lion Exhibit 4. Jaguar Exhibit 5. Baird's Tapir, Capybara and Guanaco Exhibit 6. Pronghorn and Dromedary Camel Exhibit 7. California Condor Aviary 8. Tar Pit Display Similar Exhibits: None
Just in time for people to get controversial on this thread again As one of the most famous exhibit in the zoo world, this is absolutely worthy on this list from the idea alone. Sure it got a few area to improve but everyone expect this to be on the list.
This is certainly a very interesting and unique exhibit, for better or for worse. Personally, I think it exemplifies a bigger and broader discussion that constantly comes up on this site about innovation is zoo exhibit design. Oftentimes, I will see posts from zoochatters lamenting about how many zoos keep building the same few types of exhibits over and over again- Asian Temple themed exhibits, kangaroo walkabouts, African savannas with the same few species, etc. However, oftentimes I've also seen some of these same zoochatters harshly criticizing exhibits such as Elephant Odyssey and International Orangutan Center for poor design and theming. It's impossible to have it both ways. One big challenge for innovative exhibits, that I think is exemplified in this, is that there's a big risk factor. You may have a really awesome idea, but with nothing to base it off of, it can easily fall flat (and some innovative exhibits certainly have fallen flat). Personally, while I can agree that Elephant Odyssey is a flawed exhibit, I commend San Diego for thinking outside the box and designing a themed complex completely different from anything done at a different zoo. Sure, there are places that could've been executed slightly better, but the innovation in this exhibit is certainly deserving of praise and it's actually a concept that I think would be incredible with a slightly stronger execution. No exhibit- and especially not one as innovative as this- will be perfect, however Elephant Odyssey provides a good baseline for zoos to consider theming areas off of the wildlife of days gone by, and with how popular some extinct animals are in our culture, it's certainly a concept that can be built upon by other institutions in the future.
I don’t really see an argument for elephant odyssey to be on the list. Not only are many of the exhibits mediocre, there’s hardly any innovation that comes with the exhibits unlike IOC. If one were to start seeing this exhibit backwards(Condors to Jaguar), they would not even notice that the theming of the exhibit is from Pleistocene California.
