Have heard rumours that an Orangutan escaped from Perth Zoo, sparking it to be evacuated. Don't have anymore information though.
Here's an article i found. Apparently, it was nothing too serious. Zoo to review primate enclosure security - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
This is how Planet of the Apes started, you know. We trust these creatures. We bring them into our cities, we feed them, we keep them warm, we help them to breed. Now they're testing our defenses.
I just watched a video of the orangutan escape, and in the background I saw one of the ugliest ape enclosures I've ever seen. Was it the main exhibit that the orang escaped from? If so, I'm quite disappointed in the enclosure at the Perth Zoo.
I found that the exhibits at perth zoo were very ugly and had a lot of concete. They are not very natural.
You need to remember that the main complex was constructed in the 70s, a design based largely on the great ape grottos of Melbourne. While the exhibit is not pleasing to the eye, Perth has an excellent record of breeding and longevity with orangs. Twenty-odd births including an ASMP- imposed hiatus of 10 years. In the last few years the complex has been expanded to six displays (plus another off-display) and updated with more climbing frames and shade sails. The dark brick (so 70s!) has had a lighter render to improve the aesthetics. The reality is that the zoo did not have the finances nor an obvious unused space to start fresh with a modern display. Consequently Taronga and Melbourne's new exhibits (not seen the latter in real life) look much better. And yet the complex is better designed for the species than many newer displays for orangs at other collections, or other species in aesthetically pleasing displays at Perth. An unfortunate catch 22 when you build an expensive building.
When I went to Perth, knowing about their excellent record with Sumatran Orangs, I was very disappointed when I saw the enclosures they were living in at that time. Very bare with just central climbing frames and either grass or concrete floored. With the brick walls and covered viewing area they reminded me of an army Barracks. This was before the renovations were made and I hadn't realised they haven't built a complete new complex. Obviously it must be an improvement but I'm wondering what their indoor areas are like too and is there still no public viewing of them indoors? I believe these enclosures were originally built for the whole range of Ape species, not specifically for Orangutans but as these were so successful they gradually took over all five of the enclosures. I don't think their breeding record has any connection with the quality of the enclosures- these animals will breed successfully even in terrible surroundings if all their other needs are catered for.
i agree pertinax. i give little credence to longevity and breeding records as a justification for poor exhibitry. i have to admit. i'm usually left shaking my head when i view the vast majority of new zoo exhibits. because to create an appropriate naturalistic animal exhibit not only do you need an understanding of your restrictions (keeper, visitor and animal needs) and what the habitat that animal lives in is, you also need to understand the little nuances that make that habitat appear the way it does. orangutan exhibits are admittedly, one that should be reserved for only the most creative of exhibit designers, since being arboreal, intelligent and highly destructive, it takes a real dose of creativity to pull off something that appears naturalistic is escape proof, meets the animals needs - and stays that way. still i see pictures of perths exhibits and think, despite the zoos inability to provide live trees, there's really no excuse for concrete and steel. likewise there is really no excuse for adelaide to provide so little arboreal opportunities. but then again at least there are no tigers in there...
There is no viewing indoors, but that is the norm for Australian exhibits. Most animals stay/locked out of nightquarters during the day. Good weather helps (says this while it is teeming outside; hmmm British summers!). The inside quarters are about 3.5m cubic with a frame work and bench. As the animals only stay inside overnight for sleeping and eating this isn't a problem. You are correct that the original complex was set up for other apes, and housed a pair of chimps in the last exhibit until the 80s. The exhibit would never have allowed for more than two chimps and was badly thought out at the time. There were numerous concerns about escape potential (funny that this should be!) and that they caused stress to the orangs due to noise. The exhibit was also constructed with the idea of gorillas (I think), but this was way too optimistic. I won't disagree that to breed orangs is not terribly difficult, but to keep them in good condition, socially adjusted and live very long lives in captivity requires very good husbandry. Many apes barely get into their thirties in captivity. Perth has had three founder animals reach 40s/50s with another (F1 generation) to join the ranks next year.
I think it is easy to be critical of the complex, but it suffers from the same symptoms of many older city zoos of expensively constructed buildings that zoos either have to knock down or renovate. Perth has out of necessity decided to renovate. Most of the problems that have been raised with this complex are purely aesthetic and haven't considered what is necessarily good for the apes. I have read plenty of posts on other threads who praise Howletts' gorillariums which consist of a large mesh cage with climbing structures and straw. Having seen these exhibits I would have to say they look nothing like African rainforests, yet all the individuals are healthy and the groups breed well (in fact ridiculously well). You have correctly pointed out the problems that are all too apparent in designing exhibits for orangs - destructive, intelligent, aboreal. But don't you think that an orang would far prefer a steel tower that looks out over the zoo (not to mention the other orang exhibits) far above the 'annoying' human visitors, and play on man-made ropes, than trying to recreate tropical palms, lianas and tall trees out of plastic? Resin? What else would you use? Even zoos in tropical climates (Singapore and KL spring to mind) at best have grassy exhibits with a wooden/steel framework. Live trees don't grow in an orang exhibit unless they were well established before the orangs were put in or electric-fenced off. Complexity is the important factor for orangs (really all primates), not necessarily that it has to look like it comes out of a rainforest. I completely agree the exhibits are not pretty. But they do what they are supposed to - functional.
A great orangutan exhibit with live trees at the Woodland Park Zoo: http://www.zoochat.com/622/orangutan-exhibit-89316/ http://www.zoochat.com/622/see-orangutan-89302/ http://www.zoochat.com/622/orangutan-exhibit-89321/
Its all a question of the site/area that is available, isn't it? From memory, Perth has little land for fresh developments and probably no mature forested area which could be turned into a naturalistic Orangutan exhibit. For that you do need an established grove of trees that the Orangs cannot overuse too much- they will wreck anything less such as artificially planted trees that they have any access to in a small area. So I can see Perth's dilemma here and why they have continued with 'functional' as against naturalistic. They haven't really got a choice.
hey tetrapod.you guys have pretty much preempted my response. i completely agree that functionality overrides esthetics in priority. however none of the functionality of an orang exhibit need be compromised if the exhibit designers: choose a site with very large established trees if possible. surround the live vegetation with as much durable climbing opportunities as possible to minimise the stress in living plants. cover the entire area with shadecloth if live trees do not provide the cover. don't use steel or cut timber. use natural pieces of dead trees (like woodland park zoo have). height is good - tall eucalyptus "poles" are ideal. ropes look okay. synthetic, organically manufactured vines like the ones at singapore look better. walls, as an exhibit boundary, are probably the second most destructive element when it comes to the illusion of a natural landscape. they also significantly restrict the play items and plants that can be given to orangs. a bamboo stem for an orang is essentially a ladder to freedom if its surrounded by walls. not so for wet moats. an orang surrounded by a wide wet water moat can be given ropes, poles etc with little risk of escape. in addition the wet moat (with a vegetated opposite bank) gives a backdrop of greenery rather than concrete. something that makes a big difference to the appearance of the exhibit when the plantlife within the exhibit is so restricted. now i know what your saying "but wet moats are a drowning hazard". and i agree, but only because zoos are restricted for space and thus make the moats too deep, and too narrow. a slow, shallow decline can minimise this risk. the so called "o-lines" are a great idea. you can take a lousy old ape grotto, and with the addition of some new pillers, radically extend the amount of available space to the apes. i don't understand wht more zoos don't use such features as a way of radically improving their apes lives whilst they wait (for usually some ten years) in line for a new exhibit.
I think if Perth could start again and plan an exhibit in a nicely planted area they would! The complex has been a real headache for management in trying to 'green' it up. For a while the idea was to bring public up on to the roof and view the orangs at 'tree' height with the lovely bamboo garden beds as a backdrop. I think cost was the eventual killer for this idea. I believe that all the exhibits now have permanent shadecovers (possibly retracted during cooler months). While the natural timber option would be more naturalistic, the overriding concern is that pieces may be broken off and used as an escape route. Very long pieces of bamboo have been given to the orangs as enrichment in the past and it is quite amazing our resourceful they are at using them as ladders! Due to the depth of the moats (approx 4-5 metres) it wouldn't be feasible to convert them to wet ones. Again it comes down to altering the original design. I also think that the primate staff would have some serious concerns about drowning, which has already been mentioned. There have been plenty of examples of apes drowning in other collections even with the 'perfectly' designed shallow banked moats. Could be that individuals either freak out or freeze in unusual circumstances. Perth has considered the idea of an o-line when they renovated the exhibits. Again it probably came down to cost, and maybe unsure about how useable and safe the idea is. I haven't seen one in real life, but from other people's accounts they certainly sound impressive. That said Adelaide got so far with theirs and stopped...
I think that was the plan, but when they added siamangs to the mix, there was probably a concern that siamangs and tigers don't mix so well... Water moats aren't dangerous, just how they are designed. There is a delicate balance to number of individuals in a certain given space versus surface area of moat. Unfortunately most zoos don't provide enough land space. Particularly in group-living primates (and I am specifically thinking chimps) then exerting dominance can lead to subordinate animals seeking refuge in the water. Given enough land space (and also vertical climbing space) then water moats aren't such a problem. Of course you do still end up with inexperienced individuals drowning too. In some wild populations chimps, orangs and gorillas regularly wade into chest-deep water.
