Krokodille Zoo Crocodile Zoo

so far, I've seen more "sensitive" tropical mammals and birds outside during bad wheather than I have reptiles. and that includes my own animals and the local lizard and snake populations (who are better adapted than any tropical reptile). I agree with you that outdoor exhibits should be provided where possible. but I have a completely other idea on what should be considered realistic.

UV consideration: our european sun isn't a 100% replacement for tropical sun, so why would a good UV light be of less value than our sun. granted, there are a lot of differences than with natural light, but they can still provide a high quality of light that allows for good keeping of animals that were "impossible to keep" only a few years back.
regarding extra stimuli outdoors, no argument there, allthough other stimuli and enrichment can easily be provided in an indoor exhibit.

and regarding your last comment:

"krokodillenrivier" in Rotterdam is a great example of a good quality greenhouse that meets up to everything you could demand in terms of sustainable energy and environment protection.

 

@forumbully: Even if you have personally seen more outside-they hardly use their outdoor exhibit all year round. During bad years, hardly at all. So the difference is diminishing.

Even the "European" sun is better than an artificial "sun"-because after all, it's the one and only sun. When it comes to the fullness of the spectre, you can't beat the original. You can add and support via artificial light, but natural sunlight still can't be fully replaced.

Regarding "allthough other stimuli and enrichment can easily be provided in an indoor exhibit." Then why hardly anyone does it? In particular, when non-mammalian species are concerned?

Reg. "krokodillenrivier": given what I read about its running costs, I somehow doubt that. And even when you consider this a good example: why come that there are so many more negative examples?

 

and yet more and more reptiles thrive while exposed year-round to artificial light.
true, so far, it's not the real sun, but it seems to work, so I don't see the problem.

reptilian enrichment is minimal indeed. part of the reason is that most reptiles don't respond to boredom the way mammals do. but I wouldn't mind either that more would be done with that.

first you ask about environment and sustainability and when I give you an example, you start about it's operation costs? correct me if I'm wrong but those are 2 entirely different things. which brings me immediately to your "so many bad examples". classic, non environment friendly heating and powersources are still less costly to install than solar panels, wind energy, ... It's all in the budget.

 

And many, many more reptiles die and/or suffer while exposed year-round to artificial light, may it be due to various forms of MBD or increasingly, due to the development of cataracts.

What did I wrote in the first place? "(...) money [sic!] - and energy - consuming (...)" Those two "entirely different things" actually influence each other considerably. The money-consuming aspect should not be forgotten in your example. And don't get started on the environmental "unfriendliness" of wind wheels and solar planes...

@Yassa: Why? Are you feeling left out?

 

Maybe you could continue this discussion in another thread and get back to the topic "Krocodille Zoo" here?

 

@Sven

Just visited the Budapest Zoo and having this discussion in mind I paid some attention to their outdore reptile and amphibian enclosures. They have outdoor enclosures for european amphibians (basicly pons surrounded by 2 meter high glass), komodo dragons, birmese pythons, nile crocodiles and several tortoises. In the end all enclosures were quite basic but anyway offering good enrichement for the species without taking a lot of space. I did not bring my camera to Hungary but I do recommend you to visit the place if you can.

 

Actually this is a very valid and interesting discussion in this thread. Crocodile Zoo opened outdoor exhibits for american alligators and chinese alligators back in 2006 but later abandonned the concept because the alligators simply wasn't using them enough to justify the amount of space they took up (Crocodile Zoo is a rather small establishment). That area is now and indoor extension to Crocodile Zoo with new exhibits for gharials and black caimans opened in 2009.

 

hmmm, the problems you refer to were quite common with the earlier lamps, but have greatly diminished with recent models. and those problems that do occur are in almost all cases related to improper use of the lightbulb. RTFM before you accuse the lamp, was my standard answer in those cases.

with the exception that they often are ugly I don't see a problem with windmills. even less with solar panels, except when you build them behind trees like in Köln (very useful that is)

I'm also wondering on your source for the money consumption of a greenhouse like krokodillenrivier, because I understand from the personnel that the heating installation (a woodchip oven) is both environmental friendly as well as cost efficient and that they are thusfar very satisfied with it.

@ Toddy: thanks for backing me up the same "problem" happened in Tunesia where several animals of the croc group didn't go outside (or inside). but being north africa, that wasn't a concern
@ DDcorvus: if I ever go that way, I most certainly will do so.

 

I recommend you to take a look at one of the topics of this year's European ARAV meeting, @forumbully:

Preventive Reptile Medicine and Reptile Lighting
By Frances Baines & Henry Brames

A lot of the UV lamps on the market are not what they are supposed to be, due to lacking quality control by the manufacturers. The result can be seen in the form of hundreds of sick reptiles presented on a pretty much daily base to the exotic animal veterinary practices all over Europe. Several of the owners read the manual, btw. ...

Regarding windmills: think of birds and bats...
As for solar panels
Solar Panel Toxic Manufacturing Byproducts, Product Disposal Needs Greater Oversight, Report Urges : TreeHugger
Low-tech Magazine: The ugly side of solar panels

"Thus far"; let's look at the situation in a few more years...

 

Sigh! even if I give you one, you have to go and make a negative out of it?
I should have stayed with my original idea when I said: have it your way.
But here you go. enjoy my answers

regarding lamps: yes, there still are bad lamps around, no denying that. But when you do a bit of research (and that is as little as just reading the back of the box) it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which lamp is trustworthy and which one isn't.

which then again leads me to the conclusion that most people DON'T RTFM. they just see UV on the package, buy it, use it 12-14 hours a day or more and come complaining later on that either their pet got rachitis from not enough UV or has gone blind from to much UV.

of course, there are exceptions to the rule of thumb mentioned above, but they are limited. I personally know several manufacturers/brands of UV lamps, going from big names as Zoomed to new and small brands such as reptech. and all of them test the lamps they sell specifically as UV lamps.

windmills:
I have worked with a company that has several windmills and I'm aware of the problems they cause (especially when placed in big nrs) but also that there have been and still are various researches on solutions. not bulletproof and they still claim victims, but it's not that nobody's working on the problem, there already is improvement.

and solarpanels?
sure, they're not as environment friendly as often claimed, but they still are more environmentfriendly than all fossil fuels and nuclear power. If someone expected otherwise, I'd advice them to read up on technological/industrial history. the development process of any product hasn't hasn't changed over the years, nor will it any time soon because it follows logical steps of evolution.

So even if there is a lot of room for improvement, I'm still pro environment friendly energy and resources. But I keep in mind that Eldorado is a myth and so is the 100% environment friendly "solution". But Rome wasn't built in a day and this subject is just as much in constant evolution than any other. But it would be a very good thing if more people would realise that instead of just taking in the first thing they hear or see about it. (sounds a bit like RTFM doesn't it?)

oh, and I'm still anxiously awaiting your source on the energy and money consumption of "krokodillenrivier" in rotterdam. very curious to read about that too.

 

"Sigh! even if I give you one, you have to go and make a negative out of it?" Sorry mate-that's the way I am.

I'm delighted by the diversity of companies and trades you claim to have been and/or to be involved in. A real jack of all trades, aren't ya?

The reading of the back of the box won't tell you about the real practical quality of the lamp, due to said lack of quality control by the manufacturers. Knowing the commercial pet trade, I'm more than used to labels claiming everything and anything...and keeping none of their promises.
Just read the mentioned article; you might be surprised.

Quite a bunch of reptile owners read more than just the manual. In fact, they try to get as much information as possible. However, in the end, they too often end up confused and with the wrong equipment, also due to such conversations like the one we are now leading.
These aren't mere limited exceptions of the rules. Zoomed was in fact one of the companies addressed in the article mentioned previously. Obviously, their testing isn't "bulletproof" either, no matter whether you allegedly know any of them personally or not.

As for the windmills: so the end justifies the means (and losses)? I think bat and bird lovers'd tend to disagree on that...

In regard to the solar panels: given the data, are they really that more "friendly"?

Good luck with your optimism. Personally, I'm still waiting for better solutions...

Last but not least let me satisfy your anxious expectation by answering similiar to what you did previously: let's assume I happen to know someone personally involved in the project, who told me a figure or two. That should answer your question just as directly and reviewable as your references did.

 

I did a "short" inventory of where we started and where we ended up.
- outdoor croc exhibits: pro versus con. I think it's clear there is no wrong answer. to every pro there can be placed a con and vice versa. I get the feeling you see it that your vision is the only right one.

- from there we went to greenhouses for crocs: you seem to be sure they are money consuming things that aren't environmentfriendly at al. My example of krokodillenrivier in rotterdam is apparently invalid because I get it from "hear-say". you may be right, but don't seem to have any proof of that, just the "let's assume" remark, implying I'm either exaggerating or plain out a liar.

- we went on towards lighting in abovementioned greenhouses and further to lighting in terrariums as a whole. I admit there being a problem, but it having greatly diminished. You quote an article, which I feel you proclaim as being "the truth". I put own personal contacts and experiences against that. In return I get to be called "a jack of all trades" who "allegedly knows all those people".

- in between we had the windmills and solarpanels. first you don't want me to go there, then you go there yourself. and again you show off with some articles. I reply with the fact that they aren't as environmentfriendly as often claimed, but they are still better than fossil fuels and the like. apparently this is not enough for you because you think I claim "the end justifies the means". I don't say that anywhere, but just state that every invention has an evolutionary path it follows and that in time things will improve as they always do. In reply you wish me "good luck with my optimism" while waiting yourself for better solutions. This suggests you await a product/energysource that is 100% environmentfriendly/cost efficient/... from the start.

So far, this gives me 1 impression: you're dying to get your point across and prove me wrong. If that is true, you should have been happy a while back when I said "have it your way".

Instead you wanted this discussion to go on. and so it did, with me saying several times you had some valid points, but there are 2 sides to every story. Apparently, in your eyes all I said is invalid and we end up here with me being called a liar or at least gravely exaggerating.

So, should we end the discussion with me saying: have it your way (again)?
or do you choose to believe that there isn't just 1 truth in this discussion and there are in fact things you didn't consider or know?

 

Nice of you to do an "inventory". Let's hope it was an objective one.

- "My vision" is that outdoor husbandry at apt conditions can be beneficial for pretty much most zoo species. On that we can agree on, can't we?

- "(...) you seem to be sure they [greenhouses] are money consuming things that aren't environmentfriendly at al." Let's face it: greenhouses in European zoos, especially in Northern countries, are way too often pretty wasteful when it comes to energy consumption, especially if observed from an objective and practical distance. Looking at critical essays from people like, say, Roland Wirth of the ZGAP, I appear to be the not the first and only one to notice that. However, imo, they are an important part of a modern zoo and can, as you correctly pointed out, be modified to be at least a little bit less wasteful. I wouldn't nevertheless advocate them always as heartily as you did, also due to the mentioned reasons. As for the "hear-say": why, I just replied to your request.

- Is calling someone a "jack of all trades" an insult? I don't think so. Why not try and look at the article? It might contain some, if not "the" truth.

- "first you don't want me to go there, then you go there yourself." Well, as you replied to it, why shouldn't I? Your argumentation does justify losses of local wildlife that I think are worth to be kept in mind.

As for
"So far, this gives me 1 impression: you're dying to get your point across and prove me wrong. If that is true, you should have been happy a while back when I said "have it your way"."

Funny enough, I get the same impression from your last posts. And since you addressed me personally and wished for replies, I thought it would be fair and polite to respond to that.

"So, should we end the discussion with me saying: have it your way (again)?
or do you choose to believe that there isn't just 1 truth in this discussion and there are in fact things you didn't consider or know? "

What about this: we'll continue, with each of us believing to be the rightful owner of the "one and only truth". Or we call it a day, and when we meet each other one day in person, I'll invite you to a beer (or any beverage you like) and we'll talk those subjects through in peace. So what shall it be?

 

you just filter out anything that fits you and disregard the rest, don't you?

 

So no interest in a free beer? Gee, what a shame...

 

I don't drink beer but that doesn't mean I turn down a drink.

only problem I have with your reply, is basically my problem with your entire attitude in this discussion: there is no "one and only truth" in any of the subjects we have been discussing. so I cannot continue to believe in one and nor should you. I stated that 2 posts ago. which kind of empasises my reaction of 1 post ago.

 

Splendid. Then let's continue the discussion (also involving the interpretation of the word "truth" related to reptile husbandry) over a smoothie or two, at given time.

Cheers.

 

Two quite big news:

Crocodile Zoo is getting clouded leopards. Their outdoor exhibit is almost finished, and the animals themselves will arrive in June. I don't know from which zoo. We could probably agree that clouded leopards not exactly are animals one would associate with crocodiles, but they give grounds for the acquiring by saying that they believe clouded leopards have just an interesting evolution history as crocodiles, and they want to tell the public about that.
Maybe they'll expand their specialty to tropical animals with long evolution histories in general? We can only bide our time...

The other news, slightly smaller, are that they are building a new tropical hall for their old crocodiles, on the field nearby the zoo. Apparently, with this it will possible to get even closer to the crocodiles, and I suppose this will give all the crocodiles a lot more room.

 

They've had expansion plans for several years now.
I heard a few weeks ago that they finally found a sponsor (or other form of budget, didn't ask the details) to go ahead with it.

The clouded leopards are a surprise, but given they already had monkeys and macaws, it's not that far fetched.