Just wondering on your opinion, do you think all exhibits need to be naturalistic? I personally think that while some exhibits in zoo should definitely be natural, it is more important for the exhibit to be functional for the animals, visitors, and keepers.
I think the best is being naturalistic, but not a must.Also,the exhibit should be natural to the animal's environment.Functional is also a good consider. Some enrichment is also important for the animals.
Not all zoo exhibits have to naturalistic. Primates such as orangutans, gibbons, and spider monkeys that move through brachiation are in my opinion better in exhibits that are bordered through netting as opposed to islands or open-topped exhibits because then they can fully utilize the height instead of being forced to be close to the ground.
You pose the question as though there was some contradiction between naturalistic and functional. Is there? Isn't it simply a design challenge? Even Loxodonta Cobra's comment seems to assume that only a netted enclosure can provide climbing for primates. Why? In practice a non-naturalistic exhibit may prove cheaper to design and build than a naturalistic one that meets all the required (and desired) criteria. But that's a different issue I think
I agree. Depending on the climate, it can not always be possible to house a species in it's natural environment, but consideration of animals, keepers and visitors should be considered. Often I find that an exhibit has too much foliage etc,. for the animal to be seen clearly. Good for the animal, but not for the visitor, who pays to actually view the animal. Many exhibits are constructed without consultation with keepers, and although they may look pretty good, sometimes are not too practical. I have also noted that the use of electrical wires, to keep the exhibit from destroying the vegetation, often restricts the animals to quite small areas within that exhibit.
No, naturalistic enclosures aren't a must, animals can be accommodated just as well in enriched artificial enclosures.
Far too much variety in species needs for a yes or no answer to this question. With regards to apes and other inquisitive, powerful animals, how much time and money would be needed to constantly replace all those unnatural, but durable fire hoses and nets with natural foliage and maintain them? Funnily enough, I was thinking about this topic though, having read some predictable comments on CERZA's facebook regarding the new polar bear exhibit. Most people around the world probably think of polar bears being in snow all year round, but a creating such polar landscape on the scale of YWP and CERZA's current enclosures would not be feasible (the old Onager enclosure at Whipsnade might be possible though ) The aforementioned zoos justify adapting the available landscape to resemble Tundra which is home to polar bears for part of the year; but how true is that? What proportion of polar bears venture freely into those areas and for how long and how honest a representation are the exhibits? The photo in the gallery from Borth, of meerkats on a building site enclosure also had me wondering if that happens in some areas where towns are growing in Africa and the wildlife has to adapt.
Agreed. Species like Polar Bears and many desert species are often housed in temperatures higher or lower than they would normally experience. Though this does generally cause issues replicating their natural environment. Ice and snow are restricted to enrichment in warmer climates for the bears because it is typically not feasible to provide it. (I did see that San Diego has a snow machine incorporated into their Polar enclosure, though it covers a tiny fraction of the exhibit in snow.) Foliage is commonly in the way of the guest's viewing to some extent or another, but at the same time the plants are often serving as visual barriers to the animals, either from each other or guests. Frequently I've seen animals disappear into more vegetated areas of their exhibit when loud guests or other loud unknown noises are close by. Highly beneficial for the animals, but frustrating for the guests, and likely the keepers too, especially in larger exhibits. However, that privacy for the animals suits them far better than concrete and iron bars. No matter what, there are always some animals that will not be seen in a zoo on any given trip. Frustrating for us as guests, but the animals are far better off with that added privacy. Most (if not all) of the reputable zoos do try and replicate the native habitats of their animals. Though I think a difficult factor is some species often prevent full replication of their natural habitat due to behavior. Elephants in particular come to mind, I think only once have I seen an elephant yard containing trees or bushes (and the trees were hot-wired in that one, can't seem to remember what facility that was...) They are simply too strong with a big appetite for greenery, typically resulting in a lack of vegetation in their areas. Similarly, when I visited the San Diego Zoo a few months ago, in the new Hamadryas Baboon habitat I noticed a large number of plants the baboons had dug up and strewn about. In many cases species tend to be pretty rough on attempts for a naturalistic exhibit. On the other hand, some animals will not survive if their exhibit is not pretty close to their natural habitat. Emperor Penguins require freezing temperatures and cold water. Deep-sea animals typically need low lighting, cold water, and a good amount of pressure to survive.
Animals care only for specific aspects of their environment and zoo should provide them. An animal might require e.g. sufficient space to run, soft ground to walk on or dig in, plant cover to hide or branches to climb. These aspects, natural or not really natural, are important. An exhibit called natural by visitors might e.g. contain artificial plants, concrete themed as natural rock or an artificial waterfall, which animals don't use at all. However they look natural to visitors. An artificial waterfall is arguably a harmful noise to animals living in the exhibit. Such examples are to educate and entertain visitors. Please also note: what is important to animals is often not obvious to humans. Polar bears usually ignore snow machines and artificial snow which some zoos provide at considerable expense. They however like to rest on an exposed point cooled by breezes, or wade in shallow water deep only to about their knees. These things are not known to visitors and not provided my many zoos. Please also note: natural habitat of many animals is very varied. Jaguars live in humid rainforest of Amazon, open wetlands of Pantanal and semi-desert shrubby mountains of Mexico and Arizona. In all these landscapes, they find food, sheltered resting places, drinking water and cover from sun and prey. Still, 99% of people think that jaguar in a zoo needs something like a rainforest.
