OK so I am a bit sick of defending the design of the Scutes Family Gallery. There is plenty of signage explaining the design choices as I will admit it is odd compared to other reptile houses. I'll explain it here for the people who have not visited or who have but may not understand why. The whole concept is about making connections with reptiles. These are animals that the average zoo guest will often overlook or won't even look at because they are boring, scary, "slimy" or any other negative adjective that you might hear out of the average soccer mom with her 3 kids and a stroller visiting a zoo. To make a connection with these misunderstood animals, CMZ decided to make a radical design choice when they renovated the old Bird and Reptile House in 2013. This "art exhibit" theme is on purpose. Guests are more likely to appreciate the reptiles they see when the exhibit is more pleasing and inviting to them. Compare it to any zoo's reptile house which most likely is dimly lit uninviting. Guests rate this exhibit as one of their favorites when visiting the zoo because it exhibits the animals in a new way. Most people that I hear criticizing it are usually reptile keepers (professionals and hobbyists) or zoo enthusiasts like this forum. I think this is because it is so radically different than any other reptile house that "it must be wrong" or "the zoo doesn't care about their animals" or "you lose so much education value because the animals are not exhibited naturally." I completely disagree with all three points. All the animals are held in adequate space, substrate, lighting, and enrichment for the species. I will mention that these pictures are out of date and all of these exhibits are either replaced with larger versions or have been completely remodeled. The alligator exhibit has now been converted into a home for the zoo's two Burmese pythons (No more concrete land area and climbing opportunities for the snakes along with a new water feature to increase humidity. It is divided down the middle with a sheet of plexi so that both snakes can be seen at the same time). The hanging lantern exhibits have been replaces and are now twice the size and have much better viewing of the animals. Reptiles for the most part, do not care what type of substrate they are sitting on. As long as it transfers heat and allows them to exhibit natural behaviors, they do not care and will have the same welfare as any other exhibit design. Quick Edit: I forgot to mention that the reptiles are rotated on and off exhibit about on a monthly basis and their off exhibit housing is much more traditional in style. I will conclude that I hear so many guests rave about the exhibit design and how they didn't realize how pretty reptiles were before they saw them in that way. I know it is different but I find it extremely closed minded to call it stupid without hearing the reasoning behind the choices made. No way it should be held in the same light as that hippo exhibit from Adventure Aquarium.
Ehhh... not really as its not a stupid exhibit idea or execution. People just refuse to accept it as a valid way to exhibit animals and chalk it up as "stupid." This is also why I don't find Indianapolis' orangutan exhibit stupid either. In fact, the only exhibits I'd agree that are "stupid" in this thread are the disco hippos (disco music and lights don't add anything to the educational value or animal welfare of the exhibit. And it is not comparable to Scutes Family Gallery because people don't go up to a traditional or natural hippo enclosure and yell "eww") and the fish tank at NEW Zoo which is just very poor execution.
Okay I think a better way to describe the exhibits would be "stupidly naturalistic." Although. as you said, as long they have sufficient space and their basic needs are met, most animals will be okay if they don't live in naturalistic exhibits (hence we get exhibits like this and Indianapolis's orangutan habitat).
Then I'd recommend you to stop defending it, as it is not a good exhibit concept. Erik van Vliet correctly pointed out in his zoo architecture book how vastly the wishes of zoo visitors can differ from the requirements and needs of the animals and zoo staff. Therefore, visitor popularity isn't always a sign of quality; just think of the raving reviews some yahoos give to the most atrocious roadside zoos because "they let ma kids pet da baby monkey"or "Nobody stopped me from feeding my stale toast bread and chocolates to the animals". People who know their way around reptiles do not critique the exhibition because it's "radically different"; they critique it because it's obviously bad. Let me explain why, based on the pictures I've seen of it online: - The tanks carter little to the specific requirements of their inhabitants. There are no adequate retreats or enrichment elements. The animals are presented in what can be summed up as highly stylized fishbowls, stressing their inhabitants. I fail to see the "adequate space, substrate, lighting, and enrichment for the species" you mention. I know that Americans tend to have a different understanding of adequate sizes of fish or reptile tanks compared to some European standards, but I really can't see how this can be considered adequate: Interesting reptile displays as "art work". - Picture of Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Colorado Springs - TripAdvisor - The "artistic" abstract approach is neither novel nor innovative. Zoos have experimented with this several times, at best with mixed results. The Berthold Lubetkin-designed Penguin Pool at London Zoo might be the most (in)famous example. Commercial breeders have been using artificial, merely functional husbandry elements for quite some time now to save money and time. Ergo, nihil novi. However, since modern zoos tend to move away from abstract husbandry towards naturalism, the return of the Gallery to said inexpensive "artistic" abstractism with apparently little concern for the needs of the animals could rather be considered a regress, not a progress. - What is the take-home message of this exhibition? That it is also OK for private reptile owners to keep their pet reptiles like that? I hope not. There are other, better ways to teach the average soccer mum more about reptiles than by putting said reptiles in inadequate enclosures.
Correct. I was using guest perception as an example of why the design works the way it is supposed to. People come out looking at reptiles in a positive light rather than a negative or neutral light like other more traditional exhibits do. Comparing this exhibit to petting monkeys and feeding animals chocolate and bread is totally ignorant. Nothing comparable between the two. And I have talked to many keepers that come to CMZ and question the exhibit and it’s appropiateness for the animals. None have left me thinking that the animals are held inappropriately. I’ll explain why your criticisms are unfounded based off of these outdated photos. Reptiles have very little ability to differentiate a “fish bowl” from a traditional water dish. They are very basic in nature. There is no evidence that the reptiles are stressed at all. I never see stereotypy or stress behaviors in any of the exhibits inhabitants. In fact the snakes are often hidden inside the various different elements placed in the exhibit like they would if you placed a log or cave in a traditional one. There is no difference in behavior and for you to say that they are stressed by looking at one picture is totally ignorant and unprofessional. Especially for a fellow animal keeper to say. The substrate and furniture in the exhibit (which is also changed out regularly as enrichment. Much more often than in traditional reptile enclosures. When has anyone here seen reptile enclosures with enrichment in them? This exhibit is miles ahead of other zoos in terms of reptile enrichment.) is totally appropriate. Like I said, reptiles do not care if they are sitting on glass beads, tile, sand, or bark (the zoo has started putting the reptiles on a variety of substrates so they get to choose what to lay on). As long as the substrate transfers heat, is safe, and provides opportunities for natural behaviors, it doesn’t matter what they are on. The snakes are often seen buried in their substrates. All the animals in the building are in larger than reccommended spaces for their size. Again, these pics are out of date and these exhibits have been replaced with larger versions. It’s innovative for American zoos. The enclosures are at or above recommended needs for the animals exhibited. The artistic theme works with the guests. Just because you looked at a few pictures and claim you know the needs of these animals aren’t being met, doesn’t make it true. I have seen personal keepers keep animals in similar enclosures. No harm has ever come to their reptiles. There may be better ways but I believe the stark contrast in design (not care because they receive the same care as any other AZA facility) causes many guests to rethink their previous perspective of reptiles. I explore anyone who has concerns about this exhibit design to actually visit and ask keepers questions before making broad claims about the care of the animals.
Yes, but still... You claim And Is there proof for this? From what I can see I wouldn’t exactly rate the exhibit as pleasing OR inviting... the animal spaces (especially the pictured snake exhibits) themselves are poorly lit and suffer from reflection, which as a visitor can make it difficult to see the animals. Part of the reason most reptile houses are dimly lit (as in, most lighting is within the exhibits themselves) is to draw more attention to the exhibits. This is not limited to reptile exhibits; some of the best exhibits for other species, such as World of Birds at Bronx (which also uses lighting as a passive barrier in some of the exhibits) also make use of this, and in no instance does it make the exhibit seem uninviting, instead simply drawing attention to the animals within it (which is the purpose of a zoo, after all). If anything, using such a lighting scheme can help you appreciate some species more. I wouldn't know of the iridescent beauty of the Boelen's python without exhibits which are lit in such a way, and that's just one example. Why at all would this cause people to see reptiles in a negative light? What's your point to counteract this? Simply that people see animals in a "more positive" light, again without any proof? I see little to no true educational value from the exhibits pictured. While that alligator exhibit lasted, what did anyone learn from it? "Oh, look kids! It's a crocodile, they're found in pools in Florida!" Not only does the exhibit completely misrepresent the alligator's native habitat, but that little black sign is going to be ignored by the majority of zoo visitors. Most zoo visitors ignore most signs, so what educational aspect would be gained by exhibiting animals like this? Instead, visitors would have a misinterpreted idea of where the animals live, and do we really want the zoo's 500,000 annual visitors thinking that such a large, dangerous animal is only found in such close proximity to humans? While a naturalistic exhibit may not prevent such notions, it won't encourage them in the same way that this exhibit did.
I somehow doubt that this claim is true. Has any study been conducted that proves that all or at least most of the visitors have developed a positive image of reptiles due to such a display? And what is so much more "negative" about a well-done naturalistic exhibit? jayjds2 was spot on about this. Not really; it illustrates my point pretty well, if I dare say. But were they all reptile keepers or had they any real background regarding modern reptile husbandry? Reptiles in general get the short end of the stick in zoos when it comes to husbandry, at least in comparison to mammals, which also rubs off on the keepers. As previously mentioned, American and European standards (at least in some European zoos) and the perception of an adequate reptile enclosure can differ significantly. I've seen major, high established American institutions keep reptiles in tanks that I would call at best inadequate. That's an outdated and incorrect claim. The term "reptiles" includes a vast variety of species with very different perceptive and intellectual abilities. A metal construct or marble pebbles as bedding are conceived differently by smell, touch, texture, heat signature etc. than the usually used elements such as earth, wood, plants etc. And I think that you misunderstood what a fishbowl presentation means - that the animal is kept in a 360° visible, see-through enclosure. Heat is an issue due to them being poikilothermic, but it's one husbandry factor among many. Depending on the species, reptiles display stress a lot more subtly than mammals. The signs of chronic stress can be difficult to decipher, and especially common pet reptile species have a tendency to endure inadequate husbandry conditions for quite some time (which is why they are common in the pet trade). That's good to read, but doesn't change the general issue. And makes me wonder why money was spent on smaller versions in the first place. I could descend to this personal level of argumentation and question your actual factual knowledge regarding reptiles, but I won't; arguments ad personam only tend to result in censored and closed threads. I have, and I provide it regularily to my reptiles. However, said enrichment usually consists of natural ingredients or training elements, not just merely putting household items or decorative elements inside the enclosure. That's a pretty daring claim. It isn't. Reptile Garden kept reptiles in similar enclosures back in the 1990s. See the above mentioned different cultural perception of adequate reptile husbandry. And just think about it: if I put you in a tiny bare room with no means for you to hurt yourself, the chance for harming yourself would be minimum. But what about the quality of life? And confirm their incorrect understanding that it is OK to keep reptiles like that? All in all, I think we have a very different concept of what constitutes modern reptile husbandry and display. Sure, why not? But who's going to pay my travel expenses? You? For the same sake, I could encourage you to visit some European institutions with naturalistic reptile husbandry. However, given previous experiences on ZooChat, I guess this discussion will only lead at best to another version of "Let's agree to disagree". I don't understand why you're such an avid defender of this exhibition, but time will tell what concept will prevail.
Echobeast works at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, so I would assume that is why they are in such strong defense of the exhibit.
However, just because one is working in a certain zoo shouldn't make him/her oblivious to the flaws of that zoo. While a deeper understanding of those flaws and the reasons behind them can temper critique, an inadequate exhibit remains inadequate.
The idea is that seeing animals people perceive as scary in a dark room prevents people from wanting to learn about the animals. I personally understand why the rooms are dark but the average guest does not. This exhibit was not designed for people who already don’t have negative feelings for reptiles. That’s why you don’t see any educational value. Put anecdotally, I have seen people maybe not have their minds completely changed, but think about reptiles respectfully more than they did when walking in. I don’t agree. I think that with habitat loss increasing, a swimming pool is a very real posibility for a wild animal to encounter. And I don’t think anyone is coming away thinking that that is the only place alligators live but the exhibit might have made them rethink about their own properties and how they can make it more wildlife friendly. The exhibit doesn’t look like this anymore so it doesn’t matter anyway. Probably. The zoo probably did some focus testing. Probably not super scientific but enough to convince them to do t this way. I have nothing but anecdotes to form my opinion on the matter but that’s the best I have until an actual scientific study is done. Care to help fund it? I actually prefer naturalistic enclosures. But that doesn’t mean I can’t see the merits of this exhibit’s design. I’m so sorry that you think that feeding chocolates to animals or petting primates is akin to the husbandry of these reptiles. Those are definitively bad for the animals where there is no evidence that these reptiles are in poor condition. And I’m not just defending my zoo. If there were husbandry issues, they would have been brought up and many have been addressed. Yes. Right. So I’m sorry that you can’t trust my opinion of the reptiles husbandry. I keep them personally and professionally. I know what I am doing. Ok but what is the difference between something natural and something household? To a reptile, really nothing. In fact a household item like a bowl or vase can have new interesting sensations or provide for the reptile’s needs just as much as a natural looking one. Especially if someone uses a pet store bought plastic water dish or hide. There is essentially no difference. That was directed at the thread at large. If anyone visits, PM me. I’d love to show you around. I am not oblivious to the flaws. All exhibits have flaws and they should be addressed. This exhibit looks different than it did 6 years ago when it was renovated because of its flaws. I do agree that it has flaws and if I ran the zoo, they’d probably look very different. No it would not. Any opinion stated by me is mine and only own and my employer gives me freedom to state my opinions on social media and online as long as I state that they are not necesarrily held by the zoo. I’ll leave this discussion saying hat this exhibit clearly is not designed to apeal to people on this thread or reptile keepers. I said that before. It has a very specific demographic. Again, I’m sick of defending it because I mostly get ganged up on when I state them online. So I’m fine with whatever you guys think.
The issue, at least as far as I care, isn't the shape of the exhibits or a brightly lit room but that the reptiles are living on colorful glass marbles with plastic knick kanacks as their habitat. As someone who maintains planted, bioactive, naturalistic vivaria for my pet herps I can't see this in any other way but as an utterly lazy and unnatural setting for a zoo - whose animal husbandry should be top notch - to be providing.
As Batto said, maybe it is better to agree to disagree. Now I think we should talk about some other exhibits and maybe if you want make a thread to continue debating about this. I know it's related but I think a continuing arguement is worse than just noticing exhibits.
I’m done arguing. People have a right to think what they want. It’s clear I won’t be changing anyone’s mind. If another thread is made I probably won’t participate as I’ve made my points here. I also again emplore people to visit and see for themselves and ask keepers questions before claiming they know better. This is true for any exhibit.
The gator exhibit is actually pretty clever. The others aren't my cup of tea, and I don't necessarily agree with them, but I do at least understand what they are attempting to do.
