Stupidest Exhibit Ideas Ever

Just for the record, it was not my intention to imply that you are oblivious. I merely reacted to @Hyak_II's reply.

 

Just in case some facts:

Unnatural zoo exhibits are objectively not new. They were very popular in zoos in ca 1960s, but were later mostly pulled down. Things like infamous Lubetkin penguin pool and Snowdon aviary in London are just last preserved examples of this trend. You can search for historic photos.

Another trend which looks very weird today was the late 19. century fashion of displaying animals in buildings fashioned after exotic architecture. Here again, Egyptian temple elephant house in Antwerp (now a restaurant) or North American Indian house for bison and twin Russian house for Wisents in Berlin are only last preserved examples of a common trend.

And reptiles do objectively have clear emotions, preferences and get stressed. In particular, common fear response of many reptiles is freezing immobile. This is exactly opposite to that the animal does not fear or does not care.

 

Based on this assumption, people would never visit public aquaria.

I somehow doubt that seeing an animal in a clearly artificial surrounding will make people treat it more respectfully.

There are too many "probably"s in this statement to secure any scientific funding...

How can you outrule that there are no sensory differences that you and I, as human beings, cannot sense? Given that you claim to be experienced in reptile husbandry, you do not put a lot past them, do you? Yes, you could use household items - if they fulfill their purpose for the animal and staff, do not cause any harm and fit into the context. Tiny vases too small to hide the snake or a metal tissue holder(?), as shown on the pic, do not fulfill any purpose other than decoration for the ignorant human observer. Widespread ignorance among visitors in regard to animals and zoos was actually the point I tried to make in regard to the roadside zoo example, but I think this didn't get through.

That's actually quite a weird premise for an exhibition if you think about it. Kinda reminds me of movie directors stating that their movies "are not meant for the critics" when the movies cannot win critical recognition.

I appreciate your willingness to engage and change my perception of this exhibition. However, I honestly couldn't find any arguments in your posts that convinced me to change my mind. Nevertheless, thanks.

Actually, that wasn't my intention, but for the sake of a better solution, one might leave it there. ^^

 

This hasn't actually died out. Just think of all the "African villages", "Asian temples" or "Mayan ruins" that've popped up in zoos over the last decades.

 

In Switzerland, a Tokay Gecko enclosure as the one above would be in violation of the Swiss animal welfare act, i.e. illegal. The minimum space requirement for Tokays is 4x3x8 (widthxdepthxheight) body length (excluding tail) for up to two animals. For grown Tokays this results in a minimum enclosure size of roughly 80cm by 60cm by 160 cm. This is a minimum requirement for both zoos and hobbyists. The above enclosure looks less than half that size in every dimension (i.e. perhaps 1/8 the minimum size when measured in volume). Afaik, many/several EU countries have similar laws regarding reptile/animal husbandry.

 

And in almost all cases the zoos in question are much the worse for it.

 

My personal preference is an indoor building that is blended into a naturalistic
exhibit-which in most cases of course is a rock face. (many of which don't appear all that naturalistic).
However if the choice was a drab building or some architecturally significant building, even a barn like structure
I would prefer some native (to the species being exhibited) anthropological architecture instead.

 

Today I found another candidate for stupidest exhibit idea ever while thinking of a candidate for the funniest exhibits thread.

I would like to nominate this exhibit - and island with plastic hippos.


Arctic fox island (April 19th, 2015) | ZooChat

Mind you, the exhibit no longer holds foxes as they have since moved to a larger and better enclosure near the wolves. I am not sure what the exhibit currently holds actually, but the last inhabitants I can actually remember or retrieve from my photographic archives were Patagonian maras.

 

Where did they try this? And I presume it ended pretty disastrously?

 

I'm a little late to the party due to having been on a short trip but...

I'm sure you're correct and the exhibit accomplishes this goal quite nicely. That does not mean, however, that it isn't bad for the animals. Plenty of things engage your average soccer mom that we, as more informed visitors, know are bad. I don't think anyone here is trying to tell you that the exhibit does not succeed in its goal to make people appreciate reptiles more, but rather that this exhibit is doing so at the expense of the animals it houses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a sand boa, vine snake, or gopher tortoise can 100% differentiate between natural substrate/amenities and glass marbles and metal gears.

... and so does @Batto. He is the owner of a reptile zoo after all, so I would imagine he has a pretty solid understanding of proper husbandry. I'm not saying you don't, but your appeal to authority tactic doesn't really hold up here.

Would this not suggest that this is the more appropriate way to house these species?

I could be wrong but wouldn't changing the entire environment the animal is kept in on a regular basis stress them out?

What gives you this impression? Some of the best and most naturalistic reptile houses I've ever seen- Nashville, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, Philadelphia, Wroclaw, Berlin, etc.- have all been very brightly lit and didn't have to sacrifice animal welfare to do so. For those that are more dimly lit, like Bronx, this is done on purpose to draw attention to the inhabitants of the enclosures as @jayjds2 pointed out. World of Reptiles is still one of the most popular exhibits at the zoo despite this.

While we're at it, what gives you this impression? While, yes, reptiles are certainly very misunderstood, reptiles houses are some of the most popular exhibits at zoos. In an age where many zoos are focusing their collections more and more towards animals that bring in visitors, reptile houses of excellent quality are on the rise, as are reptile-specific zoos. Whether dimly or brightly lit, naturalistic or artificial, reptiles engage and attract a lot of visitors. Most zoo visitors do not care how the animals are displayed or what the building they're kept in looks like, their reactions towards the exhibited remain the same. There's no evidence that CMZ's house does any better of a job engaging the public towards reptiles than San Diego's, London's, or even Beardsley's.

As it happens, I was visiting a couple of new zoos known for their reptile collections when this discussion broke out so I decided to take note of visitor reactions. Nashville Zoo has a fantastic reptile house focusing on the Americas that is both very bright (apart from the small nocturnal section) and very naturalistic. I spent a couple hours in this building and only once did I hear anyone say anything negative about the inhabitants. Zoo Atlanta has one of the best reptile houses in the country and is unique in that about half of it is very bright while the other half is a bit more dimly lit. I spent many hours of my visit in this house, and I noted absolutely no change in guest reactions towards the animals from one half of the house to the other. I also noted very few negative comments in general. In the case of both zoos, the very few negative attitudes came almost entirely from adolescent girls (and one middle aged woman who didn't like snakes specifically). Do with that what you will, but those were my results and they definitely do not fit the narrative you're selling.

Now I have never been to CMZ, nor do I know all that much about its reptile collection. According to the website, however, the zoo appears to have a very basic species line-up. The entire list comprises of species that one could buy at a pet store, or at best a specialist dealer. There are only three endangered species listed, only one of which is the subject of an AZA program (to my knowledge, anyhow). This is not a knock on the zoo's reptile department or the zoo itself, but I think it's worth noting that the zoo doesn't appear to keep many species with particularly complicated husbandry or even many species that fall out of the "pet trade" category Batto discussed that don't show stress very obviously. Compare this to zoos like Atlanta, Bronx, and Houston who all keep and breed very large collections of reptiles, many of which with highly specialized needs, and all of which that are kept and exhibited in much more naturalistic environments. Of course, the website's list could be outdated or not list many of the zoo's inhabitants and my entire point could be moot. I really do not think this is the case, though.

~Thylo

 

Actually, in my experience, one of the toughest crowds to win over for reptiles. However, once you've gotten past their act of fake disgust (entirely made up by insecurity, peer pressure and ignorance), winning them over and changing their pov is truly rewarding for all.
Not that their male counterparts are any better; any even remotely suggestive term turns them into stupidly giggling Beavis and Butthead copies. Which can be effectively shut down by mentioning that this kind of humor won't win them any favours with the girls...

 

I don’t wish to argue any more on the topic as my opinion and experience is clearly different than the majority of users here, but I’ll go ahead and answer your questions and make clarifications.

It also doesn’t mean it is bad for the animals. I personally know the keepers, vet staff and volunteers. If there were any welfare concerns, they would have been addressed. I’m thinking of taking some more photos of the exhibit as it is today and posting them to the media section with a bit of commentary. Hopefully that will aliviate some of the concerns.

None of which are displayed. If they were, they’d be on appropriate substrates. Maybe only a quarter of the species displayed are in exhibits similar to the hexagon snake one. The rest are on a mix of natural bark, stone, or tile, or a combo of different substrates.

Right. But look at any two care sheets for a species of reptile and you’ll probably find many differing opinions on how to keep that reptile. I don’t want to cause more tension but I tend to resent “reptile people” because of certain stereotypes I’ve noticed while working with some and speaking in multiple social network groups for them. I’ve noticed that reptile people will assert their opinions on husbandry as the end all be all. Pretty much saying that if you don’t house reptiles in ..... with ..... as substrate and feed them like this, then you are killing your animals and you shouldn’t have them. I’ve had and witnessed multiple arguments between reptile keepers (personal and professional) who don’t agree with how someone cares for their animals and it looking pretty much like this thread. The field is ever evolving. At our institution, we’ve actually helped with reptile enrichment studies and are pioneering certain snake training methods proving many experts wrong in some cases. What I’m saying is there is more than one way to skin a cat (or safely exhibit a reptile). Unfortunately, many people are very set in their ways and it’s hard to change their minds. I’ve already accepted that I won’t be able to change anyone’s here but I wanted to put out the other side’s perspective so this doesn’t turn into an echo chamber.

More appropriate or just different? Back holding is more traditional because it’s easier to keep, clean and maintenance. Not because it’s better for the reptiles.

Regular for a reptile can be once every month or less depending. The animals are given plenty of opportunity to adjust to changes in their environment and any negative reactions result in changing the animal’s environment.

I’ll start by saying I haven’t been to too many reptile houses around the country yet so I don’t have too much to compare it too.

Reptile houses do draw a lot of visitors but there are many visitors that refuse to even enter them because of their fears. That’s what this exhibit is aiming for. To differentiate itself from other reptile houses and be a more inviting experience to those types of guests. I wasn’t trying to say that other reptile houses do it wrong and I understand the reasoning for those design choices. But there are ways they can improve and I think approachability is one for certain guests.

I’ve had similar experiences to you when I’m in a zoo’s reptile house but I’ll also say that I’ve had plenty of experiences with guests who will refuse to enter the building I work in because there is a snake on the sign. I love that you looked into it yourself. Those adolescent girls and middle aged women who don’t like snakes are the ones this exhibit was designed to appeal to. The zoo didn’t want to isolate anyone from seeing and learning about those animals.

This is a correct assumption. CMZ has never really embraced reptiles the same way others have. I think with this exhibit in particular, it forces them to exhibit animals without those specialized needs an SSP would require to exhibit them such as natural substrates (not that there’s anything wrong with the substrates these reptiles are on). As a culture, the zoo believes that they can do the same job of education with “pet stock” as any other species. Personally as an educator, I think I can do a better job at educating guests with a snake that I can take out of its enclosure and safely present to a large group who can then touch the snake if it’s comfortable than I can talking about a highly regulated species (either for safety reasons or because it’s an endangered species we need to be extra careful with) through the exhibit glass. Honestly it boils down to what the institution finds important and to me it’s not bad either way. It just might not be as appealing to those of us that want to see those rare and dangerous reptiles in simulated natural habitats. Other institutions do an amazing job breeding and propagating rarer species and I love to see that and I do personally wish CMZ did that more.

 

As antonmunster and I've pointed out, just the lack of size of the some tanks alone would be considered an animal welfare issue in other countries. Do you suggest that the other countries don't know what they are doing when asking for larger enclosures?

Care sheets are just providing basic information. Some species require whole books of knowledge to keep and breed them successfully.
Sure, there are various approaches to reptile husbandry in private communities - just like there are for birds, fish, invertebrates etc. People like to even argue about the "right" husbandry of common pets such as dogs, cats, etc. "Horse people" or "Bunny people" can be just as problematic or even more so to deal with. One solid approach to husbandry is to identify the requirements of the animal (in case of wild animals, based on their in-situ lifestyle) and fulfill them as comprehensively as possible. I don't think that a tiny lamp can live up to that for a tokay gecko.

Has this been published yet?

I thought soccer mums were the main target audience?

The haptic / directly sensory experience is important when teaching others about snakes, but should be just one facet of many aspects of the education program. And it doesn't necessitate an abstractly "artistic" environment.
There's also an aspect we've not directly addressed yet: to some persons, "reptile people" or not, such "artistic" presentation with household items and commonplace pet species might appear as if the zoo didn't have the money (or know-how, will etc.) for a "proper" exhibition and just knocked together some very basic exhibits. Which might also explain some of the reactions here on ZC. I wonder whether the creators of the exhibition considered that, too.

 

Did I ever say that? That really wasn’t the point of what I was saying there.

Again, that wasn’t my point about the care sheets. They were just a quick example for me to use. My point was that there are multiple ways to safely exhibit a reptile and keepers can have dramatically different opinions. Doesn’t make any of them wrong just because they are different.

I’ve had many issues specifically with “reptile people” in the past including here now so I just wanted to share why I feel the community can be quite toxic and stubborn.

I’ve never once said that lamp was big enough or appropriate for the gecko. You seem to keep forgetting that I’ve mentioned that particular exhibit has been replaced with one about twice the size and keep using it as an example to drive your arguments.

Does it need to be? I have multiple videos and training notes from my own sessions that I’ve shared with other communities. A lot of training and enrichment breakthroughs are shared from keeper to keeper and not through publications.

“Soccer mom” was my example from my previous posts. In this post, I was referring to the people Thylo mentioned they saw being uncomfortable in reptile houses.

I never said the artistic environment was a necessity for that style of education. Other zoos can do it without that style.

You may think it’s cheap or poorly though out but in reality it’s just a different way of doing things. You can like it or not. Doesn’t really matter. I’ll remain firm that I believe the exhibit does its job well for both the guests and animals.

Again, I said I was done arguing but you continue to bump this thread and the topic is now derailed. I was willing to leave it where it was because I made my points and I wanted the thread to get back on topic. I answered to @ThylacineAlive because they asked specific questions and I wanted to clarify some things I said.

You’ve made your points, I’ve made mine. Clearly, my opinion is less popular but I’m ok with that because it’s really not my job to change your minds. I just wanted to make sure both sides were known and people weren’t bashing the exhibit without proper context. So let’s agree to disagree and allow the thread to continue

 

It might not be the point you wanted to say, but you're not denying it either.
If you think the reptile husbandry community is toxic, go into an international online pet community and state something like "Cesar Milan is the best" or "I only feed vegan stuff to my cat".

And you seem to keep avoiding to answer the question why the inadequate exhibits were installed and used in the first place, despite your claim that all involved always have the welfare of the animals in mind.

Then you're not allowing a larger audience outside these communities to learn and evaluate these methods for the benefit of all.

For the record, I didn't state that it looks cheap or poorly; I mentioned that it could convey this look to others.

 

Why are there prairie dogs at an aquarium anyways? They’re terrestrial animals who no less, live in, as their name suggests, grasslands, which are relatively dry habitats.

 

Are the zoo's Kenyan Sand Boas not on-exhibit anymore? Regardless, they were example species. Geckos, agamas, tree monitors, spiny lizards, Rosy Boas, and Pancake Tortoises are all going to have their own specialized substrate/amenity requirements that these enclosures don't seem to be meeting. Maybe the newer enclosures do meet them somehow, and if so I would definitely be interested in you uploading photos of the current exhibit onto the forum as it'd better illustrate your point I think.

I suppose my final question, if you'd mind answering it, is how this exhibit accomplishes its goal if these visitors still refuse to enter the building?

Likely because they're a popular, easy to care for, small species that will engage guests. The Maritime Aquarium keeps Meerkats for the same reason.

~Thylo