The talk about polar bear park which looks ugly, because it is just natural, prompted me to dig out an old website: Zoos, Rain Forest Exhibits and Simulation: The Postmodern Zoo Now Specializes in Immersion Landscapes Generally, it discusses zoo exhibits as example of modern society, which likes simulations but becomes detached from the reality. In this case, zoos are simulation and nature is reality, about which people are ignorant, disinterested, or confuse it with zoos. Interesting bit about American tourists in real rainforest, disappointed because it looks not so exciting as zoos made them believe.
A stimulating essay: although it's only looking at part of the picture. I'm particularly interested in the comparison between the design of zoo enclosures and aquaria. There seem to me to be several trends going in very different directions. I think this plurality is probably healthy, as circumstances and aims can differ considerably, but I find it increasingly hard to work out which approach is best. Alan
I've read that essay before, and it has intriguing comparisons of North American immersion exhibits. I love the "McJungles" quote.
I'll admit after reading this (who wrote it????) I can't decide how I feel about it (the article, not your posting, that is). I guess I have several contradictory reactions. But as to that last observation, it is an anecdotal reference in the article...not explained or backed up. I have accompanied a number of "eco-tours" to Costa Rica and the Peruvian Amazon, involving perhaps five hundred American tourists in total .... I have yet to hear or see even one such reaction.
The article brought up some very interesting and valid points--but like anything else reeking of academia, I'll take it with a grain of salt... McJungle: I like where's he going with that, though... I've found the general zoo audience, however, to be even dumber than he has allowed in his article. And smarter in some ways too. Smarter because they all know it is fake. Dumber because most could care less about wildife and extinction and our little blue planet spinning in space. On the Sumatran rhino thread I mentioned the kids looking at the blank video monitor, not paying the least attention to the Sumatran rhinos that were right behind them-- including a priceless calf gamboling and playing in the mud. I'm sure we could all come up with a hundred similar scenarios. People have an enormous capacity to take anything real and abstract it on a thousand different levels. If your average zoo visitor believes a zoo rainforest to be just like the real thing (which of course they don't--they've already experienced the real thing on...tv), that is only a small leap, considering the lengths to which zoos like the Bronx go to replicate the wild. I mean, some of these same zoo visitors actually believe that the world is only 5,000 years old and that their lives are actually influenced by supernatural beings: angels, Satan, God on his throne with a long white beard, etc. They know that the zoo tree is rubber, but will fight you to the death over the concept of heavenly cities paved with gold. Those who have paid for an actual trip to a real rainforest, Zooplantman--that audience is cut from an entirely different cloth. Your people probably already knew that a zoo rainforest was not the be all and end all-- and that going to a real rainforest would be far different and better. Unfortunately, I have found that even these more educated and interested people need to learn to be a great deal quieter, more respectful, and leave a much smaller footprint while out and about in the wild places of the world. The article keeps stressing the illusion of the Lied rainforest. I can't imagine why. When I went to the Lied rainforest, I thought it was dank, depressing, and outdated. Gilligan's Island meets aircraft hangar. I doubt that any visitor with more than two brain cells believes it to be real (a lot of them, bless them, are only operating on one..) The article is so in love with its own thesis and rhetoric that it can't get past the fact that these simulated environments aren't really that good. At least people are going to zoos and are getting a chance to see a bird, a monkey, a big cat-- and are getting some measure of education if they are open to it. People have families, jobs, work stress-- like animals in the wild, they too are engaged in a very real struggle for survival. They come to the zoo, they want to have fun, get away from the stress, enjoy their kids. They are confronted with graphics, etc trying to get a conservation message across--ok, well and good, but whoops Susie just barfed up formula all down the front of mommy's blouse while she was trying to read a few words. Billy wants to go to the playground NOW!! Someone everywhere is trying to sell someone something--be it soda pop or save the frogs-- these days. Who needs zoo spam too? People have developed an amazing ability to block out the urgent messages bombarding them every waking second. But that doesn't mean, just because we are living in more and more abstract constructs, that the real rainforests of our world and their inhabitants do not exist and that they do not have value. I'm glad that zoos are making an effort to educate people all over the world about our planet's amazing biodiversity and the horrible threats faced by the natural world. I just fear that the effort is wasted on the wrong people, resulting in band-aid, feel-good efforts while the real, extremely complicated problems in-situ go unresolved. I think the point might just be what people are willing to accept, what they have access to, and what is most convenient for them. Yeah, good zoo simulation is nothing like the wild. But most people do not value exploring the real thing. They have limited time, even more limited funds, and the attention span of a day-old guineafowl. They want a quick, cheap experience with no nutritional value. Forget McJungle, we're talking McWorld... Which brings me to my niece. My brother and his family were packing for a trip to Walt Disney World (they go every year to the exclusion of...everywhere else on the planet). I asked my niece if she was getting excited about going to Florida. She looked at me, puzzled. " Don't you remember me telling you about when I went to Florida and saw the roseate spoonbills and manatees-- and the Everglades?" " Uncle Charlie," she said, slightly irritated by yet another mention of my lame travels and clearly unimpressed. " We are not going to Florida. We are going to Disney World."
It's amazing how often Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo comes up in conversation here at ZooBeat. The massive Lied Jungle appears to be a paradox of sorts, as many publications rave about the "naturalistic rainforest" while others call it "dank and depressing". The Kingdoms of the Night and Desert Dome buildings haven't received as much criticism, as well as the fairly new gorilla and orangutan enclosures. I suppose that all zoo environments are somewhat subjective, as one could argue the pros and cons of any specific exhibit. I hope to include the Henry Doorly Zoo on my 15 zoo summer road trip, and then I'll surely fire away with either praise or criticism of the exhibit. The "McJungles" quote was bound to happen eventually, as the plethora of large rainforest structures that have emerged over the past 20 years had led to ample room for comparison. I continue to praise the Masoala Rainforest building at Zurich Zoo, as that complex is the best fake rainforest I've seen in my life. However, it simply does not compare to the Daintree rainforest in Queensland in northern Australia. Becoming immersed inside the canopy of a humid, sweltering forest is an incredible feeling, even if it is on a day tour. The McJungles that have arisen in modern zoos are at least viable alternatives to the real thing, and it is nice for visitors to suspend belief for the few minutes that they are in the zoo's version of a tropical paradise.
Personally, I consider most if not all of the larger animal houses at Henry Doorly's to suffer of two obvious illnesses: a certain, very artificial look and being absolutely crammed full with animals-in a way that it pleases visitors, as they are certain to see animals presented in a fishbowl, but surely doesn't fulfill the needs of most if not all animals kept (think of the cougar/peccary exhibit as one very obvious example). Lied Jungle does have its very nice moments-like GLTs using the artificial vine over Your head as a highway, while huge arapaimas splash around downstairs and vampire bats feed each other while clinging to the ceiling-but all in all, it has some major flaws. I especially question the idea that You build such energy guzzlers to teach people about the protection of nature and using the natural ressources more carefully-a very common paradoxon in the zoo world. The rainforest houses of the zoos of course never really succeed to convey the "real deal"-otherwise, You would have to send the visitors into an hot & humid plant house where they have to cut their way through thorny vines and nettles, while wading through waist-high mud and being splashed with buckets full of water and leeches. Add the constant buzzing of mosquitos, sweat bees and biting & stinging ants and other nasty bugs and let the visitors drink some muddy water full of exotic coliform bacteria strains to recreate an authentic Montezuma's revenge and voila, You've got the perfect rainforest... However, I doubt that most visitors would return. Nevertheless, even though I have too agree with a lot what kifaru wrote, I still believe (and witness) that they exist: the good visitors-the ones that don't anger the animals, behave like normal intelligent human beings, willing to learn and get to know the animals better and who come home and might have learnt something good from their zoo visit. And even though they might be a minority, I still believe what Grzimek once said: even if it's just one of 10.000 visitors a day who behaves like that-just think how many they are if You summarize it. Isn't that at least worth another day trying to change the majority... And about that niece: there's the not too small chance that Disneyland might be replaced one day with an interest in spoonbills & manatees...
I think you are so right, Sun. I am jaded and awfully negative re the human race. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I was a keeper for too many years. Perhaps it was all the " HEY, what kinda animal are you?" comments... Re-reading what I wrote, I am a bit contrite for taking a jab at Lied. It is soo easy to knock the grand gesture.
I'd give my life for that kid. She is so bright and talented at 9: she's trying out for a play at a big theatre today. She loves beautiful music and can sing like you would not believe. I think she'll get it. She'll sort through the fake and figure it out. I'll be here to help her as best I can. That is the only chance her generation has got-- to figure out what is real, what is worth fighting for in this world, and what is just junk. I see so many kids her age glued to screens (as I have been today, guilty as charged ) and not getting out there and exploring nature. I hope that they will come to love the real thing as much as old Jonathan bird man here has. Now, there's someone who really gives me hope for the future!!
Children have amazing ability. Something they seen or overheard when they were 7 and apparently totally ignored, they store it and when they are 20 or 30 they return to it. This little one can easily, when she has children on her own, bring them to Everglades and show them animals. But, on back to the essay - it is absolutely valid opinion that zoos which in good faith present nature as more interesting or beautiful are fooling visitors. People might as well be shown nature without "frills" and decide themselves whether to like it or want it preserved. I think nature would hold even better.
