Thanks! I wasn't criticizing Sun for this -- just totally mystified. I'm guessing that movie didn't do very well in the States, as I've never before even heard of it. If you (Sun) are suggesting this fictional Marwood Zoo is illustrative of some particular zoo(s), again I say -- get specific. Which one(s), and why? It certainly doesn't sound like the San Diego Zoo, Disney's Animal Kingdom, or Busch Gardens -- so what zoo are you thinking of?
Ft.Worth's "Cheetos Cheetah Exhibit" always comes to mind as something that could have come straight out of "Fierce Creatures!" And, most of "Texas Wild" could of as well..... If you haven't seen Fierce Creatures, Netflix it immediately!
I think it was London Zoo which was on the brink of closing down in late 1990s. Happily, ideas of zoo animals becoming obsolete because of 'robotic zoos' or 'virtual zoos' or African safaris are not new. They are several decades old. And don't seem to come true.
Just a few points: The Wire is the best show ever! Thanks for bringing that up sooty! And I agree with his approach, however, that's not the best approach for a zoo, because if a zoo had the same critical acclaim but lack of popularity as The Wire, it likely wouldn't survive, or at least wouldn't have money for new exhibits. The two sources that showed the top 10 zoos in the world and included DAK cannot be used seriously imo. I'm not sure about the overseas zoos that were listed, but anything that has the Smithsonian National Zoo and the Toronto Zoo that high should be largely disregarded imo. In the first link, the National Zoo was 3rd, while the San Diego Zoo was not listed! There's plenty of debate regarding the SD Zoo, but I think it would be hard to find anyone on here who thinks the National Zoo is better. And I'm in between the two stances, I'm fine with some stuff for children, but prefer it not to be very prevalent throughout the zoo, and I'm not that into hearing kids screaming, and it would certainly annoy many animals.
And when I watched it, I also found it wanted to capture the 'traditional' british zoo, where animal needs came before the public in enclosure design. I think this was why it was filmed at Marwell and Jersey, to capture that homely sort of feel that these two zoos create.
OK, I've watched "Fierce Creatures". It was funny at times, and rather vulgar quite often too. But I didn't see ANY resemblance from the leading American zoos that some complain about to the travesty of a zoo in the movie. Comparing to this fictional zoo is similar to comparing your favorite despised politician (ie, Bush, Obama, etc.) to Hitler. No matter how bad you think the guy you hate is, he's not nearly as bad as Adolf was! Same thing for comparing to the fictional Marwood Zoo. As for your comparisons of the Fort Worth's exhibits to this zoo, I find it hard to believe, as when I was there last, I found it to be one of the USA's best zoos. I saw a good videotaping of Texas Wild! and I saw nothing in it that looked "commercial" or "tacky". I know some complain that they "spent too much money of visitor attractions", but others say that's what makes the exhibit so magical -- it's a sort of Texas-culture version of an Epcot Center World Showcase pavilion. I can't say anything about your comparison of the Cheetos Cheetah Exhibit to Marwood, since I haven't yet seen this exhibit, but I see your point. But this brings up another entirely separate discussion point -- the corporate sponsor naming of exhibits. Quite honestly, this was a major discussion for us when writing our book. We decided to NOT include the corporate sponsor's name when listing zoo exhibits in the book, as we felt these names change very, very frequently, and we didn't want our book to become outdated too quickly. But is it "bad" for zoos to garner a little bit of money by naming their exhibits after corporate sponsors? Obviously we don't want it to the obscene level as in "Fierce Creatures". But is it bad for Omaha to name their fantastic rain forest after Mr. Lied -- the guy who made a huge monetary contribution? I think not, but I can understand that some are bugged by this. Here in the USA, we have the same controversy in the naming of our sports stadiums and even our holiday football bowl games. These are almost all named after corporate sponsors, as in the "Tostida Fiesta Bowl" and this drives some fans nuts!
I'm wondering whether you are really willing to discuss seriously with me, or just want to annoy me. For my part, I can detect no "anger, insults, and venom" in my post-and no valid arguments in yours, either. I think I made myself pretty clear, but if you want to specify: 1. A part of a serious and high quality institution should be an equally high quality dining experience-so no, or at least less, junk food. A clearer seperation of the food and animal parts of the zoo might also be of advantage for all involved, as it would mean that a) less inappropriate food might be fed to animals by visitors, b) aggrevating smell (see the Hamburg Zoo Orang Utan discussion) and possible negative effects of cooking (Teflon intoxication in birds) might be decreased or even avoided while hygiene standards could be improved, c) the whole all so favourite immersion effect could be improved (Indonesian food in the "Indonesia" section of the zoo, South African cuisine in the "Africa" one, etc) and d) it would be another step in fighting obesity-in both adults and children. Quite often, animals ARE bothered by the noise, and that is even obvious to the layman. I have seen chinchillas mutiltate themselves due to being close to a noisy rollercoaster (the health status improved considerably after being moved away) and gazelles run off in panic due to abrupt loud noises from closeby playgrounds. Humans have problems to understand the different sensory perception of animals: the light of your average light bulb is like a constant strobe for many species of birds and thus probably a source of constant stress. Small mammals like Siberian Chipmunks are easily stressed to death by being constantly close to electronic devices such as TVs, even if those are switched off, as they can hear the constanly emitted frequences. Animals can more or less adapt to such circumstances, but only to a certain extent. Providing a as much as possible stress-free environment for the animal should be one of the most important aspects when creating an exhibit. Noisy attractions and visitors will have a contrary effect. 2. More and more zoos want to present themselves as centers of nature protection and conservation. If they really want to live up to this, and be true to their words, they should start with it right in the zoo, with a more eco-friendly and sustainable use of energy and natural ressources. What effect does it make on the visitor if a zoo rails at the logging of rain forests and the destruction of nature for the generation of consumer energy, but employs rare tropical wood for construction or decoration and builds huge, energy-and water-consuming exhibits and attractions? 3. New Orleans, Jaguar Jungle, instantly comes up in my mind. 4. Are they? Or are they just another part of the Disney franchise, not unlike that in all the other Disney facilities...Zoo-specific souvenirs and a larger array of factual, educational books for all age and education groups would be better. 5. You can see dozens of examples in the Gallery-may it be Gorillas or tigers on golf grass lawns, elephants in temple "ruins" (Hannover Zoo), fake rock grottos (Knoxville, partly Gelsenkirchen) of newer date, fake plants in jungle exhibits... 6. Are you? Old-fashioned (or newer ones that do not take the behavioural needs of the animals into account) exhibits try to present the animal in a rather bare enclosure, giving the visitor a constant look at the animal, but not allowing the animal many if any options of hiding-ergo, like in a fishbowl. 7. And who is the judge to say that your particular assumption is the right one? You? With the apt factual and professional background, one can judge things better than the mere onlooker. Examples: reduakari mentioned one, Giant Pandas in Western zoos usually are, and "Knut" was one to a certain extend. 8. Does a simple spelling mistake make it impossible for you to do a simple Google research? Trying to play the ignorant is a very old rhetoric trick-and in this example, not a very elegant and effective one, as you later on acknowledged to know the movie (though the "vulgarity" aspect might only be obvious to an American...). San Diego Zoo does a more or less good job (see the comments on its recent "Pleistocene Park", or the state of some of the husbandry behind the scenes), and so does AK. However, I'm not all convinced by their depth of their educational programs and especially in regard to the Disney facility, of the preference of commercialism over actual modern zoo husbandry or sustainable education. Personally, I prefer the down-to-earth, not so gaudy approach of the ADM or Rheine Zoo when it comes to education & entertainment in zoos. You might be surprised, but I have no problem with a zoo exhibit named after its (commercial) sponsor-if it is in certain comprehensible limits. Blatant ads in the exhibit or even on the animal-no, thanks.
Sun Wokong, I find it interesting to see how you heavilly lay down you're views that animals should be kept in a quiet, stress-free enviroment away from playgrounds and fast food outlets, yet I see you voted 'yes' as to whether animals should be used in circuses in the General Circus Poll. Surely the flashing lights and noise from the crowd and loudspeakers would make an enclosure near the play area seem like the remotest corner of the world.
I would like to point out that the proper acronym for the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is in fact ASDM. Thank you, carry on.
Sun Wukong, you'd be surprised how much I AGREE with much of what you wrote in response to my questions. There's a lot of common ground we can find when you actually answer my specific questions and give specific examples (like you did this time), unlike just spewing out your anger and insults (like you usually do). One way that you are continuing, however, to insult me is your accusations that somehow I'm just playing "tricks" or trying to "annoy" you. My love of children is genuine, and NOT a "card" I'm playing or an "ace in the hole". I truly do get impatient with people who are impatient with children. Also, I really had never ever heard of the movie "Fierce Creatures" until yesterday -- never! Like I said, it probably wasn't much of a hit over here in the USA, and rightfully so. When Marwell Dalek (on this board) explained the movie and pointed out that it's available on YouTube, I went there and watched it. So again, no tricks going on here! I'd appreciate it if you'd be civil and stop the accusations. I've not seen Audubon's (New Orleans) Jaguar Jungle exhibit, as that was a chapter that Jon (my coauthor) wrote. But I can assure you that he's usually a bit more of a critic of exhibit "problems" than I am, and he didn't mention anything to me about "booming" atmospheric music in the exhibit. In his write-up of the exhibit, he only mentions "the beating of drums heightens the sense of anticipation". But I've already addressed the point that I agree with you -- roller coasters, playgrounds, and other noisy attractions should NOT be built right on top of, or directly next to, animal exhibits. I understand (and agree with) your point here! I just continue to say "We can have it both ways" -- that is, we can have these noisy attractions, but we can also give then animals the peaceful environment they need. We just need to make sure these things are clearly separated -- as they are at Disney's Animal Kingdom and the San Diego Zoo. I also agree with your continued harping on letting animals have some "hiding places", which you seem to think I'm against. My only point on this is that IF zoos are going to do this, they need to compensate by (for example) having large enough animal populations so that there is always (or almost always) some animals to see. Kansas City's chimpanzee exhibit does this well. With a full 3-acre hillside habitat, the chimps have plenty of opportunities to hide. But they also have a troop of almost 20 chimps, which ensures there's always some for the visitors to see. While I totally agree with you that it's ultra-cool for zoos to extend the "immersion" experience by serving culturally-appropriate food next to exhibits from specific parts of the world, I also think it's great that many zoos give visitors the CHOICE of buying the pizza, fried chicken, french fries, or even McDonalds food they like. It's NOT the zoo's job to fight obesity in their visitors. I'm "pro-choice" on this matter. Visitors should have a choice of whether they want to eat greasy or sweet high-calorie food, or salads and other healthy options. If you want to make zoos into dictatorial places that TELL visitors what they SHOULD eat, then you will kill their attendance, and thus severely hurt their budgets to improve and survive. I feel the same way about Education in zoos. They should be "facilitators" of education, not educators. They should make the "knowledge" available, both for those who want to seriously learn, or for those who just want a quick exposure to some nature facts. But it's NOT the zoos' job to "make sure the children are learning"! That's the parents' job (and to a lesser extent, the teachers' job -- when coming in school groups.) For one thing, some of the subjects that zoos are presenting are things that some parents, of differing religious or political backgrounds, happen to disagree with. Some of these more controversial subjects include global warming, origin of species (evolution), and population control. Not everyone agrees on these topics, and thus this "education" should NOT be shoved in the faces of children. Again, to do so is another recipe for lower attendance -- and smaller budgets. What you write about Disney makes it clear that you just don't like them because they are a big corporate giant, trying to make profits in the best sense of American capitalism. I think this is one area where we'll never find common ground, as it appears you are, please correct me if I'm wrong, a European socialist and I am an American capitalist. I don't say that as an insult, but as an observation. That's OK -- I totally understand that many Europeans lean towards socialism -- including much of Scandinavia, France, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Over here, we tend to be much more suspicious of socialism, which is why our current president did all he could (during the campaign) to hide his obvious socialistic beliefs. But this is why, I'm guessing, you'll never like it when a big corporation like Disney (or Lego, etc.) gets involved in zoos. This is also, I'd suppose, the reason why you don't like it when zoos "capitalize" on popular animals (pandas, koalas, Knut) by selling scads and scads of stuffed animals in a little gift shop near these particular animals. I personally think this is great! Sun, I'm NOT trying to tell people how to think, anymore that I'm telling zoos how they should be. I try to be open-minded on such things. You should try it too. Over here in the USA, when we have issues regarding obscenity or indecency, the civil libertarians tact is usually, "If you don't like it, don't watch it". If it's some TV show that parents are complaining about, they civil libertarians will say, "If you don't want your kids to watch it, just turn it off!" I would suggest this strategy for you! If you don't like fast food, don't eat it! But let those of us who actually like it eat it when we choose to. If you don't like Disney, then don't go to their theme parks (including DAK), but let those of us who like it go and enjoy ourselves (and then rave about it, without your insults). Same thing with Omaha, if you don't think it's politically correct enough, or doesn't meet YOUR standards of "husbandry", then don't go to Omaha! But let the rest of us go and enjoy it and highly rate it -- without your insults. Again, no games, no tricks, and no attempts to purposely annoy you!
I believe many if not most US zoos feel the same. They often cannot reconcile the additional costs for new construction, or for retrofitting older facilities, but it is their long term goal to be green institutions. They see themselves as hypocrites otherwise. It is happening. Obscene energy consumption for cheap thrills is a real issue for zoos. Zoos also have "education" as part of their mission statement. They will debate among themselves how to accomplish that, but if the visitors leave with no more understanding of wildlife than what they came with, the zoos know they have failed in their mission. I take it, @ANyhuis, that you do not whole-heartedly support these zoo priorities, but they do exist as foundations upon which these institutions are built.
Not at all! I think I explained my position on Education above. It's important, and I understand that's it's a key mission of zoos. But I also say it is NOT the zoos' job to make sure children (and other visitors) are "educated" when they visit the zoo. With regards to children, it's the parents' job to see that their children are educated. And whether the adult visitors get some education or not, that's up to them. Zoos need to make sure the education is readily available, but the visitors (or their parents) can then CHOOSE for themselves if they want to take advantage of the available education, or not. For me, going to the Zoo is like turning on the television. Quite often I like to watch the History Channel, Travel Channel, or Animal Planet -- and thus gain some education. But other times I just want to relax and so I'll turn on a movie. Isn't it nice to have a choice. It's called Freedom. As for going "green", I am mostly supportive. I've been recycling since long before it was cool. I also am a firm believer in driving more economical cars (I drive a Hyundai Accent). What I don't believe in is using the global warming scare as a religious weapon to shut down anything that you don't like. It's great that most zoos now use electric golf carts to get around in. It would be stupid to use "carbon consumption" as a reason for a zoo to not have an aquarium, or even a roller coaster. Be "green" yes, but also be reasonable. By the way, the "If you don't like it, then don't go" approach I used above on Sun is the exact same thing I say to the animal rights activists who whine and complain about how zoos are "animal prisons". I tell them, "If you don't like Zoos, then don't go! But leave us alone to enjoy them!"
By the same reasoning, I could say that one should not support Amnesty International because they do not have to visit the prisons the people supported are unjustly incarcerated in. I am not saying that animal rights activists are right, just that this is not a very good argument. Creatonists send hate-mail to Attenborough for acknowledging that evolution exists - they are clearly wrong yet still stand firm in their beliefs.
@Marwell Dalek: So the individual vote is visible? Interesting; so much about anonymity... I think it depends how the circus displays & trains its animals-and what kind of animals it employs. Like I wrote before, I do think that especially among domestic animals, there are individuals clearly enjoying to perform in front of an audience. @Ituri: Thanks for the correction. @Zooplantman: Of course they do, and it's a good thing. However, all too often it's just mere window dressing, and goes only skin-deep, if at all... @ANyhuis: If time allows it and the question is worth being answered to, I will respond; if this is not given, then don't expect any glorious, deep replies. So you don't like accusations (but love quotations)? Then why not stop accusing me of spreading "anger, insults, and venom", and always assume to know my opinion and mood, even after having been wrong again and again and again? Such demands can only work via mutual agreement: stop accusing me, and I will stop accusing you. It's as simple as that. I think that such noisy amusement elements are "mood killers", and agree with sooty on this behalf; in my opinion, they belong to amusement parks, and not into zoos. Even the aspect that great zoomen like Hagenbeck or Grzimek used them in the past does not justify their use. Obviously your co-author didn't stay in NOLA in that area for long. I did, and I disliked it. Not all zoos have the means and space to compensate by just displaying masses of animals, and they don't have to. Clever display methods might be more appropriate. BTW: I remember a different tone of yours in this regard in previous discussions. A sudden change of mood and opinion? If people are given the choice, they tend to get the cheapest stuff-which is the junk food. Better offer high-quality food, so that the children at least once in a while learn how real food tastes like. All in all, high quality dining contributes imho to the overall quality standard of the zoo-away from the noisy & greasy amusement park just for kids & families to a facility of higher standing within the cultural life of a society. It's similar with education: people will choose the easiest and thus often not really "nourishing" option. Better give them quality right from the start, and make them use their grey mass once in a while... About Disney: see line 7-11 of this post. Don't assume to know my opinion prematurely. Once again: no, I'm not an "European socialist". You might not want to offend, but this repeated accusation of yours, which does not appear to take into account that I already denied this claim of yours, starts to annoy. My distaste for zoos in "Disney style" is rather based on its factitiousness and "ideal world" masquerade, which stands in direct contrast to how this particular company is actually run. Why not practise what you preach and start being really "open-minded". That would involve trying to change your rather fragile concept of how (American) zoos should be rated, and stop dishing out such openly provocative "suggestions", such as "You should try [being open-minded], too". Your constant attempts to depict me as the surly pessimistic one and not thinking about my arguments surely isn't a sign of an open mind... Your advice "not to go there" is a rather pitiful, and weak one; by this, nothing will be improved, but one just remains with a status quo; you never really address the problem, but just turn a blind eye to it. Last but not least: you really think I care for "PC"? Go and read some of my posts...
This is from a very old thread, but an interesting one. I recently (last month) went to the Fort Worth Zoo and saw these exhibits for myself. With all due respect to RedUakari, I saw nothing in these 2 FWZoo exhibits that made me think of the movie "Fierce Creatures". First, the "Cheetos Cheetah Exhibit" was mostly just a standard cheetah exhibit, and a rather large one. There was nothing cheap or commercial about the exhibit, with the exception of the name. As for "Texas Wild", I stand by my past proclamations that this exhibit is terrific! Again, nothing at all like the movie "Fierce Creatures". In my opinion, this large exhibit trail was amazing. Above all, I believe it was perhaps the MOST educational exhibit I've ever seen. There are educational graphics everywhere on this trail, and they are indeed very well done.
Like the graphic that shows a barren field full of oil rigs and tells how texas oil digs actually preserve animal habitat??? (p.s. - I actually like Texas Wild a lot, but there are some glaring incongruities such as these and the pitifully small carnivore exhibits).
The similar exhibit in Cameron Park Zoo is much better than TW, and besides the small Jaguar exhibit everything is well done. It's basically tw with larger exhibits, and without all the extra attractions. I think the only area of TW that is not represented at the Cameron Park Zoo is the desert aviary. Anyway, I have no problem with amusement park type stuff in a zoo, as long as it's in a separate area from the animals.
