Ariella Scott: Response Questions 3

1.  Hornaday, Blair, and Osborn took major strides towards conservation in the zoo setting primarily in the Bronx Zoo.  A part of this consisted of panoramic-like and "realistic" environments for the animals to dwell in.  These environments showed the animals without being behind bars or in cages, but instead, set far back from the viewing areas so they could be viewed as living in a place somewhat like what their life would be in the wild.  These factors are what became problematic for the African Plains exhibit funded by Marshall Field, because it separated the viewers from the animals a bit too much.  The animals were then reduced to more of a respected spectacle and "other," instead of creatures in need for conservation.

2a.  The innovations that took place in Seattle's Wooland Park Zoo include when the zoo asked the Jones and Jones firm to organize the zoo into bioclimatic zones.  This was based on how the world is organized into bioclimatic zones and how certain plants and animals would experience life better in where they were customized to evolutionarily speaking.  This was an extremely concise process for the Jones and Jones firm as almost every aspect of the zoo's natural living environment had to be taken note of.  This was completely based on vegetation patterns not just for animals but for the plants in their accustomed environments too.

2b.  The Sororan Desert Museum seems to exist more for the animals and less for the viewers.  Hence, the viewer may see the ponghorn deer and mice when they visit the museum, but it is not a complete guarantee.  This is because their living environment is designed for the animals to have enough room and the proper conditions to experience a somewhat realistic life to what their normal life in the wild would be.  It almost seems like this would be a better viewing experience for viewers in this setting because the viewers are getting an extremely realistic and exciting interpretation of what they would see in a natural setting.  Although I am sure it is disappointing to sometimes see nothing.

3.  I think that Wilson is definitely valid with his argument that humans prefer seeing animals in their natural environments.  I am not sure how sincere these "natural" environments always are, but they are certainly more helpful for viewers to get a more educational and realistic experience.  Animals cannot just be reduced to spectacle as seen in the menageries, and a naturalistic environment is a better alternative for both animals and viewers.