Make-up Questions 3 -sm

1. Hornaday, Blair, and Osborn pushed for the Bronx zoo to have exhibits that were most natural for the animals. They tried in their time and in their own ways to make the environments as close to their natural habitat as possible. Although all caring for how the animals were displayed and lived, Hornaday was most known for his animal rights work, Blair for his work in promoting education to the audience through the zoo, and Osborn for his forward thinking on conservation.Some of the pros/cons of the African Plains exhibit and the Brox Zoo would be that while going to the zoo was no longer looking at an animal in a cage, the new exhibit still was placing the animal on a stage of sorts, just like the cage. This exhibit featured elaborate stage design to show what it may look like if the animal were in its natural habitat. This was a gain for the audiences viewing, but not the animals living/viewing. It was probably just kind of confusing for the animal. It wasn’t until the 1970’s animals would be in exhibits that were more like the specie’s native environment.

2a. Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo had many innovations. The first being that the animals’ well-being are the number one priority to the zoo and the second being that landscape architecture and design be that of nature and not of amusement park or for entertainment. As we read we see that this gets complicated when plants sway to become more important than animals at some points in the zoo planning. Jones & Jones architecture firm was hired for the job and used the Holdridge system for bioclimatic zones to be set accordingly in the zoo. Some animals may never be at the Woodland Park Zoo because they may never fit into the climates available through nature. I thought this was pretty cool… I’ve never heard about this zoo. Now I want to visit! I feel that the superiority that follows the zoo is mainly because of its attention to care of what would be best for the animals – not what will sell the most tickets. LONG ANALOGY START. The feeling of going to a zoo like this would be like how you feel after you eat an organic apple instead of a conventional one – I’d imagine. Like, its not as a good as going to your backyard and picking that apple then eating it (going to view animals in their natural habitats), but since you don’t have an apple tree, its as close as you can get and tastes delicious and will buy more (since I don’t have the resources to go see a lion it is nice to see that the lion is in the next best thing and you will be returning because that makes you feel good) LONG ANALOGY END.
2b. The Sororan Desert Museum caters more to animals that the audience. The animals get the space they need to be as closest to life in the wild. This means you may not see any animals when you visit the zoo. I like this because it make the viewer become patient and when they do sight an animals their is probably much more of a payoff. This was something I had also never heard of before and thought it was pretty cool.

3. His argument seems pretty selfish - like he is trying to justify the damage that humans do everyday on this earth to our environment. I understand his argument but do not like it because I think it is just a way to justify human decisions of making things for animals to live in that make us feel better about the animals situation. We put things in our own home to make it feel more homey, so we feel like animals should have the same experience.