Response Questions 3 - IR

>> RESPONSE QUESTIONS 3

1-         Hornaday, Blair, and Osborn as the Bronx Zoo leaders pushed for what change in the zoo’s public mission? In terms of design, what changes did Osborn institute? What were the pros and cons with the African Plains exhibit in the 1940s? Overall, why does Hancocks seem to priase the Bronx Zoo?

Hancock praises the Bronx zoo because of it’s commitment to using the zoo as a tool for conservation.  Since it’s conception the Bronx zoo has had a hand in conservation, beginning with Hornaday’s campaign to discourage the use of exotic bird feathers in ladies fashion. Osborn changed the face of exhibit design with the African Plains Exhibit in the 1940s. The exhibits became more ‘naturalistic’ featuring local plants altered to look like plants from the animal’s natural habitat. Osbourn recognized the importance of showing animals in a space that resembled their natural habitat, and made steps to study and conserve natural resources. However he was not without his mistakes, such as the death-trap-moats surrounding the unfortunate 1950’s gorilla enclosure.

The real winner seems to be the Conway. His ‘Congo House’ showed visitors animals in engaging natural habitats, and contrasted them to current man made threats to the area. At the end of the exhibit, visitors can vote as to what charity their entry fees will go towards. Conway introduced exhibit design as a team-based, in house group effort where the design was aimed to fit both the animals and the visitors, and encourage visitors to want to protect both the animals and where they come from.

2a-      What does Hancocks argue were the major innovations which they introduced at Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo? How was their approach to design, lansdscape, and animal grouping different from what came before and why did they feel it was the superior?        It is multi-component, so try to identify all the parts.

Bioclamatic zones. The woodland Park Zoo chose to depart from the taxonomic or continent based organization of exhibits in favor of “Bioclimatic zones”, which simply means areas of the earth with similar climatic conditions. The zoo then selected the climates that could be replicated in Seattle, which was many due to Seattle’s mild weather patterns, and went about organizing the animals by the conditions in which they live.

The Woodland zoo also engaged in the concept of ‘landscape immersion”. This technique involves landscape design centered on mimicking, as closely as possible, the natural habitat of the animal. This natural habitat is extended past the fence boundaries and into the viewing area. This gives the guest the impression that they are in the same place as the animals, and hopefully, the illusion that they are viewing the animal as it would be in it’s natural habitat. This technique reduced visibility of animals, but made for an overall better experience when the animal was visible. Many early attempts that this technique fell short, supplying exhibit props that may look like natural objects but where in fact useless to the animals. Such as concrete trees. It is important to remember, when designing an exhibit, that naturalistic landscape design is both for the viewer and the animal, not just to fool they guest.

2b-      There is a discussion about similar issues at the Sororan Desert Museum concerning pronghorn deer and mice. What seems to be the radical departure that zoos committed to the “landscape immersion approach” are taking to the question of conservation, size/configuration/materiality of exhibits, and the goals for animal experience as well as human experience at zoos?

This debate centers around whether zoo’s should concentrate on the ‘charismatic mega fauna’ of an ecosystem or on the dynamics of the ecosystem itself. Do we exhibit the charming and very visible pronghorn Deer, or the ecologically important but highly elusive grasshopper mouse? The mouse is much more important to the ecosystem, true, but nearly impossible to be viewed in a large habitat space. The answer was revolutionary. The Sororan Desert Museum chose to show off the native grasses of the area, with a bronze statue of a grasshopper mouse, without the charismatic deer. This may be less interesting to visitors, but it is more ecologically educational. Which is more important, education, or seducing the guest into being educated? I vote that one must do both.

3-             What do you make of Wilson’s evolutionary argument for the habitat features and landscpaes that humans prefer? It is part of his more general argument about “biophilia” arguing it is n’t just landscape, but all the animals within them that we also have a deep draw to. What implications would it have not for zoo design (a la Hancocks) but also for the reasons behind or obvious desire to see animals (a la menageries and zoos, a la Berger?)

I think it makes sense. Our physical health is determined by our habitat. It would therefore follow that our mental health is also determined by our habitat. One could even hypothesize that our mental health is determined by our habitat in order to encourage us to seek out a habitat that will enhance our physical health. In other words, this is not the Savannah, it makes me sad, therefore I will return to the Savannah, and I will be happy. Our brain has used sadness to encourage us to go back to the place were we are better suited to survive and reproduce. I’m not sure if that hypothesis would be true, but it could be.

However, if this is true for all species, then zoos have a problem. There is no way an animal can be mentally healthy in captivity if E.O Wilson theory applies to all species. But perhaps an animal can be ‘healthy enough’ in captivity under these stipulations if habitats are designed  to as closely as possible resemble the natural conditions under which the animal thrives. If an animal’s enclosure is made to appear to the animal like it’s natural habitat, it will improve the animal’s mental health despite the fact that it does not enhance the animal’s physical health. This I have no reservations agreeing with.