SW Questions & Proposal

Who is involved? Sarah Weber Your Topic? My topic is about the descriptions of animals and peoples at the zoo. Are they informative enough? Do the descriptions coincide with the enclosures? Are the descriptions and exhibitions intended for parents or children? My project will be both critical and anthropological. I want to investigate if parents are reading the descriptions to children, and observe whether the zoo functions more as entertainment or education. The main criticism will be over the descriptions and exhibition set up. How do the surroundings affect visitors impression of other places and peoples? Integrative element? I want to record parents interacting with children at the exhibits to see what is being learned at these sites while also re-distributing information on animals and peoples described in signs neighboring enclosure spaces. Why is this topic a good one for general visitors? What are your "goals" for the project if a visitor engages with it? The topic will hopefully further inform visitors of what the purpose of a zoo proposes. My goal is to bring awareness. Media Format? The media format will be a radio podcast and pamphlet. Reason for the particular media format? Access Venue? The zoo, youtube. References/Information sources? Readings, zoo pamphlets, zoo employees and visitors. Possible title for the project? Not sure yet! Response Questions: 1- Sarah Long’s “Noah got it all wrong” argument has to do with genetic diversity among breeding animals. It takes more than the two Noah thought for animals to create enough genetic variation. This is key to the survival of all species. Zoos are making efforts to have meetings of animals from across the U.S. in hopes of creating a new genetic mating pair. I found that the argument to give animals more space so they can pick their mates naturally to be interesting. Also, the way certain animals choose mates during adolescent and adult years changes among species. For example the clouded leopards pair up with their match early in life. Scientists had to learn this the hard way when pairing up this species often ended in death. 2- Conservation is the key goal but the zoo has to pick out which animal is most ecologically influential and somewhat attractive to the public in order to organize funding. It is known that not every endangered animal can be helped at this point and zoos face the cold decision making of who gets featured to help their species. 3- I do understand that the public does need to form a connection with an animal by seeing it in person. To me it seems the zoo spends more time self-promoting their good doings than educating the public or expanding enclosure sites. It is tough because the zoo should be a positive place to bring children but also a place of education first and foremost. 4- European zoos use the euthanasia technique on animals the zoo cannot support. Usually the European zoo would let the animals raise the baby until it would naturally separate from its parents. The European zoos said this technique mimics what naturally occurs in the wild. American zoos use a birth control technique on captive animals. Both techniques seem controversial. Birth control prevents American Zoos from having to put down animals, but also creates new health concerns with side effects on the captive animals.

Response Questions 3 -gr

1. What Sarah long means by "Noah got it all wrong" is that you need more than a couple or even a dozen members of a species to successfully save it in the long term. Zoos are developing mating programs to pair off animals in an effort to avoid inbreeding in the species. The pros are that you increase the variety of the species and give it a better chance to survive down the road. Unfortunately that means using contraceptives and euthanasia to phase out the offspring that aren't needed to maintain the diversity. Also, the breeding is still ultimately left up to the animals and in many cases they don't want to mate with their chosen pair, and sometimes that means keeping genders separated to increase the chances of mating occurring.

2. Some of the tension comes from the debate that some animals do better in mating circumstances in the wild, and what the animals need is space to roam, so the question becomes whether to fund these mating programs or to fund the efforts to preserve their habitat or give them more space to inhabit in captivity.

3. It's hard to say for sure whether I would care for these animals if I hadn't been exposed to them at the zoo, or if I had not been able to have pets when I was growing up, but my guess is that I wouldn't need that first-hand experience with them in order to realize that we need to work to conserve and protect endangered animals. I don't think other people need that connection either in order to develop that care for animals.

4. The European zoos in general prefer to use the euthanasia rather than contraceptive in order to not deprive the animals of the experience of giving birth and caring for their young. The European zoos have a point in that while it's more painful for us, it's more natural for them. Although, I wonder what the cost in resources is for raising the young in the zoos, just to have them killed, or if some of those animals that aren't of use to preserving the diversity should just be kept around til old age like the rest of the animals, with control over their mating.

-guillermo

Questions 4 -sm

1. In “Date Night at the Zoo” she argues Noah got it wrong in reference to Noah’s ark bible story of choosing a male and a female of all species to be kept safe for conservation purposes. The idea in the story is that the animals could mate and then create the species in the wild – exactly what the zoo is trying to do but running into issues with the small amount of animals they have to work with. Genetics have to vary in order to create offspring that will be healthy and able to adapt. When there is only a small number of animals to breed, 2 in Noah’s ark and 281 in the case of cheetahs currently in American zoos – there are problems that occur with too small of gene pools. Cheetahs should have twice as many of their species in captivity in order to have a healthy gene pool for future generations. Zoos have devoted a lot of money to get species to breed in a way that is genetically healthy, although sometimes it is just the attraction and nature of the animals that determines if they would like to mate – just like humans. It is great that zoos care to but time and money into programs that will help animals to survive for generations, but it is also a very cold and scientific process that put conservation before animal well-being, IMO. It could be argued that the animals wouldn’t have an option of having a well-being if not for these decisions to be made for them in captivity.

2. The tension is that the animals that need to be protected from extinction are not always the animals that will bring the masses to the zoo. Where does the funding go? To the animals that need zoos help more than ever or to the animals that will provide funding for the zoo through sales profits? In a perfect world it would all go to the animals that are facing extinction, but zoos have to make hard choice in order to keep their audiences aesthetically happy when they visit. I feel if audiences knew that seeing their favorite zoo animal meant x number of species were going to become extinct because of lack of the zoos resources, the audience may be inclined to think differently about their visit and support the zoo in making decisions that are best for conservation. Some people think that applying so much money to conservation isn’t needed. The idea behind conservation is being able to produce an animal that can go back out into the wild – but if there is no safe wild land then what is the point.
3. I tend to agree with it, because without zoos the mass public would never be able to see the animals and I believe "seeing is believing" or at least it is for me. I do think most zoos or lets say the zoos that I have attended could spend more time and energy pressing conservation in front of the displays, tours, and in the gift shops because memories are made from hearing, viewing, and having mementos. In a perfect world it would be great for audiences to be able to visit the wild and see what goes on, but I think zoos are a great alternative to this when used effectively - implementing a more educational environment for their audience. 

4. American zoos use birth control in the feed of animals, while European zoos use euthanasia to regulate the population of their animals in order to keep the genetics of their breeding pools regular. I think both approaches are cringe worthy. The European way seems disgusting and irrational, while the American way concerns me for the same reasons it concerns me with humans using medical contraceptives. I don’t trust the side effects of them and as I can see with the article, the animals sometimes suffer in some very straining ways. Not only in ways that show physical effects, but probably in ways we cannot fully measure like mental effects they may feel. I remember reading studies that show that in females using birth control attract mates that are no longer attracted to them when they are no longer on birth control or become pregnant (I am really annoyed I can't figure out how to phrase this in a google search in order to source it for you guys), as well as a study that showed birth control interrupts the ability for humans to uses our sense of smell to attract a mate. Making an educated guess, I would say maybe if birth control was not used animals would mate or not mate with another based on their natural ability to become attracted to someone with favorable genes. No, I do not have a better solution for the zoos issues, but there has to be a better and more responsible way for dealing with such issues of over-population, breeding, and genetics. 

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. 

Week four reponses- MRF

Week 4 Responses- 

1. Long explains that having one of each species is just not sufficient because there is a decrease in genetic variation to obtain long lasting survival in zoos. This is fundamental in order to prevent inbreeding. By mentioning that it is the reverse of natural selection, it does go back to the theory of the Species Survival Plan, in that one of the main objectives zoos have to focus on today is to maintain a system to choose who breeds with whom. American zoos thus have to select the species they feel are most threatened in the wild, and put their money and sources in trying to improve their exhibits and habitats, even if it means exiling another species entirely. Sometimes, it even comes down to two species that are equally in danger of extinction, but one is more plausible to be reintroduced to their natural habitat, and thus they most likely go with this choice. Such was the example of the Mhorr gazelles and the polar bears.

Starting in the late 1970s, contraceptives were being used to control overpopulation, and to manage species that were too similar in their gene pool from reproducing. However, there are other extreme measures that other zoos go to, by using euthanasia.

What struck me the most was reading the article “ When Babies Don’t t Fit Plan” at the mention of the zoo in Germany that euthanized three newborn cubs, after realizing that the father was a male tiger that was a hybrid of two tiger subspecies. The reasoning behind it was because they would be “genetically useless”.

Although I am aware that zoos have to take measures in controlling their animals to maintain the best species, this still seems quite an extreme to me- they are still exotic animals after all. 

2.  From reading the articles and listening to the podcast, it really seems to me that even to this day, although zoos claim to put conservation at the center of their attention, entertainment is what makes it thrive. This mentality of keeping the popular animals, such as the elephant, is controversial for many who argue that an institution such as a zoo just is not right for such a large creature to live in. Not only do they have small enclosed spaces to roam in, but they just feasibly do not have the right habitat for them to sustain certain animals. This is why Detroit zoo was the first AZA accredited zoo who decided to return the elephant to a more natural reserve then to force it within its confines- dealing with cold harsh winters that they did not think was healthy for the elephant.

Many times, zoos contain much smaller spaces for animals than what they can live in comfortably, collecting more varied species, rather than focusing on one particular kind.

But perhaps the most ironic is when they obtain animals that are doing very well in the wild, but insist on keeping them for the audience’s sake. One example is the sea lion in St. Louis zoo, who just received a nicely built $18 million dollar renovated pool, but does not need the dire attention that others do, because they are not endangered, or on a warning list.

I believe there should be less emphasis on popular animals in the wild and instead focus in on the ones that need desperate help. If not, then really, what are zoos trying to conserve? I also think that the AZA zoos should have higher standards in the allocated spaces and be checked upon regularly. If they do not meet these requirements, they should not be able to maintain these animals in their zoo. What seems most logical is to put more money on in nature reserves in the wild, rather than on displays at the zoo, as Hancocks states, “ It’s all about conserving zoos, not wildlife”. 

3. Honestly, I do agree with this statement to a certain agree- there is something magical that you do get to experience in zoos, that you would otherwise never get to experience in real life, unless you were a world traveler going to the Sahara one week, and the Amazon the next. It is very special when you do get to glance at a tiger, or make eye contact with a tropical bird, however, if this just brings satisfaction to our aesthetic indulgence, I do not think it is worth it.

As Holst stated, “We’d rather they have as natural behavior as possible. We have already taken away their predatory and antipredatory behaviors. If we take away their parenting behavior, they have not much left.”

 I agree with this, however, I do not agree with the repetitive use of euthanasia to control their populations.

One point that I believe was in the audio component, when talking about this need for conservation, throwing the example of the whale. Although most of us have never seen, or been near to a whale, this did not prevent the enormous effort and funding contributed by society, to protect them. Thus, the point was that we really do not have to be in the presence of an animal in an institution of a zoo, to acknowledge the importance of its existence, or feel compelled to help contribute an effort to keep it alive.

One way that I do believe is a great (and enticing to the younger audience) is to sell toys at the gift shops, that will then use some of the proceeds to protect that species. Even more, the “adopt an animal” plan is a great way to sponsor a pet and provide funds for conserving it. 

4. Euthanasia is used in European zoos to maintain a certain amount of species in one exhibit, while American zoos tend to use contraceptives. I believe that the use of contraceptives is reasonable and more humane, because it then allows for zookeepers to allow males and females to be in the same living area, without the fear of them reproducing. It also regulates inbreeding.

The logic behind the European model, is to allow the animals to raise their young until an age at which they would naturally separate from their parents. Then, the zoos determine which animals to euthanize that do not have a stable breeding plan, or whose genes are overpopulated in their own collection. The only benefit I would say, to using euthanasia, is that it “mimics what would have occurred in the wild” which Holst states. However, putting down 20 to 30 healthy exotic animals including hippos, and gazelles seems cruel and a bit extreme. The fact that they manage their populations by euthanasia, rather than donating a certain species to another zoo, seems selfish and childish to me. Why can’t the animals be spread to other zoo institutions, if the species in their own exhibit is overpopulated? As a vegan, I am just not a fan of killing animals, unless they were suffering from a condition or disease, and see euthanasia as an easy way out of trying to justify conservation.

 -Michelle

Lincoln Park Zoo Coloring books

Hello! My proposal is to create a ‘coloring book’ for each house at the Lincoln Park Zoo.  The coloring books would concentrate on exhibit houses in the zoo. The coloring books would feature a map, and an illustration of every exhibit in that house. The exhibits would be arranged as you would see them as you walked through the house, so that the book could serve as something of a 'guide' for the animal house.  Each animal (or group of animals, if there is more than one animal in an exhibit) would be drawn in simple black and white line art in it’s habitat. One the page with the animal would be relevant information about the species, such as where it lives, what it eats, it's habits. In other words, it's ecological niche. If relevant, the book will also mention facts about conservation, interspecies relationships, ect.

In some cases information regarding the animal as an individual would be supplied. For example, the ape house. I think it is important that people know something about the animals they are looking at not just as an ambassador of a species, but as an individual of that species. However, I don't believe it to be practical to do this for every animal. When animals died or moved, the books would need to be altered, and this is simply not the way to go. Instead, I will only do this for long lived animals who will likely be at the zoo for some time. The Ape house consists of a small family group that will probably remain unchanged for a long period of time, and is a good example of the kind of house that would benefit from a more personal approach.

The coloring books would be sold with packs of crayons or colored markers at the entrance to each house, and the profits from the coloring books would go towards that specific house. For my project I would like to put together one of these books, most likely for the Reptile and Small Mammal House, or the African Journey House.

Who is involved?

Just me (Isabella Rotman)

Topic

Coloring Books

Integrative?

The coloring books would be integrative because they would introduce guests to the specific animals in the zoo.  The coloring books would be an easy way for kids to connect to the animals as they walk through the exhibits, and hopefully spark an interest in both the children and parents. In addition to that, the proceeds from the books would go to that specific house, so people would feel that they are ‘giving’ to their favorite part of the zoo.

Why is this topic good for general visitors? What are your goals for the project if a visitor engages with it?

I think it is good for general visitors because it is aimed at children, and would provide an easy and useful way for parents to educate their children. The books would serve as something of a ‘guide’ while a family walks through the animal house. The parents could match up the animals in the exhibits with the animals on the page (the pages of the books would be in order of appearance as far as walking through the house). In addition to the experience in the zoo, the children would then be able to take the books home to color them. I find that people very much like to bring home souvenirs from places like zoo’s, and this would serve that purpose well.

Media format?

Coloring books (Printed black and white pages, color cover, crayons).

Research for this particular media format? Why is it appropriate (given your goal, skills, accessibility, etc.)

The media format suits me well because of my background in comics. I like to draw and make distributable books. I think Zines are a great way to distribute information because they give people something to take home and hold onto. They are also a tangible item, which makes it possible to sell them. I like the idea of these books making revenue for the zoo. I think if they are marketed as a ‘suggested donation’ and where the money is going is specified, people will be more likely to buy them and feel good about it.

Access Venue?

At the entrance to each animal house. All of them will be available in the gift shop. It I’m not sure if I will include this in my actual project.

References/Information sources?

This part gets a little bit tricky. The website for the Lincoln Park zoo gives the species of animals and facts about them, but does not say anything about them as individuals. I think for that information I would need to speak with a zookeeper. Perhaps I can find online who is the director of the house that I choose and e-mail them. As for the layout of the houses, i plan to simply visit a house, draw a map of it, and photograph the animals. Then I can research them on my own and draw them at home.

http://www.lpzoo.org/regenstein-small-mammal-reptile-house

Possible Title for the Project?

Lincoln Park Zoo Coloring Books

Natural History Public Media Assignment #1: Proposal

Who is involved? Stephanie, Ariella, Chris
Your Topic? Why zoo animals are so cute and why they shouldn't be pets just because of that.
Integrative element? Our natural history aspect is the history and facts about sandcats (the cutest thing ever created). Our social and philosophic elements are to look at exotic pet ownership from a moral and practical stand point.
Why is this topic a good one for general visitors? What are your "goals" for the project if a visitor engages with it? The topic touches on the basic issue of being able to care for pets/exotics pets properly, including but not limited to their needed environments, diets, physical activity, sex and socialization.
Media Format? PSA youtube video.
Reason for the particular media format? A PSA video posted on the web would reach the largest number of people on an issue that plagues a large population of exotic animals - ones that are often coveted at the zoo.
Access Venue? We will heavily tag our video on youtube.com. Using humor in parts of the PSA will attract more viewers to our video.
References/Information sources? Encylopedia, "Looking at Animals" by John Berger, "cuteness" studies and humor used for education.
Possible title for the project? Sandcats as Pets: Cute or Unethical?

Response Questions Week 4 IR

>> RESPONSE QUESTIONS 3     

1-  Sarah Long, a coordinator of breeding at Lincoln Park Zoo, argues in Date Night at the Zoo that “Noah got it all wrong.” What does she mean by this? What strategy are zoos taking to “get it right”? What are the pros and cons of this strategy on the part of zoos? Discuss them in the context of animals like cheetahs, black-and-white ruffed lemurs, and polar bears. Reference SSPs in your response.

In order to avoid in breeding, a large population of animals must be held and bred together in a manner designed to maintain genetic diversity. Two of each animal, Noah’s Arch, just won’t cut it for repopulating a species. If zoo’s want a chance to keep a healthy population of animals, one which could possibly rejuvenate a depleted population in the wild, then they need to plan who breeds with who very carefully.

Zoos are doing a lot to meet this goal. In 2000 the association opened the Population Management Control Center to analyze to genetics of zoo animals and determine the best breeding plan for genetic diversity. Many zoo’s are giving their animals contraceptives, to avoid unwanted pregnancies between animals that are too closely related. Zoo’s outside America even euthanize animals in order to avoid inbred offspring reproducing later down the road.

Because such a large population of one species is necessary, then zoo’s are needing to cut down on the amount of species they hold. Some species, sadly, are being phased out of zoos in favor of species that can be maintained in captivity and have a chance of returning to their natural habitat at a later date. Because of this, some species will probably go extinct, because their population does not supply enough genetic diversity, or their habitat is too far gone to return to.

2-  If conservation is a key goal, then what is the tension between funding resources and the how zoos go about conservation? What are the alternatives – what do some other people should be done with such funds if conservation is the primary motive?

Some people think that the funds need to go to animals that have a chance of being transplanted back into the wild if the wild population is driven to extremely low levels. Therefore some animals, like the polar bear, no longer has a place in the zoo. With melting ice caps polar bears are not likely to be able to survive if populations from zoos are released into the wild at a future date. Therefore, if conservation is the only motive, resources would be best spent breeding other animals, and polar bears should be phased out of zoos.

This is controversial, because animals like polar bears are the most popular residents at zoos. People come to see them. They achieve other zoo goals, such as inspiring people to care for the fate of animals, and they bring in zoo revenue. Zoo directors are likely to spend money on things like new exhibits for popular charismatic animals, such as polar bears, while conservationists urge zoos to spend their money on species who have a higher chance of benefiting from zoo breeding.

3-  Many zoos argue that the first hand experience with animals at zoos are crucial for helping people to form bonds, and thus develop a care and sense of conservation ethic, for endangered animals. The Wild Thing piece on the National Zoo especially makes this argument. What is your view?

I think it is completely true. Seeing an animal in real life can instill a sense of wonder that nothing else will do. It is argued that there is no way to support that zoos inspire people to spend money on conservation. I argue that there is no data because it cannot be measured. Not everyone who goes to a zoo will immediately be able to spend huge sums of money on animals, but it could affect society and individuals positively in less noticeable ways. Someone could be inspired to be a conservationist, a scientist, an artist. You never know what a child, in love with a polar bear at a zoo, will do as an adult. How has this experience changed him? For the better I’m sure, even if he doesn’t immediately start rallying to turn the entirety of Alaska into conservation land.

4-          What is a difference between American and European zoos in terms of their philosophy of captive animals breeding if room does not exist for the adult population to grow given the size of the zoo habitats? Which approach makes more sense to you and why? How does the European approach relate to the logic of conservation and the issues of genetic diversity that underlie them?

European zoos tend to euthanize their animals much more often than American Zoos. American zoos give their animal’s contraceptives in order to avoid unwanted breeding when males an females are housed in the same exhibits.  European zoos don’t believe in this, saying that keeping animals from reproducing is further alienating them from their nature. Instead, these zoos opt to allow animals to reproduce, rear their young to the age where they would naturally leave their parents, and then euthanize and offspring that is too inbred to contribute to a genetically diverse population in captivity. This view is actually more conservationist, because it allows for funds to only be spent on animals that can be used to replenish depleted groups in the wild. However, it also involves killing innocent baby animals, which tends to go against the gut reaction of most people trying to conserve animals.

-Isabella Rotman

Observation week 3 ----MEN)))

-->

Observation

This weekend I paid my second visit to the Lincoln Park zoo. Uncomfortably visiting the ape house, strolling to the lion house and then to the bears, the hordes of people gathered at these specific exhibits.  As I weaseled my way to the front of the out door lion exhibit I found the information displayed about the animal, much more extensive than information offered about less popular animals such as the Painted Hunting Dog. The lion exhibit informed viewers of behavior, location, diet and size of the animal as well as interactive comparative sculptures in witch one can relate to the lions paw size. The Painted Hunting Dog on the other hand places in a rather small cage for the amount of animals in the enclosure. The exhibit had information that was hard to find or lacked the interest of passers by to the extent that parents were informing their children that they were hyenas. It was clear to me that the Lincoln Park zoo favored animals and thus reserved more information for the animals of popular interest or the other way around? In further research I found that the Painted Hunting Dog are on the endangered species list published by (IUCN)/World Conservation Union and African lions are not. The question of aestheticized conservation arises and public awareness is very much present in comparing these two animals.  The Painted Hunting Dog live in packs some can be as small as a pair, or as large as thirty. The dogs utilize light conditions for hunting and there are 3,000 individuals in Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana and South Africa today. The question remains why put so much effort into animals that are not endangered but have grater esthetic value and possible fanatical support for the establishment of the zoo and diminish less attractive endangered animals to the point of misinformation. It is indeed a two-headed coin, both provide advantages and disadvantages.

Representation of endangered and non-endangered animals in popular culture. Is this the product of conservation esthetics?

http://www.painteddog.org/the-dogs/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/african-hunting-dog/

Questions #3*******MEN

              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?  

With the introduction of the  “Hagenbeckxation” into the Bronx and may other American zoos caching up this the innovations of European zoos the concept of the bar-less cage began. Also introducing the idea of simulating the natural environment from witch these animals came from. The goal was to synthesize an environment in witch both the animal and the viewer gained.  Experimenting with the panorama and the water moat the desire for conservation from sterile cages was necessary. Unfortunately the latter of the two, the water moat, failed in certain situations. Undeniably trying to present better conditions for the animals a few gorillas fell into them and drowned, gorillas can’t swim. It is clear that Hancocks would praise the Bronx zoo for its leading roll in reconditioning and investment of the well being of the animals and the education of the public.

What does Hancocks argue were the major innovations, which they introduced at Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo? How was their approach to design, landscape, 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.

 The woodland park zoo first and foremost declared that “the animals were the primary client” this was a first for animals well being to rule superior over audience and keepers Ignoring the Taxonomic Layout of most zoos the woodland park zoo address its animals on the basis of bioclimatic and geographic arrangements. Designed by jones and jones and asked to research soil, water and temperature specificity the designers created the most realistic and animal centric environments to be seen in zoos.

             

There is a discussion about similar issues at the Sororan Desert Museum concerning proghorn 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/configration/materiality of exhibits, and the goals for animal experience as well as human experience at zoos?

It is interesting, one of the points made of zoo exhibition and conservation relationships, is drawn to curtail roll of an animal in an ecosystem. At the Sororan Desert Museum the issue arose in the form of debate of presenting two different animals that had the origin of the same place. Desiring to build a pronghorn “the most interesting animal” exhibit, demonstrating a specific ecological story was questioned. Suggested instead was an exhibit on the grasshopper mouse, a vital part to the same ecological story of the pronghorn. The museum stated that it would be more cost efficient and significant but, the pronghorn was the largest of the animals thus leading to esthetic interest, to more money and finally to conservation of the ecosystem. In part demonstrating zoos, museums and other live animal displays struggle human esthetic, morality and capital in the display and focus of the animals and their environment.

                 

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 animasl within them that wwe 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?) 

Its seems to me that Wilson is talking about human esthetics in desiring what is human beauty. Wilson mentions history, phycology and behavior witch intern relate to the human experience and esthetic judgment. While the point of the chapter is unclear to me it seems that a large amount if romanticism of viewing nature is present in Wilsons writing.  It is the multitude of reasons that drive us to practice the live and public zoological study. In some form are desire to conserve is driven from gilt and the ability to relive the damage we have done to the animal and its habitat. We as humans desire the beauty and order of the natural would, it inspires and validates are existence.