When I wrote the last piece extolling the virtues of small animals, I realize I should have added a disclaimer. Yes, more small animals can be housed in a space that would traditionally have house one larger species. At the same time, those small animals should also be receiving more space than they traditionally would have received in older zoos. The old cages at my hometown zoo, now long out of use, were originally used for big cats, such as lions and tigers, but would be an appropriate size for small cats (maybe some medium-sized cats), such as Pallas' cat, ocelot, and sand cat. Those species, in turn, would have historically been kept in cages about the size (and complexity) of my bathroom back in the day.
Even animals that we've generally thought of as very simple and inactive - reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates - we now know benefit in many cases from larger living spaces that allow more room to exercise and a greater opportunity to display a full-range of natural behaviors. I wonder if part of the reason that so many visitors may considered these species "boring" in the past is that we *treat* them like they are boring. put them in glorified shoeboxes with a bland label, and then stack them on shelves. If people every see them, of course - kept in a tiny habitat in very close proximity to humans, it's not surprising that many small species would hide all day, at least to the best of their ability.
Well said. The Reptile Mesa at the San Diego Zoo and the Invertebrate House at the (sadly currently closed for relocation) Bristol Zoo come to mind as good examples of what spacious exhibits can do for the presentation of traditionally overlooked small species.
ReplyDelete