Mega-thread small exhibits

[NZFanatic]

Ok, here's another thing: the majority if the roster in many zoos are the small exhibit animals. So, honestly, wouldn't it make sense if we had more small exhibit animals than habitat animals?

I'd agree with that.

 

[Iben]

Alternatively, a smaller exhibit that functions similarly to the vending machines and attaches to the side of the path. Staff can still access these facilities so there shouldn't be a problem there.

I think I saw you mention this earlier somewhere else, but buildings don't have to be attached to a path for them to function. They can actually be quite a big distance from a path and they will still work fine, keepers will still go up to it and even go off the path for a while to reach to it.

So I don't think a 2x2 exhibit should attach like a vending machine for it to function, the game can already handle that without it.

 

[DarthQuell]

By the way, I added all the suggestions to the OP. If I missed something, let me know (I'm outta town, so everything's insane this weekend)

 

[Ounze]

The kakapo isn't like those types of things, though. In the US, species that can't be kept in captivity by law there can still be kept elsewhere. New Zealand species aren't the same - the kakapo, like the yellow-eyed penguin as another example, and like many of our birds, isn't allowed to be exported to any overseas collections. All hand-reared chicks are released back into the wild and are indistinguishable from wild-born birds. There has only been a single instance of a kakapo that was unable to be released to the wild, and it wasn't kept in a zoo, it became a travelling ambassador for its species. The kakapo isn't like the Himalayan brown bear or proboscis monkey in that it's just "rare" or "hard to keep", it's literally outlined in its species survival plan that captivity would be counterproductive and do more harm than good with this particular species. One day that might change, but as of now it's an absolute no-go, and Frontier won't add it because of that (every animal in the game has a captive presence except the titan beetle, IIRC).

Anyway, as to the rest - lions and koalas spend upwards of 20 hours a day sleeping. Aardvarks, giant anteaters, Chinese pangolins, and clouded leopards are nocturnal. Crocodilia, as ambush predators, spend most of the day sitting in one spot. The criteria of what makes a habitat animal isn't based on metabolism or how active the species is, otherwise the dwarf caiman would be an exhibit animal, too, most likely. The game makes allowances for behavioural traits because otherwise it wouldn't be very interesting, so nocturnal animals aren't nocturnal, and animals that you'd be lucky to see moving in a real zoo are active almost all the time. Putting an armadillo in an exhibit would be ludicrous.

Well, a better example would have been California Condor. Only well connected have them on display, and all the display are males that are being held until they reach breeding age, or wait for a designated mate to mature. By this logic, we shouldn't have them if Aviaries/flight ever come to PZ. Personally, since we have warmers and coolers, I can't accept their logic, and line of logic over captive presence. The Oregon Zoo is just finishing a 125 million dollar remodel of several exhibits, and they installed a heat exchange under the polar bear, and Asian elephant to keep them cooler and hotter respectively. That system cost several million dollars. And in the game, we all make habitats that are larger than both of those IRL habitats. Kudos if you can, but since I have to accept cheap heat/cooling, I can't rectify that logic with "must have a captive presence". It's too contradictory in terms of realism for me to accept.

No it's based on what size they are, and their social needs. I was using their metabolic as the IRL justification that they are contained in what's best described as a large exhibit, and hence why PZ should follow that. 49m^2 is a lot of space for an armadillo, or a sloth. Putting an armadillo in a habitat is equally ridiculous in my eyes. They are solitary, 1-2. Almost all other similarly sized animals in the game have higher social requirements.
Just as an aside note, I personally would love for realistic behavior, and nocturnal behaviors. But then again, I fall into the animal nerd category, and not a casual player, nor a builder. The later two groups probably would find nocturnal animals boring.

 

[Kolikokoli]

Until we have self-sustainable exhibits, I'm not gonna use them much. But I like all your ideas.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

See, I think we need bigger ones, but not for species like those. There is a sweet spot for some animals that most habitat would be too big, and yet exhibits are too small. Take for instance Sengis. The small, rodent like Afrotherians require a huge amount of space because they stake out a territory, and run around the outside of it.
A larger habitat size (maybe 7m x 7m or larger) would be perfect for creatures like the Kakapo, sloths, Armadillos, Kiwi, etc, (Essentially any small mammal or flightless birds, though one could make a reasonable argument for exhibit Burrowing Owls Athene cunicularia)

but those are all terrible idears for exhibit animals. If its large enough to be a habitat animal, it should be, cause i actually want to see them do stuff and have more interesting designs then glasscube. I could still put them in a glasbox, but that would not only be my decision, but also something i could decorate myself, the biggest critic towards current exhibits

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Meerkats, and Prairie Dogs have higher social requirements. As for Fennec Fox, they have a much higher metabolism than Armadillos and Sloths. Armadillos, Sloths, and Anteaters make a group called Xenarthrans. And all of them have some of the lowest metabolic rates found amongst mammals. Hence why I would have Armadillos, Sloths, and honestly almost any other species of anteater (other than the Giant Anteater) as an exhibit animal.
It may not currently be legal, but the conservation program does hand rear chicks. In the U.S, it is illegal to keep endangered native species, and in my home state of Oregon, it is illegal to keep most native species. The Oregon Zoo can only keep black bears and cougars that can not be released back into the wild. Of course, with these types things, like the Kakapo, or other highly endangered species, I'd like to see a system for animals that can't be rehab'ed.

Keep in mind, with elephant shrews, they use the trails that they make in their territory, so the territory they need is a fraction of the space they actually need, and since they use what are essentially, fragments of habitat. 49m^2 is in that sweet spot of tiny habitat, and way to big for an exhibit as they are now.

I know this is not your opinion and therefor not against you, but thats a horrible idear. Zoos exist to be a backup and controlled breeding population, if an animal should be kept in a zoo anywhere, it should be inside its native range.

 

[Kolikokoli]

but those are all terrible idears for exhibit animals. If its large enough to be a habitat animal, it should be, cause i actually want to see them do stuff and have more interesting designs then glasscube. I could still put them in a glasbox, but that would not only be my decision, but also something i could decorate myself, the biggest critic towards current exhibits

I'd love to see rodents in the game but I want them in a small enclouser not giga mega habitat because of the hitboxes.
But it could be cool if you could have small exhibit "box" that you could snap together to make bigger (connected) exhibits.

 

[Ounze]

Zoos exist to be a backup and controlled breeding population,

Well, there is an growing belief in conservation, and activism as of the last few years. It's still a minority view, but it's growing fast. And it's this idea of "Wild Conservation" which basically breaks down into a pair of thoughts, 1) That conservation in the wild is best, and 2) Captive study is not applicable to wild animals.

And this has several downsides. Almost all animals that are successfully kept in captivity today had to be done with trial and error initially. We are still doing this with some. And on some we have made significant progress. Elephants fare remarkably well in captivity, and others still need a ways to go, like many cetaceans. With this line of thinking, trial and error is unacceptable. Meaning that you have one try to get it right. Even for species whose biology we know incredibly well, this is difficult.
Secondly, this is commonly tied with the thought that our conservation needs to be in triage mode (Do what we can with the worst cases and move on). While technically true, it also means that some species have to be let go. American Bison, which are ecologically extinct, would no longer be managed or protected; and the South Chinese Tiger, which is functionally extinct (Only about 100 survive in captivity, and none in the wild), would be let go, for example (Along with the Wisent, European Bison, for an European example). This thinking for conservation also tends to disregard Evolutionary Significant Units in favor of whole species.
However, there are bright sides, this viewpoint forces higher animal welfare standards, and helped spawn the idea of protecting 'habitat, not species' as method for conservation.
To be clear, I am highlighting this because it is a growing belief. Not my own personal belief, though this does have the possibility to become the dominant philosophy in the future.

if an animal should be kept in a zoo anywhere, it should be inside its native range.

In regards to this, I beg to disagree. Partially because then you end with areas like North America, and Europe, which have much lower biotic diversity to start with than the neo-tropic than areas like Africa, South America, and Southern Asia. And, like Australia lost a significant percent of their native fauna in the last 10,000 years to due to the arrival of humans and climate change in the closing days of the last glacial period.
And since it's megafauna that attracts visitors, and zoos are major sponsors of various conservation effeorts globally and locally, you'd end up with a much reduced conservation globally, since wealth is very concentrated in North America and Europe.

 

[Lelka]

Some more "idle" animations, like the ones we can find in terrapin, scarab and bullfrog, would be appreciated.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Well, there is an growing belief in conservation, and activism as of the last few years. It's still a minority view, but it's growing fast. And it's this idea of "Wild Conservation" which basically breaks down into a pair of thoughts, 1) That conservation in the wild is best, and 2) Captive study is not applicable to wild animals.

And this has several downsides. Almost all animals that are successfully kept in captivity today had to be done with trial and error initially. We are still doing this with some. And on some we have made significant progress. Elephants fare remarkably well in captivity, and others still need a ways to go, like many cetaceans. With this line of thinking, trial and error is unacceptable. Meaning that you have one try to get it right. Even for species whose biology we know incredibly well, this is difficult.
Secondly, this is commonly tied with the thought that our conservation needs to be in triage mode (Do what we can with the worst cases and move on). While technically true, it also means that some species have to be let go. American Bison, which are ecologically extinct, would no longer be managed or protected; and the South Chinese Tiger, which is functionally extinct (Only about 100 survive in captivity, and none in the wild), would be let go, for example (Along with the Wisent, European Bison, for an European example). This thinking for conservation also tends to disregard Evolutionary Significant Units in favor of whole species.
However, there are bright sides, this viewpoint forces higher animal welfare standards, and helped spawn the idea of protecting 'habitat, not species' as method for conservation.
To be clear, I am highlighting this because it is a growing belief. Not my own personal belief, though this does have the possibility to become the dominant philosophy in the future.


In regards to this, I beg to disagree. Partially because then you end with areas like North America, and Europe, which have much lower biotic diversity to start with than the neo-tropic than areas like Africa, South America, and Southern Asia. And, like Australia lost a significant percent of their native fauna in the last 10,000 years to due to the arrival of humans and climate change in the closing days of the last glacial period.
And since it's megafauna that attracts visitors, and zoos are major sponsors of various conservation effeorts globally and locally, you'd end up with a much reduced conservation globally, since wealth is very concentrated in North America and Europe.

Okay i might get that Philosophie, but the same time it sounds like an excuse to just not try, which is stupid when you look at all the success storys where we tried really, really hard like the bisons, aligators, wildebeasts, pere davids deer, pandas and the list goes on an an.
Sounds irresponsible honestly.

And with the native range i dont mean animals from outside shouldnt be kept, but simply that for conversation purposes its more practical to have zoo populations in their native range, because besides being able to actually release them back in the wild, its arguably also the most important place for education.
For example, many indonisian animals are threatend, because people do not know that they should not hunt them.
And idk if those people are the ones that would even be able to go to the zoo, but imagine they did and learned that there dinner from last night really should not have been shot at all.
Would it help? Idk but i know that breeding, presenting and educating about native fauna was an important step for conservation in europe, so i doubt it would be bad somewhere else

 

[Ounze]

And with the native range i dont mean animals from outside shouldnt be kept, but simply that for conversation purposes its more practical to have zoo populations in their native range, because besides being able to actually release them back in the wild, its arguably also the most important place for education.
For example, many indonisian animals are threatend, because people do not know that they should not hunt them.
And idk if those people are the ones that would even be able to go to the zoo, but imagine they did and learned that there dinner from last night really should not have been shot at all.
Would it help? Idk but i know that breeding, presenting and educating about native fauna was an important step for conservation in europe, so i doubt it would be bad somewhere else

One reason they aren't, comes down to diseases. If it is kept inside it's native range, it is liable to still get a certain disease. Particularly with every pervasive ones, like Chrytid fungus. Chrytid fungus might wipe out wild populations, but if the captive population is spread out, the odd of the fungus hitting all of the populations at the same time is unlikely. There are more examples, this is the only one that came into my coffee-less mind at the moment. Native fauna exhibition is important, but so is having a distributed population when it comes to conservation.
That said that brings to another point, with the exceptions of commercially valuable species (Elephant, rhino, Pangolin, etc) Most illegal harvest and hunting is because people have a lack of other options to feed themselves, and their families.
Habitat destruction is the leading cause of endangerment, with illegal hunting coming in a far second. Then you have some species that are shrouded in ill superstitions. Like Aye-Ayes. Many Malagasy people consider them bad luck, and they portend impending death. So when seen, Aye-Ayes are often commonly killed so that it doesn't sneak into house and put it's long finger into your heart.

 

[DarthQuell]

Well, what do y'all think about the new salamander exhibit? Is it tropical or is it a brand new biome? It looks like they took the tropical setting with the big tree and just changed the coloration and plants

 

[daringStumbles]

I had a thread going a few months ago that had some suggestions around exhibits as well. Seems like a lot of re-occurring suggestions around exhibits. If anyone wants to pull any ideas from that thread as well. We had talked a lot about using expanded exhibit features to serve the purpose of aquariums as well.

Exhibit DLC

It seems like there are a lot of features surrounding Exhibits that people want: Aquariums: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/exhibit-rework-aquariums.574085/ Different Sizes: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/large-exhibits.587681/ I know aquariums are a bit of a hot topic, but seems...

forums.frontier.co.uk