The death of the living stamp collection - An immersive and higher welfare future for all birds.

Thinking almost constantly about the future (and the future of bird keeping in particular) I often find myself asking the same questions, often in different ways and formats but one of the main ponderances I reach is "What is the future shape of bird exhibition?".

To be clear here I am not considering the future of exhibition in the show and competition circles (these do not thrill me in the slightest and on a basic level are limited in development by the very basis on which they must exist, but that's another story). I am talking about the way the average human will perceive and interact with exotic birds in zoos and to some degree private collections in the future and also, how this might impact the all important welfare of our birds, a new indicator for excellence in a new avicultural era (see Is it time for a new "Golden age" of aviculture?).

Macaw species are often over represented and "stamp collected" due to their variability, colour and sometimes rarity and value.

 So lets look back and consider the historic influences on bird exhibition. It is fair to say that the roots are entrenched as were so many taxa, within the menagerie style displays of previous centuries which rather than educate, seek to simply demonstrate the exotic, much like one might show a mounted butterfly collection in a museum. Even scientific institutions placed more interest in the cladistics of birds than their behaviour or welfare and so the "stamp collector" method evolved, a method so pervasive that it still exists today in almost all circles of aviculture.

Like so many stamps, history has sometimes made mad collectors out of good birdkeepers.

 Over time, as human perceptions of animals changed, the way they were displayed changed also, ushering in the Hagenbeck revolution of the 1890s and onward. This was the first real step which considered education and immersion as it's core value. Hagenbeck was famous for creating panorama enclosures which approximated wild habitats and where needed kept animals physically separated by moats and the like, but still visually cohesive to the viewer. At last the charismatic mammals of the globe could be seen in some context, as they would exist in the wild. There must have also been a slight shift in welfare (maybe not intentionally) for these individuals, now sharing space with others of their kind and other compatible species. This of course was far from what we expect today, but for the time a great leap forward.

The Bronx zoo bird atrium in 1905 - one of the first heavyweight attempts at quality space for birds.

It is here however that methods diverge a little. By and large birds were not given such attention for a number of possible reasons. It is possible that the public drives (as they still do today) pushed for innovation with charismatic megafauna but were less concerned with birds. It could be that the physical aspect of flight may have placed a dampener on such displays as interestingly birds which could be pinioned (an operation to remove flight) such as flamingos, pelicans and waterfowl were included in such situations fairly early on. It seems however that for one reason or another the Hagenbeck train left most bird species behind in this respect, with the "stamp collection" method being the norm in many public and private collections, preferring to show row upon row of bird species in fairly empty environments, often as a display of species rather than a practical demonstration of survival and adaptation to habitat. Even now many collections house rows of block aviaries inherited from an earlier time when eating, flying and breeding were the only real considerations for a bird. Tragically in some parts of the world intensive bird farms exist knowingly continuing this tradition.

Although there are a few sporadic examples at the beginning, it was not until fairly late in the last century that volumes of space were considered a basic requirement for birds, with one example, the Snowdon aviary in London Zoo designed to house a flock of ibis on the banks of Regent's canal. It was at this time that aviculturists across the board really started considering what constituted an interesting habitat for a bird and also, like Hagenbeck's designs, the Snowdon allowed for immersion by allowing visitors to walk amongst the birds and see them moving around as nature intended. Glimpses of the future can be found peppered through history, with the whole concept being developed something like a jigsaw puzzle, parts learnt and nurtured here and there which later combine to produce an even more advanced environment.

The Snowdon Aviary 1962 - it is an ironic tragedy that this icon is at present being converted for use with primate species.

So having established the basic blueprint for an immersive, welfare based aviary, collections the world over began to develop similar facilities, experimenting more with housing birds together that would never have been a consideration before. This resulted in interesting environments that must have been far removed from the traditional block aviaries that were so common previously.

When I imagine (and we have to here) what the viewer's perception of such a change must have been, it's possible that these new aviaries shone a light on the previous unsatisfactory designs and produced a zoo bias toward "birds in cages" that was not there before, it could indeed have been the start of the same logic that plagues every bird keeper to this day, the assumed subjective understanding that every lay onlooker believes they have. Indeed there is a persistent ideology that space equals good welfare, when in reality it is the quality of the space that has more bearing than volume, but of course, if you provide ample good quality space your birds win on all fronts.

In some places the old way still remains in varying degrees, it could be down to lack of space, lack of funds, convenience or just lack of knowledge. In private collections this is still often the case, with collecting being more common than it is in public zoos these days. One thing is obvious however, housing mammals in a manner similar to the 1900's norm would be rightly unacceptable today, why then is the same acceptable for birds?

A modern bird farm shows the typical "block" design.

I won't caption this one, I'll leave it to you...

 There are obvious benefits to block aviaries and when used correctly these can be part of a very effective avian husbandry strategy, but they are certainly not required to display to the public. If you have a pair of highly territorial birds which do not play nice with their usual neighbours in a larger communal aviary then housing them off show for the duration of their breeding cycle would be beneficial for all, and on a welfare front the birds would be so busy rearing young that compromise is unlikely to occur. Again this sort of situation requires peace and quiet rather than public observation, so it is my opinion that block aviaries should be used as a "tool" rather than a long term housing solution for birds, much as we may use an incubator or net.

So then, what should we aim for when creating new environment in which to display birds?

We have to consider 3 parties, viewers, birds and keepers, in no particular order.

I used to believe that it was impossible to build an aviary in which all three could co-exist happily, but these days it is becoming more and more clear that with a bit of forward thinking this is most definitely not the case. It IS still easy to produce an outcome which favours one group heavily over the other but that does not mean balance cannot be achieved.

There are many extra factors in play today (and will be more in future) which make this even easier. Animal training has come on leaps and bounds and now allows for passive management of birds without the need for stress on their part. Technologies exist to help viewers and keepers observe and interpret the birds without having to be invasive in any way.

Interpretation is key in this scenario, it is fine to present several well adjusted species in a wonderful microbiome but without allowing viewers to understand what to see and how, you end up with very happy birds but rather bewildered viewers. Offering such a brilliant opportunity to learn only to fail the viewer with lack of direction renders the exercise futile.

Face to face - A red crested turaco in a natural environment presents a much more engaging prospect.

Engagement is also critical. how can you get the viewer closer to the birds in a way that cannot be interpreted as contrived or subservient to the viewer? Clever husbandry planning can induce some truly wonderful moments for onlookers. Much in the way that Disney pioneered an almost screenplayed safari at Disney's Animal Kingdom, it is possible to place enrichment and motivation in areas where viewers are likely to congregate and encounter the birds. I have personally seen many times the difference in demeanour between a zoo guest who has looked at a row of aviaries, a zoo guest who has seen an inactive, sedentary bird within a walkthrough and a zoo guest who has truly encountered a bird in a way that was interpretable by anyone with even a basic understanding of animals. It is a fine line however between this sweet spot and producing an experience which is forced and leaves the viewer with the feeling that the bird is obliged to entertain them, rather than themselves being obliged to respect and understand the bird in question.

So ultimately if we design an exhibit which aims to deliver this experience to viewers, aims to provide a highly stimulating, high welfare environment for the species living within it and aims to be reasonably accessible and functionally manageable for keepers, we are on the right track. Technology can be incorporated to a high level but must only ever serve functionally as a means of assisting these aims, never overshadowing them.

I could go into the details of collection planning here, but that is maybe for another day, as it is far more complicated a topic than can be covered in part of another article.

Will we ever see the death of the "stamp collection"?
 I'm not sure, in some aspects pooling expertise in certain genera can be helpful but this is seldom the motivation for accumulating species within collections and is certainly a poor way to show the diversity of the avian class. At the other end of the scale we have the ever present fear of creating homogeneous public collections which vary very little from one another due to regional collection plans and trends, something which in my opinion is equally as dreadful. One thing I honestly hope to see the extinction of in the coming century is the block aviary (at least on public display anyway!).

As ever really have a think (after you have read the following item) and see what changes you could make to you birds environments that could improve any of these criteria. Even better, go crazy and knock some blocks through into bigger better spaces!

Stay awesome and keep giving your birds 110%,

C.

With that I leave you with some cracking further reading from a legend of the zoo world which really captures the sentiments of good display and how species is not always as important as interpretation.

Take it away Mr Conway...

How to Exhibit a Bullfrog: A Bed-Time Story for Zoo Men (or women!)

MMM... DONUTS! - Thinking outside the boxes : Have we overlooked a major new aviary design?

Donuts... I know what you're thinking, where are you going with this, but hold tight, there is a point here.

Traditionally when we design aviaries even with the best intentions we always automatically tend to think of the longest possible flight distance, and rightly so, flight is critical to most birds and good levels of exercise are integral to the biology and health of those species. In the wild most birds would be faced with daily situations that required varied amounts of flapping, gliding, banking and slowing in three dimensions, not just two like us humans, to really consider the challenges birds face we must consider our differences rather than our similarities. This activity would make up a large portion of their mental stimulation for the day and far too many flights are designed on a very "human" two dimensional level which allows for some flight, but the real quality of that flight is questionable. Granted some species may fly far less than we tend to think, or at least expend far fewer calories doing so, but flight is very important regardless. Coupled with that, choices are crucial to good welfare, so the choice to fly or not fly is one every bird deserves, this subject could take a whole article in itself, but back on topic.

So we are designing a flight maybe long but thin, so that exercise may be taken in short bursts from one end to another, maybe we set up a larger more square flight so that varied movement can be taken across the flight and for some species this may be the best option, certainly this idea will not work everywhere, but could be better deployed with the average flying bird, be it bird of prey, large softbill, parrot or any species which might wish to maintain meaningful, sustained flight over a good period of time without constant starting and stopping.

99.5% of all bird keepers have a weakness to cake...have I lured you in yet?

Sure we can never realistically provide the complete mental stimulation of flying miles in the wild, but with this method we could at least offer the physical effects and benefits of such exercise and a clear improvement from the welfare offered by traditional to-and-fro flight designs. Even if you do not care for good welfare (AND YOU SHOULD!) it is well known that one of the biggest brick walls with fertility in captive birds is obesity through either overfeeding (very common) or lack of activity, it might make your bird sluggish, unattractive to it's partner (overweight birds are a liability) and also has massive influence on the hormone production within each sex and for those of us who value natural raising of birds this is critical (I'm not talking about just getting an egg laid, pulling, incubating, hand rearing and calling it a success here, I'm talking the art of long term support, not doing it for them but making sure everything they need to do it themselves is available year in year out). So how might we remedy such a problem? You got it, lots of good, meaningful exercise to keep birds lean, give them space to court properly and get their bodies coursing with all the right hormones and not carbs, fats and frustration, which oddly enough sooner or later can lead to aggression and in the end, failure to breed and live a normal life.

Here's where I think as a collective many of us might have missed a trick, the donut shaped flight. This is something I had come up with myself some time ago independently in my quest to allow for potentially endless exercise, but after I did a little research I found that several other people in the past decades in separate parts of the world have come to a similar conclusion and indeed some have even built such a prototype aviary with varying levels of success.

The virtues of the donut shaped flight are many, if properly designed it can not only allow a real chance at sustained exercise but provide visual barriers for birds when the bird's sheltered housing is placed in the "hole" of the donut, on a small scale a low safety porch leaving the area above still open will not block the flight path. In zoos there is plenty of opportunity to include viewing areas in place of shelters (place them somewhere else of course) offering an immersive experience for visitors, although certain species may not take well to visitor traffic in the centre of the aviary, but no doubt this idea could be used to better effect than it has been thus far.

Above - A simple and effective donut shaped flight at Olomouc Zoo in the Czech Republic

Above - From the front Olomouc zoo's donut offers decent viewing space also.

So the donut was the answer in my mind, to sustain long term flight in a confined space, but then the next issue occurred to me. Birds are generally creatures of habit and often like to do things the same way, sometimes even at their own expense, might the donut encourage it's inhabitants to only fly round it in their own preferred way and in turn produce an unbalanced physical muscle structure from constant banking flight? Maybe...

So my next thought was the racetrack flight, a flight which allowed for some straight ahead flight followed by banking at either end of the "track" this could remedy some of my concerns about hefty one sided pectoraly challenged birds. For a long time I looked for evidence of such a flight and found that nobody seemed to have constructed one at the time, but on an off chance I looked toward the East, where the great master falconers of the Arab states often have humongous sums to spend on their beloved birds of prey, and lo and behold I found something close to what I was looking for. A huge, wide racetrack shaped flight designed for exercising birds (granted not for day to day use but the design could easily be transformed) at 42 m in diameter around the curve this is an impressive flight space.

 

Above and Below - Large flight for birds of prey in the United Arab Emirates.

 

The racetrack or wide donut works very well in this context with well trained birds of prey who can be flown in either direction to make up for any overuse of muscles, but left unsupervised, it still does not address the concerns about banking in one direction over and over again, so once more the cogs were turning.

The next step seemed to be fairly obvious to me, a figure eight track, which I dubbed a "double donut" (I may come up with a variant for waterfowl and call it a "dunkin' donut"... I'm here all week.). Provided the central flight space was clear this design could be the perfect shape I was looking for, extended too to allow for some non banking flight time it could not only offer the varied exercise I wanted but also another thing... choices. Choices are the foundation of good welfare and allowing animals to express that right will improve their day to day lives, the elongated figure eight allowed for a multitude of flightpaths, not just one way or another. Birds could do a standard figure of eight banking equally in both directions during flight, they could do the same in reverse offering a whole new perspective in terms of the visual stimuli and physical obstacles the may find, they could do the same loop twice if desired and a multitude of varying combinations which ultimately makes up a better experience for the bird whilst flying. On occasion they may even have to dodge a fellow bird as they go through the central area, all very natural interactions which could increase the animals welfare and time spent "flying" considerably.

The centre of the donuts is important because visual barriers will often act as a guide to focus flight paths within aviaries, a peanut or circle shaped aviary would not result in the same sort of flight as the designs outlined here, but as mentioned earlier that space could be used for shelters, viewing areas or just left empty, but it should be there. Some success has been had with large circular flights for birds of prey, but again they would not offer the variable benefits of the "double donut" and suffer the same disadvantages as a standard donut.

Along the same lines I found another bird of prey design which at the moment I consider to be almost the "perfect" design for such an experimental flight for many other species to live within full time, although if it has been built or is just in the design stage I could not say (See below).

 

In the end it was clear that my idea was not as original as I had thought and had been tried here and there with some success as a full time aviary, it is still a surprise that there are not more flights like this around given the clear promise of such a design. I hope to see more in future and maybe we will discover even more of the virtues of the donut! Watch this space!

Imagine the enrichment possibilities of such a complex aviary shape... But I'll leave you with that to think about...

C.