ZooChat Cup Match #9: Chester (5) v Valencia
- Thread starter CGSwans
- Start date
You haven't convinced me - the Chester great ape exhibits, minor-ish problems aside, are still superior for animals and hence overall. Valencia's gorilla exhibit is a barren, useless space. But you're quite right to cite the high standard of the others: they just can't match Chester's quasi-walk through for callitrichids, enormous Sulawesi crested macaque exhibit or wonderful monkey house. The latter might not be great for viewing during summer, but the quality of the indoor quarters is a good standard deviation above the continental standard. And all that is before the (of secondary importance, but not irrelevant) greater depth of Chester's collection.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
Perhaps sooty can explain the problem with the viewing in Realm of the Red Ape?
The inside is tall, with the viewer at a great height (pretty unusual in Europe and a great improvement I think). Here close up encounters can be had. The outside provides, as I've said before, the chance to see orangs as in the wild; far away and high up. Again, most collections in Europe do not really do this. The only significant problems with RotRA are that it doesn't really address the 'sitting on grass' issue, and small viewing windows, although I've never found the latter to be a problem at all.
The inside is tall, with the viewer at a great height (pretty unusual in Europe and a great improvement I think). Here close up encounters can be had. The outside provides, as I've said before, the chance to see orangs as in the wild; far away and high up. Again, most collections in Europe do not really do this. The only significant problems with RotRA are that it doesn't really address the 'sitting on grass' issue, and small viewing windows, although I've never found the latter to be a problem at all.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
Two problems, I think - although important to state that I’m only a once-every-eighteen-months-or-so visitor, so I might be unfairly reacting to the way things have been during my limited visits...
The place itself looks ugly. It has all of the style and elegance of a building at Colchester Zoo, rather than Chester Zoo. Irrelevant to the Orangs, but it diminishes the building in my eyes.
And the viewing areas seem too narrow (and the windows too small), so that with a few people in there it rapidly becomes claustrophobic and unpleasant.
And all the prams make it near on impossible to move through . . .
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
Presumably though those smaller windows make a better environment for the orangs?
And I know what you mean about the look of the building, it is quite utilitarian, although I don't personally find it objectionable.
And I know what you mean about the look of the building, it is quite utilitarian, although I don't personally find it objectionable.
I accept that I have been compiling complete ZTL lists of relevant animals in each zoo, including species I have seen several times. I thought this may help some Zoochatters compare zoo collections. In future I'll just list species I'd like to see and choose on this basis.
Don't get me wrong, but I very much appreciate those lists, I was just wondering whether you chose based just on those lists.
I don't visit as many zoos as I like and I haven't been to several of the zoos in the list. I last visited the Paris Menagerie in 2012 and the Budapest Zoo in 2004. Can I make a fair comparison based on these visits. I first visit to Antwerp was in 1982 and my last visit was in 2005. I much preferred my first visit, when the collection was larger and more interesting. I accept that my views have changed over the years and I am more bothered about animal welfare than I was. Perhaps I should do another zoo binge and see lots of zoos in a short period to update my opinions of zoos. Despite this, I would much prefer seeing new species in good conditions than species I have seen many times before.
Not at all!
Whilst I wouldn't personally vote based only on species lists, it is entirely up to you if you wish to do so. The criteria is yours, as long as it stays within the category's scope.
On the other hand, it's also entirely within the scope of the game for others to argue for expanding your criteria, as lintworm has done. Whether you listen to them is, in turn, up to you.
In short, carry on, all.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
I find your lists hugely valuable, but, perhaps like lintworm, I get quite alarmed when you seem to make a decision solely based on them. I think the standard of exhibitry must be a big factor in these decisions.
Thanks CG Swans
One of my favourite recent zoo visits was to RSCC. Unfortunately, I was too late to see the cuscus and tarsiers, but RSCC had a relatively small collection of animals, but a high ratio of rarely kept species. I also enjoyed visiting Wildwood, which included feeding a brown bear, seeing an active weasel and seeing several water vole enclosures, where voles were being bred for future release - a true example of conservation.
One of my favourite recent zoo visits was to RSCC. Unfortunately, I was too late to see the cuscus and tarsiers, but RSCC had a relatively small collection of animals, but a high ratio of rarely kept species. I also enjoyed visiting Wildwood, which included feeding a brown bear, seeing an active weasel and seeing several water vole enclosures, where voles were being bred for future release - a true example of conservation.
I think different people use different criteria for visiting zoos. I look for new species, but I would much prefer them to be active and in good enclosures. For example, the first olingo I saw was curled up in a small enclosure at Exmouth Zoo. The second was an active olingo at Kilverstone Zoo. Both zoos have since closed, but I think the Kilverstone Zoo was much better.
This is so true, and without this there’d be no point in playing this game, as we would all just agree every time and it would be a landslide victory for one zoo as a clear winner from the outset.
