I feel this thread has lost its way a bit and there have been some unnecessarily aggressive posts from
both sides of the debate here.
All I'm going to say for now (possibly for the remainder of this thread) is that every AZA zoo in the United States uses conservation in their marketing and does, in fact, state conservation as being the reason the modern zoo exists. There's no reason why that'd suggest they shouldn't have an exotic collection (if anything, it supports keeping exotic species), or a large collection that includes non-endangered species. Nor does it suggest that zoos can't maintain a healthy business by putting a focus on conservation. Jay and others have given stats showing that Atlanta spends significantly more on conservation than the average zoo (10% instead of 2%, and I think some people are really undermining just how much money "only" 2% of a zoo's annual budget is) and has done significantly more for herps in captivity than San Diego has.
I was genuinely not sure who to vote for at first because, in any other category, I think San Diego wins. But this is not every other category, and the arguments and facts given have been more than enough to show me that Atlanta is far superior here. Others may disagree, but to be honest no one's really given a reason as to why. Maybe I've missed them, but every argument I've seen here either gives no argument whatsoever or states that San Diego is superior because conservation shouldn't be a factor (even if you take that out Atlanta still does more than San Diego), the zoo has a slightly higher species count (there has been zero evidence to suggest the zoo has 200 species, and even so less than 100 are on-exhibit at any given time), or that its San Diego and San Diego deserves to win because it's San Diego. The middle argument is the only one that holds any ground for me, but even then I feel as though Atlanta would win if it were against almost any other zoo. It's been shown that over half of the species San Diego displays (which again is less than ~30 more than Atlanta) are kept in average or below average enclosures with almost no actual educational aspects put into their signage or exhibitry. The outdoor enclosures are the exception, but those make up the minority here. Meanwhile
all of Atlanta's enclosures are of above average quality and have exceptional educational value. Even with less species than San Diego, this means Atlanta has more solid enclosures than San Diego does. In past rounds where a zoo has had more species but less solid enclosures than its competitor, several of those voting for San Diego here would vote for the competitor there. If you feel San Diego deserves the win, fine, but explain why beyond the zoo keeping more species because if that wasn't good enough in past rounds, it shouldn't be good enough here.
Going back to the conservation factor, when it was Brookfield v Miami, pangolins were a huge part of the debate. The discussion of pangolin conservation swayed people in both directions. Those arguing in favor of Brookfield stated that Brookfield should win because they were helping set-up a captive assurance population for pangolins and helping develop better husbandry techniques for them. As stated many times, Atlanta has done this, or at least attempted to, for many species of extremely endangered (some so endangered they've since gone Extinct in the Wild or Extinct altogether) reptiles and amphibians and made large breakthroughs in developing new, modern husbandry techniques. There has been absolutely nothing presented thus far showing that San Diego has done anything close to that (remember the Cyclura breeding center does not count as it's not run by the zoo). So I must seriously ask, how come with pangolins it's significant enough to merit a win, but when it's herps it's not even worth considering for many people here?
Obviously San Diego is an excellent zoo and one of the very best for reptiles (amphibians not so much). The outdoor reptile enclosures are arguably the best in the nation and of course I know they play their role in captive breeding programs and with the keeping of endangered species. However, for me there has been far beyond enough evidence shown that Atlanta is the clear winner here, even when taking in-situ conservation out of the equation. Meanwhile, no one has given a real argument as to why San Diego should win.
@snowleopard has come the closest, but many of his points have been addressed in Atlanta's favor. On the topic of addressing other's points I don't accept refusing to share one's reasoning for fear that other people will pick them apart. That's how debating works. This entire last page has been picking apart Jay's last major post (admittedly for things other than the main debate) and I invite anyhow to please pick my arguments apart here and elsewhere on this forum. That is how we grow, that is how we learn, that is how we sway others. There is nothing functional or productive- and if anything it's hypocritical considering what everyone's been saying to Jay about individual opinion- about refusing to share your viewpoints in case someone disagrees with you and wants to point out their problems with your argument.
Herps was a good match-up here, and the only one imo where San Diego wasn't the clear winner. It looks like San Diego will win, but it honestly does appear to me that it's going to win simply due to the zoo's overall reputation as oppose to actually being better than Atlanta. I don't want to see San Diego lose out in the first round, it's a lot better of a zoo than that, but if I'm going to be completely honest and fair here, I have to vote Atlanta due to all the evidence showing it's superior and the lack of evidence presented showing San Diego is.
~Thylo
Whether lots are off-show, breeding or non-breeding, of conservation value, etc., I have no idea, but at least I have proof to back up my earlier claim and that is a very impressive number of reptiles/amphibians.
