At this point, I am no longer arguing that Vienna should win - it shouldn't. I am arguing that it should get some recognition for their decent (and some good) exhibits and their superior species count.
I'm going to start with this even though it is at the end of your post. First, at the time of my post, you were arguing Vienna should win, as your vote was for Vienna 2-1. I checked that multiple times before I posted, because if it wasn't in favor of Vienna, I was beating a dead horse. Second, I never said Vienna didn't deserve recognition, that can be seen in my post and in the fact that my vote has always been 2-1 North Carolina. I agreed with many that it isn't a walk over just because of exhibits.
Overall, something got you to change your vote, whether me or someone else. That is also the point of this challenge or game. By voicing an opinion, your thoughts will be challenged. You were the only one that was making an argument for Vienna and that is why I focused in on some of what you were saying. Same way you posted back to refute me.
#1 I never said it was a 'very good' exhibit... Quote the post where I did if you think so...
Fair enough, looking back you only called it good, and I guess if we are arguing semantics you only said that about the barn, not the yard as a whole. But as others pointed out I wouldn't call a cement indoor area good.
#2 You are not meant to refer to other ties as it says in the rules...
Refer to
@CGSwans post above. Just challenging your conceptions as that is allowed. If I over stepped I am sorry. I also am not quite sure what you mean by "ties." As in ties to a particular zoo? I did not challenge that above.
Many of the enclosures are not bad at all (South American exhibit, Asiatic plains, etc...) so therefore your point about the Vienna standard of exhibitry is not very valid. I certainly accept that North Carolina's is very good but I do not accept that Vienna's is poor.
I understand that not all of Vienna's exhibits are bad, I never claimed that they were. I said from what I heard here from different people that many of them are small. As you stated, size isn't everything so just because it is small, doesn't mean its necessarily bad, but size isn't bad. Omaha having 2 or 3 bad ungulate enclosures compared to Chester that had none was enough for people to vote 2-1 in favor of Chester. Granted, it also helped that Chester had more species as well. The same can apply to this, while Vienna may only have a couple bad enclosures for ungulates, North Carolina has none. Something again, the species list doesn't make up for, in my opinion.
- They have done exceedingly well with what they have at their disposal. Do you think you could do better with limited space and budget as well as a plethora of old buildings that you have to keep intact? I certainly couldn't. And you simply cannot accuse them of having a stamp collecting attitude.
- They have limited space... they are not able to build an exhibit like that of North Carolina. However, they have made many of their exhibits well and with multiple enrichment areas, allowing the animals to still be happy despite the drastically reduced space.
When did I accuse them of having a stamp collecting attitude? Or anyone else in this thread for that matter? However, just because they do "exceedingly well with what they have" in regards to both space and buildings, does not mean that can't be held as a knock against them as well. We have discussed in many of these threads how zoos are hurt by their size or age, or at least handicapped by them. I understand space is limited. That being said, you almost sound like you want to discount North Carolina because they have tons of it.
Of course I don't think I can do better. To think that would be absurd. I have no knowledge of designing zoos or exhibits or animal care, for that matter. I can only tell you what I can assume is better for the animals and from a visitor stand point looks better. I am also a huge fan of the history of zoos as it combines my interest and love of zoos with my career and college degree. But I also am willing to admit that because of their history some zoos have limits when competing with newer zoos like North Carolina and that fact can limit them. Not always, but it can. Categories like ungulates do not favor these older zoos.
You seem to have skillfully evaded the points that Vienna has more species and North Carolina has no breadth to their collection - they have 3 massive exhibits, that is all. There is no representation of Asian, Middle Eastern, South American or European ungulates.
I didn't mean to evade anything. Yes, Vienna has more species, as I said in the post, but its not like their are a significantly greater amount. At least 7 species doesn't amount to that in my opinion. I understand that their is no ungulates for those regions in NC as that is how it has been set up due their zones. Asia is on the horizon, I believe! This is actually your strongest argument to be made against NC, in my opinion, and the first place you have mentioned it, at least clearly. You were instead arguing more about the number of endangered species held, which has some merit, but I personally don't view as very strong. Rare in the wild does not always equal rare in zoos. Giraffes, in general, being a perfect example of this. Or you argued that Vienna's enclosures aren't bad, just not as good as North Carolina's, one that doesn't hold much merit for me.
(usually their is nowhere with size listed, as zoos are notorius for including guest areas and planted areas in exhibit size). Zoolex has it listed at 4600 sq meters of outdoor space total (including guest areas). It lists the bull exhibit at 600 sq meters. Even smaller than I said above.
