ZooChat Cup Group B2: Chester vs Taronga

[TeaLovingDave]

. Just because their species isn't specified, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be including in the match! If they are Australian, which most of them very likely are, then they should be included. I'm not sure why you are arguing about this anyway given the triviality of the situation. You don't need to go nit-picking in a massive species list where there is very likely errors anyway, which didn't even come from me.

The issue is that if you don't know whether a species should be listed or not, the default should not be "the zoo is in Australia so they are probably an Australian species" or similar; for instance, when compiling the list upthread of species relevant to this challenge which are held at Chester, there were quite a few bird species native to mainland Africa or the Lesser Sundas which I omitted for that reason, because although I thought their ranges extended into Madagascar or the Moluccas respectively I wasn't certain. As for your second point; given the fact you did curate the list from Wikipedia to some degree, removing species such as European Rabbit and various domestics, those species which have been erroneously retained cannot be dismissed as outside your control.

Basically, you're doing a good job providing this information - and in point of fact you're one of the few people on the other side of the discussion who has bothered to provide any such information, between this list and your above post showing the tree kangaroo exhibit - but being open to improving the quality of the information provided in the future can only be a good thing

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Whilst I was at work today I thought of a useful mind experiment which has some bearing on the matter of whether a collection which covers more of the biogeographic zones under discussion, and has a higher standard of exhibitry, is better than a collection which is highly specialised in a single zone, has little to no representation in the other zones, and has more average exhibit standards......

If, by some bizarre chance, this match was Chester vs Tsimbazaza Zoo but pertained to the exact same category, rather than discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Australian species we would be discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Malagasy species..... in this event, would those arguing that Taronga should automatically beat Chester on the basis of species count alone also argue the same of Tsimbazaza?

If the answer is no, then exhibit standards and overall comprehensiveness do have a bearing on the matter, and the matter should be discussed further.

 

[amur leopard]

The issue is that if you don't know whether a species should be listed or not, the default should not be "the zoo is in Australia so they are probably an Australian species" or similar; for instance, when compiling the list upthread of species relevant to this challenge which are held at Chester, there were quite a few bird species native to mainland Africa or the Lesser Sundas which I omitted for that reason, because although I thought their ranges extended into Madagascar or the Moluccas respectively I wasn't certain. As for your second point; given the fact you did curate the list from Wikipedia to some degree, removing species such as European Rabbit and various domestics, those species which have been erroneously retained cannot be dismissed as outside your control.

Basically, you're doing a good job providing this information - and in point of fact you're one of the few people on the other side of the discussion who has bothered to provide any such information, between this list and your above post showing the tree kangaroo exhibit - but being open to improving the quality of the information provided in the future can only be a good thing

You are right - although the species were in an Australian exhibit. I'll try to be more reliable next time.
I wonder where I can get Taronga enclosure images because there really doesn't seem to be much recent content on the media page.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I wonder where I can get Taronga enclosure images because there really doesn't seem to be much recent content on the media page.

Through my experimenting with gallery searches for this competition, I might be able to help. Perhaps this is common knowledge and I was just slow to realize it, but apparently gallery searches have to be done in a particular way in order to work. If you go into a zoo's gallery page (ex. Taronga Zoo) and then use the search bar to look for something (ex. crocodile), then it will show you crocodile-related photos from Taronga. You then have to go back to the main gallery page to perform another search; if you try to do it from the search results page, it doesn't work properly. Of course, this doesn't prevent you from dragging up old and potentially irrelevant photos, but hopefully those with a working knowledge of the zoo can weed them out in this thread.

 

[NSU42]

Whilst I was at work today I thought of a useful mind experiment which has some bearing on the matter of whether a collection which covers more of the biogeographic zones under discussion, and has a higher standard of exhibitry, is better than a collection which is highly specialised in a single zone, has little to no representation in the other zones, and has more average exhibit standards......

If, by some bizarre chance, this match was Chester vs Tsimbazaza Zoo but pertained to the exact same category, rather than discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Australian species we would be discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Malagasy species..... in this event, would those arguing that Taronga should automatically beat Chester on the basis of species count alone also argue the same of Tsimbazaza?

If the answer is no, then exhibit standards and overall comprehensiveness do have a bearing on the matter, and the matter should be discussed further.

So I generally don't comment as I have not been to many of the zoos and can't really say much about them. I also don't see the point of explaining my choice if I'm largely going to say the same thing as others. I normally vote based on arguments made here, but in general have a working knowledge of the zoos in the competition by having been through the photos in galleries and various threads, along with the general internet browsing of a lot of zoos, including Tsimbazaza.

With that said, I voted 2-1 Taronga initially, but was close to changing as you guys were right, there was a lack of arguments on here for Taronga. That has since changed. I've also thought more on the question you proposed. My thoughts are thus:

Comprehensiveness and exhibit standards definitely have a bearing, at least for me. However, I feel like you are ignoring the comprehensiveness of Taronga's collection at the same time. There comprehensiveness may only apply to one region of this category, but it is so complete in that one area that it can outweigh the others. The only thing that it is maybe lacking on is fish and Chester doesn't really do that either from the looks of it. Along with that, there completeness is in an area that others on this thread have said Chester is pulling back on and downsizing. This same thing happened in Zurich v. San Diego in my opinion. Zurich had Masoala and that Madagascar exhibit pretty much stomped on San Diego. It was acknowledged that San Diego had a longer species list and in doing so probably more complete, but it didn't really matter. I voted for Zurich like many.

I think some peoole here also appear to be holding the fact that Taronga is in Australia and thus have easier access to Australian animals against it. There seems to be a sentiment that well of course Taronga beats Chester on Australian animals because Australia doesn't allow access to most of its animals so we can't hold that against Chester. In my opinion, Chester unfortunately drew the ****** end of the stick there. (Sorry if this paragraph is a bit confusing. I couldn't really find the best way to say what I seem to be seeing happen above.)

To go along with this, you're making an argument about exhibit quality, but from what I have seen and others have said, Taronga is no slouch in that area either. Yes, they may not compare to Chester's standards, but I at least don't view the gap as so wide that Chester deserves to win on that. Other than one post in this thread where someone said that a friend has been to both zoos and said the exhibit quality is better at Chester, there has been very little bad said about the exhibits there. Even that post doesn't really argue they are bad, just said they are not as good as Chester.

Finally, addressing the fact that in a past round against Woodland Park, the lack of diversity at Taronga in terms of scope of world regions seemed to be held against it. (Including by me, I believe.) I think the two categories warranted different things. For me, in the animals category, I think a zoo is better off showing a diversity of animals from around the world in each animal category, especially if it is a zoo that strives to show animals from all over. On the flip side of this, these new categories encompass all the animal groups, but the regions are not as broad. I would say Taronga does such a good job focusing on the largest region (at least geographically) in this category, that it outweighs the lack in the other areas. These two views definitely conflict even in my explanation, but sums up my thoguhts the best I can.

Anyways, hope my ramblings helped clarify at least my position.

 

[TZDugong]

I think that something people should be aware of is that Taronga has good exhibits for their animals in this category. A lot of arguments for Chester in this thread have gone like "Chester has a more varied and diverse collection in very good exhibits, while all Taronga has is a large collection" (I'm simplifying of course). Taronga has good exhibits too, along with some great ones (Platypus House). The combination of a large collection in good exhibits gives them the win for me.

On a side note, I've found some exhibit photos for Taronga. They're not exactly recent and so could definitely be inaccurate but I think that at least some photos are better than none.

Saltwater Crocodile Exhibit:

Tasmanian Devil Exhibit: It should be noted that the photos are for two separate exhibits.

Great Southern Oceans: The first two photos are the exhibit containing Little Penguins. The next two are for Leopard Seals (these have obviously left the collection, not sure what's in their now). The next photo is for Sub-Antarctic Fur Seal and Australian Sea Lions (as of 2012, so species could've changed). The final one is for Pelicans.

Wollemi Aviary: This is apparently only half the aviary. It looks spectacular.

Koala Exhibit:

Reptile Exhibits: The first is for Olive Python and the second Tuatara.

Platypus Exhibit: In the Nocturnal House.

Nocturnal House: The first photo is a wider shot of the house, the second the exhibit for Australian Water Rats, and the third is the Bilby exhibit.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The only thing that it is maybe lacking on is fish and Chester doesn't really do that either from the looks of it.

They may or may not - my list omitted fish and invertebrates entirely as I'm not familiar enough with those groups to know offhand which ones belong to this category

along with some great ones (Platypus House).

Are you saying it's great because it has platypus, or that it's great *and* it has platypus?

 

[TZDugong]

Are you saying it's great because it has platypus, or that it's great *and* it has platypus?

It's great and has Platypus, although Platypus are great as well!

 

[Coelacanth18]

Whilst I was at work today I thought of a useful mind experiment which has some bearing on the matter of whether a collection which covers more of the biogeographic zones under discussion, and has a higher standard of exhibitry, is better than a collection which is highly specialised in a single zone, has little to no representation in the other zones, and has more average exhibit standards......

I generally agree with what @NSU42 posted, and also wanted to add that there are multiple ways to interpret the category besides the way you've chosen to. The category is called "Australia and Islands". That can be interpreted as equally weighting the importance of Australia with all of the other regions covered by the category. The reason I've been hesitant to vote here is precisely because Taronga is the clear winner on Australia, while Chester is the clear winner on Islands (especially Madagascar where they trounce Taronga, but also doing well for Indian and Pacific Ocean islands while New Guinea may be more evenly matched). I can understand choosing to vote for Chester due to its higher regional breadth, but I can also understand choosing to vote for Taronga due to its higher depth in one region - arguably the most prominent region of the category.

You could also view this from a taxonomic point. On mammals, Taronga has a vastly better Australian collection while Chester boasts Malagasy mammals and Rodrigues flying foxes in a huge walk-through house; on ectotherms, Taronga again finds its footing with native herps while Chester has a strong showing with herps from Madagascar and oceanic islands. Both zoos have Komodo dragons and tuatara in seemingly good exhibits, but Chester has successfully bred tuatara. If you consider those two to be draws, then that leaves birds... and I think Taronga, with its large (if declining) Australasian/Pacific bird collection and incredibly immersive aviaries, is the clear winner. So with that logic, one could also decide that Taronga is the better competitor here.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The category is called "Australia and Islands". That can be interpreted as equally weighting the importance of Australia with all of the other regions covered by the category.

I suppose this is one point where @CGSwans could clarify if he intended:

a) Australia to have equal weight to all other island zones combined, as you suggest.
b) Australia to have equal weight to each individual island zone, as I've been viewing it.
c) an open-ended interpretation with regards to the weight each region exerts.

 

[CGSwans]

Lock in c), thanks.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Lock in c), thanks.

Suspected that was the case but worth the clarification!

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Personally I hold the other island regions at a higher regard than Australia simply due to the fact that Australia has a well-established and fairly substantial string of zoos and zoo-based conservation organizations within the country whereas most of the other countries applicable here don't. Yes there are zoos in Madagascar doing good work but a lot of Madagascar's conservation programs require help from foreign zoos such as Bronx and Chester, who have to make the conscientious choice to work with these species and in these regions. Obviously Australia having many conservation programs for their own endangered species is important and should be celebrated, but for me a zoo like Chester deciding to devote millions upon millions of pounds and years of work into creating a state of the art Madagascar complex and constructing breeding aviaries specifically designed for species such as Yellow-Backed Chattering Lory and Pink Pigeon means just a little bit more than Taronga enclosing a stretch of native forest and putting species native to the surrounding area in it. Not to say that this is a bad thing, should be discouraged, or isn't deserving of a win whatsoever, it is and I understand why so many other people seem to agree. For me, though, the above tips the scale in Chester's favor ever so slightly. I can't saying I'm not tempted to switch back to my Taronga vote after seeing the photos provided by @TZDugong (and honestly if I give it a bit more time to sit I just might)!

~Thylo

 

[NSU42]

Personally I hold the other island regions at a higher regard than Australia simply due to the fact that Australia has a well-established and fairly substantial string of zoos and zoo-based conservation organizations within the country whereas most of the other countries applicable here don't. Yes there are zoos in Madagascar doing good work but a lot of Madagascar's conservation programs require help from foreign zoos such as Bronx and Chester, who have to make the conscientious choice to work with these species and in these regions. Obviously Australia having many conservation programs for their own endangered species is important and should be celebrated, but for me a zoo like Chester deciding to devote millions upon millions of pounds and years of work into creating a state of the art Madagascar complex and constructing breeding aviaries specifically designed for species such as Yellow-Backed Chattering Lory and Pink Pigeon means just a little bit more than Taronga enclosing a stretch of native forest and putting species native to the surrounding area in it. Not to say that this is a bad thing, should be discouraged, or isn't deserving of a win whatsoever, it is and I understand why so many other people seem to agree. For me, though, the above tips the scale in Chester's favor ever so slightly. I can't saying I'm not tempted to switch back to my Taronga vote after seeing the photos provided by @TZDugong (and honestly if I give it a bit more time to sit I just might)!

~Thylo

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I respect your opinion, but definitely don't agree. I think this does downplay the improtance of the conservation work Taronga is doing in its own country. Taronga and those other zoos also still need to make the concientious choice to do it. Just because Australia has a chain of these facilities set up, doesn't change that fact Or the importance. The philosophy of if I don't do it someone else will generally doesn't work. That chain is vital. They are also still doing the work. Be curious to know what role Taronga played in setting up that conservation as well. I would have to guess that zoos in the country played some role.

 

[CGSwans]

I whole heartedly disagree with you. I respect your opinion, but definitely don't agree. I think this does downplay the improtance of the conservation work Taronga is doing in its own country. Taronga and those other zoos also still need to make the concientious choice to do it. Just because Australia has a chain of these facilities set up, doesn't change that fact. They are still doing the work. Be curious to know what role Taronga played in setting up that conservation as well. I would have to guess that zoos in the country played some role.

@MRJ might be well placed to describe the role Taronga has played in native conservation?

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I respect your opinion, but definitely don't agree. I think this does downplay the improtance of the conservation work Taronga is doing in its own country. Taronga and those other zoos also still need to make the concientious choice to do it. Just because Australia has a chain of these facilities set up, doesn't change that fact Or the importance. The philosophy of if I don't do it someone else will generally doesn't work. That chain is vital. They are also still doing the work. Be curious to know what role Taronga played in setting up that conservation as well. I would have to guess that zoos in the country played some role.

The thing is I don't disagree with anything you've said in the slightest. I agree that the chain is vital, that they need to make the choice to work with these species, and the fact that Taronga has clearly devoted so much time and effort into their native collection is outstanding to me. I'm not putting down Taronga's work because native conservation is vital. Of course it's not exactly applicable here but in a contest of native conservation vs native+exotic conservation, the latter will generally win for me every time with very few exceptions. Surely it says something about Chester, though, that they've sent people under their employ out to countries like Madagascar in order to help with conservation programs as well as put in the hard work researching/breeding these species at home.

Regardless, in the end I have decided to vote in favor of Taronga due to all of the arguments which have finally been made along with the species list. I'm currently about 52% in favor or Taronga, 48% in favor of Chester.

~Thylo

 

[lintworm]

Whilst I was at work today I thought of a useful mind experiment which has some bearing on the matter of whether a collection which covers more of the biogeographic zones under discussion, and has a higher standard of exhibitry, is better than a collection which is highly specialised in a single zone, has little to no representation in the other zones, and has more average exhibit standards......

If, by some bizarre chance, this match was Chester vs Tsimbazaza Zoo but pertained to the exact same category, rather than discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Australian species we would be discussing a collection with a vastly larger number of Malagasy species..... in this event, would those arguing that Taronga should automatically beat Chester on the basis of species count alone also argue the same of Tsimbazaza?

If the answer is no, then exhibit standards and overall comprehensiveness do have a bearing on the matter, and the matter should be discussed further.

There are however two big differences between Tzimbazaza and Taronga that have a big influence and leave this comparison pretty moot. 1: Taronga's collection is much larger and much more comprehensive than Tzimbazaza when it comes to native species 2: Enclosures are of a clearly higher standard overall in Taronga compared to Tzimbazaza where only a few enclosures are more than adequate (Sifaka, a few Lemur islands and 1 of the Madagascar fish eagle aviaries).

 

[TeaLovingDave]

There are however two big differences between Tzimbazaza and Taronga that have a big influence and leave this comparison pretty moot.

Point taken on your first observation - I thought Tzimbazaza was more speciose than that - but the second aspect was deliberate; I knew Tzimbazaza doesn't have great exhibits and thus illustrated the quality/quantity argument well.

 

[antonmuster]

A thought experiment: if Pairi Daiza were still in the Cup and drew Asia against Berlin, who wouldn't hand it a win for the temples alone? Pairi's innovation, ambition, and evocation of Asia are unparalleled – without even considering the animals. Having drawn Europe, Schönbrunn's architecture is Pairi Daiza on steroids.

Franz Stephan’s Central Pavilion is the most iconic zoo building in the world. Marvelling at the 18th-century murals and gazing across the spoked enclosures belong on every ZooChatter's bucket list. Crucially, the beautiful baroque curves are quintessentially European. They reflect the taste of Imperial Vienna and the power of the Habsburg Dynasty. The category is Europe, so the buildings count.

By that logic, Berlin's architecture is eligible as well: the Elephant Gate, Giraffe House, Antelope House, etc. I have a special place in my heart for the adjacent European and American bison enclosures. But Berlin can't beat the world's oldest zoo. Vienna is not just the mainstay of zoo history. It belongs to the Schönbrunn World Heritage Site, one of the world's most important architectural treasures.

Schönbrunn's European animal exhibits also trounce Berlin's. The Tiergarten's forested upper third is devoted to European species. Wolves and lynx have large paddocks; native herps have a succession of outdoor enclosures; native fish have a succession of outdoor tanks; an Austrian farmstead is authentic and charming. The highlight is Vienna's Canopy Walk, which presents the local forest from an exciting new angle (ZooLex Exhibit - Nature Experience Walk: In the Forest). How many zoos care so much about their own backyard? The interpretives are characteristically outstanding (e.g. ZooLex Exhibit - Beehive). On North America, the Desert House's Gila monster enclosure is wonderful and the multi-levelled polar bear habitat eclipses Berlin's.

Given its world-beating strengths in this category, I'm parking my vote at 2-1 Schönbrunn. Berlin earns a point for its buildings and Vienna's lack of American taxa. And if it seems like I've thought too much about architecture and not enough about animals, ask yourself this... Who leaves Schönbrunn without believing the Central Pavilion is the highlight?

For reasons similar to those argued by @Giant Panda in the Vienna-Berlin competition, I voted for Taronga. To me, Taronga is the quintessential Australian zoo. It has a large collection of Australian fauna in often delightful enclosures, but more importantly, the entire zoo is *in* Australia and (naturally) has a very Australian feel to it that goes far beyond its species collection or the sum of its enclosures - the planting, the wildlife passing through the zoo, the education, the way the animals are presented and the zoo is designed, the views of the bay and of downtown Sydney, the visitors, etc. are all very 'Australian'. This may not be a 'fair' assessments re. Chester. But it does make me choose Sydney as winner in this category 'Australia and islands'.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

To me, Taronga is the quintessential Australian zoo.....the zoo is *in* Australia and (naturally) has a very Australian feel to it that goes far beyond its species collection or the sum of its enclosures - the planting, the wildlife passing through the zoo, the education, the way the animals are presented and the zoo is designed, the views of the bay and of downtown Sydney, the visitors, etc. are all very 'Australian'.

At least you're being open about your logic boiling down to "It's in Australia so it automatically wins" which most people have left implicit. I think extending the reasons why it's better for this category to the nationality of the visitors is a bit too far even so, however

(Sidenote - is there a single quintessential European zoo which would have the same theoretical easy ride for that category? Although Vienna is doing well I am not sure it quite reaches that status)