ZooChat Cup finals: Plzen vs Zurich

[amur leopard]

Also comparing finances is useless as average salary costs in Zurich would be at least 5x higher.

Although Zurich would still have considerably more to spend on exhibits than Plzen...
If the whole income is ten times higher and some small subsets that Zurich have to pay are 5x higher, they will certainly end up with still at least 7 times more to spend when all debts are settled and when conservation efforts are factored in!

Anyway, I feel that Zurich's exhibits other than Masoala are certainly comparable to Plzen's, with some being worse. I don't think anyone can deny that Plzen has a wonderful avian collection, even if it means being slightly less focused on getting fancier viewing opportunities (glass vs. fencing/mesh). The welfare of the birds is not compromised because their aviary is old and is completely surrounded in mesh instead of glass - in fact it is better, given the cases when birds have flown into glass by accident, thinking it is an open gap!

Some of those aviaries in the photos are much smaller for the same thing, just more densely planted and glass-fronted.
On another note, the penguin situation in Zurich doesn't seem to be ideal. As it stands, the King penguins (second largest penguin species) have an area the size of a large bedroom for over half the year. Meanwhile, during the winter, the Humboldt penguins have to stay indoors in that enclosure as well! As it stands, the King penguins have less than 3 square metres each.

From what I can see, I would much rather visit Plzen for birds. They seem the much more humble collection, where the aim is not to collect as many ABCs as possible, but instead to find species that most visiting will never have seen before, such as the Sumatran treepie and countless other examples. They are all held in conditions from average to fantastic, with the only exception being the Barn owl shed. Zurich has a much narrower interpretation of birds. I would be interested to know how many species Masoala actually holds in free flight.

Thanks TLD for the offer. I might need some help in Hellabrunn finding some of the more obscure species

 

[CGSwans]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.

 

[antonmuster]

It is interesting to see people comparing zoos of which they have both visited only one.

Agreed. In my defense, I was only referring to what @TeaLovingDave put forward in his presentation of Plzen. Furthermore, while I may argue for Zurich, I try not to cherry-pick how I present the zoo, in order to enable a measured appraisal for those who have not visited.

On another note, the penguin situation in Zurich doesn't seem to be ideal. As it stands, the King penguins (second largest penguin species) have an area the size of a large bedroom for over half the year. Meanwhile, during the winter, the Humboldt penguins have to stay indoors in that enclosure as well! As it stands, the King penguins have less than 3 square metres each.

You see Plzen ahead in this competition and that is perfectly fine. But can we please stop with this seemingly endless stream of ill-informed, ill-intended, objectively false arguments against Zurich from various people arguing in favor of Plzen! The indoor King penguin enclosure is the size of a large bedroom? Masoala easily fits in Bush? Please!
I'm sure there are better arguments to put forth in favor of Plzen.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

I feel that Zurich's exhibits other than Masoala are certainly comparable to Plzen's, with some being worse.

I disagree with this statement; other members have drawn attention to a number of exhibits in the Czech contender that are disappointing. However, the point is somewhat moot because of the phrase other than Masoala. One could equally say, apart from the main reason to vote for Zurich there are not many reasons to vote for Zurich.

From what I can see, I would much rather visit Plzen for birds. They seem the much more humble collection, where the aim is not to collect as many ABCs as possible, but instead to find species that most visiting will never have seen before, such as the Sumatran treepie and countless other examples.

I'm not sure that an argument that says that the zoo with 400 species of bird is less focused on having a large collection than a zoo with 100 is quite going to land....

They are all held in conditions from average to fantastic, with the only exception being the Barn owl shed.

I could equally say that Plzen's birds are held in conditions from awful to average, with the only exception being the Siberian aviary.

Neither statement is true, by the way. Plzen's bird exhibits vary all the way from awful to excellent. I am not sure that I would say Zurich's king penguin exhibit is awful, but it's certainly substandard and a low point of the zoo.

Although Zurich would still have considerably more to spend on exhibits than Plzen...
If the whole income is ten times higher and some small subsets that Zurich have to pay are 5x higher, they will certainly end up with still at least 7 times more to spend when all debts are settled and when conservation efforts are factored in!

I think we are reaching a bit here by the time we get to saying certainly end up with still at least 7 times more What mathematical analysis is this based on?

More generally on the financial front, if we were comparing two similar zoos and one had achieved the same results with a smaller budget in the same financial conditions, I would agree it was a useful line of investigation. But we're not. It's true that many zoos couldn't afford to build Masoala, but Plzen didn't get to the finals because it's some plucky underdog that needs our sympathy. It got here because many members think it is an excellent zoo.

Were it not for its huge collection it would just be a nice Czech zoo. No-one would argue that Ostrava deserves a chance in this competition because it couldn't afford a mega-dome. Plzen has played the cards it has to get to this point. It doesn't need to suddenly start complaining that it can't afford a Nintendo.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I try not to cherry-pick how I present the zoo, in order to enable a measured appraisal for those who have not visited.

To be fair, that's what I have been aiming for - with the exceptions (30+ bird islands and all the moats) noted above, I've provided shots of every bird exhibit at the place

Masoala easily fits in Bush? Please!

That is a statement of fact, and was intended to lighten the mood, as I would have hoped the doll analogy would have made clear - Masoala is 11,000 metres squared, Bush is 15,000 metres squared, and Gondwanaland is 16,500 metres squared. So less of the accusations about my "ill-informed, ill-intended, objectively false" motives please.

However, the point is somewhat moot because of the phrase other than Masoala. One could equally say, apart from the main reason to vote for Zurich there are not many reasons to vote for Zurich.

Problem is, Masoala is so good (and deeply loved) that to some extent any discussion where Zurich is involved would have to put it aside to discuss the merits of the place otherwise, or risk it being seen as an automatic "get out of jail free" card whatever the category. For instance - just off the top of my head - how many people would argue that as it contains free-roaming reptiles, Masoala would win a "reptiles" match for Zurich without the collection in the rest of the zoo needing to be considered?

if we were comparing two similar zoos and one had achieved the same results with a smaller budget in the same financial conditions, I would agree it was a useful line of investigation. But we're not. It's true that many zoos couldn't afford to build Masoala, but Plzen didn't get to the finals because it's some plucky underdog that needs our sympathy.

To be fair to AL, it was actually @antonmuster who first raised the question of finance by suggesting the issue came down to how each collection would choose to spend a sum of money sufficient to pay for Masoala, ignoring that Plzen doesn't have that kind of money and probably never will, and thus it's an unknowable.

 

[antonmuster]

Bush is 17 meters high, Masoala 30. Facts matter.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Bush is 17 meters high, Masoala 30. Facts matter.

Given the fact I was clearly talking about footplan - as were you originally, I suspect, when saying that Masoala is large enough to encompass all of Plzen's aviaries - and reiterated again that I was trying to lighten the mood as things were getting a bit intense, I think it's safe to say you're deliberately taking as negative a view of my motives as possible now......

 

[snowleopard]

Masoala is 11,000 metres squared, Bush is 15,000 metres squared, and Gondwanaland is 16,500 metres squared.

Now that's a sentence with some interesting facts! Sometimes different websites quote dimensions that are not accurate, but is the list below legitimate?

European Tropical Houses:

Wildlands Adventure Zoo Emmen's Jungola - 18,000 square metres (23 metres high)
Leipzig Zoo's Gondwanaland - 16,500 square metres (34 metres high)
Burgers' Zoo's Bush - 15,000 square metres (20 metres high)
Zurich Zoo's Masoala - 11,000 square metres (30 metres high)
Beauval Zoo's Tropical Dome - 8,000 square metres (38 metres high)

In regards to North American zoos, Omaha's Lied Jungle is often quoted as having 123,000 square feet of floor space and that equates to approximately 11,400 square metres. The height of that indoor jungle is 24 metres, which was staggering when it opened in 1992 but has obviously been surpassed by some zoos on the list above.

Is there a massive Tropical House that is missing from my calculations?

 

[HOMIN96]

Fire away, methinks

Also comparing finances is useless as average salary costs in Zurich would be at least 5x higher.

More generally on the financial front, if we were comparing two similar zoos and one had achieved the same results with a smaller budget in the same financial conditions, I would agree it was a useful line of investigation. But we're not. It's true that many zoos couldn't afford to build Masoala, but Plzen didn't get to the finals because it's some plucky underdog that needs our sympathy. It got here because many members think it is an excellent zoo.

Were it not for its huge collection it would just be a nice Czech zoo. No-one would argue that Ostrava deserves a chance in this competition because it couldn't afford a mega-dome. Plzen has played the cards it has to get to this point. It doesn't need to suddenly start complaining that it can't afford a Nintendo.

@FunkyGibbon's comment is pretty much why I didn't want to use the money argument as it didn't stop Plzen from advancing over much richer zoos...But the thing is, 40 years of communism put us so much behind when it comes to technologies and knowledge of animal husbandry, that even 30 years, the differences are still significant in some areas and funding accessibility is a big part of this. Also, this established certain nature and philosophy of us as a nation and it still persists here for both good and bad.

Joining EU certainly made the development of our zoos easier with opening new funding possibilities (and causing sort of a boom of building new exhibits in the majority of Czech zoos) but only until cca 2013, when the system of allocating money was changed and getting money became harder. Plzen as one of the financially more unstable zoos, with sustainability only 46% (5th/6th lowest in Czechia) is suffering a bit more from this, as they need to build cheaply and efficiently rather than going all-in on some architectural extravaganza.

This all makes me actually very proud that there are two eastern-bloc zoos in the final 8 and even if their handicaps eventually get them and make them lose against these high-profile and financially better-situated zoos, the fact that they manage to put up quite the fight is very impressive.

 

[antonmuster]

I believe Omaha's hall is half the quoted size. At least I get 5000m2 when I measure it out with google earth.

 

[Dassie rat]

lzen as one of the financially more unstable zoos, with sustainability only 46% (5th/6th lowest in Czechia) is suffering a bit more from this, as they need to build cheaply and efficiently rather than going all-in on some architectural extravaganza.

This all makes me actually very proud that there are two eastern-bloc zoos in the final 8 and even if their handicaps eventually get them and make them lose against these high-profile and financially better-situated zoos, the fact that they manage to put up quite the fight is very impressive.

I agree with this philosophy. I liked the Rodent House at Berlin Tierpark - basically a large garden shed with some interesting small mammals. It's a pity that so many zoos rely on architects wanting a reward for designing a multi-million pound exhibit, rather than making cheaper, more efficient exhibits that can be altered relatively easily. Plzen and Prague are two of my favourite zoos.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Given the fact that it looks like Zurich has this one in the bag after a very close (and deservedly so) match, and nothing I can say will prevent it from winning, I think all that is left for me to do is to appeal to the two outlier votes to mitigate their stances a tad and drop to 2-1 in order to reflect the strengths which Plzen has

@snowleopard - you haven't actually said much (if anything) on your opinion of Zurich's bird exhibits beyond Masoala, and I hope that through my various photographic examples I might have demonstrated you were being a little unfair to say Plzen has nothing that rises above the "hundreds upon hundreds" of other zoos which keep birds. Given this, the fact you explicitly said you don't think Masoala has nearly enough animals for your tastes and implied your vote is more based on love for the building itself rather than how it suits this category, and the fact you also said Plzen has a better collection than the zoo you deem to have the best bird collection in the USA...... I think Plzen deserves *something* surely?

@Malawi - you are obviously voting largely on the basis of disapproval of Plzen, that is clear. But given the fact literally no one has backed up your claims that the majority of waterfowl exhibits comprise tiny concrete troughs no larger than a coffee-table book (including those critical of the collection) and you have presented no evidence for these claims, I invite you to be open to the possibility you were mistaken? If so, given this was your major argument against Plzen deserving even a single point........

But overall..... well-debated everyone it's been a fun one and (unlike some prior matches) there has pretty much been fair play all round.

 

[snowleopard]

Fair enough @TeaLovingDave your paragraph summation of my vote is an honest, accurate statement. I will switch my vote to 2-1 Zurich, based on what has become an incredibly long thread packed with photos and what is clearly a dodgy looking penguin exhibit at Zurich. In hindsight, a 3-0 score for either zoo comes across as harsh. When I venture on a tour of British zoos many, many moons from now we can buy each other beers in the local pub.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

When I venture on a tour of British zoos many, many moons from now we can buy each other beers in the local pub.

You'll have the better end of the bargain - tea is cheaper than beer

 

[twilighter]

I hope @Coelacanth18 not going to vote at 21:59

 

[pipaluk]

I hope @Coelacanth18 not going to vote at 21:59

Perhaps they will vote 3-0 Plzen and create havoc!

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Perhaps they will vote 3-0 Plzen and create havoc!

Zurich would still win, so no havoc would occur even if that happened!

 

[pipaluk]

Zurich would still win, so no havoc would occur even if that happened!

Might cause 9 minutes of sweating amongst the Zurich followers though!!

 

[(Adsa)]

It may be a bit late to make a difference. However all of the evidence presented for Zürich does not seem adequate to beat Plzen. Apart from the Masoala exhibit I doesn’t appear to hold any real ground. As others have pointed Plzen’s collection is much larger than Zürich. Some complaints have been made against Plzen’s presentation and exhibit quality, none of it looks that awful to or at least not bad enough to justify 3-0 Zürich.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

Problem is, Masoala is so good (and deeply loved) that to some extent any discussion where Zurich is involved would have to put it aside to discuss the merits of the place otherwise, or risk it being seen as an automatic "get out of jail free" card whatever the category. For instance - just off the top of my head - how many people would argue that as it contains free-roaming reptiles, Masoala would win a "reptiles" match for Zurich without the collection in the rest of the zoo needing to be considered?

I think this comes perilously close to conceding that Zurich does deserve to win any Masoala category. It's not so much as a get-out-of-jail-free card as a win-easily card And it has never, IIRC, prevented a full discussion of the merits and drawbacks of other parts of the collection, as can be seen again in this match.

In the Reptiles match-up, Masoala would still hold a lot of sway, for the same reasons that it was crucial to Zurich's performance in Primates. Finding a leaf-tailed gecko or chameleon in the undergrowth there is such a rush! But I would expect that with the lower number of species fewer voters would find it as decisive as it has been in this match.

Apart from the Masoala exhibit I doesn’t appear to hold any real ground.

So apart from the key factor than pushes most people to support it then?

Some complaints have been made against Plzen’s presentation and exhibit quality, none of it looks that awful to or at least not bad enough to justify 3-0 Zürich.

Some of it is awful, as has been repeatedly stated and never been denied by thread participants.