Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I think it is better to include Madagascar, Caribbean and even Philippines and Indonesia as islands personally as the biogeographic term misses a lot out.
British Isles Cup Redux - League B - Bristol/Wildplace vs Jersey
- Thread starter TeaLovingDave
- Start date
I think it is better to include Madagascar, Caribbean and even Philippines and Indonesia as islands personally as the biogeographic term misses a lot out.
So then what islands are left for the category if the ones in those regions are left out ?
The original category was defined more or less as the Galapagos and Hawaii, the Macaronesian and Tristan da Cunha archipelagos of the Atlantic, Madagascar, the Seychelles and Mascarene Islands of the Indian Ocean, the Lesser Sundas excluding Bali, the Moluccas, New Guinea and Australia, and the various smaller island chains of the Pacific.
But again, I'm treating the category in a broader and more relaxed sense
Well, indeed - that's why I am doing things this way
so Madagascar is applicable to both Islands and Africa, Caribbean is applicable to both Islands and Central/South America, and the Philippines and Greater Sundas are applicable to both Islands and Asia.
I think you somewhat underestimate how much involvement Bristol does have with in-situ programmes - especially where the Caribbean and Madagascar are concerned, not forgetting the fact that they are probably the most important member of the Partula captive breeding programme alongside ZSL.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I mean I know that Bristol does have in-situ programes as my boss was trained by the Bristol Zoological Society and I also know that they are a fairly old zoological society like London (though not as old obviously).
However, I just don't think they have the global presence, impact or even the conservation success rate of the Durrell Trust in either in-situ or ex-situ conservation.
I could just be biased in favour of the Durrell trust but I do struggle to see them as being on the same level in terms of conservation output.
Fair play to you for honesty!
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Wish you would be equally honest about whatever the issue you have with Jersey is.
I don't have an 'issue' with Jersey, I just don't think the zoo is as good as some do
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Ok, well I guess I respectfully disagree with that statement.
That's fair enough, I am not saying Jersey is a bad zoo and not denying its past conservation record, but don't think overall it is THAT great a collection. Certainly the effort and expense it would take to get me there would more likely send me to mainland Europe. Just my opinion
OK my take.
As I have said before i believe the number of species a zoo has to be irrelevant to how good it is. This is not only because this can detract from the zoos conservation, education and scientific missions, it really has no influence on the zoo's commercial success. 99% of zoo visitors really don't care how many species they see, they are more interested in the overall experience. At one extreme too many species can harm the zoo if it means animal care costs reduce the zoos ability to properly maintain the rest of the facility and provide visitors with a positive experience.
Having said that, according to @TeaLovingDave there is not much difference between actual number of species in this case, although Bristol is a little ahead.
Still, the species enthusiast should consider the role Jersey has played in introducing species to zoos, for instance the aye-aye and giant jumping rats. I believe Jersey was the first European zoo with kowaris, if not the first very early.
But as I have made clear before for me it all comes down to conservation. Bristol has a fine range of programs and would stand up well against most zoos. Jersey, though, has made a specialty of working with Island species. They pretty much wrote the book. Their work on Round Island is world-leading. It is impossible to go past them.
As I have said before i believe the number of species a zoo has to be irrelevant to how good it is. This is not only because this can detract from the zoos conservation, education and scientific missions, it really has no influence on the zoo's commercial success. 99% of zoo visitors really don't care how many species they see, they are more interested in the overall experience. At one extreme too many species can harm the zoo if it means animal care costs reduce the zoos ability to properly maintain the rest of the facility and provide visitors with a positive experience.
Having said that, according to @TeaLovingDave there is not much difference between actual number of species in this case, although Bristol is a little ahead.
Still, the species enthusiast should consider the role Jersey has played in introducing species to zoos, for instance the aye-aye and giant jumping rats. I believe Jersey was the first European zoo with kowaris, if not the first very early.
But as I have made clear before for me it all comes down to conservation. Bristol has a fine range of programs and would stand up well against most zoos. Jersey, though, has made a specialty of working with Island species. They pretty much wrote the book. Their work on Round Island is world-leading. It is impossible to go past them.
But are they truly so far ahead of Bristol where conservation is concerned that the latter collection deserves zero credit, per the way your vote has gone
or do you merely rate Jersey so highly as a result of their conservation work that nowhere else would ever be worth a single point compared to them?That said, a 3-0 sweep here (where they have more than a single relevant programme) is more justified than last time
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
But are they truly so far ahead of Bristol where conservation is concerned that the latter collection deserves zero credit, per the way your vote has gone
That said, a 3-0 sweep here (where they have more than a single relevant programme) is more justified than last time
I think they are definitely ahead of Bristol when it comes to long-term conservation of island endemic species.
But again it is all subjective isn't it ?
I am more interested in the conservation output of a zoo in terms ex-situ and critically in-situ work so these are the metrics that I would consider to be more significant when it comes to rating a zoo.
Similarly, I'm not particularly interested in the number of species that a zoo has but what these animals are there for and the work involved ex-situ and in-situ with each species. Therefore, it is once again quality over quantity for me and this swings the vote in Jersey's favour.
Others like @pipaluk might base their vote on the number of island species held by an institution and that is fine, it is their choice afterall, but that isn't the way I view things and my vote for Jersey reflects that.
Incidentally, the blue eyed black / Sclatler's lemur I mentioned in an earlier thread as being a good candidate of a species that could be held at Jersey in the future.
What species would you like to see at Jersey Zoo ?
Last edited:
Well, indeed - I agree with all of the above (and therefore already voted 2-1 as can be seen), I merely don't agree that Bristol merit no consideration or recognition in this area.... and as this is the second time MRJ has all-but-said that the merits of the other collection, and how much or little Jersey offers in a category, don't matter because Jersey gets a clean sweep automatically for being Jersey, I think it's justified to call out the bias.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Well I agree and I don't think that Jersey should get a clean sweep automatically for being Jersey, If we are talking about something like pinnipeds or big cats how would Jersey ever compete with somewhere like Whipsnade or ZSL ?
However, I do think that in most categories in terms of ex-situ / in-situ conservation and particularly these kind of ecosystem related contests Jersey is just going to typically come out higher than other zoos because of their ethos and history of commitment to conservation.
It’s the thing I don’t like about soccer, you can control the field for the whole match then bam! the opposition gets a couple of quick fluky goals and it is all over. Live with it.But are they truly so far ahead of Bristol where conservation is concerned that the latter collection deserves zero credit, per the way your vote has gone
That said, a 3-0 sweep here (where they have more than a single relevant programme) is more justified than last time
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
That's not actually an answer to my question
I guess like football we all have our preferred teams in terms of zoos and conservation organizations that we support and support us.
It seems that in the case of me and @MRJ Jersey / Durrell trust is just the team that we support whereas others are going to consider Chester, Aspinall parks, LA or San Diego zoo their team.
Yes, but voting is meant to be based on the category and not "this zoo is my team so I will always give them a clean sweep no matter the strengths of the other collection" - if MRJ is going to give Jersey an automatic clean sweep every time, this isn't playing by the rules.
So to rephrase my question - is Jersey so good that the conservation efforts of Bristol are worth nothing at all in comparison, or is the 3-0 vote based on Jersey being "his" team?
True.That's not actually an answer to my question