European (Tea)Cup - HEAD-TO-HEAD: Chester vs Prague (Water and Wetlands)

[EliasNys]

All are very nice species to have bred, naturally, but I would assert that it is a *massive* exaggeration to say, as you did initially, that "Prague is the sole reason [these species] are still found in zoos" - so the list doesn't really answer my question at all

To highlight particularly glaring examples:

• Black-Breasted Leaf Turtle - this species is present in rather a lot of collections, many of which held the species before Prague ever did; moreover, since receiving a large import of the species after a customs seizure, Prague has failed to breed their group at above replacement level.
• Enigmatic Leaf Turtle - it doesn't exactly count as "sole reason a species is still found in zoos" if it's the only European collection the species has ever been held in and they aren't working with other collections to establish the population, I think.
• Malayan Giant Pond Turtle - I'll grant that Prague is the ESB holder, which I missed when checking lists last night, but given how many collections hold the species and how many *breed* the species it is still a massive exaggeration to say the species would no longer be present in zoos without Prague.
• Cuban Hutia - this species is bred and kept at a large number of collections, and is also very common in private hands (the primary source for new stock in public collections), so again you can't attribute the continued presence of this species to Prague.
• Tayra - ditto, to a large extent, with the additional point that the European population was starting to struggle until Hamerton imported new blood.
• Polar Bear - one of the most ridiculous claims, even if the first-handrearing record *is* worthy of note.
• Brazilian Merganser - similarly to the Enigmatic Leaf Turtle, the (praiseworthy) import and first European breeding of the species can't exactly be claimed to be equivalent to saving the species in European collections!

I would argue that none of the other bird species cited in your above post qualify, as a matter of fact, with one single exception - the Hartlaub's Duck. All others are either commonplace, breeding regularly at other collections, or mostly kept going by private breeders.

Which isn't to say that the breeding record at Prague isn't excellent - merely that responding to my query about your extraordinary claims (and my subsequent list of conservation programmes and reintroduction breeding undertaken by Chester) by counting "species that Prague has bred" as synonymous with "species which depend on Prague for continued captive viability" is not fair play!

To be fair, it didn't say solely depend but severely depend on Prague breeding, which is not the same of course.
And I'd argue that the Enigmatic Leaf Turtle is very noteworthy since Prague is literally the sole reason we even know of the existence of this species. How many other zoos would have been able to describe a new species, discover how to breed it etc, all in such a short time span? And I'm sure that if their population grows larger, Prague will export them to other zoos eventually.

Also the white-faced Ibis is very much worth to be included, since Prague is the only zoo that breeds this species in Europe.

Prague also is a very important breeder of the African Openbill, and almost all collections received animals from Prague.

Prague is also one of two breeders of Milky Stork, so I'd argue that Prague is also very important to keep their population going.

Also little Pied comorant, Walsrode obtained all their animals from Prague and the Tierpark half of theirs.

Also the 4 other Turtle species i mentioned are definitely worth noting: the southern river Terrapin has so far only bred at Prague in Europe. Cuban Slider is literally only kept at two collections, and only Prague has a large group of animals. Brow roofed Turtle (only kept in breeding group in Prague) and crowned river Turtle( first breeding outside natural range)

But to be fair, it indeed forgot to look at the availability of some animals in private hands.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

To be fair, it didn't say solely depend but severely depend on Prague breeding, which is not the same of course.

It isn't the same, but you did indeed say "solely" in the post I originally questioned:



...and you've now shifted track again by phrasing things in terms of Prague being an "important breeder" rather than either of your previous claims it would be very easy for me to provide a similarly-long list of species for which Chester is an important breeder, but it would be distinctly unsporting for me to claim these species are solely or severely reliant on the collection!

And I'd argue that the Enigmatic Leaf Turtle is very noteworthy since Prague is literally the sole reason we even know of the existence of this species. How many other zoos would have been able to describe a new species, discover how to breed it etc, all in such a short time span? And I'm sure that if their population grows larger, Prague will export them to other zoos eventually.

As I already said, I never claimed it wasn't noteworthy - merely not relevant to the claims you (initially) made incidentally, Prague was breeding them before they realised they were a distinct species - which is not the only time something like this has happened funnily enough, as the Sylvie's Leaf Frog was described at Manchester Museum in very similar circumstances.

Also little Pied comorant, Walsrode obtained all their animals from Prague and the Tierpark half of theirs.

But as the Tierpark was regularly breeding the species itself already, has been the ESB coordinator for the species for decades, and along with Burgers and Frankfurt was responsible for the import of fresh blood for the species 20 years ago, it would nonetheless be incorrect to claim that the species presence in Europe is solely or severely reliant on Prague. Similarly, the African Openbill is also regularly bred by Walsrode and Tierpark Berlin, with these collections sending stock throughout Europe too.... in fact, Prague didn't breed the species for 15 years until they received fresh blood *from* Walsrode!

 

[nedpepper]

Haven't chimed in on any of these but I feel these two zoos are ones I have good enough experience with to judge fairly. Here's my thoughts on highlights and lowlights for both based on my visits and comments from others.

Prague

- Great Gharial enclosure
- Best Giant Salamander display I've seen (best worldwide?)
- Solid North American River Otter enclosure
- Hippos might not be best enclosure and lack land area but for me Hippo underwater viewing is one of the best sights there are at zoos
- Wetland area with Sitatunga and Malayan Tapir (do the latter count?) enclosures both very good
- Free ranging Tree Frogs and unique Mudskipper displays in Indonesian Jungle
- Best enclosure I've seen for Lake Titicaca Frogs
- A decent but not amazing Fur Seal enclosure (vs Chester's lack of Pinnipeds)
- Walk-through wetland aviary by cliffs
- Do Lowland Anoa count? If so I'd say Prague's enclosure edges Chester's
- Rarities like Shoebill, Brazilian Merganser and Fishing Owls

Negatives

- Really bad Polar Bear Enclosure
- All indoor Smooth Coated Otter enclosure
- Acceptable Penguin enclosure but inferior to Chester's IMO

Chester

- Best Giant Otter Enclosure in Europe I'm aware of (though slightly disagree with a comment upthread that it's best for all Otter species, from photos I'd say Bern's river encompassing enclosure for Eurasian's is superior!)
- Better Penguin enclosure
- The two Flamingo aviaries
- Best indoor viewing for Malayan Tapir I've seen (But Prague's enclosure slightly better overall I think)
- Free-roaming frogs in Butterfly House
- Great Gharial enclosure (But I prefer Prague's)
- Lots of unusual species in solid displays in Monsoon Forest with Tentacles Snakes big highlight
- Best Mountain Chicken Frog enclosure I've seen

Negatives

- Very basic aquarium (although Prague doesn't have a dedicated aquarium at all)

So overall not much in it, I think Chester's standard of exhibitory is higher overall with no bad enclosures, but it has a little bit less to offer for me. Basing this more on vibe rather than a purely statistical comparison, I'm putting this a very close 3/2 in favour of Prague.

 

[Lafone]

I have gone 3/2 Chester which is consistent with my previous Prague votes where water / mountains and poles were concerned and for the same reasons. I think it's difficult to understand or go for a 4/1 vote either way as both have good strenghts and exhibitry in most cases, with some down sides either way, but not to the point that the other has as good as nothing.

It's all personal preference of course and in this category there are things I'd rather see at Chester in terms of exhibits (examples, the Giant Otters and the large mainly free flight aviaries).

A close run thing though for me, befitting some of the heavyweight contenders in the cup and I can see the arguments for 3/2 both ways and if Prague win I don't find that unfair or ill considered, just the result of what people like.

 

[remar]

@nedpepper i would like to hear, why a basic aquarium is negativ? Does everything always have to be extraordinary?

Regarding the brazilian mergansers i think Pragues role is somehow overestimated here once again.

There is one exactly one reason why Prague got the animals. They are a pretty good friend to the man who put the effort at establishing the Ex-situ population in Brazil (and sponsoring his museum with some animals), which made the import of theme even possible. There is still no evidence that they are actually hard to breed in captivity with both zoos who tried achieve it within quite a short time. Yes they are rare and you have to do the paperwork and i'm also totally hyped about them too, but i think one should overestimate Pragues role here.

 

[nedpepper]

@nedpepper i would like to hear, why a basic aquarium is negativ? Does everything always have to be extraordinary?

Fair question - I mainly used "negatives" to maintain consistency with how I graded Prague, but it's true I don't really enjoy Chester's aquarium and have skipped it last few visits.

In a vacuum there's nothing wrong with exhibits being basic, but we're comparing Prague and Chester which are both in the elite league of world zoos, so I think it's reasonable to expect a bit more of the extraordinary from them in this context.

 

[Kalaw]

@nedpepper i would like to hear, why a basic aquarium is negativ? Does everything always have to be extraordinary?

Regarding the brazilian mergansers i think Pragues role is somehow overestimated here once again.

There is one exactly one reason why Prague got the animals. They are a pretty good friend to the man who put the effort at establishing the Ex-situ population in Brazil (and sponsoring his museum with some animals), which made the import of theme even possible. There is still no evidence that they are actually hard to breed in captivity with both zoos who tried achieve it within quite a short time. Yes they are rare and you have to do the paperwork and i'm also totally hyped about them too, but i think one should overestimate Pragues role here.

A basic aquarium is negative because it means that the standard of exhibitry for fish is significantly higher in Prague despite the comparatively small collection (which is unusual for Chester as it’s often the other way around). The well-landscaped paludariums, beautiful pufferfish pool, large moat surrounding the macaque island and the arowana tank (mixed with anacondas) in the cat pavilion all exceed anything for fish at Chester except the Amazon aquarium in the Jaguar House, which even then is inferior to some of the above for me.

Also, for me, the aquarium isn’t just basic, it’s also an unpleasant visitor experience. It’s dark, the windows into the tanks are very small so in crowds are unusable, and it’s visually uninteresting with bare concrete walls. Prague’s presentation is one of its real strong suits, on the other hand.

A lot of zoos don’t try to import species from other continents, especially where there is a lot of paperwork involved and when there are few captive holders with past experience. The fact that Prague took the risk for a Critically Endangered species like the Brazilian Merganser is definitely praiseworthy in my mind, even if breeding them isn’t too difficult. Of course, Chester can answer this with the Titicaca Frogs.

I'll grant that the African Wetland Aviary is still a little sparsely-vegetated (although rapidly becoming less so as time progresses) for the reasons previously noted, but I would definitely disagree that this:

...counts as sparsely-vegetated and would argue that contrary to your claims it contains plenty of places for those inhabitants which are liable to perch in elevated positions to do so - certainly no fewer places than the Prague walkthrough aviaries contain, as the following photos show:

The main difference, I reckon, is that the Prague aviaries are much smaller and hence "feel" like they contain more perching places.

As for your arguments about these aviaries seeming "very generic and uninspiringly planted" and not accurately depicting the ecosystem in question, I would point out that tt's hardly fair to expect an outdoor aviary in Northern Europe to accurately represent the trees and vegetation found in tropical regions of Africa and South America - the various walkthrough aviaries at Prague are no different whatsoever, again per the photographs above.



I'll definitely agree to this point, although I will pinch an argument from @EliasNys and point out that the species wouldn't be present at Prague (or indeed Europe) at all, were it not for the fact Chester imported and bred the species



The Prague exhibit is 730 m² including indoor housing, as opposed to 1,275 m² :

View attachment 814363


---

Overall, although I would rather like to convince some of those who have voted 3-2 for Prague to switch their allegiances to Chester, in order to pull the overall result closer to the coin-toss I believe it truly should be, at this point I am primarily trying to make the case that the 4-1 vote by @Haasje is entirely unjustifiable, and hopefully convince them to moderate their vote somewhat that, or encourage them to explain their (apparent) hypocrisy when it comes to the Polar Bear exhibit which I previously highlighted by clarifying which of the following is the case:

• That they believe that Chester merits no points whatsoever despite the many strengths I have highlighted, and hence only gains a single point due to their previously-stated belief that the Prague bear exhibit is so poor that it automatically warrants the deduction of one or two points from the collection, or....
• That they no longer believe that the Prague bear exhibit is poor enough to warrant the deduction of *any* points, and that they believe Chester only merits a single point overall.

Both would be singularly unfair, but at least the stance would be clarified!

I stand corrected regarding the penguins. The Chester enclosure looked disappointingly small on my visit but I think that was due to high expectations, while Prague’s impressed me for the opposite reason (and the mix with the ducks).

Regarding the aviaries, I would definitely say that the vegetation, landscaping and abundance of perching areas in the Stork walkthrough is superior to anything at Chester. But you are right that across the board there isn’t much between the two zoos in that regard. I think a big reason why I was so impressed by a lot of Prague’s foliage and thought it to be geographically relevant was that I visited in the summer and Chester in the winter. Though there were plenty of novel foreign plants throughout Prague and native lookalikes were put to good use.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

A lot of zoos don’t try to import species from other continents, especially where there is a lot of paperwork involved and when there are few captive holders with past experience. The fact that Prague took the risk for a Critically Endangered species like the Brazilian Merganser is definitely praiseworthy in my mind, even if breeding them isn’t too difficult. Of course, Chester can answer this with the Titicaca Frogs.

Chester, of course, has a significantly better answer for the Brazilian Merganser than that - and one which also serves as a rebuttal to the claims made by @EliasNys to repeat something I posted upthread:

Tequila Splitfin (Zoogoneticus tequila) - this goodeid is endemic to a single pool in the Ameca River basin of northwest Mexico, and was ultimately extirpated in the wild in the late 1990s; however it is now fairly commonplace in captivity as a result of stock imported by Chester Zoo in 1995 shortly before its extinction in the wild, and the subsequent successful captive breeding of the species. Reintroductions of the species have taken place in recent years, with the individuals in question being descended from the original Chester import.

Can't get much more "the sole reason a species is still found in zoos" than being directly responsible for preventing the global extinction of a species - and of course, all of this happened in the "basic" aquarium which yourself and others look so poorly towards

 

[merlin]

- Free ranging Tree Frogs and unique Mudskipper displays in Indonesian Jungle

I know it's already too late to comment on this, but the mudskippers have been gone for quite some time now...