European (Tea)Cup - League C - Beauval vs London & Whipsnade

[pipaluk]

I think you are overestimating that and the criticism for Beauval is not the same as for Pairi Daiza. This cup shows that, whereas Pairi Daiza is on a losing streak, Beauval is holding itself up very well.

Pairi Daiza often gets criticized (justly) for prioritizing looks over animal welfare. In Beauval animal welfare is often prioritized over looks (exceptions like pygmy hippo certainly exist). Most of the criticism for Beauval is that exhibits are badly designed from a visitor perspective, apart from the outdated areas around the entrance (which is being improved). This includes glare, cross-viewing everywhere and weird design choices such as the pathways in the large aviary.

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was referring to a lot of general criticism of Beauval I have seen in the past, not necessarily in this competition or this particular match. I was just thinking this may stick in some people's minds when they are voting, though I don't think everyone voting against Beauval has been influenced by that.

 

[pipaluk]

This very much makes it seem like you are voting against the ZSL collections because London could not beat Beauval alone (in one comment you even threw in that ZSL London couldn't beat it in any category, which again is irrelevant) and you don't think it is fair that a second collection gets thrown in to help it out. However, this was @TeaLovingDave's entire point of grouping the two ZSL collections together as he wanted to give the historic ZSL zoos a shot at competing and I think this line of voting is not truly sticking to the bonds of the competition. There are several other comments throughout the thread that seem fit into this theme.

There are also, just a lot of comments here that make it appear that you are just trying to brush aside the positives of both ZSL collections, because you appear to really like Beauval overall and not necessarily just as it relates to this category. For example, you said something along the lines of "Beauval has African Elephants in a better enclosure than Whipsnade's Asians, even though they don't count". This very much sounds like you are trying to justify reasoning that Whipsnade having an excellent Asian Elephant exhibit is almost cancelled out by Beauval having a similar, but non-category relevant, species in a better one. Honestly, I don't necessarily disagree with this reasoning if we were comparing the zoos a whole, but we are not and the African Elephants are firmly outside the scope of this specific category. Another example of this seems to be with discounting London for the theming that is in Land of the Lions, but saying others are overly biased against Beauval for not liking that same type of thing.







As others have said, no one is arguing these are Asia specific areas, but it is perfectly justified to take into account the Asian species held within them, the exhibits they are held in, and the complexes as a whole in terms of other relevant information that they provide and with saying that, it is absolutely just as justified to take into account similar situations in Beauval.



Someone else finally addressed this also up thread, but people are way too critical of theming here as they seem to automatically equate it to being a "bad exhibit" and this is not true in the case of Land of the Lions. Take away the "theming" aspect of this complex and most (all?) of the exhibits are still quite good. This was argued over extensively in another round of this competition involving ZSL (ZSL vs. Berlin? maybe) and no one could actually explain to me what was wrong with the exhibits and most people actually agreed that the exhibits themselves were good exhibits, but the theming detracted from it. I can understand the second way of thinking, but your statements here seem very dismissive of the exhibits as a whole just because of the theming and ignores that quality of the exhibits themselves. To me, theming becomes "bad" when it becomes clear that money was spent on the guest experience at the expense of the animals or is over the top. While I can see the an argument for over the top being applied to LotL, the first one doesn't hold much water for me. In my opinion, the theming in Land of the Lions is quite well done and it is very unique compared to all other Asian themed zones out there with there "Ancient Temples".



This is an excellent point. I have often found (and have been guilty of it myself) on here that people are often overly critical of their home zoos because they remember "how great it used to be" and "miss the good ole days", but this comes at the expense of seeing the zoo for what it is now and how great it still is. As a new visitor to these places that has no idea about what they used to be like, I almost always fail to see what people are talking about as I just see it for what it is now. I used to be this way with my home/childhood zoo, the Minnesota Zoo, but my zoo travels have allowed me to gain new perspective and see it for what it is. ZSL London is still a very good zoo and while it may not compete with the true behemoths of the European zoo landscape on its own anymore, it is still a very good zoo.



As others have said, is one species really going to get you to change your vote? As I said above, this really feels like you are grasping at straws in order to discredit the ZSL collections in anyway you can because you really like Beauval. As others have also pointed out, many of the exhibits that you claim are "comparable" or "just a bit bigger in size" are not actually all that comparable when looking at photos of them and I can't say I'm any closer to switching over to 3-2 Beauval because of any of the arguments advanced here.

I agree that a 4-1 vote in either direction appears to be unjustified though.

I was asked to give my reasoning by @TeaLovingDave for why I had voted for Beauval which I have done. You have made a lot of assumptions regarding my comments particularly in relation to my character and integrity of my vote . Totally unnecessary and it adds nothing to this discussion.I will leave it at that but I am not going to bother addressing each individual comment you have made.

 

[NSU42]

I was asked to give my reasoning by @TeaLovingDave for why I had voted for Beauval which I have done. You have made a lot of assumptions regarding my comments particularly in relation to my character and integrity of my vote . Totally unnecessary and it adds nothing to this discussion.I will leave it at that but I am not going to bother addressing each individual comment you have made.

In no way was I trying to call your character or integrity into question, and I'm sorry if it felt that way when reading my post. I'm sure you are a great person and are voting the way your evaluative processes have told you to vote. Totally fine by me, and as you've said, to each their own when it comes to voting.

I also think it is great that you answered @TeaLovingDave's call to explain your reasoning and make your case for Beauval as the majority of people he does that with never respond, despite being outlier votes (which you aren't) that should require justification and we never get it from them. It also takes courage to argue a position that the majority of people don't seem to agree with and defend those beliefs as adamantly as you have. If anything, you've shown great integrity and character here.

 

[CrashMegaraptor]

I think you are overestimating that and the criticism for Beauval is not the same as for Pairi Daiza. This cup shows that, whereas Pairi Daiza is on a losing streak, Beauval is holding itself up very well.

This. For context, Beauval currently has two wins to its name, one of them being against the heavily-favoured Berlin Zoo. I know outright wins aren't the main focus here, but considering Pairi Daiza doesn't have anything like that at the halfway mark, I think this definitely says something.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Per the Cup rules, in order for the 5:0 vote now left by @Newzooboy to count for the purposes of this match an explanation of his reasoning will be required, or failing that a modification of the vote to 4:1

On another note, I am entirely satisfied by the reasoning and logic behind the vote from @pipaluk - even if I am voting otherwise - and as such no further argument about his motives or biases is desired or permitted @NSU42 I've edited your post to retain the first half but not the second half which potentially would reawaken this point.

 

[NSU42]

Per the Cup rules, in order for the 5:0 vote now left by @Newzooboy to count for the purposes of this match an explanation of his reasoning will be required, or failing that a modification of the vote to 4:1

On another note, I am entirely satisfied by the reasoning and logic behind the vote from @pipaluk - even if I am voting otherwise - and as such no further argument about his motives or biases is desired or permitted @NSU42 I've edited your post to retain the first half but not the second half which potentially would reawaken this point.

Fair enough. My apologies if I overdid it.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Exactly the sort of match that I hoped for when I revived the Cup, with plenty of discussion and debate!

Beauval - 59/130 points - 45.385%
ZSL - 71/130 points - 54.615%

It should be noted that the 5:0 vote for Beauval which was cast in the final 12 hours of the match was disregarded as a result of the fact that it was not accompanied by any detailed justification or explanation per the rules; as a general illustration of the impact even a single vote of this nature can make if counted (and hence the importance of providing an explanation so that it can be counted) it should be noted that the final percentages would have been 47.407% and 52.593% apiece had the vote stood.

That additional 2% lost by Beauval and gained by ZSL could well make a difference going forward!

 

[Newzooboy]

Per the Cup rules, in order for the 5:0 vote now left by @Newzooboy to count for the purposes of this match an explanation of his reasoning will be required, or failing that a modification of the vote to 4:1

On another note, I am entirely satisfied by the reasoning and logic behind the vote from @pipaluk - even if I am voting otherwise - and as such no further argument about his motives or biases is desired or permitted @NSU42 I've edited your post to retain the first half but not the second half which potentially would reawaken this point.

Without wishing to get into the intricacies of the discussion here - after all, surely this is about personal choice......
I have been visiting London Zoo since the early 80s and, for the most part, I have found it slightly less good on every subsequent visit. Sure - there are some nice exhibits, and much of it is perfectly 'fine'....but it just is no longer in the league of major European zoos (if you'll allow a football analogy (given the thread), I'd put London in the lower half of the English Championship). The more recent developments are most definitely a positive sign, but they still, to my mind, lack a the level of design aesthetic that is seen in many top European zoos. I've always felt the Lion enclosure was quite poor overall - less the theming (which I really don't like), more the waste of space and 'cobbled together' nature of the exhibit. The redevelopment could have been so much more. The tiger exhibit I have less problems with. The Casson is a wonderful building architecturally, but it hardly showcases the species currently held there (and most not Asian these days anyway).
Whipsnade is much, much better....and I do have an awful lot of time for it....but I do think that it still has a 'safari park' feel in so much as much of the hoofstock are held in very simple exhibits from a design perspective. This obviously no bad thing - big fields are good for hoofstock! - but if this competition is about excitement and enjoyment rather than what is technically 'the best', then I much prefer the way that Beauval presents its exhibits - in a way that is both engaging and exciting....I would agree that the big cat enclosures (which are quite aged now) are a bit old school, and the London/ Whipsnade tiger enclosures are probably superior...but the other Asian areas (which are both more expansive and contain a wider variety of species) are very well designed in my opinion - I very much like the Tapir and Rhino enclosures (mixed with other species) and the 'Panda' area.
Finally - there is also the lure of the exotic, the unknown, the 'new' that makes one want to re-visit a zoo (surely that's what excites us all). Beauval seems to me to always doing something new, always bringing in another interesting new species - to be progressive. It's some time since ZSL have done that - in fact, it always seems to me that there is less on each visit.
I appreciate that this is unlikely to convince most who are big fans of ZSL, and I guess I would admit that there is an element of 'familiarity breeds contempt' in my view...but ultimately, I would choose to visit Beauval over the ZSL collections every time, hence my score.
Having bothered to write all of that, and reading it back - 4-1 probably seems a fairer outcome

 

[Lafone]

Without wishing to get into the intricacies of the discussion here - after all, surely this is about personal choice......
I have been visiting London Zoo since the early 80s and, for the most part, I have found it slightly less good on every subsequent visit. Sure - there are some nice exhibits, and much of it is perfectly 'fine'....but it just is no longer in the league of major European zoos (if you'll allow a football analogy (given the thread), I'd put London in the lower half of the English Championship). The more recent developments are most definitely a positive sign, but they still, to my mind, lack a the level of design aesthetic that is seen in many top European zoos. I've always felt the Lion enclosure was quite poor overall - less the theming (which I really don't like), more the waste of space and 'cobbled together' nature of the exhibit. The redevelopment could have been so much more. The tiger exhibit I have less problems with. The Casson is a wonderful building architecturally, but it hardly showcases the species currently held there (and most not Asian these days anyway).
Whipsnade is much, much better....and I do have an awful lot of time for it....but I do think that it still has a 'safari park' feel in so much as much of the hoofstock are held in very simple exhibits from a design perspective. This obviously no bad thing - big fields are good for hoofstock! - but if this competition is about excitement and enjoyment rather than what is technically 'the best', then I much prefer the way that Beauval presents its exhibits - in a way that is both engaging and exciting....I would agree that the big cat enclosures (which are quite aged now) are a bit old school, and the London/ Whipsnade tiger enclosures are probably superior...but the other Asian areas (which are both more expansive and contain a wider variety of species) are very well designed in my opinion - I very much like the Tapir and Rhino enclosures (mixed with other species) and the 'Panda' area.
Finally - there is also the lure of the exotic, the unknown, the 'new' that makes one want to re-visit a zoo (surely that's what excites us all). Beauval seems to me to always doing something new, always bringing in another interesting new species - to be progressive. It's some time since ZSL have done that - in fact, it always seems to me that there is less on each visit.
I appreciate that this is unlikely to convince most who are big fans of ZSL, and I guess I would admit that there is an element of 'familiarity breeds contempt' in my view...but ultimately, I would choose to visit Beauval over the ZSL collections every time, hence my score.
Having bothered to write all of that, and reading it back - 4-1 probably seems a fairer outcome

As you say everyone's vote is personal. I don't think you can decide people are just 'big fans' of ZSL and voted for it because of that, though if you did that for Beauval it's ok, it's personal opinion. It was an interesting discussion with great points raised. I went 3/2 and not 4/1 in favour of ZSL based on the good information about Beauval myself and I appreciate the points you and others raised.

I believe the competition can legitimately be scored as the voter chooses. Excitement might have merit over technical enclosure standards, or enclosure standards over excitement, or in between, for different people. Some people have voted on volume of species alone, some on enclosures, others on variety of species, some on new stuff or developments, others on continuity. The interest of the cup is seeing what floats everyone's boat in my view, not needing everyone to be on the same one.

I suppose if you don't enjoy the Banteng or Philipine Spotted deer, who arrived at Whipsnade within the last few months, you could consider they represent a reduction to the collection or more to the point, an uninteresting or unexciting addition. The Monkey forest with Langurs, Babirusa, Lowland Anoa and Sulawesi Macaques is also a recent addition (Sloth bears lost in the process of course). While the excitement or otherwise of a collection is subjective and so everyone will find it in their own way, I would suggest it's hard to argue the additions represent a reduction. There's quite a volume of 'ZSL ain't what it used to be' on this site and while people are entitled to hold the view, the vote is on what's there now.

 

[Newzooboy]

I

As you say everyone's vote is personal. I don't think you can decide people are just 'big fans' of ZSL and voted for it because of that, though if you did that for Beauval it's ok, it's personal opinion. It was an interesting discussion with great points raised. I went 3/2 and not 4/1 in favour of ZSL based on the good information about Beauval myself and I appreciate the points you and others raised.

I believe the competition can legitimately be scored as the voter chooses. Excitement might have merit over technical enclosure standards, or enclosure standards over excitement, or in between, for different people. Some people have voted on volume of species alone, some on enclosures, others on variety of species, some on new stuff or developments, others on continuity. The interest of the cup is seeing what floats everyone's boat in my view, not needing everyone to be on the same one.

I suppose if you don't enjoy the Banteng or Philipine Spotted deer, who arrived at Whipsnade within the last few months, you could consider they represent a reduction to the collection or more to the point, an uninteresting or unexciting addition. The Monkey forest with Langurs, Babirusa, Lowland Anoa and Sulawesi Macaques is also a recent addition (Sloth bears lost in the process of course). While the excitement or otherwise of a collection is subjective and so everyone will find it in their own way, I would suggest it's hard to argue the additions represent a reduction. There's quite a volume of 'ZSL ain't what it used to be' on this site and while people are entitled to hold the view, the vote is on what's there now.

Of course, I didn't 'decide' that those who are big fans of ZSL voted because of it, nor did I say that. I merely said that I appreciated that my arguments might not be enough to convince those who really like ZSL why I consider Beauval to be superior. I'm not knocking anyone for liking what they like....
And I do appreciate your points - it's not a science....it's a game - anyone is at liberty to vote on whatever basis they want. This kind of thing is, by definition, subjective.
My comment regarding there being a reduction primarily concerned London, rather than Whipsnade, and of course I enjoy Banteng and Phillipine Spotted Deer - they are absolutely exciting in their own right.... if I'd never seen one, I'd be very excited to see them indeed....(as I was the first time I saw them), but when you've seen a species a lot (I very much appreciate that I am fortunate in this regard), it becomes as much about the presentation than the species itself (in my view). The Monkey Forest is good (a more recent development), but the species are not new (for ZSL).
I agree that there's a lot of 'ZSL ain't what it used to be' and I would definitely put myself in that camp (although perhaps not as far back as many)...but this is, as you say, a direct comparison of what exists today.

 

[pipaluk]

I


Of course, I didn't 'decide' that those who are big fans of ZSL voted because of it, nor did I say that. I merely said that I appreciated that my arguments might not be enough to convince those who really like ZSL why I consider Beauval to be superior. I'm not knocking anyone for liking what they like....
And I do appreciate your points - it's not a science....it's a game - anyone is at liberty to vote on whatever basis they want. This kind of thing is, by definition, subjective.
My comment regarding there being a reduction primarily concerned London, rather than Whipsnade, and of course I enjoy Banteng and Phillipine Spotted Deer - they are absolutely exciting in their own right.... if I'd never seen one, I'd be very excited to see them indeed....(as I was the first time I saw them), but when you've seen a species a lot (I very much appreciate that I am fortunate in this regard), it becomes as much about the presentation than the species itself (in my view). The Monkey Forest is good (a more recent development), but the species are not new (for ZSL).
I agree that there's a lot of 'ZSL ain't what it used to be' and I would definitely put myself in that camp (although perhaps not as far back as many)...but this is, as you say, a direct comparison of what exists today.

This is a bit like your best friend arriving late to the party just as you are leaving!
I agree entirely with everything you have said in both posts and much of it is similar to what I was attempting to say, but you have worded it better than I did .

 

[TeaLovingDave]

For the record, had the match not already concluded, the above would have been far more than sufficient to allow the vote by @Newzooboy to stand and much as was the case for the posts by @pipaluk represent the sort of thing I very much hoped this endeavour would produce. It's easy enough to chuck a silent vote into the fray, especially when it follows the general direction of the majority, but being able to present genuine and thoughtful reasoning for the choice provides a lot of value, no matter what the choice is.

As for the reason why any 5/0 vote requires an explicit explanation, it's not intended to go against the importance of personal choice - it's purely a measure to protect against the negative impact that a single heavily-weighted vote can have on the final scores/percentages, especially in matches where participation has been lower. Using the recent match where Vienna and Basel were neck and neck for a long time as an example, the eventual score was 63/62 with a 3/2 vote for Vienna breaking the deadlock yesterday evening. If a 5/0 vote was allowed without support, it would have had an impact on the final score and percentage, but obviously had the match remained tied at 45/45 (as it was for much of Monday) a 5/0 vote and hence a 50/45 result would have had significantly heavier impact on the final numbers. This impact is all part of the game if the vote is a fair one, and obviously people can still leave a 4/1 vote and have their vote counted no matter how murky their motives - see for instance an individual repeatedly voting against collections for ceasing to keep (or never having kept) a given species irrelevant to a match - but the small level of additional protection against strategic voting is a worthwhile one I think.

 

[Newzooboy]

This all makes perfect sense.

I did realised that I was far too late to the party, and that my vote wouldn't be counted anyway - but nevertheless felt the need to explain, given that it was somewhat of an outlier.

 

[Newzooboy]

This is a bit like your best friend arriving late to the party just as you are leaving!
I agree entirely with everything you have said in both posts and much of it is similar to what I was attempting to say, but you have worded it better than I did .

Thank you...