Zoochat Cup Group H: Chester vs Prague

[pipaluk]

@pipaluk , do you care to explain why you changed your vote to 3 - 0 for Prague?

I am personally more of the opposite, I have visited Prague (and I really like the zoo), but voted for Chester. Prague is a great zoo, but the greatness comes mostly from the ungulates, birds and ectotherms, it also has big carnivore and rodent collections, but those enclosures are mostly distinctly average.

When going through all Prague's enclosures the only one that is par with the best of Chester is the Coati enclosure. Some of the small cat enclosures and the Smooth-coated otter enclosure are also quite good, but apart from that a lot of the enclosures range from fine to just acceptable to just very bad (Polar bear, Javan leopard). The title of best Javan leopard enclosure probably goes to Doue-la-Fontaine, but that Prague and Pairi Daiza were even in the race says a lot about the overall quality. To me excellence in enclosures does more than just having a big and interesting line-up.

We would be having the same debate, probably even more polarizing, when for example Burgers' Zoo was against Zoo Berlin on primates, with the former having 11 species and the latter close to 30, but exhibit-wise the difference would be this:

showing half of the Gorilla island in Burgers' Zoo

against this:

The Primate house in Berlin

OK, I will try, but please remember that the problem (or beauty whichever way you look at it) is there are no solid rules what criteria people use for allocating points. Many people, I accept consider enclosures to be the main factor, whilst others like me are more interested in the collection and the animals they can actually see.
For me this isn't about whether Prague wins but by how much and I have been wavering between 2-1 and3-0 from the start. 3-0 is not necessarily my final score.
By my criteria a zoo with 2 or 3 times more species will usually win(probably 3-0)unless:
That zoo has multiple poor enclosures
The other zoo has 'significantly' better enclosures
The other zoo with more rarities (viewable one's).
Does the offshow vontsira cancel out the brown hyaena? Not for me, but put it on show and it might!
Without wishing to move off the subject too much, I would score Berlin 2 Burgers 1 on primates probably, mainly because Burgers enclosures appear significantly better and some of Berlin's aren't great.

 

[pipaluk]

Another point I meant to make is that personally if I was looking to visit a UK zoo for its carnivores, I would head to Exmoor or Hamerton over Chester, not because their enclosures are better, but personally I find their collections more interesting

 

[NigeW]

Ah this is a tough one. Prague versus my local. But, reminding myself this is for carnivores, and reflecting on what I'll see in a typical visit (you won't see wildcats at Chester, therefore, for me, they are less relevant to this discussion).... and I can't see which way the vote is going until I cast my own.. I'm going 2-1 Prague.

Yes, Chester has some great enclosures, but on balance that's not quite enough to clinch it.

 

[Giant Panda]

There's another point against Prague's exhibits, based on the localisation of its carnivore collection. Zoos have known for at least two decades that (at least some) smaller carnivores are chronically stressed by proximity to natural predators. Whilst their exhibits may look all right, keeping small cats alongside leopards, lions, and tigers is a welfare issue. Aren't the big cats also rotated on- and off-exhibit, due to lack of outdoor space? These points suggest Prague's issues extend well beyond the (appalling) polar bear and Javan leopard exhibits.

Chester, on the other hand, has spread its carnivore exhibits across the zoo and built extensive separation facilities. As a result, I'm reluctantly switching my vote to 3-0 Chester. Prague is outstanding; its carnivore offerings are not.

 

[amur leopard]

As a result, I'm reluctantly switching my vote to 3-0 Chester. Prague is outstanding; its carnivore offerings are not.

I know I shouldn't really post on this thread anymore but I find that simply ridiculous. Prague has a vastly better species list and mostly good to great enclosures and you aren't even giving them any credit. I wouldn't have imagined that.

The way I decide which zoo wins is as follows if anyone is interested. Firstly, consider the species lists, and whoever wins in that gets a point. Then, the exhibit quality, which can of course be related to species lists, and one point is allocated to that. And lastly, generally the deciding point goes to whichever zoo is generally better for the animal kingdom.

 

[Giant Panda]

I know I shouldn't really post on this thread anymore but I find that simply ridiculous. Prague has a vastly better species list and mostly good to great enclosures and you aren't even giving them any credit. I wouldn't have imagined that.

The way I decide which zoo wins is as follows if anyone is interested. Firstly, consider the species lists, and whoever wins in that gets a point. Then, the exhibit quality, which can of course be related to species lists, and one point is allocated to that. And lastly, generally the deciding point goes to whichever zoo is generally better for the animal kingdom.

I see no reason why the species list deserves an equal weighting to animal welfare.

 

[pipaluk]

I know I shouldn't really post on this thread anymore but I find that simply ridiculous. Prague has a vastly better species list and mostly good to great enclosures and you aren't even giving them any credit. I wouldn't have imagined that.

To be fair, whilst I understand and may share your thoughts, NO vote can be considered 'ridiculous' as long as it can be justied by whatever criteria the voter chooses. There is no right or wrong under the rules.

 

[TZDugong]

And lastly, generally the deciding point goes to whichever zoo is generally better for the animal kingdom.

What does this mean? What does what's best for the "animal kingdom" have anything to do with voting for a zoo on a particular category?

 

[Coelacanth18]

Prague has a vastly better species list and mostly good to great enclosures and you aren't even giving them any credit.

This point has been made before (in Vienna v. North Carolina on ungulates); apparently I already addressed it there, but I will do so again. Voting for a 3-0 score does *not* mean one thinks the other zoo doesn't deserve any credit; it means that by the criteria @Giant Panda finds important, that is the fair score. San Diego ZSP deserves credit for its two primate species with decent enclosures; that doesn't mean it deserved a whole point for them. I'm pointing this out because posts like this one imply that someone must give a point in order to give credit, which is just not the case.

 

[amur leopard]

San Diego ZSP deserves credit for its two primate species with decent enclosures; that doesn't mean it deserved a whole point for them.

Completely different situation though. San Diego ZSP deserved no credit because it was beaten in both species list and enclosure-wise. On the other hand, here, we have on the one hand a zoo with a vastly better species list and decent enclosures on average versus a zoo with much fewer species and good to very good enclosures. In my book that first zoo deserves at least a point, if not two, because they are very good in one area and all right in the other, while the other zoo (Chester in this case) is not great in one area and very good in another. I'm not sure what warped and strange reasoning can result in a 3-0 win for Chester in that case.

I know it depends on what importance people place on different elements, but there is almost no argument for a 3-0 against Prague in my opinion. Would be interested to see how you justify it and cancel out the deficit in species list in order to give Chester a clean sweep...

By the way for those who are wondering, I meant for the last one animal welfare and impact on conservation for the last one. However, formulas can't really work for this tie so I take that back as an example.

 

[CGSwans]

I'm not sure what warped and strange reasoning can result in a 3-0 win for Chester in that case.

I know it depends on what importance people place on different elements, but there is almost no argument for a 3-0 against Prague in my opinion. Would be interested to see how you justify it and cancel out the deficit in species list in order to give Chester a clean sweep...

There's another point against Prague's exhibits, based on the localisation of its carnivore collection. Zoos have known for at least two decades that (at least some) smaller carnivores are chronically stressed by proximity to natural predators. Whilst their exhibits may look all right, keeping small cats alongside leopards, lions, and tigers is a welfare issue. Aren't the big cats also rotated on- and off-exhibit, due to lack of outdoor space? These points suggest Prague's issues extend well beyond the (appalling) polar bear and Javan leopard exhibits.

Chester, on the other hand, has spread its carnivore exhibits across the zoo and built extensive separation facilities. As a result, I'm reluctantly switching my vote to 3-0 Chester. Prague is outstanding; its carnivore offerings are not.

 

[Shorts]

Dons metaphorical asbestos bodysuit and steps into fray.

The core of my voting in this competition is to consider, if the collections were roughly equi-distance to my home (if only Prague was as near as Chester), which one I'd want to visit (or recommend a knowledgeable zoo nerd to visit) for the category involved.

This is a gut feeling and will intrinsically include variety of species, quality of enclosures for animals, look of enclosures for me, labelling and a host of other things (I couldn't fully explain and wouldn't want to try to fathom any weightings implicit to each factor). So for me, on that basis, it's 2-1 Prague.

I accept they have some sub-par enclosures though I think the Polar Bear enclosure is one of the better ones of that style/vintage, especially with the snow machine -for clarity that's not the same as saying it's good. I do have a little more of an issue with the Leopard enclosure though. Crucially though, the handful of poor enclosures are not enough to change the core driver of my voting*. Let's face it, not all of Hamerton's enclosures are massive and beautifully landscaped but we don't love it any the less.

*That doesn't mean that poor enclosures couldn't in a given contest tip my vote, just that they don't in this instance. Exmoor arguably has a better variety of carnivores than Chester but wouldn't stand a chance (for me) in any hypothetical vote.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I know I shouldn't really post on this thread anymore but I find that simply ridiculous. Prague has a vastly better species list and mostly good to great enclosures and you aren't even giving them any credit. I wouldn't have imagined that.

No more or less ridiculous than someone initially voting 2-1 for Prague, citing the high exhibit quality at Chester as the reason for their single point, then changing to 3-0 Prague anyway and later suggesting Chester's exhibits don't deserve that point so if it really really bothers you just look on those two votes cancelling out.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Also @CGSwans - if you want to pm me with what you were trying to say with the above messed up quote I shall fix your post for you

 

[Shorts]

I know it depends on what importance people place on different elements, but there is almost no argument for a 3-0 against Prague in my opinion. Would be interested to see how you justify it and cancel out the deficit in species list in order to give Chester a clean sweep

There's another point against Prague's exhibits, based on the localisation of its carnivore collection. Zoos have known for at least two decades that (at least some) smaller carnivores are chronically stressed by proximity to natural predators. Whilst their exhibits may look all right, keeping small cats alongside leopards, lions, and tigers is a welfare issue. Aren't the big cats also rotated on- and off-exhibit, due to lack of outdoor space? These points suggest Prague's issues extend well beyond the (appalling) polar bear and Javan leopard exhibits.

Chester, on the other hand, has spread its carnivore exhibits across the zoo and built extensive separation facilities. As a result, I'm reluctantly switching my vote to 3-0 Chester. Prague is outstanding; its carnivore offerings are not.

I see no problem with Giant Panda's voting which is consistent with the, well articulated, explanation given even though it's at odds with my own choice (heavily weighted on enclosure/welfare rather than heavily weighted on species, like Pipaluk currently on 3-0 Prague). Remember this thread's meant to engender discussion and thought (not an inability to understand someone's reasonably argued view counter to your own.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Completely different situation though. San Diego ZSP deserved no credit because it was beaten in both species list and enclosure-wise.

If I remember that match correctly, it was facing Berlin and there were people arguing that SDZSP (with its two enclosures) was *better* than Berlin in that category.

But that's not the point I'm making. The point is that I don't think it's fair to equate the word "credit" with points. Again, voting 3-0 is not the same as not giving a zoo credit. I know you've stated that your philosophy is only to deprive a zoo of points if they are poor in the category, but many others do not share that philosophy, myself included.

Would be interested to see how you justify it and cancel out the deficit in species list in order to give Chester a clean sweep...

It can be justified very easily: by not caring about the species list deficit. From this quote...

I see no reason why the species list deserves an equal weighting to animal welfare.

... you can infer that they do not weight the species list equally to animal welfare. Therefore, the "deficit" that you're talking about is of less concern to them than it is to you - even to the point of voting 3-0 in favor of Chester.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

If I remember that match correctly, it was facing Berlin and there were people arguing that SDZSP (with its two enclosures) was *better* than Berlin in that category.

That did indeed happen

~Thylo

 

[TeaLovingDave]

and I can't see which way the vote is going until I cast my own..

Sidenote - you actually can

Prague has ... mostly good to great enclosures

we have on the one hand a zoo with ..... decent enclosures on average

Slight difference in the level of your claims three hours apart with regards to the Prague enclosure quality I'd say the second claim is the more accurate - some poor, some average to good, one or two above average.

Conversely, as I've already demonstrated I think Chester has 3 world-class, 6 very good, 4 good and 1 average enclosures, with none poor.

 

[amur leopard]

Slight difference in the level of your claims three hours apart with regards to the Prague enclosure quality I'd say the second claim is the more accurate - some poor, some average to good, one or two above average.

Conversely, as I've already demonstrated I think Chester has 3 world-class, 6 very good, 4 good and 1 average enclosures, with none poor.

No they are not different... Mathematically, if one or two of the enclosures is pulling the rest down and is therefore appalling, it can make the mean average when most of the enclosures are good to great, and some of them are great and there are lots of good ones.

By the way, when have I ever undermined that Chester has better enclosures? Never. There is no use reiterating that because you are doing the very thing you condemn : repeating points.

 

[Chlidonias]

No they are not different... Mathematically, if one or two of the enclosures is pulling the rest down and is therefore appalling, it can make the mean average when most of the enclosures are good to great, and some of them are great and there are lots of good ones.

You'll pull a muscle if you try twisting any harder.