ZooChat Cup Match #25: Burgers (6) vs Wroclaw
- Thread starter CGSwans
- Start date
That sounds rather unfair, if both are to good to lose, why not a shootout, with voting open for 1 day only, or simply the zoo with most aardvark/echidna wins...
The odds of two consecutive ties seems very remote. If we do get that far I'm happy to have a discussion about how to handle it then.
Probably a bit complicated, but a fair solution to the problem of losing good zoos early could be a play off between the highest scoring losers, and then randomly introducing them at some stage into a three way contest. Just a thought.
Ps.
Does anyone else think of central heating whenever they read the word ectotherm.
Ps.
Does anyone else think of central heating whenever they read the word ectotherm.
This won't be a tie, that is quite clear already!
Welsh Zootographer
Well-Known Member
No, I think of Ectoplasm!
I think of insulation products! There’s an insulation company called EcoTherm.
I’m not sure, you know! I still think anything could happen!
I know the Ocean and the Mangrove are Burgers' most important ectotherm exhibits. Both are splended and among the best of their kind. But because it is so close to a tie, I'll make a case for the other ectotherm exhibits in Burgers'. They are not as eye-catching as the Ocean or Mangrove, but when it is this close they might just make the difference.
First of all, the enclosures in the Bird house for Australian lizards, green tree python and a very nice cichlid tank. They are not splendid but they are still fine, and they offer some variety among the birds. More spectacular are the huge enclosures for water monitors and reticulated pythons in the Rimba tunnel. I know several zoo lovers think this part is a waste of space, but while I think the space could be used better, the exhibits are great. They provide plenty of room for two species that are generally housed rather small or even inadequate, and a full range of behaviours can be observed.
Of course there's the Bush. The enclosures for caimans and tortoises in the separated area probably get the most attention, but there are fish in the water all throughout the Bush, among them are nice species like pirapitingas, ocellate river stingrays and a lungfish. A separate tank houses cichlids. The turtles on the beach with the capibaras and ducks are a great addition to the overall collection in the Bush. There are several free-ranging reptiles like iguanas, anoles, geckos and basilisks. What is special about them is that they live as natural as possible in a zoo. They catch prey but also risk predation themselves, and several of them they reproduce naturally. The frogs are just great to hear if you ever have the opportunity to visit in the evening. There are also some plans involving leaf-cutter ants for the Bush.
The Desert has a lot to offer in terms of ectotherms. Snakes are represented by both a non-venomous (milk snake) and a venomous one (rattlesnake). The enclosure for rattlesnakes also has a clever set-up behind the scenes for feeding. A few inverts mark the entrance to the Desert: a bird-eating spider, a breeding group of cave crickets and currently again a scorpion. Although minor at first glance, these terrariums show an important part of the desert fauna. Enclosures for colorado toads and gila monsters finish the list. Both are great and I've rarely or never seen a larger gila monster enclosure (the animals themselves are not small either!).
So while non of this matches the extraordinary collection of fish and marine invertebrates of the Ocean nor the completely unique Mangrove, I feel these parts matter too. They show that Burgers' displays much more ectotherms, both in more conventional and extraordinary ways.
I honestly think that without the new Mangrove Burgers' would certainly have lost the game. Reptiles and amphibians - although present throughout the zoo - are Burgers' weakness (while a strenght of Wroclaw) and it needs to make up for it with fish and invertebrates. And adding one of the best invertebrate displays around made Burgers' a worthy opponent, no matter which zoo wins.
First of all, the enclosures in the Bird house for Australian lizards, green tree python and a very nice cichlid tank. They are not splendid but they are still fine, and they offer some variety among the birds. More spectacular are the huge enclosures for water monitors and reticulated pythons in the Rimba tunnel. I know several zoo lovers think this part is a waste of space, but while I think the space could be used better, the exhibits are great. They provide plenty of room for two species that are generally housed rather small or even inadequate, and a full range of behaviours can be observed.
Of course there's the Bush. The enclosures for caimans and tortoises in the separated area probably get the most attention, but there are fish in the water all throughout the Bush, among them are nice species like pirapitingas, ocellate river stingrays and a lungfish. A separate tank houses cichlids. The turtles on the beach with the capibaras and ducks are a great addition to the overall collection in the Bush. There are several free-ranging reptiles like iguanas, anoles, geckos and basilisks. What is special about them is that they live as natural as possible in a zoo. They catch prey but also risk predation themselves, and several of them they reproduce naturally. The frogs are just great to hear if you ever have the opportunity to visit in the evening. There are also some plans involving leaf-cutter ants for the Bush.
The Desert has a lot to offer in terms of ectotherms. Snakes are represented by both a non-venomous (milk snake) and a venomous one (rattlesnake). The enclosure for rattlesnakes also has a clever set-up behind the scenes for feeding. A few inverts mark the entrance to the Desert: a bird-eating spider, a breeding group of cave crickets and currently again a scorpion. Although minor at first glance, these terrariums show an important part of the desert fauna. Enclosures for colorado toads and gila monsters finish the list. Both are great and I've rarely or never seen a larger gila monster enclosure (the animals themselves are not small either!).
So while non of this matches the extraordinary collection of fish and marine invertebrates of the Ocean nor the completely unique Mangrove, I feel these parts matter too. They show that Burgers' displays much more ectotherms, both in more conventional and extraordinary ways.
I honestly think that without the new Mangrove Burgers' would certainly have lost the game. Reptiles and amphibians - although present throughout the zoo - are Burgers' weakness (while a strenght of Wroclaw) and it needs to make up for it with fish and invertebrates. And adding one of the best invertebrate displays around made Burgers' a worthy opponent, no matter which zoo wins.
When it comes to fairly standard herp/invert enclosures, I don't think Burgers will come close to Wroclaw because Wroclaw hasn't got really poor exhibits for either the visitor or the animals (in the vast majority of cases - you probably make the argument that a few are too small e.g. for tortoises in the reptile house), they're just fairly typical. Wroclaw's just got loads of them, with a big reptile house as well as dotted around other geographically themed areas like the Madagscar House and Sahara House seemingly similar to how you describe for Burgers.
As I see it - and if those who have visited both zoos disagree with this assessment please let me know - it comes down to whether you want a zoo with a small number of absolutely world class exhibits and a few other bits and pieces (Burgers) or whether you want a zoo with a couple of above average exhibits (that would seem excellent and innovative compared to many places, just not Burgers) in addition to an astoundingly huge collection in fairly standard, mediocre enclosures (Wroclaw). I don't think there's a right answer to that question, and it really just comes down to personal preference.
@LaughingDove Wroclaw does have some poor exhibits welfare-wise, though. The dark, tiny enclosures for large constrictors, large monitors and small crocodilians on the bottom floor of the reptile house are saddening, and I seem to recall a softshell turtle enclosure (for one of the very rare species they keep, at that) on the top floor in which the animal could barely swim...
I'm not sure if the situation for those exhibits is still like that since it has almost been 2 years now, but if it is I don't think it comes down to personal preference but to overall welfare standards.
I'm not sure if the situation for those exhibits is still like that since it has almost been 2 years now, but if it is I don't think it comes down to personal preference but to overall welfare standards.
Yes, the softshell turtle is a good point which I had forgotten. That particular enclosure is indeed much too small for the size of the turtle in the same way that I thought many of the tortoise enclosures were too small. (Although the indoor pond enclosures for other aquatic turtles like terrapins I think are fine).
Was your visit before the opening of the Komodo Dragon House? The situation for those enclosures for some of the larger monitors, snakes and crocodilians has improved to an extent since then as a few species moved out into the Komodo Dragon area, freeing up a number of the larger enclosures in the main reptile house. Many of them are still smaller than ideal though. Large pythons and small caimans tend to get enclosures that are small, in my opinion too small, in many zoos and unfortunately Wroclaw is mostly not an exception to this (although a few of the large monitors now have decent sized enclosures with the movements for the Komodo House. I forget which monitors exactly moved around where, but I recall that on my visit after the Komodo House the situation for monitors was considerably better. For the small crocs the situation was slightly better and I don't think there were any improvements for the pythons). One species of softshell turtle did move over into the Komodo House if I remember correctly. Not all though, and the very unusual one you mention, Nilssonia formosa, is still in the tank that is obviously far too small in the amphibian section as far as I know.
A part of me that wants to argue in Wroclaw's favour wants me to say that as a percentage of total enclosures the proportion that is smaller than acceptable is probably a fraction of a percent as a result of the sheer number of terrariums in that building, but I don't think that excuses it. I do think that the overall standard of animal welfare in terms of quality of exhibitry in that building is average to good though.
My visit was after the Komodo dragon extension, which is obviously very impressive and well done. I agree with your feeling that generally the welfare is average to good, but there are exceptions, when in a zoo of their size and rank, there really shouldn't be.
As @Mr. Zootycoon mentioned earlier, Burgers' housing for large monitors and large constrictors is definitely a lot above average... But then they only have one species of either, so that may not be a fair comparison.
EDIT: Oh, and another fun fact (unrelated to the comparison, but related to the overall topic) I just remembered; Burgers' was the first zoo to breed green iguanas in captivity worldwide, which is now one of the most common zoo reptiles.
No chance , even if some voters never make a single post on zoochat, they will make the difference!!
Ok, I'm going to approach this a little delicately, because the last thing I want to do is push enthusiastic new contributors away. Indeed, if this silly game I came up with actually attracts new people to the site then that's something I'd be quite proud of. So welcome. 
It is true, however, that the current margin in this thread is three votes, and there have been three votes by new members from the Netherlands, who are no doubt very proud of their home country zoo (I certainly would be, as it's easily one of the five best I've ever seen). So what I want to do is just make sure everybody understands exactly how this game is supposed to work.
The poll is *not* about whether you like Burgers more than Wroclaw. If it was, I would vote for Burgers, though I have in fact voted for Wroclaw. That's because the scope of the question is strictly about which zoo is better for reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Everything else has to be disregarded. This has been by far the most contentious and enthusiastically engaged in match of the entire project, and I really want to make sure that the purpose of the game is taken into account, so everybody can be confident in the result.
I will not be disregarding any votes: everybody is welcome to contribute, from the newest of newbies to the ultra-obsessives with hundreds of zoos and ten thousand posts to their name. And I have neither the right nor the ability to judge people's reasons for their vote. At the same time, I hope everybody keeps the parameters of the game in mind when they vote, or indeed when they consider whether to change their vote.
The poll remains open for another 30 or so hours. Plenty of time for everybody to keep trying to sway a pivotal couple of votes to their side. May the best zoo for ectothermic animals win.
It is true, however, that the current margin in this thread is three votes, and there have been three votes by new members from the Netherlands, who are no doubt very proud of their home country zoo (I certainly would be, as it's easily one of the five best I've ever seen). So what I want to do is just make sure everybody understands exactly how this game is supposed to work.
The poll is *not* about whether you like Burgers more than Wroclaw. If it was, I would vote for Burgers, though I have in fact voted for Wroclaw. That's because the scope of the question is strictly about which zoo is better for reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Everything else has to be disregarded. This has been by far the most contentious and enthusiastically engaged in match of the entire project, and I really want to make sure that the purpose of the game is taken into account, so everybody can be confident in the result.
I will not be disregarding any votes: everybody is welcome to contribute, from the newest of newbies to the ultra-obsessives with hundreds of zoos and ten thousand posts to their name. And I have neither the right nor the ability to judge people's reasons for their vote. At the same time, I hope everybody keeps the parameters of the game in mind when they vote, or indeed when they consider whether to change their vote.
The poll remains open for another 30 or so hours. Plenty of time for everybody to keep trying to sway a pivotal couple of votes to their side. May the best zoo for ectothermic animals win.
They were not the first, though they were the first who achieved that without any human interference.
Hmmm! We will soon find out!
Ok, I'm going to approach this a little delicately, because the last thing I want to do is push enthusiastic new contributors away. Indeed, if this silly game I came up with actually attracts new people to the site then that's something I'd be quite proud of. So welcome.
It is true, however, that the current margin in this thread is three votes, and there have been three votes by new members from the Netherlands, who are no doubt very proud of their home country zoo (I certainly would be, as it's easily one of the five best I've ever seen). So what I want to do is just make sure everybody understands exactly how this game is supposed to work.
The poll is *not* about whether you like Burgers more than Wroclaw. If it was, I would vote for Burgers, though I have in fact voted for Wroclaw. That's because the scope of the question is strictly about which zoo is better for reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Everything else has to be disregarded. This has been by far the most contentious and enthusiastically engaged in match of the entire project, and I really want to make sure that the purpose of the game is taken into account, so everybody can be confident in the result.
I will not be disregarding any votes: everybody is welcome to contribute, from the newest of newbies to the ultra-obsessives with hundreds of zoos and ten thousand posts to their name. And I have neither the right nor the ability to judge people's reasons for their vote. At the same time, I hope everybody keeps the parameters of the game in mind when they vote, or indeed when they consider whether to change their vote.
The poll remains open for another 30 or so hours. Plenty of time for everybody to keep trying to sway a pivotal couple of votes to their side. May the best zoo for ectothermic animals win.
Good post. This is why I feel cautious about voting I think. I am probably slightly biased towards Burgers’ Zoo, rightly or wrongly so! I come from a world where bias is rife, so it’s really hard to quit the habit.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
I've ultimately gone for Wroclaw. I haven't visited either. I am sure that the Burgers approach is a better way of displaying animals and a better way of being a zoo, and I'd much rather visit Burgers, although I'm looking forward to both immensely. Despite all of that, the sheer audacity of Wroclaw's Reptile House seems to be the key factor here. There is a focus on cold-blooded creatures that the various Burgers exhibits seem to lack. I'm not sure anyone is going to the Bush because they are a huge reptile fan...
Burger’s wins this one in my opinion, the way they represent the few reptiles they do have is amazing. The terraria aren’t always the biggest (mainly in the tunnel that connects the bush with the dessert) however they are worked in well within the surrounding.
Burger’s Ocean is a candystore for a fish lover or marine lover or whatever you love about the ocean. Big sharks, small fish, a tunnel where eagle rays greet you from above and real coral!
Wroclaw has more reptile species from what I’ve heard, but I am not really feeling that I should judge on the amount of species but rather the way they are represented.
Burger’s Ocean really is the most educative section of the entire zoo in my opinion, with several “big” signs telling about the oceanic layers and their inhabitants as well as showing the fish in order of lager; lagune, coral reef, open sea, deep sea and finally back to the shore. So, educational and representation wise Burger’s zoo wins this round. Even though Wroclaw has more species I think Burger’s has just that little bit extra.
Burger’s Ocean is a candystore for a fish lover or marine lover or whatever you love about the ocean. Big sharks, small fish, a tunnel where eagle rays greet you from above and real coral!
Wroclaw has more reptile species from what I’ve heard, but I am not really feeling that I should judge on the amount of species but rather the way they are represented.
Burger’s Ocean really is the most educative section of the entire zoo in my opinion, with several “big” signs telling about the oceanic layers and their inhabitants as well as showing the fish in order of lager; lagune, coral reef, open sea, deep sea and finally back to the shore. So, educational and representation wise Burger’s zoo wins this round. Even though Wroclaw has more species I think Burger’s has just that little bit extra.