ZooChat Cup S2 Match #2: Oklahoma City vs Fort Worth

Small Mammals

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
pachyderm pro

pachyderm pro

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Two strong southwestern zoos spar head to head in round two, and its all about small mammals. Neither places are particularly known for their collection or exhibitry of small mammals. OKC has bush dogs and tayras while Fort Worth has some awfully tiny exhibits for many species such as porcupines and a ringtail. Its up to you what dictates a small mammal though some examples would be small carnivores, rodents and marsupials.

The concept behind this poll is explained here: ZooChat Cup Season 2

The rules of the game are as follows:
- You may choose whatever criteria you like to decide how to vote as long as it only relates to the chosen category of the match, which in this case is 'small mammals'.
- You can use whatever resources you like to inform your vote, including Zoolex, the ZooChat gallery, trip reviews, zoo maps, books and wherever else. You don't have to have visited both zoos to vote.
- Votes are public and can be changed at any time before the poll closes.
- The aim of the game is to provoke debate. Post explaining why you voted the way you did, and why others should join you.
- The one thing you can't do is vote based on anything other than small mammals
- Voting closes in four days.

Tomorrow: Fresno vs Disney
 
Not the most interesting matchup it could have been, but I think Oklahoma City wins pretty comfortably here. Fort Worth's collection appears to be limited to meerkats and Texan critters, and while their strong collection of small native mammals is commendable, the exhibits I've seen leave something to be desired and cramped enclosures is a common complaint I've read about Texas Wild! generally. As for Oklahoma City, some of the exhibits seem quite good (bush dogs, bat-eared foxes) while others appear less so (red pandas, ocelots). In terms of species collection, however, OKC is an easy winner, and the good presentation of bush dogs (arguably their greatest asset) helps make the case.
 
pachyderm pro said:
OKC has bush dogs and tayras while Fort Worth has some awfully tiny exhibits for many species such as porcupines and a ringtail.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's not fair to praise one zoo and then downplay another in the opening introduction for the challenge.. especially when Fort Worth no longer holds either species mentioned, nor do those enclosures even exist anymore ;):rolleyes:

~Thylo
 
pachyderm pro said:
Fort Worth has some awfully tiny exhibits for many species such as porcupines and a ringtail. Its up to you what dictates a small mammal though some examples would be small carnivores, rodents and marsupials.
Click to expand...
Well, considering they don’t currently keep either species, perhaps you’ll rethink your opening statement. Not to mention, Fort Worth is the only US holder of lesser long-nosed bat, the only holder in the world of pallid bat, and one of very few of Ord’s kangaroo rat and swift fox. In addition, they exhibit Merriam’s kangaroo rat, have a good coati exhibit, and have decent exhibits for otter, kangaroo, and meerkat. I haven’t yet decided who I’ll vote for, but FW isn’t worth writing off right away.

@Coelacanth18, most complaints about Texas Wild are directed towards the exhibits for larger animals, especially the coyotes.
 
This is an interesting one for me as I've only visited Fort Worth once earlier this year and never visited Oklahoma City, let alone know that much about it other than their superb reptile collection.

I'm going to set parameters for what constitutes a "small mammal" here. If others want to follow it feel free, if not that's ok. For the purposes of this and future challenges, I will be looking at all of Carnivora bar larger cats (Panthera, as well as Cougar and Cheetah as we used those for the large carnivore category even though they are technically small cats), bears, hyenas, pinnipeds, and larger canines (though we never really clarified which count as large and small), as well as rodents, bats, marsupials, lagomorphs, monotremes, elephant-shrews, pangolins, insectivores, armadillos, treeshrews, hyraxes, and the Aardvark.

From memory, Fort Worth keeps 12 species of small mammals under these parameters. Oklahoma City also has 12 (although this number comes from their website as well as a quick look at the gallery so this could be wrong). It has already been mentioned that OKC has some rare species such as Bush Dog and Tayra, and it seems they have Raccoon Dog not yet on-exhibit. They also have a nice selection of four small cat species, as well as several more commonly kept species such as Meerkat, skunk, and prairie dog (note they also keep several native species just like FWZ). FWZ was immediately discounted, it seems, for having more commonly kept species, but they also have their own choice collection. They are the only holder of two bat species (Pallid and Lesser Long-Nosed), and are the only holder I know of for Ord's Kangaroo-Rat. The zoo also exhibits Merriam's Kangaroo-Rat and has a breeding program for kangaroo-rats. They also keep Swift Fox, which is pretty rare in captivity. Even their more common species such as White-Nosed Coati and Meerkat are subspecies which are not too common in captivity. Additionally, while no longer in the collection currently, they do conduct in-situ conservation for Black-Footed Ferret. FWZ was also dismissed for having poor exhibit quality (probably not helped by @pachyderm pro's opening introduction immediately putting down the zoo...), but I don't remember there being any poor enclosures for any of their small mammal species. The small Ring-Tailed Cacomistle, porcupine, and Bobcat enclosures were all combined to make a very nice Ocelot enclosure, and all the other enclosures in Texas Wild!, imo, ranged from decent to very good. OKC, from photos only, seems to have a mix of enclosure quality as well, so it doesn't seem to be as clear a winner here as previously perceived.

It's a very close call for me. The wider variety of OKC's collection as well as several rare species tempts me to cast my vote towards them. However, I'm more familiar with FWZ and having the knowledge of their own odd collection as well as their breeding/conservation programs leads me to support them. I am flexible, though, and if someone more familiar with the two collections wants to challenge my thinking and can make a convincing enough argument, my vote can be swayed.

~Thylo
 
To be honest, I can't say I know much about the small mammals collections at either of these facilities. It wasn't fair of me to degrade Fort Worth right off the bat, but I haven't seen anything that impressed me until @jayjds2 and his post which caught my attention. I'll stick with OKC for now but I can definitely be swayed here.
 
jayjds2 said:
Well, considering they don’t currently keep either species, perhaps you’ll rethink your opening statement. Not to mention, Fort Worth is the only US holder of lesser long-nosed bat, the only holder in the world of pallid bat, and one of very few of Ord’s kangaroo rat and swift fox. In addition, they exhibit Merriam’s kangaroo rat
Click to expand...

ThylacineAlive said:
FWZ was immediately discounted, it seems, for having more commonly kept species, but they also have their own choice collection. They are the only holder of two bat species (Pallid and Lesser Long-Nosed), and are the only holder I know of for Ord's Kangaroo-Rat. The zoo also exhibits Merriam's Kangaroo-Rat and has a breeding program for kangaroo-rats. The small Ring-Tailed Cacomistle, porcupine, and Bobcat enclosures were all combined to make a very nice Ocelot enclosure, and all the other enclosures in Texas Wild!, imo, ranged from decent to very good.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for providing this information. I do not have a full species list for either zoo, and was not aware that they bred kangaroo rats or held two species. I was also not aware that those small mammal enclosures did not exist anymore. My ability to get an accurate survey of these facilities is apparently being impaired by my resources...

I will do further research and reconsider my vote.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
For the purposes of this and future challenges, I will be looking at all of Carnivora bar larger cats (Panthera, as well as Cougar and Cheetah as we used those for the large carnivore category even though they are technically small cats), bears, hyenas, pinnipeds, and larger canines (though we never really clarified which count as large and small), as well as rodents, bats, marsupials, lagomorphs, monotremes, elephant-shrews, pangolins, insectivores, armadillos, treeshrews, hyraxes, and the Aardvark.
Click to expand...

For canines, maybe Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon would count as large carnivores, and the rest as small mammals?

Also what about sloths and anteaters?
 
Coelacanth18 said:
For canines, maybe Canis, Cuon, and Lycaon would count as large carnivores, and the rest as small mammals?

Also what about sloths and anteaters?
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes sense for Canines.

Yes sloths and anteaters count as well, I simply forgot about them when I made my post :p

~Thylo
 
Why not use the new, reworked categories from the original ZooChat Cup? The original categories were changed so it would be less complicated for voters.
 
pachyderm pro said:
Small Mammals has been turned into miscellaneous mammals, large carnivores have been turned into carnivores. These will be used from here on out.
Click to expand...

So what do we do for the challenges already in affect? While adding small carnivores to the Bronx-Minnesota challenge wouldn't have too much of an impact, this change completely alters the Fort Worth-Oklahoma City challenge as it takes away all of OKC's odd species (which is what led most people to vote for it) while leaving FWZ with almost all of theirs..

~Thylo
 
Well what you do is vote on which zoo has a better collection and better exhibits with miscellaneous mammals of course. So if Fort Worth is better in the category, then it should get the most votes, simple as that.
 
Well, that’s just flat-out unfair. Why start a competition in one category, then change it to another (significantly altering the prospects of each competitor to win) in the middle of the competition?
 
pachyderm pro said:
Well what you do is vote on which zoo has a better collection and better exhibits with miscellaneous mammals of course. So if Fort Worth is better in the category, then it should get the most votes, simple as that.
Click to expand...

You can't change the category in the middle of the round, though... OKC would lose about half, if not more, of their eligible species and all of their odd ones which is what caused the majority of contributors thus far- including yourself- to vote for it. FWZ would almost win by default... Yet you haven't even changed your vote to reflect your own new rule!

I understand wanting to follow these new categories moving forward into new rounds- it's frankly what we should have been doing from the beginning- but it makes absolutely zero sense to change it in the middle of the round.

~Thylo
 
pachyderm pro said:
@jayjds2 and @ThylacineAlive I hear your criticisms, and just to end this (hopefully) once and for all the chosen category 'small mammals' will remain in effect for this round. Further rounds will have this category altered to 'miscellaneous mammals'.
Click to expand...

Wait now i'm confused. So we have carnivores, ungulates, and primates now. What would then constitute a miscellaneous mammal that doesn't go in the other categories. Thinking quickly, i only come up with kangaroos and red pandas.

Edit: and rodents

Love the debate this has caused though :)
 
BigNate said:
Wait now i'm confused. So we have carnivores, ungulates, and primates now. What would then constitute a miscellaneous mammal that doesn't go in the other categories. Thinking quickly, i only come up with kangaroos and red pandas.

Edit: and rodents

Love the debate this has caused though :)
Click to expand...
Anything that isn't one of those three would be in this category. Marsupials, rodents, xenarthrans, as well as the examples that Thylo has mentioned above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top