Amneville had an uneventful 10-4 win over Helsinki on small mammals, but only after it nearly didn't make the draw at all, having been foolishly mixed up by someone with Amiens. Burgers, meanwhile, had a heroic battle with Wroclaw on ectotherms, 19-17. This time? Primates. Tomorrow? Moscow vs Pairi Daiza.
Amneville has roughly twice as many species as Burgers, but I'm going to need a lot of convincing to vote against the best gibbon exhibit I've ever seen, an exceptional mixed-species exhibit including macaques, siamangs and various ungulates, and one of the most progressive chimp exhibits ever. Burgers for me.
This is probably the only category in which Amneville stands a realistic chance of winning. Species-wise Amneville has 22 species listed (2 squirrel monkey subspecies), against only 9 species for Burgers' Zoo. So based on numbers only, this should be a comfortable win for Amneville and Burgers' doesn't keep any S-American primates.... But what Burgers' has they do very good: The Chimpanzee enclosure was opened in 1971 and the outside is certainly still one of the best around, the indoors is ugly but not exactly small... But the major achievements with Burgers' chimpanzees is the role they played in scientific research, mainly under Prof. Frans de Waal who did his PhD work on the Burgers' colony and produced the famous book Chimpanzee politics. His research in Burgers' was part of the foundation for the current work on primate behavior. Currently there is only one member of the original group left and the group is in a transition of making sure which animals are pure-bred W-African chimpanzees and can thus breed and which not. Burgers' Zoo curator Tom de Jongh played an important role in this Europe-wide as chair of the great ape TAG. Then there is the fantastic gorilla enclosure, which is now over 30 years old and houses a functional breeding group of Gorilla, mixed with a group of 5 Golden-bellied mangabey, 2 of which were imported from San Antonio, USA. The Orangutan enclosure used to be the worst part of the zoo by far, but has been completely remodeled and is now a spacious enclosure for bachelor groups of Black- and Ring-tailed lemur. Then there is the huge multispecies enclosure in the Rimba where Pig-tailed macaque live together with Banteng, Muntjak, Eld's- and Hog deer. The Macaque have access to a large part of the trees and this must be the best enclosure for this species in Europe. Part of the trees are not accessible for the Macaque, as those are for a breeding pair of Siamang. The mix Siamang and Macaque was not a success, so currently they are only mixed visually, but they can't reach each other... The Siamang still have access to multiple live trees and have ample space for brachiating. The final primate enclosure is for Golden-cheeked gibbon and Dusky langur. This is a large cage, which might be less visually appealing than an island, but is one of the best Gibbon enclosures in Europe. The downside however is that the Langur and Gibbon don't mix well (the Gibbons get quite aggressive....), so they only have outside shifts. The inside is relatively spacious and full of natural light, but cannot replace the outdoors.... I am unfamiliar with Amneville, though what I have heard, doesn't sound bad (except the tiger show....)...
Both: Ring-tailed lemur; siamang; western lowland gorilla Amneville Black and white, red and white-belted ruffed lemurs; Common, pygmy and silvery marmosets; bearded emperor , cotton-top and red-bellied tamarins Black-capped capuchin, Bolivian and Peruvian squirrel monkeys White-faced saki Black spider monkey Rhesus and crab-eating macaques; mandrill; gelada White-handed gibbon Sumatran orang-utan Arnhem Black lemur Sunda pig-tailed macaque; golden-bellied mangabey; dusky leaf monkey Red-cheeked gibbon Common chimpanzee (including central and western) I think that Burgers is the most innovative zoo I've been to and it has a few interesting species, so I'm upset about voting against it. Amneville has a larger and more varied collection, including New World primates, so gets my vote.
Amneville houses two groups of all male gorillas, inside and outside enclosures are both excellent, one group is 'co-habitating' the indoors with meercats. Zoos that commit to all male groups should get extra points in every ranking or match up. It houses two groups of Orang Utans, breeding, and although I am not a huge fan of the indoor and outdoor enclosures, it is an ok secenario. They co-habitate with (I believe) small-clawed otters. Next door to the Orang Utans are a pair of siamangs. Both outdoors lack shade, trees, bushes which is in my opinion a mystery enclosure set up for those animals in way too many zoos. I think like three or four years ago, Amneville built a new Gelada enclosure, which is really well thought out for the Geladas and frankly for the visitors too. In the 'older' part of the zoo, there are a number of islands for spider monkeys, capuchins, squirrel monkey and gibbons, which are not bad also. Maybe a little outdated, but that would be high level complaining..... And Amneville is a fairly good zoo to visit for primates and as such, this should be a close match. I am currently trending Burgers, but I will think this through some more, simply because I am very aware of my overwhelming bias towards Arnheim. My current justification for Burgers is, I consider all their developments more holistically planned than in most other zoos.
I usually intend to vote for the most species richest zoo in this competition but sometimes I need an exception to my own rule. I think this is the case in this match because of the very high standards of the Arnhem primate enclosures: there're simply no weak points, and like Lintworm already mentioned, there's that fantastic Rimba 6 mammals species mixed enclosure...
I'm impartial towards both zoos here as I haven't visited either, and from everything I've heard Burgers sounds like a much better zoo overall and should be one of the top few in this competition. But I'm not sure that these descriptions are convincing overall for Burgers. If the chimp enclosure was more modern, would it still be a stand-out? I'm not sure about voting on something based on it being progressive when it was opened 47 years ago. I've voted for Amneville for now but that's only for the sake of supporting the underdog. I'm definitely intending to reconsider my vote if/when more information is posted here.
Unless someone can convince me Burgers is THAT much better for enclosures and Amneville is sub standard, my vote will stay with the underdog too, which wins easily on species! The enclosures have to be significantly better surely to overturn a difference of more than double in species . The question isn't what is your favourite zoo! I think if Burgers can get out of this one by a high margin you may as well start engraving the trophy now!
Probably not. But the thing is, Burgers' was among the first (maybe even THE first) to start keeping chimps in a colony with multiple males like they live in the wild, which is ofcourse common practice nowadays. At the time they were deemed crazy by zoos and experts because this had never been done before and they thought the chimps were going to kill each other. So without Burgers', the way we keep chimps today might have been totally different. To me, that is not just progressive, but totally groundbreaking. Nowadays, the island is still among the best chimp exhibits I know and definitely better than a lot of newer enclosures. Indoors is a little bit outdated, but still spacious. The other primate enclosures are equally good to very good. The gorilla enclosure was among the first of its kind (opened in 1986) and is still very good, especially with the breeding group of golden-bellied mangabeys they now share with. The lemur enclosure is also really nice, with a lush green outdoors and two spacious indoor enclosures. The Rimba mixed exhibit is simply wonderful and unique, with great interactions between the macaques and the hoofstock to a background of siamangs singing in the trees. The gibbon/dusky langur enclosure is really big, with lots of climbing possibilities.
Outdoors is still one of the largest in Europe at about 7000 square meters, it doesn't look very modern, but for the chimps it is still great with lots of shade and places to get out of sight. It was completely revolutionary 47 years ago and it still compares favorably to everything that is not Pongoland or Vallee des Singes on the outdoor part. Indoors is not small, but really quite ugly...
I just don't see how groundbreaking husbandry or enclosures 30 or 40 years ago are relevant to 2018?! It's almost like suggesting London Zoo should have won on small mammals because the Clore Pavilion held 100 plus species when it opened in 1967 and into the 90s! Or maybe it should have been able to win on Carnivores because it bred Polar bear successfully in 1950? I thought this competition was about the present not the past? It's about category , not the zoo's history or reputation!!
I voted Amneville. Burger's exhibits while good do not compare to the more variety in species that Amneville has to offer.
Being a big fan of ( most of ) Burgers and not having visited Amneville sofar, my vote goes to Burgers. Alone for the Gorilla and the Chimp-enclosures Burgers desirve to win this one !
There is, quite deliberately and quite openly, no bounds on what criteria people can use to vote *as long as* they restrict themselves to the given category. While I dispute the suggestion that Burgers' record with chimpanzees is purely historical - that enclosure remains one of the best I saw for the species across Europe - historical considerations are absolutely something that people can draw on to inform their vote. I haven't seen anybody in this thread advocating a vote for Burgers on anything that is not related to primates, including me. Amneville may well have a stronger collection, but unless somebody can convince me that it can match the best gibbon exhibit I've ever seen, an interesting and rarely-seen species mix and, yes, a long record of innovation with chimpanzees, I'm going to keep my vote with Burgers. I *am* open to being convinced. I think this game would quickly become boring if the only frames through which people considered their votes were species lists and perhaps outright quality of enclosures*. Both are very significant, but not everything can be reduced to those two metrics. * It is fine if people *do* want to limit their scope to these factors, I just hope the overall debate doesn’t go that way.
This is admittedly the argument that has to be made. If you go ahead and compare enclosures to enclosures, there is no difference in quality, I would in some instances even argue that Amnevilles enclosures are the better ones. Most definitely the gorilla enclosures are much better in Amneville than in Burgers. The actual difference is, how the zoo as a whole and the different compartments within the zoo are set up and that is where Burgers wins, hands down. But this is just not what the vote should be about, to me at least. So i am changing my vote.
To put it plainly: Yes Amneville has more species, and yes their enclosures may look a little more fresh-faced than the Burgers' enclosures... But to say that the majority of us are voting for Burgers' just because it's our favourite zoo is completely and utterly unfair. There's a reason (in fact, many) why most consider it to be the best zoo in the Netherlands. Yes, of course, there is some loyalty to the collection as could be seen by the overwhelming overturn in the Burgers' vs Wroclaw round. But that isn't to say that Burgers' is going to win hands down every time. If it were to face off against a fair few other collections in this competition it would be annihilated. Plainly and simply, I'm sticking with Burgers' because of multiple reasons. Firstly, as has been said above, they do have some really solid history with the husbandry of primates. First large colony of chimpanzees, a successful breeding history with gorillas etc. etc. Secondly, the enclosures themselves hold out still today, and that's something that Burgers' is, for the most part, really good at doing; they are constantly aware of what needs replacing and when. The orangutans are gone, and if they were still there in that enclosure then yes, my vote would probably be on Amneville. But what do you have now? You have a visually pleasing enclosure for two species of lemur that also gives them enough mental stimulation and manages to avoid the classic 'walkthrough' that many collections with lemurs use. Then there are the Rimba enclosures, which are well thought out and manage to stimulate the primates just as much, either through exhibit design or species mix. Yes, something should be thought about with regards to the dusky langur/golden-cheeked gibbon mix, but again that could be something that Burgers' is already figuring out how to solve and, at least for now, the two species don't seem to mind rotating. Then, finally, you have those ape enclosures. As CGSwans said, the chimp enclosure is still the best outdoors I have seen to date, and anyone who knows me knows that I've seen a ridiculous number of chimp enclosures. Not to mention Burgers' is one of the few zoos I've been to with gorillas where I have seen such regular interaction between the gorillas themselves and their co-inhabitants (the others that come to mind being Frankfurt, Apenheul and GaiaZOO). And I think that is the key to why I have chosen Burgers'. They have a sort of timeless nature to their enclosures that makes up for the somewhat older enclosures looking a little rough around the edges. I am not at all saying that Amneville is a weak zoo. I think their primate section is fantastic. But it's going to take more for me than a decent orangutan enclosure, a varied species list and a commitment to keeping gorilla bachelors for me to vote it. (I am open to being convinced, just like @CGSwans)
Hmmm, I would prefer Vallée des Singes chimps enclosure but that is besides the point - just wanted to leave it here If you deduct gorillas, orang utans, siamangs and geladas, all Amneville enclosures are rather old enclosures, the are all island enclosures not as spacy as Apenheul but simlilarly constructed. I think it is only logical to assume that most votes are biased votes, be that numbers of species, if one is a numbers person, or personal knowledge and/or preferences which regularly puts not so well known and visited zoos at a disadvantage and so on. So I did not see the argument as to how hard it would be to beat Burgers now and overall as pejorative in itself but as a valid point to maybe rethink ones reasons for voting. Not necessarily changing the vote, but still giving it another shot. Currently Burgers has double the votes in the primates category which is not a realistic picture of how close these two zoos are. Difference is, Amneville is kind of an unorganized splattered together picture of a zoo where Burgers is a well put together landscape kind of a picture.
Completely forgot about Vallee des Singes' enclosure, that would actually be the best outdoor chimp enclosure I've seen, but since it's a specialist collection I would still say Burgers' is my favourite outdoor enclosure for the species seen in a regular all-round zoo. And to me, I completely see that the two zoos are fairly close to one another with regards to strength in this category. But I also think that there is still very much a uniqueness to some of the things I see in Burgers' that, despite decent enclosure design and husbandry, I just don't see in Amneville. Again, an incredibly large group of chimpanzees, a family group of gorillas (including a rare set of twins) that actually interacts with the species it lives with, a brilliant mixed enclosure of six different species, and a fantastically designed gibbon enclosure that trumps an island in my honest opinion (sure I do like an island, but nothing beats a gibbon having a ceiling to brachiate and hang from). It's the same argument that yes, they don't have quite as much, but what they do have they do well. Still think Amneville should be getting some more votes than it currently has, but for me the winner should still remain as Burgers'.
