Practice round? Biomes? Eliminated zoos? What is this? See here: ZooChat Cup - rebooted The topic is... tropical rainforests. This thread doesn't count towards any qualification and is intended to help with grasping the new format for our final group stage. It's also a nice chance to return to two zoos that we lost all too soon from the game. Have fun!
I think that with Burgers' Bush, any zoo in the world is going to have a hard time beating Burgers' on tropical rainforests. There are a fair few rainforest species in the Rimba and the Mangrove as well, in excellent exhibits.
Any zoo in the world......except Singapore, which sits in tropical rainforest. However, I will go 2-1 for Burgers, on the grounds that building your own is more difficult.
Alright, given these are exhibition matches I’m less reticent to wade in. I wonder about this logic because it leaves Singapore in a Catch-22. If the topic were ‘temperate forests’ I reckon there’d be a strong argument made that they should stick to exhibits for which they have a suitable climate. But then when the topic turns to the biome it *can* represent naturally it loses *because* it can represent it naturally?
I think the only two zoos in the world Singapore loses to are Burgers and Zurich (and Jurong technically). There is an argument to be made that Singapore shouldn't be exhibiting cold biome animals outdoors, but if they built an excellent TundraDome I'd be the first to give them credit and the win over places like Orsa Bjornpark.
This is very tough. A zoo that has built what looks to be an excellent recreation of a rainforest is up against a zoo in a rainforest. Burger’s Bush looks amazing, but I’m currently giving the slight 2-1 to Singapore. A big plus for Singapore is that it sits in forests that have an abundance of rainforest animals. You can see wild Colugo’s at Singapore! It’s also the quintessential “rainforest zoo”. Burger’s is known as a tremendous zoo, but a lot of talk about Singapore (both on and off the forum) is about how the rainforest aspect of Singapore. The exhibitry also looks good, with free-ranging Orangutans and the Fragile Forest complex being standouts imo. Burger’s has the amazing Bush and Gorillas and Chimps (also perhaps the Asian area) and that’s it. Burger’s has some tremendous exhibits, but the overall rainforest “feel” and what looks to be solid exhibitry gives them the win.
Know ( and love ) Burgers realy a lot but in this case I don't think they can win from a zoo which is build in the tropics. So I've voted 2-1 in favour of Singapore.
It is worth noting that Burgers' Bush is a much better representation of a rainforest than the Singapore Zoo. Especially when it comes to tree diversity and overall feel the Bush comes much closer to a real rainforest than Singapore. In Singapore most trees belong to a few species, which are mostly non-native to Singapore. Singapore will win on collection, but comparing exhibits there are very few standouts in Singapore and in terms of animal welfare it is well below the enclosures in Burgers'.
I was voting 3-0 to Singapore because "you can't beat being in a rainforest", but if most of the tree species are invasive then it's 2-1 Burgers. I would tie them if I could.
I don't think Singapore deserves anything for being located in a tropical rainforest climate. However, I think that they can be judged for how well they've taken advantage of their location as it pertains to this challenge. A zoo in a rainforest can either use the existing forest to create amazing habitats for rainforest species, or it can bulldoze the forest away to build ubiquitous, mediocre enclosures for the exact same species. For me, the question of how well Singapore does here depends largely on which of those methods it relied on more. Regardless, though, Burgers seems to be a top contender for this category, having made an attempt to recreate an entire ecosystem rather than just building another indoor jungle.
I do consider Singapore's tropical location a big plus here, just as the Prague cliffside is a huge benefit for mountains. Strange that they do not use domestic plant species... For Burger, the rain forest creates an amazing environment for the birds and the smaller reptiles, but they should have been able to do something better and more immersive for the mammals with all that space. I vote 2-1 Singapore.
This is exactly how I feel about it. If Singapore isn't utilizing the rainforest it's supposed to be based in for its enclosures, then the fact that the "rainforest" is there is pretty irrelevant. It would always be like saying a European zoo wins in a match where European animals was the topic simply because the zoo is located in Europe despite the zoo not having many European animals If the rainforest isn't being used for anything by the zoo, it doesn't matter if it's there or not, especially if it's not even a real rainforest with plants native to the island! ~Thylo
Burgers' has an obvious disadvantage here, given Singapore's location, but it is still a very strong contender. The Bush, more so than any other zoo exhibit I've seen, can actually be called a living habitat. It by all means is a tiny rainforest. Artificial, heavily managed and completely depended upon human care, but a rainforest nonetheless. It can thereby provide the free-ranging animals - reptiles, frogs, bats and almost 30 bird species - probably the very best enrichment a zoo can give, as they can interact with the plants, the soil, the water and each other. There are a few exhibits in there, which range from good (otter, turtles) to only adequate (aardvark, capibara), but the real star is the rainforest itself. There's even a tropical plant species (Dracaena bushii) decribed from Burgers' Bush and named after it! But everyone seems to forget Burgers' has another tropical forest themed area. Burgers' had the wisdom of not trying to fit in any large mammals in the Bush (with the exception of manatees, which weren't even in the original plans and are now gone), so they opened the Rimba to house the larger species. The area - housing bears, banteng, tigers, gibbons, and pythons, among others - is a true crown pleaser and is loved by both zoo fanatics and the general public. While the rainforest feeling is certainly weaker, each and every exhibit in the Rima is a masterpiece. Burgers' representation of the rainforest biome is, in Europe, probably only contested by the likes of Zurich and Leipzig. It is a triumph. Yet, if any zoo can overthrow it, it would be Singapore. It has an immense advantage of being inside an actual tropical forest. But how does it use that advantage? Does it enhance the rainforest around it? Do they protect it or use it for its enclosures? The pictures in the gallery look pretty, but how good is it really? No-one would argue Burgers' should win a match with a 'temperate forest' topic just because it is located in one. The same goes for Singapore's tropical forest. I can totally see Singapore win if it uses that advantage well, but I do want to hear a better argument than "it is surrounded by a rainforest therefore it wins".
OK, I change my mind. It has to be taken into account how well the zoo´s natural assets are actually integrated into the exhibits. From Singapore pictures, tiger and proboscis monkey enclosures do have a junglelike feel, while others seem bare. And it should be a minus if they, for some strange reason, actually use just a few invasive plant species. Burger's Rimba is also a very ambitious complex, clearly referring to a single rain forest ecosystem and with good educational value.
