This is eternal quality against quantity battle Zurich can put Masoala in the battle once again,but the Plzen collection is so extensive, that probably can cover the gap .
Plus, as I think I've demonstrated previously, Plzen has a fair bit of quality as well as quantity I think this one goes 2-1 to Plzen. I'll make proper arguments anon.
Wow! Quite a broad spectrum of votes, ranging from one extreme to the other. Could people explain their votes, especially those who have voted decisively in favour of one side?
Well, I don't know about @Malawi but I imagine I can predict the other two @sooty mangabey is a big fan of Plzen and everything about it, and @Giant Panda is a big proponent for the idea that the merits of a collection are entirely overridden by the presence of one or more poor exhibits, and that the reverse cannot be true. Not so sure why GP initially voted 2-1 and then intensified his stance, however.
Regarding my 3-0 to Zürich: I think bird exhibitry might be Plzen's biggest weak point after the chimp enclosure. There are definitely very good aviaria - like the big African aviarium, some predator birds and the Siberia aviarium. However, most of the species are packed in small enclosures, which are ill equipped for winters. I find it depressing to see a rare, beautyful duck, sitting in what is literally a 0.5 m2 large, perhaps 20 cm deep concrete shell. There are way too many similar instances. I am a bit surprised Plzen was not punished by this earlier in the competition. While the birds may feel fine in these aviaria - their looks or body language do not tell an average visitor, in the way mammals' may do - I put all these small aviaria on Plzen's minus account. And that is actually the majority of the species. Zürich, on the other hand, has their nice Malagasy and South American species in top enclosures. They probably have like 20% of Plzen's collection, but almost without black dots. Edit: I did not want to claim that birds in Plzen have 0.5 m2 aviaria. That is however sometimes the water volume in the generally very narrow aviaria, and was an example of how ill equipped the aviaria often seem to be to the birds' needs.
There are literally no aviaries that small, and it is disingenuous to claim so let alone to claim most of the species are in aviaries of this size.
Plzen has about 4 times the number of bird species when looking at the latest annual reports. I am not a big fan of the glass-fronted aviaries in the Exotarium and the Burrowing owls have too little space imo, but apart from that, basically everything is of a higher level than Plzen, without any overstocking.
To clarify my post: The aviarium itself is of course not 0.5 m2, but still very small. However, the water volume available for ducks were, literally, in some instances, of that size.
Of course, as I've noted on a few occasions during the Cup, the historic overstocking issue in a number of Plzens aviaries is significantly reduced now, due to both collection reduction and the construction of new aviaries. I'd contest the suggestion that nothing at Plzen is high quality too - there's no Masaola certainly, but there are gems. I'll go into this properly anon when I have a chance to collate my argument, but for now I'll note that at present Plzen only has one truly bad aviary (Central European Barn Owl) with the other two often cited on here (Goliath Heron indoors and Malagasy Aviary) now empty and significantly less crowded respectively.
Zoos have an obligation to provide good welfare, so acceptable or good exhibits are the bare minimum, whereas one bad exhibit stains the whole zoo (e.g. Plzen's barn owls*). I realise that, for us visitors, bad exhibits represent only a brief episode in an otherwise enjoyable day. But welfare is a property of individual animals; not the zoo as a whole. For the inhabitants of a bad exhibit, that's their whole existence. You're shrugging off unnecessary chronic suffering as a blip. I won't do that. But why intensify my stance? Quite simply: contemplating Masoala. Having given Zürich a free-pass through this competition, it's easy to forget how extraordinary this exhibit is. Here's two questions as a reminder. First, which is better: watching animals in zoos or in the wild? Virtually everyone, I think, would choose the latter. Second, how many zoos emulate the experience of watching animals in the wild? I've seen many of the great immersion exhibits and nowhere – nowhere! – comes close to the Masoala Rainforest. Walking past a thousand of Plzen's aviaries couldn't match the wonder of spotting even one of Masoala's birds. It is breath-taking, paradigm-shifting, and earns Zürich a 3-0 win. *Plzen may be improving, but I doubt anyone would argue this is their only bad aviary.
Yet if Zurich has any bad or insufficient exhibits - which lintworm suggests it *does* in the Burrowing Owls - you should be arguing it too is tainted and abstaining from the vote entirely. If any failure means a collection loses all merit, I doubt there's a single zoo in this Cup that should be voted for at all. Black-and-white morality is a nice place to visit, but it's a terribly tricky place to live! See, this I think is much more sound, based as it is on personal opinion rather than moral judgement and insinuation that anyone who feels different is "shrugging off unnecessary suffering" after all, it's more or less what sooty is doing too... (For the record, I don't agree with his vote either)
On a complete sidenote, I definitely hope to see Masaola for myself sometime may even end up agreeing with you! From photos and what I've heard of Masaola, I suspect I may still end up preferring Bush (which I loved) though.
I disagree! Seeing animals in the wild can be wonderful. Seeing them in a zoo can be wonderful. Neither is intrinsically better than the other - although they’re certainly different. To compare to other areas of life in which I am passionately interested: is it better to see a musician live, or to listen to their recordings? To watch a play on the stage, or a film on a screen? A football match on TV or in the flesh at a stadium full of fellow supporters? Personally, I don’t much go for the idea of zoos imitating the experience of seeing animals in the wild. If I do settle down to watch Match of the Day on TV, I don’t want it to be the same as the experience of visiting Fratton Park, where my view is impeded, the traffic is appalling, it’s usually cold, and I’m surrounded by deeply irritating fellow supporters.
I'm not even remotely interested in this 'cup'/comparison business - but I would be interested to see a link to a picture of the enclosure at Plzen which causes 'unnecessary chronic suffering' - please...
Siberian forest aviary and barn owls - ZooChat Both sides of the door there is a separate enclosure for Barn owls, which is maybe 2 meters high, but extremely shallow and they have a slamming door very closeby.
Only the one, distant shot of the enclosure in question is in the gallery - it's viewed through the window on the left. To use an easy size comparison, it's perhaps about the same size as the onshow indoors at your place for the non-subspecific brushtailed possums (not great at judging scale from pure memory!) and contains a single bird now I think. The right window used to look into a second near-identical exhibit but I seem to recall from Oct 2019 it's now empty.
Thank you TLD. It looks to be a very neat little building, though quite different to a conventional owl aviary... not sure I can comment on the 'unnecessary chronic suffering' , though, especially as the spp is often kept tied down to blocks or bow perches..
Possibly because I erred towards brevity and clarity, you're rather misrepresenting my position. I'm saying that zoos have an obligation to provide good welfare, so I'll vote for one animal kept well over nine animals kept well and one badly (all else being equal). Suffering outweighs good lives, which should be the standard (all else being equal). Obviously, though, welfare is not binary (good vs. bad), but a spectrum (very good to very bad). I wouldn't want to say where Zürich's burrowing owl exhibit falls along that spectrum, except that it's a lot closer to "very good" than Plzen's barn owl exhibit (I suspect @lintworm will agree). As this competition is comparative, I'd only abstain if I thought both collections were equal. And Plzen is a nice place to visit, but a terribly tricky place to live (if you're a barn owl) For the record, my moral code isn't unworkable. Plzen's issues arose from collect-o-mania and were fundamentally avoidable. As you've acknowledged, new exhibits and reducing the inventory have improved things. Working within the zoo's means in the first place would have been an easier path to take. I'm not demanding the impossible here. Disagreeing with a moral judgement is itself a moral judgement. And disagreeing that we shouldn't shrug off unnecessary suffering is itself shrugging off unnecessary suffering. Emphasis added
I feel like this is not that big issue, as the owls are in their nest boxes most of the day. I think there are either barn owls back in that exhibit, or there is another owl species I'm more inclining to the former.
