ZooChat Cup finals: Wroclaw vs Zurich

Yes, I think that's true, although it was less true in 2003 when Masoala opened and even less so in 1991 when planning started. But just because getting rid of all the ape accommodation (not just the orangs) is the most necessary project, it doesn't follow that other developments are unnecessary.

Without being too antagonistic, what is it about Zurich that seems to really bring out the punctuation in you? I appreciate that it doesn't have as many species as some other top-tier zoos, but it's no slouch, and it isn't mammal-heavy either. There are also plenty of rarities to be found in the Exotarium and in Masoala.

Is it really so bad for a zoo to have so many excellent exhibits? Many of the terrariums in the Exotarium are like little gems of green. Some of the theming and enrichment in the Pantanal area is so wonderfully executed and glorious to behold. The spectacled bear, snow leopard and elephant enclosures are the stuff of legends. And would it really be so awful to walk out of the tunnel in Masoala and experience the closest thing to a rainforest in Europe?

(None of the above is directly relevant to primates. But just Pipaluk is so frustrated that people often show their appreciation for Zurich at the ballot box, I find myself incredibly bemused that he can't see there is something to be said for the place.)

 

I don’t think twilighter was saying they are, only that both zoos acknowledge their need to improve great ape exhibits, not anything about the nature of any proposed work.

 

Yes, since that comment there have been a few exhibits that have come to light, but none that have threatened excellence I think.

Are the worst exhibits at Zurich actually worse than Wroclaw's? We've heard a few different stories, but people who have actually visited the Polish contender seem none to eager to champion it on a quality argument.

How many primate species does Masoala actually hold? I thought it was two diurnal and two nocturnal ones. Most people see two of the four.

I don't mind too much if you take this view, but there is one thing that Masoala has on Bush emphatically, and that's height. And I think it really matters.

 

I have not been to Zürich, but vote 2-1 to Wroclaw. The chimps enclosure is substandard but seems to be slightly better than what Zürich offers. Wroclaw's other black dot is keeping gibbons in ridiculously small cages in the rotunda. Much of the other enclosures are however OK to excellent. I also give less weight to Masoala here than in the biome or geography category.

 

Masoala is not that manicured and certainly comes closer to a real rainforest than Burgers' Zoo, not in the least part because of the height, but probably also because it is more difficult to get a sense how big it is, whereas Burgers' Bush is more crowded. Masoala is certainly the more impressive, but there is more to explore in the Bush, so for a home zoo I would rather have the Bush. It is however hard to beat seeing Ruffed lemurs jumping through the canopy from the tower.

I also do not understand why they have waited this long with creating new ape enclosures. I understand why they did Masoala early on, as such a flagship enclosure can elevate visitor numbers on the longer term and does a lot for name recognition. But why e.g. a savanna was prioritized for species they did not have at the time, is beyond me. Up to a certain extent I can understand why they did Bear, Cat and Elephant enclosures first, as their old enclosures were also far from up to date...

In defence of the Ape house in Zurich, the outdoor cage is awful, but it is not as tiny as it appears on the picture, this one by @Baldur gives a better idea of scale:


Still far too small off course. But the Orang utans have full access to this cage + 2 indoor enclosures + space behind the scenes throughout the day. It is too small, but it is packed full of enrichment and opportunities to retreat.


This is the larger of the two indoor enclosures, which is not huge, but has a good height (at least) 4-5 meters and plenty of climbing opportunities. I have seen far worse indoor enclosures.


This is the smaller of the two. The Orang utans are a healthy breeding group and I have not seen any abnormal behaviour during all my visits and there is always a ton of enrichment around.

So is it bad: yes, is it unacceptable for a zoo like Zurich: yes. Is it the worst thing out there: no.

I would say that that Orang-Utan accomodation is far better than this thing in Wroclaw:

Which sounds as if it is still in use....

 

Looking through the comparisons of the two, with the exception of the Ape house, Zurich looks to have the better accommodation for their primates.

ZTL listed 25 species of primates at Wroclaw zoo and only 14 at Zurich so this point goes to Wroclaw

My favourite types of primates are the callitrichids so that's going to be my last point. Wroclaw wins against with 3 species to Zurich's 2.

I'll be voting Wroclaw 2-1 Zurich. It should be noted that I haven't been to either so am relying entirely upon second hand knowledge

 

It is worth pointing out that Zurich actually has 3 species of Callitrichids: Golden lion tamarin, Emperor bearded tamarin and Pymgy marmoset.

 

I think the difference in collection size nullifies that. Also Wroclaw has more Old World monkeys, which (in my experience) are rarer in zoos. My vote remains Wroclaw 2-1 Zurich

 

Masoala, the entire 50+ million, was financed almost entirely by a single private donor. The donation was bound to the implementation of that specific flagship project (and within a specific time frame no less). Hence, the whole argument whether the zoo should have done Masoala or the great apes first is moot. The zoo had the alternative between Masoala or nothing at all.


Furthermore, the zoo did also hold lemurs before Masoala. Their holding was in this "small primates" building, which is now gone:

Afaik, some other species originally housed in the small primates house, came back to the zoo with the Pantanal development.

Right next to the small primates building was the traditional baboon/gelada rock, which has been replaced with Semien:


Hence, I contend, if one wants to follow the argument of a need to (timely) replace enclosures in order to bring primate husbandry up to standard, then both Masoala and Semien, but also Pantanal are outstanding examples of precisely this.

Where the zoo felt they cannot provide adequate husbandry standards anymore, they gave up species (e.g. the chimps 10+ years ago), hence the comparatively low species count. Furthermore, if the management of Zurich zoo, which have a proven track record of doing excellent work in improving and innovating the husbandry of many species, profess to currently have a 'very good' standard of great ape husbandry, I trust their word enough to assume that it is at the very least adequate. As @lintworm has argued, the great ape husbandry at Zurich is (much) better than it might appear, when judging only by fleeting looks at pictures. I say all this while agreeing that the zoo should have improved the situation for the great apes before implementing Lewa. Nonetheless, the zoo has five larger areas that prominently feature primates (the ape house, the exotarium, Pantanal, Semien, Masoala). Over the last twenty years, with three of these (Masoala, Semien, Pantanal), they have greatly improved their former primate holdings, often setting new standards. The exotarium, imo, is a prime example of how to keep old 'small animal houses' up to date. Only one area remains due for renovation/replacement, scheduled for completion in 2025.

Honestly, based on the discussion so far, I simply do not see improvements for primates at an even remotely similar scale (qualitatively or quantitatively) at Wroclaw.

Personally, I am not yet convinced this is true. So far, I feel this issue has mostly been avoided - or there is quite simply a lack of corresponding images from Wroclaw.