I think post-Mandai bird park opening that I wouldn’t have any choice but to include the bird park within the definition. It might not be *reasonable* to visit all four in a day, but you could do it. Say you went to the bird park at opening (so 8:30), you could stay until 12:30, move on to the Zoo at 12:30, River Safari at 4:30 and Night Safari at 7. You’d be half-dead from exhaustion and not lingering to spot every bird species you could, but you’d see every exhibit. The fifth one probably kills that idea off, though still I’d have trouble defining a difference between the Singapore parks and Berlin.
In that case, I think I will make the perhaps somewhat controversial jump and vote 2-1 for Singapore (I voted 2-1 for Columbus earlier). Columbus' collection definitely looks nice and so do their exhibits, but I see a very strong point in dividing strengths over multiple parks to truly let visitors decide what they want from a zoo - the reason Singapore Zoo lacked birds was because they had a world class bird collection elsewhere, but since that collection is now moving to become a part of the zoo that will not be a weakness for much longer. I feel like Singapore has a much better future plan with birds than Columbus does, so even though the situation at present is perhaps better at Columbus this will not be the case in the future - I suppose it's just up to everyone to decide how relevant the future situation is!
I'm not sure that anyone should vote based on future plans...that is opening up a whole can of worms in regards to every single one of the 32 zoos in this competition. At present time, with only around 40 species, it has been (up to now) unanimous that Columbus is going to be the winning zoo. I personally think that what Singapore does in the future should have absolutely ZERO relevance to this particular competition.
No - I don’t think that’s *quite* alright, I’m sorry. I’ve not minded a (limited) inclusion of future developments in people’s thinking but that pretty much creates a back door to including the Jurong collection within the definition of Singapore, which it is currently explicitly excluded from. I apologise if my musing was misinterpeted, but I only meant that the future bird park would count once it’s open.
I think you misunderstand - With the above post I'm not assuming any of the species at Jurong will be making the move over to Mandai, and thus not including Jurong's collection into this vote - I'm just signifying that birds in general will become a relevant part of Singapore's collection in the future, and in my opinion much more so than in Columbus's. I fail to see how that is outside the rules, but if it is not within the rules in your opinion then that's fine by me - I don't think it's possible for me to remove my vote altogether, so feel free to disregard it (as I'm only voting for Singapore because of the future inclusion of Mandai).
I'm not sure the point about dividing collection over multiple facilities is a very strong one. Columbus simply doesn't have the luxury of having multiple collections to display their birds, and I don't think a zoo should be punished for not operating multiple facilities. Columbus is better for birds than all 3 WRS zoos combined (imo) , so I see no reason that Singapore's collection being spread out over multiple areas would beat Columbus. I also don't think Jurong moving next to the zoo in the future should count. Columbus could be opening a massive, world-class aviary in the next couple years, but I doubt a single person would count that in the competition. The cup would be farcical if future areas that may or may not happen are counted.
There is an important distinction, however... In Singapore this is a very real thing that is being constructed as we speak, and set to open next year according to the WRS website. No such world-class aviary has been announced for Columbus (as far as I know - I am welcome to be corrected!).
I understand the thinking, but the bolded part is splitting hairs - in theory it’s a whole new collection, but in practice it’s generally accepted to be a relocating one. I’ll consider whether I need to tighten the rules on factoring future developments - it simply hasn’t been something I’ve thought too much about because any impact in debates has been marginal up to now. But certainly I consider things like Zurich’s upcoming savannah to be out of scope until they’re built as well.
This is a huge stretch and almost entirely irrelevant to this competition. This competition is judging zoos as they are, not as what they might be in the future. I could see if it was maybe a tight race and you couldn't decide between the two that maybe future plans could come into play, but using this as the entire basis on why Singapore should win this one is flabbergasting to me. You have essentially said, well Columbus is better for birds right now, but they won't be in the future from what I can tell so they should lose. This would be like Omaha drawing Carnivores and we wouldn't include the animals still left in the Cat House, because Omaha has plans to change that. Its ridiculous.
In the North American ZooChat Challenge, San Diego Zoo SP was put up against some other zoo (I don't remember which) with the category Miscellaneous Mammals. Of course the other zoo won. Several ZooChatters said, however, that they would have constered voting for SDZSP if it had Platypus. Imagine for a moment that Jurong didn't move near the other Singaporean collections. Imagine how silly this vote would look to people who see this thread in the future!
For the avoidance of doubt, @Vision’s vote, though novel in its thinking (which I encourage) does not count based on the argument currently put forward. Of course it does remain open for people to make the case for voting for Singapore on the basis of its current, as opposed to future scope.
Thanks for the clarification! I hope that, despite what some comments here claim, my comment was not completely bizarre and out-of-the-blue. The competition has always only had two rules, and neither of those have ever said that future developments have been off-limits. I assumed that, because I did stay within the category, this would be alright - see it as a way to test the boundaries, if you will! Sorry for the hassle, and feel free to disregard my vote! I'm happy we cleared this up, because it could potentially be relevant for future competitions.
In this particular case CGSwans has made a judgement call on the matter, so it is moot, but it's worth noting that in previous threads the future plans of collections can and have been cited as relevant for the purposes of the competition - most notably discussions of the current situation as regards carnivores at the two Berlin collections. Of course, as has been noted upthread, the precise parameters of how far this concept can be taken is something which probably needs tightening up - but it's certainly not fair to say that future plans are universally irrelevant.
@jayjds2 I'm curious as to why you think Singapore deserves the win? I'm currently at 3-0, but could be convinced to go 2-1 Columbus at least, if not turn my vote to Singapore. I just haven't heard a real argument for Singapore at all.
I’m happy to issue a mea culpa on the issue - as stated above, it’s not something I’ve given a great deal of thought to in previous threads, where the consequences of the argument haven’t been as significant (were Vision’s argument to be take hold, it could have had a sizeable impact on this match, even setting aside the group-wide implications). Having said that, I do think there’s a difference between proposals to improve current substandard enclosures vs factoring in completely new additions to a zoo, as is the case here. But for the avoidance of future doubt I’m content ruling both out, if it helps people to know what they are and aren’t dealing with.
I don't think the future exhibits should be counted in this tie, but I do think that Singapore's intentions to elevate the importance of birds in their parks is noteworthy and should be appreciated...
