So about nine and a half hours from now for anyone who doesn't know their timezone conversions. ~Thylo
@Jogy, care to share why you've suddenly changed your vote to 3-0 Pairi so that others could potentially be swayed in either direction ~Thylo
This surtainly isn't true. When the Park opened in 1994 it was maily a birdpark and a number of the original aviaries are still in use as are the large Walk-trough aviary and the Tropical Hall ( the one with the Birds of Paradise ). The Fur seal and in fact most other mammal-enclosures are of a ( much ) later date. Was last week at the park and liked the new Steller's sea-lion enclosure, the several bear - bear and bear - wolf enclosures, the Puma enclosure and also the older Snow leopard enclosure and the Binturong island aren't bad, Meerkat and Dwarf mongoose enclosures in the Oasis are imo not the best ones I've seen but evenso, overal the carnivores are well represented at Pairi Daiza. What I've read sofar about Denvers carnivores made me giving a 2-1 score for Pairi Daiza.
As things stand at the moment, with just a few hours left for voting, the scoreline is 44-43 in favour of Denver Zoo. All it would take is for a single person to switch their vote from 2-1 Pairi Daiza to 3-0 Pairi Daiza and the scoreline would then be 44-43 for the Belgian zoo. A real nail-biter, which is great for the ZooChat Cup as there's been a number of one-sided match-ups so far. I'll add on a few more comments: Is there anybody who has voted, besides myself, that has actually visited both zoos? I realize that they are so far apart geographically that it seems unfair to ask, but I'm simply curious. It's a good thing this match-up didn't occur even a couple of years ago, as Denver had one of the worst Feline Houses in North America (now thankfully an almost empty building), plus the historic Bear Mountain zone was one of the worst bear exhibits in a modern zoo and I hated seeing the pacing bears on my visits in 2006 and 2012. To break things down in terms of exhibits, in my opinion I would say that Denver has 3 excellent carnivore exhibits (the two main yards in Predator Ridge and Clouded Leopards would probably make this category) and that is it. Then there is a small side yard in Predator Ridge and many average quality exhibits for Amur Tigers (it's new but it appears to be a bit disappointing), Cheetahs, pinnipeds, River Otter and Banded Mongoose and then a poor Amur Leopard exhibit, very subpar, all-indoor Small-clawed Otter and Fishing Cat exhibits, and a mediocre Grizzly Bear exhibit that was an outdated Polar Bear complex. Whether there will be new bear exhibits on the immediate horizon shouldn't apply to this match-up, but if it did then Pairi Daiza has Polar Bear, Amur Tiger and Walrus exhibits all opening next year. Denver is not that great for carnivore exhibits once someone goes through the whole list. Pairi Daiza, in my opinion, has at least 5 excellent carnivore exhibits (European Brown Bear/American Black Bear, European Brown Bear/Wolf, Puma, Steller's Sea Lion, Harbour Seal - huge!) but many very good ones. Any zoo with 5 Giant Pandas in a series of indoor and outdoor yards that are all of decent quality is worth visiting for 99% of zoo visitors who flock to see the black-and-white blobs. The Javan Leopard exhibit just had a minor upgrade with new furnishings to slightly better it, the Asiatic Black Bear exhibit is above average, the Binturong and Red Panda exhibits are better than a long list of others that I've seen for those species, the two Snow Leopard habitats are totally fine and modern enclosures (although not massive), the South African Fur Seal exhibit is actually perfectly fine and all 3 of the zoo's pinniped exhibits are very good, the Clouded Leopard exhibit is very well-furnished and of average quality, and the African Lion and Spotted Hyena exhibits are spacious and a little bland but more than adequate for those species. The zoo does poorly for its white tigers and Giant Otters...although I certainly didn't see any animals in a 'concrete pit' but I do trust zoo nerds and so it must be there somewhere. Denver Zoo has arguably 3 excellent carnivore exhibits, a bunch of average ones and then 2-3 very poor ones. Pairi Daiza has arguably 5 excellent carnivore exhibits, a bunch of average ones and then 2-3 very poor ones. Exhibit-wise it's probably a close call, but in terms of sheer quantity Pairi Daiza wins in a landslide. In terms of overall quality I freely admit that it's probably a coin toss. The list of species at the park is again a landslide Pairi Daiza victory, with basically double the number of Denver. The Belgian zoo is truly a place that needs to be visited before forming an opinion, as I was inwardly convinced that I wouldn't like it and yet it's the 4th best zoo I've ever toured and only behind San Diego, Omaha and Berlin in my mind. Much of Pairi Daiza looks better in person than via photos on this site. Conservation-wise I am impressed with Denver, a truly excellent American zoo that has done great work both in-situ and ex-situ for carnivores. Denver doesn't have a lot of carnivore species, and the exhibits are nowhere near as good as people think they are, but in terms of conservation the zoo is a leader. I'm in favour of Pairi Daiza, but I am fine with the win going for either zoo. This is all just a made-up game and so it's important that no one takes things too seriously and we all just have some fun. I truly believe that a 3-0 vote for either zoo is totally unjustified, with people voting that haven't been to one of the zoos or in some cases haven't even been to either zoo! If you aren't sure, and haven't ever visited these zoos, then just go with a 2-1 scoreline. With such a vibrant discussion, with debate ranging from exhibits to various species to white tigers to Giant Pandas, there is no doubt in my mind that a 2-1 choice is the way to go as this is a very close match-up. There is plenty of information on this thread to make a decision for either Pairi Daiza or Denver, and I'm fine with whomever wins, but 3-0 would definitely do a disservice to the 'losing' zoo and it would be a harsh scoreline.
I like matches like this. Intense debates and questioning whether high-tier zoos are truly good in aspects when compared to other, lower-tier zoos. That's what makes the ZooChat Cup wonderful.
Definitely I think this has easily been the best match of this cup, and one of the best ever (only Burgers vs Woclaw from the original competition tops it). The mach came right down to the wire with only one vote deciding he outcome. Discussion ranged from conservation to White Tigers to Pandas to Pairi Daiza's exhibitory and so much more. I'm hoping future matches will be like this one!
Keep in mind that there's still going to be a huge match in Group B next round; Berlin Zoo v. Wroclaw.
Pandas make a HUGE amount of profit you don't even know. I know a zoo is not a non-profit organisation, and that it doesn't please most of you to hear this, but zoos essentially NEED to have popular animals to avoid closing down. That is why zoos have meerkats, a petting zoo area and pandas. The number of people I have heard asking where the pandas in in zoos like Toronto, Beauval and Edinburgh which have sooo much more is unbelievable. So it is actually generating a lot of money which they use to build the fantastic enclosures and import oddities and gems, as well as to conduct conservation efforts.
They only make a huge amount of profit for China the zoological collections displaying the species do so at a net loss, with the uptick in footfall resulting from their arrival a) not covering the loan costs and b) only lasting a year or so barring the birth of cubs.... which is why Edinburgh went through the whole "oooh we think we might have cubs on the way" rigmarole on a nigh-yearly basis. Again, they really, really do not unless the collection is large or wealthy enough to take the financial loss on the chin, the arrival of giant pandas often leads to a shortage of funds, the decline of collection diversity and a general decline in fortunes.
Pandas in many cases do NOT make a huge profit, there has been a discussion recently on pamdanomics here and if you do not get cubs, you stop profiting after 2 years. For a zoo like Edinburgh Panda are a liability. Pairi Daiza has them for the prestige and one of their head staff confirmed they don't need to make money with them.
Having pandas increased Beauval's visitor numbers by 30%. That is 9 million more euros, which they can spend on building world-class exhibits like the Hippopotamus complex and the Cheetah and lion areas.
Where do you think all the money came from for Beauval to build the cheetah, hippo, lion, African wild dog, meerkat, Maitres des airs, zipline, nyala, Tazzie devil and Equatorial dome exhibits? Is it a coincidence that after only about 9 months of pandas, they suddenly had a boom of money and visitors, suddenly moved ahead of other competition like La Palmyre, Doue, etc..? From pandas of course! Why would zoos like Beauval, San Diego and Pairi Daiza get pandas if not to generate profit? Not political reasons (they aren't national zoos). So unlike Edinburgh, Copenhagen (China just want Greenland ), Smithsonian, Toronto and Madrid where it is all about politics and securing bonds in the form of Chinese 'ambassadors' it is about money.
The perceived prestige of having them, plain and simple. People think a "real" zoo should have pandas, so collections aim to meet that belief. And if you think Pairi Daiza of all places went into the species because they needed the money, I'm at a loss for how to deal with you
ALL zoo decisions, at ALL zoos involve politics, prestige and money - especially if those decisions involve China. The Pandas will be seen (by the public), as a sign of Beauval's and PD's general success, and massive on-going development and expansion - this is not the case at a (stagnant?) zoo like Edinburgh where they could be seen as a sign of failure. The zoos are very different, so the 'Panda impact' will be different...
Exactly, proving my point. They aim to get the prestige SO THAT visitors come, and they get profit. They don't just get pandas for the hell of it. And I never said Pairi Daiza NEEDED money I said they WANTED money. There is a big difference between those two.
The point is, although pandas can bring a considerable amount of income for certain zoos, especially those that can afford them; it is not always the case. Edinburgh and Adelaide have been struggling a LOT financially because of them (and for other reasons as well of course), which shows that bringing in pandas is not always a recipe for financial success.
If you would have read my previous post, Pairi Daiza officials have all but confirmed it is for prestige only and NOT for money. Your Beauval example is also dubious as the first rule in statistics is that correlation does not imply causation.
