Ooh it seems as though F. Spangenberg is a very adventurous man indeed then I wonder what brought had to Outer Mongolia Well, yes I guess on second thoughts, the cobwebs do give a small clue, although no-one can confirm it is wild... (cue TLD to say 'Hey! I'm F. Spangenberg! And I can confirm tis taken in the wild!' ) I guess that concludes the matter on the subject of pikas. I admit that I may not have seen a photo of the Berlin Tierpark enclosure. EDIT: Wait- how was that relevant again? I do love these Zoochat cup threads; they take you to places you would never have dreamed of going. Also I apologise @CGSwans for entirely sidetracking this thread... Although this diversion did start with me trying to make a useful contribution... Will you forgive me?
Aha! Conspiracy theory! F. Spangenberg is in fact TLD @ShonenJake13 and all other Zoochatters rolled into one! Btw why does the comment commit the sacrilege of saying that 'Zoochatter' is not a valid word? It underlines it in red...
Personally, I do really think Leipzig should be the winner in this category. First of all, it has better exhibits than the Bronx. I have seen Leipzig exhibits and they were all very good and of high quality. From what I know have seen from the Bronx, they are fine but not exceptional. Secondly Leipzig holds more species that are rareties/people/personal favorites. The only difference is the number of species. Were the Bronx clearly outnumbers Leipzig thanks to all the rodents. Although I should confess, I'm not a huge fan rodent. But they still deserve a point because the Bronx is a good zoo. With a good collection and ok exhibits. I don't think it is a clean-sweep for Leipzig, but still a clear victory in my opinion.
What a horribly disingenuous post. What you have done here is taken photos that merely show small corners of an enclosure and then declared their quality based off of nothing other than the fact that you want Leipzig to win (which is why you and @pangolin12 have given it 3-0 while refusing to give your reasoning, similarly to how the latter and several others randomly switched to 3-0 Pairi in the last round as soon as Denver started to win while refusing to respond to requests as to why Denver deserved no points). You didn't even bother to qualify your claims, you just declared each enclosure to be either good or bad when you can't even see the actual enclosures for most the examples. You can criticize Bronx's enclosures if you feel they are inadequate as @Vision has done, but you very clearly have no idea what these enclosures actually look like or how these animals are actually housed-- something which is blatantly obvious to people who have visited both zoos as @ShonenJake13 and myself have considering some of the enclosures you including for Leipzig are of similar size or even smaller than the comparative enclosures you used for Bronx. I'll be going through the Bronx enclosures you and Vision have pointed out one by one and giving my personal thoughts on them as well as adding information about them that I feel you both have missed. I won't be doing the same for Leipzig simply because I agree that they generally are of very nice quality. Starting with the armadillo: -I agree that the enclosure is not a great size for its two inhabitants, but it's definitely incorrect to say that it is empty. The enclosure is filled with sand for them to dig in as well as various piled up rocks and logs for them to move around through and hide in. The animals have plenty of spaces to escape the public eye if wanted as well, which is why I couldn't spot any on my visit last Friday. -Bronx's mole-rat enclosure is larger than Leipzig's. I'm not sure how you can claim that there is no soft substrate for them to burrow down into when the photo you used shows sand on the floor. Of course Leipzig offers a lot more depth than Bronx, but Bronx does have plenty of sand and straw for them to burrow through. -The zoo no longer houses pika, so this point is irrelevant. Regardless, you very obvious have no clue as to how pikas are housed in captivity. Berlin's set-up aside, that was one of the largest pika enclosures ever because pikas often prefer smaller, more cramped settings (hence why they continuously stuffed the enclosure with more rocks and logs as time went on). Despite your false claims to have seen Berlin and Minnesota's set-ups for these species, I can fairly surely tell you that Minnesota had smaller enclosures than Bronx, as well as many more individuals. The Bronx enclosure also had/has an off-exhibit section that the pair of pikas had access to 24/7, as many of the Mouse House enclosures have I might add. -I agree with the criticisms on the agouti enclosure, I have no idea why their single animal is kept in there as opposed to one of the outdoor cages. -I don't know if you're aware of how small pygmy mice and harvest mice are but Bronx's enclosures are absolutely huge for them. I noticed you used the worst of the available photos of the enclosure in your post, so here's a better photo. The photo still isn't great but it does show how small they are and gives an example of one of the several tall grasses (as well as straw) both the pygmy and harvest mice have available to climb around in. -The flying foxes are kept in a roughly 20,000sqft (1,858m/sq if I have my calculations right) free-flight aviary, far larger than the one Leipzig's are kept in. The zoo's Prevost's Squirrels also have this space to roam in, which is definitely a much more appropriate enclosure to describe as 'massive' than the admittedly nice Leipzig giant squirrel enclosure. -This is the current elephant-shrew enclosure. I agree that it's definitely on the small side for the species, but "way too small" is an exaggeration I think. They also have access to a behind the scenes enclosure. If I'm honest (and I'll admit I'm biased) I think people are being overly harsh on the Mouse House enclosures. Some of them are too small, most are perfectly fine for their tiny rodent inhabitants. They are all excellently furnished as well, giving each species enclosures tailored to their natural habits. Most enclosures either have access to a bts space or give access to multiple enclosures at once, as can be seen here. Arboreal species have plenty of height to climb, and terrestrial species have plenty of amenities to hide in and forage through. The better enclosures at the zoo are also being ignored here as well. For example, the Aardvarks have two feet of dirt to dig down into, the anteaters have a large and well vegetated enclosure, and the bats have access to large and well vegetated expanses. This is an interesting point: how many of Leipzig's rare species are apart of viable populations? When one of Plzen's matches was for miscellaneous mammals, many of the people currently voting in favor of Leipzig criticized Plzen for many of their species not being viable or apart of captive breeding programs. Pangolins aside for obvious reasons, many of Leipzig's rarest species aren't in that boat. They've done amazing work with the quolls, but they are the only zoo with their flying fox (IF Walsrode still has any, they only have one or two left), they are one of only four zoos with the mole-rat which likely isn't a long-term viable population, and their famous giant squirrels were a dead-end species from the start. Obviously this is not nearly to the same degree as Plzen and personally I love rarities like these in zoos but if Plzen's much rarer collection gets overshadowed by this fact shouldn't Leipzig's as well? Remove these few species and you have a collection of relatively common animals for the most part. Bronx on the other hand has breeding programs and large numbers for almost all of their rodents. For example, Bronx have roughly two dozen mole-rats between the Mouse House and off-show housing, all apart of a captive breeding program for the species which is slowly becoming more common in US zoos. Many of their other rodents have populations that are even larger than that, and they breed most of their species yearly. 19 of their species are rarities in the US zoo world (and in general for most of them), vs 8-9 for Leipzig. Beyonds species like the mole-rat, Bronx has actively worked to import their cloud rats from Europe in order to further grow the small US population. In addition to all of the above, does anyone have any information on the conservation programs Leipzig has for various miscellaneous mammals? I'm genuinely curious as to what they do in the wild for pangolins (surely they have major efforts contributing towards Chinese Pangolin conservation?) and others? Do they actually do any conservation work in Australia for quolls and/or Kowari? Do they have any projects helping to conserve small rodents, tenrecs, or others in the wild? And on a final note: Because YOU brought it up in a shallow attempt to bash one zoo even though your constant contradictions make it obvious that you know that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're heavily stretching (to put it nicely) the facts you do know in order to make very easily disprovable points before then accusing people of being overly aggressive or for dragging on about pointless details when they inevitably disprove said points. You knew you never saw photos of Berlin's pika enclosures before you brought up the point, what you didn't know is that other people here had. Your style of voting for the zoo you simply like/know better regardless of all available information and then making up 'facts/statistics' to "mathematically prove" falsehoods and then shouting "just trust me" before throwing fits if people don't is getting very old very fast. If you genuinely prefer one zoo over another in a category that is fine, what's not fine is the way a select few and especially you have conducted yourselves these past couple matches. ~Thylo
Oh look what a nice debate we have in here... To answer @TeaLovingDave : My vote was merely a placeholder placed at a time when no info about Bronx was presented. Now after going through the thread, I changed it to 2-1 for Leipzig. Mostly because I've been to Leipzig and liked their way of presentation species in question. Also, comparing the collections, even though smaller in number I still like the Leipzig's more, but I can appreciate bunch of here and there, hence the point for Bronx.
Is anyone really having fun here? The level of toxicity in this, and the previous round, has become absurd. Since this is a game, it would be to everyone's benefit to maintain a pleasant environment.
I agree with the toxicity part. After all, this competition is designed to let people offer constructive argument about each institution competing. It is up to the voters, however, to make an educated vote on a. other's arguments and b. their own thoughts. A well-blended mix of both results in the best voting strategy, and is one I employ frequently.
Alright, I have some thoughts – and a decision. This is the second time in a few days that a potentially great Cup thread has been at least tarnished, if not outright spoiled. In the Pairi Daiza/Denver thread the derailing at least occurred once the poll had concluded, so that we enjoyed a wonderful debate that ended in a 44-43 score line prior to things taking a less pleasant tone. The same can’t be said here, where another great contest – 51-48 at time of writing – is being undermined by the tone of the debate. There’s still time, I hope to turn this one around, so I’m going to remind people of the rules, why they exist and how they should be followed: The idea is to promote discussion and debate, and the polls are designed in a way to encourage getting involved and presenting a positive case for a given zoo. Votes are changeable because I want you to be open to having your initial thoughts challenged and to changing your mind in response to a good argument. One good, thought-provoking post has been enough to swing a result from one zoo to another in the past, and that should encourage everybody to try to post thoughtful and informative posts that might convince others that you’re right. But convincing people isn’t the same thing as winning an argument, and brow-beating or abusing people isn’t only unpleasant – it’s also very unlikely to work. I want to make clear that it is within the rules to directly ask people why they are voting the way they do. Votes are public to make the voting accountable: say my favourite zoo is Berlin Tierpark, and it’s going up against San Diego on primates. At face value, it would be very hard for me to justify giving three votes to Berlin in that case, as most reasonable people would agree that San Diego is a ‘better’ zoo for primates than the Tierpark is. That doesn’t mean I “can’t” vote for the Tierpark, but because my vote is public that means others can ask me to explain the reasons for my vote, which creates a little bit of peer pressure to stay within the rules. If somebody does call on you to explain your vote, please do: at worst you’ll help to contribute to the debate and might just have an original argument that will sway others too. However, if you call people out it is your responsibility to be respectful of other posters and constructive in your criticism of their argument. I am running this game to provoke debate, not fights. This game operates on the honour system. I need to take you at your word that you are voting based purely on the category under debate. I understand people have their favourite zoos and it’s ok to talk up their achievements and qualities, but you do need to be honest with both yourself and others about why you are voting the way you do. If you think that one of Bronx or Leipzig is the better zoo for miscellaneous mammals then vote for them, but don’t vote for them because you actively want Bronx or Leipzig to win and then work backwards to justify why. This comment isn’t directed at any one individual, but I think there’s been multiple instances in this Cup where it’s not clear this rule has been followed, and all that does is break the game and ensure it fails to achieve what it’s supposed to do, in which case I’ll simply stop. I think there’s still time with nearly a day still to run on this thread for people to take these reminders on board and rescue what could have been a great discussion. But either way, I’ve decided to put the Cup on hiatus at the conclusion of the current two matches for a period of a few days, to allow everybody to reflect on why they’re participating, how they want the game to work and how they can ensure that it doesn’t turn nasty. As FunkyGibbon alludes to above, this game is supposed to be fun. It’s very unlikely that anybody at your favourite zoo knows about our little fantasy league, and it’s even less likely that they care about it. So enjoy making your case for why you think a zoo should be getting two or even three votes, but do it with a bit of perspective: nothing important is at stake. Your love for Bronx, or Leipzig or any other zoo isn’t on trial and doesn’t need to be affected by whether it wins an imaginary match in an imaginary tournament.
I do want to apologize if I came across a bit too harshly with my last post. I don't want anyone to think I would be angry with anyone voting in favor of Leipzig. I can completely see where people are coming from who want Leipzig to win, and have no problem with people voting so. Personally I get annoyed when I see people who are pretty clearly voting simply to make one zoo win over the other, however, which as you said appears to have been happening here and there, especially within these last couple rounds. I don't want to try and abuse anyone into voting any particular way but I was trying to be a bit aggressive towards certain behaviors that I and others here find dishonest. You and the mod are correct, though, this game is supposed to be fun. The course of today's conversation has been all but that, and I hope future matches don't turn out the same way. I know your post wasn't targeted at me in particular, but I felt some points might apply so I wanted to say my piece. Regardless, I hope people can take the points I tried to make aside of the response made to certain others, and the discussion I tried proposing in my response to @Haasje could commence, as I do want to hear thoughts. I might try and throw together a comparative post on the conservation efforts of each collection to see how they compare as I genuinely don't know what Leipzig's work is. Cheers all ~Thylo
WCS Conservation for Misc. Mammals (NOTE: seeing as the WCS's general approach is to conserving wildlife is to protect entire habitats/ecosystems and therefore all the species that live within it, theoretically any and all mammals that live within their areas of operation would be covered. For example, them stopping a superhighway being built in Cross River State, Nigeria, would be conserving all the pangolins, rodents, insectivores, etc. that live there, however that action is not specified towards any one particular animal. It seems a bit weird to list stuff like that, because I theoretically I could just list most of their terrestrial projects and this approach also sometimes makes it difficult to find information on specific oddball species because the general approach covers so many, so I'll just be listing actions I can find for specific species): -Pangolins: The WCS monitors known trafficking routes and local markets for poached pangolins. They monitor populations in the wild and work with local governing bodies on education, species identification, technological advancement, and the training of law enforcement agencies to combat poaching. They also have worked with CITES to get tighter laws against the pangolin trade. -In Laos, they report that they work with identifying and surveying which populations or which species are present for various animals including bats and squirrels. -In Mongolia, they monitor the illegal trade of the Siberian Marmot among other marmot species, which they've observing appearing in local illegal markets. -Woolly Flying Squirrel: After being rediscovered by the WCS after almost 70 years of being feared Extinct, the WCS has worked to identify wild populations in Pakistan and unlock the secrets of this extremely elusive and poorly known animal. They also work to train researchers to be able to identify the species from the two other giant flying squirrels that coexist with them. -Admiralty Cuscus: The WCS is working to research the biology of this species and organizing management plans in order to best conserve them. -Tree-Kangaroos: The WCS is working with local communities in Papua New Guinea in order to safeguard vital tree-kangaroo habitat and foster good relations between native people and endangered species. -Siriens: The WCS has been studying and monitoring the poorly known Dugong populations off the coast of Madagascar. They monitor and fight against the poaching of Amazonian Manatees. Given the WCS's heavy involvement in marine conservation on both the American and West African coasts, the remaining two manatees will be worked with to some capacity as well, though oddly I didn't find any specific information on them. -Patagonian Mara: The WCS works with ranchers in order to preserve crucial grassland habitat for this species. -Bats: In North America, the WCS is working on studying White-Nose Syndrome and its effects on various bat species. They also work with bats in Africa, studying their relationship with diseases such as Ebola. -In Paraguay, the WCS works with local populations of Capybara, Giant Anteater, and Giant Armadillo. -Lagomorphs: The WCS is studying the effects of habitat loss and climate change on pika populations, as well as monitoring native cottontail species. -American Beaver: Bronx has worked to recreate natural beaver habitat on their grounds, which eventually led to first natural return of beavers into the region. -In Cuba, the WCS works to preserve mangrove habitats for hutia. -Cetaceans (I think these count, right?): The WCS lists specific conservation program pages on their website for Ganges River Dolphin, Amazon River Dolphin, Irrawaddy Dolphin, humpback dolphins, Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin, Indo-Pacific Finless Dolphin, Humpback Whale, Southern Right Whale, Blue Whale, and Bryde's Whale specifically, although there are many more named in passing when reading about conservation work done in and around coastal habitats. I can go into detail about what they have to say on each individual species page if people want. For Leipzig I admit I don't really know where to look other than just Googling "Leipzig Zoo conservation".. When doing so literally the only result I could find for misc. mammals (which wasn't even on their website) was an article about Taipei sending them their pangolins. I would assume they do a hell of a lot more, so I would again ask that someone more knowledgeable than myself on the zoo please post some information. ~Thylo
The only other programmes I can think of which they have been involved with in the past don't fall under the purview of "miscellaneous mammals" unfortunately.
OK Entirely based off @ThylacineAlive 's extremely long and informative post, I am changing my vote to 2-1 Leipzig. I really wasn't sure with my vote and all I had seen of the Bronx enclosures were those photos (and a few more, but really not much), but no-one had actually gone through the quality of Bronx's enclosures, so it was really rather difficult for some-one who had only visited one (or nether) of the zoos to make a sensible decision, and I'm pretty sure @HOMIN96 and I had virtually the same train of thought. Now that we have laid out the quality in both zoos, I think that the tie is still in Leipzig's favour, but they have a slightly better (but not longer) species list... and slightly better enclosures. About the flying foxes, I can quote the post when I said their enclosure was 'very good'. Imma stay around this thread, but I probably won't be changing my score unless another incredibly persuading post comes out.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will only calculate results based on the poll results themselves - you will need to change your current 3-0 vote on the poll to have this intention take effect.
I know, I know, sorry, I had to go for a school commitment of sorts and I forgot.... Sorry I have changed it now
@ThylacineAlive You raise an interesting point concerning the viability of populations of rare animals. Maybe of the rare animals in zoos. Especially if they are rare within the zoo community, don't have viable populations if we look 20 or more years ahead. I recently saw a presentation at Burgers Zoo about breeding and viability of populations within zoos of certain species, it doesn't look good. For many populations the number of animals and genetic variation is simple to low for future sustainable population holding. I believe that something like 75% of bird species and 30% of mammal species, don't score viable for self-sustaining populations at the moment. Now one can question what to do with populations that don't seem viable in the long run. In Leipzigscase some animals certainly are within this category. Where even the best conservations efforts probably won't deliver us sustainable populations in zoos, let alone reintroducing them for the wild. As it currently stands. Although I do still love to see them and think they could be great ambassadors for their last wild cousins. Personally, I don't know to evaluate this dilemma. I don't like or think it is ethical to bring wild animals into captivity, even though it could certainly help with the genetics problem. The only for reserve population purposes this might be done if you ask me. Like with the Tasmanian devil. To conclude I think we should celebrate the rareties we currently have in zoos because in 20 years most animal species in zoos will be relatively common.
