No it doesn't. That's just the zoo list. (Note that they all say 'Zoologischer Garten' next to them anyway. Zootierliste has the Tierpark under 'Tierpark Friedrichsfelde'.)
There are asiatic black bears at the Zoo Berlin (ai, correction here I mixed them up with the black bears! sorry), there are no sun bears (as in honey bears) at Zoo Berlin, there are no tigers at Zoo Berlin - those are at the Tierpark. I did not say it was the sum of both zoos but it is a combination.
If there are no Asiatic black bears at Zoo Berlin then that's a mistake on ZTL. As for sun bears and tigers, I don't have either of those on my list. I copied that list directly off ZTL .
I may be missing something, but I can't see sun bear or tiger in either list for Berlin! What both lists show is that Berlin is comfortably stronger on both number and variety of species
Overall, I think you’re right! It’s very rare that I can’t be swayed by a decent collection of ursids, but when you add some nice pinnipeds as well, then . . . I’m easily won over.
I honestly don't see what is wrong with the list. The only thing is that I think the Northern fur seal are no longer at the zoo....
It isn't the deciding factor, I wasn't suggesting that,but in my opinion it has to be A factor surely?
Speaking purely as a Zoochatter, rather than the administrator for the game, I agree with both of these statements. Obviously species diversity is important, and for some it might perfectly legitimately be the primary frame through which they consider their vote. It would make for a boring game if too many people treated it as determinative, though.
i might have had a rather significant brain fart and will now retreat and sleep a little. disregard me today
Agree with this completely. It’s entirely subjective. Everybody has their own criteria for voting. There is no right or wrong, and definitely no one size fits all.
I've been wrestling with how to approach this one, because they seem - having visited Berlin but not Cabarceno - to be fundamentally different things. Berlin is the archetypal 'traditional' zoo, with an enormous collection housed in an urban setting, in exhibits that range from outdated (the cat house) to brand new and fully contemporary (giant pandas). Cabarceno is a place like no other, with its enormous enclosures, sometimes huge groups and decidedly hands-off stewardship by keepers. So there's two ways of looking at this. You can simply decide whether Berlin's conventional exhibits are good enough that its superior collection becomes decisive, or you can consider whether Cabarceno's style represents something unique and intrinsically 'better' than the traditional zoo. I don't know where to land on that. I don't even know how to *feel* about it because it carries significant implications for what zoos should even *be*.
I think the best thing to 'feel' is gratitude that Europe offers such a diversity of zoos. We are lucky to have such different offerings, both seemingly viable answers to what zoos can be. That being said, I'm going with Berlin this time. It seems almost masochistic to punish it for what are only a few poor enclosures (I'm looking at you, leopard cages).
I don't think you need to call it intrinsically better, but the uniqueness for me goes all the way. It is nonsense to expect Cabarceno style enclosures throughout Europe, though other zoos might learn a thing or two of them (and vice versa). Berlin's carnivore collection is just not unique, though it is big and their breeding of small Malagasy carnivores is laudable. But the carnivore house is just a larger version of similar houses (or what used to be similar houses) throughout Germany. The Bear rocks are more unique in that sense, but not necessarily great for the animals (though they have improved immensely recently). It is a bit similar to the Wroclaw vs Burgers' clash where the traditional zoo meets a place that does things different.
I'm surprised no-one made a compelling case for Berlin, other than "it has more species."* If the original category "Big carnivores" had been used, I think Berlin would have lost, but not without a fight. Berlin has the complete range of large carnivores (big cats, pinnipeds, bears, wild dogs etc. - only missing hyenids) and while their enclosures are not as large as Cabarceno's, many are at least decent. We aren't talking Tierpark's sun bear cages here! One can even argue that purely based on species list, Berlin could even have won, as their collection is more interesting. But all things considered, Berlin would probably have lost. But small carnivores are included too, and while Berlin has a nice and varied collection, Cabarceno has very few (badger and meerkat). So focusing on small canivores, Berlin would completely dominate. So all things considered, I voted for Berlin. But that's partly because I consider diversity very important when I visit a zoo. Plus Berlin has what is probably my favourite mammal overall (ring-tailed vontsira) and than one falls within the carnivore category * Edit: better cases for Berlin have been posted while writing this.
This. Cabarceno is in quite a niche of it's own compared to other zoos. The same could also be said for why certain zoos which are great are not in the cup like Highland Wildlife Park as they only have animals from colder climates.
Alright. You've collectively managed to resolve my cognitive dissonance. I can cast my vote for Cabarceno without angst.
14-14 now, with a strong English backing of Zoo Berlin, the Germans went for Cabarceno (2-1). Not the first time in history that West Berlin was saved by the Allies . I wonder how @Maguari thinks about this match as he is one of the very few who has visited both parks...
