Tell that to Stuttgart in their round against Berlin, the actual quality difference was minimal and to start with tennis terms instead of football a 7-5, 7-5, 7-5 match and not a 6-0,6-0,6-0 match... I am limited to pictures, but how is this: Better than this: With at least half the enclosure being out of view in the Burgers' case
This is precisely what I mean!! Amneville keeps bachelors, well the most successful bachelor groups have large enough enclosures for the animals to stay out of each others' way if they so choose (looking at you Ouwehands, Beekse Bergen and Port Lympne). So already that makes Amneville's enclosures a tad weaker than I previously believed,
This happens to be one of three separable if needed outdoor enclosures. And this is not even talking the three big indoor enclosures. They are not keeping all males together, they do not have to.
The voting tallies are not always going to be a fair reflection of the absolute, as opposed to relative merits of a zoo. To borrow the comparison made by Lintworm, I don't think anybody would suggest a 24-0 loss to Berlin Zoo on ectotherms was 'fair' to Stuttgart, which is very strong in the category. It was just unlucky, and there was a consensus view that it was out-gunned. A better, though admittedly less concrete measure of the competitiveness of two zoos in a given category are the debates. This thread is demonstrating that, and I'm quite sure Amneville's vote is stronger than it would have been without it.
This is really annoying. This is a fraction of the outdoor-enclosures at Amneville. Three different indoors and three different outdoors. An two groups. Vote for what you want, but please do not judge something that you obviously do not know properly.
Thanks, I did not want to sound harsh, but even after googling more pictures of the exhibit, it still strikes me as pretty ugly, though indeed spacious and very functional.
Fair enough, did not intend for my comments to come across as harsh or misinformed. I was merely attempting to argue a case for Burgers', but my points have been made so I shall back off.
This is a tough one, and I guess Amneville and Burgers' are fairly close in this category. Amneville seems to have neat enclosures (judging from the pictures) and a broader range of species displayed. Several enclosures seem to be better than average. They also have lots of South American primates, which are completely lacking in Burgers' (time to find some sakis for the Mangrove!). Among them are silvery marmosets and spider monkeys, which are great. Of course there are some bonus points because of the gelada enclosure. But overall, with exceptions of the white-belted black-and-white ruffed lemurs, the rest of the collection is not that exciting. Burgers' has fantastic ape enclosures (how much ape enclosures do you know that still hold up after 40 years!) with golden-bellied mangabeys in the mix. The latter are, together with the dusky leaf monkeys, probably the highlight of the collection. The mixed species exhibit in the Rimba makes for an amazing scene, and the lemur enclosure is a very well-done renovation of a formerly awful enclosure. The gibbon cage is the very best gibbon enclosure I've seen, and seeing the gibbons going through it at top speed is marvellous. I've never seen a gibbon touch the ground in that enclosure! Overall, I think the enclosures in Burgers' are better than "above average", and several of them were and still are progressive if not groundbreaking. If Arnhem wins, it wins on innovation. But Burgers' does lack the rather nice collection of South American primates. And that is honestly for me the most important thing where Amneville could win on. I've currently parked my vote with Burgers' (partly because of that amazing gibbon cage!), but I'm open to change my vote if one can convince me that Amneville's South American primates are special enough to combat Burgers' innovation.
I've only seen Amneville in pictures and can tell they've got some cool scenery for the enclosures but I'd rather see animals in a more natural enviroment. Although that might be me. I can tell they are very close but my vote goes to Burgers here. The primates in Burger's have so much space to do whatever they like! The chimpisland is very innovative and has amazing stories to tell. The gorillas with the golden-bellied mangabey is such a joy to see and so much action, and each year so many young! In the Rimba where Pig-tailed macaque and the Siamang live together with Banteng, Muntjak, Eld's- and Hog deer. The Macaque are often seen on the ground or on the lower trees playing and running around. While the siamang are seen high up in the trees. It feels very alive with the primates, as they are really making the grassland a bit more alive. The Gibbon/Dusky Langur enclosure is very nice and shows how the animals have lots of space while also lots of climbing structures are in the enclosure. The ringtailed lemurs and black lemurs are often inside while they have such a beautiful enclosure outside, which is kind of dissapointing. However the animals are always very active which is a good sign. I've seen them less active in other zoo's But I have to agree with many people here and say that Burgers is lacking South American primates, I have heard that they are planning on releasing two white-faced saki in the mangrove once the trees are a lot bigger! But that could be just ideas for their future and that should'nt count at this point. Burgers mostly gains this win from me because of the way they house their animals. Amneville would've won based on amount of primate species
It is funny that Burgers and Rotterdam win against zoos with more species because of better enclosures but Beauval is losing against Plzen only because of Plzens amount of species despite the fact that some enclosures are more terrible than the Sun Bear cages at Berlin.
@Shruikan funny, yes, but hypocritical or illogical no. Burgers and Rotterdam had only half the species and (in my opinion) significantly better enclosures, whereas Beauval has only a third of the species and (in my opinion) only slightly better enclosures. The scale of things, along with everyone's personal preference matter too.. Also, this competition isn't solely based on species count and enclosure quality. History, husbandry, treatment, innovation, education, breeding... are all very important factors to consider as well. My vote's with Burgers', for reasons stated clearly by other members. From what I've seen Amneville is a strong competitor, though, and I'd love to see the collection some day.
It's not just a matter of the number of species at Plzen though. I would argue that at Plzen's scale, a difference in size is a difference in kind, and what makes the collection unique at Plzen is the diversity of passerines and smaller birds and the work that Plzen does keeping and breeding rare birds. I also think that most of Plzen's enclosures are decent. In the case of Burgers vs Amneville here though, neither zoo has a tremendous collection of rarities and Amneville's collection is hardly astonishing enough to blow Burgers out of the water. It's also worth noting that the vote is rather close in Beauval vs Plzen as it was in Burgers vs Wroclaw, so a world class collection in average enclosures certainly does not guarantee a win against an average collection in world class enclosures.
I didn't say that Burgers shouldn't win. I voted for it but do you know the owl "enclosures" in Plzen in the siberian hut there they can't even fully spread their wings in their.
I think that's the key point in this particular case. Amneville's primate collection, although better than Arnhem's, is still not exactly extraordinary. In this case, it's a somewhat limited collection in superb enclosures against a more average collection in fairly good enclosures.
Yes, there are certainly poor enclosures at Plzen and a very small number of very poor enclosures as well. Hence why I said I think that most of Plzen's enclosures are decent.
Do you think somewhere with a massively more impress primate collection eg Twycross would have beaten Burgers? I suspect not, the affection for Burgers as a zoo is clear regardless of category or opponent ! It is obviously a top zoo, but whether it is really the best in every category ( including the 2 matches so far) is highly debatable. There is only one zoo which stands a chance of beating Burgers whatever the category I would suggest .
I don't agree with you saying people are clearly biased towards Burgers'. The first match-up was not a rollover at all and there were a lot of people voting for Wroclaw as well, with a lot of heavy debate and arguments going both sides. This second match-up is a bit "easier" for Burgers' because while Burgers' has a small collection, they have achieved a lot historically and have generally better enclosures. Amneville is not a very well-known zoo, so it's obvious it won't get as many votes. However, still this match-up (23 vs 10 as it stands) is still a lot closer than almost all of the matches in the first round, so I don't understand where you get this idea that people will always vote Burgers' no matter what. I don't think Burgers' would win in a lot of competitions versus a lot of zoos, either. I'd say zoos like Koln, Berlin and Artis would beat Burgers' on ectotherms, Zurich and perhaps Plzen and Berlin have it beat on birds, a lot of zoos have a very good chance against it on large carnivores and ungulates, and Burgers' really doesn't do that well on small mammals... Basically, I don't really think it's fair to come up with this comment because Burgers' won (well, I don't want to make a premature comment but this match-up is probably going to be a win) two matches, because so far every zoo that got through the second round has won two matches, the majority with a lot bigger gap in votes than Burgers'.
When it comes to primates both Leipzig and Chester would have beaten Burgers' and several other zoos would have made an interesting contest. And no I don't think Twycross would beat Burgers' on primates as when you take away absolute species numbers, Twycross is not that special... When it comes to small mammals, there will be many zoos that have a great chance to win against Burgers and also when it comes to birds there are enough zoos up for the challenge. The chances that Zoo Berlin makes the semifinal are high and if Burgers' gets there it will all come down to the category, but Berlin would be the favourite then....
This is factually incorrect in the case of primates This seems to clearly be the case And before anyone again gets riled up, Burgers is the better zoo (and i am really constraining myself hard to argue for a zoo that is advertising this tiger desaster) but not in this category. In this category they are equal at minimum.
We'll see , but we all know what happened in the Wroclaw match!! I think even CGSwans acknowledged the influence of the 3 new members, 2 of whom had done nothing at that point but vote for Burgers in that poll!! I would suggest the reason both Burgers votes have been closer is probably because most other zoos would have lost on collection in both cases. I didn't use the word bias either, I wouldn't choose that word, I just think there are other influences than category as to why Burgers has won! Just my opinion.....
