Incidentally, I have. It opened about one month ago - in Zurich. That's a bizarre comparison to make , besides, there's no need for Zurexit voting remorse - you can still change your vote ! The picture shows only a small corner of the exhibit (small red triangle in the exhibit plan). The overall exhibit for capybara, giant anteater and friends (as mentioned in an earlier post) is about 1'500m2 (blue area in the exhibit plan). Except for that small riverbank, the entire enclosure is grassy. As others have mentioned, aesthetically it isn't at the same level as Semien, Masoala or the Koala house. It's still an excellent exhibit. For example, it's replete with deadwood trees as shelter and enrichment for the capybara and giant anteaters, as well as for scatter feeding the anteaters. The zoo has a whole collection of these trees scattered around the masoala hall so that decay and - I assume - population by insect larvae can set in, before they place them in the enclosure. https://www.vetschpartner.ch/files/vetschpartner_533_00.jpg
Just a reminder that in the event of a tie we have a rematch with a new category. Keep making your cases to change hearts and minds.
Is the closure time, 10.54 G.M.T. or Australian Time? I have not been to Zurich, so not sure yet where to place vote.
I'm not currently at home and I don't have many pictures of exhibits at planckendael, it is worth noting that quite some of their exhibits have changed a lot since pictures of them have been uploaded in the gallery. The theming in the Australian area has massively changed, which is mainly notable in the wombat enclosure which is now bigger and a lot more aesthetically pleasing than it once was. The koala house on the pictures was still fairly dull, but has now housed pademelons for 2-3 years as well, which made it so the bottom of that exhibit is a lot less empty now and that the floor is now a lot more attractive. Other things that have changed since are the mara enclosure, which is now an excellent walkthrough exhibit, and the construction of a very nice looking Tasmanian devil enclosure, which in my opinion is easily more attractive than Duisburg's but not quite on Copenhagen's level. About my vote: I'm not 100% sure. It seems generally (I've not been, unfortunately) the housing for "other mammals" in Zurich is excellent, but they're never really the main highlight of the enclosure (capybara, hyrax, bat). You don't go to their exhibits for them, you go there for the animals or general experience. I like the way Planckendael really does their best to highlight small mammals (the entire australian section with outdoor echidna exhibit and very well-advertised devils, the excellent nocturnal enclosures and interactive informative signs for black rats and tree shrews...). I'm going to vote for Planckendael for now, but might still change when I go through Zurich's gallery at home tonight.
I think the strengths of both zoos have been pretty comprehensively covered. All I'll say is that conventional wisdom on this site is essentially taxonomic; it suggests that rare species should be the top priority for anyone interested in zoology. I disagree. Regardless of whether it's capybaras, meerkats or echidnas, I get great pleasure from watching animals behaving naturally in a beautiful setting. That doesn't mean the exhibits are all I care about; it's just a different way to appreciate animals. And Zurich appeals to this side of me far more than Planckendael appeases the species-hunter.
Plackendael appeases the 'species hunter' because it has a much more interesting collection than Zurich , I will post stats to prove the earlier suggestion that Tamandua is a rarity over the 5 species I mentioned previously if needed, but tamandua doesn't come close! If people think Zurich's exhibits are so much better than Plackendael's (to EUROPE not Australia ) list of rarities then Zurich wins ( as I predicted) ! I must be a 'species hunter' obviously and I'm proud of it! Planckendael easily for me
And species diversity is an absolutely valid criteria on which to vote, but so is Giant Panda's emphasis on exhibit design. You seem convinced that design-focused zoos are getting a free ride through this competition, but that's not borne out by results. Plzen knocked over Basel purely on the strength of its collection size. Twycross comfortably defeated Wuppertal on the same. And Moscow beat Hannover despite my pleading that the exhibit quality was disqualifying no matter how many species they have. I don't understand where your frustration is coming from - I think the game has been reasonably balanced, with a slight favouritism towards collection size, if anything.
I didn’t suggest that Giant Panda was necessarily wrong, everyone has there own criteria, which this 'contest' allows. I have mine though and I stand by them. I predicted in the European forum which 8 zoos would get through, without even knowing category , so far this one has come closest to proving me wrong! A lot of it is luck anyway, it doesn't bother me that much who wins! E.g Zurich v Whipsnade on ungulates? Twycross & Bristol got either good categories or crap opponents! Tierpark Berlin out in the first round ?! These things happen in a knockout tournament! Liverpool may win the Champions League , but at best they're the 3Rd team in England!
This is so finely balanced, in the end I voted Zurich to counter Seborga (a member who has posted no information and has seemingly joined just to vote Planckendael). I'm not sure I'm voting for the right zoo but it seems the right thing to do (takes cover).
I feel that any vote by any new account which has obviously been created for the sole purpose of attempting to rig the result should be immediately discounted.
If that had been a rule from the start , Burgers would have gone out in the first round! If that is going to become a rule someone needs to decide in time for Shorts to change his vote........
I'm sure at the time if was 2 people with no posts and another who'd only made 2 posts and they all joined after the poll opened. It's irrelevant now though so don't worry
But my point was that as a critical number of people involved in that vote *have* contributed to the forum, I am confident in that result (noting that I actually voted for Wroclaw). If the vote stays tied as it is now I will seek what advice the mods can provide before deciding what to do.
Worth noting that Seborga is one of the most active Planckendael locals on the Dutch forum "Laafsekikkers", where he consistently updates the Planckendael thread. I can't say I agree with making an account purely to vote, without any argument, but he's not (unless somebody is faking to be him) just some random account who knows nothing about the zoo.
Thanks, but that does prompt some doubt about whether the spirit of the game - and specifically the rule that votes must be based only on the relevant category - is being adhered to.
Hmm. I admit to being a little perplexed. This differs from Burgers-Wroclaw insofar as a) the number of problematic votes is equal to the final margin and b) we have some information about the origin of said problematic vote. I am not confident, as I was with Burgers-Wroclaw, that the final result is clearly reflective of the ZooChat community's collective view of the zoos' merits on the given category. At the same time, I am aware of the Burgers precedent. I'm just not sure the extent to which it applies in this case. I'm going to consider over night (my time) how to proceed.
