ZooChat Cup - rebooted

Not to be a Debbie Downer but I can already see one major problem with this cup: the vast majority of American and European voters will not have been to the zoos in the other continents. I personally have been to nine of the US zoos @TheGerenuk predicted (though I personally don't know if I'd have them all on the list) and seven of the confirmed European zoos (personally I wouldn't have included Plzen despite the fantastic collection). I'd imagine I'm very much in the minority, though, and most people from either side of the pond will have just visited the zoos on their side. I'd also imagine those in Oceania and Asia who have visited other continents will mostly have been to Europe and not the US (this just seems to be how it is from the people I know). The same way US voters are inclined to vote for the collection they're most familiar with, I'd imagine we'll the same effect take place across the entire cup from voters unfamiliar with the other countries'/continents' zoos. I just see a US zoo vs European match being determined simply by how many more voters from that side of the pond are participating-- the answer of which will almost certainly be European.

~Thylo

 

I guess I don't know as much as I thought. To be honest, I had sort of an idea that it was good, but no idea how good. I'd definitely put this zoo in for a 64-zoo worldwide tournament, but with very little room in 32, this is probably the one zoo closest to making it in from what I read (shoutout to @lintworm for creating the "Europe's 50 best zoos" thread). As a North American, I've only been to Europe once and never got to see the collection (although Antwerp, Pairi Daiza and Cologne were visited).

 

I agree with you, which is why it will be very important that people who *have* visited one or the other collection contribute their thoughts as to the zoo's strengths and weaknesses. The game is designed for people to try to persuade others: that's why votes are public and why people can change their votes if they choose.

 

As previously mentioned, I've been to some European zoos in contention, plus Taronga Zoo and multiple North American zoos (mostly in the eastern states, although Chicago and San Diego were visited too). My votes in this competition will be done in an unbiased way. Why should I vote a zoo I have been to that isn't as good in a category if its opponent(s) that I have never visited are better in said category? People who visited a collection can give their opinions on how well it does in a certain aspect to help those who haven't visited get a better view of it. I think it will come down to the compelling arguments for and against each zoo, which is what makes this competition amazing.

 

What I personally meant (can't speak on TheGeneruk's behalf) by "small" was not literal size, but that it doesn't seem to strive to be among the biggest of the big shots and insteads feels comfortable in its own skin as a very nice, medium-sized zoo. Again, I haven't visited (though the zoo is most certainly on my bucket list), so feel free to correct me. I can't remember if it was you or someone else who wrote in their review that it doesn't have the "glamour" of a zoo like Leipzig or Berlin, but instead has more of a down-to-earth charm.

 

I actually think Taipei have a better chance than Singapore(Well this is controversial but this is your thread, I do appreciate your effort). Singapore will be knocked out almost certainly in birds, while Taipei do have some rare animals in good environment.

 

I doubt LA, Brookfield, Atlanta, or Tampa would be picked. LA is mediocre with a very big collection. Brookfield, the only US zoo you predicted that I haven’t been to (though that is changing later this week), as I understand it doesn’t really shine in terms of exhibitry and the collection is pretty good but not up there with some of the other zoos mentioned. It’s been years since I’ve been to Atlanta but several parts of the zoo don’t seem to be up to par with America’s best (though some parts certainly are, particularly its reptile house). Tampa I would classify as rather mediocre all around.

Some other zoos definitely deserve mention. Woodland Park is probably the best US zoo I haven’t been to, and it really seems to be superb all around. Another top tier zoo is Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Miami and North Carolina are fantastic large zoos and definitely among the best in the nation. Sedgwick County and Detroit are two zoos that aren’t mentioned as often on ZooChat, but I’d probably place both in my top 10 as well. I’d be shocked if none of these made it to the final list.

 

I think Minnesota would have a chance as well.

 

I certainly won't be biased towards European zoos, I've only been to 4 of them, but the biggest problem I will have is knowing what species the North American zoos hold. Obviously there is Zootierliste for Europe, is there an equivalent?

 

Agreed - I meant to mention it but forgot. Same for Nashville.

No, unfortunately - but I’m sure American members such as myself can provide full or at least mostly complete species lists.

 

Not that I wholly disagree with you on this statement, but LA *was* the surprise third-place finisher in the North American ZooChat Cup... maybe that indicates it has more punching power than it gets credited?

Fortunately, many members have recently been posting full, updated species lists on ZooChat for American zoos that is slowly resulting in a more comprehensive resource. Hopefully in the near future these can be organized in such a way that they are easier to locate and update.

 

The problem with Singapore is HOW do you define it? Are you only referring to the single Singapore Zoo, or should the River Safari and Night Safari be included and all 3 parks rolled into one? All 3 are connected, next to each other. Yes, they all have separate admission prices, though one can buy a combination ticket for all of them. I actually toured all 3 parks on one (long!) day.

If you roll the 3 zoo parks in Singapore together as "Singapore", then I think this is the world's best zoo -- by far!

 

A question I have wrestled with, and decided that it would be unfair to include the other parks, though I agree Singapore would rocket up the list of contenders if I did.

I don't know how I could justify counting those together, while not also coupling the two Berlins or San Diegos together as well. Singapore will just have to live with the way its separate attractions impacts upon its chances.

 

The arguably important difference being that the Zoo, River and Night Safaris are all at the same site and simply have different entrances, which makes them more like Hamburg than any of the above. If Jurong had already moved to Mandai as well it would probably have complicated my thinking even further.

 

As CGSwans made the point, with all of the examples given, there is a notable distance between the 2 zoos listed (Antwerp/Planckendael 22miles; Edinburgh/HWP 116miles; London/Whipsnade 33miles; San Diego Zoo/Safari Pk 31miles; Berlin Zoo/Tierpark 15miles; Bronx/Central Pk Zoos 9miles). Thus to visit both zoos, one would have to do probably an hour's drive between them. But with the 3 Singapore zoos, they are literally at the same location, so you can do what I did, park my car once at 10am, then tour all 3 zoos on that same day, leaving at midnight. I honestly agree that the best comparison would be Hamburg, with both the Hagenbeck Zoo and Aquarium at the same location. At least with Hamburg, I count them together. Not sure about Singapore. Thus when I'm asked what is the world's best zoo, I give a qualified answer, "It depends on how you define Singapore" -- If they can be considered together, then Singapore is the world's best. If not, then San Diego.

 

The majority of those examples would not take an hour to get between them. Regardless, I don't think it matters how close geographically they are; if they're run as separate collections, then they are separate collections. As for the world's best zoo, that is not the topic of this thread and it's best to keep it that way.

~Thylo