
07-04-2008
that's just it. Putting the majority of the pressure on the actual site to become more viable largely ignores that people actually have to come to the Island in the first place, and it is a relatively small site. I think that as a brand name, Durrell could massively increase its donor base through nationwide fundraising campaigns as do many charities and pressure groups right now. It may annoy you to see some dreadlocked hippy in a tabard with an over-sincere expression trying to stop you on the street to sign up for some charity but it works phenomenally well - which is the reason so many NGOs still fundraise in this way. To market themselves as primarily a charity which also maintain living collections both ex situ at their jersey headquarters and in situ in many sites worldwide would dissolve the problems of the zoo being located in Jersey. Sure, the zoo should not be a massive drain on money, but then if most of the species there are part of their wider conservation projects anyway, then why should the site need to generate enough gate revenue ex situ when their in situ breeding centres generate, quite rightly, no funds at all as they are not open to the public? It does worry me slightly that there is this feeling that Jersey zoo itself needs to earn its keep a little more to stay viable, when the charity itself could be strong enough to generate sufficient funds for all Durrell projects.
|