just doing some uni research. ANZ, who supports taronga zoo's recreated rainforest exhibit, has been implicated in financing tropical rainforest destruction and displacement of indigenous people in New Guniea. can anyone else see throught the rhetoric?
where did you find this glyn? on the net? send a link. if you think its a fair assesment of their activities write to the zoo and ask them if they research their potential sponsors....
There are a good number of zoo sponsors who have less than ideal backgrounds, and some that are down-right dodgy (and I'm not putting the ANZ into either of these baskets). But if a potential sponser with a big pocketful of money comes along and offers it to a zoo, even if it is offered as guilt money, should the zoo accept the donation? BHP Billiton for example, has a partnership with Zoos Victoria, and the company donates considerable funding for the Community Waterways Conservation Program & Platypusary, resulting in a Platypus Study Centre at Healesville Sanctuary - should this kind of support for conservation and research be rejected? This is an interesting dilema, with many arguments for and against accepting the sponsorship.
its a bit like coca cola and mcdonalds i guess. no, the zoo shouldnt reject the sponsorship, it cant afford to, but there should be clauses. like less obnoxious signage if zoos were better supported by governments, in the way that botanic gardens are (funding vs overheads), then they might be in a position to refuse donations. i know thats not the case and that its not going to happen. in these days of economic rationalisation zoos have to reduce their dependency on government hand-outs (and taronga does have a good deal) and find other revenue streams. BUT and i know some forum members might not be able to fully express their opinions here, i think zoos do have to draw the line at some point! that point might be in the future when an increasingly aware public could start to see the inrony in a rainforest destroying multi-national company sponsoring a zoo rainforest. the link was in from Australian conservtion foundation. Pat just google it please. ive had the longest day, looking at everything form landfill figures in geelong shire to youth consumption patterns. i cant remember, lol
absolutely not!! and i best get of this thread right now because i feel myself prepared to start a massive anti-zoo rant, in which i point my finger at them all and declare them a big &*%#$&! conservation farce, and may regret it later. i actually think its downright disgraceful and has nothing to do with the asthetics of signage. the fact that a zoo will accept money from a company that destroys the very wildlife that zoos claim they are there to protect only exposes zoos for what they really are.... oops and there i go!!
thats why i believe that point in their evolution is rapidly approaching. we all know zoos do more than put animals on dispa, they do, but that service is a public good. beyond public expectation, what value do we place on this role? if this role is valued, than they shouldnt have to sell-out to multi-national companies conflicting interests.
did you find info? its not hard to come by is it? and its pretty disgraceful. bing lee sponsors francois langurs at taronga too. how much better the world's primates would be if rampant consumerism of electrical appliances, in fact everything, was curtailed. zoos should be embracing eco-centric values in everything they do, unfortunately they are not immune to financial pressures.
