Something that's been on my mind for a while, after reading David Grazian's book American Zoo: A Sociological Safari, is the subject of zoos and aquariums accepting donations from corporations whose business practices are generally considered environmentally harmful (especially fossil fuel companies like BP and ExxonMobil). Do you think that this conflicts with their mission of environmental stewardship, or accept it as a necessary evil in order for them to survive financially?
I'm not a big reader and haven't read the book (or any for a lonnnnnng time), but I think it ties in with a concern that struck me a short time ago. Could zoos eventually be banned around the world and in their place, exist large parks sponsored by the companies that have largely decimated the natural habitat of the creatures they house?
I'm not a big expert on sponsorship or anything like that but in terms of supporting companies that damage wildlife the best example I can think of against this would be Chester Zoo, who cut all Nestle products from their shops and kiosks when they were suspended from the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil earlier this year. Suggests that some zoos at least are not scared to stand up to big business whose practices they don't support
I'm kinda torn. Generally I think its a good thing when good things are done with bad money. I think most people realize that companies try and greenwash so I'm kinda cool with it. Few such sponsorships are as ironic and hypocritical as this though Monsanto Insectarium | Saint Louis Zoo
One of my favorite exhibit names, just for the irony. The exhibit is great though, by far my favorite insect house.
