I know a lot of people who think Zoos are a good idea but don't like the idea of non-endangered animals being in Zoos. Do you agree? I do not. I believe the education to the public is more essential than almost everything else in the Zoo world (with the exception of animal welfare of course). I believe the public should be properly taught why some species are classed as endangered or critically endangered and why other species are of 'Least Concern'. I would like to hear your views on this please.
Well if all species went out of non-endangered species then there'd be no meerkats in captivity... I think the people who said that would soon change their minds lol.
Well, funnily enough, I was going to say that some of the most popular Zoo animals are non-endangered, like Meerkats and Flamingos for example.
I believe that any animals whether endangered or not, as long as they strike up enough curiosity for the public to want to know more about that animal, belong in the zoo. After all, the public won't want to conserve something they don't understand and it's our job to teach them.
Zoos are not just about breeding endngered species and education. They are also for entertainment as people like to see animals. If they are not for entertainment why do we keep going back?
with some of the youngest zoo visitors the squirrels and sea gulls are the most popular animals in the zoo. thats where education starts ; right?
Blackduiker The more the merrier. Yes, conservation of endangered species in zoo collections is essential, but the fuller the collection the more appreciation for the vastness of the animal kingdom, whether endangered or not. I've always admired great zoos that had both the space and finances for a more diverse collection.
Having both endangered and non-endangered animals in a zoo are essential from both an educational and a conservation point of view. By showing people how all animals have a vital role in the grand schem of things regardless of status in the wild, conservation should therefore follow. Good zoos can also turn this to the benefit of animal wlefare also. As many zoos are involved in some way or another in breeding programmes, they can also say, if questioned about enclosure design, that animals will only breed if all aspects of their environment is right. Successful breeding programmes allow us to understand the needs of all species and less threatened species which share habitats with threatened species allow us to learn ho wbest to care for thetheatened species both in captitvity and in the wild. If that makes sense?
A good zoo is an amalgamation of sorts: conservation breeding of endangered species, educational exhibits, edutainment (the economics of every public park) animal welfare and scientific research. Somewhere in there is the onus to present a representative collection of animals (and plants) that underscore any or all of the objectives cited above. In other words, any serious and acclaimed zoo should both hold representative collections of non- and endangered species. Size nor appeal does should matter in selecting species as a serious zoo should hold all fyla of animals along with plants. Well, that be my 50 cts anyway!
With highly endangered species, zoos may often practice keeping and breeding a common relative of the endangered species first, as analogs. Hix
If we were to phase out least concern animals from Zoo's then they would be nothing left once they are persecuted even more a stable gene pool of a population in zoos to keep a species going as like all of the animal species are slowly or faster in quite alot of cases dissapearing for ever. For my example as you would expect it would be a Big Cat - African Lions yes are one of the most popular Zoo Animals but they are becoming more endangered then we relise - So we must protect them it doesnt mean every zoo has to keep them just enough to keep a stable population and enough funds to protect them in the wild for the next generations to see the true magnificance of animals in the wild for alot longer. And Ituri you are exactly right!
There is relevance to both the analogue species and the non-endangered, yet tomorrow on IUCN-listings. Where it really gets neat is when this has to translate into collection plans at individual zoo, regional and a global level. On today's calculations a mere 500 species can be accomodated with a viable self-sustaining population .... So, we have a bit of a challenge on us. And we should not just look at the mega-vertebrates, but the tiny grey jobs need looking after too. They all have relevance to and within the Web of Life. Captivity is not always the solution: sometimes it is better to use analogues and then try the learned husbandry techniques on the species you wish to save in the wild!
Well, it's Durrell zoo not educative because they only keep endangered species? I think not,of course...On the other hand, many people do not know many species easy to see in zoos(except the large mammals) the general public does not know what's exactly is a meerkat, therefore you can leave that space, always limited,for to display threatened species.
