Ive been hearing some very contradictive things about zoos that are less than constructive towards conservation, many of which are not so obvious to the everyday zoo goers. Major new exhibits using materials from unsustainable sources, importing animal feeds from plantations that the forests in their native homes are being cut down to grow. Two examples I have heard of recently are, a major new elephant habitat using Burmese hardwood as part of the aesthetics, and a major zoo importing palm nuts for their primates and parrots! I am sure there are many other examples but I really think its time zoos sorted this out!!
That's awful- I don't understand why a zoological institution would decide to go against their mission statement, particularly the larger ones. I'd love to know which zoos are in question, but I'm not sure if I actually want to. I guess that when push comes to shove, the depressing fact is that they are often businesses, regardless of their conservation efforts. As for Conservation itself, there's a lot of hot debate about whether ex situ breeding programs are actually beneficial in the long run. Is it for the benefit of the animals or is it purely for our benefit? Let's not go there though. I'll only get ranty
ex situ breeding programmes aren't the only conservation work zoos do though, and not what the more knowledgeble zoos would promote as their purpose. In fact in britain if they only did breeding as conservation then they wouldn't get a licence. They're unlikely to be what Vulpes is referring to when he/she mentions conservation. (Though of course I can't read minds)
