Hello all. I am currently doing some communications research at a University and exploring the challenge of building the conservation credibility and public awareness of those efforts for a Zoo. I am seeking out this communities opinion on the role of Zoo and Conservation. Increasingly Zoos are looking to improve the public's understanding of their role in CONSERVATION. Zoos occasionally lead international wildlife protection or rehabilitation efforts and often partner as a minor player in other efforts. "Conservation Taxes" paid when acquiring animals are also treated as conservation spend. Do Zoos have an authentic claim to be involved in conservation? Is it real, or is it a means to get hit a broader donor base and reduce criticism? Give me both sides of the argument. Should the Zoo take a leadership role in conservation and if so, how? Does the public really care if a zoo is "into" conservation or touts it as a positioning? And if they care, why? Please let me know your association with a zoo: Employee, Zookeeper, Scientist, Volunteer, Member, Enthusiastic, General Public
The word 'conservation' is too vague to be particularly valuable. Zoo websites are full of self-congratulatory stories hailing the latest birth or hatching as 'a great step for conservation'. On the other hand, there are many zoos, small and large, which have done important and significant conservation work around the globe. ex situ captive breeding is the obvious example and many projects are well known. In the past 30 years the whole business has become much better organised due to the co-operation of zoos around the world (apart from a few exceptions) with the development of studbooks, breeding loans etc. Interest in in situ research and conservation goes back about 50 years to the work of Frankfurt, New York (WCS) and the ZSL with charitable bodies like IUCN and FPS (now FFI). There are now a wide range of projects supported financially and with training and expertise by good zoos around the world. For example the Durrell Trust has done remarkable work in training staff from all parts of the world in Jersey. Zoos can also be involved in the breeding and reintroduction of local native species, the example of the American bison is one of the earliest examples of all. Zoos also have a major part to play in conservation education. The EU Zoos Directive makes it virtually mandatory for European zoos to have active educational programs. Hope this helps - my point of view is as a zoo enthusiast and a teacher involved in science and animal care. Alan
Looking at Bristol Zoo and their work with Nils Lindahl-Elliot might be interesting, if you haven't done so (with my zoo education hat on).
As a member of the zoo-going public (in other words, not in any way connected professionally to the zoo world), I believe that although there is a definite conservation aspect to the work of zoos, they play the "conservation card" more strongly than is justified as a defence against attacks by the Animal Lib.lobby. I believe that the display of wild animals to the public is a worthwhile activity in itself and a legitimate function of any zoo. It is important that people can actually see animals "in the flesh" rather than just in books and on television. Sure, life for animals in zoos is not perfect; there is an element of compromise; but it is hardly the hell on earth that animal rightists try to claim. For that matter, life in the wild is for animals not the glorious, carefree existence that some people want to believe. Life in the wild is a hard grind, a perilous existence for most animals. Biologists joke that if animal libbers knew how savage it is, they'd try to ban it! Having said that I'm sure most thinking people believe that zoos have an obligation to act as a back-up system for in-situ conservation projects.
Conservation Zoos You might like to read one of my rants on the subject in Conservation Zoos Conservation Zoos As Gentle Lemur says Conservation is a rather vague term. And then there are zoos and 'zoos'.
Zoos Victoria seems to have started a trend. Now zoosvic and the TCSA have employed conservation managers. Not the right title but these are people that are employed by both organizations to develop conservation campaigns. The don't palm us off and their calling on you campaigns came out of Melbourne zoo and were shared among the region. I was at the Australian National Field Days two weeks ago and we ran out of postcards to sign for the don't palm us off campaign on the second day of the event! We had animals at the event which drew the public in, this allowed us to share our conservation campaigns and get signatures. Although I scored our site at the event for free there were significant costs involved (fuel, airfares, staff, taronga even sent down their zoomobile) we did not make any money at the event (except the tattoos we sold, but all profits from the sales went to 21C tigers.) I work in education at a zoo and it is my job to ensure a positive visitor experience while promoting our conservation campaigns. And it is much easier for me to get my message accross when the public is watching me throw chicken to a live tiger. It makes the reality of possible extinction sink in and they are more likely to take action. Even if it's just signing a postcard or recycling mobile phones.
I think maybe there's a point to be made about the different ways zoos contribute to conservation? Plenty of zoos I think spend at least some of their revenue on funding or helping fund in-situ conservation programmes run by other existing charities. A donation from the zoo that may, if you're a real cynic, just 'tick the conservation box'. I think fewer zoos organise in-situ programmes themselves or are really heavily involved in managing/contributing to in-situ conservation and research in a wider sense. I would think the well-known/well-reported examples of the latter in the UK are ZSL and Durrell as Alan has said. I don't know if someone who knows better than me can add to this? I should say that this is the view of a non-keeper/zoo staff member, but as a freshly graduated biologist and now fledgling ecologist it's something I have to be interested in. Maybe one day they'll be paying my wages!
Chester has a good track record of in-situ projects and programmes (which I think they organise themselves). Chester Zoo - Field Projects Chester Zoo - field-programmes
And that is as it should be. Having several hundred zoos each attempting to plan, organize, mount and staff their own individual in situ projects would be wasteful at best. By supporting existing projects run by organizations that have the expertise and the people and support on the ground, these zoos can do more for conservation than they could on their own. (And what would the effect of 93 separate zoo conservation efforts in the Congo accomplish?) And they may support the program with their own expertise, send staff to offer or receive training. They may get to tick the Conservation Box by sending some funding along, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is all that is happening.
Not exactly, there is much in-situ conservation/field work that a zoo could accomplish in its own local region. But it doesnt have to be elaborate.
Yes, that's a very good point! Many of my zoo horticulture colleagues are deeply involved in local plant conservation projects, for example.
WAZA recently published a book called Building A Future for Wildlife (I think) that is a listing of 30 or so field conservation projects directly connected to zoos. Probably the best example of zoo-based conservation. The book Sailing With Noah by the director of St Louis Zoo also has some good examples. In the U.S. at least, I think there is a very stark contrast between AZA accredited facilities and non-accredited. While virtually every AZA facility I have seen can cite specific examples of conservation work they either donate to or directly run, I would have a hard time thinking of any non-accredited zoo that does so. I am sure there are exceptions to this rule, but they are far and few between. (The one huge exception, which probably promotes field conservation more than any accredited zoo, is California's Project Survival Cat Haven). I am a docent and deal with public zoo visitors on a weekly basis and I can tell you they really do care if a zoo is involved in conservation. The problem is, as stated earlier, it is used in too vague of a sense and often by non-accredited facilities in a way that is completely meaningless. But the general public are not well-informed enough to tell the difference.
Well that's not really what I meant- projects are always likely to be collaborative with other zoos, conservation organisations or local experts I know. I was really making the point that you have made yourself here- in that the the better zoos are offering more than just money (e.g. time/ expertise/equipment/research).
Sometimes money is all that is needed. Why pay western wages to go over and do a job that's already being done. A $10,000 grant can have a bigger impact on a conservation project then forking out $100,000 to pay staff wages and travel costs etc. The conservation projects Aussie zoos are involved in are largely not even known to the general public. Just google regents honey eater conservation and see what comes up. Zoos need to remain profitable to survive so conservation money must be spent wisely. Education is the key both in and ex situ.
just stumbled across this interesting article: Evaluating The Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens and Natural History Museums
