Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out?

[Zooplantman]

And given I’ve already shown that posts involving megafauna got significantly more likes than those that don’t, it is quite clear that if I can prove that zoos with more followers (and therefore more likes on each post) get more visitors, we can safely say beyond reasonable doubt that ABC animals bring in the visitors via social media likes.

Not unless you can prove causality
How does one show a connection between activity on social media and visits BY THOSE SAME PEOPLE to a zoo?
And anyway, does any of this matter?
Lots of debate but to what end?

 

[Westcoastperson]

Again, there is some seriously faulty and inconclusive maths in your posts. A 500-700 average (not mathematically correct in the first place mind you) definitely doesn’t mean that 500 is the minimum number of likes each post receives. Then I don’t follow your leaps in logic and addition after that but you didn’t offer any sort of conclusion anyway so it seems almost irrelevant, unless you can prove otherwise in a more thought out manner (?).

I feel like a broken record but let me explain what I was saying hopefully for the last time. Likes cannot correlate with attendance because like don’t reflect those feelings and social media marketing is often subliminal. The only way likes ever correlate with a jump in zoo attendance is when there is a gain in social media followers. And do you want to know why

the more followers generally, the more likes each zoo post gets.

because I said it earlier there are people who will like social media posts just because they appear or they are following the site. So I’m going to go through everything else I already said that you simply repeated.

there is absolutely a correlation between number of followers on social media and number of visitors,

Already acknowledged that was true

If a zoo gets a significant amount of new followers that probably does mean the amount of visitors is going to jump

I’ll give you data on that when I can procure myself a laptop and a wifi connection

Already said that’s not possible

Follows represent people but likes do not because people don’t like posts because they want to go to the zoo, they like posts because they enjoy the photo. That’s why you don’t have any studies on likes because anyone making a survey based on attendance vs. social media knows likes are not a good system to use because of how many variables are involved.

Anyways I’m not going to address the faults in the entire last bit because someone already did that but I would just like to bring up this.

if I can prove that zoos with more followers (and therefore more likes on each post) get more visitors, we can safely say beyond reasonable doubt that ABC animals bring in the visitors via social media likes

or, and you just have to hear me out here, or zoos have all of those followers because of how high their attendance is and not the other way around. You don’t have a big tree in your back yard because of all the shade, you have shade in your back yard because of the big tree.

 

[TinoPup]

When did you ever prove likes show anything? I already said social media does have an effect on people. I never specified if followers do or do not correlate with visitation of the institution. If a zoo gets a significant amount of new followers that probably does mean the amount of visitors is going to jump because that means you will get more reoccurring visitors. But likes still don’t translate to that. The only way that likes can have match with an increase in visitors is if there is an increase in baseline likes. So if a zoo gets more followers and therefore the attendance spikes, there will be a spike in baseline likes in normal posts because of the new followers gained. What I mean is if a zoo has an average of 500 to 700 likes, that constant 500 likes come from the people who like every post the zoo puts out. So of course with more followers comes more people who like every post. And so it’s no longer 500 to 700 likes but now 700 to 900 likes. The problem is the zoo got 1000 new followers and only 200 to 400 more likes to account for that. Now the original argument that was presented stated that ABC animals generated more likes and therefore better caused better attendance. And there is nothing to prove that because as I said earlier likes are not a viable way because they do not properly represent people. Follows represent people but likes do not because people don’t like posts because they want to go to the zoo, they like posts because they enjoy the photo. That’s why you don’t have any studies on likes because anyone making a survey based on attendance vs. social media knows likes are not a good system to use because of how many variables are involved. Social media is a good tool for marketing I’ve said that before. The original argument is that ABC animal posts get more likes and therefore more visitors but they can’t because that’s not how likes work. And before you bring up animals like April the giraffe or Fiona the hippo you have to remember they can’t count in this because they are more than ABC animals they are internet celebrities that were also new additions to the zoos. They were not normal ABC animals that had been at the zoo for years.

This is asinine. Did you even glance at any of the links I put in the previous post? They all suggest posting lots of babies and popular animals. Look at Fiona - the likes on her photos translated into page likes/follows, which led to many many more visitors to the zoo. She IS a normal ABC animal, that the zoo turned into a celebrity. Do you really think they would have had as much success with a gaur or a gazelle? Or that they would have had nearly as many visitors if they hadn't placed so much emphasis on her? THAT'S MARKETING.
There have been plenty of studies done on social media.

 

[TinoPup]

I feel like a broken record but let me explain what I was saying hopefully for the last time.

It's because you're wildly incorrect, and we're trying to get you to understand that.

 

[Westcoastperson]

This is asinine. Did you even glance at any of the links I put in the previous post? They all suggest posting lots of babies and popular animals. Look at Fiona - the likes on her photos translated into page likes/follows, which led to many many more visitors to the zoo. She IS a normal ABC animal, that the zoo turned into a celebrity. Do you really think they would have had as much success with a gaur or a gazelle? Or that they would have had nearly as many visitors if they hadn't placed so much emphasis on her? THAT'S MARKETING.
There have been plenty of studies done on social media.

Now I do see them suggesting baby animals, which I suggested earlier myself, but I see nothing on popular ABC species. Do you mean popular individuals? Saying only ABC animals can be the big stars of zoos like Fiona is like saying you can never make an amazing exhibit with a bullfrog. Or like saying no matter what Dolphins will always be seen as pests who bane the lives of fishermen, they could never ever be seen as cute or cudly no matter what. Your telling me no child would ever think of Guars as cool if they were told Guars have been nicknamed the “tiger killers”. Every animal has a chance to be charismatic it just depends on how you market it. Now I don’t doubt Fiona had an effect she and April the giraffe both definitely had effects but don’t forget what your original argument was, ABC animals bring in visitors. And other people have said this besides me now but they’re is no way for you to measure with just likes or follows because social media marketing has different effects on people and some don’t even realize they’re being marketed to. Arguing this is futile when you still have no evidence that specifically ABC animals bring in visitors. You have only proven that these things entirely depend on how zoos market their animals not which animals zoos market.

 

[Great Argus]

I think you misunderstand zoo social media and how social media is used. On their accounts zoos do two things: they either post to their account or post advertisements to pop up on other peoples pages. When they only post on their account they aren’t marketing to anyone, only thing they are doing for marketing is getting fans of the zoo to visit.

Ok so originally say that they aren't marketing.

And other people have said this besides me now but they’re is no way for you to measure with just likes or follows because social media marketing has different effects on people and some don’t even realize they’re being marketed to. Arguing this is futile when you still have no evidence that specifically ABC animals bring in visitors. You have only proven that these things entirely depend on how zoos market their animals not which animals zoos market.

And now you're saying they are marketing? There's an increasing amount of holes in your argument the longer you drag this out. You've contradicted yourself and discredited data.
And from having experience in a zoo, I can guarantee you there are animals that people care about far more than others when it comes to attracting guests. If you're a small zoo, and you've got a tiger and then a bunch of small birds and herps, the tiger will be the star no matter how cool your other animals are. There are animals the public is attracted to and fond of, and frankly I don't understand how you continue to suggest that ABC animals don't matter. You've even stated yourself they do bring in people, see the following quote:

They fought to keep the Orcas because Orcas bring people to the parks to buy tickets, go watch a show, buy things like blankets and Hot Cocoa (which is wildly overpriced). The Orcas generate revenue, Orcas that do tricks create revenue which is why the entire SeaWorld Orca family tree is based on the original trainable Orca Shamu

You're literally describing exactly what you're arguing against in that quote!

 

[TinoPup]

Now I do see them suggesting baby animals, which I suggested earlier myself, but I see nothing on popular ABC species. Do you mean popular individuals? Saying only ABC animals can be the big stars of zoos like Fiona is like saying you can never make an amazing exhibit with a bullfrog. Or like saying no matter what Dolphins will always be seen as pests who bane the lives of fishermen, they could never ever be seen as cute or cudly no matter what. Your telling me no child would ever think of Guars as cool if they were told Guars have been nicknamed the “tiger killers”. Every animal has a chance to be charismatic it just depends on how you market it. Now I don’t doubt Fiona had an effect she and April the giraffe both definitely had effects but don’t forget what your original argument was, ABC animals bring in visitors. And other people have said this besides me now but they’re is no way for you to measure with just likes or follows because social media marketing has different effects on people and some don’t even realize they’re being marketed to. Arguing this is futile when you still have no evidence that specifically ABC animals bring in visitors. You have only proven that these things entirely depend on how zoos market their animals not which animals zoos market.

When did I say no one would like those species? Because I didn't. I said if Fiona had been a gaur, she wouldn't have been as popular. How many social media famous individuals do you think people can name that aren't ABC?

 

[Westcoastperson]

Ok so originally say that they aren't marketing.



And now you're saying they are marketing? There's an increasing amount of holes in your argument the longer you drag this out. You've contradicted yourself and discredited data.
And from having experience in a zoo, I can guarantee you there are animals that people care about far more than others when it comes to attracting guests. If you're a small zoo, and you've got a tiger and then a bunch of small birds and herps, the tiger will be the star no matter how cool your other animals are. There are animals the public is attracted to and fond of, and frankly I don't understand how you continue to suggest that ABC animals don't matter. You've even stated yourself they do bring in people, see the following quote:


You're literally describing exactly what you're arguing against in that quote!

Ok so maybe I need to go about more in depth with everything I say. So what I meant by they aren’t marketing is they aren’t reaching out to get non fans of the zoo. That’s why under

only thing they are doing for marketing is getting fans of the zoo to visit.

its putting the thought of the zoo into followers heads. I didn’t label it as marketing because I don’t count it as strategic marketing. There is strategy in social media but not in the same way there is strategy in making a billboard or commercial. You don’t need that strategy to get the same effect on social media because no matter what you do on social media you will still get into peoples heads. Now if you use humor or babies on social media it will have a better effect on people outside of followers. That is a strategy but I wasn’t talking about marketing to people outside of followers. You don’t need to grab the attention of followers so I didn’t use it as part of my argument. The argument was: You don’t need to grab the attention of your followers you need to grab the attention of your future followers and therefore what your followers see doesn’t have as much of an effect on attendance.
Now I’m not saying ABC animals aren’t important, they definitely are. But they have no change on wether followers of a zoos social media visit the zoo they follow. And for that reason it is ok for zoos to highlight rarer species and educate their follower base. Ya that’s what you are all arguing against by the way, zoos using social media to teach and educate people. In a time of technology where for a year people couldn’t go see zoos in person to learn you are arguing against zoos using social media to help educate fans at home. Isn’t one of the biggest purposes of zoos to educate people? @Zooplantman was right it’s futile and silly to argue about this.

 

[Zooplantman]

@Zooplantman[/USER] was right it’s futile and silly to argue about this.

Well this side argument has certainly derailed the original post!

 

[Great Argus]

Ok so maybe I need to go about more in depth with everything I say. So what I meant by they aren’t marketing is they aren’t reaching out to get non fans of the zoo. That’s why under
its putting the thought of the zoo into followers heads.

No, you don't need to go into more depth. We all understand, you just keep working the argument to avoid what we say.

I didn’t label it as marketing because I don’t count it as strategic marketing. There is strategy in social media but not in the same way there is strategy in making a billboard or commercial. You don’t need that strategy to get the same effect on social media because no matter what you do on social media you will still get into peoples heads.

Non-strategic marketing is still marketing! In many cases there is just as much marketing in social media. It usually works a bit differently than on a billboard or commercial. Which for the record I have seen many instances of zoos posting essentially mini commercials to come visit them on their social media.

That is a strategy but I wasn’t talking about marketing to people outside of followers. You don’t need to grab the attention of followers so I didn’t use it as part of my argument. The argument was: You don’t need to grab the attention of your followers you need to grab the attention of your future followers and therefore what your followers see doesn’t have as much of an effect on attendance.

This is both true and flawed at the same time. You are correct that the attention of future followers is the biggest priority. But you still need to be marketing to your current followers to keep them interested and involved.

Now I’m not saying ABC animals aren’t important, they definitely are. But they have no change on wether followers of a zoos social media visit the zoo they follow. And for that reason it is ok for zoos to highlight rarer species and educate their follower base.

Oh yes they do. Baby animals of the ABC type always bump up attendance, especially babies like elephants, giraffes, tigers, or gorillas. Fiona the hippo and April the giraffe are prime examples of this. People have become members on this site simply to ask if the park April lives at was worth visiting because they wanted to see her and the calf. Fiona had a massive following, and even now the zoo will still post updates occasionally. To suggest that baby ABCs do not prompt followers to visit is far from the truth.

Ya that’s what you are all arguing against by the way, zoos using social media to teach and educate people. In a time of technology where for a year people couldn’t go see zoos in person to learn you are arguing against zoos using social media to help educate fans at home. Isn’t one of the biggest purposes of zoos to educate people?

No, no we are not. Many zoos used social media brilliantly to provide educational content during the last year. It was equally as much marketing as many of them were also asking for donations on their social media. Many zoos do quite good educational posts, which are commonly ended by variations of "come visit and see them yourself!" They teach about the animal then encourage you to come visit, this is marketing even though a lot of people don't realize it that way. It's the same basic marketing ploy, get interest and then have the call to action.

@Zooplantman was right it’s futile and silly to argue about this

He is quite correct. Especially in this case where you are constantly tweaking and going round the bush on arguments to avoid what multiple people have been proving fairly well.

 

[Zooplantman]

So, just a reminder, the topic is "
Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out?"

Discuss

 

[elefante]

Not an AZA phase out but I wouldn't mind fewer domestic species in zoos (not counting dromedaries).

 

[JVM]

In general any species marked 'Least Concern' should probably be phased out completely for something more endangered whenever possible.

I have never been bothered by meerkats but realizing how low their conservation value is I have to agree it would make sense to phase them out of collections in favor of a more threatened mongoose species.

Polar bears are proving difficult to breed and I don't think it is worth continuing the failed program or multimillion dollar renovations for them; that said, while some zoos are replacing them with grizzlies, they are also fairly stable and do not need to be held in zoos either.

Common hippopotamus have also been a focus of multimillion dollar renovations but are low conservation need, while the smaller pygmy hippopotamus is much less needy and much more threatened and should replace them as they are phased out.

There is no need for a Malayan Tiger plan. The other two tiger plans are sufficient to cover both subspecies and the space for tigers in institutions, although sunda tigers may warrant priority for replacing the former malayan individuals.

Some zoos still hold the Brazilian lowland tapir which is absolutely unnecessary, and in some cases they still breed. The endangered Baird's tapir is much preferable.

All elephant spaces should be redirected towards either Asian or African elephant; there is no use devoting resources to both when they are very difficult to breed successfully as it is and demand a massive investment.

Plains Zebra and hybrid giraffe should be allowed to die out; I am aware the latter is being held by many zoos due to the waiting list for masai giraffe and I understand that but it feels remiss to not mention it.

Guereza should be replaced by Angolan colobus, of course.

 

[amur leopard]

There is no need for a Malayan Tiger plan. The other two tiger plans are sufficient to cover both subspecies and the space for tigers in institutions, although sunda tigers may warrant priority for replacing the former malayan individuals.

Some zoos still hold the Brazilian lowland tapir which is absolutely unnecessary, and in some cases they still breed. The endangered Baird's tapir is much preferable.

There's a fair few things that I don't agree with above, but I'm just going to focus on a few here.
Firstly, the Malayan tiger is a distinct subspecies of tiger, and is just as endangered, if not more endangered, than the other ssp. in captivity. Removing them from captivity is absolutely nonsensical, as is your apparent support of possibly one of the most ridiculous lumpings of this century.

As for the tapir argument, you are aware that the lowland tapir is vulnerable, right?

I have never been bothered by meerkats but realizing how low their conservation value is I have to agree it would make sense to phase them out of collections in favor of a more threatened mongoose species.

We've had this conversation hundreds of times on this forum, so why exactly are you bringing it up again? There is no species that could replace meerkats and still bring a zoo the same income. Not a one. The way I see it, meerkats are a god-send to zoos (massively popular species, small upkeep costs), but since most people temper their enthusiasm a little more, I'll leave it there .

 

[JVM]

There's a fair few things that I don't agree with above, but I'm just going to focus on a few here.
Firstly, the Malayan tiger is a distinct subspecies of tiger, and is just as endangered, if not more endangered, than the other ssp. in captivity. Removing them from captivity is absolutely nonsensical, as is your apparent support of possibly one of the most ridiculous lumpings of this century.

As for the tapir argument, you are aware that the lowland tapir is vulnerable, right?

I did not support the lumping of tiger subspecies at first and I believe the original thread on the matter reflected that perspective from me, but as larger institutions such as WWF have held to it, I feel that I should defer to that regardless of my own opinion on the matter. It's entirely possible, even probable, that you understand the issue better than I do.

The lowland tapir is vulnerable, baird's is endangered, the mountain tapir is critical, from what I understand. Tapirs are not ABC so supporting two programs (one South American, and the Malayan) already seems generous.

I'm not as well-informed on the other point of topic (mongoose) but it felt kind of weird to not include them alongside the more controversial takes, and I feared not mentioning them or hybrid giraffes would make it look like I was trolling.

 

[PossumRoach]

There is no species that could replace meerkats and still bring a zoo the same income. Not a one. The way I see it, meerkats are a god-send to zoos (massively popular species, small upkeep costs), but since most people temper their enthusiasm a little more, I'll leave it there

I also want to bring up that, unlike in Europe, meerkats are almost non-existent in the US private trade. So if meerkats are gone from the AZA the public has no alternative places to see meerkats if they so want to without going abroad. Not to mention them being treated as investors species by the feds so if this phase out is to happen, there is no going back without jumping through a lot of hoops.

Common hippopotamus have also been a focus of multimillion dollar renovations but are low conservation need, while the smaller pygmy hippopotamus is much less needy and much more threatened and should replace them as they are phased out.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t common hippos vulnerable and also subjected to the ivory and bushmeat trade?

 

[Great Argus]

I have never been bothered by meerkats but realizing how low their conservation value is I have to agree it would make sense to phase them out of collections in favor of a more threatened mongoose species.

I don't think any of the mongoose species are threatened, if any probably the ones that would be most difficult to get are.

Polar bears are proving difficult to breed and I don't think it is worth continuing the failed program or multimillion dollar renovations for them;

Not that hard - for the US there are other problems involved.

Common hippopotamus have also been a focus of multimillion dollar renovations but are low conservation need,

They're listed as Vulnerable - They're also not going anywhere as a widely recognized species.

hybrid giraffe should be allowed to die out; I am aware the latter is being held by many zoos due to the waiting list for masai giraffe and I understand that but it feels remiss to not mention it.

The problem is the Masai program is having difficulty getting enough surviving calves on the ground. They are slowly increasing but not as much as hoped, and the young population is skewing significantly towards males, which is not a good thing for a herding species.

 

[JVM]

I also want to bring up that, unlike in Europe, meerkats are almost non-existent in the US private trade. So if meerkats are gone from the AZA the public has no alternative places to see meerkats if they so want to without going abroad. Not to mention them being treated as investors species by the feds so if this phase out is to happen, there is no going back without jumping through a lot of hoops.

You are no doubt better researched on this topic than I am.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t common hippos vulnerable and also subjected to the ivory and bushmeat trade?

That sounds correct to me.

Perhaps I should clarify that I believe all of the species mentioned in the post are threatened, but recent events have me concerned to assume the fewest possible holders for the fewest possible species, and in that situation it is harder to justify keeping several subspecies (or related species) of the same animal even if multiple related species or subspecies are threatened, and that is what drove the logic of the previous post.

I was traditionally supportive of individual zoos with individual identities trying to support as many species as possible but recent conversations have made me more skeptical of this approach as opposed to fewer, more focused programs.

 

[Great Argus]

assume the fewest possible holders for the fewest possible species,

I'm interpreting this as basically zoos don't exist, by that wording. Any way of better clarifying? Fewest possible holders for the fewest possible species basically runs into nothing.

 

[amur leopard]

I did not support the lumping of tiger subspecies at first and I believe the original thread on the matter reflected that perspective from me, but as larger institutions such as WWF have held to it, I feel that I should defer to that regardless of my own opinion on the matter. It's entirely possible, even probable, that you understand the issue better than I do.

The tiger lump had more to do with politics than any sort of genetic evidence really. It was mostly China, Russia etc. wanting less status to be given to their individual subspecies so they could justify putting less into their conservation. At least from what I've read, there's hardly any genetic evidence backing the lump and if anything the evidence suggests Sunda and Mainland tiger could potentially be separate species. Overall, I'm most convinced by the old state of affairs, with a single species and 6 extant subspecies, but admittedly would have to read up a bit more to form a fully educated view.

The lowland tapir is vulnerable, baird's is endangered, the mountain tapir is critical, from what I understand. Tapirs are not ABC so supporting two programs (one South American, and the Malayan) already seems generous.

Mountain tapir are endangered. But either way, your second statement contradicts what you've said before in a way. You recognise there is limited space and that all tapir species are endangered, so what exactly is the problem? Baird's has an ok population in the US, lowland is doing great and Malayan isn't looking too bad either last I checked?

I'm not as well-informed on the other point of topic (mongoose) but it felt kind of weird to not include them alongside the more controversial takes, and I feared not mentioning them or hybrid giraffes would make it look like I was trolling.

If you don't agree with the view, you don't need to post it, particularly if the only intention is to tone down the earlier takes .