The title sums up a thought I have been having in my head recently -
I believe that I am younger than a fair chunk of the members here - part of the 21st-century chunk of the Z-Generation.
I find that, in the wake of the well-known zoo directors of yesteryear dying off, several collections in my proximity have become, as they are often described, 'shadows of their previous selves' - John Aspinall and Knowles, Gerald Durell have all since gone to meet each other at the gracious dinner party in the clouds ... and their respective collections [Howletts+Port Lympne, Marwell, and Jersey] have all seemingly dropped their former diversity in favour of pandering to the less-animal inclined generation of social media and mommy blogs - Marwell had two playgrounds in 2005 - now it has seven. Jersey Zoo is not the 'treasure trove' it once was under Durell's reigns, and the son of John Aspinall, Damian, I feel lacks the need for further elucidation on this forum. In my opinion, anyways.
And so, with this inclination to the biggest denominator, I find myself having to rather 'diversify' my options - find myself at places like Wildkatzenzentrum Felidae or Zoo Berlin - both very nice places to be in my opinion, though I can't help but wonder whether the need was there 20 years ago. There is, amongst said big denominator, little need for zoos to start holding X more species of small carnivore or Y more species of antelope - if you can charge for it and it is legal, people will come and pay. And, in Damian's case, if you have relations with political figures, then your elephant death-sentence will be applauded by tabloid stations nationwide! The same tabloids that would have you believe that there is some black panther or other lurking every county of Britain.
I also hope, perhaps, to visit the 'wild' some day, to see various species of animals I have made it my life-dreams to see. But, in the wake of rapid habitat destruction and ever-ongoing indifference by those in power to do much of anything, I worry that when I am able to see the wild, I will be met with the cry of 'if only you had came here 20 years before!' I also am of the belief that zoos and other such institutions are at a position of power to control public perception of biodiversity - yet few zoos actually speak up, they are drowned out by the less-informed.
The general public, in my eyes, does not care about biodiversity. Advertising campaigns will have them care strongly for big-name species such as orangutans or polar bears - which I appreciate are species in need of assistance in their natural situation - but, as for everything else? Not quite so much. Greenpeace campaigns help people care about large whales - but never the thousands of other species in the ocean in need of efforts of preservation. And so, here again - zoos are able to play a role in assisting public perception! I have seen, at Marwell, children reading the signs at the Desert antelope house about the threats Addax face in the wild - and being distressed that the beautiful animals in front of them, in the wild, are being killed! You would be lucky to ever see an addax star in a television campaign! But, again, zoos tend to be inclined towards the 'attraction' route as opposed to being 2-fifths attraction and 3-fifths biodiversity library. If the general public cared about biodiversity, in my eyes, there would be a strong backlash against pet big cats portrayed as 'wholesome' on social media. I recall a while back there was a campaign against elephant-based activities being flaunted on social media, the public naturally followed - but, if there were no campaign, I feel a few more elephants would be in a stagnant position.
I feel, that in a world where cats and dogs are the most abundant animals on the internet, the general public has much been hushed about the 'everything else'. Zoos do some degree of effort to show the 'everything else', but I feel, not quite enough. I worry, that had I been born some decades ago, I could relish in some more zoological treasures than I am able to today.
I hope my rambling was tolerable....
I believe that I am younger than a fair chunk of the members here - part of the 21st-century chunk of the Z-Generation.
I find that, in the wake of the well-known zoo directors of yesteryear dying off, several collections in my proximity have become, as they are often described, 'shadows of their previous selves' - John Aspinall and Knowles, Gerald Durell have all since gone to meet each other at the gracious dinner party in the clouds ... and their respective collections [Howletts+Port Lympne, Marwell, and Jersey] have all seemingly dropped their former diversity in favour of pandering to the less-animal inclined generation of social media and mommy blogs - Marwell had two playgrounds in 2005 - now it has seven. Jersey Zoo is not the 'treasure trove' it once was under Durell's reigns, and the son of John Aspinall, Damian, I feel lacks the need for further elucidation on this forum. In my opinion, anyways.
And so, with this inclination to the biggest denominator, I find myself having to rather 'diversify' my options - find myself at places like Wildkatzenzentrum Felidae or Zoo Berlin - both very nice places to be in my opinion, though I can't help but wonder whether the need was there 20 years ago. There is, amongst said big denominator, little need for zoos to start holding X more species of small carnivore or Y more species of antelope - if you can charge for it and it is legal, people will come and pay. And, in Damian's case, if you have relations with political figures, then your elephant death-sentence will be applauded by tabloid stations nationwide! The same tabloids that would have you believe that there is some black panther or other lurking every county of Britain.
I also hope, perhaps, to visit the 'wild' some day, to see various species of animals I have made it my life-dreams to see. But, in the wake of rapid habitat destruction and ever-ongoing indifference by those in power to do much of anything, I worry that when I am able to see the wild, I will be met with the cry of 'if only you had came here 20 years before!' I also am of the belief that zoos and other such institutions are at a position of power to control public perception of biodiversity - yet few zoos actually speak up, they are drowned out by the less-informed.
The general public, in my eyes, does not care about biodiversity. Advertising campaigns will have them care strongly for big-name species such as orangutans or polar bears - which I appreciate are species in need of assistance in their natural situation - but, as for everything else? Not quite so much. Greenpeace campaigns help people care about large whales - but never the thousands of other species in the ocean in need of efforts of preservation. And so, here again - zoos are able to play a role in assisting public perception! I have seen, at Marwell, children reading the signs at the Desert antelope house about the threats Addax face in the wild - and being distressed that the beautiful animals in front of them, in the wild, are being killed! You would be lucky to ever see an addax star in a television campaign! But, again, zoos tend to be inclined towards the 'attraction' route as opposed to being 2-fifths attraction and 3-fifths biodiversity library. If the general public cared about biodiversity, in my eyes, there would be a strong backlash against pet big cats portrayed as 'wholesome' on social media. I recall a while back there was a campaign against elephant-based activities being flaunted on social media, the public naturally followed - but, if there were no campaign, I feel a few more elephants would be in a stagnant position.
I feel, that in a world where cats and dogs are the most abundant animals on the internet, the general public has much been hushed about the 'everything else'. Zoos do some degree of effort to show the 'everything else', but I feel, not quite enough. I worry, that had I been born some decades ago, I could relish in some more zoological treasures than I am able to today.
I hope my rambling was tolerable....
