AZA accreditation requirement to set aside areas for emergency wildlife rescue?

[Zoo Visitor]

Does the AZA recommend or require that accredited zoos set aside space to be used for emergency rescue of wildlife in situations like the one we are currently seeing in the Gulf Coast?

If not, I think it should. If so, how much, and how does that work?

 

[Zooplantman]

To my knowledge, no

Why not write or call AZA directly about this?

 

[Jurek7]

I think it is impossible in practice. It would mean buying lots of land, developing it with huge cost, and not using it.

I doubt any similar institution have such requirements. Does a horse farm, or a museum, have set aside place for evacuation?

 

[Zooplantman]

Zoovisitor, are you aware of what AZA zoos are doing?

Association of Zoos and Aquariums - Rescue Efforts and Resources for Oil Spill

 

[Zoo Visitor]

More about AZA ongoing rescue efforts: Oil disaster deadly for Gulf wildlife - CNN.com

Excerpts:

... Representatives from the Association of Zoos & Aquariums visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to brief congressional staffers on the situation. Currently zoos and aquariums are diverting money from their budgets to pay for rescue and long-term rehabilitation of these animals, but the association's senior vice president, Dr. Paul Boyle, said the quick-fix funding won't last forever. ...

... Meanwhile, zoologists are keeping an uneasy lookout for a group of manatees that usually migrate into the Gulf during the summer months. The 1,200-pound mammals could be catastrophically affected, and experts are concerned about their ability to rescue and rehabilitate these enormous animals. ...

***********

Regarding the first paragraph excerpted above: This is exactly what I thought the AZA zoos would be doing. It just took a while for that to be announced.

Regarding the second paragraph excerpted above, if zoologists associated with zoos had been conducting research on manatees in captivity, they might at least be more certain about whether or not they could actually rescue and rehabilitate manatees. And they might even have developed a planned course of action which they could implement at times like this.

 

[Maguari]

Regarding the second paragraph excerpted above, if zoologists associated with zoos had been conducting research on manatees in captivity, they might at least be more certain about whether or not they could actually rescue and rehabilitate manatees. And they might even have developed a planned course of action which they could implement at times like this.

While I take your point, I think it has to be pointed out that some events just aren't predictable, and you can't (on a practical level) research everything just on the off-chance (even if, as shown recently with volcanic ash tolerances of commercial jet airliners, that leaves you not best prepared). There are many things that will have to be left untested until they're needed.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

... some events just aren't predictable, and you can't (on a practical level) research everything ... There are many things that will have to be left untested until they're needed.

Yes, I understand your point, too. But there was a time when scientists studied just for the sake of learning. The overall goal was always to learn all there is to know about everything - about the origins of our universe, about the beginnings of life on earth, about why humans and animals behave the way they do, about what humans themselves can create, about how we can affect the course of events, and so on.

It was the fascination of learning that drove them - not any particular purpose. And the result was the gathering of facts that became useful, not just in applied science fields, but even in our everyday lives.

What I want zoologists (as well as scientists in all other fields) to do is to keep gathering the facts - and as the facts are gathered, make them known to everyone else. Others can then apply the facts to problem-solving.

And, because zoos have the best resources to study animal behavior, I want them to focus on zoology (without harming the animals in any way).

 

[Maguari]

Yes, I understand your point, too. But there was a time when scientists studied just for the sake of learning. The overall goal was always to learn all there is to know about everything - about the origins of our universe, about the beginnings of life on earth, about why humans and animals behave the way they do, about what humans themselves can create, about how we can affect the course of events, and so on.

It was the fascination of learning that drove them - not any particular purpose. And the result was the gathering of facts that became useful, not just in applied science fields, but even in our everyday lives.

What I want zoologists (as well as scientists in all other fields) to do is to keep gathering the facts - and as the facts are gathered, make them known to everyone else. Others can then apply the facts to problem-solving.

And, because zoos have the best resources to study animal behavior, I want them to focus on zoology (without harming the animals in any way).

I agree entirely (and from my experience that's what drives most scientists still - the 'applied' stuff is for most of them just how they justify the funding!). But with the best will in the world there is a finite number of zoologists and a finite amount of time and money to support the research. Not everything can be done at once.

An that means that some areas will have to be neglected (for the time being, at least).

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I agree entirely (and from my experience that's what drives most scientists still - the 'applied' stuff is for most of them just how they justify the funding!). But with the best will in the world there is a finite number of zoologists and a finite amount of time and money to support the research...

So shouldn't all zoos do their part by promoting zoology as a fascinating science, and shouldn't their mission be to inspire a passion for, and a lifelong interest in zoology rather than in conservation?

Sorry ... it always comes back to the same point for me. I know I'm stuck on this. But it's where I am. And it is what I believe.

When I see my wonderful favorite zoo spending time, money, and effort on teaching visitors how people can save energy by riding a bicycle instead of driving, or how they can create their own compost for their gardens, I think, Why aren't you focusing their attention on the fascinating real live animals right there a few feet away, and trying to inspire them to want to learn everything there is to know about each one? Why are you taking any of their time while at the Zoo teaching them anything else?

It just does not make sense to me. I don't understand it. I don't agree with it. I want zoos to inspire that kind of fascination I felt as a child when I visited a zoo. The kind of fascination that made me respectful of all wildlife.

The kind of fascination that made me grow up to be an adult who has always had a very low carbon footprint, and who has always contributed whatever little bits I could toward saving animals and their habitats.

I just don't think seeing LEGO creatures or playing around with the kinds of interactive educational exhibits that are in so many zoos now would have inspired me in the same way at all.

And I definitely don't believe any of that will inspire the kind of future zoologists who will discover any real truths for us.

 

[Maguari]

So shouldn't all zoos do their part by promoting zoology as a fascinating science, and shouldn't their mission be to inspire a passion for, and a lifelong interest in zoology rather than in conservation?

YES. And I have argued this myself on these boards previously:

I'm all in favour of conservation education but what about zoological education? Immersion exhibits often overlook this but it's crucially important to an understanding of wildlife. I would suggest that this can be accomplished more readily in a taxonomic exhibit. Thus there is a role for both approaches (a mixture of the two being my ideal, see above).

(thread: http://www.zoochat.com/17/layout-schemes-do-you-prefer-zoos-125631/)



I just think it's unfair to criticise zoos for not researching manatees in particular when there are so many competing possibilities for research.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I just think it's unfair to criticise zoos for not researching manatees in particular when there are so many competing possibilities for research.

I was just using that as an example since manatees were mentioned in the article.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

YES. And I have argued this myself on these boards previously:

Good! Although, at this point, I don't quite agree with the combining of zoology and conservation. I say that because there is already so much emphasis on teaching conservation in the schools, in the news, in commercials - everywhere! But zoology is only taught well in universities and is not a required course unless a student is majoring in zoology or science, so not enough people are exposed to its wonders.

Then there is the matter of teaching about evolution, too. Zoos should not hide from that. Facts are facts, and we all need to know and understand them. And we need to keep testing and verifying them, too, of course.

(Just to clarify - I am not an atheist.)

 

[Maguari]

Good! Although, at this point, I don't quite agree with the combining of zoology and conservation. I say that because there is already so much emphasis on teaching conservation in the schools, in the news, in commercials - everywhere! But zoology is only taught well in universities

...and David Attenborough programmes.

No, I'd basically agree about the emphasis shifting too far away from pure zoology.

and is not a required course unless a student is majoring in zoology or science, so not enough people are exposed to its wonders.

Here we are into the realm of cultural differences - at a UK university the courses are completely exclusive - so a Zoology student will study zoology and small amount of closely linked subjects (ecology, chemistry, botany) but nothing else. An English Lit student would probably be able to do film modules, say, but not biology. So Zoology is not only not required if you're not a science student, it's simply no available. That's not really relevant, just an interesting sideline!

Then there is the matter of teaching about evolution, too. Zoos should not hide from that. Facts are facts, and we all need to know and understand them. And we need to keep testing and verifying them, too, of course.

(Just to clarify - I am not an atheist.)

I don't see any way of separating evolution from zoology - it's a fundamental principle of the subject in my eyes. There is another slight cultural thing with this; I get the impression that anti-evolution feeling is rather more widespread your side of the Pond than ours, so maybe this is less of an issue here. I'm also intrigued by how you feel the need to point out you're not an atheist after making a pro-evolutionary science comment - from my point of view that's not relevant. It's not something that would have crossed mind to speculate on if you hadn't brought it up.



Anyhow, fascinating discussion! I certainly share your enthusiasm for the science of zoology for its own sake, but I can see why research organisations (zoos, universities, NGOs) are biased towards 'applied' topics and conservation-related topics - that's the way to get funding.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

...
I get the impression that anti-evolution feeling is rather more widespread your side of the Pond than ours, so maybe this is less of an issue here. I'm also intrigued by how you feel the need to point out you're not an atheist after making a pro-evolutionary science comment - from my point of view that's not relevant. It's not something that would have crossed mind to speculate on if you hadn't brought it up.
.

Yes, and, as with anti-zoo sentiment, the anti-evolution people seem to speak out loudly and clearly while zoo advocates and those in favor of teaching evolution tend to keep quiet - which I think is the wrong thing to do.

I mentioned that I am not an atheist because the anti-evolutionists always assume anyone who believes that evolution is supported by facts is an atheist. So it has just become a habit for me to state that whenever I mention evolution. My opinion is that God is a scientist who created, among other things, the process of evolution. (That belief, of course, isn't acceptable with either the scientific or the religious community.)

...
Anyhow, fascinating discussion!

I agree, and I hope there will be more thought-provoking discussions here.

...
I can see why research organisations (zoos, universities, NGOs) are biased towards 'applied' topics and conservation-related topics - that's the way to get funding.

This is why I suggest that zoos should have zoologists and/or zoo enthusiasts in leadership and marketing positions. Business leaders and marketing people who don't have any scientific background just don't have the necessary passion for zoos and for zoology to make their case when seeking funding or even when trying to attract visitors. So they resort to the tried and tested business practice of changing the zoo's focus to conform to current marketing trends.

Please understand, I do not mean to imply that business people are not well-meaning. All I am saying is that they are not committed to the goal and mission I think zoos should have.