If we take that attitude what is the point of any intelligent interpretive material? Or for that matter any kind of sophistication or aspiration in animal exhibitry?
It's a fact the majority of visitors totally ignore the exhibit signage. That material is there for the minority that will take the time to read it and to a lesser extent for zoos to continue to justify their existance.
I have to say I agree with Dicerorhinus in this case. While Shirokuma's example has some merit, that's only because the "average zoo visitor" would look at an aye-aye and see something they have never seen (or even heard of before), that looks unlike anything they recognise. In this instance, to discover there are only a few in captivity would have some impact.
Thank you. Unfortunately from my experience the "average zoo visitor" will complain they cant see it/comment on how ugly it is or call it a squirrel, bat, monkey or even fox before moving on to the next exhibit without so much as a glance at the animals interpretive information (in fact those who do read the sign only do so when the animal is not visible to discover what it is they are missing).
It's a fact the majority of visitors totally ignore the exhibit signage. That material is there for the minority that will take the time to read it and to a lesser extent for zoos to continue to justify their existence.
If zoos don't attempt to educate and enlighten the visitors that come to see the animals how can we possibly defend their existence?
Good and inspiring signage is hard to do but not impossible! I have personally seen many zoo visitors (especially children) react very positively to good and informative signs and other educational tools.
That is a very large part of what zoos are all about and absolutely essential for the justification of their existence.
I don't dispute that but I think the average zoo visitor will have a greater sense of awe and appreciation if they know that, for example, seeing an aye-aye at Bristol Zoo is something which can only be done at three (I think) collections in the British Isles or that Sumatran tigers are significantly rarer in the wild than giant pandas.
I'm not talking about randomly assembled individual rarities, but advocating properly conveying the significance of what people are seeing and I don't think zoos do this enough.
If zoos don't attempt to educate and enlighten the visitors that come to see the animals how can we possibly defend their existence?
Good and inspiring signage is hard to do but not impossible! I have personally seen many zoo visitors (especially children) react very positively to good and informative signs and other educational tools.
That is a very large part of what zoos are all about and absolutely essential for the justification of their existence.
Don't get me wrong having educational (and fun/interactive) educational material infront of an exhibit is important. The point I am trying to make is that post visitors pay little attention to it.
Perhaps I am in the minority here but I believe zoos have a valid reson to persist as a from of entertainment alone. Any education/conservation is just a bonus.
Don't get me wrong having educational (and fun/interactive) educational material infront of an exhibit is important. The point I am trying to make is that post visitors pay little attention to it..
More visitors learn from signs than you might think. Zoos that do evaluations of the visitors' response to their education messages have mostly learned that the general visitor comes away better informed about the animal, its habitat and conservation issues. At least that is the case in the US. I don't know about the UK or elsewhere.
That is not to say that a great many visitors do not learn a thing at the zoo... but they ought not to define our goal.
Perhaps I am in the minority here but I believe zoos have a valid reson to persist as a from of entertainment alone. Any education/conservation is just a bonus.
The zoos themselves do not see it that way. Their mission includes conservation and education. Most zoo employees today (especially curators and keepers) feel that they are doing something positive towards conserving Nature. Without that belief they would be less motivated. (Again, I know this to be true in North America but perhaps it is not so elsewhere? Others on the Forum could speak to that.)
Besides, given the state of the world, if zoos did not do whatever they can to educate the voting, shopping public then who would fill that niche as well?
I don't begrudge you or anyone having a great time at the zoo. What could be better? But if all one gets from a zoo is that Nature is here for our entertainment then modern zoos have failed miserably.
-That is not the case for the Jentink's. Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville TX, was the first and only zoo in the world to breed them successfully back in the 70's. As far I know, a virus affecting horses called 'equine encephalitis'
was threatening to spread across the US border in the 80's, and the Zoo had requested to get the vaccine for its live stock, they got denied since it had officially not entered the country. Unfortunately the virus did spread and it decimated the
Jentink's population, with how many i'm not sure! Either way, now there is only one male left in captivity (in the whole world) and he is going on 14 years, and they live on average to be 10 to 15, with one reaching 20.
This was told to me by Zoo Director, Dr Patrick M Burchfield!
Speaking of inspiring and interesting signage, in the Cincinnati Zoo's new exhibit,Night Hunters, they are installing special programs where guests can create their own information signs for the cat species on exhibit that will be presented on rotation at that species's exhibit.
