It is common practice in the U.K. for zoo visitors to be given the opportunity to adopt a zoo animal. For a fee they in return are given an adoption certificate, have their name displayed at their adopted animal's enclosure and are kept informed of their animals progress. This practice is not only done in zoos but also at rescue centers for horses, donkeys etc. I understand this was started in zoos during world war two by London Zoo as a way of raising funds, although I would think it was the case that you adopted the entire animal yourself. While this is a good way of engaging an interest in animals, particularly for children who for whatever reason are not in a position to own pet animals of their own, I have two reservations about this scheme which I would like to hear the views of from members. Firstly, in a zoo that is a registered charity I have no problem with this, but in the case of a zoo that exists as a purely commercial venture, I am not so sure, in particular to zoological collections that share their site with fairground rides and whose main purpose is to make money for its directors, secondly, we have recently witnessed on Zoo Chat someone coming on to enquire about the well being of a tiger that they have adopted at a commercially run zoo, they have been told by the zoo that the tiger has been sent to another collection, unfortunately nobody appears to know where this collection is. So, my question to the members is this, is animal adoption acceptable in commercially run zoos?
Adopt an animal.
- Thread starter TARZAN
- Start date
Maisie
Well-Known Member
I've adopted various birds at a few establishments, generally if the bird is a particular favourite and I think the establishment is doing a good job. I don't really care what accredtation they might or might not have as long as the animals are kept in good conditions, the staff seem to be knowledgeable and enthusiastic and they are obviously trying to do a good job with usually limited resources. I do get peeved though if I never hear anything after the initial certificate, photo etc arrived, and I think by not keeping up to date with correspondence (including sometimes renewal notices) they're missing a trick to keep potential visitors enthused, and of course to keep renewal monies coming in. However, I know that a lot of places have limited staff and feeding, cleaning etc comes before paperwork.
I agree about renewal notices. The Welsh Mountain Zoo is excellent where they are concerned, but when I adopted at Flamingo Land I used to have to chase up the documentation most years - sometimes more than once. I have an adoption at Sewerby as well as two at the WMZ and it does not send out renewal notices. As someone in the estate office said to me "we should do"!
What I really like about the scheme at the WMZ is that the package includes a chat with a keeper about the adopted animal/s. A fortnight ago I had a very good chat about "my" macaws and the other parrots.
What I really like about the scheme at the WMZ is that the package includes a chat with a keeper about the adopted animal/s. A fortnight ago I had a very good chat about "my" macaws and the other parrots.
I have no objection to animal adoption in well intentioned small bird gardens that are not registered charities, the same for Monkey World in Dorset which is also not charity registered. The objection I have is with commercially run zoological establishments which main purpose is to make large profits for its owners. How can it be correct to accept adoption money from well meaning people, some of it from the families of animal loving children, to help keep the animals in their collections when the owners of these places are millionaires who drive around in Bentley cars?, indeed, as we have recently seen, one of these places was not exactly truthful to one of their visitors when they enquired about the whereabouts of a young tiger which they had adopted.
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
I agree that adoptions at privately-run/non-charitable zoos aren't always a bad thing, many of these places do great work and the owners certainly don't make a lot of money. However, when it comes to larger commercial zoos (I'm guessing SLWAP counts as one of these, as would places like Sea World, Australia Zoo, Sea Lifes, etc), adoptions probably have no effect on animal welfare and are simply a money-making exercise. An exception would be such places that explicitly state that (some) adoption money goes to a conservation charity or similar.
I personally wouldn't adopt animals at such commercial zoos, but many people wouldn't know if the place was charitable or commercial. And while commercial adoption schemes are obviously morally-dubious at best, they are simply a profitable business practice for commercial zoos, and similar to using volunteers and having donation boxes.
I'm not sure I'd put Australia Zoo in the same box. It is overly commercial and I've never visited myself, but I gather a large proportion of the take goes to animal conservation and other worthy causes. (I could be wrong, but that is what I have always thought was the case. Perhaps not so much since Steve's death).
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
OK, I was just trying to think of a commercial zoo I'd been to, rather than just commercial aquariums and theme parks, and that was what I came up with. I'm sure a large proportion does go to conservation and I didn't mean to imply that there is anything bad about the zoo (and it certainly doesn't deserve to be lumped with SLWAP).
perhaps Zion would be a good choice as an example. Off the top of my head I can't really think of any Australian zoos that could be used, except maybe SeaWorld but they donate a huge amount to conservation apparently (at least to tiger conservation).
A very valid point there, many visitors would not know if the zoo was charitable or commercial, therefore it is up to the zoos with charitable status to make their visitors aware of this in big letters.
I used to have Gold Adoption (of an Emu) at Flamingo Land, in fact I was the zoo's first gold adopter, and the value of the benefits (including eight complimentary tickets plus keeper for a day for the adopter and a friend) far exceeded the cost of the adoption so while it in money for the zoo, the adopter was the real winner. I think that in the case of Flamingo Land at least it would be unfair to say the zoo used the adoptions merely as a way of making money - the adopter really felt a part of the zoo.