Let me guess either meerkat, banded mongoose, or dwarf mongoose.
Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out?
- Thread starter 15399
- Start date
Basically giving zoos a wider variety of species to use for exhibits. I’m sorry sometimes my grammar gets a little odd when I type for too long.
I completely forgot about meerkats so all three. And I don’t see how Banded or Dwarf mongoose are bad. But is that not good enough for you? Do you need more than three species in one area? Or are they just not rare enough?
I don’t have anything against those species. Hell one of the zoos I want to visit the most has 4-5 mongoose species including the three species in question. It’s just that those are the only species that could be kept in the United States because of the one size fits all restriction on importing mongooses. If many zoos tried doing this, it would be redundant. Meerkat, banded, dwarf. Meerkat, banded, dwarf. Meerkat, banded, dwarf. Unless any zoo has the willpower to import a new mongoose species (even one as common as yellow mongoose), I don’t think having the same three species is the most interesting thing zoos could ever do.
And while I am not the person who thinks that zoos have to be these noble facilities who will save wildlife, these three species are considerably common and are taking space away from something different or an animal in need of conservation activities.
This is all under the assumption zoos will want all three. Although I guess I would like to see one Asian mongoose species I think the amount we have now are enough.
Completely disagree, from a conservation standpoint. Keeping them near each other allows for easier transfer and breeding; minimum travel time is a factor when making ssp recommendations, due to stress on the animal, cost of travel, permits required, etc.
Yes, Thomson's Gazelle is LC; downgraded from NT at latest assessment in 2018. However if you read the full assessment, population study is highly recommended as the species has been declining and there is concern they may quantify for a higher listing. They are restricted to Kenya and Tanzania, which is also listed as a concern in the assessment. So I would argue Thomson's indeed has some conservation value.
Far as Spekes and Sommering, they did lose the SSP but are still being managed. Bit confusing with the new SSP/TAG system but they haven't been completely dropped. However Spekes and Sommering are struggling to hold their populations, both of which are much smaller than Thomson's. Due to legal restrictions on importing ruminants, bringing fresh stock in to bolster them is very unlikely. Hopefully the institutions working with them can turn them around, we'll have to wait and see.
I think if the crux of your argument that more diversity is important for education, your conclusions are going to be flawed. A zoo can hold 500 species and do absolutely nothing to educate visitors about them; alternatively, a zoo can hold nothing but five brown bears and a bullfrog and have visitors walking away with a completely changed perspective of their relationship with nature. The two aren't necessarily correlated, and I fail to see the inherent educational value in one zoo holding a different species than another.
That's not two ways, that's three examples - not really enough to claim there's a trend across 200+ facilities.
Additionally, the LA and SD examples are moot because those zoos have been holding and breeding those species for a while.
But they do and they are, so I'm still not sure why you think there is a problem. In any case, why does there need to be a culture shift to support rarer species if there isn't a proven need for rarer species in the first place?
I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it's entirely plausible that rarer species get fewer likes and less positive media attention than ABC animals - which would make promoting them a poor marketing strategy were that the case.
As has been noted by @Julio C Castro and @Great Argus, I think you may be overblowing or misinterpreting the rearrangement of how AZA programs are run. To be honest I'm confused by the new system, but when I was reading through the new ungulate recommendations it was not clear to me at all that they were de-prioritizing all or even most of the species that were losing SSPs. It appears to be more of a logistical change than a plan to erase most ungulates in captivity; if it were, we'd be losing a heck of a lot more than just some caprids and gazelles.
In any case, there are dozens of TAGs covering all taxonomic groups; you can't extrapolate what's going on across the board from just the information you have on ungulates (which frankly were always robustly represented species-wise compared to other groups, a situation which was perhaps never sustainable to begin with).
Neither zoos nor the AZA get to "choose" which species thrive in captivity. Some species just breed better in captivity than others, have better starting genetics than others, have fewer health problems than others, etc. I agree that, all things being equal, more threatened species should be prioritized over more common species... but the variables are hardly if ever equal.
My argument is more diversity of species in zoos not specifically rarer species. Your correct this entirely depends on how good the education actually is. What I am saying is it’s easier to educate people about the gobi desert with species from the Gobi desert. And if zoos are given these species from different parts of the world there will be more diversity of areas and ecosystems represented in zoos.
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. And seeing a Chinese Goral or seeing a Giraffe isn’t going to change that. What changes that are things like funny photos, baby’s, or just putting the idea of the zoo in the viewers head. It isn’t marketing it’s simply highlighting the zoo for fans or followers. And advertisements aren’t meant to be educational, they’re just meant to bring people to the zoo so I honestly couldn’t give a damn what kind of animals they highlight there. So social media isn’t entirely about likes for zoos (and just in general).
But do you need a higher quantity of ecosystems represented to make people appreciate or learn about nature, wildlife, and conservation? And do you specifically need species from one region of the world to teach a conservation message about it? Similar ecosystems across the world often face the same threats and challenges. The point of flagship species is to represent ecosystems and lesser-known species in a popular and efficient way.
"Getting fans of the zoo to visit" and "highlighting the zoo for fans or followers" are just other ways of saying "marketing" with more words
they still have the same objectives of wanting to encourage people to come visit the animals in person and spending money in the process - either through tickets, memberships, or donations. Why else would they have social media accounts and be hiring people to run them? And if more well-known or popular species accomplish those marketing objectives, then that's probably what zoos should be doing (again, I have no idea if this is the case or not).
Similarly, the above quote is most certainly not a post on Zoochat; it is merely text which was uploaded by yourself to a website which happens to be called Zoochat
It is indeed:
On SDZ's instagram, posts showing non-megafauna received on average 11,000 likes. Posts showing megafauna received on average 20,000 likes (almost twice as much).
On Chester's instagram, posts showing non-megafauna received on average 7,000 likes. Posts showing megafauna received on average 14,000 likes (twice as much).
On Beauval's instagram, posts showing non-megafauna received on average 6,000 likes. Posts showing megafauna received on average 11,000 likes (almost twice as much).
Zoos seem to have noticed this and adjusted their counts to suit it, particularly Beauval, for whom only 1 in 5 posts shows a megafauna species while 3 in 5 posts show megafauna. The same trend, but less noticeably, can be seen on the other instagram accounts.
In conclusion, posts showing megafauna do certainly receive significantly (on average almost twice as many) likes as posts showing non-megafauna. Furthermore zoos now post fewer images of non-megafauna in comparison to images of of megafauna to compensate for this.
That is why I said it’s not that big of a problem. It isn’t a dire need for zoos to have these species, it will contribute to education but it isn’t currently hurting zoos. The lack of Gobi or Andes exhibits in zoos isn’t stopping people from appreciating them, zoos can put up informational signs about these areas without having any species. It just makes it so much easier when you have animals from those regions.
I’m not saying those likes actually correlate with the visitation of zoos. The reality is liking a post doesn’t correlate with who visits a zoo because likes themselves don’t reflect peoples opinions on the institutions just the photo they are seeing. I know many people here post on the media forums so what gets the most amount of likes? Generally (generally) the posts that receive many likes are those that are taken well of animals up close. It doesn’t reflect how people feel about that institution or if they want to visit that institution, some of them don’t even like the post. It’s just a representation of a handful of people who see a photo they enjoy and liking it to reflect their opinion to the poster. It doesn’t mean they will or won’t be visiting that Zoo it just means they enjoy the post.
But is that all they do? Go ahead and read some captions of some posts. Not all of them are about getting people to visit, some are educational and informational. And some posts even are infographics and some explain things like conservation status or wild threats."Getting fans of the zoo to visit" and "highlighting the zoo for fans or followers" are just other ways of saying "marketing" with more words
Posts don't need to be specifically about visiting the zoo in order to have that purpose. The educational and informational posts also have that end goal, along with educating people about conservation and things like that (which hey, you can learn more about at the zoo, too!). The entire point of having social media accounts is to bring in visitors. The bigger zoos hire staff just to run them, and those employees are trained in marketing. Likes and follows DO translate to visits. It's certainly not 1 for 1, just like an artist's social media doesn't get a sale for each like. But it gets them a lot more sales than none at all.
Oh I’m not doubting it helps as I said earlier it’s all about getting the thought of the zoo in someone’s head no matter what they post. I was just saying it’s not all about getting people to visit some zoos and aquariums do still use their accounts for education and to bring in visitors. But I don’t think there is a correlation or causation effect between likes and visits. Because people don’t always like posts because they want to visit, as I said it’s probably just because they like the photo. And not everyone who wants to go to the zoo because of the posts will like those posts. It’s not something you can measure by just looking at likes. Social media does have an effect on people but likes are not an accurate way of measuring how much of an effect it has. And educational posts or rarer animal posts don’t have any effect on people who visit.
Do you have any studies backing any of this up, or are you just assuming?
I thought it was general knowledge. Some people don’t like posts, some like posts because their funny, others like every single post no matter what the content is. It’s just not an accurate data system because of the variables.
Yes, some people do that. But those likes turn into real visitors. Here's some stats for you:
- Cinci made a post about Fiona every single day. That consistent content resulted in a 20% increase in attendance her first year, a huge percentage for an already popular zoo. They also made $480,000 from merchandising agreements, which they continue to do (Zoos and Social Media – The Marriott Student Review).
- The Museum of English Life really started using social media in 2018. Their funny posts gave them a jump from 9.7k followers to 143k. This caused a 47% increase in visitors that same year (Social Media Strategy for Museums: Reaching a Younger Audience Online | tiqets.com, How Museums Can Use Social Media?).
A quote from that last article: "Neither Tate or the American Museum of Natural History share a lot of social media post that look like adverts designed to sell tickets to exhibitions or events.
However some in your organisation might encourage you to use social media for this.
One analogy to use to push back against this would be to compare social media to a cocktail party. Nobody would walk up to a stranger at a cocktail party and say, ‘Hey, I’m Dave. Buy my stuff.’
Like a cocktail party, social media platforms are a social space. Take time to build relationships, create content that brings value to those who read it and people will naturally want to spend time with you."
Sprout Social's guide for museums goes in depth into ways places can create engaging content, which translates into in-person visitors (which then share content on their own media), as well as gift shop buys and related things. The Ultimate Social Media for Museums Guide
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.
I’ll come up with some actual data when I can get back home to my laptop but in the meantime:
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 (?).
As for your verbal points, there is absolutely a correlation between number of followers on social media and number of visitors, I’ll give you data on that when I can procure myself a laptop and a wifi connection. I do see vaguely what you are trying to say with ‘baseline’ likes but the truth is, the more followers generally, the more likes each zoo post gets. 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.