At the end of the day, ZooChat should not be considered an authoritative source of information on any particular zoo (although there are individual exceptions where we know a senior zoo staff member who posts here and can trust that what they say is accurate - but that is a minority of cases).
ZooChat is a community of enthusiasts. We are here to discuss zoos and animal conservation, not so much to provide accurate factual information about every small detail of a zoo and its operations.
The only authoritative source of information about a zoo is the zoo itself.
We need to be careful to distinguish between published and verifiable fact, and hearsay.
Hearsay (information you heard from a third party such as a staff member or volunteer at the zoo) might be incorrect or inaccurate (that person might have had the wrong information), or you may well have mis-heard or misunderstood what was said.
As in most cases, unless it has been written down by a verifiable source (eg zoo management or PR people), then it should always be taken with a grain of salt and not considered to be infallible.
The other problem is that zoos are incredibly complex operations with many staff working in many different areas, each with their own challenges - information that was correct at one point may quickly become obsolete or misleading, decisions change, circumstances change, and operational information has a finite lifespan.
I'm happy to publish facts about zoos such as where it is (they don't tend to move that quickly
), and opinions such as what people think of a zoo or exhibit. I'm also happy to publish information about the zoo which was sourced from official zoo communications (their website or other publications). But we need to be a little bit careful about publishing hearsay without recognising that it may not be accurate and acknowledging it as such.
I have very little respect for zoo staff who deliberately tell incorrect information to their visitors just to see if it shows up on the web - I think staff have a responsibility to always ensure they give the most accurate information they can (and are allowed to). I would prefer them to give no information than to give false information - I think it does them and everyone else a disservice.
I would love to see more support from zoos to ensure accurate information is published - but I am fully aware of the limitations and implications of doing so. It is something I would like and would encourage, but not something I expect - I am a realist, not an idealist.
I applaud those zoos which have the foresight and courage to engage with our community which is comprised of people who are passionate about zoos and animal conservation and who generally support the work done by zoos (even if they are critical from time to time - I see that the criticism typically comes from wanting zoos to be the best they can be).
I do not resent those zoos who choose not to engage with our community - I wish they would reconsider, but I respect their rights to operate as they see fit.
you never know it might just work but it would require a great deal of trust between all the partys concerned to make it work but it good be away forward,if the zoo`s were prepared to go down that route.
