Born Free Foundation
- Thread starter bongorob
- Start date
They seem to be claiming that 5% going into charity is a very small amount, but a huge part of ticket price goes into upkeep etc. Surely it would be better to give it as a percentage of the money left over after maintenance, food bills, medication etc. Seems pretty skewed in that respect- that's my view.
How right that is Chris.
"The vast majority of endangered species are not represented in UK zoos: 91% of threatened mammal species and 95% of threatened birds cannot be found on a day out to the zoo. Amphibians have the highest proportion of species endangered in the wild, yet are hugely under-represented in the CCZ with just 11 out of 1811 threatened species to be found."
The vast majority of endangered species includes rodents, bats, invertebrates and fishes. How is the zoo community supposed to keep and breed these in worthwile numbers?
The Amphibian Ark is will be implemented sometime this year, resulting in endangered amphibians having ex-situ conservation programmes.
"There are further areas of under-performance according to Born Free. Around a quarter of threatened species kept in the CCZ are housed in single sex groups or on their own, making breeding impossible. Only one third of the total animal species for which a captive breeding programme exists are kept by the CCZ."
The above statement shows they have no knowledge (or they want to supress knowledge) of breeding programmes. Surplus males are often kept in single sex groups, or would the Born Free Foundation rather they were culled? What about animals whose genes are over-represented? What about animals for which an unrelated mate is being obtained? What about animals whose natural lifestyle is solitary?
The worrying thing is that some of the public will fall for this propoganda.
Many zoos in the UK are spending money on in-situ conservation, a few off the top of my head are Bristol, Chester, London and Paignton. This may only be 5% of the entrance fee, but it may be a huge proportion of the money left after the deduction of running costs.
"The vast majority of endangered species are not represented in UK zoos: 91% of threatened mammal species and 95% of threatened birds cannot be found on a day out to the zoo. Amphibians have the highest proportion of species endangered in the wild, yet are hugely under-represented in the CCZ with just 11 out of 1811 threatened species to be found."
The vast majority of endangered species includes rodents, bats, invertebrates and fishes. How is the zoo community supposed to keep and breed these in worthwile numbers?
The Amphibian Ark is will be implemented sometime this year, resulting in endangered amphibians having ex-situ conservation programmes.
"There are further areas of under-performance according to Born Free. Around a quarter of threatened species kept in the CCZ are housed in single sex groups or on their own, making breeding impossible. Only one third of the total animal species for which a captive breeding programme exists are kept by the CCZ."
The above statement shows they have no knowledge (or they want to supress knowledge) of breeding programmes. Surplus males are often kept in single sex groups, or would the Born Free Foundation rather they were culled? What about animals whose genes are over-represented? What about animals for which an unrelated mate is being obtained? What about animals whose natural lifestyle is solitary?
The worrying thing is that some of the public will fall for this propoganda.
Many zoos in the UK are spending money on in-situ conservation, a few off the top of my head are Bristol, Chester, London and Paignton. This may only be 5% of the entrance fee, but it may be a huge proportion of the money left after the deduction of running costs.
Last edited:
Writhedhornbill
Well-Known Member
I just try to ignore these things. I know what good zoos are doing. They never mention Mauritius do they? Always not enough room. Take a look at Mauritus and you'll realise what a good job zoos are doing for our world. They have saved loads of animals from extiction.
My dad did part of his National Service as a radio operator in Mauritius. He did not believe the claims of de-forestation until he saw a programme where Gerald Durrell was visiting the island.
He was apalled at the damage done by man, and from then on took more interest in conservation.
Mauritius is a success, but as you say the Born Free Foundation don't want people to know.
He was apalled at the damage done by man, and from then on took more interest in conservation.
Mauritius is a success, but as you say the Born Free Foundation don't want people to know.