As I said, zoos do serve education in a non-obvious way. People may depict them as a fun fact, size comparison and fun animal experiences. San Diego is known for that, e.g. why it’s so popular
Conservation vs Education vs Entertainment
- Thread starter Andrew Swales
- Start date
As I said, zoos do serve education in a non-obvious way. People may depict them as a fun fact, size comparison and fun animal experiences. San Diego is known for that, e.g. why it’s so popular
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
More school kids take 'field trips' to theme parks than they do to zoos, where there can be no educational content at all. Trips to zoos may have an educational handle (an excuse if you want to be blunt) but they are still foremost recreational. Of course they can combine both, but most private trips and many school trips are done for recreational purposes primarily.
San Diego is extremely popular because of their incredible marketing team, not because of their educational signs or animal experiences.
You have a very limited definition of what education is that you are arguing from here.
Last edited:
Schools often tend to educational trips rather than theme parks. Here, only secondary schools do a end-of-the-year trip to theme parks. Aside from that they often book trips related to the subject. My biology class go on trips to the zoo, botanical gardens, geography often go to Dynamic Earth
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Whether you know it or not, or accept it or not - MANY primary school teachers (not secondary school ones) still look foremost for an end-of-term, or special-treat school trip. The reason for the trip is very often just that, a day out, and they are really not bothered where they go. When the decision has been made, then the trip will be 'justified', and the educational content will come into play, and the teacher making the decision will have to deal with the head-teacher, the budget and the parents...
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are schools trips for then? Education is not just served by a textbook, it comes in a various forms
Last edited by a moderator:
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Not me David, but UK law defines this. 'Education' is no longer defined as the general education (directly or by absorbing information) of the public by what we would call 'normal' zoo means, ie graphics, labels, interpretation, guide-books, keeper and docent talks etc; this was the case until legislative changes, but now we have to have formal education programmes, education staff and classrooms - this is what the law now defines as 'education'. It is not my definition.
You’re actually choosing UK law’s definition over society’s definition. Zoos base their designs and education in mind of society. You seem biased towards normal society. Sometimes we need to open our minds to society’s views
Are we including the form of education in which a visitor (most of the time a child) is so profoundly impacted by their visit that they decide to persuade their parents to donate to the cause or even become involved in the cause in later life, perhaps becoming a zookeeper or a conservationist?
Think it’s the first one, however this thread has became a ‘How zoos work’ rather than ‘Zoos and their purposes’.
Put it this way - there are many places which people visit in their spare time for the sole purpose of enjoyment/recreation but precious few, if any, which people visit for the sole purpose of education.
Even those for whom education is a major factor in the zoos and museums they visit do so, I suspect, because they obtain enjoyment/recreation from the act of educating themselves. A zoo which no one enjoys is a dead zoo, but a zoo which provides no education but a lot of enjoyment is generally a successful zoo!
Even those for whom education is a major factor in the zoos and museums they visit do so, I suspect, because they obtain enjoyment/recreation from the act of educating themselves. A zoo which no one enjoys is a dead zoo, but a zoo which provides no education but a lot of enjoyment is generally a successful zoo!
I think that a zoo's purpose has certainly shifted from almost entirely leisure (and a bit of research for the zoologists) to a more conservation and education-centred standpoint though of course they need to attract visitors to fulfil these messages and help in terms of conservation. Of course, the primary of objective of a zoo is to attract visitors, hence why many present themselves as a 'fun day out' rather than 'you're going to learn tons', and then using the money earned, they can contribute to conservation efforts both in and ex situ as well as add informational posters, graphics and signage around the zoo.
Can you think of any examples? Perhaps a zoo that consistently flaunts regulations by condoning rides on elephants, tiger shows etc. ?
Zoos without any fun modules, really. Joe Exotic’s park is hugely popular despite its lack of education and dangerous experiences. But they were successful with visitors but not with animals (feeding them expired meats and cohabiting in small enclosures)
Doesn't that contradict to your previous argument?
No, I was explaining to @amur leopard about TLD’s mention of dry zoos that are successful. My point still stands, however Joe Exotic often overemphasises big cats, making some people mistakenly think that coming face-to-face with tigers is okay if they are young or have been trained. That is a big mistake, as these animals can be provoked, with terrible consequences
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Quite honestly the question itself is a bit of a misnomer because you cannot have (true / meaningful) conservation without education in zoos , National parks, or indeed in-situ field projects. The two are inseparable and should be viewed holistically as in the overwhelming majority of cases they are absolutely not mutually exclusive.
That said , @Andrew Swales made a good and valid point when he suggested that recreation is a necessary precondition for both within the context of zoos.
Again , the key here is that each component cannot be viewed in isolation but has to be seen holistically.
That said , @Andrew Swales made a good and valid point when he suggested that recreation is a necessary precondition for both within the context of zoos.
Again , the key here is that each component cannot be viewed in isolation but has to be seen holistically.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Did you actually read what you'd written before posting it?
You’re actually choosing UK law’s definition over society’s definition.
Yes of course I am - what relevance is 'societies definition' (or what does this even mean) if it is illegal?
Zoos base their designs and education in mind of society.
What?
You seem biased towards normal society.
mmmm....
Last edited by a moderator:
Most conservationists understand 'education' and 'conservation' in much too narrow sense.
Modern people need reminding that wild animals exist at all, and need to be encouraged to support conservation projects. Otherwise conservation laws would be abolished, reserves degraded or not created, and species would go extinct. The support for conservation cannot be taken for granted.
Modern society could function without animals and entertain themselves by fantasy theme parks and computer-generated films. And perhaps eat soy-based food and congratulate themselves that farm animals don't suffer because they don't exist.
Business spends huge sums to position and promote image of brands or activities in society. The zoos still do not understand they do, and should, promote a brand image of wildlife in society. I never seen this thinking acknowledged, nor evaluated by impact on conservation.
One could compare a zoo breeding a baby of an endangered species an equivalent of a sale of a box of a product, but the zoo showing wildlife to people an equivalent of a marketing or PR campaign in a large scale. Both are necessary but function on different levels.
Modern people need reminding that wild animals exist at all, and need to be encouraged to support conservation projects. Otherwise conservation laws would be abolished, reserves degraded or not created, and species would go extinct. The support for conservation cannot be taken for granted.
Modern society could function without animals and entertain themselves by fantasy theme parks and computer-generated films. And perhaps eat soy-based food and congratulate themselves that farm animals don't suffer because they don't exist.
Business spends huge sums to position and promote image of brands or activities in society. The zoos still do not understand they do, and should, promote a brand image of wildlife in society. I never seen this thinking acknowledged, nor evaluated by impact on conservation.
One could compare a zoo breeding a baby of an endangered species an equivalent of a sale of a box of a product, but the zoo showing wildlife to people an equivalent of a marketing or PR campaign in a large scale. Both are necessary but function on different levels.
Last edited: