Does Conservation = Cash?

[Steve Robinson]

A comment from ptig along the lines of .... it would be great to see more Aussie zoos contribute to conservation according to their means ...... got me thinking.

Is a zoo's contribution to conservation only judged by the amount of money that it raises?

By what other criteria could [or should] a zoo's contribution to conservation be judged?

 

[torie]

Well yes. Money is the only tangable way of comparing programs.
If you want to look at zoos individually and their contribution the only real way to do that is to compare funds raised, its impossible to say well my sign at zoo A is more interesting than the sign at zoo B therefore I make a bigger impact to conservation.

The only other measure I can think of would be releases back in to the wild and for the majority of animals at the moment this is yet to be at a level that any one can really claim to be saving the world.

So in the case of conservation money makes the world go round

 

[redpanda]

A comment from ptig along the lines of .... it would be great to see more Aussie zoos contribute to conservation according to their means ...... got me thinking.

Is a zoo's contribution to conservation only judged by the amount of money that it raises?

By what other criteria could [or should] a zoo's contribution to conservation be judged?

Well, so few visitors read signs (and those that do are probably interested already) so inspiring the public is not really a criteria and there are hardly any zoos which take captive breeding for reintroduction seriously so yes, money raised is really the only way to compare the contribution of zoos toward conservation. Having said that, I also think that the causes that are donated to should be taken into account. As such, a zoo which supports a program to research a little known Costa Rican Frog should be commended more than one that only donates to programmes involving Giant Pandas and Asian Elephants

 

[Sun Wukong]

Well yes. Money is the only tangable way of comparing programs.

I don't agree with this generalising statement. What's the good of tons of cash earned when they are invested in useless and impractical projects and in the end all fizzles out without any positive result?
When a zoo is able to earn a lot of money for conservation purposes, then congrats, well done. However, this money should then not be invested in a "Meerkat Conservation Breeding Centre", a "conservation" adventure fun ride at the zoo or fill the pockets of some mandarins.

I would evaluate the success of a conservation program on its organisation, traceability, ratio of money invested/goals reached, practicability, professionalism of the staff involved and last but not least long-term practical efficiency of the results so far, i.e. has there been any clear breeding success? Was a sustainable population established, in particular in the original habitat? Have all important aspects (f.e. veterinary control of possible re-introduced diseases) been considered? Could the circumstances leading to the downfall of the original wild population be determinded and resolved, or at least contained? Are there practicable ideas and programms for the future? etc.

I would like to reply to redpanda's constantly repeated complaints about visitors not reading zoo signs by reminding of what Bernhard Grzimek remarked about this aspect years ago: even if only one out of 10.000 zoo visitors each day reads the signs and learns something, this will sum up to quite a bunch of people on the long run. And by intensifying the efforts to get the other 9.999, the general quality of modern zoos in terms of teaching and raising awareness increases.

Regarding the Costa Rican frog example: it is impossible for zoos to save all species; the "ark" is already full to the brink. By concentrating on certain keystone species and making the in-situ protection of their natural habitats a priority, a lot more species of animals and plants can be "saved", without dissipating one's energies on too many projects. This doesn't, however, mean that lesser known endangered species should be left out in the rain, quite the contrary; a certain focus, based on factual and practical aspects, should be applied, like in the EDGE program of the ZSL. For me, a small zoo investing all it can in a solid, working conservation program of one or two lesser known, yet highly endangered species might do more good than a big zoo spending a lot of money on all too many inefficient programs for already well-presented species.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Is a zoo's contribution to conservation only judged by the amount of money that it raises?

By what other criteria could [or should] a zoo's contribution to conservation be judged?

I believe a zoo's contributions to conservation should be:

(1) Creating exhibits that showcase all the fascinating wildlife species on earth in such a way that everyone who sees them will be inspired to live a lifestyle that will not in any way contribute to habitat destruction or wildlife endangerment.

(2) Directing all who visit to sources of information on how to live that kind of lifestyle and on how to contribute either time or money to specific conservation projects. These sources include libraries, schools, universities, wildlife conservation agencies and environmental centers.

Number one can be assessed by tracking the number of visitors who have received the information provided by Number two.

Number two can be assessed by the number of inquiries and the participation at the places that provide further information.

However, I don't believe zoos should have to be evaluated based on measurable contributions to conservation. I believe that sense of awe that humans feel when they are in the presence of wildlife is the first step, and therefore the foundation for all conservation efforts.

And that can not be measured. But it can be sensed. And the results can be seen.

 

[redpanda]

I believe a zoo's contributions to conservation should be:

(1) Creating exhibits that showcase all the fascinating wildlife species on earth in such a way that everyone who sees them will be inspired to live a lifestyle that will not in any way contribute to habitat destruction or wildlife endangerment.

(2) Directing all who visit to sources of information on how to live that kind of lifestyle and on how to contribute either time or money to specific conservation projects. These sources include libraries, schools, universities, wildlife conservation agencies and environmental centers.

Number one can be assessed by tracking the number of visitors who have received the information provided by Number two.

Number two can be assessed by the number of inquiries and the participation at the places that provide further information.

However, I don't believe zoos should have to be evaluated based on measurable contributions to conservation. I believe that sense of awe that humans feel when they are in the presence of wildlife is the first step, and therefore the foundation for all conservation efforts.

And that can not be measured. But it can be sensed. And the results can be seen.

Lovely as this view is, it simply does not work in reality. Surveys have shown that the average time visitors spend at each exhibit is less than a minute, this would suggest that the vast majority have no such "sense of awe" and simply go to the zoo to see the "funny monkeys" (which are actually gorillas). As such, how can you even suggest that they encourage "everyone who sees" their animals to live their life a different way, they can't even get visitors to spend a minute at each exhibit for god's sake!

As for number 2, how many visitors do you suppose read signs? I would say 2 or 3% is a more than generous estimate and, as I said earlier, these are mostly people who are already interested. As such, how can zoos hope to direct visitors to other sources of information when they won't even bother to read what is in front of them? On top of that, it's fair to assume that most zoo-goers don't even know what the species they are looking at is called (just look at the thread 'General Zoo Miconceptions' if you don't believe me), so would you mind enlightening me on how they are supposed to find out about that animal elsewhere, because I'm pretty sure "the spotty one next to the monkeys" (again, actually gorillas) won't yield very much in a Google search!

To me, this whole "zoos inspire their visitors to help with conservation" is just an idealistic ploy which rather conveniently gives them a purpose for keeping animals in captivity and (in the vast majority of cases) is simply not true in the real world.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Lovely as this view is, it simply does not work in reality. .

I can't think of any great advances in science, in technology, in medicine, in art, or in anything else that resulted from thinking like that.

Surveys have shown that the average time visitors spend at each exhibit is less than a minute, this would suggest that the vast majority have no such "sense of awe" ... As such, how can you even suggest that they encourage "everyone who sees" their animals to live their life a different way, they can't even get visitors to spend a minute at each exhibit for god's sake!
.

Two problems with this:

1. I don't believe those studies included measures of how quickly visitors moved past exhibits during the less crowded seasons. My observations indicate those who visit in the late fall and winter spend much more time at exhibits and do indeed feel a sense of awe when they are in a quiet, conducive-to-feeling-a-sense-of-awe environment.

2. It is true that many visitors move past exhibits quickly during the peak attendance seasons. But the solution is that zoos have to do a better job of providing the kinds of exhibit viewing areas that encourage visitors to "relax and stay awhile" even when the zoo is crowded. Too many exhibit viewing areas have no place to sit, or even lean on a fence. And there simply is not enough room for everyone to see, so visitors feel like they have to keep moving.

As for number 2, how many visitors do you suppose read signs? I would say 2 or 3% is a more than generous estimate and, as I said earlier, these are mostly people who are already interested. As such, how can zoos hope to direct visitors to other sources of information when they won't even bother to read what is in front of them?
.

I actually don't want visitors to spend time reading signs other than to see the name of the animals and where there native habitats are.

What I want is for them to be provided with informational pamphlets and material when they leave so they can do further research.

On top of that, it's fair to assume that most zoo-goers don't even know what the species they are looking at is called (just look at the thread 'General Zoo Miconceptions' if you don't believe me), so would you mind enlightening me on how they are supposed to find out about that animal elsewhere, because I'm pretty sure "the spotty one next to the monkeys" (again, actually gorillas) won't yield very much in a Google search!
.

I don't think we can assume most zoo-goers are that clueless. But assuming many are, I blame the zoos for that because they have too many attractions that are actually "distractions". Zoos need to stop drawing in visitors to do other things while in the zoo, and do a better job of focusing visitors on the animals in the zoo.

To me, this whole "zoos inspire their visitors to help with conservation" is just an idealistic ploy which rather conveniently gives them a purpose for keeping animals in captivity and (in the vast majority of cases) is simply not true in the real world.

As I said above, idealistic thinking - a having a dream and following it kind of thinking - is what lead to all the great advances.

Your kind of "realistic" thinking seems to me will be more of an obstacle to any kind of future success for zoos than it will be a boost.

 

[redpanda]

I can't think of any great advances in science, in technology, in medicine, in art, or in anything else that resulted from thinking like that.

At the same time, many incredibly stupid ideas have not been carried out as a result of thinking like that.

1. I don't believe those studies included measures of how quickly visitors moved past exhibits during the less crowded seasons. My observations indicate those who visit in the late fall and winter spend much more time at exhibits and do indeed feel a sense of awe when they are in a quiet, conducive-to-feeling-a-sense-of-awe environment.

This strikes me as a somewhat ridiculous comment, when zoos are crowded is when most people visit. You cannot simply write off the majority who come on busy days and focus solely on the minority that come when it is not crowded as this suits your thinking better. And actually, I disagree. I generally go around the Reptile Tropics at Paignton just after arriving when there are hardly any people in there, but those who are do not stand for ten minutes staring at Boa Constrictors, crowded or not. As such, I would like to know what your ideal "conducive-to-feeling-a-sense-of-awe environment" would be, because I've certainly nevr seen it.

Having said that, I do agree that the zoo experience is vastly improved when viewing areas are not too crowded, something that too many new exhibits seem to forget.

2. It is true that many visitors move past exhibits quickly during the peak attendance seasons. But the solution is that zoos have to do a better job of providing the kinds of exhibit viewing areas that encourage visitors to "relax and stay awhile" even when the zoo is crowded. Too many exhibit viewing areas have no place to sit, or even lean on a fence. And there simply is not enough room for everyone to see, so visitors feel like they have to keep moving.

See my point above on this, although stay time may be increased a little on days when there are less people around, I highly doubt that it would have too great an impact. In regards to seating areas, I agree that more should be provided and Howlett's gorilla enclosures prove how successful this can be for increasing stay times. Nonetheless, I feel that being able to sit down improves visitor experience as opposed to magically promoting a sense of awe.

I actually don't want visitors to spend time reading signs other than to see the name of the animals and where there native habitats are.

Well then you've got that wish (except for the names and habitat range bit) because visitors don't read signs at the moment!

What I want is for them to be provided with informational pamphlets and material when they leave so they can do further research.

You don't get my point, if visitors cannot be bothered to read information in front of them, what makes you think that they will leave the zoo and make special journeys elsewhere to do so. The only thing your pamphlets would achieve would be to litter up the parking lot!

I don't think we can assume most zoo-goers are that clueless.

Why can't we? You ask 99.9% of visitors what species of wallaby they just saw and the reply will be "a kangaroo", and this is an animal which the public are generally familiar with! As such, to assume that they'll be able to identify the White-faced Scops Owl or Standing's Day Gecko is frankly ridiculous.

But assuming many are, I blame the zoos for that because they have too many attractions that are actually "distractions". Zoos need to stop drawing in visitors to do other things while in the zoo, and do a better job of focusing visitors on the animals in the zoo.

And suffer a massive decline in visitors as a result - not bloody likely! And besides, I see this as rather avoiding the point. Suppose a zoo has five hundred species (and that's not very many), under your ideal visitors would have to remember the names of all five hundred (with probably four hundred being new to them), before going home, looking up each in turn and then donating to the conservation of each. To say that this is idealistic is not stopping a "great advance", it is being kind!

As I said above, idealistic thinking - a having a dream and following it kind of thinking - is what lead to all the great advances.

And, indeed, it also lead to all the great failiures. I fear that you are so set in the belief that your idea will work that you ignore the objections of others (many of whom are far more experienced than yourself). Having a dream does not automatically lead to success, I could have a dream that eating chain-saws would cause me to lay golden eggs - that certainly doesn't mean it will happen!

Your kind of "realistic" thinking seems to me will be more of an obstacle to any kind of future success for zoos than it will be a boost.

And your kind of "idealistic" thinking would close down any zoo at which it was tried (hence it has not been). The truth is that zoos do need "realistic" ways in which to help conservation, because the work currently being done is negligible compared to what could be achieved. I fail to see how major decreases in visitor numbers, a littered up parking lot and frustrated ZooChatters who cannot find any information on the species they are observing would make that happen.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

... I would like to know what your ideal "conducive-to-feeling-a-sense-of-awe environment" would be, because I've certainly nevr seen it.

A peaceful, quiet place, with places to sit or stand comfortably - a safe environment with easy-to-view animals all around. No artificial sounds, no music, no loud talking, no events going on that would draw attention away from the animals.

(This does not mean every visitor will feel a sense of awe at each and every exhibit. But an environment like I describe will, I believe, cause most visitors to feel that sense of awe at least once during each zoo visit.)

... I feel that being able to sit down improves visitor experience as opposed to magically promoting a sense of awe.

Places to sit encourage visitors to linger. And the more time they spend near an exhibit, the more chances they will have to observe and get to know individual animals, and to feel that sense of awe or connection with nature.

You don't get my point, if visitors cannot be bothered to read information in front of them, what makes you think that they will leave the zoo and make special journeys elsewhere to do so. The only thing your pamphlets would achieve would be to litter up the parking lot!

Sorry, I did not make myself clear - My idea is that visitors will request further information after becoming interested in specific animals (whose names they will remember because the sense of awe/emotional bonds made an imprint in their minds, and they looked at the sign to learn the name of the animal.)

Why can't we? You ask 99.9% of visitors what species of wallaby they just saw and the reply will be "a kangaroo", and this is an animal which the public are generally familiar with! As such, to assume that they'll be able to identify the White-faced Scops Owl or Standing's Day Gecko is frankly ridiculous.

You have a bit of an attitude regarding the intelligence of zoo visitors. Unfortunately, I think I subconsciously agree with you in a sense. That is why I object to zoos trying to attract "everyone" to the zoo, and would actually prefer that they tried just to attract people who at least have enough interest in animals to know the difference between a wallaby and a kangaroo.

But since some of the visitors probably really are so clueless, I guess it would be a good idea to suggest that they bring a pencil and notebook to write down the names of animals they want to learn more about.

And suffer a massive decline in visitors as a result - not bloody likely! And besides, I see this as rather avoiding the point. Suppose a zoo has five hundred species (and that's not very many), under your ideal visitors would have to remember the names of all five hundred (with probably four hundred being new to them), before going home, looking up each in turn and then donating to the conservation of each. To say that this is idealistic is not stopping a "great advance", it is being kind!

I'm not quite understanding what your point here, but that is probably because I didn't make mine clear.

I want zoo visitors to be drawn into an atmosphere that mesmerizes them to the point that they love animals, appreciate and value the wonderful variety of creatures we have on earth so that they will modify their lives enough to stop doing things which will harm wildlife or wildlife environments and so that they will want to learn more about animals and wildlife.

If zoos are successful in creating that sort of atmosphere and environment for visitors, visitors can and will find other sources of information (like libraries, schools, environmental center, etc.) even without having to take pamphlets the zoos provide for that purpose.

But having those guides available would be good.

I think my main objectives are to change attitudes of visitors who don't love all animals, and to reinforce and expand attitudes of visitors who already do love all animals.

And, indeed, it also lead to all the great failiures. I fear that you are so set in the belief that your idea will work that you ignore the objections of others (many of whom are far more experienced than yourself)...

Well, they are surely more experienced. But they are not exactly succeeding using their approaches, either. They may be keeping zoos in the black, but at the same time, they are changing the zoos to such an extent that they are no longer zoos. To me, that's not a success.

And your kind of "idealistic" thinking would close down any zoo at which it was tried (hence it has not been).
.

AHA! Now I've got you! If it hasn't been tried, you can not know for sure it won't work because it is not as outrageous as the example you gave. It is a dream, but not a ridiculous or even necessarily unrealistic one.

The truth is that zoos do need "realistic" ways in which to help conservation, because the work currently being done is negligible compared to what could be achieved.
.

As I said before, I believe the responsibility of zoos should be to set the ball in motion. The other agencies need to take it from there.

I fail to see how major decreases in visitor numbers, a littered up parking lot and frustrated ZooChatters who cannot find any information on the species they are observing would make that happen.

This is not an accurate description of my dream. For the first few years, I see a moderate decrease in zoo visitor numbers. (No littered parking lot.) Some increase in use of libraries, attendance in school and university classes. Some increase in volunteerism at environmental centers. Some increase in donations to conservation projects.

Then, gradually, an increase in the number of zoo visitors. A change in human attitudes toward wildlife and human behavior that affects wildlife. An increase in the number of environmental centers and wildlife organizations. An increase in the number of people applying for jobs or volunteering to work for those organizations. An increase in government grants to zoos and to all conservation organizations. An increase in donations to zoos and all conservation agencies from wealthy donors.

A less stressful world for all. A better life for humans and animals.

And all because someone realized the true value of zoos and had strong enough convictions to stick with the dream until it became a reality.

 

[Simon McGlary]

For the average zoo visitor it does. The thing is it is how that cash is spent! Employing local people to be the core team doing the work in a forest in Africa, for example, can be much more cost effective and successful long tem than employing people from out country to do the work. By showing local people that working towards conservation of their local environment can actually help in bringing in outside income.

I know the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland take on conservation is that it isn't about money, it's about people! Without the people you can't do the work. Giving people alternatives to cutting down forests, giving the with the means to find an alternative.

Just as much of the assitance in food production is involved. Give a man a fish, he can have a meal. Give him the means to catch fish for himself, he can have lots of meals!

to help save elephants from being shot for destroying crops and villages in regular corridors in a part of Africa two alternatives were found. Move a whole village by 5 miles to the east or west and to save the crops, rope smeared with chilli peppers!

That last one proved very economical, saves the local farmers crops and, by diverting the elephants, saves the elephants!

By employing former hunters as guides for tourists or forest rangers makes sense too. They have a regular income, probably greater than when hunting, and who knows the area and animals better than successful hunters!

It's very much a mix of cash, people and education.

What zoos can do is illustrate how conservation works and how we can all play a part without it costing huge sum of cash.

 

[redpanda]

A peaceful, quiet place, with places to sit or stand comfortably - a safe environment with easy-to-view animals all around. No artificial sounds, no music, no loud talking, no events going on that would draw attention away from the animals.

(This does not mean every visitor will feel a sense of awe at each and every exhibit. But an environment like I describe will, I believe, cause most visitors to feel that sense of awe at least once during each zoo visit.)

Places to sit encourage visitors to linger. And the more time they spend near an exhibit, the more chances they will have to observe and get to know individual animals, and to feel that sense of awe or connection with nature.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear - My idea is that visitors will request further information after becoming interested in specific animals (whose names they will remember because the sense of awe/emotional bonds made an imprint in their minds, and they looked at the sign to learn the name of the animal.)

You have a bit of an attitude regarding the intelligence of zoo visitors. Unfortunately, I think I subconsciously agree with you in a sense. That is why I object to zoos trying to attract "everyone" to the zoo, and would actually prefer that they tried just to attract people who at least have enough interest in animals to know the difference between a wallaby and a kangaroo.

But since some of the visitors probably really are so clueless, I guess it would be a good idea to suggest that they bring a pencil and notebook to write down the names of animals they want to learn more about.

I'm not quite understanding what your point here, but that is probably because I didn't make mine clear.

I want zoo visitors to be drawn into an atmosphere that mesmerizes them to the point that they love animals, appreciate and value the wonderful variety of creatures we have on earth so that they will modify their lives enough to stop doing things which will harm wildlife or wildlife environments and so that they will want to learn more about animals and wildlife.

If zoos are successful in creating that sort of atmosphere and environment for visitors, visitors can and will find other sources of information (like libraries, schools, environmental center, etc.) even without having to take pamphlets the zoos provide for that purpose.

But having those guides available would be good.

I think my main objectives are to change attitudes of visitors who don't love all animals, and to reinforce and expand attitudes of visitors who already do love all animals.

Well, they are surely more experienced. But they are not exactly succeeding using their approaches, either. They may be keeping zoos in the black, but at the same time, they are changing the zoos to such an extent that they are no longer zoos. To me, that's not a success.

AHA! Now I've got you! If it hasn't been tried, you can not know for sure it won't work because it is not as outrageous as the example you gave. It is a dream, but not a ridiculous or even necessarily unrealistic one.

As I said before, I believe the responsibility of zoos should be to set the ball in motion. The other agencies need to take it from there.

This is not an accurate description of my dream. For the first few years, I see a moderate decrease in zoo visitor numbers. (No littered parking lot.) Some increase in use of libraries, attendance in school and university classes. Some increase in volunteerism at environmental centers. Some increase in donations to conservation projects.

Then, gradually, an increase in the number of zoo visitors. A change in human attitudes toward wildlife and human behavior that affects wildlife. An increase in the number of environmental centers and wildlife organizations. An increase in the number of people applying for jobs or volunteering to work for those organizations. An increase in government grants to zoos and to all conservation organizations. An increase in donations to zoos and all conservation agencies from wealthy donors.

A less stressful world for all. A better life for humans and animals.

And all because someone realized the true value of zoos and had strong enough convictions to stick with the dream until it became a reality.

Okay, I now understand better what you are saying and what your dream entails. However, I still disagree that it would work and that one zoo becoming more zoo-like would create "a less stressful world for all". I suppose in the end that stems from our apparently differing belief in people - I don't think your average John Smith would enjoy a zoo that was just a zoo, whereas you seem to. As such, I don't think either one of us will sway the other, but if you wish to continue trying then probably best to do so by pm as this has gone rather off-topic.

 

[Jarkari]

I think the content of keeper talks is incredibly important. People seek out and stop for keeper talks. Being able to talk to keepers is a highlight of many peoples trips. And thanks to zoos Victoria there are pamphlets being handed out with how the public can take action at zoos all around AUstralia.

Providing the public with the chance to speak with a keeper, who is passionate about what they are talking about is great for the public. Small private zoos in aust are great at this in my experience. Action on conservation is more likely to occur after a conversation then after reading a sign.

Having said that, I'm a strong believer that conservation needs to be made profitable to be successful. We need to be able to provide better options for the locals on the ground.