Sharing news from zoo staff

[Maguari]

{Note from mods - this thread split from here]}




For what it's worth, I do broadly agree with the zoo's underlying point - I think anything you're personally told by anyone at the zoo probably shouldn't be posted here unless you're specifically told it's OK to. It's not the same as information from a sign the zoo have put up or something new you've seen on show or not-really-on-show-but-plainly-visible and which any other visitor might also see. There's obviously a grey area if you're told things are OK to talk about by a member of staff of volunteer who isn't really in a place to authorise such a thing, which I think may be what's happened here. Caution is the way to go I feel.

As the ZC user was told it openly, though, I think a simple correction would have sufficed, perhaps even just by posting here, rather than the slightly peevish post that appeared - but it's obviously more personal for them so I can understand the frustration. What's done is done.

 

[oflory]

I was previously told off here some years ago, quite rightly, for reporting a private conversation (about the move of camels to the north bank of Regents Park, which very clearly didn't happen...).

But I think if someone at a zoo tells a member of the public something, without any indication that the information isn't for public consumption, it is fair enough to report it here.

 

[pipaluk]

I was previously told off here some years ago, quite rightly, for reporting a private conversation (about the move of camels to the north bank of Regents Park, which very clearly didn't happen...).

But I think if someone at a zoo tells a member of the public something, without any indication that the information isn't for public consumption, it is fair enough to report it here.

I agree, if you are told it isn't public knowledge then you don't post it. But if someone freely gives information it is free for all!
This particular person at the zoo IS uniformed! They regularly give out information of future development true or false. Zoochat or it's members have done nothing wrong!

 

[Zia]

For what it's worth, I do broadly agree with the zoo's underlying point - I think anything you're personally told by anyone at the zoo probably shouldn't be posted here unless you're specifically told it's OK to

I disagree - if you don't want the general public to be aware of something then don't tell them. It is pretty simple.

Of course if you have a personal friendship with a staff member and are fully aware that you are being told something in confidence that is different.

 

[Maguari]

I disagree - if you don't want the general public to be aware of something then don't tell them. It is pretty simple.

In principle, yes it is - but anyone who's worked in a public-facing environment knows that controlling what information goes out from a team of employees about events in the future is actually unbelievably difficult. Well-meaning people are forever passing on unconfirmed ETAs or plans as though they are confirmed. This is generally simply because it's the genuine intent at the time and people are enthusiastic and it's nice to tell people something they'll be happy to hear, but it makes it harder when those ETAs aren't met or plans fall through, or new information crops up, or one party pulls out because a deal went public (this has happened before with animal moves).

So, in the spirit of basic politeness if nothing else, it's nice to treat any off-the-cuff information about future plans as something not to be spread - if nothing else, it saves the helpful member of staff/volunteer you spoke to from getting into trouble if the management have a different view of whether the information should go out..!

At the end of the day - if the information is accurate then at some point it will generally either be announced by the zoo or become visible to any visitor and therefore fine to post. In the meantime, for me, it's less a case of whether you can justify posting it, but whether it's being fair to the zoo and the individual that told you to do so. Unless you've told them that you're going to stick it on the web, they're probably assuming they're speaking to an interested member of the public who is unlikely to tell anyone much at all because why would they?


(It's probably less of an issue with things that have actually already happened, but even then there are lots of reasons they might feel compelled to answer truthfully to one person in the moment with something they'd rather not go out more widely. Unless, say, the zoo was being defamed and posting the tale you'd heard from a keeper proved the story untrue or something, it'd be best to keep it off a public board.)

 

[Maguari]

This particular person at the zoo IS uniformed! They regularly give out information of future development true or false. Zoochat or it's members have done nothing wrong!

I would entirely agree that no-one here is culpable for this and I can entirely see why the user thought it fine to post. The information was believed to be public and posted in good faith. And I definitely agree this person at the zoo has given out things they shouldn't, which is no-one here's fault either. But my point is that we can all avoid this kind of dispute coming up by simply not posting stuff that isn't explicitly 'official' (yet) in public spaces (it also helps stem the tide of over-speculation infesting news threads that has happened in these parts from time time..!).

 

[TinoPup]

I disagree - if you don't want the general public to be aware of something then don't tell them. It is pretty simple.

Of course if you have a personal friendship with a staff member and are fully aware that you are being told something in confidence that is different.

This is what I agree with. Depending on the conversation, I will ask if something is okay to be passed along, but ultimately it is the employee's responsibility to not share things that aren't supposed to be shared. They have no idea if I'm a member here, if I'm an ARA person, if I'm some vlogger who is going to make a big viral video and mention it. It's the same for any job, whether you're a retail person at a place that got a secret shipment of some big limited edition merch or a CEO of a major company.

 

[Simon Hampel]

Personally, I think context matters greatly.

If you are a visitor to the zoo chatting to a staff member - then unless explicitly told otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that anything you are told is in the public domain and can be shared.

If the staff member asks you not to share it - then take the request in good faith and don't be "that person" by sharing it. Doing so makes it about your ego more than anything.

On the other hand - if you happen to be talking to someone who is a zoo staff member in some social setting outside of the zoo and they share information with you - you should only ever take it as private information and never share it - unless they explicitly give you permission to do so.

 

[Zoofan15]

The nature of the information should also be taken into account. I personally wouldn’t report something that has the potential to be damaging to the zoo’s reputation - even if shared publicly e.g. a keeper talking to a group of visitors.

In many cases, the information makes the media and in which case, I see no harm in having an open (and constructive) discussion about it on the forum, but anything I’m told in confidence (either by a member of ZooChat or a keeper), I respect their trust in me by not disclosing it without permission.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Part of it should also be who you get the information from:
A keeper the comment should be taken with a grain of salt because they have the direct information and some of that could be sensitive. Staff members are told what is private and what isn’t but there could always be a keeper who forgets or gets lost in conversation. Now I doubt any good animal care staff member is going to give you information they aren’t cleared to announce but you should still think before you post.
If it’s an employee from the educational department like a docent, educator, tour guide, or volunteer you can trust the information they are giving is appropriate. Educational staff members are constantly being told what is ok and not ok to share with the public because they are the main vessel of information for the facility. If it comes from an educator it’s almost definitely safe to post (unless indicated otherwise).

 

[Zoofan15]

Part of it should also be who you get the information from:
A keeper the comment should be taken with a grain of salt because they have the direct information and some of that could be sensitive. Staff members are told what is private and what isn’t but there could always be a keeper who forgets or gets lost in conversation. Now I doubt any good animal care staff member is going to give you information they aren’t cleared to announce but you should still think before you post.
If it’s an employee from the educational department like a docent, educator, tour guide, or volunteer you can trust the information they are giving is appropriate. Educational staff members are constantly being told what is ok and not ok to share with the public because they are the main vessel of information for the facility. If it comes from an educator it’s almost definitely safe to post (unless indicated otherwise).

All good points, though it’s important to keep in mind the accuracy of the information when it comes from a volunteer. They’re below keepers and management in the chain of information and sometimes what they’re telling you is outdated or inaccurate.

Common miscommunications included an individual being mistaken for another (e.g. Giraffe A is pregnant, not Giraffe B); or talk of an import/export/transfer taking place that has since been cancelled.

When told something by a volunteer that I find hard to believe, I try and verify it by asking multiple staff that day to make sure what I’m reporting on ZooChat is factual - and if in doubt, either don’t post or state my level of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

 

[TinoPup]

Part of it should also be who you get the information from:
A keeper the comment should be taken with a grain of salt because they have the direct information and some of that could be sensitive. Staff members are told what is private and what isn’t but there could always be a keeper who forgets or gets lost in conversation. Now I doubt any good animal care staff member is going to give you information they aren’t cleared to announce but you should still think before you post.
If it’s an employee from the educational department like a docent, educator, tour guide, or volunteer you can trust the information they are giving is appropriate. Educational staff members are constantly being told what is ok and not ok to share with the public because they are the main vessel of information for the facility. If it comes from an educator it’s almost definitely safe to post (unless indicated otherwise).

I disagree. I spent a week with the main education staff at a large AZA zoo and in terms of what was going on with individual animals and species, they didn't know that much. What they did know, wasn't allowed to be shared; they were stricter than the department heads on what could be shared or photographed. Docents and volunteers usually don't know much about anything outside of the area they volunteer in. They are there to give visitors basic information.

 

[Phoenicopterus]

All good points, though it’s important to keep in mind the accuracy of the information when it comes from a volunteer. They’re below keepers and management in the chain of information and sometimes what they’re telling you is outdated or inaccurate.

Common miscommunications included an individual being mistaken for another (e.g. Giraffe A is pregnant, not Giraffe B); or talk of an import/export/transfer taking place that has since been cancelled.

When told something by a volunteer that I find hard to believe, I try and verify it by asking multiple staff that day to make sure what I’m reporting on ZooChat is factual - and if in doubt, either don’t post or state my level of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

I'd definitely agree, and add that not all volunteers are education personnel, so I wouldn't assume that any information a volunteer gives has been explicitly cleared for the public. I'm a volunteer at a large AZA zoo, but I assist a keeper team directly with animal care. While I know a lot of details about zoo operations and plans, I'm a step below the keepers in terms of information, like you pointed out. I'm not present at their major meetings, so my information is a lot more likely to be outdated or inaccurate. As a general rule of thumb, I don't share any information with the public unless I know that the keeper staff are also sharing that information, but it can still be tricky.

In my experience, there's something of a gray area between what information is explicitly public and what is confidential- the zoo doesn't do a press release every time a new bird hatches, for example, but keepers might still tell the public about it.

 

[Zoofan15]

In my experience, there's something of a gray area between what information is explicitly public and what is confidential- the zoo doesn't do a press release every time a new bird hatches, for example, but keepers might still tell the public about it.

That’s very true. I guess this comes down to using our best judgement and considering whether sharing this information would damage the reputation of the zoo. For example, sharing the large Indian antelope herd has welcomed another calf would be no big deal; while disclosing that you heard the zoo euthanised an animal for management reasons would be a more sensitive matter.

Other news is time sensitive. For example, many zoos don’t announce births until they’re past the critical first few weeks.

 

[Phoenicopterus]

That’s very true. I guess this comes down to using our best judgement and considering whether sharing this information would damage the reputation of the zoo. For example, sharing the large Indian antelope herd has welcomed another calf would be no big deal; while disclosing that you heard the zoo euthanised an animal for management reasons would be a more sensitive matter.

Other news is time sensitive. For example, many zoos don’t announce births until they’re past the critical first few weeks.

I think it's important to remember that zoo staff/volunteers are often using their own best judgement to decide whether to share information.

On one hand, I have to assume that any member of the public I speak to could post what I say online- for all I know, they could be surreptitiously recording me, although it's unlikely.

On the other, if I limited myself to strictly what has been publicly announced, I'd probably be really boring to talk to! The public is often interested in the specific details of an individual animal's life, or the daily care of a specific animal, but those details generally haven't been explicitly deemed public (or confidential), especially for lower-profile species/individuals.

It's certainly possible to make mistakes, but the outcome would be different depending on whether I was speaking to the average zoo guest or, say, a ZooChat user!

 

[Great Argus]

It's certainly possible to make mistakes, but the outcome would be different depending on whether I was speaking to the average zoo guest or, say, a ZooChat user!

This is extremely true, whether we like to admit it or not. Some zoos are heavily against Zoochat and its members due to past leaks and incidents. The average guest may find the information interesting but chances are it will go nowhere - a fair few Zoochatters on the other hand will post information too readily and it sometimes becomes a brouhaha. Some zoos have gone so far as to ban known Zoochat members from behind the scenes events or other high-information areas. Zoochat's reputation in Europe particularly is not very good because of leaked information - I've heard many zoos will fire you simply for being a member of the site. Certain events like a story of disrespect at a certain US aquarium awhile back don't help either.
I will note too that various in-the-know members are *constantly* correcting speculation and other items on this site. I've heard tell some of them are a bit peeved over all the speculation that goes on.

Personally I've posted some not quite complete species lists before due to an animal not being public knowledge. I have some direct connections that are still on good terms with me and I intend to keep it that way. The connections are worth more to me than a complete list to post. I can update the list later; repairing broken trust is a lot harder. I recognize a lot of Zoochat members don't have such connections, but I'd encourage them to consider it from that standpoint before they post possibly sensitive information. If it seems potentially problematic then don't post it.
I've also noted a few instances lately where word-of-mouth reports given early proved different from the zoo's press release later on, again proving that just because someone tells you something doesn't mean it's accurate. A personal example that's pretty old now so I think it's safe to use - visiting a certain zoo several years ago a friendly volunteer was talking about the zoo's aardvark who was out and visible, and mentioned they were hoping to aquire another one for breeding purposes. A couple minutes later just across the way, there was a snow leopard very intrigued by something next door in a blocked off exhibit. It wasn't fully blocked off however, and through a small gap I could see none other than an aardvark. Not even a hundred feet away from where I'd been told they were hoping for another aardvark, was the "hoped for" aardvark. Always worth remembering that not everything is mentioned or allowed to be told even within an institution - so likewise we should evaluate what we share carefully.

 

[Phoenicopterus]

This is extremely true, whether we like to admit it or not. Some zoos are heavily against Zoochat and its members due to past leaks and incidents. The average guest may find the information interesting but chances are it will go nowhere - a fair few Zoochatters on the other hand will post information too readily and it sometimes becomes a brouhaha. Some zoos have gone so far as to ban known Zoochat members from behind the scenes events or other high-information areas. Zoochat's reputation in Europe particularly is not very good because of leaked information - I've heard many zoos will fire you simply for being a member of the site. Certain events like a story of disrespect at a certain US aquarium awhile back don't help either.
I will note too that various in-the-know members are *constantly* correcting speculation and other items on this site. I've heard tell some of them are a bit peeved over all the speculation that goes on.

Personally I've posted some not quite complete species lists before due to an animal not being public knowledge. I have some direct connections that are still on good terms with me and I intend to keep it that way. The connections are worth more to me than a complete list to post. I can update the list later; repairing broken trust is a lot harder. I recognize a lot of Zoochat members don't have such connections, but I'd encourage them to consider it from that standpoint before they post possibly sensitive information. If it seems potentially problematic then don't post it.
I've also noted a few instances lately where word-of-mouth reports given early proved different from the zoo's press release later on, again proving that just because someone tells you something doesn't mean it's accurate. A personal example that's pretty old now so I think it's safe to use - visiting a certain zoo several years ago a friendly volunteer was talking about the zoo's aardvark who was out and visible, and mentioned they were hoping to aquire another one for breeding purposes. A couple minutes later just across the way, there was a snow leopard very intrigued by something next door in a blocked off exhibit. It wasn't fully blocked off however, and through a small gap I could see none other than an aardvark. Not even a hundred feet away from where I'd been told they were hoping for another aardvark, was the "hoped for" aardvark. Always worth remembering that not everything is mentioned or allowed to be told even within an institution - so likewise we should evaluate what we share carefully.

Very interesting- I'm obviously fairly new to ZooChat, so I wasn't aware of the reputation it seems to have in Europe (or the aquarium incident you mentioned). I'm not really new to the American zoo field though, and I haven't encountered any negative sentiment about the site at my institution.

You also make a great point about how information changes. A few years ago, I was at a meeting that involved confidential information about a new major expansion that is currently being built. If I'd leaked details from that meeting, it would be misinformation considering how much the plans have changed since (and of course I'd have betrayed the zoo's trust in me).

 

[Alwaysevergreen]

Some really good points on here.

I like to go with the view, if you can’t see it, don’t say it. It’s the safest way.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

It is a little sad that some zoos feel they have to go the route of corporate secrecy, rather than public accountability and transparency. (I'm not saying that they don't have reasons for having to do that. Just that it's sad that this is the case).

But if they're going to go that route, I do think it's up to them to police and enforce that internally, rather than expecting members of the public to keep secret what they've been told by staff.

 

[Westcoastperson]

All good points, though it’s important to keep in mind the accuracy of the information when it comes from a volunteer. They’re below keepers and management in the chain of information and sometimes what they’re telling you is outdated or inaccurate.

Common miscommunications included an individual being mistaken for another (e.g. Giraffe A is pregnant, not Giraffe B); or talk of an import/export/transfer taking place that has since been cancelled.

When told something by a volunteer that I find hard to believe, I try and verify it by asking multiple staff that day to make sure what I’m reporting on ZooChat is factual - and if in doubt, either don’t post or state my level of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

It is a little sad that some zoos feel they have to go the route of corporate secrecy, rather than public accountability and transparency. (I'm not saying that they don't have reasons for having to do that. Just that it's sad that this is the case).

But if they're going to go that route, I do think it's up to them to police and enforce that internally, rather than expecting members of the public to keep secret what they've been told by staff.

I do agree that volunteers can be spotty especially when it’s not their assigned section. However, with paid educators, I never said the information they gave was good or useful to a zoochatter. The value of the information varies by institutions with different rules and department heads. All I said was the information they give is safe to post. The briefings they receive specifically tell them what they can and cannot say and they usually relay that information correctly. That’s why getting information from an educator is safer than a keeper, because educators receive specific directions from PR about what can and can’t be talked about. Whereas the information from a keeper will be better informed or more useful.