Sharing news from zoo staff

[Lafone]

I’d say if you see something any member of the public can see then it’s fair to post it whether announced or not.

Equally if another zoo visitor says something I don’t have an issue with commenting on that either - while being clear on the veracity.

The point made above about not publishing anything damaging to the zoo is also important - as well as not posting things which can do a disservice to a zoo there might also be an internal problem people shouldn’t get involved in- if a disgruntled employee wants to vent about their employer to all and sundry it’s important not to be a vehicle for that.

If told something by a keeper / volunteer I’d ask if it was ok to share on social media / forums (as this is what this is effectively) and otherwise not bother to pass it on. I’ve had things (very minor and infrequently simply using an example) mentioned to me with a request not to see it on social media and I’m very happy not to repeat that.

What I would say however is that zoos should also brief their employees / volunteers on what they can say to the public. In the case being referenced it looked like ‘official’ information and the zoo comment referring to ‘lies’ by someone posting it here and lies perpetuated on the forum is a bit strong.

I get the frustration when you want to control the flow of information however and people can rant however they want if it helps I suppose. It’s good it stayed on the right side of legality in itself.

I think in all honesty however zoos who are concerned about this or similar enthusiast forums and some people here may over estimate the impact of this sort of thing - it’s not essentially mainstream to read the forums here and I doubt it would be seen or be interesting to the majority of visitors.

Good manners however are always worth having.

 

[Zoofan15]

I think in all honesty however zoos who are concerned about this or similar enthusiast forums and some people here may over estimate the impact of this sort of thing - it’s not essentially mainstream to read the forums here and I doubt it would be seen or be interesting to the majority of visitors.

Very true. From what I’ve seen, people on the forum greatly respect openness from zoos about negative events e.g. neonate deaths. We realise this isn’t a Disney cartoon where baby animals are as immortal as they are musically inclined and accept these events as a fact of life. We appreciate zoos sharing these things - especially when the consequence is a plethora of ignorant people on social media ranting their opinion on how things should have been done different; or pushing an anti-captivity agenda.

In contrast, some zoos are highly secretive and refuse to disclose anything - whether it be a recent event or the name of a Jaguar that died 50 years ago. Understandably, this creates a feeling of resentment (or even suspicion) from some members - even when they understand the rationale behind not wanting to disclose information (which in some cases is applied as a blanket rule).

 

[Zooplantman]

It is a little sad that some zoos feel they have to go the route of corporate secrecy, rather than public accountability and transparency.

"Transparency" is a much misused term. It is no more appropriate for an organization to publicly discuss every internal discussion they are having even while in process than it is for you or me to blurt out every half-baked idea we get.
Zoos and aquaria are accountable to their Boards or other governing bodies. They do not need to bring us into their deliberations.
Zoos (and aquaria) are large complex organizations. They are rife with rumors and even crabby employees. ZooChatters' passions (and the media's veracious appetite for titillating stories) should not determine an organization's communication policies.
Any organization and any person has every right to keep things private

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Any organization and any person has every right to keep things private

I absolutely agree with this. It is their right. They don't have to tell us anything. (unless legally required, of course).
But it's also true that the level of secrecy/openness that any institution shows is itself a legitimate factor for the public to consider when judging (or even just forming opinions about) that organization, even when the institution is acting well within their rights.
Deciding what to make public (and if and when), is absolutely part of a public relations strategy. But all strategies can backfire as often as they work. If an institution has misjudged the public's desire to know (or even the desire of some particularly vocal subgroup of the public), or if the institution has misjudged their ability to execute that level of secrecy (whether due to disgruntled employees, or insufficient internal communications to keep everyone on the same page, or simply a culture of friendliness with guests), then the secrecy that they thought was in their best interest may end up working against them. (Of course, the same can be true of an institution that prides itself on openness, that finds itself in a position where the openness is now harming their image).

 

[mrcriss]

What you need to remember is that you lot are very good at getting information out of people! Some keepers are very young, from the social media age, and aren't always good at keeping their mouths shut; so coupled with being pressed for information by a wily Zoochatter, it's easy to let things slip!

What you need to remember is that can get the keeper into trouble if surprises about developments are blown ahead of the official announcement, or if plans change and the information turns out to be erroneous. I've seen this happen many times! I would always suggest that you respect the staff member's position by asking if it's ok to post the stuff you hear or not, and that way we can all remain friends!

 

[Lafone]

What you need to remember is that you lot are very good at getting information out of people! Some keepers are very young, from the social media age, and aren't always good at keeping their mouths shut; so coupled with being pressed for information by a wily Zoochatter, it's easy to let things slip!

What you need to remember is that can get the keeper into trouble if surprises about developments are blown ahead of the official announcement, or if plans change and the information turns out to be erroneous. I've seen this happen many times! I would always suggest that you respect the staff member's position by asking if it's ok to post the stuff you hear or not, and that way we can all remain friends!

I think the advice to ask if it’s ok to post is excellent and easy to implement for anyone too. And good to hear from someone in the hot seat

 

[Phoenicopterus]

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).

On a personal level, I have to agree. I do understand why zoos restrict what and when information goes out to the general public, but I also think that transparency is often a better policy in the long run. Ultimately, secrecy tends to gives the impression that zoos have something to hide- I remember a Reddit post asking for the low-down, dirty details of the zoo world blowing up at one point (most of the replies focused on keepers being criminally underpaid and overworked, but I digress).

I've spent quite a few years seeing the behind-the-scenes operations of a zoo firsthand, so I have to remember that the general public actually knows very little about the field. The recent boom in behind-the-scenes zoo documentaries does give me hope though, as it seems that more and more facilities are willing to show what happens out of the visitor's view, albeit through a media form that they have a good bit of control over. Getting ahead of any potential controversy by openly explaining/justifying husbandry and management practices is better than reactively fighting misinformation and misunderstanding, in my opinion.

I'll also note that I've drifted towards talking more about zoo operations, rather than the incident that incited the thread, which was misinformation about future collection and construction plans. I think a lot of the same issues apply there, with the added difficulty of not getting people's hopes up about plans that might well fall through.

 

[Phoenicopterus]

Very true. From what I’ve seen, people on the forum greatly respect openness from zoos about negative events e.g. neonate deaths. We realise this isn’t a Disney cartoon where baby animals are as immortal as they are musically inclined and accept these events as a fact of life. We appreciate zoos sharing these things - especially when the consequence is a plethora of ignorant people on social media ranting their opinion on how things should have been done different; or pushing an anti-captivity agenda.

I think that's another important way in which the average Zoochatter is drastically different from the average zoo guest (or uninformed member of the general public). Users of forums like this are much more likely than the average person to accept that negative events aren't necessarily a reflection of poor animal welfare or mistreatment. You need only dive into the toxic cesspit that is a Facebook comment section regarding such events to understand how many people (whether they are trolling or genuinely upset) will take attempts at transparency in bad faith. I'm not sure that's entirely avoidable, but maybe more reasonable people can be reached by proactively addressing those events instead of trying to do damage control after the fact.

 

[Great Argus]

I do understand why zoos restrict what and when information goes out to the general public, but I also think that transparency is often a better policy in the long run.

I suspect they would be a lot more transparent if so many of the animal rights activists weren't such mean prying people most of the time. It used to be that the AZA elephant and cetacean documents were available just like the rest are, but they felt it necessary to lock them after continued attacks by animal rights. The activists love to take and misconstrue anything they can get their hands on to make zoos look bad. They've been doing this with the EEHV deaths, pinning it on bad welfare and such, when in reality the zoos were fighting round the clock to try and save the calves. Zoos with elephants and cetaceans especially walk a very fine line between being open but not getting stung.

 

[Zoofan15]

I think that's another important way in which the average Zoochatter is drastically different from the average zoo guest (or uninformed member of the general public). Users of forums like this are much more likely than the average person to accept that negative events aren't necessarily a reflection of poor animal welfare or mistreatment. You need only dive into the toxic cesspit that is a Facebook comment section regarding such events to understand how many people (whether they are trolling or genuinely upset) will take attempts at transparency in bad faith. I'm not sure that's entirely avoidable, but maybe more reasonable people can be reached by proactively addressing those events instead of trying to do damage control after the fact.

Definitely. I've seen zoos that were previously very transparent about deaths become as guarded as the others in response to people on social media using it to push their anti-captivity agenda or blame the zoo for matters outside of their control.

Zoos shouldn't have to deal with scrutiny from ignorant members of the general public or people making insensitive comments about how the animal staff have done everything to care for is better off dead - but sadly they do in many cases.

 

[Great Argus]

Zoos shouldn't have to deal with scrutiny from ignorant members of the general public or people making insensitive comments about how the animal staff have done everything to care for is better off alive then dead - but sadly they do in many cases.

Oftentimes the public does not understand what goes on in such situations, and some people are overly sensitive.
Also I think you meant to say "better off dead than alive"? Also why did you delete your post and make a complete new post for one spelling error? Just use the edit button.

 

[pipaluk]

What you need to remember is that you lot are very good at getting information out of people! Some keepers are very young, from the social media age, and aren't always good at keeping their mouths shut; so coupled with being pressed for information by a wily Zoochatter, it's easy to let things slip!

What you need to remember is that can get the keeper into trouble if surprises about developments are blown ahead of the official announcement, or if plans change and the information turns out to be erroneous. I've seen this happen many times! I would always suggest that you respect the staff member's position by asking if it's ok to post the stuff you hear or not, and that way we can all remain friends!

This whole thread has evolved from a uniformed volunteer at a certain popular UK collection who has a. Very loose tongue and loves disclosing info. He never tells visitors his information is private so don't see how they should know not to release info! I have attended said zoo with more than one other member of this community and received a variety of info!!!

 

[Phoenicopterus]

This whole thread has evolved from a uniformed volunteer at a certain popular UK collection who has a. Very loose tongue and loves disclosing info. He never tells visitors his information is private so don't see how they should know not to release info! I have attended said zoo with more than one other member of this community and received a variety of info!!!

That was the impression I got from reading the previous thread, and I have to say I was surprised that a volunteer would get away with habitually spilling the beans about (unconfirmed) new animals and exhibits! In that specific situation, I do think it's on the zoo to address the issue with the person in question, although maybe Zoochatters should be a little more skeptical towards his information in the future!

 

[Great Argus]

although maybe Zoochatters should be a little more skeptical towards his information in the future!

I agree, though some people around here take great pride in being the first to post new news and speculate widely on what moves and births will happen, and so things get posted without thinking more than they ought. Some news has been revealed on here before the corresponding press release - and sometimes the information is right and sometimes not.

 

[Westcoastperson]

This whole thread has evolved from a uniformed volunteer at a certain popular UK collection who has a. Very loose tongue and loves disclosing info. He never tells visitors his information is private so don't see how they should know not to release info! I have attended said zoo with more than one other member of this community and received a variety of info!!!

This is why volunteers receive such little information. There isn’t much disciplinary action an employer can take on them making the stakes far less important for a volunteer. Usually older volunteers aren’t as passionate and will usually show more patience with important information, younger volunteers are much more passionate and don’t know when to stop talking.

 

[mrcriss]

This whole thread has evolved from a uniformed volunteer at a certain popular UK collection who has a. Very loose tongue and loves disclosing info. He never tells visitors his information is private so don't see how they should know not to release info! I have attended said zoo with more than one other member of this community and received a variety of info!!!

That all depends on whether you want that person to run the risk of getting into trouble then, doesn't it? Or at worst get the sack! Just so you have the pleasure of spreading a bit of tasty goss. This whole thing about anything you hear is fair game is very worrying to me. It's like saying that people in the public eye have no right to privacy.

There are many reasons why zoos prefer to keep things under wraps, as with any business, and quite rightly so! Doesn't mean to say that there aren't loose-lipped staff in the industry though. As fans of the zoo world however, I would have hoped the members of this site might be able to exercise the necessary discretion required to keep on the right side of the hard-working staff.

If not, then there's little wonder that when there's a customer digging for a little too much info, keepers often say "watch out, there's a zoo-chatter about!". Is it really worth paying into that reputation?

 

[pipaluk]

That all depends on whether you want that person to run the risk of getting into trouble then, doesn't it? Or at worst get the sack! Just so you have the pleasure of spreading a bit of tasty goss. This whole thing about anything you hear is fair game is very worrying to me. It's like saying that people in the public eye have no right to privacy.

There are many reasons why zoos prefer to keep things under wraps, as with any business, and quite rightly so! Doesn't mean to say that there aren't loose-lipped staff in the industry though. As fans of the zoo world however, I would have hoped the members of this site might be able to exercise the necessary discretion required to keep on the right side of the hard-working staff.

If not, then there's little wonder that when there's a customer digging for a little too much info, keepers often say "watch out, there's a zoo-chatter about!". Is it really worth paying into that reputation?

I do understand your point but usually I have been told if something is in confidence if that is what is needed. Obviously then I for one would not publish top secret information on here.
The aforementioned volunteer has given me countless pieces of information but likewise I wouldn't post any of it on here because I don't know whether it is reality, speculation or complete fantasy.

 

[Great Argus]

I do understand your point but usually I have been told if something is in confidence if that is what is needed. Obviously then I for one would not publish top secret information on here.
The aforementioned volunteer has given me countless pieces of information but likewise I wouldn't post any of it on here because I don't know whether it is reality, speculation or complete fantasy.

Even though you may not there are others on here who do post it, some with regularity. We even have threads labeled specifically for speculation on some things now. A bit of speculation doesn't hurt, but in several areas I think speculation has gone way overboard on this site.

There are many reasons why zoos prefer to keep things under wraps, as with any business, and quite rightly so!

Indeed, they are entitled to some privacy just as much as anyone else. Do you see @Batto or @MRJ posting everything that goes on? No. They post what they see fit and want to and leave the rest unsaid; it's their business and we have no reason to be nosy and harass them for extra information. Same goes for anywhere else. Todd of the no longer Leopard and Goat Farm popped up briefly at one point and had some polite but quite pointed words to say about the constant nosiness regarding his private collection. There's nothing wrong with contacting a zoo occasionally for a legitimate question, but we don't need to be prying into everything. It only makes them annoyed and suspect.

As fans of the zoo world however, I would have hoped the members of this site might be able to exercise the necessary discretion required to keep on the right side of the hard-working staff.

This is extremely well said. People seem to forget this is a public forum sometimes. Any zoo can see what is being posted, and more than one past occurrence proves many of them keep tabs on the site. There are plenty of active zoo professionals on here, and on multiple continents at that. We don't know what zoo director may be lurking as a member or routinely checks it as a guest. How does it make the site and thus the members look when we're speculating and giving opinions on breeding transfers, posting zoo news before the official press releases, uploading photos against the wishes of the institution they were taken at (per my understanding there's a lot more of these than you'd think), or outright bragging about how you blatantly disrespected zoo staff? Small wonder some zoos have banned known Zoochatters from behind-the-scenes tours, or will fire an employee for being on the site. I've heard tell there's a couple private facilities known Zoochatters are no longer allowed to visit. A bit extreme on the zoo's part? Maybe, but the site shouldn't be displaying reasons for them to get upset either. Plenty of up-and-coming keepers have dropped off the site as their career got going; some of them because of Zoochat's reputation. If it has potential to be off record or inaccurate information, then swallow your ego and hold down your urges to post it and keep it to yourself. Help make the site better and don't tear it down.

 

[Lota lota]

If not, then there's little wonder that when there's a customer digging for a little too much info, keepers often say "watch out, there's a zoo-chatter about!". Is it really worth paying into that reputation?

Do they really do that? Just curious,since I live in sweden which is pretty sparse of zoochaters.

 

[mrcriss]

Do they really do that? Just curious,since I live in sweden which is pretty sparse of zoochaters.

Speaking as someone that has worked in the industry for a rather long time, I can confirm this is true. Even said it myself!