The Role of Zoos in Society - Zoology or Conservation?

[Zooplantman]

The same way other institutions and organizations that have a clear, uncluttered, organized, focus and mission do - by convincing everyone that they are unique, and that they provide experiences and services no other organization or institution can provide.

Can you give 3 such examples?
Surely no aquariums or museums... they have all faced the same funding problems as zoos and gone down similar paths (I cannot believe that a reputable museum or science center would host "Body Works")

You can't use organizations with no public presence (like Nature Conservancy or Red Cross) because they do not have similar operating costs.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Can you give 3 such examples?
Surely no aquariums or museums... they have all faced the same funding problems as zoos and gone down similar paths (I cannot believe that a reputable museum or science center would host "Body Works")

You can't use organizations with no public presence (like Nature Conservancy or Red Cross) because they do not have similar operating costs.

Oh my!! You don't like Body Worlds? Other than zoos, that has to be my most favorite attraction of all time. My son and I visited both exhibitions at the Franklin Institute and were absolutely mesmerized both times.

This is actually a good example of what I am trying to convey, though. Body Worlds was not a popular attraction. It did not draw in visitors as well as some of the other attractions. But I think it was by far the most educational exhibit the Franklin Institute has ever had. And the most thought-provoking, too.

I was very, very pleased to hear that, in spite of the fact that the Body Worlds exhibits were not as popular as hoped, the director intends to bring new Body Worlds exhibits to the Franklin Institute as soon as they are created as temporary exhibits.

So rather than being an example to support what you are saying, I think this is an example to support what I am saying. This kind of sticking to what you know is right by a director is what will ultimately get the attention and support of educational and scientific funding organizations.

There is also an art museum in Delaware ... but, like a lot of other facts, it has a name I just can not remember at this moment. But the director's salary is being paid for by a lifetime grant from I believe the NEA but I may be remembering that wrong. The point is, she kept her museum focused on art, she believed in the value of the art, and she got what she and her museum deserved without pandering to the public so to speak.

I believe quite a few zoo directors are speaking out about the value of zoos and are gaining both popular support and government funding. Stuart Strahl is one. Mike Keele is another. And there are others. I do think they all need to go just a few steps further, though, and also I wish they would cut back on some of the "entertainment" attractions.

 

[jbnbsn99]

As someone who works with both education and in the entertainment side of zoos let me make a few comments.

Research and education is very important, but at the end of the day these will never keep a zoo open. In order for zoos to stay open and and do the needed zoology, then the entertainment aspect needs to be present. If a visitor enjoys themselves then they are more likely to come back and may even get involved in some aspect of conservation.

For your average visitor which is more memorable - feeding a giraffe, or a lecture on why some types of giraffes are endangered. If you capture the visitor by entertainment, then you have a bigger chance of making an impact.

Zoos need to be equally about the visitors and the animals. If you display the animals in a situation like a natural history museum people won't go back. Conversely, if you have no animals you don't have a zoo but an amusement park.

My own zoo has great research programs for the Okapi, but the visitors usually don't know this. The realization of our Okapi research is that you see Okapis in zoos all around the world.

I have visited many zoos and museums. The zoos keep me coming back because there is something alive and dynamic. The museums usually end up boring me and don't warrant repeat visits (and I really do love museums). Natural History Museums can do a lot of the zoology research, that is what they are there for. Let the zoos educate and entertain and bring the message to as many people as possible.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

....For your average visitor which is more memorable - feeding a giraffe, or a lecture on why some types of giraffes are endangered. If you capture the visitor by entertainment, then you have a bigger chance of making an impact ...

I think feeding the animals is wonderful and I do not call that entertainment. That is exactly the type of thing I want zoos to do to connect visitors with individual animals.

The kind of attraction I am referring to when I talk about entertainment is one that does not directly involve or focus visitor attention on any of the live animals right there in the zoo - like the current Creatures of Habitat LEGO exhibit at the Philadelphia Zoo, like some of the dinosaur animatronic exhibits, like the musical concerts, like the Brew at the Zoo fundraisers, etc.

Also with the interactive educational attractions, I don't like the ones that educate about anything other than animals.

I want everything to focus the visitors on the live animals in the Zoo.

 

[jbnbsn99]

I want everything to focus the visitors on the live animals in the Zoo.

You can't do that in the real world. Sometimes cultural immersion is as important as animal immersion. Sometimes zoos need to tell other stories than just those of the animals.

Fundraisers like Brew at the Zoo you mention are an important part of conservation (and might I add, one I'd love to attend). Money makes the world go 'round.

I have absolutely no problem with the robot dinosaurs. They can tell just as important of a story as do the modern animals.

 

[Zooplantman]

Oh my!! You don't like Body Worlds? Other than zoos, that has to be my most favorite attraction of all time. My son and I visited both exhibitions at the Franklin Institute and were absolutely mesmerized both times.

This is actually a good example of what I am trying to convey, though. Body Worlds was not a popular attraction. It did not draw in visitors as well as some of the other attractions. But I think it was by far the most educational exhibit the Franklin Institute has ever had. And the most thought-provoking, too.

I was very, very pleased to hear that, in spite of the fact that the Body Worlds exhibits were not as popular as hoped, the director intends to bring new Body Worlds exhibits to the Franklin Institute as soon as they are created as temporary exhibits.

So rather than being an example to support what you are saying, I think this is an example to support what I am saying. This kind of sticking to what you know is right by a director is what will ultimately get the attention and support of educational and scientific funding organizations.

There is also an art museum in Delaware ... but, like a lot of other facts, it has a name I just can not remember at this moment. But the director's salary is being paid for by a lifetime grant from I believe the NEA but I may be remembering that wrong. The point is, she kept her museum focused on art, she believed in the value of the art, and she got what she and her museum deserved without pandering to the public so to speak.

I believe quite a few zoo directors are speaking out about the value of zoos and are gaining both popular support and government funding. Stuart Strahl is one. Mike Keele is another. And there are others. I do think they all need to go just a few steps further, though, and also I wish they would cut back on some of the "entertainment" attractions.

Yeah, I think Body Worlds/Works is despicable: inviting people to gawk at plasticized human corpses. Those were living people not very long ago!

Still, that aside...the institutions that can support themselves by following the lines you laid out are ...?

Are you suggesting that Brookfield Zoo and the Oregon Zoo do not do anything but animal-focused events?

Oregon Zoo Events: 2010 July Calendar
Chicago Zoological Society - Events
Concerts, Dinosaurs, all the usual stuff

 

[Zooplantman]

What many zoos seem to be lacking is administrators and marketing staff who truly believe zoos are wonderful places that can draw in visitors. It seems they are always looking for ways to expand what they offer to convince the public they are more than simply zoos.

I am pressing you on this because you suggest, without any proof, that zoo directors and staff are abandoning what you want their mission to be because they have some perverse objection to speaking up for wildlife - preferring instead to run a circus.

So I'd like you to wrestle with the realities of running such institutions, paying wages and feeding animals, maintaining numerous buildings, etc. just as they do.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Zoos can contribute to studies on adaptability, on the behavior of animals in captivity, on animal learning processes, on human/non-human animal interactions, on evolution, and so on in the safe, healthy environments most zoos provide and certainly without ever killing an animal for post-mortems.

Just like zoology is more than just the mentioned examples of etiology, multiple scientific branches have been and are involved when it comes to zoos. You yourself even mentioned one: "human/non-human animal interactions" = sociology/psychology

And they should educate the public about evolution, too.

Try that in some fundamentalist religious countries...

Because zoos are only skimming the surface of each of the other categories you mentioned. In other words, I believe by attempting to be everything at once, they aren't doing any of it as well as they could if they didn't spread themselves so thin. Their focus should be on zoology.

Without the advances in veterinary medicine, especially on the field of zoo and wildlife medicine, your "zoological" research in a zoo would mainly be limited to just doing post mortems. Well, maybe you could create your very own zoo "body worlds" then-like Von Hagens did recently...
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100318-25973.html
Just as various aspects coexist within a modern zoo, various scientific branches can coexist and even contribute to each other.

I would eliminate recreation and conservation and reverse the order to place research slightly above education.

But, if it is true, let the average layman go elsewhere.

Well, good luck with that; you will end up with a very empty and soon-to-be closed zoo. First of all, a zoo should be at least half-decently financially stable. Without visitors, no money-and thus no education & no research; unless you can find a plausible connection between zoos and global warming to get some fundings...

The thirst for education should be stronger than the thirst for entertainment.

Nice idea in theory, but not rooted in reality.

There may come a day when they will have to be.

I hope not, as zoos neither have the capacities to keep self-sustainable populations for the at least 1,5 million species (and not mentioned hundreds more subspecies, local varieties, parasites...) of animals nor it is recommendable to rely solely on ex-situ conservation. And taking care of injured or orphaned wildlife is (from a financial and logistic point) a bottomless pit with, as reduakari remarked, scarcely any conservation value.

As I wrote previously again and again in this forum, I agree that zoos should not be amusement parks for the idle brainless entertainment of the masses and that the tendency to label all zoos as children attractions (as done by Lonely Planet etc.) is counterproductive for the attempts of zoos to be regarded as scientific institutions, on a par with Natural History museums or botanical gardens. However, you should not neglect, belittle or ignore the importance of the recreation and entertainment factor for the zoo visitors-something also said other scientific have to address nowadays to stay alive. Neither should you ignore the already mentioned important multi disciplinary opportunities a zoo offers for various fields of sciences & art. However, the well-being of animal & staff should be priority.

In my opinion, the amalgamation of zoo, botanical garden, natural history museum, zoo school and even art studio into one institution would be a great idea. The Arizona Desert Museum, to name a prominent example, is heading into this direction.
Zooplantman is right in pointing out the flaws of the "Zoology Only!" & "Ignore the paying public's wishes for their own good" demands. Maybe the nickname "Zoo Visitor" is more apt than originally intented by its bearer, as the displayed point of view and in particular the casual ignoring of the economical, social and (even) political side of zoo reality might only arise from the perspective of a mere zoo onlooker that, no offence, lacks real insight knowledge...

 

[Zoo Visitor]

You can't do that in the real world...Sometimes zoos need to tell other stories than just those of the animals... Money makes the world go 'round..

Why can't you? And why do they need to? And I thought love was what made the world go 'round.

I want the mission of every zoo to be: making every human love every non-human creature.

I believe that can be done by providing visitors with opportunities for close personal experiences with individual animals, and providing as much zoological information as possible about those animals and all their relatives in the wild.

I think that should actually cost less to accomplish than many of the current try-to-be-everything missions seem to be costing.

I have absolutely no problem with the robot dinosaurs. They can tell just as important of a story as do the modern animals.

I don't have any problem with them, either. I love hearing their story - in science museums.

But not in zoos. Zoos should focus on what makes them unique and different from all other kinds of attractions - they provide visitors with the opportunity to learn from observing real, live, animals.

 

[Zooplantman]

zoovisitor-
Will you be addressing any of our questions about reality?

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Yeah, I think Body Worlds/Works is despicable: inviting people to gawk at plasticized human corpses. Those were living people not very long ago!

They all wanted to be part of a fascinating science exhibition and signed a comprehensive contract agreeing to have their bodies be part of the exhibition.

(Please don't confuse Body Worlds with Body Works. There are now several copycat exhibitions which don't have the same high standards.)

Still, that aside...the institutions that can support themselves by following the lines you laid out are ...?

Ones who haven't tried it yet.

Sorry - I didn't mean to be flippant. But one of the reasons I keep stating my opinions everywhere is that I truly believe institutions can support themselves by doing what I am suggesting. It would be simpler, require less administrative and management staff, be more focused, be easier to maintain, and would not require constant re-assessment and re-focusing to follow current marketing trends.

Are you suggesting that Brookfield Zoo and the Oregon Zoo do not do anything but animal-focused events?

Oregon Zoo Events: 2010 July Calendar
Chicago Zoological Society - Events
Concerts, Dinosaurs, all the usual stuff

No. Those are just two examples of zoos which hopefully might be heading in the right direction. I like the way Stuart Strahl publicly advocates zoos. I particularly liked the way he dealt with the elephants in zoos situation.

Mike Keele is another director who says often and publicly that the only way to truly inspire a lifelong interest in wildlife conservation is to give visitors the opportunity to be in the presence of real, live, wild animals.

But, as their calendars-of-events show, they still spend time and money on events and attractions that I believe are counterproductive because they distract visitors from focusing on the live animals.

 

[Zooplantman]

While I marvel at your single-minded vision, zoos and museums have found what you advocate to be unworkable.

The sad bit is that you have such little respect for these zoo administrators who have worked so hard to keep the payroll paid and the animals housed and fed. You dismiss their dedication to the foundation of their zoos and ignore the years they have struggled with declining revenues. Many great zoo people have sought to do pretty much what you advocate: they could not pay their bills that way. But you are determined not to look at that. It's good you're not a zoo director. You wouldn't enjoy it.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I am pressing you on this because you suggest, without any proof, that zoo directors and staff are abandoning what you want their mission to be because they have some perverse objection to speaking up for wildlife - preferring instead to run a circus..

I am not suggesting what you say I am suggesting - at least not in that sort of derogatory tone. Nor am I saying what I am saying without any proof.

The fact is that many zoo missions have changed and zoos are clearly stating their missions in different words now.

Until a few years ago, many zoos stated their missions using words like "to provide an oasis in an urban environment" and to "inform and educate the public about the species we share the earth with".

Now, every zoo mission begins with the word "conservation" in the first sentence. And I believe that is because conservation is the current hot topic.

I know zoos are businesses. But I think what they need is people in charge who have a zoological background and who truly love and appreciate zoos rather than business people. Furthermore, I believe zoo directors need to hire public relations and marketing staff who are true zoo advocates - the kind of people who will know everything there is to know about the animals in the zoo they work for because they truly love the animals and the zoo - and the kind of people who will find all sorts of ways to draw visitors in to see the animals.

To me, it is not okay to save a business by transforming it into something else that is currently more marketable or trendy.

So I'd like you to wrestle with the realities of running such institutions, paying wages and feeding animals, maintaining numerous buildings, etc. just as they do.

I would love to.

 

[zelda]

What exactly do you consider "Zoology" to be? Just anatomy, or animal behaviour? (or is that psychology?) I presume you're discounting ecology as you discount conservation but as far as I know that's a vital part of any modern zoology degree. How can you study an animal without considering its environment? I'm guessing you've never studied zoology to even set such a question, trying to separate them out like that.

And are zoos really just following a green trend? Or is society in general slowly picking up on what is such an important issue. That argument reminds me of people who stop liking bands once they get famous because they don't want to be the same as everyone else even if the band is making amazing music.

 

[zelda]

Now, every zoo mission begins with the word "conservation" in the first sentence. And I believe that is because conservation is the current hot topic.

Seriously? Not because habitats are being destroyed at a rate of knots and the sort of people who like animals (zoo visitors one would hope) or work with animals would like them to not go extinct.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

While I marvel at your single-minded vision, zoos and museums have found what you advocate to be unworkable.

The sad bit is that you have such little respect for these zoo administrators who have worked so hard to keep the payroll paid and the animals housed and fed. You dismiss their dedication to the foundation of their zoos and ignore the years they have struggled with declining revenues. Many great zoo people have sought to do pretty much what you advocate: they could not pay their bills that way. But you are determined not to look at that. It's good you're not a zoo director. You wouldn't enjoy it.

I certainly do not mean to be disrespectful of any zoo directors, no matter what course they are taking. However, at the same time, I can not feel grateful or happy if they have taken a course which will ultimately change their zoo into a completely different type of organization.

Fortunately, I think a few zoo directors are now starting to head back toward being true zoos. But I just wish they would move a little faster in that direction.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Seriously? Not because habitats are being destroyed at a rate of knots and the sort of people who like animals (zoo visitors one would hope) or work with animals would like them to not go extinct.

Yes, seriously, that is what I believe, because now in many cases, it is either business people in charge, or business people in charge of marketing, or business people called in as consultants to help figure out what to do to save the zoo.

If you don't want animals to become extinct, you have to provide humans with as many opportunities as possible to be in the presence of, and to focus on, and to develop an emotional connection with, real live animals -without any distractions.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

What exactly do you consider "Zoology" to be? Just anatomy, or animal behaviour? (or is that psychology?) I presume you're discounting ecology as you discount conservation but as far as I know that's a vital part of any modern zoology degree. How can you study an animal without considering its environment? I'm guessing you've never studied zoology to even set such a question, trying to separate them out like that..

You are guessing wrong. I have studied zoology, which is defined as:
1. the branch of biology that deals with animals and animal life, including the study of the structure, physiology, development, and classification of animals.
2. The animal life of a particular area or period: the zoology of Alaska; the zoology of the Pleistocene.
3. The characteristics of a particular animal group or category

That is what I consider to be "zoology".

If zoos are going to teach anything, zoology is what they should be teaching.

And are zoos really just following a green trend? Or is society in general slowly picking up on what is such an important issue..

Yes, I believe they are following a trend for the reasons I said in my other reply to you - basically, there are too many "business" people involved either in making the decisions or in influencing the decisions.

That argument reminds me of people who stop liking bands once they get famous because they don't want to be the same as everyone else even if the band is making amazing music.

I'm definitely not one of those people.

 

[Zooplantman]

Yes, seriously, that is what I believe, because now in many cases, it is either business people in charge, or business people in charge of marketing, or business people called in as consultants to help figure out what to do to save the zoo.

If you don't want animals to become extinct, you have to provide humans with as many opportunities as possible to be in the presence of, and to focus on, and to develop an emotional connection with, real live animals -without any distractions.

I don't know of a zoo director, zoo pr person or marketing person who does not agree with your expectation that zoos must create moving experiences of Nature. Some of the most committed to conservation and the importance of zoos come from the ranks of finance and business. And I know a lot of zoo people!

So since you appear convinced that they have made bad choices - for whatever reasons - and that you know the correct path, why not write or call them? Why are you ranting here? Or have you had these conversations with zoo staff? and if so, what was their response?

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I don't know of a zoo director, zoo pr person or marketing person who does not agree with your expectation that zoos must create moving experiences of Nature. Some of the most committed to conservation and the importance of zoos come from the ranks of finance and business. And I know a lot of zoo people!

So since you appear convinced that they have made bad choices - for whatever reasons - and that you know the correct path, why not write or call them? Why are you ranting here? Or have you had these conversations with zoo staff? and if so, what was their response?

Yes, I have. And I have had mixed responses, mostly depending on the staff level or position.

Some agree and wish they could have a voice in making decisions. Others agree in principle, but say like most do in this forum, that what I want is not practical, workable, or feasible.

Others disagree, and actually seem to want to focus visitors' attention only on conservation issues and on animals in the wild. It's almost as if they don't want visitors to get to know individual animals in the zoo.

Those in the last category are the ones who disappoint me the most.

But, in almost all cases, the result has been that I feel like I have been talking to walls.