The Role of Zoos in Society - Zoology or Conservation?

[Zoo Visitor]

As we can see from the developing situation in the Gulf Coast, no matter how much we try to conserve and preserve our wildlife habitats, our successes can be wiped out in an instant by man-made, or by natural disasters.

It seems that every kind of organization and every kind of business is promoting conservationism and environmentalism. It would be almost impossible for anyone to avoid learning hundreds of things he or she can do to save wildlife habitats.

So why don't zoos focus all their attention on zoological research? Why don't zoos focus on contributing to an understanding of why some animals adapt more easily than others to changes in their environments? Why don't zoos study the behavior of all kinds of animals in captivity so they can be ready in case they need to take in stranded wildlife? Why don't zoos try to develop ways to preserve DNA of endangered species until the time comes that their habitat is restored? (I think some zoos are doing these things - but not enough, and even the ones that do are not promoting their efforts enough.)

Why don't zoos educate visitors regarding all of the fascinating topics above? And finally, why don't zoos teach visitors emergency measures they can take to help save wildlife if an environmental disaster occurs in their area?

In other words, why don't zoos try to teach visitors something they don't hear from every other kind of cultural institution or business, and something that would be truly useful in situations like the current one in the Gulf Coast?

 

[KEEPER]

At l 'Oceanografic Valencia one of the proposals courses they imparted it´s about measures for marine turtles rescue, and at least one part in other course it's for to keep dolphins until the professional rescue comes .They provides installations for to recuperate wounded marine turtles until they are totally recuperated and then they are released in the sea. But it's the exception to the norm yet.

 

[reduakari]

As we can see from the developing situation in the Gulf Coast, no matter how much we try to conserve and preserve our wildlife habitats, our successes can be wiped out in an instant by man-made, or by natural disasters.

It seems that every kind of organization and every kind of business is promoting conservationism and environmentalism. It would be almost impossible for anyone to avoid learning hundreds of things he or she can do to save wildlife habitats.

So why don't zoos focus all their attention on zoological research? Why don't zoos focus on contributing to an understanding of why some animals adapt more easily than others to changes in their environments? Why don't zoos study the behavior of all kinds of animals in captivity so they can be ready in case they need to take in stranded wildlife? Why don't zoos try to develop ways to preserve DNA of endangered species until the time comes that their habitat is restored? (I think some zoos are doing these things - but not enough, and even the ones that do are not promoting their efforts enough.)

Why don't zoos educate visitors regarding all of the fascinating topics above? And finally, why don't zoos teach visitors emergency measures they can take to help save wildlife if an environmental disaster occurs in their area?

In other words, why don't zoos try to teach visitors something they don't hear from every other kind of cultural institution or business, and something that would be truly useful in situations like the current one in the Gulf Coast?

If past oil spill incidents are any measure, 95+% of the animals that are going to be "rescued" will die. Huge sums of money and time will be expended on what is essentially something to make people feel like they are "doing something," but that in the end will hava a negligible impact on the ability of the habitat and species found within it to regenerate. This may sound callous, but in truth money and time would be better spent on many other thngs, including the basic education about environmental policy that you seem to find so useless.

 

[procyonlotor]

ZSL London Zoo take part in a national programme to help rescue beached cetaceans, or if attempts at saving them fail, use the bodies to research possible causes for stranding.

Many zoos have institutes attached to them for the purposes of scientific research, and whilst some do shout about their work, others keep it relatively hush as the sad fact is that the majority of people visiting the zoo are only there to coo over "the cute fluffy animals".

I know there is ongoing research into ARTs (Artificial reproductive techniques) which includes the storing of DNA in case it is needed in the future. These technologies are relatively new and are in need of tweaking since current protocols in developmental biology don't require the organism that the samples are taken from to survive. It's something being considered to help combat the global amphibian crisis and many gene banks exist throughout the world. The other problem is the levels of bureaucracy and that many institutes refuse to share their samples.

It is also difficult in many cases for zoos to take in stranded animals due to the lack of space available, although we often take fish and corals seized by HM Customs into our aquarium. Not quite the same, but it's still giving them a home. There's also the complicated matter of quarantine procedures since no zoo wants unknown pathogens introduced to their stock via indirect cross contamination.

But yes, zoos definitely need to do more. I'm also aware that this reply is a complete mish mash of information, but hey ho, you got me thinking.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

... you got me thinking.

That's exactly what I wanted to do. Thanks for your reply.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

I did not say education about environmental policy is useless. I said every other kind of institution is following the current trend to teach about environmental issues, so there is no need for zoos to also be doing it.

Zoos are in a unique position of being able to teach by focusing people's attention on real live animals rather than on signs and interactive exhibits. Zoos also give staff the opportunity to study real live animals to learn how they adapt, how the evolutionary process works, and to test new ways to save wildlife, etc.

Therefore, I believe zoos should focus all their staff time, money, and efforts on zoological study and zoological education.

Pure zoological research gave us the facts we needed to develop every one of the current environmental policies. Zoology has been and always will be the vital foundation for all conservation projects.

So I don't like when I see zoos simply follow along behind every other kind of business and cultural institution.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Therefore, I believe zoos should focus all their staff time, money, and efforts on zoological study and zoological education.

First of all, I think zoos should focus all their staff time, money, and efforts on the well-being, safety and health of their human and non-human occupants...

 

[Jurek7]

It seems that every kind of organization and every kind of business is promoting conservationism and environmentalism.

I don't know about Philadelphia, but zoos do lots of that.

PS. examples were discussed on several earlier threads.

PS2. I noticed recently, that in some zoos it gets - how to describe that - too visible, too simplistic, too pushy.

 

[Zooplantman]

Pure zoological research gave us the facts we needed to develop every one of the current environmental policies. Zoology has been and always will be the vital foundation for all conservation projects.

Give some credit to the many biologists, botanists, marine scientists, chemists,ecologists, etc. If you believe that all the work is by zoologists then perhaps there is not enough ecology and conservation education at zoos.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Give some credit to the many biologists, botanists, marine scientists, chemists,ecologists, etc. If you believe that all the work is by zoologists then perhaps there is not enough ecology and conservation education at zoos.

I did not mean to discount the contributions of all other branches of natural sciences. Of course, they are all valuable and necessary contributors.

But zoos are supposed to be zoological institutions. Therefore, their focus should be on zoology, which I believe provides the facts that are the foundation for all wildlife conservation efforts.

 

[Zoo Visitor]

First of all, I think zoos should focus all their staff time, money, and efforts on the well-being, safety and health of their human and non-human occupants...

I started this thread to focus on the unique value of zoos, which I think is being obscured by all the current emphasis on conservation and environmentalism.

Zoological study and zoological education could not be successful if zoos did not provide for the well-being, safety and health of all their human and non-human occupants.

I thought that would be understood.

Also, I have never had any doubt that the zoos I visit are doing a wonderful job at providing for the health, well-being, and safety of all the animals and staff.

Actually, I would not mind if zoos simply provided visitors with an opportunity to observe all the fascinating varieties of wildlife on earth in an environment that was safe, healthy, and mentally and physically stimulating for the animals, staff, and visitors.

But if zoos are going to also participate in research, contribute to projects, and attempt to actively educate the public, I think their focus should be on zoology.

 

[Zooplantman]

There's where i disagree. Conservation grows from a complex understanding of habitats and ecosystems and human activities. Understanding the animals involved is one of many important aspects but does not lead the parade. So as I wrote, zoos aren't educating enough if you, so dedicated a zoo supporter, are unclear about this.

But more to the point, I don't see this great glut of conservation awareness that you describe. Yes, it is a marketing tool for many corporations. Yes, the media is having fun with the oil spill. But no serious groundswell of conservation effort is changing the tide of environmental and wildlife destruction. Human population is growing and few organizations will seriously address that. Human development is spreading and no one will speak out to stop it. (We are still focused on the housing industry to get us out of the current economic state!) More resources are being used to create dumber consumer products and the public appears OK with that.

"Taking in stranded wildlife" makes little sense to me as the priority. How did conservation get reduced to caring for refugees?

The oil spill did not have to happen. Drilling for oil a mile underwater does not have to happen. Granting permits for such drilling with no environmental review does not have to happen. Why aren't you advocating that zoos press the visitors to reduce their family size, consume less, and refuse to support the continued use of fossil fuels? Shouldn't zoos put their conservation efforts towards protecting wildlife rather than dusting them off after they've been brutally attacked?

 

[Zoo Visitor]

There's where i disagree. Conservation grows from a complex understanding of habitats and ecosystems and human activities. Understanding the animals involved is one of many important aspects but does not lead the parade. So as I wrote, zoos aren't educating enough if you, so dedicated a zoo supporter, are unclear about this.

But more to the point, I don't see this great glut of conservation awareness that you describe. Yes, it is a marketing tool for many corporations. Yes, the media is having fun with the oil spill. But no serious groundswell of conservation effort is changing the tide of environmental and wildlife destruction. Human population is growing and few organizations will seriously address that. Human development is spreading and no one will speak out to stop it. (We are still focused on the housing industry to get us out of the current economic state!) More resources are being used to create dumber consumer products and the public appears OK with that.

"Taking in stranded wildlife" makes little sense to me as the priority. How did conservation get reduced to caring for refugees?

The oil spill did not have to happen. Drilling for oil a mile underwater does not have to happen. Granting permits for such drilling with no environmental review does not have to happen. Why aren't you advocating that zoos press the visitors to reduce their family size, consume less, and refuse to support the continued use of fossil fuels? Shouldn't zoos put their conservation efforts towards protecting wildlife rather than dusting them off after they've been brutally attacked?

You have stated your opinions very well, and I hope to be able to address each point individually after thinking about what you have written.

The two points I would like to make now are (1) I did not say taking in stranded wildlife should be the priority. But I do believe provisions for doing that should be made because I think it will be necessary even more often in the future.

And (2) I believe the number one priority of zoos should be to provide humans with an opportunity to learn (zoology) by observing live animals. I think that will be what fascinates humans and what ultimately leads them to take action to protect and preserve wildlife.

 

[Sun Wukong]

I started this thread to focus on the unique value of zoos, which I think is being obscured by all the current emphasis on conservation and environmentalism.

Zoological study and zoological education could not be successful if zoos did not provide for the well-being, safety and health of all their human and non-human occupants.

I thought that would be understood.

Also, I have never had any doubt that the zoos I visit are doing a wonderful job at providing for the health, well-being, and safety of all the animals and staff.

Actually, I would not mind if zoos simply provided visitors with an opportunity to observe all the fascinating varieties of wildlife on earth in an environment that was safe, healthy, and mentally and physically stimulating for the animals, staff, and visitors.

But if zoos are going to also participate in research, contribute to projects, and attempt to actively educate the public, I think their focus should be on zoology.

Obviously, you didn't understand my point.
Scientific research in zoos is, among others, quite often limited by concerns regarding the health and safety of animals and humans. Additionally, you often can't keep & treat animals in the same standardised husbandries required by the scientific community-unlike scientific institutions such as universities. And a zoo usually would not kill the nonhuman participants of the study afterwards for post-mortems...

Scientific research in zoos is possible-but only to a certain extent, among others due to the public eye constantly watching & interferring.

But why scientifc research in a zoo should be limited to the rather ambiguous term "zoology", is beyond me. In fact, both other branches of biology as well as other scientific departments (veterinary medicine, sociology, philosophy...) and the fine arts have been and are involved-which only shows that a zoo always has been more than just a "zoological institution", but a vivid part of society.

Heini Hediger already developed the concept of zoo biology in the early 1940s. I think the four main tasks he determined for the modern zoo back then are still valid today:
-Recreation
-Education
-Research
-Conservation

No average layman (and that's the majority of the zoo visitors) is going to a zoo to learn; first of all, the public is looking for entertainment. Channeling this thirst for entertainment and combining it with interactive teaching (& research opportunities for academics/students) should be the goal. However, this should not be limited to "zoology", but also involve multiple academic disciplines as well, while not losing track of the priority: the already mentioned well-being & safety of the animals (and staff) involved.

Zoos can't be "modern arks" nor reception camps for "damaged" wildlife; but they can be mediators in in-and ex-situ conservation.

 

[Ituri]

Why aren't you advocating that zoos press the visitors to reduce their family size, consume less, and refuse to support the continued use of fossil fuels?

Will the zoo also help me decide which kid I should get rid of? Perhaps you meant not increase their family size, no?

While I agree that there are numerous problems facing the natural world today, I think zoos need to walk a fine line when advocating for wildlife. Political backlash will only decrease the effecacy of their message.

 

[Zooplantman]

Will the zoo also help me decide which kid I should get rid of? Perhaps you meant not increase their family size, no?

Perhaps...or perhaps I am suggesting a new interactive experience for most, if not all of the family

 

[Sun Wukong]

The recent incident at Como Park Zoo indicates that at least some zoo visitors seem to freely participate in that interactive family reduction experience...

 

[Zoo Visitor]

...
Scientific research in zoos is...quite often limited by concerns regarding the health and safety of animals and humans. ... you often can't keep & treat animals in the same standardised husbandries required by the scientific community...And a zoo usually would not kill the nonhuman participants of the study afterwards for post-mortems...
.

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. .

...
Scientific research in zoos is possible-but only to a certain extent, among others due to the public eye constantly watching & interferring...

This is why I want zoos to educate the public about the fascination and need for scientific research. Zoos need to be strong advocates for scientific research. And they should educate the public about evolution, too.

...
But why scientifc research in a zoo should be limited to the rather ambiguous term "zoology", is beyond me. In fact, both other branches of biology as well as other scientific departments (veterinary medicine, sociology, philosophy...) and the fine arts have been and are involved-which only shows that a zoo always has been more than just a "zoological institution", but a vivid part of society.

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.

...
Heini Hediger already developed the concept of zoo biology in the early 1940s. I think the four main tasks he determined for the modern zoo back then are still valid today:
-Recreation
-Education
-Research
-Conservation

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

...
No average layman (and that's the majority of the zoo visitors) is going to a zoo to learn; first of all, the public is looking for entertainment.

I disagree with that. But, if it is true, let the average layman go elsewhere.

...
Channeling this thirst for entertainment and combining it with interactive teaching (& research opportunities for academics/students) should be the goal.

That is the same sort of reasoning that led to the dumbing down of public television programs and to the proliferation of reality shows. Whenever we start thinking this way, the "teaching" and "educating" part eventually get so watered down that they are almost non-existent.

The thirst for education should be stronger than the thirst for entertainment. That is why I want a return to the concept of "pure" scientific research - to rekindle the inate desire in all of us to learn just for the sake of learning. The goal should not be to combine entertainment with interactive education, but instead it should be to inspire curiosity and the desire to learn.

...
Zoos can't be "modern arks" nor reception camps for "damaged" wildlife

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

 

[Zooplantman]

Perhaps they should and perhaps they ought and perhaps, even, the unworthy visitors should go elsewhere.

How will you fund this work?

 

[Zoo Visitor]

Perhaps they should and perhaps they ought and perhaps, even, the unworthy visitors should go elsewhere.

How will you fund this work?

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.

For zoos that means promoting zoos as the only places on earth where the average layman can come within a few inches of a tiger, or an alligator, and then a few minutes later talk in person to someone who knows everything there is to know about that tiger or alligator.

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.