Zoos Endorsing Presidential Candidates

birdsandbats

birdsandbats

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I drove past Glacier Ridge Animal Farm recently and noticed they had several Trump signs up. Are there any zoos endorsing candidates out there? Which one.

Note that this thread is NOT for political discussion, only on if and how different zoos are endorsing candidates.
 
I personally haven’t seen any endorsing a candidate but there have been a few that are pushing for local or state initiatives that have to do with environmental things or worker rights.
 
I've seen a lot of roadside zoos endorsing Trump.
AZA zoos, etc won't publicly endorse anyone, but many make enough posts on social media that you can tell what way they lean (ex. "go vote" posts combined with images that mention concern for the environment or endangered species protections).
 
I have no idea how common this is in the USA.

Personally I think it is quite disturbing to hear of this because I do think that zoos should be strictly non-partisan.

That said, is it really so suprising that some little ****hole roadside petting zoo would back a candidate like Trump ?

These kinds of places hardly are just profit driven ventures and not scientific or conservation minded institutions.
 
birdsandbats said:
I agree here, as should conservation as a whole.
Click to expand...

But how does that work? Conservation as a whole isn’t a cohesive entity. And how is ‘conservation’ supposed to be non-partisan on issues like climate change, habitat destruction, fossil fuels and unsustainable use of natural resources?

None of these vital, existential questions are politically neutral whether you’re in the United States, Brazil, China or anywhere else for that matter.
 
Shirokuma said:
But how does that work? Conservation as a whole isn’t a cohesive entity. And how is ‘conservation’ supposed to be non-partisan on issues like climate change, habitat destruction, fossil fuels and unsustainable use of natural resources?

None of these vital, existential questions are politically neutral whether you’re in the United States, Brazil, China or anywhere else for that matter.
Click to expand...
I'm trying not to make this thread too political, but let me write a short answer here. Here in the US pretty much issue relating to the environment are labeled as exclusively liberal issues by the general public. I would like to see conservation as a more upfront issue that isn't leaning one way or another, but important to both sides.

I would prefer that this is the last post here relating to this subject though, because as I said I don't want this thread to get too political.
 
I honestly think zoos engaging in political support for any candidate isn't really needed. I think the zoos should focus on what they do best. Conserving and taking care of animals. The political situation right now is tight, and zoos big or small don't need to support any candidate, as it is simply just not necessary for the whole zoo to do.
The people running the zoo can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't advertise something like "vote for this candidate", as the front face of their zoo.
 
birdsandbats said:
I would prefer that this is the last post here relating to this subject though, because as I said I don't want this thread to get too political.
Click to expand...

With respect I think it’s a bit naive to think that a) you can control the direction a thread takes and b) you can start a thread on a topic like this and not expect it to touch on political questions.
 
Shirokuma said:
But how does that work? Conservation as a whole isn’t a cohesive entity. And how is ‘conservation’ supposed to be non-partisan on issues like climate change, habitat destruction, fossil fuels and unsustainable use of natural resources?

None of these vital, existential questions are politically neutral whether you’re in the United States, Brazil, China or anywhere else for that matter.
Click to expand...
Zoos in the USA lobby Congress through the AZA, which is legal.
Individual zoos may lobby their state and Federal representatives to support conservation initiatives and funding.
What no non-profit zoo can do legally is support a political candidate during an election.
These two actions are different. One is legal here and one will cost the institution its non-profit status
 
Zooplantman said:
Zoos in the USA lobby Congress through the AZA, which is legal.
Individual zoos may lobby their state and Federal representatives to support conservation initiatives and funding.
What no non-profit zoo can do legally is support a political candidate during an election.
These two actions are different. One is legal here and one will cost the institution its non-profit status
Click to expand...

I’m not debating the legal constraints of zoos which I fully understand.

I am disputing the concept that ‘conservation as a whole’ should somehow be politically neutral.
 
birdsandbats said:
I'm trying not to make this thread too political, but let me write a short answer here. Here in the US pretty much issue relating to the environment are labeled as exclusively liberal issues by the general public.
Click to expand...
The business interests in the GOP would have us believe that but the voters disagree with such an easy categorization. Loads of conservatives - and especially younger conservatives - support conservation. Unfortunately it is the business interests that fund and lobby elected officials
Conservation remains a core conservative principle
Don’t let anyone fool you: There ARE environmental conservatives
 
Shirokuma said:
I’m not debating the legal constraints of zoos which I fully understand.

I am disputing the concept that ‘conservation as a whole’ should somehow be politically neutral.
Click to expand...
Of course. Many things "ought" to be politically neutral. Clean water for heaven's sake! The right of a person to make medical decisions about her own body!
But we all know that nothing is politically neutral
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes I agree, but in fact and often by necessity it is very political.
Click to expand...
More so, I think the point that was made is that Conservation should not be the partisan issue, the partisan issue should be what is done FOR conservation. For example, political parties are always going to have different climate change plans, however in an ideal system each party would have a plan to address climate change. The debate should shift to how to solve the problem, not should we solve the problem.
 
Neil chace said:
More so, I think the point that was made is that Conservation should not be the partisan issue, the partisan issue should be what is done FOR conservation. For example, political parties are always going to have different climate change plans, however in an ideal system each party would have a plan to address climate change. The debate should shift to how to solve the problem, not should we solve the problem.
Click to expand...
Amen. This makes perfect sense, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 
Neil chace said:
More so, I think the point that was made is that Conservation should not be the partisan issue, the partisan issue should be what is done FOR conservation. For example, political parties are always going to have different climate change plans, however in an ideal system each party would have a plan to address climate change. The debate should shift to how to solve the problem, not should we solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was what I was suggesting but of course we live in anything but an ideal system and with presidents like Trump and Bolsonaro and the threat they pose to the environment...well, conservationists must be political by necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top