Zoos that best make people become conservationists

Jurek7

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Zoos have the role of making people become conservationists or interested in animals for life. Rather than just breeding rare species or teaching visitors few facts about animals. I wonder what zoos are best in it, and what kind of zoo is best for it? What actually interested you the most?

I feel that best are not always theme parks, where people go once in a lifetime. Good are zoos where one can return many times, and become intimate with some animals, or perhaps see something new every time.
 
Bronx Zoo has set that as a goal for 25 years. It is reflected in their exhibit interpretation (signs). Whether or not that accomplishes the goal is another matter
 
Any good, AZA-certified facility has a major focus on conservation. In fact, that is a criteria for joining the AZA in the first place. Obviously some do it better than others, but the biggest fundamental difference between roadside, unaffiliated zoos and major AZA ones is exactly that: the former is about entertainment and profit, the latter is about awareness and educating the public.
 
Bronx Zoo has set that as a goal for 25 years. It is reflected in their exhibit interpretation (signs). Whether or not that accomplishes the goal is another matter
When I visited Bronx Zoo, there was an educational display near the snow leopards. It gave an example of a family needing to have 12 goats to survive the year. A snow leopard kills a goat? What should happen? It mentioned the survival of the family as well as the snow leopard. I don't think I've seen a similar display in a zoo. I would like natural habitats and their wildlife to be preserved, but I understand how some 3rd world nations consider that view to be hypocritical. Many 1st world nations have destroyed much of their natural habitat and many people would not countenance reintroduction of 'dangerous animals' that threaten people or their livestock. Meanwhile, the same people want to preserve dangerous animals that could kill people and livestock that live nearby
 
When I visited Bronx Zoo, there was an educational display near the snow leopards. It gave an example of a family needing to have 12 goats to survive the year. A snow leopard kills a goat? What should happen? It mentioned the survival of the family as well as the snow leopard. I don't think I've seen a similar display in a zoo. I would like natural habitats and their wildlife to be preserved, but I understand how some 3rd world nations consider that view to be hypocritical. Many 1st world nations have destroyed much of their natural habitat and many people would not countenance reintroduction of 'dangerous animals' that threaten people or their livestock. Meanwhile, the same people want to preserve dangerous animals that could kill people and livestock that live nearby

It’s a very complicated moral, ethical, and global issue. Much of it has to do with habitat destruction and human overpopulation. These animals’ territories would not be continuously shrinking everywhere if the local peoples’ needs for resources didn’t keep growing exponentially. And they keep growing exponentially because poor families in third world countries have 10-12 children, due to lack of birth control options. It becomes a vicious cycle. But some wealthy Westerner can’t just march into Bangladesh and say to a village of poor people, “stop having so many children.” It is a very difficult issue.
 
When I visited Bronx Zoo, there was an educational display near the snow leopards. It gave an example of a family needing to have 12 goats to survive the year. A snow leopard kills a goat? What should happen? It mentioned the survival of the family as well as the snow leopard. I don't think I've seen a similar display in a zoo. I would like natural habitats and their wildlife to be preserved, but I understand how some 3rd world nations consider that view to be hypocritical. Many 1st world nations have destroyed much of their natural habitat and many people would not countenance reintroduction of 'dangerous animals' that threaten people or their livestock. Meanwhile, the same people want to preserve dangerous animals that could kill people and livestock that live nearby
In the Congo Gorilla Forest there is an interpretative gallery dedicated to exploring these conflicts and differing views. It may be hard for first world visitors to fully empathize with third world farmers yet not far from the Bronx Zoo itself otherwise comfortable suburbanites argue about the black bear that come into their back yards.
 
In the Congo Gorilla Forest there is an interpretative gallery dedicated to exploring these conflicts and differing views. It may be hard for first world visitors to fully empathize with third world farmers yet not far from the Bronx Zoo itself otherwise comfortable suburbanites argue about the black bear that come into their back yards.

Yes, that is a very good point too, human-wildlife conflict is pretty much everywhere.

Of course the results and threshold of tolerance / likelihood of coexistence are drastically different between a white picket fence suburb in the United States and a wattle and daub village in the Himalayas. However, there is a commonality there though that can be effectively highlighted in these kinds of educational displays.

For example, look at how many pet dogs and cats / companion animals are preyed upon annually by coyotes in areas of the United States and the conflict that ensues. Then compare this to sheep / goats / cows / yaks or other domestic lifestock which often constitute a families wealth and hold a similar importance in the life for rural peoples across the developing world who live alongside carnivores.
 
Last edited:
Zoos certainly educate wide public about conservation, but I wonder about what zoo exhibits are most effective to make few people interested in animals for life? What particular thing made you interested in animals, for example?
 
Back
Top