If asked, I would answer that the primary purpose for the existence of a zoo is to assemble a number of animals that would meet the curiosity of people who would visit and pay some money to cover costs. By this definition, the functions of a zoo are largely for the entertainment of visitors. Reading Leslie Kaufmann's article in the NYT tells me that there is substantial pressure on successful zoos to incorporate the conservation of threatened species into their business model. It is immediately clear that an accreditation body is trying to use the conservation of species as a new criteria for certifying zoos in the United States.
It is altogether understandable that it would be a big advantage to be able to display a wide range of animals as part of building the experience for visitors. However, I think that the management of zoos should not be compelled to change the business model to incorporate conservation because that change will imply different costs and requirements in terms of staff and operations. To start with, some of the fauna that are arguably in danger of extinction may be unknown to the visitors to zoos and therefore the diversion of resources towards saving them may not be a cost effective policy. As stated, tensions will inevitably arise because of the required trade offs where the more popular species as elephants may not be in as much danger. In the eyes of many school children, to visit a zoo to see a toad or unique species of frog in place of the elephant and the Zebra may not be acceptable.
Clearly therefore, the approach should be to allow individual zoos to choose the species in which they would specialize and let the conservation efforts be handled by others that are resourced for it. It will become clear in good time whether these models could co-exist or be run separately. Ensuring the restoration of numbers of some of the species with low numbers may in the end be even beyond some zoos. they should therefore be allowed to provide entertainment only. Conservation requires concentrating resources on a few species and this limits the variety within zoos.
It is altogether understandable that it would be a big advantage to be able to display a wide range of animals as part of building the experience for visitors. However, I think that the management of zoos should not be compelled to change the business model to incorporate conservation because that change will imply different costs and requirements in terms of staff and operations. To start with, some of the fauna that are arguably in danger of extinction may be unknown to the visitors to zoos and therefore the diversion of resources towards saving them may not be a cost effective policy. As stated, tensions will inevitably arise because of the required trade offs where the more popular species as elephants may not be in as much danger. In the eyes of many school children, to visit a zoo to see a toad or unique species of frog in place of the elephant and the Zebra may not be acceptable.
Clearly therefore, the approach should be to allow individual zoos to choose the species in which they would specialize and let the conservation efforts be handled by others that are resourced for it. It will become clear in good time whether these models could co-exist or be run separately. Ensuring the restoration of numbers of some of the species with low numbers may in the end be even beyond some zoos. they should therefore be allowed to provide entertainment only. Conservation requires concentrating resources on a few species and this limits the variety within zoos.
No comments:
Post a Comment