Are live animals worth it?
The Museum introduced live animals into its collection over 11 years ago. We are now home to 6 ambassador animals including raptors, snakes, and a frog. These critters came with a cost, including the necessary facilities, staff time required for care, and ongoing financial costs to provide what they need. There is also the ethical question of keeping wild animals in captivity.
Why did the Museum take on the burden? Live animals seemed a perfect fit to fulfil our mission of "connecting people to Northwoods nature through educational experiences that inspire wonder, discovery, and responsibility." Programs with these animals seem to do just that. During raptor programs or snake feedings, I have seen the wonder on audience members' faces, fielded fascinating questions from people wanting to discover more, and taught how we can help these animals in the wild.
While my observations are useful to justify the live collections at the Museum, a study published recently looked at this question scientifically. In the paper*, the authors compared audience perceptions before and after watching a presentation at the Columbus Zoo. Some of the presentations featured live animals and some did not. They found "that the use of a live zoo ambassador animal during educational experiences increases positive attitudes towards some species and enhances perceptions of zoo animal welfare." Participants had more positive feelings toward cheetahs and penguins after seeing the live animal, and they had a stronger perception that animals in zoos have good welfare.
Are live animals worth it? I'm quite certain that a raptor program without live birds wouldn't have the same draw or the same impact. The animals allow for audiences to connect more personally to inspire awe and positive attitudes toward their wild counterparts. I'd say they're worth it!
*The effects of human-zoo ambassador animal interactions on millennial populations,
Comments
Post a Comment