Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:27:27.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a research-based conservation identity for zoos – a reply to Wehnelt and Wilkinson, and Thomas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2005

Paul A. Rees
Paul A. Rees
Affiliation:
School of Environment & Life Sciences and Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment, Peel Building, University of Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, M5 4WT, UK. E-mail p.a.rees@salford.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Wehnelt & Wilkinson (2005) suggest that I am confused about the aim of the Zoos Directive, stating that it is ‘… to further the conservation role of zoos rather than increasing research activities.’ On the contrary, they have confused the aim with the means of compliance. Participating in research is but one means by which a zoo may demonstrate a conservation role. I have not suggested that research activity should be increased, or that poorly resourced zoos should develop research programmes, or indeed that research is a compulsory activity. I have merely suggested that much of the research undertaken in zoos is not directly relevant to conservation and, as such, does not fulfil the requirements of the Directive. Wehnelt & Wilkinson have produced no evidence to the contrary.

Type
Forum
Information
Oryx , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 135 - 136
Copyright
© 2005 Fauna & Flora International