<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why is a zoo not a museum?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://zoofunding.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/why-is-a-zoo-not-a-museum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://zoofunding.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/why-is-a-zoo-not-a-museum/</link>
	<description>discussions on external funding options for zoos, botanic gardens, and nature sites</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:59:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sun Wukong</title>
		<link>http://zoofunding.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/why-is-a-zoo-not-a-museum/#comment-801</link>
		<dc:creator>Sun Wukong</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://zoofunding.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/why-is-a-zoo-not-a-museum/#comment-801</guid>
		<description>Yes, it is; I think fusing zoo, botanical garden and Natural History Museum into one institution would be one smart thing to do. Besides of mentioned Emmen, this &quot;Biopark&quot; concept is also present in the form of the Arizona Desert Museum.
The advantages:
1. Instead of spending money on three different institutions, the combined amount could be used for optimising just one.
2. Visitors could gain more entertainment &amp; education from this combination; Nature is not just animals or plants or &quot;rocks&quot;, but these elements are interwoven with each other. Showing and educating this interaction could be much more copious than each of the institutions on its own. This combination could also reach a vaster array of visitors, as having the positive reputation of a museum/botanical garden than the sometimes &quot;negative&quot; term &quot;zoo&quot; and offer more activities (f.e. visiting the museum building on an rainy day).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, it is; I think fusing zoo, botanical garden and Natural History Museum into one institution would be one smart thing to do. Besides of mentioned Emmen, this &#8220;Biopark&#8221; concept is also present in the form of the Arizona Desert Museum.<br />
The advantages:<br />
1. Instead of spending money on three different institutions, the combined amount could be used for optimising just one.<br />
2. Visitors could gain more entertainment &amp; education from this combination; Nature is not just animals or plants or &#8220;rocks&#8221;, but these elements are interwoven with each other. Showing and educating this interaction could be much more copious than each of the institutions on its own. This combination could also reach a vaster array of visitors, as having the positive reputation of a museum/botanical garden than the sometimes &#8220;negative&#8221; term &#8220;zoo&#8221; and offer more activities (f.e. visiting the museum building on an rainy day).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
