logo
Wildlife Sanctuary vs National Park vs Zoo: What is the difference

Wildlife Sanctuary vs National Park vs Zoo: What is the difference

Time of India4 days ago
Wildlife conservation in the world uses various protected places in a bid to conserve biodiversity. Some of the most common ones include wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
They all have one thing in common, which is to protect animals and nature, but differ in their purposes, functions, and levels of human interference. Differentiating between these is necessary to understand the way conservation works, and how institutions enter into it in varying forms.
Definition and purpose
A wildlife sanctuary is a protected area where wildlife may live freely in its natural state, subject to minimum human interference.
The focus is on the preservation of specific species or populations of wild animals. A national park is more restrictive, meant to safeguard whole natural habitats, fauna, flora, and landscapes whereas, a zoo is a man-made institution where animals are kept in enclosures, usually for public display, education, research, and captive breeding.
It doesn't replicate the wild, but is extremely significant in awareness and conservation of endangered species.
Legal protection and governance
Wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in India and similar acts everywhere else. National parks have more legal protection; no grazing, hunting, or human settlement is allowed. Sanctuaries are subject to fewer restrictions, some activity is allowed under regulation.
Zoos are controlled under distinct frameworks, say the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 in India, and are generally under municipal or urban jurisdictions.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Their focus is more on animal welfare and management than on conserving wild ecosystems. The level of protection has a direct impact on the success of conservation in these diverse environments.
Location and size
Wildlife sanctuaries are usually situated far from human habitations, in forests, grasslands, or wetlands, and can be small or very large based on the variety of animals they are sheltering. National arks usually span larger geographical territories, like mountains, rivers, and forests, with a complete natural environment for plants and animals.
Zoos, however, are typically built in city or metropolitan regions, with little, closed-off areas for general public visitation.
Size and place decide how much wild behavior animals may have and how faithfully conservation mimics real-world environments.Greater, unsegmented habitat typically offers superior conditions for species in the wild.
Animal freedom and natural habitat
In wildlife sanctuaries, animals move about freely in their natural environment.
Humans are minimised, and animals can maintain their natural behavior. National parks ensure even greater protection and freedom, with no interference from humans whatsoever. They are untouched regions where entire ecosystems are preserved.
Zoos, by contrast, isolate animals into artificial enclosures, typically with walls, cages, or glass dividers. Even though modern zoos attempt to replicate natural environments, they can never truly do justice to the natural state of life.
The level of freedom impacts not only animal behavior but also health and well-being, especially in large or social species.
Human use and access
Wildlife sanctuaries may allow limited human use in the form of controlled tourism, research, or residence of tribes, depending on the place. While, human use is greatly restricted in national parks. Recreational uses like tourism are strictly regulated, and grazing, logging, or living are totally banned.
Zoos are meant for public contact. Tourists can move around freely, take guided tours, or participate in education courses.
A delicate balance must be had between access and conservation. Sanctuaries and parks promote in-situ conservation, while zoos engage the public directly in an attempt to raise awareness and support for conservation.
Focus and approach of conservation
Wildlife Sanctuaries are usually interested in the protection of specific species or small groups of animals, for instance, birds, deer, or elephants.
They operate in a narrow but successful way. National parks strive to conserve whole ecosystems, including plants, animals, rivers, and landscapes. What they do is more holistic and long-term, conserving biodiversity at a variety of levels. Zoos practice ex-situ conservation, conserving animals outside their natural ecosystem.
They are necessary for breeding programs of endangered species, veterinary research, and gene pool conservation.
Educational and research role
Wildlife sanctuaries and national arks offer good platforms for ecological studies and field work, although access is restricted in order to preserve the environment. They receive scientists, wildlife photographers, and researchers in animal behavior, plant variety, and climate effects.
Public education is a significant role of zoos. They are accessible to students and families, with interactive displays, labels, and activities meant to expose the public to animals and the environment.
Zoos also fund captive animal research, and it can help to develop more effective conservation methods. Zoos spread all three pieces of information but to a larger extent are open to the public.
Tourism and income generation
Wildlife sanctuaries allow controlled eco-tourism, which can be in the form of safari or trekking, guided or otherwise. These allow income generation for conservation without disturbing the habitat. National Parks are popular travel destinations, with safaris, walks, and wildlife photography.
Tourism is closely regulated to be able to minimize ecological impacts.
Zoos are built thinking about the visitor. They have large numbers of visitors on a daily basis, generate significant revenue from ticket sales, and typically have cafes, gift centers, and learning centers. While tourism is widespread across all three, the approach and size differ; parks and sanctuaries concentrate on nature, and zoos concentrate on accessibility and publicity.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wildlife Sanctuary vs National Park vs Zoo: What is the difference
Wildlife Sanctuary vs National Park vs Zoo: What is the difference

Time of India

time4 days ago

  • Time of India

Wildlife Sanctuary vs National Park vs Zoo: What is the difference

Wildlife conservation in the world uses various protected places in a bid to conserve biodiversity. Some of the most common ones include wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They all have one thing in common, which is to protect animals and nature, but differ in their purposes, functions, and levels of human interference. Differentiating between these is necessary to understand the way conservation works, and how institutions enter into it in varying forms. Definition and purpose A wildlife sanctuary is a protected area where wildlife may live freely in its natural state, subject to minimum human interference. The focus is on the preservation of specific species or populations of wild animals. A national park is more restrictive, meant to safeguard whole natural habitats, fauna, flora, and landscapes whereas, a zoo is a man-made institution where animals are kept in enclosures, usually for public display, education, research, and captive breeding. It doesn't replicate the wild, but is extremely significant in awareness and conservation of endangered species. Legal protection and governance Wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in India and similar acts everywhere else. National parks have more legal protection; no grazing, hunting, or human settlement is allowed. Sanctuaries are subject to fewer restrictions, some activity is allowed under regulation. Zoos are controlled under distinct frameworks, say the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 in India, and are generally under municipal or urban jurisdictions. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Their focus is more on animal welfare and management than on conserving wild ecosystems. The level of protection has a direct impact on the success of conservation in these diverse environments. Location and size Wildlife sanctuaries are usually situated far from human habitations, in forests, grasslands, or wetlands, and can be small or very large based on the variety of animals they are sheltering. National arks usually span larger geographical territories, like mountains, rivers, and forests, with a complete natural environment for plants and animals. Zoos, however, are typically built in city or metropolitan regions, with little, closed-off areas for general public visitation. Size and place decide how much wild behavior animals may have and how faithfully conservation mimics real-world unsegmented habitat typically offers superior conditions for species in the wild. Animal freedom and natural habitat In wildlife sanctuaries, animals move about freely in their natural environment. Humans are minimised, and animals can maintain their natural behavior. National parks ensure even greater protection and freedom, with no interference from humans whatsoever. They are untouched regions where entire ecosystems are preserved. Zoos, by contrast, isolate animals into artificial enclosures, typically with walls, cages, or glass dividers. Even though modern zoos attempt to replicate natural environments, they can never truly do justice to the natural state of life. The level of freedom impacts not only animal behavior but also health and well-being, especially in large or social species. Human use and access Wildlife sanctuaries may allow limited human use in the form of controlled tourism, research, or residence of tribes, depending on the place. While, human use is greatly restricted in national parks. Recreational uses like tourism are strictly regulated, and grazing, logging, or living are totally banned. Zoos are meant for public contact. Tourists can move around freely, take guided tours, or participate in education courses. A delicate balance must be had between access and conservation. Sanctuaries and parks promote in-situ conservation, while zoos engage the public directly in an attempt to raise awareness and support for conservation. Focus and approach of conservation Wildlife Sanctuaries are usually interested in the protection of specific species or small groups of animals, for instance, birds, deer, or elephants. They operate in a narrow but successful way. National parks strive to conserve whole ecosystems, including plants, animals, rivers, and landscapes. What they do is more holistic and long-term, conserving biodiversity at a variety of levels. Zoos practice ex-situ conservation, conserving animals outside their natural ecosystem. They are necessary for breeding programs of endangered species, veterinary research, and gene pool conservation. Educational and research role Wildlife sanctuaries and national arks offer good platforms for ecological studies and field work, although access is restricted in order to preserve the environment. They receive scientists, wildlife photographers, and researchers in animal behavior, plant variety, and climate effects. Public education is a significant role of zoos. They are accessible to students and families, with interactive displays, labels, and activities meant to expose the public to animals and the environment. Zoos also fund captive animal research, and it can help to develop more effective conservation methods. Zoos spread all three pieces of information but to a larger extent are open to the public. Tourism and income generation Wildlife sanctuaries allow controlled eco-tourism, which can be in the form of safari or trekking, guided or otherwise. These allow income generation for conservation without disturbing the habitat. National Parks are popular travel destinations, with safaris, walks, and wildlife photography. Tourism is closely regulated to be able to minimize ecological impacts. Zoos are built thinking about the visitor. They have large numbers of visitors on a daily basis, generate significant revenue from ticket sales, and typically have cafes, gift centers, and learning centers. While tourism is widespread across all three, the approach and size differ; parks and sanctuaries concentrate on nature, and zoos concentrate on accessibility and publicity.

Biodiversity board warns against exploitation of wild mushrooms
Biodiversity board warns against exploitation of wild mushrooms

Time of India

time6 days ago

  • Time of India

Biodiversity board warns against exploitation of wild mushrooms

Panaji: As the sale of wild mushrooms has begun in Goa with the arrival of the monsoon, the Goa State Biodiversity Board (GSBB) has warned against the overexploitation of these edible mushrooms, known locally as 'roen olmi'. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The GSBB has appealed to Goans not to encourage the sale and consumption of these wild mushrooms and has said that locals should instead patronise the 'much cheaper and nutritious button and oyster mushrooms' available in local markets. The roen olmi is considered a delicacy locally. However, the GSBB began initiating awareness on the conservation of roen olmi from 2018, noting that the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, provides protection to natural species of wild mushrooms in wildlife sanctuaries. Yet, these mushrooms are seen being plucked secretly by entering forests for sale and consumption. 'For thousands of years, forest dwellers conserved wild mushroom species. But in recent times, people started exploiting mushrooms, posing a threat to nature,' the GSBB has said. 'The unethical approach of pluckers is degrading sensitive wild habitats, thus causing erosion of biodiversity. Scientists are researching mushroom species for new drugs/pharmaceuticals, but if wild species are destroyed in Goa, then nothing will be left for scientific research. ' The GSBB has also appealed to those involved in plucking and in the roadside sale of roen olmi to leave behind at least 50% of the young stages on the termite mounds for the conservation of their biodiversity. It also asked owners of private forests to care for and conserve the roen olmi species. 'People must completely avoid plucking and bringing very small mushrooms for sale. Nobody should plunder rare smaller species found outside forest areas,' GSBB said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It has added, 'These include varieties known as khut or khutyaliolami, toshaliolami, sonyaliolami, and chonchyaliolami. People must not overexploit non-marketed smaller species of termitomyces, locally known as shiti, shitololami, found at the end of the monsoon.'

Watch: Children in UP parade giant 15-foot Indian rock python bare-handed for 3 kilometers; video goes viral
Watch: Children in UP parade giant 15-foot Indian rock python bare-handed for 3 kilometers; video goes viral

Time of India

time7 days ago

  • Time of India

Watch: Children in UP parade giant 15-foot Indian rock python bare-handed for 3 kilometers; video goes viral

Source: Instagram In a surprising and concerning incident, a group of children was seen handling a massive wild python in a rural village, sparking widespread attention. The footage shows the children carrying the enormous snake bare-handed through the streets, attracting a large crowd of onlookers. Despite the clear risks involved, there was no immediate intervention from local authorities or wildlife officials. This event has raised important questions about public awareness, wildlife protection, and community safety. It highlights the urgent need for better education and enforcement of laws to protect both people and endangered animals in such regions. 15-foot Indian python carried by children amid no official response A viral video from Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, shows children parading a massive 15-foot Indian rock python through their village. The footage captures the kids handling the enormous snake bare-handed, lifting it by its head, midsection, and tail as they walk through the streets. This unusual sight attracted a large crowd, with many onlookers recording and taking selfies with the python. UP reports reveal that during the entire incident, local authorities and the forest department did not intervene or take any action. Despite the unusual and risky situation, none of the onlookers alerted officials or wildlife experts. After parading the giant python through the village, the children released it into a nearby forest instead of handing it over to professionals. The viral video clearly shows the children gripping the massive snake by its head, middle, and tail, walking nearly 3 kilometers through the streets. Social media reactions to viral video of children carrying giant Indian python The video elicited mixed reactions across social media platforms. Some users found the spectacle amusing and entertaining, while many others condemned the actions, criticizing both the children and the apparent lack of wildlife protection enforcement. Comments ranged from disbelief at the children handling such a large and potentially dangerous animal without precautions, to harsh criticism of the authorities' failure to respond. One user expressed concern about the treatment of this endangered species, questioning the absence of wildlife officials during the incident. Others condemned the community's behavior as 'barbaric,' comparing it unfavorably to the civic sense in other countries and calling for stricter measures to prevent such negligence. About the Indian rock python The Indian rock python is among the largest and longest snakes native to India. According to Wildlife SOS, this reptile can grow up to 20 feet in length and weigh as much as 90 kilograms. It is classified as a Schedule I species under India's Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, highlighting its protected status due to vulnerability and ecological importance. Under Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act, any hunting, capturing, or disturbing of Schedule I species like the Indian rock python is strictly forbidden. Violations carry severe penalties including imprisonment for three to seven years and a minimum fine of Rs 25,000. This legislation is designed to safeguard endangered wildlife and discourage harmful interactions. Also Read | Vasuki Indicus vs Titanoboa: Who was the largest snake in fossil history

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store