"I DIDN'T need critics to tell me it wasn't right". So spoke the director of Dublin Zoo, Peter Wilson, in the pages of a newspaper recently in what was a remarkable volte face.

Many people who have followed the zoo issue over the years will recall the zoo director's frequent rebuttal of any criticism of the zoo. So why now the change of heart? What prompted the blunt admission in the same article: "I am not happy with the state of my own zoo".

The answer is that his "own zoo" is about to receive a 10 year injection of public funds with a total value of £15 million. These are the financial terms of the plan for the future of Dublin Zoo. So it makes sense to attempt to close the door on the dark past by admitting that things were not so rosy after all that perhaps some criticism was warranted, but that the past is the past and we must look to a positive future.

I assume I am one of the critics Peter Wilson likes to refer to as the vociferous minority. Brendan Price, former Dublin Zoo keeper and wildlife expert, is another. Mick Doyle, who chaired (the 1990 inquiry into Dublin Zoo, is yet another. There are many more. (All of us have been ignored.

The media have a balanced role to play, but they have isolated the zoo's most prominent and knowledgeable critic, Brendan Price.

Peter Wilson champions the conservation role of Dublin Zoo. "Every single animal here," he says, "is managed in a conservation programme". In my opinion, this does not reflect Dublin Zoo's role in wildlife conservation.

Most conservation experts agree that few of the world's rare or endangered species can be saved from extinction by breeding them in captivity. In 1990, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) drew up an action plan for the survival of 1,370 species. It considered that the reintroduction of captive bred animals could assist in the conservation of only 19 species (1.4 per cent).

Of the approximately 6,000 threatened or endangered species worldwide, little more than 120 are involved in international zoo breed programmes. Of these, fewer than 20 have been successfully returned to the wild.

The potential, therefore, for zoos to contribute towards conservation through captive breeding is insignificant.

There is no easy solution to the crisis facing so many species. Even if zoos had sufficient space to breed more endangered species, the captive breeding of wild animals and their release to suitable habitats is a complex and often impractical task. It is unlikely to be the most effective option in more than a handful of cases.

Zoos like Dublin Zoo play such a minuscule role in wildlife conservation - and at such an alarming cost - that the role of zoos as we know them is increasingly the subject of critical examination.

Organisations such as the IUCN accept that the focus of conservation - saving endangered species - should be directed towards protecting the natural ecosystems of which those species are a part. No one doubts that this is a tall order. There is a compelling argument that the diversion of both funds and expertise into conventional zoos is compounding the problem.

On the subject of cost, there are major question marks over Dublin Zoo's ability to turn what is currently an operating deficit into a profitably run enterprise.

The zoo has been running at a loss for many years and has only survived thanks to generous injections of funds from Government, always at the time deemed to be one off payments.

Gate receipts are falling and some see another Mullaghmore on the horizon. What would a future Minister for Finance do if faced with a Dublin Zoo delegation, cap in hand, with only part of the development plan completed and £15 million already spent?

Given the zoo's past financial history, and taking into account the financial difficulties experienced by almost all zoos, this is a reasonable question.

In 1994 the Office of Public Works, in its own report on Dublin Zoo, recommended the appointment of an independent committee to monitor the development plan. This was seen by many as a vital component of the plan, and the committee in place today comprises a group of Department of Agriculture veterinary inspectors who have had no previous experience in wild animal management.

What is needed is a totally independent group of experts with unlimited access to both the zoo and the Minister in charge. The group should feel unconstrained by the internal politics of the situation.

The composition and appointment of the independent monitoring committee is clearly outlined in the OPW Zoo Plan and in the EU Draft Directive on Zoos, and is completely at variance with the policy being practised by Dublin Zoo and the Department of Agriculture.

Dublin Zoo's future is far from assured, and the future for its current and future resident animals' remains bleak. It will continue to attract negative publicity because the underlying problems will still be there, even after £15 million has been spent.

Wild animals will still live in totally unnatural surroundings within restrictive enclosures, while changing public opinion will continue to be reflected in diminishing gate receipts as the gloss of the new plan fades.