> for-profit organisations get more done because of the constant pressure they feel to perform.

How is it possible that changing the primary existential goal from "save animals" to "make profits" will lead to more efficient animal saving rather than loss of efficiency in animal saving for the sake of profit? That seems like the exact opposite of what would happen.

If saving the animals = more profit, then more animals will be saved. That's the argument, at least, not saying it's feasible.

All you did was repeat the argument without adding any plausible explanation.

Is it really necessary to explain that people desire to enrich themselves, therefore they seek profit, therefore they will do things which resulted in profit?

It necessary to explain when you magically hand-wave in that it's going to benefit the environment and natural animal populations when all evidence and logic indicates the opposite.

There's no particular evidence that "for profit" organisations do better at handling "common goods". And the very definition of your 'for-profit' organisation is that this is what is providing 'pressure to perform'. If they didn't have that pressure they'd just be the same as non-profit. You'd have to explain how a "profit motive" could impact these common goods - which would mean they wouldn't be in public ownership.

I think the idea is to take the common good and make it, to some extent, a private good so that there is a profit motive behind keeping it intact.

Maybe not the best idea.

https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/jm9vjp/how-a-thai-tiger-s...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-animal-s...

Not sure about the thai tiger sanctuary but the referenced Lion's Gate Sanctuary was a 501(c)(3) according to page 3 of http://www.elbertcounty-co.gov/docs/SU-16-0019%20LIONS%20GAT...