Zoo Feedings & Rides

[snowleopard]

In years past there have been some ZooChat members who have shown disdain for such things as feedings and rides in modern zoos. However, it is startling at just how rich a source of income these type of adventures are and the 2015-16 Annual Report for Living Desert Zoo in Palm Desert, California, illustrates that fact.

In one calendar year the zoo had:

39, 974 Giraffe Feedings. For members it costs $4 and for non-members $5 and so averaging the cost out to $4.50 each individual then the zoo made almost $180,000 from this one offering.

35,952 Camel Rides. At $6 each individual the zoo made almost $216,000 from camel rides.

40,196 Carousel Rides. At $2 each individual the zoo made slightly more than $80,000 here.

Living Desert Zoo is a mid-sized establishment that attracts 400,000 visitors each year and yet the facility is making a decent chunk of change just from its giraffe feedings, camel rides and carousel. I can only imagine what a major zoo would earn from such endeavors. Just looking at Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, with its 2.2 million annual visitors, and the fact that the zoo currently has additional fees for its animatronic dinosaurs, dolphin show, children's zoo, carousel, motor safari, giraffe feeding, penguin encounters, stroller & wagon rentals, butterflies experience plus several more ticketing options. Other zoos have miniature trains, stingray touch tanks and even ultra-expensive adventure ropes courses and it is difficult to be critical of these items as they are fantastic opportunities for zoos to remain financially viable.

 

[overread]

I can't speak for others but I would guess that many who are opposed to things such as animal rides are zoos are possibly coming from:

1) Individuals who take issue with the use of animals to ride in any form and thus its not just zoos doing it; but the act itself.

2) Those concerned that animal health is being put behind financial gains. A profitable enterprise puts pressure on people to continue to perform and might result in some places taking risks or putting more pressure on animals than is healthy.

3) A feeling that its not the right message for the zoo to send and that zoos should focus more on conservation and "wild" activities.



My view is:
1) Things like tram/train rides can be cheap to run and let you engage with the public on the move around a zoo. So long as you've room to run the vehicle without getting too much in the way of pedestrians and as long as the site is big enough to actually benefit from it; then its a nice easy earner.

2) Physical interaction (touching/riding/activities) with an animal (or indeed anything) builds far far far more interest and personal connection for a person than most other things. So direct hands on events can be fantastic.
Earns money; builds a lasting memory that hopefully inspires; presents a great experience for those taking part; encourages those taking part to become more involved which makes them more likely to support the zoo and conservation.

3) So long as the animals health and wellbeing is the top concern; things such as rides can be a great revenue generator. Esp at smaller establishments where there is less pressure from the public (ergo lower volumes) and where maximising income off individual visitors is critical.
Indeed a lower entry cost but with more to spend in little amounts through the zoo is an ideal way to get money from people instead of going for a higher entry fee (Which I think is mostly done to encourage people to take up annual memberships)



There are loads of ways to do this; feeding animals; rides; meet and greet; photography events; keeper talks; trains/trams; guided walks; behind the scenes tours; etc...

 

[Echobeast]

I can understand why some people might not like animal experiences like feedings and rides, but if the institution has the right facilities, it can be a major income source for zoos. Especially those that don't get extra funding from governments or donors.

Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has had giraffe feeding as a part of the zoo for as long as I can remember (it's both the zoo I grew up with and the one I work at) and when the African Rift Valley exhibit was built in the early 2000s, feedings were a major design point. Because people can feed giraffes from open to close, the feedings generate a lot of money for the zoo. The zoo had about 750,000 visitors last year but made over $680,000 from giraffe feedings alone. With an additional $55,000 from elephant and rhino feedings, CMZoo makes almost an extra dollar from every guest that visits. It is also amazing free advertisement when pictures are shared online of people feeding a giraffe at eye level. And after decades of all day feedings, no harmful effects have been noticed. In fact CMZoo has the most prolific giraffe breeding program in the US (I'm not sure about elsewhere).

If a large zoo had the facilities and animals to sustain a similar program, it could benefit the zoo in many ways with possible millions in additional revenue.

 

[blospz]

For animals like camels, who still offer rides at zoos, it would be interesting to hear how they are treated. Do they rotate among their camels? Do the ones not working get to rest in a nicer exhibit? When I see an exhibit that consist of just a walking track and small holding area, I think how mundane their lives must be. Perhaps I am projecting human emotions on them.

 

[Jurek7]

You did not mention another very important reason. Feeding and riding is a very efficient way to bond public to animals and make them care about animal life in general.Animals need all the human sympathy and interest they can get.

I think zoos should re-introduce feeding and riding animals more. Feeding animals was expected in zoos until the mid 20. century. It was forbidden later, for three reasons.

First was that animals were fed with wrong or rotten food and were sick or dying. This was eliminated by public education, and can be controlled by feeding under supervision or with food bought at the zoo.

Second was the trend to create illusion of wilderness, to which tame animals did not fit. This was eliminated because the public got accustomed to the sight of real wilderness from the TV, safaris torus etc, and does not suspend disbelief in zoo exhibits.

Third was the attempt to give animals privacy. This was eliminated because animals do have privacy in good zoo exhibits, but often voluntarily approach visitors, treating them as environmental enrichment.

Zoos need to reach different kinds of audience with different needs. Significant part of the public appreciates animals best by feeding or touching them. Many, perhaps most people are not satisfied merely with a sight of an animal in an exhibit. A big zoo should have different kinds of animal experiences: natural exhibits, feeding, interactions, presentations. In an area with several zoos close by, they might specialize, and e.g. one zoo would have large natural-like habitats and another is a smaller, more intimate feeding and petting experience.

Currently there is not a sensible distinction: horses, donkeys, goats and other animals domesticated int the West can be touched or ridden. However domestics from other regions like llamas, camels and elephants, and tame non-domestics cannot be touched or ridden. There is no objective reason why.

 

[Tim May]

Feeding animals was expected in zoos until the mid 20. century. It was forbidden later, for three reasons.......

There is a fourth reason why feeding was banned in zoos.

In 1967, London Zoo's African elephant “Diksie” leaned forward to take food from a visitor and, whilst she was balancing rather precariously on the edge of the moat, one of the other elephants pushed her. "Diksie" fell into the moat and, very sadly, died of injuries received.

As a result of this accident, the Zoological Society of London prohibited visitors feeding the animals in 1968.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Currently there is not a sensible distinction: horses, donkeys, goats and other animals domesticated int the West can be touched or ridden. However domestics from other regions like llamas, camels and elephants, and tame non-domestics cannot be touched or ridden. There is no objective reason why.

This distinction is however, not due to geographic reasons, but mostly has to do with visitor safety. Sheep, goats, rabbits, guinea pigs, budgerigars, ducks, guinea fowl, turkeys and pigs are in general a lot safer for children to be around with, in comparison to llama, water buffalo, gayal, reindeer, camel or yak. Horses, donkeys and cows (as well as sheep, pigs and goats in lesser extent) are generally limited to the smaller of even dwarf breeds for the same reason. Please note the wide variety of geographic origins in my examples.

Tame non-domestics in general do not make great animals for children to interact with unsupervised. Most people (like myself) who work with such animals know the risks involved for both animals and visitors (or at least I truly hope so). As extra employees for supervising are expensive, many zoos therefore limit these interactions to demonstrations, "meet-and-greet" events or keeper talks.

As for my personal opinion on the matter, I think interaction with animals can be a great way for people to learn to appreciate animals, especially when it considers animals that usually are not given even a second glance. Think of tenrecs, insects and smaller reptiles. But it should always be done with both visitor safety and animal welfare in mind. And that is where problems can easily occur, especially in unsupervised situations. Many, if not most, zoo visitors haven't got a clue how to safely interact with animals.

 

[overread]

Another angle is insurance. Chances are its a lot easier and cheaper to get insurance for common things like horse rides or petting but go to water buffalo and suddenly its a huge difference. It's abnormal which is going to make most insurers charge more.

You've also got to consider marketing. Consider that if one tiger kills a person it makes international news VERY fast. Similarly if your water buffalo hurts someone it is, again, huge news. However if a horse kills someone you've generally got to either be a very important person or have very extreme situations to get it noticed at national level; let alone international.

As a result even very low danger "exotics" are much more difficult to setup even if they are otherwise as good as "standard" domestics. I think this is why you don't see much of it encouraged except if you've got a very small setup with someone very passionate and willing to take the risks and higher premiums.




Tim also raises an important point regarding food. We mustn't forget that animals don't understand planned meal times the same way we do. They certainly understand when regular food is supposed to appear and expect/demand it; however they also don't rely on it. If they associate the public with being a food source/provider they will focus hotly upon them and become more demanding for food. This might well result in issues where animals become violent or stressed when food isn't forthcoming.

Also some animals can have the opposite effect; becoming too tame can make them more of a risk. I know with pheasants you can get males who will be very tame, but when they've got a partner and it hits breeding season that tame male has a high chance of turning on you as you're then viewed as competition. Again this is another potential risk - many animals are easier to manage if they've a degree of disinterest in people; or only have interest in specific people (ergo keepers) who can at least take steps to protect themselves.



Petting can also bring its own risks. Not every animal wants to be petted; and those that do don't want it all day every day. Overstimulation or simply too much contact can sour an animal. Furthermore this assumes that everyone who come to pet knows how to pet. Many people don't.
Some are very nervous or shy and will taunt an animal unintentionally with very soft pets (or the classic offering to pet a parrot and then retreating when the beak comes near). Others have a very heavy hand and a pat can be closer to a smack (which might be fine for a horse but something dog sized might not be so welcoming).
And lets not forget kids and sticky/slimy fingers and all that as well. Not to mention pulling/tugging/pinching/etc...

Animals would need regular rotation to avoid going sour and on-site observation to ensure people are behaving themselves. Whilst this can be a position that volunteers can sometimes take up instead of paid staff; its still another duty that is required of those working on site.



So whilst there's great potential there's also increased potential risk and costs involved. Furthermore I suspect that many avoid the problem for fear of the risks. Much the same way as many people "Fear" being "Sued for anything" these days. The fear and rumour is often more off-putting than the reality and in a market where you're trading on tourism you can't afford to upset the positive marketing with bad news stories hitting the front pages.

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

For animals like camels, who still offer rides at zoos, it would be interesting to hear how they are treated. Do they rotate among their camels? Do the ones not working get to rest in a nicer exhibit? When I see an exhibit that consist of just a walking track and small holding area, I think how mundane their lives must be. Perhaps I am projecting human emotions on them.

From what I've seen, they seem to rotate camels at times and when the zoo closes they get the free time to themselves in a usually off-exhibit area. The keepers often keep them occupied with enrichment and training sessions are put into place. I can't speak for fairs and whatnot however

 

[elefante]

I think feedings are a great way for the public to bond with animals and get a greater appreciation. Plus it does give more revenue to the zoo. Rides I'm not so fond of as you can get kicking and screaming kids as well as the activity likely getting tedious for the animal. As far as other things like playground equipment in zoos, I don't mind that, however, I would hate to see a zoo spend a huge sum of money on that when it could be spent on new exhibits or refurbishing old ones.

 

[Carl Jones]

Does anyone know when the first exhibit that allowed the public to feed Rainbow Lorikeets was opened in the UK?

 

[gentle lemur]

Colchester has free public feeds for giraffes at set times during the day, when keepers hand out leafy twigs and supervise the operation. They used to do something similar with their elephants, but I'm not sure if that is still happening. This is possible because there is a wide raised walkway between the main elephant paddock and the giraffes, so at feeding times the animals are allowed into bays beside the public area where they can reach the food held out to them. I think this is very popular, particularly with children. I have no objection to zoos raising money through 'animal experiences' including animal feeding, but it is nice to see how visitors respond to a free and spontaneous opportunity like this.

 

[Chlidonias]

all the giraffe feedings in NZ zoos are free and they are very popular. Not sure about the situation in Australian zoos.

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

A lot of petting zoo areas allow feeding of some animals as long as the designated feed is used, and various safari parks allow people to feed hoofstock and/or ratites while in their cars.

 

[Jurek7]

This distinction is however, not due to geographic reasons, but mostly has to do with visitor safety. Sheep, goats, rabbits, guinea pigs, budgerigars, ducks, guinea fowl, turkeys and pigs are in general a lot safer for children to be around with, in comparison to llama, water buffalo, gayal, reindeer, camel or yak.

As a matter of fact, water buffalo, gayal and yak are all much more docile than taurine cattle. However I see your point about safety of large and strong animals which can do harm casually.

However, there is excess of smaller wild animals which are little used in feeding: wild sheep and goats, prarie dogs and other rodents, birds etc.

There are also many ways to let the public feed animals through the barrier with no risk of animal biting the human. In one safari park I saw public feeding of baboons through the plastic window with small holes drilled in it.

As for my personal opinion on the matter, I think interaction with animals can be a great way for people to learn to appreciate animals, especially when it considers animals that usually are not given even a second glance. Think of tenrecs, insects and smaller reptiles. But it should always be done with both visitor safety and animal welfare in mind.

Yes - I never seen a visitor other than me interested in a giant millipede or a praying mantis. However, when these are shown by a volunteer as interaction animals there are always interested visitors around.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

As a matter of fact, water buffalo, gayal and yak are all much more docile than taurine cattle. However I see your point about safety of large and strong animals which can do harm casually.

Most zoos just simply don't want any large type of cattle with big horns unsupervised near children, no matter how docile. Hence the popularity of breeds like dwarf zebu which are small, docile and look exotic too. There might be a possibility with hornless yak, but the rarity of this breed withing zoological collections can make sourcing a problem.

However, there is excess of smaller wild animals which are little used in feeding: wild sheep and goats, prarie dogs and other rodents, birds etc.

Prairie dogs (like just about any rodent) can give a nasty bite. When the animals have no reason to put their teeth into a child's finger, that isn't a problem usually, as prairie dogs flee when feeling threatened. But if the animals learn the connection "hand = food", biting can indeed become a problem. Many animals also quickly start to beg for food, which in general is unwanted behaviour. "wild sheep and goats", image a fully grown ibex male that associates visitors with food...

For birds: there is only a handfull of taxa that are relatively easy to source and keep, and that aren't too vulnerable, too skittish or too aggressive. Besides, they must eat someting that is both easy to provide and clean to use for visitors. Hence the popularity of lorikeet feedings, as rainbow lorikeets tick all the boxes I mentioned. The feeding of mealworms to a variety of birds is possible too (and is indeed done by some zoos, like Weltvogelpark Walsrode), but many visitors don't really appreciate wriggling mealworms in their hands.

Of course, a barrier or supervision can solve some of the problems noted.

 

[Jurek7]

Actually, one of my fondest memories from a zoo is feeding a big male ibex in a small zoo in Switzerland. It was feeding with grass through the fence. In such conditions many ungulates make great experience.

There are also at least two zoos with walk-through ibex exhibits but feeding there is not allowed.

Feeding birds with mealworms from plastic cups is generally popular - although probably not all visitors do it.

 

[overread]

Actually, one of my fondest memories from a zoo is feeding a big male ibex in a small zoo in Switzerland. It was feeding with grass through the fence. In such conditions many ungulates make great experience.

And that's exactly the idea.
By giving even a moments interaction it creates a potential connection that's vastly superior to just seeing something in a cage. Even seeing something in the wild is trumped by touching (in general).

I've seen bird ringing demos at wildlife reserves have great impact on visitors (esp but not limited to kids). The few seconds that they might hold a bird for release creates a much more powerful memory and rare experience far more so than sitting in a hide and seeing something through binoculars - especially so for those who might not have started out the day with much interest in birds or wildlife.