Zoo privatization, a crisis for the industry.

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tiffany Saunders

Active Member
Back in the seventies the vast majority of Americans zoos were run by city, county or state auspices so when you worked there you had benefits, retirement and job security not to mention transfer opportunities and labor unions.

over the last few decades there has been a major Trend to privatize their operations

Park after park has been handed over to private nonprofit operators and corporations whose primary goal is to turn a profit

This is a real tragedy that affects us all

It's hard to believe we've come to a point in American history where we are literally selling off our public assets to corporations and private operators who plan on turning a bigger profit by hacking and slashing at benefits, pay and Animal Care.

I personally believe that corporations are bribing our politicians or at least offering big kickbacks to take the public asset that was built and maintained by tax dollars and sell it off.

You have to get a load of what privitazition has in mind for our natural world
 
To my understanding, most privatization in the context of zoos has been nonprofit societies and zoo organizations taking control so as to be independent from the politics and budget shortfalls that come with being city-run. I think this is quite different than being corporatized.

Does anyone have evidence or know of situations where a zoo that separated from their local government suffered because of it? I'm genuinely curious because most of what I've heard indicates that it has been a positive change for those facilities.
 
I volunteered for over a decade at a city run zoo that recently went privatized (but only after they received funding from a new sales tax). I have also followed zoos for decades (in books, online, personal discussions with directors, etc). In my experience governments are terrible at running zoos and the best thing that could happen to a zoo is to get out from under city (or county or state) control. In every instance that I know of privatization has had an overwhelmingly positive effect. And as others have said, they are taken over by non-profit organizations, so their goal is not "to turn a profit." If this thread continues to develop I may list some specific examples, but I don't want my initial post to get too long.
 
Arizona Docent said:
If this thread continues to develop I may list some specific examples, but I don't want my initial post to get too long.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in this, as one thing that anti-zoo folk repeat that really eats at me is the profiteering angle. After the death of Melati at London Zoo, an anti captilist ranted on their facebook about the finances of ZSL, quoting figures relating to 'dubious' investments and wages

* 13 Staff members are paid between £60k-£70kpa.
* 7 Staff members are paid between £70k-£80kpa.
* 2 Staff members are paid between £80k-£90kpa.
* 5 Staff members are paid between £90k-£100kpa.
* 1 Staff member is paid between £100k-£110kpa.
* 1 Staff member is paid between £110k-£120kpa.

I don't know what roles those staff members fill, but the anti capitalist activist presumably thinks they should all live in tents or huts. Still, its something that comes up time and again, such as the Wales 'sanctuary' campaign to smear the director at Wuppertal Zoo and his supposed greed.
 
littleRedPanda said:
I would be interested in this, as one thing that anti-zoo folk repeat that really eats at me is the profiteering angle. After the death of Melati at London Zoo, an anti captilist ranted on their facebook about the finances of ZSL, quoting figures relating to 'dubious' investments and wages

* 13 Staff members are paid between £60k-£70kpa.
* 7 Staff members are paid between £70k-£80kpa.
* 2 Staff members are paid between £80k-£90kpa.
* 5 Staff members are paid between £90k-£100kpa.
* 1 Staff member is paid between £100k-£110kpa.
* 1 Staff member is paid between £110k-£120kpa.

I don't know what roles those staff members fill, but the anti capitalist activist presumably thinks they should all live in tents or huts. Still, its something that comes up time and again, such as the Wales 'sanctuary' campaign to smear the director at Wuppertal Zoo and his supposed greed.
Click to expand...

Wow! - that gives me something to aim at, perhaps I can order the Maserati after all...
 
Arizona Docent said:
In every instance that I know of privatization has had an overwhelmingly positive effect. And as others have said, they are taken over by non-profit organizations, so their goal is not "to turn a profit." If this thread continues to develop I may list some specific examples, but I don't want my initial post to get too long.
Click to expand...

A few random, and sometimes inter-connected points:
  • Assuming we're just talking about zoos (given I can think of many non-zoo scenarios where privatisation has not worked) I agree that the profit motive, at the very least, gives a straightforward goal that everyone in an organisation can understand and work towards;
  • That said, in the UK at least, privatised can mean a fully commercial operation or a charity (which still needs profit to survive in the long-term);
  • The risks relating to charities running zoos typically coalesce around inabilities to make swift decisions when the group of people running them struggle to agree on the best way to achieve the zoos goals (or even what the goals are). Conversely, too much power in one individual can also lead to poor decisions (especially when there are few financial consequences for the person making the decision) -Twycross (in the recent past) being the classic UK example.
  • Government funded zoos (of which there are few in the UK) run the risk of bad decisions by people who are spending other peoples money and will most likely get bailed out if wrong decisions are made. To be fair in the UK, all such zoos all seem very well run (possibly because they're on tight budgets and know they have little room for error) unlike many other council follies.
  • Charitable zoos tend to flourish when the group of people running them have a clear vision of what they're trying to achieve and how to get there. It also helps if they're capable, through their procedures, of making as swiftly as needed (quickly for short term projects, more time on the longer term).
In summary, I think a zoos success depends more on the organisations ethos and quality of people running them (like all organisations really). In the UK, the few government funded zoos seem to be run well, the achievements/quality of charitable zoos can vary (Chester has become a player on a European level whilst being run as a charity whilst London's fortunes seem to have waned, alternatively contrast Highland Wildlife Park and Edinburgh) and run for profit zoos can be good, bad or ugly (I'm sure we can all think of examples of all of these types).

In the UK (at least) privatisation and a profit motive, seemingly, has less effect on success than the quality of people involved.
 
Last edited:
Arizona Docent said:
In my experience governments are terrible at running zoos and the best thing that could happen to a zoo is to get out from under city (or county or state) control.
Click to expand...
What makes governments so bad at running zoos, based on what you've seen? Is it because they don't have the expertise needed to run a zoo?
 
If I am reading the responses correctly, it seems most of us disagree with the original premise of this thread. @Zooplantman works in the zoo profession (as I understand it) and consults with many different USA zoos, so I think he has a good overview of the situation. Now it is time for those examples I promised.

Toronto City Council forced the Toronto Zoo to send their elephants to a non-AZA sanctuary, against the express desires of zoo staff. This resulted in a temporary suspension of their AZA accreditation.

Tucson City Council prolonged the transfer of aging elephants from Reid Park Zoo to San Diego Zoo (and building of new elephant exhibit for breeding herd) because they had to hold hearings based on the complaints of a handful of animal rights extremists.

Portland City Mayor fired the long-time and venerated Oregon Zoo veterinarian based on accusations from animal rights extremists about the death of a primate. He was later reinstated after an outcry from his coworkers at the zoo.

New Mexico State Parks denied my request to publish photos taken at Living Desert Zoo & Gardens in my book Zoos of the Southwest unless I paid a ridiculous filming fee and filled out a permit. The local zoo director was powerless because all requests had to go through the State Parks office in another city. I was forced to remove their chapter before publication, even though all of the remaining 17 zoos gave me permission.
 
toothlessjaws said:
As the name suggests, a "nonprofit" organisation does not prioritise turning profit.
Click to expand...

As a marketer, I can assure you that not-for-profit organisations are most definitely concerned with making a profit - it's the only way they can expand and continue to operate
 
Goura said:
As a marketer, I can assure you that not-for-profit organisations are most definitely concerned with making a profit - it's the only way they can expand and continue to operate
Click to expand...

Okay, ya got me! I was speaking in context of the conversation. Let me clarify: It doesn't prioritise making profit for shareholders. The profit is returned to the cause.
 
Goura said:
As a marketer, I can assure you that not-for-profit organisations are most definitely concerned with making a profit - it's the only way they can expand and continue to operate
Click to expand...

Here in the USA there are regulations governing how much profit a non-profit may hold onto (as opposed to spending on the organization/facility) or else they lose their non-profit tax status. If the organization's holdings or endowment are too profitable they will need to spend or divest in some way.
 
In theory the main difference is where the profit is supposed to go. In a for profit it goes to individuals in a non profit to further the organization's goals. Humans being humans of course there are profits who do more for charity than some nonprofits and some non profits that
individuals make way more than they do for charity (not referring to any zoos with that remark).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top