Alright, this thread has gotten derailed quite a bit from the original post that sparked the conversation. Yes, Como is not a major zoo and offers a very limited selection of animals that mostly focuses on the ABCs. I've heard it brought up repeatedly and pretty much anytime Como is mentioned on this site. My overall response is a big fat "WHO CARES." It clearly has worked for them as they are managing to open their third $10+ million dollar exhibit (this one at $20 million) since 2010 this summer while charging no admission. On top of this you can add on the small, species lacking Tropical Encounters at $2.1 million. On the flip side of this, Minnesota really hasn't done much since opening Russia's Grizzly Coast in 2009. The only other notable thing was the renovation to the aquarium, which didn't change much from the visitor perspective other than swapping out the dolphins for the monk seals. Clearly, the ABC animals are working for Como. Yes, their are obvious downsides, such as the lack of species that entice zoo nerds on this website to visit. However, as mentioned repeatedly on this site, we make up a very small percentage of the total zoo going population. Unfortunately, zoos aren't targeting us with their plans and that isn't likely to change. Como is on a very limited footprint and what you see is what you get. I think it is unfair to call it boring (as I don't know if I have ever really thought that about any zoo I have been too), but I can definitely see where it leaves the visitor wanting more and everyone has their own opinion. If you want more information on why Como does so well compared to Minnesota, I refer you to my previous posts a page or two back, where most of this has already been discussed. I will bring up a few more I didn't really discuss their here though.
Now to get back to the article this was initially about and the zoo. I, like others have already said, also find the plan disappointing and lack luster in scope. I do truly believe the zoo needs something exciting once again and this really isn't it, but I can see where the zoo is going. The zoo is trying to become self-sustaining as David Frawley, the zoo's director, states in the article because "I think Minnesotans and the state expect us to be a smart business model." This has become very relevant, like at many other zoos of late, especially since the Great Recession in 2008/2009. Due to the zoo being owned by the state, unlike all but one other zoo in the country, it has one very different and significant barrier to getting government funding than a city zoo. This is the fact that the zoo is supposed to the "Minnesota's zoo", and it does serve about 3.5 million (within an hour or so drive) of the states 5.6 million people by being in the Twin Cities area, but it isn't exactly easy access for the rest of the state, especially the northern part. For this reason, many state law makers are very hesitant to approve funding for the zoo as it isn't very accessible for many of their constituents. By comparison, a city zoo gets funding from the city it is in which makes it easier to justify the expenses to its tax payers as they are the ones that it is most likely to benefit. Yes, obviously city zoos still struggle. On top of that, the zoo lost a lot of trust and good will it had going with the state, and the population, with that aquarium renovation. When the zoo asked for the funding from the state, they told the state that they were going to keep the dolphins and bring them back. Low and behold, after the state approved the funding, they announced that the dolphins would not return (it wasn't quite that quick, but that is eventually what it boiled down too). Although, I believe this was absolutely the right decision, it is a lot harder to explain that to the general public. Couple this with what I said in my previous post that a good amount of people prefer Como specifically because it has the ABC animals the general public wants to see and it makes it very hard for the zoo to convince the state to give them funding. State law makers see what Como is able to do with free admission and wonder why Minnesota can't do the same with what is seen as a steep admission cost (seen this way simply because Como is free).
Due to all of that, I think it is a smart move for the zoo to at least strive to be more self-sufficient. Do I think this will get the zoo fully there? No, but it is a start. Some of it doesn't really make sense to me though. Why spend $22 million to renovate the old monorail into this Treetops Trail? I think it is a good use for this structure, but the fact that it covers largely the same exhibits as the Northern Trail (and misses others on it), along with a decent amount of non-exhibit area it seems like a possible renovation that will not have the true payoff they anticipate and many guests won't utilize. Unless they do plan to add some exhibits, I'm not sure how much it would be used. The only benefit I foresee currently is that it puts you over the lake in the Musk Ox enclosure and may give you a better view of them. Lets just say I'm skeptical about. I think the camping, along with the other things mentioned, could be quite a good idea and it sounds a little more unobtrusive (at least in the article) than at some other zoos.
I think the zoo does need to add some ABC animals unfortunately. In my mind they don't need to be the same ones that are held at Como, and they shouldn't be for that matter. However, I think the zoo does need to do more to get visitors in the door in terms of animals and Como proves that those animals work to do it (along with being free). Your average zoo visitor wants to see those animals and though they may not be the most exciting animals to see for all of us I do still enjoy them. I think that is a necessary step to making the zoo self-sufficient and allow them to do more of what they want with their original focus. It would definitely take some work to stick with the current focus of the zoo and cold weather animals in most areas, but I think they can continue to do it. It would obviously just take some work.
I don't really know much about David Frawley still, but I remember thinking when he was first hired, he did not seem to be the type of director that would aggressively work to expand the zoo, but would instead focus on the conservation aspects and be more focused on maintaining what was their. I think this is shown in the article by them not wanting to expand and destroy nature as it is not within the scope of the zoo's goals. It is definitely commendable, but I'm not sure it will work out in the long run if the zoo wants to be self-sustaining. I don't think they need to develop all of the 500+ acres they have, but I do think they should develop some of the additional space.
Lastly, does anyone actually have a copy of the master plan? I looked for it a bit, but didn't find it. Didn't do a deep dive though. Are their any new plans for animals in it?
I saw only three passerines in the entire zoo: Blue-Gray Tanager, Saffron Finch, and some sort of cotinga that I only got a two second look at.
