Long-term effects of COVID-19 economic downturn on zoos

This is a very strong assumption, zookeepers (at least here in CZE) are one of the most cautious and closely monitored groups.
Perhaps but they live in the general community and just as an infected keeper passed coronavirus to a tiger at the Bronx Zoo so, too, will others be infected

Are hiring freezes better than keeping your staff unhappy because of understaffed shifts and thus potentially leading to more quitting? It might be the case for some small private zoos, but the bigger zoos will certainly not opt to it until they will absolutely have to....
And yet historically this is what happens. Smaller staffs having to do more. If that business practice hasn't arrived in the Czech Republic yet then count yourself VERY fortunate
 
7. Some small zoos will close. While they can do with reduced staff they will have had to keep up mortgage payments, pay for animal feed and vet services, utilities, etc. with no income. Few have sufficient financial reserves.

Does this mean that medium and large zoos do have 'sufficient financial reserves'? Some medium and large zoos have huge levels of borrowings which far outweigh their financial reserves. To take some kind of comfort in the thought that it will only be the small zoos at risk, is dangerous and naive.

It would also be very useful if when using such simplistic speculation, to actually consider how a zoo closes? If for example a small zoo has say 1000 animals of 100 species, please explain HOW it closes, just exactly what happens the next morning?

A florists can close, or an ironmongers, or a restaurant, or a football club - but exactly how does a zoo close? We are repeatedly told on here that a small private zoo is just another commercial company to be taxed by Government for the benefit of all, and I continually bang on saying we are not - the public does not consider us such, and our position is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED!

If you want to use phases like 'some small zoos will close' - please explain how?
 
And yet historically this is what happens. Smaller staffs having to do more. If that business practice hasn't arrived in the Czech Republic yet then count yourself VERY fortunate

Oh this happens here very often... I've experienced it too and I'm glad that empolyers are actually trying to listen to their staff and solve it rather than telling them "well, that is your fight"...we all know how much zookeeping job pays, it is not going to cause a dent in zoos finances, especially if they opt for some less-experienced option. (But as I said this applies more to the bigger and usually not private zoos)
 
Does this mean that medium and large zoos do have 'sufficient financial reserves'? Some medium and large zoos have huge levels of borrowings which far outweigh their financial reserves. To take some kind of comfort in the thought that it will only be the small zoos at risk, is dangerous and naive.

It would also be very useful if when using such simplistic speculation, to actually consider how a zoo closes? If for example a small zoo has say 1000 animals of 100 species, please explain HOW it closes, just what happens the next morning?

A florists can close, or an ironmongers or a restaurant, or a football club - but exactly how does a zoo close?

If you want to use phases like 'some small zoos will close' - please explain how?
This "disagreement" is due in part to our perspectives in our respective continents. AZA institutions are required to maintain months worth of financial reserves. So yes, for these "medium and large zoos do have 'sufficient financial reserves' "

A zoo with no funds will close or the animals will starve. With no ability to borrow money, no ability to pay for feed or vets or electricity or building repairs or water or sewage or waste hauling, they will close. Who do you think will take over the financial responsibilities? It may not be pretty but it impoverishment finds a way.

I must counter: How do you propose such zoos will keep the animals cared for when the facility has no bank account?
 
Last edited:
but exactly how does a zoo close?

This has my interest for quite some time, I already adressed it in other thread, but I can't quite wrap my head around the speculations of some zoo owners/directors from England (I don't want to single them out too much but it is the country that is easier to gather info from because of my Zoochat friends) about euthanising animals because they will be unable to keep them...in our country that would be illegal...
 
This has my interest for quite some time, I already adressed it in other thread, but I can't quite wrap my head around the speculations of some zoo owners/directors from England (I don't want to single them out too much but it is the country that is easier to gather info from because of my Zoochat friends) about euthanising animals because they will be unable to keep them...in our country that would be illegal...

We cannot wrap our heads around it either! - so we have to hope that silence from the authorities here means they are about to announce something. It certainly would not be legal to euthanase them in the UK either, the zoos own Vets would never do it if it was, and we cannot see how the Government could force other Vets to come in and do it over the heads of the approved Vets. Zooplantman says the animals could be left to starve, which is I guess is an alternative to euthanasia in the US at least; as would be to release them, as has also happened in private collections in the US in the past.

If all of this has occurred to us, then it must have occurred to Government too.

As I covered this week on another thread here, in the UK none of this is actually an issue, as an agreed zoo closure plan is a condition of EVERY zoos licence (not just association membership) under our Governments Zoo Licensing Act. The absence of such a plan means the Local Authority takes control, as has happened in the past with the closure of one small zoo, which took many, many months to achieve. In other countries it could be different.

In the US Zooplantman says AZA members will be fine as 'AZA institutions are required to maintain months worth of financial reserves' - thats great, but we hear in some cases they've already spent a third of them, and the situation could go on for another two years...

The English phrase is - 'the larger you are, the harder you fall'.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure I follow the logic that zoos cannot close because it is unthinkable that animals could be euthanised. Perhaps it was unthinkable six weeks ago, but back then it was unthinkable that public hospitals would refuse treatment to critically ill patients on the basis that they are unlikely to survive. And yet...

These are unprecedented times. Check your pre-conceptions at the door.
 
A zoo with no funds will close or the animals will starve.

This makes no sense.

"With no ability to borrow money, so ability to pay for feed or vets or electricity or building repairs or water or sewage or waste hauling, they will close. Who do you think will take over the financial responsibilities? It may not be pretty but it impoverishment finds a way.

I must counter: How do you propose such zoos will keep the animals cared for when the facility has no bank account?

The large zoos will have no bank account either once they've spent the rest of their few months reserves. They cant feed their animals on donations, a small zoo can. They need more sewage, more repairs, more electricity - and MASS visitation.
WAKE UP - they are equally, maybe more, vulnerable.
 
I’m not sure I follow the logic that zoos cannot close because it is unthinkable that animals could be euthanised. Perhaps it was unthinkable six weeks ago, but back then it was unthinkable that public hospitals would refuse treatment to critically ill patients on the basis that they are unlikely to survive. And yet...

These are unprecedented times. Check your pre-conceptions at the door.

You are right, which of course you always are, but it would still be helpful to HOMIN96 and the rest of us if you could explain who would do the euthansias...
 
This makes no sense.



The large zoos will have no bank account either once they've spent the rest of their few months reserves. They cant feed their animals on donations, a small zoo can. They need more sewage, more repairs, more electricity - and MASS visitation.
WAKE UP - they are equally, maybe more, vulnerable.

I agree fully with Zooplantman on this. First of all 3-6 months is required of AZA zoos, yet this time allows them to make measures for a prolongment of this hard period. Now I disagree significantly on the length of that time and believe that we would permanently destroy the majority of American cultural institutions under said scenario, as well as those who work in said industries. Same goes for most small businesses and even larger businesses revolving around foot traffic.

Another point, the larger a zoo is the less admissions and guest services matter to their fiscal health. Most large zoos in this nation have funding agreements with their city, and receive major donations. As well many zoos receive bond funding which cannot be siphoned off, this is how many major exhibits are funded. Smaller zoos like Sylvan Heights Bird Park in my home state are for example 75% dependant on guests. Without guests fiscal stability becomes increasingly hard, and much quicker than larger zoos.

Also theirs fiscal solutions to most of what you have mentioned. Repairs unless essential will be deferred. Won’t be the first time or the last, unless something is on its last legs it can wait. For utilities many cities and states have prohibited disconnection for nonpayment, they will eventually have to pay but for now they may be able to defer. Lastly large zoos in the United States have clout, they are large employers especially of lower-income youth. They generate lots of tourism and money for cities, and hence they have some degree of political leverage that small zoos simply will never have.

A zoo with no money is a zoo that has exhausted all other options. They will do near anything to stay solvent but if they cannot receive a line of credit, and have run out of all funds then closure is the only option. If this closure is of an AZA zoo then the animals will be more likely to be rehoused, although even then current numbers are not that far below capacity. If its not AZA the zoo better hope sanctuaries have space and want to take in those animals, but given the amount of roadside zoos in this country that’s unlikely. Hence you arrive at the situation of euthanasia.
 
I’ll ignore the bait, if that’s ok.

The simple answer is that somebody will be found - a local farmer with a rifle, if it comes to it.

Before you twist my comments, understand that I am *not* advocating for this, and for about the fifth time I will reassure you that I do hope you receive the financial support you are seeking. But I don’t accept your logic that a lack of willing vets will make the difference between whether the zoo sector does or doesn’t receive a bailout.

I will also point out that this is a bit of a straw man argument. It does not follow that the only alternatives are that either all zoos remain open, or animals get killed. Nobody is suggesting that the entire zoo sector will fall over, and there’s no reason to assume that either all zoos will receive bailouts or none will. It is far more likely that, say, 10% of available places for animals are lost across the UK than 100% or even 30%. Most animals are likely to be rehomed, either at other zoos or privately. You have set up a false dichotomy where it’s either bailout or death.

Finally, you have previously stated that your failure to establish a closure plan means the keys to Hamerton get handed over to the Council, as if this serves as some sort of guarantee that they will ensure it doesn’t come to that so they don’t have to run a zoo. The thing is, they don’t ‘have’ to run a zoo. They would be left with a responsibility to do *something* with it, but they don’t have to maintain it as a going concern.
 
I’ve avoided posting in this thread as the best anyone can do right now is speculate but I’ve enjoyed everyone’s insight into the situation. Every zoo is different and some have prepared better than others. Most have laid off or furloughed non-essential staff such as food and guest services. Some have gone further and furloughed or fired full-time keeper staff. Being in the industry I’m hearing all sorts of different responses by different institutions and it’s giving me decent insight on the inner workings of some of the major zoos we thought were in better financial position but aren’t. There are some we wouldn’t think would be in good position based on their revenue stream but are doing ok financially for now. I don’t want to divulge too much info as to protect my colleagues so I’ll leave it at that.

I also just wanted to add that if we are talking about zoos in the US, they can apply for a small business loan of up to $10 million from the federal government that doesn’t need to be repaid if they keep their employees working. It will be interesting to see how these loans are given out. How long it takes will affect whether a zoo remains open or files for bankruptcy. If they don’t get funding or aren’t partially open and gaining revenue by June, we will probably start seeing more lay offs and bankruptcies declared from larger institutions.

Another thing that is happening because of the financial situation is that it is very cheap to borrow money right now. It would be very smart for some zoos to borrow money now to help offset costs that will be cheap to pay back later. Construction costs should go down as well so if a zoo was smart with their money, they might not be delayed with projects in the future due to this crisis.

Some states are starting to peak right about now by the best predictions so we may start to see rollbacks to previous policies such as closed indoor buildings, guest number restrictions, limited touch opportunities, etc sooner rather than later. As stated several times, a zoo’s expenses don’t go away when they are closed. So I feel many zoos are going to be innovative in the ways they can open and operate in a safe manner to bring in revenue. Compared to other industries that can afford to lay off their employees and sit and wait it out or work from home, zoos will need to find solutions and I think they are smart enough to do it without causing a new peak.
 
I've just arrived on this scene, and it seems as if just about everyone is making this very binary, with only the extremes as options. Even if it were in dire straits, Hamerton isn't going to hand its keys over to the Council; they and all of the other respected zoos in our countries are led by people who respect and love wild animals. Any zoo that can not survive financially will most certainly find placements for their animals, not merely toss the keys and walk away. And there is no doubt in my mind that these rare animals will be snapped up in a heartbeat by zoos that are on sounder financial footing, especially since they will come cheap or free with the costs of their care not a lump-sum expense today, but one stretching out into the future, one day at a time. I've read nearly all of you for years now, and I honestly think that if we weren't so stressed right now (I know, I live in the state with the fastest-growing case and mortality rate in the country) we would all be looking at things in much finer shades of gray, not this black and white polarity. In addition to the stress, that unconscionable small-zoo owner who brazenly threatened to euthanize all of his animals escalated emotions to the point where we are on this path of catastrophizing, because we saw him leap to the blackest possible scenario (in what someone rightly called blackmail) if he didn't get people to donate immediately.

We should know better. Things we didn't think we could withstand a month ago have transpired, and we're still here. I'm in a high-risk category for the virus and planned as of two weeks ago to be isolated for months if necessary. Then, of all things, I contracted a raging dental abscess that was so serious that an endodontist was allowed to open to see me; then, when it was discovered that the infection had destroyed so much bone that I needed not a root canal but an extraction, an oral surgeon was allowed to open up to remove the tooth. I still don't know if the infection is under control or not. Then, yesterday, I broke all three bones in my arm by falling on my elbow. More chance of infection from a huge laceration, more exposure to the virus, more trips out needed to get prescriptions, the need to see an orthopedic surgeon to see if surgery is needed, a trip to get sutures removed, etc... You know what? I'm alive and writing today. I never could have predicted that I would survive a major bone infection or broken bones or many breaks in quarantine that could have exposed me to the virus. We take things one day at a time, because that's all we can do. Yard by yard, life is hard; inch by inch, life's a cinch--or at least less overwhelming. No, we can't solve all the financial problems of every zoo as we opine here, but we can proceed one step at a time, one day at a time, in the direction of survival. People who catastrophize like the small zoo owner create catastrophes--who would now want to give to a zoo run by a man whose only self-proclaimed alternative is to euthanize his animals?

Let's slow down and breathe. Our worry serves no purpose. Only in quiet moments can we find ways to get us through to tomorrow.
 
In most cases capital funds are dedicated and cannot be moved to operations budgets. But zoos may conclude that if the new projects required additional staff then the projects will need to be evaluated.

Cycling back to this, I think it will vary by case.

If a zoo has been granted, say, $10m from a municipal budget for capital works, but then comes to the city asking for financial support to sustain operations due to collapsed revenue, it will generally be within the power of that city to redesignate that funding. I think that in the rare cases where such grants have been provided, it is more likely they will do so than provide additional grants for operating purposes.

Obviously it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to redirect funding from specific bond measures to operating funds, but there is an election in November and plenty of time for proposals to be put to voters to loosen the restrictions on those funds too. Obviously that would be a very desperate measure.

Certainly I think that projects that are currently in construction will be finished, though it's not unthinkable that something might be built and then not populated with animals to avoid a further drain on operating budgets. I don't have a specific example in mind, but a hypothetical one might be a new shark tank: it's one thing to build the tank and another to fill it with water.

Anything for which ground hasn't already been broken is at risk of not happening, I fear.
 
I've just arrived on this scene, and it seems as if just about everyone is making this very binary, with only the extremes as options. Even if it were in dire straits, Hamerton isn't going to hand its keys over to the Council; they and all of the other respected zoos in our countries are led by people who respect and love wild animals. Any zoo that can not survive financially will most certainly find placements for their animals, not merely toss the keys and walk away. And there is no doubt in my mind that these rare animals will be snapped up in a heartbeat by zoos that are on sounder financial footing, especially since they will come cheap or free with the costs of their care not a lump-sum expense today, but one stretching out into the future, one day at a time. I've read nearly all of you for years now, and I honestly think that if we weren't so stressed right now (I know, I live in the state with the fastest-growing case and mortality rate in the country) we would all be looking at things in much finer shades of gray, not this black and white polarity. In addition to the stress, that unconscionable small-zoo owner who brazenly threatened to euthanize all of his animals escalated emotions to the point where we are on this path of catastrophizing, because we saw him leap to the blackest possible scenario (in what someone rightly called blackmail) if he didn't get people to donate immediately.

We should know better. Things we didn't think we could withstand a month ago have transpired, and we're still here. I'm in a high-risk category for the virus and planned as of two weeks ago to be isolated for months if necessary. Then, of all things, I contracted a raging dental abscess that was so serious that an endodontist was allowed to open to see me; then, when it was discovered that the infection had destroyed so much bone that I needed not a root canal but an extraction, an oral surgeon was allowed to open up to remove the tooth. I still don't know if the infection is under control or not. Then, yesterday, I broke all three bones in my arm by falling on my elbow. More chance of infection from a huge laceration, more exposure to the virus, more trips out needed to get prescriptions, the need to see an orthopedic surgeon to see if surgery is needed, a trip to get sutures removed, etc... You know what? I'm alive and writing today. I never could have predicted that I would survive a major bone infection or broken bones or many breaks in quarantine that could have exposed me to the virus. We take things one day at a time, because that's all we can do. Yard by yard, life is hard; inch by inch, life's a cinch--or at least less overwhelming. No, we can't solve all the financial problems of every zoo as we opine here, but we can proceed one step at a time, one day at a time, in the direction of survival. People who catastrophize like the small zoo owner create catastrophes--who would now want to give to a zoo run by a man whose only self-proclaimed alternative is to euthanize his animals?

Let's slow down and breathe. Our worry serves no purpose. Only in quiet moments can we find ways to get us through to tomorrow.

I’m very sorry to read all this. Wishing you a speedy and full recovery. :(
 
I’m very sorry to read all this. Wishing you a speedy and full recovery. :(

Thank you, @CGSwans, that's very kind. But I am just as sorry to see all of you being so caught up in the polarizing binary options that our fearless leader (in particular) and stress bring us to. I just happen to have been granted a bit of zen and humor with all of my calamity. I trust you know I'm just as worried about our zoos as you are, but we all have more feasible suggestions to offer when we don't succumb to extremes. As always, @Echobeast makes calm analysis look easy, when he is even more closely affected than any of us. We'd be wise to follow his lead.
 
Then, of all things, I contracted a raging dental abscess that was so serious that an endodontist was allowed to open to see me; then, when it was discovered that the infection had destroyed so much bone that I needed not a root canal but an extraction, an oral surgeon was allowed to open up to remove the tooth. I still don't know if the infection is under control or not. Then, yesterday, I broke all three bones in my arm by falling on my elbow. More chance of infection from a huge laceration, more exposure to the virus, more trips out needed to get prescriptions, the need to see an orthopedic surgeon to see if surgery is needed, a trip to get sutures removed, etc... You know what? I'm alive and writing today.

When it rains, it pours!

Glad you are doing okay despite the near-comical levels of misfortune you have had to endure lately - and hope you continue to remain safe and sound henceforth :)
 
When it rains, it pours!

Glad you are doing okay despite the near-comical levels of misfortune you have had to endure lately - and hope you continue to remain safe and sound henceforth :)

Yes, there is always the henceforth, isn't there?;) People have been reminding me that these things seem to come in three's....;) There's always next week.:cool:
 
Back
Top