Are European Zoos Generally Better than American Zoos?

Shorts said:
It's a fair point you make and particularly galling that zoos run as businesses can't get tax relief on improvements and enclosures given they have little value in the long-run (as opposed to a business building a factory that could offset the costs against any future sale of factory) -technically you'd get tax relief for the costs if the zoo were sold but that's not really an objective for most small zoos. You might get tiny respite under the new allowances for buildings and structures (crumbs really as you get the relief over fifty(!) years).

The presumption is that any business is temporary and it is only a matter of time before it is sold by its founder, as an asset; an asset which can be valued in itself in addition to the sum of its parts. This is reinforced by any company (including a zoo ) being able to claim tax relief on temporary and moveable 'plant' items and equipment, but not on permanent fixed 'betterment'.

Farming is of course, in much the same position as zoos, ie long-term investment, usually by the founders or their families, and an inability to 'cash-in' without the loss of a life-times work or that of previous generations. BUT, agriculture is massively subsidised, both directly and with numerous tax breaks, and exemptions to most of the UK's planning restrictions. These actively heavily financially penalise zoos, when compared to all other educational and leisure institutions and museums.

I never understood why entrance fees for Banham and Suffolk increased so much when they changed from a private enterprise (suffering considerable taxes) to a charity (suffering far less taxes and benefiting from Gift Aid to increase the value of entrance fees.
Click to expand...

There is a very good reason for this, but not one I can go into here...
 
Last edited:
Shorts said:
3. Those run as charities -no VAT,

I never understood why entrance fees for Banham and Suffolk increased so much when they changed from a private enterprise (suffering considerable taxes) to a charity (suffering far less taxes and benefiting from Gift Aid to increase the value of entrance fees.
Click to expand...

VAT is charged at 20% on entry fees, equally if a zoo is a charity or not - entry fees are classed as 'goods and services' as something (ie entry) is received in exchange for the fee. Please see the following taken direct from HMRC web-site...

3.4.2 Taxable

These are goods and services that are standard-rated, reduced-rated or zero-rated when sold by a business, which could include a charity, that’s registered for VAT:
  • the standard rate is charged on most goods and services
  • the reduced rate is charged on goods and services listed in Schedule 7A to the VAT Act, examples include children’s car seats and domestic fuel and power
  • the zero rate applies to goods and services listed in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act, examples include food, books and passenger transport
 
Andrew Swales said:
VAT is charged at 20% on entry fees, equally if a zoo is a charity or not - entry fees are classed as 'goods and services' as something (ie entry) is received in exchange for the fee. Please see the following taken direct from HMRC web-site...

3.4.2 Taxable

These are goods and services that are standard-rated, reduced-rated or zero-rated when sold by a business, which could include a charity, that’s registered for VAT:
  • the standard rate is charged on most goods and services
  • the reduced rate is charged on goods and services listed in Schedule 7A to the VAT Act, examples include children’s car seats and domestic fuel and power
  • the zero rate applies to goods and services listed in Schedule 8 to the VAT Act, examples include food, books and passenger transport
Click to expand...

My bad, apologies. VAT is so bloody labyrinthine (exceptions, exceptions to exceptions) I got a little lost. I was thinking the entry fees to charity zoos was a donation (rather than an entrance fee) and I can't recall seeing a VAT number on a charity zoo receipt (just pulled out an old receipt for International Bird Of Prey Centre which specifically states 0% VAT on some gift-aided entry fees). I'll dig into (for my own sad amusement) when I'm back at work -off due to screw, through shoe, to foot interface at moment. If I find anything contrary to your conclusion I'll PM as I'm sure forum members aren't too excited by VAT rules (and it's a little off-thread).

I was right on the corporation tax though (of that I am certain). :)
 
Shorts said:
as I'm sure forum members aren't too excited by VAT rules..
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on - but it wont hurt every member of the forum, and of the British public to know, (and be told again and again!), that the UK Government takes a fifth of their entry fee straight from them in tax, followed by a huge chunk of the rest too...
 
Andrew Swales said:
Absolutely spot on - but it wont hurt every member of the forum, and of the British public to know, (and be told again and again!), that the UK Government takes a fifth of their entry fee straight from them in tax, followed by a huge chunk of the rest too...
Click to expand...

Technically it's a sixth (20/120) but that doesn't invalidate your point. I don't think UK governments have done anything good for small/medium businesses (and plenty bad for them) for well over a decade -the slight fall in corporation tax doesn't compensate for increases in VAT, significantly accelerated rises in minimum/living wage (of which the government get a large percentage in extra taxes), auto-enrollment, abolishing SSP compensation, reductions in capital allowances, changes to the dividend tax regime and extra admin burdens in the shape of RTI and the upcoming shambles that will be MTD.

Did I really just type that on a zoo forum, I think I'm missing work. :eek:

Now back to zoos.........
 
Last edited:
One of my friend's conversations with a lady in the USA about Bili's (a Bonobo at Zoo Wuppertal) situation revealed that generally hates EAZA for killing surplus stock. According to her, this does not happen in the US; how true is this?
 
littleRedPanda said:
One of my friend's conversations with a lady in the USA about Bili's (a Bonobo at Zoo Wuppertal) situation revealed that generally hates EAZA for killing surplus stock. According to her, this does not happen in the US; how true is this?
Click to expand...
The AZA does not forbid culling of animals. While we never hear stories about it, I bet it is more common that most people think and the zoos just try to cover it up.
 
birdsandbats said:
The AZA does not forbid culling of animals. While we never hear stories about it, I bet it is more common that most people think and the zoos just try to cover it up.
Click to expand...
You should not "bet" something happens unless you have evidence to support it. I volunteered at an AZA zoo for over a decade and I can tell you for a fact no animals were ever culled. They were only euthanized as a last resort if their health mandated it (and even then it had to go through an ethics committee).
 
Getting back to the original question, which zoos in general are better (with obvious exceptions) depends on your definition of a good zoo. For me it is naturalistic exhibits and by this standard the United States far exceeds Europe. I have only visited around 16 or 18 zoos in Europe (and close to 100 in USA) but I have seen some of the alleged best and of course have seen a lot more in photos on ZooChat. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the United States is miles above Europe in this regard (again with individual exceptions).

@Andrew Swales makes a fair point about the tax situation in UK (and perhaps it is similar in other European nations?). I concede it is not a level playing field, so perhaps European zoos can be forgiven for their lack of investment in theming, but that does not negate the fact that USA is better in this regard.

I will say the one area European zoos easily beat us is the quality of food in zoo cafes. Also if your definition of what makes a good zoo is something other than natural exhibits then by your definition Europe could be better than USA. And as I said there are individual exceptions. I was at Zoo Zurich (Switzerland) a week ago and Masaola Hall is by far the best indoor rainforest I have seen and probably the best in the world. It is so far above any comparable exhibit in USA it is laughable.

So there will be individual exceptions - outstanding natural exhibits in Europe and terrible outdated cages in USA (cough * Wildlife World * cough). But as a general trend this is my feeling.
 
Arizona Docent said:
You should not "bet" something happens unless you have evidence to support it. I volunteered at an AZA zoo for over a decade and I can tell you for a fact no animals were ever culled. They were only euthanized as a last resort if their health mandated it (and even then it had to go through an ethics committee).
Click to expand...
I never said it happened at every zoo, nor did I say it was very common at all. I'm just saying that I am willing to bet it is more common than most people would guess. You're right that there isn't really any evidence to support this. It's just a guess.
 
birdsandbats said:
I never said it happened at every zoo, nor did I say it was very common at all. I'm just saying that I am willing to bet it is more common than most people would guess. You're right that there isn't really any evidence to support this. It's just a guess.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you. I've heard stories here and there and seen an article or two online talking about how US zoos have euthanized animals they can't place elsewhere in the past. I don't think it's an unknown secret here that some zoos have been known to not let surplus eggs hatch as well? Of course I have no idea how common this is, or if it even happens at all anymore. It seems much more common for animals (particularly hoofstock) to be sold off to private keepers than to be euthanized.

littleRedPanda said:
One of my friend's conversations with a lady in the USA about Bili's (a Bonobo at Zoo Wuppertal) situation revealed that generally hates EAZA for killing surplus stock. According to her, this does not happen in the US; how true is this?
Click to expand...

Is this even a common thing in Europe, though? I can only think of two examples in recent years of a European zoo publicly euthanizing a surplus animal. Surely it's only that many European countries are less sensitive to this sort of thing than Americans are, and thus they have less of a need to hide things from the public? As far as Bili goes, the euthanasia story was completely fabricated in a thinly veiled attempt to have the animal forcefully taken from the zoo.

~Thylo
 
In the US I would submit that outright euthanasia for culling purposes never happens or virtually never. Instead they disappear via middlemen to destinations unknown and unspoken about.
 
While I like the naturalistic enclosures that many American zoos offer, I wish they came with fewer obnoxious cultural themes and a smaller price tag. It's become the norm to spend several million dollars to hire a design company that goes ham trying to make it into what is effectively a large stage set. This does several annoying things: it distracts from the animals themselves, it takes space away from other potential exhibits and animals to make room for unnecessary themed space, and it results in more money being spent that could've been invested into maintenance or improvements elsewhere... so while I commend the style of creating naturalistic exhibits rather than just simple paddocks or wood-and-wire cages, it can certainly go too far in the other direction.

Also, when it comes to species diversity in zoos, I think it's worth noting that Europe simply has more zoos, and thus has the capacity to keep self-sustaining populations of more species than North America does. Until global management becomes more of a norm, it doesn't seem like this will change anytime soon.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Getting back to the original question, which zoos in general are better (with obvious exceptions) depends on your definition of a good zoo. For me it is naturalistic exhibits and by this standard the United States far exceeds Europe. I have only visited around 16 or 18 zoos in Europe (and close to 100 in USA) but I have seen some of the alleged best and of course have seen a lot more in photos on ZooChat. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the United States is miles above Europe in this regard (again with individual exceptions).

I will say the one area European zoos easily beat us is the quality of food in zoo cafes. Also if your definition of what makes a good zoo is something other than natural exhibits then by your definition Europe could be better than USA. And as I said there are individual exceptions. I was at Zoo Zurich (Switzerland) a week ago and Masaola Hall is by far the best indoor rainforest I have seen and probably the best in the world. It is so far above any comparable exhibit in USA it is laughable.

So there will be individual exceptions - outstanding natural exhibits in Europe and terrible outdated cages in USA (cough * Wildlife World * cough). But as a general trend this is my feeling.
Click to expand...

I'm in general agreement with you, both on naturalistic exhibits being the basis for judging US zoos to be better than Europe, and for European zoo cafe food being far better than in the US. I think that stems from the fact that US zoos cater to kids' taste, and here in the US we dumb down our kids' food. The "children's menu" is an abomination. In Europe, food for a small child in a restaurant is smaller portions, maybe slightly simpler, of what's on the rest of the menu. In the US, doesn't matter if the cuisine is French or Thai, the kids menu is going to have the same Sysco frozen personal pizzas and dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets. And since zoos' primary traffic is parents bringing their young children, the foodservice aspect just focuses on churning out this kind of food in high volume. Procurement is cheap and preparation low-labor cost, which gives them a lot of room to make a high margin at a price point that stays just shy of exorbitant.

It would be refreshing to see a zoo focus on an interesting food program, maybe one that has foods influenced by regions represented in the zoos. I think of the African Forest at the Houston Zoo, which has theming that competes with Disney Animal Kingdom (that's not coincidental, Rick Barongi, who had a major hand in Animal Kingdom, then went on to be director of Houston Zoo and led the African Forest design). Why couldn't the cafe in that part of the park have some African-inspired food like some of the dining options in Animal Kingdom.

I'm also thinking about Mitsitam Native Foods Cafe, the food court of the National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall in Washington DC, which is probably the best museum food court I've ever been to anywhere in the world, when it comes to a mix of quality of food and thoughtful pairing of the food to the mission of the museum. There are several stations, each representing the Native American peoples of a particular area of the continents, from Eastern Woodlands to Plains to Pacific Northwest, down to South America, and each serving foods inspired by and using ingredients from those regions, like cedar plank salmon for the Pacific Northwest, to grilled bison loin for the Plains, and the prices are surprisingly reasonable. I'd love to see more zoos embrace this kind of food.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
While I like the naturalistic enclosures that many American zoos offer, I wish they came with fewer obnoxious cultural themes and a smaller price tag. It's become the norm to spend several million dollars to hire a design company that goes ham trying to make it into what is effectively a large stage set. This does several annoying things: it distracts from the animals themselves, it takes space away from other potential exhibits and animals to make room for unnecessary themed space, and it results in more money being spent that could've been invested into maintenance or improvements elsewhere... so while I commend the style of creating naturalistic exhibits rather than just simple paddocks or wood-and-wire cages, it can certainly go too far in the other direction.

Also, when it comes to species diversity in zoos, I think it's worth noting that Europe simply has more zoos, and thus has the capacity to keep self-sustaining populations of more species than North America does. Until global management becomes more of a norm, it doesn't seem like this will change anytime soon.
Click to expand...


While I've visited many European zoos I've never actually visited any US zoos so I speak only on what I've seen from observations / impressions of pictures I've seen on this site.

I think that zoos in the US seem to have a far more commercial / theme park type ambience which is something that I personally am not really fond of and that I don't think is so prevalent in Europe. where things seem to be more aesthetical and low key.

That said there are some zoos which I get very positive vibes from like the Bronx zoo and the Woodland park zoo.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
What happened with this bonobo ?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Bili's situation improved over time.
Funnily enough, the organisation that were so determined to take the bonobo from Wuppertal to Wales, were not so interested in taking the old chimps there. They wanted to take them to their Brazilian projects, even though the Welsh zoo has held chimps for years, but not bonobos.
 
littleRedPanda said:
As far as I know, Bili's situation improved over time.
Funnily enough, the organisation that were so determined to take the bonobo from Wuppertal to Wales, were not so interested in taking the old chimps there. They wanted to take them to their Brazilian projects, even though the Welsh zoo has held chimps for years, but not bonobos.
Click to expand...

Ok, but what was the situation to begin with ?

Was this animal going to be euthanized ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top