Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good, but at the end of the day, exhibiting Giant Pandas is a money pit for western hemisphere zoos.
Giant Panda Future in America
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- giant panda
That's all well and good, but at the end of the day, exhibiting Giant Pandas is a money pit for western hemisphere zoos.
Well... if people still want to see Giant Pandas once they leave Atlanta they can still see them at the following museums:
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia @Sarus Crane
American Museum of Natural History, New York City @Sarus Crane
Field Museum, Chicago
Source
I didn't know the Academy of Natural Sciences had nice dioramas like that! I've never gotten around to going, it's always closed when I think of it. Smithsonian used to have one in the mammal hall, I believe?
... No one thinks they have living ones. And they're not "replicas", they're taxidermy.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
I know how insanely popular that pandas may be, but they're just too expensive to care for. Importing pandas from China (even just on loan) is very expensive for the zoo, but that's not all. They need a very expensive exhibit for them and their diet is full of bamboo, which is also very expensive which means even bigger costs for the zoo. Like I said one time in a different thread, expensive animals can be a problem for zoos, and the zoo can even go bankrupt from that, which can cause the zoo to close entirely. All I have to say is North America is simply just not the place for pandas. The place where Giant Pandas belong to breed and thrive is China.
Jonathan Petersson
Well-Known Member
There is a 100% chance that Cincinnati will not be getting giant pandas. The old panda habitat is severely out of date and has been renovated to suit the needs of komodo dragons. While building a new habitat, space would not be an issue per se, it would be a very high cost that the zoo director has stated the zoo is not willing to spend. Fiona, Fritz, and pandas would certainly be quite the national celebrities but in this case the cost and as previously mentioned shadiness of China's end have discouraged the zoo from ever trying to bring these black and white bears to Cincy. COVID has already had such a strong impact on the zoo’s financial side along with inflation, making even caring for animals like the manatees a hard endeavor.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
I had no idea that Cincinnati has had pandas before. Must have been in the 80s.
Jonathan Petersson
Well-Known Member
The zoo temporarily held a male Giant Panda named Chia Chia in 1988 for three months. Maruska, the former director, desperately wanted pandas and so the zoo built a new habitat (now known as Dragons) and negotiated with London for Chia Chia to stay in Cincinnati before reaching his final destination: the Chapultepec Zoo. Unfortunately Chia Chia did not bring in the crowds or profit expected but was still an amazing experience for Cincinnati. The Cincinnati Zoo also funded the new panda habitat at Chapultepec which still stands today!
First you say you're hoping pandas will return and breed here, and now you're saying they don't belong whatsoever? Pick a side please!
You've said this multiple times in thread now, and it's information we're all aware of thank you.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
My opinions have changed based on reading what other members have posted. I'm saying now that pandas only belong in China I've locked it in.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
I don't know anything about internal zoo politics (between directors and boards and curators), so I'm not going to make any predictions about what will happen. But I guess I do feel like the types of zoos that could even remotely consider trying for giant pandas are already at such a high level of independence and prestige that many of the arguments in this thread simply aren't going to be what actually influences or constrains them.
I have the most sympathy for the argument that dollars could have more of a conservation impact if spent elsewhere. I think that's undeniably true. But was pure conservation really ever the main reason that these zoos thought about pandas to begin with? Wasn't it always a combination of prestige and symbolism and diplomacy and guest appeal, more than thinking that the species "needed" an American holding/breeding program?
And if we're talking about dollars, we have to consider some of the other things that zoos spend their money on. From mega-budget exhibits to overpriced playgrounds to animatronic dinosaurs. Every one of us could probably name our favorite (or least favorite) examples. So if we start comparing the panda costs to whichever new monstrosity we like the least, rather than falsely assuming that it's all disappearing from the zoo's conservation funds, then maybe exhibiting a panda isn't quite the huge investment that it sounds like out of context.
I'm also not sure that the downgrading to IUCN Vulnerable is a great reason to stop keeping the species in American zoos. First, because it's still a threatened category (as opposed to all of the NT and LC species that we keep), and second because the public needs to be inspired by progress and successes too -- and this is a pretty charismatic species to use for that. We also know that population numbers can drop as suddenly as they rise, and I'm not a big fan of completely reorganizing our priorities every time there's an increase/decrease.
And unless the AZA is going to go so far as to actually ban giant pandas as a matter of official policy or accreditation standards like they did with white tigers and free contact elephants, I don't think that simply frowning upon it is going to have much of an impact on zoos of this caliber either. That may work for keeping small and medium sized zoos in line, but not the types of institutions at play here.
As for politics, (the factor that seems to be driving this all), that too can change fairly quickly. I don't mean next week or next month. But part of the idea of animal diplomacy is that it's something that can happen early on when reestablishing negotiations, as a symbol or olive branch or token of good will. It can happen quickly precisely because it's something that the political types care less about than their economies or militaries. So even the slightest of improvements could potentially make pandas much more likely again.
Again, I'm not making a prediction of when or whether pandas will return. It may indeed be a long time or never again. I'm just saying that for the "prestige" zoos that would even be considering this, I don't think that cost or conservation will be nearly the factor that we're saying it is (or saying it should be).
I have the most sympathy for the argument that dollars could have more of a conservation impact if spent elsewhere. I think that's undeniably true. But was pure conservation really ever the main reason that these zoos thought about pandas to begin with? Wasn't it always a combination of prestige and symbolism and diplomacy and guest appeal, more than thinking that the species "needed" an American holding/breeding program?
And if we're talking about dollars, we have to consider some of the other things that zoos spend their money on. From mega-budget exhibits to overpriced playgrounds to animatronic dinosaurs. Every one of us could probably name our favorite (or least favorite) examples. So if we start comparing the panda costs to whichever new monstrosity we like the least, rather than falsely assuming that it's all disappearing from the zoo's conservation funds, then maybe exhibiting a panda isn't quite the huge investment that it sounds like out of context.
I'm also not sure that the downgrading to IUCN Vulnerable is a great reason to stop keeping the species in American zoos. First, because it's still a threatened category (as opposed to all of the NT and LC species that we keep), and second because the public needs to be inspired by progress and successes too -- and this is a pretty charismatic species to use for that. We also know that population numbers can drop as suddenly as they rise, and I'm not a big fan of completely reorganizing our priorities every time there's an increase/decrease.
And unless the AZA is going to go so far as to actually ban giant pandas as a matter of official policy or accreditation standards like they did with white tigers and free contact elephants, I don't think that simply frowning upon it is going to have much of an impact on zoos of this caliber either. That may work for keeping small and medium sized zoos in line, but not the types of institutions at play here.
As for politics, (the factor that seems to be driving this all), that too can change fairly quickly. I don't mean next week or next month. But part of the idea of animal diplomacy is that it's something that can happen early on when reestablishing negotiations, as a symbol or olive branch or token of good will. It can happen quickly precisely because it's something that the political types care less about than their economies or militaries. So even the slightest of improvements could potentially make pandas much more likely again.
Again, I'm not making a prediction of when or whether pandas will return. It may indeed be a long time or never again. I'm just saying that for the "prestige" zoos that would even be considering this, I don't think that cost or conservation will be nearly the factor that we're saying it is (or saying it should be).
Never was about conservation at all - they've always been used as diplomatic gifts by China. The rarity status has found the Giant Panda as a flagship for conservation through charisma, but that same charisma is why they can be used as they are. I don't see China charging for Pere David's Deer or Blue-crowned Laughingthrush - but the more charismatic snub-nosed monkeys have seen similar exploits. I certaintly acknowledge deer and laughingthrush situations are a bit different than the Panda and monkeys, but just putting that out there.
Indeed - holding pandas has long been a token of zoo fame in the USA.
If playgrounds and animatronic dinosaurs cost more to upkeep than Giant Pandas, I'd be quite surprised. You don't have to feed them, provide air conditioning, etc. The mega zoos certainly spend plenty on their new exhibit complexes, but at least it's usually for multiple species. Equally, it is well documented that pandas are generally rough on a zoo's finances - several zoos have used sponsorships from major companies to support the pandas, and I've heard some zoos have given them up because they could no longer take the strain. With impending shutdown from Covid, Calgary quickly got their pandas enroute to China to avoid going broke. I've also heard that there's decent evidence pandas often don't manage to pay for themselves, per the financial statistics. By the time you factor in the loans, transport, either growing or shipping in massive quantities of bamboo, air-conditioned holding, the required 24 hour video monitoring, etc, etc, that starts adding up quick. To say nothing of the amount of work involved in successfully timing breeding and then raising young. All for animals you don't own and that can be taken away at any point the owner deems necessary.
It's never been about conservation though - they could be re upgraded to critically endangered, but if China doesn't want to give them to us, we're not getting any. The Chinese facilities have been massively successful in breeding them as well as wild introductions I believe - to the point I've heard Chinese centers are overrun with pandas. It's certainly not a case of not enough animals to spare.
Yes and no - having AZA accreditation shows you hold the gold standard, the seal of approval. The big zoos all have it, and it's embarrassing to lose it for a prestigious facility (eg. Columbus' recent scandal.) In some cases cities require the zoo to maintain AZA accreditation - something a few zoos found out the hard way. Any of the facilities prestigious enough for pandas certainly could deliberately balk the AZA on a major policy if they wanted to - but it would be a bad look and likely backfire in ways they'd prefer not to deal with.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
Thanks! I wasn't aware that China has done this with snub-nosed monkeys too. I only ever hear about it in the context of pandas. I'll definitely check that out.
That certainly is true, and I didn't mean to suggest that we'd see pandas suddenly showing up at every zoo. I think Calgary may be a bit of an unfair example because covid presumably impacted the finances there, but I can understand that there's a range and that not all of the zoos that have held pandas in the past would want to do it again. Prestige is costly and some zoos may have gotten out ahead of themselves. (Or perhaps not. In some cases, having held the species for a limited time may have been enough to establish the zoo's fame without needing to keep the animals around forever). But it's hard for me to imagine that Smithsonian with all their decades of experience, or San Diego with their $88 million basecamp, couldn't come up with the cash if they wanted to. And I suspect that if Disney ever decided they wanted pandas at DAK, the costs would be a drop in the bucket of their global profits.
I'm fine if we want to keep adding on air conditioning and keeper costs and janitorial and whatever else -- since those all do indeed have to get paid. That's all valid. But I get a sense that more often, we get numbers pulled out for their emotional value than their accounting value. If the $1M a year loan and the $100k bamboo are the numbers people have used further up in the thread, what does that really compare to in terms of the other choices that these zoos might actually make instead? (and not just the choices we'd wish for them to make).
About a decade ago, my local San Francisco Zoo did in fact spend $3.2 million building a playground. I thought it made no sense. But it's also the equivalent of three years of a panda loan. So I can't help thinking about that when I hear that zoos with much more extravagant capital projects and operations are considering pandas. They're just working at a scale that most of us mere mortals can't really get our heads around. And looking for a level of fame that I know I'll never achieve.
I think we actually agree on this part. I just wasn't as clear as I had intended to be.
I absolutely agree that if the AZA were to actually formalize a policy and make it an accreditation standard, then it would be trouble for even these most prestigious zoos to lose their accreditation. (like Columbus).
But my understanding from further up in the thread is that so far AZA has not actually adopted such a policy or standard, but merely "frowns on it" in a sort of amorphous way. And as long as that remains the case (merely frowning on it in an unofficial way, but not making it an official policy or standard), then I think zoos like Smithsonian or San Diego could go back to holding pandas without much consequence.
We can still eat at Panda Express, probably the most iconic American panda.
Panda Express - Wikipedia
Panda Express - Wikipedia
There's a lot of excellent arguments against the panda program and I agree with them; however I think the ending of the many loans abroad, and the way it was egged on by social media posts that were clearly coordinated, is an indication that a change in strategy is ahead. What that new strategy can be, and the fallout, is hard to predict, but some of the smart arguments against the current program may be addressed in some fashion. I doubt they will return to the status quo from before though.
I think though, eventually, with pandas no longer present, having such a popular species out of reach will increase public interest and appetites. I think part of the reason for their popularity was the fact they were always fairly rare in captivity.
We will see pandas again, full stop, but in what context remains totally unclear.
I think though, eventually, with pandas no longer present, having such a popular species out of reach will increase public interest and appetites. I think part of the reason for their popularity was the fact they were always fairly rare in captivity.
We will see pandas again, full stop, but in what context remains totally unclear.
I had no idea about this and Columbus, would love to hear more if the info is out there.
Something that I would be really interested to know is if people visiting the San Diego Zoo are requesting to see giant pandas again. I wonder if 20+ years of exhibiting giant pandas quenched the public appetite for seeing the species, or if there will be a swell of desire to see them come back.
I would say "yes", anyone that I have conversations about zoos with that is not "in" the zoo orbit always asks about pandas at San Diego. Most are not aware that anywhere other than SD and National have had them.
Oh, I can try and find the information again, but I am not sure it was even in writing. I have listened to quite a few interviews with people from Columbus over the years. It is my understanding that the sloth bear habitat was built with the possibility of being used for panda, but it was not to be.
They did display pandas from April to September 1992, IIRC where the bonobo are now.
Last edited:
For starters AZA is not gold standard, you just have enough money to join the club.
Columbus was attempting pandas with sloth/sun exhibit but didn't
Bronx every so often brings up pandas but never will due to budget logistics
Oakland was denied even after building the exhibit and had to settle with hamadryas baboons
Omaha was on the path to get them until a beef (literally) between the U.S. representative and China. That's how they ended up with the elephants (which was better in my IMO)
Memphis has unintentionally announced the pandas replacement
Talking to keeper at SDZ, there are no current plans to bring back pandas
I have always thought they were an overhyped species to have, especially for the expense, as much as the little "bears" from Australia
Columbus was attempting pandas with sloth/sun exhibit but didn't
Bronx every so often brings up pandas but never will due to budget logistics
Oakland was denied even after building the exhibit and had to settle with hamadryas baboons
Omaha was on the path to get them until a beef (literally) between the U.S. representative and China. That's how they ended up with the elephants (which was better in my IMO)
Memphis has unintentionally announced the pandas replacement
Talking to keeper at SDZ, there are no current plans to bring back pandas
I have always thought they were an overhyped species to have, especially for the expense, as much as the little "bears" from Australia
While certainly money is a component of AZA-accreditation, the AZA is not simply a pay-to-enter organization. Zoos are held to a long list of high standards and zoos can and do get revoked of this when they break the rules (ex. Columbus, Pittsburgh, ect). Certainly these standards are easier to achieve with more money of course, but what you've said here is highly misleading.