what are the least and most cost-effective animals to keep in a zoo

Cost-effective are smaller cute day active animals like ring-tailed lemurs, meerkats, otters, prairie dogs and domestics like rabbits, llamas and pygmy goats.

Least cost-effective animals are rarely kept :) Small nocturnal mammals (genets, martens, rodents, foxes, bats) have a reputation of being boring to visitors. The same about songbirds and amphibians. Also leaf-eaters like langurs, okapis, duikers are expensive to keep in Europe but not more interesting than their cousins which eat fruit or hay.

In reality, however, it mostly depends on the way of presenting the animal. An African porcupine is boring, but if you have feeding sessions, they become very very popular. Seals and sea lions are generally extremely popular when there are shows or training sessions. But if there are large tanks with underwater viewing and intensive filter, the cost skyrockets and recently some American zoos consider them too expensive to keep.

German zoos used to have a very good knowledge what animals are popular and how to present them to attract the crowds. It goes back to the beginnings of 20. century, when zoos used to be purely self-financing from visitor tickets. The current generation of zoo directors is focused on conservation. However, this entertainment knowledge becomes important again, at the time of financial crisis in the West.
 
I also believe animals´ cost-effectiveness involes species that act as an "ambassador" to more threatened or difficult-to-keep species of their genus. Most visitors know what a "Nemo" Ocellated clownfish/Amphiprion ocellaris is. While not the same as a full species specific conservation project, displaying the readily available Ocellated clownfish becomes easier, rather than going into further lengths required to get the more threatened McCulloh´s Amphiprion mccullochi, and you still get to be part of the overall conservation conversation for the genus.
 
Jurek7 said:
The current generation of zoo directors is focused on conservation.
Click to expand...
That's only partly true. While some do indeed care about conservation work, for others (especially the ones with a professional background in economics / business management), it's mostly a means to an end to justify to the public the further existence of the zoo against the virtually increasingly hostile anti-zoo lobby in Germany / Austria. For them, running a zoo is a business; which results in more and more major zoos having both a zoological and a business director to meet all the bureaucratic and economic demands. With the latter usually having the last say when it comes to the acquisition of animals.
 
I think the cost-effectiveness (or lack thereof) of some species can make a pretty good defense of zoos, in some cases. Zoo visitors for the most part want to see certain animals - the ABCs - and don't generally care that much about the rest. Some popular animals are fairly cheap and easy to accommodate - zebras, kangaroos - some are very expensive, like polar bears, penguins, and elephants, but all drive the gate.

If zoos were solely focused on making profits, they'd just be focusing on the animals people want to see. Visitors want to see bears, for example, but except for pandas and polar bears, they don't really distinguish much between bears. In the US, non-releasable American black bears and brown bears are very readily available, with animals being euthanized by wildlife managers each year due to lack of placement options. If zoos were just focused on having bears for visitors to see, those would be an easy choice. Instead, we invest in habitats and specialized care and support for field programs for sloth bears and Andean bears (the former, in my experience, sometimes being derided as "not even real bears" by visitors). You could make the same argument across taxa. Why invest in exotic, endangered crocodilians when most guests will be just as happy with a good ol' American alligator? How many visitors can tell the difference between a Przewalski's horse and a mustang? I mean, both are "wild horses" to them, right?

Taking this train of thought, if zoos were solely focused on profits, why would be spend so much time, money, and effort on the conservation of species no one besides us cares about? Guam rails? Kihansi spray toads? Black-footed ferrets? Burying Beetles? In some cases, these animals don't even go on exhibit, and many of the ones that do are pretty poor exhibit animals. If it's just for good PR, we do an awful job of it, seeing as 99% of the public never hears about most of them. Instead, we "waste" money on these animals because we ourselves place a (non-monetary) value on their survival, and we want to do what we can for them.
 
Aardwolf said:
If zoos were solely focused on making profits, they'd just be focusing on the animals people want to see.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much the premise of "Fierce Creatures". ;)

However, one cannot deny that there are at least some people in charge in (major) zoos for whom the business aspect is prevalent and "conservation" is good for business, as in greenwashing and thus justifying their jobs. I don't have to look far in Salzburg to see such an example. I know, I know, I'm a cynic - but sometimes, it is what is.
 
Maximoose said:
In the United States they are mb
Click to expand...
Probably not in San Diego. And the times that the United States (of America) were the be-all and end-all, at least in regard to koala husbandry, are over. If they ever were such in the first place;)
 
Last edited:
It could be said that, in pre-Avian Flu days, Blue Peafowl were a highly cost effective exhibit. Six feet long, bright blue, and you don’t even need an enclosure for it. Everybody knows what it is. Cheap to feed, cold hardy, sleeps in a tree. Now of course free roaming birds are a liability.
 
FBBird said:
They’re also REALLY boring….
Click to expand...
In Dresden the koalas are inside a house with lots of other animals, including monkeys. I have to say the monkeys really steal the show, being much more active. The majority of visitors who go through that house spare little more than a glance to the koalas.
 
Are leaf-cutter ants some of the most cost-effective animals? Many visitors spend a lot of time looking at them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top