Big-Spending American Zoos
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
That is a real sad fact...
Sounds great, but the governments, individuals and corporations that give money to zoos to build exhibits are very unlikely to give money for conservation projects in foreign countries (or even their own country). Especially since so many of the places in greatest need are also run by governments that are corrupt, incompetent etc.
Dan
Well-Known Member
I am stunned, thrilled and fascinated by the money that the big US zoos can spend! Also, I am a bit surprised by the fact that evidently many of them are actually supported by tax dollars to an extent that was totally unknown to me until I joined ZooChat. Pleasantly surprised, I should add.
Here in my own semi-socialist Sweden (with the highest taxes in the world) not much tax payer´s money are used to support zoos. We have two major zoos - Kolmården and Borås. Both were started and funded by their respective municipal communities, but Kolmården was eventually sold to an entertainment company that specialises in amusement parks. Borås Zoo is still owned by the city of Borås and I assume that it receives subsidies.
One of my two personal "home zoos", Skanes Animal Park (the other one being Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark), has until now been partially subsidized by tax money, but this is about to end. A decision has been made to give it a final grant, a sum of money to be received over the next four years. After that, the park is on its own. Make it or break it!
The sum of money it will recieve over the next four years? The equivalent of a little bit more than 1 (one) million US dollars..........
Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn´t it?
---
My other "home zoo", Copenhagen, regularly receives generous private donations, unheard of in Sweden. The latest of course being the stunning single donation of 150 million Danish kronor to build the new polar bear exhibit. That is something in the region of 15 -20 million US dollars, perhaps more (I don´t care to check out the math right now but it is VERY SERIOUS amounts of money...). Maybe the Danish billionaire foundations are more animal friendly than the Swedish ones...
Here in my own semi-socialist Sweden (with the highest taxes in the world) not much tax payer´s money are used to support zoos. We have two major zoos - Kolmården and Borås. Both were started and funded by their respective municipal communities, but Kolmården was eventually sold to an entertainment company that specialises in amusement parks. Borås Zoo is still owned by the city of Borås and I assume that it receives subsidies.
One of my two personal "home zoos", Skanes Animal Park (the other one being Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark), has until now been partially subsidized by tax money, but this is about to end. A decision has been made to give it a final grant, a sum of money to be received over the next four years. After that, the park is on its own. Make it or break it!
The sum of money it will recieve over the next four years? The equivalent of a little bit more than 1 (one) million US dollars..........
Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn´t it?
---
My other "home zoo", Copenhagen, regularly receives generous private donations, unheard of in Sweden. The latest of course being the stunning single donation of 150 million Danish kronor to build the new polar bear exhibit. That is something in the region of 15 -20 million US dollars, perhaps more (I don´t care to check out the math right now but it is VERY SERIOUS amounts of money...). Maybe the Danish billionaire foundations are more animal friendly than the Swedish ones...
Last edited:
EvilKittie
Well-Known Member
Chester - Islands in Danger, Tropical Realm (old, but still amazing!), Tsavo 1+2, The new dik-dik enclosure, cheetahs, Asian Plains, New warty pig enclosure, babriusa+otter enclosure, the flamingo exhibit
Colchester - Cherry thingy mibob manageby
London - Clore rainforest, the new penguin exhibit
Bristol - the flamingo exhibit, outdoor bats, twilight thingy, bugs,
Blackpool - new penguin exhibit
to name a few ^^
Colchester - Cherry thingy mibob manageby
London - Clore rainforest, the new penguin exhibit
Bristol - the flamingo exhibit, outdoor bats, twilight thingy, bugs,
Blackpool - new penguin exhibit
to name a few ^^
To be fair, although those are generally good exhibits, most of them are not world-class - Chester's dik-dik exhibit is an old hardstanding with some sand and plants - does the job admirably, but a world-class exhibit it ain't.
The list of "world-class" exhibits being tossed around on here is a little bizarre, as most of them appear to be average at best. However, deciding what is terrific and what is substandard are subjective beliefs and thus if someone thinks that the weird-looking mangabey enclosure at Colchester Zoo is actually half-decent then that is fine with me.
The dollars at the disposal of American zoos is indeed quite staggering, and to think that the Oregon Zoo currently has $125 million that has not even been touched is quite remarkable. That money came from a bond that was voted on and passed about a year ago, and so I don't believe that the zoo had to raise even a penny themselves. Also, the Detroit Zoo in August of 2008 was given 15 million PER YEAR solely from local taxpayers in the surrounding county. So exactly HALF of the entire annual budget of the zoo is paid for by citizens surrounding the zoo, and whether people like it or not they are forced to contribute via taxes towards their local zoo.
Would there ever be zoos in European countries where half of the annual operating budget is paid for by taxpayers? Would there be millions of dollars in government subsidies, or bond issues paid for via referendums? That is why with all of the money involved with the major American zoos then the smaller collections in both the United States and around the world cannot compete in terms of expenditure. Multi-million dollar animal habitats are erected every couple of years, while other zoos struggle to build basic wooden enclosures. Unless the notion of zoos as something more than frivolous entertainment is altered then it is difficult to see where the financial backing will come from in zoos that are not in the United States, and I'm puzzled as to how many zoos in Europe manage to afford mega-budget exhibits. Private sponsors and kindly donations from the public?
The dollars at the disposal of American zoos is indeed quite staggering, and to think that the Oregon Zoo currently has $125 million that has not even been touched is quite remarkable. That money came from a bond that was voted on and passed about a year ago, and so I don't believe that the zoo had to raise even a penny themselves. Also, the Detroit Zoo in August of 2008 was given 15 million PER YEAR solely from local taxpayers in the surrounding county. So exactly HALF of the entire annual budget of the zoo is paid for by citizens surrounding the zoo, and whether people like it or not they are forced to contribute via taxes towards their local zoo.
Would there ever be zoos in European countries where half of the annual operating budget is paid for by taxpayers? Would there be millions of dollars in government subsidies, or bond issues paid for via referendums? That is why with all of the money involved with the major American zoos then the smaller collections in both the United States and around the world cannot compete in terms of expenditure. Multi-million dollar animal habitats are erected every couple of years, while other zoos struggle to build basic wooden enclosures. Unless the notion of zoos as something more than frivolous entertainment is altered then it is difficult to see where the financial backing will come from in zoos that are not in the United States, and I'm puzzled as to how many zoos in Europe manage to afford mega-budget exhibits. Private sponsors and kindly donations from the public?
The list of "world-class" exhibits being tossed around on here is a little bizarre, as most of them appear to be average at best. However, deciding what is terrific and what is substandard are subjective beliefs and thus if someone thinks that the weird-looking mangabey enclosure at Colchester Zoo is actually half-decent then that is fine with me.
I would consider every exhibit on my list to be a great contribution to pretty much any zoo in the world, and would therefore see them all as world-class. I even deliberately avoided exhibits like Howletts' Kitchen Garden to avoid causing controversy on my list so how you find the exhibits I listed "bizarre" or, even more extreme, "average at best" is beyond me.
At lot of Evil Kittie's list (no offence intended) could be construed as bizzare. They even listed Tsavo 2 which is an off-exhibit facility
I've never been to Chester Zoo but even I can see that EvilKittie's selections were bizarre (likewise, no offence intended). I think he may have just misunderstood the thread's concept.
I wonder how much of an americans zoo's budget is spent on window dressing? making the exhibit look nice and immersive?
Here we seem to basing 'world class' on the fancy stuff without looking at what gets the job done most efficiently (obviously we aren't basing it entirely on aesthetics just alot of it). If we were to base world class on what efficiently gets the job done then Paignton zoo's orangutan island gets my vote.
Is all that money spent on aesthetics and immersion a waste?
Here we seem to basing 'world class' on the fancy stuff without looking at what gets the job done most efficiently (obviously we aren't basing it entirely on aesthetics just alot of it). If we were to base world class on what efficiently gets the job done then Paignton zoo's orangutan island gets my vote.
Is all that money spent on aesthetics and immersion a waste?
Aren't zoos in existence as much for the public as for the animals? I've heard declarations that zoos are 80% for the people (and probably 100% at one time in history) and only a small percentage directed towards the conservation, welfare and preservation of animals. Many American zoos are run on taxpayer money, which allows them to run with operating budgets in the tens of millions of dollars. New exhibits are erected every few years, and if a zoo has millions at its disposal then its animal enclosures are not necessarily going to be a combination of chicken wire and wooden planks.
One example of why money matters:
Jaguar Cove at Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle is brilliant, and the $4 million spent on the enclosure for two jaguars is money well spent in my humble opinion. A massive kapok tree at the entrance of the Rainforest loop combined with a large, naturalistic big cat exhibit means a great enclosure. No bars, ugly fences, brick walls, garish mock-rock or chainlink wires that are so common in lesser zoos. Both get the job done of keeping jaguars within an enclosure, but which is better? I'd vote for Jaguar Cove over what Dartmoor Zoo (U.K.) or the Greater Vancouver Zoo (Canada) have for their jaguars, which amount to second-rate, cheap cages. Is there really any comparison? Both of those zoos do not have much money, which is why they are left with substandard cages instead of multi-million dollar, natural environments for their jaguars.
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-117147/
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-brilliant-114187/
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-brilliant-114190/
One example of why money matters:
Jaguar Cove at Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle is brilliant, and the $4 million spent on the enclosure for two jaguars is money well spent in my humble opinion. A massive kapok tree at the entrance of the Rainforest loop combined with a large, naturalistic big cat exhibit means a great enclosure. No bars, ugly fences, brick walls, garish mock-rock or chainlink wires that are so common in lesser zoos. Both get the job done of keeping jaguars within an enclosure, but which is better? I'd vote for Jaguar Cove over what Dartmoor Zoo (U.K.) or the Greater Vancouver Zoo (Canada) have for their jaguars, which amount to second-rate, cheap cages. Is there really any comparison? Both of those zoos do not have much money, which is why they are left with substandard cages instead of multi-million dollar, natural environments for their jaguars.
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-117147/
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-brilliant-114187/
http://www.zoochat.com/622/jaguar-cove-brilliant-114190/
@foz: I wholeheartedly agree with you in that sometimes there are massively over-budgeted atrocities in American zoos that are supposedly "immersive" exhibits. The Pittsburgh Zoo has a "Tropical Forest" with loads of tropical plants OUTSIDE of the exhibits for lemurs, gibbons, mandrills and orangutans. The actual enclosures are shockingly stark and bare. There is nothing but fake rock and concrete, with the primates kept indoors for their entire lives. Surrounding the cages are many plants that are tantalizingly out of reach, and the gorillas are the only ones with an outdoor area but it is more of a soccer field than a representation of an African jungle. What a colossal waste of money! However, there are many truly wonderful examples of aesthetics in better quality zoological parks.
I'd argue this appears to be just as good for the cats, probably cost a fraction of the price yet it's not exactly ugly either:
http://www.zoochat.com/508/broxbourne-jaguar-cage-38918/
Even you said it's excellent
http://www.zoochat.com/508/broxbourne-jaguar-cage-38918/
Even you said it's excellent
Kudos Ash for finding that obscure photo! It is a decent jaguar exhibit, as there really aren't that many good ones in the zoo world, but it is not even in the same ballpark as Jaguar Cove. The enclosure would be better if the green poles were covered with ivy or some other kind of foliage to hide the metal, but for a low-budget British wildlife park I'm impressed.
It is a decent jaguar exhibit, as there really aren't that many good ones in the zoo world, but it is not even in the same ballpark as Jaguar Cove. The enclosure would be better if the green poles were covered with ivy or some other kind of foliage to hide the metal, but for a low-budget British wildlife park I'm impressed.I think all of the renovations currently going on at zoos across the US is an indication that the exhibits needed to be updated. Zoos are in competition with water parks.
There's also been a huge shift in exhibit design during the past 15 years. Visitors want more naturalistic exhibits. They want immersion exhibits.
There's also been a shift in AZA policy with elephants with regional centers and breeding facilities so we are seeing new enclosures at specific zoos.
The science and conservation part is totally separate. At my home zoo, Lincoln Park Zoo, the science and conservation department is a separate department and separately funded. Many of their grants are U.S. funded. Their scientists are involved with zoo animals like conducting behavioral research and hormonal studies thru fecal exams but they also go overseas to assist with conservation efforts in Africa.
My home zoo does not charge admission. San Diego charges $35. Lincoln Park Zoo, BTW, is privately owned and depends primarily on donations.
There's also been a huge shift in exhibit design during the past 15 years. Visitors want more naturalistic exhibits. They want immersion exhibits.
There's also been a shift in AZA policy with elephants with regional centers and breeding facilities so we are seeing new enclosures at specific zoos.
The science and conservation part is totally separate. At my home zoo, Lincoln Park Zoo, the science and conservation department is a separate department and separately funded. Many of their grants are U.S. funded. Their scientists are involved with zoo animals like conducting behavioral research and hormonal studies thru fecal exams but they also go overseas to assist with conservation efforts in Africa.
My home zoo does not charge admission. San Diego charges $35. Lincoln Park Zoo, BTW, is privately owned and depends primarily on donations.
With this week's announcements that the Saint Louis Zoo will have $120 million ($74 million has already been raised!) and Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo will have $174 million to spend on lavish new exhibits, I wonder what costs will be like in another few decades? The United States is in the midst of a crippling economic recession, and yet there is money for some of the major zoos. Both Omaha and Saint Louis are regarded as two of the very best zoos in North America, and they each plan to tear down and thoroughly demolish some of their oldest areas in favour of modern, naturalistic exhibit complexes. There is obviously no sentimentality for aging, antiquated animal enclosures. Bravo!
I skipped a few of the entries in the middle of this thread, so if someone has already brought this point up, I apologize. A large part of the justification for big budgets in the U.S. (and the reason taxpayers generally support zoo bond issues) is to drive the tourism industry of the city the zoo is located in. In many midwestern cities (including Omaha), the zoo is the #1 tourist attraction for the region. This is also true in San Diego - they run "visit San Diego" commercials here in Tucson (because many Arizonans flock to southern California for weekend getaways), and the commercials ALWAYS feature SD Zoo, SDWAP, Sea World. The slogan for the current capital campaign at the Phoenix Zoo sums it up well: "A World Class Zoo for a World Class City."
Just as the U.S. spends more than any other country on theme parks and probably on movie theatres, we spend more than any other country on zoos because we see them as community assets (and also just because we can!).
Personally, I am conflicted. I do enjoy big budget exhibits, and often travel specifically to see them, but I must confess some budgets are just obnoxiously (perhaps even immorally) out of control. I have also seen some outstanding exhibits done inexpensively by putting up unobtrusive fences around large tracts of preexisting forest. Probably my two all time favorite zoos are like this: Northwest Trek (USA) and Le Parc Des Felins (FRANCE).
BTW - I also love Port Lympne (UK), although I skipped the Palace Of The Gorillas which may have lowered my rating (based on the photos I have seen).
Just as the U.S. spends more than any other country on theme parks and probably on movie theatres, we spend more than any other country on zoos because we see them as community assets (and also just because we can!).
Personally, I am conflicted. I do enjoy big budget exhibits, and often travel specifically to see them, but I must confess some budgets are just obnoxiously (perhaps even immorally) out of control. I have also seen some outstanding exhibits done inexpensively by putting up unobtrusive fences around large tracts of preexisting forest. Probably my two all time favorite zoos are like this: Northwest Trek (USA) and Le Parc Des Felins (FRANCE).
BTW - I also love Port Lympne (UK), although I skipped the Palace Of The Gorillas which may have lowered my rating (based on the photos I have seen).
Paix
Well-Known Member
You know what my favourite zoo is in the UK after Chester... Shaldon Wildlfie Trust, a small 1 acre/1.5 acre zoo near Dartmoor/Paignton... It recently spent £150,000 on an extension, which was ofcourse alot of money to them, yet I personally beleive it looks fantastic!
http://www.shaldonwildlifetrust.org.uk/default.asp? Aswell check out their facebook page, lots of extension pictures!
I think this emmersion idea is becoming just a bit to much commercial and when I see an enclosure, I do not want all the money to be spent on immersion, I want all the money to be spent on the actual enclosure and this is why I would much rather be looking at the Caiman Lizard enclosure or the Minitaire Monkey exhibit at Chester rather than RORA or Elephants of the Asian Forest to be honest, I do admit they are excellent exhbits though.
I think by far the most immersive technique is to use the surrounding around you, a forest for example or a stream running through the zoo, tree's creating a canopy over the visitor pathway... I dont think all this fake rock and fake plants are needed...
A zoo to me is for conserving and admiring wildlife, so use wildlife to create immersive exhbits, not plastic!
http://www.shaldonwildlifetrust.org.uk/default.asp? Aswell check out their facebook page, lots of extension pictures!
I think this emmersion idea is becoming just a bit to much commercial and when I see an enclosure, I do not want all the money to be spent on immersion, I want all the money to be spent on the actual enclosure and this is why I would much rather be looking at the Caiman Lizard enclosure or the Minitaire Monkey exhibit at Chester rather than RORA or Elephants of the Asian Forest to be honest, I do admit they are excellent exhbits though.
I think by far the most immersive technique is to use the surrounding around you, a forest for example or a stream running through the zoo, tree's creating a canopy over the visitor pathway... I dont think all this fake rock and fake plants are needed...
A zoo to me is for conserving and admiring wildlife, so use wildlife to create immersive exhbits, not plastic!