Crowdfunding Zoo Exhibits

  • Thread starter Thread starter JVM
  • Start date Start date

JVM

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
In the last decade plus, more and more projects are being accomplished by crowdfunding - video games, television shows, board games, books, toys, and more - even conventions and a taxidermy exhibit at the Field Museum. While there is a long list of kickstarter campaigns that fail, the opportunity to pitch a project directly to real people, using a short time frame as incentive, can be an impressive display of community spirit/support and can generate a lot of publicity.

Zoochatters have seen in the last few decades that more and more facilities have used improving animal welfare as a major goal and guideline for new exhibit construction. It is often easy to cast construction work as allowing animals access to improved welfare and husbandry, a win-win for visitors, animals and the public images of zoos. It seems like a good narrative to attract popular support for construction of a new exhibit.

There are again failures and definitely risks involved, including the implications of a failed campaign, but at once, it seems like a viable path for zoos that are challenged at acquiring funding and are too closely linked to, for example, taxes as a funding source. While many zoos accept private donations for specific exhibits and accept visitor donations in general, I think taking the approach of a specific exhibit pitch to general visitors would be new. Help us reach our goal in this many days and we can give our gorillas access to a new yard, or add this to our collection?

Could it be a viable path for a zoo exhibit in the future to use a crowdfunding campaign, asking visitors and others to pitch in to improve the lives of animals over a week or two, promising to use the funds for a renovation?

I am obviously taking a pro-crowdfunding position to launch the thread, I am not blindly supportive of crowdfunding, I just think it could be an interesting thing to apply to zoos.
 
Edinburgh Zoo's giraffe house was partly funded through a crowdfunder, 254 backers pledged £9,184 towards its construction. While it can be risky trying to fund a project this way as there's no guarantee it will raise the needed amount, I'm not against the idea of crowdfunding for zoo exhibits.
 
I remember for a good amount of time Latvia's Riga Zoo was raising donations intended for the construction and execution of a new area for elephants - as far as I can tell, this has largely been forgotten ...
 
Crowdfunding is old method. Prague zoo was solely built (in 1920s) by crowdfunding and volunteer work, the land it is built on was a donation too, even most initial animals came in form of donations when it first opened. Its legal form was a cooperative and thousands of locals were part-owners. There were several classes of membership rights based on initial donation sum. The zoo survived WWII occupation (among others) thanks to crowdfunding. It got nationalised/stolen by commies in 1950s. But even today local people are willing to support it, 27.000 people donated almost 2 mio eur for the new elephant house for example.
 
Kobe Animal Kingdom and its sister location Nasu Animal Kingdom from Japan each had corona relief crowdfunding campaigns in 2020 and 2021. The money was used to enlarge enclosures and to build new ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JVM
Crowdfunding is old method.

I think Possumroach means particulary the internet crowdfounding. If it potentially reaches lots of people, and has rather low start costs, this could be a big thing. Zoos actually could move more into the online world, not just the old-fashioned website and facebook page. But I am myself an internet troglodite today.
 
With Zoos that are public/owned by cities/towns/states, there may be legal issues with the idea of crowdfunding. Depending on the by-laws in place in a specific community, it may be against the rules to ask for money or there may be specific ways it can only be done in. I know firsthand of one facility that's needed to navigate these types of legal restrictions, and I'm sure there are others out there as well with similar issues.
 
With Zoos that are public/owned by cities/towns/states, there may be legal issues with the idea of crowdfunding. Depending on the by-laws in place in a specific community, it may be against the rules to ask for money or there may be specific ways it can only be done in. I know firsthand of one facility that's needed to navigate these types of legal restrictions, and I'm sure there are others out there as well with similar issues.
I'm pretty confident this only applies to a limited number of NA facilities and even fewer Eastern European facilities, might be wrong about the last one
 
I'm pretty confident this only applies to a limited number of NA facilities and even fewer Eastern European facilities, might be wrong about the last one
I don't know how common a problem it is, it might be on the rare side. I just know of at least one zoo that this is a problem for, and figured it probably wasn't the only one. Might be a rare issue, I don't know.
 
I'm pretty confident this only applies to a limited number of NA facilities and even fewer Eastern European facilities, might be wrong about the last one

A large number of German, Austrian, Swiss, Eastern European as well as some French and S-European zoos are "owned" by the city/region, from Duisburg and Vienna to small zoos like Lille.

Most of these will accept donations, especially when funding new exhibits though.
 
I'm pretty confident this only applies to a limited number of NA facilities and even fewer Eastern European facilities, might be wrong about the last one
Publicly-owned zoos are very common in the US, usually being owned my municipalities or counties.
 
Why is that please?
I'm not as informed as most zoochatters on this, but generally this has happened in my experience because it can limit funding opportunities, not unlike what @Neil chace suggested above.

Zoos that rely on a city or park district for funding as a primary source have to compete for attention and funding with other concerns by the organization -- it is easy to understand why a city might choose to fund a fire department instead of a zoo. It can become difficult to explain why replacing aging pipes in what is often erroneously seen as a children's tourist attraction would seem like a low priority, especially if it were a city with high construction costs, more popular or mainstream attractions, or a very rough economy. Many people would see the zoo funding as a luxury not a necessity.

From what I've read elsewhere on zoochat, this is one reason the San Francisco Zoo struggles so much - a lack of local support and funding.

I don't say this to besmirch public funding as an option since it is often really helpful to zoos in tough times to have a fall back, and I do think in some ways it is fitting for zoos to be treated as public parks.
 
Why is that please?
In the USA, the current arrangement whereby the municipality owns and runs the zoo usually dates back decades if not a century or more to the founding of the zoo as a public park. In most cases the zoo already has a private support organization working with the municipality to help fund the zoo. These "Friends of the xxx Zoo" groups have higher expectations for the zoo than the municipal government has and have been raising funds to support the zoo for quite some time. Increasingly the "Friends" groups want to take over the zoo completely (privatizing it) and the municipality is only too happy to give it up. Most of the time the municipality continues to give some financial support for a period of years (thus reversing the old relationship). The switch has usually resulted in a much improved zoo
 
That makes sense - thanks.

So, not true "privatisation" as the zoo remains more or less in the hands of the people.
 
Back
Top