Bronx Zoo Future of the Bronx Zoo

Blackduiker

The Bronx Zoo is especially limited by their location. Most tourists to New York do not make the long trip to the Bronx (as most tourists to San Diego do not make it to the San Diego Zoo).[/QUOTE]

And that's very debatable about tourists to San Diego. I've lived in the Los Angeles area all my life, and the first time I ever visited San Diego was to see its zoo. Many people for years living in Los Angeles complained of our own zoo, but were perfectly willing to travel 120 miles south to support San Diego's.

I've been spreading the word for years here in LA, that if you supported your own zoo here at home, we could achieve more here too. Some locals are just starting to catch on and have started joining GLAZA.

And just look at the attendance in San Diego, consistantly well over 2 million year-after-year. Their zoo was almost the only reason to visit San Diego 30 or 40 years ago. And even now with Sea World, the WAP in nearby Escondido and Old Town, the zoo remains their #1 tourist attraction.
 
Maybe....but New York City doesn't lack tourist destinations. The Central Park Zoo, which is located "downtown" has a far greater attendance than the distant Bronx Zoo.
 
Blackduiker

Zooplantman said:
Maybe....but New York City doesn't lack tourist destinations. The Central Park Zoo, which is located "downtown" has a far greater attendance than the distant Bronx Zoo.
Click to expand...

And that's a shame. You'd think a city of over 8 million could easily draw enough support for one of the world's greatest zoological institutions; not to mention the millions more tourists that visit NYC annually.

I know the Bronx is not considered the "garden spot" of the city, and I've heard not the best area to get off of a subway or park outside of the zoo's parking lot, but the Yankees draw millions there every year, how far is Yankee Stadium from the zoo? Maybe the solution is a larger parking lot or subway and shuttle stops right near the entrance.

I've never been to New York, but whenever I am privileged to make it there, I'll find someway to get to the Bronx Zoo. The Central Park Zoo is fine for starters and I believe still free? But the Bronx is the zoo I've always wanted to see whenever I make that New York trip. Along with the city's many other attractions; Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Time Square, Broadway, etc.
 
Zooplantman said:
Maybe....but New York City doesn't lack tourist destinations. The Central Park Zoo, which is located "downtown" has a far greater attendance than the distant Bronx Zoo.
Click to expand...

Not true. According to AZA documents, Central Park gets around 1 million visitors a year, the Bronx around 2 million. Not particularly impressive given the NY metro area population of 8 million+. But your point about San Diego is correct--out of the tens of millions of conventioneers, family vacationers and military family visitors who travel to San Diego each year, "only" about 3 million actually go to the Zoo. 4.5 million if you include the Wild Animal Park, and many (most?) of those visitors are locals/members.
 
I doubt most tourists visit just about any attraction. However, I would guess that the SD Zoo gets a higher % of tourists in its area than do most zoos in an area where a lot of tourists go to. The zoo is one of the things SD is known most for.

Now I'm sure a zoo such as the Henry Doorly's Zoo gets a higher % of Omaha's tourists, but that's likely because it's one of the very few reasons to visit the city.
 
To compare SD Zoo to Bronx Zoo on Attenadance figures. Is apples to oranges!

Given most tourist travel in summer. Also that allot of people would not consider a visit to the zoo unless the sun is shining. As SD Zoo does year round. How many months of the year is the sun shining at the Bronx Zoo.

I bet if we could look at monthly attendance figures Bronx wins in summer!
 
reduakari, I'm sorry, but I disagree with every opinion you have expressed.

Just to reply to a few points in your comment:

A zoo can focus on quality and conservation while still exhibiting large numbers of animals representing as many species as possible. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, I DO suggest the Bronx Zoo and all zoos should, as you wrote, "back off on actually saving wildlife in nature in order to spend more money running a zoo" because running and managing a zoo is a big enough job and requires 100% of the focus.

If you look closely at the amount of time, money, and research contributed to conservation projects by many zoos, you will see that each zoo's contributions are not quite as significant as their promotional statements try to make them seem. Giving a thousand dollars here, and a thousand there, does not help the various projects as much as influencing millions of zoo visitors to contribute a dollar each to the various projects would.

The Philadelphia Zoo did indeed head off in the same wrong direction a few years ago, which very much disappointed me. But, things have changed during the past two and a half years under the leadership of a new President who seems capable of doing it all quite well. The number of animals as well as the number of species represented has increased, and, as a result of his foresight, the Zoo is in better financial shape now than it was for a number of years. And, he did not close any exhibits or send any animals away to cut costs. Instead, he cut salaries of upper management (his own included) by 10 percent.

Finally, the Bronx Zoo has one, perfectly designed exhibit, Jungle World, and a few other areas worthy of praise. (One will be lost when the World of Darkness closes.) But for its size, that's not enough. I definitely disagree that it has "more great exhibits and amazing animals than just about any other place on earth". For its size, the Philadelphia Zoo is the one zoo I would say that about.
 
Last edited:
I was about to respond to your arguments, but after re-reading your post, particularly the last line, I realize it would be fruitless. I'm all for supporting one's hometown zoo, but please......the Philly zoo doesn't even crack the top 30 in the country in any category (except admission prices).
 
reduakari said:
I was about to respond to your arguments, but after re-reading your post, particularly the last line, I realize it would be fruitless. I'm all for supporting one's hometown zoo, but please......the Philly zoo doesn't even crack the top 30 in the country in any category (except admission prices).
Click to expand...

When was the last time you visited the Philadelphia Zoo?

Supporting one's hometown has nothing to do with this. Philadelphia became my hometown many years ago because I loved the Philadelphia Zoo so much.

When I lived in Ohio, none of the Ohio zoos was my favorite.
 
Zoo Visitor said:
When was the last time you visited the Philadelphia Zoo?

Supporting one's hometown has nothing to do with this. Philadelphia became my hometown many years ago because I loved the Philadelphia Zoo so much.

When I lived in Ohio, none of the Ohio zoos was my favorite.
Click to expand...

Can I ask why you loved Philly Zoo? I'm all for loving zoos that most people hate (especially on here as I'm a huge fan of Cincinnati...) but I found myself plain bored at Philadelphia. I'm actually flabbergasted at why we're bothering to talk about such a subpar zoo in a Bronx Zoo thread when Bronx is rather indisputably top 3 zoo for most (US).
 
Blackduiker said:
And that's a shame. You'd think a city of over 8 million could easily draw enough support for one of the world's greatest zoological institutions; not to mention the millions more tourists that visit NYC annually.

I know the Bronx is not considered the "garden spot" of the city, and I've heard not the best area to get off of a subway or park outside of the zoo's parking lot, but the Yankees draw millions there every year, how far is Yankee Stadium from the zoo? Maybe the solution is a larger parking lot or subway and shuttle stops right near the entrance.

I've never been to New York, but whenever I am privileged to make it there, I'll find someway to get to the Bronx Zoo. The Central Park Zoo is fine for starters and I believe still free? But the Bronx is the zoo I've always wanted to see whenever I make that New York trip. Along with the city's many other attractions; Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Time Square, Broadway, etc.
Click to expand...

Central Park is now beyond $8 for entrance. However, it's located right squarely in the middle of...well, everything interesting to tourist in NYC: Central Park, Times Square, Rockefeller Center, etc. Prospect Park...an NYC Zoo of similar size that's cheaper with a better collection doesn't get anywhere near the Central Park's numbers.

Honestly, there's no need for Bronx to be a tourist destination because it's not. When most people think NYC, they don't go "Ah, Statue of Liberty, Times Square, The Met, ...ah the zoos!" and that's fine. I personally go places for zoos but that's a very, very, very small group of people. The Yankees ARE one of those type of attractions and the stadium is very much nowhere near the zoo. 26 World Series titles in the sport of America with the US team with the most history just doesn't strike people the same way staring at a tiger does.

There's plenty of transportation that stops right outside the zoo. The subway is a block away. The MTA won't be changing that because there's not a need. The MTA is already basically cutting most transportation in NY to places people need to go (aka: work) and adding more service for the zoo isn't going to change that.

People also forget when comparing Bronx to SD in this case that nearly EVERY day is a zoo day at SD. October to May is winter/cooler weather in NY and most people have no interest in the zoo then. Neither do many animals at Bronx.
 
Zoo Visitor said:
When was the last time you visited the Philadelphia Zoo?

Supporting one's hometown has nothing to do with this. Philadelphia became my hometown many years ago because I loved the Philadelphia Zoo so much.

When I lived in Ohio, none of the Ohio zoos was my favorite.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to understand your negativity against the Bronx and its management, did they turn you down for a job? I currently live in NJ and so have visited both zoos a number of times, my home zoo is Whipsnade in the UK and so can hopefully look at both collections without bias. You have criticised the Bronx for sending animals away, would you like to comment on the Elephant situation at Philadelphia, lots of publicity about sending them away? Are you advocating that Philadephia withdraw from SSPs as you are against moving animals away except as a last resort, with the subsequent removal from Philadelphia of all animals that belong to those SSPs? Perhaps all zoos could hold on to all the animals that they breed so that their is no genetic propagation, therefore wiping out all zoos within two or three generations. The whole basis of zoos is to improve breeding and the gene pool but you have totally overlooked this in your repeated arguement about sending animals away. It is not like buying a puppy on a whim and taking it to the pound when it becomes a slobbering adult, zoo animals are sent away for the good of the species which allows the development and improvements of exhibits, if they were euthanising animals I could see your point, but they are sending them to collections that want them to improve their own exhibits. Would you be happy to see no new animals exhibited at Philadelphia as no other zoo wants to give them up, or do you only want wild caught animals there? You cant have it both ways

You say that the only good exhibit at the Bronx is jungle world, I disagree Tiger mountain (including the enrichment display) and the congo are very good exhibits in my eyes, jungle world is showing its age though it still is good for its age. Madagascar is excellent, especially with the limitations of using a building that was historically protected and therefore couldn't just be demolished and started from scratch. The ape house and the reptile house at Philadelphia are good, but the are not world beaters, I personally prefer congo to the ape house at Philadelphia even though Philadelphias houses more variety of primates in this building (I'm excluding the monkey house at the Bronx purposely). The cat exhibit at Philadelphia is good, but if you hunt down the threads on here regarding it winning awards many on here were surprized and felt it was a political decision.

In one of your messages you stated that WOD was popular and educational,and I think this is the point it WAS popular, in the past, when it was state of the art and innovative. New technology has come along and it was starting to get jaded, vistor numbers had dropped off, especially as the zoo is busiest on good weather days when people want to be outside, its only the serious naturalist that want to be in an oven in the dark. Just because its educational doesn't make it more popular or cheaper to maintain. Years ago at my home zoo the polar bear exhibit sprung a leak, it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix and would still result in a twenty year old enclosure that looked twenty years old but didnt leak. For the same amount of money they could build a brand new giraffe house and zebra and antelope house and paddock. The bears which were one of the most popular exhibits in the zoo went to another collection that had a good bear exhibit but lost its bears to old age. Everyone won, their were no complaints about how old the bear exhibit looked as it had gone and visitors still got value for money by seeing something new, sure I was upset my favourite exhibit had gone but I knew it was for progress.

As zoo design becomes more complex and ultimately more technologically advanced then more space and infra structure is required. Would you be happy for animals living conditions to be reduced so more species or numbers get crammed in? We have come a long way from zoo being a stamp collection equivalent for living things. I am happy as long as animals are housed in naturalistic groups which are found in the wild and make a naturalistic and stree free environment for each individuals speices needs. Your argument about not sending animals to other collections could severely stress out animals that prefer to live in isolation.

Lastly your point about the financial crystal ball, I'm pretty convinced the bronx didnt attempt to lose its state/federal/city funding and endowments just so that it could close the WOD without a public outcry. The Philadelphia like the bronx depends on endowments and sponsorship. I get your point that you think thet the bronx should spend its money on the zoo and not on field conservation, however the majority of this money comes from research grants that cannot be spent on operating costs, this money would be given to ther scientific research if it wasn't used for animal research. You also stated that the bronx should concentrate on being a zoo, i took a look at the number of rides and attractions at philadephia zoo and think that maybe they should do the same thing. For a zoo that promotes itself as americas first zoo when it so blatantly isn't (Zoos that have a genuine history like London take their opening date from when the gates opened not from when they started collecting money) I'd like to know what financial state they are in as I think it would be very niave to think they aren't in exactly the same state. Where do you suggest the bronx should have put their money if you think they should have foreseen the financial collapse, in one of many of the banks that went under?
 
Zoo Visitor said:
reduakari, I'm sorry, but I disagree with every opinion you have expressed.

Just to reply to a few points in your comment:

A zoo can focus on quality and conservation while still exhibiting large numbers of animals representing as many species as possible. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, I DO suggest the Bronx Zoo and all zoos should, as you wrote, "back off on actually saving wildlife in nature in order to spend more money running a zoo" because running and managing a zoo is a big enough job and requires 100% of the focus.

If you look closely at the amount of time, money, and research contributed to conservation projects by many zoos, you will see that each zoo's contributions are not quite as significant as their promotional statements try to make them seem. Giving a thousand dollars here, and a thousand there, does not help the various projects as much as influencing millions of zoo visitors to contribute a dollar each to the various projects would.

The Philadelphia Zoo did indeed head off in the same wrong direction a few years ago, which very much disappointed me. But, things have changed during the past two and a half years under the leadership of a new President who seems capable of doing it all quite well. The number of animals as well as the number of species represented has increased, and, as a result of his foresight, the Zoo is in better financial shape now than it was for a number of years. And, he did not close any exhibits or send any animals away to cut costs. Instead, he cut salaries of upper management (his own included) by 10 percent.

Finally, the Bronx Zoo has one, perfectly designed exhibit, Jungle World, and a few other areas worthy of praise. (One will be lost when the World of Darkness closes.) But for its size, that's not enough. I definitely disagree that it has "more great exhibits and amazing animals than just about any other place on earth". For its size, the Philadelphia Zoo is the one zoo I would say that about.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself, first you say that quality and conservation aren't mutually exclusive, then you say that running a zoo requires 100% focus i.e.you can't do both. The Bronx does influence millions of zoo goers to donate a dollar to conservation. $1 from each congo entrance gets given to conservation and the visitor gets to choose which animal and program they wish to donate too using touch screens at the exit. The conservation and fieldwork is usually under a totally seperate management umbrella and uses finaces that could not be used for capital or running expenses of the zoo.

If the Philadephia zoo was able to be become profitable simply by cutting 10% off upper management salaries then I'd suggest mis-management in the number of upper managemnt or in the size of their initial salary. I dont believe that the Philadelphia zoo is not reliant on endowments, investements and corporate sponsorship (the channel 6 balloon or bank of america big cat falls ring any bells?)and that gate reciepts provide all running costs and enough for new exhibits. If as expected sponsorship of exhibits is withdrawn due to financial difficulties of teh sponsors I think Philly zoo may face some tough decisions too
 
I may seem to be unusually negative toward the Bronx Zoo at this time because I have just learned that it will be closing the World of Darkness. And, no, I never applied for a job there, or at any zoo, for that matter. I love my current job. Zoos are something else - a lifelong passion, interest, place to go to connect with wildlife, etc.

I want all zoos to focus on being just zoos. I believe a zoo should be a place where people can go to observe and be in the presence of wild animals they would have very little, or no chance of encountering otherwise.

I was extremely upset when the decision was made to close the Philadelphia Zoo's elephant exhibit. And everyone who knows me knows that, including the Zoo's current president, whom I very much respect, even though I think his decision about the elephants is wrong.

I also disagree with your contention "The whole basis of zoos is to improve breeding and the gene pool." My point is that the whole basis for zoos should not be anything other than to provide a place where humans can often and safely be in the presence of well-cared for wildlife.

If zoos successfully provide that place, and if they successfully attract millions, or even thousands of visitors each year, I believe more humans will become interested in preserving wildlife and then will go about ultimately successfully finding ways to do it.

I don't agree with sending animals away, or closing exhibits for financial reasons. I believe costs should first be cut in other areas, such as management, administration, fundraising, conservation, education, somewhat in that order.

I don't particularly like the idea of moving animals around for breeding purposes, either, unless there is definite, imminent danger of their species becoming extinct, and there is absolutely no other way to restore the population.

Of course, I don't object to sending animals to other zoos IF the animals are not doing well and another zoo could provide a place where they would do well, or if the home zoo has an excess of one kind of animal and another zoo has none, etc.

You also stated "the majority of this money [spent on conservation] comes from research grants that cannot be spent on operating costs, this money would be given to ther scientific research if it wasn't used for animal research." I am very much in favor of using grant money or donated money to conduct on-site animal behavior research, particularly research that zoo visitors can observe and learn from. I am NOT in favor of any of the zoo's money going to off-site research or conservation projects.

I believe zoos can and should provide ideas, suggestions, and guides for visitors who want to know more about wildlife, and for those who want to contribute time or money to conservation efforts.

But zoos should not try take on the responsibilities, duties, or societal contributions of schools, universities, or conservation agencies. As I said before, I believe just being a zoo is a big enough job.

The Philadelphia Zoo has been my favorite zoo for a very long time. I wish some of the amusement-park-like attractions would disappear. I don't like Big Cat Falls very much, either. But I have noticed in the past year or so that the majority of visitors once again spend most of their time viewing and talking about the animals - much more so than at even some of the other zoos I listed in my Top Ten list on another thread, and definitely more so than at the Bronx Zoo. At the Philadelphia Zoo, I often hear parents tell their children, "We didn't come to the zoo to go on rides," or simply, "We came here to see the animals." That's what I want to hear. And the Philadelphia Zoo has plenty of animals for them to see.

So the Philadelphia Zoo is the best. At least that's my opinion.
 
It wasn't a contradiction to say that quality and conservation are not mutually exclusive and that running a zoo requires 100% focus.

If zoos focused 100% on just being (quality) zoos, they would be places that provided visitors with a chance to be in the presence of, and observe, well-cared for wildlife, and as a result visitors would be inspired to go out and do something to conserve wildlife.

It would then be the responsibility of other agencies to take over and assist those who want to learn more, or contribute more.
 
I think I've answered your question in my other replies.

I am sorry that you consider the Philadelphia Zoo to be a sub par zoo. You didn't say when you visited, but if it hasn't been recently, please try again.

I do agree that the Cincinnati Zoo is also a very good zoo, though. (Much better than the Bronx Zoo ...)
 
Zoo Visitor said:
It wasn't a contradiction to say that quality and conservation are not mutually exclusive and that running a zoo requires 100% focus.

If zoos focused 100% on just being (quality) zoos, they would be places that provided visitors with a chance to be in the presence of, and observe, well-cared for wildlife, and as a result visitors would be inspired to go out and do something to conserve wildlife.

It would then be the responsibility of other agencies to take over and assist those who want to learn more, or contribute more.
Click to expand...

Ok, I've got where you are coming from now, you want zoos to be like they were 50 years ago, now I can understand why you like Philadelphia Zoo so much :D

Unfortunately research on captive animals isn't very productive, while it aids enrichment and husbandary development it doesn't teach us how they live in the wild. Most of the grant money is for field research and couldn't be used for research within a captive animal facility. If zoos didnt swap animals the resulting mating between parents and offspring or related offspring leads to health issues that after two or three generations mean that the animals become infertile and eventually will die out. I'm a biologist involved in research so I do have some insite into this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top