Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo Henry Doorly Zoo News

Anti-zoo critics will not be so nice. Outmoded, inhumane zoo exhibits are problems that need to be solved by renovating, replacing or eliminating them. EVERY exhibit "could be improved." Some should not be permitted to persist.
 
It is all about animal happiness and people happiness ehen it comes to making exhibits and there were only two times I saw animal unhappiness in all three exhibits! It gave me great opportunies to see memorable animals doing things I'd never experienced at any of the zoos I have been to. The cougar exhibit is my only complaint. In my opinion they have transformed indoor exhibits of all kinds.
 
ColumbusZoo001 said:
I think a nicer way of saying "problems" is saying the exhibits could be improved. I think a lot of people, myself included, sometimes forget that exhibits evolve at such a rapid rate something can become outdated within a year. Money and space are large factors, so I like to say that zoos could improve certain exhibits, not that they are problems.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point of view! As I've said, I've toured over 200 zoos and aquariums in the last 10 years, and I've almost never seen any real "problems" where the animals were actually mistreated or suffering. It's always been clear that the dedicated keepers were doing their best to provide humane and quality care for the animals I observed. I think it's insulting to those keepers to call their animals' homes "problems". Could they be better? Absolutely! And usually, whenever an exhibit becomes seriously out-of-date, it's soon updated. But we also have to be realistic. This updating of exhibits requires money --something that doesn't grow on trees, and something that zoos can't depend upon the government for anymore. This is why zoos have to do a BALANCE of modernizing animal exhibits and providing more "fun" activities to attract more visitors (and keep the money coming in -- to pay for those new exhibits).
 
I think the model of having a city (or state) funded (and thusly controlled) zoo is an entirely unneccessary one. Granted this means that in a lot of markets where there are zoos now there wouldn't be. However I hold the Phoenix Zoo in high regard for what they have been able to create and maintain with zero government funding. Even there recent "government funding" was strictly to update infrastructure (sewer, water, electrical) that all belonged to the city anyway. And the nice part is, when they've wanted to build a new exhibit, they didn't have to take it to the ballot and get the voters to agree to their plans. It also means that the local city council can't all of a sudden decide that their elephants should go to a sanctuary.
 
Ituri said:
I think the model of having a city (or state) funded (and thusly controlled) zoo is an entirely unneccessary one. Granted this means that in a lot of markets where there are zoos now there wouldn't be. However I hold the Phoenix Zoo in high regard for what they have been able to create and maintain with zero government funding. Even there recent "government funding" was strictly to update infrastructure (sewer, water, electrical) that all belonged to the city anyway. And the nice part is, when they've wanted to build a new exhibit, they didn't have to take it to the ballot and get the voters to agree to their plans. It also means that the local city council can't all of a sudden decide that their elephants should go to a sanctuary.
Click to expand...

"Entirely unnecessary?" On average, zoos in the US receive at least 40% of their annual operating funding from a public (taxpayer) source (city, county, regional or state government). Additionally, the money to build new exhibits more often than not comes from a combination of donated funds and government bonds. There are a few zoos, Phoenix and San Diego most noteably, that survive almost entirely on money they earn or is donated to them, but that is very much an exception.

Most zoos in the US would not survive without significant government financial support. Especially those not located in tourist-friendly warm climate cities.

The question of control is a good one, but there are models that work well--where the zoo is managed by non-profit zoological society and receives govt funding on a contract basis without "strings." Denver and St. Louis are good examples of this. SF and Los Angeles are great examples of how it can fail......
 
"Entirely unncecessary" may have been a bit more superlative then what I actually intended. However, I concede that without the government subsidies there would be FAR, FAR fewer zoos, particularly in small and or northern markets. However, I believe the reason that most zoos "need" government funding, is because they've always had government funding and so haven't had to adjust their practices to be financially solvent. I agree with ANyhuis in the regard that zoos are going to see their government money shrink and shrink and are going to have to seriously reevaluate the way they do business. When the Phoenix Zoo was founded, the city of Phoenix was much, much smaller than it is today, and not nearly the tourist destination either. It can be done, and it's not just the climate.
 
No doubt this will be the case. And it will require that zoos will end up moving in the direction Lowry Park and others have already gone in--i.e. toward being amusement parks with live animals. The compromises inherent in that approach worry me.

And, although the Phoenix Zoo has been remarkably successful without government funding, I can imagine how much better it would be if it had received reasonable support from the city over the years.
 
If you could better explain the situation in Denver and St Louis. How can there be government funding without "strings". And is this a good idea either? Don't we usually like having a say in where our tax dollars go?
 
Both Denver and St. Louis have Cultural Districts that are partially funded by regional sales taxes. These taxes are approved by voters for extended periods of time--I believe 8 or 10 years. By a negotiated formula, the tax proceeds are divided among a number of non-profits (museums, arts groups, botanical gardens and zoos). In both cities, the Zoo is the "leading" cultural group that generates the most support and receives the largest proportion of the funds, which are provided to help with basic operating costs (salaries, equipment and supplies). In the case of St. Louis, it allows (and requires) the zoo to continue its policy of free admission. The great thing is that this is money that is guaranteed during the life of the approval period, unlike most public funding which is subject to political variables and is a year-to year proposition. And sales taxes are far more stable than income or property taxes, so the zoos can budget with greater certainty.

In addition, Denver voters approved a very large bond issue (I believe $80 million) that is released dollar for dollar as private funds are raised for capital projects as outlined in the Zoo's master plan. This funded the new entrance and Predator Ridge, and will provide 50% of the upcoming Asian Forest exhibit, when the private match is achieved.

This approach is better than the year-by-year roll of the dice that many government-funded zoos have to live with, or to the "anything for a buck" necessity of many totally private zoos. And it is why Denver and St. Louis have such great zoos. I believe Columbus is supported by a similar long-term tax levy.
 
That's a really interesting arrangement. I guess it works as long as the voters keep voting to renew it, but I think overall that is a much better setup than the government run approach. Thanks for the info.

Sorry for hijacking this thread, this stuff really should have gone on the economic collapse thread.

So Henry Doorly Zoo... the illustrations I've seen for Madagascar don't exactly have me drooling. Is this going to be more like the Hubbard Gorilla Valley and just sort of be "nice" instead of over the top detailed like Lied and Desert Dome?
 
Ituri said:
So Henry Doorly Zoo... the illustrations I've seen for Madagascar don't exactly have me drooling. Is this going to be more like the Hubbard Gorilla Valley and just sort of be "nice" instead of over the top detailed like Lied and Desert Dome?
Click to expand...

Where did you see the illustrations of Madagascar?
 
Omaha has a history of building the biggest (and in some personal opinions) the best of everything. The Madagascar set of habitats will be interesting to say the least, and in one of those newspaper articles in this thread ex-director Lee Simmons stated that they plan to have more than 60 lemurs. That would be impressive to see!
 
Zooplantman said:
Here (lost in the thread below) are pictures of the construction:
Click to expand...

Thought I'd let you all know that back in July, Dr. Simmons took me to see the construction of the Madagascar exhibit. He is VERY excited about it. He said it'll be better than Bronx's Madagascar house, and built for a fraction of the cost.

Having seen Bronx's, I think he's a bit optimistic on the first part of his claim. But even if it's "almost as good", it'll be a great addition to this already great zoo!
 
Looking forward to it. Both organizations do alot of conservation work in Madagascar, so for them the stakes for these exhibits are rather high. (Drumming up public and donor support, tooting their own conservation horns, etc.)

In all fairness, the Bronx Zoo had to repair/save/preserve a century-old Landmarked building and they decided to go for LEED certification, including their geothermal system. So Omaha's may look great and cost less, but I'm not sure its "apples to apples" comparison.
 
Zooplantman said:
In all fairness, the Bronx Zoo had to repair/save/preserve a century-old Landmarked building and they decided to go for LEED certification, including their geothermal system. So Omaha's may look great and cost less, but I'm not sure its "apples to apples" comparison.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Random question: What is the square footage of Lied Jungle and what are the major species exhibited? This is one of the few major zoos I haven't been to.
 
ColumbusZoo001 said:
Random question: What is the square footage of Lied Jungle and what are the major species exhibited? This is one of the few major zoos I haven't been to.
Click to expand...

I don't know about square footage, but it's 1.5 acres in size and 80-feet high. Jungle animals from 3 continents are exhibited, including gibbons, small-clawed otters, Malayan tapirs, clouded leopards, Indian porcupines, pythons, Francois langurs, pygmy hippos, blue monkeys, Amazon fish, soft-shell turtles, spider monkeys, Baird's tapirs, black howler monkeys, lots of birds, and much more -- some in caves with gallery exhibits (tamarins, vampire bats, and more).

While some disagree, I think it's either the best or second-best zoo exhibit in the USA. It's amazing!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top