Mega-Budget American Zoo Exhibits

[Anniella]

My apologies if this will lead further OT, but I don't think that your idea is as promising and productive as it appears to be in the first place. I once attended a very interesting university discussion on this very topic. The bottom line:
"Normal" zoos are actually not the best place for the ex-situ breeding of endangered amphibians. The chances of interspecific disease spread is higher than in specialised facilities due to housing / showcasing various species from all the over the world in one place. There are not a lot of zookeepers who are truly specialised in amphibian care. Most are trained to work with mammals and birds; amphibians are not really their focus, as, with a few exceptions, amphibians do not rank highly in the "zoo hierarchy". To decrease the likeliness of disease transfer, you would not only have to house the endangered amphibian species completely separately from the "common" animals, but you would also need a specialised staff that should not intermingle with the "normal" staff. Some endangered amphibians have high husbandry standards that require high quality technology and people experienced in using that correctly. I doubt that most smaller zoos could afford this on a permanent base, especially for a group of species that are not really crowd pleasers. Furthering local in-situ amphibian conservation on zoo grounds and beyond might be more doable for zoos with a tighter budget, but this also needs people in charge who know their way around amphibians.

I am well aware of the issues regarding keeping amphibians in captivity. I have read quite a bit about it, and one of my close friends was a very well respected herpetologist. That does not mean zoos should not do more to help. The opposite, in fact.

Nor did I say individual zoos need to house multiple species of amphibian in one location, because, as I am also well aware of, disease is a major concern with amphibians. It's the major threat for many hundreds of amphibian species. In fact, individual zoos focusing on an individual species is probably ideal in many cases. Yes, it's true that some species have perhaps developed some resilience after being decimated by the chytrid fungus in the wild, and that wild individuals who are in populations that were previously decimated likely have better survival odds than captive bred releases, but that does not mean ex situ conservation of these amphibian species should not take place, nor does it mean zoos should not be involved.

It's not about whether zoos are the best places for ex situ amphibian conservation or not. We don't live an ideal world. It's that amphibians, and many other animals and plants, need all the help they can get. Even if an individual zoo can't help out directly, they can still do more to connect with conservation. I'll share this, too:

The inadequate global zoo response to the amphibian extinction crisis

Connecting back to the thread topic, I think if the trend of mega budget exhibits is going to continue into the future, then those mega-budget exhibits should be more connected to conservation, both in situ and ex situ, whether it's small species like amphibians in a reptile house or rainforest or native animal area, or whether it's an exhibit focusing on larger mammals.

 

[Batto]

No need to be defensive. I did not negate that zoos could and should not contribute to amphibian conservation; I just stated that your suggestion has its shortcomings, for various reasons. And while the world is not ideal, this shouldn't imply that amphibians should suffer due to inadequate ex-situ husbandry.

am well aware of the issues regarding keeping amphibians in captivity. I have read quite a bit about it, and one of my close friends was a very well respected herpetologist.

So what is your personal practical experience in regard to amphibian husbandry?

whether it's small species like amphibians in a reptile house

Not all endangered amphibians are small (f.e. Cryptobranchidae)- and what are they supposed to do in a REPTILE house? j/k

 

[Anniella]

I just stated that your suggestion has its shortcomings, for various reasons. And while the world is not ideal, this shouldn't imply that amphibians should suffer due to inadequate ex-situ husbandry.

But every "put your eggs in one basket" strategy will have its shortcomings. So will conserving individual species found in one or two or three locations in the wild also have its shortcomings. And that's the point of ex situ amphibian conservation, in addition to having a more controlled environment (not that total control of any situation is possible), is that you don't put all of your eggs in one basket, i.e. the often tiny ranges of many threatened amphibian species.

I also don't know why "inadequate ex-situ husbandry" or " why amphibians should suffer" needs to be implied or said whatsoever. Of course, care and health of the animals should be of upmost concern. Proper quarantine protocols and housing should be maintained. Staff should be properly trained. Saying zoos should be more involved in ex-situ conservation of amphibians =/= let's throw proper animal husbandry out the window or taking shortcuts.

Besides, many other zoo animals have major challenges as far as husbandry goes, including many of the crowd pleasers mentioned in this thread that are often the focus of mega-budget exhibits. That doesn't mean any attempts at keeping those other species, which also have their challenges, should be made at all.

So what is your personal experience in regard to amphibian husbandry?

I have kept several amphibian species for varying lengths of time. I have kept some individuals for over a decade. I have never attempted breeding amphibians personally, but I have head started some native frogs.

I am not the most experienced in amphibian husbandry (it's not realistic for my life style to keep any animals at the moment), and I haven't kept any since early last decade, but I do have some experience. Personally-speaking, I am more of an "observe animals in the wild" than a "I have to keep animals in captivity" type.

Not all endangered amphibians are small (f.e. Cryptobranchidae)- and what are they supposed to do in a REPTILE house? j/k

You know what I mean though. Even the biggest amphibians don't require the space of larger mammals and birds.

 

[Batto]

I also don't know why "inadequate ex-situ husbandry" or " why amphibians should suffer" needs to be implied or said whatsoever.

For the reasons I mentioned before.

That doesn't mean any attempts at keeping those other species, which also have their challenges, should be made at all.

Once again: nobody is denying that. You're preaching to the choir / converted.

I have kept several amphibian species for varying lengths of time. I have kept some individuals for over a decade.

Splendid. What species?

Personally-speaking, I am more of an "observe animals in the wild" than a "I have to keep animals in captivity" type.

Yet you're on a zoo forum, full of people who "have to" keep animals in captivity.

 

[Anniella]

For the reasons I mentioned before.

Here's the problem. You are implying that I implied things I never implied, as if by making a suggestion that zoos should incorporate more threatened amphibians and amphibian conservation that somehow I was not considering animal husbandry. You made a lot of wrong assumptions about what I was saying.

Saying ,"And while the world is not ideal, this shouldn't imply that amphibians should suffer due to inadequate ex-situ husbandry," is completely uncalled for. I never advocated for "inadequate ex-situ husbandry." I never said to pick a bunch of random amphibian species that happen to be threatened and just give them randomly to zoos who are not prepared to take them. The article I previously linked specifically noted how expertise in amphibian husbandry needed to be increased in order for more threatened species to be taken on by zoos, yet some researchers and conservationists still think zoos should do more. The fact that many zoos may lack capable amphibian caretakers now doesn't mean that can't be improved in the future.

Nor did I say it would work for just any amphibian species. I didn't say it had to be exotic amphibian species either. Local or regional species are often better choices for many zoos; I even specifically mentioned in a previous post that zoos doing things like head starting native species is a great thing. Obviously, ex situ amphibian conservation is something that needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, as with all things.

But I absolutely stand by my words that zoos need to be doing more for the conservation of threatened amphibians, both ex situ and in situ, especially given the modest dietary and space requirements of maintaining viable populations of captive amphibians compared to large mammals and birds. And, as educators of the public, incorporating appropriate species of amphibians into exhibits can be part of that mission. Ditto to other species that also may not be as famous to the general public, but still have conservation needs.

 

[John Marchwick]

2019: Grizzly and Wolf Discovery Center - Banks of the Yellowstone Riparian Habitat - $10 million

 

[Batto]

You are implying that I implied things I never implied

You just lost me there...

Saying ,"And while the world is not ideal, this shouldn't imply that amphibians should suffer due to inadequate ex-situ husbandry," is completely uncalled for.

I disagree; I think that also in regard to ex-situ conservation, zoos shouldn't lose sight of animal welfare and be honest in regard to their limits. Let's be honest: quite a lot of zoos don't do a great job when it comes to keeping (and breeding) species that are not part of the charismatic megafauna, i.e. smaller mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Mostly, if it works, it's just one or two dedicated staff members; once they leave, the whole breeding stops for good. As mentioned in other threads, sometimes one can't shed the feeling that for some zoo people, these animals are just replacable decorative accessory parts for one of the overprized new "enter popular megafauna species" complexes this very thread is about.
You're correct that zoos should engage themselves more in amphibian conservation; however, before jumping on that bandwagon, each zoo should consider what they can actually do to truly contribute to the cause. Just getting some animals or building a small frog pond won't have a permanent positive effect. And might even result in the untimely demise of some animals for the lack of expertise.

So - what amphibian species did you keep?

 

[Arizona Docent]

In regards to elephant enclosure size in Europe, that is truly distressing. I have only seen a couple, but even the new (and supposedly state-of-the-art) exhibit I saw at Zurich I found to be insufficient. Of course I only saw it in winter (twice) so the animals were in their indoor quarters (which admittedly are large for an indoor exhibit). This of course brings up another debate for all but the most southernmost European zoos: Should zoos with cold winters even have elephants? At the risk of exposing myself to retribution on a pro-zoo forum, I would argue no, they should not. The question about herd size also brings up another debate: how many elephants should a zoo have? With males obviously less, because they live alone or in small bachelor groups. But with females, I believe the herd should be much larger than the minimum of three that AZA imposes. I would argue for a handful of zoos with massive (ten acre or more) elephant exhibits rather than the current situation of a lot of zoos with small exhibits and small herds.

 

[Coelacanth18]

But with females, I believe the herd should be much larger than the minimum of three that AZA imposes. I would argue for a handful of zoos with massive (ten acre or more) elephant exhibits rather than the current situation of a lot of zoos with small exhibits and small herds.

I think that's what we'll end up with in the US within the next two or three decades, although maybe not 10+ acre massive. Many zoos have already made the investment in larger elephant herds; my assumption would be that a lot of other holders are either putting it off and will build larger complexes later, or will phase out through attrition and leave only the larger holders. As for the climate, I think most elephants are already in the warmer parts of the US and that trend will continue. Can't speak for Europe on either front, though.

 

[snowleopard]

How do American zoos afford mega-budget exhibits? It's been touched on several times before via this thread and others, but Ohio's Akron Zoo is a good example of a zoo with public support that has recently been in the news. This was a very small zoo 20 years ago, until the year 2000 when voters approved the first property tax support for the facility. This was renewed in 2006 and then again in 2013, giving tiny Akron Zoo $8.1 million per year. In that time the zoo has added major areas like Legends of the Wild (2005), Grizzly Ridge (2013), Pride of Africa (2019) and Wild Asia (upcoming in 2020). Suddenly the zoo isn't so little any more!

Akron Zoo had 362,000 visitors in 2018 and now has close to 250 species, but the tax levy is reaching its expiry date. On the ballot for the November 2020 election is a proposal for an increase in the neighbourhood property tax to support the zoo, with more information available on this link:

About Us | Vote Akron Zoo

If voters say YES to the tax levy then the zoo would potentially receive $12 million per year for a decade...just think what the establishment will be able to do with $120 million! There are already plans for a giraffe exhibit, some African primates and whatever else one can purchase for a staggering amount of money. This tax levy illustrates why it is so important to talk about the cost of new exhibits at American zoos. Even a mid-sized zoo like Akron, that can easily be seen in 2-3 hours, is improved by the property tax of local residents.

 

[Arizona Docent]

Fresno Chaffee Zoo and Reid Park Zoo (and perhaps others) are now supported by a very small (one tenth of one percent) sales tax. I think a small sales tax is easier to get voters to pass than an additional property tax. If Akron tries to increase the amount of the property tax it might backfire. Look what happened to Columbus Zoo when they tried that to open a new downtown facility.

EDIT - this is assuming a zoo is in a state that has sales tax, which a few states such as Oregon do not.

 

[Valentinoamor]

Let's be honest: quite a lot of zoos don't do a great job when it comes to keeping (and breeding) species that are not part of the charismatic megafauna, i.e. smaller mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates.

I couldn't agree with you more. As someone who keeps over a dozen of species that fit in those categories, I also notice when zoos aren't giving their animals the best care possible. The only species of amphibian I've seen with good care in zoos is dart frogs. (And don't even get me started on the care I've seen behind-the-scenes for their ambassador animals...)

 

[Andrew Swales]

How do American zoos afford mega-budget exhibits? It's been touched on several times before via this thread and others, but Ohio's Akron Zoo is a good example of a zoo with public support that has recently been in the news. This was a very small zoo 20 years ago, until the year 2000 when voters approved the first property tax support for the facility. This was renewed in 2006 and then again in 2013, giving tiny Akron Zoo $8.1 million per year. In that time the zoo has added major areas like Legends of the Wild (2005), Grizzly Ridge (2013), Pride of Africa (2019) and Wild Asia (upcoming in 2020). Suddenly the zoo isn't so little any more!

Akron Zoo had 362,000 visitors in 2018 and now has close to 250 species, but the tax levy is reaching its expiry date. On the ballot for the November 2020 election is a proposal for an increase in the neighbourhood property tax to support the zoo, with more information available on this link:

About Us | Vote Akron Zoo

If voters say YES to the tax levy then the zoo would potentially receive $12 million per year for a decade...just think what the establishment will be able to do with $120 million! There are already plans for a giraffe exhibit, some African primates and whatever else one can purchase for a staggering amount of money. This tax levy illustrates why it is so important to talk about the cost of new exhibits at American zoos. Even a mid-sized zoo like Akron, that can easily be seen in 2-3 hours, is improved by the property tax of local residents.

This might as well be describing a different planet - and MUST be remembered EVERY TIME a comparison is made between zoos either side of the Atlantic. In reality, it renders all such comparisons pointless...

 

[Arizona Docent]

This might as well be describing a different planet - and MUST be remembered EVERY TIME a comparison is made between zoos either side of the Atlantic. In reality, it renders all such comparisons pointless...

I must admit I was shocked when I read your earlier post about how much British zoos are taxed. The situation is kind of the opposite of what one would logically expect. The UK and most of Europe has more liberal/socialist economic policies than the USA (where capitalism is king and socialism is a dirty word). So I would expect our overseas counterparts to be more likely to publicly fund institutions like zoos and my country (USA) to not fund them but expect them to pay their own way. Yet the opposite is often true (though the USA has a huge range of funding schemes and some zoos are corporations that accept no pubic funding). It should also be noted that in many cases (Reid Park, Fresno Chaffee, St Louis) the tax funding was approved by voters in an election.

 

[Batto]

In reality, it renders all such comparisons pointless...

From the monetary aspect maybe, but (luckily), there are also other factors at play.
I've been contemplating for a while what kind of public messages these massive investments in zoo buildings convey, in particular in comparison to the amount of money spent on long-term investments in environmental protection and conservation, and considering the aforementioned debate whether the high price is justified by the outcome. I also wonder how long this can continue.

 

[lintworm]

I must admit I was shocked when I read your earlier post about how much British zoos are taxed. The situation is kind of the opposite of what one would logically expect. The UK and most of Europe has more liberal/socialist economic policies than the USA (where capitalism is king and socialism is a dirty word). So I would expect our overseas counterparts to be more likely to publicly fund institutions like zoos and my country (USA) to not fund them but expect them to pay their own way. Yet the opposite is often true (though the USA has a huge range of funding schemes and some zoos are corporations that accept no pubic funding). It should also be noted that in many cases (Reid Park, Fresno Chaffee, St Louis) the tax funding was approved by voters in an election.

The UK is more of an exception in Europe too. Many zoos in the German speaking world and probably all in Eastern Europe also get direct funding from the city/state. Even a zoo like Zurich is funded for roughly 20% from the city.

Many zoo exhibits that get build also receive government funding, in E Europe often from the EU. In the Netherlands/Belgium government funding of zoos is more rare and mainly is for renovation/upkeep of monumental buildings (though it is often not enough).

 

[marvinjonesIII]

To continue my lost message:. I think there are several factors at play here, several situations. NZP had three huge projects, because there had been three decades of deferred maintenance. Once the first assessment was done of the Zoo's physical plant, the AustralIA pavilion had to be demolished the next day, it was so structurally unsound. The best buildings in the zoo, built 20 years earlier--received grades of D. With the Bird House, things should all be at least safe. This is called, "coming from behind," hence sudden new spending.

Some zoos like SDZ and Columbus maintain a very clean, generically pleasant, manicured look,. Even the Wilds looks manicured! Peopleh used to think of zoos as rough-and tumble, somewhat wild places, but I think we've become so used to this look in amusement parks, arenas, even malls, that it's subconsciously made us expect it everywhere. Now Columbus's latest project is a sheer money earner, a cash cow, but there's been a concerted effort to make everything look clean, fresh, and new.

We may not realize we expect this, but look what happens when we don't get it? How many ZooChatters have called the Bronx Zoo "tired" or "rough around the edges" after a visit? Despite some excellent exhibits, age and deferred maintenance have set in here too. For a long time. Behind-the-scene quarters on The Zoo look pretty shoddy compared to Columbus, SD, Georgia Aquarium, and Chester. Renovations of historic buildings like the Reptile House have huge exterior ducting and unsightly things you'd never see at another premiere. The Bronx Zoo IS scraggly and unmanicured,. The vast majority of funds it gets goes into ex situ conservation, which while admirable and way it probably should be in the best of all possible worlds, but it leaves things at home looking pretty ratty. And when it starts to look ratty, you can be sure that attention is also not being paid to what people can't see--what's behind the scenes, what's behind the walls. Deferred maintenance is going to hit the Bronx in a big way someday--seen in decreased attendance or maybe AZA reports---and the costs will be big. With even Times Square now sleek and modern, the Bronx Zoo isn't going to be able to be rough around the edges forever. Like NZP, a bureaucracy that operates by crisis management will probably step in to save the day--or the conservation budget will have to be tapped. A terrible but inevitable day.

I've forgotten many examples I had made, but I think "sleeker" expectations and facilities lapsing into years of deferred maintenance could also be causes for this trend in pricy exhibits.

One way to look at these big projects positively is that government doesn't float tax issues or approve a 1/4 mil tax to function some new exhibit unless the zoo has become a very integral part of the city's social fabric and many people are affected by it, as guests and workers. Once they make the investment, people are reminded to go more often to see the "new" just as amusement park nerds come out for the season's new ride. Zoos have made it to the big time and are expected to impress us aesthetically and with technology to spread their message effectively.

I would say calling the Bronx Zoo ratty to be pretty harsh. Its level of exhibitry is largely impeccable and there actually has been a lot of $$ thrown into deferred maintenance you do not seen. Also, remember the funds for field conservation come from a very different pot of money for capital improvements.

 

[FBBird]

Penguin exhibits are hugely expensive to build, regardless of where - and penguin colonies in the UK at least, are subject to being wiped out by disease. A considerable risk, to balance their popularity... So much plant investment is needed, to provide good water - and the final exhibit is only the tip-of-the-iceberg. It has rightly been pointed out here before - but the difference in water quality between NA and European under-water exhibits is often marked, and could explain some of the huge differences in build costs.

.......you can do an awful lot with other birds for the cost of a single Penguin exhibit.

 

[snowleopard]

Kansas City Zoo is spending $10 million on its existing African Elephant exhibit and in truth other than the addition of a large, modern pool nothing much will be changed. There will be a new visitor viewing deck, a tram stop, improved pathways, restrooms, etc., but the actual habitat for the elephants appears as if it will remain almost the same as it looks now other than the pool...and of course a gushing waterfall.

KC Zoo's new and $10 million improved elephant exhibit to open in May

 

[Zooplantman]

Kansas City Zoo is spending $10 million on its existing African Elephant exhibit and in truth other than the addition of a large, modern pool nothing much will be changed. There will be a new visitor viewing deck, a tram stop, improved pathways, restrooms, etc., but the actual habitat for the elephants appears as if it will remain almost the same as it looks now other than the pool...and of course a gushing waterfall.

KC Zoo's new and $10 million improved elephant exhibit to open in May

It isn't much but there's this
"The renovations will make the pool easier for the animals to enter, add shade and make the ground a little softer by adding sand."
https://www.kcur.org/post/kansas-city-zoo-visitors-will-get-better-view-elephants-have-wait-aquarium