Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Idk chief, it feels as if a great majority here hold the belief that wildlife should never be exploited for evil human greed (including making profit).

I think it depends on what the exploitation is, who is doing it and in what manner but the most important factor is whether it is done sustainably.

Ultimately it is impossible not to believe or be complicit in at least some level of exploitation of wildlife and even the adherents of the jainist religion exploit widlife of the floral variety.

 

[Westcoastperson]

There's a big difference between greed and profit.

You are very right making a profit doesn't make an institution greedy but greed can amass from profit. Not all zoos that are for-profit are greedy but it is very easy for them to become so. They can easily redirect funding from better exhibits to their own wallets. So while you are correct profit doesn't always mean greed the two very often go hand in hand.

 

[TZDugong]

Also, one small note, no for-profit zoos or aquariums should be allowed in the AZA.

Why? I don't see how being for-profit restricts a facility from fulfilling all the AZA requirements.

The AZA itself disagrees with you, considering that 11% of accredited parks are for-profit.

 

[Great Argus]

Idk chief, it feels as if a great majority here hold the belief that wildlife should never be exploited for evil human greed (including making profit).

Tell that to the illegal pet trade and the illegal medicine trade, not SeaWorld. I will also remind that SeaWorld is heavily involved in rescues and rehabilitation, and have released many thousands of rehabbed animals.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Why? I don't see how being for-profit restricts a facility from fulfilling all the AZA requirements.

The AZA itself disagrees with you, considering that 11% of accredited parks are for-profit.

I don't see why any zoo or aquarium would need to be for-profit besides to make money. And if the purpose of a zoo is to make money is it a morally acceptable zoo? If you know any reason that it is morally acceptable for a zoo to be for-profit then I would understand why they could be accepted.

 

[birdsandbats]

It is slightly contradictory until you look at where you both of these come from. Exhibit design comes of the SeaWorld headquarters, they decide how big or small an exhibit is. SeaWorld's great care comes from the staff who actually work with the animals. The story of JJ the Grey Whale makes this clear. It wasn't the headquarters that was helping them learn how to care for baleen whales. They didn't particularly care, it was the aquarists who learned how to feed JJ and enrich her. So when the care is put in the hands of SeaWorld's higher-ups they tend to take the easy route to earn more money, the aquarists take the animal's care very seriously and constantly innovate.

What?! JJ was kept only temporarily for rescue purposes, and this was greedy?

I don't really know what a "hot take" is or how its defined but in regards to zoos in the USA I think that the Woodland Park zoo seems to be very underrated and yet in my opinion is very impressive in terms of the naturalism of its enclosures / the design of these.

"Hot take" is the same thing as an unpopular opinion.

 

[ZooBinh]

I don't see why any zoo or aquarium would need to be for-profit besides to make money. And if the purpose of a zoo is to make money is it a morally acceptable zoo? If you know any reason that it is morally acceptable for a zoo to be for-profit then I would understand why they could be accepted.

Yet non-profit organizations find it hard to even make money to break even...you'd think that having a profit would help a business stay afloat? Zoos are still in essence a business...and they do still need to make money to be able to do what they do, even if they are supposed to focus on conservation, finances are quite important.

 

[birdsandbats]

There is no way for someone to privately start a zoo and not have it for profit - you can't just pour all your money into your own zoo and let yourself go bankrupt. Even non-profit zoos still have to at least break even.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Yet non-profit organizations find it hard to even make money to break even...you'd think that having a profit would help a business stay afloat? Zoos are still in essence a business...and they do still need to make money to be able to do what they do, even if they are supposed to focus on conservation, finances are quite important.

Yes, I agree that many zoos are essentially businesses and that they need to make money.

However, I think it is important that if zoos are to make large claims that they are involved in conservation that they actually are.

This can be done through actually contributing funding to in-situ or ex-situ conservation projects in range countries which can come through money generated by visitor fees or also by securing state, federal, and private grants.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Tell that to the illegal pet trade and the illegal medicine trade, not SeaWorld. I will also remind that SeaWorld is heavily involved in rescues and rehabilitation, and have released many thousands of rehabbed animals.

Don't forget that started in 1965 when SeaWorld was an aquarium not a theme park. It is also relatively cheap to run considering it only costs 1 million USD to run and in 2019 SeaWorld Anual revenue was 1,398 million USD. That means they dedicated 0.07 percent of their profit to animal rescues. Another note they only donate 16.5 million USD to conservation which is 1.2 percent of their total profit. So don't go saying they are amazing people because of their conservation or rescue because the conservation work is mandatory for the AZA and they didn't open up the rescue center and they direct a minor amount of funds to the rescue center.

 

[Great Argus]

It is also relatively cheap to run considering it only costs 1 million USD to run and in 2019 SeaWorld Anual revenue was 1,398 million USD.

Source? This seems low given all the heavy filtration, chillers, and rides they run.

Another note they only donate 16.5 million USD to conservation which is 1.2 percent of their total profit. So don't go saying they are amazing people because of their conservation or rescue because the conservation work is mandatory for the AZA and they didn't open up the rescue center and they direct a minor amount of funds to the rescue center.

That's more than a lot of institutions donate. A lot of facilities aren't able to put as much towards conservation, not many can rival San Diego or WCS. I consider their active rescue and rehab program conservation, especially given many species they rescue are endangered. Most facilities aren't able to rehab dolphins or manatees like SeaWorld does. Not to mention all the turtles, seals, and seabirds.

 

[Echobeast]

Another note they only donate 16.5 million USD to conservation

Imagine bashing a company for ONLY donating $16.5 million to conservation. That’s more than a lot of AZA institutions total yearly budget. Not to mention their 35,000+ marine rescues. Also SeaWorld’s conservation organization is fully non profit and is supported by the for profit company.

You could make a claim that it is easier for a for profit company to donate money to conservation if they have 3 Disney-esque theme parks that attract millions of visitors a year where even a cent on the dollar donated to conservation adds up.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Source? This seems low given all the heavy filtration, chillers, and rides they run.



That's more than a lot of institutions donate. A lot of facilities aren't able to put as much towards conservation, not many can rival San Diego or WCS. I consider their active rescue and rehab program conservation, especially given many species they rescue are endangered. Most facilities aren't able to rehab dolphins or manatees like SeaWorld does. Not to mention all the turtles, seals, and seabirds.

1 million was the Rescue centers profit, 1,398 million was the annual profit. I have the investor's reports from 2019 but I don't know where it says how much was spent on operating costs if you're looking for that.
As for their donations that is still relatively low. People keep bringing up "smaller institutions" SeaWorld is not a smaller institution. Other facilities don't have the money to give that much but SeaWorld does. The SeaWorld company runs 3 aquariums and 1 zoo and a few other theme parks so you cannot compare them to other single facility non-profit institutions. You could even say they should donate and do more than San Diego or WCS because they have fewer areas of income. And the rescue facility was created before any acquisitions from Anheuser Busch or the Black Rock group. That was set up before there was any major SeaWorld company when SeaWorld was just an Aquarium. Also, you are applauding the company for the work that was put in by aquarists. I said it before SeaWorld has some of the best staff in the world but they are overshadowed by the greedy choices of the higher-ups in the company.

 

[Westcoastperson]

There is no way for someone to privately start a zoo and not have it for profit - you can't just pour all your money into your own zoo and let yourself go bankrupt. Even non-profit zoos still have to at least break even.

Ok see that makes sense for why smaller AZA zoos should be for profit, but what about SeaWorld. They don't need to be for-profit with that logic.

 

[MonkeyBat]

Moving away from this conversation, modern exhibits are often really ugly. Many major developments from the 70s-00s are what catches my interest and adds charm to a zoo.

 

[TinoPup]

For everything about SeaWorld's financials, here's their investor website: SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. - Company Overview

 

[Great Argus]

As for their donations that is still relatively low. People keep bringing up "smaller institutions" SeaWorld is not a smaller institution. Other facilities don't have the money to give that much but SeaWorld does. The SeaWorld company runs 3 aquariums and 1 zoo and a few other theme parks so you cannot compare them to other single facility non-profit institutions. You could even say they should donate and do more than San Diego or WCS because they have fewer areas of income. And the rescue facility was created before any acquisitions from Anheuser Busch or the Black Rock group. That was set up before there was any major SeaWorld company when SeaWorld was just an Aquarium

Do they have the money to spend? People don't work for free you know. They have rides to maintain and animals to care for. I would argue that your point is invalid unless you can show they actually have the money to spend. Especially after the blow from being closed during Covid.

Also, you are applauding the company for the work that was put in by aquarists. I said it before SeaWorld has some of the best staff in the world but they are overshadowed by the greedy choices of the higher-ups in the company.

How about Disney's Animal Kingdom then? They're world-class in terms of care, and under a major for-profit company far-bigger than SeaWorld.
Or how about Six Flags?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Moving away from this conversation, modern exhibits are often really ugly. Many major developments from the 70s-00s are what catches my interest and adds charm to a zoo.

Thats an interesting comment, could you give an example of one of these developments that you think is charming from an aesthetic point of view?

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

-Arctic Ring of Life is overrated

Agreed 100%, it's nothing but an oversized waste of space, and it's more of a place where you "just go to say you went". Is it the hemisphere's largest polar bear exhibit? Yeah, but a lot of it is wasted space and you only have a slight chance of seeing the damn bears in-person. I think the underwater viewing is great and all, but man, it's mainly just wasted potential. Imagine if they added more species to make up for all that space...

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

Scutes Family Gallery at Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and Animal Encounters Village at Columbus Zoo while not the best exhibits are perfectly fine and don't deserve all the hate they get.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Though it has some odd theming, my gripe about the Scutes Family Gallery (from seeing Zoochat pictures) is that some of the reptile enclosures are just awful from a husbandry standpoint. I'd be fine if they were at least adequate (which some are), but some setups are questionable at most.