Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

RandomZooVisitorYT said:
Personally, I find Toledos aquarium to be pretty basic, more to the level of a SeaLife aquarium but with no immersion whatsoever
Click to expand...
As someone who grew up with the Columbus Zoo and fishtank- I mean- "Aquarium", I find Toledo's Aquarium to be charming. I definitely agree it lacks an immersion that other more modern aquariums have, but it stands as a lovely testament to Toledo's history. Toledo as a zoo embraces it's historical roots and I respect that. It's not my favorite aquarium design (I really hate their main tank) but it's far from my most disliked portion of that zoo.
 
After a recent visit to Pittsburgh :p

The zoo needs to pick between elephants and most of their other large african animals. The Ostritch and Nyala exhibit could (and should) easily be converted into elephant space. Their exhibit is "fine" currently but smaller than what is typically considered high quality in zoos. don't think loosing those two species would depleat from the overall quality of Africa. Elephants are arguably one of their most popular animals, and I'm doubtful there would be many complaints if those two species were removed.
If they opted to keep the Giraffe, then I think they'd be just fine in the eyes of the public.
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
After a recent visit to Pittsburgh :p

The zoo needs to pick between elephants and most of their other large african animals. The Ostritch and Nyala exhibit could (and should) easily be converted into elephant space. Their exhibit is "fine" currently but smaller than what is typically considered high quality in zoos. don't think loosing those two species would depleat from the overall quality of Africa. Elephants are arguably one of their most popular animals, and I'm doubtful there would be many complaints if those two species were removed.
If they opted to keep the Giraffe, then I think they'd be just fine in the eyes of the public.
Click to expand...
Saying a zoo should either get rid of elephants to make more space for other animals or vice versa is really what I need to beat the summer heat.
 
I do not think the current level of support for zoos in the United States is sustainable long-term and unless there is a sudden change in trends within the next two decades, I think we will eventually see several facilities closing permanently.
 
Chlidonias said:
What is the "current level of support" for zoos in the USA?
Click to expand...
I do want to say upfront I do not have a concrete definition I can offer. I am thinking partly in terms of financial support, which is the easiest to discuss, but it wasn't my intent to limit strictly to that.

It's noticeable to me that many institutions, including top ten in the country institutions like Minnesota and Detroit, are financially struggling right now. I've read that San Diego Zoo Safari Park operated a deficit for years. Brookfield has struggled financially for fifteen years and had a reputation in free-fall for much of that time. San Francisco has been spotlighted endlessly. Bronx famously had to close exhibits to keep open. I know that some institutions, like Lincoln Park, Saint Louis and Denver, seem to be in a bright spot, but those seem very much like the exception, not the rule. There is clearly a lack of financial resources for these institutions and even if some are doing well, it does not look good for the whole. Entrance fees and upcharge attractions are on the rise to try to make up this deficit, but tend to drag down the facilities' reputations at once.

In addition, there's the problem of space. Europe has several zoos that are surrounded by and even own undeveloped land, with room for future growth that does not infringe on existing development. Europe also has new facilities opening up here and there. The amount of space available there is largely expanding, not declining - the same cannot be said in the US. There hasn't been a single major facility to open in almost twenty years, limiting the number of potential holders for almost any given species; Sacramento is planning to move, and two existing facilities are looking to open breeding parks, but we are at a point where the majority of animals and species are largely competing for a limited, unchanging amount of total space available, and where it usually makes more sense to cut down further. Many somewhat common species are still not held in sustainable numbers.
 
JVM said:
I do want to say upfront I do not have a concrete definition I can offer. I am thinking partly in terms of financial support, which is the easiest to discuss, but it wasn't my intent to limit strictly to that.

It's noticeable to me that many institutions, including top ten in the country institutions like Minnesota and Detroit, are financially struggling right now. I've read that San Diego Zoo Safari Park operated a deficit for years. Brookfield has struggled financially for fifteen years and had a reputation in free-fall for much of that time. San Francisco has been spotlighted endlessly. Bronx famously had to close exhibits to keep open. I know that some institutions, like Lincoln Park, Saint Louis and Denver, seem to be in a bright spot, but those seem very much like the exception, not the rule. There is clearly a lack of financial resources for these institutions and even if some are doing well, it does not look good for the whole. Entrance fees and upcharge attractions are on the rise to try to make up this deficit, but tend to drag down the facilities' reputations at once.

In addition, there's the problem of space. Europe has several zoos that are surrounded by and even own undeveloped land, with room for future growth that does not infringe on existing development. Europe also has new facilities opening up here and there. The amount of space available there is largely expanding, not declining - the same cannot be said in the US. There hasn't been a single major facility to open in almost twenty years, limiting the number of potential holders for almost any given species; Sacramento is planning to move, and two existing facilities are looking to open breeding parks, but we are at a point where the majority of animals and species are largely competing for a limited, unchanging amount of total space available, and where it usually makes more sense to cut down further. Many somewhat common species are still not held in sustainable numbers.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a certain stagnation in regard to investment, development and innovation in US zoos in general? Some zoo stakeholders seem to see themselves more as adminstrators of the remnants of past glory days than as innovators taking risks and leading the way. Maybe a result of the current economic, political and social situation in the US? "Don't rock the boat, keep it safe and carry on"
 
I think part of the problem is how zoos (and many other places for that matter) are inaccessible without an automobile. I am not going to suggest that it’s the only factor playing into why the average joe isn’t too enthusiastic about visiting the zoo as often. I am also not going to assume that every zoo will be accessible in countries with extensive railway and public transport networks. But transport and accessibility does seem like a big factor on choosing to visit the zoo (which is unfortunately as novel as it is for the average Joe) as a primary venue for recreation.
 
PossumRoach said:
I think part of the problem is how zoos (and many other places for that matter) are inaccessible without an automobile. I am not going to suggest that it’s the only factor playing into why the average joe isn’t too enthusiastic about visiting the zoo as often. I am also not going to assume that every zoo will be accessible in countries with extensive railway and public transport networks. But transport and accessibility does seem like a big factor on choosing to visit the zoo (which is unfortunately as novel as it is for the average Joe) as a primary venue for recreation.
Click to expand...
This problem is not unique to zoos in the US, though. It's a problem with literally everything here, even essentials like stores.
 
At least here in the UK the economy is a mess and the price of everything has gone up considerably since before the pandemic, it's no surprise people aren't as keen to visit the zoo.
 
JVM said:
I do want to say upfront I do not have a concrete definition I can offer. I am thinking partly in terms of financial support, which is the easiest to discuss, but it wasn't my intent to limit strictly to that.

It's noticeable to me that many institutions, including top ten in the country institutions like Minnesota and Detroit, are financially struggling right now. I've read that San Diego Zoo Safari Park operated a deficit for years. Brookfield has struggled financially for fifteen years and had a reputation in free-fall for much of that time. San Francisco has been spotlighted endlessly. Bronx famously had to close exhibits to keep open. I know that some institutions, like Lincoln Park, Saint Louis and Denver, seem to be in a bright spot, but those seem very much like the exception, not the rule. There is clearly a lack of financial resources for these institutions and even if some are doing well, it does not look good for the whole. Entrance fees and upcharge attractions are on the rise to try to make up this deficit, but tend to drag down the facilities' reputations at once.
Click to expand...
Just saying: if zoos were going to close due to struggling financials, a global pandemic that cut off major sources of revenue seems like the kind of time it would've happened. The fact that zoos not only survived through the pandemic, but managed to survive without major layoffs/downsizing/etc., is a testament to how well-off many institutions are at the moment. Zoos can't just stop feeding their animals, funding the upkeep of life support systems, or paying their essential staff due to the inability to open their gates during a pandemic, meaning that they were particularly vulnerable to the economic effects of lockdowns.

Jana said:
Is zoo attendance in the US and the UK really plummeting compared to pre-covid times?

I´m yet to see any evidence of it.
Click to expand...
Multiple US zoos have recently announced setting attendance records in either the 2023 calendar year or the 2023-2024 fiscal year:

Reid Park Zoo- Tucson zoo sets new attendance record
North Carolina Zoo- North Carolina Zoo breaks attendance record with 1 million guests | wfmynews2.com
Zoo Knoxville- https://www.wate.com/news/knox-coun...ord-in-2023-contributed-58m-to-local-economy/
Oklahoma City Zoo- OKC Zoo sets new annual attendance record
 
Jana said:
Is zoo attendance in the US and the UK really plummeting compared to pre-covid times?

I´m yet to see any evidence of it.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, in the UK at least.
What does appear to have reverted to pre-Covid 'norms' (and potentially now more exaggerated) is the dependence of the visitor on their mobile phone - where the various apps continually warn of 'dangerous' weather - dont go out because the sun will be shining, or it might be breezy or damp - so it is safer to hide in your house. This has an impact, especially in a wet/cold spring like this year.
The other issue for zoos and all tourism destinations in previous 'holiday' regions in the UK, is that due to un-balanced taxation it is now cheaper to buy a plane ticket than fill up your car, so the tourists go abroad instead taking their spend out of the home economy.
 
Last edited:
Neil chace said:
Just saying: if zoos were going to close due to struggling financials, a global pandemic that cut off major sources of revenue seems like the kind of time it would've happened. The fact that zoos not only survived through the pandemic, but managed to survive without major layoffs/downsizing/etc., is a testament to how well-off many institutions are at the moment. Zoos can't just stop feeding their animals, funding the upkeep of life support systems, or paying their essential staff due to the inability to open their gates during a pandemic, meaning that they were particularly vulnerable to the economic effects of lockdowns.
Click to expand...

Many zoos (smaller ones at least) did very well in the year of the pandemic - in the end!
Those that had efficient ticketing systems in place enjoyed a boom summer holiday season, when foreign travel and indoor leisure venues were not available. The continuous stream of booked visitors brought in as much if not more revenue than was lost during the closure periods.
 
I think in general (in the UK) zoo incomes are now higher than before the pandemic. Within that there is obviously going to be variation with some places not doing so well and some doing a lot better.

Whether or not they are higher in general once inflation has been taken into account is another matter.
 
My concerns are not strictly about attendance numbers and admissions revenue, although they are factors. Just clarifying to avoid any misunderstanding. My comments were not intended to be read as "economy bad". I try not to do that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top