Zoological society vs. public

MKE Zoo guy

MKE Zoo guy

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I have been wondering about this for some time now since living near the Milwaukee zoo. The zoo is kinda split managed so it seems by the zoological society and then the county of Milwaukee.

In recent years the Milwaukee zoo has really been updating or creating new exhibits, pretty much staying the same as when I was a kid. However they have started doing some renovation work and building a new elephant exhibit.

It got me thinking why hasn't more been done in over the last 20 plus years.

Coming across an article where the zoological society of I believe the Fort Worth zoo and how the city owns the rights to the land but as for day to day operation and expansion they handed control over to the zoological society. Now they are expanding/renovating areas and growing their attendance.

That makes me curious on how the society versus the county or city are different? What are the pros and cons? And overall thoughts?
 
It used to be quite common for zoos to be run by the city (usually) or the county (less common) or in at least two instances (Minnesota and North Carolina) by the state. Then maybe thirty years ago (a wild guess), city zoos starting adding non profit zoological societies that were able to solicit donations to build new exhibits (since governments cannot accept donations). In recent years, many of these zoos have been taken over by the zoological societies and gotten the government out of the business of running the zoo, though they may or may not still receive some financial support from the city. Two recent examples are Fresno and Houston, but there are others. (Some zoos such as Phoenix and San Diego have always been private).

The general consensus from what I have heard is that getting the government out of running the zoo is beneficial for a couple reasons. First, many donors are hesitant to donate to a government run entity, but more likely to donate to a privately run organization. Second, it frees the zoo leaders to run the zoo as they see fit and not have to answer to government officials who frankly know nothing about zoo operations or animal husbandry.

There have been some glaring examples in recent years of city councils making bad decisions that hinder their local zoos. The biggest is Toronto forcing the zoo to send their elephants to a sanctuary against the zoo staff's recommendation of sending them to an AZA accredited zoo. This in fact caused Toronto to lose their AZA accreditation. Another recent example is Portland officials firing the well respected chief veterinarian and also the zoo director, based on a flimsy circumstance without proper investigation. The veterinarian at least was reinstated.

It is my personal opinion (and that of many others) that local governments should not run zoos and those that are would do well to get out from under their control.
 
I've seen good and bad both ways. But with governments cutting budgets maybe societies will be more popular. You forgot the third option - owned by a for-profit. Again good and bad examples available.
 
British zoos are often criticised (subtext: by those across the pond) for a lack of immersive, 'flagship' exhibits. The government-run zoo is a rare beast indeed in the UK these days and most simply cannot afford the investment that would be required. My impression, and it may be an unfair one, but it seems anecdotally supported on this site, is that many zoos in America receive large capital injections from time to time, or even just benefit from local tax raises for new complexes. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and it obviously must suck if your local council is broke.
 
MRJ brings up an interesting point. For profit zoos are not good at all based on my experience. They either have terrible cages for exhibits (cough - Wildlife World - cough) or gimmicky themed exhibits that are awful parodies of real world places (cough - Busch Gardens - cough) and contribute little to nothing to conservation efforts (if they do contribute it is just what they need to do for a tax deduction). This is my biggest sticking point. In my opinion the only justification for a modern zoo is to support conservation, and the zoos run by for profit companies do not do this as a general rule (with a few exceptions).
 
FunkyGibbon said:
British zoos are often criticised (subtext: by those across the pond) for a lack of immersive, 'flagship' exhibits. The government-run zoo is a rare beast indeed in the UK these days and most simply cannot afford the investment that would be required. My impression, and it may be an unfair one, but it seems anecdotally supported on this site, is that many zoos in America receive large capital injections from time to time, or even just benefit from local tax raises for new complexes. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and it obviously must suck if your local council is broke.
Click to expand...

Everything you state here is accurate and there are some enormous differences between American zoos and British zoos when it comes to funding. Of course there are many privately-run facilities throughout the USA that struggle for cash just like their British counterparts, but many big American zoos receive huge amounts of money. One prime example is Fresno Chaffee Zoo in the state of California, which has a "Measure Z" sales tax that became effective in 2005 and since then has raised more than $100 million and the zoo has now become a top-class facility. Just think what many mid-sized British zoos could do with $100 million!!

Article about "Measure Z":

Fresno County Fresno Chaffee Zoo Sales Tax, Measure Z (November 2014) - Ballotpedia

Another example is Point Defiance Zoo in the state of Washington, where the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma recently raised $200 million ($65 million of that money went directly to the zoo) and local taxpayers voted for and therefore supported the financing with their own money. Now Point Defiance Zoo is a recipient of the "2014 Parks & Zoo Bond" and the facility has had improvements funded for a renovation of Rocky Shores (already accomplished), an Environmental Learning Center opens in the fall, then a brand-new Pacific Seas Aquarium is opening next summer and after that is a much-needed expansion of the Polar Bear habitat. There was 64.5% support from local Tacoma residents and the surrounding neighbourhoods are literally paying to enhance Point Defiance Zoo, Northwest Trek Wildlife Park (just opened a $2 million nature-based playground) and Point Defiance Park.

How many of the 200+ British zoos receive anything like the support of Fresno Chaffee or Point Defiance?
 
Arizona Docent said:
And let us not forget Saint Louis Zoo, which although privately run gets enough money from a dedicated property tax that they continue to offer free admission!
Click to expand...
I have often wondered about that. I have really enjoyed going to that zoo, and the exhibits are fresh and everything is upkept well.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
many zoos in America receive large capital injections from time to time, or even just benefit from local tax raises for new complexes. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and it obviously must suck if your local council is broke.
Click to expand...

As Snowleopard suggested these are taxes voted on, approved by, the tax-payers. They are not simply a line item in the municipal budget. The local council is not really involved. The taxes are specifically to fund local zoos (and often museums, etc.). These "bond measures" have made many zoos the success they are. They are of limited duration and the zoos must go back to the voters every few years to ask for their support again; if the zoo is thought by the voting public to be misusing the funds then the bond is defeated and the zoo's fortunes change radically very quickly.
 
I just posted the information below in the Denver Zoo thread but it seems appropriate to also place it here as yet again an American zoo has received a large amount of money from taxpayers. It is wonderful to see families supporting local cultural institutions.

Denver Zoo will receive $20 million (earmarked for a new animal hospital and improvements to Northern Shores - polar bears and sea lions) as local voters approved a bond package with a 69% approval. Almost a billion dollars will go towards 460 projects across the city. Wow!

Here is an article:

Denver election results: $937 million bond package receives strong voter support
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top