Zoos and Economic Collapse

On further reflection, even though the US taxpayers aren't going to fund new zoo or aquarium projects as part of this massive Federal financing, if moving $880Billion into the economy has the desired effect, new projects will benefit as credit is again available, bonds can be sold at reasonable rates, and major donors get comfortable again.
 
@zooplantman: "On further reflection, even though the US taxpayers aren't going to fund new zoo or aquarium projects as part of this massive Federal financing, if moving $880Billion into the economy has the desired effect, new projects will benefit as credit is again available, bonds can be sold at reasonable rates, and major donors get comfortable again."

Exactly. This is not a "make work" program like the WPA--it is, as it is titled, an economic stimulus package, intended to free up credit and get things moving again.

And the reason zoos and aquariums have been specifically excluded from this bill (and this is only the House version--it's still possible the final bill will NOT include this language), is precisely because--unfortunately--some view zoos as mere entertainment centers, like the golf courses and casinos also "banned" from getting funding.

Notice no one is trying to prevent funds from going to museums, performing arts centers, libraries, colleges etc.

The more zoos blur their conservation and education missions with unrelated entertainment activities, the more people will continue to see them as the equivalent of waterparks, amusement parks and video game arcades. Which means less justification for taxpayer or philanthropic support, especially in hard times.

The serious work of zoos is undercut when they try to compete directly with pure, for-profit entertainment venues. I would suggest the reason they have been targeted in the debate as being "unworthy" of government support is based on the ambiguous message they send by trying to do anything to draw an audience--i.e. pandering to the lowest common denominator. An in this sense Jack Hanna is part of the problem, not the solution. He is very well-intended and has done much for raising the visibility of zoos, but really can't be taken seriously.
 
snowleopard said:
Just about every major newspaper, magazine and online publication has been printing article after article declaring George W. Bush as possibly the all-time worst American President.
Click to expand...

So tell us what you REALLY think of our president, SnowLeopard! LOL! To be honest, it's NOT every publication that feels this way, only the liberal ones.

Not to argue politics, but to Bush's credit, many are thankful to him for keeping us safe from another terrorist attack for 7 years. Others don't care. But here's some historical perspective: 56 years ago, Harry Truman left the White House with the lowest-ever approval ratings, and many then thought he was probably our worst-ever president, especially for the way he handled the Korean War. But today, most historians consider Truman to have been one of our BEST-ever presidents. Will this happen with Bush? I don't know, but I'm willing to let history judge him -- after we see how Iraq and Afghanistan turn out, and after we see how this complete novice we've just elected performs. If Obama falls on his face, "Dubya" will suddenly not seem to have been so bad. Bush disappointed me at times too, but "worst ever" is a bit harsh after a recent president resigned from office and another was impeached.
 
Zooplantman said:
If zoos must chose to move from "idealism" as in conservation and education towards entertainment such that they are theme parks with the occasional descriptive sign, then it begs the question Why have a zoo? Why have these captive animals?
Click to expand...

Zooplantman: You sound dangerously close to agreeing with that Zoo Director over in Europe who actually said he sees zoos as "a necessary EVIL". Imagine that, he thinks there is something evil about what he is doing for a living. I see NOTHING evil about zoos, whether they feature any combination of conservation, education, or entertainment -- as long as the zoo is providing proper care for its animals. Let's NOT fall into this IDA/PETA trap of seeing our beloved zoos as "evil" -- under ANY circumstances! Please!!

reduakari said:
And in this sense Jack Hanna is part of the problem, not the solution. He is very well-intended and has done much for raising the visibility of zoos, but really can't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Wow, to criticize Jack Hanna blows my mind, after all he's done for the zoo world!

And I'm NOT saying we should ignore conservation and education. I'm just saying we should ALSO not ignore FUN -- and stop wringing our hands when a zoo wants to add to its appeal (and its attendance gate) by adding some real fun! We need to celebrate places like Disney's Animal Kingdom, Busch Gardens, and SeaWorlds. I personally hope more zoos will emulate them to some degree.
 
ANyhuis said:
And I'm NOT saying we should ignore conservation and education. I'm just saying we should ALSO not ignore FUN -- and stop wringing our hands when a zoo wants to add to its appeal (and its attendance gate) by adding some real fun! We need to celebrate places like Disney's Animal Kingdom, Busch Gardens, and SeaWorlds. I personally hope more zoos will emulate them to some degree.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think DAK does a better job of trying to walk the line between "fun" and conservation education through exibitry. They have for the most part separated animal exhibits from roller coasters. Bush Gardens' Jungala shows how "fun" can make animals mere dressing for the zip line ride. A sad situation. Maybe even evil. So your examples show us that there can be better results and awful results to heading eagerly down that road.

Are zoos evil? Hell, my entire career has been as a zoo employee and then a zoo consultant. I know the places and the people - certainly in the US. I do not consider zoos evil in any sense, but I can see the moral ambiguity of many of our exhibits. I can do my work because I know the animals are well cared for and conservation education is vital. I wish we didn't have to display animals but I believe we do. Fortunately, I only work on the best exhibits. I do not have to believe an institution is entirely God-sent in order to wholeheartedly support it. Moral ambiguity is everywhere around us and I don't see what is gained by being a simple cheerleader.
 
@ANyhuis: you brought up a great point in reference to Harry S. Truman, who left with a 22% approval rating and now is often ranked in the top 10 U.S. Presidents in various lists. I suppose that dropping two atomic bombs left a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans, but decades later the feeling of unease has lifted. Truman is credited with ending WWII and perhaps more lives were saved by the bombs. George W. Bush will be remembered more fondly than he is now as it happens to every President. A few years, or even decades, go by and then history becomes a kind and forgiving judge of character. I still stand by the fact that Bush can barely utter a coherent speech without coming across as a fool, and I have struggled to find anywhere other than Fox News saying good things about the man. Weapons of mass destruction indeed...lol.

@Zooplantman: you mentioned Jungala, and called it "maybe even evil". I have heard mixed responses to that hugely artificial creation, and places like Busch Gardens definitely create debate here at ZooChat. It's tough to compromise for those type of institutions, as if every hardcore zoo fan protested outside the establishment and the rollercoasters were dismantled then would the attendance take an immense hit? Could Busch Gardens survive in Florida solely on its animal exhibits? Miami Metrozoo and Jacksonville Zoo are both above average zoos that don't have coasters and screaming visitors on rides, and both hold their own amongst the tanned bodies and retirees of that State.
 
Zooplantman said:
Personally, I think DAK does a better job of trying to walk the line between "fun" and conservation education through exibitry. They have for the most part separated animal exhibits from roller coasters. Bush Gardens' Jungala shows how "fun" can make animals mere dressing for the zip line ride. A sad situation. Maybe even evil. So your examples show us that there can be better results and awful results to heading eagerly down that road.
Click to expand...

I agree on DAK, but disagree on BG's Jungala. WHAT is it that bugs you about that exhibit? Are the animals mistreated or suffering? If not, WHAT is the problem? So is it "evil" if the animals aren't the "stars" of an exhibit? (I haven't seen Jungala personally, by the way, but my coauthor Jon has, and he didn't tell me anything was wrong with it.)

Zooplantman said:
Are zoos evil? Hell, my entire career has been as a zoo employee and then a zoo consultant. I know the places and the people - certainly in the US. I do not consider zoos evil in any sense, but I can see the moral ambiguity of many of our exhibits. I can do my work because I know the animals are well cared for and conservation education is vital. I wish we didn't have to display animals but I believe we do. Fortunately, I only work on the best exhibits. I do not have to believe an institution is entirely God-sent in order to wholeheartedly support it. Moral ambiguity is everywhere around us and I don't see what is gained by being a simple cheerleader.
Click to expand...

OK, here's a reaction-Question: What IF there was NO need for conservation? What if we had a perfect world and no animals were endangered, needing zoos to help them? Under THAT scenario, would you still love zoos? Would they still be justifiable? MY answer is YES! Even if the only reason for zoos was for us humans to enjoy going to see them, that would be more than enough fo justify their existence.
 
I'm glad we're debating tough issues.
To your first question about Jungala, I suppose it comes to taste. We could knock heads over George Bush or we could knock heads over whether orangs are best exhibited in a way that gives visitors a feeling for and of their natural habitat and helps complacent visitors care...or whether as long as the animals are healthy and treated well then what does it matter how we display them. My own sense is that we humans are developing every corner of this planet and making wild places and wildlife rare. What survives is becoming mere entertainments for us. I object to that. That's my feeling and morality. No one must agree. I wish you would, but you make your own decision.

You second question is more problematic to me. I think I'd always love zoos. But I'm not sure if I could always defend, support, and dedicate my career to them. If wild places and wildlife were secure and thriving...well, I've never known that to be, so I'm not sure what I would feel. Some here at Zoochat say that if we can't house and display an animal in optimal conditions then we shouldn't have them. I am less strident on that because I feel the stakes for human/wildlife survival are so high. But if the only reason to display animals were human amusement, I'd say, damn well better provide optimal conditions or else don't have them. I object to people having children or dogs when they don't really really want them. Having kids or displaying animals for our personal jollies is to me selfish. Getting a dog because we feel it would be good for the children to have some responsibility is sometimes fine and often animal cruelty (depends on what happens). If we're going to do it, we owe a huge responsibility to those kids or animals to treat them very very very well. The simple fact that humans enjoy something doesn't justify it. Humans have enjoyed some pretty creepy things that I, at least, cannot support.
 
Last edited:
This interesting thread seems to have wandered all over the place, with discussion of good old Dubya and the morals of captivity. On the former, it is just too easy to criticise that buffoon, but I just cannot believe that there is anybody out there who can not think him a Bad Thing; on the latter, i find myself - almost! - agreeing with ANyhuis; if an animal is looked after well, that is what matters - not its conservational value. but to put animals along side rollercoasters does belittle them, surely, and exploit them too in a way which does no-one any favours.

But to return to the ways in which zoos can survive the econmoic crisis, and whether they need to bring on dancing girls in order to do so, it has always been my belief that people will respond to sincerity, to things done well. It has been mentioned above that the Bronx Zoo still gets quite a few visitors, despite its failure to build rollercoasters and so on. In Europe, Germany's zoos have always been massively well visited despite, on the whole, being about as uncommercail as it is possible to be. Here in Britain, the British Museum, and the National Gallery, have strangely not yet brought in "fun" to grab the crowds. Perhaps they believe that the treasures they dsiplay are "fun" enough, are interesting enough in their own right. The millions upon milliosn who visit each year seem not to disagree.
 
sooty mangabey said:
In Europe, Germany's zoos have always been massively well visited despite, on the whole, being about as uncommercail as it is possible to be. Here in Britain, the British Museum, and the National Gallery, have strangely not yet brought in "fun" to grab the crowds. Perhaps they believe that the treasures they dsiplay are "fun" enough, are interesting enough in their own right. The millions upon milliosn who visit each year seem not to disagree.
Click to expand...

There are cultural differences to consider. I have done a little study over the years on how visitors use botanical gardens in the US and in England. The two sets of visitors were really different in how they perceived and enjoyed the facilities.

Personally, I feel zoos must not lose sight of their mission, which is conservation, education and entertainment in that order (check the mission statements of your favorite zoo). When they get confused about why they exist, they flounder. Frankly, most zoo directors and upper management I know have no doubts about what their mission is. But they do worry about money sometimes. And worse, their Boards worry and push the professionals in unfortunate directions. If the current economic conditions do prove hard on zoos, they'll be hard pressed to maintain their vision. Happens to the best of us when stressed, doesn't it?
 
Zooplantman said:
I took it that he was explaining why he thought the county could get away with raising the entry price, not why the zoo was important.
Click to expand...

Because many of the resident tax payers that live within the county have lost their jobs in the recession, my personal opinion was that the comment about raising pricing was quite tactless, especially for a politician that will be wanting the same people to vote for them. That said the turtleback zoo has had several million dollars of funding from county funding recently which has gained it AZA accredition and won it several plaudits. I'm sure a $1 price increase wouldn't even be noticed by many, seems pointless to mention it during an interview, then again the comment was probably made among several others and unfortunately just this one made it to the report.
 
UntBwe said:
It's interesting to see that the council of the city of Emmen has agreed last month with the 80 milion euros needed for the move of the zoo. We also can see new projects in Rotterdam (the monumental entrance is now being renovated, and the Rivierahall also is scheduled for renovation) while other project are still ongoing. Amersfoort is building a new elephant barn and enclosure. Ouwehands' Zoo has some small projects (new penguin enclosure). Etc. Nothing looks like there is an economic collapse here.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that these decisions were made before it was getting clear how serious the economic crisis was going to hit us. Now it is even getting clear that our government has been hiding the seriousness of the situation for months, and just now we are seeing how severe it's hitting us.

The project in emmen was part of a major plan to upgrade the city centre, which also included a large 74 metre tower, with a parking lot in the basement. This tower is now cancelled, because there all the investors withdrew, and no new one's can't be found at the moment. Now they are just building a parking lot, to serve the need of the public.

I do not expect the same will happen to the new zoo, because it will supply in workplaces for the coming years.
 
Half term week at Paignton Zoo - they had 4000 visitors yesterday and would have expected 2000. The car parks have been full all week.
 
kiang said:
Following on this theme, now the great Bronx zoo in New York is feeling the pinch.
Click to expand...

One reason this zoo is considered the "great Bronx Zoo" is because they fund conservation research projects all over the world. I'm guessing that these projects are quite expensive. While they are indeed worthwhile projects, I'm guessing they are NOT what the State or city governments think they are getting when they fund the Zoo, and maybe the private donors would rather their donated money goes towards the actual Zoo instead of for international research. So, what I'm asking is whether the Zoo would consider cutting off some of these research funds first, rather than laying off Zoo employees or closing Zoo exhibits? What do you all think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top