Zoos and financial self-sufficiency

[HOMIN96]

Today I got into discussion about closing Buenos Aires zoo and zoos in general, this article and this article was thrown at me. There are things that was already discussed here, so I don´t want to talk about them, but then there is also a statement about "Zoos being for profit," which I couldn´t found being discussed here. So I wanted to ask how are zoos worldwide doing in terms financial self-sufficiency?

For example, self-sufficiency of Czech and Slovak zoos varies from 29 to 88%, it´s obviously diferent every year but the changes aren´t that big. So I want to know if it´s the same in other countries or how different it is.

 

[Zooplantman]

I know of a few zoos in North America that have had a financial surplus at the end of the year. But they receive substantial in-kind support from their municipalities and states and new exhibits always require outside funding and donations. So there is no real profit and the surplus is small. If the managers wanted to run a business "for profit" they would do better to open a coffee shop instead of a zoo.

 

[Dassie rat]

In 1991, I went to various zoos around the world and found a lot of support for London Zoo, which was threatened with closure. Many zoo officials found it hard to believe that the government no longer paid towards the zoo of the capital city. I still find it strange that there is money for buildings like the Royal Opera House and the newly enlarged Tate Modern, but none for London Zoo. Different nations vary as to how self-sufficient they expect their zoos to be.

I have argued some of the arguments in the link 5 Things We Need to Stop Telling Ourselves About Zoos | One Green Planet with an official at CAPS. Some of the claims are true. A relatively small proportion of species in some zoos are endangered or critically endangered and many endangered species are destined to be released into the wild, even if there is enough suitable habitat. I would like zoos to promote endangered, little known animals so that visitors would enjoy seeing them and would want to help their conservation, rather than just wanting to see the same species in each zoo. Despite this, zoos are helping to preserve animals in the wild.

One of the main areas in which I disagree with the link is the assumption that zoos do not care about their animals. I have known various zoo employees who care deeply about animals and have made several sacrifices to care for them. While I suspect that some directors seem to be more motivated by money, rather than animals, it is very unfair to slur all zoo employees.

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

The zoos are definitively non-profit organisations. Exceptions exist. But their existance is not for profit.

Skopje zoo and Bitola zoo in R. Macedonia are municipality (city of Skopje)-owned zoos (not private, and recieve both public-municipality funds, and funds from tickets (ticket cost for Skopje zoo and Bitola zoo is about 0.85 euro!, so very low, but that reflects the standards here), and also some donations.

 

[littleRedPanda]

I would like zoos to promote endangered, little known animals so that visitors would enjoy seeing them and would want to help their conservation, rather than just wanting to see the same species in each zoo.

For a few months now, I have been considering building a website that concentrates on displaying photos and info on red list animals in UK zoos. Within it, I'd like to include 'facts' about the money that gets put back into projects and justifying holding animals, red list or not.
I'd love some reliable links to research, so I can finally get stuck into it.