That is the problem with "public" zoos they suffer when budget cuts happen. You honestly think people are going to support tax increases to fund zoos? The private zoo with a public subsidy system seems to be the best model. The "government" zoo is a relic of the past.
Well, this article is the first time that I've ever heard of the "Lincolon Park Zoo". Where is that zoo? The ad copy writes itself: "Come get a Lincolonoscopy with all of your favorite animals at the Lincolon Park Zoo!" The basic point of the article, that people need to pay for nice zoos if they want them to stay nice, is certainly salient.
Coming from the UK where the vast majority of zoos, including almost all of the major ones, receive no government funding at all for operational costs or capital development, and yet they are still on the whole able to punch above their weight when it comes to developing their institutions and supporting ex-situ and in-situ conservation efforts. Most of our zoos would give their right arm for a mere fragment of the core funding that many zoos in the USA get, but as they won't, they just get on with it. In the land that put the C in capitalism, and where its people and businesses pride themselves on succeeding based on their own efforts, is it not about time that the zoo industry looked at the reality of the current and future economic climate and cut its cloth accordingly? I have always had a soft spot for American zoos, and I have seen some fantastic exhibits, but it has always left me a little uncomfortable when I tally-up what is spent on the various elaborate stage settings to create an illusion, often unsuccessfully, of some architect's vision of a rainforest, for example. Is it time to step away from "immersion" and grasp the idea of bio-functional animal facilities. They are certainly cheaper to build and often stimulate as much, if not more, animal activity as keepers are not limited to just including "natural" looking enrichment. For the zoos that are still free-entry, e.g. the National Zoo and Lincoln Park, I believe, is it not time that they started charging admission. The first North American zoo I visited was the old Riverbanks Zoo in Toronto, which was free entry, and I remember my father looking around rather perplexed as we appeared to have walked into the zoo and missed the entrance kiosk. In Europe, a free-entry zoo is unheard of, even with all our unpalatable socialist tendencies, like free health care. I would welcome a radical rethink of what appears to have become the standard North American zoo model, and I think it would be good for the longer-term health of your zoo community.
It does happen: Toledo Zoo levy renewed by voters - Toledo Blade Cincinnati zoo seeks tax levy | The Journal Gazette Akron Ohio News - County Council gets behind zoo levy etc. And then there are voter approved bonds: The birth of the bond | Oregon Zoo City of Los Angeles - Bureau of Engineering - Los Angeles Zoo Bond & Capital Improvement Program S.L. County Council eases restrictions on zoo bond | Deseret News
The Fresno Zoo has an ongoing special tax that the voters approved. It is up for renewal in 2014. The Oakland Zoo got a majority vote for a special tax in the 2012 election, but it just missed the 2/3 voter threshold needed to pass.
Our country also has a long history of public community support (i.e., taxpayer funding) for institutions that serve the public good like schools, libraries, parks, museums, and zoos. The "zoo industry" in the U.S. is more a network of public institutions that is trying to find new models of public-private partnerships for sustainable funding and improvements. Many zoos are now run by non-profits in partnership with the cities, counties, and state governments that own the land and facilities. This seems to be the basic model of the future. This is in fact the "radical" rethink that you prescribe.
I meant nationally. And the last thing several of those cities mentioned need to be levying taxes for is for Zoos. And all of those zoos are in highly taxed areas as it is.
Perhaps you are not aware that these are all voter approved taxes. So contrary to your earlier assertion that it would never work, these citizens whom you describe as ill able to bear more taxes, chose to be taxed to support their zoo. Pretty good news, eh?
The publicly owned zoo in the United States is a dying relic. The thinkprogress article tries to wrongly tie the Red Panda escape to Sequestration which the National Zoo being the only "nationally" funded zoo should be effected by. Basically every time something they don't like happens the mere reduction in the rate of budget growth that sequestration is becomes their boogeyman. If local communities want to raise a local tax to support their zoo that is perfectly fine but the last thing the high tax dying cities of the rust belt need to be doing is raising taxes to fund public zoos (I've found a lot of zoos up north are still ran as city departments while a lot of zoos in the Sun Belt are ran as nonprofits.) High taxes are one of the many push factors about the decline of the rust belt and the rise of the Sun belt.
yes that is the model seen a lot in fact it usually works like Example City owns the grounds (through the park system) and sometimes the animals (as legacies through trusts) but the operating revenue, improvement, and expansions are done by a P3 (public private partnership organization) which raises money, holds fundraisers etc. Now instead of a Zoo budget Example City can in good times donate to the P3 and take a break on the cities taxes without a long term or permanent commitment of funds often at a significant savings for Example City.
On average, US zoos--whether publicly owned and operated, publicly owned and privately managed, or privately owned and managed--receive at least 30% of their annual operating support from some sort of taxpayer source. The much-touted "privatized" Dallas Zoo, for example, gets close to 40% of its operating budget GUARANTEED from the city, yet has the freedom to operate as a non-profit. It is the rare exception (e.g. San Diego and Phoenix) that can survive without significant public dollar support. Zoos that made the "deal with the devil" to become private without long-term agreements for continued public subsidy (e.g. Atlanta) have paid the price and have struggled to survive. And while public/private arrangements are becoming more common, it is a fallacy to say that "publicly owned zoos are becoming a relic", as even those now operated by non-profit management are still usually owned by the city/county/region/state in which they exist. The cost of operating a top quality zoo either requires Disney/Busch/San Diego-level admission pricing, or some significant commitment of public subsidy. The argument about British zoos "paying their own way" may be true, but the utilitarian, slapdash nature of many of the UK facilities (as voluminously chronicled in the Zoo Chat Gallery) is what you get as a result. It is a choice each community and society makes for themselves.
we are saying the same thing the publicly ran zoo is on its way out, replaced by the public private partnership which I think is the best way to run a "public" zoo.
Not really. You repeatedly assert "the taxpayers" should not be asked to support zoos. I am making the point--with some exceptions--that is the only way most zoos can continue to be sustained and improve, whether in the "rust belt" or the "sun belt."
London, Whipsnade, Chester, Edinburgh, Highland Wildlife Park, Woburn, Monkey World, Paignton, Living Coasts, Newquay, Africa Alive, Banham, Birdland, Birdworld, Blackpool, Blue Planet Aquarium, Bristol, Colchester, Cotswold Wildlife Park, The Deep, Durrell, Howletts, Port Lympne, London Wetland Centre, Martin Mere Wetland Centre, Marwell, National Bird of Prey Centre, National Marine Aquarium, Slimbridge, Yorkshire Wildlife Park...all operate as private companies or as non-profit organisations and slapdash is not an adjective that I would use to describe any of these institutions. The Oxford Dictionary definition of utilitarian, at its simplest, is useful, and I would strongly argue that all of these institutions are indeed "utilitarian" when it comes to animal welfare, population management and supporting conservation efforts of all descriptions.
From the Oxford English Dictionary; UTILITARIAN; designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive. (My emphasis). I agree. Not everywhere in the UK is South Lakes. Reduakari's conflation of slapdash and utilitarian shows a mindset that very few places in the world can - frankly - afford.
You are strongly stating your belief, but can you explain in what way this is best? You began by asserting that taxpayers would not do it. When shown that they would, you switched arguments to: they don't know what's best for them and shouldn't do it. Your explanation was that Why did you raise "rust belt" vs "sun belt" differences? The examples posted included cities like Portland or even Salt Lake City, not rustbelt and a city that has seen growing prosperity for years. Besides, these are levies the homeowning taxpayers levied against themselves. Do you have any evidence that this is tied to regional economic performance? Seems all ideology and little analysis. Even if we just look at rust belt vs sun belt (because we are curious and like to learn new things, not because it seems to be relevant at all) the "rust belt" prospered for more decades than the "sun belt" has so far. And many "Sun Belt" states are the worst hit by the recession. A business-friendly approach has not necessarily made for high employment, upward mobility and social stability for the majority of citizens. (This might be interesting: Where the Recession Hit Us Hardest: An Interactive Map - Nicole Allan - The Atlantic or this How jobs growth forecast was done ? USATODAY.com) So I'd like to ask you to dig deeper than that simple sound bite approach. As you are a high school teacher I would expect your critical thinking to be especially developed. I must say that I have not studied either the financial management of zoos or of cities, nor economic performance data of different management and funding models enough to even begin to have an opinion about what may be the "best" way to fund zoos. I simply feel that their existence is important if they are able to be relatively effective voices for conservation and appreciation of the natural world.
Public-private model is the best approach compared to say running the zoo as a city department. The article in the original post incorrectly tries to tie budget issues related to sequestration to a Red panda escape at the National Zoo the only zoo effected by cuts to the federal budget directly (as it its the only one funded at the national level). The idea that you can run a zoo simply as a public venture ie the original zoo model in the United States where the Zoo is a city department, the employees are city employees etc is an idea that no longer makes sense from an economic standpoint there are other priorities for a cities budget. It worked as a model in the 50s and 60s when economic conditions were different, but the model led to the declining quality of many zoos in the 70s 80s and 90s as city budgets were directed elsewhere. Now a Zoo like the Smithsonian or say North Carolina (which is the only "state" zoo that I am aware of) can operate on the purely public model as long as the federal or state funding keeps flowing. At the same time, the only Zoos that could possibly run themselves completely private would be those with theme park level admissions ie the San Diego Zoo/WAP, Disney's AK, and possibly the Bronx Zoo maybe a few others (I don't know the math) based on things like local economic conditions, tourist destination factors, or even corporate sponsorship. But the point is most zoos could not operate on a purely private for profit model either. That is why the P3 model is the one that is the best for Zoos in the US going forward. The City still owns the property because of legacy ownership but the Zoo is ran by a non-profit. The City can then donate a good deal of money to the Organization that runs the Zoo at a considerable savings to their budget compared to running said zoo as a city department and in fact can change their contribution based on year to year local and economic factors. I've seen this model work very well at several different zoos. Its basic economics while keeping former municipal zoos open on a sustainable business path in light of new and changing economic circumstances. And then local municipalities ie (cities towns counties) if they show choose can levy additional property taxes that are directly earmarked for a local zoo, and that is their prerogative in a federal system. It was merely my opinion that certain areas especially areas like say a Detroit, Akron, or Toledo already have taxes that have their citizens at the breaking point (hence capital flight as a push factor). While the citizens voted for it, it may not be the most economically feasible solution in their situation.
Some of the most beautiful (and "practical") zoos around--Belize Zoo, Temaiken, Emmen, Northwest Trek, Papiliorama, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Uganda Wildlife Education Centre, Cleland Wildlife Sanctuary all come to mind--have been developed at relatively low cost but with taste and subtlety. This is in contrast to the huge investment with dubious aesthetic (or other) results of some of London Zoo's recent mega-projects, Colchester's hodgepodge of cheese, or the innumerable chicken wire and two-by-four "honest" cages proudly touted as "good for the animals, so good enough" at places like Twycross and yes South Lakes. There are plenty of similarly banal developments on this side of the pond; my point is that the relative abundance of financial resources--governmental or private--is not the primary determinant of whether a zoo facility succeeds both as an animal management space (enclosure) and as a public experience (exhibit). Instead, it comes down to the presence (or absence) of good taste and creativity.
Red you bring up a good point, with the prevalence of "mock rock" I wonder if the zoo design/contractors ultimately use it because they know it costs a lot and because those that make ie concrete companies often sponsor a lot of zoo exhibits. Basically like a little ponzi scheme.
