COLUMBIA, SC: Zoo visitors will be able to soar over Saluda on zip line | Local News | The State Yet another American zoo (Columbia, South Carolina) is installing one of those obnoxious zip lines. Recently I received an email from Out Of Africa in my own state indicating they have ruined the park with one of these obscene devices as well. Of course the fabulous San Diego Safari Park permanently destroyed their landscape with an ugly one years ago (ruining the now limited view of asian plains). This is a cancer spreading across the zoo world of the United States. When will the madness end?
When local governments are willing to use taxpayer dollars to fund their local zoo. While you may consider these ziplines cancerous, these attractions are putting life (funds) back into the zoos.
Mary Healy, director of the Sacramento Zoo, wrote a column a couple years back about complaints that she got about the zoo investing in a carousel and a train ride rather than building new exhibits. She explained that these investments yielded hundreds of thousands of dollars for zoo improvements and operations each year and ultimately made improving the zoo possible at a greater rate than if the initial investments had not been made in the rides. I found that logic persuasive, and I imagine that the same reasoning is used for ziplines for the zoos installing them.
Now that surprises me. I expected any revenue from these entertainments went to operations budgets solely. Given how few...very few... zoos run in the black, it's a stretch to believe that a zip line or a merry-go-round brings in enough income to allow the zoo to fund capital improvements
Hopefully I'm not spinning what she said inaccurately, but her point was that the investment in the non-animal projects was bringing in a very significant revenue stream that was previously not available for the zoo. I'm pretty sure that some of that funding was going into zoo improvements like the new animal hospital, giraffe barn, etc.
The point I believe we all need to face is that zoos struggle to keep in operation. Visitation may increase slightly but overhead increases faster. A zoo that has no non-animal attractions struggles even harder to attract visitors (interesting thought: what zoos have no non-animal attractions???) Restaurants, zip lines, concerts, all help bring in visitors (help me, I sound like ANyhuis!!!) And after all, even the earliest modern zoos mixed animal display with social entertainment. Has there ever been a "pure animal" zoo in modern history?
Between ziplines (now found at more than a dozen U.S. zoos), stingray petting, giraffe feeding, animatronic dinosaur seasonal specials and carousels I've read before about how zoos make a profit from such endeavours. While the feeding and petting fees are generally around $3, the zipline costs are extraordinary and it is not unusual for individuals to pay upwards of $45 for a session on an adventure course environment. Just a regular zipline has very little maintenance and the long-term profits for a zoo are impressive. Many zoos have installed adventure courses and carousels before embarking on a campaign for new animal exhibits.
I would say Gladys Porter Zoo comes closest to this. There are no frills, rides, amusements, and the only amenities are snacks and toilets. As far as I know, it is the only zoo in the country with the intent on focusing on endangered species.
That is hilarious. I like the way Woodland Park Zoo has its non-animal facilities very contained - although this doesn't seem to be the case with the new playground by the otter enclosure.
Really? Why isn't this more widely publicized? I could be habituated to San Diego's twin parks, but I always assumed zoos -- if not steady money makers -- were raking it in. For example, San Francisco just recently hit the eight-hundred thousand mark again; at fifteen bucks a pop that's ~$11.2-million a year. Kids pay less, but assume the difference is offset by snacks & souvenirs. Director Peterson collects an obscene salary; otherwise, I can't see the zoo's operating budget to be anywhere near that. Sure, there's probably several hundred thousand dollars in deferred maintenance. Beyond that, maybe a couple million on food & shelter? Frontline employees don't cost that much either based on jobs advertised. Too much Facebook. I keep wanting to hit the 'like' button. So, I'll join the chorus: Ha ha ha!
Let's say there are about 250 full time employees. A rough average for a normal city zoo. Knowing that this is San Francisco, that means there is a higher living wage than elsewhere in the country, so let's assume a ballpark average of $40,000 a year for these employees. This would include salary, benefits, retirement, insurance etc. That comes to a total of $10,000,000. Oh my, where's the rest of your money....
Well it is easy enugh to find out: http://www.sfzoo.org/pdf/financialstatement/09_10Audited_Financial_Statement.pdf
Memphis Zoo (one of my favorites) seems to be a pure animal zoo. No rides or similar attractions that I recall, just a sea lion show.
Although they may be making a bigger push to rent out facilities for private events than many zoos Private Events
