some places in NZ and I'd guess Australia do have reduced entry fees for locals (city not country) for which they need to produce some form of proof such as a bill (i.e. proof of address). You do run into problems in the case of visitors who don't have proof on them - do you just take their word for it and thereby negate the system because it is so easily abused, or do you say they must have proof and thereby alienate your local visitors who feel aggrieved because you don't believe their word? And there's also the very real problem that you also lose out on tourist numbers because a lot of them feel ripped off because they are paying more than the locals and so don't visit at all. For places that have a flat entry fee for all (i.e. the majority of places), the yearly memberships are the equivalent of reduced local rates.
I've come across quite a few places overseas which have special pricing for locals - especially targeted at the large part of the population who don't have a high income (the wealth gap is usually quite large in many of these countries). Not sure how they police it - although it's usually pretty easy to pick the tourists in many of these places. In some places I think they have special days where the zoo is open cheap/free for the locals.
Mike Rann tells zoo to find business sponsors Mike Rann tells zoo to find business sponsors | The Australian
Australia-China lobby to aid struggling Adelaide Zoo Australia-China lobby to aid struggling Adelaide Zoo | The Australian
I just happened to see the South Australian 7:30 report an the ABC news channel the other day. They were discussing the zoos problems and debt with a board member. He made some ridiculous statements like "There are no zoos in Australia which exist without substantial government funding", and seemed to be basing the whole zoo's future on Westpac forgiving the debt and the SA government making an increased contribution. I think the zoo's whole problems come from having three public servants - including a representative from Treasury and Finance on the board. These government people are used to having no accountability and just existing from one election to another on other peoples money. Having the zoo operating costs growing from $7m five years ago to a forecast $21m for the next financial year is an example of how governments operate without accountability and using this same system on a zoo. Due to our two party system oppositions wont criticize to much as they know after the next election they could be the ones in the hot seat. We are now certain they can not run a zoo, how can they run our country.
As a ZSL fellow I'd be interested how Aussie forum chatters perceive Chris West. Do they like the changes he's made, and how much responsibility (if any) do they think he should shoulder for Adelaide's present difficulties?
When Chris West moved to his current position I was not excited. Sure he had some great plans to further the zoo, but they mainly seemed to be decreasing the species collection, focussing on the main species and mammals, such as lions, and of course the pandas. Personally I feel he tried to make the zoo bigger than it can be, I felt he was trying to make it similar to London Zoo (which could never happen). Many great old exhibits have been lost, and many species of animals have been lost from the collection, and these species are ones that could have stayed. There is a very large focus on conservation and the environment now, which is great, but this pulls away from collection, with less and less species being focussed on. A zoo is still a zoo, and despite how much conservation efforts it participates in a zoo still needs to be a zoo, displaying various different species from around the world. Ever since he has come to the zoo I have been less excited going each time, and I am even considering not buying a membership next year as for two reasons, it is too expensive (I was used to the cheaper earlier prices) and the fact that the zoo is just not what it once was, only 6 years or so ago. So overall I dislike him being the main person in charge.
Amanda Vanstone wants bailout plan for Adelaide Zoo Amanda Vanstone wants bailout plan for Adelaide Zoo | Adelaide Now
Is Adelaide Zoo setting a precedent for other zoos, like Zoos Victoria, say? According to the article: "We're certainly not planning any wholesale redundancies or retrenchments," he said. "It's more about carefully planned and sort of balanced approach to a reduction in full-time equivalents." What on earth does that mean? Surely the same thing as "we have to sack 18 people". The article also says: "The numbers of animals being kept will be assessed to ensure the zoo does not hold redundant or unjustified stock." "Unjustified" in what respect? Conservation-wise or visitor-number-wise?
I'm just guessing but maybe reducing the size or herds, possible removing non managed species from the collection. i can think of a few other ways to cut costs but having.never been to SA I'm not sure how relevant my thoughts are.
No, it means having discussions with your staff and seeing what you can both come up with. If there are aging staff waiting another three years till they retire, but having trouble keeping up with the younger people, then they may be prepared to work part-time, say five hours a day x four days a week. If you have two people do that, then you have effectively lost one full-time equivalent (or FTE as they are known in management circles). As for redundant or unjustified stock, you can't know what they mean until they define 'redundant' and 'unjustified'. Or 'necessary' and 'justified'. We'll just have to wait and see. Hix
I am with you on this one Hix. It seems to me management speak for me for 2 things only: A) 18 FTE redundancies amongst the zoo workforce proper (meaning loosing more than 18 jobs for workers on the ground), B) a refocus on what PR people feel is what zoo visitors and your average public would wish to see and not necessarily be its attractiveness to the general public and its focus for a ZAA conservation focussed zoo / education facility. I particularly dislike the vague descriptions used in the interview by AZ's President. It is also sad to see they look to sell off some land at the open range and potentially do away with their Sanctuary. It also seems to me that another bad point is the lack of involvement of the zoo workforce on what would constitute good savings for the Zoos to improve the financial situation. On a more personal note: Given that the entire budget deficit was effectively down to institutional mismanagement and a Zoo Board failure to oversee good business practice why would any cost cutting have to affect the zoo workforce on the ground and AZ's conservation and education programmes and that some of the animal collection will just have to "go"?
Technically, you aren't really with Hix, but you are more inclined to be alarmed like me. Hix, it still boils down to a few people earning less money, or no money at all.
Taking a $24m loan is not really falling into a hole. A mortgage for a house is not really a hole - if you continue to make your payments. In the case of Adelaide Zoo, it appears that they are not getting the return on investment that they projected, and so, it has turned into a hole of sorts. And no, retrenchment is not what necessarily happens when you fall into a hole, as you do not always have to fire employees. There are other cost-cutting measures that could be used.
For most zoos in the US, 70% of the cost of operation is people. The remaining 30% tends to largely be "fixed costs" for utilities, animal food etc. There is typically very little margin to adjust, and when major cost cutting is required, it tends to mean people get fired or open positions go unfilled, usually both. Now the question of who gets sacked is entirely different--is it at the top, middle or bottom or the heirarchy? That can often be a more telling measure of an institutions' priorities and trajectory.
