Wow. Where to even start. First off, the world financial situation has resulted in the Bronx Zoo laying off or accepting early retirement of nearly 200 people, including management. The cost of keeping animals, per se, is only a fraction of the cost of operating a zoo--the vast majority goes to pay people. Some of whom care for the animals or maintain their facilities. So when you lose more people than many zoos employ in total, something has to give--i.e. exhibits need to close. Many donors to zoos give money ONLY because zoos are engaged in conservation. If zoos stop funding that work, many of those donors will stop giving. But beyond that, zoos can and must provide expertise needed to help manage declining wild populations, which more and more are like zoo populations, requiring veterinary care and other "zoo-like" management. Who better to provide this than zoos? But most curious of all is your continued insistence that the Philadelphia Zoo is "the best" (or even good). The tile bathrooms of the "Rare Animal" building, the Auschwitz-looking hotwire barriers in "Bear Country," the ancient rhino, elephant and hippo yards, the brutal rockwork lumps of "Carnivore Canyon," the ridiculous "logging camp recovered by nature" theme of the Primate House--it all adds up to me as a confused and space-challenged old zoo fighting to barely stay afloat. And at $18 dollars a head, one of the worst values of any major zoo in the country.
zebedee101 thank you for replying without insulting my favorite zoo as most of the others have done ... Anyway, I agree that swapping animals in the cases you described is sometimes necessary, and can even benefit visitors because that should result in zoos having more species on exhibit. But if grant money is only given with the stipulation that it be used for off-site research, someone should protest that. Why not just give the grant money directly to off-site projects? I hate to think how much additional zoo time and money is spent deciding which projects to work with, whom to send to work on the projects, etc. Those who dispense grants should reconsider their restrictive policies.
When it comes down to it, zoos have one of two ways to go: be there for the animals and care about their future and whether they live (as in the long term of the species, not in the short term; all institutions care about their animals) or care about the money in it. Some zoos go one way, others go the other. On a personal note, you get used to people attacking you for your opinions here. I get it a lot. I think more than anything people actually want to know why you love the Philly Zoo so much, so much MORE than Bronx even and you haven't really provided much support for it yet.
I like Philadelphia zoo so no need to insult it, was having difficulty understanding what had got you quite so riled about the Bronx zoo. From your replies I had summized you are quite a traditionalist and there is nothing wrong with that. My favourite exhibit was in the early 1970s the dolphinarium at Whipsnade in the UK, it was woefully inadequate, now being used for sealion which it is also inadequate but if I could recreate my memories and reinstall it I would seriously think about it. In reply to your comments about grants, many are from educational establishments and there are issues with giving to commercial enterprises even if they are not for profit organisations. Thats why the research arms of the big zoos like the WCS and ZSL are seperated and run as seperate businesses with seperate budgets and management. As many of these are from endowments left by rich benefactors then the regulations governing the use are hard to protest. I think field research is important tooas the information gained can vastly improve implementation of animal in zoos. In science why spend money researching new painkillers when we already have aspirin, because just maybe we will find a stronger one with fewer risks or side effects. The same principle applies in field biology, cheetahs never bred well in captivity, they would live happily together even when the females weren't in estrus. Field biologists discovered that males and females only came together for breeding and were strangers until then. Zoos started seperating them, out of sight, sound and smell of each other until females were ready and cheetah breeding became a success from this point (happened in the late 1960s). Some animals are protected on paper but poorer governments dont have the money to protect from or prosecute the poachers etc, international conservation efforts are the only thing that are keeping some species alive. I would happily for go seeing a couple of extra species at my zoo if it means that another species does not go extinct. The field research may mean its an animal that I will be able to see in a zoo in 20 years time as they figure out how to sucessfully improve breeding and the numbers stabalize, an example of this would be the komodo dragon which seem to be coming much more populur in zoos
The problem is: that approach did not work to keep zoo gates open. When zoos were more about displaying animals, they were heavily subsidized by cities and philanthropists. As that sort of funding began to dry up a couple of decades ago, zoos had to re-invent themselves. Zoo directors either faced the new reality or were forced into retirement. People who donate money decide what they want to fund. If they want to fund research in Africa, there's nothing the zoo can do to change that. They can refuse the money, of course, and it will go to someone else. Ex situ conservation does not especially compete with in situ conservation and especially not with zoo dislpay. They are each different goals funded for different reasons. It is only "all zoo funds" in our heads, not in legal reality. I am fond of the Bronx Zoo and also Philadelphia. They are entirely different in my mind. (Although if JungleWorld is the perfect exhibit, then what is Philadelphia's "perfect exhibit????") So, I don't see your points as "wrong headed" in any way, only lacking in real world solutions. It would indeed be great if zoos were simply places for great animal encounters (and I think that is exactly what you love about Philadelphia) , and most zoo staff would love that. But in general no one knows how to successfully fund it. Many have tried. Still, if you have an answer, I'm sure any zoo director would be open to hearing it.
Could you please say where you got this information? Please say which past fund raising parties you are referencing. Exactly how much revenue did each fund raising party generate? And are you sure it was a net gain?
No, zoo visitor, I will not. That information is for WCS to release not me. Feel free to ask them. I will say that I was a department head there for over six years, so I am not simply spewing opinions..
Originally Posted by Zoo Visitor Could you please say where you got this information? Please say which past fund raising parties you are referencing. Exactly how much revenue did each fund raising party generate? And are you sure it was a net gain? That sort of information is surely included in public records so I think anyone who is interested can find it. But if you were a department head within the past few years, and if you were the head of a department that was involved with fundraising, then I will accept what you say (although you didn't actually SAY that the fundraising parties resulted in a net gain.) I know it must seem that I am on the warpath against the Bronx Zoo. But that is not the case. Whenever a zoo starts sending away animals or closing exhibits, I will be upset and speak my mind, and hope that, in whatever cases my opinions are correct, others will take note, and we (zoo managements, staffs, members and visitors) can all work together to prevent zoos from evolving into conservation centers or amusement parks, or even becoming extinct.
Ditto to Okapikpr's sentiments But I would add that the major WCS fundraising event regularly nets over $1 million dollars each year--not bad for one night (although yes lots of energy goes into throwing these shindigs)
Zoos won't become extinct. That's point one. At least not now. I think the point your missing is that Bronx IS one of the top three zoos in the country no matter what you say. I really think your letting your personal feeling for the zoo get in the way of the bigger picture. Imagine this was Philly and perhaps you'll understand a little better where they are coming from. The fact they HAVE to send animals away doesn't signal their pending destruction but something rather sad about the state of our economy. Zoos send animals away fairly often anywho--just not on this scale. And I'm sorry to 'shoot down' your optimism but most zoos are conservation centers and that's not a bad thing. Why again is it a bad thing to keep alive *insert species here* that you showcase so that when your present species die, you can get another? I would love to think otherwise but visitors and members have very little affect on the 'prevention' of anything in a zoo. To a certain extent, staff members have no control over something like this.
i agree with tigertiger....zoo's won't become extinct, but the state of the bronx zoo speaks to the unfortunate state of the current economy. But, I'd like to take it a point further and say that perhaps closing some of the exhibits will force the zoo management to implement programs and fundraisers that will make the zoo totally self-sufficient, even in the next recession. But is that asking too much?
I do think that's asking too much. Zoos are too wholly dependent on the economy--especially in the US. Many get city, state or government funding and oh yeah--require people to pay admission. I don't think any amount of a nest egg could have prepared for this one. And I think with Bronx in particular...it's going to take them a good while to officially bounce back from this one--perhaps INTO the next recession.
That certainly is good. What is that event called? And how much of it actually goes toward running the various zoos the Wildlife Conservation Society runs? Do the donors contribute because they believe they are contributing to a conservation society, or are they contributing to keep the zoos open and running? And how is the money spent? Please note: I am asking these questions just because I want to know the answers, and I want to think about them.
I am asking questions and tossing out opinions to find answers, not to be belligerant. And I would really appreciate replies and answers that don't refer to my thoughts and opinions as ignorance. I assumed everybody here cared about zoos - and at least that we have that in common. But some of you attack fellow zoo supporters in almost as hostile a way as animal-rights extremists do. At least with the extremists, I don't care if I lose my temper and get hostile with them in reply. Here, though, I am trying to be civil.
I think your asking these questions because it bothers you a zoo that you think is so 'lowly' as Bronx is capable of this. I'm sorry if you aren't but it genuinely seems like you are letting your absolute hatred of Bronx get in the way of the matter. I'm not trying to be attack-y or anything at all--it's just that seems what you are doing. The fact is they make a decent amount of money through fund raising. Google can be your friend, here is a little more information here. If that's not good enough for you, I strongly recommend contacting WCS directly as I doubt anyone on this forum is so well versed in the nickel and dime process of WCS fundraisers that they can give you the answers you seek. Or if they can, they probably aren't professionally allowed to. If you contact them, let us know what you turn up.
People will do that constantly on here. While everyone here cares about animals, there are people who will debase your opinion solely for being different. That's what happens on the Internet: people have tones and the like that can't be heard on here. There are very few people on here who have any zoo extremist leanings. I think from what I've seen you have the most extreme leanings I've seen recently. But it's always your right to an opinion. Just always extend the same respect to others and their views (and to the zoos, no matter your feelings on them) that you expect in return.
The "nest egg" is a big part of the problem. As I have posted elsewhere in this Forum, zoos invest their "nest eggs" like anyone else, needing them to grow. At the end of 2008, they dropped by about 40%, like everyone else's. That has a HUGE impact on the decisions they can make today. I would like to see this discussion be less about idealistic "ought to's" and more about recognizing realities and being constructive (take note zoo visitor!). There is the implication here that these zoo administrators and incompetant, evil or ignorant. I won't say none of them are, but the blithe superiority and moral highground claiming is offensive.
Thank you very much for a civil, thought-out, and well-expressed reply. This is the kind of discussion I like to have. Jungle World is my all time favorite exhibit because I believe landscape immersion exhibits make visitors feel like they are in the animals' territory. If you observe visitors as they enter Jungle World, you will see that children who were noisy before they entered suddenly become quiet, without their parents telling them to be, because they are in awe of what they see. But, just in the past few years, the number of animals in Jungle World has been reduced. So I am worried that it will be closed someday, too. In my opinion, the Philadelphia Zoo does not have any one "perfect exhibit". I like the open-air areas of the African Plains section and the open air outdoor part of the hippo exhibit best for viewing. But it is the Zoo taken as a whole that I love. It still feels like a zoo. (Without being out-of-date) And, as I mentioned in another reply, a greater percentage of visitors spend more time looking at all the animals in all the areas than they seem to do in other zoos I have visited recently. Just FYI, I do NOT like Big Cat Falls. I think the only reason it won an award is that the award was given for best "new" exhibit, and, unfortunately, almost all new exhibits in every zoo seem to look the same. Zoos all seem to be using the same exhibit designers and planners - there seems to be very little individuality or creativity involved. So you could basically flip a coin to decide the winner. But Big Cat Falls certainly is no worse than others that opened that year in my opinion. Yes, I do have an answer. I want zoo management to recognize the true value of zoos, to promote that true value, to complain about stipulated funding, and to stop changing their institutions in ways they might not really want to just to get funding. The best analogy I can give is that of an author of a NON-Fiction book, who knows what he has written has value to society, but is faced with a decision when publishers say his book is not marketable. He can either change his book to make it marketable, or continue to believe in the value of his book as it is and promote it himself directly to the readers. I want to see zoo directors promote zoos as special places where people who enter will be so much in awe of wildlife that they won't be able to forget what they experienced. If zoos succeed in doing that, zoos AND conservation agencies will find it much easier to get support. And then we can all be happy. Okay, go ahead. Disagree ... (Thanks to Ituri for this comment about my closing sentence. I did not intend it to be combative, and I appreciate the advice.)
