I think that some of the biggest wastes of money occur when a zoo says it needs so many millions of pounds to develop an exhibit for a popular species. The zoo often plays the guilt card by implying that the exhibit will save the species from extinction, indicating that if visitors don't pay towards the exhibit, they don't care about the species. What is not said is that the species is already abundant in captivity and the exhibit is aimed more towards increasing profits, some of which can go to boost the pay of officials, than towards conservation. The architects and construction workers can take advantage of the large amounts of money available and, as far as the zoo officials are concerned, it doesn't really matter how successful the exhibit; other people have paid for it. I have worked in the public sector and have seen the same tactics employed. "If it costs £7 million and there are 70 million people in the UK, it's only 10p each, so it doesn't matter how the money is spent."
Can you give an example of this? I have never known a project where the visiting public paid for the design and construction. Certainly governments and big donors, but unless I am misreading they are not who you are talking about
Hello, Zooplantman. I'm sorry if I've confused you, but there are zoos that ask people to contribute towards a new exhibit. As the notices are within the zoo grounds, then they are encouraging the visiting public to contribute. I don't know how much money is paid by the visiting public and how much is paid by donors and organisations. The 'guilt trip' is used by various charities. I have been contacted by various charities and it's been implied that if I really cared, I would pay more. I don't mind if charities are honest, but it irritates me when the directors of charities get a six figure salary and a lot of money is misused. A caller from one charity told me that tigers could become extinct in a few years time; if he'd said that tigers could become extinct in the wild in a few years time, that could be true. He didn't mention captives and it is extremely unlikely that all the captives are liable to die in the near future.
To my knowledge the amount of funds "crowdsourced" from visitors for new exhibits is negligible. I suppose "guilt tripping" potential donors does happen, but I think that some donating hundreds of thousands (or millions) to an exhibit tends to ask some deep questions. In any case, I also believe that this is not a strong reason these people become donors. The wish to do civic service, or memorialize their own name, or get a substantial tax break are sufficient incentives. But perhaps, DR, you are noting the fact of this practice rather than the extent of its use. I can barely remember why we started this side conversation
Thanks Zooplantman I think this side conversation is relevant to the subject of zoos wasting money. There are people who don't seem to mind spending large sums of money, as long as it's not theirs. As you say, some donors may benefit from tax breaks and free publicity, but people who think they are aiding conservation may feel disillusioned if they looked into where the money went. I would prefer to conserve wild habitats, rather than pay for an expensive exhibit, which does little to help species.
They have definitely been regularly shut out as whenever I visit there is a superb viewing spot that allows me to watch as they all collect near the door to be let in for the night. Also I think it's common practice worldwide as many gorillas prefer to be in doors as I am sure you are aware.
That's kind of like what happened with the Phoenix Zoo and Koalas a few years ago. They spent a bunch of money to redesign an existing exhibit, although it wasn't much of one, to ensure that the Koalas wouldn't be outside, but nor were they entirely inside. It was kind of a hut-like structure. Anyway, they spent a lot of money to make an exhibit the San Diego Zoo would consider adequate plus a bunch more on publicity. The 5 or so months the two Koalas were here brought in a lot of guests and revenue, and while initially they were only supposed to be here during that time, it was hoped they would return the following October. They didn't and we were never told why...whether it was San Diego's decision or Phoenix's. Last I heard, the exhibit is now being occupied by some snakes. Hahaha. At about the same time, Lowry Park was also given/loaned a pair of Koalas... they still have them, although not the originals.
As to DassieRat and Zooplantman - I am going to side with the former of the two on their debate. I am a member of three zoos (and previously a couple more) and I know for a fact that regular members (not just big donors) are very strongly approached to donate towards upcoming exhibits. I think the funding is a mix of small donors and big donors (so in a sense you are both right). Let's look at a massive multi million exhibit - Tiger Trails at SD Safari Park. Yes it got started with a huge 9 million donation from the Tull Family. But if I remember (correct me if I am wrong), that was a matching gift donation which means the general public came up with an equal amount through lots and lots of small donations. Although it seems like too much money to spend on one species, it is a brilliant exhibit and that is one that I would say is NOT a waste of money.
In the UK, London, Paignton and Bristol all give free choice indoor/outdoor access. Jersey used to shut them out- not sure if they still do but I think so as they always seem to be outside a lot. Others I am not sure about.
Another great examples are in Prague - the Parrot House, which should be finished next year and new Gorilla House. Zoo received significant amount of money for new Parrot house from one private owner of parrots, who donated almost everything he had to zoo in his last will. For the Gorilla house, zoo received donations from 17 659 people, the total amount of money received was cca 1 million €.
One monstrosity that doesn't get mentioned as much (it makes Elephant Odyssey look immersive) is the Great Apes complex at the Jacksonville Zoo, which was built for $20 million in 1998. Ugliest backdrops ever and all the apes have is a grassy disaster.
Interesting. I was at Jacksonville Zoo in January, but only had half a day and I completely skipped the great ape trail.
It's been a few years since I was last at the San Diego Zoo, but I opened the place at 9:00 a.m. and they had to throw me out at 5:00 p.m.
If nobody minds this thread being revived... I (like everyone else, apparently) have seen EO, although I never saw Horn & Hoof Mesa that preceded it. I too was struck by the lack of shade and poor aesthetics of the exhibit; it was a very neat idea, but I agree that the concept is probably lost on most people and it ends up as a seemingly random assortment of animals thrown in with the elephants. Also, I thought that there was a stark dichotomy between the two halves of the zoo, with EO, UJ, and the old Africa Rocks on one side and Monkey Trails/Lost Forest on the other. The former I thought was rather mediocre, while the latter was beautiful and amazingly designed. Hopefully the new Africa Rocks will shake up that dichotomy a bit. I have heard people say that Saint Louis' polar bear exhibit was a let-down. I'd really like to hear more arguments about that, because I'm not sure where that impression is coming from. Compared with most polar bear exhibits I've seen, it's actually rather nice, and a vast improvement over what was there before. The only thing they could potentially have done better was have a bigger pool, but the one they have is certainly adequate.
I found the polar bear exhibit at St Louis a huge let down. The pool was laughably small, the exhibit was weirdly-shaped (too narrow and long, with windows on both sides in places, meaning the public could get close to the bear, but no getting away for the bear) and on the small side, and massive fake rock work. It is nice that there is some natural substrate, but otherwise, I much prefer other newer exhibits, like Louisville's (which is not much larger, and lacks natural substrate, as far as I recall, but has a much more substantial pool, indoor viewing, and fits into a larger exhibit complex). By the standards of St. Louis, I just found this exhibit was nothing much (although still a big improvement over the old one).
The $3-million playground at San Francisco Zoo used to be my biggest waste of money, but I think the $1-million on a sculpture garden beats it. You probably could have bought a couple of real saltwater crocs and an exhibit for that kind of scratch.
I heard no exhibit of giant pandas earns the cost of loan from China, so this may be the collective biggest waste of money in zoos. Anybody knows details of panda economics in different zoos (including side costs and benefits like the cost of importing bamboo, sale of toys etc)?
I'll give you the complaint about the rockwork aesthetic, and as I said the pool could ideally be larger. However, in regards to your other criticisms, it should be remembered that the exhibit was created from two small bear grottoes and not much else. It is highly constrained space-wise and that affected both the size and shape of the enclosure. If it they had wasted available space, that would be unfortunate, but that was not the case here.
I did know what the exhibit was created from, and I do agree that within those constraints, this was probably the best the zoo could do - but it's still a disappointment to my mind. Given the footprint available, I'm not sure that an exhibit for polar bears was the best use (especially when there are so many problems filling polar bear exhibits at present). I will say that the exhibit is better than many of the worst polar bear exhibits out there, but given the St. Louis Zoo's reputation and the general caliber of the rest of the institution, I expected much more and wish the Zoo had put the money toward something else (though, as I noted, the old bear grottoes were desperately in need of replacement).
It is a small footprint for such a large animal, and whether that was the best use of space is certainly arguable. It's interesting to think what might have gone there had they decided to utilize it differently. There are definitely problems filling polar bear exhibits right now, and so I see where you are coming from with that argument, but I'm not sure I agree that they made a poor decision by committing that space to polar bears. In any case, @jibster , I appreciate you replying to my comment and offering another perspective.
