Animals & Money

Shares of SeaWorld Entertainment plunged 33% Wednesday after the company's earnings missed Wall Street expectations. The Orlando, Fla.-based company also conceded for the first time that attendance at its theme parks has been hurt by negative publicity concerning accusations by animal-rights activists that SeaWorld mistreats killer whales.

Latimes.com, August 13, 2014

In the fall of 1971, Busch Gardens Tampa won the prestigious Edward H. Bean Award in the mammal category for the first captive breeding of the roan antelope. The Bean Award was presented by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (currently known as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums – AZA) in recognition of a significant captive propagation effort that clearly enhanced the conservation of the species. The roan is a medium-sized, African antelope that stands about five feet at the shoulder and weighs-in at 5 or 6 hundred pounds. It is light brown all over with

Roan Antelope

the most distinctive markings being the black mask that covers most of the face. Ears are long and pointed, and horns are short, stout, and swept-back in a gentle backward arch. I was proud of the award, even though I had only worked at the Gardens for less than a month. I loved hoofed stock and this award, according to the criteria, was supposed to “demonstrate an exceptional institutional commitment”. So imagine my disappointment when it was announced the very next year that a new attraction was to swallow-up the roan antelope breeding pen. The section of the park known as "Stanleyville" opened in 1973 and was home to the park's first water ride, the Stanley Falls Flume. Animals, it appeared, would need to take a backseat to rides and other attractions as Busch Gardens faced some stiff competition up the road in Orlando where Walt Disney was opening his new Magic Kingdom.

In 1971, zoos were modest affairs, little better than the menageries of a century earlier. It is difficult to blame the planners at Busch Gardens for failing to appreciate their animal assets. For the next twenty years they chewed up animal areas and replaced them with rides, show arenas, and themed villages, but in the 1990’s things began to turn around. Zoos were thriving and building

Toledo Zoo Hippoquarium

innovative animal exhibits, like the Toledo Zoo’s hippo exhibit with underwater viewing. In 1992, Busch Gardens finally reversed course and opened the 3 acre Myombe Reserve as home to families of lowland gorillas and chimpanzees. In July of 1997, they opened the Edge of Africa, a section of the park where guests could walk through parts of the African veldt and get an up-close view of the animals, including underwater viewing of the hippos. Not to be outdone, Disney opened its newest theme park the very next year, spending what some reports claimed was a staggering one billion dollars on Disney's Animal Kingdom. The floodgates were open on zoo spending and zoos have not been the same since.

There are, it should be noted, more than one category when it comes to defining zoos and aquariums, most of which serve a local community. Large facilities, like SeaWorld, Disney’s Animal Kingdom, and Busch Gardens, are tourist attractions. They spend lavishly on their animals, but they also have annual revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A January 2014 CNN report, for example, reported that “SeaWorld expects an estimated $1.46 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2013”. A single attraction, Antarctica: Empire of the Penguin, a first-of-its-kind motion-based, trackless dark ride, opened in 2013 with a reported price tag in excess of 40 million dollars.

Few zoo and aquarium projects can compare to that, but they are still spending some pretty impressive amounts for new animal exhibits. Detroit zoo announced its opening of a penguin exhibit in 2015 at $29.5 million, which is double the amount spent by the Kansas City Zoo on its Penguin Exhibit just two years earlier. In 2014 alone, as reported in the news media and on websites, we saw the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City open an African savanna at $16 million, the Indianapolis Zoo open its International Orangutan Center at $26 million, and the Columbus Zoo open its forty three acre Heart of Africa at $30 million.

Some attractions, like the Georgia Aquarium, are not quite theme park but are larger than a standard zoo or aquarium. Billing itself as “the world’s most magical aquarium”, the Georgia Aquarium officially opened its doors to the public on November 23, 2005. It claimed to feature more animals than any other aquarium in more than 10 million gallons of water, with more than 60 exhibits. Attracting more than 2 million visitors per year, it is an anchor for downtown Atlanta’s revitalization efforts and a benefit to both the city and the state. But with such an ambitious vision and an initial investment of over $200 million, the pressure on the Georgia Aquarium to succeed must be enormous. In fact, all zoos and aquariums are under pressure to generate revenue in every possible manner. Public food services are built into new animal areas, often with an after-hours catering component. Souvenir shops are strategically located near exits for those last minute purchases. Per capita spending is monitored down to the last penny and one zoo is even experimenting with something called “dynamic pricing” in which prices increase at peak times. Zoos and aquariums may be focused on conservation and education, but the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Government agencies that once supported zoos and aquariums are struggling financially and cutting back their funding of “quality of life” programs. Zoos and aquariums need to run like businesses or they won’t survive to do all of that good conservation work.

But Zoos and aquariums aren’t the only ones making money from the business of animals. The 2013 documentary movie Blackfish made a relatively modest $2 million at the box office and

was seen by 25 million viewers, although director Gabriela Cowperthwaite claims to have taken none of the profits. Both the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) report revenue in excess of $100 million per year, which makes animal charities comparable to children’s charities like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the Make A Wish Foundation at around $200 million and around $70 million in annual contributions respectively. Images of abused puppies and hungry children apparently elicit similar positive responses.

Money is, as always, both a blessing and a curse. Many zoos and aquariums are blessed with generous supporters and plenty money for capital improvements—at least for now—but they must continue to attract new visitors and generate more and more revenue to support their operations. The cost of doing business is increasing and, as new animal exhibits are added, it will only go up. Whether or not revenue can keep up with expenses remains to be seen but, as the Ringling Brothers Circus can attest, this can be a slippery slope.

Ringling Brothers circus is closing. What does that mean for zoos?

The Famed Ringling Brothers Circus is Closing. The headline caught me by surprise and it made me sad. I knew they had decided to discontinue their elephant act and figured their other animal shows would soon follow. But the other aspects of the circus—the acrobats, the human cannonballs, and the clowns—could continue to thrill audiences. Just look at the popularity of the Cirque du Soleil. But, according to forbes.com, circus attendance in the United States has dropped by an estimated 30% to 50% over the last twenty years. That, along with high operating costs, apparently made the modern circus an unsustainable business.

I suppose the animal rights activists (PETA and HSUS) can take a little credit. They protested and picketed mercilessly on behalf of the animals. And the circus shares the blame for dragging its feet on making improvements to its animal programs. While I am not convinced that circus life in inherently bad for animals, I do believe that circuses failed to recognize how passionately some people feel about animal welfare.

We are, I believe, in the midst of some significant cultural shifts—many of which were evident in the recent presidential election. How do we make sense of our collective feelings about women in politics, gay rights, the legalization of marijuana, immigration policies, and health care reform. Is the demise of the circus a reflection of a cultural shift away from a particular type of entertainment or is it simply a matter of economics—the travelling circus is too expensive to produce.

Over the same period that circuses have been declining zoos appear to have thrived, perhaps due to their aggressive programs of animal welfare and enrichment. Zoos have spent millions on large and innovative animal habitats, and they have made sure their constituents were invested in their programs.

All of this causes me to reflect on how the history of American zoos and circuses are intertwined. The traveling circus menagerie was the precursor to the modern American zoo, and circuses and zoos have coexisted and supported each other for more than a century. (See my blogs from July 2015.) Now, I wonder what the demise of the circus means for zoos. Are zoos doing enough to stave off extinction? In the coming weeks, I'll take a look.