not to beat a dead horse... (Wall: kitchen, build, enclosures)

[FightinPhils]

It wasn't just Scranton....it was the entire Scranton/Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton area.

[alexander_helj]

Hello all,

I visited the zoo this weekend and learned something interesting from an on-site source:

one of the lemurs was tending a baby in her (quasi pouch. Oh, how old might that baby be? Two, maybe three weeks! The other one was born dead. I just did a little research and having a litter size of one is normal for them. Anyway, GWC's doing a GREAT job not breeding more animals.

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by alexander_helj

Hello all,

I visited the zoo this weekend and learned something interesting from an on-site source:

one of the lemurs was tending a baby in her (quasi pouch. Oh, how old might that baby be? Two, maybe three weeks! The other one was born dead. I just did a little research and having a litter size of one is normal for them. Anyway, GWC's doing a GREAT job not breeding more animals.

Here's what the Genesis Wildlife Center's Haydn Scott Evans said in a recent letter to the Times-Tribune:

"It [the GWC] is a wildlife center, which acts as a hospital and nursing home for those animals that society has cast aside."

I guess he forgot to mention that the "hospital" includes a busy maternity ward. When you've got people from the center who are...how shall I put this..."omitting crucial facts" about the center when talking to the media, that is a huge red flag.

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by scrantonluna

I would be interested to see just how much cash it would take to provide adequate housing for some of these animals, not just what is considered 'enough' by the USDA. What would be an acceptable amount to spend on improvements? How would you pay for these improvements? An amusement tax? Hard to justify, when the city does not own the center, only the building...

On a side note, I suppose it's possible the city may even decide to bring in a different sanctuary or rescue if problems continue with Genesis?

FINALLY, as promised earlier, I've gotten a chance to look through my "zoo research" files for information on habitat costs. I apologize for the delay.

Before I quote any figures, I just want to make clear that, while I'm concerned about the animals currently housed at the GWC, I also think that, realistically, it would be difficult for Scranton to support many of the existing animals in really good conditions. I also think it might be quite difficult to get Margaret Miller to agree to what most reputable zoo or sanctuary directors would consider "good conditions," since Miller seems to believe in allowing the animals to breed unchecked, in giving them inappropriate food and toys, in handling dangerous animals as if they were pet kittens, in allowing healthy animals to associate with sick animals, etc., etc. Given all of this, I think that if Nay Aug Park visitors would like to see animals in the park, the most reasonable solution would be to replace the GWC with a small educational nature center featuring several interesting animals that are native to NEPA. But that is just my personal opinion and I certainly don't think it's crazy to explore the various alternatives, so with that in mind, I'm happy to share what I've found out about the costs of building adequate enclosures for animals similar to the animals currently housed at the GWC. As I've said before, I'm not a zoo expert, and I'm sure that someone who is a zoo expert could give everyone more information than I can. What I'm presenting here are numbers I've come across in my own research.

The trend these days is toward large, naturalistic exhibits in which a variety of species can be housed. Such displays cost millions of dollars and are usually found in well-funded zoos in large cities. For example, the Philadelphia Zoo is currently raising funds for a new avian center which will cost $16.7 million. Also, the Philadelphia Zoo recently completed a habitat for endangered big cats at a cost of $20 million.

Obviously, it would be unrealistic for Scranton to try to become anything like the Philadephia Zoo, which has a number of very expensive habitats featuring many different animals. But it might be possible for Scranton to become a sort of mini Philadelphia Zoo by choosing just one type of animal—let's say, for example, birds that are native to tropical rainforests—and constructing one building in which all of the animals could live. With a sufficiently large grant for the actual construction, this might be an achievable goal, because the staff required to maintain and care for just one building and one set of animals would not have to be nearly as extensive as that at a large zoo. Moreover, Scranton would not have to have large numbers of birds (or whatever animal is chosen). It would make more sense to limit the number of animals and put whatever money is spent into making sure that the animals are housed in a truly humane setting and that the new zoo is a truly pleasant place to visit that offers not just entertainment but some form of education as well. Of course, in order to secure a grant for the construction, the city would probably have to have in place some sort of a zoological society whose members knew what they were doing and were able to make a good case for building the new facility. Please note that the grant money does not have to come from gov't grants—it can come from private foundations. Also, please note that any facility—large or small—will have less trouble getting grants and donations if it already is or plans to be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The AZA assesses not only the level of animal care, but other factors as well, including financial stability. The AZA does not require its accredited facilities to have habitats as expensive as those at the Philadelphia Zoo. But the AZA's standards go beyond those of the USDA, and AZA accreditation signals to potential visitors and donors that they are dealing with a professionally managed, reputable facility.

For another possible answer to Scranton's zoo funding problems, please see part 2 in my next post.

[mbs7]

If Scranton wants to have a zoo, one reasonable place for it to use as a model might be Binghamton, NY. Like Scranton, Binghamton is a small, economically challenged city. My husband and I live fairly close to Binghamton and have supported the Binghamton Zoo over the years through visits, memberships, and animal adoptions. It is not a perfect zoo by any means. Some of the animals have a reasonable amount of space; others, in my opinion, do not have sufficient space to allow them to be as mentally and physically healthy as they ought to be. Still, considering the resources available to it, the Binghamton Zoo does a reasonably good job. Conditions there are much, much, much, much better than those at the Genesis Wildlife Center. The habitats are much more natural, there is a paid, professionally trained staff, and there are stable sources of funding. The only time I've ever encountered any sort of bad smell at the Binghamton Zoo was when they had Arctic foxes on display: the foxes had a natural, skunk-like odor. Most of the animals spend a lot of time in the open air; a lot of the enclosures have wire mesh tops, so the animals can look up at the trees and sky, which is important, since observing their surroundings is one form of mental stimulation. Where appropriate, animals are provided with shade netting and den-like enclosures. Climbing animals have tree branches, etc., and digging animals (e.g. burrowing owls) are provided with dirt floors so they can burrow just as they would in the wild. Many animals are free to decide whether they want to be in the sun or the shade, under the nearly transparent mesh ceilings of their enclosures, or concealed in the privacy of their dens. This does mean that sometimes you don't get to see a particular animal because it's in its den, but there are enough animals at the zoo to ensure that visitors will have a nice time even if some animals have decided to be shy and hide.

The Binghamton Zoo is located in Binghamton's 90-acre Ross Park; the zoo itself takes up about 30 of the 90 acres, and is composed of a collection of buildings and outdoor enclosures that are connected by a system of paths. The zoo is set up to accommodate disabled visitors. It also has strollers for rent. For those who want to combine some exercise with their visit to the zoo, the 30-acre site is ideal. There are enough trees around and in the zoo to give vistors the sense that they are in a woodland area. There are also extensive gardens—most of the gardens have a theme of some sort (e.g. a shade garden, a butterfly garden, an iris garden, etc.). If you take your time strolling around, looking at the gardens and and observing the animals, you can easily fill an entire afternoon with a visit to the zoo.

The Binghamton Zoo is open from April-November, seven days a week, 10 AM to 5PM. There is an admission charge of $6.00 for adults, $5.00 for seniors, and $4.00 for children. For frequent zoo visitors, a year-long $50 family membership can be a good deal, as it admits two adults and their children (or grandchildren) for free to the Binghamton Zoo for the season, and also provides free or reduced admission to a long list of other zoos around the country that have reciprocal membership agreements with the Binghamton Zoo. The zoo also frequently has special programs. My husband and I once went on a guided "night walk" through the zoo; we got to see some very interesting nocturnal animals. The zoo also has special, onsite, educational programs for children. This is reflected in its volunteer application form, which asks questions about potential volunteers' ability to teach others. (The GWC volunteer form, by contrast, asks potential volunteers if they have even been bitten by an animal and if their tetanus shots are up to date. Hmmmm.)

Exhibits at the Binghamton Zoo include: "Wolf Woods" (a few wolves have several fenced, wooded acres in which to roam; visitors can watch the wolves from a number of observation areas offering different vantage points—sometimes you have to be a little patient to actually see the wolves); a "Cognitive Crow" exhibit, in which research into the crows' learning ability is being done (this is a new one—I haven't seen it yet, but I'm hoping to see it soon—the AZA likes it when applicants for accreditation are doing some sort of serious research into animal behavior); a rainforest aviary; a coral reef exhibit; and a group of blackfooted penguins who, ironically, are some of the very few animals at the zoo that must spend the winter indoors (they're from the southern coast of Africa and they get chilly when the temperature drops below 40).

Until 2005, the Binghamton Zoo was accredited by the AZA. (To the best of my recollection, the zoo had been accredited for quite a number of years before that.) Unfortunately, the zoo lost its accreditation in 2005, due to financial difficulties, aging enclosures (the enclosures were 25-30 years old), and an incident involving an endangered red wolf. In December 2004, the red wolf escaped from the "Wolf Woods" exhibit and was later found shot dead, outside the zoo grounds. In 2005 the Binghamton Zoo had only 35,000 visitors—the lowest number since they started keeping records, and the AZA (wisely, in my opinion) decided not to renew the zoo's accreditation.

In 2006, a new, very experienced executive director was hired to get the Binghamton Zoo back in shape. As fate would have it, in that same year, the zoo was damaged by extensive flooding. But the new director was determined to rebuild. He stayed on, and now attendance is back up (50,000 in 2006; 65,000 in 2007), and the zoo is on track to recover its AZA accreditation—probably in 2009. The zoo recently had an extremely favorable USDA inspection (only 1 very small problem was found in the entire 30-acre zoo). Also, there have been AZA mentors visiting the zoo to help them prepare to regain accreditation. The Binghamton Zoo has a paid staff, including five senior staff members: an executive director, an assistant director/general curator, a business manager, a property manager, and an education curator. The zoo also has numerous volunteers. The zoo's annual operating budget is around $1 million. (Please note: I'm not suggesting that Scranton suddenly come up with $1 million per year for a zoo!! It took a long time for the Binghamton Zoo to reach its present size and level of funding.)

Here's a paragraph from the Binghamton Zoo's website (http://www.rossparkzoo.com/about_the_zoo.htm (broken link)), explaining how the zoo is organized and funded:


"In 1966 [when the zoo was in such bad shape that the USDA was threatening to close it down], concerned community residents formed the Southern Tier Zoological Society, and for the first time in 1972, an appropriation for zoo maintenance appeared in the City of Binghamton's budget. The Society was granted a contract by the City to oversee the operation and maintenance of the zoo in 1977, and has assumed additional responsibilities ever since. Today, the City of Binghamton provides non-cash services (water, sewer, gasoline, etc.), Broome County provides additional funding as a contract agency. The Zoo Society provides approximately 73% of the operating support, and 100% of the capital improvement support."


Because the Binghamton Zoo is currently undergoing renovation, I was able to get some figures on the cost of a couple of brand new exhibits from the local newspaper (the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin). When reading these figures please keep a couple of things in mind. First, the Binghamton zoo stretches over 30 acres—an area which is much larger, obviously, than that occupied by the old Scranton Zoo building. The cost of acquiring sufficient land to build new, roomier exhibits is not included in the figures listed below. Also, keep in mind that the Zoo Society provides 100% of the capital improvement support, which means that the Zoo Society (not the city of Binghamton) came up with the funds to build the exhibits. I have not yet seen either of these exhibits, but I hope to go to the zoo soon to check them out. If I do get there soon, I will try to remember to take some photos to post on this forum.

The first new exhibit is the 2400-square-foot "The Wonders of Nature" building. This building houses a snow leopard and two young cougars, as well as some South American porcupines. The building cost approximately $210,000, with the bulk of the funding ($150,000) coming from the Binghamton-based Conrad & Virginia Klee Foundation. Since I haven't seen this building yet, I don't know how close to the original concept it is, but the original plan was to construct a building with "a rustic wood exterior, indoor and outdoor exhibits, and holding areas for the leopard and cougars."

The second exhibit was built to house two bearcats (also known as binturongs) and several golden lion tamarins. Golden lion tamarins are very small monkeys, native to Brazil. (They're about the same size as gray squirrels.) They are highly endangered, due to the fragmentation and loss of their habitat. The bearcats are native to Southeast Asia. They typically weigh about 20-30 pounds. The plan for this exhibit was to build two outdoor enclosures, as well as a small, glass-fronted, heated building. The cost for this exhibit was $90,000.

In addition to the above, the Binghamton Zoo is planning to build a new enclosure for its two ruffed lemurs. There is a fund-raising appeal for the lemurs on the zoo's website (Binghamton Zoo at Ross Park Home Page). Here's what the website says about the lemurs' current exhibit: "...[the lemur exhibit is] out of date, in disrepair and requires complete reconstruction. Their new “home” would include a naturalistic habitat (we have never seen a concrete floor in the jungle have you?), new climbing features, proper water, heating and winter accommodations." I don't know what the full cost of the new lemur exhibit is expected to be, but the fund-raising page says that the zoo has already been awarded a $20,000 grant from the George A. and Margaret Mee Foundation; the zoo is challenging the public to donate enough to match that grant, making a total of $40,000 toward the new enclosure. Therefore, the total cost of a new enclosure for the 2 lemurs is evidently expected to be at least $40,000.

If you were to consider the above costs (which are for fairly modest habitats) while looking at the very long list of animals currently housed at GWC, I think you would quickly come to the conclusion that a rather large amount of money would be required in order to adequately house all of the GWC animals. On top of that, operating costs would need to be greatly increased in order to maintain and staff the new habitats. Moreover, please note that none of the animals mentioned above are as big or as dangerous as the tiger cubs at GWC will one day be. The cost of providing an adequate enclosure for the tigers would obviously be higher than the costs quoted above. For more on this, please see the next post.

[mbs7]

As I mentioned in my last post, enclosures for large, dangerous animals like tigers can be very expensive. A full-grown tiger weighs about 400 pounds and needs room to run and leap. Obviously, tiger enclosures have to be larger than enclosures for very small animals, and they require built-in security measures. Further, tigers, unlike most cats, love to play in water. They should really be provided with a pool, and the pool would probably need a drainage/plumbing system to allow for easy cleaning.

While we're talking about tigers and security, I thought it might be interesting to give you some information on the big-cat safety precautions in operation at the Binghamton Zoo. The zoo has two Amur (i.e. Siberian) tigers. The following information was posted by the zoo in order to reassure the public after the tragic tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. When you read the following, you may note a few safety precautions which are (ahem) a little different than the practices in operation at the Genesis Wildlife Center:



"All exhibits containing Leopards and Tigers are completely enclosed. There are no open, moated exhibits used for these cats, which have amazing leaping abilities. Both the Amur Leopards and Amur Tigers are exhibited in large glass-fronted enclosures with sturdy wire mesh tops and concrete sides.

The Snow Leopard is in a large heavy-duty wire mesh enclosure that also has a mesh top. The Snow Leopard exhibit is scheduled to be replaced in 2008 as a part of the new Wonders of Nature Exhibit.

The holding areas for the tigers consist of a cement building with sturdy holding cages that serve as night-quarters for the animals. The animals are transferred between the exhibit and their night quarters by experienced Keepers by using slide or guillotine doors. These staff members go through a regular seven-point safety procedure every time they enter the building or the exhibit to be sure the cats are where they are supposed to be. In this way, the Keepers and the cats are never in contact with each other and there is virtually no chance of injury to the Keeper or escape of the animal. The cats would actually have to go through three sets of doors to get out of their holding area. As an added safety precaution, the entire Zoo is surrounded by an eight-foot perimeter fence. While a large cat could clear a fence of this height, it would be much more likely to follow the fence line than to jump it. In fact, usually an escaped animal tries to return to the safety of its enclosure which is its territory.

The Zoo staff holds regular emergency drills, most of which focus on what to do in the unlikely event of an escaped animal. Tranquillizer equipment is on hand at the Zoo and staff is trained in its use. Several staff members are also trained in the use of lethal weapons as a last resort."




Sounds just a wee bit safer than the Genesis Wildlife Center, no? (Although...I'm not sure I'd want the folks at the GWC running around with lethal weapons under any circumstances. I think I'd rather face the escaped tiger.)

Anyway, all of the above measures obviously add to the cost. If memory serves, the tiger enclosure at the Binghamton Zoo was contructed about 15-20 years ago. It's impressive in many ways (for one thing, it's quite visually appealing); yet, I think it is really too small for the tigers. (As I recall, they are actually housed in only one half of the original structure, with the Amur leopards occupying the other half. I'll check on this the next time I visit the zoo.) Even though the Binghamton Zoo's tiger enclosure isn't the best of the best, it is still much, much better than the GWC's tiger enclosure!!! It's much safer, much more natural in appearance, the tigers have a small, permanent pool, the structure is light and airy, giving the tigers a good view of their surroundings and great natural ventilation, and there is not a plastic igloo or baby blanket in sight. I don't have a figure on how much the Binghamton tiger exhibit cost, but I did send an email inquiry to the zoo asking for that information. That was a few days ago and they haven't gotten back to me yet. If/when they do, I'll let you know. In the meantime, suffice it to say that the costs of constructing, maintaining, and staffing a similar enclosure would probably be much higher than anything Scranton can realistically attempt at this point. And since the Scranton tigers are not part of an authorized breeding program for endangered species, it might be rough to get grant money to build them a modern, safe enclosure. This is very sad for the Scranton tiger cubs, but since funds are not all that easy to come by, I can understand why the foundations might turn away all but the most solid requests for funding.

[mbs7]

Above, when I was quoting the costs of zoo animal habitats/enclosures, I should have mentioned that various support buildings would also be needed: food storage and preparation areas, offices, veterinary/quarantine facilities, etc. It gets pretty expensive.

[mbs7]

Back in August, in response to Scrantonluna's question about the costs of animal enclosures that would meet AZA requirements, I posted some information about current and planned enclosures at the Binghamton Zoo. The zoo was planning to build: 1) a binturong (i.e. bearcat) enclosure with a projected cost of $90,000; 2) a new "Wonders of Nature" exhibit for several animals with a projected cost of $210,000; and 3) a new exhibit for the zoo's 2 ruffed lemurs (I wasn't sure of the cost but knew it had to be at least $40,000 because there was a fund-raising program with $20,000 from one donor that was supposed to be matched by multiple small donations.)

I recently got some updated figures and info on the above that I thought might interest Scrantonluna and maybe a few other readers.

We went to the Binghamton Zoo in late August, and I was hoping to be able to take pictures of the new binturong exhibit. Unfortunately, at that time, the exhibit was not yet open. It has since been completed and opened (just a couple of weeks ago), but I haven't been back yet to take any pictures. The final cost of the exhibit (which houses 2 binturongs) was $100,000 (i.e. $10,000 more than the original estimate).

Construction on the Wonders of Nature exhibit (which I think was originally set for this summer) is now scheduled to begin this fall.

Also, I was able to get an estimate for the total cost of the lemur cage: as I suspected, the $40,000 mentioned in my August post was just part of the cost--the total final cost is estimated at $60,000.

The Binghamton Zoo is definitely aiming to regain its AZA accreditation, so all of the above enclosures would have been designed with that goal in mind .

[scrantonluna]

I say we build the enclosures behind the St. Francis of Assisi soup kitchen. With the state of the economy and all, at least the majority of Lackawanna County residents would get to see the animals.

Better yet, why not serve soup at the center? Chicken noodle with a labradoodle? Pepper pot with the ocelot?

{MBS, nothing against you, and thank you for the figures}

[mbs7]

Although I was not able to get any pics of the new binturong enclosure at the Binghamton Zoo (see my previous post), I did get some pics of the tiger enclosure, which I thought might be of interest, since we have talked so much about the tigers at the GWC and about AZA-approved enclosures. Please note that I (personally) feel that the Binghamton Zoo's Amur tigers could use more room. They are housed in one half of a "big cat" enclosure; the other half houses 2 Amur leopards. If it were up to me, I'd have just the tigers or just the leopards and let them use the entire enclosure, which even then might not really be quite big enough. Still, the Binghamton Zoo's enclosure does, as far as I know, meet AZA requirements. (Just to be clear, the Binghamton tiger enclosure is not new; I think it was built around 20 years ago.)

The first shot is a view of the entire enclosure (the tigers are housed in the right-hand half; visitors stand under the roofed-in section to look at the big cats). The second pic is a shot of the observation area, where visitors can look at the tigers through glass windows. This area allows a great view of the tigers while at the same time being very safe and secure (the little wooden platform is for kids to stand on). The third shot shows what the tigers will see if they look up. (The fact that they have great views on all sides probably makes their relatively small enclosure feel larger to them--it also means they have the stimulation of watching a lot of scenery around them.) The final three shots show the tigers themselves. As you can see, the vegetation in their enclosure is in bad shape, probably a result of the small size of the area combined with the fact that August was a very dry month for us here. However, note that the tigers are on a natural (i.e. dirt) surface, which is actually much healthier for them than hard concrete or tile. Note also that they have a climbing platform and a pool (tigers lover water). As I said earlier, I think the Binghamton Zoo's tigers deserve a larger space, but, for a city the size of Binghamton, this is a pretty decent exhibit.