6 - Different Approaches to the Zoological Industry Part 2

Types of Zoological Parks

This article is part of a series. If you missed Part One, please click here.

The three traditional types of zoological parks (zoos) are listed below. The fourth is the new, emergent type of zoological park; a recent evolution of the wildlife park that has witnessed the commercialisation of the traditional non-profit models.

1.) Government-based zoos

2.) Corporate-run/Large wildlife parks/zoos

3.) Small local zoo/ Wildlife Refuge/Non-profit zoos

4.) Social Enterprise (commercialised version of a non-profit) wildlife park/ refuge centre

Government Zoos​

(Overseen by Australian State or Territory Government)

Government-run zoos in Australia have the highest form of regulation which means the zoo is more conservatively managed. These zoos manage hundreds of staff and thousands of animals. Government-run zoos are usually located in close proximity to a city centre. These zoos were established when the Australian population was relatively small and the design of the city was simple – growing out of essential development that was planned in the short-term. Such zoos witnessed their city grow around them, instead of being part of them.

Increasing human population and rapid urbanisation has led many zoos to build a secondary park or establishment outside the city limits to cope with the changing needs of society and the increasing concerns for animal welfare. These secondary parks are also supported and backed by the state government.

Disadvantages

However, this approach can work against certain species of animal. As the government-run zoos expand and become more conservative and commercial, they find ways to cut costs, which usually comes at the expense of the animals and dedicated staff members. Such zoos are more willing to employ management with a background in business and commerce, who have little to no history or experience working in animal care. These decisions mean that loyal and devoted employees with a huge amount of animal husbandry experience and knowledge of the overall business operations and communications are slowly replaced in the zoo, and then, across the industry. This ultimately effects staff morale and can influence animal behaviour across the zoo, as animals are very sensitive to changes in their environment.

Large government-run zoos have become highly departmentalised, meaning, the roles of the staff are segmented into strict departments. For example, the horticulturalists will collect all of the animals' food (including koala food) and will not venture into the enclosure reconstruction department, and will therefore, not learn more about the overall operations of the zoo or the needs of the animals from a holistic point of view. During their daily operations, the other general staff will also never have an opportunity to be involved in sourcing the koala (or any animal) food because that is the role of the horticulturalist. This means that the staff now have very narrow skillsets and fail to have a holistic understanding of the animals and the industry.

Suggestions

Government-run zoos should implement a more holistic approach to staff training and development and work to broaden job descriptions so that staff are able to spend time working across multiple sectors within the zoo.

Government-run zoos should not be fixed in one location, but rather, they should work toward implementing a 'moving' or 'mobile' zoo which would share elements of a free-range zoo, having land that is at least 10,000 hectares long. This new type of zoo would be sprawling throughout Australia's vast countryside and would be suited to allow for migrations for various large, exotic animals to roam free (or freer than they currently are). This vision would also need to be developed with input from urban developers so that it can evolve with Australia's urbanisation. This would be a similar concept to an African Safari Park, but in a more controlled setting.

Corporate-run Zoos/Wildlife Parks

(Private, non-government)

Corporate-run/big business zoos (or private zoos) follow many of the same rules and structures as government-run zoos, particularly in terms of their staff structure. In fact, many staff move from the government-run zoos to corporate zoos for higher pay or a higher position. However, many corporates tend to buy zoos only for the purpose of revamping and refitting them in order to sell them off to the next buyer for a profit. This means that the corporate zoos/wildlife parks can change ownership every few years.

Disadvantages

Though corporate zoos/wildlife parks can be a little more flexible than government-run zoos, they hit the same road-blocks when it comes to lower and middle-management. Corporate zoos, like any business, can be run poorly or run well, it depends on the management and the type of buyers and investors. However, corporate zoos/wildlife parks generally cut more corners, particularly as they are not in the spotlight like government-run zoos.

Suggestions

The Board members of corporate run zoos should encourage long-standing investors that are forward, creative-thinkers with a long-term vision. This would reduce the high staff and owner turnover and have greater animal welfare outcomes.

Corporate zoos/wildlife parks should work alongside government zoos to support the implementation of elements of a free-range zoo, having land that is at least 10,000 hectares long. They should also support the transition phase from when a zoo moves from a fixed position to a 'moving zoo'. Both the private and public sector, and government and corporate/wildlife park zoos should be working with urban developers to evolve with modern infrastructure development that has a positive impact on both humans and wildlife.

Small local zoo/ Wildlife Refuge/Non-profit zoos

(This may include sanctuaries, native wildlife parks, or wildlife parks and can be government run, private and usually locally-run)

Small or local zoos are built for a variety of reasons, however, usually, they are built out of necessity, perhaps from an increase in animal injuries, a bushfire or natural disaster, or to care for local animals that have been in road injuries. These wildlife parks have the potential to operate successfully, however, many are built out of an emotional response rather than practicality, and will fail due to inept management.

In terms of daily operations, at the beginning, most of these small or local parks are flexible due to their short-term situation and the fact that they generally are made up of passionate but inexperienced volunteers or staff members. The staff in these types of parks and sanctuaries are generally not seeking a higher wage, but a more rewarding and challenging role, so the staff turnover may be slightly slower compared with other bigger institutions. In general, the daily activities range from general to major enclosure reconstruction, administration, cleaning, food preparation, customer service and so on. Staff perform a wide range of duties and usually have a better understanding and intuition of their animals than staff at bigger institutions because they work across every level of animal husbandry. This also includes situations where the bigger institutions would typically hire sub-contractors to fill a role.

Disadvantages

However, the drawback from small to medium size zoos is the fact that staff do, almost always, reach a certain point in their lives where they may notice a bottle-neck of staff trying to aim higher and wish to leave the industry and pursue a career in the bigger institutions.

Suggestions

Small/Local Parks should collaborate with larger government and corporate run zoos. This will ensure that there is greater knowledge-sharing and would encourage greater commitment to the long-term goals of the entire zoological industry.

Social Enterprise (commercialised version of a non-profit) wildlife park/ refuge centre

The non-profit zoo (or wildlife refuge) usually starts with humble and idealistic ambitions; their main aim is typically to care for local wildlife. These are a relatively new concept, and such centres initially avoided and turned their noses up at the commercialisation of the koala industry, but have since begun to furtively commercialise. This spike in commercialisation meant that these centres have evolved quickly in the last 4-5 years, particularly institutions such as the Port Macquarie Koala Hospital.

While these institutions play an important role in koala protection, they often use exaggerated messages or victimise the koala to illustrate their point.

Looking Forward

Every style of zoo has both advantages and disadvantages. However, a consistent theme among them all is the lack of vision and lack of motivation to make positive, systemic changes across the industry and challenge the status quo. Compared to others, this industry is falling behind, when in fact, it should be at the forefront of everyone's minds; finding solutions to live in a connected society - where people, plants and wildlife coexist peacefully.

The government-run institutions have the potential to become more progressive and less conservative and departmentalised. This change would inspire corporate/bigger wildlife park-type zoos to follow their lead and embrace long-term investors instead of small term investors, who would see greater reward in receiving smaller dividends over a longer period of time - similar to the housing industry. And both these institutions could embrace a similar format to locally-run zoos, where they allow young staff to expand their skillset an explore various operations of a park – doing a range of jobs before finding a specialisation.

To me, the local wildlife park/sanctuary is like little athletics, or junior football; building the skills of the future. It is a place that plays just as important of a role as bigger institutions.

In Part 3 we explain Inside-Out and Outside-In the Koala Industry.