The economics of hosting giant pandas at US zoos — it’s really expensive, both because of the facility needs and because China charges a frightfully large “rent” to keep the animals.
But after the first year, crowds dwindle, while the expenses remain high. In fact, a panda’s upkeep costs five times more than that of the next most expensive animal, an elephant.
A curator, three full-time keepers and one backup keeper care for Lun Lun and Yang Yang at Zoo Atlanta. A crew of six travels around Georgia six days a week, harvesting bamboo from 400 volunteers who grow it in their backyards. (Zoo Atlanta tried growing its own on a farm, as the Memphis Zoo does, but Lun Lun and Yang Yang turned up their noses.)
“It’s crazy,” Mr. Kelly said. “These bears, year-round, are some of the most pampered animals on the planet. We measure everything that goes in. We measure everything that goes out.”
Then there are the contracts, most lasting 10 years. Because China retains ownership of the pandas, zoos lease each pair for $1 million a year. If cubs are born, the annual fee increases by an average of $600,000. In addition, each zoo has agreed to pay another million or so each year to finance research and conservation projects in the United States and in China. Taken together, Mr. Kelly says, the contracts are worth more than $80 million to the Chinese government.
It’s cool seeing pandas at zoos — but, frankly, it’s not clear that it’s that cool.
Interestingly enough, the San Diego Zoo presently has four Pandas on display (and being studied round the clock) and only two elephants (they used to have three, but only two were on display last time I was there). As expensive as the elephants are to keep, they are not being studied round the clock because we know so little about their behavior like the Pandas are.
Also interesting, but not mentioned, is the cost of creating relistic enclousures for animals on display especially when the animals are harder to see in those enclosures. The San Diego Zoo actually gets complaints from folks who don’t get to see the animals they want (some complaints were published in the newspaper back several years). The SD Zoo and especially the SD Wild Animal Park consider their primary goal to conserve and research these animals as part of ther education of the public. It may well be expensive, but there are real qustions about cost of showing these animals versus the cost of saving their natural habitat in the face of the expansion of people into these areas.
We can choose to have fewer children (although that’s not absolute), but the Pandas can’t increase their fertility. Does that mean they should die out as evolution would suggest and then exist only in zoos?
As a conservation and research location, as well as in creating realistic and comfortable surroundings for the animals, the San Diego Zoo does a good job (and has its priorities straight).