Sensational-Adelaide.com

SJ, so you would rather than we did not try, and just continued to plod along?

Like a lot of small, remote communities - which I think we are in the scheme of things - we are probably over-represented in two areas: conservatives who don't like change or who are concerned not to risk too much, and those who feel frustrated that we don't embrace change, and take more risks like 'the rest of the world' we read and hear about.

The truth is likely to be that most communities have the same pressures within them.

I think both points of view have some merit. We do have limited resources, and we should take care of them. On the other hand, there is no progress without change and risk.

Overlay on this our democratic system, which actually has some tolerance for risk taking and a limited tolerance for failure, and it's clear that there is a path forward between the extremes of care-free risk taking and the fossilization of deep conservatism.

The answer, then, is to be 'bold' but to do so carefully with good planning and good monitoring.

The Zoo fiasco - which is probably what it is - seems to have lacked both good planning and good monitoring. The over-optimistic figures in the business plan look like bad planning and invite questions about how the figures were computed, by whom, and why so much trust was placed in them. For example, did Westpac, the main lender apparently, fail to do proper checks of their risk because they felt the government would always bail out the Zoo? (For that matter, will the government do so?)

So the answer, not just for the Zoo, seems to be to take steps forward, sure, but to watch how we go. Again in the case of the Zoo, where was the overview; how did things get so bad before anyone rang the bells?

In this case, too much risk taking, not enough caution.

I think bringing the Pandas to Adelaide was a great idea, but it seems that it has not worked
out financially. To be honest I don't know much about the financing of this project however
it appears to me that the planning and marketing has not been so good :

1) obviously the number of people going to the zoo has not been as high as what was expected.

2) 'who cares about the grand prix' - that's a shitty marketing slogan. The grand prix going
to Melbourne is a thing of the past - it happened nearly 20 years ago.

3) $31 entry for an adult. That's too expensive. It should be $25 or less. The pandas are the
only decent attraction at the zoo and its just not worth it for a lot people to spend that much money.

Hopefully Wang Wang & Funi will breed. That will increase the visitor numbers.

Good luck trying to breed the pandas.

They're fucking lazy as it is, and are only sexually active for 3 days of the year. Let alone, if they're feeling energetic enough and in the mood to do it on one of those days.

And, to top it off, if the female does get pregnant and has baby pandas (they always have at least a couple) They mother will only look after one, and leave the rest to die... simply because they're so fucking lazy.

Pandas are a failure of evolution.

ghs wrote:The pandas are the only decent attraction at the zoo

That's a bit harsh. I've been a few times over the last decade (as a family, wife + kids) and it's always a fun day...

I too always enjoyed family trips to the Zoo. It was fairly cheap as I recall.

Perhaps the place has over-reached itself, or its market, with the fancy exhibits. Maybe too much was expected of a couple of slow moving bears.

Perhaps we could install a bit of mood lighting in the panda cage and some soft music etc, to try and extend the three day window, then charge people extra to watch them f*ck. Or is that not a good suggestion?

Perhaps we could install a bit of mood lighting in the panda cage and some soft music etc, to try and extend the three day window, then charge people extra to watch them f*ck. Or is that not a good suggestion?

I usually hate with a passion reading what you write, but for some reason this little bit works for me

I'm glad to have brightened your day, iTouch.

Go behind the scenes with a Giant Panda Keeper and experience an unique opportunity to enter the Giant Panda headquarters to view Wang Wang and Funi.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to assist the Keeper and meet Australia's Giant Pandas.

Suitability Easy (limited effort required)
Minimum age 16
Group size 2 - 6
Available Monday, Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday
Time 8.00 - 9.30am
Cost $495 (Zoos SA members receive discount)

Note: wheelchairs are available if required, however for animal management purposes gofers are not suitable on this tour.

For only 500 dollars you can go on a behind the scenes tour !!

I would pay to watch rooting Pandas.

Hmmm. I've done a bit of googling under, for example, 'zoo panda economics'.

It hasn't taken long to find numerous sites warning against high financial expectations from giant pandas.

Here's a typical example:

I asked Dave Towne, former President of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, what he would tell a zookeeper trying to get a panda.

DAVE TOWNE: Don't do it. If your objective is to break even or make a profit, there's almost no chance of that happening.

Even with a baby panda, he says. U.S. zoos say they see a big spike in attendance after a birth, but Towne says it doesn't last.

There are dozens of similar items.

If I can find this sort of thing after a few minutes, why couldn't the zoo's managers?

stumpjumper wrote:It hasn't taken long to cherry-pick numerous sites warning against high financial expectations from giant pandas.

FTFY.

AtD I actually looked at every case around the world I could find where pandas were concerned. Hardly cherry-picking.

I've also found:

- the government has two permanent members on the zoo board who apparently didn't notice anything amiss at the zoo until a few weeks ago when it was revealed that the zoo was $24,000,000 in debt. I've looked at the zoo's latest publicly available financial report (2009) which does not indicate any trouble to me at least.

- the zoo claims that corporate sponsorship was down from the expected $10 million to $2 million, and that the corporate sponsorship manager is the wife of the zoo's chief executive.

- when SACA got into $85 million of debt, the government paid off its debt, gave it $450 million to extend its stadium and refuses to charge even a peppercorn rent for occupation of the new stadium.

Seems the Adelaide Zoo is the only non-government owned & run zoo in Australia. Not saying that's a good or bad thing - just an observation.

Wayno wrote:Seems the Adelaide Zoo is the only non-government owned & run zoo in Australia. Not saying that's a good or bad thing - just an observation.

That can't be right - Australia Zoo is the obvious counterexample.

Aidan wrote:

Wayno wrote:Seems the Adelaide Zoo is the only non-government owned & run zoo in Australia. Not saying that's a good or bad thing - just an observation.

That can't be right - Australia Zoo is the obvious counterexample.

Only non-govt capital city Zoo?