Just out of curiosity, how does the tax support for the OKC compare to other cities like Denver? My understanding is that we put a lot more into the zoo, as a fund, than the average bear (pun). I do not have any firm financial information to make a claim, but i'm wondering if we really would have to charge separately or if it would be able to just work like the zoo does today where the "experiences" are what cost extra. That crap drives me bonkers, but i understand. Controlling the expense of feed/etc for things like that really requires a paywall.
And I'll say again, the ability to go vertical is what would make it work on the current grounds. We could also claim a bit of the lake back for land if we really needed to. I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways this could work, if they really had an appetite to do so.....assuming the funding works.
What i've become a bit less of a fan of the zoo in is the fact that often you are unable to actually see a lot of the animals. I understand that the habitats are far superior for the animals. But my point is that if the people can't see the animals, it's harder for them to be appreciated. If you can't make a person connect in some way, then the interest in conservation isn't as strong. They don't need to be performing or anything like that, but I can't tell you how many times i've been through some of the Oklahoma Trails section and just have to assume there's a live animal in there because after a few years, i've never seen it actually moving around.
Bookmarks