Monday, June 09, 2008

Zoo To Charge Entrance Fee?

Looks like people might have to start paying to visit the Sequoia Park Zoo pretty soon. The Eureka City Councilcritters don't seem too happy about the situation. I suppose I don't blame them but, seems to me, user fees are probably the fairest way to pay for a many things.

Too bad the City Council didn't have such concerns when they were trying to decide whether to force garbage service on all Eureka residents. I can't help but wonder what the difference between the two issues is in their minds.

18 Comments:

At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You get a better value by just paying for the gas to drive to downtown Arcata and look at all the animals there. Plus, they're free range. Just don't feed them. Watch them sit on the Plaza and groom each others dreads, just like their relatives in the primate family.

 
At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thats an insult to real animals.

BTW- I guess YOUR relatives are NOT in the primate family?

 
At 11:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Free Zoos are bastions of
Big-Government
Tax-and-Spend
Nanny-State
Me-Tooism.

Kill the Free Zoo.
Then ON TO SOCIAL SECURITY!!!
(Kick your Granny
In the Fanny !!!!!!)

 
At 2:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The zoo has gone steadily downhill, interestingly enough ever since Arkley got involved. Close it and we could same some real money.

 
At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Eureka Reporter broke this story two weeks ago: http://eurekareporter.com/article/080527-budget-woes-force-zoo-to-charge-admission

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Interesting that the Eureka Reporter article sounds like the admission fees are a done deal. The Times- Standard makes it sound like they're still talking about it.

Maybe I'm misreading something?

 
At 6:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Haven't been to the zoo in years, ever since the Arkley renovations were completed. Just looking at the place leaves a bad taste.

 
At 8:06 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Sounds like at least one lefty wants to see the zoo shut down.

 
At 8:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comments by both Glass and Kerrigan are nauseating.

The budget is in the RED, and the city has been directed to cut expenses by ten percent across the board; their comments in light of this is merely pandering to the public for the sake of looking good by acting concerned.

Couple that with the fact that this same council authorized a million and a half in raises for the police and fire departments BEFORE they had a means to fund them (the proposed fire assesment dist would pay for the fd raises), at the same time there was an impending State budget crises which was known about, and you have a GREAT story for any reporter that can put two and two together.

This council KNEW all of this was coming down the turnpike, and still they voted for large spending increases.

All of this concern is feigned and window dressing.

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

So now zoo attendance will decrease,the donations given will decrease,less money will be brought into the zoo,the restaurant will then raise prices,or be forced to lower them,whatever they need to do to stay afloat,then the city will come back to the public proposing some sort of tax to keep it up.My advice,hold a few more fundraisers.

 
At 11:21 AM, Blogger Nick Bravo said...

Here's a Libertarian forum with free podcasts you might enjoy Fred.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/

 
At 11:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

None of the animals in the zoo seem happy.

 
At 2:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The zoo is a joke, they want to charge in order to keep their barnyrd exhibit. I've seen it. Heck, this is supposed to be a rural area!

There are plenty of dairies, ranches and farms all around if people want to get up close to domesticated cows, chickens, goats, llamas, geese, horses and ducks. Those animals already have people caring for them without the city paying one dime.

Instead of a zoo, the city should create a program to fund farmers and ranchers to have "open house" days, if thats what people want to see.

 
At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be honest. Ever since the Arkley's got involved, kicked everybody off the zoo foundation board and replaced them with their own people and constructed the "improvements," the zoo has gone down hill. They got rid of the best exhibits (prairie dogs) and made the zoo too expensive to operate. Today, you get to see a goat and a couple of chickens. Maybe you'll be lucky to spot a bird in the aviary. The only bear left is too arthritic to stand practically. Now they want to charge $4.75 for an adult? We used to have a real nice little zoo in our city. Why did somebody have to go and change it?

 
At 7:07 PM, Blogger gb05 said...

When I was a member of the San Diego Zoo, family membership was about $40/year. Now it costs $89 for 2 adults in a household or $71 for a single adult; kids are $24 to $28. They have 4,000 animals but no cows, chickens, goats or bunny rabbits.

You pay $45/year (adult) here for cows, chickens, goats, bunny rabbits, flamingos, one old bear & a few monkeys.

The "boardwalk of bums" is still free of charge, but no smoking allowed. And watch out for the dog crap.

 
At 11:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sell the animals to decent zoos, round up the homeless and put them in cages. There ya go, two problems solved.

 
At 1:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't been there for a while, but by Jove and the Twelve Apostles, if it's true that the Arkleys removed the Prairie Dogs, I hereby call down a curse upon them that shall cause suffering unlike they have ever known - until of course, they relent and return the Prairie Dogs to their rightful home, here, at home on the range. I mean here at the Eureka Zoo.

(Jee Whiz! They were the most fun little critters I ever saw in any zoo!)

 
At 1:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we could work out a deal with the unemployed salmon fishermen.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home