I'm a bit depressed by it all, actually.
I'll repeat an earlier post: yes, it is reflected in higher prices because you work out what you need to run the place, look at the number of paying visitors and adjust accordingly. Lower numbers of paying visitors mean higher costs because your running costs don't change. Animals don't eat less because you had fewer visitors. And there was an outlay - food, medication, heating bills. It's just the visitor walks away with an experience rather than a physical thing. You can't measure your loss exactly but you can compare income vs outgoings. If one doesn't match the other, put prices up.
What is most depressing is that I used to organise stuff for under fives to do at our zoo. Because, you know, they were paying and they deserve no less. Activities which took time to plan, set up, run and clear away. When I could have been doing something else. And I used to argue that these things ought to be either free or a really nominal fee to cover costs if I'd had to buy extra things in, because after paying an entrance fee it was not right to ask for loads more money. Because I thought it was important to engage with these kids and make sure we were a place they wanted to come and visit. Think I may have been taken for a mug because it seems a good proportion may not have been paying guests at all, so we would have been spending money on them doing things rather than getting money for the charity.
And in the meantime, the place was struggling to stay afloat and making my mates redundant.
It's a bit gutting that I've laid out argument after argument about the impact on the organisations only to find people glibly saying things like 'everyone does it' and 'you're just being sanctimonious' and 'oh it won't have any effect'. And making sweeping statements about what zoos should do, or not do, without having any understanding of the processes behind it.