San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo News 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zoofan15 said:
Video on the possibility of receiving Giant pandas:

Click to expand...
Based on her figures, it would cost the San Francisco Zoo over $50 million to host the pandas between conversion of the exhibit, ten years of operating expenses and ten years of licensing fees. I imagine the 'million dollar' fee for 'operating expenses' she cites is actually the licensing fee, but I calculated assuming they were separate, because I'm sure the actual cost is even higher.

I don't think China is at all serious about giving pandas to San Francisco, but even if they were, no way they could have access to that kind of money.
 
Zoofan15 said:
Video on the possibility of receiving Giant pandas:

Click to expand...

Ludicrous. The costs quoted by the director are stated as pre-covid, so now some four or five years out of date at best. During that time inflation has risen costs significantly. The fact the costs quote is that old does not impress me for how serious they supposedly are about getting pandas. They should have at least a 2023 quote, not a five-year old cost quote. I can only imagine what the equivalent of 10 years of Panda money could do for a zoo with a lot of old and outdated exhibits and infrastructure.
 
Zoofan15 said:
Video on the possibility of receiving Giant pandas:

Click to expand...
With San Diego Zoo's former Panda Canyon under construction, is this becoming "The Giant Panda Race of 2024" in California? ;) Would love some insight on SF's plan on where/how to exhibit the species. I know there were plans to possibly build an exhibit themed around endangered Asian wildlife (Hence maybe the move of the P-horses). I love how giant pandas have a choke hold on this industry (myself included:()...
 
Cat-Man said:
Tanya Peterson needs to take a look in the mirror, and sort out the plethora of other issues the San Francisco zoo has before this panda nonsense goes any further.
Click to expand...
I think the Society needs to rethink who they need at the helm: the last 10 years have been totally stagnant. The suggested plan by the Director for giant pandas at SF Zoo is beyond the pale in ludicrous shambles.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I think the Society needs to rethink who they need at the helm: the last 10 years have been totally stagnant.
Click to expand...

Not completely stagnant as they've done a few refresh and revamp projects, but Madagascar and the new Chimp exhibit are the only significant projects really. And from the few photos I've seen surprisingly little has changed for the time it's taking them on Madagascar.

It's hard to approve of them spending so much money on pandas when some of their existing exhibits look like this:

"Brand new" Fossa exhibit by @Chimpangeek
full


Orangutan exhibit by @Pier-Luc Chouinard
full


Lion grotto by @Chimpangeek
full


Example of Koala indoors by @TheoV
full


Many of their exhibits are merely adequate, some are good such as the Lemur forest and the savanna but I don't know that I'd say the overall quality of the zoo is particularly high. Lots of concrete, lots of fencing, spaces are often a bit small. It felt old when I last visited a decade ago and it still largely looks old now. Old can certainly have charm and contribute to a zoo, but I don't know that SF has pulled it off particularly well.
 
Great Argus said:
Not completely stagnant as they've done a few refresh and revamp projects, but Madagascar and the new Chimp exhibit are the only significant projects really. And from the few photos I've seen surprisingly little has changed for the time it's taking them on Madagascar.

It's hard to approve of them spending so much money on pandas when some of their existing exhibits look like this:

"Brand new" Fossa exhibit by @Chimpangeek

Many of their exhibits are merely adequate, some are good such as the Lemur forest and the savanna but I don't know that I'd say the overall quality of the zoo is particularly high. Lots of concrete, lots of fencing, spaces are often a bit small. It felt old when I last visited a decade ago and it still largely looks old now. Old can certainly have charm and contribute to a zoo, but I don't know that SF has pulled it off particularly well.
Click to expand...
My hometown zoo is one of the oldest in the modern zoo tradition and looks decidedly more modern and continues innovating new exhibits and renovating monument heritage buildings for new animals or other purposes. I would say they spent on average 8-15 million a year on new exhibits (given that listed building status requires huge amounts of investment).

So, why cannot a zoo like SF Zoo with a progressive populace do the same? My personal from the outside perception is an unhealthy ingrained political correctness combined with an unhealthy anti zoo stance and a lack of awareness of the contributions of conservation education facilities like the SF Zoo and what they do more for in situ conservation.

What is the general opinion of the SF residents spend on their very own city environment to make it more friendly eco-wildlife friendly and how do they view their own zoo?
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
So, why cannot a zoo like SF Zoo with a progressive populace do the same? My personal from the outside perception is an unhealthy ingrained political correctness combined with an unhealthy anti zoo stance and a lack of awareness of the contributions of conservation education facilities like the SF Zoo and what they do more for in situ conservation.
Click to expand...

There is also the wider issue of poor governance in the city and the state. I consider myself a progressive but what has happened to San Francisco is a disgrace. It's no wonder these issues have left the zoo in a decrepit state, although the decline of the zoo set in somewhat before the city.

I'd be interested to know the anti zoo makeup of the city council. Although there are vocal opponents to the zoo in the city, I would be surprised if this wasn't just a vocal minority, as seen in other cities.
 
Watching that interview, it feels to me more like the director was placed into a position of having to save face for the mayor, rather than actually believing that pandas are really coming.

I'd say that the SF Zoo's problems are less about any particular political leaning, and more a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Any zoo director has to navigate complex relationships between those who control the land, those who control the money, those who control the permits, those who control the animals, and those who control the public sentiment. In SF, the zoo has been placed into a structure where those are all largely separate constituencies, so any director is going to have difficulty navigating all the parts.

But even if there was a different structure in place, it would probably be disastrous for a zoo director to come out and say that the public announcement by the mayor is nonsense. They're going to have to find a way to walk it back slowly over time, wait for the public attention to fade, and probably wait for the mayor's term to be over.
 
iloveyourzoos said:
Watching that interview, it feels to me more like the director was placed into a position of having to save face for the mayor, rather than actually believing that pandas are really coming.

I'd say that the SF Zoo's problems are less about any particular political leaning, and more a case of "too many cooks in the kitchen". Any zoo director has to navigate complex relationships between those who control the land, those who control the money, those who control the permits, those who control the animals, and those who control the public sentiment. In SF, the zoo has been placed into a structure where those are all largely separate constituencies, so any director is going to have difficulty navigating all the parts.

But even if there was a different structure in place, it would probably be disastrous for a zoo director to come out and say that the public announcement by the mayor is nonsense. They're going to have to find a way to walk it back slowly over time, wait for the public attention to fade, and probably wait for the mayor's term to be over.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with your first sentence. I've been thinking the exact same thing.

As for politics... Oaklands politics are arguably to the left of San Franciscos and they have a great zoo...
San Francisco has a plethora of other tourist attractions (especially museums and gardens) that wealthy donors would rather put money into. I don't think the city government is anti-zoo nesseccarily, but it just doesn't see the Zoo as a priority for spending money on in their annual budget when the city has other issues to deal with.
Oakland doesn't have much else going for it in terms of tourism, so it makes sense that the city has invested a lot of money into it.
 
I think the above posts capture a lot of excellent points. I'm also wondering if some of this is also just a matter of San Francisco (the Zoo) trying to drum up some excitement and publicity just by fanning the rumors, even if they don't intend to follow through, possibly even using this as a way to fan some donations to help the problems they're already facing.
 
Im almost certain the zoo continues to receive funds annually from the city to help operate, but that amount hasn't really changed in the past few decades..

I think the bigger issue with the San Francisco city governments relationship to the zoo is more about distrust in the zoos administration/past-use-of-funds rather than a dislike of zoos. SF voters passed a huge multi-million dollar ballot proposition bond in the 90's to make substantial improvements to the zoos exhibits especially for it's big cats, great apes and African megafauna.
The only major exhibits that ended up getting built were the African Savannah and Lemur Forest. Nothing for the Great Apes, big cats or elephants.
A significant amount of money was spent on the new parking lot, entrance village, including gift shop, banquet hall and the leaping lemur cafe.

As a result, I think there was a general feeling among the city government (and probably the public too) that the Zoo hadn't used the funds from the bond properly; focusing on human amenities rather than new exhibits for the animals. The zoo certainly got a lot of bad publicity in the mid 2000's surrounding the the death of two of it's elephants who were still languishing in small dusty yards that were built in the 1940's. Animal rights groups were protesting outside the zoo regularly for months.
 
Cat-Man said:
Could you remind me of what those incidents were? I can’t remember off the top of my head!
Click to expand...

A baby Gorilla getting crushed under a gate while it was being closed, 2 Giant Elands being trampled and gored to death by a 3rd while in quarantine and a young patas monkey with a cancerous face tumor not being humanely euthanized early enough
 
Chimpangeek said:
A baby Gorilla getting crushed under a gate while it was being closed, 2 Giant Elands being trampled and gored to death by a 3rd while in quarantine and a young patas monkey with a cancerous face tumor not being humanely euthanized early enough
Click to expand...
Additionally Dr. Terry Maple ( Zooatlanta) was brought in as a consultant to additionally help with this tragedy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top