San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo News 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
A new report has called the zoo an "unsafe environment" for the workers, public, and animals.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-francisco-zoo-deemed-unsafe-environment-report/

Despite the zoo following federal rules and regulations, the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission says the establishment fails in animal enrichment due to outdated enclosures.

The SF Zoo has a history of animal violence. In 2006, a Serbian tiger escaped and killed a man. San Francisco police made the controversial decision to put down the tiger. Since the tragic incident, the zoo has made updates, which are still not enough, according to SF Animal Control.

According to the memo, the commission suggests the zoo must change the following for the “zoo animals to thrive”:

  • The enclosure should provide enough room for the animals to exhibit normal behavior.
  • It should allow a space for animals to retreat from human view. retreat to an indoor area.
  • It should be pleasant to the eye of the patrons and allow the patrons an opportunity to see the animals exhibiting natural behavior.
  • It should provide ample opportunities for behavioral enrichment.
  • It should be clean and safe for the animals, animal caretakers, and the public.
The committee said the zoo’s enclosures are “extremely outdated.” The committee even describes part of the zoo as “dilapidated” and said the facility is in need of a “comprehensive strategic re-design plan to modernize the habitats.”

Another primary concern is animal enrichment and habitat. Providing a natural habitat that will allow the animals to exhibit behaviors that will be natural in the wild. The committee said that the enclosure does not allow this, which they said causes the visitor to have an “uninspiring” visit.
 
Nile Hippo Expert said:
A new report has called the zoo an "unsafe environment" for the workers, public, and animals.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-francisco-zoo-deemed-unsafe-environment-report/

Despite the zoo following federal rules and regulations, the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission says the establishment fails in animal enrichment due to outdated enclosures.

The SF Zoo has a history of animal violence. In 2006, a Serbian tiger escaped and killed a man. San Francisco police made the controversial decision to put down the tiger. Since the tragic incident, the zoo has made updates, which are still not enough, according to SF Animal Control.

According to the memo, the commission suggests the zoo must change the following for the “zoo animals to thrive”:

  • The enclosure should provide enough room for the animals to exhibit normal behavior.
  • It should allow a space for animals to retreat from human view. retreat to an indoor area.
  • It should be pleasant to the eye of the patrons and allow the patrons an opportunity to see the animals exhibiting natural behavior.
  • It should provide ample opportunities for behavioral enrichment.
  • It should be clean and safe for the animals, animal caretakers, and the public.
The committee said the zoo’s enclosures are “extremely outdated.” The committee even describes part of the zoo as “dilapidated” and said the facility is in need of a “comprehensive strategic re-design plan to modernize the habitats.”

Another primary concern is animal enrichment and habitat. Providing a natural habitat that will allow the animals to exhibit behaviors that will be natural in the wild. The committee said that the enclosure does not allow this, which they said causes the visitor to have an “uninspiring” visit.
Click to expand...
Serbian tiger :)
 
Nile Hippo Expert said:

The SF Zoo has a history of animal violence. In 2006, a Serbian tiger escaped and killed a man. San Francisco police made the controversial decision to put down the tiger. Since the tragic incident, the zoo has made updates, which are still not enough, according to SF Animal Control.
Click to expand...

The tiger had killed and was on the loose in a zoo full of people; I don't recall the decision that they had to shoot it being controversial. It was an emergency situation.

How the zoo kept a tiger in an exhibit that it could leap out of was controversial, and continues to be, as the zoo has somehow gotten worse since that incident almost 20 years ago, and it was awful then.
 
Last edited:
Nile Hippo Expert said:
A new report has called the zoo an "unsafe environment" for the workers, public, and animals.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/san-francisco-zoo-deemed-unsafe-environment-report/

Despite the zoo following federal rules and regulations, the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission says the establishment fails in animal enrichment due to outdated enclosures.

The SF Zoo has a history of animal violence. In 2006, a Serbian tiger escaped and killed a man. San Francisco police made the controversial decision to put down the tiger. Since the tragic incident, the zoo has made updates, which are still not enough, according to SF Animal Control.

According to the memo, the commission suggests the zoo must change the following for the “zoo animals to thrive”:

  • The enclosure should provide enough room for the animals to exhibit normal behavior.
  • It should allow a space for animals to retreat from human view. retreat to an indoor area.
  • It should be pleasant to the eye of the patrons and allow the patrons an opportunity to see the animals exhibiting natural behavior.
  • It should provide ample opportunities for behavioral enrichment.
  • It should be clean and safe for the animals, animal caretakers, and the public.
The committee said the zoo’s enclosures are “extremely outdated.” The committee even describes part of the zoo as “dilapidated” and said the facility is in need of a “comprehensive strategic re-design plan to modernize the habitats.”

Another primary concern is animal enrichment and habitat. Providing a natural habitat that will allow the animals to exhibit behaviors that will be natural in the wild. The committee said that the enclosure does not allow this, which they said causes the visitor to have an “uninspiring” visit.
Click to expand...
They lost me at IDA, Panda Voices, and bashing Memphis, but from my outsider's perspective, they seem to be spot on otherwise. I'd love it if Richard Branson or some Silicon Valley billionarie would just buy the zoo, divorce it totally from city auspices, and tell them "Mayor's gone. I'm the money guy. Waddya need?"
 
I am surprised the SF Zoo has not been closed before ... due to mismanagement both by those at the helm (CEO, CFO et cetera) as well as the Municipal Committee.
 
I think folks on here greatly overestimate how bad San Francisco Zoo’s reputation actually is among the zoo community. I’ve interacted with them while working at a few institutions, no problem, no one ever batted an eye at sending or receiving to or receiving animals from them. No one in our community really speaks ill of them (I mean, excepting the fact that we’re all prone to grumble and moan by nature). Their staff are well respected in all circles I’ve been in with them. Not saying they don’t have issues, as all zoos do - but folks here seem much more zeroed in on their stuff than other places. There’s a few other major zoos I can think of which have been closer to the chopping block then them
 
I don't think people bemoan communications between zoo staff individually and/or that you may be dealing with. I am not even sure if at professional contact level much is exchanged how a zoo is doing at home or what is happening at the political and managerial level. What most people are concerned with is the lack of progress over the last 20 odd years at SF Zoo, the empty exhibits, an animal collection in decline, that projects take huge amount of time to complete and a few other issues besides.
 
Seriously? There are times when I'm pretty sure that the only reason that we all go to meetings and conferences is so that we can gossip about our facilities. Trust me, we all love to talk about dirty laundry when we're in a safe space with a cone of silence. And the things that are bemoaned about SF are, unfortunately, not that uncommon among many zoos.
 
A recent post I made:

This week marked a major breakthrough in exposing the dire situation at the San Francisco Zoo. The Animal Control and Welfare Commission’s scathing report called the 95-year-old facility “extremely outdated” and “unsafe for visitors and animals.” And the media took notice.

Every major Bay Area outlet—and even international media—covered the findings:

Watch KTVU:



This report isn't just a wake-up call—it’s a mandate for urgent modernization, stronger safety measures, and prioritizing animal welfare.

I recently joined an hour-long conversation on KQED’s Forum, where I discussed the zoo’s challenges with Tara Duggan, the SF Chronicle reporter, and Joel Parrott, former director of the Oakland Zoo. We dove into the stark realities of what’s happening behind the scenes and what needs to change:

LISTEN: SF Zoo is “Unsafe for Visitors and Animals” According to City Report | KQED

Meanwhile, the looming arrival of giant pandas from China is being hyped as the zoo’s golden ticket, just as a New York Times investigation today ripped open the ugly truth of panda programs, exposing them as profit-driven spectacles where animal welfare is sacrificed for financial gain. Pandas, subjected to brutal and sometimes deadly breeding practices, are paraded as symbols of conservation, but the reality is far darker.


The panda program isn’t about conservation—it’s about cruelty, and San Francisco should not be complicit in it.

Despite this, the zoo and the mayor continue to cling to pandas as a quick fix, while the animals already in the zoo’s care remain trapped in cramped, decaying enclosures— denied the dignity they deserve.

We are pushing for real systemic change at the San Francisco Zoo. This isn’t about minor adjustments—it’s about ending the abuse once and for all. A fresh coat of paint or a flashy new exhibit won’t solve the deep-rooted problems plaguing the zoo. It’s time to stop the PR stunts and take meaningful action. The city must sever ties with the Zoological Society and bring in a new organization to run the zoo. Only with new leadership and a full redesign—focused on animal rescues and real conservation—can we end the suffering and create a facility that truly respects the animals it claims to care for.

The time for excuses is over. The public, the media, and city leaders are pushing hard for change, with a Board of Supervisors audit likely. San Francisco must decide: will it continue to settle for mediocrity, or will it demand a zoo that truly prioritizes animal welfare and public safety?

The future of the zoo—and its animals—depends on it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: J-K
All well and good, but following the reputational assassination of the zoo you and others have instigated, from where will the $500+ million that is needed to re-imagine the SF Zoo going to come from? Certainly not from the semi-destitute City…totally agree things need to change, but I have zero confidence the community will ever put together the resources needed to turn this situation around, Truly tragic.
 
BearBoy said:
The panda program isn’t about conservation—it’s about cruelty, and San Francisco should not be complicit in it.

Despite this, the zoo and the mayor continue to cling to pandas as a quick fix, while the animals already in the zoo’s care remain trapped in cramped, decaying enclosures— denied the dignity they deserve.

We are pushing for real systemic change at the San Francisco Zoo. This isn’t about minor adjustments—it’s about ending the abuse once and for all. A fresh coat of paint or a flashy new exhibit won’t solve the deep-rooted problems plaguing the zoo. It’s time to stop the PR stunts and take meaningful action. The city must sever ties with the Zoological Society and bring in a new organization to run the zoo. Only with new leadership and a full redesign—focused on animal rescues and real conservation—can we end the suffering and create a facility that truly respects the animals it claims to care for.

The time for excuses is over. The public, the media, and city leaders are pushing hard for change, with a Board of Supervisors audit likely. San Francisco must decide: will it continue to settle for mediocrity, or will it demand a zoo that truly prioritizes animal welfare and public safety?

The future of the zoo—and its animals—depends on it.
Click to expand...
Can you name some other specific North American zoos you think would be a good model for the San Francisco Zoo to follow? Are there leaders you have in mind -- perhaps directors at other AZA institutions? I'm asking this earnestly, not defensively. I think any zoochatter would love to see a "full redesign" of the facility but this would be a very expensive prospect; even a "fresh coat of paint" that failed to address the changes would probably be costly..
 
BearBoy said:
This is from my latest post @ sfzoowatch.substack.com:

This week marked a major breakthrough in exposing the dire situation at the San Francisco Zoo. The Animal Control and Welfare Commission’s scathing report called the 95-year-old facility “extremely outdated” and “unsafe for visitors and animals.” And the media took notice.

Every major Bay Area outlet—and even international media—covered the findings:

Watch KTVU:



This report isn't just a wake-up call—it’s a mandate for urgent modernization, stronger safety measures, and prioritizing animal welfare.

I recently joined an hour-long conversation on KQED’s Forum, where I discussed the zoo’s challenges with Tara Duggan, the SF Chronicle reporter, and Joel Parrott, former director of the Oakland Zoo. We dove into the stark realities of what’s happening behind the scenes and what needs to change:

LISTEN: SF Zoo is “Unsafe for Visitors and Animals” According to City Report | KQED

Meanwhile, the looming arrival of giant pandas from China is being hyped as the zoo’s golden ticket, just as a New York Times investigation today ripped open the ugly truth of panda programs, exposing them as profit-driven spectacles where animal welfare is sacrificed for financial gain. Pandas, subjected to brutal and sometimes deadly breeding practices, are paraded as symbols of conservation, but the reality is far darker.


The panda program isn’t about conservation—it’s about cruelty, and San Francisco should not be complicit in it.

Despite this, the zoo and the mayor continue to cling to pandas as a quick fix, while the animals already in the zoo’s care remain trapped in cramped, decaying enclosures— denied the dignity they deserve.

We are pushing for real systemic change at the San Francisco Zoo. This isn’t about minor adjustments—it’s about ending the abuse once and for all. A fresh coat of paint or a flashy new exhibit won’t solve the deep-rooted problems plaguing the zoo. It’s time to stop the PR stunts and take meaningful action. The city must sever ties with the Zoological Society and bring in a new organization to run the zoo. Only with new leadership and a full redesign—focused on animal rescues and real conservation—can we end the suffering and create a facility that truly respects the animals it claims to care for.

The time for excuses is over. The public, the media, and city leaders are pushing hard for change, with a Board of Supervisors audit likely. San Francisco must decide: will it continue to settle for mediocrity, or will it demand a zoo that truly prioritizes animal welfare and public safety?

The future of the zoo—and its animals—depends on it.
Click to expand...
The SFZ situation hasn't changed in a long time and, as a lot of people have said, it would require a great amount of money to change the actual facilites. Money that the zoo's lacks. So the zoo depends on private investors or more money can be pumped to zoo, which I highly doubt it.
As for the panda situation, never a contract of pandas has been changed because the public didn't like it, the pandas won't arrive if there's political tension or the zoo closes.
 
JVM said:
Can you name some other specific North American zoos you think would be a good model for the San Francisco Zoo to follow? Are there leaders you have in mind -- perhaps directors at other AZA institutions? I'm asking this earnestly, not defensively. I think any zoochatter would love to see a "full redesign" of the facility but this would be a very expensive prospect; even a "fresh coat of paint" that failed to address the changes would probably be costly..
Click to expand...
Hot take: Zoo Atlanta and the Zoo New England zoos would be a brilliant model for San Francisco Zoo to follow. The former was once considered one of the worst zoos in the US until Dr. Terry Maple, Jon Coe and scores of talented individuals completely transformed the zoo into a powerhouse - even gaining the prestige of housing giant pandas! As for the Zoo New England zoos, Franklin Park took on a series of lower-budget projects to compensate for the high cost of the Tropical Forest building, while a community push to save Stone Zoo took place with the zoo's polar bear, Major, as the fountainhead.
 
Aardwolf said:
Seriously? There are times when I'm pretty sure that the only reason that we all go to meetings and conferences is so that we can gossip about our facilities. Trust me, we all love to talk about dirty laundry when we're in a safe space with a cone of silence. And the things that are bemoaned about SF are, unfortunately, not that uncommon among many zoos.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about communication between zoos or their individual relations at top level, ... but the general mis-workings of the current SF Zoo and how this has been affecting both the fortunes of the zoo, its visitor popularity and appeal and the state of exhibits, staff retention and animal welfare/welbeing.

Further: I do take exception at your condescending tone given the nomers gossip, dirty laundry and talking from a safe space (if only you knew my personal relation to zoos and locally you would never have have come out this way).
 
...ok?

I think you misunderstood the comment. When I refer to gossip, dirty laundry, and safe-space, I am not talking about you or the forum users, though I can certainly see how you think it might apply. I'm speaking of my zoo colleagues, self included. When we go to the conferences, we tend to seek each other out to share the news of our facility among the people we know are most likely going to understand and won't report back to our bosses... gossiping in a safe space, if you will. I've had folks come up to me breathlessly to ask me if some (non-public) scandal or another is true from my zoo, and I've been astonished as how they could have possibly heard of it already.

SF arguably has more of a spotlight on its problems than other zoos do because of the political climate in that city, which has perhaps a greater percentage of folks, I suspect, that are inclined to be opposed to zoos in principle.

None of which changes the initial point I'm making here - I feel like people on this forum are laboring under the impression that SFZ is some sort of zoological pariah, which it is not, and that we (being the US zoo professionals) think of it as tainted or uniquely bad, which we don't. In a previous post you seemed to suggest that the only way this could be true is that we don't know what's really going on there, and I'm assuring you, we do. Things like a divide between leadership and the main staff, or a seemingly inexplicable ability to make progress on exhibits, or what have you, are hardly unique to them.
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
The Zoo is nearing the necessary funds to bring pandas to San Francisco. The Zoo is eyeing renovating an existing space rather than build a brand new exhibit and is now expecting that less than $25 million is needed.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/breed-raised-zero-out-of-25m-zoo-needs-pandas-19871351.php
Click to expand...
Article seems to be paywalled for me.
I can't say this seems logical for the SF Zoo, and how can they seem so certain China would allow a pair of pandas to be placed there? Knowing that SD Zoo and National Zoo had to do upgrades to meet the standards for China, I can't see SF Zoo getting that done.
 
MidwestFan said:
Article seems to be paywalled for me.
I can't say this seems logical for the SF Zoo, and how can they seem so certain China would allow a pair of pandas to be placed there? Knowing that SD Zoo and National Zoo had to do upgrades to meet the standards for China, I can't see SF Zoo getting that done.
Click to expand...

The article stated that Chinese officials are working directly with zoo staff on proposed exhibit modifications/ necessarily renovations for the pandas. China has enough confidence it seems to continue moving forward.
 
Hmmmm... in an ideal world, the amount of people and attention pandas bring in would push the zoo to upgrade the rest of itself. Will that actually occur? Probably not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top