San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo News 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
I appreciate all the thoughtful and passionate conversations happening here about the SF Zoo. While we may not see eye to eye on every detail, I think we can all agree on one thing: something needs to change at the SF Zoo.

Many of you have asked, "What can actually be done to change the zoo's direction?" Here's a critical step: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has called for a comprehensive performance and management audit of the zoo. Unfortunately, the SF Zoo is actively trying to block this independent audit, rallying its resources to go on the defensive.

Now, more than ever, public pressure is essential—especially from this community! I know firsthand that Tanya Peterson and her pay-to-play board of directors are telling those in power that "anti-zoo" individuals are trying to tear down the zoo. In reality, there’s a broad coalition of people—including many who are very "pro-zoo"—who are deeply concerned about what has been happening in SF for a long time.

This audit is the first step toward real accountability and meaningful change. The vote is on December 5th.

I’d invite you to raise your voice and let folks in power know how you feel about SF Zoo : Contact the SF Government Audit and Oversight Committee at (415) 554-7750 or email Monique Crayton at monique.crayton@sfgov.org to show your support for an independent audit. Even a brief message of support can make a huge difference.

If you’re inspired to go further, here are some Key Audit Areas that I think deserve attention:
  • Animal Welfare: Assess living conditions, veterinary care, and decisions like the proposed panda exhibit.
  • Leadership & Staffing: Evaluate management’s performance, staff morale, and workplace practices.
  • Infrastructure & Safety: Inspect enclosures, safety protocols, and deferred maintenance.
  • Financial Management: Ensure transparency in budgeting and spending.
  • Lease Compliance: Review the zoo’s adherence to its lease obligations and master plan.
  • Governance: Examine oversight structures and explore alternative management models.
  • Modern Practices: Compare SF Zoo’s operations with progressive, humane models like the Oakland and Detroit Zoos.
 
BearBoy said:
I appreciate all the thoughtful and passionate conversations happening here about the SF Zoo. While we may not see eye to eye on every detail, I think we can all agree on one thing: something needs to change at the SF Zoo.

Many of you have asked, "What can actually be done to change the zoo's direction?" Here's a critical step: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has called for a comprehensive performance and management audit of the zoo. Unfortunately, the SF Zoo is actively trying to block this independent audit, rallying its resources to go on the defensive.

Now, more than ever, public pressure is essential—especially from this community! I know firsthand that Tanya Peterson and her pay-to-play board of directors are telling those in power that "anti-zoo" individuals are trying to tear down the zoo. In reality, there’s a broad coalition of people—including many who are very "pro-zoo"—who are deeply concerned about what has been happening in SF for a long time.

This audit is the first step toward real accountability and meaningful change. The vote is on December 5th.

I’d invite you to raise your voice and let folks in power know how you feel about SF Zoo : Contact the SF Government Audit and Oversight Committee at (415) 554-7750 or email Monique Crayton at monique.crayton@sfgov.org to show your support for an independent audit. Even a brief message of support can make a huge difference.

If you’re inspired to go further, here are some Key Audit Areas that I think deserve attention:
  • Animal Welfare: Assess living conditions, veterinary care, and decisions like the proposed panda exhibit.
  • Leadership & Staffing: Evaluate management’s performance, staff morale, and workplace practices.
  • Infrastructure & Safety: Inspect enclosures, safety protocols, and deferred maintenance.
  • Financial Management: Ensure transparency in budgeting and spending.
  • Lease Compliance: Review the zoo’s adherence to its lease obligations and master plan.
  • Governance: Examine oversight structures and explore alternative management models.
  • Modern Practices: Compare SF Zoo’s operations with progressive, humane models like the Oakland and Detroit Zoos.
Click to expand...

What makes Oakland and Detroit, "progressive and humane" that SF lacks? All three are AZA accredited so I'm curious why these two facilities have been singled out.

Oakland has continuously been mentioned in local news articles particularly in reference to housing orphaned animals - a practice so common in zoos across the country you'd be hard pressed to find a zoo that didn't house a rescued animal. SF's own grizzlies are former orphans from Montana.
 
With Mayor Breed losing re-election for a second term, the biggest champion of the panda project has left City Hall. I'd be curious if the new administration throws their support behind it now that the project is fully funded or pull the plug completely. I haven't read any news on the topic as of yet.
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
What makes Oakland and Detroit, "progressive and humane" that SF lacks? All three are AZA accredited so I'm curious why these two facilities have been singled out.

Oakland has continuously been mentioned in local news articles particularly in reference to housing orphaned animals - a practice so common in zoos across the country you'd be hard pressed to find a zoo that didn't house a rescued animal. SF's own grizzlies are former orphans from Montana.
Click to expand...

What sets Oakland apart is its leadership and the visionary approach they bring to their mission. Rather than spending lavishly on fleeting attractions like pandas, Oakland invested a comparable sum into the California Trail, doubling the zoo’s footprint and creating expansive, naturalistic habitats for species such as wolves and grizzlies. The zoo has made an undeniable impact by actively rehabilitating wildlife—having cared for 52 condors and 27 mountain lions to date—and playing a key role in reintroducing bison to Blackfeet tribal lands.

In stark contrast, the leadership at the San Francisco Zoo seems to lack both vision and the capability to modernize the institution. Their priorities don’t reflect a forward-thinking approach to animal welfare or conservation, leaving the zoo stagnant while others, like Oakland, set inspiring examples of progress.
 
BearBoy said:
What sets Oakland apart is its leadership and the visionary approach they bring to their mission. Rather than spending lavishly on fleeting attractions like pandas, Oakland invested a comparable sum into the California Trail, doubling the zoo’s footprint and creating expansive, naturalistic habitats for species such as wolves and grizzlies. The zoo has made an undeniable impact by actively rehabilitating wildlife—having cared for 52 condors and 27 mountain lions to date—and playing a key role in reintroducing bison to Blackfeet tribal lands.

In stark contrast, the leadership at the San Francisco Zoo seems to lack both vision and the capability to modernize the institution. Their priorities don’t reflect a forward-thinking approach to animal welfare or conservation, leaving the zoo stagnant while others, like Oakland, set inspiring examples of progress.
Click to expand...
Didn't Oakland wanted pandas? If I'm correct, Oakland was in progress of getting a pair, but the plans didn't get through, and so the space was used for baboons. And if so, I wouldn't use panda diplomacy as an excuse.
 
BearBoy said:
What sets Oakland apart is its leadership and the visionary approach they bring to their mission. Rather than spending lavishly on fleeting attractions like pandas, Oakland invested a comparable sum into the California Trail, doubling the zoo’s footprint and creating expansive, naturalistic habitats for species such as wolves and grizzlies. The zoo has made an undeniable impact by actively rehabilitating wildlife—having cared for 52 condors and 27 mountain lions to date—and playing a key role in reintroducing bison to Blackfeet tribal lands.

In stark contrast, the leadership at the San Francisco Zoo seems to lack both vision and the capability to modernize the institution. Their priorities don’t reflect a forward-thinking approach to animal welfare or conservation, leaving the zoo stagnant while others, like Oakland, set inspiring examples of progress.
Click to expand...

The criticisms of SF Zoo are valid and aspiring the zoo to be more like Oakland is a worthy goal. But Oakland Zoo isn't unique in their standing among AZA facilities from a mission based conservation perspective. I'm sure Oakland is more or less a comparison in this instance due to its locality to SF, but their California Trail was no less a contentious endeavor when it was proposed and built for $81 million - especially the gondola which broke a number of times right after opening.
 
NAIB Volunteer said:
What makes Oakland and Detroit, "progressive and humane" that SF lacks? All three are AZA accredited so I'm curious why these two facilities have been singled out.
Click to expand...
I have not visited Oakland but as Detroit zoos’s number 1 supporter and hater, it’s probably due to there unusually massive habitats. It’s not like the wilds or a safari park type habitats but no habitats in the zoo are arguably bad. The viewing is terrible but each animal seems happy with its space. Largest polar bear, red panda, penguins, aardvarks, and probably more in the US for habitats.
 
I do agree that the SF Zoo desperately needs a proper leadership but my main question is who should be set up for it?

Much like the city, the whole thing is up a creek without a paddle or a boat to the point where I'm wondering if the zoo will close entirely.
 
BearBoy said:
What sets Oakland apart is its leadership and the visionary approach they bring to their mission. Rather than spending lavishly on fleeting attractions like pandas, Oakland invested a comparable sum into the California Trail, doubling the zoo’s footprint and creating expansive, naturalistic habitats for species such as wolves and grizzlies. The zoo has made an undeniable impact by actively rehabilitating wildlife—having cared for 52 condors and 27 mountain lions to date—and playing a key role in reintroducing bison to Blackfeet tribal lands.

In stark contrast, the leadership at the San Francisco Zoo seems to lack both vision and the capability to modernize the institution. Their priorities don’t reflect a forward-thinking approach to animal welfare or conservation, leaving the zoo stagnant while others, like Oakland, set inspiring examples of progress.
Click to expand...

As mentioned, Oakland Zoo did try and get pandas 20 years ago. The current baboon exhibit was built for giant pandas, which obviously never happened.

The difference between Oakland Zoo and San Francisco Zoo that you are looking for is that the Oakland Zoo has continuously improved their zoo over the last 40 years, turning it from one of the worst zoos in the United States into a very good zoo, in some ways an excellent zoo. I have witnessed the Oakland Zoo transform from a rather ramshackle facility in the early 1990s and systematically upgrade every bad part of the zoo with modern exhibits, which was a considerable amount of the zoo. When I first visited in 1992 they had built new elephant and lion exhibits, and almost all of the rest of the zoo has been replaced since then (the tiger space and giraffe space being major exceptions).

By contrast San Francisco Zoo is still operating with Depression-era ape exhibits, bear grottoes, and cat exhibits, and 1960s era exhibits. And the 1980s era primate exhibit has been a moldering mess for decades now, and...you know what is going on there now better than I do.

The Oakland Zoo is a model for how to remodel a zoo. The San Francisco Zoo is a model of what happens if you don't remodel.
 
tigris115 said:
I do agree that the SF Zoo desperately needs a proper leadership but my main question is who should be set up for it?

Much like the city, the whole thing is up a creek without a paddle or a boat to the point where I'm wondering if the zoo will close entirely.
Click to expand...

If you have a City Hall that isn't a sustained partner, it's hard to improve, refocus the mission, and expand. It'll need to take a sustained commitment from the city. For better or worse, the pandas seemed like the beginning of that renewed interest.
 
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=13383557&GUID=1E09FAFC-73EB-40B6-A5BF-CC41BC1E12DE

shocking that some of the issues highlighted in the report are of the zoos unwillingness to invest in fixing small maintenance issues- like the lack of running water in Australian Outback exhibit, the drainage issue at Gorillas and the Mandrill night quarters. those should be easy fixes. Why aren't they getting done?
The Prezwalski Horse yard situation is also baffling. They're in a small area of what used to be a large field exhibit for Asiatic hoof stock species (Blackbuck and Muntjac). If the zoo could've spent money fixing the fence around the whole permitter, it would've increased the horses area exponentially.
And the Black Rhino. The yard was divided in two when the rhinos moved in so it could hold 2 rhinos. Right now there's only one but he only has access to one yard. why not give him access to the other as well?
 
Last edited:
NAIB Volunteer said:
The Zoo is to build their panda enclosure at the current lion exhibit at a cost of $8 million. There is no exact timeline on the completion date of the project or when the pandas are due to arrive.

Exclusive sneak peek: San Francisco Zoo's $8M panda home
Click to expand...
How is the SF Zoo going to fund this effort?

Further, all the backlog, maintenance issues and need for new modern age top noch exclosures and exhibits and continues to ignore the woes besetting the SF Zoo ... How much is needed to turn the zoo around?

(Admittedly, NOT under CURRENT management which has shown itself to be wholly inadequate bordering on the incompetent. Something got to give .... SOON!).
 
The render looks surprisingly decent and the price tag looks easy to swallow for a potential donor and may very well pay for itself.

Look, there's a lot of reasons not to do this that I agree with, but as long as the deal seems to be struck, I'm going to play positive. The smart move here would be to use the impending arrival of the pandas -- before they reach the facility -- as the center of a broader investment campaign, drum up as much money as possible now while excitement is still high, and then use it to try to revitalize the zoo while they can. Then make a second big push after the pandas have been around a few months, when the crowds start to ease but before the hype completely cools off. Raise enough money to start getting renovations done elsewhere in the zoo. It's still likely to be challenging, bearing in mind an ape enclosure could cost triple the panda reno cost, but they won't be cash cows forever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top