San Francisco Zoo Elephant Habitats at Detroit And San Frasico Zoo

[Kifaru Bwana]

Well allright, I acknowledge you drawing the full local picture and I can say I was well aware the Zoological Society is currently an body independent of City Council.

However, what I am aiming for here is to underline that - from before when the Zoo was part of the SF Municipality to afters - the SF City Council/Municipality has failed the Zoo at all levels, at any one time and at any one opportunity.

It is high time that the citizens of SF take a stand and force its City to do what is right and sound to do and provide the Zoo Society with sufficient funds to move the zoo forward without slapping on all kinds of bills that for the most part have been over and above what the Zoo itself might be able to force through.

The arrears on zoo general buildings and animal exhibits have been accumulated from the years under the SF Municipality management. It seems of arrogance unheard that the SF Municipality now slaps on refurbishing costs it set the Zoo after the tiger incident 2 years back that it failed to put in place when the SF Municipality was in charge. Ofcourse one can continue on to other exhibits that desperately require renovation or total rebuilding from scratch.

In the latter endeavour the SF Municipality might play a far more accomodating role than it does so now - for starters it might waive the Zoo Board from having to pay back this ridiculous mio. refurbishing bill as well as the litigation bill - for which I hold the SF Municipality unduly responsible -. With that out of the way, management would not have to lay off staff or close up exhibits.

Ofcourse this does not disonerate Zoo Management and staff from their own responsibilities. Nor zoo staff from insisting on large pay increases in the current dire clime which puts the future of the entire Zoo at risk. However, lay-offs and closing exhibits is hardly a way forward to improve the long term look out/vision and financial viability of the SF Zoo.

Yet, my question, do the citizines of SF and the larger metro area really wish for their zoo to go extinct? If not, put your money where your mouths are NOW!

 

[reduakari]

Well allright, I acknowledge you drawing the full local picture and I can say I was well aware the Zoological Society is currently an body independent of City Council.

However, what I am aiming for here is to underline that - from before when the Zoo was part of the SF Municipality to afters - the SF City Council/Municipality has failed the Zoo at all levels, at any one time and at any one opportunity.

It is high time that the citizens of SF take a stand and force its City to do what is right and sound to do and provide the Zoo Society with sufficient funds to move the zoo forward without slapping on all kinds of bills that for the most part have been over and above what the Zoo itself might be able to force through.

The arrears on zoo general buildings and animal exhibits have been accumulated from the years under the SF Municipality management. It seems of arrogance unheard that the SF Municipality now slaps on refurbishing costs it set the Zoo after the tiger incident 2 years back that it failed to put in place when the SF Municipality was in charge. Ofcourse one can continue on to other exhibits that desperately require renovation or total rebuilding from scratch.

In the latter endeavour the SF Municipality might play a far more accomodating role than it does so now - for starters it might waive the Zoo Board from having to pay back this ridiculous mio. refurbishing bill as well as the litigation bill - for which I hold the SF Municipality unduly responsible -. With that out of the way, management would not have to lay off staff or close up exhibits.

Ofcourse this does not disonerate Zoo Management and staff from their own responsibilities. Nor zoo staff from insisting on large pay increases in the current dire clime which puts the future of the entire Zoo at risk. However, lay-offs and closing exhibits is hardly a way forward to improve the long term look out/vision and financial viability of the SF Zoo.

Yet, my question, do the citizines of SF and the larger metro area really wish for their zoo to go extinct? If not, put your money where your mouths are NOW!

Unfortunately, there is very little support for the kind of investment that would be required to create the quality Zoo one would expect in a city like San Francisco. One can certainly point to the City's flawed and dysfunctional political "leadership," but the Society and Zoo itself are also greatly to blame. 12 years ago, the public voted to "rebuild the zoo," authorizing $48 million in bonds to make it so. From the beginning, this was an "over-promise" by the Society, as the need far exceeded $48 million. Many of the promised improvements (Great apes, elephants, etc.) never happened, and this has become a huge point of criticism in SF. Of the improvements that were made, only the African Savanna (and to a lesser extent Lemur Forest) are visible examples of progressive zoo thinking, and are themselves flawed. And these improvements did not address the needs of the animals living in the most outmoded conditions at the zoo.

With a modestly-improved Oakland Zoo 15 miles away, a world-class aquarium/terrarium at the California Academy of Sciences 2 miles south, I'm just not sure the public interest exists to create the momentum to build a great San Francisco zoo. And certainly after spending half a billion dollars on the Academy, the wealthy Bay Area may simply lack the financial resources to make it happen, even if it were strongly desired (which I don't think it is).

Sadly, retrenchment and shrinkage may be the only answer to the Zoo's dilemma in today's political and economic climate.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Thanks reduakari,

Your comments are the first I have seen that do reflect the width of realities here. Like I said, - politics asid - the zoo management is certainly not without its flaws and I am not sure whether a lawyer is really the best individual for the Zoo Society to get out of the mire here.

Personally, - as you underlined - I have serious qualms about whether in the current climate a future for SF Zoo exists .... that is when all seem unwilling to make positive moves forward and all are either hell bent on political infighting, fighting personal vendettas or hidden agendas (the animal welfarists and councillors of old before the Zoo Board take-over) or pushing the blame game from their own doorsteps to third parties.

What I would wish for SF zoo management is a committed and impassioned financial director and a zoological director with a shared common vision of what SF Zoo should be, no over-paid staff (even to director's level) and a new voted-in administration more supportive of its cultural entourage and heritage than the present Municipality and Zoo Advisory Board and together built out that vision with less large scale investments and much through in-house development and building rather than large scale overhaul with over-paid outside design and architectural firms (re LA Zoo and redevelopment of its zoo and the mios' $ vs. low output low immersion aspects of their newly designed exhibits).

Suffice, I disagree there is not scope for a city zoo within San Francisco with Oakland Zoo and the Academy on the doorstep. I think they could be all complimentary and ... I WOULD think that Oakland zoo management would perhaps be in a better position to manage the SF Zoo than the current Zoo Board and management (having previous experience of bringing out a low profile zoo with large scale arrears up to state of the art zoo exhibits and design from nowhere). Perhaps a twinning of Oakland and SF Zoo would be a better option. Certainly, I think the strings to the Municipality should be cut alltogether as they play an at best questionable role in the whole SF Zoo affair since yonder years and I feel they are wholly inadequate and unqualified to manage or determine policy on the SF Zoo.

With all the above, I would urge for a full public enquiry into the state of affairs at SF Zoo under Municipality management and the arrears built up by then and the then take-over by the Zoo Board and how those infamous $48 mio. were spent and take it from there with appointment of a new independent Zoo Board and hiring of both a qualified zoological and financial director to head the independent Zoo Management. When outside funding should be required, the Municipality and even the State should pay up its share of malpractice and negligence before the Zoo Board take-over.

 

[gnuzoo]

I agree with Reduakari's assessment of the situation.

I think if the future of the zoo were put before the voters of San Francisco, they would vote to close it. I would hope that the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco are paying close attention when the Zoological Society's lease agreement is up for renewal again (in 3 or 4 years).

The Oakland Zoo is now in a very good position to become the preeminent zoological institution in the Bay Area.

 

[okapikpr]

Before you defend the zoo keepers at the San Francisco Zoo, you should know that 1) they are the highest paid keepers in the United States and 2) are still demanding a big increase in salary in their current labor negotiations despite the fact that other unions in San Francisco and around the state are accepting wage freezes or reductions. Labor costs are the biggest expense that the San Francisco Zoo has so I wouldn't feel too sorry for those keepers.

Just because they may get paid more than other keepers around the country, doesnt mean they get paid a lot. San Francisco is an expensive place to live.