San Diego Zoo Safari Park San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance and downsizing hoofstock

geomorph

geomorph

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
[Note from mods: thread split from here: San Diego Zoo News 2021 [San Diego Zoo]


I "attended" a webinar for donors hosted by San Diego Zoo Global on February 24, 2021. The big news is that the organization is changing its name again, to "San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance", effective March 3, 2021. A new logo for the organization will be a circular one with an African lion at the center and a Southern white rhinoceros and California condor on each side. This change was inspired by a new approach to their in situ conservation programs, which will now be organized into 8 regional hubs consisting of multiple species programs and alliances in each hub (examples of hubs are 'Southwest' and 'Oceans' and 'Australian Forest').
 
Last edited by a moderator:
geomorph said:
I "attended" a webinar for donors hosted by San Diego Zoo Global on February 24, 2021. The big news is that the organization is changing its name again, to "San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance", effective March 3, 2021. A new logo for the organization will be a circular one with an African lion at the center and a Southern white rhinoceros and California condor on each side. This change was inspired by a new approach to their in situ conservation programs, which will now be organized into 8 regional hubs consisting of multiple species programs and alliances in each hub (examples of hubs are 'Southwest' and 'Oceans' and 'Australian Forest').

There was also an update on the Children's Zoo construction: it is still on schedule for a Fall 2021 opening. They mentioned that they are building a 2-story tree which will be fully ADA accessible and will provide great views of a squirrel monkey exhibit. Also mentioned is that there will be a significant amount of invertebrate exhibits in a bug house. The adjacent hummingbird aviary and new Komodo dragon exhibit are still set to open earlier, at the end of May 2021.
Click to expand...

Home page
I just received that email at work regarding their name change and restructuring, I’m very excited to see what new conservation programs or protocols are established with these changes :) I’ll add the link to the website from the email I received.
 
Last edited:
Not very hopeful for the future of the "San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance" and its collections given the new directors of the organization as a whole and the safari are both non-zoo people with more of an eye for business than animal management... Not heard great things coming out of the park as of late.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Not very hopeful for the future of the "San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance" and its collections given the new directors of the organization as a whole and the safari are both non-zoo people with more of an eye for business than animal management... Not heard great things coming out of the park as of late.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
What kind of plans are there?
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I don't know of any plans but it's been posted elsewhere I believe that the park has been "cleaning house" in a way. Downsizing. For example, sending all their remaining Gaur to Bronx. Very bad for the health of many US hoofstock populations.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
So your telling me their idea for better wildlife conservation is to have fewer species for conservation? What is the point of downsizing the world-famous San Diego Zoo? This just looks like a way for them to focus on ABC species instead of the rarer species they are known for. I guess it makes sense if the new directors are focused on business but why would they do this when the organization is nonprofit?
 
Westcoastperson said:
So your telling me their idea for better wildlife conservation is to have fewer species for conservation? What is the point of downsizing the world-famous San Diego Zoo? This just looks like a way for them to focus on ABC species instead of the rarer species they are known for. I guess it makes sense if the new directors are focused on business but why would they do this when the organization is nonprofit?
Click to expand...

Idk what the plan for the conservation side of things are, I've just heard the safari park in particular (which is now run by a woman from the hotel and restaurant industry) is hemorrhaging hoofstock atm... I haven't heard anything about what's going on at the zoo.

~Thylo
 
Westcoastperson said:
So your telling me their idea for better wildlife conservation is to have fewer species for conservation? What is the point of downsizing the world-famous San Diego Zoo? This just looks like a way for them to focus on ABC species instead of the rarer species they are known for. I guess it makes sense if the new directors are focused on business but why would they do this when the organization is nonprofit?
Click to expand...
ThylacineAlive said:
Idk what the plan for the conservation side of things are, I've just heard the safari park in particular (which is now run by a woman from the hotel and restaurant industry) is hemorrhaging hoofstock atm... I haven't heard anything about what's going on at the zoo.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

Because a non profit business is still a business. We can sit here and speculate why they sent one species or another off and brought in another but considering the organization as a whole is one of the most successful in terms of conservation, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of doubt. If you look around the country, you’ll see it’s not unusual for entertainment and travel people getting CEO and President jobs at AZA zoos. They know how to run a business. Usually it is set up where the conservation scientists and experts are still in high positions but the organization is better run by people who have experience in business. At least in my experience, it is not the CEOs who make initial recommendations to get rid of a species. Usually that is the curator’s job. The CEO signs off on it though.
 
Echobeast said:
If you look around the country, you’ll see it’s not unusual for entertainment and travel people getting CEO and President jobs at AZA zoos. They know how to run a business. Usually it is set up where the conservation scientists and experts are still in high positions but the organization is better run by people who have experience in business. At least in my experience, it is not the CEOs who make initial recommendations to get rid of a species. Usually that is the curator’s job. The CEO signs off on it though.
Click to expand...

Not just the country but around the world. In the UK in particular most larger zoos are run by non-zoo people nowadays. In my experience the actual zoo people who operate under them aren't big fans of the change, even if economically it makes sense.

Echobeast said:
We can sit here and speculate why they sent one species or another off and brought in another but considering the organization as a whole is one of the most successful in terms of conservation, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of doubt.
Click to expand...

I agree that the conservation organization will likely be fine and carry on more or less as usual, but I have to note that you are referring to success made by the group's predecessor(s).

~Thylo
 
It certainly seems to be quite controversial, what’s currently going on. I must admit, I like the new name and logo, it’s better than the old one (this is an opinion, feel free to disagree, I just have a soft spot for sleeker designs and fonts). However, from what I’ve heard from ThylacineAlive and others in a bit apprehensive. I don’t have the same level of know-how, as I’ve never been to SDZ or the safari park in person, but I know enough about them that I can contribute to this. On the one hand, downsizing a collection is often a good thing in a lot of modern zoos, as it allows for better and more spacious exhibits and a focus on more vital species, and San Diego should always and has always been striving to be the benchmark of what a zoo should be, a true pioneer, if you will. But, this is San Diego, a zoo that I can say with confidence, despite having never been, is quite possibly the best in the world, and the diverse collection with a focus on rarer and less well known species alongside ABC collection is what it is known for (among other things). Also, I agree that people from other successful businesses in these positions is a good thing, constant collaboration with people who know the collection and the animals better than the back of their had should be a given, but these are just kinda my initial thoughts. I haven’t been following SDZ as much recently, so if I’m wrong feel free to correct me.
 
Echobeast said:
Because a non profit business is still a business. We can sit here and speculate why they sent one species or another off and brought in another but considering the organization as a whole is one of the most successful in terms of conservation, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of doubt. If you look around the country, you’ll see it’s not unusual for entertainment and travel people getting CEO and President jobs at AZA zoos. They know how to run a business. Usually it is set up where the conservation scientists and experts are still in high positions but the organization is better run by people who have experience in business. At least in my experience, it is not the CEOs who make initial recommendations to get rid of a species. Usually that is the curator’s job. The CEO signs off on it though.
Click to expand...
I beg to disagree. Visitors want to see a plethora of different animal species, not a choreographed mini safari with 5 species. This is certainly true of big open spaces like San Diego WAP.
 
I certainly agree - it seems counterintuitive to be famous for one of the biggest species collections and then downsizing it. I have no doubt that they'll still keep a large amount of non-ABCs, but I do hope that their collection nevertheless expands instead of shrinking like it has been for a while.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
I beg to disagree. Visitors want to see a plethora of different animal species, not a choreographed mini safari with 5 species. This is certainly true of big open spaces like San Diego WAP.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree on your point but it wasn’t quite the point I was making in the post. All I’m saying is it’s difficult to put the blame on any one person and that the organization is very large and not every decision is made by the CEO.
 
Paleoarchontas said:
It certainly seems to be quite controversial, what’s currently going on. I must admit, I like the new name and logo, it’s better than the old one (this is an opinion, feel free to disagree, I just have a soft spot for sleeker designs and fonts). However, from what I’ve heard from ThylacineAlive and others in a bit apprehensive. I don’t have the same level of know-how, as I’ve never been to SDZ or the safari park in person, but I know enough about them that I can contribute to this. On the one hand, downsizing a collection is often a good thing in a lot of modern zoos, as it allows for better and more spacious exhibits and a focus on more vital species, and San Diego should always and has always been striving to be the benchmark of what a zoo should be, a true pioneer, if you will. But, this is San Diego, a zoo that I can say with confidence, despite having never been, is quite possibly the best in the world, and the diverse collection with a focus on rarer and less well known species alongside ABC collection is what it is known for (among other things). Also, I agree that people from other successful businesses in these positions is a good thing, constant collaboration with people who know the collection and the animals better than the back of their had should be a given, but these are just kinda my initial thoughts. I haven’t been following SDZ as much recently, so if I’m wrong feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
I agree having a staff with diverse knowledge is great but from what I have seen it appears they are ignoring the rarer species side that is crucial. San Diego Zoo has very minimal space to have larger hoofstock, partially because of their decision to dedicate a large amount of space to Elephants(which isn't a bad thing). But the Safari Park does have space, they have for a long time. They used to have a European watering hole, a Mongolian steppe, and an Asiatic Lion exhibit. Downsizing the Safari Park isn't very necessary, the only reason I could see them getting rid of the Guars is that they are in a part of the park blocked off from visitors and are therefore seen as unnecessary.
 
I'm a bit out of the loop, can someone explain the whole "Getting rid of rarer species" thing?
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I don't know of any plans but it's been posted elsewhere I believe that the park has been "cleaning house" in a way. Downsizing. For example, sending all their remaining Gaur to Bronx. Very bad for the health of many US hoofstock populations.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I thought the park was keeping their Indian Guar?
 
Echobeast said:
I don’t disagree on your point but it wasn’t quite the point I was making in the post. All I’m saying is it’s difficult to put the blame on any one person and that the organization is very large and not every decision is made by the CEO.
Click to expand...

You're certainly correct and it is an important thing to make known. I should clarify myself in that, with my limited knowledge of the situation, the change in top management followed shortly thereafter by the decision to begin phasing out a variety of their more unusual species (which tbf some of which are deadends anyway) when the there has been no change in the curatorial or animal management positions rather implies that there is a directive to streamline the collection.

I would also like to say that, while I find this worrying and I'm disappointed to hear that they've chosen to end their much-needed programs for species like Gaur and possibly Nubian Ibex, I do think that it's necessary to wait and see what happens in the long run.

~Thylo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top