San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo 2007-2008

These people just dont realize the consequences. Just because you reword something, doesnt make it better. The zoo needs a physical overhaul, not a philosophical one. But I guess without accredidation, it will be easier to close down the zoo.

It looks like animal rights are to become the new priority of the zoo, not welfare...otherwise there would be a push to build new enclosures.

And I hope they realized that it may be necessary to acquire more animals in order to meet the needs of the zoo's current residents. Contrary to a new requirement.

I also hope that the ordinance will require visitors to stricter rules also, if animal welfare is to be a "new" priority.
 
okapikpr,

I am afraid animal welfarists are not interested in a good zoo or the consequences of an animal rescue facility (hell, they do not even care about the funding involved or the extremely curtailed funding compromises involved). That is the real problem here!

They have completely politicised the issue and are non-interested in working with zoo management, zoo staff and its membership to improve the zoo facility or further their already running conservation and education programmes. I do not count these so-called supervisors' on the Council valid experts. They are just as politicised and non-expert on the real issues at hand. To think that you are more knowledgeable than the AZA Accredition Commission. That is not ignorance is bliss, but arrogance over matter.

What really needs to happen is for both the SF Zoo and AZA to finally step on the breaks and call it a "no more from here!" and start effectively using the media and PR/marketing. Their opponents - that is what I call these animal welfarists with their own private agendas - only just to that effectively.

Animal welfarists are not interested in wildlife or habitats or conservation or anything, they are just as orthodox and black/white as your average fascist Stormtrooper. It is high time that zoos and aquaria realise they need to cut out from ever getting involved in these kinds of debates and really giving out official statements by the AZA as soon as it goes out. It is for that lacklustre and trying to be constructive approach that actually makes these animal welfarists take centre stage.

Last but not least: the media have been largely ineffective in communicating the message of the SF Zoo or AZA. I blame them too for often mediahyping and off-hand, non-factual reporting. It is exactly this kind of media that the SF Zoo and AZA need to take by the helm if we are not to continually get into small time debates and non-issues.

For the very fact that animal welfarists maintain an oversight body and non-information from the zoo is really pathetic. The only judicial misconstruction and misinterpretation has been forthcoming from animal welfarists. Under federal law that is illegal and can be judicially combatted as "defamatory" and all.

Really, zoos need to get their judicial houses in order and not accept this public philandering and posturing as real and acceptable, as acceptable to the public it is not.
 
Such a large market in a diverse, wealthy state...

This zoo (or local government) should sort it's s**t out..!
 
I do not agree that the "animal activists" are all not interested in wildlife or conservation. I am not a friend of Peta`s methods and neither do I agree with their goals, but I know that many of their members and those form other groups like IDA ect. really care about animals and this includes their opinion that wild animals should not be held in captivity and that the money spent on zoos should be used for conservation programs in the wild. And while I am not against zoos in general, I do agree that many zoos (incl. S.F.) keep way too many animals in outdated enclosures or -worse- in newly built, expensive enclosures which don`t meet the needs of the animals. And I agree that rather then spending dozends of million of dollar on animal enclosures with lots and lots of mock rock, zoos should dramatically increase their contribution to conservation in the wild.

There are sadly still a lot of things wrong in zoos and that is the reason why the animal activists get the support of the normal people and some politicans when it comes to sending elephants to sanctuaries or now, changing things at the S.F. zoo. The zoos should admit that there are a lot of problems and make animal welfare their priority, and REALLY take action. The AZA should stop their ridiculous policy to just defend what their member zoos are doing and get proactive to make animal welfare a top priority and spend more money into conservation. Then the activists which want to close zoos at all woudln`t have that much opportunities to use the media and to attack the zoos... I havn`t been in S.F., but from what I understand, they would have a lot less problems if they had improved the living conditions for their big cats years ago!! Things at zoos in the western world have undoubtly improved much in the last decades, but I could give you a dozend or more examples where zoos in europe wasted incredible amounts of money to make enclosures "good-looking" for visitors (incl. mass use of mock rock) instead of concentrating in animal welfare. With the result that many other species have to wait in sub-optimal enclosures for many more years until enough funds are secured to takle the next problem... which could have already be financed if the money would be spent more careful.

Many zoos are still "inviting" Peta & friends to target them, a lot of what`s going on is their own fault.
 
Yassa said:
I

Many zoos are still "inviting" Peta & friends to target them, a lot of what`s going on is their own fault.
Click to expand...

When the zoo puts the need for the public to view the animal FIRST and the needs of a animal as optional.
 
sf native, first post

hello group!

i have just found and joined your forum today. seems like a great site and i'm looking forward to negotiating my way around. as an sf native and zoo member i went for this forum first and have just finished reading all the posts in this thread. i have a few things to add in light of comments made, but i am not an expert in anything zoo related aside from loving these animals and caring about their welfare.

i let my membership lapse in 2003 for a few years after the death of one of our lions after giving birth to her first litter of cubs. i felt like there was a death everytime i went and that made me really sad, and kinda mad although at the time i didn't know any of the circumstances. as well i had an issue with the polar bears who i too thought seemed bored and sad.

i have been a renewed member for over a year now and since the birth of our three tiger cubs have been at the very least, a weekly visitor. i have tried to get best in tune with the residents and with what's going on at the zoo, mostly by talking to the animal staff whenever they are about.

the few things i have found out are:

hippo's- unfortunately, we currently have no hippo's as both have passed. i always felt their home was too small for their size, as both fit snug into the pool with what looked like no room to turn around. i would pass by them with only a glance on most occasions as this made me sad.
the last time i saw them in their home was for our boo at the zoo event in 2006 i believe. the staff talked about them and noted they were both in their mid 40s! at that time i said to my friend, its prob better they aren't moved at this stage in their life. little did i know there were plans to renovate their home as part of a new and currently still under construction area. my fear came true as one died while being moved to the temporary home and his mate has recently passed. sad as they had been there my whole life.

i have a similar feeling about our lone seal. orkney is fine in his home. he is a senior resident and is blind. his home is equipped to make him comfortable and help him be familiar with his surroundings to function.
moving him i think would be a mistake and detriment to his life.

polar bears- these bears had made me feel uncomfortable for along time. it was many years ago when i wrote a long letter to the zoo and at that time got several long responses personally addressing my concerns. i expressed that i thought they would like something more than concrete and coincidentally? when i went there soon after, one of the polar bears was in a grassy area and smiling! it made me cry. thankfully today our polar bears (two groups) have their own grotto (with pool) and alternating access to the grotto with grass. ulu our wild rescue who has lived at the zoo almost all of her 27 yrs, is always smiling now! ... staff told me there is plans (pending future fundraisers) to build a new home for the polars much like the grizzly sisters.

chimps- since the lone orang was sent out after its mate passed, the chimps have access to all three primate grottos. they are older, but there is plenty of room for them. all four chimps are late 40s-early50s
and have lived here most their lives after being rescued as pets or performers. one had his own tv show and one was the model for yoda! staff told me there is definite plans for a new chimp exhibit, again pending funds, but prob not in any of their lifetimes. sad, but maybe they like the only home they've known. they seem very happy.

aye-aye's- coincidentally on the day i walked by that gift shop and thought, "what a waste of space" the primate staff told me the plan is to turn that building into a several story nocturnal exhibit. YEAH! i miss our old exhibit and was told we still had our original aye aye (off exhibit) and were getting another.

as for the use of funds, i had a problem with that from an uneducated point of view, which i posed to a staffer in so many words, why use funds to build a new entrance, gift shop, ect. instead of using it for the animals?
answer was that the funds that were given to the zoo by the city came with stipulation that those upgrades were made or they couldn't have the money at all. the old entrance wasn't handicap friendly becuz of the hill.

re the latest crap to surface in the wake of the havoc those two delinquents have wreaked upon the zoo, is that ***** of a proposal to turn the zoo into a rescue only facility. my problem with that was what would happen to residents who called the zoo home for most their life that may not have been rescues? the proposer and his followers proposal made no sense and would have in no way (thankfully it didn't pass) have helped the facility to better itself AND it is already rescue friendly. All our chimps are rescues, at least one polar bear is, the grizzly sisters were set to be euthanized when our zoo stepped in and offered them a home, this stupidvisor didn't know what the hell he was talking about.

ok i think thats enough for a first post and all i can remember to touch on off hand. i'll keep the forum up to date on sfzoo happenings as i get them.
thanks to those of you who have taken an interest in our zoo.

fyi we have a howler monkey and a gorilla both due to give birth at anytime. we have alot of births, so the animals must be happy in some way :) .... i often hope tatiana was reincarnated in one of our tiger cubs and that her spirit lives on at our zoo. RIP

cheers
kim~
 
Thanks for the review of the San Francisco Zoo, and you brought up some excellent points. I visited the zoo in May of 2006 and thought that the "Lemur Forest", "African Savanna" and a few other exhibits were of decent quality. The gorillas are in an awkward location as visitors have to mainly look down upon them, but at least those apes have a lot of space. However, the hippos dying was probably a good thing for them as that hippo "exhibit" is the worst in North America. The polar bear grottoes, big cat house, chimp and monkey cages, old pachyderm paddocks, etc, are all atrocious and my personal opinion is that the zoo should embark on a capital fundraising campaign that needs to raise a few hundred million. Whether or not the animals are all "happy" is tough to decide, but I'd love to see the zoo pull itself out of the gutter because San Francisco is a terrific tourist destination and it's sad that the city has such a disastrous zoo.
 
I hope another gorilla can be used as a surrogate, nursery raising gorillas I think is kinda outdated. If not they could nursery raise for a few months and then send it to another zoo for surrogacy. But I'm sure how many zoos are surrogating other zoos gorillas? I know Columbus could always use another baby! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top