Tiger births are a positive thing, for sure. But weighed against the City Commission that is recommending the zoo "transition to being an animal rescue facility," the Zoo's Director opting to vacation in Africa for a month so soon after all the terrible events, and a good look at the wildly hideous "Grizzly Gulch" exhibit, the scales are still tipped way into the negative zone, I'm afraid. San Francisco is a city that should have a great zoo--but at this point even a reasonable zoo seems a long way off.
San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo 2007-2008
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
The issue with San Francisco Zoo is REALLY it has a Municipality with NO VISION at all!
Besides if you do not tap in any funds into the zoo, you should not be surprised that you will have a dilapidated zoo.An animal rescue center ....? Are these city councilors for real? If this kind of policy is opted for the entire state of California you should not be suprised that shortly we would have no wildlife left, just ordinary pe(s)ts!
Anyway, why involve a city council in the zoo's affairs, when AZA accreditors are much better at doing this job. Besides they can be better advisors as to where San Francisco Zoo should be heading in terms of faunal presentations, its educational and conservation programmes. The Zoo should be seen to portray a positive engagement for the local community.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Is it surprising that politicians respond to the loudest critics and propose that the zoo, as such, be eliminated? There are several powerful private interests pushing for that. But I am oddly confident that the public will is for a better zoo rather than an over-sized shelter. The residents of SF tend to think very highly or their public facilities. Will the citizens agree to fund such a "rescue facility" and lose their zoo? I suppose the neighboring city of Oakland would be pleased.
We will have a better picture after the zoo committee that reviewed the facility (prominent AZA Curators, Directors and Architect) releases a report and we see what reaction it generates.
I have been bashing San Francisco Zoo on here for a while now, but at the same time I've commended it for a handful of decent exhibits.
@reduakari: last year's brand-new "Grizzly Gulch" enclosure looks OK from photos, and is a massive improvement on the bear pit that the zoo has had since who knows when. I believe that the grizzlies simply had their exhibit extended from "the pit", but why don't you like the new exhibit? I think it cost in the neighbourhood of $2 million...
@reduakari: last year's brand-new "Grizzly Gulch" enclosure looks OK from photos, and is a massive improvement on the bear pit that the zoo has had since who knows when. I believe that the grizzlies simply had their exhibit extended from "the pit", but why don't you like the new exhibit? I think it cost in the neighbourhood of $2 million...
Snow Leopard:
I may have been a bit too harsh in my assessment of Grizzly Gulch, particularly given the relatively low cost of the exhibit and the order of magnitude improvement it represents over the pre-existing concrete grotto.
However, I still think the basic impression one gets as a visitor is of bears living in a prison exercise yard. Shiny, over-engineered steel fencing with very visible hotwires rings the space, with almost no attempt to soften the look with vegetation or earth berms. "Flintstone"-like bad rockwork viewing portals and heavy-handed concrete underwater viewing areas--just plain ugly. And, the re-use of a pre-existing rock pile (formerly for aoudads) with the addition of a waterfall coming from the very top--recapitulates one of my pet peeves--why must every zoo waterfall illogically emanate from the highest point in the landscape?
Now, for the animals this is a very good enclosure (space, substrate, plants, water, shelter). But aesthetics are important too, and in this regard the exhibit fails. It was supposedly "inspired by" Woodland Park's Northern Trail bear habitat, which is inarguably one of the finest zoo exhibits ever built. It falls well short of the mark. SF deserves better.
I may have been a bit too harsh in my assessment of Grizzly Gulch, particularly given the relatively low cost of the exhibit and the order of magnitude improvement it represents over the pre-existing concrete grotto.
However, I still think the basic impression one gets as a visitor is of bears living in a prison exercise yard. Shiny, over-engineered steel fencing with very visible hotwires rings the space, with almost no attempt to soften the look with vegetation or earth berms. "Flintstone"-like bad rockwork viewing portals and heavy-handed concrete underwater viewing areas--just plain ugly. And, the re-use of a pre-existing rock pile (formerly for aoudads) with the addition of a waterfall coming from the very top--recapitulates one of my pet peeves--why must every zoo waterfall illogically emanate from the highest point in the landscape?
Now, for the animals this is a very good enclosure (space, substrate, plants, water, shelter). But aesthetics are important too, and in this regard the exhibit fails. It was supposedly "inspired by" Woodland Park's Northern Trail bear habitat, which is inarguably one of the finest zoo exhibits ever built. It falls well short of the mark. SF deserves better.
Aye-ayes are to be focus of a total renovation of the existing Primate Discovery Center--this is not yet funded however. It really needs to happen--PDC was a terrible mistake, only partially corrected by adding the adjacent Lemur Forest. Much of the PDC has been rendered useless--salt water corrosion affecting the steel structure, etc. Which is just as well--this 1985 project was 20 years outdated the year it opened.
I heard they were getting a breeding pair form Duke
I heard they were getting a breeding pair form Duke
The Zoo recently updated its Master Plan, and it calls for a new Orang/Siamang exhibit as part of a future Tropical Asia zone roughly located where the old "African Scene" and large cat grottos are now. Chimps have been removed from the collection plan.
Of course all bets are off right now with the turmoil surrounding the zoo after the terrible tiger incident on Xmas day. Funding, organizational structure, current senior management are all wild cards for the time being.
Of course all bets are off right now with the turmoil surrounding the zoo after the terrible tiger incident on Xmas day. Funding, organizational structure, current senior management are all wild cards for the time being.
Some of the worst enclosures at the zoo are the lion and tiger pits, the polar bear pit, the seal pool which is the equivalent of a large bathtub, and the tapir and empty elephant exhibits. But the one that takes first prize is the hippo exhibit...atrocious.
Kiang:
Giant eland were obtained last year, I believe from LA Zoo. At least one animal died (gored by another male) while in quarantine at SF Zoo. Just another in a sequence of bad news events for this institution that sorely needs some positive press. Renovations to the old zebra and giraffe area (for eland), and to the old hippo and rhino exhibits, were both delayed due to contractor disputes as of December. Don't know what's happened since then.
Giant eland were obtained last year, I believe from LA Zoo. At least one animal died (gored by another male) while in quarantine at SF Zoo. Just another in a sequence of bad news events for this institution that sorely needs some positive press. Renovations to the old zebra and giraffe area (for eland), and to the old hippo and rhino exhibits, were both delayed due to contractor disputes as of December. Don't know what's happened since then.
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Any updates/link on this..?
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I have heard no more about what that group reported. They were convened, I believe, by the Zoo for large scale reecommendations.
But the AZA's review commitee issued their mixed report two weeks ago: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2008/03/19/ba_2008finaccrcommsfzoo2.pdf
But the AZA's review commitee issued their mixed report two weeks ago: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2008/03/19/ba_2008finaccrcommsfzoo2.pdf
The AZA review committee and the Barongi et al team are 2 different teams then with different remits and scopes? I am correct in that the AZA review was concurrent to the carnivore exhibits only and that the Barongi team did look at what a potential collection and masterplan for San Francisco would be suitable?
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
It is my understanding from press reports that yes, the AZA report was limited to the Dec 25, 07 incident
The other team was looking at the present condition of the entire zoo. I trust theirs was not a Master Planning project as such (there is the relatively new Master Plan already), but rather to give recommendations on the overall state of the zoo with an eye towards safety and animal well-being. More of a triage thing.
Zooplantman,
Perhaps you can share with us some of the details of the new Masterplan. It should be noteworthy which way the zoo management is currently alreadly looking forward to?
What is this about pending renovation works on rhinos and other wild animals at San Francisco that were suspended due to disputes with contractors? Can you give us a report on that too?
Thanx,
Jelle
Perhaps you can share with us some of the details of the new Masterplan. It should be noteworthy which way the zoo management is currently alreadly looking forward to?
What is this about pending renovation works on rhinos and other wild animals at San Francisco that were suspended due to disputes with contractors? Can you give us a report on that too?
Thanx,
Jelle
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
No, sorry, I have no info. I Googled to no avail. I checked the website of the firm that prepared it, to no avail
No, the giant eland are to be exhibited in a renovation of the OLD "African Scene" exhibit at the Zoo, which was emptied when the African Savanna opened in 2004. Interestingly, the areas for zebras, ostrich, common eland and giraffe (the old African exhibits) were relatively acceptable, certainly in comparison to the very outmoded great ape, bear and cat enclosures elsewhere in the Zoo. The decision to focus funding on new spaces for African hoofstock and lemurs, as well as many "amenities" like a new entrance and education building, has opened the zoo up to significant criticism, as the bond funds were sold to voters as a way to remedy the poor conditions for many of the zoo's animals (elephants, big cats, apes, and bears among them).
Trivia: for a period in the early 70s the SF Zoo exhibited a lone okapi together with a small herd of giraffes in the "African Scene." Weird....
Trivia: for a period in the early 70s the SF Zoo exhibited a lone okapi together with a small herd of giraffes in the "African Scene." Weird....