San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo 2007-2008

Whereas I do not know the credentials of the exec. director of SF Zoo that has just resigned, I cannot but ponder the consequences. My first question: who will lead the zoo to better times? Who will have the vision and determination to actually move the zoo forward and secure the funding base it really deserves? Who is this competent communicator that can actually turn the SF Municipality around on a zoo tax or annual substantial support for structural improvements?

That is a lot of whos' in a paragraph, don't you all think! :(

I am not sure if the proposal to break up the zoo and sell off some of the zoo grounds to finance the zoo improvement programme is the way forward either as has been proposed here. It is rather a "tunnel vision" approach to turning the chances of SF Zoo around. That is because it does not confront the underlying issues why the zoo has come to be found in the dire straits it has been in in the last decade.

Only if we pinpoint and start naming these issues, will we be able to come up with a plan to move forward from the abyss ............! :rolleyes:
 
zoos getting better .......

I might be mistaken , but it is my belief that both Audobon Zoo in New Orleans and Zoo Atlanta were both somewhat mediocre before a change of leadership slowly turned these zoos into what they are today .
Does anyone know the leadership of these zoos , and more about how they dealth with the challenges they had to face ?
 
@Nigel: great point in regards to the other zoos. I know that the Humane Society in the United States around 1984 publicly printed a list of the top ten worst zoos in the nation, and that Zoo Atlanta was one of them. The AZA took away the accreditation of the zoo, and Terry Maple took over and basically saved them from the ashes. They eventually were re-accredited a few years later, and tons of cash was raised in the meantime. Corporate sponsers and others helped open a large number of new exhibits (see the ZooLex links on the "Zoo Atlanta" thread) and that zoo went on to become a small, and yet noteworthy establishment in North America. Now in Atlanta they are famous for being one of only 4 U.S. zoos with giant pandas, and also for their large gorilla and orangutan troops.

San Francisco, with the right director and support from the community, could also become a zoo heavyweight. The surrounding population plays a huge role in the success of a zoo, as the Oregon Zoo in Portland can attest to. They now receive 1.5 million visitors per year, and have opened 6 exhibits in the space of about two years. Now this November there will be a vote on a $117 million bond that will further improve the zoo, and the Oregon Zoo has slowly but surely emerged as a fairly decent institution. They have a way to go before being recognized as one of the great zoos, but $117 million will be yet another step in that direction.
 
Don't forget Columbus Zoo as well, the personality of Jack Hanna increased the size and profile of that zoo, although some will debate whether it positive or negative...

San Diego Zoo's first three directors; Harry Wegeforth, Belle Bletchey and Charles Schroder basically dragged that institution from start up to top of the zoo world in 60 years through force of will...
 
All great points, I think. So here's one more: the potential donor base for the SF Zoo is a place popularly known as "Silicon Valley." These folks have the cash....even today
 
Zooplantman said:
All great points, I think. So here's one more: the potential donor base for the SF Zoo is a place popularly known as "Silicon Valley." These folks have the cash....even today
Click to expand...

Not really, the semiconductor industry is currently ranking themselves by who is losing the least money.
 
Ituri said:
Not really, the semiconductor industry is currently ranking themselves by who is losing the least money.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about the industry. The individuals do exist in that area. But they will not bail out a failing facility, I suspect. And until the new Director is on board and the Defense of Animals issue is fought off, no one will come forward. My SF contacts tell me that people there have a certain regard for their city and its culture. I do not believe this zoo will disappear.
 
snowleopard said:
A zoo for the 21st century

Interesting article on the San Francisco Zoo, including the fact that the infamous attack tiger Tatiana was "underweight".
Click to expand...

Another push by animal rights folks (these are Humane Society people and not out-and-out crazy) to attack zoos as being from the Dark Ages and urge them to be animal welfare sites. While I absolutely support that zoo animals must be treated with respect and given all that they can be given, I do think that the realities of the zoo business need to be considered. (I know too many zoo directors to be able to read these broadbrush critiques and be quiet.)

When the public wants zoos to be plush instead of cheap, when they want animals to be at ease instead of easy to see, when they are ready to take personal action and make personal sacrifices to protect animals in situ, when they are ready to financially support zoos and the people who work in them, then zoos will be different places. And the notion that there is a big problem of excess zoo animal births which results in slaughtered babies is just hyperbole! Of course it has happened. But that does not mean it is a major issue in the zoo field.

Sorry, they pissed me off.
 
I understand, zooplantman. The article really shows that the authors have not really looked at the current affairs of zoos or they wrote the article in the 20th century. Much of what the article says, was generally true in the 1980s. The 21st century zoos that they mention really do exist.

And any zoo with healthy tigers, will appear underweight to the uneducated/ignorant guest. They want to see happy plump animals that look much like themselves, instead of fit, athletic animals. Of course a fat and "happy" tiger might not have been able to make that jump.

I also find it interesting that the media so far is trying to put more blame on the zoo with poor nutrition, yet wont make such a big deal when alcohol and pot were found in those boys' systems. I guess an underfed tiger is more likely to eat a visitor, than a stoned teenager doing something stupid.
 
Ecofascist animal-welfarist tunnel-vision! A retirement home? For ... crying out loud! San Franciscans need and deserve a facility at home where they can enjoy wildlife and natural habitats and not be treated with condescending gibberish like this! I am sure that if you ask any SF'ians that most will support putting their money where their mouths are to put the zoo back on sure-footed financial standings and an in-road into the 21st century!

A 21-century zoo is an educational facility with breeding programmes for endangered species and demonstration/interpretation of natural habitats coupled with ex and in situ conservation research and protection programmes.

A challenge to us all - zooplantman, okapikpr and snowleopard: why won't we combine our individual strenghts and write up a realistic plan for San Francisco as a 21st century zoo conservation facility and put it out in the media?

Just pm us! :cool:
 
Not much in plans put forward yet by us ...?
Suggestions welcome!

On another note: the search for a new director has been postponed and Mrs. McVeigh Peterson, a member of the Board of the San Francisco Zoological Society - who runs the facility on behalf of SF Municipality -, has taken over as ad interim. She has already managed to boost the morale of staff which had been at an all-time low during the former director Mr. Mollinedo's tenure. Her task is to put the house in good financial order - her being a member of the fundraising committee -, put the zoo on more firm grounds and confront the issues that plagued the zoo like emergency repairs, chronic lack of maintenance and declining revenues and sub-standard exhibits.

It is still very much crisis mode management and no time yet for long term visions. Encouragingly, most Supervisors on the Recreation and Parks Commission seem opposed to the plan to turn it into an animal rescue facility. Personally, I find the latter both ill-thought out and degrading to all those people including staff and the zoo visitting public who simply would like to see a well-managed 21st century serious conservation zoo inside Greater SF.

What will come in its place is not yet clear.

So, again I ask my US correspondent friends to cooperatively come to a plan that is both realistic in terms of animal collection, professional zoo management, likelihood of sufficient funding and visitor appeal. :cool:


The link is here: Hunt for new S.F. Zoo director on back burner
 
To be honest, the San Francisco Zoo was heading in the right direction before the tiger incident occured and unknowledgeable people to the field of zoo biology stepped in to say the zoo is bad and very wrong.

What is the zoo doing right?
1. They have local conservation efforts setup and in place (ie Bald Eagle reintroduction, Grizzly Bear cornerstone for a new North America region).
2. They have an excellent variety of education programs
3. Event and fundraising facilites built and programs initiated to restart the zoo's future.
4. Active in global conservation efforts (ie Madagascar)
5. Its programs appeared to differ from other local animal institutions (Oakland, Steinhart, etc.)

Most people dont realize that change, especially of a facility, takes time and money. People today are very impatient.

I have ideas for the zoo, like anyone else would for a zoo:
1. Initiate and market more local conservation efforts (ie San Francisco Bay flora/fauna, pinnipeds, state endangered species)
2. Do more to work with and complement nearby zoos/aquariums
3. Dont worry about empty exhibits and close the worst exhibits (Chimp/Orang)

Nearby Oakland Zoo will be receiving Giant Pandas, so I'm sure the zoo is trying to find ways to compete with that. That would be very hard to do, I cant really think of anything short of a whale that could compete with pandas. It may be time for the zoo to wait on the back burner and become complacent with their current collection and programs..at least until the panda craze wears down.

Here's a plan for the zoo
(I dont actually know when Oakland will get Pandas)

Year 1 (2009) Regroup, hire director, maintain collection, open temporary exhibit
Year 2 (2010) Begin expanding local conservation efforts (Oaklands Pandas arrive??)
Construct small animal exhibits for local species
Year 3 (2011) open local species exhibits (near Grizzly Bears)
Construction of Madagascar Gallery
Year 4 (2012) Open Madagascar Gallery
Year 5 (2013) Add new species to collection (no construction, minor renovations)
Year 6 (2014) Create series of special events during year (repeat successful ones)
Year 7 (2015) Temporary exhibit
Year 8 (2016) Add new species to collection, begin construction on new exhibit
Year 9 (2017) continue construction, temporary exhibit, new special events
Year 10 (2018) Open new exhibit

Of course this would be practical if the zoological society does not loose any major lawsuit and does not receive large amounts of public funding. This timeline is very common with smaller zoos or zoos in small communities. While the zoo may not draw large crowds, at least they can draw some.

As for employee moral, it would be wise to probably cut the animal collection (and jobs) to be able to offer better wages and benefits.
 
Thanx okapikpr,

As I observed previously the media have taken on a stance that is hard to deconstruct and demystify. Once, the fly is out of the basket .. some media hungry pundits just seem to jump on the bandwagon. It seems that the picture okapikpr is painting shows a zoo very much at the heart of the SF community. Local outreach programmes, in situ conservation work in Bay area and the Madagascar programme.

It is just sad that these prime examples have not been presented more focally when the Zoological Society and zoo management were under attack from the animal welfarist lobby during the tiger kill incident.

I will be looking myself more closely at the animal collection of SF Zoo this weekend and hope to add on to okapikpr's comments. I would like the zoo concentrate - as okapikpr already posted - to more native species programmes both ex situ and in situ, expand the Madagascar component of the zoo and several further world cornerstone exhibits that compliment its animal collection.

Perhaps difficult choices will have to be made and I am convinced that it is not entirely a bad thing to phase out some high interest species in order to demolish some exhibits and provide more suitable living spaces for the animal collection SF Zoo wishes to focus on. Perhaps sent out some great apes, some big carnivores (I would f.i. want to hold on to the snow leopards and tigers and make these into a focal point for Siberian-Himalayan conservation). I do think it is imperative that in the next 1-2 years SF Zoo will open a new project showcasing a particular habitat type/ecosystem (zoos do require - a marketing and PR gem - new exhibits every 2-3 years to be able to continue to tie in local visitors and the general public back to the zoo.

But I will try to look into the matter on the weekend ... :cool:
 
High interest news (I wanted to post this beyond my earlier expose)!!!

At SF Zoo the first aye-aye born to captive-bred and reared parents has been born. It is a world first as little is actually known regarding its ecology or reproductive biology.

It is assumed that the poor record of captive-bred aye-ayes is due in part to the fact that males seem to copulate at a young age with their mothers in order to gain reproductive experience. Furthermore, it seems more individuals seem to be involved in pre-copulatory breeding behaviour that actually stimulates both partners to mate.

Most aye-ayes are currently held in pair situations - and apart from the wild borns at Duke who do procreate - and that seems less conducive to breeding to occur.

In European zoos only Jersey and Bristol have bred the species.
 
Great news about the Aye-Aye!

As for the zoo's animal collection...it's strength is of Asian and Australian species. The zoo was expanding its African collection at the turn of the millenium, but it may be wise to just maintain the African species it exhibits. Also, every zoo should exhibit and support/operate programs of its local species. I always thought that is was important to understand your home, before venturing beyond it.

San Francisco has a good collection...before they consider new species/programs...they need to build on their strengths first (Rhinos, Koala, Felids, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top