A year, really? For how all their construction projects continue to go I'm not sure if that's fantasy or delusion. Though I might have to say delusion when their solution to declining attendance is bringing in the most expensive animal possible.
San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo News 2025
- Thread starter NAIB Volunteer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- san francisco zoo
A year, really? For how all their construction projects continue to go I'm not sure if that's fantasy or delusion. Though I might have to say delusion when their solution to declining attendance is bringing in the most expensive animal possible.
Another Gorilla’s Tragic Death at the San Francisco Zoo - Animals Around The Globe says Oscar Jonesy, a 43-year-old silverback gorilla, has died at the San Francisco Zoo after a medical procedure.
Already reported on the previous page.
CEO Tanya Peterson could be getting the boot as soon as next week. A meeting will be held discussing her potential termination of employment at the Zoo.
Trouble at San Francisco Zoo Could Soon Lead to CEO’s Removal | KQED
Trouble at San Francisco Zoo Could Soon Lead to CEO’s Removal | KQED
So the director announced that the chair of her board, who she is fighting with, resigned, when she didn't resign...that sounds...typically SF Zoo messed up...
Is it possible that the SF Zoo is cursed somehow like the Defense Against the Dark Arts professorship at Hogwarts? Every director seems to get snagged in scandal and leave the zoo worse off than they found it...has anybody seen Voldemort wandering around that zoo?
I hope she does get the boot. She has quite sufficiently demonstrated her way of running the zoo is not working. There are problems left and right and she has lost the support of her own staff. Hopefully they will remove her and find someone with actual zoo experience this time. The zoo desperately needs a new hand at the helm.
David, the way I understand this and interpret the journo feature is that the CEO Tanya Petterson has tried very hard to have the Board Chair Mrs. Dunn removed and tender in her resignation after calling an early vote at the next Board meeting of with as top of their agenda the role and competency of their CEO at the helm since she came to be at the zoo. She (Board Chair) - Dunn - however never did never formally tender her resignation and decided not to stay in her function as Board Chair. Period!
@Milwaukee Man, thanks for posting and Yes @Great Argus ... it would be both timely that their current CEO - who I now even detest to name (did You note the garments she wore at a public affair in 2011..., I really hope zoo directors' not normally present themselves in that kind of attire....ever) - would FINALLY get the boot. Her 17-year reign has been a complete disaster and was exemplified by major decisions demonstrating that a litigator/attorney is not the best choice for zoo director/CEO of a zoological facility like the SF Zoo. She has a long list of past personnel on her hits list, damaged almost beyond complete repair of zoo staff and personnel in her reign, failures to direct to provide due animal care and welfare and actually overseeing and promoting active disvestment in the zoo and the final death knell being her failure to oversee/complete any important zoo animal projects (while leaving major projects as unfinished .... and others when animals pass away stick in inept surrogates) and ander-management of the zoo animal collection and exhibitry.
Last edited:
Who would you hire?
I do not have anyone specific in mind, however I dare say it would not be hard to find a better pick. Ideally someone with proven success in the zoo field will be put at the helm, that will actually start getting things in shape. I don't want to get too far ahead as Petersen has yet to be ousted.
Though now would be a really good time to seek change, they have a bit over a year before the AZA accreditation commitee returns. Seeing as the last couple of cycles have seen several facilities lose accreditation over outdated and/or deteriorating infrastructure, the zoo may find itself in a bit of a tough spot. Very little has changed over the years, and they have plenty of equipment faults and accidents to their name. They've gotten by so far, but their relative lack of improvements and upgrades will come back to bite them sooner or later...
What? Are we talking about something like wearing furs or something "not professional"? This really threw me for a loop.
The zoo could use a new hand at the helm as has been said, but it also feels like a very poisoned chalice. It would be easy to say San Francisco needs a visionary, but the next director will probably be spending more time funding maintenance and repairs than building new exhibits. I hope there is someone who is up to the task but I worry a lot of potential talent won't want to be saddled with a clean-up job.
Easier said than done. Seeing how the zoo has struggled to gain support even for relatively basic improvements, rebuilding the whole place from the ground up is a non-starter. Sacramento spent the last six years trying to do exactly that and it was all for naught.
Can it just be assumed that California is too anti zoo to be smart about things?
Or is that unfair? I'll admit I have a negative stereotype about the state so I want a second opinion
peruvianbirdie
Well-Known Member
I’ll also add Canada as well.
No, you cannot assume that. You could not be more wrong. California has some of the best zoos in the world and they are well-supported.
It's tempting to say this, I can see where you're coming from, but I think there is a lot of nuance, some of which we might not understand. For example, Brookfield and Lincoln Park here in Chicago have sometimes had to compete for donors and funding, and donations to Lincoln Park were often viewed as a way to help urban children and city folk experience nature, while donations to Brookfield tend to be more characterized by wildlife conservation and educational programs. I don't think you cam copy and paste this over California but that state has a lot of major zoos and beyond.
It's also good to remember both San Diego parks are also in California, as are Fresno and Oakland which while not beloved seem well-liked on Zoochat. This both proves California can do and support great zoos but also - there is a lit of competition. Some may feel San Diego will put the money to "better use" than so and so.
In particular, San Franscisco and Los Angeles have large populations and seem to have multiple non-zoo financial challenges that no doubt may make it look "tone deaf" to donate money to unseen infrastructure improvements when many would say it could instead go to say, wildfire recovery, or helping local pet issues. Local support is very critical. Brookfield was financially challenged on similar terms during the recession, which not only killed the plans for a new elephant complex following Great Bear Wilderness but also lead to the zoo sending out a number of species.
No it can’t. Yes San Francisco and Los Angeles have struggled in recent years, but zoos like San Diego, Oakland, Fresno, Santa Barbara and the Living Desert have very strong community support. What’s far more likely is that these facilities are held back by the poor management and funding from their city backers. The other zoos and aquariums in California have the advantage of either being privately operated or located in City’s where they are one of the largest tourist attractions. Those smaller cities have more time and resources to focus on their zoos, whereas San Francisco and Los Angeles have much more to deal with. Couple that with both cities having vast financial issues. Either way, other zoos and aquariums in California have proven it is possible to have strong community support, Los Angeles and San Francisco are the exception, not the rule.
Edit: Cross-post with @JVM
100% agree.
San Diego, Oakland and Fresno don't have a lot going on besides their zoos, so they've become big tourist attractions and the public has invested in them. They also benefit from better leadership. San Francisco has a plethora of tourist attractions, especially museums, and the Zoo is not in the top 10.
San Francisco voters passed a bond funding for the zoo back in the 90's (I think it was called prop Z) to rebuild and update animal exhibits. A substantial amount of the funds went to constructing buildings for human use (new entrance village, restaurants, banquet halls etc) and besides the Lemur forest, African savannah and Aviary, not much was spent on improving animal exhibits and so the zoo was seen has having misused/misappropriated the funds. Since then, there's been a lack of trust between the city government and the zoo. Public perception hasn't helped either as the zoo has contended with quite a few controversies over the last 2 decades. Unfortunately the current director has been so bad, that she's scared off plenty of highly experienced longtime employees including a few who could've potentially gone on to eventually be director.
And the result of two meetings is - indecision. Which resulted in a board member resigning. How far do we have to stoop before making a change...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...ontinues-no-consensus-leadership-20342893.php
Multiple board members, incoming its chair, have resigned.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-zoo-ceo-remains-power-leader-attempted-20350320.php
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/s-f-zoo-ceo-remains-power-leader-attempted-20350320.php