Terry Maple is being called in to consult on fixing the San Francisco Zoo. This may be the best news for the SF Zoo in years. He explicitly talks about building a better gorilla habitat in the article. Hopefully good things will come from this, but he has a major task ahead... S.F. Zoo turns to consultant for habitat vision - SFGate
That is certainly wonderful news, but the only perplexing section of the article is Terry Maple's continued fixation on gorillas. There are far worse exhibits at the zoo than the nearly one-acre gorilla complex, and I'd rather he focused on the other primates, bears, cats, hoofstock, pachyderms, etc, rather than what is a more then acceptable great ape habitat. The list of poor exhibits is lengthy as San Francisco Zoo is definitely packed with outdated enclosures.
@snowleopard: Agree. Specially the smaller primates and the pachyderms need new and better exhibits. And I think that Maple should think about the return of (Asian) elephants (Sorry, as we can see, Aye-Ayes are not that popular then elephants are). Of course there is not that much space in SF Zoo, but I guess that it is possible to find a "corner" (the triangle between Puente al Sur, Bear Country and Cat Kingdom maybe) where a - at least acceptable - elephant exhibit can be built (maybe just for two or three non-breeding cows or young bulls). Top it with controlled feeding thru visitors (as some European zoos does) or maybe elephant back riding (if old cows are suited/qualified for that). I'm sure that it would bring a lot of people back to the zoo.
All elephant rides are going to be banned in 2014 in AZA zoos (http://www.zoochat.com/22/new-regulations-could-end-all-elephant-231984/). And I only think that the Indianapolis Zoo and Syracuse Zoo alows the public to have contact with their elephants.
Terry Maple is a brilliant zoo leader, as shown by the 2 zoos he's already turned around, so this is great news for this zoo. I would agree with SnowLeopard above that the SF Zoo's gorilla habitat is not that bad, and thus it should NOT be the zoo's #1 priority.
Thank you. Don't knew that. Although I can understand those regulations because elephants are potentially dangerous, I must also mention that I can't remember an accident who an elephant was attacking a riding visitor. At least at Kinderzoo Rapperswil in Switzerland (founded by the Circus family Knie) elephant back riding is happen since decades without any accidents. Just luck?
My read of the article was that gorillas were raised as a (simple) retrofit...some smallish alterations and improvements... not as the priority for new exhibit. Taking the most acceptable exhibits and improving them noticeably at small expense would be a sensible, immediate improvement for animals and visitors. From this donations come...
I don't know if I would agree with that statement given that both of those zoos were not doing well financially when he left. He was able to exercise a lot at Atlanta given the public money that was available to renovate the zoo. When he left, the place was several million dollars in debt. Palm Beach was not in trouble when he became director and the zoo's condition isn't much better than when he started. Mr. Maple doesn't seem to be much of a fundraiser - funding is necessary to turn around a zoo's condition. And his ideas won't be worth much at all, if the funding cannot be found to implement them.
You may be right about the Atlanta and Palm Beach financial situations, but I think you have to give Maple great credit for his transformation of the Atlanta Zoo from a third-world quality zoo into a zoo with a reputation for excellence. I'm not familiar with the Palm Beach Zoo so can't comment on what he did there. Maples' work at the Atlanta Zoo is one of the great turn-arounds in modern zoo history. You are definitely right about SF not really doing crap if they don't have the money to actually perform. History shows that even when they did have money they didn't do much to fix the worst part of the zoo, which unfortunately is most of the zoo. They have gone through multiple master plans that were designed to fix the zoo and most of the problems are still there. As others have pointed out, the gorilla exhibit is not the worst problem the zoo has by far, so hopefully history won't repeat itself for the umpteenth time and lead to more cosmetic changes while the majority of the zoo rots without any real fix.
Terry Maple could be the individual to turn the mindset on SF Zoo around given his trackrecord. At the moment the SF Zoo is in a status quo situation where no fundamental decisions are made, nor where anything much / constructive is being done in terms of renovation of current buildings (which is the short term retrofit track) and the long term aim of realising some of the plans put forward in the previously publicised masterplans. I assume / expect the current (interim) CEO - who is a barrister by trade (correct me if my memory serves me wrong here please) - continues in her capacity to fill in the organisational / operational side of zoo management and overseeing the - much needed - securement of sufficient investment funding and more financial legroom for the SF zoo as an entity (whether inside Municpality or in a Zoo Society capacity is pretty irrelevant). What are the issues with SF Zoo: A) a largely unhelpful Council that is fraught in political in-fighting and posturing, has mind boggling overly bureacratic decision making processes in place and IMO should NEVER have any say in the day-to-day running of an animal management facility. The SF Zoo may continue within the framewark of the SF Municipality but with operational and zoological management with the SF Zoo itself and Council ONLY in a facilitating role of providing the vehicle / instruments that enable the SF Zoo to operate both functionally and financially. B) a largely unsympathetic and vehemently critical press that is overbearing on / breathing heavily on the zoo in singular incidents and has been the major culprit of creating a rather seriously negative psyche and atmosphere in which the SF Zoo has to operate. This is exemplified by the fact that very little if any positive news - and there is some to report - is put out in the media or even being highlighted. In this atmosphere the animal welfare brigade / anti zoo movement and assorted celebrity critics have been allowed to ride it high and abuse / misuse the stalemate situation to satisfy their own political and / or hidden agendas. What needs to be done: someone to drive that machine in motion on actually fundamentally renovating exhibitry and / or creating new exhibits for the present assemblage of species within its collection. Masterplans and collection plans - I assume - are still relevant here. Terry Maple can be that individual that bowls out the stale mate and in recreating a more vibrant atmosphere around the SF Zoo. I agree with some of the posters that rather than the gorillas, the main priorities are pachyderms, carnivores, hoofstock collection, the primates (excluding the great apes) and bears. The suggestion that SF Zoo should get back into elephants seems a rather undesirable course of action to follow (now would we wish every other zoo on US territory to build mega elephant exhibits at the expense of other - quite frequently - more deserving species or even entire genii / fyla groupings … I think definitely not). SF Zoo has a sufficient number of iconic and / or mega vertebrate species to fill these accolades quite nicely. In terms of press: perhaps SF Zoo should start to hammer out its own press more effectively and bring out the positives to the general public. If that not be through the local SF media than tough riddance .. get the nationals or local air stations on board! SF Zoo needs to be by far more combative towards all the negative and agenda driven press and grab the bull(s) by the horns .. so to speak. Perhaps it could look to LA Zoo for advice on that one … (and not just vis a vis their - animal welfarist driven ballony discussion on their new elephant habitat - !!!
When Maple arrived in Atlanta, their zoo was regularly ranked (in media articles and by the Humane Society) as one of the ten worst zoos in America. When he left, Zoo Atlanta was highly respected. The city had hosted the Summer Olympics and the Zoo received a lot of praise from the world's visitors. As for Palm Beach, no, they're not yet among the nation's greatest zoos, but their 3-acre Tropics of the Americas is world-class, with its tall Mayan pyramid, and their Florida Wetlands exhibit is almost as good.
I tend to agree with almost everything our respected friend, Kifaru, has said above. I would further suggest that we should now utterly IGNORE any of the criticism coming from the so-called "animal rights" crowd. I know this may be hard to do in San Francisco, one of America's most political cities. But as these hypocritical radicals have shown in LA, they are not about caring for animals -- they only care about their clear political agenda, which is to close down all zoos. Also, another reason why the SF Zoo should NOT concentrate on elephants is because the nearby Oakland Zoo already has a great elephant exhibit. One thing that zoos should do, when seeking to improve themselves, is to look at the other zoos in close proximity and what are their strengths. They should then, I believe, build strengths in other areas and not simply repeat what is already being done nearby. I would suggest that maybe San Francisco should concentrate on rhinos or hippos -- maybe build a great underwater hippo exhibit.
@KifaruBwana and ANyhuis: I am agree with all you guys wrote about the animal rights activists. Also, I can't refute some of your arguments against the return of elephants to SF Zoo and I'm agree not EVERY zoo must have elephants. But as you both know, there are some animals common zoo visitors expecting in a bigger/metropolitan zoo like apes, big cats, big bears, rhinos, hippos, giraffes AND... elephants. Even in Frankfurt (GER), where the last elephant has left the zoo decades ago, some people still asking about them (and are disappointed not seeing them).! This has value specially when a "competing" zoo is close by (Look at Germany with Muenster and Osnabrueck, Krefeld and Duisburg, Zurich and Rapperswil in Switzerland or at Texas with Dallas and Fort Worth etc.). The main point at SF Zoo is, that - in kind of attractivity - the elephants were not replaced equivalent. So I say: Okay, it don't have to be elephants, but a NEW animal attraction that came frome the same league is needed (I have my doubts that a new "packaging" for hippos alone does solve the problems, also because this could be as expensive as a new elephant habitat).
While Atlanta is certainly respected and a nice zoo, they were in a budget crisis when Maple left. Palm Beach had already built Florida Wetlands and Tropics of the Americas before Maple arrived. Maple spent a lot of time designing and building a large, new animal hospital that is awesome, but from what I understand is very underutilized given the zoo's collection and budget issues. I'm not saying that Maple's ideas are horrible and bad, but he seems to have a problem with being realistic and sustainable.
Your criticisms of Maple don't seem to be relevant to the San Francisco situation gerenuk, in that according to the article it sounds like Maple is being asked to consult on exhibit planning and design, not on the financial condition of the zoo. They have a businesswoman lawyer as a zoo director who is presumably competent at the budget end of things. I don't think you are giving Maple enough credit for what he did for Zoo Atlanta which was design some great exhibits (for the time at least) and get them funded and built, rebuilding and replacing a horrible zoo. San Francisco Zoo is likely in much better shape than the pre-Maple Atlanta Zoo was, but they nonetheless very much need the kind of design experience and operational know-how that Maple has to fix their problems, in combination with someone who knows how to raise and spend money competently.
They're all related obviously, but I still don't see why you are criticizing Terry Maple for his financial abilities when it sounds like he will not be involved in the financial aspect of the zoo. Why do you think that the SF Zoo is making an error bringing him in to consult on improving exhibits?
I have not previously said that is a wrong move on San Francisco's part to bring in Terry Maple. Though I certainly disagree with certain opinions about Maple's work at other zoos, and I pointed out a few discrepancies with his record - particularly where he has been given credit for things he didn't do at the Palm Beach Zoo. Maple's financial record is a result from his abilities to improve exhibits and re-organize operations. Giant Pandas at Zoo Atlanta nearly put the zoo in bankruptcy. And Maple's animal hospital at the Palm Beach Zoo would be great in a large zoo or at least a zoo that could support a large research department - however the zoo cannot seem to financially support the facility and much of it goes unused. Maple is also big on bringing in PhD's as administrators - something that tends to cost more, but is not sustainable if the zoo is not financially sound. I have yet to see anything to show that San Francisco Zoo is bouncing back financially. The world we live in today seems to favor fiscal responsibility and sustainability, and San Francisco doesn't seem to exempt its zoo from this. I understand a zoo needs a vision to often bring in donors. But at both Zoo Atlanta and Palm Beach Zoo, Maple's vision has led to financial difficulties.
There is also the reasonable possibility that from both his successes and his failures he has learned and his present performance as a consultant cannot be predicted based on his past performance as a zoo director (for ZooAtlanta) as much as a decade ago. Besides, from this skimpy article we have no idea what he has been asked to do exactly. I should think that for all the SFZoo has been criticized, any expert help would be welcomed rather than "armchair quarterback-ed." in advance.
