The new director of the San Francisco Zoo is a former lawyer from a computer company. Hopefully she can do some good there, but the article does not fill me with hope. It says that the zoo's priorities are a South American exhibit and a children's playground. How about some new ape, bear, and big cat exhibits to replace your third-world quality facilities?! Lawyer leading S.F. Zoo back from dark chapter | Full Page What do people see as the end game for the San Francisco Zoo? Is it going to lose its AZA accreditation at some point? If that happens, will it become a glorified animal shelter for a population of old animals until they all die and the zoo shuts down?
She would make a good financial business side director, not a zoological one. I have seen the same mistake being made here ... on the European continent. It is called lack of vision and/or contacts to foster change as a zoo is more or less a collection of zoological content. I do not think a lawyer cum computer literate is the right qualification for that job.
It sounds like she has done some good work there. I know that there are good and competent people there. Unfortunately this zoo's problems are vast and unending, and many people have tried and failed to fix them. Here's hoping that she can lead real and lasting change.
i seriously think that us zoochatters should come together and by the San Francisco Zoo. It has so much potential, but it is just not being realised . . .
Like I said she is probably a good business person. What needs to happen out there is better and more accurate press coverage and the issue of "not being a great zoo" will rectify itself. Seriously, they NEED the cash to create better animal environments for some of the backlog, not to have some cuddly toy animal eventism ... Some of the exhibits that are in dire need have already been mentioned and what the current plans are is certainly not among them. Hence, my quip that she may not be so good for the zoological management side of things.
There are some realities to consider: When the previous administration of the zoo imploded, she was the only one to step up and accept the responsibilities of leadership. After the previous administration, the zoo may in fact need a conservative, make-no-blunders sort of leader for a period. If not her then who? Do we believe great potential zoo leaders are lining up to accept responsibility for this zoo? Look at the history of zoo leadership. There are many "interim" leaders who guide a zoo for some years until the zoo is in a position to take on a leader with vision and skill... and until such a leader can be found who wants the job. San Francisco is a rather particular community. Potential doners there have other interests. It will not be easy for the zoo to get their attention. If the zoo can be kept alive (a BIG question two years ago!) then it will live to fight another day. This director may not be what you feel a director ought to be, but she appears to be the director this zoo needs and is able to have today. The "new" director had to be able to pull the existing staff together, make the zoo attractive to new staff, keep the Board and potential doners feeling that the zoo had a future, all the while trying to raise funds to improve the zoo and keep visitors coming in. Not an enviable agenda! Has she failed??? The previous director came to the SFZoo at a time when they were looking for a star to turn things around. Sadly, that did not work out. Perhaps a different, more low key approach will have better results.
I think that zoo directors can come from many places. There are fantastic zoo directors that were exhibit designers, park commissioners, etc. My criticism of the San Francisco Zoo is that they have had DECADES of mismanagement and neglect that has now resulted in the worst zoo accident in modern memory. There were plans to build new ape and elephants in the early 1990s that never got funded. When the zoo DID get massive funding they used it to build a large African savanna exhibit, that while very nice looking, did NOTHING to address the critical needs that they really should have invested in (i.e., replacing their truly primitive and s****y elephant, rhino, hippo, big cat, bear, primate, great ape exhibits, aviary, etc, etc, etc.) Their giraffe exhibit wasn't great, but it certainly wasn't in the desperate shape that much of the rest of the zoo is. I don't know whose fault this was, ultimately I guess the city of San Francisco, because they weren't demanding the high quality zoo that they were spending lots of money supposedly rebuilding. I wish the new director luck and I truly hope that she is able to turn the place around. Manuel Molliendo was a great zoo director, at least down here in LA. He did not have a zoo background, but did great work in fixing a broken zoo. Unfortunately it seems that SF Zoo was so fundamentally broken that his best efforts couldn't fix it. There were others before him who no doubt tried to fix it too. Maybe San Francisco doesn't truly want or need a zoo. They certainly haven't treated it with the same respect or care that has been given to their other cultural institutions like the art museums, California Academy of Sciences, etc. There is another progressive, much better zoo down the freeway in Oakland. Part of the reason that the new director does not leave me feeling hopeful about the zoo is that the priorities listed for the zoo in the article seem to still avoid any meaningful changes in the zoo. The top listed priority is a PLAYGROUND, of which the zoo already has several. At a minimum the zoo IMHO (my opinion and $37.00 will buy you a decent cup of coffee) needs to: 1. Tear down the cat house and build a modern cat facility. 2. Tear down the bear grottoes and build a modern polar bear exhibit. 3. Send the chimps to a chimp sanctuary or another zoo and bulldoze the old ape exhibits out of existence. 4. Fix the miserable mess that the "new" (from 1985) primate complex has become with its shamefully neglected and destroyed education gallery, nocturnal hall, etc. 5. Bulldoze the miserably outdated elephant(less) house. 6. Build some decent aviaries. Once all those things are done then MAYBE San Francisco would be a zoo worth visiting and getting excited about. Until then all of the remodels of the zoo's tropical exhibit (the WPA era walk-through bird aviary) and playgrounds in the world, the apparent plans for the zoo's current fundraising campaign, won't fix this zoo.
San Francisco Zoo DavidBrown, I totally agree with you on what is needed at the SF Zoo. However, I do not think that San Francisco has the political will to invest in what is needed to make SF a world-class zoo. The current zoo administration seems to be capitulating to the animal rights community who fought to make the SF Zoo a "rescue zoo". One of the latest exhibit improvements was to accommodate two blind sea lions, one already living at the zoo and one rescued. While it made for a nice story, it does not strengthen the collection or encourage visitors.
Exactly my angle. Fight the bad press and the rest will come no problem. It is beyond the absurd that animal rightists define zoo policy in SF. No vision, blinkered vision and age of stupidity reign supreme here. Come on people in the city that brought us the sixties, no free thinkers left? Now talking of SF City Council .... yuk!
In fairness to the SF Zoo and the sea lions, the sea lion came from a local marine mammal rescue facility and without the zoo stepping in it probably would have not have any place to go as they could not be released back to the wild. I think that the sea lions probably do serve as conservation ambassadors for their wild cousins living out in San Francisco Bay and beyond. Re: serving as a sanctuary, the Phoenix Zoo has an interesting model where they do have some exhibits with rescued animals (e.g., their elephants), but that are still modern zoo exhibits with a conservation message. It seems possible that the "rescue" model could be combined with the modern zoo model. I don't want to excessively bash the zoo as they are making strides to fix things like the new(ish) grizzly bear exhibit and renovated hippo exhibit (from what I have read on this site and on the zoo website). One area where the zoo does well that doesn't get discussed much is their insect zoo, children's zoo, and teen volunteer program where kids learn how to care for the education animals and give presentations on them. All of these aspects of the zoo are well done and deserve praise. They are a pioneer in insect exhibits (along with others like Cincinnati).
David Brown- Your first post said it all, the Zoo Director and her Management Team are more interested in building new areas and bringing in more animals than taking care to update the current areas. I am 100% against the new plans. No additional animals should be brought in unless they are rescues, who without finding a home at the SFZoo would lose their lives. I think it is ridiculous to build 4, yes 4! new children's play area's when there is a sufficient play area already. This is an animals park, not a playground. There is a huge park not far with many playgrounds, it is not needed at the Zoo. It is especially not needed when there are many animals who could use better living areas. That said, there are alot of reasons why your list of what should be done, really shouldn't be done. We have many senior animals, who have lived at the Zoo from 10-40 years. These animals should not be moved to another facility, in order to demolish and rebuild. These animals may not have lived in the most ideal settings, but they are in their final years and should be left alone. To even suggest such a thing shows no empathy for animals at all. That said, there is no reason why upgrades can not be done to their living spaces to make not only make the animals more comfortable, but to make it at least somewhat current which would be more aesthetically pleasing to the public. Adding landscaping to older enclosures would be a huge plus and great place to start. Alas, this will never happen as unfortunately the current Zoo Director and her Management Team have no empathy for the animals either. While they are not looking to transfer them out to demolish and rebuild (thankfully) they use money raised to ignore them and just bring in more animals. Mismanagement is rampant at the SFZoo and it doesn't appear that will change as long as City politicians are involved in the running of the place.
@themightyshaw: There actually are many factual reasons why the things on my list should be done, the main one being that the rotting core buildings of the San Francisco Zoo cannot be modernized into a 21st century zoo. I find your suggestion that the aged animals that you cite should be kept in these substandard exhibits to be unfathomably cruel and unempathetic towards these animals. You do not seem at all to be a cruel person, so I find your suggestions puzzling. In reality these "senior animals" will likely be long dead before the San Francisco Zoo can raise the resources to even demolish the substandard exhibits that these animals (chimps, bears, big cats, etc.) live in, much less replace them. The only hope for a comfortable and dignified life for the chimps at least would be to go to a zoo with a proper chimp exhibit or a chimp sanctuary.
David Brown- If I thought the animals was treated cruelly I might agree that they would have better lives in other places BUT I don't think that is true. I do not think much of the Management at the Zoo, but I know many Keepers who take care of these animals very well. Since you brought up the Chimps and Sanctuary, I'll use them as an example. Yes the Chimp area isn't what it could be as far as top of the line in modern, but it has had upgrades with landscaping and the Chimps seen to do fine with this. My only complaint regarding the Chimps is they need more stimulation than they are getting. They look bored, which is different than unhappy. Granted I am judging using my own feelings as a human. I have watched them and have seen how they react to enrichment items when they get them, so I do tell a difference and think that more stimulation in that way is what would enrich their lives. Not moving them someplace they don't know after living here for more than 40 yrs. ... I often think that the SFZoo gets ridiculed just for being the SFZoo. In fact I know this. I read whatever I can on what visitors perception is, as well I listen to people around me while I'm there. People look for faults. Believe me, there are many, but almost never the ones I hear about. That said, I rarely hear anyone have a problem with the Oakland Zoo Chimp area and that exhibit makes me very uncomfortable. I don't even visit the Chimps there, that is how bad my reaction to it is. Yes you are right, most of our senior animals would not make it to see new areas for their species built. On that note, the SFZoo is an older Zoo. It will never be completely modernized. I don't even see the necessity for that. I don't understand the grief anyone has with the Lion House or the Pachyderm Building. These are indoor access quarters, not primary living areas. The Lion House could use a paint job and some other accessories to make it "warmer" but it is not a cruel place. I'm sure other Zoo's "behind the scenes" areas holding Big Cats and Bears is a similar "jail" setting. It has to be. Just because people are allowed into the Lion House they are getting that perspective and some don't like it. It doesn't bother the Cats who often have the option of in/out and some love the people and choose to be inside facing them. ... The Bear area is an eye sore for the most part. There are three grotto's that need landscaping. That would improve that situation 1000%, but the Management doesn't want that. If they did, they would do it. Unfortunately I have seem many Bear exhibits in photos from other Zoo's and they appear the same way. Maybe the solution would be for an organization like the AZA to demand these WPA era exhibits at least be updated with a natural landscaping. There are many easy fixes if a Management Team wants to do it. There is money there. Maybe not enough to rebuild, but enough to update areas. Maybe my feelings about relocating animals who have lived most their lives in a place, is not the popular one here, but its my opinion about animals I observe weekly. I would bet there is no one here (outside a Keeper) who has spent that kind of time with these specific animals.
I know from talking with keeper friends at other Northern California zoos that San Francisco has a good keeper staff. I'm sure that they do the best job they can with the crappy facilities that they have to work with and are fully devoted to giving their animals good lives. You are of course entitled to your opinion that the San Francisco Zoo is adequate, but that is not an opinion shared by animal care experts or people who care about modern zoos. I have looked at your blog occasionally and while I think that you are well intentioned in your muckraking efforts, your focus on seeing the San Francisco Zoo animals as your personal pets rather than wild animals who deserve to live in dignified and enriched habitats is misguided. These animals are not your pets, regardless of how much time that you spend with them. The San Francisco Zoo gets ridiculed because it is a crappy zoo with a long history of problems. There are good people working there and some really good exhibits and programs (insect zoo, youth volunteer interpretive program, lemurs), but unfortunately the "bones" of the zoo are rotting and they got a visitor killed and a tiger killed. I really want to see the San Francisco Zoo become a good zoo. You are content seeing it as a home for your personal pets, which is not the way most of us here see it.
Just because I have an emotional attachment to these animals, does not mean I think they are my personal pets. Some of you make ridiculous statements in all your high-falutin chatter. At no point did I say I would "rather" these animals live undignified, but I'm also not under the illusion that the SFZoo is going or any other Zoo for that matter is going to have every exhibit be state of the art. There are ways to make the lesser exhibits better, without demolishing them and relocating animals who have lived their lived there. If all went according to your plan, there would be plenty animals in Zoo's nationwide with no home after being displaced for remodeling purposes. The crappy part of the Zoo is because of mismanagement period. The Tiger incident, there may be things I don't know since I wasn't there at that hour, (missed it by two) but I don't lay blame on the Zoo or the facility for that. If you have read any part, of any of my blogs, you would know that what I want is for the Zoo to thrive, as I have said it many times. I am sorry that my opinions are so small minded that I don't fit in. I will refrain from coming here and playing in your superior reindeer games. So, no need to reply.
@themightyshaw: I think that we all want the San Francisco Zoo to be a good zoo and thrive. You are right that not all exhibits need to be state of the art, but they do need to be good. You have a different perspective than many people here. That doesn't make you wrong or mean that you are not wanted here, but you did say that I wasn't empathetic to animals because I want them to be in good exhibits. That isn't going to lead to constructive dialogue.
