San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo News 2024

A harsh, and arguably accurate, opinion piece from The San Francisco Standard. Is it worth it for a rundown zoo to spend $35 million over 5 years for pandas?

Opinion | The broken and neglected San Francisco Zoo is no place for giant pandas

 

Having read the article, I agreed for the most part. The final paragraph speaks of transitioning the zoo into a sanctuary essentially, which is counterintuitive to having a zoo. But that part aside, the article made some good points about the current state of the zoo and the mayor’s willful ignorance of the issues the zoo is having. Why can’t they try to pass a measure or bond to fund the zoo and get things into working order? The price tag alone for pandas and their exhibit is a massive price tag the zoo can’t afford unless such an endowment or private individual funds most of it.

The zoo has a known history of problems in regards to animal welfare and dilapidation of the zoo grounds. This money should be allocated to making sure their animals have the best care possible and renovate areas to increase foot traffic into the zoo. It’s not like they’re San Diego who can take the financial hit of pandas and continue to operate business as usual. All of this seems like a non-starter for me and frustrating to see leadership in charge making these decisions. Yes pandas are adorable and beloved by many, but the financial aspect and current state of the zoo will only continue to put the zoo under a magnifying glass with potentially more scrutiny to come.

 

A very good opinion piece. I do question the City, or rather the Mayors about-face when it comes to the Zoo, considering her City Council has typically reduced the amount of city funds given for operational costs. The consistent and steadfast obsession by the Mayor with bringing pandas to a Zoo that has historically been left behind by a city government is an odd position to take.

 

It is definitely possible private individual(s) may be willing to provide funds for pandas who may not otherwise understand or support the general needs of a zoo. I think we slightly underestimate on zoochat how much interest in certain species can affect the interest of private donors, especially those that may be more superficial. Someone who does not care for wildlife conservation may like the idea of having their name on a habitat for a keystone species, and that same someone may lack the understanding at how badly behind the scenes improvements are needed. Operational costs don't make an attractive investment to someone who is not dedicated to the mission and long-term goals - you can't put your name all over it and make a fuss in the press about it. The fact pandas are often erroneously treated as a zoological 'status symbol' may add to the appeal of funding them - it becomes 'I'm the guy who made our city zoo world famous' rather than being about paying for one animal.

All of us on zoochat know that kind of thing is a bunch of malarkey, but I wonder if this is the kind of thinking going into this decision.

I really do think some of the intent is based on an expectation this will be the beginning of the zoo getting some positive press and recognition and a justification for new resources and new funding, on top of higher tourism and higher revenue, and the expectation that after that, the existing issues and operational costs will be solved in short order. I think pretty much everyone here can agree this will probably not pan out nearly so neat and easy, but I can see how someone could make this series of assumptions and expect things to fall cleanly into place.

Again though I do completely agree with the consensus here that this is putting the cart before the horse, just playing some devil's advocate.

 

You make a good point in the first instance, but it is still frustrating to see the Mayor getting so heavily involved. San Francisco is terribly governed in general, and it's disappointing to see an elected official get so involved in the panda project when there are far greater needs at the zoo which should be getting support from the state.

 

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but I was thinking along those lines as well. The investment in the pandas brings more attention, which leads to more guests and donations, which will hopefully be used to benefit those animals and exhibits that desperately need it. I don't think it is an ideal situation by any means, but if it brings more attention to the Zoo perhaps the city will be more motivated to make positive changes.

 

I hope this is the case. It might be worth looking at if the pandas ended up being the money spinner they hoped they would be in other zoos. IIRC Edinburgh lost money..

 

Indeed this can be the case. There was a director of a financially struggling zoo a while ago that said in an interview that the zoo's biggest challenge is "nobody wants to be the donor with their name on the side of a bathroom". It's a whole lot easier to get donors for flashy, major capital projects like bringing in a new charismatic species than it is to find donors for new bathrooms, improved life support systems, or HVAC systems. I have never been to the San Francisco Zoo, and likely never will, so I'll leave the judgment on giant pandas to those who know the zoo better, but you are correct that these kinds of projects can be the ones capable of attracting new donors.

 

I read it too. Just with that comment of creating a sanctuary out of the zoo this journalist author puts the contribution to shame and seriously out of step with reality. I do sincerely hope these kind of people get a few lessons about the impact humankind has been having on nature and the living environment and how our combined footprint is destroying the very nature the author has pretext to help conserve. Never probablty thought of his own ... footprint and how that has really contributed to a lot of California urban taking out natural habitat for wildlife and native flora to be conserved and grotected from our onslaught. Think Californian pronghorn and how these have more or less disappeared from this landscape .... Well, perhaps the SF Zoo might be on a good road if they get rid of the tandem current zoo director (stand in brought in 2007 with a law fraternity background behind her and no prior knowledge of zoo management or husbandry (the kind of social-economic elite that is killing a modern zoo tradition) and a mayoral office that has little sympathy and huge distrust of their zoo and no frigging idea about zoo animal management, modern day approach conservation education ex situ conservation breeding facility and their potential contribution to society and their arrogance vis a vis the local zoo staff who know better and have to suffer the ignorance and blatant disregard for their just concerns from the general zoo staff.

 

Really putting the cart before the horse. Period.

The only road to recovery is new funding base for the zoo, sent of the current directorship into the sunset and bring in new management with a good vision for development and renovation of the old SF Zoo (which it has now become), sort its shortcomings short-term and bring in a new vibe to zoo development and new exhibits. The whole panda deal could already have brought a lot more funding into the zoo for making it better and set it back on the standards set pre 2005....

 

While the San Francisco Zoo may be a surprising choice for the giant pandas in terms of the quality of the facility, it makes sense politically. President Xi recently was in San Francisco for a summit with President Biden and this panda announcement strategically came during Biden's re-election campaign. California's Governor Newsom has also visited China as the state has a big trade relationship with that country. According to news reports, San Francisco pulled out all the stops to clean up the city to make a good impression on the Chinese president. It should also be remembered that San Francisco is well-known for its historical Chinatown and is a sister city with Shanghai. If President Xi was gracious enough to offer giant pandas to San Francisco, I doubt that the U.S. politicians would want to admit that the city didn't have the best zoo for them.

Historically, giant pandas have been used to improve relations between the two countries. Former First Lady Pat Nixon was instrumental in first getting pandas from China over 50 years ago and it seems that they are still being used for political advantage today.

 

Exactly! You can thank that also sacred political animal the CASH COW. Any right minded zoo person can see this is a covered of mismanagement by slapping the money band aid to cover up things. We wouldn't be discussing these things if those in power had any sense of compassion for exhibition of wild animals properly. It's all about control, forget any notion of answering the call of the wild, and going beyond pipe dreams to actually having a wonderful classy zoological garden. They can chirp all they want about global warming and environmental stuff but we see the only warming is coming from their mouths. When we see them actually replace broken sprinklers for the bison, replace worn out fencing outside the zoo, actually address the many exhibit concerns for housing the WANTED orangutans, and of course listening to keepers and public safety will no there is a change of heart. Right now they need more than pandas to fix their sorry zoo, they need serious overhaul of management asap!

 

Are they actually cash cows or is that just conventional wisdom?

 

You said it all.

Now powers that be need to take note and take bloody action and change the dynamic in both discourse and actual events and developments on the ground start moving the SF Zoo in a path forward as opposed in preserving stalemate moloch ruled by management that is both cover up and has no darn clue about animal husbandry, zoo keeping staff concerns and vet health care plus actual zoo management....

 

I think in the short term they will be cash cows, but the return on investment will decline once the initial wave of excitement wears off. I think their reputation as cash cows is based mostly on the rushes they created during the '80s "panda tours" which seemed to be a big deal for a lot of the host cities, but there were also no permanent collections at that time in the country; but by the time we had four pandas in permanent collections around the country, I don't think most people really knew Atlanta or Memphis had them.

 

Ngl, San Fran as a zoo seems very representative of its home city; an absolute mismanaged mess.

If it were me, I'd probably just start over as much as I can ala. Paris. The people of San Francisco deserve a zoo that can go toe to toe with San Diego.

 

That has been my understanding of how the acquisition of giant pandas plays out for most zoos. I know of at least a couple articles that discuss it in detail, but unfortunately both are behind paywalls for me currently:

Panda "Rent" Too High, U.S. Zoos Say
Eats Shoots, Leaves and Much of Zoos' Budgets (Published 2006)

 

If you use this site - https://archive.ph/ - you’ll be able to view behind the paywall.

 

Yes, and not only in the zoo, but the city itself as well.

 

I'm sorry that I'm giving my opinion so late, but a totally agree with Lori Patton.
Most decisions on panda loans are influenced on how it can benefit the chinese image. But I think that what most influence the decision on loaning pandas to the zoo was the insistence of the mayor. I think the the chinese president didn't want to give a "bad image" saying no. And I'm aware that other zoo's where told no, but as we now all panda loans are influenced by a political decision and with the reunion of the APEC the zoo apprehended the situation and insisted on having the fuzzy white and black bears.