Cease and Desist Notice: SF Zoo Watch Defends Integrity, Continues Advocacy
After receiving a cease and desist letter from the San Francisco Zoological Society, SF Zoo Watch reaffirms its commitment to accurate reporting and change at SF Zoo.
At SF Zoo Watch, our mission is rooted in truth, accountability, and integrity. We investigate and report on issues at the San Francisco Zoo with a commitment to accuracy, fairness, ethical journalism. Our work is guided by information from inside sources, including current and former employees, as well as public records and expert analyses. While we stand firm in exposing mismanagement and advocating for the welfare of animals, we also hold ourselves to the highest standards by correcting errors when necessary and engaging in open dialogue.
Addressing Concerns While Standing Firm on Facts
Yesterday, Ed Poole, San Francisco Zoological Society board member and now its legal representative, sent a cease and desist letter (see above) challenging claims made on SF Zoo Watch about Vitus Leung's resignation and allegations against Tanya Peterson, the Zoo’s CEO.
In response, I took immediate action to address and rectify any possible inaccuracies. Here is my reply to the legal team:
Dear Mr. Poole,
Thank you for your letter concerning the content related to the San Francisco Zoological Society on the SF Zoo Watch website.
Regarding the statement about Mr. Vitus Leung, I will ensure any misrepresentation is corrected immediately on SF Zoo Watch to reflect that he has not resigned from the San Francisco Zoo. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
As for the allegations concerning Ms. Tanya Peterson, I must clarify that at no point have I issued statements to media outlets claiming that Ms. Peterson has injured or killed animals. SF Zoo Watch is committed to factual and responsible reporting, and we take these matters seriously.
Please feel free to contact me directly should you wish to discuss these matters further or have any additional concerns.
Very truly yours,
Justin Barker
This response reflects our unwavering commitment to accuracy—if something is incorrect, we correct it.
I'll take this letter as a well-intentioned attempt to set the record straight. However, we will not be intimidated into silence when the underlying issues at the zoo remain unchanged.
In our pursuit of greater understanding, we have consistently sought dialogue with the zoo's leadership and made multiple requests for records, all of which have been unsuccessful. Despite these obstacles, including the zoo's violation of city and state transparency laws and it’s lease agreement with the city, we remain committed to maintaining informed and empathetic perspectives on the complex challenges faced by zoo management.
On January 19, following a piece I wrote detailing ongoing leadership failures at SF Zoo and calling for the resignation of Tanya Peterson, I received a response from Melinda Dunn, President of the SF Zoo Board, who expressed strong disapproval:
"Justin, I'm stunned by what I'm reading in your post below. You know that most of this information is untrue and exaggerated, and I'm wondering if there are any ethical limits to what you feel entitled to print. This is super disappointing..."
I took this as an opportunity for dialogue and responded immediately:
Hi Melinda,
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I value the conversations we've been having after joint zoo meetings, and I believe our open dialogue is crucial for making positive strides forward for the San Francisco Zoo.
Each point raised in any of my writing about the zoo is based on extensive research, including interviews with current and former staff, public records, and reports from credible news organizations and government agencies. The allegations of mismanagement and neglect at the zoo reflect a pattern of behavior that has been corroborated by multiple sources over time. I have had my eyes on SF Zoo since 2008.
I am committed to accuracy and transparency in my writing and advocacy. If there are specific aspects of the article you believe to be incorrect or exaggerated, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share those details with me. Understanding your perspective more clearly will help ensure that our discussions are as productive and factual as possible.
Best,
Justin
After receiving no response, I followed up again on January 24, 2025:
Hi Melinda,
Just following up here. I'd like to hear your perspective on the integrity of my last post.
Justin
Despite reaching out for a dialogue, I received no response from the SF Zoo. Silence, however, cannot alter the facts. The leadership at the zoo has consistently sidestepped accountability, dismissing genuine concerns as "exaggerated" while serious issues that impact animal welfare, employee safety and erode public trust persist.
Defending Free Speech and Advocating for Accountability
It's not unusual for institutions like the SF Zoo to challenge their critics, especially when under scrutiny. In December 2024, SF Zoo officals attempted to retract a damning report from the San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission.
At SF Zoo Watch, our dedication to transparency remains unshaken. We stand firm by our sources and our journalistic integrity. We are committed to truth, admitting and correcting any errors, and we will not shy away from shining a light on the ongoing issues at the zoo.
Our mission at SF Zoo Watch is clear: We’ll keep raising our voice, keep questioning, and continue advocating for the animals at SF Zoo. Together, we can push for the critical reforms that this institution so urgently requires. This effort transcends journalism; it's about demanding accountability and ensuring that those in charge are held responsible for their actions.
If the San Francisco Zoo is truly committed to setting the record straight, we strongly encourage them to respond to our outstanding records requests and adhere to their legal obligations under city and state laws. By taking these steps, the zoo can demonstrate its dedication to both accountability and ethical management practices.