Reform or Resist: San Francisco Zoo at a Crossroads
San Francisco Zoo Grapples with Internal Divisions and Public Scrutiny
Today’s Joint Zoo Commission Meeting opened amid palpable tension. San Francisco Zoo management vigorously defended their current practices, highlighting their animal enrichment programs and welfare evaluation processes. They aimed to counteract recent revelations in a city report ( featured in today's New York Times ) which labeled the San Francisco Zoo as “unsafe for both animals and visitors.” However, the meeting also underscored a deepening divide: on one side, management's steadfast resistance to criticism; on the other, the escalating concerns of activists, experts, and city officials about the zoo’s operations and safety standards.
In the hall after the meeting, the tension escalated when Vitus Luang, a senior zoo administrator, directly confronted me. He accused me of “poking the zoo,” clearly frustrated. I kept my cool despite the frustration I share with many others—all of us advocating for ethical reforms and greater transparency in zoo operations.
Following the confrontation, a moment of unexpected hope arose. Two members of the zoo’s board approached, extending an olive branch. It was like a real-life game of 'good cop, bad cop'—except this time, it seemed the 'good cops' were actually willing to collaborate. They expressed a willingness to work with me and other activists, aiming to forge a better path forward for the zoo. I took their offer of conciliation seriously, seeing it as a significant step toward potential change.
The zoo is currently facing significant challenges, including declining contributions from major donors and reduced admissions revenue. This downturn is a direct result of increasing public scrutiny, fueled by investigative reporting and effective grassroots campaigns. Despite these difficulties, the board members' outreach offered a glimmer of hope—an opportunity to work together to foster meaningful change in the zoo's operations and practices.
The Path Forward
I’ve always believed that collaboration, when paired with accountability, is the key to creating a zoo that San Francisco can truly be proud of. The zoo’s current struggles, rather than a source of despair, could be a catalyst for long-overdue transformation.
The first step, however, is a bold one: the cancellation of the controversial panda program.
Today the New York Times released a new article in it’s ongoing exposé shedding light on the deeper issues surrounding China’s panda diplomacy. These animals, while beloved worldwide, have become tools of geopolitical influence rather than symbols of genuine conservation. The article revealed troubling connections between panda leases and attempts by the Chinese government to shape local and national policies, from influencing views on Taiwan to silencing criticism of Beijing’s human rights record.
The revelations are damning. They show that:
Conservation claims are misleading: Despite decades of breeding programs, China has captured more pandas than it has released into the wild. American zoos, including those in California, have funneled millions of dollars into these programs with little oversight on how the funds are used.
Breeding practices are harmful: Reports of aggressive artificial breeding harming or even killing pandas stand in stark contrast to the cuddly, conservation-driven image projected by zoos and Chinese authorities.
Political leverage is undeniable: Pandas are wielded as soft power, exploiting the goodwill they generate to mask authoritarian policies and curry favor with local politicians.
San Francisco’s proposed panda program has already raised red flags. Soon to be former Mayor London Breed’s negotiations with Beijing, documented in emails and calendars, reflect a worrying lack of awareness about the geopolitical implications. Meanwhile, the zoo — facing allegations of poor animal care and financial mismanagement — seems ill-equipped to handle the ethical and logistical complexities of hosting pandas.
Building a Zoo for the Next 100 Years
Instead of doubling down on controversial programs, the San Francisco Zoo must take a different approach: one that prioritizes animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and community engagement over political spectacle.
This means:
Investing in Habitat Upgrades: Many of the zoo’s enclosures are outdated and fail to meet modern standards for space and enrichment. A phased plan to renovate or replace these habitats is essential.
Transparent Oversight: The zoo must address its financial and operational shortcomings. An independent audit of its funds and practices could restore public trust.
Focusing on Local and Global Conservation: Instead of hosting pandas, the zoo could support programs for native Californian species or other endangered animals with genuine conservation impact.
Creating a Collaborative Vision: As the two board members suggested, the zoo should engage with activists, zoologists, and the public to create a strategic plan for the next century.
Learning from the Toronto Zoo's Approach
The Toronto Zoo’s transformative approach offers an invaluable blueprint for sustainable and ethical zoo management. They have substantially reduced their animal count, strategically focusing on species crucial for local conservation efforts. This focus is guided by a scoring matrix that assesses each species' conservation status and the potential impact the zoo can have on its survival. This meticulous approach ensures that resources are concentrated where they can make the most significant conservation difference.
The Toronto Zoo's experience with hosting pandas from 2013 to 2018 serves as a pivotal lesson in the complexities of wildlife conservation within zoos. While the pandas initially boosted attendance and generated substantial retail revenue, the endeavor revealed significant drawbacks. The zoo faced considerable challenges in maintaining a sustainable bamboo supply, relying on expensive and environmentally detrimental shipments from the United States. Furthermore, the cost of care and the specialized needs of the pandas placed a substantial financial burden on the zoo.
This experience prompted a strategic reevaluation of priorities, leading to a shift towards more sustainable conservation efforts. The zoo decided to phase out its reliance on charismatic mega-fauna, which often draw visitors but do not necessarily contribute effectively to conservation goals. Instead, it increased its focus on breeding programs for native species and those at significant risk, such as the Massasauga rattlesnake and Blanding’s turtles. This shift not only aligns with global conservation priorities but also minimizes the ecological footprint of the zoo’s operations.
Additionally, the Toronto Zoo has worked to improve public engagement and education about the real challenges and successes of wildlife conservation. By transforming their exhibitions and public messages, they aim to enhance visitors' understanding of conservation issues and the critical role zoos can play in addressing them. This comprehensive approach reflects a broader trend in the zoo industry towards more ethical and sustainable practices, recognizing the changing expectations of the public and the urgent needs of global wildlife conservation.
From Conflict to Collaboration
It’s a pivotal time for the San Francisco Zoo to rise to the occasion. While some zoo leaders may resort to name-calling and finger-pointing, others have acknowledged the pressing need for change. I am ready to engage in this transformation, insisting that any process be transparent and driven by effective solutions.
The San Francisco Zoo holds the potential to be a leading example of ethical conservation—but achieving this status requires facing its current challenges directly and reimagining its future with both honesty and ambition.
Despite the day's challenges, the meeting wrapped up with a note of optimism. This initial glimmer of hope, if carefully nurtured, could signal the dawn of a new era for the zoo, bringing benefits to the animals, the city, and inspiring future generations.