To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco
Commission of Animal Control & Welfare Archived Meetings

Meeting Information


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

**DRAFT**

2/29/08

Commissioners Stephens, Routhier, Brooks

 

Recommendation for Animal Welfare Improvements at thatSan Francisco Zoo

 

San Francisco is one of the most vibrant, forward-thinking, and progressive cities in the world. Our city is recognized for its proactive leadership efforts to ensure humane treatment for animals. Exhibits found throughout the San Francisco Zoo however are criticized for being inhumane and reminiscent of what might be found in third world countries. The San Francisco community is speaking out in favor of making the zoo a place that is both nice for its human visitors and for its animal inhabitants.

 

 

The Current Situation:

 

­    Visitor Experience: The San Francisco Zoo has made great strides to improve upon the visitor experience and amenities and has invested millions of dollars to do so.

 

­    Visitor Safety: In light of the recent tiger-mauling at the zoo, a peer review panel has been established to make recommendations to improve upon visitor safety.

 

­    Zoo Keepers: The zoo keepers, those responsible for day-to-day animal care, are recognized for their dedication and love of the animals, doing what they can to enhance the lives and well-being of the animals in their care.

 

­    Animal Welfare: There are significant animal welfare issues concerning the living conditions and exhibits for many of the animals. These concerns have been pointed out, documented, and discussed for years but have not been addressed by zoo management. The conditions for the animals at the San Francisco Zoo are grossly outdated and have been described as “sad” and “inhumane.”

 

 

Commission Testimony:

 

The Animal Control and Welfare Commission heard testimony that raises concerns about the welfare of the animals at the Zoo, including:

­    Compulsive pacing of polar bear

 

­    Inappropriate opportunities for the giraffes to participate in their natural foraging behaviors

 

­    Inhumane conditions for the Baird’s Tapir and other animals

 

­    A variety of specific concerns were provided by three zoo experts

 

 

Make the Zoo a place that is both nice for its human visitors and for its animal inhabitants:

 

­    The 2007 Master Plan Up-Date says: “People visit the Zoo not just to ‘see the animals’, but also to be with others who share their values or to just enjoy a day out in a place where they can refresh themselves in a beautiful natural setting.”

 

­    To accommodate this idea of why people visit the Zoo, the Master Plan Up-Date includes plans for the Zoo to get accreditation as a Botanical Garden, create a nature trail along the ocean-side perimeter, improve family activity area and amphitheater, and increase community events and conferences. Concern that this diffusion of purpose could have a negative impact on animal welfare as animal exhibits compete with “pure entertainment” exhibits for scarce resources.

 

­    Animal exhibits will center on a key iconic “anchor species” that will be “the main space users, as well as the charismatic draws.” “Add a major mega-fauna experience based on key ‘charismatic species’ that can be tied to major conservation initiatives in order to drive attendance, create conservation awareness and celebrate community linkages.” It is not clear if these anchor species are already in the collection or will be procured anew for the exhibits.

 

 

The Jan 2000 Performance Audit of the SF Zoo, prepared for the Board of Supervisors by the Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst notes that:

 

­    Quality of animal care has improved since Zoological Society took over management of the Zoo from the Recreation and Park Dept. Veterinary Care is now excellent.

 

­    Newer exhibits are good. But most glaring deficiencies in housing and exhibit design, because they do not provide natural environments and/or are limited in size, are the chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, bears, sea lions, hippopotamus, giraffe, and siaming. All with the exception of the bears and sea lions are scheduled for new facilities within Phase II of the Master Plan (to be completed by the end of 2004). Were these all done?

 

­    The Zoo should decide within a short period of time whether bears and sea lions will be part of the Master Plan. If not, animals should be relocated to other institutions with better facilities. If so, existing facilities should be removed and state-of-the-art facilities constructed. Ten to fifteen years is too long to wait to address concerns about bears and sea lions. It has now been 8 years and nothing done for polar bears.

 

­    New exhibits should be designed with simple windbreaks, outdoor shelters, and on-exhibit heat sources. Animal collection should be carefully selected, as much as possible, for an animal’s ability to acclimate to cooler temperatures, or select species that originate from cooler climate zones.

 

­    Address deferred maintenance problems.

 

­    In a zoo, the exhibition of animals takes precedence over the exhibition of art.

 

­    One complaint recorded in the Zoo marketing surveys and voiced by numerous visitors to the SF Zoo is that there are not enough animals.

 

­    The General Curator has stated that the Zoo currently holds the species and specimens that it can care for properly, and the Zoo’s collection of mammal and bird specimens will be increasing with the implementation of Phase II of the Master Plan.

 

­    When asked what one thing they would like to see changed at the Zoo, visitors gave a wide range of suggestions. The most frequently mentioned suggestions (29%) were directed toward providing improved habitats for animals.

 

 

 

 

Comments from Dr. Joel Parrott, a Zoo veterinarian and Director of the Oakland Zoo, in the 2000 Performance Audit:

 

­    The outdated animal enclosures and exhibits are the greatest concern of the general public. They were the driving force for the success of the bond measure vote and should be moved to top priority for the bond program.

 

­    The need for improved concessions and a revenue-generating front entrance is magnified by a management agreement with the City of San Francisco that transferred the burden of financial viability from the City to the Zoological Society and zoo management. This need for revenues shows up in capital improvements (Little Puffer, roller coaster).

 

­    It is important that the animal welfare issues not be overshadowed by these other zoo needs. The need for improved animal facilities is very real and was the driving force behind passage of the bond measure. Improvement in animal exhibits will drive attendance up (and therefore zoo revenue) more than any other project.

 

 

What Board of Supervisors Can Do:

 

­    Create a Board-appointed “Zoo Oversight Committee” (ZOC). ZOC will include animal welfare experts, along with representations from the Zoological Society and the Recreation and Park Department. Concern that existing oversight (Joint Zoo Committee) is advisory only and inadequate to ensure animal welfare remains the Zoo’s highest priority. For example, nothing was done for polar bears despite specific suggestions in Performance Audit. Focus of the ZOC will be:

 

    Ensuring animal welfare remains the top priority of the Zoo. Plans to change the focus of the Zoo away from animals to a botanical garden, nature trail, increased conferences and events, etc should be given a lower priority than animal welfare concerns if not abandoned outright. Creating humane habitats for all Zoo animals and providing increased enrichment for all animals should have the Zoo’s highest priority.

 

    Ensuring the Zoo creates appropriate habitats for all the animals it has now (or finds homes for them elsewhere) before bringing in new animal species.

 

    Ensuring Animal Keepers can devote their time to taking care of the animals, and provide increased enrichment for the animals, in consultation with animal behaviorist specialists on staff, and are not doing routine maintenance of exhibits.

 

­    The Board of Supervisors shall exempt the Zoo from the Public Art Program requirements. At the Zoo, the exhibit of animals is more important than the exhibit of art.

 

 

The Future:

 

­    Transition to rescue zoo. Grizzly Gulch is an example of what the Zoo can be. There are huge numbers of exotic species in private hands that should not be. The Zoo can provide a home for them when they are “rescued” from private hands. Zoo visitors will still see big cats and other species that are perennial crowd favorites.

 

­    Rescue Zoo concept would grandfather in species currently part of endangered species breeding programs so those programs can continue.

 

­    Develop a wildlife rehab center at Zoo. The Rehab Center, funded by a separate fund, would be able to respond to rehab emergencies such as the Cosco Busan oil spill.