February 1, 2008
SF Zoo Lacks Animal-Mindedness, Says World Zoo Leaders
Wow. This is a bit depressing. Scratch that, a lot.
According to the Chron, former directors of zoos around the globe gave the San Francisco Zoo a failing grade when it comes to caring for animals. Some of the zoo's problems are "severely outdated exhibits and animals that behave unnaturally." Take, for example, glaring issues as the African Savanna exhibit -- which lacks enough shelter or food for animals, according to Peter Stroud, a former zoo chief from the Werribee Open Range Zoo and Melbourne Zoo in Australia -- pacing polar bears, and their their "Third-World"-like chimpanzee exhibit.
Particularly damning was what Robert Atkinson, former curator of the Woburn Safari Park in England, had to say. He drolled that the exhibits at the SF Zoo "were like something from the 19th century...like a zoo you would see in Eastern Europe." Ouch.
On a lighter note, we've got some fantastic but totally unfounded third-hand gossip, which is so not at all true, but it will help rid your mind of that sad pacing polar bear image: the Dhaliwal brothers, a San Francisco zookeeper allegedly quipped, urinated in the tiger exhibit and possibly at/on Tatiana, taunting her. Yeah, we don't buy it either. But...there you go.
Image credit: Louis Proyect: the Unrepentant Marxist
|
I repeat: Can we please just close this zoo now? Seriously.
the real zoo is 6th and market.
"6th and market is like something from the 19th century...like a street you would see in Eastern Europe."
So... if I like going to the zoo and seeing the animals, should I boycott until the zoo gets its act together? I'm conflicted.
A third of the exhibits are fine. Two thirds could be a lot better. Problem is, there's no space to renovate the crummy exhibits. It's true that the SF Zoo needs to focus more and not try to do everything.
But this article smells like a PR hit from the crazies at In Defense of Animals.
A few unanswered questions:
Who are these former zookeepers? Are they an official committee of inspectors? (Apparently not.)
Have they looked at other urban zoos -- which are not the same as Wild Animal Parks and cannot be held to the same standards at present, because of their expensive legacy facilities? (Unclear.)
Who flew them out here to inspect SF? (In Defense of Animals, I assume.)
Yes. Boycott. There is simply no excuse for aiding and abetting such cruel behavior. Zoos have long since outlived their usefulness. Watch the Discovery Channel to see animals in their native and natural habitat. There is nothing "natural" about staring at bored, miserable, mistreated animals. It's sick and disgusting, like watching a snuff film. I can't see how anyone can bear the dismal sadness of zoos.
The zoo needs to be shut down. Period.
A third of the exhibits are fine. Two thirds could be a lot better. Problem is, there's no space to renovate the crummy exhibits. It's true that the SF Zoo needs to focus more and not try to do everything.
But this article smells like a PR hit (rewritten press release) from the crazies at In Defense of Animals.
A few unanswered questions:
Who are these former zookeepers? Are they an official committee of inspectors and applying professional standards to their judgments? (Apparently not.)
Have they compared other urban zoos -- which are not the same as Wild Animal Parks and cannot be held to the same standards at present, because of their expensive legacy facilities? (Unclear.)
Who flew them out here to inspect SF? (In Defense of Animals, I assume.)
I think they should post an audio recording of Sam Singer at every exhibit, explaining why the conditions are just fine.
Much as I'd like to visit the zoo since I still haven't been there yet, between Tatiana, The Lion King movie marathon and now this most recent report I believe I'll hold off until they make improvements. It's too bad, I'm not anti-zoo in general but this one sounds like it really sucks.
Another third hand rumor is that there was a bet about the Dhaliwal brothers, hitting Tatiana with a jacket . . . ?
The cries to close the zoo down are more proof to those who have children and take them to the zoo regularly that they are not wanted in San Francisco.
Just a middle-class family oriented activity, not a tourist attraction, and it deserves more support than it gets.
I have to agree with theo. That was just a hit piece. The zoo is no panacea. Some exhibits are obviously extremely old and outdated, but the zoo is slowly remodeling exhibits as it gets money to do so. They did so with the African savanna, and then with the bear grotto. Given how much money it takes to do this renovations, you can't do them all at once.
Also, why are these guys comparing a zoo to an animal park? Obviously they are not the same thing, and you won't have the same amount of space in each. As wonderful as the San Diego Zoo is, it can't compare to the San Diego Animal Park outside the city.
Peter Stroud -- "Expert #1" - zootica.com -- PETER STROUD SERVICES Design & Nature -- A company offering consultancy and project services in all aspects of wildlife care and exhibition.
Les Schobert -- "Expert #2" -- http://zooscandobetter.org/index.html
Robert Atkinson -- "Expert #3" -- http://www.friendsofmaggie.net/pdf/OPEN%20LTR%20TO%20ZOO%20RE%20PAWS.2.pdf
For those of you unable to cut & paste weblinks, here's the skinny; Stroud now heads a for-profit zoo design firm. Schobert heads Zoos Can Do Better. Atkinson sporadically makes the news protesting various zoos. The pdf is a copy of a letter signed by ALL 3 (plus others) demanding the immediate transfer of the Alaska Zoo's elephant to a sanctuary. I would like to know how much In Defense of Animals paid to have these three "experts" come out. Shame on the Chronicle for not checking their facts!!!!! (Or maybe they did, but decided to run the piece anyways!)
I would say it's pretty obvious why these 3 are no all listed as "former" directors. They now appear to be on the payroll of In Defense of Animals!
Peter Stroud -- "Expert #1" - zootica.com -- PETER STROUD SERVICES Design & Nature -- A company offering consultancy and project services in all aspects of wildlife care and exhibition.
Les Schobert -- "Expert #2" -- http://zooscandobetter.org/index.html
Robert Atkinson -- "Expert #3" -- http://www.friendsofmaggie.net/pdf/OPEN%20LTR%20TO%20ZOO%20RE%20PAWS.2.pdf
For those of you unable to cut & paste weblinks, here's the skinny; Stroud now heads a for-profit zoo design firm. Schobert heads Zoos Can Do Better. Atkinson sporadically makes the news protesting various zoos. The pdf is a copy of a letter signed by ALL 3 (plus others) demanding the immediate transfer of the Alaska Zoo's elephant to a sanctuary. I would like to know how much In Defense of Animals paid to have these three "experts" come out. Shame on the Chronicle for not checking their facts!!!!! (Or maybe they did, but decided to run the piece anyways!)
I would say it's pretty obvious why these 3 are no all listed as "former" directors. They now appear to be on the payroll of In Defense of Animals!