By Jonathan Farrell

For more than 95 years, the San Francisco Zoo has been a destination for locals and tourists alike.

But as city officials, including SF Mayor London Breed, are making plans to welcome a new Panda exhibit there, animal rights groups question the ethical integrity of zoos. Moving forward further into the 21st century, animal rights groups shed a light of serious concern on the SF Zoo’s negligence and unsatisfactory conditions.

The 11-page report is from a city commission called the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission (which is entirely separate from the city department SF Animal Care and Control), according to the SFist website.

“Many of the Zoo’s enclosures are extremely outdated and fail to meet the criteria outlined above from an animal welfare perspective,” the report says, per KTVU. “Parts of the Zoo are best described as dilapidated.”

Speaking on behalf of the animal advocacy organization In Defense of Animals, USA, (IDAUSA) Brittany Michelson said, “The vast majority of the animals held captive inside the compounds are depressed.”

She is the IDAUSA’s campaign specialist for captive animals and views the San Francisco Zoo as “a crumbling facility.”

She and other animal rights activists consider the idea of inviting pandas to SF Zoo a dangerous endeavor. Pandas require a specialized diet and have particular health care needs.

To house and care for pandas from China at San Francisco Zoo would cost tens of millions of dollars. Currently the San Diego Zoo pays more than $1 million per year to the Chinese government just to have them as part of its local attractions.

With all the current budget issues San Francisco is facing, including its homeless population and drug addiction problems, Michelson sees the prospect as a shortsighted idea.

“Pandas require lots of attention. They eat 26 to 86 pounds of food per day,” Michelson said.

Apart from the panda exhibit plan, zoos, in Michelson’s viewpoint, are an outdated concept. She believes much of what SF Zoo is established upon are customs and pseudoscientific ideas of the 19th century; when scientific discovery as we know it today was in its infancy.

Initially established in 1929, SF Zoo needs to change and urgently, she said. To continue in this mode is, as Michelson and other advocates see it, not just outdated and unethical, it is cruel.

“Animals in a zoo live in perpetual captivity and lack access to all of the things that make life interesting and enjoyable,” she said.

“And often, they die far earlier than they would if they lived in nature,” she added. “Zoos do far more harm than good.”

Activist, Justin Barker is also an opponent of SF Zoo’s plan to house pandas. He keeps a blog/website “SF Zoo Watch” to raise awareness and spotlight the need for serious change.

Barker listed some of the present antiquated settings in which the animals are living.

“Many of the animals are confined to century-old concrete pits,” he said.

“Gorillas wade through flooded moats during storms, koalas sit cramped indoors because their outdoor space is too small and orangutans live on sad, 10-foot by 10-foot islands surrounded by moats,” Barker said. “François’ langurs live in chain-link cages that are so small the animals can’t properly swing around the enclosure.

“The penguins are dosed with fungicide to survive their shallow pool.”

As for the primates like chimpanzees, Barker observed that their quarters are so confined, “They’re within grabbing distance of visitors.”

Speaking on behalf of the SF Zoo, deputy director Vitus Leung pointed out that the Zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA).

“That accreditation was based on an inspection visit and report in January 2022 by a team of three independent accreditation inspectors representing decades of combined expert zoological and veterinary experience,” Leung said.

“They spent four days inspecting the entire facility, including visitor areas, animal exhibits and behind-the-scenes spaces, and interviewed more than 40 people, from board members to zoo leadership to animal keepers,” Leung added.

Sarah Fedele, AZA’s vice president of communications, confirmed Leung’s assertions.

“Following the inspection, and prior to receiving accreditation, the San Francisco Zoo appeared at a hearing before AZA’s independent and expert Accreditation Commission,” Fedele said.

She reiterated what was stated in Leung’s response to inquiries by the press.

“No significant animal welfare or safety issues were identified,” said Dan Ashe, president and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Describing the standards of the AZA as “laxed,” Michelson expressed skepticism.

“We (at IDAUSA) take the accreditation by AZA with a grain of salt. The SF Zoo has a multitude of issues that go back many years and have slipped under the radar,” Michelson said.

The SF Zoo went into privatization in the 1990s after city administrators decided that it could no longer operate effectively as a municipal facility.

Under the jurisdiction of the SF Recreation and Park Department, the 100-acre zoo is managed by the nonprofit SF Zoological Society. Since 1993, when the privatization began, the Zoo has received $4.2 million annually from the City.

On Oct. 10, a committee convened representing the Joint Zoo Recreation and Park Committee Animal Welfare Advisors. They presented SF Zoo officials the following:

These criteria must exist for zoo animals to thrive:

• The enclosure should provide enough room for the animals to exhibit normal behavior.

• It should allow a space for animals to retreat from human view to an indoor area.

• It should be pleasant to the eye of the patrons and allow the patrons an opportunity to see the animals exhibiting natural behavior.

• It should provide many opportunities for behavioral enrichment.

• It should be clean and safe for the animals, animal caretakers and the public.