By Neal Wong

Animal welfare advocates have accused the San Francisco Zoo of scrapping its plan to lease giant pandas from China and purging animal care managers – all while experiencing an internal fiscal crisis. These claims are denied by the zoo, even as city officials move to extend it a loan of up to $8.5 million and the zoo’s own audited financial statements show two consecutive years of losses.

A coalition of groups – SF Zoo Watch, In Defense of Animals and Panda Voices – released a statement in March alleging that zoo management had declared a fiscal emergency, escorted multiple animal care managers off the premises without warning, and gave them trash bags to collect their belongings. The groups claim the failed panda program is a primary driver of the financial collapse. The zoo has not confirmed nor denied the emergency declaration or the nature of the staff departures.

The financial picture emerging from the zoo’s own audited books is stark. A report by independent auditors shows the Zoological Society posted a $6.4 million operating loss in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2025. In the prior year, the operating shortfall was only $254,000. Total net assets fell by $5.5 million, from roughly $20 million in June 2024 to $14.5 million in June 2025.

In April, the City’s Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report on what it would cost San Francisco if the Zoological Society could no longer operate the facility.

Under the most expensive alternative – the City assuming direct management and keeping the zoo open – taxpayers would face $64.9 million in net general fund costs over three years, with ongoing annual support of roughly $22 million thereafter. Closing the zoo entirely would cost an estimated $45.4 million over three years; finding a new nonprofit operator would cost $42.5 million.

Supervisor Myrna Melgar introduced an ordinance on April 7 to de-appropriate $2.5 million from the Recreation and Park Department’s Open Space Acquisition funding for a loan to the Zoological Society. Then, on April 10, the Recreation and Park Department introduced a resolution to authorize itself to extend up to $8.5 million to the zoo, at a time when San Francisco faces a projected two-year deficit of nearly $1 billion.

The loan would be repaid over 10 years through deductions from the city’s annual $4 million payments to the Zoological Society. Melgar said the loan and the pandas are part of a coordinated effort to stabilize the zoo.

“The San Francisco Zoological Society has a turnaround financial plan and Mayor Daniel Lurie, the controller, the general manager of Rec and Park and my office are all aligned on the strategy for that turnaround,” Melgar said. “Pandas are part of that larger plan. In the near term we are largely focused on the financial stability on this institution and getting people back to the zoo.”

Nancy Chan, the zoo’s director of communications, said the institution is executing a recovery under its new leadership.

“Under CEO Cassandra Costello, the Zoo is executing a clear turnaround – strengthening operations, improving financial oversight and refocusing on animal care, conservation and community engagement,” Chan said. “We’re already seeing progress, including increased attendance and stronger partnerships with the City, our workforce and the union that represents them.”

On the panda program, the zoo rejected the claim that the deal has died.

“There is no finalized agreement,” Chan said. “If and when there is, it will be shared broadly.”

Lurie was in Shanghai on April 19 for the first international trip of his tenure, with a focus on arts and cultural exchange. Before departing to China, he told ABC7 News the City was still in discussions about the pandas.

“We are in dialogue about it,” Lurie said. “We are making sure our zoo is ready to host those pandas. So we’ll have more conversations about that.”

No panda announcement has emerged from the trip.

Justin Barker, founder of SF Zoo Watch, said the zoo’s public statements have consistently obscured the severity of its problems.

“Management bet millions of dollars of public money on a vanity project that never materialized,” Barker said. “The current zoo’s strategy is simply to fill 100-year-old cages with new animals. They are treating these sensitive creatures like inventory, hastily shuffling them around just to fill empty habitats. It is a catastrophic failure of leadership, and the public deserves a full, transparent accounting of how this happened.”

Michael Angelo Torres, a campaigner for In Defense of Animals, said the financial developments at the zoo demand accountability from city government.

“The reports of serious financial instability and lack of transparency at the San Francisco Zoo are deeply concerning,” Torres said. “Any decisions affecting animal care and staffing must be made openly and responsibly.”

In Defense of Animals, SF Zoo Watch and Panda Voices are calling on Lurie to halt all new animal acquisitions and begin transitioning the facility to what they call “Ecopark SF” – a rescue, rehabilitation and native habitat center. A survey commissioned by SF Zoo Watch, of 1,000 Bay Area residents, found nearly 60% opposed the panda plan and supported re-imagining the zoo.

Fleur Dawes of In Defense of Animals said the financial collapse makes the case for change impossible to ignore.

“The City needs Mayor Lurie to step in, halt all new animal acquisitions, and embrace the Ecopark SF vision,” Dawes said.

Melgar’s office expects votes on the ordinance and the resolution for the loan in May, according to Michael Farrah, an aide to Melgar.