AZA Extends SFZoo Accreditation Another Five Years

In my post dated April 30 (Zoo Lifts Mask Requirement...), I mentioned this news, and noted I would expand on why I find this news disturbing and disappointing.  

I heard about the extension a few days after it was granted.  A week later I got an email from the AZA.  I had sent the Accreditation contact Cheri Bermudez, my blog post that highlighted the lack of response I got from her after a handful of attempts to clarify information on their website.  My post words were very blunt and honest.  I respect that she replied despite me documenting how I felt about the situation.  My reply will include this post.

Unanimously!?  Good Grief.

So, for how I feel about the Zoo's re-accreditation.   My bottom line about this outcome is based on the past fourteen years of NO ONE recognizing the mismanagement.  Fourteen years of putting the priority of Wants over Needs, that have led to Animal Welfare issues, and resulted in decisions that continue to lead the Zoo to ruin.   I have another post in draft that details these things and more, but for the summing up of the reinstatement of Accreditation, that is what it comes down to.  

I wrote a post last November that noted while there are so many things that could be mentioned as to why the Zoo should not get re-accredited, there is one single thing that should be the obvious reason.  That reason in my opinion is the Orangutan situation.  Considering accreditation inspection is every five years, I felt it necessary to highlight the Orangutans as their arrival was in 2019, and the plan to acquire them in the works for many years preceding.  

The AZA is well aware of the Orangutans journey at the SFZoo, as I contacted them before, during, after and in regard to Accreditation, detailing what was going on with them, and questioning theirs and their SSP's involvement with sending them here in the first place.   

As noted in previous posts,  the AZA had denied the Santa Ana Zoo re-accreditation stating, "...monkey habitats outdated and not consistent with modern zoological practices".

Based on that alone, our San Francisco Zoo should not have gotten re-accreditation.  

Over the fourteen years that I have been monitoring the Zoo, which also coincide with Director Tanya Peterson's reign, there have been many Animal Welfare offences.  For the purpose of staying on topic here and relating this to the AZA's own accreditation guidelines, I will note two instances, that I have also noted before.   

Since the last inspection in 2015, San Francisco Zoo kept Squirrel Monkeys in a concrete room with no access to the outside, for over four years.  San Francisco Zoo kept Orangutans in concrete night quarters with only outside access being caged tubes, for eight months.  

In regard to the Squirrel Monkeys, what did the AZA think of that situation when they came for inspection in 2015?  In regard to the Orangutans, not only why did they send them here with no appropriate housing in place, but now that they have seen the "habitat" they are living in, I ask them, quoting their own guidelines, How they consider that a habitat consistent with modern zoological practices?

Zoo management does a good job of creating illusions.  That's how we got the Orangutans in the first place.  Maybe the accreditation team was blinded by the garden that was built up in front of Orangutans to actually see the "habitat".  

Additionally, there are other contradicting instances with other Zoo's, that I outlined in this post:

https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2021/11/sfzoo-slated-for-january-accreditation.html

It is outrageous and irresponsible to give SFZoo a pass on the Orangutan situation alone.  I do not understand how this can happen.  There is definitely something not right.  I have often thought that maybe there is some kind of payola at play.  How else is it possible that SFZoo continually gets away with all the crap that goes on there?   

Whether or not an actuality, I am obviously not the only one who has thought of money exchanging hands.   One blog reader posted this comment in regard to the accredition renewal mention I made in a previous post.

A few weeks ago, I saw the Zoo had started to remove the metal fencing on the Bird String (across from Orangutans).  Since this was never a previous concern for them, I figured AZA might have mentioned it as a needed fix.  When I was there the week before last, the whole area had pretty much been demolished.   I also heard this was indeed an AZA notation.

Two thoughts about this.  First, the obvious.  The AZA noted that the Bird enclosures were outdated, yet right across the path is the prison pit of concrete and metal that the Orangutans are living in.  WTF?  It boggles the mind. 

The second thing about this is, the Bird String has been in need of an upgrade for many years.  Yet, as per usual under current Directorship, it has never been a priority.  Remember, Wants over Needs have been the priority.  Needs only seem to get done when something forces it.  In this case it was probably an Accreditation contingency.  So, they have now found funds from somewhere to do this, which will require new aviary netting, yet, funding could not be found to net Triple Grotto for the Orangutans, to not only extend their living space, but would have prevented the eyesore and ridiculousness of the skyscraper bridge, and all the bullshit that is associated with it.   

Again, this is all directly related to Fundraising and the Zoo's lack of, which I detailed in this previous post:

https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2022/01/fundraising-my-frustration-and-their.html

If the Zoo had continuous fundraising efforts in place over the past fourteen years, many needs, including the Bird String, could have been taken care of.  But, for example, Director Peterson had a Tiki Hut built above Mandrills instead.  

Fundraising.  Another cog noted in the the AZA Accreditation guidelines, that is looked at during the re-accreditation process.  In what universe did the AZA find that SFZoo had healthy fundraising in place that would help the Zoo thrive?

To wrap this up, I stand by deeming the Zoo's re-accreditation, disturbing and disappointing.  And I will add disgusting on the part of the AZA for not recognizing the Orangutan situation as a fail.  The AZA created their situation when they allowed them to be transferred here, this was their opportunity to force the Zoo to do right by them.   They are now a bonded pair and have lived here for three years, the San Francisco Zoo management should have to provide them with a better home.  

Side note, since the Zoo has already botched the North and Middle Grottos, attention to South Grotto should be the priority to making a decent space for the Orangutans, until new management can raise funds to fix the wrong already done, and make that whole Triple Grotto area the showcase it should be.  That area should still be used until then, but South Grotto should be filled in and netted over.  Creating a larger topical space, and containment that also serves as vertical climbing enrichment.  This all needs to be done before they are allowed to breed.  Among my thoughts, my top concern is that the access from the night quarter building to the island is dangerous for an infant.  There is no sturdy walkway, only firehose.

The additional fail on the part of the AZA continues to be not talking to non-management level staff.  Zoos are Animal Care Facilities, it is paramount that Keepers insight is taken into consideration.  I expressed this in my 2015 and 2021 emails to the accreditation team.   Yet allegedly, AZA never spoke to any Keepers individually.  Meeting with them in a group that includes their bosses, is not going to garner honest expression of what's really going on there.  By not doing so, the AZA is not performing a complete review.  

Believe me, it does not make me feel good to have wished SFZoo to be denied accreditation, and some might say, I don't care about the Zoo for doing so. That would be quite the opposite.  In my opinion, not getting accreditation, would have been something that finally recognized that there is serious mismanagement.   Something that confirmed a dire need for change at our Zoo.  So, I wished for that, because I care.   Our Zoo is in a downward spiral, and will not thrive into the future under the current Director and management team.   While that is my personal opinion, I am not alone in that opinion.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Blogger's Statement

"Personal Opinions and Facts presented publicly are Not against the law or any rules. ... Censorship and Retaliation Actions in an attempt at Suppression are frowned upon by Healthy Societies."

For Full Statement see this post:

https://iamnotananteater.blogspot.com/2018/09/my-zoo-status.html

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*