logo
Giant pandas, tiger attacks and the ugly fight to control the San Francisco Zoo

Giant pandas, tiger attacks and the ugly fight to control the San Francisco Zoo

Molting peacocks squawked in the distance and a Pacific breeze whispered through the eucalyptus as flamingo keeper Liz Gibbons tidied her station at the San Francisco Zoo.
It had been an unusually cold summer in a city famous for them. Marooned on 'a breathtaking piece of land' at the peninsula's far western edge, steps from the deadly surf at Ocean Beach, the timeworn seaside menagerie had endured weeks of gray gloom.
But late that July afternoon, the sun broke through the clouds. Then word began to spread.
'Everybody was like, 'Oh my God, did you hear?'' the keeper recalled. 'It's the news we've been waiting for.'
For more than a year, the keepers, gardeners, train drivers and office staff of Teamsters Local 856 had been fighting to unseat their boss, longtime San Francisco Zoo Chief Executive Tanya Peterson.
They were not alone.
A growing chorus of animal activists, government watchdogs and civic leaders had called for Peterson to step down. In May, the San Francisco Zoological Society, the park's nonprofit operator, split down the middle in a failed attempt to remove her.
From late last spring through early this summer, there was a vote of no confidence by the union, a blistering exposé in the San Francisco Chronicle, a damning report by the Animal Control and Welfare Commission, a looming audit by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and a hail-Mary intercession by Mayor Daniel Lurie.
Even the consul general of China had privately sought Peterson's ouster.
'He was like, 'You have issues — fix them,'' said Supervisor Myrna Melgar, whose district includes the zoo.
A similar fight recently sent fur flying in Los Angeles, where the city and its former nonprofit zoo partner have locked horns over control of a $50-million endowment. At stake in San Francisco's power struggle is a pair of cuddly new tourist magnets: two giant pandas from China, hailed as a coup for the tarnished Golden City when then-Mayor London Breed inked the deal to bring them last year.
Only two other American zoos have pandas: San Diego and the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. In San Francisco, where nearly a quarter of residents identify as Chinese, the thrill was palpable. City Hall hoped the panda prestige would burn off any lingering haze of a doom loop.
'We're getting our house in order,' Lurie said. 'We already are a world-class city. When the pandas arrive in San Francisco, that's just going to be yet another draw.'
Others saw the black-and-white bears as a rebuke to Trumpian isolationism.
'The best response to the displeasure of Washington is to be awesome and successful,' Melgar said. 'The pandas are a part of our success and a part of our value system.'
For Peterson, who led the zoo since 2008, bringing a pair of the world's most sought-after animals to San Francisco was a dream come true. The political urgency and multimillion-dollar price tag seemed to ensure her continued leadership.
'The same day that the [Zoological Society] board was meant to vote her out, she let everyone know she was meeting with the Chinese Consulate,' said activist journalist Justin Barker of SF Zoo Watch. Peterson 'essentially tells the Board of Supervisors, 'If you move forward with this audit, you might not get pandas.''
So how did the ace up her leopard-print sleeve bring her down?
Peterson did not respond to requests for comment. In an emailed statement, zoo spokesperson Sam Singer said she 'served with distinction and devotion.'
In her own message to staff this month, Peterson likened her planned departure on Aug. 1 to the death of the zoo's beloved silverback gorilla, writing that 'some animals may leave this earth, but they never leave our souls.'
'It has been an honor to serve you, our animals, and the loyal constituents of this amazing community,' she said.
For workers, her exit brought elation.
'I haven't seen this level of positivity and excitement ever,' said Stephanie Carpenter, a reptile and amphibian keeper.
Former carnivore curator Travis Shields name-checked the infamous large cat wrangler from the Netflix series 'Tiger King' when asked what the next zoo leader should bring in comparison with Peterson.
'I don't think [keepers] care who comes next,' he said. 'It can't be any worse unless Joe Exotic comes in — and he's still in prison.'
But the long fight has clawed open old wounds. Many in and around the zoo described the bitter panda power struggle as the worst crisis the institution has faced since the fatal tiger attack that vaunted Peterson to her current position and nearly shut down the zoo.
'They're holding their breath,' said one former manager, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation. 'It's a similar feeling to after the tiger got out — what's going to happen to everything?'
For Peterson's usurpers, the $25-million question is now: What's going to happen to the pandas?
The rise of Tanya Peterson is inextricably linked to the fall of Tatiana the tiger, the first and only animal to escape and kill a visitor at an Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums-accredited facility.
San Francisco acquired the 2½ -year-old, 242-pound Siberian from the Denver Zoo in 2005 as a mate for its 14-year old male Tony. They lived in the tiger grotto and were fed at the Art Deco-style Lion House, built for the original Fleishhacker Zoo by the Works Progress Administration.
The park's original Depression-era structures are iconic, rising gray and craggy from the muted landscape like the Monterey cypress through the ever-present fog.
'The zoo is right on the water, it's right next to the beach and all the structures are daily battered by the fog and the wind and the sand and the salt,' Melgar said.
Much of the century-old site is in disrepair.
'The infrastructure really left a lot to be desired,' said Manuel Mollinedo, who took over as the executive director of the San Francisco Zoo in 2004 after a successful turnaround at the Los Angeles Zoo.
Twenty years before Tatiana arrived, the tiger grotto was briefly repurposed to house two giant pandas, Yun-Yun and Ying-Xin, who passed through during the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics before visiting again in 1985.
Those publicity tours preceded a slump in attendance through the mid-1990s. In 1993, the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society took over operations, while the city retained ownership of the property.
Many zoos are run on a similar nonprofit model, including the Bronx Zoo and the San Diego Zoo, Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums President Dan Ashe said. Others, such as the Los Angeles Zoo, are run by cities or for profit.
By the mid-aughts, efforts to draw in more blue-collar visitors had begun to bear fruit, and tax records show more than a million people were coming each year.
'The zoo had really turned a corner,' Mollinedo said. 'Our attendance was the highest it had ever been since the pandas were brought in 20 years before.'
Then, during a public feeding in the Lion House in December 2006, Tatiana reached under the bars and grabbed keeper Lori Komejan by the arm.
The tiger mauled her as she attempted to drag her into the cage, leading to permanent damage, according to a lawsuit later settled with the city.
But that wasn't the end of it. One year after that incident, on Christmas Day 2007 — Tatiana escaped, mauling two men and killing a teenager.
The city and the zoo ultimately reached financial settlements with the injured men and the family of 17-year-old Carlos Eduardo Sousa Jr. A federal investigation found panda-era modifications probably paved the way for Tatiana's escape.
'It was really rough for everybody,' said Gibbons, the flamingo keeper, who grew up in the Outer Sunset neighborhood and climbed the ranks through the zoo's youth volunteer program. 'I remember the city wanting to close it as a zoo and have it be a sanctuary.'
Instead, the board pushed Mollinedo out and installed Peterson, a fellow board member and an attorney at Hewlett-Packard, whose then-husband had just run the finance committee for then-Mayor Gavin Newsom's reelection campaign.
'She said all the right things — that she wanted to hear from staff, that her door was always open,' longtime zoo gardener Marc Villa said. 'For the time being, it was kind of a breath of fresh air.'
Echoing other critics, Mollinedo said Peterson 'knew nothing about animals.' But she made up for it with philanthropic prowess.
'She's a good fundraiser, I'll give her that,' said San Francisco Recreation and Park Commissioner Larry Mazzola Jr., who heads the zoo advisory committee.
As interim CEO, Peterson swapped her corporate wardrobe for ostrich-feathered sheaths, tiger-striped hatbands, snakeskin-patterned coats and cheetah-spotted sneakers.
Her early tenure was already marked by constant tension between what animal experts felt needed fixing and what donors wanted done. Outrage over half-finished safety measures led the Teamsters to their first no-confidence vote in 2014.
'All of this has been degenerating for a long time,' Melgar said. 'We have not had labor peace at that institution for years.'
By 2024, the zoo's annual attendance had slipped to 700,000 — 15% below the nadir after the tiger attack, and roughly two-thirds of the yearly visitors to the Oakland Zoo across the bay.
The pandas were supposed to fix all those problems. Instead, they fomented a coup.
When Breed announced the panda deal late last April, zookeepers were shocked.
'None of the senior managers knew anything about it,' Villa said. 'Everybody's scrambled: How do we make this work? Where are we going to put them? It was just, 'Hey, we're getting pandas!''
It was a week after the union's second vote of no confidence against Peterson. To many, the move felt emblematic of her leadership flaws.
'If we do have a vision for this zoo besides pandas, it's not been communicated very well,' Villa said.
Pandas are wildly popular with the public. But they're a thornier prospect for zoos, experts warn.
The bears cannot be kept near lions or other large carnivores. They need a special diet, experienced keepers and state-of-the-art new enclosures. For San Francisco, the cost has been estimated at $25 million.
Raising that money will fall to the interim CEO, which San Francisco has not yet named. The search for a permanent replacement will pit San Francisco against two of the state's premier animal attractions, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the San Diego Zoo.
Despite the promise of greater oversight and the possibility of more funding from the city, many animal activists and former zoo staff remain staunchly opposed to the panda project.
Some current keepers also expressed concerns.
'Guests are always asking, 'Where are the tigers? Where are the monkeys? Where are all these animals that used to be here?' We need to take care of the animals we have right now,' said Carpenter, the reptile keeper.
But City Hall remains staunchly pro-panda. So does the Chinese Consulate, the Teamsters and the Board of Supervisors, which just last month threatened to withhold $4 million from the Zoological Society over its failure to produce audit paperwork.
'People are proud that we're doing this, and want us to pull it off,' Melgar said. 'The pandas will have a view of the ocean!'
The Chinese visitors were originally slated to arrive at the end of this year. Then, this spring, they were assured by next April, just after the Super Bowl. That date has been pushed again, to the end of 2026.
'We don't know where we're going,' Villa said. 'Everything runs on rumors and speculation.'
For now, the Teamsters are keeping their ears perked, waiting for good news to swirl in with the fog.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Top Hegseth aide Justin Fulcher resigns from Pentagon after 6 months of service: ‘Incredibly inspiring'
Top Hegseth aide Justin Fulcher resigns from Pentagon after 6 months of service: ‘Incredibly inspiring'

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Top Hegseth aide Justin Fulcher resigns from Pentagon after 6 months of service: ‘Incredibly inspiring'

A top advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has left the Pentagon after six months of service, the Department of Defense (DoD) confirmed to Fox News Digital on Saturday. Justin Fulcher told Fox News Digital he formally resigned on Thursday evening, describing the decision as entirely his own. Advertisement Fulcher said he had originally planned to serve six months in government and, having reached that point, chose to move on 'amicably.' He also emphasized what he described as the 'great work' being done by Hegseth 'for our troops and country.' 'The Department of Defense is grateful to Justin Fulcher for his work on behalf of President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Hegseth. We wish him well in his future endeavors,' chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. In addition to advising Hegseth on personnel and policy, Fulcher played a role in several defense initiatives during his tenure, he told Fox News Digital. 3 Justin Fulcher was a top advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. @JustinFulcher / X Advertisement Fulcher said he contributed to reviews of major acquisition programs aimed at strengthening lethality and the US industrial base, and helped streamline software procurement timelines 'from years to months,' modernizing key IT systems across the department. He also said he supported Hegseth in high-level meetings across the Indo-Pacific, including the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, and participated in efforts that redirected nearly $50 billion from non-lethal line items into readiness and more impactful defense programs. Fulcher praised the 'dedicated men and women of the Department of Defense,' cited progress in 'revitalizing the warrior ethos' and 'rebuilding the military,' and thanked both Hegseth and Trump for their leadership. 'Still, this is just the beginning,' Fulcher added. 3 Fulcher was part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inner circle. REUTERS Advertisement Fulcher, who had served as a senior advisor to Hegseth since April, announced his departure Saturday afternoon in a message posted to X. 'As planned, I've completed 6 months of service in government to my country,' he wrote, calling the experience 'incredibly inspiring.' 'None of this could have happened without Secretary Hegseth's decisive leadership or President Trump's continued confidence in our team,' he wrote. 'I will continue to champion American warfighters in all future endeavors.' Fulcher joined the DoD earlier this year as part of Hegseth's inner circle, a cohort of loyal advisers appointed after Hegseth took the helm at the Pentagon in Trump's second term. Advertisement 3 Fulcher claimed he only planned to serve six months. Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/Shutterstock His departure comes amid a broader reshuffling of senior personnel inside Hegseth's office. At least six aides have left since January, though defense officials have downplayed the moves as standard transitions. It's unclear what Fulcher's next step will be, though his statement suggests he intends to remain active in national security circles. The Pentagon has not yet named a replacement.

Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy

Boston Globe

time2 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at

Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots

Boston Globe

time2 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots

The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store