Zoo Renovation Priorities

The dispute described in “Dogfight at the Zoo” (Jan. 30) is predictable at a zoo whose dated facilities will require more than $100 million to modernize but has only $25 million in bond money to begin the process. Our disappointment with your article is that it emphasizes the dispute and says little about the steps being taken to resolve it or about what has been done already to upgrade facilities. (It does report the tremendous strides taken over the last three years “in improving safety and sanitation standards for (the zoo’s) animals, according to evaluations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”)

Although the existing priorities were established after a series of meetings seeking public input, and were designed at least in part to take advantage of the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn.’s anticipated ability to raise money for appealing projects, everyone has agreed to consider reordering the priorities. The study commissioned by Mayor Richard Riordan and City Council President John Ferraro should produce a workable approach.

The article omits many steps taken or approved to repair and upgrade the zoo without the first cent of Proposition A money. A $1.2 million improvement in the elephant facility is near completion, and the zoo has recently made repairs to the quarters for the marmoset colony, the snow leopards, the Indian rhinos, the sea lions, the hippos, the gorillas, the chimpanzees, orangutans, bears and goats and sheep. Also completed in 1993 were a children’s play area, the new Tiger Falls exhibit, and other facilities improvements. GLAZA provided substantial funding for a number of these projects.

In addition to the elephant exhibit and holding area, 1994 projects include the gelada exhibit, a necropsy and hospital holding area, a holding area for the World of Birds show, the oryx yard, veterinary staff offices, the gorilla holding area, play area restrooms, and a giraffe barn. The zoo badly needs both a new polar bear and penguin exhibit and new chimpanzee exhibit and holding area. Between private donations and some portion of the Proposition A bond money, we expect to be able to accomplish both.

We can’t expect a 21st-Century zoo if we spend all of the Proposition A money just to repair a mid-20th-Century facility.

PETER W. JAMES, Chairman, Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn.

*

When Los Angeles voters approved Proposition A’s $25 million for L.A. Zoo improvements, they had every reason to believe the money would go toward better living conditions for the animals. We would like to commend The Times for your article, which brought to the public’s attention the behind-the-scenes drama regarding this matter.

For the first time in the L.A. Zoo’s history, it has received a lump sum of $25 million with which it can truly make a difference in the lives of the animals housed there--many who are suffering from inadequate shelter from the rain and cold, others who must bathe in filthy watering holes, and still others who are forced to live under cramped, substandard conditions. Instead, however, the zoo director has drawn up a list of expenditures which are primarily cosmetic changes designed to benefit people and, supposedly, boost attendance.

We applaud the zookeepers and curators who have persuaded Riordan and Ferraro to take a closer look at the spending “priorities.” Only when zoo officials make the animals a priority will they be able to bask in the glory of improved public perception and increased attendance.

GRETCHEN WYLER, President, The Ark Trust, Sherman Oaks