The Topeka Zoo is in familiar territory.
Regulatory problems, public outcry and a city-initiated review. That was the case in 2002. That was true in 2005. And that is happening now after city manager Norton Bonaparte on Thursday called for an independent look at the zoo.
But what the two previous reviews mean for the zoo's current situation depends on who is asked. Some say the reviews had little effect on zoo operations and want further action similar to the departure Thursday of the zoo's veterinarian.
"A review panel is good, but we've been there before," said City Councilman John Alcala, who pushed for the 2005 process. "I think there needs to be a reorganization of personnel."
Others say misdirected blame at zoo leadership is taking away from the real problem.
"I think they ought to look at funding instead of trying to get (zoo director) Mike Coker fired," said Frank Chaffin, a member of the 2002 group.
2005 review
Alcala was instrumental in forming a Citizen Panel Review of the Topeka Zoo in July 2005 after some questioned an orangutan's death. Four years later, Alcala complains the zoo took few of its 40 recommendations seriously.
"The follow-up to the citizen review panel is nothing," he said. "The city council should take some blame, but zoo personnel should have been pushing on it."
Coker denies that. He points to a report he maintains detailing the zoo's response to every recommendation made by the citizens' panel. He said the zoo has met most of them.
The nine-member citizens' group looked at animal care, fiscal policy, management structure, infrastructure and the relationship with Friends of the Topeka Zoo. Because some of the recommendations are nebulous, quantifying the response can be difficult. For instance, replying to the recommendation that management should encourage staff feedback, Coker's report states they have monthly staff meetings.
Other recommendations are easier to evaluate. For example, a state-of-the-art animal hospital, recommended by the panel, was completed in 2008. On the other hand, use of more detailed logbooks by zookeepers, in addition to the daily animal reports, wasn't implemented. (Coker said the U.S. Department of Agriculture told them to use the daily animal reports as the recording device.)
Bad feet
Alcala's contention that the citizens' review wasn't taken seriously appears supported by one example.
The review raised a couple of issues dealing with animal care, specifically problems with elephant foot maintenance. Then in October 2005, just three months after the panel released its report, the USDA noted deep cracks in several nails, flaps of pad overgrowth, and a prominent bulge on the feet of the Asian and African elephants.
"Elephant foot care at this facility is not adequate as evidenced by the poor condition of the feet at the time of the inspection," the report stated.
The review panel noted that elephant foot problems are notorious and common at other zoos, as well.
Dan Shaughnessy, a panel member, said he still believes that instance is just an example of what has been an ongoing problem at the zoo for years.
"The animals weren't getting the care they need then, and they obviously aren't now," he said.
Shaughnessy's son and daughter-in-law had worked at the zoo before leaving in frustration over what they considered poor animal care.
Enough funding?
Others don't disagree animal care needs to be improved but think the underlying reasons are financial.
The July 2002 Blue Ribbon Committee Review of the Topeka Zoo, prompted by the zoo's loss of Association of Zoos and Aquariums accreditation the year before, said one of AZA's biggest concerns was obtaining "increased financial support for the zoo by the city."
The zoo received $1.6 million in operations money from the city in 2002, the year of the first review. That amount has increased steadily since then, and in 2009, the zoo will get $2.3 million.
Chaffin said he believes funding is still insufficient.
"Having the proper funding to have people in place to do their jobs well is important," he said.
City Councilman Jeff Preisner said zoo staff members have seemed reluctant to ask for additional dollars for more workers.
"Without it, it continues to be difficult to draw qualified people to these jobs," he said.
He said the finger could be pointed at the council for that issue, but he noted it has been supportive of recent zoo expansion projects.
Asked if the levels are sufficient, Coker said: "I think they are. We can always use more, but we try to work within resources that are given to us."
Coker
Bonaparte's call for a review came after two USDA inspections in the past two months found noncompliance items related to numerous animal deaths at the zoo.
Unlike previous reviews of the zoo, which relied on a panel of citizens, the independent process Bonaparte called for this past week will be led by experts in the field of zoo operations, animal husbandry and veterinary care. The AZA said Friday it is ready to mobilize a team to assist in the review if called upon.
For Alcala, the buck stops at the top.
"Problems with procedure? It comes down to management," he said. "Accuracy? It comes down to management. Record keeping? It comes down to management."
Coker said calls for further personnel changes are premature.
"It's important for the review process to unfold and see what the recommendations are when the review is complete," he said.
Coker took the zoo's reigns in 2001 in the midst of its troubles with AZA. He has known little outside the Topeka Zoo. His first experience there was working for $1 a day answering people's questions about the animals. In 1972, he took a part-time job as an animal keeper, took time off to complete his degree in wildlife biology at Kansas State University and returned full time in 1977. He has worked there ever since.
Since 2001, numerous improvement projects have taken place. The elephant yard was expanded. The Animal and Man building was updated. There was a new veterinary hospital. Chaffin credits Coker for that.
"For a long time the zoo was neglected, and Mike came in and turned that thing around," Chaffin said. "Am I fan of Mike Coker? Yes I am."
Courtesy of Mark Rosenthal
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment