Dear city council and park board members,

You will soon be faced with the task of deciding to spend millions of dollars on changes to the Lake Superior Zoo. I encourage you to consider if the changes are a wise or foolish use of taxpayer dollars.

The current plan proposed by the city administration for a "signature" park would result in millions being spent on a project that diminishes the zoo visitors' experience and will likely lead to the failure of the zoo in the near future.

Please be sure the city administration has explored the following points and answered the questions posed when you evaluate the plan.

1. Boost winter attendance at what cost?

The administration claims that an indoor play area would result in more winter visitors and boost winter revenue. What market surveys have been done to determine if this is a need in the community? I would expect that if an indoor play area was a big market draw, one of the area fast food outlets would have already added a play place.

What sort of business plan for this enterprise has been developed? What admission would need to be charged and what attendance would be required to have this construction be a break-even enterprise?  What other communities have built indoor playgrounds and what has been their experience? Check with the city of Winnipeg and you may think twice about this proposal.

2. Change zoo footprint to allow "connectivity"

The city administration claims there is a great need to connect the St. Louis River with areas above the zoo, and that it is a serious hardship for a child on a bike to have to go around the zoo to get down the hill. Thus, the zoo should be cut in half to allow a direct link from the river to the DWP trail.

There are multiple ways a good connecting trail could be made that would not result in spending millions and eviscerating the zoo. What about having a trail along the zoo's western border and passers by could peek into exhibits from the trail? Or what about having the trail along the eastern border by beefing up the existing connecting trail near Fairmont Park? The zoo's main building with its remodeled bathrooms and parking lot could be used as a trailhead. These two options would require die-hard "off road" bikers  and hikers to use some pavement on their trip from the river upward, but I'm sure that would not be an extreme hardship.

3. Keep the same number of animals, but focus on natives

Plan proponents say that there would be the same number of animals and the same number of species in the new design. However,10 apples exchanged for 10 oranges is not the same thing.

Example: Remove the Siberian tiger (endangered and not seen in our backyards) and the snow leopard (also endangered and not seen in our backyards) and replace them with two native animal species (that I might be able to glimpse on a free hike on the Skyline Parkway). This is the same number of animals and the same number of species, but certainly not the same experience. I will likely never be able to go to eastern Russia to see a Siberian tiger, or to Mongolia to see a snow leopard, but I can see them in Duluth at the zoo.  I can easily see black bear, beaver, coyote, raccoon, etc. on the many trails already in the Duluth area.

Again, has a market study been done to determine if people would rather see endangered animals that we do not have in Minnesota, or would they rather pay to see natives?

4. The new plan is only  $15 million compared to $40 million in the old plan!

This comparison is a farce. The $40 million plan was developed BEFORE the flood and involved the entire zoo. Once the flood happened, this $40 million plan became moot and cannot be used as a benchmark.

A more accurate comparison would be to look at the approximately $16 million upgrade for the ENTIRE zoo proposed by ConsultEcon, the initial consultant the city administration hired to two years ago. Let's compare $15 million to downsize the zoo, vs $16 million to improve what's already there.

5. The new plan is a "consensus" plan

Sure a majority of the zoo's board of directors has voted in favor of the plan, but did it have a choice? The zoo's CEO has been bullied and muzzled. The zoo board has been threatened with the loss of the annual operating fee the city pays to the society for managing the zoo and taking care of the animals. The board has also not been allowed to have other than a month-by-month operating agreement until there is "agreement" on a plan. The city administration has served as a dictator in this so-called "inclusive process" and effectively silenced any complaints.

6. Let's talk about animal safety

Current behind-the-scenes talk includes repurposing the Willard Munger Animal Care Center (ACC). This multi-use building serves as the zoo's hospital, quarantine facility, and food storage and diet preparation site, as well as housing offices for the animal care personnel (veterinarian and veterinary technician, registrar, maintenance staff, keepers and animal care director). The ACC building was constructed in 2000 for $1.1 million. It gets high marks from the USDA and zoo accrediting inspectors.

The city administration proposes building a new building, or remodeling an exhibit building, for $800,000. That $800,000 will clearly not replace the existing facility. Hospitalizing a sick cougar is somewhat different than handling a sick house cat. What will the zoo animals have to do without when they get sick or injured under this new plan? And, when an old monkey dies, where will the new ones be quarantined before they are asked to join the current population?

When ACC was built, there was a stipulation that it had to be used as an animal facility for 20 years.  So the city administration is proposing renting/selling it to the DNR, or using it as a dog pound. Will rent to the DNR fund the measly $800,000 proposed hospital-quarantine-commissary-office building?

Or what are the health risks of having a dog pound that contains stray dogs and cats of unknown vaccination and health status right next to a zoo? Canine distemper is becoming more prevalent these days, and the vaccine that protects exotic cats from canine distemper is no longer available. Does the city epidemiologist have plans for protecting the zoo animal population from the dog pound next door?

7. Readying for the next 100-year flood

The zoo footprint proposed by the city administration shows a new perimeter fence WITHIN the area flooded several years ago. Problem solved - just draw a new flood plain and the new fence will be right on the edge of it. Future environmental disasters will respect this line on the map and will not wash out the new fence that contains the animals.  

This new perimeter fence (costing a minimum of $50 per foot, and which wouldn't even need to be built if the connecting trail went outside the edge of the zoo) is the last line of defense between the animals and the public when an exhibit fence is breached. Have disaster experts been consulted to determine the risks and benefits of a creek-side perimeter fence? Had the perimeter fence been located along the creek during the flood, the escaped polar bear would have needed to be killed to protect the public. Fortunately, there was adequate secondary containment, and the bear could be darted.

8. Get ready for a change in summer attendance

The visitor experience with the proposed plan will be vastly downgraded in size, scope and visual quality compared to what the zoo currently offers. You can't see this on a map.

Stand in the zoo's current barnyard petting zoo. Take the map  and look around. Under the new plan, you will be literally fenced into a claustrophobic corridor. There will be a new perimeter fence less than 40 yards to the west of you, and the current perimeter fence is close by to the east. The zoo will feel like a cramped cage.

The city administration has inaccurately compared Duluth's proposed new zoo footprint to the Como Park Zoo. Ten acres of flat land in St. Paul does not equal 10 acres on a steep hillside in Duluth. Apples and oranges comparison again: exhibits in the St. Paul zoo could not be placed on the same sized plot in Duluth. So there will be fewer animals to see, and they will be crammed into a narrow corridor. Not an experience that lends itself to repeat visits.

9. Hurry, hurry or we will lose money

The city administration has repeatedly focused on its "ambitious" timeline to get the new zoo plan approved so it can apply for funding. Never mind that by dragging its feet after the flood, telling the zoo leadership to abandon all projects last year, and holding the zoo leadership hostage for more than a year, the city and zoo has had to abandon thousands of dollars in grants. So now, what's the rush all of a sudden?

10. The goal all along....

Lest we forget, about seven years ago, top city administrative officer Jim Filby-Williams was quoted in the Budgeteer newspaper saying that the city should close the zoo. He has been the leader in this entire process and has not gone into any of the planning with an open mind. By spending $15 million on an incredibly poorly researched plan that will ultimately degrade the zoo, he will get his New Year's wish.

Instead of taking a thoughtful view, doing market studies, bringing in diverse opinions and allowing open discourse, the city administration has taken what should have been an inclusive process and turned into into a dictator's dream.

There are many positive alternatives to the current plan that the city administration has cobbled together and crammed down the zoo board's throat. But those ideas have either not been allowed to be heard, or have been quickly silenced.  Where is the input from experts in animal care, education, environmental safety? Where are the market studies and long-term projections?  What comprehensive methodology was used to get this information?

It is possible to take the time to develop a cost-effective, forward-thinking plan that serves the needs of the community as a whole, rather than only the hikers and bikers who apparently need one specific path to get from the river up the hill. Or, if this plan is a masquerade to close the zoo, let's be up front and say that the city does not want, or cannot afford, to support a contemporary zoo. That's better than spending $15 million on a very bad plan.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louise M. Beyea
Superior, WI