The flying foxes were Indian, LA appears to have only held one species. The vampires were assumably Common, same as the current population.
Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Zoo News 2025
- Thread starter Elena
- Start date
The flying foxes were Indian, LA appears to have only held one species. The vampires were assumably Common, same as the current population.
What new ownership are you talking about? The zoo has not undergone any new ownership. It is still owned and run by the city of Los Angeles.
Today the zoo announced on social media that a new temporary exhibit would be coming to the zoo from today July 1st up until September 30. The exhibit is called ‘Wild World: Stories of Conservation + Hope’ and seems to feature fairly standard small exotic animals found in the pet trade. The Zoo partnered with Little Rays Nature Center, a Canadian exotic animal rescue, to create the exhibit.
I'm curious where in the zoo this is. I looked on their website and they haven't updated the map (the elephants are also still on the map as well)
The article below was published in the L.A. Times yesterday and since it's behind a paywall I had a zoo nerd friend copy and paste the whole thing for me. The zoo is mentioned as being "increasingly dilapidated", "struggling to maintain its national accreditation", down 100,000 visitors in a single year (!!), and all of this with the Olympics around the corner.
Last year, I visited zoos in Southeast Asia that had only a handful of exhibits that needed to be replaced and quite a few of those zoos were fantastic even though the nations they were located in weren't the wealthiest, but by contrast in the last masterplan for the L.A. Zoo perhaps 50% of the zoo was slated for redevelopment. Isn't Los Angeles one of the richest cities in the world? The zoo isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be, but why are there so many mediocre exhibits there and why hasn't anyone bulldozed those 1960s roundhouses?
Here's the long article:
Inside the L.A. Zoo’s messy $50-million breakup
By Noah Goldberg
In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.
By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.
Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.
At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements, and exhibit construction.
The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.
The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.
The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.
Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.
“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.
GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.
The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.
But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.
Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.
Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.
Devin Donohue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”
One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.
Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.
“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”
The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.
“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”
Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.
GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.
“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.
In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.
By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.
GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.
Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.
Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.
“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.
GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.
Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.
The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.
Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.
In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.
“With the new structure and ... new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.
As for fundraising, she was less clear.
“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.
On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.
Donohue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.
“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”
Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.
The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.
About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.
Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.
“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”
Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.
The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.
But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.
“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.
“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.
Last year, I visited zoos in Southeast Asia that had only a handful of exhibits that needed to be replaced and quite a few of those zoos were fantastic even though the nations they were located in weren't the wealthiest, but by contrast in the last masterplan for the L.A. Zoo perhaps 50% of the zoo was slated for redevelopment. Isn't Los Angeles one of the richest cities in the world? The zoo isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be, but why are there so many mediocre exhibits there and why hasn't anyone bulldozed those 1960s roundhouses?
Here's the long article:
Inside the L.A. Zoo’s messy $50-million breakup
By Noah Goldberg
In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.
By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.
Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.
At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements, and exhibit construction.
The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.
The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.
The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.
Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.
“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.
GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.
The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.
But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.
Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.
Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.
Devin Donohue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”
One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.
Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.
“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”
The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.
“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”
Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.
GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.
“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.
In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.
By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.
GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.
Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.
Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.
“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.
GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.
Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.
The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.
Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.
In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.
“With the new structure and ... new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.
As for fundraising, she was less clear.
“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.
On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.
Donohue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.
“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”
Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.
The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.
About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.
Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.
“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”
Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.
The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.
But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.
“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.
“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.
It’s in the building to the left of the entrance called the California Condor Zone/Children’s Discovery Center, it is not on the current map but is in the grey area labeled school group entrance.
A truly thought provoking report ..., just how toxic the relationship LA Zoo senior management, zoo staff (where are they in all this...?), the GLAZA operating facility and administration and the ugnhelpful attitude of the LA City Council.The article below was published in the L.A. Times yesterday and since it's behind a paywall I had a zoo nerd friend copy and paste the whole thing for me. The zoo is mentioned as being "increasingly dilapidated", "struggling to maintain its national accreditation", down 100,000 visitors in a single year (!!), and all of this with the Olympics around the corner.
Last year, I visited zoos in Southeast Asia that had only a handful of exhibits that needed to be replaced and quite a few of those zoos were fantastic even though the nations they were located in weren't the wealthiest, but by contrast in the last masterplan for the L.A. Zoo perhaps 50% of the zoo was slated for redevelopment. Isn't Los Angeles one of the richest cities in the world? The zoo isn't as bad as the article makes it out to be, but why are there so many mediocre exhibits there and why hasn't anyone bulldozed those 1960s roundhouses?
Here's the long article:
Inside the L.A. Zoo’s messy $50-million breakup
By Noah Goldberg
In 2022, Robert Ellis pledged $200,000 to create a garden in the Los Angeles Zoo’s bird theater.
By January, the city of Los Angeles had sued its nonprofit partner, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., amid longstanding tensions over spending and other issues.
Ellis, a GLAZA board member, redirected his donation to a fund for the nonprofit’s legal fees.
At stake in the messy divorce between the city and the association is a nearly $50-million endowment that each side claims is theirs and that funds much of the zoo’s special projects, capital improvements, and exhibit construction.
The city’s contract with GLAZA, which governs fundraising, special events and more, ends Tuesday, leaving the zoo in a precarious place, with no firm plan for how to proceed.
The zoo, which houses more than 1,600 animals, has become increasingly dilapidated. Exhibits including the lions, bears, sea lions and pelicans have closed because they need major renovations. The last two elephants, Billy and Tina, recently departed for the Tulsa Zoo after decades of campaigning by animal rights advocates over living conditions and a history of deaths and health challenges.
The 59-year-old zoo, which occupies 133 acres in the northeast corner of Griffith Park, is struggling to maintain its national accreditation, with federal regulators finding peeling paint and rust in some exhibits.
U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors and the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums found a “critical lack of funding and staffing to address even the most basic repairs,” L.A. Zoo officials wrote in a budget document in November 2024.
Meanwhile, attendance has declined to a projected 1.5 million visitors in 2024-25, down about 100,000 from the previous year, the zoo said, citing “outdated infrastructure” and closed exhibits as part of the reason.
“We’re not vibrant like we should be,” said Karen Winnick, president of the city Board of Zoo Commissioners.
GLAZA has been the zoo’s main partner since it opened in 1966, handling fundraising, special events, membership, publications, volunteers and sponsorship.
The zoo’s $31-million operating budget comes largely from tickets and other sources, with only 1% to 2% directly from the association, according to City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo.
But the indirect amount is higher, since GLAZA raises money through membership and special events, depositing some of it in a fund that covers most of the zoo’s budget.
Outside of the operating budget, the group also raises money for facility renovations and programs such as animal care, conservation and education.
Through a spokesperson, Ellis and other GLAZA board members declined to comment.
Devin Donohue, a lawyer for GLAZA, said in a statement that the nonprofit “spent more than 60 years building up an eight-figure endowment that the City of Los Angeles is now attempting to seize without concern for the intent of the donors who chose to give to a trusted charity, and not to a city running a billion-dollar deficit. To remove GLAZA’s safeguarding hand from Zoo funding would be catastrophic for both the LA Zoo and its animals.”
One GLAZA insider blamed the conflicts on Zoo Director and CEO Denise Verret, saying she has tried to take power away from the association since she assumed the role in 2019.
Another source familiar with the relationship said that zoo officials believe they don’t need GLAZA and have wanted to end the partnership for years.
“They [the city] believe they could do this on their own,” said the second source, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the partnership amid the ongoing litigation. “There’s a lot of animosity, as opposed to it being a healthy relationship or one of gratitude.”
The relationship between the zoo and GLAZA has been fraught for decades, stemming from issues regarding money and power, said Manuel Mollinedo, who was zoo director from 1995 to 2002.
“They would make the zoo literally beg for money,” Mollinedo said. “The problem with GLAZA is they see themselves as an entity only responsible in answering to themselves. They don’t see themselves as an organization there to support and work with the zoo.”
Mollinedo said he always thought the zoo would be better off taking some power away from GLAZA and instead partnering with different organizations.
GLAZA has accused the zoo of not properly spending the money that the association raises.
“Notwithstanding red flag warnings of disrepair at the Zoo, enclosure and exhibit closures, and troubling risks to the health and safety of the Zoo’s animals, the City has failed to spend money raised by GLAZA and available to it for necessary remediation,” the nonprofit said in court papers.
In 2023, more than 20 years after Mollinedo left the zoo, city officials announced that they would open up “requests for proposals” for organizations interested in performing GLAZA’s functions, in what they described as an effort to promote fairness and transparency and ensure that the zoo was getting the best services.
By initiating the application process, the city showed that it had no interest in continuing its “overarching partnership” with the organization, Erika Aronson Stern, chair of the GLAZA Board of Trustees, said in a letter to Mayor Karen Bass in October.
GLAZA declined to apply and announced that it would be walking away, along with its nearly $50-million endowment.
Some of the endowment money still needed to spent on the zoo, according to donors’ wishes, and GLAZA would transfer that money to the facility — but it refused to cede control of the fund.
Late last year, the city sued the association, arguing that it was the rightful owner of the endowment.
“GLAZA has only been permitted to raise funds on behalf of the City, never on its own exclusive behalf,” wrote Deputy City Atty. Steven Son.
GLAZA said it does have the right to raise funds for itself and asserted that the city has been mismanaging zoo money for years.
Verret, the zoo’s director, spent exorbitant amounts on activities unrelated to the zoo, GLAZA alleged in court documents, including $22,000 on a party celebrating her own appointment in 2019, $13,000 improving her office and $14,000 on the assistant director’s office.
The association also said in court documents that it provided at least $1.7 million at Verret’s request for conservation organizations that are “separate and distinct” from the zoo.
Verret argued in court papers that her use of the money was appropriate. She modernized “1960s-era” administrative offices, and her welcome party helped “strengthen relationships.” Conservation is one of the zoo’s “core purposes,” she said, noting that GLAZA didn’t raise the spending questions until after the city sued.
In a statement, Verret said the zoo is prepared to be on the international stage for the Summer Olympics in 2028.
“With the new structure and ... new business partners in place, the L.A. Zoo is in a very healthy place now and continues to focus on its mission,” she said.
As for fundraising, she was less clear.
“Although we are still developing plans to establish a new fundraising model, we are future-focused with our priorities and efforts grounded in the gold-standard care and well-being for the animals at the zoo,” she said.
On Wednesday, a judge ruled that GLAZA cannot solicit donations “that are not for the exclusive benefit of the Los Angeles Zoo” and may not use funds from the endowment without the city’s permission. The question of who controls the endowment is still open.
Donohue, the GLAZA lawyer, called the judge’s ruling “wrong on the law and facts, deeply flawed analytically and not in the best interest of the Zoo, its animals, its donors, or the people of Los Angeles.” He said was confident that an appellate court would reach a different decision.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the City Council is working to approve new contracts with other organizations to handle concessions, memberships and other functions. City employees perform many core jobs, such as feeding and caring for the animals, but volunteers supplied by GLAZA, including the docents that gave tours, played a major role in the zoo’s day-to-day operations.
“It’s really a shame that it has devolved to this point,” said Ron Galperin, a former city controller who conducted a special review of the relationship between the nonprofit and the zoo in 2018 and found it “cumbersome and confusing.”
Galperin has advocated for the zoo to be run as a public-private partnership, with the city leasing the land and animals to an organization like GLAZA that would run it, similar to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Hollywood Bowl.
The city previously explored that option after the 2008 financial crisis, but it was opposed by unions that represent zoo workers, as well as by animal rights activists who believed there would be less transparency surrounding the care of the animals.
About 73% of accredited zoos are managed by non-government entities — 57% by nonprofits and 16% by for-profit organizations, according to a study by the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums.
Winnick, the Zoo Commission president, believes a privately run zoo would raise funds more effectively and save the city money.
“We need new governance for our zoo, and this is the time to do it, with our city overwhelmed by so many problems,” she said. “It would serve people of L.A. and the community for us to go into public-private partnership.”
Instead, the city will run the zoo piecemeal, with at least two organizations taking over what GLAZA once did.
The city recently came to an agreement with SSA Group, LLC to run membership, special events and publications, while The Superlative Group will run sponsorship programs. The city plans to manage volunteers itself.
But the zoo still has not found a fundraising partner.
“For the city to lose a fundraising partner at this point in time, with the deficit we have and visitors we’re expecting to L.A., is sad,” said Richard Lichtenstein, a former member of the GLAZA board and a former zoo commissioner, who said he was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the association.
“The city does deserve, and its residents deserve, a first-class facility, and without a funding partner, it is difficult to see how the zoo is going to be able to maintain itself as a world-class facility,” he said.
TBH: First thing I would cut is the connection with LA City Council ..., the main reason their new Masterplan flunked in my humble opinion is because of misdirected activism at LA City Council and having - by virtue of Municipalities' expertise - having f***-a** knowledge and first hand experience - at running a zoo and they should not be involved in their operation .... at all in no areas whatsoever.
I am convinced if they had not been "involved" from the moment a new Masterplan was under development at cetera till all the activist BS Litigation in the courts allowed by the Municipality to proceed without any confrontation with all the wrong arguments by AW people .... that led to the worst case ... empty elephant area and the sending off of bull Billy with a post-reproductive cow elephant to Tulsa Zoo is perhaps the lowest point.
What are the next steps ... bc I do not have much faith in how the Municipality is breaking up the GLAZA framework and putting in place rather 'unknowns' in the attractions industry in place for part functions ...., yet with no fundraising facility in place and then litigating GLAZA over the Endowment Fund....! I really fail to see what they are playing at ..., the Municipality is just unfit to make those decisions and is actually destroying the whole stature of the LA Zoo as it stands....
Lori Patton
Well-Known Member
An interesting article on the recent upheaval at the L.A. Zoo was just published on July 3 by the Daily Breeze, a local newspaper serving the South Bay coastal communities. It was written by a former GLAZA board member and mentions several noteworthy items. Specifically, Mayor Bass' proposed City budget would eliminate 53 zoo positions, which represents a staff reduction of nearly 20%, along with a half-million dollar decrease in part-time employees.
Although the article is biased towards the GLAZA side, the author does make several valid points, namely that the City doesn't have the specialized expertise to take over the functions that GLAZA has been doing for over half a century. As a side note, I looked at the "Careers" section of the zoo website and saw that they are hiring for such essential positions as Senior Director of Events and Manager of Event Operations. It doesn't bode well for the zoo that these positions are still open when it was the zoo management itself that decided to sever ties with GLAZA last year.
Here's a link to the article: When good intentions meet poor governance: The LA Zoo’s crisis of leadership – Daily Breeze
Although the article is biased towards the GLAZA side, the author does make several valid points, namely that the City doesn't have the specialized expertise to take over the functions that GLAZA has been doing for over half a century. As a side note, I looked at the "Careers" section of the zoo website and saw that they are hiring for such essential positions as Senior Director of Events and Manager of Event Operations. It doesn't bode well for the zoo that these positions are still open when it was the zoo management itself that decided to sever ties with GLAZA last year.
Here's a link to the article: When good intentions meet poor governance: The LA Zoo’s crisis of leadership – Daily Breeze
A steep cut for a relatively large zoo - it was stated sending out Billy and Tina had nothing to do with the budget shortfall, but between that and the messy GLAZA situation causing funding issues that's a pretty convenient time to get out from under a very expensive species. Potentially cutting that many positions says a lot about where the zoo is going in the next few years I suspect, if it comes to pass.
I find it a bit odd that the San Francisco Zoo is listed by the author as a facility to look up to, maybe he hasn't heard much about what's been going on up there. It's more of a mess than what LA is dealing with currently. Neither of these two famous cities are apparently much good at managing their zoos...
These two zoos seem to always have some controversy around them and it will be interesting to see if either of them have significant issues at their next AZA accreditation inspections. San Francisco Zoo is due in March 2027 and Los Angeles Zoo in March 2028, and I'm sure there will be issues at both facilities. Whether it's enough to see the loss of accreditation is another thing, but only time will tell.
At Living Desert Zoo, which is AZA accredited through to March 2030, and is a much better zoo than either of the ones mentioned above in terms of the overall quality of the exhibits and the health of the finances, there are still major issues with the zookeepers wanting to unionize. They formed The Living Desert Animal Care Union and have been battling for a wage increase and better working conditions for the past two years and lawyers have been involved as the zoo attempts to halt the unionization process. Essentially, the zoo has spent millions on new exhibits and revenue is at an all-time high, yet the zookeepers are not paid well and they work in an extremely hot, desert environment.
What on earth is going on in California? The state is massively in debt and none of the other 49 U.S. states are even close to the staggering amount of debt in California. It's very difficult to have vast sums of money spent on zoos in California when there are things like wildfires, aging hospitals, rampant homelessness, drug addiction and other expenditures that require more immediate attention. Not to mention the $7 BILLION budget for the 2028 Olympics. As of 2017, Los Angeles was the ONLY bidder for the games and so actually gained the tournament somewhat by default. Hopefully the zoo can be improved a little in the next 3 years before the world descends on the city.
Not to steer off track but there are a few reasons. One being that California is the largest donor state giving more in taxes than receiving in gov funding, a difference of about 83 billion. On top of that the state budget is constantly in a deficit, that can be blamed on other issues like poor planning by that state and pressures from gov employee debts (retirement and social services). On the Los Angeles level the wildfires, Olympic Games, and exorbitant LAPD liability lawsuit costs. But as a whole Californias economy is volatile and difficult to predict making state budget planning difficult, and in that case government owned facilities like zoos, state parks, and museums get the short end of the stick.
SF Zoo may well have a rocky accreditation process, given the mess things are in right now. Hopefully Peterson's exit will at least stall the decline and give them some opportunity to bring things back up.
Yep, very much the truth. Been a lot of state-run places with pretty meager facilities. I know some CA zoos deliberately sought to find ways of being self sufficient and get off being mostly supported by the local government because they were getting very little. As @Westcoastperson mentioned both SF and LA have a lot more pressing issues on their plate than fixing their zoos, and as such we see the continued decline. They can't even pull a Fresno and support the zoo via tax measure apparently. It will be interesting to see what happens going forwards with both zoos, and hopefully we don't see both end up falling completely apart.
0.1 Pacific harbor seal Ziggy passed away on May 15th, 2025. The MMIR notes: "Seizures Noted On Morning Of Death, Followed By Cardiopulmonary Arrest; Cpr Unsuccessful. No Definitive Cause Of Death Was Identifiable In Gross Necropsy. Histopathology Is Currently Pending.".
Ziggy was rescued by the Pacific Marine Mammal Center on February 3rd, 2016, estimated to be the day after her birth, and arrived at Los Angeles later that year.
Pinnipeds remaining at the zoo are her son, Walnut (born to Ziggy and Alfred in 2022), and 34-year-old female Atlantic harbor seal, Mysti.
Ziggy was rescued by the Pacific Marine Mammal Center on February 3rd, 2016, estimated to be the day after her birth, and arrived at Los Angeles later that year.
Pinnipeds remaining at the zoo are her son, Walnut (born to Ziggy and Alfred in 2022), and 34-year-old female Atlantic harbor seal, Mysti.
July animal transactions: https://lazoo.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/3-Animal-Transaction-Report-7.2025-1.pdf
peruvianbirdie
Well-Known Member
Looks like there was a birth and two deaths with the Grévy's zebras, did this include the new calf and how many zebras are now there?
Not to mention the extreme cost of just about everything in the state. I imagine there might be more of a struggle to maintain the zoo then other states just based off of the high cost of living.
This is fantastic - it’s about time the zoo had some good news!