RUSTI
THE ORANGUTAN SINGS THE HAWAIIAN
BLUES
(CLICK FOR MORE PICTURES - Where Rusti Lives)Click here for EnviroWatch Letter to the Editor - Honolulu Advertiser - written 2/5/04 (last letter on page)
Many
stories have appeared in the media, many claims have been made, and there
is much confusion. Here are
the facts about Rusti’s placement in Hawaii:
·
Rusti
came to the Honolulu Zoo in 1997 (Shipping Agreement dated 8-6-97), from a
roadside zoo in New Jersey. His
new “owner” became Orangutan Foundation International (OFI).
Per language on the Shipping Agreement, the “loan terms expire
January 31, 1998, at which time the orangutan must either be transferred
to Panaewa Zoo, or back to the care of Orangutan Foundation
International.” Therefore,
Rusti’s stay at the Honolulu Zoo was supposed to be only temporary.
·
In
a July 2, 1999 article printed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Zoo Director
Ken Redman is quoted as saying that the Zoo “could not provide adequate
housing with the substandard concrete and chain link pen.”
The orangutan has languished in this barren, substandard cage for 7
years, with little to no veterinary care, largely at the expense of
taxpayers in Honolulu. OFI
spoke with Parker Ranch on the Big Island, but Parker Ranch would not
accept Rusti there. OFI also
contacted Kualoa Ranch on Oahu.
·
In
an OFI press release dated February 11, 2003, OFI stated they would
“build a state-of-the-art orangutan sanctuary at Kualoa Ranch in Oahu
for Rusti, an adult male orangutan.”
It never materialized.
·
After 7 years, OFI negotiated with John Morgan of Kualoa
Ranch, which is a private ranch and outdoor recreational facility.
Rusti would be transferred there.
·
The State Department of Agriculture approved the transfer on
2-20-03.
·
The
City and County of Honolulu cited Orangutan Foundation International
(“tenant/violator”) on March 20, 2003, for a “chain linked/CMU
animal enclosure built without a building permit.
The structure is approximately 12’ x 25’, located in the area
of the petting zoo.” At
the bottom of the violation notice, it read:
“If the structure is to be used to house a primate (orangutan), a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is also required.”
·
On 8-27-03, EnviroWatch, Inc. filed a Petition for Declaratory
Ruling with the City Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP).
The Petition raised environmental, public health and safety, and
zoning issues. (CLICK
HERE TO VIEW PETITION)
·
EnviroWatch,
Inc. argued an orangutan facility at Kualoa Ranch had the potential to
adversely impact area residents, the environment, and the
community-at-large, and submitted numerous documents and arguments to
substantiate this. EnviroWatch,
Inc. was also concerned about government cover-ups, fraud and abuse, and
about the welfare of Rusti, should he be sent to Kualoa Ranch.
·
DPP
has a history of lax or improper oversight of Kualoa Ranch’s facility.
For example, because Kualoa Ranch is on the Historic Register, an
Environmental Assessment is required.
DPP withheld documents from EnviroWatch, Inc. and would not respond
to our UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request, as required by
law.
·
EnviroWatch,
Inc. filed a request for investigation with Council member Ann Kobayashi,
who is the Budget and Finance Committee Chair.
·
EnviroWatch,
Inc. included numerous documents, including billings and e-mails between
the Zoo Director (Ken Redman), the Director of Enterprise Services (Barry
Fukunaga), Zoo staff, Planning and Permitting Director Eric Crispin, and
OFI, which illustrated behind-the-scenes or backroom dealings, the
spending of taxpayer money for a privately-owned animal, the unofficial
use of City employees for OFI, and the informal and questionable way
transactions were processed.
·
To
this day, we have received no response to our request for investigation.
·
On
10-27-03, Planning and Permitting Director Eric Crispin issued a partial
Declaratory Ruling. Essentially,
Crispin said it would be “premature and purely speculative” to rule on
the land use and permits required to house Rusti at Kualoa Ranch, because
“no proposal or plan had been submitted for an orangutan facility”.
·
On
11-24-03, EnviroWatch, Inc. filed an Appeal of the Director’s ruling to
the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) because Crispin had made false claims.
As part of that statement, we filed a Position Statement.
On
11-24-03, EnviroWatch, Inc. filed an Appeal of the Director’s ruling to
the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) because Crispin had made false claims.
As part of that statement, we filed a Position Statement. (CLICK
HERE TO VIEW POSITION STATEMENT)
·
The
Appeal sought relief from Crispin’s abuse of discretion, erroneous
statements, and arbitrary and capricious ruling.
EnviroWatch, Inc. provided numerous documents proving Crispin had
falsely claimed in his ruling, because OFI had indeed submitted drawings,
videos, and proposals for an orangutan facility.
We obtained copies of many e-mails and documented phone calls which
were held by Crispin and OFI to discuss the planned facility, from other
City offices.
·
On
3-11-04, the Director’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on
the basis that it was moot. The
Appeal was dismissed. EnviroWatch,
Inc. informed the ZBA that their dismissal was bogus, and we had more than
sufficiently satisfied the criteria for winning our Appeal.
·
EnviroWatch,
Inc’s documents and facts of government waste, fraud and abuse are
overwhelming. One of OFI’s
lawyers (John Van Dyke) informed news reporters that they decided not to
send Rusti to Kualoa Ranch because
they were concerned with the legal and environmental issues raised by
EnviroWatch, Inc.
·
Mayor
Jeremy Harris intervened, and without any public participation he entered
into an agreement with OFI to keep Rusti at the Zoo.
·
When
City Council raised legitimate, important concerns about the terms of the
agreement, which posed liability risks to the City and its taxpayers,
Mayor Harris attacked the Council in media stories, by claiming they were
insensitive, and obstructionists.
·
Yet
this is the same Mayor who allowed Rusti to sit in a small, barren cage
for 7 years! His newfound
concern for the animal and his welfare are laughable.
|
|||