'Elephant in the room' at City Council over zoo

The Los Angeles Zoo’s controversial elephant exhibit was hardly the "elephant in the room" Wednesday at an L.A. City Council meeting.

Far from unspoken, it was the only issue in Council Chambers for four and a half hours before a packed house that cheered and groaned as wildlife experts, animal welfare activists, impassioned schoolteachers, zoo lovers, a former game show host-cum-animal cause philanthropist (Bob Barker) and council members themselves weighed in on the future of elephants in the city.

Even some council members expressed surprise that they spent half a day debating two motions from Councilman Tony Cardenas: One would halt construction on the zoo’s $42 million "Pachyderm Forest" habitat; the other would create an elephant sanctuary -- a preserve, possibly 50 to 100 acres -- somewhere in the L.A. basin.

They did not reach a decision. In the end, the council decided to postpone any vote, agreeing to refer the issue of shutting down the exhibit to the council’s Budget and Finance Committee for some financial study first.

"I hope we spend four hours on the homeless, gridlock and other issues that affect our city,"said Councilman Bill Rosendahl. But council members sparred as passionately over the issues as the zoo supporters and the opposing animal welfare advocates have been doing for years as the fate of the proposed exhibit has been called into question several times over the past few years.

This is, in fact, the second time that the City Council has voted on whether to allow construction to continue. Two years ago, they approved it.

"I’ve been to South Africa," said Councilman Dennis Zine, noting that he had seen elephants in their natural habitat. "It’s a huge, huge animal. It doesn’t belong in an enclosure. . . . I voted no originally. I’m still going to vote no."

--Carla Hall

Photo: LAT

Comments

[susan]

How can anyone be advocating scrapping a $40 million/ elephant facility that's almost completed-- $12 million spent so far -- which was configured specifically for elephants, with so many human needs going unmet? WHAT is Cardenas thinking? Why is he pandering to some people who've made this their cause?
Maybe those people live in some ideal fantasy world, but our officials know full well what our budget crisis is and are supposed to fix it, not exacerbate it.

Cardenas was right along Janice Hahn in wanting to impose another property tax on struggling homeowners for the gang programs, and it was voted down because people are sick of being taxed while services diminish. Homeowners are paying more for trash fees, allegedly for cops. (Although Smith said it's really just "full recovery" so who knows.) But public safety is one thing that people will pay for, not building a boondoggle sanctuary for one elephant in addition to blowing off the money already spent at the Zoo. The city's nickel-and-diming us on everything from parking meters to parking tickets and fines, and even admissions to the zoo.

There's also no funding for more elephants, sanctuary upkeep, zookeepers and staff, and general maintenance -- while that already exists at the Zoo. A number of zoologists testified that the new enclosure is so much bigger that it's on a par with the famous San Diego Animal Park. And if this isn't good enough for elephants, what about the much more solitary tigers and lions? Do we do away with all zoos, and their mission of exposing humans to wild animals? If people didn't see and love gorillas at zoos, they wouldn't have contributed to programs to save them in the wild. Save with tigers, elephants, etc.

Larry Levine pointed out that the money for the sanctuary could instead be spent on Parks & Recreation and other human needs, freeing up General Fund money for cops and firefighting. Taxpayers have to realize that this is a choice between a pet project for Cardenas and stout supporter Alarcon, and more vital services, during a fiscal crisis. Why Cardenas suddenly wants to put a sanctuary in his district, over the strong objection of Zoo Councilman LaBonge, is a total mystery. This is the kind of thing that makes voters really wonder about who's in charge at City Hall.