L.A. Zoo elephant exhibit a step closer to being killed

Could the great elephant debate at the L.A. Zoo be coming to a close?

The Los Angeles City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee voted 3 to 2 on Monday to recommend that the city stop construction on the Los Angeles Zoo’s $42-million elephant exhibit.

“This has not been a very easy decision,” said Councilman Bernard Parks, the committee’s chairman, at the end of another lengthy and impassioned meeting, attended by vocal supporters and critics of the zoo’s plans for elephant-keeping.

“Financially, whether you like animals or not, I don’t think this is a prudent thing to do.”

The zoo has already spent $12 million from a mix of city and county bonds, municipal improvement financing, public and private sources.

The City Council gave the zoo the go-ahead in 2006, but Councilman Tony Cardenas recently offered a new motion to halt construction. The zoo currently has one male Asian elephant but would acquire more when the exhibit was finished.

Parks focused on whether it made sense to continue to fund the project when the city is cutting back on services. “I think at the time this was approved in 2006, we had more money,” he said. “We don’t have that money now.”

But  the city administrative officer, in a report, urged the city to keep the project going. “We believe we have eight to nine million dollars in costs we can’t recover,” Raymond Ciranna, the CAO, told the council. He wrote in his report that the repayment of the bond money already spent poses a “significant impact to the city’s General Fund, especially given the size of our current deficit.”

--Carla Hall

Comments

[LA Zoo Member]

Open Letter to the LA City Council

The CAO and the City Attorney has recommend continuation with the Pachyderm Forest yet the Budget and Finance Committee has chosen to ignore this! Stopping the construction of the Pachyderm Forest will cost the City of Los Angeles more than $14 million, not just in the $ 9 million in funds expended and non-recoverable, but in a $5 million payment due to the County in the next 60 days. How can this make sense? It can’t. And what about the cost of building an AZA approved elephant sanctuary elsewhere. How much will that cost? Or will it be ok for the City to have a substandard elephant sanctuary??

Our fellow citizen are losing their homes, their jobs, and are in need of support from their City. Are we to turn our backs on them because Councilman Cardenas has changed his mind after voting in favor of building the Pachyderm Forest? PLEASE I beg of you do your homework tonight. The money set aside for the Pachyderm Forest can not be used for programs. This money was allocated to the Zoo by our citizens, let’s not end up back in court like so many propositions that are overturned only to have our citizens reaffirm their original decision at a skyrocketing cost to our City.

The Zoo is supported by millions of citizens who donate their money and visit the zoo over and over, listen to your constituents. Listen to those who voted you into your offices who support your programs. Cancelling the Pachyderm Forest will cost more money that building it, will result in lost jobs in a difficult economic time. This is not what we voted for. This is not a vote of conscience this is a vote of representation. The citizens of Los Angeles has spoken loud and clear. We passed propositions to allocate funding, wrote to you with our support, attending countless meetings in your Chambers, we have made our voices clear, is the voice of one Councilman to void all of those citizens voices and change your minds after voting yes two years ago.

This argument started about what was best for Billy and the LA Zoo elephant population, it has now degraded into the a dollars and cents issue – of which your own CAO and City Attorney has recommend the best thing to do is proceed, are you still willing to vote to terminate the construction? I for one will be in Chambers tomorrow to see if you are the City Council we all elected or if you can be so easily swayed….if on this what else?

Respectfully,

A Zoo Member

[Joel Alatorre]

I wish people would stop putting their own personal issues before the best interest of the life that will most be effected by this. Billy, the elephant, is in horrible conditions at the LA Zoo and the new enclosure will be nowhere near what it should be for an elephant in the wild. If we really want to teach protection and preservation, a sanctuary better gets this point across than a zoo. PLEASE SEND BILLY TO THE SANCTUARY AND CLOSE THE ELEPHANT EXHIBIT!

Don't put your interest before his. He deserves to live the rest of his life in a nice, large, and peaceful sanctuary.

[Lori Choi]

I am also an LA Zoo member, and agree 100% with the prior post. This is about a legacy to our children, and what was originally earmarked for the zoo should remain so. The elephant named Billy needs companionship, and if this companionship can only be provided by expanding the current enclosure, then that is what must be done. Not only are the sunk costs to be considered, but the opportunity cost of those children who grow up without the benefit of seeing elephants that are happy and alive and well. I heard an argument that the larger enclosure is still going to be far too small for the number of elephants. If this is true, then perhaps this can be reviewed for costs, bring in fewer elephants than originally planned, cut back on some of the building costs and allocate the remaining money to care for the animals and caretakers of those animals.

But in no way should this diminish the fact that Billy needs additional elephants to keep it happy and healthy. I visit the zoo often as I have an annual membership. The zoo is world-class and should continue to remain so.

Please continue the effort of building the enclosure and adding more elephants to the zoo. The long-term benefits to the LA community must be considered and respected.

thank you,
Lori,
another LA Zoo Member

[Lori Choi]

Pardon me, but I must repost, as in my previous statement I was referring to the LA Zoo member's post at that I was agreeing to, was posted at 3:06 PM, not the 8:38 post which was not yet in my browser when I said "I agreed with the prior post", my mistake.

In addition, I completely disagree with Joel Alatorre and the Sanctuary idea...what part of Zoo do you not understand? If creating an actual area for each animal that was exactly like it was in the wild was feasible then we would need quite a bit more land than there is now anyway. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of all the animals and forget it. Elephants are difficult to keep in zoos, yes, but not impossible, and Billy does need a "friend" or two.

If this means I'm putting my interests and my children's interests first, then so be it. Forgive me for wanting the children of L.A. to see, smell, and watch these large creatures in person. The L.A. Zoo is a wondrous place with enclosures far from the old-fashioned cement cells of the past.

If you are so concerned about elephants in captivity, then find another cause where the elephants really need your help such as in smaller zoos, circuses, or in places where they are abused in captivity such as in other countries. (I've seen this for myself.)

[kit]

To Lori Choi,
How selfish of you. For your own entertainment you would have a animal held in captivity. Are you kidding me. I would like to put you in captivity an observe you a bit. See what we can learn by watching you. You know , for entertainment. Give me a break.