L.A. won’t send its pachyderm packing

The Los Angeles City Council has ruled: The elephant stays in the picture.

Just a month ago, council members temporarily halted construction on the Los Angeles Zoo’s $42-million Pachyderm Forest exhibit while they considered killing the project and removing elephants from the zoo altogether. But on Wednesday, at the end of a raucous, three-hour meeting, they voted 11 to 4 to allow the zoo to complete the exhibit and keep its solitary Asian bull elephant, Billy.

Once again, the issue of elephants had transformed a chamber more accustomed to the dronings of bureaucrats into a rally of energetic believers on both sides -- animal welfare activists, zoo supporters and staffers, fundraisers and, of course, celebrities, all displaying a passion that sometimes took the council members by surprise.

When it became clear the zoo would get to keep its elephant, supporters wearing green T-shirts emblazoned with “Save Pachyderm Forest” jumped to their feet screaming while well-heeled zoo fundraisers embraced. A couple of hundred opponents, meanwhile, looked on soberly and trudged out.

The decision was the climax to three months of rallies, news conferences and dueling pleas of experts and citizen animal-lovers alike over whether the world’s largest land mammal could thrive in what the zoo touted as a world-class exhibit.

Hefty offers of money abounded: The zoo’s fundraising arm promised to cover the city’s $14.5-million commitment to the exhibit. Retired game show host Bob Barker, meanwhile, pledged $1.5 million to pay for Billy’s upkeep if he were moved to a sanctuary, as animal welfare advocates hoped.

Zoo Director John Lewis said he believed his institution’s fundraising organization, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., and his staff were instrumental in persuading the council to revive the project. “Just the staff coming out in force and clearing up animal care issues was part of it,” said Lewis, who also cited community support as key.

People on both sides said the recent interest of labor leaders may have played a part. “I think what happened is labor came forward and said they’d lose jobs -- which was not true,” said animal welfare advocate Melya Kaplan. “If the space was used for other animals, then labor would continue to have jobs.”

Opponents of the exhibit argued that zoo elephants should be retired to huge sanctuaries that mimic a wild preserve. Supporters, on the other hand, believe the Los Angeles Zoo offers state-of-the-art care and a chance for people of all backgrounds to see an elephant up close.

The lumbering behemoths have ignited debate for more than a decade over whether any exhibit, no matter how elaborate and spacious, is sufficient for animals that roam miles in the wild daily and live socially in herds. A dozen zoos have already gotten out of the elephant-keeping business.

But nowhere has the debate been more fractious or prolonged than in Los Angeles. In the five years since the zoo broke ground for the exhibit, construction has been halted twice for more study, and zoo officials have been hauled before numerous City Council panels for more questions.

Even the latest decision seems unlikely to stem the debate.

“This isn’t over,” said Catherine Doyle, an elephant-welfare advocate. “As long as there are elephants at the L.A. Zoo, there is going to be controversy. . . . We had experts from around the world saying elephants don’t belong in zoos. It’s appalling that the science has been ignored.”

But the zoo, a city agency, made a full-court press. Unlike in the past, when zoo officials frostily clamped down in the face of noisy opposition, this time they wooed their doubters. They let reporters tread the part of the new exhibit that is already completed and put their vets and keepers in front of council members’ hearings.

For everyone who crowded the chamber Wednesday morning, this meeting was their last stand. They were quick to cheer, boo or gasp in disbelief. Council President Eric Garcetti gave visitors a bit of leeway but periodically cautioned against outbursts.

Celebrities who opposed the exhibit provided some of the day’s rhetorical flourishes.

“The L.A. Zoo has consistently concealed its use of electric shock and bullhooks,” said the entertainer Cher, who opposed the exhibit. (The zoo has long maintained it has not used prods or brandished bullhooks in decades.)

Actress Lily Tomlin lamented that the zoo accrediting agency, the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums, set minimum space requirements for elephants that she compared to “the equivalent of a three-car garage.” And actor Robert Culp called himself a taxpayer who was outraged at funds “going to this shameless political boondoggle.”

But most opponents hewed to their well-established argument that no matter how caring the keepers, the zoo’s 3.6-acre exhibit -- even dotted with interesting land features for elephants to clamber over and explore -- would not offer enough room for roaming and conditioning their problem-prone feet. Nor would it offer enough social interaction with other elephants, they have argued.

However, zookeepers were passionate about their interaction with elephants in general and Billy, their sole charge at the moment, in particular.

“No disrespect -- I love you, Cher -- but if you want to know about a concert, talk to Cher,” senior animal keeper Joshua Sisk told the council. “If you want to know how to spin a wheel, talk to Bob Barker. Let’s talk to professionals at the zoo who care for animals, if you want to know about the zoo. Billy has never seen electric shock. He’s basically been in a sanctuary in the middle of the city.”

Supporters of the exhibit cheered and screamed in approval.

Moved to speak again, Tomlin popped up from her seat and approached the podium, defying the council’s order of speakers.

“Mr. Garcetti, I have to speak out,” she began.

“No! No!” opponents in the crowd shouted as a uniformed guard charged with making sure everyone follows the rules approached her shaking his head no..

“Ms. Tomlin, we have to go in order,” Garcetti said gently. “We will return to the other side.”

Not far from Cher sat Maria Elena Durazo, the head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, which plays a huge role in the election of council members and other elected city leaders.

The federation, along with the Service Employees International Union Local 721, had argued that completion of the elephant enclosure would preserve much-needed construction jobs. Though Durazo didn’t speak, she sent council members a letter urging them to support the exhibit and sat in the front row throughout the debate -- something she rarely does.

It was Councilman Tony Cardenas who prompted this reexamination of the zoo exhibit last fall.

He said at the time that an examination of zoo veterinary medical records -- recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act -- along with information from animal advocates and wildlife experts had convinced him the exhibit needed to be stopped. He had strongly argued in the last few months that the zoo’s history of elephant deaths, as well as Billy’s constant head-bobbing -- considered by some to be a sign of stress in captive animals -- were signs that elephants don’t do well in zoos.

He declined to speak about the vote, instead issuing a one-sentence statement that said, in part, “Today, the council sent a frightening message to the public that, even in light of new facts, politics trumps the truth.”

Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who had been a staunch opponent of the exhibit, was the surprise reversal. “If it’s going to cost more to shut it down,” he said, citing warnings by city financial analysts that there would be hefty costs associated with redesigning the space for other animals, “and I have faith in the people at the zoo, I’m switching my vote.”

Once the exhibit is completed -- around 2010 -- the zoo plans to bring in more Asian elephants, an endangered species, for an ambitious breeding program.

--

carla.hall@latimes.com

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.