Giving Elephants Space Won’t Cost Just Peanuts

Los Angeles Zoo officials reviewed a conceptual plan Tuesday for a 3 1/2 -acre space that would have the park’s three elephants splashing through waterholes and bathing under falls in one of the largest zoo exhibits in the country.

The proposal brought objections, however, from activists who have argued for months that the animals deserve a much larger sanctuary.

The zoo’s current home for pachyderms Billy, Ruby and Gita is already being demolished to make way for new construction, but what that will look like is uncertain.

The zoo had planned to expand its half-acre elephant space to just over an acre, but a city report released in December concluded that the exhibit should be larger. The expansion discussed Tuesday would cost $38.7 million.

With the city facing an anticipated $271-million budget shortfall, some council members have expressed concern about spending money on the zoo.

But Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose district includes the zoo, remains unswayed.

“It would be a much larger cultural education deficit on this city if we didn’t have a full zoo with elephants and other beautiful animals,” LaBonge said in an interview Tuesday. “Whatever the cost is, it’s worth it.”

The zoo would use park bond revenue to cover $25 million of the project. It also has collected $2 million in private donations and would rely on city grants and loans for the rest.

John Lewis, the zoo’s general manager, also revealed plans at the city Zoo Commission meeting Tuesday to sell a $2.3-million piece of land that was recently donated to the zoo to help fund the expansion.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who commissioned the December report, said he is still considering the revised plan. Villaraigosa promised animal welfare activists during his mayoral campaign that he would delay the expansion until the city could review the project.

“The mayor continues to believe that the best place for animals would be not in zoos,” spokesman Joe Ramallo said. “However, the City Council has been very engaged in this issue, and he wants to work with them to find a solution to this issue.”

Last Chance for Animals, a Los Angeles-based animal rights group that opposes the exhibit, has spent $6,000 for advertisements on 10 bus shelters across the city.

One advertisement shows a chained Billy and quotes the mayor as saying, “A zoo is not an appropriate place for an animal as large as an elephant.... We need to move the elephants out.”

But the group’s campaign director, Lisa Beal, said she questions the mayor’s commitment to freeing the animals.

“The mayor has said some really great things about getting the elephants out, but it sure seems like a lot of talk,” Beal said.

Beal said her group has paid to display the advertisements for two months.

Animal activists argue that even a 3 1/2 -acre exhibit is too small for elephants because they are “roaming creatures.” Beal estimated that elephants typically roam 50 miles a day in the wild.

At the Zoo Commission meeting, Catherine Doyle, another animal rights activist, called the expansion a “waste of taxpayer money.”

Doyle argued that a bill proposed by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) in February would render the exhibit illegal. The bill would require that elephants be kept in an outdoor space no smaller than five acres.

“How wise would it be to spend so much money on something that might eventually be illegal?” Doyle asked.

If the bill is approved, Lewis said, the Oakland Zoo’s six-acre elephant exhibit would be the only one in the state able to comply.

Activist Malathi Ramij, who also attended Tuesday’s meeting, said the proposed exhibit was an insult to elephants.

“Is this a miniature golf course or a [croquet] party from Alice in Wonderland?” she asked zoo commissioners. “Is this designed for animals or for humans?”