KEY POINTS:
Auckland City Council has been confronting, behind closed doors until now, a prospect that barely bears thinking about: a zoo without an elephant. Kashin, the older of Auckland Zoo's two elephants, is in declining health and when she dies the zoo must either find a companion for its other elephant, Burma, or send her to another zoo. Elephants need company, so a solitary survivor is properly out of the question.
So why not find another? The zoo seems to have been set upon acquiring somewhat more than one replacement. Modern animal care prefers to keep elephants in small herds and the zoo has plans to build a family of two males and up to eight females, which would require an extra 7000sq m of space, with a separate enclosure for the males, and sounds simply marvellous.
Unfortunately, the zoo has nothing in its budget for this outlay and the council is having an economy drive. "The zoo has got to live within its means," says the council majority leader David Hay, indicating it would have to choose between elephants or hippos.
Why hippos? If something has to give for the sake of an elephant, most people could nominate a large number of species less interesting than hippos. Doubtless, simple human interest is not the decisive consideration these days. Principles of biodiversity probably argue for the retention of many of the creatures that seldom rate a second glance, especially some of the indigenous specimens.
But the zoo's first duty should be to those who pay for it through rates and its entry charge. That duty dictates that certain attractions are inviolate. Elephants are certainly one of them. Lions, tigers and other big cats are another. Apes and monkeys a third. Take a child to a zoo and these will be the highlights. The hippos, bears, zebras and giraffes are likely to be up there too.
But, ask any child, the elephant is the ultimate. If it is tame enough to be led out of its enclosure, as Kashin and Burma are, it is worth its weight in lesser species. Kashin, who turned 40 last Sunday, has earned a place in Aucklanders' hearts and considerable sums for charities that can piggyback on her name. It would be a pity if her replacement with a breeding herd did not allow this level of contact to continue, but even worse if the council opts for no elephants after her.
Auckland's pair are the only elephants left in a New Zealand zoo, which is another reason to retain them. The planned herd and its enclosure, taking in more of Western Springs reserve, would cost $5 million over the council's 10-year budgeting period. Over the same time the council seems willing to spend a further $15 million on the New Zealand area. A rebalancing of priorities would do no harm.
The council could probably bank on some wider financial assistance for the zoo in any case. Though the zoo was inexplicably excluded from recent legislation enforcing regional funding of certain services, the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is likely to suggest some form of amalgamation. The Auckland City Council might not want to lose one of its proudest creations unless the council can dominate a new super city. But it should not put its pride before the interests of the zoo and the citizens.
The zoo has developed splendidly in recent decades, building enclosures that are happier for the animals and more attractive for the public.
It has spawned a popular television programme that gives an insight into the quality and dedication of its work behind the scenes.
There is ample public land available for its further expansion and no reason to contain it. A herd of elephants roaming there would be magnificent, their total absence unthinkable. Ask a child.
