New elephant exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo faces tough legal f...

[Angela]

The money spent on this exhibit could be put to better use by enlarging and improving habitats in Africa and Asia that exist for wild elephants, educating native populations on how to co-exist with wild elephants and giving these people financial and work alternatives so elephants in captivity can be sent to elephant sanctuaries or introduced into the wild. Many elephants in Asia and Africa are used as work animals and these elephants need to be allowed to go to elephant sanctuaries--but programs need to be in place to offer the people an alternate livelihood that does not include using elephants as work animals. That is what will save the elephants from being extinct in the wild--not this terrible exhibit in the zoo.

[Nancy from Ojai]

This so called exhibit is a total waste of taxpayers money as it has become educated in most people's minds about the facts of elephants dying and suffering in zoos. Many zoos have paid attention and given up their elephant exhibits as it cause foot rot and arthuritus. Check the records for the horrid Los Angles Zoo and the greedy zoo director that has allowed several elephants to die horrible, cruel deaths while being asked to send a suffering elephant to a sanctuary to live out it's life as an elephant should with proper room to roam. Elephants are ore than animals for humans to gawk at while they suffer. Please everyone, check out the facts and the number of elephant deaths in zoos in just the past three years. Check out the lies that this director has told. Check out the total facts on the last elephant's death "Gita" The director was begged for two years to allow her to go to sanctuary, but he lied and told the public she was fine right up to the night she died a tragic inhumane death at his hands. Please folks, learn the truth and do what you can to get Billy who is alone and super stressed in a small enclosure at that zoo. PAWS, an elephant sanctuary in Northern California will take him in to live out his life as a elephant with others as his family. Do not allow this exhibit to go through and have more elephants suffer. Thank you. Also see elephants.com and see videos.

[Patches Ohoulihan]

Nancy from Ojai wrote:

This so called exhibit is a total waste of taxpayers money as it has become educated in most people's minds about the facts of elephants dying and suffering in zoos. Many zoos have paid attention and given up their elephant exhibits as it cause foot rot and arthuritus. Check the records for the horrid Los Angles Zoo and the greedy zoo director that has allowed several elephants to die horrible, cruel deaths while being asked to send a suffering elephant to a sanctuary to live out it's life as an elephant should with proper room to roam. Elephants are ore than animals for humans to gawk at while they suffer. Please everyone, check out the facts and the number of elephant deaths in zoos in just the past three years. Check out the lies that this director has told. Check out the total facts on the last elephant's death "Gita" The director was begged for two years to allow her to go to sanctuary, but he lied and told the public she was fine right up to the night she died a tragic inhumane death at his hands. Please folks, learn the truth and do what you can to get Billy who is alone and super stressed in a small enclosure at that zoo. PAWS, an elephant sanctuary in Northern California will take him in to live out his life as a elephant with others as his family. Do not allow this exhibit to go through and have more elephants suffer. Thank you. Also see elephants.com and see videos.

Horrible cruel deaths??? Do you mean like these elephants suffer in the wild from Ivory poachers?

[buddhadog]

Patches Ohoulihan wrote:

<quoted text>
Horrible cruel deaths??? Do you mean like these elephants suffer in the wild from Ivory poachers?

People are murdered too, but I don't think we would choose to be confined in an inadequate space on a surface that guaranteed we would have severe foot & joint problems (that would mean an early death and a painful existence) for the rest of our lives for the sake of not being shot.

I don't think the people supporting the exhibit realize how much we have to spend on medications for these enormous creatures to treat their inevitable ailments from living in confinement. Do you know the huge dosage that elephants require? It is staggering and if you don't care about what's best for Billy, then care about all the taxpayer money being spent to keep elephants confined just so you can know they're there in case you ever want to go look at one.

[ForCommonSense]

Rewind to pre-civil rights era. Imagine that we're building a state-of-the art facility to house a group of miniority people whose numbers are being decimated by the plundering and greed of developing societies.

They'll be given the best in medical care, they'll have acres to roam about in and be able to procreate and thereby contribute to the preservation of their culture and species. People will be able to bring their children and let them see these "endangered" people in a truly natural and well-appointment habitat. Why it will give children who otherwise would never have a chance to visit these peoples' native country an opportunity to see them up close and personal and thereby encourage interest in preserving them.

Oh, God, please! We have no right to imprison ANY being for our pleasure and entertainment. If we cannot educate our species to commit to preserving the elephants "natural" habitat and protecting the existing numbers, then we don't deserve elephants, period! The average time spent in front of most animal exhibits is about 30 seconds. Wow! People are really interested, aren't they?

Racism, sexism, speciesism. All need to be rooted out and eliminated from our thinking, once and for all if we as a species expects to evolve.

[A Little Reflection]

For those of you interested in this subject, please read this article:

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_13703613

Read it over.

Give it a fair amount of thought.

Ponder the inevitable conclusion to your answer.

[A Little Reflection]

ForCommonSense,

As much as I hate to pick on specific comments and interrupt actual debate on the subject, your last post:

A) was utterly ridiculous!
B) conflates animal welfare v. animal rights, and
C) see A.

[AyeAyeAye]

For those of you who cite "greed" as a reason to build this over education and preservation.

Did you know the Zoo is run by the City of Los Angeles and doesn't EVER turn a profit! EVER! Factor in all of the overhead, employees, medical care etc.

This is a facility run by the City of Los Angeles for the people of the city, for the children who arrive by the bus load everyday from schools.
It's also a family friendly, budget friendly FAMILY outing. Something that is lacking these days with all of the distractions around today.

[believeinlove]

What ever may be the facts, considerations about the new exhibit, clearly his present accomidations are dangerously lacking. If the LA zoo's primary, first and for most concern is for the animals in it's care, then at the very least, they will send Billy to sanctuary until the exhibit is finished. If they won't do that, to any other argument: "what you are speaks so loud, I can't hear a word you say."

[Carolelorraine]

Spending 42 million dollars of our hard earned dollars on a ridiculous exhibit for elephants is unacceptable. Send that last poor lone elephant at the zoo to a nice sanctuary and stop exploiting animals and costing us millions and millions of dollars!!
We need that money to help our children have better educations and safer neighborhoods to live in!!

[A Little Reflection]

believeinlove wrote:

If the LA zoo's primary, first and for most concern is for the animals in it's care, then at the very least, they will send Billy to sanctuary until the exhibit is finished.

Kinda short-sighted, dontcha think?

[lindymarich]

Voice For the Animals has done so much to rescue and find good homes for many helpless animals. They are great to work with as a foster and an adopting family.

[believeinlove]

A Little Reflection wrote:

<quoted text>
Kinda short-sighted, dontcha think?

I'm not sure why you're saying this, perhaps you haven't read through all my posts. I looked for and read those you posted.

As I wrote, I think Billy should go to sanctuary because from what I've read what the LAzoo is building will be inadequate for an elephants needs. However if they are being bull-headed (not to insult bulls, but you know what I mean LOL) they should at the VERY LEAST let Billy go to sanctuary until it's ready, because where he is now is without-a-doubt to anyone, causing him to suffer and it is cruel to keep him there.

[Madeleine]

We make the lame excuse that keeping these mammoth and beautifully extraordinary creatures in unnaturally limited area exhibits is for the educational possibilities for our children. But who among us wish to have our children educated by seeing elephants, exquisite in their size and intelligence, confined like toys thrown in a box to be seen or played with when the box is opened. These regal giants are not ours to pay with, or keep confined for our amusement/education, or to be exploited for human gain. These beautiful animals, with their high sensibility and intelligence, deserve more and in Los Angeles, that more is impossible...AND EXPENSIVE. We must do the right thing not only for our city but for these majestic creatures that we have abused long enough.

[A Little Reflection]

believeinlove wrote:

<quoted text>[...]they should at the VERY LEAST let Billy go to sanctuary until it's ready,[...]

I've read your other posts, and it's nice to see you're willing to at least discuss the issue unlike many others. The "short-sighted comment" was in reference to the idea of sending him out to another facility, which is something MUCH easier said than done. Let's just examine two points: location and transportation (two factors complicated enough already without adding more).

First, where would he go? A potential destination would have to be chosen. That institution would have to be an AZA-accredited institution, be able to appropriately house him, have the resources to care for him (day-to-day and veterinary needs), and be willing to do so on a temporary basis. <Sanctuaries are disqualified because, out of the two elephant sanctuaries in the country, only one could take him and it is not an AZA-accredited institution.>

Second, how does he get there? Moving any large animal is a huge endeavor, more so with elephants, and even more so with bulls. Even if you neglect the cost of potential injury in transit, it would require months of training to get Billy on a truck, most likely longer because he is unaccustomed to travel. <Most sanctuary elephants are already accustomed to travel due to backgrounds in the circus.>

If we examine the zoo's choice, they chose to have him remain at the zoo. They already have the resources to care for his needs, he doesn't have to endure training for travel, and he's already been moved to a temporary yard (larger than his previous one) with trees, soft natural substrate, and varied terrain that will be incorporated into the overall exhibit as it is completed. Compared to the alternative, the zoo's choice was the LEAST stressful option on Billy, and therefore, the best option for his overall welfare.

[believeinlove]

A Little Reflection wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read your other posts, and it's nice to see you're willing to at least discuss the issue unlike many others. The "short-sighted comment" was in reference to the idea of sending him out to another facility, which is something MUCH easier said than done.

In that case, no, I don't think it's being short-sited, I think it's being selfish of the LA zoo to keep Billy in inadequate housing until they build their "white elephant".

A Little Reflection wrote:

<quoted text>
First, where would he go?
Billy, and therefore, the best option for his overall welfare.

SANCTUARY - the sanctuary mentioned. But they probably don't want to do that because of fear they won't get him back, but that's just more selfishness. Whatever the upgrade they've done, it is still woefully inadequate for Billy now!

Sorry, I don't buy that it has anything to do with stress on Billy. Read your argument and I just don't buy it. Their priority is the LA zoo "brand."

[Erin]

Stop building. He belongs in a sanctuary.

[Patches Ohoulihan]

Erin wrote:

Stop building. He belongs in a sanctuary.

Stop fighting it, "It's gonna happen..."

[A Little Reflection]

believeinlove wrote:

I think it's being selfish

So ... disregarding all other factors ... it's ok to inflict undue stress upon an animal for transit when the option to avoid said stress altogether is present?(Yes or No)

Hehe, and why would I need to read my argument, I wrote it :P

[Tanya Petrovna]

If anyone invests a small amount of time in reading about captive elephants, one will find that sanctuaries are the only redemption we can give to these beings that have been taken off their continent, removed from their family units and made to live in areas where they can not exercise properly to maintain the health of their large frames.

Please LA Zoo stop trying to stuff a huge square peg in a small round hole.