Celebrities Fight Huge LA Elephant Exhibit

LOS ANGELES — Kids can keep visiting Billy the elephant at the Los Angeles Zoo _ for now.

The City Council on Wednesday delayed a controversial decision on whether to shut down the current elephant exhibit and a new $42 million exhibit being built to house pachyderms.

In a 13-2 vote, officials have sent the matter back to a committee for further study and a recommendation.

Celebrities and animal activists are calling for the closure of the elephant exhibit, saying it doesn't provide enough space for the elephants to roam, which hurts their health. In addition, the city is facing financial problems as a result of the economy that could impact the project.

Zoo officials and members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums say elephants are living long, healthy lives in accredited zoos.

___

On the Net:

http://www.lazoo.org

Comments

[thrugreeneyez]

To Mom and Sister,
Please don't yell at me. I'm willing to engage in calm reasonable discourse but yelling in all caps doesn't accomplish anything. Are you capable of having a calm rational discussion about this or can you only scream at people who might disagree with you?

I understand that we must have captive breeding programs in order to try to save some species from extinction. For example, the LA Zoo's condor breeding program helped saved that species from extinction, and I recognize that as a good thing.

However, just because zoos do some good things, does not automatically mean that all animal exhibits are OK, especially those containing large intelligent mammals. I think each animal exhibit must be evaluated on an individual case- by- case basis. Just because the new planned exhibit is bigger than the old tiny one, does not mean that it is big enough. In fact, it is still not big enough, so why should we bring more elephants there to an inadequate space? It' s time to scrap the elephant exhibit and do what is best for Billy and any other elephants.

As far as taking the previous posters comments out of context, what exactly do you think she meant by those words? I believe my interpretation and understanding of her exact words is fair.

[Momandsister]

I just want to scream....EDUCATE YOURSELF!!
I don't think anyone-including the LA Zoo employees-would like to see animals being abused or kept in small or inhumane exhibits! Why do you think they were making his enclosure bigger-better in the first place?

There are always going to be zoos. There is always going to be people speaking up for and against them. Instead of seeing the negative aspects of keeping animals enclosed please try to see the positives of these animals being cared for. Lots of animals in zoos (including the bigger ones like Billy) could not survive in the wild for many varying reasons. It is wonderful that the zoos exist to care for these beautiful living creatures who would otherwise not survive in some cases. As for the others, some are there for the sole purpose of breeding so more of their kind will continue to survive in the wild.

I don't believe the comment Brenda Scott Royce posted had any means to imply "the notion that it is OK to inflict suffering on animals for the purpose of entertaining humans" at all. I think you completely took that out of context. I tend to agree with her that people are turning to zoos for recreation more and more, and how wonderful it would be for these people to see animals like Billy in the best available enclosure possible thanks to the many supporters of the community.

[LMPE]

Zoos should be abolished.

[thrugreeneyez]

Keeping large intelligent mammals like elephants confined in a small space is inhumane and cruel. Councilman Cardenas submitted the proposal to halt the construction of the new larger elephant exhibit after examining medical records which showed that elephants kept in confinement suffer many medical problems such as arthritis and foot ailments.

To Brenda Scott Royce who posted an earlier comment about people turning to zoos for recreation, I strongly disagree with the notion that it is OK to inflict sufferring on animals for the purpose of entertaining humans. Besides, people who believe in zoos will still be able to visit the LA Zoo and have a nice time even if there is no elephant exhibit; there are plenty of other animals to view. Arguing that you need the elephant exhibit for your recreaction sounds quite selfish to me. Have a heart and do what's best for the elephants not your recreation desires.

The humane and compassionate thing to do is to halt the construction and find a better option for Billy.

[Oliver2008]

I'm completely annoyed that this issue is up for debate, yet again. As a taxpayer, I cannot understand why time and money are being wasted on debating an issue that we, as a community, have already decided upon.

The Pachyderm Forest exhibit is already under construction, money and time have been invested, and fundraising is virtually completed by GLAZA. Why are they spending time going over this yet again? Honestly, I'm left to wonder if it is just an attempt to gain publicity. Why do celebrities have the influence to change public policy? Why doesn't the City Council stand by their commitment? What is going on in this city?

The Zoo department has been fiscally responsible for years. Doesn't that count for anything? Or is that not a good enough sound bite?

There are several purposes to a modern, accredited zoo, including educating zoo patrons and the community at large, providing support to conservation programs, and creating opportunities for recreation. If the Pachyderm Forest is halted, what will be next? We need zoos, and particularly this zoo, so our megacity youth can have exposure to these amazing creatures. Sanctuaries aren't open to the public and most of us can't afford to travel the world seeing animals in their shrinking habitats.

Billy is treated with kindness and compassion. He is well cared for by Zoo employees and beloved by those employees and zoo patrons alike. Let's just get on with it so he can move into the bigger and better exhibit.

[Brenda Scott Royce - Huffpost Blogger]

Billy would have been in his new zoo habitat by now if not for delays caused by previous unsuccessful attacks. Now, on the eve of Billy"s scheduled walk from his much-decried current yard to a completed portion of his new habitat (which when finished will be bigger than the expansive elephant habitat at the San Diego Wild Animal Park), these same groups have put up another roadblock. In the guise of trying to help Billy, they keep delaying his move to his new home.

Activists argue that Billy should be sent to a sanctuary, yet even if you agree with that assessment, and I don't (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brenda-scott-royce/zoo-is-not-a-dirty-word_b_146226.html), there's no sanctuary ready and able to take him. One proposed alternative, PAWS, has said they"d need at least $2 million to construct a solitary enclosure for him. Another proposal involves constructing a new sanctuary somewhere in the foothills of L.A. The location, size, or viability of the land hasn't been identified, costs haven't been established, and certainly the final price tag would far exceed $2 million.

In this time of financial crisis, Angelenos are turning to the zoo even more as an affordable option for family recreation. The City"s Chief Administrators Office, which was charged with reviewing the financial implications of halting construction, recommended that it proceed. Let's finally allow Billy to move into his new home, in the heart of the Los Angeles Zoo.

[VegetableMan]

maybe a better location for these beautiful animals would be...

THEIR NATURAL HABITAT?

zoos, circuses and farms are barbaric displays of human hegemony over supposedly "dumb beasts." the sooner they're ALL shut down, the better

[dctackett]

Six acres is small for an elephant, BUT it's better than the tiny area the elephant is in now... they should just go ahead with it.

On top of that, stoping the project will hurt the economy by laying off people and not purchasing goods, on top of that the improved attraction will... improve attraction.

Ultimately I'd love to see a larger space for the elephants, and other animals. They should open a site in San Bernardino County, where they could have up to hundreds of acres...

[kgb999]

So the choice seems to be keep the elephant(s) in the current accommodations or give them considerably nicer accommodations. Anyone who loves elephants would certainly want the nicer accommodations for them.

It seems these activists want to force the animals to stay in worse conditions just because it makes it easier to argue that the exhibit should be shut down. That's like killing elephants to meet their political goals. Totally lame.

[LHoney]

I think Halle Berry and Goldie Hawn could pay for this with their pocket change...

[Sumocat]

So, due to hard economic times, the city is considering halting construction, which means laying off workers, on a new attraction, which would ultimately attract tourists and help local businesses. And incidentally, the exhibit should boost the health of the elephants, bringing down care and replacement costs in the long run. Where exactly is the upside to halting the project? I think driving rules apply here: either keep going or reverse out of the way (i.e., don't have elephants at all), but don't stop in the middle of the road.