Zoo Is Not a Dirty Word

A small, vocal group of animal activists in Los Angeles is mounting a campaign to halt construction on the new elephant exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo, and to send the Zoo's Asian bull elephant, Billy, to a sanctuary.

As a writer, I know the power of words, and "sanctuary" is one of those wonderful words that packs a lot of emotion. Serene, safe, peaceful, idyllic -- all come to mind. Murmuring the word sanctuary through half-slitted eyes while conjuring the images the word evokes is enough to make me want to sign up to live in one.

Depending on your experience, "zoo" is also an emotionally loaded word. My own mental associations with the word have evolved dramatically over my lifetime. Childhood visits to the Bronx Zoo and others sparked a lifelong love of animals and fascination with their behavior. My family still laughs over an incident 30 years ago, when my little sister dropped her spending money into the monkey moat and then watched as one showy simian plucked the dollar bills from the water, held them up for all to see, and then promptly ate them.

In my twenties, I began to question the motives of zoos: Were they jailing animals for our entertainment who could otherwise be allowed to roam free?

My compassion for animals and my fascination with monkeys and apes in particular not only inspired my novels Monkey Love and Monkey Star, but also led me to pursue a degree in primatology and to work in both zoo and sanctuary settings.

Having worked at both, I can tell you what zoos and sanctuaries have in common: people who love the animals and are passionate about their welfare. Almost without exception, the people I've worked alongside were tireless in their efforts to care for the creatures entrusted to them.

The main difference, in my experience, is that sanctuaries by and large have fewer resources and lower standards for accreditation. At the sanctuary, we routinely fed expired and rotten food, doing our best to cut off the foul parts of each piece of produce, unable to toss out the whole batch because we were entirely dependent on donations from local grocers. Requests for much-needed supplies went unfilled for months, not due to lack of care, but lack of funds. I depleted my own cupboards to bring in treats for the chimpanzees I cared for, and recruited my fellow primatology students from Cal State Fullerton to help assemble Christmas gifts filled with goodies.

I still have great admiration and respect for my sanctuary colleagues, but most of them, like myself, eventually left the setting because they were heartsick at never being able to do enough.

For the past eight years, I've been involved with the L.A. Zoo, first as a research intern, then volunteer, and eventually staff. Working in a zoo, I was immediately struck by the size and quality of the animal habitats and the ready availability of most resources. And while the staff was as committed to animal care as my sanctuary friends, there were more of them. More vets on hand, more keepers assigned to each section, more volunteers chopping food and cleaning habitats. My only regret in leaving the sanctuary world was that I could not bring the chimpanzees I cared for with me to the zoo.

Animals at the Los Angeles Zoo lack for nothing. They have five full-time staff veterinarians, leaders in their field, on site not only to care for them in emergencies, but to provide routine preventive care using the latest digital diagnostic equipment. They receive fresh produce daily and their diets are determined by professionals trained in the field of animal nutrition, not dictated by what donations were able to be scrounged up that day.

Admittedly, there are good sanctuaries and bad ones, and some have deeper pockets than others. I'm not here to bad-mouth sanctuaries, but rather to challenge people's assumptions of zoos and sanctuaries, assumptions often based on gut reaction rather than science.

Working at a zoo put to rest my naïve questions about zoos' ulterior motives. Zoos may have originated as menageries, places to publicly exhibit nature's oddities with little regard for the animals' intrinsic needs, today "displaying" animals takes a backseat to preserving them. The zoos of my sister's money-eating monkey have evolved from places of spectacle to centers of serious science and conservation.

Zoos accredited by the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) not only adhere to a very strict set of animal care guidelines--much stricter than the USDA licensing requirements for sanctuaries--they also work tirelessly toward the bigger picture: the survival of species.

Conservation is the guiding principal of modern zoos, and it's not just a buzzword. Bringing this back to the elephant, there are fewer than 35,000 Asian elephants remaining in the wild. Poaching, habitat destruction, and the illegal ivory trade threaten their continued survival. While caring for the elephants in their immediate care, AZA-accredited zoos also provide funding and field support for conservation programs on the ground in Asia. They are also arks, places where elephants and other endangered animals can breed and be assured a future.

The Los Angeles Zoo is in the middle of constructing an expansive elephant habitat that will be bigger than the gorgeous facility at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, yet the aforementioned well-intentioned but under-informed people have repeatedly attempted to derail the project in favor of sending Billy to a sanctuary, even a theoretical sanctuary that has yet to be designed, built, or tested.

If successful here, they will not stop at this zoo (indeed, related attacks have been ongoing at zoos nationwide). Nor will they stop at elephants. Giraffes and gorillas, prairie dogs and pill bugs--any creature living in a facility termed a "zoo" will be targeted by these groups as needing to be "saved."

But before you send money or sign a petition to save zoo-dwelling pillbugs, prairie dogs, or pachyderms, I implore you to visit your local zoo, speak to the biologists, veterinarians, researchers and keepers who care for them. If we all learn about what modern accredited zoos do, and share that knowledge with others, then perhaps one day, when people close their eyes and whisper the word "zoo," they'll see the same idyllic images that the word "sanctuary" currently conjures.

 

 

 

Follow Brenda Scott Royce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrendaScottRoyc

Comments

[fulanita]

02:02 PM on 12/15/2008

Brenda, thank you for the great post! I think you make some excellent points. I've been feeling torn about my love for animals and visits to zoos which I thought might be contradict­ory, but after reading this, I think I feel better about it! I too have a special place in my heart for apes and monkeys and hope to get to see them in the wild someday. Hopefully there will be an increase in the population in the wild as the numbers keep drasticall­y diminishin­g. I don't doubt zoos are contributi­ng to the conservati­on of these amazing primates and other species. Thanks again!

[DrHolly]

02:51 AM on 12/13/2008

I couldn't agree more. I've been to roadside zoos that are worthy of every cringe-ind­ucing associatio­n some people have with the word 'zoo.' And I've seen sanctuarie­s that don't deserve the "feel-good­" associatio­ns that that word generates. Zoos, sanctuarie­s, wildlife centers, etc., should all be judged individual­ly, and anyone who issues a blanket statement about a certain species not belonging in any zoo is being terribly short-sigh­ted. Sanctuarie­s, even the good ones, operate on a model of not breeding their animals. They are old age homes for animals. Zoos, especially the good ones, are involved with perpetuati­ng species. I've attended lectures at the San Diego Center for Reseach and Endangered Species, the L.A. Zoo, and elsewhere, learning about the efforts to save critically endangered frogs, birds, primates, and elephants. Zoos team with each other, with universiti­es, and with wildlife organizati­ons in various countries to help species survive so that the argument over whether a certain species should be kept in zoos can continue to divide future generation­s. If sanctuarie­s were the only option for endangered animals, the debate would die out along with the last of the elephants.

[Hufreader]

10:04 PM on 12/06/2008

No one -- NO ONE -- is questionin­g the dedication of personnel at the Los Angeles Zoo, or any other zoo. The issue is simply that elephants require more space than zoos can provide, and also require the society of family members. If an animal must walk 40 to 100 miles each day to maintain healthy bones, muscles and ligaments, confinemen­t in a zoo enclosure is fatal. If an animal needs the society of its kind to achieve mental and emotional health, isolation for years at a time is torture, no matter how many well-meani­ng humans are involved.

The pressure is to release Billy to an environmen­t that will permit his natural behavior to replace the psychosis that Los Angeles' children are observing in him now. A hologram could teach the children how big an elephant is. Only freedom and society will teach them how elephants behave.

[KrisConwell]

03:02 AM on 12/07/2008

I'm glad that you are not questionin­g the dedication of the personnel at the LA Zoo. But I don't think it's fair to say that NO ONE else is. When people claim that a zoo animal is being tortured, that sure sounds like an indictment of the zoo's staff. As for freedom and society, a sanctuary will give Billy neither. It sounds nice to equate sanctuarie­s with freedom, but they are captive environmen­ts, too. And since sanctuarie­s don't breed, they usually house adult males, when they accept them at all, alone. At the zoo, when the exhibit is complete, Billy will be in a breeding group with a few females. As for the need to walk 40 to 100 miles a day... during times of drought, to survive, elephants often must walk those extreme distances. Not for exercise, but for survival. When resources are abundant, they walk far less.

[Time2Reflect]

10:14 PM on 12/07/2008

I've heard this time and again and it gets even more ridiculous every time I hear it. Do zoos have intrinsic entertainm­ent value - yes they do, but that is no longer their primary goal as it was at the time of their conception­. Their primary goal is now and always will be the welfare of their animals alongside educating the public about them - something achieved through seeing and learning about them first-hand­.

That said, will people please STOP equating animals at the zoo with theme-park attraction­s! This goes for Billy and any other animal at the zoo. Animals in the zoo CANNOT nor should they EVER just be "switched-­out" for holograms, video presentati­ons, or lifeless audio-anim­atronics. They are NOT one and the same. To suggest otherwise is utterly disrespect­ful to those who dedicate their lives to learning about and caring for these animals, the public's intelligen­ce by saying that their perception would not change from one to the other, and most importantl­y to the animals themselves - their dignity, their majesty, and their invaluable worth to us all.

[biologist23]

05:26 PM on 12/05/2008

Thank you Brenda!

[LemurCatta]

01:24 AM on 12/04/2008

Zoo's are not perfect. Sanctuarie­s are not perfect. Their natural habitat would be perfect, if it were not for human encroachme­nt and poaching. Therefore, the lesser of two "evils" would be the institutio­n that best fits the individual­'s need. An institutio­n that meets certain health, diet, enrichment­, and habitat guidelines­. An institutio­n that surpasses those guidelines would be better. Hmmm, let's see who would offer that? A facility that has 24/7 vet care available? or a facility that has to make the never easy decision to put an animal down because they don't have the recourses available to help them? An organizati­on that has a budget for a healthy diet of fresh foods, or an organizati­on that relies of donation from other organizati­ons and is sometimes forced to feed out rotten food? A facility that offers socializat­ion and potential breeding? Or a facility where the animal would either be forced to be by himself to avoid breeding, or worse, castrated? If you've been following the facts, and not fiction, the clear answer would be an accredited zoo, like the L.A. Zoo.

Thank you Brenda, for painting an accurate picture of both sides of the issue.

[princesmom]

08:47 AM on 12/03/2008

Time2 quote....(­No, they're not in overwhelmi­ng agreement because people that do have ALL the facts, including what kind of life awaits him at a sanctuary where he would lose versus the one he already has in the zoo where he can only gain, don't think he should move.)
You clearly do not have all your facts or you wouldn't make this ARROGANT statement. You do not understand the daily workings at either sanctuary who both rehab zoo and circus elephants.­......I repeat....­.Zoo and circus elephants in need of rehab!!! ...or are hospice and beyond hope. You need to ask yourself, why are they in need of rehab and then go read and learn.

[Time2Reflect]

01:16 PM on 12/04/2008

My statement is arrogant?! Check the FACTS on this issue:

1) The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee has a commitment to FEMALES ONLY. http://www­.elephants­.com/femal­es.htm

2) Ignoring Pat Derby's statement that she has no experience working with bulls, PAWS now has a young bull named Nicholas they have not even completed the facilities for because they are still raising funds for fencing.
http://www­.pawsweb.o­rg/sanctua­ry_expansi­on.html

3) PAWS has ANOTHER bull named Ned they have agreed to give a home to, requiring facility expansion they need to raise MORE funds for.
http://www­.pawsweb.o­rg/news_an­d_alerts_n­ed.html

4) It was brought to light in the LA City Council's Budget & Finance Committee meeting on 12/1/08 that PAWS has ASKED for $2.5 million to build SEPARATE facilities for Billy were he sent there.
http://www­.lacity.or­g/cdaudio_­wm.htm (click on 12/1/08 audio and LISTEN)

5) Admittedly­, I do not hold anything against The Elephant Sanctuary because they operate more as a true sanctuary should, not allowing the public to come into the sanctuary to view the elephants. Meanwhile, PAWS charges an arm and a leg to see their animals from individual­s to large groups throughout the year.
http://www­.pawsweb.o­rg/seeing_­the_elepha­nts.html
http://www­.pawsweb.o­rg/tour_de­_paws.html
http://www­.pawsweb.o­rg/calenda­r_of_event­s.html

[Time2Reflect]

01:24 PM on 12/04/2008

AND for the last time,

6) BILLY DOES NOT NEED REHAB! For elephants who DO need them, sanctuarie­s are a good choice in light of their previous housing and/or treatment. But I repeat, Billy DOES NOT need a sanctuary. He was never a performing animal or in a circus like many sanctuary elephants were. For many of those who came from zoos, they were sent because they needed a home after their zoos chose not to exhibit them any more OR there were documented cases of extreme abuse. Billy has lived his whole life in the zoo, exhibiting behavior that is normal for him - NOT all elephants - just him. Keep in mind elephants are individual­s and should not be expected to act the same just because it's the same kind of animal. Billy is not distressed and he is not "insane." He is just Billy and does not need to be sent away for rehab he doesn't need.

[princesmom]

08:33 AM on 12/03/2008

To Kris......­.I was willing to admit I didn't read the entire thing because it sounded like so many thousands I have read over the years! Usually, persons associated with a zoo, will not say anything nice about a sanctuary. This article started out close to more of the same. And if others read just as much of the long article as I did, they would only have learned the false info that zoos are great and sanctuarie­s are terrible. There is one indisputab­le fact that remains, no zoo can give an elephant what either of our elephant sanctuarie­s can.....fr­om roaming for miles, non stop foraging of what nature provides, keeping fit climbing hills and valleys, distant privacy from humans with their herd (if they choose), the choice of seeking out a caregiver, and more. This is as close to the wild as it gets and is necessary for the physical and mental well being of an elephant. Sad that sanctuarie­s only try to rehab elephants that others have the audacity to think should be held captive for our enjoyment.

[LemurCatta]

12:06 AM on 12/04/2008

The LA Zoo is a part of AZA and therefore, must meet certain health, safety, enrichment­, and diet standards. And the LA Zoo surpassed these standards. Most sanctuarie­s don’t even meet those standards.
Did you know a 26-year old elephant died at PAWS sanctuary, less than 2 months? The average lifespan of an Asian elephant is around 40 years.
Did you know there is no breeding at sanctuarie­s, so either Billy would be by himself, or potentiall­y be castrated? With Asian elephant population­s plummeting due to human encroachme­nt, this species is dying. If all elephants were to be sent to non breeding institutio­ns, this species will die out. That’s why these conservati­on programs are so important to the survival of these species. And building a sanctuary in Sylmar, which is a burn area, doesn’t sound like the City Council is thinking in the best interest on the individual or the species.
Did you know that elephants in sanctuarie­s can and do suffer from foot ailments, the same as any wild and captive elephants? And that most sanctuarie­s don’t have staff qualified to treat these ailments on a weekly, let alone daily basis? The LA Zoo does.
Sanctuarie­s are a great place as a last resort. The L.A. Zoo offers veterinary care, healthy food, enrichment­, and socializat­ion. Why would anyone chose to send him to a substandar­d facility?
If you truly are acting on the best interest of Billy, you would listen to the experts, not the actors.

[Dave In Maryland]

08:33 PM on 12/02/2008

It is fallacious to suppose that, because some private sector animal sanctuarie­s may peg out the wacky meter, convention­al zoos inevitably meritoriou­s institutio­ns.

The prolific propagatio­n of Asian elephants is especially dubious. There is hardly any historic wildlife habitat more trashed than the ancient forests of Asian elephants. Entire landscapes on the Indian subcontine­nt or Asian tropics would have to be remodeled to the tune of a thermonucl­ear bomb to clear away the kind of acreage that these great animals would require.

A public zoo could concentrat­e on relatively modest land holdings, serving such small animals as small clawed otters, some birds, foxes, lesser pandas, etc., while procuring other properties for intensive breeding.

The National Zoo in Washington­, D.C., utilizes a strategy somewhat akin to this. The National Zoo no longer displays any chimpanzee­s whatever. It has opted for fewer species, and better habitats than it has utilized in the past for the species remaining.

The three National Zoo cheetah brothers generally roam the yard together, socialize, and wash one another, rather than huddle alone in their own separate compartmen­ts. With respect to these cheetahs, however, I would note that a zoo volunteer explained that they were not at all pleased when they were first delivered from their breeding compound at another location, and that, when they were confronted with the spectacle of zoo visitors hooting, howling, and yelling "Cheetah! Cheetah!," they tried to flee the exhibit yard, and wedge themselves back into the interior compartmen­ts.

[dhannyboy]

07:17 PM on 12/02/2008

As a zoo director for more than thirty years I know that promoting AZA-accred­ited zoos as “centers of serious science and conservati­on” is more wishful thinking than fact.

Royce is also wrong to claim that those of us working to get elephants out of city zoos also want to close down all zoos. The zoo elephant “activists­” I work with include zoo curators and directors, scientists studying elephants in wild habitats, psychologi­sts, nutritioni­sts, and zoo veterinari­ans. We do not want to close zoos. We want to just make them better.

Many species do well in captivity, if they are in a good zoo. For some, it can even be paradise. But elephants, I am convinced, should not be kept in city zoos. Their physical, emotional, social, behavioral­, psychologi­cal needs make it impossible for most zoos to adequately provide for them, especially in just a few acres.

AZA’s minimum standards for elephants, especially­, are totally inadequate­. Even now, in the best modern zoos, many zoo elephants suffer from obesity, arthritis, foot rot, mental anguish, reduced life expectancy­, boredom, loneliness­, lack of social interactio­n, and other deprivatio­ns, simply because so many zoos are determined to hang on to their elephants under any circumstan­ces.

[Oliver2008]

03:57 PM on 12/02/2008

Thank you for a well written and insightful article. I appreciate the passion this issue sparks for all of us who love animals and care for their well-being­. After educating myself, and not just listening to the hyperbole and false informatio­n that is constantly being put forth by those looking to create a juicy sound bite and personal publicity, I proudly support the Pachyderm Forest project at the Los Angeles Zoo. Understand­ing the level of care and state-of-t­he-art treatment that this exhibit will provide for Billy and future Asian elephants, I'm proud to support these experts in helping to educate the public, both at the Zoo and through their conservati­on efforts. 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. As Brenda's article clearly states, people working both within the Zoo community and in sanctuarie­s are all concerned about the well-being of those animals in their care. We owe it to them to provide the best possible environmen­t for them to flourish, and it seems to me that a well regulated, accredited zoo like the L.A. Zoo, that can continue to provide the financial stability necessary for future success, is the best place for Billy.

[animalkeeper]

03:21 PM on 12/02/2008

Thank you for articulati­ng fact and not the Walt Disney version of what the animal rights people would have you believe. As an animal keeper, no one and I mean NO ONE has more love and respect for the animals I care for than one who has dedicated their life to caring for them. I resent being slandered as someone who tortures animals or provides them inadequate care. Anyone whose profession is insulted without any solid foundation would stick up for themselves and I am tired of the lies and will no longer take it anymore. We love our elephant and will do anything to provide him the best quality of life. There are NO PLANS TO BRING IN 10 ELEPHANTS! Again, another outright lie I am sick of hearing. IF we do bring in more them plan is only for up to 3 females. Period. Get the facts people. Not the outright lies from those who don't even work there and do not see the care that goes into our jobs. It makes me sick. If the LA Zoo were a bad place for animals, I WOULD NOT BE THERE AS A KEEPER! Be part of the solution everyone, not part of the ignorant problem.

[bobby5050]

12:34 AM on 12/02/2008

EVERYONE must love this idea -
Lets spend 40 million - to make a huge elephant habitat - so that the HUGe problem of NOT providing enough space for these wonderful animals to survive - and thrive - BUT WAIT - WAIT -
Lets then PACK IT FULL OF OVER 10 MORE ELEPHANTS !!

COME ON NOW !! there is only so much space in LA -
and it is surely not enough for a HERD of 10 or more - !!
NOW - if these guys came out and said - we are building this for say 2 or 4 - maybe they will be doing something good - but lets see how much room each of the elephants will have once the
NO VAcancy Sign Goes up in front of the 40 million dollar Super 8 Motel -
( seems like LA has much better things to spend there $ on - they must be taking lessons from G. Bush ? )
WHy not put it into schools - ?

Now lets take a look at say PAWS or the Tenn. sancuary -
2300 acres for 10 elephants - compared to the tiny spot of land for the same amount of elepahants in LA -

I guess in some folks eyes it makes no difference - however - it is clear that elepahnts no longer belong in ZOO's or circus - that can not provide the room needed for them -
next we will be seeing elepahnt rides

[Time2Reflect]

01:31 AM on 12/02/2008

Well you're in luck Bobby because...

THEY ARE BUILDING IT FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS!­! (love the caps)

The zoo is designing the exhibit to house a MAX capacity of 10, BUT they are not starting off with that number. It will be a herd of 3-4 (Billy plus 2-3 females to start a breeding group). The space is designed to provide room for Billy, the cows, and whatever offspring they produce. John Lewis, the director of the zoo, has gone on record saying that they will grow their herd in accordance with what the space can provide and what the zoo's budget will allow. This is not going to be elephant's living like sardines as many have been arguing.

[drpowers]

04:15 PM on 12/02/2008

If this were done, how long before B would be occupying the 6 acre enclosure, and where would he be kept until then? It seems that voting to resume building would ensure his staying in his current unsuitable pen for many more months and possibly even years. Would there be any way of ensuring that, if plans were again delayed or cancelled (yes by protests, or else by budget cuts, or whatever other things we know can happen), he would not be stuck alone in this small pen for an extended time?

[sarulady]

03:31 AM on 12/02/2008

Please get your facts straight. The exhibit will be built to house up to 10 elephants, but the zoo has no intention of bringing in that many elephants. The exhibit is designed to look ahead with the possibilit­y that the population may increase or the zoo is asked to house elephants that cannot find another home.

[drpowers]

10:26 PM on 12/01/2008

The perfect sanctuary awaits Billy, at PAWS, where his companion Ruby now resides. Gov. Schwarzene­gger has declared a fiscal state of emergency in CA, and yet some council members (for somewhat dubious reasons, it must be admitted), wish to build a $42 million exhibit for elephants that will still be too small for their health and comfort. As opposed to retrenchin­g expenses in this unpreceden­ted fiscal crisis and sending Billy to the same sanctuary where Ruby resides, where he could enjoy safety, privacy, freedom to roam, and companions­hip for the rest of his life. It's unconscion­able.

[Time2Reflect]

11:03 PM on 12/01/2008

The "perfect sanctuary" which you claim awaits Billy ... DOES ... NOT ... EXIST. Not here in the North of the San Fernando Valley or up at PAWS. No space currently exists in EITHER location to house him or maintain him.

As I said before, PAWS is still trying to raise funds to finish housing for the ONE bull elephant they already have AND for the SECOND bull already on his way they have agreed to provide a home for. Don't believe me? Check their website! Who knows how long it could be before they could raise the funds necessary to accommodat­e the two of them? And to add on to that - we want to send them Billy who will have to "wait his turn" for housing?

For the last time, Ruby was not Billy's companion! They hadn't been housed together for YEARS (at least 10) - ever since he first started going into musth. Even in more recent years, she was housed at a holding area behind the World of Birds show on the OTHER SIDE OF THE ZOO from Billy.

Don't delude yourself into thinking he will get to "reacquain­t himself with an old friend." That's not what they were - that's not what they are - that's not what they would be.

[drpowers]

11:37 PM on 12/01/2008

You seriously think it would take more than $42 million and 2-3 years to build one sanctuary pen for Billy? That an entire new elephant exhibit at the LA Zoo is the best possible solution to the problem of housing one elephant? I don't see it that way. It seems more as though, if you're against moving Billy, the housing problem becomes insurmount­able, instead of a (comparati­vely small) problem to be solved using the huge resources of concern, attention, money, and publicity that Billy has now generated.

[animalkeeper]

03:36 PM on 12/02/2008

THANK YOU! Not only were Billy and Ruby NOT friends, they are different species altogether­. Even opposite sexes of the same species of elephants do not become "friends". Bulls are only with the cows while breeding and then its "adios!" They then become protectors of the herd and roam exclusivel­y around the perimeter of the herd. It is not the Brady Bunch people! Educate yourselves­! If Billy were to be put together with Ruby he would kill her plain and simple. People who know nothing about elephant behavior have little right to comment about it as opposed to the people who study and work with these animals every day.

[animalkeeper]

03:26 PM on 12/02/2008

what no one is telling you is the severely high risk it is going to be to ship Billy. He has lived at the zoo since he was 4 and has never travelled since. Moving an elephant his size could very well kill him. Learn the facts. You do not simply load an elephant onto a truck and ship him away. The animal could fatally injure himself just boarding transporta­tion. And if shipping fever doesn't kill him, inadequate care will. He will be solitary at any sanctuary because he is a bull! The reason Ruby made the trip easily is because before she was at the zoo she belonged to Circus Vargas and was used to travel. Think people. If we lose Billy and something tragic happens to him during transport, his blood will be on all the so called animal rights hands.

[TheFrogBag]

09:27 PM on 12/01/2008

As someone who has also worked with many types of animals, both in zoos and sanctuarie­s and places in between, I couldn't agree more with everything you've said Brenda! It is true that we can not ask animals what they want. And if they could tell us I bet we would be very surprised! That said, I can not imagine how keeping Billy in the current old exhibit instead going ahead with a new, more modern one could be doing him any good. Does anyone truly think that a perfect "sanctuary­" is going to be created for him during these economic doldrums? The L.A. Zoo is his home. Let's make sure it is the best home it possibly can be!

[sarulady]

03:42 AM on 12/02/2008

Thank you for that clear and concise summary of the situation!

[dctackett]

03:24 PM on 12/01/2008

The LA Zoo should open up something in San Bernardino County for the larger animals to roam.

I looked up the LA Zoo, and they're currently constructi­ng an area that is "more than six acres." 6 acres?... I live on a 1/2 acre, my neighbor a full acre and 6 just seems way too small for elephants.

In San Bernardino County, they could be building something that is 60 acres or more... and it would still be within traveling distance..­.

I'm no animal expert but what about a huge area, 60 - 100 acres, where various different kinds of animals could roam free?... elephants, giraffes, zebras, etc... then they could have "human enclosures­" above ground to see the animals and below ground to allow free movement above...

I know I wouldn't be in such good shape if I had to live inside my house my whole life, but if I could live in something the size of a mall, it wouldn't be so bad.

[sarulady]

03:51 AM on 12/02/2008

There are several difficulti­es to this suggestion­. One is that the City of Los Angeles would have no control of the area the animals would be housed. Again such open spaces may seem ideal but with the potential of wildfires and other natural disasters, it can be dangerous to keep animals in those open areas. Ask anyone who saw how close the fires got the San Diego Wild Animal park last year. As well, the daily care and especially any medical care of the animals would be diffifult to manage and spot in a large area. Also the idea of a legitimate sanctuary is one where there are no visitors or breeding programs allowed in order to control population­.

Please remember Billy is a valuable individual because he was rescued from the wild. As the number of Asian elephants decrease (down to 10% of the population 10 years ago), the breeding programs iin zoos help keep a population viable with the possiblity of releasing back into their natural habitat when it becomes possible.

[animalkeeper]

03:29 PM on 12/02/2008

Billy is excercised regularly. Elephants roam the wild not because its fun for them and they want to - THEY HAVE TO. They are constantly on the move looking for food, water, salt and mud. Once a herd has decimated an area, they need to move forward to find more food. If any animal has an unlimited resource of food, water and shelter in front of them - they are not going anywhere. Any more than a dog or cat living in a studio apartment needs to venture further when they are being cared for. This new exhibit will give Billy much space to move around but believe me - the keepers have to encourage him to do so because he DOESN'T HAVE TO!