I want to put aside the fact that their has been yet another attempt to pull away Billy from LA zoo grounds and send him to PAWS. As there is something in the article that I don't quite ever hearing before. The potential downfall of the Los Angeles Zoo.
If Billy is revoked, the zoos AZA accreditation is revoked. We all know that, so why I am repeating it once more? This could very much so potentially damage the Los Angles zoo incredibly bad. If Billy is removed, several other zoo star zoo animals will follow leaving not too much left over for the zoo to hang on to. This could ultimately cost the zoo thousands, no millions. This could be horrible for the entire facility. Billy is determining the fate of what will either be a zoo that will blossom with success with a new master plan on the horizon, or will crumble down to a mere shadow of what it could be.
"But Pachy, are you sure you aren't just blowing this out of proportions? The Toronto zoo had a very similar experience a few years back and their doing just fine now, so I don't see how the Los Angeles zoo would be damaged much if it at from such a scenario happening. Also you look very Handsome today."
First of all, thank you. Second of all, the Toronto zoo did have a very similar scenario, however it was for the exact opposite reason. Then there were issues about the weather, the smallish exhibit yard, the reputation of multiple animals passing within just a few years. Now, its about social behaviors (i.e does Billy need companionship), how would it affect the zoo long term, and semen collecting (The last one is a bit obligatory). Toronto's situation was pretty messy, but they at least were willing to send away their elephants, in which Los Angles does not.
Just to add one more zoo to the mix, Pittsburgh. Lets be realistic here, Pittsburgh zoo had a pretty bad year in 2017. That may have something to do with the fact that AZA revoked their accreditation because, you guessed it, they had opposing views about the elephant care. Since they lost their accreditation, the zoo opened a slapdash lawn mowed field with brick buildings reminiscent of the walls of my old elementary school for African and South American mammals. Besides that there was of course the baby elephant that was born last year, only to die just a few weeks later. While I'm sure AZA accreditation had nothing to do with the unfortunate calf, when a zoo revokes accreditation just for disagreements with elephant care, then that same zoo has a baby elephant of just a weeks die, things start to add up to the general public. Hell, the best news regarding elephants at the Pittsburgh zoo was Coolio the Elephant
Seal being put on exhibit.
So what exactly am I getting at? Losing Billy could and most likely will cause the zoo to go through a stage like the one I just mentioned.
No Billy = No Lions, gorillas and other star species
No Star Species = Less visitors and a declining yearly attendance
Less Visitors = Less money
Less money = Less resources they can use to fund the master plan
Do you see my point? As ignorant as these politicians and other celebrity "advocates" are, they have a bigger voice than pretty much anyone else on the topic. So to be blunt, I'll be on the edge of my seat seeing how this all develops.
Though while I'm at it. I found this video a few years back and this is just... My lord. Its in the old elephant exhibit which was unbearably awful, but these animal rights activists try and present it in such a silly way I feel bad for laughing. Yeesh...