Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Elephant Sanctuary

If politicians and animal activists would have their way, most animal and plant species would be extinct by now. Clientelism, tunnelvision and no background knowledge that really matters ...!

So, do not vote for them! ;)
 
I really don't think it is fair that the City Council gets involved because they are not that educated on the subject, and are easily convinced by the animal-rights groups. In all the cities that have the city council decide the fate of their captive elephants there are major problems. Back in 2004 the San Francisco Zoo had problems and had to shut their elephant exhibit down. The City Council is involved in the San Francisco Zoo (go figure). Dallas and LA are both having problems with their elephant exhibits on whether or not they should build new habitats and the City Council decides for the zoo here too. San Diego has not had any problems with their elephant exhibit and the construction of Elephant Odyssey, and their exhibit is going to be smaller than LA's proposed exhibit. In San Diego the zoo and the city council are not that involved, hence there is not a lot of room for the animal-rights activists voices to be heard, which is great because the zoo knows what they are doing.
 
Well... at least Billy seems to be happy, activity when a keeper approaches means he is eager to meet him/her. Orginally Kerala elephants will dung, or urinate when they see their favourite mahout. ;)
It is probably right there but what I don't understand is that why don't they finish what they started. You shouldn't of done it in the first place if this was the case...............
 
@BlackRhino: San Diego has had its share of elephant problems, most of them in the 1980s and early 1990s when the state of California got involved; and the most recent controversy occured when they imported 1.6 from Swaziland a few years back. There is a good book about San Diego's problems, if you want to learn more about it...
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Keepers-Ark-Elephants-View-Captivity/dp/0738806897/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228344785&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: Keepers of the Ark: An Elephants' View of Captivity: R. J. Ryan: Books[/ame]


And now for something completely different, from another article that I found...

L.A. Zoo's elephant exhibit put on hold | L.A. Now | Los Angeles Times

...it appears that GLAZA has offered to contribute $14 million more to the project. There may still be hope for the elephant exhibit afterall. Consider the majority of the elephant exhibit's funding is from a propostion voted in favor by the people of Los Angeles....the people of Los Angeles have showed their support for such an endeavor. However, this vote occurred almost 15 years ago? And many more things were also to be built with the same money. I believe money is really the issue now on the table, if GLAZA can come up with the funding, will the zoo be able to complete the project?
 
@Okapikpr: I know there was controversy over the importation of the Wild Animal Park, but the elephants are thriving now. It is great that they were saved from being culled and it is also great that the SDWAP. Thank you for the suggestion but I rather not read another depressing book on why elephants should not be in captivity and about how the San Diego Zoo should be shut down because I do not agree with that. Also I personally think there is nothing wrong with the importation of the 7 elephants.
 
BlackRhino, you didnt quite understand my post. The book I reccommended was written by a keeper at the SDWAP back in the 1980s and 1990s and his experiences at the park. It is not about why elephants should not be captivity..though it does give insight into what not to do with elephants in captivity. The books also details the controversies that occured, what the animal activists did (even to the keepers), and what the State of California did in response. I dont even recall the author asking that the park be shut down. It is an excellent book.

And did I say that the Swazi 11 was a bad thing??? I was only responding to your post that San Diego doesnt have any controversy with their elephant program...because they have had their fair share for sure.
 
Yes they have had there share in the 80's and 90's. But I still find it hard to believe their is animal cruelty occurring at the San Diego Wild Animal Park.
 
I inferred that because by reading people's responses to the book they were saying that anyone that cares about animals would think about going into a zoo if they knew where their ticket money went to saying that it goes to beating elephants.
 
That's what they did at the park in the early 1990s. Its an old negative reinforcement technique used to condition elephants...what was considered then as the elephant equivalant of spanking a child when they did something wrong. The technique is called block and tackle.
 
I remember hearing they did it in the early 90's. Nowadays in 2008 almost every zoo uses a positive reinforcement.
 
It was San Diego's controversy in the 1990s and the State of California's reaction that led to a wide spread change in elephant mangement across the country. For someone who wants to become an elephant keeper, I highly reccommend the book. It is important when you work with any animal, that you learn from the experiences and stories of others in order to gain and understand your own experiences.
 
Here is another article from the LA times that talks more about what happened in todays meeting.

Construction halted on Los Angeles Zoo elephant exhibit - Los Angeles Times

The City Council stops work on the partially built Pachyderm Forest but does not kill the project outright. The meeting is packed with supporters and opponents of the exhibit.
By Carla Hall
December 4, 2008
After weeks of impassioned and lengthy debates over elephants and whether the world's largest land mammals still belong in the Los Angeles Zoo, supporters and critics alike got only a tentative verdict Wednesday: The City Council halted construction of the zoo's controversial $42-million elephant exhibit but did not outright kill it.

The project seemed headed for extinction but for an 11th-hour proposal from the zoo's fundraising arm, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., which offered to contribute millions of dollars more to pay for the new habitat.

As a result, the council referred the matter back to its Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee to examine whether to accept the association's offer and to consider what to do with the 3.6-acre space and the zoo's sole elephant, Billy, if the project is scrapped. The zoo has already spent $12 million on construction costs.

The association's offer eased worries of some council members, who fretted over the cost of the exhibit at a time when city services are being cut back. But several council members have maintained all along that it is less about money than about the elephants' welfare, arguing that the new facility would be too small for the needs of the huge, social creatures.

"Our zoo is trying to do the best job they can with the real estate they have and the budget they have," said Councilman Tony Cardenas, who conceived the motion to stop construction of the exhibit and move Billy to a sanctuary. "Elephants don't fit in zoos; they have ailments they don't get out in the wild. Whether it's an acre or three to four acres, it's inadequate."

The crowd that filled the council chamber expecting a final decision divided as if at a wedding of hostile families. Animal welfare advocates packed the seats to the left of the center aisle while zoo supporters and staffers, some wearing bright green T-shirts proclaiming their position, filled the seats to the right.

"It all boils down to whether you believe we should have animals of this magnitude in captivity," said Councilwoman Jan Perry, who told the crowd that she planned to vote against the exhibit, provoking one of the frequent bursts of applause and cheers.

When Councilman Bill Rosendahl expressed awe at seeing so many people show up for an animal issue, he wondered if they would show up when the council tackled social issues.

"I want that kind of commitment to human beings that we're giving to elephants -- can I have that from everyone in the room?" he asked.

The crowd cheered lustily.

The price tag of the exhibit includes about $20 million in voter-approved bond funds for zoo improvements and nearly $5 million in private donations raised by the zoo association.

The city would borrow another large chunk of the project's financing -- $14.5 million -- and repay it at a rate of $1.2 million a year over 20 years. But on Monday, the council's budget committee decided that was too costly a commitment, and recommended supporting the motion to kill the exhibit.

On Tuesday night, zoo association officials came up with the idea of their group assuming the city's burden of paying back the borrowed money plus interest.

Rosendahl commended the zoo's fundraising organization, saying it had "stepped up to the plate. . . . Even though I'm not for elephants in the zoo, I think we need to respect this."

He urged that the exhibit be granted further consideration, provoking scattered applause from zoo supporters and sotto voce groans from animal welfare advocates who thought they were about to prevail.

After the council's vote, the room fell dead silent -- as supporters and detractors alike tried to figure out what was next. Subdued, all filed out. Then they regrouped, each faction putting an optimistic spin on the council's vote.

"We're glad we have a chance to prove to the city, to the council, that we can provide a fiscally responsible, humane exhibit," said zoo Director John Lewis.

Zoo association President Connie Morgan sounded unfazed by the prospect of raising the extra money during a recession to pay off the city loan.

"We already raise about $10 million a year from various sources," Morgan said. "So, really, raising about 10% is not a difficult thing to do. Our membership base continues to grow, the support for the zoo continues to grow."

But animal welfare advocates saw a measure of victory.

"Overall, we're very pleased that they've stopped construction on the exhibit," said Catherine Doyle, a longtime elephant welfare activist with the group In Defense of Animals. "We still have a lot of work to do, and we'd like Billy to be moved to a sanctuary."

If the zoo is allowed to finish the exhibit, it will bring in more Asian elephants to start a breeding program that will include Billy, an Asian bull.

But Cardenas said he thinks the council will not vote to restart construction. And he said it will be his job to remind his colleagues of the welfare issues, not just the financial ones.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said that although he still sympathizes with the activists in their opposition to elephants at zoos, he will go along with whatever the council decides.

"Obviously they're revisiting the issue and they have a right to do it," he said, stopping in the City Hall rotunda, "and I'll respect whatever they do."

Hall is a Times staff writer.
Click to expand...
 
Another article

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11129809

Work on L.A. Zoo elephant exhibit temporarily halted
Daily News Wire Services
Posted: 12/03/2008 03:12:19 PM PST

Work on the partially built Pachyderm Forest at the Los Angeles Zoo was temporarily halted today by the Los Angeles City Council as the city explores alternative funding for the $42 million exhibit.

The 13-2 vote -- Councilmen Richard Alarcon and Dennis Zine were the dissenters -- came after one hour of discussion during a session attended by more visitors and city staff than any other council meeting this year.

The council's Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee will look at the fiscal implications of a commitment made by the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association to pay the interest on one set of funds used to build the exhibit. That would cost $1.2 million a year for 20 years and would relieve the city of the obligation to pay back those funds.

Committee members will also look at whether the partially completed exhibit could be used to house another type of animal and the status of other zoos that have decided to get rid of their elephants.

The committee is scheduled to complete its work by Jan. 24.

"(The elephant) does belong in the Los Angeles Zoo. It does belong for everybody to see," said City Councilman Tom LaBonge, who supports keeping pachydermss at the Los Angeles Zoo.

Councilman Tony Cardenas, who proposed that the elephant exhibit be shut down over concerns that the huge animals need room to walk and typically suffer debilitating foot problems inside zoos, said he appreciates the work of GLAZA but questioned whether the private organization would be able to take on part of the city's costs.

"We've never had a third party step into our place. It's going to be very difficult," Cardenas said.

"I'm going to continue until I prevail to make sure that the city of Los Angeles does the humane thing, the right thing, and we will have a world- class zoo but we will not continue to allow elephants to suffer at our hands," he said.

The City Administrative Office estimates that $12 million has been spent on the project since it was approved in 2006. The city of Los Angeles would have to repay $10 million of that money and the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association would take back $4.85 million in private donations.

The zoo spends $156,000 a year to maintain the current elephant exhibit. If the Pachyderm Forest is completed, the zoo would spend an additional $459,000 a year, plus a one-time cost of $63,500, to take care of an additional four elephants.

The CAO recommends the city proceed with the project.

But Councilman Bernard Parks, who chairs the committee, said moving ahead to complete the project is not fiscally responsible when the city is facing a $110 million deficit.

"I'm concerned that we (will) end up building an elephant exhibit to nowhere because if we don't know where the funds are going to come from to maintain it, if we don't know where the funds are going to come from to inhabit it ... the issue that you look at in the long- and short-term is, can we afford it today?" Parks said Monday.

The council decided to reexamine the elephant issue earlier this year, after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by actor Robert Culp and real estate agent Aaron Leider against the city.

The suit accused zoo authorities of withholding medical care, keeping elephants in confined spaces and using bull hooks and electric shock to control the animals. But the judge said the issues were political in nature, rather than legal.

Opponents of the Pachyderm Forest argue that elephants need a soft surface to walk on to prevent foot problems and an environment that stimulates them mentally.

The zoo's elephant, Billy, lives alone and critics point to his frequent head-bobbing as a sign he has a psychotic disorder. Zoo director John Lewis, however, hsa said the head-bobbing behavior is typical for Billy.

The new exhibit -- which is about 30 percent complete -- is designed to hold up to five adult Asian elephants and three of their offspring, with more than 3 1/2 acres for the elephants to roam around, plus two pools and a waterfall on the six-acre site.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top