Here is the BBC report on the situation, saying a decision will be made in about 6 weeks.
BBC NEWS | Programmes | World News America | LA's zoo starved of cash
BBC NEWS | Programmes | World News America | LA's zoo starved of cash
Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Elephant Sanctuary
- Thread starter okapikpr
- Start date
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
this was released two days ago, but it's pretty similiar to previous articles posted L.A.'s elephant-size problem - LA Daily News
mstickmanp
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I had already read it. Have you seen all of the comments? and almost all of the comments are positive. I already left a comment yesterday.
I read some comments and on the first page it is shocking to see but almost all of them support the zoo. Hopefully they will continue construction.
The part that makes me mad is that all the negative information has been based on the current exhibit. In all the exhibits that are even 2 acres or more the elephants are doing great. The 3.6 acre exhibit is more than large enough and I know Billy would do great in it, if they would just give it a chance.
Also, the only celebrity who has been in this fight who truly knows a thing or two about captive elephants is Betty White as she has been a strong supporter of the zoo. All of the other celebrities against the exhibit i.e. Bob Barker & Goldie Hawn know squat nothing about the welfare of Billy therefore their information is really irrelevant and it is shocking that the council would side with them.
Lastly, IDA is extremely biased and negative against zoos and base all their information on old elephant exhibits. The fact that 13 elephants have died in the past x amount of years is irrelevant when it comes to building the new exhibit because the actual purpose of the exhibit is so there will be much less elephant deaths and to give the elephants a much more stimulating natural environment.
The part that makes me mad is that all the negative information has been based on the current exhibit. In all the exhibits that are even 2 acres or more the elephants are doing great. The 3.6 acre exhibit is more than large enough and I know Billy would do great in it, if they would just give it a chance.
Also, the only celebrity who has been in this fight who truly knows a thing or two about captive elephants is Betty White as she has been a strong supporter of the zoo. All of the other celebrities against the exhibit i.e. Bob Barker & Goldie Hawn know squat nothing about the welfare of Billy therefore their information is really irrelevant and it is shocking that the council would side with them.
Lastly, IDA is extremely biased and negative against zoos and base all their information on old elephant exhibits. The fact that 13 elephants have died in the past x amount of years is irrelevant when it comes to building the new exhibit because the actual purpose of the exhibit is so there will be much less elephant deaths and to give the elephants a much more stimulating natural environment.
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
Yeah positive feedback, I'm not too sure where I stand now, kinda neautral on the whole thing.
For reasons stated below.
1) No political backbone on behalf of councillors, public administrators or finance commission in the face of any criticism (valid or non-valid).
2) Lack of expert or informed opinion in public domain. This tends to favour the discussion being hijacked by extremes like IDA or animal welfare activitists or even so-called celebs for a cause (valid or non-valid).
3) Lack of official public statement stating the real facts.
4) Inadequate or late official response by AZA Zoo Board in the face of valid/non-valid criticism of one of its respected and accredited institutions.
5) Fear of litigation or being voted out by public administrators.
If we do not engage the discussion or perceived dispute on zoo affairs we are condoned to living the lie of the land ...
1) No political backbone on behalf of councillors, public administrators or finance commission in the face of any criticism (valid or non-valid).
2) Lack of expert or informed opinion in public domain. This tends to favour the discussion being hijacked by extremes like IDA or animal welfare activitists or even so-called celebs for a cause (valid or non-valid).
3) Lack of official public statement stating the real facts.
4) Inadequate or late official response by AZA Zoo Board in the face of valid/non-valid criticism of one of its respected and accredited institutions.
5) Fear of litigation or being voted out by public administrators.
If we do not engage the discussion or perceived dispute on zoo affairs we are condoned to living the lie of the land ...
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Hate to be this guy but they did change the plans to the Sydney Opera House halfway through, it's why the architect quit halfway through and went back to Denmark and died last week at 90 without ever seeing it finished... It's also why the acoustics are sucky...
As I learn more about zoo and aquariums I find myself agreeing more and more with Snowleopard on this one, I'm not going rehash the reasons pro and con, IMO some animals are too intelligent and large to be in captivity but one thing I will say is I literally cannot believe they have stopped at this stage of construction, this is a huge area of the zoo, what will happen to the masterplan..? Why paying for that to be updated alone and designing a raft of new exhibits will cost a bomb...
My prediction is that they will complete the exhibit but in a half-arsed (read cheap) way... Lots of exhibits have some of the more expensive features removed while they are being built... I think this may be another of the LA exhibits which promised so much and in the theme of LA ended up looking good without much substance (for the animals)...
I do and will not agree with the no elephants groups. It is an elitist view and one that gets facts regularly and blatantly untrue. So much concerning zoos and wildlife is anthropomorphised these days. And to distinguish between intelligent fauna and those whose mental capacities in that department seem the lesser smacks to much for my liking to some WWII philosophies.
That said, I feel truly there is a need and function for elephants in zoo environments. Not just educationwise, but for the purpose of conservation breeding. Your experience in NZ and I would say even Australia is not indicative of how well elephants do in captivity. The very reasoning for updating the LA exhibit was to provide the elephants with an environment for breeding and wildlife education. To cave in to pressures from non expert councillors on this one is highly deplorable and unjust.
The SSP for elephants is in the process of re-inventing itself and new policies have been set that include major upgrades of outdated exhibits into new elephant breeding environments. That policy can only be completed over a 5-8 year timeframe and the first real changes will not be felt for another 10-15 years from now. However, already breeding rates for elephants have been improving and thanks to diligent reproductive research AI has become a viable option for reproductive individuals without access to a breeding male or an exhibit that includes a bull only facility.
You will only have to look at the EEP for elephants to see what change can bring to elephant management in zoos. Since 1991, the situation has so much improved that now we have quite a number of new elephant breeding complexes, significant advances in elephant research (husbandry, nutrition, hands-off keeper management, conservation breeding et al), a highly improved reproductive rate, a more socially stable herd structure for individual groups and considerable support for in situ conservation programmes.
All the nos want is no elephants in zoos and yet not a penny more for wildlife conservation in the process nor any commitment to improving their status both in the wild or in captivity (sanctuaries remain a sorry sight to "retire" individual elephants to).
All the yes want is to improve the status of elephants both in captivity and in the wild. What could be wrong in that?
Resume: how on earth are you going to sensitise people to the plights of wild elephants if you make no effort at all or half-baked super sponsorred off exhibit institutions that are not willing to breed their charges. Go forth and do not multiply nos ....!
That said, I feel truly there is a need and function for elephants in zoo environments. Not just educationwise, but for the purpose of conservation breeding. Your experience in NZ and I would say even Australia is not indicative of how well elephants do in captivity. The very reasoning for updating the LA exhibit was to provide the elephants with an environment for breeding and wildlife education. To cave in to pressures from non expert councillors on this one is highly deplorable and unjust.
The SSP for elephants is in the process of re-inventing itself and new policies have been set that include major upgrades of outdated exhibits into new elephant breeding environments. That policy can only be completed over a 5-8 year timeframe and the first real changes will not be felt for another 10-15 years from now. However, already breeding rates for elephants have been improving and thanks to diligent reproductive research AI has become a viable option for reproductive individuals without access to a breeding male or an exhibit that includes a bull only facility.
You will only have to look at the EEP for elephants to see what change can bring to elephant management in zoos. Since 1991, the situation has so much improved that now we have quite a number of new elephant breeding complexes, significant advances in elephant research (husbandry, nutrition, hands-off keeper management, conservation breeding et al), a highly improved reproductive rate, a more socially stable herd structure for individual groups and considerable support for in situ conservation programmes.
All the nos want is no elephants in zoos and yet not a penny more for wildlife conservation in the process nor any commitment to improving their status both in the wild or in captivity (sanctuaries remain a sorry sight to "retire" individual elephants to).
All the yes want is to improve the status of elephants both in captivity and in the wild. What could be wrong in that?
Resume: how on earth are you going to sensitise people to the plights of wild elephants if you make no effort at all or half-baked super sponsorred off exhibit institutions that are not willing to breed their charges. Go forth and do not multiply nos ....!
NZ Jeremy
Well-Known Member
Ha ha, I think that's the first time I've been compared to a Nazi on this site... Oh well, that what I get for posting on one of the (noticably) highly emotive elephant threads...
I believe I could counter all the points you have made in your last post but methinks we shall not change each others minds and instead habour resentment towards one another...
Auckland Zoo is currently talking about the future of elephants at their establishment and if they go I will be truly sad, it will feel like someone has cut a hole in the zoo but on the other hand I think about the animals that would replace them and the kind of life they would lead even though Auckland has an outstanding programme...
Jeremy,
I am not comparing you to a ****, I take issue with the fact that you distinguish wildlife based on mental capacities. For us educators ... it should be that no matter whether we are talking sugar cane beetle or giraffe every individual species is just as valuable and their presentation in zoos must be of a standard we can recognise the importance of the entire fabric of species within the ecosystem that is our Planet. Anyway, even in Darwin's and Cuvier's time similar philosophies existed that put Homo sapiens at the top of the tree of life, the Homo neaderthalensis somewhere in the middle and all other creatures .... welll ahum lest we forget.
Anyhow, as far as elephants is concerned the facts presented in the recent report on captive elephants has major inaccuracies and faults. So, is the entire arguement by the "no elephants" camp. I can present all the facts most succinctly and truthfully and still you guys will disagree with the real facts ... so further discussion is becoming more or less pointless and obsolete. Let us just say, that we agree to disagree on major issues ..... (it is most definitely not resentment on my part)!
I am not comparing you to a ****, I take issue with the fact that you distinguish wildlife based on mental capacities. For us educators ... it should be that no matter whether we are talking sugar cane beetle or giraffe every individual species is just as valuable and their presentation in zoos must be of a standard we can recognise the importance of the entire fabric of species within the ecosystem that is our Planet. Anyway, even in Darwin's and Cuvier's time similar philosophies existed that put Homo sapiens at the top of the tree of life, the Homo neaderthalensis somewhere in the middle and all other creatures .... welll ahum lest we forget.
Anyhow, as far as elephants is concerned the facts presented in the recent report on captive elephants has major inaccuracies and faults. So, is the entire arguement by the "no elephants" camp. I can present all the facts most succinctly and truthfully and still you guys will disagree with the real facts ... so further discussion is becoming more or less pointless and obsolete. Let us just say, that we agree to disagree on major issues ..... (it is most definitely not resentment on my part)!
mstickmanp
Well-Known Member
I found a couple things from the zoo's side of the debate.
1)Billy's Home
2)Cost of Snubbing Los Angeles Voters on Zoo Project Now Projected at $17 Million and Counting
The first one is a website made by the zoo supporters. It includes a new exhibit plan which is way different than the one everyone knows about. I personally like this site plan better.
1)Billy's Home
2)Cost of Snubbing Los Angeles Voters on Zoo Project Now Projected at $17 Million and Counting
The first one is a website made by the zoo supporters. It includes a new exhibit plan which is way different than the one everyone knows about. I personally like this site plan better.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
At least the Zoo is standing firmly behind the exhibit:
LA Zoo Tells All the Haters to Relax | NBC Los Angeles
note the commenter at the end who repeats the IDA slogan, zoo=concentration camp.
LA Zoo Tells All the Haters to Relax | NBC Los Angeles
note the commenter at the end who repeats the IDA slogan, zoo=concentration camp.
Vote vote vote
Tired of just talk? Want to do something to support zoos? AND show IDA that their propaganda is just that?
VOTE now to support LA Zoo's Pachyderm Forest:
Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit | L.A. Unleashed | Los Angeles Times
Tired of just talk? Want to do something to support zoos? AND show IDA that their propaganda is just that?
VOTE now to support LA Zoo's Pachyderm Forest:
Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit | L.A. Unleashed | Los Angeles Times
mstickmanp
Well-Known Member
I voted already, but the only flaw is that people could vote multiple times from the same computer.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
Well at least they are taking in public ideas... the only flaw yeah is like what mstickmanp said.
Zoogoer2000
Well-Known Member
Were winning!!!!!!
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Apparently another decision point has been reached and this article makes the point that, financially, it will cost the City BIG if they decide to scrap the project now:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11467418
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_11467418
It appears that 7 in 10 voters are in favor for continuing the elephant exhibit construction. mstickmanp, who many times did you vote?
Seven in 10 Voters in LA Times Online Poll Support Keeping Billy at the Los Angeles Zoo - MarketWatch
Seven in 10 Voters in LA Times Online Poll Support Keeping Billy at the Los Angeles Zoo - MarketWatch
mstickmanp
Well-Known Member
I only voted once, as I noticed that only one vote was counted. At first I thought it was flawed, but as the time passed I noticed that it was only counting one vote. It's funny because IDA is accusing the zoo for using software that multiplies the votes.
Also, the deciding meetings were rescheduled to 2 weeks from now. Also, IDA will be at the Zoo tomorrow to protest.