I don't really know why the Los Angeles Zoo has become so intent on building the $40 million elephant exhibit when it's caused them nothing but bad publicity and grief in all of the local and international papers. Would zoo attendance be affected at all whether there were or were not elephants at the zoo? Zoos have proven in the past that when they stop exhibiting elephants there is zero difference in visitor numbers, but by keeping elephants there is nonstop abuse from animal rights groups, celebrities and politicians. I would personally just cut my losses if I was a zoo director and encourage the decision to stop showcasing animals that always suffer in captivity.
The Los Angeles Zoo's upcoming elephant habitat might be spectacular (and hopefully it is impressive as it's costing a small fortune) but in the next 20 years it will become outdated and then eventually critics will bash it in terms of its size and structure. Rather than have mammals in the collection that will gain foot ulcers and become bored and listless, why not avoid the terrible press that elephants in zoos attract and scrap the plan altogether? The animal rights activists and other organizations would be impressed, attendance would not decrease, and no more elephants would be in empty paddocks rocking from side to side. Instead of a handful of injury-prone pachyderms why not build a small mammal building that houses hundreds of animals? Or the L.A. Zoo should fix up several of their outdated enclosures before embarking on a brand new exhibit. Perhaps they could finally buy some golden monkeys...hahaha.
