Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Elephant Sanctuary

Sorry, let me back up....this Los Angeles councilman is proposing to build a NEW elephant facility for the Los Angeles Zoo to house elephants that would be OPEN to the public. I cant find any mention that there would be no breeding like the facilites in the US that are called elephant sanctuaries...I believe this councilman is trying to be politically correct to make his proposal more attractive and persuasive.

If there would be other zoos to follow suit, they would acquire NEW properties to develop such a facility, much like San Diego did back in the 1960s for the Wild Animal Park

I know that elephant exhibit being constructed will be great, there has never really been an upheavel in elephant exhibit design like those for apes and big cats. But this new facility that is proposed will allow for greater improvements and possibly increase the number of elephants the zoo could have, especially in breeding situations or hold bachelor herds. On a property like that, the LA Zoo could develop browse gardens, hay fields, off-site breeding areas for other species, etc. Not to mention save the city a lot of money...something there seems to be less of these days.
 
@Black Rhino: you say that the new elephant habitat will be an "amazing exhibit" but have you been to the Los Angeles Zoo lately? They have spent millions on a series of enclosures that are ultimately disappointing. The "Sea Life" pool has had boring harbour seals replace California sea lions in a decent but not exceptional habitat. The orangutan exhibit was heralded as something spectacular before it opened, but it is a massive waste of cash and is an absolutely terrible enclosure for orangs. "Campo Gorilla Reserve" cost a tremendous amount of money and while it looks impressive it is extremely poorly designed for great apes. I'm truly hoping that the elephant habitat will be brilliant, but it's costing $40 million and will probably be average at best. The zoo has spent an absurd amount of cash over the past decade, and the chimpanzee habitat is the one and only good enclosure that they have built. Is the elephant exhibit really going to be any better? I bet it becomes outdated within ten years, and in the meantime the zoo will continue to receive a lot of flak for keeping elephants. It's not worth the never-ending bad press.
 
Well, personally I want the elephants to stay at the zoo. After all that Billy has gone through, I think he deserves the new exhibit with some girls.:) By the looks of what has already been built, the exhibit looks amazing. There are a couple of trees (mature eucalyptuses) inside the exhibit, some death trees for elephants to push around, rocks, and sandy hills. The exhibit looks so cool themed.

I know that the new sanctuary would be amazing, but if it does happen it will be only 60 acres and only for elephants. I don't see a point for an off site facility that is only 60 acres, especially when they will charge extra for people just to see elephants.

The only loser here is Billy, which has been waiting for ever, and now that his portion of the exhibit is almost finished he may be forced to stay more time in the small ugly exhibit. The plan also mentions on sending Billy to another sanctuary, then bringing new elephants in to the LA sanctuary, so Billy will be wasted.

Also, I think something fishy is going on. The councilman that is proposing this was a big supporter of the new exhibit. Now he think that the new exhibit will be a death chamber. He is also now supporting Bob Barker, which in my opinion should instead try to help out animals in labs instead of constantly bashing the LA zoo. I think that this plan is Bob Barker's plan not the councilman's. I also could tell that the councilman has never been to the zoo, because he keeps mentioning that all that has been done is leveling and grading the land, which is not true because Billy is due to move to the new exhibit by the end of the month.

Anyways, I think the new plan will not happen, as no other councilman is supporting the plan.
 
snowleopard said:
@Black Rhino: you say that the new elephant habitat will be an "amazing exhibit" but have you been to the Los Angeles Zoo lately? They have spent millions on a series of enclosures that are ultimately disappointing. The "Sea Life" pool has had boring harbour seals replace California sea lions in a decent but not exceptional habitat. The orangutan exhibit was heralded as something spectacular before it opened, but it is a massive waste of cash and is an absolutely terrible enclosure for orangs. "Campo Gorilla Reserve" cost a tremendous amount of money and while it looks impressive it is extremely poorly designed for great apes. I'm truly hoping that the elephant habitat will be brilliant, but it's costing $40 million and will probably be average at best. The zoo has spent an absurd amount of cash over the past decade, and the chimpanzee habitat is the one and only good enclosure that they have built. Is the elephant exhibit really going to be any better? I bet it becomes outdated within ten years, and in the meantime the zoo will continue to receive a lot of flak for keeping elephants. It's not worth the never-ending bad press.
Click to expand...

Hey scott, you're right about using too much money, but what many people don't know is that most of the money was used to replace the infrastructure in the area of each new exhibit. The zoos infrastructure is from the 1960's, of when the zoo opened. This was the case for the golden monkey exhibit and the three ape exhibits. I think this is also a problem for the new elephant exhibit.

Regarding the bad press, for the past year and a half the zoo has not had bad press. Only positive things, which has contributed to attendance records at the zoo for the past three years.

Also, about the Sea lion exhibit. The sea lions were too old and suffering of arthritis, so they had to move to their previous exhibit which makes it easy for them. The Harbor Seals are only on loan, while their exhibit is constructed at an aquarium in New Jersey (not sure which), so maybe we will be getting Sea Lions in the future.
 
I agree with blackrhino on this. Recently in the zoo i work at, Taronga in sydney, we had a lot of issues with our elephants arriving and the new enclosure being built. Once again animal rights people getting government on side. And because we are also run by the government we were nearly told not to house them. In fact all the dramas occured after we spent 48 million on a new exhibit and were then very nearly told we wouldn't have elephants to put in it. However we got the elephants, with the new enclosure, and believe me there were many days when protesters were out in force after the elephants arrival. Within 18 months we had a natural pregnancy followed by an AI pregnancy and then the animal rights people started attacking the program because apparently one of our females was to young to breed or some crap. So basically animal rights activists will never go away. And the problem is is they use the past to justify not moving foward. It's like saying there were issues with the C.I.A in the past, so lets just close it down instead of change it into a benifitial organisation so i think that it would be an extreme loss for the zoo and for the elephant program at large to loss the exhibit at the L.A zoo
 
I just found another article, and this one is from the Associated Press:

The Associated Press: LA councilman gets celeb help in zoo elephant move

This one talks about Billy bobbing his head, which many people think it's because of stress and I disagree. I personally has seen it many times and do believe the zoo when they say that he does it before it's time for the zookeeper to arrive to his exhibit. I was at the zoo early one day and Billy was bobbing his head, then I called his name and he immediatley stopped bobbing and ran to me thinking that I was a keeper. After he realized who I was he went back to his business. That proves that he does wait for keepers. The zoo has now recently changed the times that the keepers go visit Billy which has lowered his head bobbing by 50 percent.
 
zooworker said:
I agree with blackrhino on this. Recently in the zoo i work at, Taronga in sydney, we had a lot of issues with our elephants arriving and the new enclosure being built. Once again animal rights people getting government on side. And because we are also run by the government we were nearly told not to house them. In fact all the dramas occured after we spent 48 million on a new exhibit and were then very nearly told we wouldn't have elephants to put in it. However we got the elephants, with the new enclosure, and believe me there were many days when protesters were out in force after the elephants arrival. Within 18 months we had a natural pregnancy followed by an AI pregnancy and then the animal rights people started attacking the program because apparently one of our females was to young to breed or some crap. So basically animal rights activists will never go away. And the problem is is they use the past to justify not moving foward. It's like saying there were issues with the C.I.A in the past, so lets just close it down instead of change it into a benifitial organisation so i think that it would be an extreme loss for the zoo and for the elephant program at large to loss the exhibit at the L.A zoo
Click to expand...

I agree with you zooworker, protesters will never go away, especially when the main topic is elephants.
 
what i don't understand is when people think that what the animal rights activists are saying is valid. When you look at what they say and when they say it. They always complain about certain key note species, where admittedly wrong has been done in the past, and complain about that wrong only when that species is going to undergo a huge renovation of enclosure which to me proves it's all just a stunt. Think about all the other species of animals in captivity that are in sub standard enclosures, i would say that elephants account for maybe 1% of that. I think these animal rights people actually cared they would be fighting for zoo's to renovate and be focusing on more the asian region, because 95% of enclosures there are just way below a healthy standard and the few enclosures that are alright are for small animals, so all the large animals in this area are in incredibly poor enclosures, i point out sea paradise in japan as the worst enclosures for marine mammals i have ever seen in my life! Show pool wonderful, places where they actually live, disgusting.
 
@snowleopard: Yes, I have been to the LA Zoo lately within the past year. I don't think Campo Gorilla Reserve is as bad as you claim it is. I also did not think the Red Ape Rainforest is as bas as you claim. Plus, I highly doubt an almost 4 acre habitat will become outdated within 10 years.
 
A small addition: every new elephant exhibit of which I am aware is being designed with the capability of housing bulls. That did not used to be the case.

This does leave unresolved what to do with bachelor males down the road. But AZA is actually behind a new elephant "sanctuary" in Florida.

I do suspect that the recent rush to build larger elephant exhibits has left the designers in the dust. Some zoos are trying state-of-the-art holding with sand floors and group stalls available, but others are recreating the kind of holding typical for the past decades. These new exhibits need to be carefully thought out. AZA is trying to offer some organization and guidance to the elephant exhibit issue, but AZA is somewhat of a herd of cats. It can only push its member so much.

My reading of the press on the L.A. sanctuary does not lead me to believe it is intended as a new rural expansion of the zoo. For one thing, it won't be adequately funded at the rate the Councilman proposes. (And he proposes building it in an area that is plagued with wildfires!) Furthermore, look at the new Pittsburgh Zoo rural elephant and breeding center. It raised all sorts of opposition when it was proposed. Anti-zoo activists don't care what you call it or how big it is...it's still a juicy target. There are two issues here: one is providing properly for elephants and the other is what to do with anti-zoo activists. I think it is a mistake to confuse these two things.

And this L.A. "news" stinks of being simply a plot to ban elephants from zoos:
"Cardenas' first motion calls for Los Angeles to join the dozen cities to shutter their elephant exhibits, while sending its last elephant, Billy, to a sanctuary.

His second motion calls for an advisory group to target 60 acres for an elephant satellite sanctuary to be run by the L.A. Zoo, in addition to a feasibility study by the chief legislative analyst. " ( http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10770872?source=rss )

Once elephants are banned, there is no guarantee of a second facility being built, merely a feasibility study to see if the sanctuary makes sense. It's the old bait and switch, folks!

One final note: when Lily Tomlin addressed the Dallas City Council last week to pressure the Dallas Zoo into sending Jenny to Tennessee, the Council stood firm. One reason cited was that the Council did not want to give the anti-zoo activists a "win."
 
Cardenas

I think Cardenas already got what he really wanted from this proposal: His name in several news stories.
 
I think its an excellent idea, hopefully great future breeding site, wonder if they will import or get transfers from other zoos. Shame about Billy though.
 
dragon(ele)nerd said:
I think its an excellent idea, hopefully great future breeding site, wonder if they will import or get transfers from other zoos. Shame about Billy though.
Click to expand...

I you read the expert comments made by okapikpr and zooplantman you would know that the Cardenas proposal is a diversionary tactic and seeks to ban elephants from LA Zoo.

Besides this sanctuary idea has not secured any funding and is quite separate from the AZA-sponsored endeavour by various zoos which seeks to build an of-site breeding facility for elephants.

It is a stinker and that is all it is.

What is really sad about individuals like Cardenas or the animal welfarists is that they really do not care 1 inch for the survival of endangered species either in situ or ex situ. They would rather have a species be phased out in captivity, reside in a "sanctuary" without any efforts at breeding them and let them die out in situ than ever put any resources or their own mouth's money towards real conservation initiatives (and I mean both in situ and in captivity).

Thankfully, they do not always prevail - despite overt PR and marketed publicity in the public media - and f.i. the San Francisco Zoo sanctuary plan has been sunk forthwith (at the expense of months of media wrangling and time misspent on communicating the real issues to them on SF Zoo that might have been better put towards turning the SF Zoo around in a more positive and forward direction.

The only issue I would like to raise here is the AZA/SSP elephant commissioned plans for breeding of Africans and Asians. Perhaps zooplantman or okapikpr can shed some light (I will pm you 2 too).

Regards,

Jelle
 
Oh sorry I should of only said that it is a good idea for a state of the art facility for breeding but, your right $8.5 million dollars in debt, is the zoo that rich enough top pay that back in good time/??
 
Cheers to Mario (mstickmanp) for posting the construction photos! There has certainly been a lot of ongoing construction around the exhibit, and the Los Angeles councillor who stated that all the zoo had done was level and grade the ground clearly got it wrong in that regard. There are those people who are happy to see elephants in urban zoos, while others regard that species of mammal as continually suffering much more than others in captivity. I truly hope that the L.A. Zoo can pull off a fantastic habitat for pachyderms, and that there aren't any health issues with the elephants that are brought into the zoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top