Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens Los Angeles Zoo News 2022

Julio C Castro said:
I find it laughable that Paul Koretz, who was a head of this motion, has something to say about animal welfare. The underfunding of staff and conditions animals are coming out of LA animal shelters should be more than enough to make his opinion worthless. Having first hand experience of what comes out from those shelters, I’m still surprised Koretz got this far until recently.
Click to expand...

I've found that usually AR people have one of the worst concepts of welfare, not actually properly understanding the care of the animals they "support". Or like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals running kill shelters and lobbying to put animals in worse care than what they're receiving. Doesn't sound ethical to me, but who am I to question their ideological logic. :rolleyes:
Actually I don't think there's any logic to it other than whatever's necessary to achieve their ideology - regardless of the nonsense or unethical behavior that gets them there... :confused:
 
Great Argus said:
Koretz has been trying to remove Billy from the zoo for years, he's in the AR camp. My understanding is he's due to leave office and this was a last push with influence, as indicated by his comment "the zoo has successfully waited me out til now." Personally I think it is rubbish and I'd like to know who their elephant experts are. The LA Zoo is a far better and safer home for Billy than any of the elephant sanctuaries.
Click to expand...
And, if the City Council successfully gets Billy removed from the zoo, it will lose its AZA accreditation, just like what happened at the Toronto Zoo when the city removed that zoo’s elephants. It’s never about “what’s best for the elephants.” It’s about tarnishing zoos’ reputations.
 
SharkFinatic said:
And, if the City Council successfully gets Billy removed from the zoo, it will lose its AZA accreditation, just like what happened at the Toronto Zoo when the city removed that zoo’s elephants. It’s never about “what’s best for the elephants.” It’s about tarnishing zoos’ reputations.
Click to expand...
The zoo doesn't *have* to go along with the City Council's recommendations, does it?
 
SharkFinatic said:
And, if the City Council successfully gets Billy removed from the zoo, it will lose its AZA accreditation, just like what happened at the Toronto Zoo when the city removed that zoo’s elephants. It’s never about “what’s best for the elephants.” It’s about tarnishing zoos’ reputations.
Click to expand...

The timing is also interesting, I think, in that the LA Zoo has its AZA accreditation review hearing in March 2023.
 
SharkFinatic said:
Not now, but I fear one will come soon.
Click to expand...
I'm just hopeful it's a vocal minority more than anything... what is this councilman's case, if he even has any? LA Zoo's done right by Billy for as long as I can remember - the whole point of obtaining Tina, Jewel and eventually Shaunzi as well as the ENTIRE Elephants of Asia development - hell, the sacrifice of a new hippo/rhino area to go all in on elephants was ALL for Billy. This entitled, pretentious wannabe "esteemed statesman" can go sit in the corner.
 
Great Argus said:
I've found that usually AR people have one of the worst concepts of welfare, not actually properly understanding the care of the animals they "support". Or like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals running kill shelters and lobbying to put animals in worse care than what they're receiving. Doesn't sound ethical to me, but who am I to question their ideological logic. :rolleyes:
Actually I don't think there's any logic to it other than whatever's necessary to achieve their ideology - regardless of the nonsense or unethical behavior that gets them there... :confused:
Click to expand...

The ultimate goal of ARA is to end all forms of captivity. To get to this end, they do not care if animals die to achieve it (but heaven forbid you kill an animal for food...). They've been known to show up at dog shows and try to poison animals and/or let dogs out of kennels at shows right by highways, harass junior handlers (kids), etc.
 
A real shame what is happening with this elephant. I hope the end of the story is positive for him. I remember that he was one of the animals that I most wanted to see when I went to the LA Zoo because I met him from seeing him in many photos, and I thought he was a magnificent specimen.
 
ZooElephantsMan said:
I assume you are hinting that he may have a breeding recommendation at another AZA facility?
Click to expand...

PSO said:
You may be correct
Click to expand...

That would make a lot of sense - Billy is wildborn and has no offspring to date so is genetically one of the most valuable males in the region. I'd personally rather see him being transferred to a breeding facility rather than a sanctuary, where he get the opportunity to breed something he dosen't currently have at LA and additionally won't at a sanctuary.
 
SharkFinatic said:
And, if the City Council successfully gets Billy removed from the zoo, it will lose its AZA accreditation, just like what happened at the Toronto Zoo when the city removed that zoo’s elephants. It’s never about “what’s best for the elephants.” It’s about tarnishing zoos’ reputations.
Click to expand...
Really the important thing is that the zoo gets autonomy over how/when and most importantly WHERE the transport happens. I doubt the AZA cares if the LA City Council votes to require the zoo to stop exhibiting elephants (there are other AZA Zoos in areas where certain animals can't legally be kept, such as ceteceans in Canada). The important thing is that Billy, or any elephant for that matter, goes to a spot in accordance with the SSP, not some transfer by the city council's requirement to a non-AZA facility/one of the horrific sanctuaries.

As for the article, it really shows just how confusing the ARA viewpoint is- as it's completely full of so many logical fallacies and things that make literally no sense, so much so I have no clue where to begin. I wish AZA Zoos would fight back harder against these sorts of baseless claims by ARAs and have better messaging to show why a sanctuary is not a better home, and why AZA facilities do provide good homes for elephants. While nothing could convince some of the top ARAs, I feel there are a lot of people they've convinced that a Sanctuary move is better for the animals, and are coming from a well-intended, if not fully informed, place. These are the kinds of people the AZA, and all reputable Zoos, need to reach out to, and get the messaging across that AZA Zoos are the best homes for elephants, and for what reasons (tuberculosis, social structure, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Great Argus said:
I've found that usually AR people have one of the worst concepts of welfare, not actually properly understanding the care of the animals they "support". Or like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals running kill shelters and lobbying to put animals in worse care than what they're receiving. Doesn't sound ethical to me, but who am I to question their ideological logic. :rolleyes:
Actually I don't think there's any logic to it other than whatever's necessary to achieve their ideology - regardless of the nonsense or unethical behavior that gets them there... :confused:
Click to expand...
Very true and when zoos start pandering (no pun intended, lol) to these groups it's damaging to them like it was to Sea world and their Orcas. Some of these people in these groups appear to be a few beers short of the six pack. I saw one of these people of tv bragging how she use to go to work early even day so she could put down as many dogs in the day as possible, her belief and that of her AR group is that no animal anywhere should be in human care, not a zoo or farm or even a family cat or dog. I also saw footage of a homeless man in Italy who own a little dog that lived with him on the street, some of these people from a AR group took his dog from him and drove away with it, the man was distraught losing his companion. These groups force there views on many and should not be allowed to do what ever they believe is always right to them.
 
Neil chace said:
As for the article, it really shows just how confusing the ARA viewpoint is- as it's completely full of so many logical fallacies and things that make literally no sense, so much so I have no clue where to begin. I wish AZA Zoos would fight back harder against these sorts of baseless claims by ARAs and have better messaging to show why a sanctuary is not a better home, and why AZA facilities do provide good homes for elephants. While nothing could convince some of the top ARAs, I feel there are a lot of people they've convinced that a Sanctuary move is better for the animals, and are coming from a well-intended, if not fully informed, place. These are the kinds of people the AZA, and all reputable Zoos, need to reach out to, and get the messaging across that AZA Zoos are the best homes for elephants, and for what reasons (tuberculosis, social structure, etc.)
Click to expand...

It must be endlessly frustrating with zoos having to deal with these groups - especially given how ignorant they are of the basic facts.

In some cases, even a sanctuary isn’t good enough for these groups - with no shortage of ARA’s believing zoo animals should be returned to the wild where they came from - ignoring both the fact over 99.99% of zoo animals are captive bred; and that they wouldn’t survive in the wild without the support of a family unit and life skills that go beyond innate instincts.
 
Zoofan15 said:
It must be endlessly frustrating with zoos having to deal with these groups - especially given how ignorant they are of the basic facts.

In some cases, even a sanctuary isn’t good enough for these groups - with no shortage of ARA’s believing zoo animals should be returned to the wild where they came from - ignoring both the fact over 99.99% of zoo animals are captive bred; and that they wouldn’t survive in the wild without the support of a family unit and life skills that go beyond innate instincts.
Click to expand...

In the USA, a lot of "sanctuaries" *aren't* good enough for these animals. Many are much worse than whatever situation the animals are coming from :(
 
Zoofan15 said:
It must be endlessly frustrating with zoos having to deal with these groups - especially given how ignorant they are of the basic facts.

In some cases, even a sanctuary isn’t good enough for these groups - with no shortage of ARA’s believing zoo animals should be returned to the wild where they came from - ignoring both the fact over 99.99% of zoo animals are captive bred; and that they wouldn’t survive in the wild without the support of a family unit and life skills that go beyond innate instincts.
Click to expand...

TinoPup said:
In the USA, a lot of "sanctuaries" *aren't* good enough for these animals. Many are much worse than whatever situation the animals are coming from :(
Click to expand...

Yeah, from an animal welfare perspective, the only difference between a sanctuary and a zoo is the title, one isn't necessarily better than the other, and there are good and bad examples of facilities that go by each name. There may be other differences as well about funding/organizational structure, whether or not they breed animals, etc., but the animal itself doesn't care if the sign above the door reads "zoo" or "sanctuary", as long as it has a proper home and gets a proper diet, daily enrichment, veterinary care as necessary, access to clean drinking water, shelter from the elements, and any other species-specific necessities. Either a zoo or a sanctuary are perfectly capable of achieving this entire checklist, and I could give examples of both that do phenomenally (albeit sanctuary-wise many of the best examples I can think of focus on neglected farm animals/domestics). However, there is just as much so examples of both that don't achieve this, in which case its a bad home for the animals even if the sign says "sanctuary" instead of "zoo".
 
Does anyone know what happened to the zoo's Spotted Chuckwallas? I didn't see them when I visited earlier in the year, are they still in the collection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top