|
Phil Jennerjahn for Mayor
A leader you can trust
|
 |
The L.A. Zoo and Billy the elephant
In my recent visits to Los Angeles City Council, there have been many speakers who have appeared to speak out on the controversy involving Billy the elephant. Usually the speakers are divided into two opposing camps. There are Zoo employees and supporters of the Zoo who want to keep Billy and finish the Pachyderm Forest exhibit that the Zoo has planned. Those who oppose this are animal rights activists who say that Billy should be moved to a PAWS sanctuary to live in a larger space. I understand the viewpoints of both groups and decided that it would be irresponsible of me as a Mayoral candidate not to investigate this hot-button issue that causes such heightened emotions at City Hall. On January 13th, 2009 I went to the L.A. Zoo and saw Billy and his current enclosure and I spoke with several Zoo employees about this issue. They told me that I was the ONLY Mayoral candidate who had come down to the Zoo to talk with them about it. I was impressed with what I saw. I have a great deal of trust in these Zoo employees because they are animal lovers themselves who are trying to do the best with what they have. I agree with the PAWS activists that Billys current enclosure is too small. That is true. I agree with the PAWS activists that elephants are social animals and Billys current state of isolation is very tough on him. There would probably not be a disagreement with the Zoo employees on this. However, I don't think the PAWS activists are being fair to the Zoo. The Zoo is currently building the Pachyderm Forest which will be seven times larger than what Billy has now. The Zoo is also planning to bring in three females for Billy to socialize and mate with. This would produce offspring and help replenish the Asian elephant population. The PAWS activists want Billy to go to a sanctuary and live with one other male elephant. OK. But that doesn't help anyone except Billy. I think Billy should stay at the Zoo. The are several reasons for this. 1. Zoo officials say that Billy would probably be castrated if moved to a sanctuary. This doesn't help the Asian elephant population at all. It only harms it. PAWS activists say that this is propaganda from the Zoo, but I have not had any PAWS sanctuary officials come out and say that this isn't true. I am not an animal expert, but I think living the rest of his life with three females in a smaller area instead of with one male in a larger area is probably a choice Billy would make for himself if he could. 2. Financial reasons. As a Conservative, I hate the idea of the cost of this project, but the Zoo is an attractive destination with low ticket prices for families. The Pachyderm Forest is already a big project in the center of the Zoo, and removing Billy and killing this project would probably end up killing the Zoo. That would mean even MORE money would be wasted. If Billy breeds with these females and creates baby elephants, this will drive more visitors to the Zoo and increase revenues for the city. Hopefully, as Mayor, I could then LOWER the tax burden on citizens here. 3. City esteem issues. If Los Angeles wants to be seen as a world destination, how can it be seen as a world class city if it doesn't have a Zoo? As of now Billy is the only elephant in the city, and the PAWS activists want to get rid of him. I don't agree. I am willing to listen to the PAWS activists if they have some new information, but based upon what I have seen.... If I am elected Mayor... Billy stays. I will re-prioritize the budget to find the money to finish the Pachyderm Forest and get Billy his three new companions. |
Communities
Live Traffic Feed | ||
|
| |||
