Download PDF of Issue #8 - FORTH Magazine

Issue 8 • Spring 2010 SUBJEXIVE JOURNALISMwww.ForthMagazine.com 27ELEPHANTS. Continued from p. 21lush and natural? They’re going to be electrifiedbecause the elephants will knock them down.They will be put there for our aestheticpleasure.”“So if you win this lawsuit, what happens tothe construction? Does it stop cold-turkey?”“Not at all. The new exhibit is there tostay. What we’re proposing is to release Billyto a sanctuary where he has freedom to roam.The Zoo can then place half a dozen smallerspecies which coexist into that space and letthem have more freedom.”“Sounds reasonable. So what can peopledo to support your cause?”“The people of Los Angeles should rallytogether and ask Mayor Villaraigosa to keephis promise that he made before he was electedto place Billy in a sanctuary. He stated publiclyand repeatedly that elephants do not belong inzoos and should be sent to larger preserves.”A little web surfing reveals that the Mayordid, in fact, endorse Billy’s freedom a coupleyears back. May 13 th , 2005: “I have believed forsome time that a zoo is not an appropriate placefor an animal as large as an elephant. I thinkwe need to move the elephants out.” April 12 th ,2006: “I’ve said for a long time that I think weneed to take the elephants our of our zoos. I believethat.” April 19 th , 2006: “I don’t think zoos arebig enough to house elephants. Nature preservesare more appropriate places for elephants.”I have no choice but to call the Mayor’soffice and demand some sort of explanation.Why would Villaraigosa use Billy as acampaign gimmick, only to change his mindonce he was elected? I get as far as Press AideRachel Kruer, who encourages me to send heran e-mail that she will forward to the “properchannels.” Days go by without any response,so I follow-up with the Press Aide over thephone and she tells me, “I’m looking into it,but we’re not sure yet if this is something wewant to officially comment on or not.”If the Mayor is too scared to make astatement, surely the PAWS sanctuary willhave something to say about this, right? Kindof.“If the Zoo should decide not to keep Billy,and if we make critical statements about thempublicly, then it might cause problems. I don’tthink it would be wise for us,” president andfounder Pat Derby told me over the phone.“What is the conflict of interest here?Can you at least tell me if you endorse theirhandling of Billy?”“We’ve complained for many years.There are some improvements with their newexhibit, but we’re opposed to bringing in moreelephants with Billy. It’s an incredible amountof money to spend for such a small space.”“What kind of trouble can the L.A. Zoocause for your sanctuary?”“If we’re openly antagonistic, I fear thatif the Zoo ever did decide to send Billysomewhere else, they would not considersending him here. We would happily takeBilly if that situation ever arose.”“Well if we can’t discuss the present, howabout the past? They sent Ruby to you a coupleyears back. Is she still alive?”“Ruby is alive and doing wonderful.She has bonded with three other AfricanElephants.”“Why did they send her to you?”“They sent her to the Knoxville Zoo atfirst, and she did not do well there at all. Theyhad to bring her back, and they had no otheroptions, so they sent her to us. And we’retotally thrilled that they did.”“Too bad they can’t do the same for Billy.”“I think there is an incredible amountof arrogance. If Billy has so many neuroticbehaviors, and they’ve had him since he wasfour, they are obviously not doing somethingright. There are no guarantees that they will,even with a different space.”THE ELEPHANTIN THE ROOMOf course, the Zoo has claimed to havelearned from their mistakes, and the newPachyderm Forest is supposed to be a splashymonument to their newfound wisdom – likeContinued on p. 28