LA approves a $39 million dollar enclosure for elephants

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science...eut/index.html

This kind of ticked me off. First of all, it's great that those elephants will be well cared for. I'm all for treating animals humanely (although not on the level of the idiotic PETA), but this is ridiculous.

Los Angeles has got to be the worst city (the article even says it) regarding homeless people, yet they fund this thing for a WHOPPING 3 (yep, count 'em, 3) elephants, who are probably going to die in the next few years anyway.

I really think that the amount of money being spent on this could have been better used to help the homeless people.

To help generate some debate/posts, what do you think LA could've done with this money (serious thoughts, not "hire a buncha hookers" or "giving it to me!" or something stupid like that)? I don't think $39 million dollars being spent on this is a good idea at all (I wouldn't complain if a private donor footed the bill for this, but the fact that they're wasting taxpayer money on something trivial like this is kind of mind-boggling. Yes I know, the article says that only $13 million is from the city council, but that's still a lot of money).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I really honestly think they should have taken that money and invested it in some kind of new public transit system.

Busses ain't cutting it and the roadways are always jam packed. They need something to ease the traffic.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

No one is going to take the fucking bus in LA. Honestly. Just the geographical nature of Los Angeles makes any sort of effective public transit system a joke. The city was made to be sprawling in all four directions and they're not going to give up prime real estate to build track. Besides, you don't know jam packed until you've been across downtown San Francisco and the Bay Bridge at 5PM on a weekday. Then you'll be begging for LA traffic jams, because they're practically a god send in comparison.

Wasn't Betty White a Golden Girl? I thought she went senile or something in the last couple of years.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Maybe they could've put the elephants to work in a homeless shelter spooning watered-down soup and killed two birds with one stone.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Gecko3

Blah blah blah, I'm an asshole

If you're such a philanthropist, why aren't you working in a soup kitchen? People who piss and moan about how the homeless or some other unvoiced minority need to get over themselves and actually go out and do something about the shit they complain about; those of us with brains don't tolerate your crap.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Won't pass up an opportunity to kick someone in the balls, eh LeHah?

The question still stands whether that investment was really worthwhile.
The philanthropy was given as an example of a potentially better use for those funds.

I am not sure if this is a good use of that money. However, if this happens to generate a revenue from the zoo that soon exceeds the $39 mil price tag, then I think it was a good use of that money.

What I especially liked from the article was this little blurb:
"We are living in the 21st century. It is time we respect our elephants, give them their freedom and put them in a sanctuary," said councilman Bill Rosendahl.
How the hell does "living in the 21st century" have any relevance to animal rights?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a_priori

Won't pass up an opportunity to kick someone in the balls, eh LeHah?

Only if the douche who started this thread won't pass on an opportunity to talk like a moron.

Originally Posted by a_priori

The question still stands whether that investment was really worthwhile.

Oh, what did YOU want to do with the money? Buy yourself a house and a car and a boat and some hookers? Come on man, anyone can think of any number of things that the money SHOULD have been spent on. How about tossing it to the government to help out the national debt even slightly? How about sending it overseas to starving people? Or cancer research? But this guy whines that it should've been spent to help *him* out. He's just as guilty of being a dumbass as his apparent distaste for housing animals.

FELIPE NO

America having too much money to waste on worthless shit isn't news. How much did that stupid park in Chicago witht he giant video of random people's faces cost? Was it in the billions?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Thats nothing compared to the Millenium Dome in Greenwich, it cost over £800 million to build another couple of hundred million to maintain, after the clock struck midnight to bring in the new millenium it basically became redundant, I think it barely remained open a year and a half before it was closed.

All in all I read somewhere the total cost of everything including building, maintence, grants, etc... the bill came to around £1.5 Billion.

If the elephant enclosure can be self sufficient, driven by charitable donations and visitor numbers I don't really see too big a problem, but if its going to continually require funding from the taxpayer it doesn't sound too good an idea.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

If you're such a philanthropist, why aren't you working in a soup kitchen? People who piss and moan about how the homeless or some other unvoiced minority need to get over themselves and actually go out and do something about the shit they complain about; those of us with brains don't tolerate your crap.

Hey man. You n ever know if he actually does.

We're talking about $39 MILLION dollars being spent on a trio of elephants who are elderly and sickly, apparently.

I am an animal lover. I am all for animal rights, protecting animals, so on and so forth. But I think that if the elephants are in any kind of danger (which I assume they must be if the city is willing to allot $39 million to a new enclosure for them and according to the article), perhaps they should be moved to a new facility which can better provide for them. Like, you know, the mentioned sanctuary?

$39 million for an enclosure is a lot of money. I agree that it could be better spent on something else. I'm not saying to IGNORE the elephants and their current enclosure - I just can't fathom it costing so fucking much.

It's pretty clear this is a HUGE waste of money. I'm not an LA citizen, so I can't say what it should be spent on - the homeless, the transit (from what I hear, you guys have some fucked up traffic), the whatever.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

...but if its going to continually require funding from the taxpayer it doesn't sound too good an idea.

Yeah, how dare the government spend my tax dollars! Especially if it does me no good!

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LeHah

Yeah, how dare the government spend my tax dollars! Especially if it does me no good!

Are you seriously arguing that $39 million dollars on three elephants who are sick and old is a good investment of taxpayer dollars, or are you just trying to be controversial, Pie?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

$39 million for an enclosure is a lot of money.

Oh, thank you, Alan Greenspan. Care to draw us a fucking pie chart now?

39 million is a lot of money, yeah. But I'd rather it have a fucking use than have it end up in some shitty public restoration project in an attempt to being "arts to inner city youths". The elephants would appreciate that more than some idiot kids who'd spray paint all over the newly painted walls of some inner city housing project.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I just can't fathom it costing so fucking much.

Skipping the obvious joke that you SHOULD know what it costs to house an elephant given your size ... how would you know how much it costs? It's not like we all have gazelles and shit running through our yards or that we have experience with housing large wild animals. We can't quantify the cost of the housing against anything because, well, what experience do you have to speak of?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Are you seriously arguing that $39 million dollars on three elephants who are sick and old is a good investment of taxpayer dollars?

Yes.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Oh, thank you, Alan Greenspan. Care to draw us a fucking pie chart now?

39 million is a lot of money, yeah. But I'd rather it have a fucking use than have it end up in some shitty public restoration project in an attempt to being "arts to inner city youths". The elephants would appreciate that more than some idiot kids who'd spray paint all over the newly painted walls of some inner city housing project.

Like I said - since I am not a resident in the city, I can not identify the larger problems in LA. I am sure the citizens can think of something better than an elephant enclosure for 3 sick old elephants, though.

The elephants should really be sent to a sanctuary.

I know you're not big on public services and all, but I don't know why you're assuming it would go to a public youth house or some shit. The city sounds like the pits of HELL to me already. Couldn't pay me to live there. Which is why I feel for these poor elephants. ;_;

Quote:

Skipping the obvious joke that you SHOULD know what it costs to house an elephant given your size ... how would you know how much it costs?

Because I spent only about a million on my enclosure. ^_^

No, seriously. If every enclosure in a zoo cost even $30 million to build, it would costs BILLIONS by the time you got done with every enclosure in a zoo. And I am pretty sure that most zoos renovate their enclosures fairly regularly. Its basic upkeep, you know.

I am just saying $39 million doesn't sound right. I am not a zoo auditor, sure. But I really doubt it would be so costly. Unless, of course, the elephants are literally living in shambles right now - which I can't imagine anyone would allow. (And would only further my point that they should be sent to a sanctuary.)

Quote:

It's not like we all have gazelles and shit running through our yards or that we have experience with housing large wild animals. We can't quantify the cost of the housing against anything because, well, what experience do you have to speak of?

Logic, my dear, says that if elephants (THREE OF THEM - NOT a herd) are getting sickly, growing "elderly," and have the potential to suffer the diseases and ailments mentioned in the article, that it would be BEST to send them to a sanctuary in order for them to live out the rest of their lives as best as possible.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LeHah

Yeah, how dare the government spend my tax dollars! Especially if it does me no good!

I'm not talking about such a project in the sense of direct effect to the tax payer, what I'm trying to convey is the sense cost control and long term financial sustainability, you don't want it closing shortly after due to lack of funding. Ok it will cost $39 million but that can quickly become $50 million or $75 million. Like I said its ok if the enclosure can sustain itself through charitable donations and visitor numbers, but what if five years down the line it struggles financially and the council decide to stop any funding because its sucking up so much tax payer money resulting in its closure.

A prime example being that of the Scottish Parliment building, which was projected to cost £40 million to build, in actual fact it cost £431 million. Also look at the Dome example I posted above, it continued to be a black hole in taxpayer pockets so it had to be closed which undermined the whole purpose of the project and why £1.5 billion had to be wasted for it to close a year down the line.

Thats always the worry with big projects I suppose, it all comes down to the planning. And do you mind nt twisting my words for your one liners.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

The elephants should really be sent to a sanctuary.

Oh, you mean like the ones in Africa where the poachers are smart enough to cross the sanctuary lines and kill the animal before dragging it back into "free" territory?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I know you're not big on public services and all, but I don't know why you're assuming it would go to a public youth house or some shit.

Well, I don't think much of urban lifestyle, especially in a fuckcave like LA. No one has any respect for anything out there. I mean, yeah, Connecticut has some fucking issues but we keep our problems in Bridgeport.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

No, seriously. If every enclosure in a zoo cost even $30 million to build, it would costs BILLIONS by the time you got done with every enclosure in a zoo. And I am pretty sure that most zoos renovate their enclosures fairly regularly.

Thats the reasons zoos across the nation are closing with alarming regularity. The costs to maintain are going up every year and they're forced to resorting to money drives like they're PBS.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

But I really doubt it would be so costly.

Obviously, the zoo disagrees with you. And between you and me, I'd trust the zoo more. I wouldn't ask a plumber how to get the best cut of meat when I have a butcher shop just down the road.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Logic, my dear, says that if elephants... are getting sickly, growing "elderly," and have the potential to suffer the diseases and ailments mentioned in the article, that it would be BEST to send them to a sanctuary in order for them to live out the rest of their lives as best as possible.

I already pointed out what the problem is with your sanctuary idea earlier.

And I'm sure that when these old elephants die, the zoo will find a new use for the facility. It's not like they'll just leave it empty.

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

I'm not talking about such a project in the sense of direct effect to the tax payer, what I'm trying to convey is the sense cost control and long term financial sustainability. Ok it will cost $39 million but that can quickly become $50 million or $75 million.

HOLY SHIT DO YOU HAVE A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS

Seriously though. Why are you moaning about this? I'm sure Sass can atest to the dumbass traffic construction thats been going on in Boston for the last 10+ years. How much money has that been driven up since it's inception?

I think your worry about wasting money is well-founded because the government has a habit of doing that - but I think this is the wrong case to bring it up in.

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

And do you mind nt twisting my words for your one liners.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnt. Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnt. NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNT

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNT

Quote:

Like I said its ok if the enclosure can sustain itself through charitable donations and visitor numbers, but what if five years down the line it struggles financially and the council decide to stop any funding because its sucking up so much tax payer money resulting in its closure.

So... you want money from the public to support this and not... money from the public?

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

A prime example being that of the Scottish Parliment building

I can't really atest to something I don't know anything about - but it stands to reason that a Parliment building is probably pretty important to build.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNT

HOLY SHIT YOU CAN USE BIG LETTERS?????

NICE

MY bad for the typo.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I can't really atest to something I don't know anything about - but it stands to reason that a Parliment building is probably pretty important to build.

That maybe so but I'd still be worried that it cost an extra £391 million, considering the NHS' financial crisis, with some hospitals even closing, dare I say it but with good cost control you can even save money which can be used to fund other projects. I wouldn't want it closing 2 years down the line and the elephants being housed somewhere else, which could of been done in the first place. I remember there used to be this zoo where I live, but that was closed down about 10 years ago due to a lack of money. (It became Legoland).

Don't you guys over there in the States have an overwhelming education and healthcare system crisis which this money could be spent on. Don't get me wrong I'm not against such an idea, infact I quite like these sorts of projects, I suppose every goverment/council has to throw money at something.

But if its only for 3 elephants surely there must be some existing sanctuarys/zoo/enclosures in the United States to house them rather than shelling out $39 million.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

LeHah hates people. He's said it about a million times now, guys. Is it really so shocking that he doesn't see the inanity in spending $39 million on three elephants?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a_licenwondrland

Is it really so shocking that he doesn't see the inanity in spending $39 million on three elephants?

Yeah because, you know, animals shouldn't be alive and we should continue killing and eating them because thats all they're good for.

I'm sorry but some of your more recent posts only show the low-rank education system in your state, Alice.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Basically anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, LeHah. You so predictably pull out that trump card every time, and it's getting old.

I could do a sweeping poll of five-year-olds and they'd all agree that spending this kind of money on elephants when there are much worthier causes (involving humans) is preposterous. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a_licenwondrland

Basically anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, LeHah.

There is a certain double meaning in that statement.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. This is because I'm more intelligent than most people who seem to post here.

And yes, anyone who disagrees with me *is* stupid - especially if they come back to point it out that they're disagreeing with me. What does that make you?

Originally Posted by a_licenwondrland

You so predictably pull out that trump card every time, and it's getting old.

I like you. You're a nice, sweet lady who for some reason likes to come a forum full of late teen - early 20 people. I really don't have any problems with you ever aside from the once-in-a-while dumb post, which can't be helped because everyone is allowed that.

But see - you're getting old. Me? I'm becoming "distinguished" with age.

Originally Posted by a_licenwondrland

I could do a sweeping poll of five-year-olds and they'd all agree that spending this kind of money on elephants when there are much worthier causes (involving humans) is preposterous. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

This line of thought didn't work with Borg1982 and it won't work with you either. The thought that a group of five year olds could come up with a collective agreement that has any goddamned intellectual worth is preposterous unto it's self.

I was speaking idiomatically.

OK, switching gears.

The article said that one of the main reasons for the debate was because elephants kept in captivity aren't healthy. It even cited specific examples, such as captive elephants living much shorter lives and developing conditions like arthritis due to not being able to roam freely.

Given that information, do you still think this was a smart decision?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by LeHah

Oh, you mean like the ones in Africa where the poachers are smart enough to cross the sanctuary lines and kill the animal before dragging it back into "free" territory?

O LeHah. You have no idea what a sanctuary is, do you.

Who even mentioned Africa. *sigh*

Quote:

Well, I don't think much of urban lifestyle, especially in a fuckcave like LA. No one has any respect for anything out there. I mean, yeah, Connecticut has some fucking issues but we keep our problems in Bridgeport.

Yadda yadda ghetto yadda.

Quote:

Thats the reasons zoos across the nation are closing with alarming regularity. The costs to maintain are going up every year and they're forced to resorting to money drives like they're PBS.

This is true enough. But I think patronage has also fallen quite noticeably in the past 20 years. I am not an expert, though. And zoos, I THOUGHT, were privately funded AND state funded.

Quote:

Obviously, the zoo disagrees with you.

I don't think its the zoo so much as LA politicians.

Quote:

And between you and me, I'd trust the zoo more. I wouldn't ask a plumber how to get the best cut of meat when I have a butcher shop just down the road.

Good thing you don't live in LA, then!

Quote:

I already pointed out what the problem is with your sanctuary idea earlier.

Except there are thousands of sanctuaries for every kind of animal in the United States of America. Not Africa.

Quote:

And I'm sure that when these old elephants die, the zoo will find a new use for the facility. It's not like they'll just leave it empty.

They'll have to renovate it all over again if it's going to be for any other animal than an elephant, sir.

And judging from the way they KEEP their elephants, I would never recommend it. Besides. LA is no place for an elephant. Even in the zoo. But now, I am getting my personal ideals involved, so.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a_licenwondrland

Given that information, do you still think this was a smart decision?

Given the option of... what exactly?

They can't live in the wild because they've lived in captivity their whole lives. And even if you wanted to do that, imagine the shipping cost ("Uh, FEDEX? I have 3 elephants that need to be sent to Africa on 2-Day Air...")

The problem is that theres really not too many options because they're old. The best bet the zoo can have is if they make this expensive new habitat have the capacity to be easily changed for other animals, so when the elephants do die off, the zoo can put the "cage" to immedeate use for other animals.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

O LeHah. You have no idea what a sanctuary is, do you.

I do and while I'm aware that there are a couple sancuaries in the country, are any of them fit for elephants? Yours is a valid point - I'll see if I can find any that do fit the bill.

(And if so - why don't they just make it a fucking zoo? Why must they hog all those animals to themselves?)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

They can't live in the wild because they've lived in captivity their whole lives. And even if you wanted to do that, imagine the shipping cost ("Uh, FEDEX? I have 3 elephants that need to be sent to Africa on 2-Day Air...")

You're definitely right on this point.

Once you raise and elephant in captivity or even associate it with relying on another source apart from themselves for a time, they will never make it in the wild again.

But thats okay. These elephants are knocking on the door of death anyhow.

Quote:

The problem is that theres really not too many options because they're old. The best bet the zoo can have is if they make this expensive new habitat have the capacity to be easily changed for other animals, so when the elephants do die off, the zoo can put the "cage" to immedeate use for other animals.

SANC.TU.ARY. ;_;

Also, they don't make sanctuaries into zoos because they are sanctuaries, baby. Do you get the difference? Its like a rest home for animals.

Jam it back in, in the dark.