June 12, 2006 6:32 pm
Speaking With The Enemy
Posted by Will under animals
[30] Comments
As I predicted in my post Saturday after learning the heartbreaking news of Asian elephant Gita’s death at the L.A. Zoo, the so-called animal “advocates” wasted no time showing up to harangue and lambaste and insult the zoo and its patrons with their reprehensible version of “we told you so!”
From today’s L.A. Times article:
The activists began gathering outside the main entrance about 11:30 a.m., telling patrons about Gita’s death and urging them to spend their money elsewhere. Some called the zoo a “death camp” and blamed the zoo for “killing Gita.”
Death camp, indeed.
Bill Dyer of the SoCal group In Defense of Animals (IDA) is often the spearpoint leading these assaults and sure enough he was there Sunday, spewing his juvenile bullshit about how Gita would be alive today if she’d been moved to a sanctuary.
So I wrote him:
Mr. Dyer,
Though I’ve long been a supporter of the Los Angeles Zoo as an important educational and conservation resource, I have also struggled to maintain a respect for your organization as a voice for better treatment and conditions for animals in captivity. However, you have done a grave disservice to yourself and IDA’s cause with your inability to shut off the self-serving rhetoric so soon after the death of Gita this weekend.
You’re quoted in the L.A. Times today as saying of Gita’s demise, “This is that tragic day that could have been avoided…” And I say to you that your show of protest was a tragedy that should have been avoided.
I found it disgusting and desperate that the IDA deemed it necessary to so selfishly and shamelessly parade at the zoo only a day after her death. In the wake of such a heartbreaking loss it’s a genuine pity you and yours couldn’t just shut up and honor the magnificent and beloved creature she was to the community that adored her, regardless of whether they stand with the zoo or with you.
William Campbell
Los Angeles
Then he wrote me back:
For years we have sought to bring attention to the living conditions of the Zoo’s elephant exhibit and the fact that foot bone disease (caused by concrete-like flooring and lack of exercise) is the major killer of elephants in captivity. Since the 70′s a dozen elephants have died before their time at the L.A. Zoo. Gita is number 13. We’ve always known how dangerous the situation has been at the zoo for Gita and that is why we have asked repeatedly for her and the other elephants to be transfered to a sanctuary of many acres of natural habitat. Had Gita first been relocated she would be alive today. Since you loved her so, one might wonder why you have never joined in these protests to save Gita’s life. Since we have been at the zoo regarding this subject for years it would have seemed highly unusual for us not to be at the zoo this past Saturday and Sunday. We would have been criticized for not caring. We will be holding further demonstrations asking for Ruby and Billy to be sent to a sanctuary. I’ll keep you posted should you wish to attend. Thank you very much. Bill Dyer, IDA
Well, I couldn’t let that paragraph-less block of propaganda go unanswered:
Mr. Dyer,
I’m not surprised that you felt the need to stoop to the implication that my love for Gita is somehow questionable or less than yours because I haven’t attended any of your organization’s past protests “asking” for her relocation. Sir, I have witnessed previous episodes of your rant-filled, disrespectful, myopic and venomous gatherings and for so-called animal lovers, you put out a lot of ugliness, misinformation and hatred.
Again, I have strived to balance an appreciation for the zoo with a respect for your goals as animal advocates, but your tactics are highly disappointing and repeatedly show there is no such fairness or balance or consideration on your side. Showing up so soon after Gita’s death to insult the zoo and embarrass zoo-goers may be your way of mitigating any criticism from your camp that you don’t care, but all it shows me is that you care about nothing but yourselves and promoting a slanted agenda, regardless the cost.
Will Campbell



June 13th, 2006 at 5:55 am
Love the new banner
June 14th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Thanks, Jim!
October 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Will Campbell,
After reading your article it sounds like you have some serious issues.
Bill Dyer is a highly respected and respectable man!
Bill Dyer has been helping animals for years. Making people aware of their conditions is just half the battle. The next is getting people to do something about it. You obviously are ignorant and have more time to write articles like this than to get up and do something! Had Gita been moved to a sanctuary this article would not exist.
Kim Z.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Kim,
Wow, it took you the whole article to figure out I have issues? I figured out you do in just the first sentence of your comment. I win!
But I’ll spare saying what you so obviously are and just point out a major difference between the likes of me and the likes of you: I can actually appreciate an opinion different than mine without resorting to blanket assumptions and insults about what I chose to do with my time and my level of intelligence or lack thereof.
You’re sadly mistaken if you think a sanctuary would have somehow been the cure-all that would have kept Gita alive. Good grief, if she had been at a sanctuary and died what would you have done then? I know EXACTLY what you and Dyer and the rest of you “passionates” would have done: blamed the zoo. Hard.
You call me ignorant and if by that you mean I am unable to yield to your unbending righteous belief of being right and everyone else is wrong then yes and proudly I AM IGNORANT!
But if you READ my initial response to Dyer instead of foamed at the mouth in rabid indignation that I would even dare so much as question him, you would have comprehended that I addressed him respectfully — even non-ignorantly if I do say so myself. And I do.
So here’s what we do now. You go your way and I’ll go mine. You go stand outside the zoo with your lockstep condemnation of me as someone who is guilty by association in the murder of Gita and I’ll go my lockstep way seeing little difference between you and the fundementalists who picket funerals of homosexuals with signs that “God Hates Faggots.”
Deal? Deal.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:10 pm
No Will, I figured out you had issues in your first paragraph and am even more convinced of it now.
Finding a need to copy your harsh ignorant words about people and an organization(s)onto your website is childish and you are the ignorant one. Organizations that work extremely hard every day of the week and do make a difference for the voiceless, deserve far more respect than what you have to offer.
Using your words…You are the disgusting one!
We will all die some day, Will. Gita would have eventually died some day too, like the rest of us. Gita, would have died far more comfortably and have some happiness in her life had she had the chance to live out the remainder of her life in a sanctuary! Too bad you couldn’t spend the rest of your life confined in the zoo to figure out that YOU ARE SO WRONG!
November 1st, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Kim, I really shouldn’t provoke another response from you by answering but what the hell. You despicably want to lock me up in a zoo to somehow get me to see the error of my ways and I say we’re all confined in one form or another. You’re already locked up in an ideological prison of your own inflexibile opinions where there is no room for discussion or consideration.
That’s just sad.
What did you expect by coming into my blog and condemning me? Were you just trying to “even the score” and defend Dyer? Or were you somehow disillusioned into thinking you might get me to change my mind?
You certainly have every right to disagree with me (a belief you sadly and obviously don’t reciprocate) and it’s also your prerogative to be equal parts arrogant and obstinate — and humorless, too.
But the bottom line is I disagree with you, which is my right. Further all the alleged hard work Dyer’s organization does just gets dismissed when I witness the abhorrent shock methods employed to intimidate and manipulate the truth.
As to your childish “I’m Right & You’re Wrong” adamance and petulant condescension… can you get anymore cliché?
Man, I hope not.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Slamming and disrespecting people and organizations in your public forum is very childish and if you can’t take the heat, you should have kept your harsh words to yourself. Selfish people are people like you that think we should “shut up” and go for a hike. When you truly love an
animals) or a person, you don’t sit back, shut up, and watch them suffer and die. Maybe you prefer to defend this “selfish” behavior. I prefer to defend the people that are making a difference for the senseless suffering in this world because of pure greed and selfishness!
I feel sorry for you.
November 2nd, 2006 at 11:02 am
Guess I was wrong to hope you couldn’t get more myopically and petulantly condescending. All you do with each retort is strengthen my grasp of your narrow-mindedness by making such rank and incitefully broad judgments about someone you know nothing about.
I especially love how I’ve finally engendered your pity. How so predictably pitiable and pitiful of you.
As to yet another incorrect assertion you make that I can’t take the heat, trust me I can take far more than the petering and redundant matchsticks you’re tossing at me. Have I deleted any of your comments? Have I banned you from this blog? Have I ordered you to go “shut up and go for a hike?” No, nada and nope, dope.
Instead I just keep swatting you and your tiresome statements down like the nuisance you are. Yet for some infathomable reason you keep coming back. Why is that, Kim? Why not just take your pity and your personal attacks and go find some other “hater” higher up on your Google search page to froth at? But nope, instead you keep returning and regurging more of the same old garbage: blah “selfish” blah blah “childish” blah blah “you’re wrong” blahblahblech.
YAWN!
But you wanna know the kicker Kim? Oh the irony! With all your venom and spite and rage you spew at me, it turns out I’m part of that group of people you so ache to defend who are “making a difference for the senseless suffering in this world…”
Check it out: http://www.wildbell.com/2006/07/11/574/
Sure I may not stand in front of someplace like the L.A. Zoo and take cheapshots that I couch and rationalize as an exhibition of my true love for animals, but whether you want to admit it or not ( I’m betting on the “or not”) I am not the heartless and soulless fiend you are so certain I am.
Until next time then (and there will be a next time… won’t there?).
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
How ironic…your words to me
“making such rank and incitefully broad judgements about someone you know nothing about”
Do you know Bill?
I’ve collected some of the words you used in a previous post to describe an event and a man, you don’t even know.
1. Disrespectful
2. venomous
3. ugliness
4. hatred
5. dissapointing
6. disgusting
7. desperate
8. jeuvenile bullshit
You obviously did not do your homework before “spewing jeuvenile bullshit” (your words)
prior to disrespecting a man and an organization you obviously do not know. The only misinformation is in your own mind. The hatred is within you. You should take that hatred and put it to good use and start writing to help the animals. TRY to watch the video footage on http://www.furkills.org to start with and this will give you something to get angry about and use that hatred in a positive way. People risk their own lives to smuggle this kind of footage out of China and other countries. There are caring people in China fighting to save their animals as I write this to you. There are plenty more videos available if you are able to watch them.
You could help the many people that are trying to make the world aware of the horrific fur farms and yes, people working together (not against) do make positive changes in this world. I hope you will take some of your energy and help organizations and individual people in the fight to save the voiceless.
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
This is getting more entertaining by the minute! Is your bullheaded density genetic or purely intentional!? Either way, it’s a hoot. Really.
I say AGAIN I have witnessed firsthand the reprehensible tactics Dyer and the IDA utilize. I have been present at his demonstrations and observed him and his colleagues incite and provoke and insult and embarrass the zoo and its employees and its visitors. I have witnessed them twist facts and manipulate the truth and use guilt as a weapon and that is all I need to know to form an opinion and to express it.
In respectfully communicating my dismay with him following the protests he organized so soon after the death of Gita he dismissed me and even questioned my sincerity about her. He had no interest in doing anything else but promoting his agenda. As there is no willingness to foster a dialogue in him, neither is there in you.
As the leader of the IDA Dyer is therefore the rightful target of my scorn and derision. Should I direct it at you standing there with your “Zoos Kill!” placard. Hell no, your just a mouthpiece. But why am I your target? I ask AGAIN, what’s the point of arguing with me? You’re rudeness only begats rudeness back at you and is certainly not going to convert me, and I certainly am smart enough to know there’s no changing you. Nor am I making any attempt to. AGAIN, I’m just batting at you like a bothersome fly who won’t go play somewhere else.
If you had even a slight modicum of comprehension you’d be able to understand I don’t HATE Dyer or the IDA. If I did why would have I wasted time attempting to communicate with him civilly and in appreciation of what his overall goal is: to help. Why didn’t I just write “Dyer, you suck!” with the same abject and stonewalled hatred that you have about zoos.
I’m sorry sister, but not only do I do my part to come to the aid of animals in distress, but I support organizations that act in positive ways to enact change: The Morris Animal Foundation, the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, the Orangutan Conservancy to name a few and the L.A. Zoo has been very successful not only in saving species from extinction, but also in raising awareness of the desperate plights of endangered species around the world.
I literally CAN’T WAIT to see the disregard contained in your next comment. Hurry up.
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I WENT IN AND READ SOME OF YOUR MANY WRITINGS…TRIED TO FIND THE POSITIVE…THERE WERE A FEW…THERE WERE ALSO MANY INSULTS AGAINST MANY PEOPLE THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T KNOW…I IMAGINE YOU ARE NOT A VERY TALL MAN….
DID YOU SEE JANE GOODALL WHEN SHE WAS IN TOWN RECENTLY…PROBABLY DIDN’EVEN KNOW SHE WAS HERE…OR MAYBE SHE IS SOMEONE ELSE YOU WOULD LOVE TO INSULT FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL REASONS…DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO YET…..WWW.FURKILLS.ORG
YOU HAVE CREATED A SIGHT (blog) THAT THE WORLD CAN SEE SO THAT YOU CAN WRITE ABOUT YOURSELF, DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU DON’T AGREE WITH AND YOU DISRESPECT MANY, YOU ENJOY PUTTING PEOPLE DOWN…THROUGHOUT ALL OF THESE WRITINGS, I DEFENDED AND YOU JUST CONTINUED TO INSULT…BY THE WAY, YOU WERE NEVER A TARGET..I WAS LOOKING SOMETHING UP ON GOODSEARCH.ORG AND SAW BILL’S NAME ON YOUR BLOG AND WENT TO CHECK IT OUT..
YOU MUST HAVE PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE L.A. ZOO TO DEFEND A PLACE ON EARTH THAT EXPLOITS ANIMALS, TAKEN FROM THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR OWN NATURAL HABITAT, TO TRAVEL ENDLESSLY AND END UP IN A CONCRETE JUNGLE OR A CAGE, ALONE TO SUFFER THE REST OF THEIR UNNATURAL LIFE…YOU’RE A REAL BUTE..
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Resorting to ALLCAPS now? Yikes.
I really must be getting under your skin. Or is it scales?
And what the hell does my height have to do with anything? Though I’m gleefully happy to prove your latest assumptive aspersion wrong: I’m 74 inches tall. Do the math, shorty.
But why do I have no doubt that’s not “tall” enough?
But let’s shoot down another incorrect assumption you make: Yes I did know Jane Goodall was in town, specifically in Griffith Park in September speaking at the Roots & Shoots Day of Peace, and I highly respect her in part because she works to promote awareness and change through cooperative means and she wouldn’t be caught dead practicing the dastardly tactics you seem to find so appealing.
As to your demand that I watch the video you seem so eager for me to see, yes I watched as much of it as I could bear and it is truly heartbreaking and disgusting.
If there is nothing else we can agree on I’m sure we share a common outrage that helpless animals are treated so cruelly and that their lives are shamefully accorded so little value.
But back to the battle: I won’t dignify your grossly malinformed assumptions and accusations about the L.A. zoo other than to say I appreciate the institution for the educational and conservation resource it strives to be.
Next attack?
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
IDA PASSES OUT LEAFLETS AND HAS AWARENESS DAYS TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE HORRIFIC FUR FARMS ALSO. I’M GLAD YOU AT LEAST SOUND SYMPATHETIC THAT POSSIBLY SOMETHING AS HORRIFIC AS DOGS, CATS, RACCOONS, WHITE ARCTIC FOX AND ENDLESS OTHER ANIMALS THAT ARE TRAPPED AND CAGED AND THEN IN MOST CASES SKINNED ALIVE NEED SOMEONE TO SPEAK FOR THEM. IDA SPEAKS FOR THEM ALSO. MAINLY THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I HANDING OUT LITERATURE TO INTERESTED PEOPLE. DO YOU OBJECT TO THAT AS WELL..I’M TYPING IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM ALSO WORKING AND TYPING IN CAPS AND DIDN’T SWITCH OVER..HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS PROGRESS IS BEING MADE EVER SINCE THE UNDERCOVER VIDEOS HAVE EMERGED AND MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING AWARE OF MAN’S HORRIFIC ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST ANIMALS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. IDA HAS PLAYED A HUGE PART IN GETTING ANIMALS RIGHTS GROUPS IN CHINA TO FIGHT TO CLOSE THESE FUR FARMS…VIDEO FOOTAGE FAR WORSE THAN WHAT YOU JUST WITNESSED WAS AIRED IN CHINA ABOUT 3 MONTHS AGO…PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS GOING TO PUT AN END TO THIS TYPE OF TORTURE AND YOU CAN THANK BILL, IDA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR THAT…I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING PERSONAL AGAINST THE L.A. ZOO OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR ZOO FOR THAT MATTER. I SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH PEOPLE PUBLICLY DISRESPECTING PEOPLE THAT DO NOT DESERVE IT AND THAT HAVE SPENT HALF THEIR LIVES LIVING UNSELFISHLY STRIVING TO MAKE THE LIVES OF OUR SENTIENT BEINGS AS HAPPY AS POSSIBLE.
I DO HOWEVER NOT AGREE WITH ANY INSTITUTION THAT EXPLOITS ANIMALS AND CAUSES ANIMALS TO SUFFER, BE IT ZOO OR ANY OTHER.
November 2nd, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Interesting contradiction how you “DON’T HAVE ANYTHING PERSONAL AGAINST THE L.A. ZOO” except to describe it in your previous harangue as a place “THAT EXPLOITS ANIMALS, TAKEN FROM THEIR FAMILIES, THEIR OWN NATURAL HABITAT, TO TRAVEL ENDLESSLY AND END UP IN A CONCRETE JUNGLE OR A CAGE, ALONE TO SUFFER THE REST OF THEIR UNNATURAL LIFE.”
Now, if you’ve somehow been re-incensed and unable to keep yourself from beating this dead thread, have the courtesy in your next volley to take the capslock off and at least attempt some consideration. Such a style might be suitable for the work you do, but it makes for lousy and loud corrrespondence. I can put up with all manner of insult and accusation and recrimination you want to fling my way, but I will absolutely not tolerate ALLCAPS.
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
You do have some quirks. I dont think you can hear the words any differently either way.
I’ll say it once again for you, Will.
“I Do However Not Agree With Any Institution That Exploits Animals And Causes Animals To Suffer, Be It Zoo Or Any Other”.
It has been interesting for sure.
Take Care
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:07 am
Dear Mr. Campbell,
It seems like you are a compassionate person so I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why you would support a place like the L.A. Zoo.
I was one of the protestors at the zoo the day after Gita’s death and if you were to do your research, you would see that all of the “juvenile bullshit” coming out of our mouths that day was the truth. Make no mistake: the zoo was responsible for her death. They were responsible for her years of suffering and misery. For us to shut up, would be disrespectful to the memory of Gita. We were/are her voice and had a moral obligation to be there to tell the public the truth that sad day.
Do you know anything about elephants? Do you understand their physical and emotional needs? If so, then you would realize how absolutely cruel and inadequate zoos are for elephants. You would know that elephants roam for 30+ miles a day in their natural environment which helps prevent the crippling agony of arthritis these majestic beings are so often afflicted with in captivity. You would also know that over a dozen zoos worldwide have gotten rid of their elephant exhibits in the past decade due to the cruelty-factor.
Finally, I have no doubt that you loved Gita. I have no doubt that the zoo loved Gita and thought they were caring for her like she needed to be cared for. Unfortunately, love often skews one’s judgment; and sadly, the elephants at the L.A. Zoo and at zoos all over the world are paying the price for this sick and twisted love.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Lyons
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 am
Wow, I say sayonara to one and bonjour to another. Buh-bye Kim and hello Jennifer! Fess up… there’s some sort of baton you pass between yourselves, right? And how many of you are lined up waiting to take a whack at me. Well bring ‘em on.
Jennifer it is refreshing that you can at least recognize the compassion I have for ALL living creatures (even if you slyly reference it as “sick and twisted” in Gita’s case), but then we’re back to the same ol’ same ol and it doesn’t phase me in the slightest that as one of the IDA frontline troopers you have the inate inability to fathom why I understand that zoos are much more than the prisons you and Bill Dyer would have us believe they are.
Tell me, what was the loving catchphrase you called out to patrons at the zoo the day after Gita died. Was it “The L.A. Zoo is a deathcamp!” or was it “Gita died because of the zoo’s sins!” or was it “Murderers!”
Bravo to you and your so-called “moral obligation.”
Look, I’m the last one to champion zoos as models of perfection. But when you look at how they were and what they’re becoming now, they are evolving into a far better role that is of benefit not only to the specific animals they care for, but to those species as a whole.
Do I know anything about elephants? Certainly I’m no field zoologist with thousands of hours of study. Are you? But I am well aware of what the IDA in its outrage thinks is best for captive pachyderms, and I know that sanctuaries are not a magic cure-all. I also knowenough about the plight of the species, particularly the Indian elephant to wish that the IDA would focus more of its overheated attentions to how badly exploited they are in their own native lands. The treatment and conditions those poor creatures are forced to endure makes whatever exaggerated evils you believe the zoo perpetuates pale in comparison.
In closing (though it is with a heavy sigh that I realize this is only the beginning), I only ask that you look at your last paragraph and see that I can say practically the same thing about you:
I have no doubt you loved Gita. I have no doubt that the IDA loved Gita and thought they were doing what was right for her. Unfortunately, love often skews one’s judgment.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
And another thing. I guess my lead gripe with the IDA and similar-acting organizations regardless their cause is that they do not hesitate to aggresively defame and attack their targets, yet won’t consider it remotely allowable when others are disappointed by their actions and accuse them of malfeasance. That’s a pathetic double standard made all the more apparent by hiding behind such rigid moral rectitude.
While I have little doubt that the IDA strives to do good in increasing awareness and assisting species at risk throughtout the world, the direct contact I’ve had with its leadership and supporters has been catastrophically detrimental to my opinion of it. Though its reaction to Gita is but a small part, it distinctly countermands any positive view I could have of IDA’s sum.
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Hi Will,
Missed me, didn’t you.. I thought so..
I’ll keep it real simple..
You don’t have to be a field zoologist or spend hours of your time studying a species or even be intelligent to recognize pain and suffering..
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Hi Kim,
No I didn’t.
I’ll keep it real simple too.
Jennifer didn’t ask me if I knew anything about pain and suffering she asked me if I knew anything about elephants.
November 4th, 2006 at 2:51 am
No one is saying that sanctuaries are a cure-all. But can you honestly look me in the internet eye and tell me that the zoo wasn’t responsible for Gita’s death? Can you honestly tell me that zoos in general provide a healthy environment for elephants? Which would have been better for Gita? The quarter of an acre alotted to her at the L.A. Zoo? Or the THOUSANDS of acres available at a sanctuary? I am not a zoologist, obviously. You don’t need to be one to know that the zoo did not and could not meet Gita’s needs. I wish you would stop avoiding the issue at hand and please answer my questions.
I fully agree that some activists go to the extreme and make us all look bad. If some activists made overexaggerated remarks at that protest, please don’t judge the lot of us. There were over 40 protesters there and I saw a few saying embarrassing things, however, the vast majority of us were dressed in black, being respectful, and silently standing with signs while passing out flyers. At one point a few of us chanted, but it wasn’t anything vicious.
And how absurd to write: “I also know enough about the plight of the species, particularly the Indian elephant to wish that the IDA would focus more of its overheated attentions to how badly exploited they are in their own native lands. The treatment and conditions those poor creatures are forced to endure makes whatever exaggerated evils you believe the zoo perpetuates pale in comparison.” This type of statement reminds me of when people shout at us, “What about the war in Iraq!? People are dying!!!Why don’t you protest that???!!!” As if we are incapable of caring about more than one issue at a time! Just because one issue might be more of an evil, does that mean we shouldn’t fight something that might be considered less of an evil? Besides, the zoo is in our backyard–we have hope of changing this NOW on a local level. Also, as you know, non-profit organizations don’t have unlimited resources (or volunteers), which means we have to pick and choose our battles wisely. We do what we can–ie; fight the Chinese dog and cat fur trade, Korean dog meat trade, circuses, etc. Matter of fact, why don’t you start an organization that works to protect Indian elephants? I would gladly give you a donation and show up to one of your demonstrations and leafletting events. We activists have a saying for your type of remark: “You ask–you get the task!”
It sounds like your main “beef” with us is that we come across as disrespectful and crazed. I will have to agree with that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cringed at demonstrations when the activists go overboard. It makes us all look bad–not to mention, looney. It’s such a shame. Whenever I see a well-meaning activist going overboard, I think to myself that maybe they’ve seen one-too-many animal rights videos. It’s not easy being an activist. We are constantly fighting for the underdog and exposing ourselves to barbaric footage and gut-wrenching stories of animal cruelty so that we can stay informed. We get cussed out, threatened, things thrown at us, flipped off, taunted, and to top it all off–the victories are few and far between. While this doesn’t excuse activists’ rude behavior towards the public, I understand why some end up resorting to those image-damaging tactics you’ve mentioned in your posts. Much of the time we feel like no one is listening and no one cares and that is infuriating.
Hmmm…I wish I could concede a “touche” in regards to this comment:
“I have no doubt you loved Gita. I have no doubt that the IDA loved Gita and thought they were doing what was right for her. Unfortunately, love often skews one’s judgment.” But, alas, I cannot. You see, Gita is dead and the IDA’s contention was that she would NOT be dead if she would have been sent to a sanctuary. Therefore, you flipping my statement on me is a total fallacy in logic. A+ for effort, though.
And for the record, I do not believe that zoos are nothing more than prisons for all animals. I have the ability to recognize that due to man’s exploitation of and disregard for the natural world, some species have no choice but to live in zoos. Also, I’ve recently learned that some species actually thrive in zoos. However, that is not the issue we are discussing here. We are discussing ELEPHANTS in zoos. And unless there is a zoo out there that gives elephants enough room to roam, I will always oppose zoos that are selfish, greedy, and ignorant enough to keep these breathtaking creatures in cages.
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Jennifer
November 4th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Jen, you can haughtily accuse me of avoiding the issue but such blustery posturing from behind loaded and vague inquisitional questions does you a disservice. You assume the zoo is responsible for Gita’s death in what way? Because they didn’t have a 2,000-acre exhibit? Because they were neglectful in caring for her? Both?
What was it the autopsy stated the cause of her death was? Heart failure due to blood clotting. And how old was she? Close to 50. Certainly elephants are known to live 70 years or so in the wild, but it’s not like Gita was 25. Fact is she was an elderly elephant.
No doubt you have evidence to the contrary, but I say it’s high time to put the brakes on an argument for which there is no end. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree here: No I do not consider the zoo responsible for Gita’s death.
So for the love of mike just drop it. You asked for a direct answer and I gave it to you. I do not care how much of a loon you think I am because I hold that point of view, or how lame I am for discounting the so-called “facts,” so for the sake of keeping this as civil as its been between us, please spare me any rebounded outrage.
All indignation aside, I do recognize that you have on your shoulders a more fair and balanced head than some of the people I’ve seen manning the zoo protests and it heartens me to see that. I appreciate that you are troubled at some of the over-zealous tactics that have so turned me off. I can also respect and understand how difficult it is to advocate for animals.
But as you said this is about elephants in zoos. And dream though it may be, if I could drum up a perfect scenario to have played out between the zoo and the IDA, it would be one of cooperation and compromise. I would have loved to have seen the IDA tone down the bullhorn rhetoric and approach the zoo in a more positive way. Likewise it would have been grand had the zoo uncircled the wagons and been open to the IDA’s perspective. With both entities working together to benefit the zoo’s elephants, who knows…? What might have resulted was an expanded exhibit that both sides could have been satisfied with.
Yeah I know… and then I woke up.
Because of course you’ll no doubt rule that fantasy as “absurd” as me suggesting the IDA might better serve the elephants of India than Los Angeles. To the IDA there is no other option but to deliver all elephants from zoos to those elysian sanctuarial fields of glorious and perfect happiness.
Would Gita still be alive if 40 years or so ago she had been sent to a such a heavenly place instead of the L.A. Zoo? I’m sorry, but dealing in rose-colored conjecture is what’s ridiculous.
November 4th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
You say you want to drop it, but then you go and write this: “And how old was she? Close to 50. Certainly elephants are known to live 70 years or so in the wild, but it’s not like Gita was 25. Fact is she was an elderly elephant.” 48 is elderly? I would love nothing more than to drop this, but that statement raised my hackles and made me realize just how ignorant you are in this matter. This isn’t fun any more. If you knew your facts I would have a lot more respect for you, but it is clear you haven’t done much research on this subject. If you knew anything about elephants, you would know that Asian elephants reproduce into their 50′s. Elderly elephants reproducing? What purpose would that serve in the natural world? You think it’s acceptable that she had 20 years shaved off her life? Besides, even if she lived until 100, the main point in my mind is that she suffered greatly while in the zoo. And her pain and suffering was a direct result of not having her needs met by the zoo. Period.
On second thought, in zoo years I suppose you’re right. 48 is elderly by zoo standards. (The bar is set much lower for them I hear.) Of the 12 known elephant deaths at L.A. Zoo, more than half the elephants did not live to see age 20.
The bottom line is that you can use all the fancy words you want, but it isn’t helping to make your case. If you could just open your mind enough to concede that the zoo and its inadequate elephant exhibit was the cause of Gita’s pain a suffering, then I will go away. If you don’t believe me, do the research yourself. I guarantee you will find something like this: Field scientists report that ailments plaguing elephants in zoos, such as foot infections, are unheard of in wild elephant populations, where elephants’ ability to travel over thirty miles a day helps to maintain healthy feet and joints. Arthritis and foot problems are the two leading causes of euthanasia in captive elephants in the United States.
Did Gita have crippling arthritis? Yes. Did she have foot infections? Yes. Was she forced to stand on hard concrete and packed dirt for all of her life at the zoo? Yes.
Why are you so contemptuous of sanctuaries? I just don’t get it.
And why should I spare you any of my “rebounded outrage”? You started this. You provoked this. If you can’t take the heat, then just delete this thread.
Cheers,
Jennifer
November 5th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Pity you had to cash out with the same weak and cheap “can’t take the heat” whine as your predecessor. For the record, I’m still waiting for it to get warm in here.
As to this no longer being fun for you, aw gosh I’m REALLY sorry about that. I’m as lousy a host as you are a crappy guest. You crash this party, pitch an extended fit in the middle of my blog and then complain when I ask you to shut up? Aren’t you a piece of work!
And frankly, your lack of respect has never been in doubt.
As to more of that same old hyperbolic IDA rhetoric:
• Yes, Gita had arthritis, but it wasn’t “crippling.” Up until the surgery to removed the deteriorated bone in her foot she was going on regular extended walks around the zoo.
• Yes she had foot infections and the zoo was meticulous in providing care. The surgery mentioned above improved her condition!
• No she did not spend “all her life” standing on hard concrete.
And as to your misinterpretation of my opinion of sanctuaries it seems the better question to me is “Why don’t you just roll over and agree with me?”
No Jen, I don’t hold sanctuaries in contempt. I believe they serve a purpose in this world just as I feel zoos do. And no, I won’t delete your antagonistic belligerence. I’ll let it speak for itself.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
I’m beginning to think my trying to convince you that the zoo was not the right place for Gita is pointless, yet here I go again…
So you don’t have anything against sanctuaries. I stand corrected. From your previous posts you could have fooled me. You were against Gita going to one and so I inferred that you had something against them in general. I think this was the comment that led me to believe you were contemptuous: “To the IDA there is no other option but to deliver all elephants from zoos to those elysian sanctuarial fields of glorious and perfect happiness.” You sounded so bitter and sarcastic, but maybe that is because tone is hard to convey via the written word. Anyway, sorry if I got that wrong. So my new questions are: Why were you against Gita going to a sanctuary? And when do you agree an elephant should be sent to a sanctuary? If severe (since you don’t like the word “crippling”) arthritis and a foot infection aren’t reason enough, I wonder what is your tipping point.
It’s laughable how you keep focusing on minute details so that you can avoid conceding defeat…
For instance:
• No she did not spend “all her life” standing on hard concrete.
(You left out that I said “packed dirt”, too–which is damaging to elephants’ feet, too and as hard as concrete. How convenient.)
The point is is that she didn’t have sufficient room to roam which caused her arthritis and foot infections! Why do you keep nitpicking and never respond to that allegation? Why don’t you do some research instead of believing everything the Zoo is saying?
I cannot believe you actually wrote this comment: “Yes she had foot infections and the zoo was meticulous in providing care. The surgery mentioned above improved her condition!”
How kind of the zoo to try to repair the damage inflicted because of their inadequate facility! That’s like being grateful to a criminal for driving you to the emergency room after they’ve broken your leg.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: elephants do not get foot infections in the wild. They are the direct result of prolonged standing on hard surfaces. Why can’t you understand this? Or maybe you do; you just don’t address it because that would be the same as admitting that you and the Zoo are wrong.
It’s easy to sense you are getting desperate and are grasping at straws. First you try to skirt the issue by telling IDA to focus on bigger problems like elephants in India. Then you try to claim Gita was elderly to prove your point. Then you imply shaving 20 years off a life is acceptable. Then you try to defend the zoo by saying they did this wonderful operation to repair the damage THEY CAUSED!!!
Funny you think I’m crashing your party. This party was dead until Kim and I came in. Besides, this blog came up on Google and is open to the public in case you didn’t know. If you didn’t want me to come on in, you should have made your blog open to invites only. You publicly defame a wonderful man and an organization and then expect the activists to sit idly by and not say anything? What did you expect me to do when you continually provoke me? Just say, “Okay, let’s agree to disagree. You can have the last word even though you make false statements about elephants and conveniently don’t respond to most of my rebuttals.”
I will leave you with a test question before I close for tonight: Why do so many elephants in zoos die prematurely? I can’t wait for you to find the answer yourself, so here it is: “More than half of 46 elephants who died at accredited zoos nationwide since 2000 failed to reach their 40th birthday, dying far short of their 70-year life expectancy. Elephants in captivity should be living longer than their wild counterparts given that they are protected from poaching and provided food and veterinary care. Instead, the leading causes of euthanasia in captive elephants are foot disorders and arthritis.”
Zoos may have their purpose in the world, but not when it comes to elephants. (Unless they can provide enough room and proper socialization.)
Goodnight,
Jennifer
November 6th, 2006 at 9:57 am
You’re BEGINNING to think about the pointlessness of your arguments? FINALLY, a breakthrough!
Yet here you come again for another round.
I’ve figured out what my problem is… I don’t waste enough of my time covering every possible scenario to snuff your comeback arguments beforehand. You make the grossly exagerrated statement that Gita spent “all her life standing on concrete,” and I address the falsity of that statement that indeed she did not and then you flail back with “HA! How convenient that you left out the hard-packed dirt!”
Good grief. I can’t win, can I? But the secret is I’ve always known I can’t. I don’t even want to. I’ve seen the pointlessness of attempting to do so from the beginning. Therefore I haven’t even tried. All I’ve done is get suckered into reviving this flatlined debate with every click of the submit button.
So let me TRY (and fail no doubt) again to illustrate my position on sanctuaries and specifically in terms of Gita, via a little background.
When Villaraigosa shamelessly politicized the zoo’s situation late in the mayoral campaign I was incensed at such naked and amateurish pandering for votes (of which he didn’t get mine for that specific reason). At the same time I wasn’t adamantly pro-zoo as you have assumed me to be. I was much more adamant for whatever was best for Gita and Company. After Villaraigosa was voted into office and then he backpedaled on his pre-election position like a good politician, he then empowered a panel to investigate the zoo and its elephants.
Had it been officially determined that Gita and Billy and Tara would be better served by a sanctuary I was willing to abide by that and see them sent there.
Though sad at the prospect of the zoo losing them (especially Gita who I’d known all my life), I made my peace with whatever the ruling was to be and was willing to let bygones be bygones — even through all the subsequent IDA “told ya so” posturing and total gloating belief that the decision would come down on its side. And then a crazy thing happened; the official report arrived and it countermanded the mayor’s opinion and said the elephants should stay. Frankly I was surprised by the decision, but not nearly as shocked by the IDA, which felt not only abandoned bbut probably more than a bit foolish at having been so sure of what the decision would be. And that’s when the scat really hit the fan.
So Jim or Ken or whoever you are or whoever might be to come next, work however hard you need to to satisfy yourself that I’m desperate or grasping at straws, and use that glib and phony satisfaction to further drive your assumptions like its cheap gas and you’re late for a revival meeting of the morally obligated.
The fact is I’m satisfied with my position and in my support of the zoo. The difference between us is I’m not locked into either POV. I am always interested in learning new information and despite the scornful and sarcastic tone, I’m open to exploring the data you provided about alleged “premature” elephant deaths in zoos. Please don’t take offense at my use of the term “alleged” or the quotemarks around “premature.” My not taking your word for it is nothing personal. I am skeptical about pretty much any so-called fact I’m told…. but perhaps a bit moreso when it’s done with such indignation.
As to this thread stringing out from an old post of a public blog, you are right on both counts, and leaving the comments on certainly exposes me to meeting angry new vehemites such as yourself — and that’s a risk I’m not afraid to take. But in this realm I function fundamentally different than you. Had you a blog and should I ever chance upon it with a disagreement, I might express it publically, but in the long term I wouldn’t attempt to parasitically bogart your corner of the internut as some sort of soapbox for my ideals. If I had an issue I wished to discuss in depth I’d attempt it privately, via email.
So on that note, while there isn’t really much more that needs to be said and I’d invite you to just let this standoff be done, if you are compelled not to I strongly suggest that anything else redundant or mocking or sarcastic or flat-out insulting or informative or all of the above that you fabsolutely positively MUST tell me be done so privately.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am
For a man that claims to love and care about animals, this thread has shown the exact opposite. You have shown us nothing more than the fact that you love to argue! You have to be a winner! You have to put everyone else down!
To claim to NOT UNDERSTAND that life in a sanctuary is a far better, happier and healthier life than life being confined in a small area at the zoo,is like saying you couldn’t see the difference between spending your life in a jail on an island or having the freedom to roam the entire island at your leisure. This entire thread should have been a no brainer but you had to argue and contradict yourself over and over again into a SENSELESS frenzy.
Fact is-You DID NOT win this one and you can’t stand not winning-You have to be a winner at any and all cost-even if it means fighting against helping an innocent animal.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Kim in her warped and dash-heavy illogical state welcomes me back to her own “senseless frenzy” by goading me with this:
“Fact is – You DID NOT win this one and you can’t stand not winning – You have to be a winner at any and all cost – even if it means fighting against helping an innocent animal.”
Yet these ridiculous attacks she somehow derives from the following statement made in my last reseponse to Jen:
“Good grief. I can’t win, can I? But the secret is I’ve always known I can’t. I don’t even want to. I’ve seen the pointlessness of attempting to do so from the beginning. Therefore I haven’t even tried. All I’ve done is get suckered into reviving this flatlined debate with every click of the submit button.”
And here I go again getting revved up by what I think is the saddest and funniest and most abjectly convoluted misinterpretation. EVER. Or maybe it’s just a simple and complete lack of comprehending what one reads? Either way it’s frighteningly hilarious. Although definitely more frightening.
Just to get this straight: I concede in saying to Jen that I can’t win. I say to her that I know I can’t win. I say I to here that I don’t even want to win. But somehow Kim can’t allow that. Somehow that’s “winning.”
Whoo boy!
Even if I wanted to I’m unable to resort to the types of convulsive and repulsive behavior as Kim brings because I just can’t stop pointing and laughing long enough to build up the rage to do so.
So what’s next Kim? You wanna talk about my height some more, or are you finally gonna go pick on someone equal to your shorter stature.
Certainly you don’t have the decency or courtesy to continuing this scintillating and stimulating conversation off-thread so and one-on-one so go ahead: feel free to give me your best shots and in return we’ll see how frenzied I can get.
November 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Go back to sleep, Will…zzzzzzzzzzzzz
November 6th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I bet you’re still trying to decide if you would prefer the prison, or the entire island…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz