“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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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