Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Elephant Rides Proposed for State Fair In Sacramento
YOUR CALLS AND LETTERS ARE NEEDED ASAP. PLEASE ACT NOW BEFORE ANY PENDING CONTRACT IS SIGNED.
Monday, November 22, 2004
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors last year wisely voted to ban
elephant rides from the annual Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival, for
reasons of animal welfare and public safety.
Such progressive and compassionate views have yet to reach Sacramento,
apparently. California State Fair officials are currently negotiating
to have elephant rides at the 2005 State Fair. It's a bad idea for all
concerned, and Fair officials and state legislators need to hear from
us. Virginia Handley (The Fund for Animals), Curt Ransom (Humane
Society of the U.S.), and I have met with the Fair administration, and
have been unable to persuade them thus far to drop this ill-advised
idea. We need your help to convince them otherwise.
One can only imagine the death and destruction should a five-ton
elephant run amok through a crowd of 50,000 people with terrified
children aboard. It wouldn't take much to set the disaster in motion:
a car backfiring, a firecracker, a minor earthquake, etc......Remember
Tyke, who was gunned down on the city streets of Honolulu a few years ago?
When not giving rides, these Asian elephants (an endangered species) are
kept in chains. The travel from Southern California is highly stressful
on the animals, and potentially dangerous. Elephant rides serve only to
reinforce the idea that animals are here merely for our entertainment,
and the animals' welfare is secondary. There's also a public health
risk: elephants can carry and transmit tuberculosis to humans.
Surely we can come up with a more humane and life-affirming
entertainment. Encourage the Fair management to adopt a written policy
banning ALL exotic and/or wild animal acts and exhibits.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please contact: Norbert Bartosik, General Manager & CEO
Mike Bradley, Chief, Bureau of Exhibits
CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR
1600 Exposition Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95815
tel. 916/263-3000
fax 916/263-7903
e-mail - genmgr [at] calexpo.com
Letters to state legislators would be helpful, too. All may be written
c/o The State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814. (NOTE: Senator Deborah
Ortiz and Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, both of Sacramento, are
ex-officio members of the Fair Board of Directors.)
Letters to the Editors of local newspapers would also be helpful.
Please send (blind) copies of any letters you write to ACTION FOR ANIMALS.
And please forward this alert to anyone you know who might help.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Mills, coordinator
ACTION FOR ANIMALS
P.O. Box 20184
Oakland, Ca 94620
tel. 510/652-5603
EricM [afa [at] mcn.org]
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors last year wisely voted to ban
elephant rides from the annual Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival, for
reasons of animal welfare and public safety.
Such progressive and compassionate views have yet to reach Sacramento,
apparently. California State Fair officials are currently negotiating
to have elephant rides at the 2005 State Fair. It's a bad idea for all
concerned, and Fair officials and state legislators need to hear from
us. Virginia Handley (The Fund for Animals), Curt Ransom (Humane
Society of the U.S.), and I have met with the Fair administration, and
have been unable to persuade them thus far to drop this ill-advised
idea. We need your help to convince them otherwise.
One can only imagine the death and destruction should a five-ton
elephant run amok through a crowd of 50,000 people with terrified
children aboard. It wouldn't take much to set the disaster in motion:
a car backfiring, a firecracker, a minor earthquake, etc......Remember
Tyke, who was gunned down on the city streets of Honolulu a few years ago?
When not giving rides, these Asian elephants (an endangered species) are
kept in chains. The travel from Southern California is highly stressful
on the animals, and potentially dangerous. Elephant rides serve only to
reinforce the idea that animals are here merely for our entertainment,
and the animals' welfare is secondary. There's also a public health
risk: elephants can carry and transmit tuberculosis to humans.
Surely we can come up with a more humane and life-affirming
entertainment. Encourage the Fair management to adopt a written policy
banning ALL exotic and/or wild animal acts and exhibits.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Please contact: Norbert Bartosik, General Manager & CEO
Mike Bradley, Chief, Bureau of Exhibits
CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR
1600 Exposition Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95815
tel. 916/263-3000
fax 916/263-7903
e-mail - genmgr [at] calexpo.com
Letters to state legislators would be helpful, too. All may be written
c/o The State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814. (NOTE: Senator Deborah
Ortiz and Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, both of Sacramento, are
ex-officio members of the Fair Board of Directors.)
Letters to the Editors of local newspapers would also be helpful.
Please send (blind) copies of any letters you write to ACTION FOR ANIMALS.
And please forward this alert to anyone you know who might help.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric Mills, coordinator
ACTION FOR ANIMALS
P.O. Box 20184
Oakland, Ca 94620
tel. 510/652-5603
EricM [afa [at] mcn.org]
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Now really!!!
Concern for the wellbeing of the elephants is one thing... but trying to frighten folks with outrageous scare tactics is unethical. It appeals to ignorant, fear-based reactionism.
>and if they manage to escape,
>can be a serious risk to people.
Tofu, if left out too long, can be a serious risk to people. Should we ban that, too? Our concern of a given hazard should be based upon the likelihood of its occurrence and the extent of its potential harm.
That event X has occurred in the past is not sufficient basis to fear its reoccurrence. How often has it occurred? Once? Ten times? Out of ten million interactions... not too worried. It's MUCH more dangerous to walk out my front door.
Tsunamis have just killed tens of thousands of people... should I discontinue my daily walk to the beach? Perhaps move to the mountains?
>There's also a public health risk:
>elephants can carry and transmit
>tuberculosis to humans.
How often does this happen? Where? Can we test for it? Have they already tested for it?
Also, in case you didn't know, HUMANS can carry and transmit tuberculosis to humans. Should we consider humans, in general, to be a public health risk which warrants legislation prohibiting human--human contact? It /would/ decrease the transmission rate of TB. ;-o
Finally:
Are you really going to be all that happy when they replace the elephant ride with a pony ride, instead?
Concern for the wellbeing of the elephants is one thing... but trying to frighten folks with outrageous scare tactics is unethical. It appeals to ignorant, fear-based reactionism.
>and if they manage to escape,
>can be a serious risk to people.
Tofu, if left out too long, can be a serious risk to people. Should we ban that, too? Our concern of a given hazard should be based upon the likelihood of its occurrence and the extent of its potential harm.
That event X has occurred in the past is not sufficient basis to fear its reoccurrence. How often has it occurred? Once? Ten times? Out of ten million interactions... not too worried. It's MUCH more dangerous to walk out my front door.
Tsunamis have just killed tens of thousands of people... should I discontinue my daily walk to the beach? Perhaps move to the mountains?
>There's also a public health risk:
>elephants can carry and transmit
>tuberculosis to humans.
How often does this happen? Where? Can we test for it? Have they already tested for it?
Also, in case you didn't know, HUMANS can carry and transmit tuberculosis to humans. Should we consider humans, in general, to be a public health risk which warrants legislation prohibiting human--human contact? It /would/ decrease the transmission rate of TB. ;-o
Finally:
Are you really going to be all that happy when they replace the elephant ride with a pony ride, instead?
>trying to frighten folks with outrageous scare tactics is unethical. It appeals to ignorant, fear-based reactionism.
These people wouldn't know ethics if it bit them on the ass. They routinely lie to promote their cause. They have to lie. The truth is not their friend.
See:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/
These people wouldn't know ethics if it bit them on the ass. They routinely lie to promote their cause. They have to lie. The truth is not their friend.
See:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/politics/animal-rights/myths/part2/
Now, now, Nessie...
They did not lie, nor did I claim that they had.
And as for people who have no ethics, you can just look in the mirror to find the shining-star member of /that/ club.
Why don't you go back to sf-imc and bait gehrig, instead? At least you occasionally make sense on that topic.
They did not lie, nor did I claim that they had.
And as for people who have no ethics, you can just look in the mirror to find the shining-star member of /that/ club.
Why don't you go back to sf-imc and bait gehrig, instead? At least you occasionally make sense on that topic.
"And to accuse me, of all people, of being unethical is simply outrageous.... I dare you, or anyone, to find anything I have ever posted that is not factually correct. If you can, and can prove it, I’ll remove it immediately. That’s ethics. That’s how *real* authentic journalists do it."
Straight up lie! You had a little button image with a link ("Activist still missing" more or less) to a story about that activist couple in Virginia that murder-suicided-whatever-you-think-happenned on your front page for over two months. I repeatedly reminded you that the bodies of both had indeed been found, regardless of what you think killed them, and you refused to removed the errant language pointing to the story. No one was missing anymore -- they found both activists within a day or so. And you changed nothing for over two months, mind you. On your front page, even. Despite *repeated* warnings.
Did you, or did you not, leave that errant language on your home page despite repeated warnings? Are you going to lie again and deny that you had faulty language for months on your home page? I'm sure you had your reasons, or rationalizations, of course, but it was inaccurate and you chose to leave it there, leading the poor unfortunate readers you so gallantly pretend to defend to think the activists had not been found when both clearly had (unless those readers, like me, did research on their own). What was your secret agenda on that? I really don't know.
So, you lie here with a straight face and expect everyone to believe you.
But, some of us know better, that you are not the *authentic* journalist you claim to be. Not even close.
Straight up lie! You had a little button image with a link ("Activist still missing" more or less) to a story about that activist couple in Virginia that murder-suicided-whatever-you-think-happenned on your front page for over two months. I repeatedly reminded you that the bodies of both had indeed been found, regardless of what you think killed them, and you refused to removed the errant language pointing to the story. No one was missing anymore -- they found both activists within a day or so. And you changed nothing for over two months, mind you. On your front page, even. Despite *repeated* warnings.
Did you, or did you not, leave that errant language on your home page despite repeated warnings? Are you going to lie again and deny that you had faulty language for months on your home page? I'm sure you had your reasons, or rationalizations, of course, but it was inaccurate and you chose to leave it there, leading the poor unfortunate readers you so gallantly pretend to defend to think the activists had not been found when both clearly had (unless those readers, like me, did research on their own). What was your secret agenda on that? I really don't know.
So, you lie here with a straight face and expect everyone to believe you.
But, some of us know better, that you are not the *authentic* journalist you claim to be. Not even close.
Go see for yourself. It was removed from the front page. In the thread itself the truth of the matter was made clear. And it wasn't even me who did it. The whole crew over there is ethical, unlike the people who run this place. They can't even be bothered to remove racist propaganda.
isn't it?
like the meaning of "is"
how can anyone "prove" what links on your home page you yourself are responsible for? (or, for that matter, what stories mysteriously are constantly reposted from this site to yours by you yourself?) it's a not-so-clever denial of your responsibility on your own site and weak justification for your lies right here.
you were actually quite aware of the errant link on your site for some time: you yourself debated me in the comments thread of the murder-suicide story where I repeatedly called for the wording of the link on your homepage to be updated, and somehow it's not your responsibility that it wasn't. my comments to you calling for updating the link were hidden (by someone else?) while the inaccurate link remained for two months. beautiful.
yes, the link it gone now -- three months would have been a total farce. but two months is two too long when the facts were presented to you personally within a week or so. it's all *quite* contrary to your proclamations above. (and talk about distractions -- where was race a part of the discussion in this thread?) you spew and spew unfounded charges and then act flabergasted when anyone calls you on your lies and hypocrisy. and just typing out the phrase "ad hominem" does not release you from your responsibility either when you trumpet your own supposed unfailability while lieing at the same time.
tell us how this linking incident shows your supposedly unassailable ethics? let's see if you can answer this time without artful dodges or passing the buck
like the meaning of "is"
how can anyone "prove" what links on your home page you yourself are responsible for? (or, for that matter, what stories mysteriously are constantly reposted from this site to yours by you yourself?) it's a not-so-clever denial of your responsibility on your own site and weak justification for your lies right here.
you were actually quite aware of the errant link on your site for some time: you yourself debated me in the comments thread of the murder-suicide story where I repeatedly called for the wording of the link on your homepage to be updated, and somehow it's not your responsibility that it wasn't. my comments to you calling for updating the link were hidden (by someone else?) while the inaccurate link remained for two months. beautiful.
yes, the link it gone now -- three months would have been a total farce. but two months is two too long when the facts were presented to you personally within a week or so. it's all *quite* contrary to your proclamations above. (and talk about distractions -- where was race a part of the discussion in this thread?) you spew and spew unfounded charges and then act flabergasted when anyone calls you on your lies and hypocrisy. and just typing out the phrase "ad hominem" does not release you from your responsibility either when you trumpet your own supposed unfailability while lieing at the same time.
tell us how this linking incident shows your supposedly unassailable ethics? let's see if you can answer this time without artful dodges or passing the buck
"The mahouts managed to turn the elephants to lift the tourists onto their backs"
doesn't sound to me like the elephants volunteered and just started scoopin people up to save them... key word here: "managed"
sounds like their trainers *barely* got some of them to cooperate. the other elephants broke their chains and ran off, to hell with people.
and, besides, the ones who did help weren't wild elephants that ran into town just to save human lives in the nick of time and they certainly had not previously strolled into town looking for a job with tourists because they just love having people on their backs.
what a stretch of logic... instead of just saying, "Wow, that's cool elephants helped save people," you try to twist it into justification for your belief that endangered elephants actually want to work the state fair in Sacramento because they like people on them and they enjoy the routine of walking in circles all day upon command and living in tight quarters.
doesn't sound to me like the elephants volunteered and just started scoopin people up to save them... key word here: "managed"
sounds like their trainers *barely* got some of them to cooperate. the other elephants broke their chains and ran off, to hell with people.
and, besides, the ones who did help weren't wild elephants that ran into town just to save human lives in the nick of time and they certainly had not previously strolled into town looking for a job with tourists because they just love having people on their backs.
what a stretch of logic... instead of just saying, "Wow, that's cool elephants helped save people," you try to twist it into justification for your belief that endangered elephants actually want to work the state fair in Sacramento because they like people on them and they enjoy the routine of walking in circles all day upon command and living in tight quarters.
They enjoy security and a steady diet. All mammals enjoy security and a steady diet. All mammals work for it, one way or the other.
Elephants helped people. That's really cool. Stop trying to use it to throw some other elephants out of work.
Some of the Thai elephants helped people and some didn't because elephants are individuals, just like us. An elephant that doesn't want to ride people on his back wont do it. You can't make anything that big and that smart do anything they really don't want to do. Some elephants actually enjoy human company, and not just on their backs, either. Leave them alone. It’s none of your business. it’s between the elephant and the rider. It doesn’t concern you. Butt out. Who the hell are you to dictate how other living creatures relate?
Elephants helped people. That's really cool. Stop trying to use it to throw some other elephants out of work.
Some of the Thai elephants helped people and some didn't because elephants are individuals, just like us. An elephant that doesn't want to ride people on his back wont do it. You can't make anything that big and that smart do anything they really don't want to do. Some elephants actually enjoy human company, and not just on their backs, either. Leave them alone. It’s none of your business. it’s between the elephant and the rider. It doesn’t concern you. Butt out. Who the hell are you to dictate how other living creatures relate?
and you'd probably make some friends there, too, especially if you were there a long time. some people do actually prefer prison (shocking maybe, but I've met a couple of them). but just like elephants, no one actually CHOOSES to go to jail. well, okay, some people have actually literally chosen to go to prison, but I have yet to see proof of a wild animal forseeing captivity from their life in the wild and then choosing to live in in human bondage, even with the steady diet.
of course, if everyone followed your proscription for endangered species, it'd be okay for all who could afford one to have any animal on this earth as a pet or workhorse. shamoos in backyard swiming pools in texas to entertain the children. maybe chimpanzees as hat checkers in manhattan's swanker locations. maybe... awe, hell, you get the point, and if you don't then it's a waste of time to debate your endangered species expoiting libertarianism
of course, if everyone followed your proscription for endangered species, it'd be okay for all who could afford one to have any animal on this earth as a pet or workhorse. shamoos in backyard swiming pools in texas to entertain the children. maybe chimpanzees as hat checkers in manhattan's swanker locations. maybe... awe, hell, you get the point, and if you don't then it's a waste of time to debate your endangered species expoiting libertarianism
Working elephants are not in jail. They are in a symbiotic relationship that benefits both participants. Their relationship is nobody's business but their own. They don't tell you who to work with or not work with. Show them the same common courtesy.
did the elephants say, "please, chain me up so that I may serve (wealthy) tourists"?
okay, the elephants probably didn't literally vocally request it, maybe they used international sign language to request their bondage, you think?
three stomps for chains, two stomps for living in pens, and so forth??
and what about other endangered species? okay by you to use them for tourists' entertainment in all cases?
yours is the specious arguement -- the elephants clearly are not choosing to live traveling America to give rides to children in county fairs such as Sacramento's. when an elephant can join a union and sign a contract, then your facetious "right to work" arguements might actually make a hint of sense. otherwise it's only so much gibberish
okay, the elephants probably didn't literally vocally request it, maybe they used international sign language to request their bondage, you think?
three stomps for chains, two stomps for living in pens, and so forth??
and what about other endangered species? okay by you to use them for tourists' entertainment in all cases?
yours is the specious arguement -- the elephants clearly are not choosing to live traveling America to give rides to children in county fairs such as Sacramento's. when an elephant can join a union and sign a contract, then your facetious "right to work" arguements might actually make a hint of sense. otherwise it's only so much gibberish
For the same reason dogs have leashes. Surely you are not going to suggest dogs not be leashed, are you?
a) dogs are domesticated animals; elephants are not. unwanted domesticated dogs are put to sleep by the millions in this country alone (last stats I saw); wild elephants are an endangered species. while any animal, including humans, will do what they are told when coerced with enough carrots and sticks, that is not the same as volunteering or actually getting pleasure from the desired behavior itself (i.e children's rides in this case). if you understood behavioral science you would not make such assumptions. rather than admit that elephants clearly do not volunteer for state fair duty, you skirt the issue with your invalid analogies between dogs and elephants.
b) why won't you answer the very direct question about endangered species?
b) why won't you answer the very direct question about endangered species?
Elephants have been domesticated for at least five thousand years. There is a clear historical record that goes back that far. Probably, the domestication of elephants goes back even further. We just don't have a clear record, that's all.
No, elephants are not an endangered species. What is endangered is wild elephant habitat. That is quite a different thing. Elephants themselves are in no danger of extinction. This is precisely because they have been domesticated. Elephants wont die out because humans wont let them. They are too useful. Besides, we enjoy their company, as they do ours.
No, elephants are not an endangered species. What is endangered is wild elephant habitat. That is quite a different thing. Elephants themselves are in no danger of extinction. This is precisely because they have been domesticated. Elephants wont die out because humans wont let them. They are too useful. Besides, we enjoy their company, as they do ours.
do you think endangered animals (er, those that will no longer exist in the wild and only exist in zoos, circuses, and state fairs, if it pleases you) should all serve as children's playthings at state fairs?
could probably up the financial take considerably at these fairs if we also let children ride some of the other interesting species out there
could probably up the financial take considerably at these fairs if we also let children ride some of the other interesting species out there
i see no harm in it. If anything, it helps the species survive. it also helps solidify the bond between the child's mind and the rest of the natural world. It is difficult to imagine not coming away from a personal encounter with suc a magnificent creature without loving them, and Nature, more and caring more about what becomes of them and it.
But, like I said, it is first and foremost none of my business, yours either. You have no more right to come between an elephant and a mahout than you do to come between me and my dog. If you try to come between me and my dog, it’s a toss up which of us will hurt you the first or the most. Probably it will be the dog, but it really depends on your angle of approach. I cannot imagine it would be any different with an elephant and his mahout. Elephants are well known for the loyalty, love and affection they bestow upon their mahouts, and vice versa.
So the question arises, who do you want to p*ss off least, and elephant or a dog? Hmmmmmmn. That’s a tough one. I guess it depends whether you’d rather have your throat ripped out or your bones crushed, a very tough choice indeed. Maybe you ought to flip a coin. Personally, I opt for the third option. I mind my own business. If it ever catches on, this will be a so much nicer world to live in. But I’m not holding my breath.
But, like I said, it is first and foremost none of my business, yours either. You have no more right to come between an elephant and a mahout than you do to come between me and my dog. If you try to come between me and my dog, it’s a toss up which of us will hurt you the first or the most. Probably it will be the dog, but it really depends on your angle of approach. I cannot imagine it would be any different with an elephant and his mahout. Elephants are well known for the loyalty, love and affection they bestow upon their mahouts, and vice versa.
So the question arises, who do you want to p*ss off least, and elephant or a dog? Hmmmmmmn. That’s a tough one. I guess it depends whether you’d rather have your throat ripped out or your bones crushed, a very tough choice indeed. Maybe you ought to flip a coin. Personally, I opt for the third option. I mind my own business. If it ever catches on, this will be a so much nicer world to live in. But I’m not holding my breath.
graphically threatening even? in a public comments area? yes, that is so humble, nonchalant, and "live and let live" of you
gimme a break, shit talker
you go on and fantasize about the maiming of people you disagree with (too much WWF or Grand Theft Auto perhaps?)
a real humanitarian you've exposed yourself to be
I don't even have to say anything here about sparing elephants from unnecessary exploitation at Sacramento state fairs, which is the real topic here, not Thailand or your dog -- you make the case for me with your immature, specious and misanthropically pugnacious style, what kind of person stands up for such things at state fairs
gimme a break, shit talker
you go on and fantasize about the maiming of people you disagree with (too much WWF or Grand Theft Auto perhaps?)
a real humanitarian you've exposed yourself to be
I don't even have to say anything here about sparing elephants from unnecessary exploitation at Sacramento state fairs, which is the real topic here, not Thailand or your dog -- you make the case for me with your immature, specious and misanthropically pugnacious style, what kind of person stands up for such things at state fairs
I'm merely pointing out a fact of life. If you attempt to separate me from my dog against our will, he'll hurt you and I'll let him. This is the nature of the relationship between dogs and their human companions. We love each other. It’s a symbiotic relationship. We both get what we want out of it.
Elephants and mahouts love each other, too. How *dare* you presume the right to interfere in their love!?!
Taking children for ride is not “exploitation” of the elephant. If anything, the elephant and mahout are exploiting the child’s parents. In the wild, elephants have to work for their food. At the fair, they get paid for what is essentially play.
Do you also think people who keep dogs around because it means they’ll be safer, are exploiting the dogs? What about performing dogs? Do you object that they too get paid to play? How is that any different than a performing elephant?
Now let’s talk about violence. if you think violence is wrong, if it repels you, if it offends your tender sensibilities, I pity you. This is a violent world. That’s a fact of life. Anyone who is not willing, ready, and above all able, to commit acts of successful violence when the world demands it of them, is at a distinct disadvantage. Their very survival is endangered. Get your priorities straight. Survival *always* comes first, before all else that there is in this world. Everything else comes second, at best. That’s Nature’s way. Get used to it. It is best to survive by your wits. It’s less risky and more cost effective than violence. But it’s not always an option. Sometimes you gotta kick butt. That’s Nature’s way. Do it or die.
As for the elephants, I sincerely hope that some idiots from the ALF break in and try to “free” these elephants from the humans they love. The elephants will crush them, and I’ll laugh my butt off. It about time somebody taught these jerks a lesson, and who better to do it than elephants?
Elephants and mahouts love each other, too. How *dare* you presume the right to interfere in their love!?!
Taking children for ride is not “exploitation” of the elephant. If anything, the elephant and mahout are exploiting the child’s parents. In the wild, elephants have to work for their food. At the fair, they get paid for what is essentially play.
Do you also think people who keep dogs around because it means they’ll be safer, are exploiting the dogs? What about performing dogs? Do you object that they too get paid to play? How is that any different than a performing elephant?
Now let’s talk about violence. if you think violence is wrong, if it repels you, if it offends your tender sensibilities, I pity you. This is a violent world. That’s a fact of life. Anyone who is not willing, ready, and above all able, to commit acts of successful violence when the world demands it of them, is at a distinct disadvantage. Their very survival is endangered. Get your priorities straight. Survival *always* comes first, before all else that there is in this world. Everything else comes second, at best. That’s Nature’s way. Get used to it. It is best to survive by your wits. It’s less risky and more cost effective than violence. But it’s not always an option. Sometimes you gotta kick butt. That’s Nature’s way. Do it or die.
As for the elephants, I sincerely hope that some idiots from the ALF break in and try to “free” these elephants from the humans they love. The elephants will crush them, and I’ll laugh my butt off. It about time somebody taught these jerks a lesson, and who better to do it than elephants?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$40.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network