Where are Billy and Tina? L.A. Zoo's elephant enclosure appears empty amid relocation saga
The elephant enclosure at the Los Angeles Zoo appeared to be empty Tuesday, prompting concerns from activists wondering whether Billy and Tina, the aging inhabitants, were transferred to another zoo.
The L.A. Zoo announced its decision to move elephants Billy, 40, and Tina, 59, to the Tulsa Zoo last month, frustrating animal rights advocates who have argued they should be retired in a sanctuary.
The possible relocation of the animals is the latest in decades of controversy surrounding the L.A. Zoo's elephant program, which experts and activists have long criticized because of its small enclosure size and history of deaths and health challenges among its inhabitants.
The political advocacy group Social Compassion in Legislation shared photos of the empty enclosure on Instagram on Tuesday, writing in the caption that they "don't know where the elephants are."
Representatives from the L.A. Zoo, the Tulsa Zoo and Mayor Karen Bass' office did not respond to The Times' requests for comment Tuesday. It is not clear whether Billy and Tina are in the process of being transferred.
L.A. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, a longtime advocate for the elephants, said in a phone interview with The Times on Tuesday that he does not know the status of the relocation, but that the situation was "disappointing and frustrating."
Blumenfield filed a City Council motion last month seeking to pause the animals' relocation until council members could review the possibility of sending them to a sanctuary.
Blumenfield said if the elephants were being transferred despite his motion and a pending lawsuit regarding the relocation, "that speaks volumes that it's obviously not the right thing."
"If it's the right thing, you should be proud of it and be willing to defend it and bring it forward for public vetting and do it at a scheduled time and not be cagey about it," Blumenfield said.
L.A. Zoo Director and Chief Executive Denise Verret said during recent budget hearings that the decision to move the elephants was made in the best interest of the animals and in accordance with a recommendation from the Assn. of Zoos and Aquariums, of which Verret is the chair.
During a hearing May 8, Verret told Blumenfield that the L.A. and Tulsa zoos had not yet signed a contract and no date had been set for the animals' move.
"It does seem like a very quick turnaround, if that, in fact, is what's happening," Blumenfield said. "And it does make you wonder if folks are trying to get this done quickly to avoid further scrutiny."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Inside the global race to shelter kids from the harms of porn and social media
Desperate parents like it a lot. Their children, not so much. Measures meant to bring safety and order to the digital Wild West, protecting children from the harms of social media and pornography, are coming into force around the world. In Australia, the United Kingdom, Europe and parts of the United States — though not in Canada, at least not yet — lawmakers are pledging to protect kids from an increasingly dark digital realm where the flashy, outrageous and most addictive prevail. To do it, governments are banning younger teens from social networks entirely, forcing companies to proactively block harmful content and put hard-to-crack adults-only locks on sexually explicit websites. It will make for difficult dinner table conversations with the kids, no doubt. Try announcing to a 13-year-old whose every spare moment is filled with TikTok dances and Instagram stories that their access is to be revoked. The technology being used to verify and estimate the age of users — and which is emerging as the future requirement before logging on to Snapchat or Reddit or X or PornHub — has also sparked debate. It is pitting porn sites against tech titans and advocates of free speech against those of child protection. Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law What is not up for discussion, though, is that something must change. 'It's been 20 years that we've been having these discussions and every parent knows that there's a ton of inappropriate content that their kids are being exposed to — content that we use to all agree that they should not be exposed to before the internet and social media was around,' said Jacques Marcoux, director of research and analytics at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg. French President Emmanuel Macron tapped into this frustration after a teenage student with a knife attacked and killed a school monitor earlier this month . He blamed the shocking act of violence on the rise of overwhelmed single-parent families and the harmful influence of social media. 'We have to ban social media for those under the age of 15,' Macron said in reaction to the killing, adding that he would push for the European Union to establish continent-wide rules or, if they were not forthcoming, he would push ahead alone. 'We can't wait.' Australia already passed the world's first law that, by the end of this year, will block children under the age of 16 from some of the world's most popular apps — a message that 'until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age appropriate for them,' then-communications minister Michelle Anne Rowland in charge said last November. The ban could potentially reduce the incidence of cyberbullying, unwanted sexual solicitation and the cases of depression, self-harm and suicidal behaviour that has been linked to social-media use among children, wrote Jasmine Fardouly, a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney's School of Psychology. It could also restrict 'positive social media experiences, such as social support and connections for marginalized groups,' she wrote in The Lancet, a British medical journal . The Aussies have given themselves 12 months to test the technologies that could be used to comply with the law. The obligatory age-verification or estimation process must be capable of keeping young kids out without relying on the use of official documents, such as a passport or driver's license. It's a legal fence that many countries are straddling in a bid to satisfy those who want to protect children and those who want to protect privacy. Britain's communications regulator, Ofcom, is forcing online service providers to conduct mandatory age checks if their platforms feature pornography and to take proactive steps, up to and including age verification, to protect children from online harms. French President Emmanuel Macron, right, has pledged to a ban on social media for those under the age of 15. Prime Minister Mark Carney, meanwhile, has so far declined to pick up the Trudeau-era Online Harms Act. 'We invented age verification for pornography,' said Iain Corby, Executive Director of the Age Verification Providers Association, a London-based industry group. Verification was rather straight forward in the early days. A credit card, driver's license, bank account or passport would serve as proof of age, just like in offline life. 'As it became clear that we wanted to try and do this for younger people under 18, none of those things were available. So, the industry innovated and came up with estimation tools,' Corby said. Having a user flash his or her face in front of a camera for a few moments of digital analysis, is the most straightforward and probably the most accurate method available. The hiccup — that users are required to show their face — is a big one. There may be no qualms about doing to so to unlock a personal iPhone, but it is bound to make sheepish consumers of adult content think twice. Other services estimate age by checking a person's email against online databases to determine how long it has been active. The new regimes coming into place oblige the age-checkers to delete personal information as soon as it has been processed. For those concerned about leaving even the faintest digital trace, a French firm, BorderAge , promises total anonymity by estimating age through an analysis of hand gestures. The more fundamental question is whether age checks are really the way to go and, if so, who should do them. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a challenge to a Texas law arguing that age-verification laws applied to porn sites violate the First Amendment rights of adults. The website operators say that users' fear of identity theft or the exposure of their online predilections end up deterring them from submitting to the new standards. How Trump the dealbreaker helped create the Iran-Israel crisis Aylo, the Canadian-owned company that runs PornHub, the world's best known adult site, is locked in a fight of its own with the French government. Earlier this month, it blocked access to French users in response to age-verification requirements that the company said were unfairly applied to 17 companies while letting others off the hook. Service was restored this week after a judge temporarily suspended the government order until a court could rule on the legal challenge. Aylo says it supports measures that prevent children from accessing its content, but argues that obliging individual sites to keep out the kids 'does not work' and risks exposing legal adult users 'to privacy breaches and hacks.' Instead, it says user ages should be tracked on individual phones, tablets and computers. This would shift the onus — as well as the costs and legal responsibility — to tech giants Apple, Google and Microsoft. In the global race to rein in the internet and make it safer for delicate young minds, Canada is trailing the pack. Technically, following this spring's election, it's not even on the track. In early 2024, the previous Liberal government introduced the Online Harms Act , which included measures to criminalize online acts of hate, oblige website operators to remove harmful content and force them to adopt 'age-appropriate design' to protect younger users. The bill proposed creating a Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsperson to enforce the new rules and regulations. But there were no explicit measures proposing age blocks for mature or adult content. 'Just to put age-appropriate measures, or something of that nature, was not doing it for me. It's like saying, 'Regulate yourselves, do what you think is right,'' said Independent Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced her own legislation in the Senate that would have made it a crime to make sexually explicit material available to to children on the internet. She worried that the government bill left the possibility of imposing age-verification measures up to the future federal commission — a much-too consequential step to be left to appointees and civil servants, in her opinion. Her Senate bill and the government bill both died when the last Parliament was prorogued and the federal election was called. Miville-Dechêne has refined and re-introduced her legislation . But Prime Minister Mark Carney's government, which has put all of its focus on protecting and growing the Canadian economy, has given no indication about if or when it plans to resurrect the online safety initiatives. The more time passes, the more Canada lags in the common effort to clean up the internet for kids. 'The longer that we delay this, the further behind we fall,' said Marcoux, of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. 'It's true to say that kids in the U.K. and kids in Australia, they likely have a safer online experience than Canadian kids because of it.' It's also important for Canada to act in partnership with other nations in order to reach a critical threshold beyond which social media companies and pornography providers are forced to shape up or ship out. 'If more and more countries decide that this is not acceptable to feed kids with this,' said Miville-Dechêne, 'at one point they will have to change because we can cut the signals.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
"Devastated and heartbroken": Trump cuts LGBTQ+ youth services on 988 suicide hotline
The Trump administration has removed the "Press 3 option" from the national 988 Suicide & Crisis Hotline. The "Press 3 option" was available since 2022 for LGBTQ+ callers looking to speak with a mental health provider specializing in LGBTQ+ mental health care. The service will be shut down formally on July 17. In a statement released on Tuesday, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) said it was ending the service to "focus on all help seekers, including those previously served through the Press 3 option." The statement also said that the hotline will "no longer silo" what it called "LGB+ services," notably missing the T. "I am devastated and heartbroken," said Jaymes Black, CEO of advocacy organization The Trevor Project, in a video posted to Instagram. "Half a million LGBTQ young people reached out to 988 last year and pressed 3," Black said. "They found trained hearts waiting to help." Black described the "lifeline" for youths in crisis as being "cut" by SAMHSA. The Trevor Project was the contracted third party used by the hotline to provide the "press 3 option." In its statement, SAMHSA noted that the federally allocated $33 million for the option in 2024 was entirely spent by June 2025. It describes the funds as having gone to "support the subnetworks" of the service. "Your life has meaning," Black said in the video, speaking to LGBTQ+ youth. "You are our future, and we will never stop fighting for you."
Los Angeles Times
10 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
How the LAPD's protest response once again triggered outrage, injuries and lawsuits
Bridgette Covelli arrived near Los Angeles City Hall for last Saturday's 'No Kings' festivities to find what she described as a peaceful scene: people chanting, dancing, holding signs. No one was arguing with the police, as far as she could tell. Enforcement of the city's curfew wouldn't begin for hours. But seemingly out of nowhere, Covelli said, officers began to fire rubber bullets and launch smoke bombs into the crowd, which had gathered to protest the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement campaign. 'No dispersal order. Nothing at all,' she said. 'We were doing everything right. There was no aggression toward them.' Covelli, 23, grabbed an electric bike and turned up 3rd Street, where another line of police blocked parts of the roadway. She felt a shock of pain in her arm as she fell from the bike and crashed to the sidewalk. In a daze, she realized she was bleeding after being struck by a hard-foam projectile shot by an unidentified LAPD officer. The young tattoo artist was hospitalized with injuries that included a fractured forearm, which has left her unable to work. 'I haven't been able to draw. I can't even brush my teeth correctly,' she said. She is among the demonstrators and journalists hurt this month after being targeted by LAPD officers with foam projectiles, tear gas, flash-bang grenades and paintball-like weapons that waft pepper spray into the air. Despite years of costly lawsuits, oversight measures and promises by leaders to rein in indiscriminate use of force during protests, the LAPD once again faces sharp criticism and litigation over tactics used during the past two weeks. In a news conference at police headquarters last week, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell promised 'a comprehensive review when this is all done,' while also defending officers he said were dealing with 'a very chaotic, dynamic situation.' Police officials said force was used only after a group of agitators began pelting officers with bottles, fireworks and other objects. At least a dozen police injuries occurred during confrontations, including one instance in which a protester drove a motorcycle into a line of officers. L.A. County prosecutors have charged several defendants with assault for attacks on law enforcement. Behind the scenes, according to communications reviewed by The Times and multiple sources who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, tensions sometimes ran high between LAPD commanders and City Hall officials, who pushed for restraint in the early hours of the protests downtown. On June 6 — the Friday that the demonstrations began — communication records show Mayor Karen Bass made calls to LAPD Capt. Raul Jovel, the incident commander, and to McDonnell. In the days that followed, sources said Bass or members of her senior staff were a constant presence at a command post in Elysian Park, from where local and federal officials were monitoring the on-the-ground developments. Some LAPD officials have privately grumbled about not being allowed to make arrests sooner, before protesters poured into downtown. Although mostly peaceful, a handful of those who flooded the streets vandalized shops, vehicles and other property. LAPD leaders have also pointed out improvements from past years, including restrictions on the use of bean-bag shotguns for crowd control and efforts to more quickly release people who were arrested. But among longtime LAPD observers, the latest protest response is widely seen as another step backward. After paying out millions over the last decade for protest-related lawsuits, the city now stares down another series of expensive court battles. 'City leaders like Mayor Bass [are] conveniently saying, 'Oh this is Trump's fault, this is the Feds' fault.' No, take a look at your own force,' said longtime civil rights attorney James DeSimone, who filed several excessive force government claims against the city and the county in recent days. A spokesperson for Bass didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. McDonnell — a member of the LAPD command staff during an aggressive police crackdown on immigrant rights demonstrators on May Day in 2007 — found himself on the defensive during an appearance before the City Council last week, when he faced questions about readiness and whether more could have been done to prevent property damage. 'We'll look and see, are there training issues, are there tactics [issues], are there less-lethal issues that need to be addressed,' McDonnell told reporters a few days later. One of the most potentially embarrassing incidents occurred during the 'No Kings' rally Saturday, when LAPD officers could be heard on a public radio channel saying they were taking friendly fire from L.A. County sheriff's deputies shooting less-lethal rounds. Three LAPD sources not authorized to speak publicly confirmed the incident occurred. A spokesperson for the Sheriff's Department said in a statement that the agency 'has not received reports of any 'friendly fire' incidents.' Some protesters allege LAPD officers deliberately targeted individuals who posed no threat. Shakeer Rahman, a civil rights attorney and community organizer with the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, said he was monitoring a demonstration snaking past LAPD headquarters on June 8 when he witnessed two colleagues who were demanding to know an officer's badge number get shot with a 40mm less-lethal launcher at close range. In a recording he shared of the incident, Rahman can be heard confronting the officer, who threatens to fire as he paces back and forth on an elevated platform. 'I'm gonna pop you right now, because you're taking away my focus,' the officer is heard saying before raising his weapon over the glass partition that separated them and firing two foam rounds at Rahman, nearly striking him in his groin. 'It's an officer who doesn't want to be questioned and knows he can get away with firing these shots,' said Rahman, who noted a 2021 court injunction bans the use of 40mm launchers in most crowd-control situations. Later on June 8, as clashes between officers and protesters intensified in other parts of downtown, department leaders authorized the use of tear gas against a crowd — a common practice among other agencies, but one that the LAPD hasn't used in decades. 'There was a need under these circumstances to deploy it when officers started taking being assaulted by commercial fireworks, some of those with shrapnel in them,' McDonnell said to The Times. 'It's a different day, and we use the tools we are able to access.' City and state leaders arguing against Trump's deployment of soldiers to L.A. have made the case that the LAPD is better positioned to handle demonstrations than federal forces. They say local cops train regularly on tactics beneficial to crowd control, including de-escalation, and know the downtown terrain where most demonstrations occur. But numerous protesters who spoke with The Times said they felt the LAPD officers were quicker to use violence than they have been at any point in recent years. Raphael Mamoun, 36, followed the June 8 march from City Hall to the federal Metropolitan Detention Center on Alameda Street. Mamoun, who works in digital security, said his group eventually merged with other demonstrators and wound up bottlenecked by LAPD near the intersection of Temple and Alameda, where a stalemate with LAPD officers ensued. After roughly an hour, he said, chaos erupted without warning. 'I don't know if they made any announcement, any dispersal order, but basically you had like a line of mounted police coming behind the line of cops that were on foot and then they just started charging, moving forward super fast, pushing people, screaming at people, shooting rubber bullets,' he said. Mamoun's complaints echoed those of other demonstrators and observations of Times reporters at multiple protest scenes throughout the week. LAPD dispersal orders were sometimes only audible when delivered from an overhead helicopter. Toward the end of Saturday's hours-long 'No Kings' protests, many demonstrators contended officers used force against crowds that had been relatively peaceful all day. The LAPD's use of horses has also raised widespread concern, with some protesters saying the department's mounted unit caused injuries and confusion rather than bringing anything resembling order. One video captured on June 8 by independent journalist Tina-Desiree Berg shows a line of officers on horseback advance into a crowd while other officers fire less-lethal rounds at protesters shielding themselves with chairs and road signs. A protester can be seen falling to the ground, seemingly injured. The mounted units continue marching forward even as the person desperately tries to roll out of the way. Several horses trample over the person's prone body before officers arrest them. At other scenes, mounted officers were weaving through traffic and running up alongside vehicles that were not involved with the demonstrations. In one incident on June 10, a Times reporter saw a mounted officer smashing the roof of a car repeatedly with a wooden stick. 'It just seems like they are doing whatever the hell they want to get protesters, and injure protesters,' Mamoun said. Audrey Knox, 32, a screenwriter and teacher, was also marching with the City Hall group on June 8. She stopped to watch a tense skirmish near the Grand Park Metro stop when officers began firing projectiles into the crowd. Some protesters said officers fired less-lethal rounds into groups of people in response to being hit with flying objects. Although she said she was well off to the side, she was still struck in the head by one of the hard-foam rounds. Other demonstrators helped her get to a hospital, where Knox said she received five staples to close her head wound. In a follow-up later in the week, a doctor said she had post-concussion symptoms. The incident has made her hesitant to demonstrate again, despite her utter disgust for the Trump administration's actions in Los Angeles. 'It just doesn't seem smart to go back out because even when you think you're in a low-risk situation, that apparently is not the case,' she said. 'I feel like my freedom of speech was directly attacked, intentionally.' Times staff writers Julia Wick, Connor Sheets and Richard Winton contributed to this report.
