(US/ca) S.F. supervisors should reject zoo legislation

[Guest guest]

[san Francisco Chronicle - opinion - comments at full story link]A rescue facility for injured, abandoned or abused animals has greatemotional appeal, but is that what San Franciscans want instead of azoo?San Francisco Supervisors will vote on the matter today, after monthsof discussion and contentious hearings. They should vote no.The San Francisco Zoo has been the object of animal welfare advocates'concern for years. The zoo had little priority for city funding, andit showed in outdated facilities. That's why the city forged anagreement with the San Francisco Zoological Society in 1993 to run thezoo under contract. Today, the city provides about 20 percent of thezoo's funds, 25 percent comes from visitors, and 37 percent fromdonations solicited by the society....In Defense of Animals, which

convinced Supervisor Chris Daly to carrythe legislation to convert the zoo, is an animal advocacy groupconcerned with animal rights. Animals deserve the right to humanetreatment, but their welfare depends on the ability to build andmaintain an appropriate facility and provide care. Until it can beshown there is donor support for a rescue facility, the supervisorsshould devote their energies to making San Francisco's zoo worthy of aworld-class city.-- full story:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/08/EDJE12QHO0.DTL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STAPLES supports this: