Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Bob Barker Spends $1M To Save Three Elephants

Bob Barker spends his money on two things. Sexual harassment lawsuits and rescuing animals. This time the story is about the latter love of his. The former Price Is Right host paid $1M to transport three elephants from Canada to a park here in California. The 89 year old said it was a no brainer and that the elephants will be in a place much more suitable to them. You know what is crazy? That it costs $1M to ship three elephants by train. You would think it would be much less expensive. You could ship that weight in cargo for $25K at the most but to transport the animals cost $1M. Does that seem excessive to anyone else?

Posted by ent lawyer at 7:00 AM

Labels:

31 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:07 AM

    The elephants. They no complain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Meanie Rhysie7:11 AM

    My birthday mate..as well as Ol' Blue Eyes.

    I guess this Enty isn't aware that the animals need to be looked after and not just shipped willy-nilly? Moron.

    ReplyDelete
  3. wanton7:13 AM

    The price was right!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:15 AM

      I thought the bob hope salt and pepper shakers would be worth more than the elephants, which is why I stick to Deal or no Deal (with my local biker club)

      Delete
    2. Folly7:18 AM

      That was too easy

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:22 AM

      I love you Folly. And your follies. Ziegfeld?

      Delete
  4. Nosy_Canuck7:21 AM

    They went by truck/trailer. 2 on one truck, one on another. Plus handlers, vets, other randoms in a few RV's to accompany them. I'm not sure if $1M is worth it but it was a complex operation. I'm glad to see them go. The facility here in Toronto was just terrible - small (2.5 acres for 3 elephants), not at all natural. The winters were brutal and I'm glad someone cared enough to pay for them to go. Better climate, 75 acres. Sure Bob is a pig of a man but his heart is in the right place with respect to animals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beetlejuice7:26 AM

    Enty complaining that someone helped innocent animals. Hahahaha. .

    ReplyDelete
  6. discoflux7:27 AM

    You don't have to worry about keeping standard cargo alive and safe or clean up cargo shit and piss, so, no. It doesn't seem to be an excessive cost for transporting 3 endangered animals from one unnatural environment to another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:31 AM

      Disco, waa waa peddle, flares and disco ball aside, don't get the rampant vegan me started on animal exports and keeping them in zoos. Or chicken nuggets.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous7:35 AM

    Boooooo Bob

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous7:36 AM

    I need a new umbrella stand. If the elephant is on the way out, I call dibs on one of its feet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pogue Mahone7:39 AM

    The Toronto zoo was good enough for them for 40 YRS and now all of a sudden it's not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mari10:24 AM

      As a member of Toronto Zoo, don't even get me started on this. City Council should have just told them to piss off. Sending them cost the zoo it's accreditation... Oh, before anyone wonders my animal activism goes back to my first protest at 6, so yeah, my only concern is the ladies, who I've met several times.

      Delete
  10. discoflux7:43 AM

    Rach - I once yelled at the elephant caretakers at the San Diego zoo because one of the elephants was exhibiting stereotypic swaying. The tender tried to tell me that she did it "because she knew food was coming out for her." That answer just pissed me off.

    And I'm not vegan or even vegetarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:56 AM

      Discoflux: in all earnest, vegans can be some of the meanest people I know. Kudos to you saying something. I may be an arsehat, but I'm still all for decent treatment of all animals (including Travolta's chest hair)

      Delete
  11. Anothergrayhare7:46 AM

    @Pogue I felt the same way but when I read @Nosy Canuck's comment it made sense. I've seen the elephants at our zoo and never really thought that 2.5 acres was too small but that, combined with the winters we get made me think twice. 75 acres and sun all the time. Put me on a truck too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sherry7:48 AM

    Yeah I'm not really keen on animals taken from their natural environment either but Canadian winters must have been hard on the poor creatures. Sad that one was so old and the stress they put on it so I pray she survives.

    I hope they get good care and treatment at least. Elephants needs loads of room to roam. 75 acres beats 2.5. 2.5 acres is extremely small for one let alone 3.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Unknown8:10 AM

    Not that I'm an elephant hater but I wince a little when thinking about how many great things that $1mill could probably have done in his home town or state.

    ReplyDelete
  14. SueRH8:19 AM

    I say good for him!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anotheramy8:22 AM

    I think Bob can spend his money how he chooses. Unless Enty has experience shipping elephants Im not sure why he even posted this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:07 AM

    *whispers* Karrots! I'm secretly in lurve with you. I'll rub one out right now. Just tell me I'm annoying. Go on....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tru Leigh9:24 AM

    Imagine how many starving babies could have been fed with $1M.

    ReplyDelete
  18. sandybrook9:57 AM

    Bob doesn't care about babies hes all about animals. Hes 89 cant take the money with him so he spends it on things important to him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous11:47 AM

    The National Zoo here in DC has a new elephant exhibit that boasts that it has "enough room for 8-10 full-grown elephants," a little over 8,000 square meters. Well, I did the conversion, and that's only 2.2 acres. I love the National Zoo, but that just sounds horrible for 10 elephants. They only have like 5 now, but that'll change.

    ReplyDelete
  20. auntliddy11:50 AM

    I totally believe this is good use of money. And Canada is not natural habitat for elephants.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Worstcompanytoworkfor1:57 PM

    The hood could have done a lot with that money. a poor school could have done a lot with that money.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tempestuous Grape2:32 PM

    Best thing I have heard all day!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. penelope6:25 PM

    Mari -- I assume "the ladies" refers to the three elephants who are now safe at the PAWS sanctuary in California. The Toronto Zoo blocked the transport of these elephants to their new home for almost two years and during that time did everything they could to smear PAWS and Barker. I am sorry you miss the elephants, but I followed their journey by truck across the U.S. and their arrival at their new home -- and they are HAPPY. Canada is no place for elephants.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unknown7:17 PM

    Lots of misinformation with the post & comments. It did not cost $1 million to ship the elephants. Bob Barker committed to spending UP TO one million to ship them. The cost was approximately $700,000 Canadian, and this covered all the costs associated with the move, not just the physical move itself.

    Mari, the zoo was going to lose accreditation over the elephant enclosure if they kept them. It no longer met minimum standards for accredited zoos, and the Toronto zoo chose to get rid of the elephants rather than build them a proper and large enclosure. The debate was WHERE the elephants would be transferred. Another zoo, or the sanctuary. The sanctuary was chosen by Toronto politicians, and this is the first decision they've made that I completely endorse. If you're involved with animal rights as you claim, why are you involved with a fucking zoo?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Topper Madison6:32 AM

    Good lord, pseudo-Enty. Moving 3 tons of human beings would probably be more expensive than shipping standard "cargo" too. You know, because they're LIVING THINGS.

    Way to attempt to create umbrage for no apparent reason whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days

  • Blind Items Revealed #6 - Anniversary Month
    August 1, 2014 How is it that this actress is rolling in dough? I mean she could literally shower with $100 bills every few minutes and not ...
  • Blind Item #12
    An offspring of a former A++ lister is hooking up with an A+/A list singer. Their first hookup was a messy drunken spectacle in front of sev...
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 15, 2024 Apparently, the growing rift between the alliterate one and her husband began shortly after the big funeral. The alliterate...
  • Blind Item #13
    For old times sake, these two bad actors/former co-stars/former couple hooked up. They will blame it on being drunk. 
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 16, 2024 I guess things are getting more serious considering the permanent A list "singer" has Narcan ready to go througho...
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 16, 2024 Speaking of alliterate, this foreign born alliterate A list actor thought Oscar was a lock for his latest role. Now that he...
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 19, 2024 What is going to be crazy is this. Neither of the escorts the dead rocker slept with said they used protection. What if the...
  • Blind Item #8
    Speaking of A list actors and hookers, this A+/A list actor had a bevy of them while out of the country. His girlfriend probably wouldn'...
  • Blind Items Revealed #3
    October 17, 2024 Even though it is ridiculous, the permanent A list actor does actually believe his 16 month old texts him. So, obviously no...
  • Blind Items Revealed #4
    October 20, 2024 This permanent A list singer needs to look no further than her former husband (not the sperm donor one) as to why she has s...