I love animals as much as the next person, but seriously folks

What's big in the news in Edmonton these days? The visit of celebrity former Price Is Right host Bob Barker! That's right, come on down...to protest the conditions the humble "Valley Zoo" offers for an ailing elephant? Representatives of the Valley Zoo, which has housed Lucy the Asian Elephant for 32 years, say that she is fine where she is, and that the stress of traveling to an elephant sanctuary in California poses a risk to her life due to a respiratory condition. Opponents say that the zoo does not offer a suitable habitat, and that she should be with other elephants in a more tolerable climate. The move would not cost the zoo anything - the approximately $200,000 bill for transportation and other costs would be covered by the sanctuary and other animal rights groups.

TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to move ONE elephant so that she may live out her life in peace. Now I believe that as humans, we should respect and cherish animals, and treat them humanely as much as possible. But when I hear about animal rights groups who are willing to spend that kind of dough to move someone else's elephant without batting an eyelash, I get a little bit angry. The economy sucks, both Canada & the US are facing serious issues when it comes to healthcare, housing and employment, and these people think the best use of their money is moving an elephant?

What about people living in terrible conditions? Are there any celebrities coming up from the US with big money to protest the less than humane conditions that homeless humans endure in our harsh Canadian winters? I have a dog and I love him very much, but I have to say, I would not hesitate to throw him under a bus to save my child, someone else's child, or even my worst enemy. In my opinion, human life has infinitely higher value than the life of any animal.

Am I saying that I don't think that there is any value in putting money towards causes dedicating to the humane treatment of animals, or to the preservation of endangered species or natural habitats? No. What I am saying is that we have to use our uniquely human skill of logic to decide what is a reasonable allocation of resources when it comes to a desired outcome, and my mind is saying this doesn't add up. $200,000 for (best case) 30 years of peace for an elephant (who her current keepers say is fine where she is), with the chance that she could actually die in transit (worst case). Even if your main concern is animal rights and you're not all that concerned about alleviating human suffering in the world this seems like a risky bet. How many pets could $200,000 spade or neuter, therefore causing fewer unwanted puppies and kittens, and thus freeing up space in animal shelters? Wouldn't this be a better use of resources than moving one elephant?

I guess the faulty assumption on my part is that the animal rights movement as a whole is logical or based on reason. This is not to say that individuals who contribute to or work in areas that are dedicated to animals are all unreasonable or illogical, there are many worthy causes relating to the rescue and humane treatment of animals. But in general I would say that there is a lot of misinformation and emotion based tactics that are used to fuel the cause, and that legitimately worthwhile endeavours in this area are cheapened by the radicals. I won't get started on PETA in this post, but if you Google "pen and teller PETA", you will get an idea of where my feeling lie.