Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit

Celebrity zookeeper Jack Hanna weighed in today on the hot topic of Billy, the sole elephant resident at the L.A. Zoo.  In a letter to the L.A. City Council, Hanna pledged his support to the controversial "Pachyderm Forest" project, which will cost $42 million if completed as originally planned.

There's been a great deal of debate over Billy's living arrangements.  As our colleague Carla Hall reported last month, construction on the Pachyderm Forest has been halted over concerns not just over cost but also Billy's well-being:

"Our zoo is trying to do the best job they can with the real estate they have and the budget they have," said Councilman Tony Cardenas, who conceived the motion to stop construction of the exhibit and move Billy to a sanctuary. "Elephants don't fit in zoos; they have ailments they don't get out in the wild. Whether it's an acre or three to four acres, it's inadequate."

Hanna writes about a tour he took of the Pachyderm Forest construction site last month:

"What I [found] was a project taking shape that will set a new standard for the care of elephants at zoos, providing a home that will be even larger than what Asian elephants enjoy at the San Diego Wild Animal Park.  Not only will Billy and any future residents have a huge amount of space in which to roam, they will continue to enjoy 24-hour monitoring, state-of-the-art medical care, love, nurturing and a level of attention that ranch-like sanctuaries cannot provide.

"My conclusion: the Pachyderm Forest will be a model for humane elephant care that will educate generations to come on the threats Asian elephants face in the wild."

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: Glenn Koenig / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[William Majors]

I am a member of PETA and I appeared at the City Council Finance and Budget meeting on 1 Dec. 08, as the result of an email from PETA to oppose the Zoo's Pachyderm Forest. Like a good, but stupid soldier, I did make a brief statement against the project. Unhappy that I had not done my homework (had not really researched the subject) I went to the Zoo, bought a membership and hiked up to Bill's enclosure. Having questions about his head nodding and plans for the new exhibit, I called the Zoo and spoke with an expert on Billy and the proposed exhibit. I was surprised and encouraged about how well designed that exhibit would be. The more I found out about the new exhibit and about the dedication of the Zoo staff in making it as natural a home as possible for elephants, the more I have come to be totally in favor of having the Pachyderm Forest completed. Billy and other Asian elephants will live in a wonderful natural environment and will be well cared for by loving, knowledgeable people. And, Billy and his companions will provide adults and children alike with a viewing experience that no still or video pictures can duplicate. I firmly believe that such an experience will translate into creating more animal supporters, more animal rights people to work towards defending wild animal species that now face extinction at the hands of human beings.

[Proboscidea]

Dear Ms Woodviolet,

I was once a PETA supporter. But then I researched beyond their pamphlets and websites and saw how much mis-information they were spreading. It was a tough road to go down, knowing that I had allowed myself to be swayed by emotional “fact” and not true facts.

Regarding your post:

“Where are you getting YOUR facts? Asian elephant lifespan is 60 -70 years.”
Actually you are confusing LIFE POTENTIAL and AVERAGE LIFE SPAN. Life potential is the age of the longest living individual. Such as the longest living human so far is 115 years. Are we all expected to live that long? No, because the average life span for humans mid 80’s. With elephants, both African and Asian, both wild and captive populations the average life span is mid 40’s

“And while I understand the theory of conservation, what I don't see is how it applies to Billy today. If you want genetic diversity for potential future re-population then bank his sperm. But to suggest that there is a direct line between one lone male elephant confined in a zoo and the eventual repopulation of an entire continent is a mighty stretch and…”
And who do you propose would gestate this egg and sperm, in this elephant-less future, when the ecosystem is ready for repopulation? A population of Asian elephants must be maintained in order to protect the future of this species. Their native habitat is not a safe haven at this point. And I must remind you that sanctuaries do not allow breeding.

Your understanding of conservation is elementary, at best. Try opening your eyes and educating yourself beyond PETA and IDA. You’d be surprised what you’ve been missing, and how much you’ve been misled.

try Fauna and Flora Internation
http://www.fauna-flora.org/

and http://billyshome.com

for more information on this topic.

You're not doing yourself any favors by limiting your educational scope.

[jane arben]

Absolutely I agree with Jack Hanna that the zoo should continue building the new elephant enclosure.

I've heard the argument that kids don't need to see animals in person in order to be inspired to save them. Hogwash! PETA already wants to replace the whales at Sea World with animatronic versions, and now they're after the elephants at the zoo, too. My kids are fascinated by robotic animals, sure. After seeing them, they'll ask questions about the robotic technology, not the animals themselves. When the see the gorgeous wild "animals" created from legos at Legoland, they are inspired not to learn about the animals, but to buy Legos and try to build their own.

Our children and grandchildren will inherit a planet in tremendous trouble. Let's give them the opportunity to be inspired to save it. Detractors say that kids learn nothing from zoo animals other than that its OK to jail animals. I counter that we have taught our children much by the way we have allowed so many species' natural habitat to be decimated. Now we can teach them what it means to be caretakers, providing for individual animals in well-managed zoos and supporting conservation of the species they represent.

[Rich Campbell]

No shock that Hanna supports the L.A. Zoo. It's what he's always done his entire life. He's a zoo man, which is fine, but should be mentioned when he is championing yet another zoo project.

From Hanna's bio:

" In 1973, Hanna got his dream job; he became a director at the Central Florida Zoo. Five years later, he took on another challenge, working as the executive director of the Columbus Zoo. At the time, the zoo needed to attract more visitors, and the facilities needed to be revamped. Hanna helped raise the necessary funds as well as the zoo’s public profile."

[jennie wilson]

hi my name is jennie wilson and i am 12 years old and i love the elephants at the zoo i go there many times because my grandmother is a member and cares very much about animals every time i go there i always want to vist the elephents, i could watch them all day if i could!!! please i beg you please do not get rid of the elephants at the zoo i might not go there as often if they are gone
thanks so much

[Proboscidea]

Dear Cnature2,

I admire your intentions to support wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, we are heading down the path where we will have nothing but photos and video footage of Asian elephants. So your exhibit of elephant video footage, faux plants, and animatronics will most likely occur at the natural history museum, not at a zoo.

Native American beliefs talk about seven generations. How will the decisions of today effect seven generations from now. If we allow this species to die out, there will not be a seventh generation to concern ourselves with. Do you want that on your conscious?

[pork chop]

Hmm Tony Cardenas.. or Jack Hanna.. will the real elephant in the room stand up.. of course Mr. Hanna knows more about elephants that Tony Cardena.. Cardenas is an a**.. oh excuse me.. a Democrat.. MILLIONS have already been spent for a careful wonderful envionment for Billy.. he will be very happy in his new home.... and we will be able to continue to educate our children about the elephant.. and actually be able to see one..before PETA and the other AR groups manage to kill them as they do 90% of the pets they take in.. Billy should STAY in LA.. Lord knows we need something to distract us from the corrupt group we call "the city council"...

[Cas]

Why is the city council spending so much time pandering to special interest groups like these animal rights groups? These people are not their constituents, they are trying to take a community service like the zoo away from us - what are they offering the councilmembers that would justify all the time being spent on them?

[Jeffrey Allen]

I think it's disgusting that the LA Times is running a "poll" that people can sit at and hammer away voting continuously and portray it as something reliable when in fact it is anything BUT!

I have had votes counted 3 times from the same computer!

[tbone]

Zoos should be for the rehabilitation of sick and or found animals in need. i.e. Sea World San Diego, CA. not so you can take your spoiled kid to see an Elephant confined in an inhumane environment! This is not how you teach children about animals! "Look Molly, it's an Elephant! In the wild Elephants walk 30 miles + a day across their land, but here, this Elephant gets to stand and stare at people like us all day. He sure has a cool waterfall in his enclosure though huh Molly?" Let's just not show our children an Elephant, let's show our children what animals like Elephants really need- land to roam. Let's teach our children humanity. Los Angeles should lead the way and start an Elephant exhibit with some real acreage where Elephants can thrive and be taken care of properly.

[N.L. Dennis]

Why can't the L.A. Times be objective? It is clear that the Times has determined not to publish any article which is favorable to the construction of the Pachyderm Forest (though when I last checked, about 64% of the respondents to your Poll confirmed they favored such). Would there be any harm in posting a photo of a smiling elephant (rather than the obviously negative photo of an elephant standing behind chains selected by the Times)? Shame on the Times. I've always relied upon the Times for impartial, objective reporting, but clearly that reliance has been misplaced. Perhaps the Times should consider assigning some fresh reporters to cover this story (i.e., ones who aren't biased against elephants in our Zoo), as it is clear objectivity has gone by the L.A. Times' wayside. Start listening to the people of L.A.! Not the few animal activists (and their well paid publicists) who oppose elephants in any Zoo.

[Michael Bell]

Free Billy

[Tracy]

Let's understand that these sanctuaries, for the caring that they do, are interconnected to animal rights organizations like IDA and PETA. These animal rights organizations help bring them elephants while the sanctuaries sit quietly by. It's a very passive-aggressive position. Animal rights groups attack zoos immediately if an elephant dies, regardless of the circumstances and most of the time before a cause of death is even identified, then put out a call for people to protest by sending their form letters to city officials. The study that was just put on in Science on elephant longevity was done by the RSPCA, an organization that has shown a known zoo bias for years. They studied European data, taking into account elephants in zoos from the 1960's. A) We are talking about Billy in a North American Zoo B) Health care for humans and animals has dramatically increased in the past 45 years and life expectancy has gone up. The study also did not account for animals that are still alive, as longevity is studied after an animal passes away. They aren't counting the ones that are currently living in their 40's and 50's at these European Zoos. The other animal rights tactic that is wrong, is trying to juxtapose "lifespan" with "life expectancy". I could make the argument that people in France live to 115 years but people only live to 75-80 years in the U.S. How? Just take the "lifespan" (oldest and individual has lived) 115 for a woman in France, and juxtapose it against the "life expectancy" (average age an individual can expect to live) 75-80 years for humans in the U.S. Numbers, like politics, can be twisted like pretzels and are done very effectively by most animal rights groups, because their job is to sway opinion. Unfortunately, science is not the basis for most of their information. Nobody can cite a study to show HOW MUCH space an elephant needs. That is pure speculation, but yet we keep hearing "XX" acres is not enough. Elephants in the wild travel miles for food, sometimes in Namibia they die of starvation or drought because those miles don't produce results. How do you compare that to a Zoo where food and care are readily available? How can you compare the wild and captivity when it's not apples to apples? A wild elephant researcher who opposes zoos for some reason, comes into town a few months ago, attends a fundraiser for her elephant research. That fundraiser happens to be thrown by members of IDA and then she goes and testifies against the LA Zoo exhibit. That's a story I'd like to see investigated. The LA Zoo has shown how it can take gorillas exhibits from decades ago and form incredible habitats as we continue to learn more about these animals and their needs. Not what we think they need, but what years of studying these animals provides in the way of information. 99% of animals in captivity live longer than their wild cousins. Zoo elephants are living as close to the life expectancy of wild elephants (and you might want to research how many elephants have died at these sanctuaries, how long they were there, and their ages) and yet some look at that 1% of the animal population and say the exhibit needs to be closed. The evolution of zoo exhibits is what has created that 99%, and the evolution of the new elephant exhibit in Los Angeles will allow them to do that. One other thing, I would take Jack Hanna over Lily Tomlin or Bob Barker any day. Let's be real, 40 years working with animals in the wild and captivity, or 40 years as a game show host or actress? I'd take someone's opinion who has spent 40 years working with elephants in captivity any day over a celebrity voice that has a history with PETA like Lily, and hardly ever visits a zoo or sanctuary to understand what really goes on.

[S. Little]

The only things zoos have proved to me is that they have failed at three things: maintaining their elephants (they die prematurely of captivity induced diseased and exhibit psychological problems ) breeding their elephants (they die of herpes, still births), and as natural consequence of this, they have failed at conservation. An elephant is simply built to walk over large distances on natural substrates. Most elephants do not get the exercise they need to give birth. And there have been 2 studies, one by Science and the other by RSPCA. Both reached the same conclusion that zoos are killing elephants prematurely. Zoos are failing on every front. Sorry, you do not like the facts.

[An Observer]

Ms. Woodviolet -- I think YOU had better check YOUR facts... and while you're at it, you should actually READ or re-read the Science article you are throwing around so freely in your comments (particularly the one in which you responded to the commenter Proboscidea at 3:55 PM). I have the article in front of me. If you read the study, you will see that the researchers examined median life spans in their data, and they are nothing close to the 60-70 year ultimate lifes pans you are talking about. The study reported that the median life spans for Asian elephants were found to be 41.8 years IN THE WILDS of Myanmar (the study’s wild Asian comparison group). That’s 41.8 years the wild Asians lived – NOT 60-70 as you stated.

Now, another study was done a few years ago which showed that in NORTH AMERICAN ZOOS (NOT EUROPEAN ZOOS like those used in the Science article you’re citing), elephants were living to 44.8 years on average. That study found that their wild Asian counterparts were living to 45 years on average -- essentially the same number. The agreed upon measure for longevity, by the way, is average (or in cases where outliers are present, median) life expectancy; not ultimate life span. Obviously, some humans CAN live to 100, just as SOME elephants CAN live to 60 or 70, but those are not representative numbers even in the wild. That is why average life expectancy is used instead.

And to “L.A. Voter” who responded to one of my earlier comments on this site -- yes, I saw that Ms. Woodviolet cited the study in Science. However, by now everyone knows that longevity study has problems/biases. For instance, that study used zoo elephant data from as far back as 1960, when zoos knew less about elephant care than they do today. The study should be viewed with CAUTION, not only because it utilized outdated zoo elephant data, but for a more general empirical reason. The study reports correlational data using statistical modeling methods for predictive purposes. Correlational data describe RELATIONSHIPS between variables; they do NOT demonstrate CAUSATION. In other words, the study showed a relationship between where elephants lived (zoo vs. wild) and how long they lived. It did not show that placing elephants in zoos CAUSES them to live a shorter life. Only a study that followed an experimental design in which the captivity variable were directly manipulated could show that. Not only would an experimental study like that pose serious ethical problems, however, it would be virtually impossible to implement with wild elephants. So, understandably, correlational data is all that could be provided in that recent study. I’m not saying that’s a horrible thing – just that we need to evaluate that data with an understanding of its limitations. The findings are certainly not definitive. The senior researcher herself, Georgia Mason, acknowledged the need for further research as well.

Also, note that this study examined only FEMALE elephants (786 zoo females, 1089 “wild” African females, and 2905 “wild” Asian females). So, the results should not be generalized to male elephants like Billy. And I put “wild” in quotes because the so-called “wild” elephants were in reserves in Kenya’s Amboseli National Park, and in Myanmar’s Myanma Timber Enterprise. Why’s that? Probably because there are hardly any truly wild elephants left on the planet. Most are in parks, reserves, camps, and other “protected” areas at this point.

If you actually read Georgia Mason's elephant longevity study in Science, you will see that she is NOT advocating for closure of elephant exhibits in zoos. On the contrary! In her interview with NPR (Dec. 15, 2008), she stated, "It's clear that some animals are living decent, long lives. And other animals are dying really early. And I think it's now really important to work out WHY some zoos are successful and others aren't." That's the issue of causation she is getting at, and it’s an important question. Well, how are zoos and researchers supposed to work this out and help their elephants live normal long lives, if their elephant programs are being closed down? Clearly, that was not the intention of the study or the researchers. I think it's interesting that in just about every other field related to zoology or biology progress is freely permitted to continue, but when it comes to elephant husbandry, some people don't even want to give zoos (or researchers) the chance to make any progress. I find that very unfortunate and unfair.

[Kate Woodviolet]

A few simple points: I have never sent an abusive email to anyone at the Zoo, nor would I. It is a great error to assume that everyone who opposes the elephant exhibit is exactly the same. Frankly, it's a great error to assume that everyone who believes in animal rights is cut from the same cloth. But it's an error people who have a hostility to the concept of animal rights make all the time.

That being said, my first comment was a perfectly reasonable expression of my, and many others' opinion. Having subsequently been attacked and called ignorant, and having been told that there is some mystical reason why animals should be inappropriately caged for human amusement require a response. Any thinking person will respond if they are called ignorant simply because you don't like the fact that I have done my research and I have arrived at my opinions honestly.

Meghann, I asked a perfectly legitimate question. HOW does confining Billy in 3.6 acres achieve conservation.? His sperm could be banked and his life doesn't have to be wasted in a too-small enclosure. I have no doubt that zoos return some animals to the wild, but I have yet to hear of a zoo returning an elephant to the wild. A sanctuary yes, but not a zoo.

Second, returning non-mammals to the wild is much easier than returning mammals, especially such intelligent mammals as elephants. Scientists go to great lengths to keep birds from imprinting on them so they CAN be returned to the wild (as do wildlife rehabilitators). But you can't feed an elephant with a mother elephant-shaped puppet to keep it from imprinting on you. At the Sheldrick Sanctuary they are able to return some elephants to the wild, on the elephants' own terms, but those elephants are taught from young babyhood to socialize with many other babies of their own age, and they're out daily in the environment to which they will hopefully eventually return.

If you seriously believe that any calf of Billy's is going back into the wild from Griffith Park then you are...very likely incorrect.

But if this future calf does make it maybe he can play with the Ringling elephants...

It might also be pertinent to consider that since the seventies the L.A. Zoo has seen the premature deaths of thirteen elephants, including one who collapsed, was seen and ignored by a staff member, and not attended to until it was too late to save her.

[Carole Raphaelle Davis]

Hanna exploits animals for profit. His relationship to animals is evident. He doesn't respect them and you can tell by the way he handles them. It's master over animal and his conscienceless opinion about elephants in zoos should surprise no one.

Elephants do not belong in exhibits any more than humans do. They are not able to thrive confined to zoo exhibits and they deserve to be as far away as possible from the jerks who confine them and dominate their lives for profit.

Zoos are like hairy, scaly sideshows for idiots and like prisons for animals. I'd get a big kick out of seeing Hanna in an aquarium just big enough for him to almost stretch his legs out, with an inch of air. It would be an experience that would increase his capacity for empathy. Or maybe not.

[Pam Holt]

Billy is all alone (elephants are social animals with close family ties), and neurotically bobs his head up and down constantly because his needs aren’t being met. Elephants don't live in zoos- they die in zoos, always way before their time. Their lives are shortened, many times, because they are crippled with joint and foot problems due to lack of adequate space. This is not a compassionate lesson we are teaching children- that it's OK to keep this majestic animal confined inhumanely for our selfish reasons. Zoos could never provide enough space for these animals, but sanctuaries with hundreds of acres can. Please vote NO for the sake of our lone surviving elephant Billy that has been held prisoner for 20 years today. PLEASE vote NO to help encourage those in power to finally send Billy to sanctuary where he deserves to be! Elephants need space and we can't give them nearly enough in a zoo. They roam up to 30 miles a day in the wild! Thank you!

[Elaine]

I wanted to answer the survey, but I don't like how the survey is worded. SOME zoos, I believe, have substantially better living conditions for elephants. It appears, from what I've read, that perhaps the LA zoo isn't one of them and so Billy shouldn't have to live there. But to say ALL zoos are unfit places for an elephant might be taking it a bit far. the proposed new sanctuary might be too expensive for LA -- I don't know -- so perhaps the question should be: should Billy go to a sanctuary OR to a zoo with noticably better conditions. If the survey had been worded that way, I'd have voted for that.

[Jane Wishon]

I wish that people on both sides of the debate would step back a moment and actually research the proposed project at the LA Zoo -- after all, it's only that one project that we're talking about here, isn't it? (Or are we vindicating/crucifying all zoos at one time?)

The LA Zoo is not the run of the mill zoo. So general studies about zoos don’t really apply.

Yes, in best case scenarios, we’d all love to see wild animals stay in the wild. Unfortunately, Asian Elephants (like “Billy”) are CRITICALLY ENDANGERED in the wild due to habitat loss and poaching (in other words, humans).

Shall we allow Asian Elephants to be hunted to extinction? Or do we act now to protect them (like the California Condor?)

Animal sanctuaries are wonderful places to house animals. They do not provide round the clock supervision and on-staff veterinarians. Nor do they allow for the breeding of animals, even critically endangered species.

Billy is genetically important to the world population of Asian Elephants. The proposed LA project will allow for a small herd of elephants to breed in a space that is larger than the Asian Elephant enclosure at San Diego Wild Animal Park where a herd of 9 elephants thrive and breed.

Look at the proposed exhibit (http://www.billyshome.com/images/Plan2.jpg).
Then go to the fact sheet that supports the exhibit (http://www.billyshome.com/documents/ElephantFactsQandA.pdf)
And, read for yourself what Last Chance for Animals is saying against the exhibit (http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_elephant_zoo.htm)

THEN, you’ll have most of the information to make an informed decision. Don’t take a stand based on partial information.
As William Majors, a PETA member, wrote on this blog on January 7, “The more I found out about the new exhibit and about the dedication of the Zoo staff in making it as natural a home as possible for elephants, the more I have come to be totally in favor of having the Pachyderm Forest completed.”
I couldn’t agree more!

[Emily I]

I think many people weigh in on the issue of elephants in zoos based solely on emotional responses, which in most cases are based on false and incomplete information. For instance, research that claimed elephants live shorter lives in captivity has been challenged as having flawed methods, and new research with more scientifically valid methods that shows that elephants actually live the same lifespans in captivity as in the wild. It’s easier for animal rights organizations to simply tug at heart strings using incomplete information, rather that try to present real factual basis for their claims. Unfortunately for the elephants, their methods succeed in furthering their agendas to simply close zoos. If they really cared about elephants, PETA’s immense wealth (and BOY do they have money) would be spent on field conservation and improving economics and education in countries in elephants’ home ranges. Since it isn’t, it seems unlikely that their real concern is for the elephants. If animal rights groups truly cared about elephants, they wouldn’t push to have elephants go to a sanctuary – which is really not in any way a better alternative than a zoo – Zoos are under governmental regulations, and undergo strict accreditation by private governing bodies. Sanctuaries do not. Zoos have on site veterinary care. Many sanctuaries do not. Zoos employees have vast educational backgrounds and experience in exotic animal care. Sanctuaries, with their low budgets, do not necessarily have any of this. Zoos’ use a big picture approach to link their onsite work to work around the country and in animals’ home countries in order to improve conditions for animals both in captivity and in the wild. So what makes a sanctuary more advantageous to a zoo, besides its nice sounding name? There are some good sanctuaries out there, just as there are good zoo facilities for elephants, but we need to examine how any facility is ultimately run and regulated, regardless of its name. As for me, I dismiss the groups that claim to be looking out for “animal rights.” I want a group that looks at animal welfare instead, and in a holistic manner. I will put my support behind any organization that is looking in increase public knowledge, is participating in field research, and sharing knowledge with colleagues. An underfunded, under-staffed private ranch with a pretty name certainly isn’t going to do that.

[Charlie Morey]

Dear Sanctuary People,

If you'd like to have a sanctuary for Indian elephants, why don't you open one? I believe you should have one, but not at the expense of the Los Angeles Zoo's existing program.

At the City Council meetings I heard several times from you folks that there are 100-acre parcels available in the San Fernando Valley (with no problem and at reasonable prices, according to the statements given).

Set the example. Be positive (the most important element lacking in your current campaign, in my opinion).

Why must another program (and Billy) suffer so you can have your way? Invest your time, emotions and money in your beliefs (rather than wasting those precious resources attacking the beliefs of others). Demonstrate your "right way" while the zoo demonstrates theirs, and the let's see if indeed there is a "winner" or just two good ways of caring for elephants.

But please, leave poor Billy alone. (Don't you know any other Indian elephants?) Your delay of the zoo's new Pachyderm Forest only makes his wait longer for the best zoo enclosure in the country and a herd of his own.

[mataleao]

Generally, I am in support of sanctuaries, but in this case specifically, I am not for 2 reasons:

1) Billy is a bull (male) and as such, as soon as he is taken to the sanctuary the first order of business will be to CASTRATE him, because of naturally inherent aggression issues with viral males.

2) Billy is one of the very few bulls in captivity that is from pure, wild genealogy, meaning he was born on the wild from parents that were wild. This is rare for captive elephants for future breeding purposes.

If Billy is sent to a sanctuary his pure bloodline will stop right there. Kinda sad if you ask me.

[Animal Lover]

Follow the $$!!!
Who is going to benefit from this sanctuary? Would BET big money that they have a "friend" on the Council.

Come one - what do you expect from such a Council. They think they're experts on everything, listen to idiot celebrities, and are in the pockets of the Animal Rights! This is nothing more than a ploy to separate all humans from the rest of the animal population. Teach kids that animals don't belong with people! What's next, your pet? Oh YEAH - they're already working on that!!!!

Come on - Council - put your pants back on and start thinking with your REAL brain!

[Cas]

I don't understand why the city council is spending so much time working for these animal right special interests - they do not represent their constituency, they are not helping Angelenos (rather they are trying to take away something) - they are just loud. Why are Cardena and the others giving them so much of their time?

[Animal Lover]

Someone want to explain just HOW Bob Barker has the credentials for ANYthing? HECK - he's even been accused of not doing his own job properly - sexual harrasment?????
DUH - -
and you question Jack Hanna? Besides that - WHERE did you get your education?????

[Tim J]

Zoos are nothing but prisons for animals. Sentient animals do not belong in a zoo.

[NT]

I cannot believe that in this, the 21st century, people still believe that taking animals from the wild and display them like shoes or furniture is ethical or acceptable. You try to be separated from your family and live the rest of your life in a department store window.
Human selfishness knows no bounds.

[Lauren]

Free Billy! Elephants are abused and forgotten about enough. Send him to the Sanctuary where he will get the care he needs. Of course the zoo is going to make it "look" and "sound" like he's going to receive the best care EVER, but over time, it's going to come back to this question. The only reason they "care" is because he's receiving attention. FREE BILLY! He deserves to be in a Sanctuary!

[Atia]

I have been very disappointed in Jack Hanna lately; it seems that his love for animals is very selective and most of all, it must be profitable. He lugs animals to TV shows where they each will be seen for a mere few seconds, then they spend the rest of the time in cages being schlepped to and fro.

Yes, it is interesting to the general public to see unusual animals, but at what expense?

If Mr. Hanna really cared about elephants, they would not be confined in areas that are too small for them. Billy needs to go where he can roam and spend ttime with other elephants - he will live a much longer and healthier life!

And I quite understand that zoo visitors will be attracted by Billy, but is this about Billy's well-being or making money for the Zoo?

[Anne]

Jack Hanna is nothing more than a professional wildlife pimp who has made a career out of keeping animals confined and dragging them along with him on the talk-show circuit. He is nothing more than an animal abuser, posing as an advocate. Last year he gave the keynote address for the Pennsylvania Society for Biomedical Research. This pimp is no friends of the animals. He only makes me miss Steve Irwin even more.

[Penny]

I wonder if those that take the stand that the wild is a dangerous place while the zoo is 'safe" with veterinary care 24/7 would possibly feel the same if that was applied to people. The world is a dangerous place with predators that will take you out, illness that will leave you injured and sick and of course there is always the need to find food. Better to be in the prison system where you can be fed three times a day, medical care is but a steel barred door away and you don't want for anything.
Kind of ridiculous, if you think about it.
Animals should be in the wild, not subjected to "training", concrete and steel, living in barren idle loneliness for decades. Come on,now, we know too much to pretend that this is a viable alternative.

[Amy Rafferty]

I've only had time to read some of these comments. I see that many of you feel that Billy should be happy because he is loved and well taken care of. What you don't understand is that he is in JAIL. How would you like to live the rest of your days in your house? Sure, you'll be well fed, receive medical care and be tended to by a strange species. However, you will have no visitors of your own kind. No social bonds. No friends. No fun. No talking to someone who can understand you. No interaction with human beings at all. And, you may live longer that you would in the real world! Wouldn't you all rather be free and risk the chance of an early death? This is why elephants (amoungst other animals) should not be held captive for any reason unless it's in a sanctuary where the best interest of the animal is paramount, and they have interaction with their own species if they are social animals (like elephants). Animals were not put on earth to entertain us. This is why zoos should be illegal. Only regulated endangered species programs and sanctuaries should exist with strict public visitor policies. Otherwise, you all go stand in a clear box or wired cage and have people gawk at you all day and see how you like it. I bet you wouldn't last a week. Imagine living like that for 50 years.

[Pamela Carley]

Please send Billy to Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. This beautiful, intelligent animal is obviously so stressed and sick. He is telling you in his facial expression - pleading, for someone to rescue him. If you doubt what I say, go to the ES website and compare Billy's expression to that of the residents - you will be horrified that you didn't notice it immediately. Is there a fund for Billy? Please post or email ASAP.

Thanks,
Pam Carley

[xMiguelx]

It's really insane to try to say that an elephant "should be kept" in solitary confinement, just so the public can view them (elephants). Like most humans, animals can feel and experience fear, depression, cruelty, and they know when they're left alone or neglected.
The question also is, would you say that a person should be put in jail so people could learn about someone?
The answer to both questions is no. It's inhumane, and violates the rights of animals and humans.
Jack Hanna has also been exploiting animals for years. The absurd amount of money he brings in is sickening.
I can personally say that I've seen the places that animals are sent to when out of zoo's. They are friendly, and all of the animals are paid attention to, along with close care, and being with other animals, that they're able to bond with (as well as caring people).
There are so many other ways to learn about animals today through videos, the internet, books, or other countless ways.
L.A. has better things to be concerned about.

[Respecter of animals]

Selfish fools. Quit thinking about how much of a monetary DRAW the Elephants are for a zoo and start thinking about the Elephants.
I'm QUITE sure any Ele would prefer a sanctuary where they could hide when they want and come out when they choose. Zoos keep animals on display- the animals have nowhere to hide and inadequate space for walking and other natural behaviours.
Just let them BE, for crying out loud. If your kids want to learn about Elephants ACTUAL behaviour, turn on National Geographic or tell them to pick up a book, for cripes sake.

[annabelle roth]

At a time when the city is so in need of money, I don't understand why $42 million dollars would be spent on an elephant exhibit. It's no wonder LA is so in debt, bad financial management. Not to mention from all the research I've read that says elephants do not do well in captivity. These council members who want this seem to be wanting what they had as youth, rather than coming to the present and evolving with the times. How sad for Billy, how sad for all of us who see clearly what a waste and crime this is against a creature who deserves to be with others of his kind, which is their natural state. The poor thing must be so tormented, how can these council people not feel this? It makes me question the intelligence and souls of our LA Council.

[live-free]

On the face of it, it sounds good that this elephant would be able to breed if left in the zoo facility. But the fact remains that a wild animal is really only likely to be happy and healthy living in their natural habitat, free to roam. It seems to me we're fooling ourselves by thinking zoo habitats or any other artificial one can really offer a place to thrive. So Billy breeds and then what? His offspring are sold to other zoos? And we tell ourselves this is saving the species while we ignore the habitat loss in Africa and Asia? Coop up far-ranging animals like these for life, their very long lives, and tell ourselves this is essential to helping them? Zoo breeding programs are a bit suspect in my view--awfully easy to create a great PR spin while essentially keeping animals in various degrees of imprisonment. You say thius elephant's family was slaughtered--does the LA Zoo actually do anything to stop poaching or does the fact that they purchase elephants help create a market. Any intelligent animal longs for freedom--see the case of Ken Allen at the San Diego zoo--even when the consequences are punishing.

[margaret bunce]

I was surprised to see how many in favor of keeping Billly at the zoo. I almost voted for the zoo option until I read an article from a woman who has been working with stricltly elephants her entire life. Jack does have some credentials, yes, but in the last decade of his fame and fortune, he only has to walk out on stage and be handed animals to show to audiences. I am sure he isn't cleaning enclosures at this time or doing the dirty work.
This elephant needs companionship. It's proven. To have moved his partner Ruby to the sanctuary and not him was despicable. America needs to get over this need for zoos. To educate people from other countries about willdlife within their borders is what must happen. The people who need educating are the ones that are killing them for illegal trade and parts, ie: China, Asia in general, Africa, etc. Dancing bears in India, elephants, they need alot of help. The ones that humans have in captivity should be prized and prioritized and happy.

[Paul Rathbone]

Please set Billy FREE - send him to a Sanctuary - so he can be happy and live his life with others of his own species, without having to please his keepers or the general public.
It has been commented by some that seeing wild animals stirs somthing deep with our core - seeing animals, such as elephants does stir something deep within us, especially when we see them confined to a pen or yard that is too small, and when we see them displaying unusual neurotic behaviour, such as nodding or swaying, as a result of suffering stress. The stress is due to being confined on his own and kept drugged to keep him pacified so it doesn't look too obvious that he is suffering, to please the crowds, and because he is lonely... as any animal/human would be kept confined to a small area. In the wild he would not walk on concrete, let alone live his life standing/walking on concrete, which causes pain from abscesses and arthritis, beacuse it is an unnatural way to live - no matter what the zoo says...
Please wake up to Bill's plight - set him free so he can be with members of his own species - surely he deserves some sense of fulfilment after all he has given to the zoo, in terms of profits... and to the general public in terms of entertainment... Let him retire, while he can still have time to enjoy what is left of his life - surely he has earned it?!!!

[LYNDA WALKER]

For Billy, and this is what it is about, should feel free to roam in a sanctary. The cost is cheaper, and he will be with other pacyderms. Jack Hanna has no business weighing in on this, unless, he funds 42million for the project!!!

LET BILLY LIVE OUT HIS LIVE WITH OTHERS.
HE DOES NOT NEED TO LIVE IN A ZOO!!!!!

[lee sinclair]

I have been to the Serenghetti and seen herds of elephants in the wild. Where they live the expanse is so great you can almost see the curve of the earth. Anyone who thinks elephants should be in zoos for the entertainment of people or for conservation cannot be trusted to have their best interest at heart for they don't yet comprehend what that best interest is.
Zoos are a business, not a home.

[Sonja Nielsen]

Do what is best for the elephant.. It is that simple. He needs to be with his own kind, he needs natural suroundings and more space... Let the remaining years of his life, be happy and peacful

[Wendy]

Quite honestly, I am disgusted by the fact that people have voted for Billy to remain in the zoo versus having a healthy, happy life in a sanctuary. You voting Yes is telling Billy that he doesn't deserve the life of an elephant and instead is just a piece of merchandise for your viewing purposes. He lives in horrid living quarters and is ALONE! I am on a mission to save this poor defenseless animal and will continue to do so. I hope you will do the same. You who have voted no, thank you and please keep telling friends and family to follow your lead. It is necessary, as the voting poll is leaning towards keeping the abuse alive. Billy deserves to be exactly what he was born to be AN ELEPHANT! Let's help him get there!

[Angie]

I'm a Biologist and some of these comments are shocking: "Zoo animals, like pampered pets, are loved by their handlers and the public alike and treated with the utmost care. No such love exists in the wild." You mean no such love from a different species exists in the wild? Do you think Billy chooses his human companionship over a family of fellow pachyderms? Billy is a highly social (pertaining to his own species), intelligent and family-oriented animal -- individuals will gang up on predators just to protect one of their own. How do you justify equating the wild love of fellow elephants to that of a human who may never intellectually understand the bond they share.

Another comment worth noting: "And in addition to being a safe haven for the animals themselves, zoos provide a priceless educational resource for our children and ourselves. Without the zoo, we'd have to travel to Asia, Africa, South America and other wild spots to view these animals. In the zoo, we get to see them right here in our own city." This is ridiculous. Come on, Charlie, do you really believe this? What's the point of educating people about 'wild'life if we take them out of the wild, make them submit to us through fear tactics, then put them on display as "wild" (which we are not observing them anymore in the wild, we are observing their behavior living under the thumb of confinement and structures WE HAVE built for them -- that's not wild), and having our children turn to us and say: Daddy, can I have one of those? When we domesticate wild creatures, people get these grandiose ideas that they can bring them into their homes and have them as pets. Why do you think the wild animal trade is so prominent? Zoos are partly to blame for this. We can educate our children, just as successfully, with real life videos of wild life in the wild -- where they belong.

Billy may have the best care in the world, the most expensive resources, the best food, the most human love any elephant may experience, but I'll bet if you allow Billy to choose, he would walk straight to a herd and disappear in a forest. Why is everyone so selfish?

This comment section pertaining to Billy is ridiculous. People, think about what you're writing before you publicize your thoughts. The only right thing to do is to send Billy to a place where he can be with his own kind and plenty of room to walk. Elephants need to walk -- for miles -- that's how they stay healthy. Somehow a treadmill doesn't suffice. Shaking my head again...

[J. Church]

Jack Hanna profits greatly from the captive wildlife industry, and publicly supported dove hunting in Ohio. Don't take his word for anything; listen to the people who have successfully helped elephants thrive in a sanctuary environment. Read about how captive elephants suffer from traumatic stress at http://www.elephants.com/joanna/Bradshaw&Lindner_PTSD-rev.pdf.

[Anna Szaszorowska]

Let Billy and his future family live well and prosper and free!

[Jennifer K.]

Of course Jack Hannah wants Billy to go to a zoo. He's in the business of exploiting animals. Elephants have a much shorter life span and a litany of health problems when kept in zoos. They also suffer tremendous psychological distress. Conservation of this species definitely needs to be addressed by ENFORCING stricter laws against poaching, not by causing more damage to the species. Jack Hannah should be ashamed of himself.

[Francene Amari-Faulkner]

Obviously, Jack Hanna doesn't care about the elephant and has made a recommendation based on his own personal political gain in some way. It is shameful that such a celebrity, whom people trust, would "sell out" in a situation such as this where an animals welfare is at stake.

[Nancy Sayre]

Hooray for LMC for providing accurate information.
The suggestion that an IMAX presentation or elephant statues would accomplish the same conservation awareness and commitment as the actual animals is ludicrous. I have notes at meetings that the "animal rights" people who speak nearly all talk about their experiences seeing elephants in the wild. Most of us are not that wealthy, but we are aware that what a CD is to a live concert experience a video or statue is to a living animal. The more senses we engage in the experience of something the more deeply it affects us.
Most Asian elephants in the "wild" are in work camps and if we are to save them we need practical and real solutions. Just as the LA Zoo was able to send a captive bred Sumatran rhino to Sumatra for breeding, they will someday be able to transport elephants to Asia to enrich the genetic pool. But only if these people who would rather see elephants dead than in a zoo are stopped.