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

[bcelefan]

Ron again you have your facts wrong please note Nic is NOT going anywhere. In fact if you really look hard at the website you will see there is possibly ANOTHER MALE elephant heading to PAWS - NED...

This is why I say for each person here to EDUCATE themselves. Nic is NOT going anwhere...... he is staying at PAWS. Please Ron get your info correct.

[China Altman]

The discussion is fascinating. However, let's look at reality right now. The "new" elephant space is pie in the sky until it is built which could be many years from now. Billy is alive right now and the days of his life are as important as the days of the life of any human. Jack Hanna will find many other ways to publicize himself. We don't need to worry about his days. Send Billy to the sanctuary. If the new space materializes there will be plenty of elephants at that time to rescue from circuses, second-rate zoos, and other unsatisfactory places.

[CheckYOURfacts]

bcelefan wrote, "All I ask is that you educate yourselves and that means find the info on the AZA and Sanctuary guidelines and then make an informed decision." Right.... I could not agree more.

bcelefan also wrote, "IF you were to read the AZA guidelines and the Sanctuary guidelines you would realize the Sanctuary has much more higher standards." Well, I wish I could say that I agree again, but I can't. I HAVE read them both... and well, there's no comparison.

I actually have a copy of the AZA's "Accreditation Standards and Related Policies" -- it's 64 pages long. I also have a copy of AZA's "Accreditation Questionnaire (Application)" -- it's 25 pages long. And I have a copy of AZA's "Guide to Accreditation of Zoological Parks and Aquariums" -- another 39 pages long. I have read them all over the past several months of this ongoing debate. Believe me, it was tedious but enlightening. But gosh, that's a LOT of pages of guidelines and accreditation procedures given the claim that AZA has looser standards for zoos than the standards sanctuaries have to follow. And if one reads these AZA documents, one will see that AZA standards certainly ARE quite stringent.

In comparison, I also downloaded the "Application for Animal Sanctuary Accreditation" from TAOS (The Assoc. of Sanctuaries), the organization that USED TO accredit sanctuaries -- it's a whopping 4 pages long. And their "Field Inspection Evaluation" is just 3 pages long. Still think the sanctuary accreditation process has been more rigorous than AZA's accreditation process for zoos?

In fact, now TAOS has ceased operation and passed the task of accreditation on to GFAS (Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries). But if you try to access the GFAS accreditation info. on their website, you will see that it's all still in the works as of the date of this post! So, the main sanctuary accrediting association, GFAS, has not finished its guidelines and accreditation procedures. Just look at their website: "Standards are nearing completion and will be posted here." http://sanctuaryfederation.org/standards.php. So, I don't know what bcelefan is talking about when he/she said that sanctuaries are following higher standards than those put forth by AZA. Frankly, I don't even know which sanctuary standards he/she is referring to... because they are not even available yet from GFAS.

AZA standards are available through AZA. And hopefully, the GFAS standards will be available soon through GFAS... WHEN THEY GET THEM DONE! In the meanwhile, people should read the AZA documents I mentioned above for themselves and see how incredibly stringent they are. The AZA accreditation process takes a LONG time and requires a great deal of commitment on the part of zoos. Only the top institutions in the country, including the L.A. Zoo, can meet those standards and get accreditation. And each accredited zoo has to go through a review process over and over again, every few years! It's a lengthy, costly process and a very rigorous one. Anyone who wants to see that for themselves should just get the documents I noted above and read them! I got through them all in a few hours. It's really not so bad and even kind of interesting.

One last thought. It's pretty sad that this debate has become all about one-upsmanship between zoos and sanctuaries. That's really how it looks. Which has higher standards -- sanctuaries or zoos? Which offers better care -- sanctuaries or zoos? Which provides a more naturalistic environment -- sanctuaries or zoos? Sanctuaries have their place just as zoos have their place. Why can't we all just accept that and move on? There will always be differences of opinion on this because many view it as an ethical issue. But I do think both zoos and sanctuaries serve important purposes. Let's just leave it at that and let sanctuaries do their thing, and zoos can do the same. If you don't like to support zoos, go to sanctuaries instead. If vice versa, go to zoos instead. Let's end this bickering.

[gamer]

Just needed to correct a previous bit of info. posted by bcelefan -- the proposed Pachyderm Forest is 6 acres total (3.6 will be roaming area for elephants), and the total proposed cost is $42 mil. By the way, the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assoc. (the Zoo’s non-profit, non-city arm) has stepped up and is going to pay $1.2 mil per year for the next 20 years or so to cover the project's debt.

Furthermore, this money is ALREADY ZOO MONEY. It always has been since the day L.A. citizens voted to pass two bond measures (CC and A2) which gave this money to the L.A. Zoo specifically... for Zoo improvements. In 1998, 79% of Los Angeles voters approved Proposition CC, a $47.6-million bond measure to improve the zoo. That is, the money was given specifically FOR L.A. Zoo improvements. So, look, if the money is not used for the new elephant habitat, it WILL be used for something else AT THE L.A. ZOO. This is not money that can be used to buy books for school kids, or feed the homeless, or fund the Children’s Museum. It is Zoo money. That’s the bottom line. Seems to me like a bunch of control-freaky Council Members and anti-zoo activists want to tell the L.A. Zoo what to do with THEIR own funds. I don’t agree with that. I think the Zoo is the best informed on what improvements are needed at their own facility. Anyone who wants to read about Prop. CC can do so at: http://www.lacity.org/clk/election/Archives/Archives1998/vip/ccbaldig.htm .

Hope this helps shed some light on the funding issue for anyone who was wondering about it.

[Zoo Worker]

It always cracks me up how the vast majority of people who attack zoos are the ones who have the least amount of knowledge about the situation than anyone else. To start before people flap their mouths they should take the time to do a bit of research. I lost track of how many comments I noticed that had incorrect basic info about elephants. Thank you to those who took the time to correct them. As a side note I noticed a few people trying to use the argument how far elephants roam or can roam in a day and since they can never have that much space in captivity they should not be there. I would like to point out that the only reasons some elephants, no matter the species, roam that far is they are required to to find food, water and mates. If elephants in the wild had a constant food and water supply within a smaller space you better believe they would not roam as far. Anyway, that is beside the point.

When push comes to shove the direction that the LA Zoo is heading in is the correct one. Zoos have evolved over the years from horrid concrete and steel cages to lush wide open exhibits with grass, plants, pools, streams and even waterfalls. Is the exhibit he is in right now the best for him? Of course no, and that is why the zoo is constructing something that will be far better and will allow him more social time with other elephants than he would get in a sanctuary. Do zoos still have a ton of evolving to do, of course… and that is coming from someone who works in one (not LA). But they are making huge strides on a daily basis and I think if people look under the skin and past what they see when they visit they will see how much zoos really do in lines of conservation and education. Heck our zoo alone which is non-profit donates over half a million each year to conservation programs around the world.

Nonetheless I believe the zoo is on the correct path and is doing not only what is best for them, but what is best for their animals.

In regards to Jack Hanna, he might be a goof but he is good at what he does. People also have to understand, he is nothing more than a figure-head and not a keeper. Rather than use random keepers/experts that no one knows the Columbus Zoo and other zoos around the US and the world use him as someone to talk through. He has the ability to draw in a crowd, a crowd that includes wide-eyed kids who love animals and people and companies who are worth billions whom are looking to donate money. He does nothing more than travel around the world and talk and if anyone looks into the history of the Columbus Zoo alone, they will see that he is beyond excellent in what he does. Is he in it for the money, you better believe it, but that money does not go to him, it goes to zoos and conservation programs. To the person who tried to argue that he was using the money for himself and has a large cabin in Montana. The cabin is 760 sq ft… and I am not sure that I need to tell anyone how small that really is. If you do not believe me in its size you can look it up online, it even shows the layout. Nonetheless his knowledge might not be extensive when it comes to animals but he is in it 100% for conservation and education. Also I would like to point out that most of the animals you see him on tv with are from local zoos, facilities and rescue groups. Some are driven from the zoo he works at but the vast majority are local.

Either way…. Good job LA… keep up the good work.

[Daisy]

Please dont let the word Sanctuary fool you. It sounds wonderful but it will not provide the best home for Billy the elephant. Billy will be alone or castrated at the sanctuary because the elephants are not allowed to breed. This is counterproductive for the conservation of the Asian Elephant species. At the new Pachiderm forrest exhibit, he will be able to interact with other elephants and live a normal, wonderful life. Elephants will soon be extinct if it not be for zoos. At the zoo, Billy will be cared for by professionals who know animals and there behavior, and most of all, know and love Billy. Please keep him at home, at the LA Zoo, where he belongs!

[Responding]

The new Pachyderm Forest is not just "pie in the sky". It's already 30% completed! Two years ago the City Council gave the L.A. Zoo the go-ahead to build. So, they started building. This project has already been underway. It's this stupid debate lead by one measely Council Member who probably has his sights set on running for higher office that has stopped it. The argument is really politically driven, I'm sure.

Billy would BE in his new larger Pachyderm Forest by now if this whole debate had not started all over again and City Council had not put the project on hold... yet again. If you want progress and you want Billy to get into a larger exhibit pronto, Pachyderm Forest needs to get going now... and get done!

[susana yingling]

the condition of most zoo creatures, especially elephants, is deplorable. we should not consider ourselves as humans to be considered to be superior simply because we are able to overcome them. stop this senseless abuse NOW.

[Dean L.]

Unless we act now, Asian elephants could soon go extinct.

They are listed as endangered on the World Conservation Union's (IUCN's) Red List of Threatened Animals, their populations have decreased by 85 percent because of human-elephant conflict and habitat loss.

Futhermore, Wild elephants only survive in a few national parks with limited genetic interchange.

If we want to protect the future of Asian elephants a comprehensive breeding program needs to occur.

Who's going to do that? Animal Rights Activist...I think not...and it isn't going to happen at sactuaries either.

It's the modern zoo that is most capable of achieving that task. And the LAZoo is trying to support that with the Pachyderm Forest exhibit. They should be complimented, not ridiculed.

Billy is a healthy elephant and well taken care of. To say the people that work there are doing it for the money or selfishness is shameful.

[AnimalWrangler]

Holly, honey... I've worked with animals for TV and film, and even in a couple of zoo settings and one sanctuary. I hear your passion and love of animals in your post, and I want you to know that those animals Jack and other animal educators handle are gently introduced to the situation. Public animal demos sometimes involve animals born in zoos that are used for public education purposes. When training is required to help them become accustomed to public demonstrations, only positive reinforcement is used -- never punishment. I just want you to know that I personally love animals, and that's why I work with them as a trainer. I know some of the folks Jack has worked with and they are some of the top professionals in the field. They know and love animals too.

Anyway, please don't think that when you see someone like Jack on TV showing an animal, that it is really traumatic for them. Animals that don't respond well to public demos are not used.

We only use animals we have worked with for a while, know how they will respond, and have gently introduced them to the situation. I would not personally use any animal for a demo that showed signs of stress under those conditions. That would not be right. Plus the animal would eventually learn to avoid the situation. There really would be no point in trying to work with them under those conditions. Believe me -- animals have to "want" to work with you. And they only will if you make it a positive experience for them. The animals Jack works with are no different.

[Serena Orrego]

PUT HIM IN A SANCTUARY. If people want to see animals...they should go to THEIR habitat and obey THEIR rules. It's better for the animal and it's a hell of a lot more fun for the spectator as well! Say no to cages!

[vettech4eles]

Logiclicker and lBrook,
You have fallen for the myth and part of the defense that zoos use to discredit people who say that elephants fair better in sanctuaries. people keep repeating over and over "they are not the experts, they are just extemists, they dont know anything about elesphant, etc." yet this is absolutely not true. though yes, a portion of the people who are campainging for Billy ae juat well-intentioned animal lovers and their credentials stop there...I urge you to do more research. Joyce Pool is regarded as one of, of not THE top elephant expert int he world. She has studied and worked one on one with elephants for over 30 yrs. She is a scientist and a researcher, and she beleives that elepahnts don't belong in zoos. Mel Richardson is a Veterinarian who has worked hands on with elephants for much of his professional career, he says elephants dont belong in zoos. The list goes on and on ranging from wildlife biologists, vets, ZOO DIRECTORS, researchers, animal behaviorists, conservationists, etc. Do you not find it strange that ALL of the "experts" that work within the zoo industry want to keep elephants there, yet they discredit all of the experts who have worked with elephants just as long if not much longer who claim that they dont belong in zoos. I bet you if Joyce Pool suddenly advocated elephants in zoos, the zoo community would now call upon her for statements (as they did jack hannah) as one of their "experts" . Right now, they pretend she doesnt exist because they know it will disolve their claim that none of the experts dispute them, and they are banking ont he public just taking their word for it (like you have) rather than doing your own research. please humor me (although i have a feeling you wont) and look up these people, and then decide if all of the "experts" agree that elephants, including Billy, do better at zoos. : Gay bradshaw, les Schobert, Daphne Sheldrick, Ros Clubb, The Humane Society of the United States, Joyce Pool, and dont forget the directors of the san fransisco, Atlanta, bronx, Alaska, chicago, detroit and central park zoos, who;'ve realized elephants dont do well in zoos and have either relocated their eles to sanctuaires, or decided to close down the exibit after the current ones pass away, Against threats from the AZA if they did. sounds like the zoo world cant even make up their minds or agree. If you honestly beleive that they only people who agree that elephants do not belong in zoos are some missinformed animal rights activists, then you have been dooped.
byt he way, I also am one of the people who thinks...scratch that...KNOWS that elephants dont belong in zoos, and I am a licensed veterinary technician who has worked with and studied elephants for the past 3 years. I worked with them in Thailand, both captive and wild, and I have done over 20 behavior observations of elephants in north american zoos, and I am currently working towards a doctorate in Wildlife Biology with an emphasis on conservation. Please do not patronize us anymore, we have science, statistics, and a wealth of information to back up our claims. the problems is...you won't listen.

[parveen paul]

I love the elephant, he/she is ganesh in India the God of auspiciousness, good luck!!

[vettech4eles]

creamydove:
i find it interesting that in the midst of all the claims that people who say elephants dont beliong in zoos are missinformed and should leave it to the "experts", you are the most informed person who has posted on this site yet. You have done your research, and have the facts. You are the zoo's worst enemy. you debunk their claim that we are all just clueless animal extremists. ironically, you have more knowledge of the history of captive elephants int he united states than any of the people i have heard so far that insist we are uninformed. thank you for doing your research, and keep up the good work.

[vettech4eles]

lBrook,
now it all makes sense...you havent fallen for the zoo propoganda...you're PART of it. obviously you work for the LA zoo, judging formt he way you worded one of your previouse staements.

Can you please provide, for the readers of this blog (the public) one peice of proof, evidence, etc that outlines how animal activists tried to make you stop conserving condors.

unlike the breeding brogram for elephants, the condor breeding program actually was working, and animals were being released intot he wild. because of the san diago and loss angeles zoo, these condors are now still alive. This is NOT happening with elephants, and worse, having elephants in zoos is actually having the opposite effect. now MORE eles are having to be imported becasue the zoo population is not sustaining itself, and EVERY SINGLE FEMALE ELEPHANT IN THE UNITED STATES would have to become pregnant NOW and give birth to a viable calf that survives to adulthood for their to be a positive impact on the captive population. this is impossible, especially given zoo's track record with elephant breeding. It is obviosuen that you love and care about Billy. it is obviouse that you feel very passionate about him staying at the zoo, but it is also obviouse that you are making unsupprted and untrue claims aboutt he people who are asking to have him relocated. please do not over generalize or missinform the public. We have no problem with "conservation efforts" if they are actually working, and the animals are benefiting. however, the ssp for Asian eles has been a bust (even admitted in published sources byt he AZA itself) we are asking that they be given a more natural life and the chance to actually be an elephant, not a display justified by the 'education" and 'conservation" buzzwords.

[vettech4eles]

Also, lBrooks, the humane sociaety oft he United States, one of the groups supporting elephant-free zoos, and therefor one of the groups you are suggesting is anti-conservation and specifically would have stopped the condor project at the zoo if we had let them....donated thousands of dollars to the california condor breed and release program and publicly stated their support of it. the fact that an organization that is this vested in animal welfare and conservation would take such a stance on having Billy relocated should speak volumes to you. please do some researcha nd choose your words more carefully before you speak, as you are obviously makeing blanket staements and creating things out of thin air to suppport your case. no one was standing int he way of your condor project nb/c the condor project had merrit, and was working. breeding elephant in zoos does not, and is not.

[Natalie Spear]

You are all wrong those poor animal or any animals don't belong in any zoo. They should be free to roam and be animals. Not conditioned to our preferences. What would happen if animals were the dominate species and they had us confined in a zoo? I don't think we would like it. They are social animals and need to be among their kind to learn and feel they belong. I just wish we stop thinking we are the only species that deserve to exist and that we need to control everything arounds us...Just a thought!!!!!

[Nanette]

Um, I wouldn't place too much value on what Jack Hannah says. This is the same man who preforms at Seaworld thinking that it's ok to imprison whales and dolphins, subject them to loud blaring music, for the sake of " education". Jack is an opportunist and a money maker not a true good steward of this earth or it's creatures.

[j jpohnson]

This survey seems very flawed, It should be removed;
Miss information in many posts.
Loaded votes.
one vote per person would be more acceptable

[plato]

Let's take away the emotionally laden jargon.
The animal rights folks state that:
1) We should save money and not spend so much to care for elephants in zoos.
2) We should send these elephants to a place which is cheaper and larger but provides less care.
So, essentially they would be in support of taking a pet dog out of the apartment where it is loved and lives with its owner and releasing it to an empty lot with no real care.
I prefer the zoo solution of committing to caring for animals by providing full veterinary care, experienced staff and a state of the art habitat.
I guess the animal rights folks just don't think spending money to care for animals is important.

[cas]

If we follow the money - this is how it probably goes:
1) Animal rights organizations make a big deal & get a lot of publicity to put pressure on a zoo to send its elephant to one of 2 "pet" sanctuaries
2) The publicity stimulates donations from well meaning people to "help" the elephant.
3) The zoo is bullied into giving up the elephant and it goes to Howenwald/PAWS along with the thousands of dollars in donated money.
4) PAWS/Howenwald then send part of the money to fund animal rights organizations.

This is particularly disturbing when you realize that zoos are public institutions that do not have owners who realize a profit. But PAWS & Howenwald are private organizations run by private individuals. PAWS and Howenwald do not give back to the community in any way and are not subject to public oversight - convenient.

[Frank Ca]

The Los Angeles Zoo's new elephant exhibit would have been completed 2 years ago if animal rights groups hadn't sought every way to stop it. So - Billy continues to be alone and in a relatively small enclosure because the animal rights activists thought it was more important to win their fight against zoos than to allow the Los Angeles Zoo to provide him with state-of-the-art care.
Makes you wonder who really cares about the elephants doesn't it.

[Mel42]

I remember when the San Diego Zoo was trying to rescue a group of elephants in Africa a couple of years ago. Not only did the animal rights groups like PETA and Elephant Alliance do everything they could to stop it (and I mean everything like harassing people at the Zoo, threatening their kids, trashing the Zoo etc.) but they stated publicly that they would rather see the elephants dead than in a zoo.
Let's face it - these people don't really care about animals.

[j Johnson]

All I can say is I remember Clara with her very sore feet;

ostiomyalitis is very very painful and there is no cure; even in humans other than amputation --personal real life knowledge-

[Ron Hitchcock]

Two comments copied from the PAWS website:

Nicholas and Gypsy remain at the facility while a search for a new home was conducted. There were no reputable facilities that were willing to take Nicholas.

71 (African Elephant)

IMPORANT NOTE: 71, one of PAWS’ cherished African elephants, peacefully passed away recently. Her PAWS family was with her. She was 26 years old.

[Jason Bret]

WOW! so many opinons, so few facts!

Someone said to look at Billie's feet. I did today. Even brought my binocs. Seemed ok to me. Maybe that's because he doesn't spend his time on concrete...hasn't for the last ten years I think.

The ele's at PAWS spend 18 hours a day in their barns...concrete floors.

Let's get the Pacyderm forest built already! How many times are we going to let a few activists who think they can know what an ele thinks put a stick in the spokes?

And for those of you who think they can tell Billie's unhappy because of the picture through the chains, take a look at the laughing Billie on the LA Zoo's website.

[bcelefan]

What I find very interesting is the poll...... this article is dated 6 Jan usually by this time 3+ some days later the poll would be fading away with little or NO action. Yet this poll is just zooming along here are some stats that I have compiled just in the last two hours.
9:56 pm PST YES had 28649 votes at
9:58 pm PST Yes - 28773 at
9:59 pm PST Yes - 28822 lets move ahead
10:10 pm PST yes 29543 votes
10:53 pm PST yes 32129 votes
10:56 pm PST Yes 36036 vots .... in two hours the Yes votes have increased by 7,300 votes. Well for those of you using this poll as your proof. I have to agree there is proof that someone is using software to add approx 60 YES votes per minutes. I wonder who feels so threatened that they must use software to rig a vote and then use the numbers in a blog?? I wonder what the numbers will be tomorrow (Saturday) morning?

[Gabriele Zimmermann]

Billy should have the chance to live in a sanctuary.

[yolanda]

no se ingles pero deseo que la elefanta vaya a un santuario por favor gracias

[Tricia Panitz]

I am amazed at some of the perceptions people have of sanctuaries. The fact that they think that a zoo is superior to a sanctuary demonstrates a high level of ignorance. The Elephant Sanctuary in TN and PAWS in CA provide first class care while meeting elephants' needs in a far better way than a zoo could. The animals in sanctuaries, unlike zoos, chose their own routines and activities, including walking many miles and bathing in ponds and lakes, things they can't do in zoos.

People who think zoos are great because they provide for animals' basic needs in a constrained environment should consider getting themselves into human jails - which also provide security, protection from the outside world as well as basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. But in any jail or zoo situation you can't call your life your own. It's the small matter of controlling your own destiny, something all living creatures want. If animals liked being in zoos, the constraints like cages, chains, moats,etc., wouldn't be necessary.

[Anna Szaszorowska]

I do not agre with Jack Hanna that Billy the elephant should remain at the L.A. Zoo!
No -- it's inhumane to keep elephants in zoos and Billy should go to a sanctuary"

[Anna Szaszorowska]

I do not agree with Jack Hanna that Billy the elephant should remain at the L.A. Zoo!
No -- it's inhumane to keep elephants in zoos and Billy should go to a sanctuary!

[Jess]

Jack Hanna has done some great things in the name of conservation in his lifetime and he certainly knows what he's talking about. But I'm guessing he has an alterior motive here. Elephants don't do well in zoos. Zoos, despite their best efforts, cannot sufficiently replicate the elephant's natural environment. These are huge animals who need room to move about freely. There is no exhibit that has been constructed at a zoo yet (that I know of) that is adequate to ensure their well-being.

Moreover, Billy is the ONLY elephant here! Elephants live and travel in packs; it is inhumane and unnatural to keep this poor creature locked up by himself. Even if he did have an enormous amount of room, forcing him to live there alone is cruel.

There is absolutely no reason Billy should not be sent to a sanctuary. Methinks there's some serious money involved here though.

[Tracy Schuermann]

When I was younger, I use to think that zoos were the greatest. Now that I am older, I cringe at the thought of all those poor innocent animals in the zoos. I don't think it's right at all to be able to go out and legally poach wild animals just to put on display for people to see. It's downright cruel. Wild animals should be just that, wild. They have the right to live and grow in their natural habitats. Nobody has enough money to build a natural habitat for these animals. It should be against the law to trap wild animals to put on display in zoos. I realize that there is no hope left for the animals that area already there. There is no way that those animals could be re released into the wild and survive. Just think of what it would be like if human beings were captured just to be put on display for someone else's entertainment.

[tanya kristine]

Why should an elephant "provide" anything for us? Those that voted yes, do so with no knowledge of an elephants needs. It's not a bad thing; you just don't know. Do some research! We, as humans, owe it to these beings as their original kidnappers to do what's right. Leave them be...let them live out the remainder of, what will be, their shortened lives in peace and in the company of others like their own. That's how YOU would to be treated.

[Jeanne Shelsky]

Elephants are social animals. Often overlooked is the mental state that occurs in confinement. Billy, being in a solitary situation, is denied that interaction with other elephants. Either build a facility that will allow Billy to live in as close to a natural environment as possible with members of his own species or transfer him to a sanctuary. Do it right or don't do it at all.

[jodi levine]

Please let Billy live where he can roam, explore,and stimulate his great mind and body.

[Michael Essi]

Given the choice between freedom or confinement, what do you think Billy would decide? It has been proven, over and over again, that elephant's lives in zoos are drastically shortened.
When you dissect this issue objectively, it all comes down to the motives of people. Zoos are motivated by money. Animal rights organizations are motivated by the well-being of animals. If you have an ounce of intelligence and are able to have an objective point of view, the motive will always give you the answer between right decision and the wrong decision.

[veganvampu]

what a waste of taxpayer's money! Elephants die earlier in zoos than roaming freely. What is it with you people to allow the exhibit?

[Sheila]

A few things:

1) Elephants are HUGE, and therefore need lots and lots of space.
2) Elephant sanctuaries hold more than one elephant, which means the elephants will not be lonely. Simple logic here.
3) Are you all daft? Just because elephants didn't originate in the US does not mean there aren't elephant sanctuaries in the US. Google "Elephant Sanctuary California" and you will find a couple. And to address concerns about poachers and hunters, there are not very many in California as far as I know.

4) Someone pointed out that the money for the LA Zoo Elephant Exhibit is "zoo money". I agree with that statement, and I realize that LA voters (I can't vote; no I am not going to tell you my age, but it's younger than voting age) voted to put this money here,

But can we PLEASE move past all this bureaucracy nonsense and look at the fundamental purpose of this whole situation? We should be HUMANE. Humane as in start treating other humans and other animals with the respect they deserve, and stop messing with nature just for some cheap thrills at the zoo. At this point, the closest thing to nature is an elephant sanctuary, not the zoo.

5) And even if we build this LA Zoo exhibit, Billy will still not have enough space to roam, and he will be ALONE and bored and distressed.

[Lesley]

Recent scientific research shows zoos are hazardous to the health of elephants and they live shorter lives. Billie belongs in an elephant sanctuary such as the one in Tennessee or PAWS, not the LA Zoo, which is a horrific place, one of the worst zoos, in fact. The only reason people support her being there is to profit the zoo and to keep themselves entertained. It has nothing to do with what's best for Billie.

[Aneliese]

Of course Jack Hanna would support this zoo. He exploits animals for the entertainment and amusement of humans. I expect nothing less of him.

[Rob]

I know someone who works for the zoo and the personal care these animals are given is tremendous. The love and care goes beyond what anyone would expect. Leave well enough alone. If there is a danger it is not from the zoo or it's people or it's surroundings. If things need to be done to help out with surroundings for the animals and there is help then let them do what they need to do. Making waves only slows the proceedures to get things going. Keep the elephant where he is used to being.

[jodi levine]

Kate, you must be so tired, all these people stating facts as they see them....my question to all of you who want this L.A. Zoo exhibit. Billy will share 3 1/2 acres, there are 640 acres in 1 mile. I know a square mile - my Dr. tells me I need to walk 2 miles a day. How much does Billy need to walk. If the L.A. zoo can make his enclosure bigger alot bigger - which has been suggested -you would not have this debate. We are not putting down Zoos or the people who run them, just the small space the zoo is giving to Billy. Contact paws, he will have acres to roam in not 1 acre, it really makes a difference to the quality of his life.

[bcelefan]

gamer -thank you for correcting me, BUT that just adds to my point of which I stated above - the proposed Pachyderm Forest is 6 acres total (3.6 will be roaming area for elephants) what is the other 2.4 acres for? Humans? Why? The elephants are the residents 24/7 and should have access to all of or close to the 6 acres. Yes I realize that there is also a barn but surely the barn is not going to be sitting on 2.4 acres? Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Nancy Alexander]

If we listen to the protesters, we should abandon all breeding programs and not try to save any species from extinction because breeding may be difficult with certain species.

When the protesters can assure the rest of us that there is protected land set aside in every country on every continent and can insure the safety and preservation of native species, then we will gladly quit breeding programs. Wouldn't that be a great day?

But getting real, allowing a species to die out because of human over population, the denuding of forest habitat, poaching and several other "human" factors is just irresponsible and stupid. That is not "natural selection" but a man made catastrophe.

And to the "uninformed" out there, accredited zoos contribute not only money but some send their staff to help with the conservation efforts in the field all over the planet.

If we allow the protesters to force Billy from the only home he has known, which animals will be their next target? You can argue a spatial issue with every single zoo animal.

I wonder if these protesters have any "pets" at home? I could argue dogs should live in "packs" and have several acres to run. Cats thrive in colonies and should live outdoors where they can climb and hunt, yet we all keep our cats indoors in the interest of their safety and well being don't we? We could go on and on with every single species we keep as "pets".

Taking Billy from the home he has known since he was 4 yrs old instead of having him enjoy the new, larger improved state of the art space and staying with the people who have cared for him for years is absolutely inhumane.

[Marcia Denison]

Humans should be kept in zoos, the other species left free to enjoy their lives as God intended. Humans are most dangerous of all creatures and do the most harm to habitat and all life. Humans are the only species that kill for the thrill of it. Their bloated minds have them destroy everything as far as the eye can see. Humans are the only animal none understand, requiring closer observation and study. Lock them up instead.

[Suzanne Roy]

If zoos are educational, then the best lesson L.A. zoo could convey is compassion for Billy. This magnificent bull elephant has been reduced to a sad creature who spends his time standing in a tiny zoo yard, neurotically bobbing his head up and down. What is this really teaching people about elephants?

The space that has been cleared for a new elephant exhibit can be used to improve the living conditions for other animals at the zoo, like the giraffes who are confined to a tiny inadequate exhibit.

It's time to let Billy go to the sanctuary before he drops dead like the 15 other elephants that have preceded him at the zoo.

[Rocky]

I noticed the same thing about these elephant sanctuary guidelines. They essentially write their own, and I can't find this sanctuary regulatory group and have not seen it listed as a non-profit organization either. There are apparently 3 of this socalled sanctuaries in the U.S. that keep elephants. One that is run by the HSUS at the Cleveland ranch somewhere in Texas. What's interesting is that it appears to keep only 1 african elephant and the pictures show it in far less space than what the zoo is building. How can they get away with criticizing zoos and not themselves?

[bcelefan]

CheckYOURfacts first I am female, second I am an elephant ADVOCATE, third I have those documents also -and fourth isn’t it exciting TAOS is now part of the GFAS. This will mean improved and better conditions for Sanctuary’s worldwide! This is VERY EXCITING news. Until the GFAS uploads their guidelines this of course means the TAOS guidelines ARE still relevant, and YOU know this. Since this discussion is about Billy let us compare AZA and Sanctuary standards in all that paperwork you and I have:.Make it easer for the reader:
AZA Each elephant is entitled to 400 sq. ft. of personal indoor space.
Sanctuary Each elephant entitled is to 1000 sq. ft of personal indoor space.
AZA First elephant is entitled to 200 sq. yds of space; each additional elephant entitled to 100 sq. yds. of outdoor space
Sanctuary Each elephant entitled is to a minimum of 2 acres or 9,680 sq. yds. of outdoor space
AZA Recommends zoos hold no fewer than 3 as per AZA 2.3. Group Size - 2.3.1.
Sanctuary A group of less than 5 elephants “is not considered a viable social group.”
AZA Elephants may be continuously chained for up to 12 hours out of every 24.
Sanctuary No chaining is permitted.
AZA Permits physical punishment, including striking, poking and jabbing with a metal ankus, and mental punishment by social isolation. Permits the routine use of negative reinforcement.
Sanctuary All forms of physical (striking, hitting) and mental punishment (deprivation, isolation) are prohibited. Negative reinforcement is prohibited.

So as to your comment - I have also read all the guidelines for each and yes there is NO comparison.
These are just a few of the items I thought would be of interest. One last question does the zoo have 24/7 vet care? Who is in charge of the elephants “after hours” this is a question that is NEVER answered by Zoo management.
Yet The Elephant Sanctuary does have 24/7 care and also are you aware of the fact Dr Susan Mikota moved to Hohenwald TN, a few years ago, she is the most knowledgeable and renowned elephant Vet within North America.
Also in case you are unaware The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is also licensed under the USDA and the TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) who has very tough guidelines for The Sanctuary to comply with.
Are you aware the USDA only twice in their history confiscated elephants and each time they were sent to the Sanctuary. They (USDA) must believe in the Sanctuary's high standards regarding care!
There is a number five. As an advocate I am NOT opposed to zoos. As Carol Buckley of The Elephant Sanctuary has stated she cannot take every captive elephant in North America. Do you know how many there are? So where does this leave captive elephants? There are two choices circuses (this is the absolute worst situation) or zoos. As an advocate for elephants I will continue to fight for improved living conditions and that is what I am doing for Billy – Fighting for improved conditions. Oh by the way the Zoo regarding Billy is in non- compliance of the AZA Guidelines why do you not address this issue!
In closing I am going to quote Scott Blais co-founder of The Elephant Sanctuary from a interview on 20/20 - - "Elephants shouldn't be in captivity. That's the bottom line. Even in a 2,700 acre preserve, we're barely touching their needs. This is their space - we are entering their space."