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

[M.M. Renaker]

Yes! Of course I agree with Jack Hanna and all conservationists who understand that Billy is already in a sanctuary, where he is well loved and cared for, and that Zoos are working together as sanctuaries to breed and preserve populations here in the U.S. as a hedge against extinction in the wild.

The LA Zoo already has a state-of-the-art animal care facility and five veterinarians on staff to care for Billy, let them finish the habitat and give him some girlfriends!

[bcelefan]

Ron this is the LAST time I will discuss this with you Nic is NOT leaving PAWS...... in all fairness the statement you posted "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." Is regarding Hawthorn Corporation. John Cuneo owner of Hawthorn refused to relase the last two of his elephants Nicholas and Gypsy. (google the Hawthorn elephants history), NO reputable facility referrs to even Zoos, including YOUR zoo. Even with their SSP they would not step up to the plate and take Nicholas. Many elephant Advocates and activists were writing letters all over Noth America to try and find Nicholas a home. BUT even your zoo would not step up to the plate. WHY? Instead they (zoo) allowed these two elephants to continue to be held in a cold, dark windowless barn longer than necessary. NOW before you post again that PAWS is looking for a home for Nic I think you had better do your homework OR write Pat at PAWS. A new barn is being built for Nic and as soon as Ned (who was confiscated by the USDA) is able to travel from The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, he will join Nic at PAWS. Please do not take ONE line and twist it for those who do NOT know the history of the Hawthorn Elephants to make it seem as PAWS is dumping Nic when in FACT they resuced Nic and are building a new facility for MALE elephants.

[jjonson]

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.

that old news --that facility was hawthorn.
they are now at paws for acouple of years, and a new barn is being built for Nic

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

71 was a dieing starving baby when Pat took her in; they managed to get her better, although she had problems all of her short life.

[dan]

Let Billy stay!!!
Everyone should learn the difference between an "animal rights advocate" as opposed to an "animal welfare advocate". Lots of pontificating here. To learn more, whichever side of the issue you may be on, check-out this easy read;

"Misplaced Compassion: The Animal Rights Movement Exposed" by Ward M. Clark

[CreamyDove]

I fear you are right, bcelefan. Every time about 150 votes come in for the animal advocate point of view ("No"), a certain multiple percentage of that amount quickly is added to the other option ("Yes"). This pattern has all the earmarkings of a software program designed to infiltrate the poll source to rig the vote. Despicable! But not surprising given the tactics historically used by those who, from a powerful vested interest, want to keep poor animals like elephants in slavery to make more money off of them.

[E. Rush]

A great facility for providing a good life to elephants (hey, ask the endargered African elephants if they'd like to take refuge there) is being questioned by ideologues who dislike the word ZOO more than they love these beautiful, intelligent animals. You've got a better, safer place? Endow it and name it whatever word you prefer.

[mario]

Billy deserves to live in the new exhibit at the zoo! And to all the people that believe that he will be alone when the exhibit is built, you're all wrong. The zoo will bring females for billy to breed with and live with.

[CreamyDove]

Thank you, Vettech4eles, for your kind words. I also appreciate your candid and insightful comments on several of the issues affecting elephants in captivity. We are not uninformed. The zoo industry tries to make people think we are uninformec so they won't pay any attention to what we have to say. Then, they invariably try to set themselves up as the "anointed few" who are the only ones capable of commenting on elephant welfare. Of course, that is nonsense. If you have to try to shut down the debate to continue prosecuting your agenda or view, then perhaps it is time to ask yourself if maybe there is something wrong with what you are doing. Clearlly, there are many zoo employees who will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. My question is, how many elephants will have to suffer and die before that happens?

[Nancy F]

To Mel42:
The zoo industry wasn't trying to rescue elephants in Africa a few years ago. A group of orphaned baby elephants could have gone to a couple of parks in Swaziland who were willing to take them and remained in the wild but the parks couldn't pay for them. Those who had control over them required that whoever got them must pay for them. The American zoo industry saw an opprotunity to acquire more elephants for their system and they took selfish advantage of the situation and paid for them and subsequently imported them into he US. What they did was actually illegal. The elephants weren't slated to be culled. They had a place to go, but the zoo industry paid for them for their own self-serving agenda. If they had really been motivated by conservationist feelings, they would have contributed the money to the parks so the elephants could have stayed in the wild. But no! They acted selfishlly to get more slaves for their system. How dare you portray this travesty as a "rescue"!

[Time2Reflect]

A quote from the PAWS website:

"The removal of an individual elephant from familiar surroundings and companions is a highly traumatic experience which can cause physical and psychological problems and, occasionally, death."

Since Billy came to the LA Zoo at age 4 in 1989, it has been his home to this day.

Moving him now is not worth risking his life.

Let him stay in the home he knows.

Let the LA Zoo give him the home they know he deserves.

Please, do it for Billy.

[Mari Shepard]

I'm hoping the City Council won't back out of what they ALREADY AGREED UPON; the new Pachyderm Forest at the L.A. Zoo, which is already 1/3 finished, and if it hadn't been delayed by politics, Billy would already be enjoying his new area.

The zoo is focused on conservation, and Billy is of good breeding stock, which is vital to keeping his species from becoming extinct. It would be a real shame to have to pay to castrate such a magnificent animal and pay to ship him hundreds of miles away to a sanctuary, and then have to pay for enclosures to keep him isolated from the female elephants, and away from people who love him.

If Billy is sent away, he not only loses his 24/7 keeper and veterinary care, he also loses contact with people who have been visiting him for about 20 years. To me, that is not improvement to his quality of life. It's like shipping an active and alert grandparent away from others "for their own good" to live out life isolated in a small nursing home bed... only for Billy, it would be AWAY from the care he now enjoys.

The City Council cites finances as a reason for renegging on their prior approval; but shipping Billy away will be VERY expensive, as will repaying donations and funding specifically earmarked for the Pachyderm Forest. Add to that the waste of monies already spent, cancellation of building contracts, loss of jobs for all involved in the construction, extra cost of completely redoing what has been done specifically for elephants, and loss of revenue from all the folks who come regularly to see Billy the Elephant.

Columbus Zoo's Director Emeritus, Jack Hanna, has visited the zoo and found the new elephant area to be state-of-the-art and offering more acreage per elephant than the famed San Diego Zoo Wild Animal Park. The new area will have ground especially designed for elephants' feet, and will include a mud wallow, waterfall, and bathing pond, in addition to roaming areas, barns, and top-notch care. (some folks argue that elephants in the wild may walk hundreds of miles. But they should realize that elephants in the wild MUST do that in order to find food, water, mates, etc. It isn't a matter of choice.)

Sure, ideally elephants should be free. But as long as men kill them needlessly, we must do something to keep them from extinction. This is the goal of the zoo; to seek the best way to protect each animal, and to educate the public so that hopefully future generations will be able to see and appreciate our wildlife. Zoos have made mistakes in the past, but most have learned from these mistakes and work hard to give the best possible environments for all animals in their care.

To vote against Billy's zoo home is to strike a blow against conservation of all animals, because once the elephants are gone, these groups will find another animal to remove, until all our precious animals are gone.

[for Billy, not for profitting from him]

So Glaza wants to use this as a forum. Fine, as long as it is clear that the comment section and the votes are not reflective of the community. In fact, the votes make no sense at all and appear to be rigged. It isn't possible for the votes to be changing that much....

The bottom line is that the L.A. Zoo wants to try to fit Billy and some unidentified female elephants that will not have enough room for proper "introductions" to each other and so may or may not get along, to breed them, for "our" entertainment and to make money for the zoo into a small space. Traditionally zoos in America have a truly poor record of breeding and L. A. has no clue how to breed, if Billy is a viable stud, how to pay for the costs involved in buying females, paying for medications and food for 4 elephants, dealing with problems when the elephants don't get along, dealing with the issue of once again keeping Billy separate as zoos don't keep males and females together. If they are successful in breeding and the baby doesn't die from herpes or something else, will they keep the "family unit" together? Probably not. Will the elephants even have a concept of what a family unit is? Will the mother kick the baby as has happened elsewhere because the females don't have a clue how to be a mother, perhaps.

Does L.A. have the money to pay for all of this. NO!

Are 3 or 4 acres enough for not just Billy, because the zoo has no intention of just keeping Billy there, but of acquiring at least 3 females, as they have openly stated--NO!

A breeding program is not conservation, we all know that. Propaganda is still propaganda.

Nic's barn at PAWS is completed, they are finishing the fencing for a Bull sanctuary.

If you are so concerned about keeping elephants in LA, then ask your council member to support building the "sanctuary" here in LA, as per Councilman Cardenas' other motion that was put forth.

But I think you would rather keep your tunnel vision about the zoo...

[MissPosh]

Oh, Mari, how many times must we repeat the fact that elephants are not going to be saved from extinction by keeping them incarcerated in zoo yards?! Earth to Mari!! You need to report to the nearest deprogramming center to be healed from this common mythological zoo delusion.
Pleease! Do it for the elephants!

[Virginia Ede]

Just take a moment to walk in someone elses shoes, or in this case, footsteps, and just try and imagine how you, as a soul, would feel if you were given the choice of; either being kept in a place where you couldn't go where you wanted to go, or do what you wanted to do, and being gawked at on a daily basis just cos you were the only one even though the care and veterinary supervision was top notch. OR go to a sanctuary where you may not receive the top notch or ultimate daily example of devotion and care of expensive veterinary observation and care, but you would be FREE to do what comes so naturally.
I know which one I would choose!
Zoos are very important, especially in the study of the life styles and habits of specific animals. They are important when their job is to care for their charges, and then rehabit or repopulate endangered species and areas. This is not an argument about how important their research is, or why animals need to be zoos. It is about this particular animal.
THINK!
JUST TAKE A WALK IN HIS PARTICULAR FOOTSTEPS!
REALLY, IS THIS THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THE ANIMAL, OR FOR THE HUMAN?
WHO WINS HERE? IS IT ABOUT MONEY AND BEING A DRAW CARD FOR THE ZOO?
Animals are not things. They don't deserve to be kept just because you want them as a trophy or display item, nor are they 'things' that can be put on a mantlepiece.
They are living and breathing creatures with souls and character and personality.
They deserve the very best opportunity to live their lives as they should be living. Elephants belong in family units. They have very strong family ties and their memories are long. Even though males species eventually choose to live their lives alone, this guy at least deserves a chance to be a normal elephant.
If the fear is that he can't possibly make it on his own without keepers and vets, then all I can say is let him have that choice.
PEOPLE - WALK A MILE IN HIS FOOTSTEPS AND DETERMINE HOW YOU, AS A SOUL, WOULD FEEL AND HOW YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF!

[Time2Reflect]

There is no "mythological delusion."

Elephants CAN be saved from extinction with the help of modern accredited zoos.

Here's how it's done:

1) Make sure that the institution that wants to exhibit elephants can and will meet their physical, psychological, and social needs (exceed them if possible) and provide them with the very best of care - not just for a day or even a year - for the rest of their lives. [CHECK]

2) Make sure that there is a concerted effort by zoos working together through continued research, review and modification of old management practices, and pooling their resources to ensure that elephants can be maintained in a stable and sustainable captive population. [CHECK]

AFTER assurances of the elephants' welfare...

3) Allow zoo patrons to forge personal connections with elephants and, through having experienced them first-hand, nurture their own appreciation of them. [CHECK]

4) Educate the public about the problems elephants face in their native habitat: why they are disappearing (deforestation, poaching, etc.) and just how quickly they may be gone forever (within the next 50 years). [CHECK]

5) Encourage people to take action by letting them know about conservation efforts for elephants, how zoos contribute to those efforts, and how they - the public - can do the same either through donations, volunteering their time, or joining the cause first-hand in the field. [CHECK]

A simple 5-point plan.

THAT is how zoos contribute to elephant conservation.

THAT is the role elephants play in the fight to save themselves.

THAT is how you get the public to care enough about elephants that they make the effort to ensure they don't disappear altogether.

THAT is how you save elephants from going extinct.

Sometimes, you just need to paint people that picture.

[janeewalker]

BILLY SPEAKS:

I asked an animal communicator to "talk" to Billy to see what he thinks about all of this. This is her response:

Well...Billy the Elephant is a bit of a hunk! I think he is very, very handsome.

I've asked him his opinion and he is a bit mixed in his reviews. He'd LOVE a lot more space to move around in, some interesting things to do. Utilize some of his natural instincts...mostly he'd love a lot more space.

Elephants are not sedentary creatures, and he often feels a need to go for a roam...but where can you roam in such a small area? He says they do give him mental activities to do, and that is good. But REALLY...when you want to get the body moving and do a bit of a work out...a zoo environment is not the thing.

On the other hand...he would miss his people. He is quite fond of a few people that visit him and take care of him...there are some he could do without. Apparently not all Zoo Keepers love animals....or there is just some reason that Billy annoys them. Billy seems to think it's because he was blessed with quite a good bit of charisma, and that just sets some people off. Oh, well, that's there bag, he says.

Billy says he is quite young really, as elephants go. And personally he feels that he can't really exist indefinately in a zoo environment...it's not so bad now. But what happens when he is a HUGE bull elephant, and as cranky as hell? He is not mentally matured to that level yet, but when he does, the small space might be a problem and he would hate to hurt the ones he likes and loves because of his natural, grumpy instinct of the more mature Boy Elephant. But you know...urges...that kind of thing.

He is also somewhat uncomfortable about the thought of BREEDING in a zoo environment...can a lad not have some privacy to woo his mate? What happens if - you know...they feel an urge...will people be WATCHING? Isn't that a little bit WEIRD. He doesn't suppose he'd mind if he knew that their thoughts were on the beauty of the moment, but it might put him off a bit if they were looking at it from a purely observational, clinical perspective. What about privacy with his mate?

He says it's been nice chatting (he seems like a happy kinda guy). Doesn't mind if we check back in, it kinda relieves the boredom a bit. He'd prefer not to be in the zoo, but he sees the merits in it...but basically for a young lad like him...it sucks.

He is rather philosophical...hopes for the best, but is accepting of whatever is decided.

(I think he was holding back a bit. I think he'd REALLY rather not be there.)

[yask]

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

did you bother to read the cause of her death?
a metabolic illness that may have resulted from her early capture and theaft from her herd...

[Constructive]

Mari's post is well stated. Sanctuary's are not free, they are places to send animals that have no other alternatives.

Why did Councilmember Cardenas change his mind at this time? There is no new information from the 2006 vote by council that was presented when he voted YES for the project. All the information he is presenting now as 'new information'was in the CAO presentation and report by an independent vetenarian and committee. The arguments by PETA and IDA have not changed and are the same arguments as Mr. Cardenas.

Let the LA Zoo improve Billy's home as it has been planned for the last 3 years. The new exhibit design is beyond state of the art and will set the goal for other elephant projects across the nation as well as the world.

[Stuey]

Oh yes, this poll MUST be rigged because it's not conforming to a smaller group of animal rights that speak loudly. Most zoo advocates don't go online to vote or join animal rights forums or blogs that tell them to go computer vote or respond somewhere on a subject, usually in another part of the country. Apparently you've struck a nerve with the 150 whatever-million people who love and support zoos. Look, you've made your point. Elephants deserve better living conditions than what some zoos have provided in the past. That's a victory! It's sparking change and awareness. But instead of recognizing the change that you've helped to stimulate, you're pushing it further and it's being perceived as harrassment and that's where the pushback is coming. Don' t be naive and think that zoo supporters would sit by idly and not eventually get involved. What you are surprised about is that you have peeved them off to defend their community institutions where they take their families, and now you are seeing the pushback that you haven't seen until now. They understand the points of view and even ask their zoo for change, but they do it more constructively and rationally.

[Elaine Vigneault]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could ask Billy?

I hate the way this poll is worded. The mere addition of the phrase "zoos provide a public service" changes my answer. If this were truly about Billy's wellbeing, the supposed benefit to humans wouldn't even enter the picture.

Get honest. Let's compare apples to apples.
What sanctuary would BIlly go? How much room would Billy have? What kinds of intellectual stimulation? What kinds of elephant friends?
Tell us more about the sanctuary. Then we can make informed votes.

[Mara Smith]

I suspect many of the posters here who favor keeping Billy in his current situation (albeit with a mite larger space) are employed by zoos. Like most institutions, zoos are first and foremost about keeping themselves alive. Then they are about their mission...whatever that is for this zoo. (the missions vary by zoo) People love elephants so keeping elephants is good for zoo business. Not necessarily what's good for zoo animals, though.

When I see zoos helping to protect the habitat of animals in the wild rather than trying to increase their own revenue, then I will listen more attentively to their arguments.

For now....let Billy go to the California sanctuary. Do the right thing.

[Nan]

This comment is for Time2Reflect.

You say moving Billy is not worth risking his life, and that it can be traumatic to an elephant to move him from his home. But elephants who live in captivity die much younger than in the wild from foot infections and other ailments.

The biggest risk to his life is staying at the zoo.
In what ways is a cramped living space at the zoo better than a sanctuary where there is lots of room to move about and other elephants to learn to interact with?

Elephants are beautiful and people have a lot to learn from them, but should this learning come at the expense of the animal's life?

I have seen elephants in the wild in Africa. There is an intrinsic difference between those kept in zoos and those who are not. It is difficult to explain it unless you have seen it yourself.

-

[MILAGROS QUISPE QUENAYA]

I don´t speak english, but i love all the animals. Please!, save to Billy

[Jan Kelley]

It's ridiculous that a small vocal group of people have been holding up the construction of the new elephant forest. For heavens sake, get on with the work! Billy will be very happy once he gets moved into the new area - just get it finished as soon as possible!

[gamer]

Hi, bcelefan (January 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM),

I saw your question about the size of the Pachyderm Forest and what the remaining 2.4 acres of the total 6 acre habitat will be for if 3.6 acres of the 6-acre habitat is for elephant roaming. I don’t work for the L.A. Zoo, so I can’t give you all the details on how that additional 2.4 acres will be used, but I did go to the L.A. Zoo website to get more information on this. According to one of their webpages, part of the space will be barn and indoor care facilities for the elephants just as you suggested. Under the webpage section “Potential Size of Elephant Herd at the Los Angeles Zoo”, it says, “The large elephant barn will afford staff flexibility in managing the herd while also allowing room for growth. The herd size is likely to fluctuate, up and down, throughout the years based on many factors, including AZA recommendations.” So, the way I interpret that is the barn will be quite large so that it can accommodate a number of elephants at any given time whenever health checks and other maintenance is performed. I’ve never toured the current L.A. Zoo elephant barn, but I have seen it from all sides, and it’s quite small compared to what they will have in the new Pachyderm Forest. I have toured the giraffe barn, and have seen how much equipment and space in there is required for the Zoo’s giraffes (of which there are about 5 at the moment I believe). So, I can imagine that the care facilities for the elephants will be even greater. There will also be some amount of keeper office space, no doubt. No idea how much space that will require.

On another L.A. Zoo webpage, it says, “The new exhibit will have facilities for behavior enrichment, record keeping and a dedicated area for dietary and nutrition programs. State-of-the-art equipment, such as a specialized ultra-sound unit and a walk-through articulated squeeze for keeper and animal-safe elephant examinations will be a new feature. Additionally, waterfalls for washing and playing, waterholes for bathing, a variety of natural surfaces for walking and standing that will promote foot and joint care, and natural topographic and planted environments will stimulate exploration for elephants day and night.”

Since the Zoo is big on conservation education, there will also be visitor information and viewing areas with special exhibits. During some of my L.A. Zoo visits, I’ve heard talk of an interactive exhibit specifically on the state of wild Asian elephants. But again, I don’t know all the details. The second webpage I provided above says, “Visitors will be able to get close enough to understand how truly impressive elephants are, and the journey through this exhibit will make clear the educational value of elephants and how we can make a difference in the world by caring for them.”

Under the section “Conservation and Education”, it says, “The new Pachyderm Forest will be more than just an elephant exhibit. The visitor experience will address the conservation challenges elephants face in Thailand, Cambodia, India, and China. We are concerned that effective conservation programs take place in these native habitats. In the past two years we have sent $53,000 to conservation biologists who work with wild populations of elephants throughout Southeast Asia. We hope to encourage visitors to this new facility to make their own contributions towards elephant conservation.”

Anyway, bcelefan, it sounded like you were saying, if the new habitat is for the elephants, why does the Zoo need to allocate so much acreage for visitors and other facilities? However, let’s be practical – elephant care facilities are pretty important, and I think we may not realize just how involved and spacious those facilities will be yet. Plus, visitor facilities are necessary too because visitors bring in the necessary income to support the Zoo’s elephants year after year. And the Zoo has a responsibility to give something back to the community too… through education and conservation. So, naturally there need to be some visitor information and viewing areas. That makes sense, right? I wish the whole 6 acres could go for purely roaming space for elephants too, but some of that space is needed for care facilities and visitors, and probably some other stuff I just don’t know about, but the Zoo could no doubt tell you more on that. I will contact L.A. Zoo about this because I am curious and would like to know more about this myself. In the meanwhile, see the following websites I was citing above for more information on how the total 6-acre habitat will be used:

http://www.lazoo.org/elephants/index.html

http://www.lazoo.org/about/construction/pachydermforest.html

[Checkyourfacts]

bcelefan -- Ok, got it. You are female. Sorry, I did not know… which was why I just referred to you as he/she. Hope that did not offend you. I am female too. So, great -- we have something in common. Glad to hear that GFAS is a step forward for sanctuaries. Hope they get their new standards and guidelines done and posted so we can all see what you are talking about. However, in the meantime, I’m wondering which TAOS standards you were citing. They are not the two documents I was citing in my prior comment. Can you give me the website or some source for those so I can go take a look? Thanks.

You did not mention this, but here are the AZA's guidelines for OUTDOOR space: "1.4.2. Outdoor yards must have at least 1,800 sq. ft (167.2 sq. m) for a single adult individual and an additional 900 sq. ft (83.6 sq. m) must be added for each additional animal (AZA 1997). If this space is the only location for exercise, then it is recommended that the space per elephant should be even greater." (AZA Accreditation Standards and Related Policies, p. 28). These, like all the other numbers you cited, are just minimums and as you can see there in that quote, AZA recommends the space be even greater. L.A. Zoo's space will far surpass this minimum. You noted that at sanctuaries, elephants are required to have at least 2 acres of outdoor space. Great. However, it doesn’t really matter how much outdoor space they have there if they are not using it. The PAWS elephants are apparently spending most of their time in the barn from 3 PM on through the night until the next morning (see a number of prior posts on this site). That won't be the case at L.A. Zoo.

Apparently, you think that having high standards for elephant care boils down to how much space they get. I disagree. It's not how much space you have, it's how you use it. And if elephants, especially those that have been in captivity prior to arriving at a sanctuary, have learned to hang out where they get fed, there will be little motivation for them to wander the acres of land provided at a sanctuary. Again, I'm not saying sanctuaries are bad for elephants. I'm just saying that elephants in zoos can be motivated to roam the space and get exercise too. The L.A. Zoo's new habitat will have lots of behavioral enrichment designed just for this purpose.

Regarding your statement that zoos have a required minimum of 3 elephants whereas sanctuaries have a required minimum of 5 elephants (which I’ll just take your word on since that’s not listed in the documents I have from TAOS), here is what AZA actually says: “1.1 Group Size -- Zoos should make every effort to maintain elephants in social groupings. It is inappropriate to keep highly social female elephants singly (see Sukumar 1992, Taylor and Poole 1998, EMA 1999). Institutions should strive to hold no less than three female elephants wherever possible. All new exhibits and major renovations must have the capacity to hold three or more female elephants,” (AZA Accreditation Standards and Related Policies”, p. 30). Please note here that AZA is citing Poole’s research and advising zoos to have larger groups for female elephants.

I could not find your statement that, "AZA Elephants may be continuously chained for up to 12 hours out of every 24," in the AZA Accreditation Standards and Related Policies. (Page number, please?) Under their section on Restraint, it says, “5.5.1. Chaining is acceptable as a method of temporary restraint (Fowler 1995). However, elephants must not be subjected to prolonged chaining (for the majority of a 24-hour period) unless necessary for veterinary treatment or transport,” (AZA Accreditation Standards and Related Policies, p. 33). So, chaining is recommended for vet. treatment or transport -- well, that makes sense... at least to me when it's for the safety of the elephant as well as the vets or keepers under these very temporary conditions. Come on, would you want to give an unrestrained elephant a health exam when it could move abruptly and crush you in a heartbeat? I wouldn't.

The most troubling comment I found in your response to my post was your statement that, "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." I love how you paraphrase and do not actually quote AZA once again. The AZA guidelines do NOT say this. On the contrary, if you really are referring to their elephant guidelines in the documents you say you have, here's what it says: "The AZA considers the following training tools/techniques to be INAPPROPRIATE for use at member institutions:

a. Insertion of any implement into any bodily orifice, unless directed by a veterinarian specifically in connection with training for a medical or reproductive procedure.
b. Striking an elephant with anything more substantial than an ankus (a traditional training tool used by elephant trainers)
c. Striking an elephant with any sharp object, including the hook of an ankus (Fowler 1995).
d. Striking an elephant on or around any sensitive area, such as the eyes, mouth, ears, or genital region.
e. No tools used in training should be applied repeatedly and with such force that they cause any physical harm to an animal (i.e., breaking of the skin, bleeding, bruising, etc.).
f. Withholding or reducing an animal’s daily-recommended amount of food and or water.
g. Withholding veterinary care for any reason.

If properly executed training procedures are ineffective in eliminating aggressive or inappropriate behavior in a given animal, institutions should consider other alternatives, including transfer to a facility with more experienced staff or a different management system. Protracted and repeated use of corporal discipline in training is of serious ethical concern and AZA considers abusive training practices to be UNACCEPTABLE. Further, elephants that are untrained, unexercised, or unable to complete minimum behavioral requirements may be considered neglected and thereby abused." (Source: AZA Accreditation Standards and Related Policies, p. 32)

I have spoken with the L.A. Zoo’s elephant keepers in the past regarding use of the ankus you mentioned. They informed me that it is merely held by keepers for emergency purposes. One of the keepers even told me she had never had to use it on elephants at the L.A. Zoo. That’s no doubt because the keepers take the proper precautions. They only work with Billy under “protected contact” (with gates or fencing between them and Billy). But if a huge bull elephant in musth were to suddenly become violent, I would surely hope those keepers would defend themselves and protect any other elephants that may be at risk from being harmed. And I don’t think that is unreasonable. I doubt anyone out there would like to see an elephant kill a human who is responsible for its care.

You asked about the 24-hour availability of staff for the L.A. Zoo's elephants. Frankly, I did not know the answer to this myself, so I had to call the Zoo to find out. Here's what they told me. There is a night keeper who checks on the animals at night. There are security officers who patrol the Zoo each night and check on each exhibit. And there is at least one Veterinarian and one Vet Tech on-call throughout the night. So, hope this answers your question about that. Not sure why you have never gotten any answers on that before. I found it pretty easy -- I just called the Zoo and asked.

Finally, you wrote, “Oh by the way the Zoo regarding Billy is in non- compliance of the AZA Guidelines why do you not address this issue!” Well, if you mean that Billy is currently in a smaller space..., Billy is only in that temporary yard because of the ongoing Pachyderm Forest construction… which has now been haulted by various anti-zoo groups. So, if you want to lay blame on anyone for the small yard Billy is in at the moment, blame those activists (and the City Council for even listening to them), not the L.A. Zoo! If you are claiming that the Zoo is not in compliance re: the number of elephants for a social group, please note that their requirement of no less than 3 elephants is for FEMALES, not males like Billy who are more solitary. So, on that one, the Zoo IS in AZA compliance.

If you want to talk about AZA compliance, think about this. If the Zoo is forced to send Billy to a sanctuary WITHOUT AZA APPROVAL, they could lose their accreditation! What do you think of that? And my guess is that AZA won’t approve because Billy was born in the wild, and that makes him a genetically very important animal for any zoo Species Survival Plan under the AZA. Zoos that lose their accreditation suffer a lot of other repercussions too numerous to go into here, but suffice it to say, it won’t be good – not for L.A. Zoo, not for their other animals… and ultimately not for L.A. !!!

Here’s a question that your side of the issue never seems to answer: Why are the anti-zoo advocates attacking L.A. Zoo’s planned space of 6 acres, when that’s MORE space than what they have at the San Diego Wild Animal Park for their elephants? I tried hard to answer all your questions and it’s taken me quite a while, so please answer this one question for me, bcelefan. I'd really like to know.

And I would like to thank you for being an elephant advocate. When you think about it, folks like you put pressure on zoos to improve their conditions for animals. And that can be important. I often think it would be really cool if you and others who share this "advocacy" interest would join some zoo committees at some of these zoos to provide your input, knowledge, and help to shape the future of zoos. Would you be open to doing that? Maybe it can be done, and perhaps that would be more productive than all this arguing back and forth about zoos vs. sanctuaries.

[jjohnson]

Get honest. Let's compare apples to apples.
What sanctuary would BIlly go? How much room would Billy have? What kinds of intellectual stimulation? What kinds of elephant friends?
Tell us more about the sanctuary. Then we can make informed votes.
Billy would go to PAWS in California

Check out the PAWS website

http://www.pawsweb.org/

[mari shepard]

I wonder if those of you who are complaining about the poll results would be screaming so loud if the results were in your favor...?

And I wonder why folks who claim to care so much would stoop to harassing innocent visitors at the gates of the zoo...?

Is it possible to have this debate without the hostility?

[Luis Suarez]

Its cruel keep and animal out of his/her environment.

Send Billy to a Sanctuary

[Liz]

I wish that the elephant could go to a sanctuary... But after 20 years of being in a zoo, I can't help but wonder whether the elephant will actually be able to adapt to the change? The idea of being in a zoo is so heart breaking!

[Mari Shepard]

It appears that the people of Los Angeles have made their desires known here. According to the polls, most folks want to KEEP Billy at the zoo, in his new enclosure.

I would suggest that we all keep track of which council members vote AGAINST our wishes, and VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. If they don't listen to their constituents, we don't want them representing us.

[Sue]

For all the zoo folks and GLAZA members who are slandering PAWS and other sanctuaries, please remember Mr .Lewis sent Ruby to PAWS. There are several acting directors who sent their elephants to sanctuaries. When you slam the sanctuaries, you are questioning the judgement of these directors. If their judgement is that flawed, the city council should request their resignation. The AZA did reprimand any of the zoos for sending their elephants to non-accredited facilities. Apparently, the AZA must approve of their standards. Having said all that, I have observed the elephants extensively from day one at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and there is no doubt their program is a success so far. They are proof that elephants can do well in a "zoo". Unfortunately, they are the exception and not the rule. Do away with the labels "zoos" and "sanctuaries". If a facility meets all the standards, that is what matters.

[Terry Price]

Hello everyone!!!

I have to first weigh in on the fact that Jack Hanna is a great person and really does care about animals. I have worked with him at the Columbus Zoo for 10 plus years and have great respect for the man. It has never been about the money or fame for him, its about the animals. Yes, he does do T.V. shows and stuff but he DOES NOT just drag the animals around in cages. They all have there own living space here at the zoo and when it is time to transport them some where it is done with great care. Often times they are not even kept in the cages very long. If the road crew with Hanna has to stop somewhere and stay over night, often times the animals are kept at a zoo close by and stay in holding pens overnight, not small tight cages. Jack Hanna has gave his life to the animals and NO one should disrespect that. As far as Billy goes he should be able to stay at the zoo because he will have enough room to roam and will be given great care 24/7. Zoo are not here to harm animals each person that works at a zoo takes great pride in their job and care for the animals like they are their kids. Some animals would not even be around any more if it was not for great breeding programs at zoos around the world. Each and everyone of you should go out and support your local zoo because they are taking great steps to making a better future for animals!!!!!

Thank you and have a ZOOPER DAY!!!!

[Time2Reflect]

This comment is for Nan.

I stand by my previous statement - moving him is not worth needlessly risking his life.

Elephants in captivity live just as long as elephants in protected areas in the wild, whereas in unprotected areas, all bets are off.

Keep in mind that average lifespan - not life potential - is the best measure of life expectancy. Elephants on average live into their mid-to-late 40s, but they have a potential lifespan of early 60s.

That's the same as saying humans on average live into their mid 70s, but have a potential lifespan of 100 or more.

When was the last time you met one centenarian or, for that matter, an entire population comprised of thousands of centenarians? That's the kind of misleading statement being made when it comes to elephant age when people say this is an animal that can live to be 60 or 70.

An interesting side-note: some of the oldest elephants on record who are well into their late 50s and 60s lived in or currently live in - wait for it - zoos.

So how is the zoo better?

Well for one thing - Billy would be allowed to have companions and be given the opportunity to breed in the zoo. In the sanctuary, he would not be interacting with other elephants.. As a male, he would not be allowed to be housed with any females because he would try to breed with them nor would he be allowed to be housed with other males due to their musth aggression, which would lead to fighting.

He would be in a pasture - by himself - for the rest of his life.

This is just one reason that barely scratches the surface of how and why the zoo is better for him than any sanctuary ever could be. If you do some research comparing the PAWS sanctuary to the LA Zoo, you'll find out even more.

It's true that elephants are beautiful animals that people can learn much from, but the LA Zoo would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of its animals simply to please the public. The animals always come first and foremost, and, in many cases, animals at the zoo are treated better than most people are.

With such assurances of care, people are free to learn about elephants through Billy at no risk to him whatsoever.

That's the kind of life he has at the zoo now. It will only get better with a brand new habitat for him and future elephants to call home. A home that provides them with safety and security, where their care goes above and beyond what many can even imagine, and where they can live out their lives in peace and comfort in their very own sanctuary at the heart of the LA Zoo..

[Suzanne C.]

I don't normally opose Elephants in zoos because i believe people need to see in person how majestic and wonderful they are and want to defend them. But because Billy is ALONE I'm concerned for him. I want him to be where he can socialize with other elephants. Companionship is essential for sanity.

[KLB]

One of the purposes the zoo serves is to support conservation efforts for endangered animals in the wild. There are approximately 30,000 Asian Elephants left in the wild, and their numbers are dwindling due to deforestation, human encroachment, and poaching. Sustainable populations in the wild are severely handicapped due to these issues. Educating the public about this is vital for the future of this species. The LA Zoo wants to perpetuate sustainable populations of Asian Elephants in captivity by initiating a breeding program. If Billy is moved, you will take that opportunity away. Since sanctuaries do not choose to breed their elephants, what happens when those elephants eventually pass on?

[pablo garcia risueno]

May all living beings be happy

[Marilyn Angier]

Those who love elephants must want deserately to preserve them in the wild! The only hope these magnificent creatures have is the education of the
public, especially our children. Its the young people who will grow up to be the activists of the future. We need zoos to tell people of the wild elephants situation and what can be done to protect them. Seeing an elephant on television does not come near to having the effect of seeing one for real. Otherwise we would close the Dorothy Chandle Pavilion, the Disney Hall, LACMA, Natural History Museum, and the others.
The L.A.Zoo has planned a wonderful exhibit to teach us all about the elephants. The animals will be cared for in a caring and responsibile way.
If Billy is sent to a reserve he will have to be castrated since breeding is not allowed. His genes are too important to the captive breeding population. I can not believe this is in his best interest.

[Tom]

Difficult decision as all animal well-being seems connected to human well-being.

Emotionally I would want Billy in the wild again, but tusk poachers and other survival issues affect my choice.

After reading the reviews on this subject, I would probably support the experts and those with experience directly with Billy and other elephants. An upgraded zoo sounds better than less care and risk elsewhere.

[Elizabeth Carpenter]

Elephants lived much shorter lives in captivity - and need much more space/privacy than zoos can provide. They also should never be sentenced to solitary confinement - it's cruel and a death-sentence. All elephants need their own kind - this elephant must be sent to a sanctuary!

[victoria Sanchez]

Please save all the beautiful elephants

[CreamyDove]

Well, Time2Reflect, once again you claim that elephants can be saved from extinction by zoos by the following:
1) If zoos meet elephants' physical, psychological and social needs. You claim they do, but elephants like Billy and Gita show that they do NOT. Zoogenic illnesses directly caused by their living conditions in small, deprived spaces cause neurosis such as Billy's head bobbing and Gita's death from arthritis. Chronic foot infections and TB also prematurely kill zoo elephants. UNCHECK.
2) If zoos maintain a stable and sustainable captive population. You claim they do. However, each year, the zoo system has fewer elephants. Adults die at roughly half their normal lifespan from the above illensses and 76% of young Asian elephants are currently dying before their 8th birthdays, many from herpesviruses because the zoo industry has failed to practice any infection control which has allowed the viruses to spread through the captive populations. The zoo system will be without Asian elephants in just a few years and the African death rate is also extremely high. UNCHECK.
3) If zoos allow zoo patrons to forge personal connections with elephants. You claim they do, but that is not reflected in conservation efforts and increasing numbers of people are favoring moving zoo elephants to sanctuaries. UNCHECK.
4) If zoos educate the public. You claim they do, but what are they teaching; they claim they are all about elephant conservation and education but put forth a contradictory message keeping elephants in small, inhumane living conditions for their species that cause a myriad of physical, psychological disorders. They try to convince people that head-bobbing and rocking back and forth are antivipatory behavior knowing that it's not true. UNCHECK.
5) If they encourage people to take action. You claim they do, but studies have been done that show there is no correleation between seeing an elephant in a zoo and contributing in any meaningful way to wild elephant conservation efforts. The claim that they do is a pathetic attempt by the zoo industry's PR department to justify a 19th century menagerie model of keeping elephants in the 21st century, an increasingly difficult thing to do. UNCHECK.
Zoos must abandon their entrenched intransigent thinking and begin evolving toward more of a sanctuary model that reflects what we now know elephants need. Continuing to deny scientific facts and grim statistics will not hold back progress forever. Vikram Dewan, the director of the Philadelphia Zoo recently said that zoos who ignore the public's concerns and scientific information, run the risk of becoming irrelevant. Zoo folks who have embraced the circle-the-wagons mentality and refuse to take in any new information, will indeed fulfill that prophecy. It's time to evolve, folks. It's past time for the elephants.
4)

[Peggie Borg]

It's a total NO brainer. Let Billy go and place him in a sanctuary.

Peggie Borg

[C.D. Jones]

The success of breeding elephants in captivity can be summed up in this press release from the Memphis Zoo boasting its first-ever elephant pregnancy in its 102-year history. Please note that the Memphis Zoo is an AZA facility and that the pregnancy is the result of artificial insemination. They do not even have a bull elephant on the premises.

[Bobbie Bates]

Free Billy!!!

[jennifer wood]

I agree elephants need total respect and it starts in the schools and with parents. Protection for animals needs to be seen by the famous rich who have the benefit of a special voice.

Thank You,

Jennifer

[J. Lee]

As a scientist, I suggest all of you citing the recently published paper on elephant health in zoos read the paper and read it critically. It is too bad that the general public is so disconnected from science that if something is published in a science journal, it is instantly accepted as fact, or some approximation of it. Science publications are far from concrete, and it is very difficult to account for all the variables in elephant care, as well as how they vary, and how they have changed.

[Time2Reflect]

"Once again" CreamyDove? That's the first time I've posted about their extinction. *head scratching*

OOHHH ... I know ... it must have been all the other posts besides mine that are in agreement with the notion that zoos can play a vital role in the conservation of elephants.

A simple mistake - no harm no foul ^_-

But allow me to address the responses you've made:

1) There are many reasons that stereotypic activities arise, not just space, and any animal can develop arthritis from elephants to dogs to people. Neither requires a zoo to go into effect. [Re-check ^_^]

2) The entire zoo industry is working towards that goal, adults are living right up to their life expectancy, new studies of EEHV show it's not being spread as originally thought, and projections put it at 50 years - not a few - for elephants in captivity to disappear unless zoos focus on the efforts they have committed themselves to today. [Re-check ^_^]

3) There's the saying "Conservation starts at home." If the voters of the LA area voted overwhelmingly through bond measures to improve the lives of the animals they care about at the zoo, which they did through Prop CC (79%) and Prop A2 (62%), then they will do the same for those in the wild, which they already often do through conservation efforts with a connection to the zoo. Thousands have even re-affirmed their support for the zoo and what it is doing. Just think how much they can accomplish the more they learn and come to care. [Re-check ^_^]

4) On top of teaching about elephants' problems in the wild, zoos teach caring and compassion by showing that there are people who care about animals so much they devote their lives to them - feeding them, cleaning up after them, and going to extremes to understand how to best provide for them. And they do teach how certain behaviors are anticipatory because all you need do is wait there long enough to see what he's anticipating. [Re-check ^_^]

5) I don't need to rely on a study for this one because I've seen people do all of these and more in order to find their own way of getting involved. It could be money. It could be their time. Whatever they feel will do the most good. Besides, caring for elephants doesn't require justification. People know it's the right thing to do. [Re-check ^_^]

Zoos have abandoned old thinking and practices in their evolution into what they are today. The ever-changing nature of science and statistics informs zoos as they continue their efforts, always learning and always in the interest of moving forward. Zoos don't back-peddle. Abandoning elephants now after all that has been learned and all that is being done for them just wouldn't make sense, now would it?

There is science and research behind what the zoo is doing, and the public is - overwhelmingly so - behind seeing it done for the benefit of the elephants and those who care about and for them. New information will keep coming in, informing the zoo's practices, and carrying them into the future. We're witnessing their evolution first-hand in LA, in time to give elephants what they've long deserved. ^_^

[Duncan Bourne]

You all share a desire for adequate area and facilities for the L.A. Zoo's elephants. L.A. has attempted to provide such a facility with pressure from the zoo and animal rights groups providing impetus for funding.

Dwindling wild populations of elephants along with most large vertebrates are under crushig pressure due to human population increases leading to loss of habitat, poaching, pollution and catastrophic global warming . This will soon result in the crash of ecosystems along with the human population.

I suggest everyone now puts their amazing energy into pursuing their political leaders to saving this planet and reducing their carbon usage or we won't have any elephants or humans to worry about.

Remember we only have ONE WORLD.

[Wendy]

watch this video from cbs news about the sanctuary in Tenn. this is where this elephant should be,,
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4696315n