Zookeepers to City Council: Let Billy the elephant stay at the zoo
L.A. Zoo animal keepers are the latest group adding their voices to the debate over Billy, the zoo's lone elephant. They appealed Monday to city officials to vote to complete the zoo's planned $42-million Pachyderm Forest. (Construction on Pachyderm Forest was halted in early December; the City Council is expected to make a final decision on whether to continue the project this Friday.)
The keepers say they have Billy's best interests at heart and are firmly convinced that the zoo is the best place for him. At a sanctuary, they say, Billy would have less exercise and fewer mentally stimulating opportunities than he has at the zoo. The Times' Carla Rivera explains:
The keepers, with a combined 71 years of tending to elephants, said they are uniquely qualified to know what is best for Billy. They said their jobs are not at stake because they could tend to other animals if the exhibit is not completed.
In a refuge or sanctuary, a young bull typically would be separated from the female herd to mirror conditions in the wild and prevent breeding, the keepers said. At the zoo, cows could be acquired for Billy to breed with, helping to ensure preservation of his line and the species, said zookeeper Vicky Guarnett.
"We know this animal and we love this animal," Guarnett said in an interview after the morning news conference in front of the zoo's current elephant exhibit. "He has not fathered another elephant and to send him to a sanctuary where he would not breed would not be the best outcome."
Catherine Doyle of the group In Defense of Animals, a vocal opponent of the Pachyderm Forest project, was quoted as saying that the zookeepers' request amounted to a "sentimental attachment to a particular animal."
But in a letter to the City Council and L.A. residents, signed by more than 80 members of the zoo's staff,the group stated, "We'd send Billy away right now if we believed it was best for Billy. It's not."
-- Lindsay Barnett
RELATED:
Jack Hanna announces his support for the L.A. Zoo's controversial elephant exhibit
Conservationist Daphne Sheldrick: Billy the elephant belongs in a sanctuary
Video: KTLA
At this point it's becoming very clear that the rehashing of this subject from every angle is the L.A. Times' way of driving traffic to the site.
Really, it's newsworthy that staff at the L.A Zoo think their elephant should stay at the L.A. Zoo?
How is this news? How is it news that Jack Hanna, a guy who's gotten famous and whatever money he has from working at a zoo and using zoo animals as entertainment, comes out in support of the L.A. Zoo rather than sending Billy to a sanctuary?
On the facts, it's pretty indisputable that hundreds of acres is better for an elephant that the parking lot he's got now, and the 3.6 acres he'll have theroretically...eventually, bumping around with another three elephants.
In fact, it's kind of funny that pro-zoo folks want to have it both ways, both by insisting that Billy need his human keepers and the three female companions he's supposed to get sometime in the future -- and at the same time insisting that bull elephants spend all their time alone. It turns out of course that that's not true, they actually hang in small groups, but if it were true wouldn't it make sense to give him more space than just 3.6 acres? But coherence really isn't a strong suit of the pro-zoo argument.
The further arguments that he won't receive proper vet care are false, as is the notion that if we give him a humane amount of space to roam in he's out of the genetic pool. His sperm can be banked.
And no matter how much pro-zoo advocates and apologists try to muddy the waters by mixing and matching statistics of average lifespans of wild elephants and zoo elephants (my favorite is when they try to imply that wild statistics should include predation, because apparently they think elephants, the largest land mammal, are such a target in nature -- and even if it were the case that's hardly a factor Billy would face at a sanctuary in Tennessee or Northern California) the fact is not only do zoo elephants live shorter lives, but also that the L.A. Zoo has an abysmal record of keeping elephants alive, going as far back as the seventies and into this millennium.
Nor could anyone really argue that Billy would be happier with other elephants than even with keepers who love him.
At least the faux romantics who write in here talking about how THEY want the smell of an elephant, and THEY remember seeing elephants in zoos as kids, and THEY WANT their kids to see elephants are being honest. The arguments for keeping Billy are about personal happiness and self-gratification, with no regard for what's best for Billy.
Just look at who's on each side of the issue and it should be clear. On one side you have people whose jobs depend on a profitable zoo and a profitable zoo system (and those, admittedly, who have a personal love for Billy) as well as Zoo visitors who just can't be to part with idea of an elephant in the Zoo, no matter how unhappy; and on the other side you have scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to genuinely returning elephants to the wild, and others who have dedicated their lives to trying to make the world a better, happier place for animals. The self-interest is all on one side. I have nothing to gain personally if Billy goes to a sanctuary. I just believe, and believe experts who say, that he will be happier and live longer there. The only self-gratification is believing in something that just makes sense.
Posted by: Tired of this | January 12, 2009 at 03:02 PM
Well said, Tired of this. Also, it's ridiculous that the pro-zoo people get panicky at the thought of not breeding Billy. Being bred into captivity, what kind of a life is that for any exotic animal? Please. It's like being born into a prison. They just want more 'product' because baby elephants are their biggest money makers.
Posted by: Truly love animals | January 12, 2009 at 05:35 PM
Excelent comments!
Zookeeper Vicky Guarnett is apparently not concerned about the welfare of Billy at all - to her he is just a sperm,
I guess they lose compassion fast and only care about their jobs.
"animal rights activists as Betty White and Jack Hannah"
Jack Hannah an animal right activist?? bunch of nonsense!
Why was he a zoo director in the first place? he's got bachelor degree in ARTS..
Make a compassionate decision
and send Billy to a Sanctuary!
Posted by: Theresa Aulig | January 12, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Of course it's newsworthy. When half the story is being told and an uninformed opinion is weighed equal and even given greater sway than an informed opinion, that's not just newsworthy, it's dangerous.
The keepers at the LA Zoo are having their livelihoods demagogued against by people claiming their only in it for their paychecks. If you had a job that you had devoted your life to - not because it made you rich, but because it was something that followed your passion and you could see the difference that made in an animal's life - and had people writing you off just being greedy, I bet you'd be angry too.
Jack Hanna has had decades of experience working in the the world of zoos and with the animals on it. He knows the efforts made by people who enter the profession and how the LA Zoo is taking that profession to a new level of excellence.
Hundreds of acres may be more than 3.6 acres, but even the elephants of the PAWS sanctuary (the only sanctuary he could possibly go to since TES has a commitment to females only) don't have that. 70 acres for its female African elephants. 100 for its female Asian elephants. 20 acres for its current bull, Nic and another female. The important question is what good does having an over-sized enclosure (as it's still a captive setting) do if the elephants themselves only use a fraction of the total space their allotted? No-one - save those who have visited PAWS first-hand - can say for certain if the elephants are even allowed 24-hour access to both their barns and habitat. According to those who have, a majority of their day is spent inside a barn on concrete - something even zoos recognize is not good for their animals.
And the numbers aren't theoretical. 6 acres in total. 3.8 acres of space (including habitat and barn) for the elephants with 24 access allowed so the elephants can choose for themselves whether to be inside or out.
The message is that male elephants are more solitary than female elephants. They may form bachelor groups, but even as they become older, they become more and more solitary. They will however come into a herd when it's time to breed. After that, they're back on their own. Billy needs his keepers because they have been working with him his entire life. He knows them and works with them as part of how he is managed.
Yet as a bull - as with all animals - he has a drive to breed. With three female companions, he will have that opportunity. However at PAWS, he'll be alone to prevent him from breeding with the females there or fighting with other males. Has a lifetime of solitude then become more desirable than offering him companions?
It's easy to say "bank it" - but such a statement oversimplifies the process involved from collection to storage and the fact that viability comes into question after freezing.
The numbers looking at wild elephants from protected areas are the same as those in captive settings. What shouldn't be funny is how they often don't factor in poaching. If that's ignored, then elephants that die for ivory and bushmeat aren't accounted for, giving people a view of the wild that doesn't hold true to what elephants face every day.
Go back and look at the record and you'll see that elephants - like all animals - die for any number of reasons from infections to fights. Even the elephants that most recently passed away at the zoo were well into their 40s around the average lifespan for elephants. Even some of the oldest elephants on record were and are found in zoos.
Again, we have inherent inequality as a lifetime of quality care is being weighed against the notion he'll have companion elephants there, which just wouldn't be true based on the facts. Why does something already assured have to be proven against something that won't even happen?
For those who make their personal plea for elephants, they know the power that seeing such an animal can have because of how it affected them. If they didn't have those experiences, they wouldn't care as much as they do. They want that same experience for their children because they know how valuable such an experience is. As the next generation, if they don't care enough about wildlife to protect it, than what about the generation that follows them and then one after that? Or by that point in time, will there even be any elephants around to protect? If people don't nurture such caring today, then there won't be.
Both sides of the issue are not as you've painted them. On the one side you have a group of people who spin the facts to suit an agenda, are ignoring the actual living conditions while bolstering an imaginative scenario, and who attack/harass individuals, claiming their beliefs are selfish, cruel, and solely motivated by a paycheck. On the other side, you have a group of people who have weighed the pros and cons of each decision finding one overwhelmingly better than the other, are passionate about animals they have devoted their lives - with or without pay - to the animals in their care, and who seek to have a conversation with those in disagreement so that even if they don't agree, at least they do so based on a fully informed opinion instead of one based on mis-informed good intentions.
So believe what you choose to believe; no-one is saying to abandon one's beliefs.
But when choosing to act in support of those beliefs, do so after taking into account how seriously the welfare of the individual at the heart of this matter, Billy, could be impacted by the actions you take and the greater harm they will do him than good.
Posted by: Time2Reflect | January 13, 2009 at 02:21 AM
Billy needs a home were he can interact with other elephants and be part of a family of his own. A place were he has the care of experienced professional care takers. That home is the L.A. Zoo. I keep hearing that 3.6 acres is not enough space for him yet I rarely hear anyone complain about the exhibit at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and the L.A Zoo exhibit will be over an acre more than that, and provide features that encourage him to move around a use the entire exhibit, as oppose to the so called sanctuary were he would spend his day ALONE, separated from all other elephants (due to the risk of him fighting with other males or breeding females, which they don't allow) and hanging out in the same area waiting for his food to arrive. They could give him a million acres, but what good would that do if he's not encourage to use it. The citizens of LA want this exhibit to be built and it IS what is best for Billy. I can't wait to see the completed project!
Posted by: Mike B | January 15, 2009 at 08:52 PM
The zoo's long history with elephants proves not that they are experts, but that they are incapable of learning from their mistakes. Although they desperately twist the facts to try to conceal the root causes of elephant deaths, Tara and Gita died as a result of foot/leg problems attritutable to improper management, including an unsuitably hard substrate and inadequate room to exercise. While the zoo indeed provides excellent veterinary care, it has not yet connected the dots sufficiently to realize that keeping the elephants under proper conditions would alleviate the need for such advanced and intensive veterinary care in the first place. Vet Med 101: An ounce of prevention...... The vets' efforts publicized in the last few years have involved treatment of conditions that were caused by the zoo environment, conditions that are essentially absent in the wild. No amount of vet treatment will prevent these conditions from occurring again; this can happen only as a result of foresight, reflection and common sense in the design of a new enclosure. Wise up, LAZ--less (space) is not more.
Jack Hanna and Betty White have entered the fray. Jack Hanna has no elephant expertise, he is an industry hack. Betty White has, for several decades, been an LAZ advocate, even while the front office was corrupt to its bones, and while elephants were being physically tortured. I told she's basically a good person, but she's badly misinformed by LAZ; I prefer to believe this rather than she knows what's going on but doesn't care.
As a retired LAZ veterinarian (1974-1998) who is familiar with the current situation, I can tell you that LAZ personnel are not a bunch of bambi lovers. Some care about animal welfare, others are more interested in climbing the ladder, abusing their authority and polishing their image and LAZ's. They will tell you what they want you to hear. When evaluating the situation you need to research the facts, not accept LAZ's claims at face value.
Posted by: Gary Kuehn | January 18, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Concerned about elephants?
If you are truly concerned about elephants get involved with organisations that actively undertake and support habitat protection and elephant conservation in asia and africa. Remember Billy is just one ambassador for all those wild elephants
If you want to see elephants and appreciate how amazing they are check your local zoo. If you don't like or understand what you see talk to their staff and become involved in improving their facilities.
If you want to make a true difference to elephants and our world's survival reduce your consumption, then get involved in saving your local habitats.
Posted by: Duncan Bourne | January 18, 2009 at 07:49 PM
GLAZA and the LA Zoo are brushing under the carpet the real bottomline, long-term costs of keeping a herd of elephants at the LA Zoo for the next 50 years. Try adding in Vet care, food, medicines, staffing, and exhibit maintenance fees (for multiple elephants) year-after-year to the already outrageous construction price tag of $42 million. GLAZA's PR gesture to offset debt service will only ease a small portion of the overall burden this exhibit will cost taxpayers in the long run.
And although Jack Hanna is often-seen as an entertaining Tonight Show guest, bottomline, he is just another Zoo Director protecting his gate revenues and is not an objective expert on the subject.
Keeping a herd of elephants contained in a small 3.5 acres space is cruel. Plus, factor in the LA Zoo's extremely high record of elephant deaths, and you have a recipe for continued disaster.
These animals deserve to be on a wild life range where they can thrive in wide, open spaces, and obtain the physical exercise and enrichment necessary to maintain a healthy life.
Why can't the LA Zoo move their giraffes into the space designated for the elephants? Their existing giraffe exhibit is sterile and way too small for those long-legged animals.
EXHIBIT WASTE AT THE LA ZOO IS WIDESPREAD:
Millions spent on the Golden Monkey exhibit (and then the Zoo never got the monkeys from China).
Millions spent on the Sea Lion Cliffs exhibit, and upon completion, it was learned that the exhibit could not sustain sea lions.
Insufficient alligator exhibit enabled Reggie the alligator to escape endangering staff.
Millions spent on a new Theatre that remains dark 80% of the time.
Millions spent on a Children's Discovery Room, which is used for storing boxes and stanchions rather than serving as a Children's activity room (as originally intended).
As a former Zoo employee, the City of L.A. needs to re-examine Zoo management, stop the waste, and provide increased oversight on their "actual" bottomline spending.
Free Billy and while you're at it..
Free L.A.'s taxpayers of additional burdens during these tough economic times!
Posted by: Concerned for Billy | January 19, 2009 at 03:34 PM
Everyone on this page can set their speculations and theories aside and give a read to Gary kuen's comments below. why? because although he is humble enough not to flaunt it, he is the veterinarian that delt with all of the elephants at the L.A. Zoo from 1974-1997. he is very familiar with Billy, and has extensive knowledge not just of elephants, but particularly about what has gone on at the L.A. Zoo with elephants. If it was bad enough to cause him to write a letter to the city council professing his views against the very instituation he was working for, this is a bad sign. though the zoo world claims over and over until they have pounded it into a mash in the publics very absorbant brains that we are all just "animal extremists with no experience with elephants" (all of us supporting Billy's relocation) Dr. Kuen is just one out of a large group of experts (the ones the zoo claims don't exist) that uses scientific data, statistics, and personal hands on experience to come to the (seemingly obviouse) conclusion that elephants dont belong in zoos.
Posted by: Vettech4eles | January 19, 2009 at 11:07 PM
The only thing that will help LA Zoo's elephant, Billy, is for him to get out of there and go to a sanctuary. I think it's very telling that a former LA Zoo vet calls Jack Hanna a "hack" and condemns the Zoo for being unwilling to learn from its mistakes. It took a lot of courage for Gary Kuehn to buck the zoo system and tell the truth. Angelinos, please listen to him. He knows what he's talking about. Thanks.
Posted by: CreamyDove | January 20, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I am very confused by all of this and I wish Billy could speak but if I were to look at his behavior I would say the bobbing of the head and the swaying to the left and right is more than about being fed. I'm sure he will miss his keepers. I have also learned that he remains in Musth longer than an Elephant that is around other Elephants..I guess it's instinctual for nature to kick in to preserve the species,from what I was told he had lost 300 pounds because he had been in Musth for 6 months. If Billy was around or had Elephant companionship this Season would be shorter by half. Very sad for such a beautiful creature..I think he will be happy if he went because he needs to be around and see other Elephants.He will be alone longer than the two years he has already been alone in a concret pen (Display area)Why breed when there are many in the Wild.
Who knows maybe he is bobbing because he doesn't want to be there. He has done it his whole life. Can't be good for his spine.There is no where for him to catch a break from the people watching him. He didn't come over to me when I was there, stayed with his back to me. He just bobbed his head and swayed.I think he will be happy if they move him.The Display is what they call it at the Zoo...and Billy is smart and I think its demeaning. They should have been on this Forest project sooner. If it was for him they should not have let Billy wait so long in such a small area or without other Elephants.
Posted by: Liz | January 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Has anyone else read Hannah's Dream by Diane Hammond? It is basically a fictitious version of Billy & the LA Zoo debacle. With a better ending. Google it and read it if you are interested. It really makes me sad for Billy.
Posted by: michaelsean | April 29, 2009 at 09:08 AM