The Myth of the Wild

My last post here, about the efforts by animal activists to halt construction of the Los Angeles Zoo's new elephant habitat, sparked more debate than anything I've previously written. As I've followed the firestorm of comments here and in other media outlets, I've been increasingly struck by what has become the rallying cry of Los Angeles's anti-zoo crowd: "Free Billy."

It's cute and catchy, but utterly disingenuous.

"Billy" is a 24-year-old Asian elephant who has resided at the Los Angeles Zoo since 1980 [correction: 1989]. For the past few years he's been the unwitting star of a battle between the Los Angeles Zoo and animal rights activists over the construction of the zoo's new elephant habitat. The Pachyderm Forest project is 30% complete, but work has been temporarily halted while both sides fight it out in L.A. City Council chambers.

But the people filing into City Hall wearing "Free Billy" T-shirts and stickers aren't actually calling for his return to the wild. No one is advocating unlocking the zoo's gates and allowing the massive pachyderm to roam freely in Griffith Park. Nor are they suggesting he be airlifted to Malaysia, the country of his birth, and dropped off in what little remains there of the wild. (If that were the case, experts on both sides of the issue would surely agree his prospects for survival would be bleak.)

No, the acknowledged goal of the "Free Billy" petitioners is to send Billy to an animal sanctuary. And that's what has me scratching my head. Sanctuaries, like zoos, are captive environments -- captive environments that by and large have fewer resources and are subject to less rigorous scrutiny and accreditation standards than zoos. As I've stated before, there are good sanctuaries and bad ones, but any way you look at it, the animals living in them are not free.

Moreover, sanctuaries do not allow their animals to breed, thus they are not concerned with perpetuating species -- something that is central to the mission of modern, accredited zoos. American zoos not only participate in species survival programs, they also support more than 80 elephant conservation and research projects worldwide, including habitat restoration and reduction of human-elephant conflict. The L.A. Zoo, Billy's home, supports Asian elephant conservation through Fauna & Flora International. AZA-accredited zoos also provide the majority of support for the International Elephant Foundation.

Most animal lovers would agree they'd prefer that exotic animals live in the wild than in captivity. But with our planet increasingly in peril, how many truly wild places remain? When Americans travel to "the wild" to see animals firsthand, it is more often than not via guided tours to protected reserves in Africa or Asia. Thanks to deforestation, climate change, and human encroachment, the wild as we once knew it is a myth. Wild places are fast disappearing, and the wildlife they once supported is at ever-increasing risk. A recent report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature showed that one in four mammal species is in danger of extinction. Billy's native Malaysia is experiencing rapid deforestation, with less than 20% of primary forest cover remaining.

The romanticized notion that animal sanctuaries are synonymous with freedom is not only deceptive, but dangerous. It diminishes the threats faced by wild species and makes us complacent to statistics like those cited above. Equating sanctuaries with freedom (or equally erroneously, zoos with prisons) also serves to polarize people who might otherwise be working on the same side, toward survival of the species and preservation of what precious little remains of "the wild."

Comments

[DrHolly]

The wild is a fantasy. Zoos, working in concert with other wildlife agencies, are providing the best hope for survival of many endangered species. Animal rights groups, whose members largely have their hearts in the right places, I'd like to believe, funnel their money and energies into their own PR campaigns rather than actual conservation efforts. Instead of attacking zoos they should focus on the larger issue of species survival.

[vettech4eles]

Dr.Holly,
The wild is not a fantasy....yet. There are still plenty of available protected spaces to breed and release Asian Elephants (which some groups in Asia have started doing, and have been successful in these areas by raising the populations). However, it is a gross missuse of funds and energy to maintain a dwindeling population in the united states that is so unsuccessful at breeding that it is not even self-susta­ining...no­t even close. You honestly beleive that a non self-sustaining population of humanized elephants, representing about 0.005% of the population in the wild, is going to save this species? less than 3% of animal kept at zoos is considered threatened or endangered...if the zoo's main focus is to educate about conservation and breed animals to help their populations, then why do they have thousands of species there just for the sole purpose of putting them on display? The people supporting Billy's relocation, who range from "animal rights groups" to the top elephant experts int he field, including many ZOO veterinarians and ZOO directors, arent missing the bigger "conservation" picture at all. our argument is that zoos do nothing towards the survival of this species, and money would be more wisely spent (and less elephant would suffer needlessly) if in-situ conservation was the focus (which works), not captive breeding programs (that dont work)

[vettech4eles]

more infroming articles about eles: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/around_town/the_scene/Tusk-Tusk-Elephant-Expert-Scolds-LA-Zoo.html?corder=&pg=1#comments

http://www.elephants.com/media/OC_Weekly_8_3_06.htm

http://www.elephants.com/media/IndyStar_10_1_06.htm

http://www.elephants.com/media/Science_10_6_06.htm this one's really interesting...

[vettech4eles]

some info on both sanctuaries:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/21/MNG0179A881.DTL

[JaneOfTheJungle]

Thank you for this post, and for putting into words what I've been thinking as I followed LA's elephant debate. I suspect that if the activists were honest about their motives and carried signs saying "close all zoos," they wouldn't elicit the same sympathy for their cause as they garner by crying "free billy." But you are spot on in saying that this elephant, having lived in captivity for 20 years, cannot be set free. To argue otherwise is beyond mythical. At worse it's lying, at best it's playing with words. In either case, it's not being honest.

[TheFrogBag]

Because the subject of zoos, sanctuaries, and wildlife is near and dear to my heart, I though I would pop back by this blog and see what people had to say about the issue of Billy's future. Wow! What a lot of fuss over this one elephant, all while elephant habitat is being destroyed at an alarming rate. I am sure that we all want what is best for Billy. I know I do, I am certain Ms. Royce does, and I know everyone else feels equally strongly. However, there are many people out there that don't care simply because they have never seen an elephant or given them any thought. I bet there are kids here in L.A. who have never even seen a raccoon! These kids need to be introduced to animals, to learn about them, and to be awed by them. Where else can that happen but at a zoo? In this way, Bill is not just an elephant, he is an ambassador for all elephants. We need to treat him that way: with respect for his position, access to a new home at the zoo befitting his rank, and access for those who would like to learn from and about him.

[gvasels]

Throughout this discussion (though while pro-Zoo people are willing to talk, anti-Zoo people won't listen) I am again and again appalled by the pretense of humanity that animal activists say they have. What I have seen and heard and learned is that their arguments are inane and not humane.

[Zoofriend]

I'm not going to address the 4 haters in what I say next, because they are beyond hope. But to anyone else reading this who is on the fence, please get the real facts from real people who have years of real experience in the zoo industry. Go to your local zoos, or the LA Zoo's website and you'll find lots of good information there.
Zoo professionals are not a bunch of selfish animal jailers who only do what they do for their own cruel pleasure.
Their pleasure is making sure that when you go to their institutions, you get the best education, recreation, research and science available- all going towards promoting animal conservation.

Continued...
So, don't believe the hype. Billy is well taken care of. His new habitat will be fantastic. Breeding animals in captivity does make a difference- just look at the California Condor and the Black-footed Ferret. Seeing animals up close and real is more impactful than keeping our kids chained inside watching real life on the tube.
Coming to zoos, and supporting the LA Zoo makes a difference for Asian elephants, and most importantly, Billy.
I'm now going to get blasted by the 4 horseman of the zoo apocolypse- but again- Billy is doing just fine and will do even better in his new home.
Support the LA Zoo!

[Zoofriend]

Jeez, this blog comment section is ridiculous.
All of the anti-Zoo, hater sentiment expressed is from the same freaking 4 people talking to each other. Enough already!
It's a replay of the last 4 years of my life where I have to sit in meetings listening to these totally unqualified people blab their unquantified opinions over and over.
The. Same. 4. People. Ok , maybe sometimes it's 6.
The Zoo gets 1.6 million visitors a year- yet these 4 people feel they speak for everyone. Hello?!- do the math.
If you guys have so much time on your hands- why not put it to good use and work towards a cause that actually matters? Like stopping dog fighting, or helping save rainforests or something.

[ZooSpecialist]

Zoo elephant breeding programs were set up for the purpose of replenishing zoo populations, not for returning animals to the wild. The idea that some animals may be returned to the wild was an afterthought from zoo marketing officials. The fact is that there is no plan or mechanism to return elephants to the wild within the zoos SSP breeding program for elephants.

Other species of animals that are being bred for release to the wild are raised in an environment that is off display to the public and in the habitat where they will be released. It is ridiculous to think that elephants bred and raised in North American zoos will ever contribute to the conservation of wild elephants. Biologists report that after just one captive bred generation, animals change in ways that make it less likely that they will survive in the wild, especially animals that depend on learned behavior like elephants.

Furthermore, elephant breeding programs in zoos are not self-sustaining. Captive elephants die at young ages and infant mortality is very high.

The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee boasts 2700 acres where elephants are free to move around as they please. They elephants are never locked in or out of the barns and they have the ability to form social bonds with other elephants in an environment. This and other facilities have proven to be financially sustainable, whereas zoos are constantly having to be underwritten by taxpayer dollars.

[Time2Reflect]

The impetus behind elephant breeding programs is to ensure survival of the species. If the species survives in zoos, then the possibility to release elephants into the wild would exist, but that is not to say that the sole purpose of a breeding program is for re-introduction to the wild. The best way to view elephant breeding programs is as an "insurance policy" - one that would ensure that if elephants went extinct in the wild (a sad but increasingly likely outcome in our lifetime), then at least their species will survive within the care and safety of modern zoological parks.

[vettech4eles]

Time,
"If the species survives in zoos, then the possibility to release elephants into the wild would exist, " this is faulty logic. Why are we focusing our efforts on breeding programs which have proven unsucessful, rather than saving this species habitat. I don't understand where the notion comes fromt hat for some reason we need to "breed" these animals. ELEPHANTS HAVE NO TROUBLE REPRODUCING INT HE WILD. they dont need help breeding, they need more space. the billions of dollars spent around the world on bredding programs is an outrage and a shame when it is obviosue that it is not now, nor will ever do anythign for the species. can you explain to me how this "insurance policy" is going to be released into land (if it hypothetically existed) in the future?, if there is not eneough space now, when willt here be....10 yrs...100 yrs...1,000? are villages going to dissapear and forests magically spring up everywhere?

[vettech4eles]

i simoply dont understand this logic. right now as im tyoping this, acres of rainforest just burned in thailand. explain to me how breeding elephants in zoos is somehow going to makew that rainforest come back and give us somewher eot put them? we need to be spending money and time on conserving land, not breeding elephants that have no where to go. breeding programs in zoos involve shipping elephants form zoo to zoo, causeing them undue stress and breaking lifetime bonds, articicially inseminating females that are too young in a desperate attemopt to have more preganccies,. many of these females haveent the faintest clue how to raise a baby b/c they have lived such abnormal lives, and some are actually violent to their offspring something NEVER seen int he wild. example: rose-tu. calved are traumatically seperated from their mothers and aften die from failurew to thrive because of this. a calf innt he wild remains with it's herd, its entire life, or nearby a herd if a male. bredding programs in zoos arent helping elephants, theyre HARMING them. moreover, it has been unsucceful,. as even admitted byt he zoologivcal association.

[vettech4eles]

cont...
the population of zoo eles is decreasing by 10% every year. We are focusing all the effort on unsuccesfully maintaing a population of captive eles, meanwhile their wild counterparts are being slaughtered, pushed off, there land, etc. The idea that these eles are being bred so they can one day be 'released" is obsurd. it's not practical, and will never happen. are we going to start dumbo-dropping eles into asia? these animals have been humanized and will approch the first person they see, and then be shot. come to terms with the idea that eles bred in zoos are bred in zoos so they can be kept in zoos. this is for profit, and b/xc elepahnts are cool and ppl like to work with them/look at them/be near them, etc. it is NOT for conservation. sad and sorry truth, and i wish it wasnt' but it is.

[BorisPasternak]

Time2Reflect - your last comment re: "at least their species would survive" raises a pertinent question. What is an ELEPHANT? Is it the general elephant shape, the skin, trunk and tusks - or is elephant ie. "their species" the complex matriarchal social groupings and familail relationships that last a lifetime? If you want an "elephant shape" to survive then photos, video and museum ehibits would do as well. If you want speciaes "survival" then you require the great complexity of the social life, cultural practices, whole environements and the lifetimes' learning handed down from the elders to the yongsters IN their various environements. Any zoo bred animal - elephant included, is no longer an example of the entierty of their species and could not succesfully reinhabit and reproduce the WILDnes of the ever dwindling populations in Africa and Asia. Zoo's do not conserve a species.

[vettech4eles]

well put, my friend

[DrHolly]

Jack Hanna makes an interesting point about this issue in an interview he gave recently. Since sanctuaries don't allow animals to breed, and the wild as we know it is gone (a myth as Brenda says), the only hope for elephants' continued survival is zoos. Zoos are actively involved in both breeding programs and they financially support more than 70 elephant conservation projects in the Africa and Asia.

You can watch the interview on this site:
www.billyshome.com

[Time2Reflect]

It's also available at the zoo's website: www.lazoo.org

Check it out - along with a wealth of other information about the zoos plans for Billy.

[vettech4eles]

DrHolly,
I also watched this. I have to say it's no different hearing it from Jack Hanna (though i respect the man) than from a zookeeper, or anyone else, because it's the same old stuff re-hashed with still no evidence. In fact the zoo association itself has published information that concludes exaclty the opposite of the claim that breeding elephants in zoos is successful,and somehow helping elephants populations. it has done absolutley nothing for elephants in the wild, except actually decrease there numbers because over 75% of elephants in zoos were captured from the wild. Out of the remaining ones born in captivity that have survived (barely 33% for asians, a little better for Africans) not one single elephant has been released in their native habitat, or ever will. elephants have no problem with breeding. they dont need our help, they have been doing it just fine for thousands of years. the problem is that we are taking all of their land. Efforts need to be focused on habitat conservation, not artificailly inseminating elephants in the united states in a unsuccessful attempt to keep up zoo populations..

[KrisConwell]

"In fact the zoo association itself has published information that concludes exaclty the opposite of the claim that breeding elephants in zoos is successful."

Can you please provide this information? What exactly has the zoo association published that concludes this? Please provide a link or citation.

[vettech4eles]

tcont...t
he fact is that elephants bred in zoos are not bred to help wild populations, but to boost zoo populations. And they arent even succeeding at this!.The AZA is currently toying with the idea of appealing the CITES ban on importing endangered asian eles to help increase the captive numbers in zoos. now, pardon my confusion...but isn't this the exact opposite of conservation? Just a couple years ago 11 african eles were bought from dealers in swaziland and shipped to san diego and busch garden zoos under the buzz word of "conservation" and claiming they were a rescue mission. In fact, there were two facilities IN AFRICA that offered to take the elephants, but the zoos offered more money, which then in turn cause dthe killing of entire herds so that the babies could be obtained and shipped to zoos. The three elderly elephants that had lived in san diego there whole lives, all with arthritis, were discarded off to chicago's blistering cold winters, where ALL THREE died within a year.

[PhilTeach]

Your presentation is not very precise. You give the impression that due to the San Diego Zoo's actions, a herd of elephants was killed to get the young members. The more accurate information is that the Africa's Swaziland big game park, was going to reduce the elephant population by killing them. The zoo made an offer to take some of the elephants.
(see http://www.sandiegozoo.org/membership/elephant_project.html). This is an example of a zoo saving elephants from destruction. Unfortunately, the animal activists expressed that it would have been better for all of the elephants to have been killed, than for the San Diego Zoo to have saved some of them. (see http://www.sandiego.org/disclaimers/elephant_statement.html). I hope that you are not of the mindset which preposes that it is etter for an elephant to be killed than for her to be rescued? Such ideological thinking by activists is not productive to the species and is presently ruining Billy's chance of getting a better home.

[vettech4eles]

"conservation" is a great buzz word and marketing tool. realistically, it is about profit, and what animals bring in the public, not about conservation. View the facts for yourself: http://www.impactpress.com/articles/octnov03/moore101103.html and yes, everyone, this is an article written by someone who works for PETA, but calm down, and feel free to back-check it. you will find it is all sound. (I am skeptical of anythign PETA flavored as well) . here are some AZA printed articles.: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76500776/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76500776/abstract
The elephant breeding program in zoos has been a bust, Every female would need to get pregnent and deliver a viable calf within the next few years to keep the zoo population for going extinct (impossible). Alternative: import more. this is anti-conservation. Zoos: quit insulting the public's intelligence by implying that they are improving situations for wild elephants by breeding captive ones thousands of miles away to live in 1/2 acre enclosures and die prematurely. With the 100,000 dollars it costs to keep ONE elephant in a zoo for one year, entire populations of genetically diverse eles could be protected INCLUDING their land in their native countries...how can anyone say this doesn't make more sense then trying to tirelessly breed captive elephants that will never see the wild. are we aiming for a planet where the only elephants left are behind concrete walls?

[PhilTeach]

You make it sound so simple. The only thing we need to do is spend money? Though money may be helpful, helping Billy get better facilities at his present home is not an obstacle toward supporting programs aimed at preserving elephant preserves or funding elephant sanctuaries. I do not see Brenda or any zoo official saying that we should not support such projects. The opposite is instead the case. Please feel free to move forward with forming organizations that contribute to the preservation of elephants' natural habitat. I am sure that the LA Zoo is more than willing to support any efficient and transparent organization. Forming and supporting such projects, however should not by nature be anti-zoo nor should they undermine the LA Zoo's efforts to develop its conservation programs or habitats for the creatures under its care.

[ZCTF]

As I see it Billy's needs need to be met if they cant be then an alternative solution must be found. Take a look at NC Zoo and their ele herd certainly a far more progressive Zoo where the welfare of the species appears to be the motive vs profit.
In my mind AZA could take a real lead in Conservation of the species on the ground in their native habitats. Sadly I dont think that will happen. Meanwhile we will keep fighting everyday in the bush on the ground to save what we can where we can, something we have been fairly successful with, tho not without great effort and hard work.
I would invite anyone who wishes to know the issue from the other side to come on to Africa, or Asia for that matter and see what true conservation is and meet the people who put their life's on the line to effect change everyday, and the species we protect.

[Time2Reflect]

Continued research & understanding of animals ...

conservation of species in various forms ...

education about animals & the pressures they face ...

AND (of course) the welfare of the individual.

These are the motives of modern zoos and the individuals who support them.

Ask anyone who works there - they're not in it for the money.

[ZCTF]

I have read with great interest the comments posted here. I find it very disturbing that the issue seems lost in the mudslinging and attacking done from both sides and the issue of Billy somehow is lost .
So for what its worth here are my thoughts on the subject. Not all groups becoming involved in these issues across the globe are Animal Rights, Some like us are from a Scientific Background with a ton of research and science backing up their position.
Most of us in this area look at the facts and what that tells us. It is not a matter of Anti-Zoo it is a matter of the needs of a species being met, space, diet, habitat, mental & physical health, the whole picture in total not just an awww that's sad.
What is the impact to that species? What illness are introduced thru captivity, What is the success of reproducing, are the successful births surviving and if so for how long? What is the lifespan of a captive animal vs wild?
So many factors we apply to the situation. If the animal can be provided with what it needs for its species then so be it, However if they are not being met what then is the alternative? I think it is a fair statement.
Your comment with regards to returning him to the wild, he is to humanized to be returned completely to the wild he would not survive.

[PhilTeach]

I find Brenda's article both factual and informative. Even though it is clear what side of the issue she is on, she does not merely express emotionally laden statements-She supports her claims with relevant references. For a commentator to state that she is not well informed or grounded in her position comes across as an attempt to undermind the facts by attacking the messenger.

In reference to the issue, it is clear that the LA Zoo is pro-Billy and pro-elephant. The zoo is attempting to provide a better environment for Billy. No sanctuary is presently able (PAWS) or willing (The Tennessee Elephant Sanctuary) to take Billy. There is no place to "Free Billy" as the animal activist exhort.

It is definitely a challenge to care for an elephant, and to do so implies taking on a great moral and finacial responsibility. In Billy case, no sanctuary has taken up such a responsibilty. The LA Zoo has. The LA Zoo has cared for him and wants to make his environment much more suitable. It is also an enourmous moral task to take steps to preseve the survial of a species. Again the LA Zoo has taken up such a task. No sanctuary is willing or able to do so. We should encourage the LA Zoo, in their efforts, and inform the LA City Council to also do so. To not do so is to become anti-Billy.

[Time2Reflect]

Hear hear! :D

[vettech4eles]

PhilTeach,
Actually, PAWS could take Billy now if LA zoo relinquished him . TES in TN currently has a bull elephant named Ned that they were not only willing but a ble to hold while PAWS completes his barn. If they needed to, PAWS could take him and Billy now, but there is no hurry seeing as how Ned can't travel due to his emaciation and Billy is still up in the air. PAWS houses another young bull named Nicholas. I agree that the zoo is attempting to provide a better environment for Billy, and god knows whatever they come up with can't be worse than what he currently has unless they release a team of poachers in there. This seems somewhat futile to me though when there is already a facility with hundreds of acres set aside specifically for elephants exhisting just north of here. It is true that Billy might have to wait in a holding pattern for his new barn to be completed at PAWS, but at least then he could immediatly have access to the land and the other elephants. In the situation at the zoo, it will be late this year (assuming the zoo can find funding) at best until the new habitat is completed, and then how long until another elephant can be located to bring in? he will wait just as long at the LA zoo, and even longer to have a companion, so the time-line argument isn't viable.

[PhilTeach]

Based on your comments, the question of Billy being accepted by a sanctuary contains many hypotheticals, while it is a fact that the LA Zoo has Billy, has begun construction of his new home, has the money to do so, and is morally willing to continue their care of him.
Other Points;
1. Thank you for confirming that PAWS is not presently able to take Billy, and would only take him if they needed to.
2. You do not dispute that TES does not presently want to permanently house or is able to permanently take in another bull elephant.
3. That the LA Zoo is doing the right thing in seeking to construct a better habitat for Billy.
4. Billy would already be in a new, enriched habitat if animal activists had not been such a consistent obstacle to the project with lawsuits, and involving the zoo in city politics. The construction was recently well underway until politicall­y-generate­d actions spearheaded by the animal activists. Such delays have condemned Billy to continue in his present living condition.
5. The money for the project has already been allocated. Time has been wasted and Billy's welfare is being jeopardized by all these objections. The LA Zoo should be permitted to construct the habitat ASAP.

[Time2Reflect]

These are a few of the most pervasive assumptions on this issue:

1) Billy will have access to the hundreds of acres at PAWS. [ F A L S E ]
At MOST Billy would have an enclosure comparable in size to what is planned for Nicholas (20 acres). Space for Billy can only be inferred as Nicholas' actual enclosure has not been completed yet and detailed site plans for Ned or proposed for Billy have not been made known. HOWEVER, PAWS has stated that accepting Billy would be contingent on the city of Los Angeles paying $2.5 MILLION to build facilities for him there since none now exist. This is more accurate than saying all the zoo has to do is "give him up."

[Time2Reflect]

2) That the zoo does not have funding for this project. [ F A L S E ]
Funds for this project have been allocated and in place for YEARS. City bond/fund money AND County bond money AND private donations serve as the funding sources that covered the initial cost of the exhibit AND now cover the expansion costs voted for by the City Council 13-2 in 2006. The bond money CANNOT be used for anything but capital improvements at the zoo. The private donations from individuals and families were raised specifically for THIS project. GLAZA has even committed themselves to additional funding by covering the debt service for the MICLA fund money. The city's financial obligation to pay $1.2 MILLION annually would ... be ... gone. Funding is not a question - it's a fact.

[Time2Reflect]

3) That Billy will have a companion at PAWS. [ F A L S E ]
Being a male, companionship for Billy at PAWS is impeded by 2 factors: sanctuary philosophy AND musth. Sanctuaries believe animals should not be bred in captivity, therefore to introduce a bull of breeding age into a group of females would be irresponsible because he would try to breed or otherwise harass them. The alternative would be to put him in with the other males, which currently include a 14-year-old juvenile and a 21-year-old malnourished victim of abuse. Billy, a 24-year-old healthy individual, would be dominate to both of them and a risk to their safety when in musth (a period of heightened aggression and unpredictable behavior for males). There is no guarantee of positive socialization between individuals - this goes for ANY animal in ANY captive situation. With reproductive interaction barred and male aggression likely to be countermanded, the closest thing Billy might get to companionship is interaction through a fence or what he would find with his keepers.

The great irony is that this possible future at PAWS is no different from his current living situation at the zoo. At the zoo, better conditions have already been years in the making and are currently in progress. However, at PAWS, it will be a continuation of his current living conditions - albeit roomier. It's sad ... but it's true.

[vettech4eles]

Also, stating that the sanctuaries do nothing for conservation is incorrect. they each have successful outreach/education programs and donate large sums of money to international in-situ projects. TES's telaconference programs at schools is so successful they have been advanced-booked for the next year, and have reached literally THOUSANDS of children, with one of their main messages being habitat preservation and respect for elephants. They don't breed elephants that will never be released into the wild. this is not their goal. If there was somewhere to PUT more elephants, then the sanctuaries would participate, but their primary goal is to provide good care and a natural life for there charges, and educate about habitat preservation, not make more elephants that will never set foot in the wild. Elephants bred in zoos never see the wild, in fact only 50% have survived to see captivity. They are almost always separated from their mother and "herd" and shipped off to another zoo immediatly upon being weaned. For an elephant, this is very traumatic and devestating. This does nothing to increase the numbers of elephants in the wild, or help preserve their habitats. it does, however increase the number of elephants in captivity that statistically will die prematurely.

[PhilTeach]

I agree that education is one of many elements required for the conservation of a species. It is misinformed human knowledge, leading to unwise activity, that endangers so many species today-including Asian elephants. Luckily the LA Zoo is aware of the need to educate and has many education programs. They provide a place where the people can be moved toward saving a species and/or the environment in which they are in need. Pick any given school day at the LA Zoo and you will not fail to find schoolchildren visiting. They are not merely interacting with pictures but life itself.

Even a simple zoo visit can contribute to the understanding and well-being of a species. In the book Ivory's Ghost, the author relates a short story on how a biologist's simple visit and observation of zoo elephants gave her an insight on how elephants are able to communicate even across long distances---an observation that contributes toward our understanding of elephant community structures.

I cannot help but remember the pioners in animal-media education. Individuals like Marlin Perkins (Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom), Jack Hanna (Animal Adventures) and Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter) all worked in and were supported by zoos. No doubt these `zoo workers' contributed toward contemporary conservation efforts. Education is one of the key factors in conservation and the LA Zoo provides it. Let us not be an obstacle toward them moving into the future.

[vettech4eles]

This is not conservation, this is propogation to keep populations up in zoos. if the money spent on the (unsuccessful) captive breeding programs was spent on In-situ conservation, entire herds, plus their home territory and anti-poaching teams could be funded. this makes more sens to me, but that's just me.There has been no documented study proving that seeing an elephant such as Billy in a zoo increases the conservation efforts of the public, in fact, the public has been seeing elephants in zoos all over the world for hundreds of years...and Asian Elephants populations are now at an all time low...this in itself proves that the "educaitonal" value or motivational impact is slim to none, and is not having an effect on protecting elephants. I sincerely hope though, and only time will tell, that if Billy's habiatat is completed that his head bobbing will stop and the people who spend 10 seconds passing by his new enclosure will suddenly be inspired to get involved in elephant conservation and reach into their wallets and pull out gobs of money to donate to the cause. otherwise, i see no point in spending 40million dollars on renovations that could be spent on in-situ conservation. 40million dollars in africa or asia would buy land, medical supplies and protection for multiple herds of elephants. So, i'm having troubble reconciling this LA Zoo project to give billy a few more acres. haha, ok...end of post...for now.

[vettech4eles]

I ask Brenda if she really truly loves animals, and wants what is best for Billy, that she do a little more research before blindly accepting what the LA zoo has used as its defenses for keeping Billy.
It is very important to understand all of the facts before choosing to support one side or another, and it appears to me that Brenda has not done this. As someone who used to think zoos were the end-all answer to everything elephant flavored, I can now say that after doing extensive research, working with elephants one-on-one, and countless hours of observation of elephants in zoos (including Billy) I now know that relocation to a sanctuary is a much better alternative to spending 40mil to renovate his zoo enclosure. I know that relocating him is the right thing to do to ensure that all of his physical, mental, and emotional needs are met. I can only hope that the city of LA will agree. I am positive that Billy's head bobbing from boredom and stress that the zoo claims is just something "billy does" will stop being something Billy does when he has an adequet environment. I think that if the LA zoo can not put their desire to have elephants and a (lucrative) breeding program aside for what is obviously better for Billy, who has served out 21 years in his barely 1/2 acre barren display, then their motives, to me, are disingenuous.

[mzmcg]

vettech4eles, I find your insipid posts exhausting. If you are so informed and know better than anyone else, write your own article and let it stand on its own merits not on the ashes of the reputation you are trying to destroy. If your mission is truly about Billy, then keep you ancillary comments and degradations out of it.

[vettech4eles]

Thanks for your post. i am currently working on an article. I also, in no manner, way, shape or form suggest that I know more than anyone else on this subject, or any subject for that matter, with the exception, perhaps of Tetris, as I have not yet met a worthy opponent. perhaps you and i can play sometime. If you had not been so exhausted by my post, and instead read it thoroughly you would have seen that I not once but twice stated the fact that I do not wish to speak badly of the author of this article, and that it is obvious she is an animal lover, and that It can be appreciated that she took the time and effort she did to write not one, but two articles about Billy. Regardless of the fact that I and others may disagree on the content, any press is good press right now for an endangered animal in a society whose collective conscious is more focused on who will win "America’s next top model" rather than the quality of life of the various creatures who inhabit this planet. Again, thanks for your post, and for defending Brenda. that is noble, though I would prefer to know your opinion on the status of elephants in zoos, particularly Billy at the LA zoo.

[vettech4eles]

Interestingly, though the AZA claims they are the experts in elephant care, and sanctuaries are not because they are not AZA accredited, countless zoos have been cited for elephant abuse, neglect and mishandling. Portland zoo has an entire file detailing the mishandling of elephants at it's facility as documented by veterinarians and also the public. The LA zoo has managed to kill 13 out of 13 elephants kept there since 1970 before they were considered old, over half not even reaching age 20yrs, which is shameful for an animal who reaches 65-70 yrs when not interfered with. The LA zoo was also involved in a lawsuit for breaking laws set forth in the animal welfare act and also CITES which protect endangered captive animals when one of there elephants "gita" was allowed to suffer for over 8 hours unable to get up on a concrete slab before keepers decided to take action. She died there from blood clots caused by her recumbency. Later, investigations uncovered that "Annie" another elephant at the LA zoo had been diagnosed positive for Tuberculosis, even though the zoo denies this fact when questioned. They also conveniently lost her veterinary files, and any footage of "gita" during her 8 hour anguishing period of being down in the barn unable to stand. So much for AZA standards and being "experts" in elephant care. If anyone would like to view this information, you can see it here: http://www.aapn.org/losangeles.html