A small, vocal group of animal activists in Los Angeles is mounting a campaign to halt construction on the new elephant exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo, and to send the Zoo's Asian bull elephant, Billy, to a sanctuary.
As a writer, I know the power of words, and "sanctuary" is one of those wonderful words that packs a lot of emotion. Serene, safe, peaceful, idyllic -- all come to mind. Murmuring the word sanctuary through half-slitted eyes while conjuring the images the word evokes is enough to make me want to sign up to live in one.
Depending on your experience, "zoo" is also an emotionally loaded word. My own mental associations with the word have evolved dramatically over my lifetime. Childhood visits to the Bronx Zoo and others sparked a lifelong love of animals and fascination with their behavior. My family still laughs over an incident 30 years ago, when my little sister dropped her spending money into the monkey moat and then watched as one showy simian plucked the dollar bills from the water, held them up for all to see, and then promptly ate them.
In my twenties, I began to question the motives of zoos: Were they jailing animals for our entertainment who could otherwise be allowed to roam free?
My compassion for animals and my fascination with monkeys and apes in particular not only inspired my novels Monkey Love and Monkey Star, but also led me to pursue a degree in primatology and to work in both zoo and sanctuary settings.
Having worked at both, I can tell you what zoos and sanctuaries have in common: people who love the animals and are passionate about their welfare. Almost without exception, the people I've worked alongside were tireless in their efforts to care for the creatures entrusted to them.
The main difference, in my experience, is that sanctuaries by and large have fewer resources and lower standards for accreditation. At the sanctuary, we routinely fed expired and rotten food, doing our best to cut off the foul parts of each piece of produce, unable to toss out the whole batch because we were entirely dependent on donations from local grocers. Requests for much-needed supplies went unfilled for months, not due to lack of care, but lack of funds. I depleted my own cupboards to bring in treats for the chimpanzees I cared for, and recruited my fellow primatology students from Cal State Fullerton to help assemble Christmas gifts filled with goodies.
I still have great admiration and respect for my sanctuary colleagues, but most of them, like myself, eventually left the setting because they were heartsick at never being able to do enough.
For the past eight years, I've been involved with the L.A. Zoo, first as a research intern, then volunteer, and eventually staff. Working in a zoo, I was immediately struck by the size and quality of the animal habitats and the ready availability of most resources. And while the staff was as committed to animal care as my sanctuary friends, there were more of them. More vets on hand, more keepers assigned to each section, more volunteers chopping food and cleaning habitats. My only regret in leaving the sanctuary world was that I could not bring the chimpanzees I cared for with me to the zoo.
Animals at the Los Angeles Zoo lack for nothing. They have five full-time staff veterinarians, leaders in their field, on site not only to care for them in emergencies, but to provide routine preventive care using the latest digital diagnostic equipment. They receive fresh produce daily and their diets are determined by professionals trained in the field of animal nutrition, not dictated by what donations were able to be scrounged up that day.
Admittedly, there are good sanctuaries and bad ones, and some have deeper pockets than others. I'm not here to bad-mouth sanctuaries, but rather to challenge people's assumptions of zoos and sanctuaries, assumptions often based on gut reaction rather than science.
Working at a zoo put to rest my naïve questions about zoos' ulterior motives. Zoos may have originated as menageries, places to publicly exhibit nature's oddities with little regard for the animals' intrinsic needs, today "displaying" animals takes a backseat to preserving them. The zoos of my sister's money-eating monkey have evolved from places of spectacle to centers of serious science and conservation.
Zoos accredited by the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) not only adhere to a very strict set of animal care guidelines--much stricter than the USDA licensing requirements for sanctuaries--they also work tirelessly toward the bigger picture: the survival of species.
Conservation is the guiding principal of modern zoos, and it's not just a buzzword. Bringing this back to the elephant, there are fewer than 35,000 Asian elephants remaining in the wild. Poaching, habitat destruction, and the illegal ivory trade threaten their continued survival. While caring for the elephants in their immediate care, AZA-accredited zoos also provide funding and field support for conservation programs on the ground in Asia. They are also arks, places where elephants and other endangered animals can breed and be assured a future.
The Los Angeles Zoo is in the middle of constructing an expansive elephant habitat that will be bigger than the gorgeous facility at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, yet the aforementioned well-intentioned but under-informed people have repeatedly attempted to derail the project in favor of sending Billy to a sanctuary, even a theoretical sanctuary that has yet to be designed, built, or tested.
If successful here, they will not stop at this zoo (indeed, related attacks have been ongoing at zoos nationwide). Nor will they stop at elephants. Giraffes and gorillas, prairie dogs and pill bugs--any creature living in a facility termed a "zoo" will be targeted by these groups as needing to be "saved."
But before you send money or sign a petition to save zoo-dwelling pillbugs, prairie dogs, or pachyderms, I implore you to visit your local zoo, speak to the biologists, veterinarians, researchers and keepers who care for them. If we all learn about what modern accredited zoos do, and share that knowledge with others, then perhaps one day, when people close their eyes and whisper the word "zoo," they'll see the same idyllic images that the word "sanctuary" currently conjures.
Follow Brenda Scott Royce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BrendaScottRoyc
The pressure is to release Billy to an environment that will permit his natural behavior to replace the psychosis that Los Angeles' children are observing in him now. A hologram could teach the children how big an elephant is. Only freedom and society will teach them how elephants behave.
That said, will people please STOP equating animals at the zoo with theme-park attractions! This goes for Billy and any other animal at the zoo. Animals in the zoo CANNOT nor should they EVER just be "switched-out" for holograms, video presentations, or lifeless audio-animatronics. They are NOT one and the same. To suggest otherwise is utterly disrespectful to those who dedicate their lives to learning about and caring for these animals, the public's intelligence by saying that their perception would not change from one to the other, and most importantly to the animals themselves - their dignity, their majesty, and their invaluable worth to us all.
Thank you Brenda, for painting an accurate picture of both sides of the issue.
You clearly do not have all your facts or you wouldn't make this ARROGANT statement. You do not understand the daily workings at either sanctuary who both rehab zoo and circus elephants.......I repeat.....Zoo and circus elephants in need of rehab!!! ...or are hospice and beyond hope. You need to ask yourself, why are they in need of rehab and then go read and learn.
1) The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee has a commitment to FEMALES ONLY. http://www.elephants.com/females.htm
2) Ignoring Pat Derby's statement that she has no experience working with bulls, PAWS now has a young bull named Nicholas they have not even completed the facilities for because they are still raising funds for fencing.
http://www.pawsweb.org/sanctuary_expansion.html
3) PAWS has ANOTHER bull named Ned they have agreed to give a home to, requiring facility expansion they need to raise MORE funds for.
http://www.pawsweb.org/news_and_alerts_ned.html
4) It was brought to light in the LA City Council's Budget & Finance Committee meeting on 12/1/08 that PAWS has ASKED for $2.5 million to build SEPARATE facilities for Billy were he sent there.
http://www.lacity.org/cdaudio_wm.htm (click on 12/1/08 audio and LISTEN)
5) Admittedly, I do not hold anything against The Elephant Sanctuary because they operate more as a true sanctuary should, not allowing the public to come into the sanctuary to view the elephants. Meanwhile, PAWS charges an arm and a leg to see their animals from individuals to large groups throughout the year.
http://www.pawsweb.org/seeing_the_elephants.html
http://www.pawsweb.org/tour_de_paws.html
http://www.pawsweb.org/calendar_of_events.html
6) BILLY DOES NOT NEED REHAB! For elephants who DO need them, sanctuaries are a good choice in light of their previous housing and/or treatment. But I repeat, Billy DOES NOT need a sanctuary. He was never a performing animal or in a circus like many sanctuary elephants were. For many of those who came from zoos, they were sent because they needed a home after their zoos chose not to exhibit them any more OR there were documented cases of extreme abuse. Billy has lived his whole life in the zoo, exhibiting behavior that is normal for him - NOT all elephants - just him. Keep in mind elephants are individuals and should not be expected to act the same just because it's the same kind of animal. Billy is not distressed and he is not "insane." He is just Billy and does not need to be sent away for rehab he doesn't need.
Did you know a 26-year old elephant died at PAWS sanctuary, less than 2 months? The average lifespan of an Asian elephant is around 40 years.
Did you know there is no breeding at sanctuaries, so either Billy would be by himself, or potentially be castrated? With Asian elephant populations plummeting due to human encroachment, this species is dying. If all elephants were to be sent to non breeding institutions, this species will die out. That’s why these conservation programs are so important to the survival of these species. And building a sanctuary in Sylmar, which is a burn area, doesn’t sound like the City Council is thinking in the best interest on the individual or the species.
Did you know that elephants in sanctuaries can and do suffer from foot ailments, the same as any wild and captive elephants? And that most sanctuaries don’t have staff qualified to treat these ailments on a weekly, let alone daily basis? The LA Zoo does.
Sanctuaries are a great place as a last resort. The L.A. Zoo offers veterinary care, healthy food, enrichment, and socialization. Why would anyone chose to send him to a substandard facility?
If you truly are acting on the best interest of Billy, you would listen to the experts, not the actors.
The prolific propagation of Asian elephants is especially dubious. There is hardly any historic wildlife habitat more trashed than the ancient forests of Asian elephants. Entire landscapes on the Indian subcontinent or Asian tropics would have to be remodeled to the tune of a thermonuclear bomb to clear away the kind of acreage that these great animals would require.
A public zoo could concentrate on relatively modest land holdings, serving such small animals as small clawed otters, some birds, foxes, lesser pandas, etc., while procuring other properties for intensive breeding.
The National Zoo in Washington, D.C., utilizes a strategy somewhat akin to this. The National Zoo no longer displays any chimpanzees whatever. It has opted for fewer species, and better habitats than it has utilized in the past for the species remaining.
The three National Zoo cheetah brothers generally roam the yard together, socialize, and wash one another, rather than huddle alone in their own separate compartments. With respect to these cheetahs, however, I would note that a zoo volunteer explained that they were not at all pleased when they were first delivered from their breeding compound at another location, and that, when they were confronted with the spectacle of zoo visitors hooting, howling, and yelling "Cheetah! Cheetah!," they tried to flee the exhibit yard, and wedge themselves back into the interior compartments.
Royce is also wrong to claim that those of us working to get elephants out of city zoos also want to close down all zoos. The zoo elephant “activists” I work with include zoo curators and directors, scientists studying elephants in wild habitats, psychologists, nutritionists, and zoo veterinarians. We do not want to close zoos. We want to just make them better.
Many species do well in captivity, if they are in a good zoo. For some, it can even be paradise. But elephants, I am convinced, should not be kept in city zoos. Their physical, emotional, social, behavioral, psychological needs make it impossible for most zoos to adequately provide for them, especially in just a few acres.
AZA’s minimum standards for elephants, especially, are totally inadequate. Even now, in the best modern zoos, many zoo elephants suffer from obesity, arthritis, foot rot, mental anguish, reduced life expectancy, boredom, loneliness, lack of social interaction, and other deprivations, simply because so many zoos are determined to hang on to their elephants under any circumstances.
Lets spend 40 million - to make a huge elephant habitat - so that the HUGe problem of NOT providing enough space for these wonderful animals to survive - and thrive - BUT WAIT - WAIT -
Lets then PACK IT FULL OF OVER 10 MORE ELEPHANTS !!
COME ON NOW !! there is only so much space in LA -
and it is surely not enough for a HERD of 10 or more - !!
NOW - if these guys came out and said - we are building this for say 2 or 4 - maybe they will be doing something good - but lets see how much room each of the elephants will have once the
NO VAcancy Sign Goes up in front of the 40 million dollar Super 8 Motel -
( seems like LA has much better things to spend there $ on - they must be taking lessons from G. Bush ? )
WHy not put it into schools - ?
Now lets take a look at say PAWS or the Tenn. sancuary -
2300 acres for 10 elephants - compared to the tiny spot of land for the same amount of elepahants in LA -
I guess in some folks eyes it makes no difference - however - it is clear that elepahnts no longer belong in ZOO's or circus - that can not provide the room needed for them -
next we will be seeing elepahnt rides
THEY ARE BUILDING IT FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS!! (love the caps)
The zoo is designing the exhibit to house a MAX capacity of 10, BUT they are not starting off with that number. It will be a herd of 3-4 (Billy plus 2-3 females to start a breeding group). The space is designed to provide room for Billy, the cows, and whatever offspring they produce. John Lewis, the director of the zoo, has gone on record saying that they will grow their herd in accordance with what the space can provide and what the zoo's budget will allow. This is not going to be elephant's living like sardines as many have been arguing.
As I said before, PAWS is still trying to raise funds to finish housing for the ONE bull elephant they already have AND for the SECOND bull already on his way they have agreed to provide a home for. Don't believe me? Check their website! Who knows how long it could be before they could raise the funds necessary to accommodate the two of them? And to add on to that - we want to send them Billy who will have to "wait his turn" for housing?
For the last time, Ruby was not Billy's companion! They hadn't been housed together for YEARS (at least 10) - ever since he first started going into musth. Even in more recent years, she was housed at a holding area behind the World of Birds show on the OTHER SIDE OF THE ZOO from Billy.
Don't delude yourself into thinking he will get to "reacquaint himself with an old friend." That's not what they were - that's not what they are - that's not what they would be.
I looked up the LA Zoo, and they're currently constructing an area that is "more than six acres." 6 acres?... I live on a 1/2 acre, my neighbor a full acre and 6 just seems way too small for elephants.
In San Bernardino County, they could be building something that is 60 acres or more... and it would still be within traveling distance...
I'm no animal expert but what about a huge area, 60 - 100 acres, where various different kinds of animals could roam free?... elephants, giraffes, zebras, etc... then they could have "human enclosures" above ground to see the animals and below ground to allow free movement above...
I know I wouldn't be in such good shape if I had to live inside my house my whole life, but if I could live in something the size of a mall, it wouldn't be so bad.
Please remember Billy is a valuable individual because he was rescued from the wild. As the number of Asian elephants decrease (down to 10% of the population 10 years ago), the breeding programs iin zoos help keep a population viable with the possiblity of releasing back into their natural habitat when it becomes possible.