|
The following rebuttal to the above statement from the Los Angeles Zoo was written and provided by David Casselman, co-founder of the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary and the Founder/CEO of the nonprofit Ecoflix Foundation and the Ecoflix Channel
Billy and Tina: The Real Story
For those who are interested, here are some facts about the real story behind the AZA decision to move Billy and Tina.
The Back Story
The repeated public protestations of the Los Angeles Zoo lack factual support. The claim that they sent Billy and Tina to Oklahoma out of concern for their well-being deserves a thoughtful and factual response. So, here it is.
The substance of this reply involves both general and specific knowledge acquired as part of decades of work to help save animals, globally. This includes the formation of a sanctuary in Cambodia which rescues elephants, among many other species of indigenous animals. It also includes my decades of work and partnership with a world-renown sanctuary in Thailand, which rescues captive elephants on a regular basis. And it is informed by my work in Botswana, protecting a large area of land at the southern tip of the Okavango Delta, which also involves protection of elephants, among many other species. And my opinions are shaped by many things I have learned as part of my nonprofit work associated with the Ecoflix Foundation, which has many projects worldwide, including protection and rewilding of Asian elephants.
But this response is focused upon the plight of captive elephants. And it is based principally upon my knowledge about Billy, Tina, and the Los Angeles Zoo elephant exhibit. This knowledge was largely developed during the 7 years of that litigation, resulting in the expenditure of $8 million of my time as a trial lawyer. Working pro bono, I did my level best to save Billy and other elephants, from a painful early death, like almost every other elephant who has been forced to live in Los Angeles. The litigation proceeded through the Court of Appeals, twice, where we won each time.
Then the case also went to trial, also resulting in a verdict against the Zoo, which included very specific factual findings. These facts are still highly relevant to disprove the false claims the Zoo continues to make. Ultimately, the Zoo appealed the case to the California Supreme Court, rather than simply do what the trial court concluded was necessary for the care of its elephants. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided the case based purely on a legal technicality, which was never even mentioned during oral argument. Indeed, the written, published opinion lacks even on reference or mention of elephants. Indeed, the legal technicality upon which the case was decided, was itself based upon a faulty legal premise never presented to us for analysis or explanation. Suffice it to say that nothing during that litigation, or since, changed the damning factual findings of the trial court judge.
To prepare for the trial, we dug deep into the voluminous evidence, including decades of zoo history. Plus, we focused on our court-ordered veterinary examination of Billy, along with a detailed study of all of the medical records retained by the Zoo involving their care, and the death of almost all of their elephants. Detailed depositions of every key zoo employee involved in the elephants’ care was taken. Depositions of zoo directors across the country were taken, most notable among them being the deposition of the L.A. Zoo Director. And of necessity, our work required detailed consultation with top captive and wild elephant experts, worldwide. Notably, the zoo did not have a single employee with any knowledge about wild elephants. Despite this obvious shortcoming, they pretended to know what elephants liked, wanted, and needed, with absolutely no knowledge or experience. This fact was painfully obvious and noted by the Court, as demonstrated below.
Following the trial, the findings of the Court were presented in writing, based upon the evidence presented. He started with his conclusions based upon the engineering analysis we had done, proving that the rock-hard ground surface was the result of compaction of the soil (by the multi-ton elephants) in the elephant exhibit. They had no choice but to walk over and compact the ground, every single day. This led directly to the poor health of their feet and legs. The conditions which were documented, including hot electric wires preventing the elephants from even touching the grass, plants, or trees in the exhibit, led directly to the frustration of the elephants, compounding their injuries, and culminating in painful and premature deaths.
Their suffering was absolutely predictable, as confirmed by the pattern of injuries suffered by virtually every captive elephant in the Los Angeles Zoo. These findings, tied to foot and leg injuries, which developed into further problems, were confirmed by independent, expert veterinarians, who were able to examine Billy. And finally, the overarching opinions of world renown wild elephant experts, comparing the condition of the L.A. Zoo elephants with wild elephants of the same age and sex, made it obvious that the L.A. Zoo elephant exhibit was the cause of their suffering and premature deaths.
For those who have not had the time or opportunity to follow or study the history of captive elephant abuse, this is the background information I rely upon when responding to the current Zoo claims. There is a massive body of well-documented elephant abuse at the L.A. Zoo. And I doubt it differs much from the horrific track record of virtually every other AZA elephant exhibit in the United States. It is why many countries have closed their elephant exhibits entirely and are moving all of their surviving elephants to qualified sanctuaries.
So, Los Angeles is by no means an exception, when considering the cruelty inflicted upon captive elephants worldwide, as confirmed by most recorded historical accounts. People love to dominate big, large, animals. What flaw in our nature drives us to do this is beyond my understanding. Captivity is by its nature a form of suffering. Would any human want to be ripped from their family, country, environment, and forced to live in a cage too small and ill-suited for their physical needs? The question answers itself. So, why do we not see that reality when we trap and misuse beautiful, wild animals of every shape and kind?
With that explanation of my background, training, and my bias, I will now respond to the recent Zoo statements, designed to assure the public of their goodwill, kindness, and extraordinary concern for the health and welfare of Billy and Tina.
While some of the Zoo claims are innocent enough, I doubt that I have ever heard many more demonstrably false statements about the quality of care involved, or their exaggerated concern for the welfare of these two long-suffering captive elephants. They have been routinely subjected to horrible conditions, exposing them to unnecessary trauma on many levels. Their decision to move them could have been an act of kindness. But instead, they have been forced to travel to a new, substandard zoo, all while falsely representing their motives for doing so.
This response to the recent public claims made by the City and the Zoo is intended to set the record straight regarding Billy and Tina, with specific focus upon why the zoo chose to move them to another zoo, and completely ruled out the most humane alternative, allowing them to go to a qualified sanctuary.
The Current L.A. Zoo Claims (shown in red)
“The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) requires accredited zoos to maintain a herd of at least three elephants because they are social animals and keeping them in larger groups is crucial for their well-being. With only Billy and Tina remaining, the L.A. Zoo no longer met that standard. The Zoo spent the past year carefully evaluating its elephant program following the loss of two older elephants, Jewel (61) in 2023 and Shaunzi (53) in 2024. Both elephants were in declining health and ultimately euthanized due to age-related health issues.”
The AZA is the governing body which effectively controls the actions of its member zoos. L.A. is an AZA member. While there are benefits to being an AZA member zoo (such as access to more prized animal species for exhibition) there is a price to be paid for “doing the right thing” if it differs from AZA dogma. Specifically, if a zoo director disagrees with a particular AZA guideline trouble lurks on the horizon. A relevant example involves Ron Kagan, by all objective expert accounts, an exceptional zoo director. But when he concluded that the Detroit Zoo could not humanely keep elephants and decided to close their elephant exhibit (citing the horrific winter cold conditions, forcing their elephants to stay in cramped indoor quarters) he and the zoo were threatened by the AZA, promising to withdraw their accreditation. Similar heavy-handed tactics have served to keep AZA zoos “in line” for decades.
The Los Angeles Zoo is not only a flagship AZA facility, Denise Verret, its current director, is a high-ranking AZA official. Hence, it is more than reasonable to assume that the AZA actually made the decision to move Billy and Tina, without any real concern about what Angelenos thought about it. And without more insight, it is easy to see why they chose to do what they did. The proverbial writing has been “on the wall” in Los Angeles for many years. Every single elephant they managed to move to L.A. died sooner or later, almost always in pain, prematurely, and usually involving horrible circumstances.
Just a few examples: An elephant named McClain died of a broken neck, after an altercation with Tara, another female elephant caused her to fall into an empty concrete moat in the then-current elephant exhibit. On a separate occasion, a bull elephant named Hannibal died when he was improperly over-medicated by a zoo veterinarian. And virtually all of the long-term captive elephants suffer from daily pain and eventually death, caused by first foot and then leg injuries associated with the ever-present hard ground which they compact with their feet by walking back and forth in the same small space every day. When the pain is too great for them to stand, they fall to the ground, and due to their immense weight (usually exacerbated by lack of exercise) they cannot breathe properly and either suffocate or suffer a heart attack. These are the conditions present in virtually every AZA zoo.
Notably, as history will confirm, neither the Zoo nor the AZA ever admit that they need to move L.A. Zoo elephants because they are likely to die there prematurely and in pain. Billy and Tina are the latest example. The reason given in their case is that “The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) requires accredited zoos to maintain a herd of at least three elephants because they are social animals and keeping them in larger groups is crucial for their well-being.” This “rule” is, of course a valid reason for moving elephants out of a zoo environment and has been valid for years before the decision was made to move Billy and Tina in 2025. So how do they explain that their “rule of three” was not enough to move Billy when he was alone? Or why wasn’t it a valid reason to move them during the many other times when he was with just one other elephant?
So, it is hard to credit this “requirement” as anything more than a make-weight excuse for some other reason they are unwilling to state publicly. But they certainly did not move Billy and Tina out of concern for their loneliness.
Indeed, it should be noted that beyond the number of elephants in the L.A. Zoo at any given time, Billy has always been isolated from other elephants because he is a bull elephant. There are serious problems involved with allowing a bull to live with female elephants, particularly in small spaces, and certainly when the females are not in excellent health. (Breeding attempts often cause broken hips and/or backs of infirm females) And in a small space (which includes virtually every AZA Zoo) a much larger bull elephant can be extremely dangerous, particularly during heightened period of sexual arousal and aggression known as Musth.
Hence, by AZA standards, Billy has been alone for virtually his entire 30 plus years at the L.A. Zoo. But that was never enough to move him to an appropriate environment. Indeed, the facts make it clear that keeping a bull elephant, alone or with females nearby, is just cruel under any circumstances. Compounding this well documented fact, the L.A. Zoo posted a sign for a decade or more, claiming that Billy was not lonely, because bull elephants live a solitary existence in the wild. This is patently false, and was proven false during the trial. Bull elephants are extremely social and almost always maintain contact with their nuclear family, a herd of bull elephants of similar age, or start their own herd as a breeding bull. They are not normally found alone in the wild. And in captivity, that is just one of many huge problems they face.
So why now, all of a sudden, in the dark of night, must Billy and Tina be whisked off to another zoo? Well, starting with their first explanation, we know it wasn’t because there were only two of them. Multiple times during his decades of suffering in Los Angeles, Billy saw other elephants come and go, often leaving him not just alone in his separate pen, but alone in the entire exhibit. So, that is just an excuse. And if that is the best one they could come up with, they know it lacks credibility.
Their current make-weight arguments “fail the smell test.” They made the same kind of “holier than thou” assertions when they buffaloed the L.A. City Council, over vigorous public objections, into pouring $42 million into their current elephant exhibit. The AZA had to be thrilled. Los Angeles paid the heavy cost to “expand” their facility. They knew full well that the size of an elephant exhibit is the holy grail. They used that as an excuse to get the money to expand the exhibit. They know that wild elephants walk up to 50 miles a day. They are not built to stand all day, particularly on concrete-hard ground, compressed by their massive weight, daily, as they walk on the same ground over and over again.
Nor was this reality lost upon the Los Angeles Superior Court judge, who concluded: “All is not well at the Elephants of Asia exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo. Contrary to what the zoo's representatives may have told the Los Angeles City Council in order to get construction of the $42 million exhibit approved and funded, the elephants are not healthy, happy, and thriving.”
So how does Zoo Director Denise Verret claim their move to Tulsa will help? She claimed it will cause them “to thrive.” Sound familiar? She made this claim, knowing that it tricked the council years ago, and almost none of the council members today, heard that same false promise years a ago. But they got $42 million ostensibly to bring the elephant exhibit up to the highest AZA standards. But what does that mean to an elephant…who will predictably die prematurely and in pain, in an exhibit which meets the AZA’s highest standards?
None of the critical shortcomings which were ignored at least twice before, were addressed in the new exhibit, as all of the animal advocates and experts warned. The fact is that despite the increased size of the $42 million expanded exhibit, they chose to erect buildings, add walkways, courtyards and billboards, which took up most of the extra space. That left the elephants with literally no meaningful improvements in the size of the exhibit! Then, despite the known problem of crippling hard ground in small zoo exhibits, L.A. Zoo never rototilled the ground, not even once, until the trial court ordered it. Then, when the Supreme Court reversed that opinion, on purely legal grounds, the Zoo immediately stopped rototilling the rock-hard ground. They did this knowing it was critical for the elephants’ health. So much for their concern for the well-being and care of their elephants.
“The Zoo evaluated all available options including AZA accredited sanctuaries. Mayor Bass inquired about moving the elephants to a sanctuary — the Zoo worked to ensure that all viable options had been considered during the course of the Zoo’s comprehensive evaluation.. The decision to move the elephants to the Tulsa Zoo was made with the health and well-being of the individual elephants as the top priority and at the recommendation of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and its Elephant Species Survival Plan (SSP) which advises on the management of the entire population of elephants in AZA-accredited institutions as a single herd. The Tulsa Zoo was the top recommendation of the SSP based on space, herd dynamics, and expertise of the staff.”
Again, such make-weight claims are as porous as they sound. But what is clear, and undoubtedly true, is that the AZA drove this decision. Not the alleged experts running the L.A. Zoo and its elephant exhibit. And the AZA has no concern whatsoever regarding the will of the people of Los Angeles or the City Council. They have made that obvious. Hiding the truth; sneaking the elephants out under cover of darkness; and falsely claiming it was all driven by their welfare.
From the first sentence, one can see the blinders that controlled the supposed “welfare driven” decision of the Zoo. The tautology which they used as their justification might be compelling to those without inside knowledge. But what they don’t tell explain, is that there is only one sanctuary in the world that they considered as part of their mysterious criterion for approval. And that sanctuary (Tennessee Elephant Sanctuary “TES”) is indeed qualified and was willing to take Billy and Tina. An expert from TES testified against the L. A. Zoo at the Billy trial. TES would obviously have been infinitely better for both Tina and Billy. So, there must be a reason why they disregarded TES.
My educated speculation suggests that the Tulsa Zoo/AZA will be paying the L.A. Zoo, essentially under the table in some fashion. I don’t mean to suggest illegality. But invisible is more the idea. For example, they might magically decide to help L.A. Zoo by bringing in some new captive animals as a quid pro quo. And it is simply a fact that TES would have required millions of dollars for their permanent care. Understandably, that would be a serious impediment. But it could have been surmounted. Many Angelenos have publicly offered to make generous payments to help save Billy and Tina.
So what is this really about? And why artificially limit the welfare of Billy and Tina to the one U.S. AZA sanctuary? What does that requirement have to do with the best possible care for Billy and Tina for the rest of their lives? Nope, that is not the reason for their actions either.
TES would be fine. No reasons were given for ignoring the much better outcomes to be expected from sending them there. And as noted, it is not the only qualified sanctuary. Indeed, if one looks beyond the artifice of “AZA Accreditation” based upon their secretive standards, it becomes clear that there is an entire world of optimal care available…if that was the standard they were using. Transparently, IT WAS NOT. The AZA/L.A. Zoo claims in this regard are an artifice.
If they had even considered the best possible outcome for Billy and/or Tina, they would know that there is a quality sanctuary in Brazil; another in Cambodia; and another in Thailand. NONE WERE CONSULTED. Plus, as the co-founder of the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary, with more acreage than any of the others, I have been offering publicly for years, to arrange for the transfer and lifetime care of Billy. And I recently offered to take Tina too. My public (in the Ecoflix film, Free Billy; and during the City Council meeting two years ago with Ms. Verret present and participating; and other private offers were ignored. Plus, they could easily have arranged to send them to PAWS in northern California and/or almost any of the other quality sanctuaries noted above. So why the artifice?
My educated speculation? The AZA and its member zoos are money making operations. They have a kingdom of their own making in the United States. They rule their kingdom with an iron fist. The brutally substandard conditions of their zoos make it clear that while they claim that they maintain high standards, like the L.A. Zoo, the horrific conditions of the AZA elephant exhibits are all substandard, including Tulsa. Its horrific ratings speak loudly to that issue. The AZA willingness to cause and allow the suffering of so many of their animals is impossible to justify. Their mantra is to always claim that their revenue-driven decisions are based upon the best interests and welfare of the animals. I believed that as an uneducated child. But not anymore. I have simply seen and learned too much to buy their conclusions, without substance.
On one visit to the L.A. Zoo, I saw an otter sitting on the ground in 90+ degrees, in a tiny pen with an empty bathtub nearby. It was enough to make me want to cry.
I have seen big cats in tiny cages, pacing endlessly, in stifling heat, with no other cats nearby and absolutely nothing to do…day after day.
And my study of the elephant exhibit conditions includes countless examples of substandard and cruel practices. As a result, focused solely on the elephant exhibit, the trial court judge neatly summarized his conclusions, based upon sworn evidence, including all of the L.A. Zoo witnesses. He stated that: “[T]he Elephants of Asia exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo is not a happy place for elephants, nor is it for members of the public who go to the zoo and recognize that the elephants are neither thriving, happy, nor content. Captivity is a terrible existence for any intelligent, self-aware species, which the undisputed evidence shows elephants are. To believe otherwise, as some high-ranking zoo employees appear to believe, is delusional. And the quality of life that Billy, Tina, and Jewel endure in their captivity is particularly poor.”
So, when I hear that “The Los Angeles Zoo works tirelessly to assure that all its animals, including the elephants, receive the best care possible.” Please forgive me, history does not even recognize, much less support this hollow claim.
The L.A. Zoo and the AZA muscled their will over the top of the City Council, and contrary to the will of the people. And Mayor Bass stood by and let them do it. The Council has been asking them for justifications for their proposed actions for at least a year. They simply stonewalled them, ignored the pleas of Angelenos, and did the bidding of their master, the AZA.
It is beyond sad. It is pathetic, dishonest, and reprehensible. And without any true concern for their suffering, Billy and Tina have been shunted off to another substandard AZA facility, with a different, albeit familiar problem. Too many elephants in far too little space! L.A. had too little space, for fewer elephants. And as of yet, we don’t know how many buildings and other structures will deprive the elephants of whatever space might be available, including fencing them off in even smaller pens. They certainly cannot keep them together, pretending they are one happy family. Billy will be isolated immediately, unless the Tulsa Zoo knows even less than L.A. about the care of captive elephants. So, what will they claim then about the improved conditions for Billy?
The sad, immutable fact is that Billy and Tina, if left in L.A. or Tulsa, will soon die, prematurely and in pain. In Tulsa, t will just be on someone else’s watch. And maybe that was the plan all along...
Written and provided by David Casselman, co-founder of the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary and the Founder/CEO of the nonprofit Ecoflix Foundation and the Ecoflix Channel
| 
