TO:

paula.simons@sen.parl.gc.ca

Copy paste as CC:

marty.klyne@sen.parl.gc.ca; zoocheck@zoocheck.com; info@animaljustice.ca; info@worldanimalprotection.ca; info@humanecanada.ca; info@hsicanada.ca; info@freethewild.org; amarjeet.sohi@edmonton.ca; erin.rutherford@edmonton.ca; aaron.paquette@edmonton.ca; jennifer.rice@edmonton.ca; keren.tang@edmonton.ca; ashley.salvador@edmonton.ca; andrew.knack@edmonton.ca; anne.stevenson@edmonton.ca; michael.janz@edmonton.ca; tim.cartmell@edmonton.ca; sarah.hamilton@edmonton.ca; jo-anne.wright@edmonton.ca; karen.principe@edmonton.ca; 

And BCC to:  freelucy2sanctuary@gmail.com

Copy paste SUBJECT of the email:

Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall Act - March 30 Speech on Lucy the Elephant

Copy and paste into the BODY of the email:

Dear Senator Simons,

Thanks for starting off your speech on Bill S-241 by warning us about how you grew up just a few streets away from the Edmonton Valley Zoo (EVZ). That explains a lot about the misinformation and zoo propaganda that followed for the next 11 1/2 minutes.

You shared that the zoo's primary focus is now on northern and prairie animals, and species conservation. Did you know that Edmonton City Council recently questioned why the zoo was bringing in capybaras, who originate in South America and aren't endangered? If it's not for conservation, is the zoo bringing them in just because there's lots of them and they're cute? It's not the first time that what the zoo tells the public and what it actually does are two different things.

You said you were trying to make the point that over-reliance on AZA standards instead of CAZA standards was a "key weakness" in the bill that would be harmful to Lucy in some way. I listened to your speech several times, but I didn't hear a single example of exactly why using American versus Canadian standards would be better or worse.

You mentioned that the legislation pays extraordinary deference to the AZA standards, in spite of the fact that Canada has the equivalent agency CAZA to enforce its own standards. Did you miss the City of Edmonton's recent budget discussions where the zoo admitted publicly that they weren't following CAZA standards and were in danger of losing their accreditation without funding? Zoo director Gary Dewar then tried to walk back those statements, only to be contradicted by city spokesman Roger Jevne who admitted to city council that it was true.

Are you aware that Animal Justice has filed a complaint with CAZA over EVZ not meeting their standards, including deficiencies for animal enclosures and a lack of ventilation for Lucy? Did you know that CAZA had recently renewed EVZ's accreditation, at the same time the deficiencies were being discussed publicly? CAZA only launched an investigation after Animal Justice complained, instead of taking the initiative to protect the zoo's inhabitants and employees immediately upon the zoo's own admission that they were violating CAZA standards.

The fact that CAZA seems to have rubber stamped EVZ's accreditation in the face of glaring deficiencies isn't news to Lucy supporters. We have long been aware of the cozy relationship between CAZA and EVZ. After all, CAZA is a private "charitable" organization whose members are Canadian zoo and aquarium owners. Their focus is more on increasing revenues for zoos than protecting the animals within them.

You said one of the key reasons EVZ has never achieved AZA accreditation is because it keeps a solitary Asian elephant - Lucy. Keeping a female elephant alone is also a violation of the CAZA standards that you claim are much better. Experts have long known that female elephants suffer when kept alone in captivity. If we're basing the decision to move Lucy on science, there's the biggest reason right there to move her to a sanctuary with other elephants.

Since 2009, CAZA has allowed EVZ to keep Lucy alone by issuing a variance letter based on annual medical assessments by the same zoo-industry expert, James Oosterhuis. He assessed Lucy 12 times between 2002 and 2021. In 2022, Lucy was assessed by a new panel of independent elephant experts. Those assessors noted that the multiple endoscopies Oosterhuis forced Lucy to endure were of no diagnostic value. CAZA continued to issue the variance letter without ever requiring a second opinion. But then why would they, when EVZ Director Denise Prefontaine (2006-2018) was also CAZA president and chair of the CAZA Accreditation Commission for 10 years? And EVZ Director Lindsey Galloway (2019-2020) also sat on CAZA's board and acted as CAZA president? This is another strong argument for having an outside agency like AZA oversee the enforcement of the bill, to avoid conflicts of interest like this one in Lucy's case where CAZA invents "loopholes" to fit their members' needs.

You said that many American sanctuaries lack AZA accreditation. Animal advocates have been recommending that Lucy be moved to one of the two US sanctuaries that are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. Dr. Trish London, who recently assessed Lucy, compared the two US sanctuaries and recommended the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee - which does have AZA accreditation.

You admit that it was a mistake for EVZ to ever have had an elephant in the first place, but you say it's another thing for Lucy to be moved now. You never gave any reasons why she couldn't be moved. Dr. Trish London stated that in her opinion it is possible to move Lucy, and she believes that she should be moved for her health and welfare. Dr. Trish has been personally present on the trucks for five elephant moves. Other elephant experts around the world like Lek Chailert of Thailand and Margaret Whittaker, who helped move the Toronto Zoo elephants to California, have many years of experience transporting older and sicker elephants in all parts of the world. They all believe Lucy could be safely moved with the proper training and support.

You questioned Free the Wild's statement that Lucy's exploitation by the zoo since 1977 has been purgatory and torture for her. The fact that they control her with bullhooks is all the scientific proof you need that Lucy was forced to undergo phajan, a cruel training method used to break a baby elephant's spirit and maintain control over her through fear and domination. CAZA members continue to use these threatening instruments, while AZA phased out bullhooks as of 2021.  AZA has also prohibited free contact since 2011. They replaced it with protected contact, placing barriers between keepers and elephants for their safety, while CAZA would rather placate their members who don't want to pay the cost to upgrade their elephant facilities.

Physical abuse and neglect are torture. The zoo has admitted that Lucy already hated Edmonton winters in 1977 when they allowed her ears to get frostbitten, the year she arrived. EVZ has admitted to training methods like using winches to pull her down and chaining her when she became unruly. Bullhooks are a source of continual emotional and psychological abuse every day Lucy is kept at EVZ under free contact. Taking away her autonomy by having her keepers control and direct her every move, including where and when she urinates and defecates, is torture. Social isolation is torture to a female elephant. Lucy hasn't had an elephant companion since 2007.

You laughed at the suggestion that Lucy needs a change in her diet and more exercise. Do you know that obesity is a leading cause of death in captive elephants? That it causes foot and musculoskeletal issues, exacerbates her arthritis, limits her mobility, and contributes to her respiratory issues? Lucy is 1,000 lbs overweight and has been since at least 2002. The zoo has never met their own consultant's recommendation to get her weight down in all these years. A sanctuary has the expertise and the facilities to improve Lucy's health and wellbeing, while the zoo has just allowed her to get worse and simply exist until she dies.

You say that using overheated rhetoric about torture and purgatory makes it easy to raise money but not easy to make decisions in Lucy's best interests. How much money do you think the zoo has made from its star attraction over the past 46 years?  How much of that money has been spent to improve Lucy's physical or mental health and wellbeing? How much did the forced painting and dipping her trunk directly into paint for "Lucy's Kisses" contribute to the respiratory issues that the zoo claims prevent her from being moved? Lucy's "art" is still available for purchase on the zoo's website. What was presented to the public as "enrichment" for Lucy was not a natural elephant behaviour, but it certainly made the zoo richer.

If the purpose of your speech was to update your fellow senators about the new information on Lucy's health reported in the independent assessments, why didn't you include a link to the actual reports for them to read?

https://www.edmonton.ca/attractions_events/edmonton_valley_zoo/lucy-news 

Instead you presented cherry-picked quotes biased towards your position that keeping an elephant in substandard facilities in a zoo that has proven for decades that it's unable and unwilling to provide the proper care for Lucy is better than letting her go to a sanctuary where they care exclusively for elephants and can provide year round, 24 hour a day, state of the art care and companionship.

I trust you will correct the erroneous information that you shared with your fellow senators tasked with passing this important legislation.

Sincerely yours,