Dear Mr. Mayer:
 
As the executive director, I am contacting you on behalf of the members and supporters of Voice for Animals Humane Society. We are a non-profit organization working in the Edmonton and surrounding area for over 20 years. Our aim is to make the public aware of the suffering inflicted on animals through greed, thoughtlessness and ignorance. We do this by education and other peaceful means, an approach, I believe, that has earned us the respect of many members of the public.
 
I, personally, am a 25+ year Journal subscriber and as well I have volunteered to take part in the Journal Reader's Forum. The reason I bring this up is to let you know that I think newspapers are an important source of news and opinion despite the many other outlets including the popularity and massive amount of information which can be obtained on the internet. This is perhaps why I feel profoundly disappointed at the Journal's apparent blind spot (bias?) about the ethics surrounding society's treatment of animals.
 
Treating animals with respect is nothing new and is certainly not a fringe idea. For example, the ethical treatment of animals has been dealt with by such notable philosophers as Hume, Schopenhauer, and Schweitzer to name a few. Currently, Steven M. Wise teaches "Animal Rights Law" at the Harvard Law School, with more and more universities adding such classes to their curricula. These ideas are also becoming mainstream with large numbers of people concerned about the exploitation of animals and increasingly becoming aware that animals are in need of protection.
 
The specific "blind spot" I would like to address concerns our current campaign for moving Lucy, the Valley Zoo elephant, to a sanctuary in Tennessee. Since the start of our campaign in 2006, there have been roughly 16 favourable and "feel-good" articles about the Valley Zoo in the Edmonton Journal, some even appearing on the front page. On the other hand, there has been only two articles questioning the zoo's decisions regarding Lucy and only one covering Voice for Animal's opposition to keeping her here. We do not expect special treatment from the media but we do expect or at least hope for fair and balanced treatment.
 
Moving Lucy to a sanctuary appears to be a contentious issue for some. The Valley Zoo is opposed for obvious reasons. They must be concerned about the tenability of their position as they have refused all offers of an external expert veterinary examination of Lucy. There is some indication that the reason the Mayor and majority of councillors are opposed is civic pride, the idea that to be a major city you must have a zoo (no matter how inadequate). Our sole motivation is that it is in Lucy's best interests to be moved to a sanctuary.
 
We are not pressuring the City and Valley Zoo to have Lucy moved using spurious information. The scientific data and all other indicators point to the fact that elephants cannot be kept humanely in zoos. I won't bore you with a litany of the problems affecting Lucy, instead, I will give you three very diverse examples of sources of information on which we rely.

1. A recently published article in the prestigious scientific journal Science[1] entitled Compromised Survivorship in Zoo Elephants concludes that endangered Asian elephants median life span in captivity were 18.9 years compared to 41.7 years in Burmese lumber camps.
2. Zoo experts/directors. In 2005 the Detroit Zoo, a world class zoo, decided that they could not provide an excellent or even adequate quality of life for elephants. They stated that conditions of captivity, especially in cold climates like Michigan's will lead to arthritis and other problems in elephants. They subsequently sent their elephants to a sanctuary.
3. In collaboration with Zoocheck Canada, we have requested and received Lucy's health records through Freedom of Information. The weekly veterinary reports document and describe Lucy's health and prescriptions for medications.
 
In addition, what passes for conservation (of endangered species) in zoos costs approximately 10 times what these efforts would cost in the wild. And as a bonus of in situ conservation all  animals in the protected area benefit from the conservation efforts of one species. The above points are just a small sample of the expert sources of information on which we base our opinions.
 
More detailed information about Lucy's plight can be found in a report prepared by Voice for Animals and submitted to Councillor Kim Krushell. http://www.v4a.org/files/Zoo%20Info%20for%20Councilors.pdf
 
I am aware that activists are often regarded as radicals (and in the words of Councillor Krushell, "wing nuts"), however I feel that they bring about much needed public discourse. Our current campaign to have Lucy moved is not just about Lucy or elephants in captivity. The larger question is: can there be an ethical justification for removing animals from the wild and putting them in cages.
 
I am looking forward to your reply.
 
Regards,
 
Tove Reece
 
1.    Ros Clubb, Marcus Rowcliffe, Phyllis Lee, Khyne U. Mar, Cynthia Moss, Georgia J. Mason, Science 322 (2008/12/12)