PAWS threatens to sue me? Heres the laywers letter.

You find that interesting? I find it just very sad that someone like Dan Koehl who should know better has a personal agenda against PAWS, spreads inaccurancies (assuming to his favour that he is not outright lying) and the ones that suffer are the elephants. Really really sad. And it makes me angry.
 
I don't know anything about PAWS, but I sure understand about threats from sanctuaries and other animal organizations. Former keepers have expressed deep concerns about conditions at Great Ape Trust (home of the bonobo Kanzi) and the Gorilla Foundation (home of the gorilla Koko), and I got a threatening letter when I blogged about them.

Is that the threat of retaliation I smell?

Don't stop questioning! Demand transparency! Keep blogging! If organizations object to what is written, let them answer the substance of the complaint.
 
Perhaps someone like Dan Koehl who is denying that baby elephants that are used to beg oon the streets in Thailand suffer is not the person whom anyone should listen to.
Regarding PAWS, the discussion about the Toronto Zoo elephants is somewhere in the Toronto threads. I`ve looked into this intensly and I do not understand what the problem is. I see a lot of hypocrypsy from (Toronto) zoo people who better want the elephants with their collegues at the not even yet existing "Center for elephant conversation" and are looking for reasons to badmouth PAWS. There are a number of zoos in the USA and in Australia that house elephants that are TB positive. These elephants are on exhibit for the public to see and are kept together with the other healthy elephants. Taronga is even continuing breeding by AI! Ringling has TB in their herd since decades and still has elephants travelling that had close contact to TB positive elephants. Where is Dan Koehl`s campaign to stop that?
 
There is a lot of hypocrisy inside/amongst PAWS (supporters) and other organizations within that spectrum. As a group they seem to demand transparency on others, where they themselves give none. Besides, their tactics really sometimes overstep the mark, e.g. by even targetting organizations or individuals on a very personal level (illegal and outside the Law).

On top they - as per above - waste millions of euros in legal wranglings and yet do little to ameliorate or improve animal welfare per se nor do they possess/exhibit particular finely-tuned knowledge base on wild animal management or captive / zoo animal management and husbandry to have any authority to speak out. Their aggressive PR and communications seem to drive them ever forward and - by virtue - they do more damage than good (plus most of the times their goal of eradicating the notion of zoos in this world does not appeal to me, nor to a considerable number of people worldwide - just look at the attendance figures for zoos globally).

The arguements you bring to the table in this case totally overshoot the matter in hand, which is testament to where most if not all PAWS supporters go wrong. I feel free not to agree with their (PAWS et al) politics. I hence feel greatly for Dan Koehl's case here and expect someone who does support PAWS et al to respect that (and not to go off on limb on some obscure argumentation for PAWS).

For the record: I do consider myself an animal welfare advocate, but would refrain from any actions or policies PAWS et al stand for. You may not like that and I do not expect you to agree, but it IS a free world of speech.

Suffice to say, I have no wish to further discuss the above in said thread and wish Dan Koehl all the success in his endeavors.

Thank you.
 
I have no idea who is right and know very little about either party in this case. But I do have some knowledge of the law of Scandinavia and Dan Koehl lives in Sweden. They can do all the suing they want in USA. As long as Dan Koehl doesn't live there and doesn't have an economic interest in the country (e.g. a firm with departments in USA), it won't mean much. In the same way it won't mean much if an average American is sued in Sweden (or Germany, or Australia, Mexico, China... etc). Sure the US court may order blogspot (registered in the USA) to remove his account, but there are plenty of other blogs out there. Additionally, google, the owner of blogspot, have been quite fierce in their fight against what potentially could be perceived as attempts of limiting free speech. Alternatively PAWS can sue him in Sweden, in which case a Boston law firm will be of little use, and even if they win, the damages are tiny compared to the wild sums sometimes paid in damages in the USA. If PAWS won a defamatory case like this, it is unlike the sum would be above 3x average monthly salary in Sweden, and it would likely only be a fraction of that. In general, Europe has a very different approach to suing than the USA.
 
Last edited:
Yassa said:
You find that interesting? I find it just very sad that someone like Dan Koehl who should know better has a personal agenda against PAWS, spreads inaccurancies (assuming to his favour that he is not outright lying) and the ones that suffer are the elephants. Really really sad. And it makes me angry.
Click to expand...

I have autopsy reports from the last elephants that died at PAWS.
PAWS have been lying, not me. And I simply cant understand why animal rights activists should overrule directors and veterinaries in a zoo?
For what logical reason shall healthy elephants be sent to a TB-infected facility?
 
I have asked the questions on one of the Toronto threads and was surprised at so few responses, so I will ask them again here:

What is so wrong about the PAWS sanctuary in California?

Alternatively, what is so right about it?

The facility generates such passion on here that I thought that people would be rushing to explain their stance.

My interest is generated by the fact that an African elephant in New Zealand is going to go to a sanctuary in the USA and the PAWS place seems to be the prefered option.

What are your arguments for and against?
 
That blog has some very interesting information. I have been concerned with the spread of TB from the Elephants in Sydney. A Chimp has tested positive and I have heard stories of several keepers now also having TB as well as one of their spouses.

Tuberculosos is known to be carried away over distances, and in The Elephant Sanctuary, where they argued that the founder Carol Buckley kept "the highest standard" etc in the TB monitoring, some years later 9 of the TES staff tested positive, including 3 from administration building.
Click to expand...

How many members of the public have caught TB from Sydney's Elephants, and what is the solution. My belief is that TB infected Elephants should be Quarintened away from other elephants and the public.
 
I think I have to search more about TB + elephants before I can form an informed opinion on this Toronto/PAWS issue.

But from my understanding so far, there is no 100% sound test method for elephants and there seems to be no reliable cure for TB-positive elephants.

With regards to the serious hazard TB (especially the new drug-resistant types) poses for human health and the easy transmision to various animal species on longer distances, I ´m very surprised all the infected elephants have not been euthanised yet.
 
Jana said:
.
With regards to the serious hazard TB (especially the new drug-resistant types) poses for human health and the easy transmision to various animal species on longer distances, I ´m very surprised all the infected elephants have not been euthanised yet.
Click to expand...

I was also wondering why this has not happened? I understand that they are able to live their lives still and perhaps with medication and future medical advances they will be able to be cured. However, if they offer no conservation value (breeding is non-existent) and the elephants themselves are putting humans and other elephants (not to mention other species) that are of conservation value at risk, then why are they not being euthanised. Another option could be to potentially have these "sanctuaries" take only TB positive elephants? Allowing them to live out their lives.
 
Blondie said:
I was also wondering why this has not happened? I understand that they are able to live their lives still and perhaps with medication and future medical advances they will be able to be cured. However, if they offer no conservation value (breeding is non-existent) and the elephants themselves are putting humans and other elephants (not to mention other species) that are of conservation value at risk, then why are they not being euthanised. Another option could be to potentially have these "sanctuaries" take only TB positive elephants? Allowing them to live out their lives.
Click to expand...

The entire TB issue is a vicious Catch 22 circle. To treat or not to treat remains a hard nut to crack.

You may be able to treat elephants with TB using the conventional medicines available, however the entire A.M. team should be in there for the long haul. Its easy inter- and intra-species transmission makes it a high grade health hazard.

Testament to the latter is the very fact that out in the Elephant sanctuary 9 staff (some of these - I assume - even have no direct contact to the elephants concerned and their management have also become infected).

Besides, as Jana underlined here there are no reliable tests for TB. ELISA being the most advanced, yet even ELISA cannot be taken as fully conclusive. Usually, several test methods are applied in order to actually ascertain whether any individual animals might be TB positive or negative ...

Sadly, there are no easy answers here.
 
Well, I posed the two questions a couple of days ago and nobody has answered either of them directly on the forum.

I am intrigued that a lot of anti-PAWS info has been made available to me privately but no information in defence of their sanctuary at all. This, despite the fact that strong supporters such as Yassa have visited this site several times in the meantime.

Here is a summary of the two positions so far:

In favour:

Room to roam.
Opportunity to interact with conspecifics.
TB infected animals at sanctuary are quarantined from "healthy" animals.

Against:

Sanctuary situated on earthquake fault line.
Sanctuary not accountable. Animal wise.
TB infected animals held at sanctuary.
Not all animals free to roam - some kept in small pens as in some zoos.
Animals used as "cash cows" [my words] to generate income which is not always spent on the animals.
Elephants likely to outlive current operators - succession plan not known.
History of one operator - Alleged to have bought trained animals early in her career but couldn't work them or care for them - thus incompetent.
Husband allegedly shot while stealing sheep to feed their cats - thus "unsuitable".
Alleged that she rammed an elephant with a tractor while working at San Diego Zoo. Elephant subsequently died.

Any comments? Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top