PREN CALLS FOR CLOSURE OF CAPTIVE ELEPHANT FACILITIES OFFERING TOURIST INTERACTIONS WITH ELEPHANTS IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER RECENT TRAGIC EVENTS AT HERD
In South Africa there are a number of facilities which offer human-elephant interactions with captive elephants. Close contact tourism activities raise significant welfare concerns. These interactions also present obvious risks, as elephants are unpredictable and can cause serious injury due to their size. Tourists should be encouraged to observe elephants in their natural environments but should not engage in unnatural activities such as touching or feeding or used as a backdrop for photoshoots.
The Pro Elephant Network (PREN) remains deeply concerned about all human interactions with elephants, including staff, in an unprotected environment. Elephant welfare and well-being and the safety and security of the elephant handlers must always be prioritised.
In South Africa the lives of both humans and elephants depend on meaningful change. The way forward must involve constructive dialogue, stronger policies, and renewed commitment to ensuring elephants live in the wild, where they can thrive safely and naturally. PREN called on the Honourable Minister George, to facilitate an independent and public review of the captive elephant industry with the view of phasing it captive elephant facilities that offer interactions with humans.
Please download a statement from the Members of Pro Elephant Network:
PREN has subsequently received concerning information and images allegedly taken at Adventures with Elephants which seem to contradict the aforementioned website information about how this facility respects and cares for the elephants in their care.
PREN is urgently appealing to the Environmental Compliance and Enforcement at the Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) and to the NSPCA to confirm the validity of this concerning information and to offer sound explanation thereof forthwith.
There are apparently seven resident elephant at Adventures with Elephants, these include the previously mentioned Mussina, and her calf Bela, Shan and her calf Zambezi, Naunedi a female elephant and Chova and Chishuru who are the two bull elephants.
According to the information received, Chishuru who has allegedly been used for commercials because he is a beautiful elephant, went ‘rogue’ after receiving a GnRH vaccine treatment. Allegedly he chased his handlers and would not listen to them. He would occasionally raid the food storage, tear up water pipes or simply go join the rest of the herd wherever they were on the property.
Further, according to the information received by PREN in order to control Chishuru the staff were instructed to tie him up because it was believed that he may be a danger to the staff or paying guests. Allegedly the staff have been instructed to attempt to retrain Chishuru and introduce him back to the public for interactions instead of having to send him away.
In 2022, elephants named Tswale and Modjadji were tethered on a property in Mpumalanga where they were being advertised and utilised in the captive elephant industry for human elephant interactions. They were spooked and tried to break free from their tethers. Modjadji was seriously injured as a result and had to be euthanized. This a prime example of why elephants should not be tethered. A urgent solution must be found for Chishuru.
The definition of what is “appropriate and acceptable” is left to the importing country’s scientific authority to determine with no criteria specified other than it has to be satisfied that the elephants are suitably housed and cared for. “Suitably housed” is of particular importance because the elephants are indigenous to their own particular countries and the destinations to which they are being sent can differ in extremes in terms of habitat appropriateness. “Appropriate and acceptable” also does not sufficiently guarantee elephant wellbeing. The country of export must be satisfied that trade promotes conservation of elephants in wild.
Perhaps most critical is that, by definition, these wild elephants will all suffer from multiple traumas including capture, violent separation from family, transport, dwelling in captivity of non-indigenous provenance, and in many cases, those who are less than five years of age, prematurely weaned. All of which causes lifelong pernicious neuropsychological and physiological damage. These traumas transmit intergenerationally, across space, socially, and time.
Since 2012, Zimbabwe has captured and exported more than 100 live wild elephants, mostly young calves, to captive facilities in China. The process of capturing the elephants, removing them from their natal family groups, holding and transporting them, and their arrival at facilities that are clearly inappropriate and at which they will be kept in entirely unnatural social groups and exposed to constant public viewing, is extremely stressful. Some of the captured calves did not survive the process, and those that did have inevitably experienced deep physical and psychological trauma, resulting in unnatural and sometimes violent behavior.
Given the depth of scientific study of these traumatic effects on elephants and the precarious status of all elephant species, it is vital that third party expertise evaluates and enforces elephant wellbeing. CITES offers no independent, objective mechanism of oversight or monitoring of the welfare conditions of elephants when they enter the live export chain. Efforts to ask the Zimbabwean and Chinese CITES authorities about thecondition of the elephants in China or at the Shanghai Animal World have been met with no response.
In December 2016 The Guardian reported that more than 30 elephants, some of whom were as young as three years of age, had been cruelly captured and forcibly removed from their families in the wild in Zimbabwe.Elephant experts and advocates from around the world opposed their capture and preparation for relocation from Zimbabwe to permanent captivity in China.
It was speculated at the time that some of these elephants would most likely be sent to Shanghai Wild AnimalPark. This was confirmed when secret footage was obtained of the Zimbabwean elephants a year later filmed at Shanghai Wild Animal Park, one of the three known recipient facilities of the wild elephants.
Animal protection groups in China have expressed sadness and disappointment about the welfare and wellbeing of African elephants in captive facilities across the country. They have advocated for stronger animal protection laws, in particular raising concern about the export of live elephants to Chinese zoos from Zimbabwe. Their work highlights the ongoing challenges in ensuring the welfare of animals used in entertainment and the need for stronger ethical considerations and legal protections.
In 2024 reports were published in the media of the elephants displaying concerning behavior at Shanghai Wild Animal Park where two elephants were violently harassed by the other elephants. The Zoo responded to the footage that was published suggesting that this behavior was ‘normal’ among young bull elephants. However, further videos were published on Twitter on the 25 June 2025 which suggest that this dangerous and unprecedented elephant behavior is ongoing at Shanghai Wild Animal Park.
The Shanghai Wild Animal Park issued a statement on the 25th June 2025 after the video of the elephants was circulated online specifically showing a female elephant being pushed and forced to kneel against a fence by other elephants in the enclosure.
According to the media article similar incidents have reported since 2022. The zoo said it took immediate action the day the video surfaced: “We implemented temporary interventions for the male elephants and carried out medical checks on the female elephant including bloodwork and behavioral assessments.”
The zoo has since updated its elephant care strategy and will now tailor the management plans based on each elephant’s physical condition, social behavior and natural cycles. The zoo has promised more regular training and health checks and tighter surveillance of the enclosure in order to respond to any abnormal behavior. According to the media article the video has left many questioning whether the current set-up is safe for all the elephants with stricter animal welfare standards continuing to grow.
PREN members campaigned vigorously in an attempt to prevent the capture and export of these and other wild elephants from Zimbabwe and other southern African countries to foreign zoos.
In 2022 Parties to CITES, agreed that any export of live wild-caught African elephants would be limited to in situ conservation programmes or secure areas in the wild, within the species’ natural and historical range in Africa, while African elephant range States tried to find agreement on the conditions for trade in African live elephants.
The outcomes of the discussions that have ensued will be considered at the upcoming CITES meeting in Uzbekistan in November 2025. PREN members will be attending the meeting and pushing for a permanent end to the capture of wild African elephants and their export to zoos and other captive facilities.
Sadly, this doesn’t help those wild-caught elephants that have already been exported to zoos in China and elsewhere.
PREN urges Shanghai Wild Animal Park and national authorities within China to work with international elephant experts to prioritize the welfare of the captive elephants in the country, and to urgently address the issues that have led to the concerning incidences that have been circulating.
HAVE ALL THE OPTIONS FOR A RELOCATION TO A SANCTUARY, INSTEAD OF ANOTHER ZOO, BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ELEPHANTS BILLY AND TINA?
On Friday 2nd May 2025, the Pro Elephant Network has sent a letter to the Director of the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, to the President and CEO and the Executive Vice President of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the US Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health regarding elephants Billy and Tina.
“The vision of the Pro Elephant Network (PREN) is a future in which all elephants can thrive in freedom and dignity in protected natural habitats as part of naturally functioning and evolving ecosystems.
Our mission is to stop the capture and exploitation of elephants by humans and to advocate for the release of captive-held elephants back into natural spaces. Where freedom and reintegration back into wild areas is not possible PREN seeks the best ethical solutions in the most natural surroundings possible. The acceptability and viability of these ethics and conditions are to be evaluated relative to what the individual elephant would be able to experience in the wild.
The Pro Elephant Network (PREN) is therefore deeply disappointed and dismayed by the decision, formally announced on the 22nd April 2025, to transfer Billy and Tina to the Tulsa Zoo in Oklahoma. PREN joins a multitude of elephant experts and advocates calling for a more compassionate outcome for the last two remaining elephants living at the Los Angeles Zoo.
This decision, jointly taken by the Los Angeles Zoo and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, to transfer Billy and Tina to another zoo facility, is, in our joint expert opinion, ill-considered and illustrates a disregard for the wellbeing of Billy and Tina. PREN strongly believes that these elephants deserve to live in peace in a sanctuary after years of being on display in public whilst in solitary confinement and in captivity at a zoo.
There are a number of elephant specific sanctuaries such as the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, in the USA, the Global Sanctuary for Elephants in Brazil, or the Cambodia Wildlife Sanctuary to name but a few, that could potentially offer Billy and Tina the opportunity to be introduced to other elephants of different ages and sexes. Have any options for sanctuary been considered for these elephants instead of another zoo facility?
In addition, Billy and Tina desperately require reprieve from constant public gaze, the aforementioned specialised elephant sanctuaries do not operate in a manner where public is integral to the footfall and viability of zoo economics. Elephants blossom in privacy and shrink under the constant public engagements, viewing and loss of private space which all has negative connotations on their health.
Billy is forty years old and Tina is fifty-nine years old, according to the content of a media release by Defense of Animals, “Billy and Tina are in grave distress, suffering from severe medical conditions including foot and joint disease and chronic arthritis, both elephants display profound zoochosis, a condition marked by repetitive behaviours such as swaying, bobbying, and pacing, which are clear signs of psychological trauma and brain damage.”
Whilst the newly constructed elephant facility at the Tulsa Zoo covers 17 acres it does not compare to the space and opportunity for purposeful rehabilitation of many elephant sanctuaries.
Billy and Tina require a vast amount of space to remain physically and psychologically healthy and their continued captivity in a zoo will undoubtedly cause further, immense emotional and physical suffering. PREN unquestionably supports the numerous public requests for the urgent reconsideration of the aforementioned decision, and strongly advocates for the release of Billy and Tina to sanctuary where their care and autonomy will be prioritized.
If the Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens and Association of Zoos and Aquariumsmake the ground-breaking decision to release Billy and Tina into sanctuary, this decision based upon the best available science, will lauded by elephant experts from around the world. “
Raman Sukumar is an honorary professor at the Indian Institute of Science, he is the India’s leading elephant ecologist, architect of Project Elephant, former chair of the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group, the author of several books and scientific papers, and member of the standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife.
Raman Sukumar has expressed his concerns about the elephants and Vantara.
“With the enormous financial resources available, Vantara could potentially have been a game changer for captive and perhaps wild elephants in the country if they had adopted a more all-encompassing vision. To me, bringing 200 or 1000 elephants to Jamnagar makes no sense.
The main problem is the concentration of a large number of captive elephants, I see no purpose in that. The real role of captive elephants is for them to be integrated with management and conservation of the wild population. I would have favoured Vantara in investing in different models of welfare of elephants in captivity across the country.
The role of captive elephants cannot be reduced to singularity, the welfare of elephants in one location and by one person.
The rescued captive elephants are used by forest department veterinarians to travel through the jungles or are trained to drive away wild elephants from human habitats. These roles would be lost if these captive elephants were kept at a facility like Vantara. It is important to understand the different regions and nuances of diversity of elephant cultures and situations and not feeding all elephants with high protein. It does not work like this. We need a broad and practical vision of how we improve the conditions and determine the future role of captive elephants. There is a lack of focus on what should be done to captive elephants and their welfare management.”
The undersigned organisations are deeply concerned by the announcements by some governments in southern Africa to cull large numbers of elephants and other wild animals, including in National Parks.
In late August 2024, Namibia declared it would kill 723 wild animals, including 83 elephants, and later increased this number to 100. Shortly afterwards, Zimbabwe announced its intention to kill at least 200 elephants.
The justifications given for these threats include a combination of providing meat to drought-stricken citizens, reducing pressure on land and water resources, mitigating human-elephant conflict, and reducing alleged wildlife over-population.
However, while we acknowledge the severity of one of the worst droughts in decades in southern Africa, the killing of large numbers of wild animals cannot be justified for the following reasons:
Hot on the heels of World Elephant Day, Namibia announced that it plans to hunt and kill 723 wild animals, including 83 elephants, and to distribute the meat to people because of the severe drought. PREN argues that Namibia’s plans arecounterintuitive and set a very dangerous precedent.
The elephants to be killed include:
30 from the Zambezi region (10 from Salambala, Lusese, Nakabolelwa, and Kabbe, 10 from the North Complex of Mudumu and 10 from the South Complex of Mudumu).
12 from Kamanjab and Fransfontein areas in the Kunene region
10 from Ruacana, Tsandi and Okahao in Omusati region
8 from Grootfontein in the Otjozodjupa region
7 from the Kavango West Region in the areas of Tondoro, Musese, Maha, Nzize, Agro tour farms and Mangetti Cattle Ranch
5 from Omatjete in the Erongo Region
4 from Kalkveld
3 from EkuloLyanazi, Okasheshete, Uukanga, Ondomb, Tomykunzi and Onoolongo in the Oshana Region
2 from Onanke and Cham Cham in the Oshikoto region
2 from Kavango East region.
These numbers include 21 elephants in an area that is often traversed by a small isolated population of only 62 desert-adapted elephants.
Namibia’s plan to kill elephants and other threatened wild animals is misguided and cruel. Elephants and other wild animals are not the cause of drought or human food insecurity. Killing elephants will not address food shortages and at best will only have a short term and minimal impact on a limited number of people, while setting a dangerous precedent. Elephants are not the cause of drought or human food insecurity and taking aim at elephants will not address the reasons for drought or improve food security.
Where is the environmental impact study to support this so-called cull? Namibia’s pretext that it is because elephant numbers exceed available food and water supplies is not supported by scientific evidence. Instead, this move will have hugely damaging disruption and impact on elephant communities and in Namibia. PREN members also question the criteria upon which the decisions were taken by the Namibian government to trophy hunt the elephants that are listed in the official announcement by the Namibian government.
In its press release of 26th August, Namibia’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism claims that the cull “will assist in managing the current grazing pressure and water availability by reducing wildlife numbers in some parks and communal areas where we feel numbers exceed available grazing and water.” However, the announcement has not been accompanied by an environmental impact study to support this so-called cull. The claims by MEFT are not supported by scientific evidence. Instead, the cull is likely to be hugely damaging and disruptive to elephant communities and those of other species in Namibia. PREN members also question the decision to allow safari outfitters to participate in the culls, raising concerns that trophy hunters will be offered the opportunity to target some of the elephants that are listed in the official announcement, and calling into question the true motivation behind the culls.
We note that some of the areas in which elephants are due to be culled are the same as those where a tender was advertised in December 2020,for the capture and sale of a total of 170 elephants with hunts sold to hunters ostensibly to control “damage-causing animals”.
A report published in November 2021 questioned the success of Namibia’s wildlife conservation model, and its adherence to sustainable utilization of wildlife through community based environmental management. This report confirmed that wildlife numbers are declining in Namibia and that the elephant population in the Kunene Region of Namibia is collapsing.
At its core, this so-called cull is a populist political action that ignores ethics, science, conservation, and fails to adhere to and One Health and One Welfare principles, for short-term political gain.
According to a published research article titled Strengthening Africa’s Climate-Smart Agriculture and Food Systems Through Enhanced Policy Coherence and Co-ordinated Action, Africa as a region, is particularly vulnerable and exposed to the negative impacts of climate change. The activities of elephants have been shown to help mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration. Killing elephants will only exacerbate the impacts of climate change and make the situation worse in the longer term.
Drought conditions in Namibia are exacerbated by climate change. Climate change and extreme weather are posing severe threats to humans and elephants. The removal of these elephants will have a negative impact on the resilience of the entire arid ecosystem and ultimately on vulnerable communities. Instead, the government of Namibia should be building resilience by fostering sustainable food systems and biodiversity regeneration through equitable and democratic climate justice practices, and by rethinking conservation paradigms. This is especially relevant given the increasing frequency of droughts and extreme weather events and the urgent need for solutions.
Protecting farmers by building resilience to climate change within the agricultural sector is therefore paramount to the food security agenda. Climate resilient food systems are the focus of a new $2.3 billion regional programme approved by the World Bank in June 2022, available to Eastern and Southern African countries in support of efforts to tackle the underlying structural challenges of food insecurity and address their vulnerability to unpredictable shocks.
PREN members question whether the SADC governments and Namibia have adequately prepared their farmers for climate change and extreme weather which are posing severe threats across Eastern and Southern Africa?
Hunting and killing of elephants is particularly cruel, especially single elephants as indicated by the small take-off numbers, is particularly cruel. They experience trauma and are highly intelligent social beings that live in particularly large and complex social networks with a highly organised structure involving strong family bonds that last a lifetime; these complex connections include vital relationships within family members, bond groups, coalitions and clans. The hunting of individual elephants results in stress and trauma for the targeted individuals and their wider family members, which can result in disruption of their complex social networks leading to increased conflict with people.
The removal of these 83 elephants will not mitigate human-elephant conflict, nor will it provide long-term relief for people or wildlife affected by the current drought.
PREN members call on the Namibian government to rescind its plan to kill 83 elephants and other wild animals, and instead to consider more effective and humane ways of tackling the current drought conditions affecting parts of the country.
[Johannesburg: 08 August 2024]: The vision of the Pro Elephant Network (PREN)is a future in which all elephants can thrive in freedom and dignity in protected natural habitats as part of naturally functioning and evolving ecosystems. Our mission is to stop the capture and exploitation of elephants by humans and to advocate for the release of captive-held elephants back into natural spaces. Where freedom and reintegration back into wild areas is not possible PREN seeks the best ethical solutions in the most natural surroundings possible. The acceptability and viability of these ethics and conditions are to be evaluated relative to what the individual elephant would be able to experience in the wild.
On the 29th July 2022, the South African Government made a ground breaking decision to pursue options for the retirement of Charley, a bull elephant, from the zoo in Pretoria to a suitable wildlife sanctuary or a similar setting. This progressive decision was based on the best scientific and ethological evidence provided to them by elephant experts and civil society.
Offering all South Africans a fair and equitable opportunity, on the 17th of May 2023, interested parties were requested to publicly submit proposals in response to an advertised call for an Expression of Interest to find a suitable retirement home. The EMS Foundation and Shambala Private Game Reserve submitted an extensive response which was accepted in March 2024.
Following Charlie’s comprehensive expert behavioural and medical assessments it has been noted that due to his advanced age and the physical complications associated with being in captivity for over forty years that the preparation for his relocation, the relocation itself and his rehabilitation to a natural secured environment is not without risk. In March 2024 the government confirmed their acceptance of the generous offer EMS Foundation and Shambala Private Game Reserve made to Charlie.
In preparation for Charlie’s relocation from the zoo, the EMS Foundation and Shambala are partnering with a highly qualified and experienced team of international elephant trainers with oversight from South African and international veterinarians. Charlie is receiving excellent round the clock care during his preparation for his evacuation from the zoo, with ground support from international and South African organisations. South African wildlife translocation specialists will transfer Charlie with his team, to a state-of-the-art rehabilitation boma that has been designed and built to cater for his every need as he is gently transitioned into a more natural, protected environment.
As this project progresses more specialists will be invited to take part in assisting with, and recording his progress.
PREN has, since 2020, played a significant role in the negotiation process for the release of Charley from the zoo, furthermore, distinguished expert members of PREN have attended the zoo and compiled important reports which were submitted to the South African government. This important South African and international project is supported by the elephant experts from the Pro Elephant Network.
