16 January 2002

Ms. Monica Farris
Senior Permits Biologist, Branch of Permits
Division of Management Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Dr., Rm. 700
Arlington, VA 22203

Via Facsimile (703/358-2281) – 20 pages and Overnight UPS (With Attachments)

Dear Ms. Farris:

Please accept this letter as the official comments of In Defense of Animals and Earth Island Institute on the application of “The New Marine World Foundation” for a permit to import two young Asian elephants from India (PRT048985). In Defense of Animals (IDA) is an international animal rescue and advocacy organization based in Mill Valley, Calif. Because of IDA’s geographical proximity to the Six Flags Marine World park, with which the “Marine World Foundation” is affiliated, we have acted in a watchdog role over animal care at this sprawling roller coaster and theme amusement park facility. Earth Island Institute (EII) is an international conservation organization based in San Francisco, Calif. EII’s International Marine Mammal Project has monitored Marine World’s care of dolphins, whales and other marine mammals. In 1995, EII legal action was instrumental in stopping Marine World from importing two pseudorcas, or false killer whales, illegally caught in a drive fishery in Japan.

In this application, Marine World seeks to import two young female Asian elephants, Chameli (aged 41&Mac218;2 ) and Sunduri (aged 31&Mac218;2 ), from an exporter identified as M.P. Singh in Calcutta, India. The application states that these elephants are captive-bred.

IDA and EII oppose the granting of this import permit for a number of reasons, which are set forth in this letter.

1. The Import will not Enhance the Survival of the Species in the Wild

The documentation included with the application provides no evidence that this import will enhance the survival of the species in the wild, as required under the Endangered Species Act. Rather, the application goes on at length about the need for these two elephants for breeding purposes to sustain the North American population of Asian elephants. To our knowledge, no Asian elephants roam the wilds of North America; the population is solely confined to zoos and circuses. Therefore, breeding these two elephants will not contribute to the survival of the species in the wild.

The application makes no mention of an eventual plan to repopulate the wild with captive-born elephants from North Americans zoos and circuses. If indeed the intent is to eventually release captive-bred elephants to wild elephant habitats, then clearly, keeping these young elephants in their native land, rather than shipping them halfway around the world, would make far more sense.
Moreover, the fact that mention of such an intent is conspicuously lacking further erodes any semblance of credibility for the claim that this permit will enhance the survival of species in the wild.
IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 2


2. No Certification of Captive-bred Status Provided

Marine World has failed to provide a breeder certification that these elephants are indeed captive bred, even upon your specific request. In response to your request, Dick Frank, the attorney representing Marine World, wrote “We have not been able thus far to get a breeder’s certificate from the breeder in India, mainly I believe because of distance and culture. We would hope the CITES permit from India, which is a formal government document, would satisfy any requirement for evidence of captive birth.”

We find it interesting that the problems of “distance and culture” have not prevented Marine World from making complex transportation arrangements with the exporter to ship these elephants halfway across the world, but that such problems prevent the park from obtaining a simple certification of captive birth. We also note that no information on the exporter beyond “M.P. Singh, Calcutta, India” is provided. Given the absence of an address or other contact information and the prevalence of the surname “Singh” in India, locating this exporter to independently verify Marine World’s claim that the elephants are captive bred is a difficult, if not impossible, task.

We further note that the CITES paperwork upon which Mr. Frank is relying as evidence of the elephants’ captive bred status states “Valid Up to 27.11.01” and appears to have expired.

Based on this information, it appears that this application is not complete and the CITES paperwork is not in order.

3. Alleged Non-Commercial Purpose Not Supported by the Evidence

In its application, Marine World states, “The Activity is being done by a non-profit foundation to enhance the survival of the species in the wild. There will be no income . . . it is neither a commercial venture, nor will any income or profit be generated.”

This statement is unsupported by the evidence. The address of “The New Marine World Foundation” is the same as the Six Flags Marine World amusement park. Indeed the application’s paperwork indicates that these elephants will be held at the Six Flags Marine World elephant facility.

We will address the total inappropriateness of holding elephants captive in the middle of a loud and crowded amusement park later in this letter. Here, we note that these elephants will be on public display for thousands of Six Flags’ paying customers to view daily. We further note that these elephants will be held amongst other elephants who are forced to perform daily and to give rides to Six Flags’ paying customers. Nothing in the application states that these elephants won’t be used in similar fashion.

In the past, Six Flags has used the presence of a baby elephant in its advertising campaign to draw visitors to its amusement park. (This baby died after just six months at the park, an incident we will discuss later in this letter.) There is no doubt that the addition of two new baby elephants will draw crowds to the park.

The statement that no profit will be generated by this import, therefore, defies common sense. We believes that Six Flags Marine World has created a non-profit foundation to launder the permit application to import an endangered species for this profit-making amusement/theme park.
IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 3

This conclusion is supported by two factors. First, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office, the “New Marine World Foundation” was incorporated only recently on June 2, 2000 (see attached printout from the Secretary of State website). It is clear that Six Flags Marine World’s plans to import these elephants predate the Foundation’s incorporation, as the two letters submitted in support of the permit application from the American Zoological Association and Southwest Missouri State University Professor Dr. Dennis Schmitt are dated June 2, 1999 and March 10, 1999, respectively. In addition, Dr. Schmitt’s letter – written 15 months before the Foundation was incorporated – is specifically written “in support of a Cites permit for import of Asian elephants by Six Flags Marine World Corporation . . ..” (Emphasis added).

In addition, the CITES permit from India, which has apparently expired, states, “Being satisfied that the live specimens numbering two only belonging to species Elephus maximus being exported by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of West Bengel . .. to M/S Six Flags Marine World, 2001 Marine World Parkway, Vallejo, Calif. . . .” (Emphasis added)

These facts make clear that the Six Flags Corporation is behind the import. Since the Endangered Species Act would prohibit the import of endangered Asian elephants for the purpose of public display and profit-making by an amusement park, Six Flags appears to have created the “New Marine World Foundation” as a front to gain an import permit under the Act. The federal government should not make itself party to this laundering scheme.

4. Documentation Lacking on Validity of Research Purpose

In its initial application, Marine World claimed that these two elephants would be used in important research, but provided only general descriptions of ongoing research on elephants at facilities across the U.S. The application failed to provide a specific research proposal, with purpose, goals, and objectives, and methods. When asked specifically by you to provide such information, Marine World provided a general, one-page description of the proposed research. The research boils down to this: repeated blood tests to determine the onset of estrus in these two young females; artificial insemination of them once they reach estrus; and tracking their pregnancies through ultrasound. This sounds more like a straightforward breeding program than a critical research project requiring the import of an endangered species!

This one-page document still lacks the specificity of a formal research project design/proposal and should not be accepted as one by FWS. As submitted, Marine World’s “research proposal” is a transparent attempt to disguise as research a simple breeding program that seeks only to increase the park’s elephant population and produce prized, crowd-drawing attractions—baby elephants.

It is unclear how any of this research will enhance the survival of Asian elephants in the wild.

We agree with your assessment that the application has not specified how the import of these two elephants will provide “direct benefit to the species in the wild.” With regard to the reproductive research of Dr. Dennis Schmitt, who is listed as the research director on the application, we note that he is a consultant to the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey circus, and as such has access to its elephant facility. (We will discuss the animal welfare implications of this association later in this letter.) Dr. Schmitt has publicized his successes using artificial insemination at this facility, which houses numerous elephants and provides Ringling with a steady stream of performers for its circus shows. According to Dr. Schmitt, 11 calves have been born at the Ringling Bros. facility, one through artificial insemination. In addition, three artificially inseminated elephants are due to give birth there in 2002.

IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 4

It is unclear why the two Asian elephants at issue in this application are essential to Dr. Schmitt’s efforts, given his access to the elephants at the Ringling compound and the “success” of the breeding program there, as well as his access to elephants at the Dickerson Park Zoo in Missouri.

Most unclear is how any of this research will provide “a direct benefit to the species in the wild.” If this research was, in fact, for the benefit of wild Asian elephants, then the “New Marine World Foundation” could fund its conduct in Asia, thus fulfilling its alleged conservation and research purpose, without moving the elephants thousands of miles away from their homeland and subjecting them to the traumas of transport and housing in the midst of an amusement/theme park. If this reproductive research is truly of benefit to wild populations, then certainly it would better serve those populations to bring the scientific resources necessary to monitor the elephants' reproductive status to Asia, where, of course, those wild populations reside. The only logical reasons, therefore, for shipping the elephants to Vallejo, can be to a) increase the numbers of the captive Asian elephant population in North America, and b) to place the animals on public display as an attraction for this profit-making amusement/theme park. Neither of these reasons constitutes valid grounds for permitting this import under the Endangered Species Act.

In conclusion, we agree with your conclusion that “general statements about Dr. Schmidt’s (sic) assisted reproduction research and the need to maintain genetically diverse populations are not sufficient” to justify the issuance of a permit to import these elephants under the Endangered Species Act.

5. Placement of Elephants in Amusement/Theme Park Inappropriate

The keeping of highly intelligent, social and complex animals like elephants in captivity is fraught with animal welfare difficulties. Many interpretations of appropriate captive environments for elephants certainly exist, but few will claim that an elephant compound located in the middle of a busy amusement park is an ideal place for these animals. At Marine World, acoustically sensitive elephants are held in close proximity to thundering roller coasters and other thrill rides, and the noise from these rides and the screaming crowds that accompany them is extremely loud. There is no doubt that this noise and the accompanying vibrations can negatively impact these sensitive elephants, even potentially causing them physical pain.

We believe that sending these elephants to an amusement park will be detrimental to their health and well being, and that no justification for this import can be found under the Endangered Species Act.

6. Marine World Lacks Expertise and Facilities to Care for Baby Elephants

In 50 CFR 17.22 (a)(1)(vi), FWS is required to determine “whether the expertise, facilities, or other resources available to the applicant appear adequate to successfully accomplish the
objectives stated in the application.” In the case of Six Flags Marine World, the facility appears to be lacking in both areas.

A. Marine World Lacks Experience to Care for Baby Elephants

Six Flags Marine World has little experience caring for baby elephants. To the best of our knowledge, the park has never had a captive birth. In March of 2000, Marine World received a barely two-year old elephant named Kala on breeding loan from the Dickerson Park Zoo in Missouri, the facility with which Dr. Schmitt has been associated since at least 1985. The baby died from a herpes infection just six months later. Elephant advocates had warned the zoo and Marine World against
IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 5

separating this baby from his mother. (In the wild, elephants nurse until they are 4 or 5 and males stay with their mothers for 10-15 years).

The stress of separation from his mother and shipment to a strange environment, along with the daily trauma of being housed in the middle of a noisy and crowded amusement park, could well have contributed to this elephant’s susceptibility to this virus and to his death. (Elephant expert
Pat Derby, founder of the Performing Animal Welfare Society [PAWS], documented this baby on videotape bellowing and reacting in terror to the noise from a fireworks display at the park during the summer of 2000.)

Kala’s untimely death has dire implications for the fates of the two baby elephants Marine World is seeking to import. These young elephants will be subjected to the same stresses as Kala faced, namely separation from their mother, transport over thousands of miles, life in the middle of a crowded and noisy amusement park.

Marine World’s affiliation with Dr. Schmitt also has animal welfare implications. We are extremely disturbed that Dr. Schmitt is affiliated with the zoo that caused this harm to Kala. As a consultant to the Dickerson Park Zoo, Dr. Schmitt could well have been intimately involved in shipping Kala to Marine World. Given the tragic and predictable outcome of that venture, why should he be entrusted with the fates of two additional young animals, these to be shipped over an even greater distance to this California amusement park?

In addition, Dr. Schmitt’s affiliation with Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey circus should give FWS serious pause. In June 13, 2000 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Dr. Schmitt claimed that the Ringling Circus provides ” excellent veterinary and animal care for their elephants.” However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the agency charged with enforcing the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) has repeatedly cited Ringling Bros. for violating the Act. In 1999, for example, the USDA warned Ringling that it was violating federal law and inflicting “trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm and unnecessary discomfort” by forcibly separating baby elephants from their mothers at 18 months of age with ropes and neck chains. In 1998, the USDA formally charged Ringling with federal violations in the death of a baby elephant who was forced to perform while gravely ill. (Formal USDA charges are a rare step, taken by the agency only for the most egregious of animal welfare violations.) In addition, former Ringling employees have provided sworn testimony to the USDA that Ringling Bros. routinely beats and hits elephants and wounds them with bull hooks.

Is this the sort of handling of baby elephants that Dr. Schmitt has characterized as “excellent” at Ringling Bros.? If so, what implications does this have for the two baby elephants from India, should FWS allow for their import for Marine World?

Marine World’s lack of experience in care of baby elephants and the questionable affiliations of its research director should preclude FWS from issuing a permit to send these elephants to this amusement/theme park.

B. Marine World Lacks the Facilities to Handle Baby Elephants

In a March 2001 press release, Six Flags Marine World publicized the pregnancy of one of its elephants, Tika, through artificial insemination. Assuming that she is still pregnant, the 23-year old African elephant is due later this year. This is important because it shows that Marine World, which Has not successfully cared for a young elephant under the Six Flags regime, will have to care for a newborn elephant as well as the two baby elephants it is now seeking to import. It
IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 6

also demonstrates that Marine World is actively trying to breed its elephants through artificial insemination, raising the specter of even more babies born in the future.

We do not believe that Marine World’s elephant facilities are adequate to house and care for the additional elephants. In comments on this application submitted to FWS, PAWS director and elephant expert Pat Derby stated, “PAWS objects to the design, location and quality of the existing facility. .. . We have personally observed the facilities in question and know the elephant area to be minimal at best. The barn is already barely able to meet the [American Zoological Association’s] minimum space requirements. It is, therefore, our belief that the addition of two more elephants would put the facility in probable violation of the minimum space requirements of both the state of California and the AZA.”

An additional problem is that Marine World has no facilities to house male elephants, a condition of the AZA's support of this import permit. Marine World has pledged to build such a facility, but has submitted no plans for such construction and no evidence that the park has the space to accommodate a separate bull elephant facility. (Former Marine World employees have informed IDA that space at the park is at a premium, and that the animal exhibits have been crowded into smaller and sometimes inadequate spaces to make room for the roller coasters and theme rides.)

7. Marine World’s Overall Record of Animal Care Questionable

Since 1997, when Premier Parks (later purchased by Six Flags) turned Marine World into for-profit theme park with roller coasters and other theme rides, at least 23 animals have died at there. In addition to Kala, the baby elephant, these include both of the park's orca whales, 2 dolphins, a sea lion, a camel, numerous sheep, 2 kangaroos and approximately 10 wallabies.

In March 2001, two former Marine World employees submitted sworn testimony to the U.S. Department of Agriculture attesting to animal beatings, neglect, suffering and terror caused by inadequate veterinary care, improper housing, mishandling by untrained and unqualified personnel, and exposure to noise from thrill rides and growing crowds at the. park. Among these employees’ allegations: that Six Flags management consistently puts profits above animal welfare and public safety concerns, and that employees who complained about animal welfare or public health violations were promptly fired from their jobs. Bolstering these allegations is a lawsuit filed in California Superior Court by other former Marine World employees who allege that they were fired after complaining about safety violations, including broken rides, leaking septic tanks and staff shortages that inhibited ride inspections.

Copies of the employee affidavits complaining of Six Flags animal mistreatment are included with this letter.

8. Conclusion

Marine World’s application for a permit to import two female Asian elephants from India should be denied. No evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim that this import will contribute to the survival of the species in the wild. The claim that the import is a non-commercial venture is belied by the fact that the elephants will be on public display at an amusement/theme park which charges patrons $42.99 to enter. Marine World has provided no evidence that the elephants it is seeking to import are indeed captive-bred. Marine World has limited experience with the care of baby elephants – to our knowledge, the park has had no captive births and a two-year old male loaned to the park for breeding purposes died just six months after being shipped there from a Missouri zoo. Marine World may not have adequate facilities to care for these two babies and a newborn due later this year.
IDA/EII Comments on PRT048985
16 January 2002
Page 7

Marine World lacks facilities to house bull elephants and has made only vague pledges to build such facilities in the future.

Marine World keeps its acoustically sensitive elephants in close proximity to thundering roller coasters and screaming crowds. Marine World has a questionable record of animal care, with at least 23 animals dying there since Premier Parks/Six Flags took over in 1997. Marine World’s elephant research director is a spokesperson and breeding consultant for Ringling Bros. Circus; he has termed the circus’ care of elephants “excellent” despite USDA findings that the Ringling forcibly separates 18-month old babies from their mothers and handled a baby in a manner that contributed to his death.

In order to green wash this application, Six Flags Marine World has created a sham foundation whose alleged purpose is conservation. However, careful review of the application reveals that it is nothing more than an amusement/theme park seeking to increase its elephant population and secure a new attraction to draw crowds for the upcoming season. U.S. law prohibits the import of this endangered species for that purpose. Granting Marine World the permit it seeks would make a mockery of the Endangered Species Act.

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wishes to maintain its credibility with regard to protecting wildlife, then it should reject this deceptive and meritless application out of hand.

On behalf of the nearly 200,000 members of IDA and EII, we urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deny Marine World’s request to import these endangered young elephants from India.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,




Suzanne E. Roy
IDA Program Director
On Behalf of:
In Defense of Animals & Earth Island Institute