Walter Cooks Report

I have spent over half my life dealing with animals, but the folks involved here have even managed to confuse me with their brilliant verbal sleight of hand as described by Penn and Teller in describing how a card sharp does it in The Principals of Sleight of Hand:

1. Palm - To hold an object in an apparently empty hand.
2. Ditch - To secretly dispose of an unneeded object.
3. Steal - To secretly obtain a needed object.
4. Load - To secretly move an object to where it is needed.
5. Simulation - To give the impression that something has happened that has not.
6. Misdirection - To lead attention away from a secret move.
7. Switch - To secretly exchange one object for another.




TWRA's report Click link

http://web.knoxnews.com/pdf/2011/feb/021611zooweb.pdf

Intentional, yes. Evil, no.

That's the point Tennessee wildlife officials say they wanted to get across in their final report on the elephant's actions that killed handler Stephanie Elaine James at the Knoxville Zoo last month.

"It was intentional, but it was not an attack," said Walter Cook, state wildlife coordinator for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. "That was the only word that could be used in the report - 'intentional' - because nobody could identify any stimulus for the elephant to do that. It wasn't accidental, because the elephant meant to do it. But at the same time, the word doesn't indicate malice or mean the elephant was being aggressive in any way."

Investigators can't be certain whether the elephant acted out of affection, playfulness or any other motive, he said.

James, 33, died Jan. 14 after Edie, a 27-year-old African elephant, pushed her into the metal bars of a stall in the Stokely African Elephant Preserve barn and crushed her as she gave the elephant an evening treat. Fellow elephant handler Todd Naelitz, who stood about 15 feet away, told TWRA investigators he saw Edie's eyes widen, then saw the elephant "lunge forward."

An autopsy found James died from injuries that included six broken ribs and a punctured left lung - the result of what the TWRA called "an intentional blow." Zoo officials disputed that term, saying Edie had no history of violent behavior.

Cook said that's not what the report meant.

"It just means the elephant meant to make contact," he said. "The elephant stepped forward for whatever reason and made contact with her, and that resulted in her death. We don't know what was in the animal's mind. The animal could have been playing. It could have just stepped into her to show affection. When you work with animals that large, that's an inherent risk. They can be playing and kill you."

The report concluded the zoo did nothing wrong. Edie hasn't been punished and won't be, said Jim Vlna, the zoo's executive director.

Since James' death keepers have dealt with Edie in protected contact, meaning handlers never work with the elephant without bars or some other barrier in place, while an independent panel appointed by the zoo reviews the case.

"Only Edie knows what was happening," Vlna said. "Other than the use of that particular term - 'intentional' - we didn't have any objection to the (TWRA) report. Having that term further defined just puts it back in perspective."

James' family said they didn't want to talk about what happened.

The injuries, mostly internal, indicate the elephant probably didn't intend to hurt James, said Cook, the wildlife official.

"It didn't exert a great deal of force - just enough to result in her death," he said. "If the animal had done it out in the yard instead of in the barn, she probably would have just fallen. The bottom line is there's no fault in any of this."

____________________________________

"Investigators can't be certain whether the elephant acted out of affection, playfulness or any other motive, he(Walter Cook) said."

"Fellow elephant handler Todd Naelitz, who stood about 15 feet away, told TWRA investigators he saw Edie's eyes widen, then saw the elephant "lunge forward."

Mr. Cook, listen again. LUNGE FORWARD!!!!!!

"It just means the elephant meant to make contact," he(Walter Cook) said. "The elephant stepped forward for whatever reason and made contact with her, and that resulted in her death. We don't know what was in the animal's mind. The animal could have been playing. It could have just stepped into her to show affection.

Mr. Cook, listen real close. The only eye witness said, "lunge forward." He didn't say "meant to make contact" or "stepped forward" or even "stepped into." He clearly said, "lunge forward."

Dictionary definition of "lunge:"

1. a quick thrust or jab (as of a sword) usually made by leaning or striding forward

2. a sudden forward rush or reach lunge to catch the ball>

Oh okay Mr. Cook, I stand corrected you might be right!!!!! But I think if your organization really understood animal behavior the description "eyes widen" that Todd used just before "lunged forward" should have tipped you off.

"When you work with animals that large, that's an inherent risk. They can be playing and kill you"(Walter Cook)

Mr. Cook, if I am "playing" baseball and I hit a line drive and it hits the pitcher in the head and kills him, that's clearly a "playing accident." If I am "playing" baseball and I run out to the pitchers mound and hit him in the head with my bat and kill him, that's clearly "not a playing accident." It's show's an intent to do harm.

"It wasn't accidental, because the elephant meant to do it. But at the same time, the word doesn't indicate malice or mean the elephant was being aggressive in any way."

WHAT!!!!!!!

"The elephant stepped forward for whatever reason and made contact with her, and that resulted in her death."

DOUBLE WHAT!!!!!! Why is it when an elephant "steps forward and makes contact with her baby", for whatever reason we KNOW the reason. It's because she is a loving mother and oh so sensitive and caring. Yet, why is it when an elephant "steps forward and makes contact with her
baby," for whatever reason, and it results in the death of the baby, we DON'T KNOW WHAT IS ON THEIR MIND OR HOW THEY THINK!!!!!! We pull the iggy and we get stupid. How do we know what is on their mind when they are doing what we want them to, yet we don't know what is on their mind when they do something we don't want them to?????

The state of Tennessee, the only state out of 50, requires all cage acts performing in the state to have a net over the arena. No pedestal can be over 3 foot and be against the cage. It can be 4 ft away from the cage, but it can't be against the cage. It would seem that the state of Tennessee KNOWS what a tiger thinks, but now all of a sudden they don't know what an elephant thinks? They also require you to have a shotgun in your possession in case of an escape. That would seem to indicate that they KNOW how I think, and that I would shoot the animal? But you don't know how an elephant thinks? For all you animal rights nitwit's and other similar "know it all experts", when a mother tiger gently places 4 fangs around a newborn cubs head, and picks it up and takes it to a new place, are you going to tell me "you know what is on her mind?" But if she uses those same fangs to bite the cubs head off, are you going to tell me, "you don't have any idea what is on her mind?" I don't know for a fact, but I am going to assume this elephant did not come from a "circus background." If she had someone would have already played the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome card, in an effort to divert responsibility. Either that or nobody want's to validate the wing nut's by suggesting it.

Mr. Cook, I would like to ask your Wildlife Officer Joe Durnin something if I could:

"The zoo has no record of either Todd or Stephanie failing to follow the established guidelines," Wildlife Officer Joe Durnin wrote. "Both were consistent in adhering to the guidelines. ... Investigation has identified no apparent stimulus that precipitated the action by the elephant."

Mr. Durnin, you read this zoo report below. It didn't indicate any "precipitated the action by the elephant" to you????

Knoxville Zoo report:

Handlers had trouble with the elephant only twice before, according to the report - neither case serious.

James had reported she either stumbled or bumped into Edie - "she wasn't sure which" - and fell while walking the elephant in November. She wasn't hurt. A former handler reported a similar instance in 2006.

SHE(James) WASN'T SURE WHETHER SHE "STUMBLED OR BUMPED INTO EDIE AND FELL WHILE WALKING THE ELEPHANT" IN NOVEMBER? Read it again real slow, Mr. Durnin. Is the zoo suggesting that if someone falls in the street, they don't know if they tripped over a manhole cover or got hit by a car!!!!!!! Not once, but twice in Nov. and in 2006!!!!!!! What kind of "stimulus" were you looking for Mr. Dunn?

I recall a similar incident that occurred at the 2004 Turkey Festival when an elephant trainer was knocked down, and the elephant went to her knee's and rolled him threw 15 ft. of floor lights. Another trainer yelled and she stopped, which as Dir. Jim Vina validated, means the animal didn't do any thing wrong because:"The elephants acted as they should in that situation. In other words when they received a command, they responded. She responded in this case," Jim Vina, executive director of the Knoxville Zoo, said. That's almost how the owner of the elephant at the 2004 Turkey Festival saw it, "she was only trying to do a good deed." Apparently Dir. Vina also KNOWS what an elephant thinks when she does what she is told to do, but he doesn't KNOW what an elephant thinks when they act on their own? Six people witnessed the incident at the 2004 Turkey Festival, 5 trainers with a total of over 150 years of experience, and the owner of the elephant. The 5 trainer's witnessed an "attack". The owner of the elephant witnessed an "elephant trying to grab a person who had stumbled, in an effort to keep them from falling, and in the process lost her(the elephants) balance and fell on him!!!!!! This phenomena of "seeing things different" isn't unusual for this kind of incident, in fact it is normal. Just as Tina Rolen interpreted the incident at Knoxville, "James' injuries were not as a result of a malicious attack by Edie, one of the two female elephants at the zoo, but resulted instead from working "in close proximity to such a large animal," said Tina Rolen, the zoo's spokeswoman. I'll bet 5 trainers with a combined total of 150 years of experience would have seen it different?

Everybody is blaming the wall, the enclosure, the bars, etc. etc. which is wrong, because the wall, the enclosure, the bars etc. etc. prevented any undue suffering to the unfortunate girl and should be given a pass. This statement by Mr. Cook indicates that with all his animal knowledge, he has spent very little time ass deep in the alligator pit, "It didn't exert a great deal of force - just enough to result in her death," he said. "If the animal had done it out in the yard instead of in the barn, she probably would have just fallen. " No Mr. Cook the wall ended it immediately, you folks need to give it some credit and quit blaming it. If it had occurred in the yard, not only would she have fallen but she would have been kicked and rolled with the head for a great distance until she came to a wall, where not a "great deal of force - just enough to result in her death" would have likely occurred. The wall just made it happen right now without the added trauma of being kicked across the yard with the same ease Pele kicked a soccer ball. Do you know what saved the trainer at the 2004 Turkey Festival? Not that there wasn't a wall, no, but that he was experienced, and knew to keep rolling, keep moving, get going, go, go, go. Jim Alexander mentioned a video tape a few day's ago of an "accident" in San Diego a number of years ago. If you have ever seen it, you will note the person, curling up in a ball, or what is described as the fetal position and screaming like a women(no offense ladies.) That action almost cost him his life. The only thing that saved him, was the intervention of another keeper, dragging him to safety, but the elephant did stop when she was told to(which is a good deal, right Director Vina.)

I have read the Elephant Managers Association guidelines from front to back, back to front and I can find nothing instructing keepers on how to defend themselves or what to do if an elephant attacks you. Nothing. I can only suppose that is because an animal never has an "intentional accident"( we don't know why, apparently) and instead an animal only has "accident accidents"(which we know why, apparently.) They have policies/protocols/guidelines/instruction for nutrition, substrate, medical management, group composition, TB, foot care, artificial insemination, handling etc. etc. But nothing, and I mean nothing on what steps to follow, what to do, how to react, if an elephant "accidentally" falls on you while attempting to grab you to prevent you from falling if you happen to trip, or if it "accidentally" happens to knock you done, if you run into it like an idiot.

Knoxville is bringing in an independent panel appointed to review the case, as well as an "elephant expert." I wonder who that is, and what qualifies him as an "expert." I sure hope it is not the "elephant expert" that Toledo brought in, who only saw an elephant "crouch" over the keeper but not actually hit him in this video:

The Circus "NO SPIN ZONE": Toledo Zoo Elephant attack update

Note the Director Anne Baker from Toledo "speculating" on the possibility the elephant was "playing." I recall Dr. Barbara Baker CEO of the Pittsburgh Zoo in 2002 when M killed a keeper, "speculating" that M was either over playful or beings she was an African elephant had maybe spooked, like an Arabian horse and "accidentally" killed the keeper. Just that quick, Dr. Barbara Baker became an expert on Arabian Horse behavior!!!!!!!!!! But she got reprimanded for that:

Two audience members at the talk felt Baker withheld information by not discussing alternate theories on what caused the elephant to attack. Baker said she mentioned only the official result of an independent investigation, which concluded the elephant had become spooked.

Group reprimands zoo chief for talk - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

I think we can start to understand why it is so very easy for sanctuaries, peta, and so many other "feel good" animal organizations to talk lay people and other members of the uninformed public into financing their "fantasy" when we see how the professionals explain it to each other. It is so simple, if you put away the PHd's, the Doctorates, the BS's for a minute you might consider this. If a human wants to be left alone, they can say, "I need some space". If they are upset, they can say, "leave me alone for now." If they want more treat's they can say, "may I have more treats." If they don't want any more treat's they can say, "no thank you, I am full." When two children fight for dominance, they are told, "that is wrong here is how you should act."
AN ELEPHANT DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK, NOR DOES IT HAVE A SPOKEN LANGUAGE. Elephants, like all animals can only express themselves in the only way they are capable and that is with actions. If a 5 ton messenger "speaks" to a 5 ton receiver things will break about even, but if that 5 ton messenger "speaks" to a 125 receiver you can bet things will go bad. No mystery, humans have a hard time receiving a 5 ton message and have no option. But a 5 ton receiver of that 5 ton message, has options as well as a decision to make. He can either deliver his 5 ton message back, or he can walk away. Humans don't have that option either. It's no accident, that's just the way things turned out. An animal isn't a person, they can't understand us. We have to understand them, and that doesn't mean making things up, because it is hard for our frail human psyche to comprehend. They don't waste or energy speculating or debating. They react, they move on. That's why they are superior in so many respects. They aren't hampered or handicapped by a conscience guiding them.