Billy and Tina Covertly Moved to Tulsa Zoo Under the Cover of Darkness

Tina walking around in her LA Zoo enclosure, chained at the ankles just a week prior to the move

In the early hours of Tuesday, May 20, 2025, the Los Angeles Zoo covertly transferred its two remaining Asian elephants, Billy and Tina, to the Tulsa Zoo in Oklahoma. This clandestine move occurred amid ongoing legal challenges and public outcry advocating for their relocation to a sanctuary. Notably, the LA Zoo has yet to confirm the elephants' safe arrival in Tulsa, leaving their current status uncertain.

The timing and secrecy of the transfer have drawn criticism from animal welfare advocates and public officials. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who had filed a motion to pause the relocation pending a review of sanctuary options, expressed his frustration, stating the situation was "disappointing and frustrating." He emphasised the lack of transparency, noting, "If it’s the right thing, you should be proud of it and be willing to defend it and bring it forward for public vetting and do it at a scheduled time and not be cagey about it."

The decision to move Billy and Tina to the Tulsa Zoo was made in consultation with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and its Elephant Species Survival Plan (SSP). On the surface, this may seem reassuring — after all, the AZA is widely regarded as the accrediting body responsible for ensuring that zoos and aquariums adhere to the highest standards of animal care and welfare. Most would assume that such an organisation is run by independent experts — people whose sole concern is the wellbeing of animals, free from internal bias or institutional influence.

However, the reality is deeply troubling. Denise Verret, the very person who signed off on Billy and Tina’s removal from Los Angeles, is not only the Director of LA Zoo, but also currently serves as the Chair of the AZA Board. In any other industry—be it corporate governance, legal oversight, or government accountability — this would be recognised immediately as a glaring conflict of interest. Yet in the world of captive animal welfare, it’s accepted practice.

This arrangement raises serious ethical concerns. How can an individual be expected to objectively assess what is best for the animals in her care while simultaneously holding a leadership role in the organisation that evaluates her own institution? The result is a system where the lines between accreditor and stakeholder are not just blurred — they are effectively erased. It’s no wonder that AZA “approval” was used to validate a move that so many experts, advocates and members of the public believe was anything but in the animals’ best interest.

The Tulsa Zoo, an AZA-accredited facility, has recently unveiled what it calls its new “Elephant Preserve” — a 17-acre space that includes a 36,650-square-foot barn, expanded yard areas and enrichment zones intended to support a growing herd. While this upgrade is certainly an improvement on traditional zoo enclosures, it's important to place that figure in context. Seventeen acres, while sounding generous to the casual observer, is a fraction of what true elephant sanctuaries provide.

At The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, for example, elephants roam freely across over 2,700 acres of diverse, forested terrain, with rolling hills, ponds and complete privacy from human interference. Similarly, the Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) offers over 2,300 acres for its rescued elephants—vast landscapes where animals have autonomy, space to move and the freedom to form social bonds or retreat in solitude, as they would in the wild.

Tulsa’s 17-acre “preserve” is still a zoo enclosure. Its primary function remains exhibition, with public viewing spaces and regimented care schedules. It’s not a sanctuary. It doesn’t offer vast terrain or freedom from human observation. It offers slightly more room, but still within the walls of a commercial institution designed around ticket sales, not liberation.

Adding to these concerns is Tulsa Zoo’s track record. It has consistently been listed in In Defense of Animals’ “Top 10 Worst Zoos for Elephants”, most recently ranked number 8. The reasons? Lack of space, social mismanagement and questionable breeding practices, all of which have led to shortened lifespans, physical ailments and psychological distress in their elephants. Historically, Tulsa Zoo has struggled to meet even the basic needs of elephants — raising the question: what has truly changed?

In Defense of Animals' short video on the immense success of their Top 10 Worst Zoos List

Is the new preserve a sincere attempt at reform—or is it a well-timed public relations effort to justify accepting two more elephants in the face of national criticism? Is 17 acres, no matter how polished, enough to reverse decades of documented shortcomings?

These are the questions the public must ask. Because if we are to learn anything from the past, it’s that glossy upgrades don’t always reflect meaningful change — and no zoo enclosure, no matter how large or new, can replicate the experience of wild, open sanctuary living.

With the transfer complete, attention now turns to the Tulsa Zoo's capacity to meet the complex needs of a seven-elephant herd. We at Free The Wild, along with a number of other NGOs, plan to monitor the elephants' well-being closely and continue to advocate for their relocation to a sanctuary if necessary.

While the move may provide Billy and Tina with increased space and potential social interaction, there remains a critical and often-overlooked concern: climate. Tulsa, Oklahoma is not a tropical haven. Its winters are cold, with temperatures regularly dropping below freezing, bringing with them ice storms, sleet and frigid winds. In such conditions, elephants are typically confined to climate-controlled barns — indoors, away from natural light, fresh air and the sensory richness of the outdoors.

This is eerily reminiscent of the case of Lucy, the Asian elephant who has lived for decades at the Edmonton Valley Zoo in Alberta, Canada. Like Billy and Tina, Lucy is a tropical species—evolved for warmth, humidity and sunlight—but has been kept in a climate wholly unsuitable for her biology. As a result, she has spent the majority of her life indoors, breathing artificial air under fluorescent lights, deprived of the environmental conditions she needs to thrive. Over time, Lucy developed a chronic respiratory condition, widely recognised by independent veterinarians as akin to a perpetual cold—a direct result of her prolonged exposure to cold, dry air and lack of natural movement. Yet officials have repeatedly denied this link, continuing to keep her in an environment wholly unsuited to her needs.

A reminder of Lucy's living conditions in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Billy and Tina now face a similar future. Though Tulsa’s winters are not as harsh as Edmonton’s, they are far from suitable for animals adapted to the lush forests and sun-warmed landscapes of Asia. Come the colder months, they too will be locked inside a barn — albeit a modern one — cut off from the natural world and exposed to conditions that could, over time, exacerbate existing ailments or introduce new ones.

We hold out hope that Tulsa Zoo, despite its past and its limitations, will rise to meet this challenge. That they will take their responsibility to all seven elephants seriously. That they will prioritise the individual needs and wellness of each animal over the convenience of exhibition or protocol. That this new facility, for all its controversy, might still become a stepping stone toward something better.

But hope alone is not enough. As always, Free The Wild will continue to monitor, advocate and act in the best interests of the elephants — Billy, Tina and every elephant under Tulsa Zoo’s care. Because their story doesn’t end with relocation. In many ways, it has only just begun.

Thank you for reading 🧡