Mr Saunders manipulating media to get his way.
After a recent news article WAG contacted the NSPCA for comment. We received this information from the people directly involved with the elephants:
There are various glaring inaccuracies, including the inability of the writer to even get the name of our organisation correct. The NSPCA stands by their statement that the animals are frustrated in their small enclosures and that the monitors have been instructed not to handle the elephants - out of concern for their safety.
Mr Saunders has clearly tried to manipulate the media to try and motivate why he should take possession of the elephants. But the issues raised (lack of routine, cramped enclosures etc) are the motivaton we (NSPCA) have used repeatedly throughout the last 14 months to try and have the animal removed from that property to one where they can enjoy freedom and interaction with each other.
The NSPCA's efforts have been hampered by legal delays - seizure of the elephants granted on 14 October 1998 - but the appeal by Mr Ghiazza will not be ruled on until mid January 2000 at the earliest.
We have certainly not forgotten about the elephants. Our monitors are present with them daily. The criminal charges against Craig Saunders and others will go ahead, as confirmed by the Attorney General. The logic of moving them to Mr Saunders property - only to move them again if the Supreme Court upholds the seizure order does not make sense.
Mr Saunders may have shown the Beeld newspaper representative his property. It is stressed that the permit issued by the provincial government for this property was issued PRIOR to the Attorney General's announcement that criminal charges would proceed against Saunders. The NSPCA successfully opposed Mr Saunders court application to take possession of the 5 elephants on the above grounds. His reapplication has been heard but judgement has been reserved indefintiely.
Saunders has tried twice through the courts to get the 5 remaining elephants. Both times, he was unsuccessful - not because of his property but because he stands accused of cruelty to those very elephants.
He admits beating the elephant named Baby. His defence is that the elephant "went for him" which in my opinion is an admission of guilt.
Again, the other problems he points out are the result of Ghiazza;'s ineptitude or whatever - not ours. Our job is to monitor their treatment not order food. etc. It is frustrating when they get to the property and there is no friut. The monitors then go out and buy out of their own money.
Please refer to our web site at