LOS ANGELES (CN) — The California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a ruling that ordered improved conditions for elephants at Los Angeles Zoo, a setback for animal advocates who say the intelligent animals are being mistreated. 
 
 In August 2007, Los Angeles resident Aaron Leider sued L.A. Zoo Director John Lewis and the City of Los Angeles, challenging the expansion of the zoo’s elephant exhibit. Leider claimed the zoo subjected elephants to “cruel, abusive and illegal treatment” through use of chains, drugs, bullhooks and electric shocks. 
 
 In 2012, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Segal stopped short of ruling that the zoo’s treatment was inhumane but said officials need to take better care of the elephants. He ordered the city to stop using bullhooks or electric shocks and to exercise the elephants regularly. 
 
 A divided appeals court affirmed. 
 
 City leaders have recently highlighted conditions at the zoo, with Councilman Paul Koretz calling for the zoo to move an Asian elephant named Billy to a sanctuary. Zoo officials objected, saying that keepers are looking after the elephants. In his motion, Koretz relied on Segal’s findings in the bench trial. 
 
 Leider’s complaint said the keeper had shocked Billy and that the animal was bobbing his head – an indication, according to advocates, that he is stressed and isolated. 
 
 But the California Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the appeals court. 
 
 Justice Carol Corrigan rejected the theory in Leider’s taxpayer action: that the alleged criminal mistreatment of the animals was an unlawful use of public money. 
 
 Under California law, a taxpayer action cannot be used to enforce violations of criminal law, so an injunction against the city cannot stand, according to the unanimous court. 
 
 “Here, the trial court found that the city and its zoo director had violated penal code statutes proscribing animal abuse, but it provided them neither the right to a jury trial nor the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Corrigan wrote. “Moreover, Leider was permitted to exercise the discretion reserved for the district attorney with regard to enforcement of the criminal law. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal’s judgment cannot stand.” 
 
 Leider’s attorney David Casselman called the ruling “extremely disappointing,” and said evidence showed that elephants had died prematurely because of conditions at the zoo. 
 
 “Having gone all the way through trial and proving the need for injunctive relief under recognized statutory authority, it was very surprising that the Supreme Court would change the rules and effectively ignore the statutory scheme that has existed for decades,” Casselman said in an interview. 
 
 He said he hoped for a retrial before a jury. 
 
 “If it’s possible, I intend to pursue this through the Legislature, or anywhere else, to protect these elephants who are suffering dying prematurely,” he said. 
 
 The zoo praised the high court’s decision. 
 
 “Today’s California Supreme Court decision validates what Angelenos already know: the LA Zoo and its staff provides the highest level of care for our elephants and all our animals,” LA Zoo spokeswoman April Spurlock wrote in an email. “Our elephants live in one of the best – and largest – elephant habitats in North America at a state-of-the-art facility that has tremendous resources, a dedicated staff, and provides top-quality health care.” 
 
 The city did not respond to a request for comment. 
 
 The court remanded the case for further proceedings. 
 
 Like this: Like Loading... ||||| The Pittsburgh zoo is defending its use of dogs to control its African elephants and protect their handlers, after officials with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) ordered it to stop stressing the animals through this practice. 
 
 Late last year, USDA officials with the animal and plant health inspection service agreed to investigate the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium’s use of herding dogs to shepherd the elephants after receiving a complaint from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta). 
 
 During the inspection, USDA officials reported that a dog exhibited “aggressive behavior” when a manager ordered it to create a barrier between a human handler and an elephant. The report, released on Monday by Peta, said the dog growled and lunged at one elephant, and entered the enclosure without being called. 
 
 A manager told officials dogs have bitten elephants, according to the report. Representatives from the zoo also verified a CBS News clip that showed an elephant in distress – flapping its ears, trumpeting and turning and running away – after being charged by the dogs. The report, dated 6 January, said the manager was “clear” that the dogs were being used for protecting staff. 
 
 “It does not provide any modicum of safety to put a small dog in between an elephant keeper and a 15,000lb animal who could easily kill the dog with a simple kick or a missed step,” said Brittany Peet, deputy director of captive animal law enforcement for Peta. 
 
 The USDA report concluded that all animal handling must be “done in a manner that does not cause behavioral stress” and ordered the zoo to “correct” the practice immediately. 
 
 Peet suggested the zoo use a physical barrier that prevents direct contact between handlers and elephants. She pointed to zoos in San Diego and Oakland, and other cities, where the so-called “protected contact” method is employed effectively. 
 
 In a statement released on Monday the Pittsburgh zoo gave no indication it would change its practices. 
 
 “The introduction of the dogs has been a valuable tool as we continue to elevate the care and management of our elephant herd,” said the president and chief executive, Dr Barbara Baker. 
 
 “The safety of our keepers and animals is a top priority and we provide an additional safety level with the use of trained cattle dogs. The dogs read the behavior of the animals and alert the keepers to any disruption in the herd, preventing potential safety concerns for the staff and elephants. 
 
 Peet said she was dismayed by the zoo’s resistance, and said Peta would continue to press the issue until the zoo complies with the department’s orders. 
 
 “The Pittsburgh Zoo should be working to protect animals, employees and visitors by barring all direct contact with elephants, not digging in its heels and experimenting with dogs’ lives for publicity and ticket sales,” Peet said. 
 
 In the zoo’s statement, Baker challenged the report’s findings and said the practice was considered low-stress, having been recognized by the USDA as a proven method of controlling interactions between livestock, dogs and handlers. 
 
 Regarding the inspection in January, Baker said: “We showed how valuable the dogs can be should a keeper’s safety be in question.” 
 
 This is not the first time the Pittsburgh Zoo has come under criticism for the way it handles elephants. In 1989, a keeper suffered a broken leg after an elephant kicked while he tried to give it medication. In 2002, a handler was killed by a mother elephant which pinned him to the ground with her head. 
 
 The zoo said it introduced dogs into the elephant program in 2012, since when no keepers, elephants or dogs have been injured.
– For years, the Los Angeles Zoo has been under a court order requiring it to exercise its three elephants on soft ground and not use electric shocks or barbed sticks on them. On Thursday, that court order was overturned in a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court that animal activists are decrying. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued the injunction against the zoo in 2012 in response to a taxpayer lawsuit alleging animal cruelty. But in what the Los Angeles Times calls a "highly technical ruling" overturning the injunction, the state's highest court said a taxpayer lawsuit (which uses civil law rules) can't be used to address criminal conduct. The taxpayer lawsuit began in 2007 when an LA resident sued over what he said was abusive treatment of the elephants, also including the use of chains and drugs, Courthouse News Service reports. A lawyer who worked on the case, for free, for more than five years says he'll attempt to find another way to get a similar injunction against the zoo, or request that the state legislature overturn the ruling. "I thought we had done something here to move the ball forward and instead the Supreme Court has allowed the zoo to take a step into the Dark Ages," he says. The Supreme Court explained in its ruling that by obtaining the injunction in such a way, the court did not allow the zoo to have a jury trial or the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The barbed sticks known as bull hooks have since been banned entirely in California, and for its part, the zoo says that it has never used and will never use them or electric shocks as disciplinary tools for its elephants, and that it will continue to follow the court order despite it being overturned.