With almost certainty, there is no wild animal which has a
more complicated, intimate relationship with humans than the elephants. Sometimes I think that one or two of the
large carnivores – the lion, the wolf – might rival it, but then I settle back
on my original position. Elephants have
been used for warfare on three continents, sharing the battlefields on the ancient
world with Alexander the Great and Hannibal of Carthage. They have worked the forests of South Asia as
loggers for millennia. They have been
worshiped as gods, hunted for sport and ivory, and carried kings and emperors
upon their backs. They have fought and
died in the Coliseum and been gifted to rulers as symbols of power and
might. In the modern era, they appear
frequently on TV and in the movies.
Tourists flock to see them in the parks of Africa and Asia. They are the stars of zoos and circuses.
For most of us, our experiences with the great big beasts
are confined the last sentence.
Elephants have been displayed in America since before there was an America, and certainly before
there were any formal zoos here.
Throughout the late 19th and most of the 20th
centuries, a zoo could hardly be considered a zoo at all unless it had an
elephant, preferably a gigantic specimen who was tolerant enough of children to
permit rides. Jumbo of the London Zoo was probably the ideal... apart from the periodic bouts of rage.
Those days may not be with us for much longer.
With the exception of the whales and dolphins – which only a
tiny handful of American facilities display – elephants are the most
controversial of zoo animals. They are
the species that people are most likely to be critical of the keeping of. Even some keepers I know are dubious about
the suitability of elephants to life in a zoo… though none are foolish enough
to express their opinion to an elephant keeper.
Those guys are intense.
So what is it about elephants? Their size dictates that they require large
enclosures – the most frequent critique leveled at zoos is that they can’t
provide large enough spaces for them.
Their intelligence means that they require consider stimulation, often
provided by training and enrichment.
Their social nature (of females and their young, at any rate) means that
an exhibit must be large enough to accommodate a group of at least three. They are one of the most expensive and
labor-intensive of zoo animals, usually requiring a dedicated staff, that is not shared
with other animals. For most of zoo
history – at least until the shift began away from working with elephants
free-contact – they remained the most dangerous of zoo animals, responsible for
the most zookeeper fatalities.
Today, most zoos with elephants are going in one of two
directions. Some zoos are doubling-down
and expanding their habitats, investing heavily in large, state-of-the-art
exhibits that provide room to roam and are equipped to handle
multi-generational female herds in a protected-contact setting; most new
facilities are also capable of managing reproduction… which often means
maintaining at least one bull (and the complications that can arise from that). Other
zoos are washing their hands of elephants, taking the expense and resource
requirements into account and deciding they can’t commit.
There’s nothing wrong with choosing the latter option. A zoo could reasonably decide that they’d
rather spend the 5-10 acres working with 10-20 other species, some of which
could be of very high conservation potential.
It’s better not to keep a species in some cases than to keep it in
facilities that are unsuitable. I think
the movement away from the “You aren’t a real zoo unless you have elephants" mentality has been a wonderful trend in zoos… though it hasn’t seemed to have
spread as readily among members of the public, who will criticize an
elephant-less zoo.
At any rate, I think that the decision on whether a zoo can manage elephants or not belongs to animal care professionals who have experience with elephants... not grandstanding politicians, as often proves to be the case. Likewise, if a zoo decides that they do not want to manage elephants, that should be their decision, and no politician should strong-arm them into keeping pachyderms just because they are a big draw.
At any rate, I think that the decision on whether a zoo can manage elephants or not belongs to animal care professionals who have experience with elephants... not grandstanding politicians, as often proves to be the case. Likewise, if a zoo decides that they do not want to manage elephants, that should be their decision, and no politician should strong-arm them into keeping pachyderms just because they are a big draw.
I do, however, feel that there are zoos that do elephants
and do them well. Obvious among these
are the facilities that can devote large tracts of land to their elephants,
such as the San Diego Zoo Safari Park and the North Carolina Zoo. Plenty of urban zoos manage the species just
fine as well – the Dallas Zoo, the Lowry Park Zoo, Zoo Miami, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, and the National Zoo being a few examples. Size isn’t everything.
What does make a suitable elephant habitat? Space is important, yes, both in terms of
quantity and quality – are their dirt areas for digging, pools for wallowing,
shade structures, etc? Is the zoo able
to maintain an appropriate social grouping – a minimum of three? Are the keepers able to implement sufficient
training and enrichment to provide physical and mental stimulation, as well as
to provide appropriate care for the surprisingly delicate bodies of elephants?
When the PAWS sanctuary of California took in the Toronto Zoo elephants, they boasted of their spacious paddocks. What they can’t boast of, however, is getting
their elephants managed as a cohesive social group, and the three elephants
from Toronto were never maintained as a herd at PAWS. Furthermore, the hands-off approach of the
sanctuary meant that some elephant care procedures, such as maintaining proper
foot health, become more difficult without constant training from the
keepers. Both American elephant
sanctuaries have also had incidence of tuberculosis, a serious disease that
also occurs in the zoo populations, showing that sanctuaries don’t necessarily
provide better veterinary care, or that a big enough roam to walk around solves
all ills.
Given proper environments and care, elephants will thrive in
a zoo setting. For proof, look no
further than the two recent imports of African elephants from Swaziland toAmerican zoos since the turn of the millennium.
Wild-born elephants, accustomed to roaming small, crowded national
parks, settled in comfortably in American zoos and have adjusted to the zoo
routine, learned the workings of protected contact, responded positively to
training, and have even bred.
Elephants are big animals, and they take a big commitment to
ensure proper care. They definitely
aren’t for every zoo. Heck, I’ll say they
probably aren’t for most zoos. But I feel like it is incorrect to claim, as
some zoo critics do, that they cannot be happily and healthily maintained under
human care.
Considering everything you've written here, would you say that In Defense of Animals' annual Top 10 Worst Zoos for Elephants list actually brings attention to actual poor welfare standards, or just tries to push an agenda?
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. Reluctantly, I'm going to have to go with pushing an agenda. I say "reluctant" because I acknowledge that keepers can be very sensitive to criticism, sometimes too sensitive, which is needed to bring about change. However, there have been accusations that IDA has leveled against some zoos which I don't believe to be true, or which don't take into account the individual animals involved (mostly thinking of San Antonio Zoo and Lucky) - and when they actively lobbied against one zoo building a bigger enclosure for its elephants, they completely lost me.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd have to agree.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated but serious note, it seems that the Wildlife Conservation Society and World Wildlife Fund aren't all they're cracked up to be, as Survival International has accused them of committing human rights abuses against tribal people in the Congo. More details here:
http://www.conservation-watch.org/2017/10/11/survival-international-accuses-wwf-and-wcs-of-supporting-violence-against-indigenous-people-in-the-congo-basin/
There's unfortunately sometimes been a history of conservation and human rights coming into conflict. Conservation organizations have sometimes been accused of putting the welfare of other species above humans. An interesting read, if you are interested, is "At the Hand of Man" by Raymond Bonner (August 2015 book review), which describes some of those conflicts as they have played out in East Africa
ReplyDeletePerhaps I'll give that book a read.
ReplyDeleteHearing these reports against WCS, in particular, disappoints me, because I've had a desire to travel to see the so-called "best of the best" among America's zoos, and it seems like the WCS facilities would have to be struck off my list.
I'm still reading more about this issue (and I must admit, the source website seems to have a bit of an agenda), but until then, I'm going to continue to support WCS. It's a facility that has done a tremendous amount of good for wildlife around the world... and people, too. Also, it's facilities are top-notch and are, as you said, among the best of the best of American zoos, both in terms of animal care and commitment to conservation.
ReplyDeletePerhaps your eventual verdict on this problem could be the subject of a future blog post?
ReplyDeleteIf not this specific case study, than certainly the potential for conflict between conservation and human rights issues, certainly. You seem to have some strong opinions on the subject and have done some research. If you'd like, you're welcome to provide an Op-Ed, which I'd be happy to publish
ReplyDeleteI'd like to, but I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I can't.
ReplyDelete