The debate over keeping elephants in Zoos…
Zoo officials are still not sure why Louie attacked Don RedFox, the story has brought the debate over elephants being kept in Zoos into the pages of the daily paper – (link). One of the interesting parts of the debate revolves around “free contact” and “protected contact” — the Toledo Zoo uses both but the “free contact” method of training is based on elephant circus training methods.
For those of you interested in this topic, I recommend reading Welfare Implications of Elephant Training by the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2008. Part of the recommended report:
Free Contact—During free contact the elephant and handler interact directly. Handlers typically carry a guide, a staff with a tapered metal hook used to cue the elephant’s behavior which is then reinforced (with food, praise and social contact). In most cases verbal commands replace physical cues over time, unless new behaviors are being taught. Free-contact training strives for 100% compliance from the elephant to allow safe interaction with handlers and other staff as required. Direct elephant-handler interaction can be risky for the handler and injuries and mortalities have been reported. Free contact advocates point to the benefits of a highly tractable animal that can be easily moved, exercised, examined and take part in intensive healthcare and veterinary research without the need for chemical or involuntary physical restraint.
A copy of the release sent out by In Defense of Animals can be found here – part of which states:
“There is evidence that captive elephants are prone to deliberately attack their trainers and others associated with their care,” said zoological consultant Peter Stroud. “We might conclude that this tendency is related to the unnatural situation in which captive elephants are kept and the suppression of their natural behavior.”
Between 1990 and 2000, there were at least 21 elephant-related keeper deaths and injuries in U.S. zoos (injuries are believed to be seriously underreported). Since 2000, after more zoos adopted “protected contact” training, there have been eight incidents, a reduction of more than 60 percent.
In India last year the Central Zoo Authority banned all elephants from being kept in Zoos or circuses, stating that no matter how well designed the Zoo was it did not meet the needs of elephants, (link).
Which raises the larger question that has often been raised about Zoos — does our desire to see animals in captivity justify keeping animals on display?
I would suggest we step back and consider the question being asked.
Animals are not “on display” anymore. The cages have become habitats with humans guests. Animals can choose to interact with us or not.
Elephants are one of the largest land mammals on the planet. They have a natural size and strength that far eclipses our own. As humans we have different types of relationships with these animals and there are occasionally accidents. Just as our relationships with mustang horses and quite a few other animals, all the way down to dogs and people, have accidents: a topic the Blade loves.
Zoos have spent the last ten years reevaluating elephant habitats and creating improved environments. Zoos that present us with the opportunity to encounter unique animals that we don’t normally get to interact with are extremely valuable to the community. We learn much about nature, animals and ourselves from these experiences. The animal rights groups attacking the zoo are the same ones that would love it if all dairy farms were closed and we stopped having eggs for breakfast, making everything a black or white issue.
It’s not black or white though. I don’t know if direct contact is better than putting a barrier between keepers and elephants. We need these experiences though. Just go to the zoo and find a school field trip to see the impact. I do find it interesting though that our local paper has ignored much of the science being done at the zoo but the minute they see an opportunity to get a scandal going it gets a lot of ink.
July 11th, 2010 at 4:12 pmMike, no matter how it’s designed, the animals are on display. We as a society have justified it and it may be something we continue to justify. I do think it’s a valid question to ask to see how readers of the Jungle feel.
July 11th, 2010 at 5:47 pmLisa, it is certainly fair to differ on the issue. I didn’t mean to imply that the question shouldn’t be asked, rather that there is a much larger context just being able to see an elephant in Toledo.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:16 pmZoos are much better on animal care than when I was a child. But they are still on display for the community to see. I do not know what method is better for the animals and their keepers.
But you cannot blame a wild animal for normal behavior. By the same token I am tired of the media and the zoo making sure every article on this accident includes the fact that Mr. RedFox broke protocol.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:18 pmMike I agree and you and Jackie both raise good points. One of the reasons the Zoo has changed many of its exhibits is to create a better environment for the animals. It is a long ways from the days of watching the animals pace back in forth in cages.
I thought India’s action was interesting, since it appears to only apply to elephants and not any other zoo animals.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:48 pmThere is another issue here which goes to some of our cultural bias. No where have I seen anyone addressing the whole issue of domestic verses wild. You cannot shelter and handle a wolf the same way you would a poodle. In the Indian subcontinent elephants have been used as domestic animals for thousands of years the DNA and breed is different than the African elephant. Louie is an African elephant. Highly intelligent herd animals, very different from their Asian counterparts. There is very little history of the successful domestication of the African elephant. Why do we study a 100 years of western circuses and zoos and ignore thousands of years of experience in Asia and Africa? Animals are not humans, blood lines and breeding matters. Some animals are predisposed – literally genetically programed – to tolerate or enjoy people and captivity, others are not. We should probably consider what has and has not worked in the rest of the world and quit re-inventing the wheel to suit our fancy.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:50 pmThat’s another valid point Dave, the American Veterinary Medical Association briefly alludes to the differences in African and Asian elephants but that is a factor as well.
It’s like the polar bears, the male after breeding at the Zoo was kept basically in quarantine since he could not be allowed with the females when they had cubs. We can’t change some of their behaviors.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:58 pmAsian or African, in captivity or in the wild, elephants are always wild animals. In the last few decades, scientists have made enormous leaps in their knowledge of what elephants need, yet zoos have barely changed. You can count on one hand the zoos that have a decent elephant program in this country.
There is an excellent book, An Elephant in the Room: The Science and Well-Being of Elephants in Captivity, which is available free at
http://home.elephantsincaptivity.org/Home
It includes chapters from the leading scientists, ethologists, sanctuaries, zoo staff and advocates working for elephants today. In particular, I refer you to Appendix I (Optimal Conditions for Captive Elephants) and II (Best Practices by the Coalition for Captive Elephant Well-Being). If you go to the Table of Contents you can read each chapter and the appendices individually.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:20 am