Ringling Bros. Phasing out Elephants by 2018

@loxodontaafrica: Are Kelly Ann, Sara, Rudy and Mable no longer travelling? Those are all in breeding age. Juliette might be cycling if she didn`t have to travel.
And then there are the females who, due to their "circus duties", never had a chance to breed and are now sadly post-reproductive: Tonka, Luna, Siam II and Nicole were all in prime breeding age when the CEC started, but they always had to travel.

Gosh, I so hope this will really be over by 2018.
 
wally war eagle said:
If captive elephants become overpopulated, the Copenhagen zoo culling could be performed with human family participation and feeding to carnivores.
Click to expand...

Seriously? In what world would that be a good idea? I'd certainly never allow my family to participate in something so barbaric.
 
loxodontaafrica said:
A lot of misinformation circulating.
First of all, the African elephant male surplus at the San Diego SP is completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Click to expand...

Not completely irrelevant since that part of the conversation was related to surplus elephants being created by Ringling having a breeding center.

loxodontaafrica said:
And yes, unless things have changed recently the elephants are chained at night in a communal area with concrete flooring. Expecting cows/cows with young calves are given separate more comfortable quarters though.
Click to expand...

Greeeeaaaaat. Just wonderful
 
Yassa said:
@azcheeta2: You are right to assume that nothing has changed at the CEC about the way they treat the elephants since Reba lived there. Of course they are still using free contact and bullhooks to handle the females and calves at the CEC. Only the bulls are in protected contact. During the big trial with some AR groups, Ringling employees openly admitted that baby elephants are routinely beaten and chained while they "learn" to obey to their human handlers.
Click to expand...

I had no idea. Wow. How incredibly sad. Something really needs to change.

While Reba and Indu have improved mentally since their arrival in Phoenix, they can still be observed standing in one spot as though they believe they're still chained and rocking back and forth. They weren't with the circus at the same time, but both are dominant females so they can't be in the yard at the same time for very long because they get aggressive with each other.
 
I remember am article in one of my local newspapers about a Ringling visit that mentioned how old each of the elephants that toured with the company was and had some other info on them, I will dig it up if I can find the time while this thread is still active relevant.
 
Maybe one of these Elephants will end up in Buffalo, if I understand correctly they will need a new elephant in the very near future. Just a random thought. They need one and Ringling Brothers could be a source.
 
azcheetah2 said:
Not completely irrelevant since that part of the conversation was related to surplus elephants being created by Ringling having a breeding center.
Click to expand...

The North American Asian elephant TAG is far from a surplus. They actually really need the implication of Ringling's stock for long term viability.
We're currently standing at an average of two births each year, if that. With the annual death rate surpassing the rate of reproduction. The population really lacks females in the range of 10-15 for the most part.
If you were to look at the age pyramid in the 2010 studbook, most animals are post-reproductive, and recently expanded exhibits still remain understocked (Audubon, OKC, Honolulu, and soon to be Portland)
 
wensleydale said:
APNewsBreak: Ringling Bros. circus to close after 146 years

Any thoughts on what this means for the rest of the Animals used in the show?
Click to expand...
Well it depends, I know that one of the big cat acts is owend by its trainer Alexander Lacey so he and his cats will most likley return to Europe after show folds for the last time. As for the other cat act i thought that was leased, as fot the horses, ponys, camels and zebras i have no idea
 
Last edited:
Zorro said:
I believe the elephants have all been sold!
Click to expand...
Great! So, a (inter-)nationally CITES regulated animal species can be traded in the US for cash!
What is the conservation (breeding) benefit or relevance of that deal / decision?

Who(m) are the buyers?
 
The facility they are going to are world renowned for breeding other species. Particularly rhino, cheetah and okapi
 
Re Kifaru..there are quite a number of elephants in european zoos that have been bought.When an animal is worth £50k or more it is unrealistic to expect people to donate them gratis. Re. Loxodonta...we have to be talking northern Florida right? In which case-a good outcome i would say.
 
Further to my comments: I am well aware that money changes hands when elephants are transferred, be this for veterinary testing/paperwork and transport costs (.... I am no angel nor living in fairyland). That is all well and good.

However, and this is my argument - just ethically if beyond these logistical financial issues the elephants have been literally sold ... it flies in the face of international (and national) legislation on wildlife trade - aside any discourse on whether that legislation is actually effective or legally enforced - and that a commercial deal involving endangered species or individuals thereof does contravene the very foundations of CITES legislation (I know it is far from ideal and really more an economic / legal framework and not one that actually reflects levels of trade and / or the category of threat for the individual species concerned and thus secures their long term conservation and / or ensures viable populations remain in the wild).

Furthermore, it is a fact that the private international trade in wildlife and wildlife parts is actually very detrimental to any wildlife populations in situ, and particularly the rarer ones - as in trade more often than not the rarer the higher ye price. In that respect, the realm of private individuals acquiring, holding and breeding wild animals and dealing commercially in them does not always stand favorably to an objective review of theory and practice.
 
No,not covering costs...bought elephants- as in ownership.I know the U.S. quite well(for instance) and there are many rare CITES 1 listed animals in private hands (at least one hundred Pygmy Hippos for one).No,it seems to me that we can either morally pretend these populations do not exist and have nothing to do with them at all,or we can take the pragmatic choice that they COULD be very valuable indeed...and if some philanthropist is willing to see that they cross over the "separation line" then I can accept the circumstance...its a situation far removed from an animal market situation in Java .By the way, it is not illegal to have commercial trade in various levels of CITES provided that the correct procedures are followed.FINALLY,and I'm not saying this to condone the trade in endangered species,but how do you think the zoo world would look if this kind of thing hadn't gone on in the past(dealers/buying)?...you could forget about gorillas in zoos for starters.Or do you think that would actually be desirable?
 
A few points I would like to add:

I don't know if this was specifically what Tim Brown was referring to, but there is a private facility called Rum Creek that has many pygmy hippos (and other species, I think) breeding naturally and freely in semi-free range conditions. The AZA has been (or was?) in talks with them about collaborating with them on breeding, which would more than double the pygmy hippo population in the SSP.

For private facilities that buy and sell animals to be included in breeding programs is a common occurrence in the US. Additionally, zoos often sell animals to other zoos, although the amount is usually small and more of a formality than anything else. Sometimes animals are sold to private facilities not participating in the breeding program (this happens with caprids a lot). My point from all of this is that money often changes hands when animals move from one facility to another, but that doesn't mean that profits were the motive behind the sale.

Finally, with regards to Tim's last point: just because something happened in the past doesn't necessarily justify doing it today. Yes, we must acknowledge that free international trade in animals gave us the zoo populations that we have today and perhaps that was a good outcome, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the practice in the past and certainly doesn't in the present where most people know better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top