IDA worst zoos for elephants 2015

ZooElephantMan

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
1. Tie: Dallas Zoo, Dallas, Texas; Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha, Nebraska; and Sedgwick County Zoo, Wichita, Kansas – Shady Swaziland Swindle

For the first time ever, the #1 position is a tie: Dallas Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo, and Sedgwick County Zoo are the “terrible three.” These zoos win the award for putting the “con” in conservation for their despicable efforts to import 18 young elephants who were captured in the wild in Swaziland and traumatically taken from their mothers and families. The zoos are working with Big Game Parks, a questionable family-run outfit that runs the parks containing the elephants. Big Game Parks last exported elephants to U.S. zoos in 2003, claiming they would have to otherwise kill elephants because the population had grown too large. Did we mention that the “too-large” population was only about 40 elephants? At that time, U.S. zoos paid $100,000 to Big Game Parks for 11 elephants. The stakes are even higher this time. The data shows that elephants are not thriving in zoos, where they die prematurely due to captivity caused problems. As a result, elephant displays are quickly emptying. In exchange for the 18 elephants, the zoos are offering Big Game Parks $450,000, purportedly – and most dubiously – for them to use for rhino conservation. Further, the zoos are even claiming to be rescuing the elephants, when the reality is that they conveniently “overlooked” options to keep the elephants in Africa – where they belong.

It seems highly unlikely that Big Game Parks would threaten to kill elephants if the zoos were not willing to give such vast sums. After the global outcry over the murder of Cecil the lion, the senseless killing of young elephants by Big Game Parks would not only draw worldwide condemnation, but threaten tourism and revenues for Big Game Parks. Even more outrageous is the fact that a viable offer has been made that would keep the elephants in Africa, where they would have the greatest conservation value. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will determine whether to grant a permit for the import, which is opposed by many of the world’s leading elephant scientists and conservationists. It is yet to be seen whether the agency will abet zoos in perpetuating the unethical and antiquated practice of raiding the wild to restock U.S. zoos for public entertainment and profit. As Sedgwick County Zoo director Mark Reed stated, “It’s not a question of ‘if’ but a question of ‘when’ we will have young elephant calves born here. That’s going to skyrocket the attendance like nothing ever has here.”

Don’t fall for the zoos’ con job. Let’s not make a zoo out of conservation.

2. Natural Bridge Zoo, Rockbridge County, Virginia – Nothing Natural About It

Natural Bridge Zoo in Rockbridge County has created a most unnatural life for an African elephant named Asha. This 32-year old female lives in solitary confinement and is forced to give rides to paying customers. After being spotlighted last year by In Defense of Animals for being a roadside atrocity, owner Karl Mogenson’s not-so-Natural Bridge Zoo continued to be investigated by the USDA, which cited the zoo for a whopping 44 violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act. In April, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries suspended the zoo’s permit, but only temporarily. As a result, poor Asha was back to work for yet another summer season, lugging humans around for rides on her back in the hot sun. Not surprisingly, the USDA cited the zoo again this month for even more animal welfare violations. It’s time to close down Natural Bridge Zoo and ensure that Asha, and the many other animals who remain in this terrible place, will be placed in more compassionate care in 2016.

3. Oklahoma City Zoo, Oklahoma – Reckless Breeding and Birthdays Behind Bars

It should have been no surprise that the Oklahoma City Zoo suffered the loss of Malee, a four-year-old Asian elephant, to the Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpes virus (EEHV). This virus attacks young elephant calves and causes massive internal hemorrhaging and horrifically painful deaths. Malee’s mother, Asha (a different Asha from Natural Bridge Zoo, above), was exposed to the disease at an early age when her half sister, Chandra (who also lives at the Oklahoma City Zoo), was treated for EEHV and survived. The zoo acknowledges that it doesn’t know why some elephants contract the disease and others do not, nor do they know much about how the disease is transmitted. Yet, the zoo recklessly forges ahead with its breeding program.

The zoo now holds another elephant captive, Chai, who lost her only offspring to EEHV while at Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo. She and Bamboo arrived in Oklahoma City last year, after coming within an elephant’s eyelash of being retired to a sanctuary. Bamboo, despite her exposure to the virus in Seattle, and possibly now in Oklahoma City, is marked for possible future breeding. Apparently, the ticket sales that a baby elephant can generate are much more valuable than the welfare of the elephants themselves. This reckless breeding is a risky business that costs elephants lives.

4. Wildlife Safari, Winston, Oregon – Clueless and Callous

Two elephants acquired by Wildlife Safari from Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in 2015 have gone from one abusement park to another. In Defense of Animals spotlighted Wildlife Safari’s horrendous elephant “car washes” and elephant rides in last year’s list. While it is a relief that we didn’t see signs of either of those ridiculous stunts in 2015, Wildlife Safari was still wielding barbaric bullhooks around the elephants – a menacing device resembling a fireplace poker that is used to hook, jab and strike elephants, used by keepers to control elephants through fear of painful punishment. Still advertised is demeaning and dangerous elephant “petting”, having elephants paint for people, circus-like performances at birthday parties, and most recently, elephant selfies (which it calls “Elphies”).

Unlike the pool the zoo finally constructed for the elephants, its claims of being “dedicated to education, conservation and research” just don’t hold water. The wondrous nature of wild elephants is not what visitors learn or what drives Wildlife Safari. The message the zoo sends is that elephants are here for our entertainment, rather than instilling the respect that is necessary to protect and preserve elephants in the wild. As if this weren’t enough, two elephants have died at Wildlife Safari over the past five years, at ages 40 and 44 – when female African elephants would naturally be in their prime. There is nothing amusing or educational about clueless and callous Wildlife Safari in Winston.

Photo license.

5. Buttonwood Park Zoo, New Bedford, Massachusetts – Irreconcilable Differences

Asian elephant Ruth remains the prisoner of another prisoner at Buttonwood Zoo, with no escape. Cage-mate Emily continues to display aggression toward her, which the zoo now calls “assertion” or “agitation.” So, was Emily simply showing “assertion” when she bit off six inches of Ruth’s tail in 2006? Ruth’s poor tail was further amputated due to frostbite and a bone infection in 2014. During her recuperation, Ruth was placed in with Emily because the zoo lacked proper holding facilities for separation, and Emily continued to go after Ruth’s wounded tail and to intimidate her in other ways.

The zoo no longer reports the injuries that Ruth endures, and her injuries are even called “self-inflicted.” Instead of doing the right thing and removing Ruth from an abusive and dangerous situation, the zoo continues to keep Ruth as a “companion” to Emily. Sadly, the USDA has not intervened, despite the fact that this intolerable and unsafe situation violates the federal Animal Welfare Act by knowingly forcing two clearly incompatible Asian elephants to live in the same enclosure together. Let’s face it; these two are not warming up to each other in their cold, cramped winter wasteland of an exhibit. It’s time for the city of New Bedford to show that it is a “compassionate city,” as it claims to be, by granting an early release and sending Ruth and Emily to a sanctuary where, if they so choose, they can stay safely far, far away from one another.

6. San Antonio Zoo, Texas – Let Lucky be Lonely No More

Lucky, the solitary elephant, was lucky only in having a strong advocacy base and her own legal defense team trying to win the case for her freedom in 2015. But the stubborn San Antonio Zoo continues to refuse to release her to a sanctuary despite substantiated claims that the zoo is violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) through its “inhumane” treatment of her because of her life in solitary confinement. Yet the unchanged substandard exhibit, lack of space, and solitary confinement Lucky has been subjected to for years continues to be the cause of her suffering. Maybe luck will finally be on her side in 2016.

7. Oregon Zoo, Portland, Oregon – Bullhook Bullies (Just in a Bigger Yard)

In 2015, two male Asian elephants died prematurely at the Oregon Zoo: Rama, 31, and Tusko, 45 – both of whom were treated for tuberculosis. Asian elephants have a lifespan of 65-70 years old. The zoo claims that both elephants died of injuries sustained earlier in their lives, yet they occurred while in captivity. Living on concrete, and being confined to tiny outdoor and indoor spaces, likely exacerbated their conditions and hastened their deaths. Tusko had the added misfortune of spending his earlier days in the circus, where he would have been kept chained for much of his life. Tusko leaves behind offspring Sam and Lily, who face a similarly bleak outlook, considering the short life expectancy for elephants in zoos. Even the recently opened “Elephants Lands” exhibit, at a cost of $59 million dollars, won’t help. At barely more than four artificial acres, it is inadequate for the seven current elephants, much less the 19 elephants that the zoo plans to hold in that same space.

Shamefully, this zoo also insists on the continued use of the barbaric bullhook to control the elephants through intimidation, fear, and pain. This marks the sixth time in ten years that Oregon Zoo has appeared on In Defense of Animals’ Ten Worst Zoos for Elephants list, and for good reason. The Oregon Zoo is still stuck in the dark ages when it comes to elephant care and welfare.

8. Monterey Zoo, Salinas, California – Shameful Sham

This marks the first appearance on our list for the Monterey Zoo – essentially a roadside zoo in Salinas, California, created by exotic animal trainer Charlie Sammut. Five African elephants are kept on a dusty and barren plot of land. Not only are they on display to be gawked at by members of the public (who can feed them for an extra $5), but they are forced to be used as “props” at fundraising parties; give rides to, and be touched by, the public; and required to perform demeaning circus-style tricks (even spinning roulette wheels). In addition, Sammut offers costly “animal training” sessions with the elephants that involve unnecessary and risky contact with the public.

Clearly the message about wild animals that Monterey Zoo’s elephant exhibit is imparting is not only warped – it is shameful. While Sammut keeps the elephants under his Elephants of Africa Rescue Society’s (EARS) non-profit (we suggest that EARS really stands for “Elephants at Risk in Salinas”), it’s hard to tell where the nonprofit business stops and the for-profit starts. The zoo claims it is “evolving,” but there is more to evolution than creating bigger exhibits. True evolution starts with a change in mind and heart that puts the welfare of the animals ahead of profits and performances.

9. Buffalo Zoo, Buffalo, New York – Frozen In Time

Frozen in time, the Buffalo Zoo continues to keep Asian elephant captives Jothi and Surapa inside the tiny cage they call a barn for yet another brutal Buffalo winter, where they will spend nearly all their time. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) standards require that elephants who are exposed to temperatures below 40°F (5°C) for longer than 60-minute intervals be monitored hourly to assess the potential for hypothermia. Over three consecutive winters (2013-2015), daytime maximum temperatures in January and February went above 40 degrees only 30 out of 177 days. Following AZA criteria of no exposure below 40 degrees over an hour, without taking extensive counter-measures, means the elephants would spend only 17% of January and February having any meaningful outdoor time. The short walks in winter, often in snow, are like “yard time” in human prisons. Further, by holding just two elephants, the zoo is failing to meet the low-bar social standards of the AZA that require a minimum of three elephants.

Donations were wasted on remodeling the small “Elephant House” because the money was used to install barriers dividing the claimed 1,850 interior square feet into much smaller enclosures, instead of moving Jothi and Surapa to a warm-weather sanctuary where they would live infinitely better lives. Zoo reps failed to mention how small and ecologically barren the building really is – and that it does not even meet the elephants’ basic needs as evidenced by their stereotypic and other stress-related behaviors indicating their suffering and inability to cope in their cramped and cold environment.

Buffalo Zoo mis-educates the public into believing elephants celebrate Halloween, are innately meant to paint on glass and canvas, carry logs, and perform all sorts of other unnatural behaviors highlighted in Buffalo Zoo’s marketing. It’s time for the Buffalo Zoo to thaw out this shameful elephant freezer and warm up to sending them to a sanctuary.

Photo credit.

10. Southwick’s Zoo, Mendon, Massachusetts – Tragedy of “Have Trunk Will Travel”

Each summer, Southwick’s Zoo in Massachusetts hires a California-based company to truck in elephants over a treacherously long distance in order to sell elephant rides to their customers. The zoo has been using Have Trunk Will Travel (HTWT), an elephant “rental” company. HTWT has a history of being notoriously brutal and violent to its elephants who are also rented out to be used in other forms of entertainment including appearances in movies, events, and theme parks.

HTWT was caught on video viciously beating elephants, using an electric shock device, and striking a baby elephant over the head and pulling her trunk. These elephants were also observed chained for 12 hours a day, barely able to move back and forth, let alone walk. Last summer, Southwick’s Zoo rented elephants Rosie and Tai. The same elephant, Rosie, is pictured here in a photo from the same video, apparently being jabbed with a sharp bullhook to make her run faster by HTWT.

Not only does Southwick’s Zoo show a blatant disregard for elephant welfare, it apparently doesn’t care about human health either. An elephant named Dondi was previously used to give rides. After her death in 2010, she was found to have had tuberculosis. Dondi was the second elephant at the zoo who carried the disease. An elephant named Judy performed at Southwick’s Zoo, despite having been exposed to tuberculosis-positive elephants. Upon her death in 2007, it was confirmed that she had the disease.

Even multiple County Fairs that exist purely for recreation have chosen to discontinue their elephant rentals from HTWT; so why would a zoo – with a mandate to inform and educate – not cease giving elephant rides to an unsuspecting public? Southwick Zoo – Have Trunk Will Travel continues to be a traveling hell for these elephants, yet still sells tickets to ride on their aching backs and broken spirits.



Dishonorable Mentions

Edmonton Zoo, Alberta, Canada - Northern Over-Exposure

Our list wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the intolerably grave, chilling, and lonely life that continues to be inflicted upon Lucy. In solitary confinement, this Asian elephant languishes her life away in a frigid prison in one of the coldest cities in Canada. As last year’s Hall of Shame winner, Edmonton Zoo has not improved life for this solitary elephant. She still suffers from foot disease, arthritis, and an undiagnosed respiratory condition that is causing a narrowing of the airway passages in her trunk. Lucy now apparently wheezes when she breathes, forcing her to breathe only through her mouth, which, according to the vet that examined her, is “totally abnormal” for an elephant. But captivity is also totally abnormal for elephants – especially for an Asian elephant designed by evolution for a tropical climate, but forced to breathe sub-zero air for six months of the year.

This year, Lucy was even deprived of a waterproof insulated winter coat that was generously donated by concerned elephants activists to warm her up on her short snow-covered walks around her prison yard, accompanied by her keeper with his nasty bullhook in tow. He wears a winter coat and gloves of course, to warm himself. Elephant sanctuaries have offered to give Lucy a chance to defrost and live her life in comfort, but the zoo will not grant this, claiming that she could have a respiratory crisis from the stress of relocation. Ironically, the only solution to Lucy’s respiratory challenges might actually rely on her being relocated to a warmer environment.

Edmonton, warm up your hearts and send Lucy south to a sanctuary where she may breathe easily again. The world will also sigh a hearty breath of relief from no longer having to watch your zoo force poor Lucy to spend most of her time alone in her barn or in the snow with no other elephants with whom to fight off the chronic chill of her captivity.



Hall of Shame Winner

Bronx Zoo, New York: Mirror, Mirror… Still Waiting for a Happy Ending

This year the Bronx Zoo has been demoted to the Hall of Shame for keeping an Asian elephant, ironically named Happy, in solitary confinement for almost a decade. Perhaps more ironic is that Happy’s horrific life is her “reward” for her significant contributions to science. In 2005, she proved that an elephant could recognize herself in a mirror during a research experiment. Self-awareness was a cognitive characteristic previously and naively attributed only to humans and a handful of other species, until her now often-cited achievement in this area. Despite this, the Wildlife Conservation Society, as the owner of the Bronx Zoo, has abandoned Happy in an outdated exhibit, leaving her to rot in loneliness and the cold – with only the distant memory of her own mirrored reflection for companionship.

In the most tragic of ironies, now that Happy has proven she’s self-aware, she is being denied the most basic and essential of psychological needs for elephants – any reasonable resemblance of elephant companionship. In 2015, The New York Times highlighted “The Bronx Zoo’s Loneliest Elephant,” documenting Happy’s controversial confinement and intolerable relationship with the other two elephants at the zoo. The Bronx Zoo already announced it will eventually close this outdated exhibit upon the death of one or more of the elephants. Must they wait for Happy to die from despair when they could so easily give her story a happy ending? Shameful indeed…

This is terrible.
 
These lists really tick me off. While I am a strong proponent of exhibiting elephants in captivity, my biggest problem with these lists is not that they argue that they shouldn't be kept in captivity but rather the way they villainify the people who work in zoos and portray them as heartless, cold-blooded murderers. Captivity right or not, these people love animals and work very hard for their wellbeing. Also, some of the zoos on the list have state-of-the-art exhibits that are by no means debatable as being the worst exhibits in the country for the species. This list shows the extent to which antizoo protestors will distort facts and the presentation of information to make a vicious statement.
 
I agree entirely. Oklahoma city zoo's review stood out the most. Not only were the authors of this article highly offensive to zookeepers (they said that "Apparently, the ticket sales that a baby elephant can generate are much more valuable than the welfare of the elephants themselves. This reckless breeding is a risky business that costs elephants lives."), which is in my opinion a bigger problem, but I believe they also had many factual errors.

"It should have been no surprise that the Oklahoma City Zoo suffered the loss of Malee, a four-year-old Asian elephant, to the Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpes virus (EEHV). This virus attacks young elephant calves and causes massive internal hemorrhaging and horrifically painful deaths."
Actually, EEHV is on a rapid decline

"Bamboo, despite her exposure to the virus in Seattle, and possibly now in Oklahoma City, is marked for possible future breeding."
I believe that Bamboo is not marked for possible future breeding. It was mentioned at one point in time but they decided to just to watch her and probably won't do it.

Also, the IDA cites many statistics about how poorly elephants are doing in captivity, but elephants situation in zoos has changed so much in the past few years, their statistics are mostly outdated.
 
I hate the fact that we are paying attention ida almost as much as I dislike ida. They feed on the attention that they get from these frankly lousy lists, I have to question the wisdom of giving it to them.

FYI when I saw Tai and Rosie they looked very well. Nothing about them said poorly cared for Elephant. I couldn't help but notice that their handlers were giving them all of the little niceties as well, loosening their girths when they weren't working, giving them frequent breaks to eat hay, stroking them when they got antsy waiting for someone to mount them, etc.
 
I dislike this so greatly; It clearly seems their "first place" listing is an attempt to manufacture suspicion and anger towards zoos. As a side note,as someone who's been in the orca/cetacean captivity argument since it's become an argument,this seems remarkably similar to the anti-cetacean captivity arguments I've heard in the past. The words "abusement park" in particular make me irrationally angry.
 
I remember Buffalo Zoo responded to being on the list last year saying they are following all the guidelines of AZA. With only two elephants, kept separate from each other, no talk in getting a third elephant, I wonder if they will rebuttal again.

It's quite sad to see zoos that just renovated their exhibits into something wonderful for the elephants, but they find other things to criticize about the zoo's treatment of the elephants. This list always amuses, yet annoys me.
 
Shellheart, since this elephant argument is so similar to the orca arguments, do you think that soon there will be more laws about having elephants in captivity just like how theres all that stuff happening with limiting Seaworld San Diego's orca program now?
 
Shellheart, since this elephant argument is so similar to the orca arguments, do you think that soon there will be more laws about having elephants in captivity just like how theres all that stuff happening with limiting Seaworld San Diego's orca program now?

I have no doubt we'll be seeing attempts at removing elephants from zoos in favor of "sanctuaries" within the next 5 years. I remember when the Los Angeles Zoo was about to open their wonderful elephant habitat,there were more than a few protesters,and those protesters persisted through even the planning phases of the project,and caused some major changes. If opposition was that great 5 years ago,I believe it has only grown since then.
 
Not surprised to see San Antonio, Lucky's situation isn't even that bad. The number one spot outrages me.... The elephants also weren't even caught from the wild. They are cared for by keepers, the only difference is that now they will be (hopefully) be cared for by keepers in America. I agree some deserve their spots, but some obviously don't.
In fact, Dallas spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on improving their already great elephant care.
 
One other thing: why should I have any respect of ida if they keep acting like children in the worst kind of way? Sorry for being such a grump.

Also, hasn't Edmonton been advised against moving their animal because she has a medical condition?

I suspect that some of the (completely unwarranted) vitriol towards OKC has to do with their being angry about paws (who I feel is a scam organization more than anything) not getting Chai and Bamboo.
 
I do not think that PAWS is a COMLETE scam, just the organizations that support it are. PAWS at least recognizes that some zoos (like oakland in CA) are good for elephants, unlike other people who want all elephants gone from captivity everywhere.
 
I've been an obsessive zoo nerd for my entire life and I've now visited 325 different zoos/aquariums and continue to be invested in studying the zoos of the world. I admit that some of the bizarre choices of the "In Defense of Animals" group has left me shaking my head but it is interesting to see how things have changed since the very first list was made public in 2004.

Since that initial list of the "ten worst zoos for elephants" in 2004 there has been 5 zoos that have phased out elephants completely. Alaska, Lincoln Park, Lee Richardson, Philadelphia and Six Flags no longer have elephants and that erases half the zoos from the list. Los Angeles, Houston and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., all spent between $40-55 million on multi-acre, brand-new elephant habitats. Of the remaining two zoos, Cameron Park was criticized for only having two elephants while El Paso is actively considering phasing out the species forever. As a strong supporter of good, improving zoos, is it at all possible to give some credit to the IDA for prodding zoos in a better direction? There have certainly been great strides in the welfare of captive elephants since 2004.
 
I think that those zoos who have made renovations would of probably improved their exhibits to be similar to how they are now even without the IDA criticizing them.
 
Agreed. Advocates operate with a misguided,elitist perspective that is rarely challenged as anything other than an ideal situation is difficult to defend.
 
So it seems like you support CULLING these elephants. Do you support replacing them with another threatened species after they are killed as we know there is no option to successfully move them to another protected area?
 
I actually agree with some of IDA statements (while recognizing that other of their statements are at best misleading). However their new number one is completely absurd. The thing the gullible public does not realize is that most of these rights organizations that claim animals belong in the wild actually do little or nothing to protect wild habitat. Their hypocrisy is evident on their statement about the three way tie for number one. They apparently think rhino conservation is dubious!
 
I actually agree with some of IDA statements (while recognizing that other of their statements are at best misleading). However their new number one is completely absurd. The thing the gullible public does not realize is that most of these rights organizations that claim animals belong in the wild actually do little or nothing to protect wild habitat. Their hypocrisy is evident on their statement about the three way tie for number one. They apparently think rhino conservation is dubious!

I agree with you, ArizonaDocent, in that I agree with some of IDA's arguments, while finding other arguments based on misleading or inaccurate information. As for the number one issue, I also disagree with this being number one, but do think there might be a possible point: not that rhino conservation itself is dubious, but that the funds from the "sale" of these elephants is necessary (and/or will be used) to promote rhino conservation.
 
Yeah I think most people agree that some of the IDA list is reasonable, but it is still absurd on a general level.

One of the arguments that bothers me the most is this:
"Tusko leaves behind offspring Sam and Lily, who face a similarly bleak outlook, considering the short life expectancy for elephants in zoos. "
This argument bothers me so much because they are constantly saying things like, elephants don't thrive in zoos. Elephants die young in zoos. Elephants have so much disease in zoos. And they talk about all these statistics and all these experts who know what they are talking about when it comes to elephants faring poorly in zoos. They do not acknowledge that now we are in the present, and all that is the past. All the places have had so many new improvements lately. All these statistics are so skewed against zoos, because they include statistics about before modern elephant care has been used. Elephant care is evolving. But modern elephant care is still so new, that the statistics do not have enough evidence to prove that improvements are being made. If they want statistics to be accurate, they should use evidence from things that are currently relevant.
 
They apparently think rhino conservation is dubious!

IDA brings up some good points, and I do wish that some of those zoos would send their elephants to another zoo or even a sanctuary. The problem with IDA (and other animal rights organizations) is that they rely far more on sensationalism than real facts. They call donating money to rhino conservation "dubious" as if the money is most likely going to something else, which they offer no support for. They also show skepticism and disdain for any statements that zoos make, like not wanting to move elephants because of medical conditions. I think they honestly believe that zoos will keep elephants to please guests and place that priority over their well-being by falsely claiming medical conditions as a reason not to send them away. Not only is this untrue, but it offers no factual evidence; it simply reeks of elitism and condescension, and plays on people's emotions.

To summarize, I think their intentions are genuinely good, but I disagree strongly with their methods and messages, which I would call "propaganda" (ironically, they probably say the same thing about statements from zoos :D)
 
Back
Top