Big old elephant male at Copenhagen Zoo, spent decades on this enclosure. For about six hours a day, that is. The rest of the time he was locked inside a so much smaller prison cell inside the house.
First a minor clarification on my behalf: when I use the words “mistreatment” and ”abuse” it is with regards to the physical conditions under which Chieng Mai has been held for decades. I have no doubt in my mind that his keepers have done their best over the years. (Although – even here it might be relevant to ask ourselves how long the techniques we call “enrichment” have been known and implemented… ).
But I was referring to the physical conditions and below I will go into detail about these.
As it happens, I visited the zoo today and measured Chieng Mai´s old indoor living space. The Zoo is holding its 150 Year Jubilee Exhibition in the indoor enclosures in the old elephant house. Taking (hopefully) one meter long steps I found the measurements to be 8 meter in length and 5 meter in width. 8 x 5 meters = 40 sq meter
However, we must remember that for the best part of the time that the elephant spent there, this room was divided by iron bars, effectively creating two enclosures:
One space 3 x 5 = 15 sq meters and one space 5 x 5 = 25 sq meters
There was an opening in the iron bar wall so the elephant could use both rooms. (It is possible that way back before I can remember a second animal was kept in the 15 sq meter space, but let´s say that Chieng Mai always had access to both spaces. It is also possible that he, unlike the cows, wasn´t chained at night, I don´t remember now).
Now how big is Chieng Mai and how much could he move in that 5 x 5 meter big room in which he spent 18 hours a day for decades? Let´s say he is 3,5 meter long from trunk to tail. If so, standing in the middle of the room he could choose to walk 75 centimetres forward or back, before bumping into iron bars or brick wall.
Translate this math to a smaller animal - let’s say a dog, 50 centimetres long from nose to tail. It would leave the dog incarcerated for 18 hours a day in a box of 71,4 centimetres length and width or an area of approximately one half a sq meter. Chieng Mai´s “75 centimetre walks” would equate to 10 centimetre walks for the dog. Spending the 18 hours on concrete floor, flooded with its own pheces (spelling?) and urine, I´d like to add.
So I stand by my argument that keeping animals like this IS, WAS and FOREVER WILL BE “mistreatment and abuse”.
Add to all these numbers the fact that the zoo itself has described the old elephant house as “dark, damp and cold”. You could read this at the web page during the construction period of the new house. To be fair, I seem to recall the word “occasionally” somewhere after “dark”, so it was probably either “dark and occasionally damp and cold” or “dark, damp and occasionally cold”. And then I rest my case…
-----
Please note though, Toddy, that I am not trying to bash Copenhagen in particular on this issue. I know that this sad story has been repeated in zoos all over the world. It is just that Copenhagen zoo is my home zoo; the zoo that I know most about so of course I will be particularly outspoken on the merits as well as the failings of it. I will forever take notice of and be very much aware of the history of it. Look at some of those heartbreakingly sad pictures shown even in the zoo´s own exhibition...
Actually, you and I probably have no issues on what we want from modern zoos, the difference between us - as I see it - is that you are to a certain extent willing to "excuse" what went on in "the old times", while I am not. Imagine using this principle on other parts of human history... (but don´t get me started, I will not supply any examples...)
Thanks for all of the measurements and facts Dan. I thought that I was the only one here obsessed with statistics...haha. The zoo should be ashamed of its past in relation to elephants, but hopefully the future is much brighter. The brand new elephant complex is only a half acre, which I personally find puny and much too small, but at least it is a MAJOR improvement on the old enclosure.
Actually, you and I probably have no issues on what we want from modern zoos, the difference between us - as I see it - is that you are to a certain extent willing to "excuse" what went on in "the old times", while I am not.QUOTE]
I think that sums it up quite well I think that you have underestimated Chieng Mai's old enclosure a bit size-wise but everybody get the idea. And it is good that you get angry about since that shows that you care. And yes, I am willing to excuse that a zoo has had bad exhibits as long as they are constantly trying to improve, which all serious zoos does.
Also, I just don't think that it does any good to keep pointing out the former shortcommings of the zoos here on ZooChat (this is not strictly directed at you but a general comment). If Copenhagen Zoo still kept elephants in here I would be critisizing along with you but they don't and I won't.
@snowleopard: It should certainly not be ashamed! Times were different and that is that. But I agree that it should be VERY glad that the house will never be used for any large animals again (if any animals at all). Times have changed and so must the old elephant house...
Toddy, I just don`t believe the excuses you are giving for not changing the elephant situation any sooner are valid. Copenhagen choosed to hire an award-winning architect and to build an elephant facility which has as much space for visitors then for elephants - no wonder it cost 40 million Euro. But plenty of zoos in Europe have built really good, and actually more spacious (outdoor-wise) elephant enclosures for a fraction of that sum. It is totally unnecessary to spend so much money for an elephant house, and it is not a good reason to delay such an important project for decades. And there would have been another option, sending the elephants to another zoo with more space. But NO, Copenhagen actually brought in 3 new, young elephants in 2001, KNOWING the new barn wouldn`t be ready until years later. Actually, the situation of Chieng Mai wasnt even the worst, the young bull Tonsak was kept inside for most of the last years before moving into the new enclosure because he was no longer tolaerated by the adult females and he couldn`t join Chieng Mai in the little bull enclosure neither. So Tonsak had to stay inside most of the time. If that isn`t cruel, I don`t know what cruel is.
I go with Toddy in this discussion. The words being used here by others than him and Snowleopard are so subjective and emotional that I'm stunned.
Let us imagine for a moment the conditions under which many even large human families (in Denmark and elsewhere) in 1928 lived? Many modern people would deem those conditions as human rights violation (modern people love to claim this or that is human rights violation, but usually only those who have never beer through warfare for instance)
Back then people thought those conditions were normal and carried on with their daily lives.
Condemning Copenhagen Zoo for the way it decided to accommodate the elephants decades ago, based on modern day thinking, is only a waste of energy. Perhaps it can be condemned for how long they kept them that way, but let us not be so naive to ignore the fact that times change and people's way of thinking of what is acceptable and what is not does as well.
Reading Yassa's comment I guess I do have some explaining to do regarding the elephants in Copenhagen, but I asure you that there are very valid reasons for the points you mention:
Copenhagen choosed to hire an award-winning architect and to build an elephant facility which has as much space for visitors then for elephants - no wonder it cost 40 million Euro. But plenty of zoos in Europe have built really good, and actually more spacious (outdoor-wise) elephant enclosures for a fraction of that sum. It is totally unnecessary to spend so much money for an elephant house, and it is not a good reason to delay such an important project for decades.
First of all the project was not delayed at all because of the architect but due to lack of money. Fund-raising had been going on for many years before that. Plus, you seem to miss the smart thing in the plan of hiring Norman Foster: Donations flooded in! As soon as it was known that the world-famous architect would be designing the house all sorts of companies and trust funds wanted to be a part of it. That is how the money for the house was raised so fast! Out of the 40 million € (55 million $) approx. 28 million € (37 million $) came from trust funds while other donations summed up to 2 million € (3 million $). In in other words the zoo received 30 out of the 40 milllion € in donations largely because of Norman Foster. Plus, later than year the zoo recieved an addional 2,7 million € (4 million $) from the government in "cultural support" (don't know the english word for it) just for the new Elephant House.
I may not approve of a lot of things our director does but he sure knows how to bring in cash! After the Elephant House was annouced all sorts of people have offered money to the zoo. One trust fund alone paid the 10 million € (15 million $) needed to built a new savannah and Hippo House in 2007 and Maersk Shipping Industries have just donated 20 million € (30 million $) for a new polar bear exhibit.
How much do you actually know about the elephants in Copenhagen Zoo? Copenhagen Zoo does not own most of its own elephants. The only elephants the zoo owns is Ida, Inda and Ghandi. Chieng Mai is property of the queen of Denmark and so cannot leave Copenhagen.
Brought in? When the monarchy asks you to take in their three young elephants, you accept! The queen is the protector and (in principle) owner of the zoo and you don't turn down a royal gift. You just don't. And so the above mentioned problem of just sending the elephants away apllies to these three as well.
I agree that the Tonsak situation was unfortunate but there was really nothing to do about except build as fast as they could.
Thanks for your explanantion on how the funds for the new ele house were raised. I didn`t know that the money was only collected after Foster was named as architect (I still think they spent waaay too much money on it, but that`s another issue).
Yet I do not agree at all with your conclusion that sending the elephants away weren`t an option because of the queen - this would mean the queen herself is directly responsible for the suffering of the elephants!!!
Since we`re no longer living in the 15th century, I had rather recommended to explain the queen of Denmark about the terrible situation of the elephants in Copenhagen and then get her agreement to send "her" elephants to a better place, maybe with the plan to get them or at least their offspring back later when things in Copenhagen have improved (=which is has thankfully happened now). I don`t buy that the special relation between the elephants of Copenhagen and the queen is an explanation nor an excuse for the cruelty Chieng Mai and Tonsak endured.
But well, you can`t change the past, and the elephants have moved, so the only thing that I really, really want to know now is why Chieng Mai isn`t getting acess to the female`s yard, or when. And if the 2 young females have been mated and if they are pregnant.
@Baldur:
The people in the 1910s and 1920s were not locked into small boxes for 18 hours a day where they could not take a couple of steps before hitting an iron bar or a brick wall. I object on principle against treating any living being like this (be it now or in the past). You find this so "subjective and emotional" that it is "stunning". Fine! I will have to accept that this is your view and I will not try to talk you out of it.
@Toddy:
I think your playing the "Royalty card" is a bit lame but then I know how fond you Danes are of your precious Queen . I actually like her a bit too, as staunchly anti-monarchy as I otherwise am. She is evidently an intelligent, well-read woman and I actually believe she would have listened to arguments, such as the ones that Yassa put forward.
Oh, and please measure up the room in question yourself next time you are at the zoo.... OK?
@Yassa:
... and so, I agree with you. Your questions:
As I have mentioned, I have e-mailed the zoo and asked about Chieng Mai getting access to the herd enclosure, only to receive the answer that is planned to happen. A few months ago a keeper told me that the delay was due to technical problems with the gates separating the two outdoor enclosures. On the other hand - I see Tonsak in all of the the indoor and outdoor enclosures, so why could not Cheng Mai be transferred as well as Tonsak? There are corridors and holding pens at the back of the house that the visitors can´t see but are used for transferring the animals between the different enclosures. Strange!
However, yesterday, when I visisted the zoo I saw Chieng Mai together with the two eleven year old females! I was very surprised as I had not witnessed this before. Perhaps they have reached sexual maturity and perhaps the zoo is trying to mate them with Chieng Mai? I´ll be uploading pictures of this in a short while.
