Anne the ex Circus Elephant.

peacock said:
I understand the concept of irony perfectly well John, I just think your suggestions are a bit of a stretch. I don't really understand why you find it that ironical that a zoo that decides to house an abused ex-circus elephant would not place her on display. Or that, should they decide to house more needy elephants that they would use the term "sanctuary" to describe their plans. Both seem completely logical and predictable outcomes.
Click to expand...

Not really aware of any agreement that Longleat has not to display this animal at some point – which would be difficult I suspect unless they leave her locked in her house when the park is open to the public. And I think for an animal that has grown up with humans and has no other same-species companions she would be happy to see humans. Therefore, I actually think for many reason she should be on display.

peacock said:
You seem to suggest that this is some outrageous profitable scam.
Click to expand...

Your words not mine.

My concern was a general observation that many commercial animal attractions solicit money from their paying customers as if they are a bona fide charity or non-profit research and education organisation like for example The Zoological Society of London who currently looking for support for the SOS Tiger campaign for their new tiger exhibit at London and support of their ex-situ tiger research in Sumatra. In the case of ZSL and other charities such monies raised are accountable to be spent of their specific projects (if so promoted in that manner) and would be subject to audit by the UK Charities Commission.

This isn’t a new observation by either myself or others on these forums as likewise the term ‘sanctuary’ which has sometimes been rather cynically used to: (a) remove the term 'zoo'; (b) present themselves as something better than a zoo and; (c) in some instances, try and avoid the cost occurred as regards legal obligations of operating a zoo, e.g. animal welfare and staff and public safety. On the last point this is why the UK government frame the Zoo Licensing regulations quite carefully.

peacock said:
I'm not arguing in defence of Longleat. I have never been there. But questioning the use of the word "sanctuary" (when it, by definition a perfectly appropriate word) seems petty to me. And claiming the acquisition of a single geriatric elephant to be huge money spinner, seems inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Well I have been to Longleat and I do know people who work there. And I think the animals are well looked after and the staff I know are excellent and their new zoological director has extensive experience with zoo animal welfare and medicine.

If I am targeting any criticism is more likely towards the marketing departments who seem to becoming more powerful in the actual operation of animal attractions. And this is not only in commercial operations but also non-profit zoos. The saving grace for the later is that they have specific and transparent publicly stated goals which are independently overseen.

I have to say that to suggest that Longleat will not make quite a bit of extra money from having this animal on site to be incredibly naïve but good luck to them if this money is then reinvested into the park's animals display and care.

As I have tried to indicate my comments are made in the broader sense and relate to on-going debates which have been reignited due to the issues relating to the publicity regarding Anne's treatment and I would suggest you review some of historical posts in this forum that relate to companies such as Merlin’s Sea Life Centres etal for a clearer understand of the concerns expressed by myself and others.
 
If Longleat do go ahead with their idea of offering 'rescue' elephants a longterm home, will that scotch the similar plans that have been recently mentioned by Noah's Ark regarding elephants? I cannot see it being necessary for two establishments in the UK to play this role, would there even be enough elephants available which meet the criteria anyway?

By acquiring an elephant, Longleat seem to have got in first on this and personally I'd prefer to see them as elephant holders again, rather than Noah's Ark, as they already have the experienced staff and existing housing, which they may upgrade in future.
 
If there is a shortage of retiring elephants to 'rescue', I can see newer institutions determined to hold elephants resorting to holding bulls. Over the next few years, as older, more institutionalised, zoo/circus elephants die out, the zoo community will require space for the many captive-born bulls who will be nearing maturity.

If Longleat does go ahead and create a 'sanctuary', I would be keen to see the Blackpool elephants head there. Since changing to protected contact, I understand the Blackpool animals to no longer have access to the large grass and wooded paddock they were previously exercised in.
 
thanks for the response john.

for the record i mean to say "I don't really understand why you find it that ironical that a zoo that decides to house an abused ex-circus elephant would place her on display" - which makes more sense. i did not mean to add the word not.

i accept that there may have been some past debate or discussions regarding the use of the word "sanctuary" and the taking advantage by zoos of the connotations associated with the title.
 
Nice article in The Guardian.

Anne the elephant says goodbye to the circus | World news | The Guardian

There is also a story in the Mail and information regarding a charity appeal for a elephant sanctuary.

Like Anne the circus elephant: Whipped, slashed with a hook and humiliated | Mail Online

The article has one or two interesting comments such as:

"But the misery goes on for many of the 1,000 elephants still in captivity across Europe."​

However I doubt very much there are 1,000 elephants performing in circuses in Europe so this comment must be directed at zoos. So whilst many including myself are happy for Anne new circumstances I don’t think I for one would be ready to endorse the condemning of the husbandry of all elephants in collections across Europe which may actually have facilities that far exceed those at Longleat.

So is the Mail suggesting these animals are seized and move to Longleat to their 'sanctuary'?

I think it may slowly be dawning on Longleat what a Frankenstein monster they may have on their hands by getting in bed with the likes of The Mail and the Born Free Foundation etal.

Later in the article it states when talking about animals in a circus owned by Billy Wilson Smart:

“Unshackled, they appear too frightened to cross the string boundary set by their trainer.”​

Well that’s because it an electric fence. Clearly the Mail reporter has so little understanding in these matters he really should stick to reporting on what colour dress Kate Middleton is wearing for the Royal Wedding.

As a final point the Longleat Charitable Trust which is mentioned as regards donations state their objectives are:

1) The relief of poverty or infirmity by the provision of financial assistance to those who are need or are suffering hardship and in particular those living in the neighbourhood of the Longleat estate and its properties at cheddar or elsewhere. 2) The advancement of education of the general public in and the promotion of (a) the arts (b) matters of historic, architectural, aesthetic or scientific interest. 3) Such other charitable purposes as the trustees may from time to time decide.​

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1057715&SubsidiaryNumber=0

No mention of elephant sanctuary but I suspect clause 3 covers that otherwise all that money coming in could be used to repairing his Lordship house.
 
Last edited:
Javan Rhino said:
Only had time to skim read but from what I gathered that is a nice article. Finally somebody is letting the public know how much Bobby and Moira care for that elephant rather than making them out to be the villains.
Click to expand...

Yes it quite a fair article. I tend to agree that the Roberts have been demonised but that The Daily Mail for you. They also seem to have the bit firmly between their teeth as regards elephants in captivity and as suggested by their comments I mention above have their sites on zoo elephants which must be a bit worrying for the zoo staff at Longleat.
 
John Dineley said:
So is the Mail suggesting these animals are seized and move to Longleat to their 'sanctuary'?
Click to expand...

Here we go again! We all know that journalist frequently misquote, get confused and report inaccuracies when they talk about anything to do with animals or zoos. Thus Why on earth would you even bother to write the above statement?!!

Yes. The Mail is suggesting all elephants imprisoned under the tyranny of Europe's Zoos are removed and donated to the "Sanctuary" at Longleat Safari Park. :confused:

I bet Longleat are behind this conspiracy!

A suggestion John - why don't you write an open letter? :rolleyes:
 
peacock said:
Here we go again! We all know that journalist frequently misquote, get confused and report inaccuracies when they talk about anything to do with animals or zoos. Thus Why on earth would you even bother to write the above statement?!!
Click to expand...

Probably because I have quite a few dealing with The Daily Mail and like-minded tabloids in the past. And please be aware these journalist are fully aware of what they are writing.

Whilst my comment was made for a dramatic effect it actually isn't that far from the truth when dealing with the animal welfare groups involved (or wanting to be involved) that support the Mail etc.

For example

The Captive Animals Protection Society
"....it is widely accepted that elephants in zoos suffer more than most animals as their complex needs simply cannot be met in captivity. In recognition of this fact, the majority of zoos are phasing out the keeping of elephants"​
The Born Free Foundation
"Two ground-breaking reports reveal the extent of the problems facing elephants in zoos in the UK and across Europe. Both studies serve to reiterate Born Free’s long-held conviction that captivity cannot possibly provide for the basic needs of these highly complex, wide-ranging and social animals."​
PeTA
"For the sake of elephants in the wild and in captivity, zoos must phase out their elephant exhibits, abandon failed breeding programs and future capture plans, and strive to provide the elephants who are currently in captivity with a more humane existence."​

You have of course read the UK RSPCA report on elephants "Live Hard, Die Young"?

You actually seems very unaware of the various groups and organisations whose raison d'etre is the closing of all zoos and wildlife parks. Their current ploy seems to be a growing list of animal species that are 'not suitable for captivity' but be assured if they get these animals phased out from captive care they will move on to other species as sure as night follows day.



-
 
Last edited:
I am well aware of such groups and their beliefs - but find i usually have not the energy or willpower to debate such exhausting nonsense.

So to bring it back to your statements.... And let me get this straight.

you think that..

a) Longleat Safari Park, which is a Zoo, got rid of their african elephants and decided to start an elephant "Sanctuary" so as to cash in on the connotations such a word conveys.

b) The Daily mail, who are in bed with the animal rights groups, are fooled by the facade of said name change, and write a story suggesting that all the elephants in European Zoos should be confiscated and placed in this specific Longleat "Sanctuary".

c) The animal rights groups, having bought the media then sway public opin..... wait. you know what? This is ridiculous.


I can see that I am not going to get you to see how extremely cynical and silly your arguments come across from my opinion, but that doesn't much matter as you have a right to them nonetheless.

(for the record I bet you a tenner that elephant dies of old age before any more "rescues" come about...)
 
peacock said:
a) Longleat Safari Park, which is a Zoo, got rid of their african elephants and decided to start an elephant "Sanctuary" so as to cash in on the connotations such a word conveys.
Click to expand...

No. Your opinion not mine. If you recall I did outline my broader concerns on this matter but you are just choosing to ignore them.

As I understand it they came out of keeping elephants because they could not control their bull without having to have him in a compound when he became sexually active.

peacock said:
b) The Daily mail, who are in bed with the animal rights groups, are fooled by the facade of said name change, and write a story suggesting that all the elephants in European Zoos should be confiscated and placed in this specific Longleat "Sanctuary".
Click to expand...

I never suggested that as regards Longleat and neither did the Mail to be fair.

However, what do you think the meaning of the statement in the Mail preatins to:


"the misery goes on for many of the 1,000 elephants still in captivity across Europe.”
​
They are obviously talking about animals in zoological collections even though the rest of the article relates to three animals in a circus in Romania.

The facts stand for themselves: there are just under a 1000 (992) elephants in zoo in Europe and only a handful in circuses. I did posted up their position statements of the various actvist groups in relations to elephants in captive care and I think their agenda and intent is very, very clear.

The activist groups I cite (with tabloids like the Mail’s help) want to ban the keeping of elephants in zoological collections and obtain these animals and put them into environments they control. Of course, they wouldn’t dream of calling them a zoo despite the fact the actually are for all intents and purposes and if they exist in the UK they would have to obtain a Zoo License and be inspected.

Why does this annoy me? Because it is doubtful that these groups know any more (and quite likely less) on the care of elephants than the staff and facilities at a good zoo and I am not alone in this opinion in the zoo world.

The Mail and other tabloids primary are there to make money for their publisher not advance understanding and actually produce objective news stories. The Mail regularly gets itself in hot water for bending the truth or making allegation that clearly are not true. It's the risk they think is worth taking as it generates income.

peacock said:
c) The animal rights groups, having bought the media then sway public opin..... wait. you know what? This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not far from truth although I would qualify and say ‘some of the media’ mainly the tabloids.

As I stated before, I think what Longleat are doing is very positive for this animal and have never question their ability as animal caretakers, quite the opposite. But the story of Anne has basically just brought to the surface many on-going issues which have been debated elsewhere on this site.

-



-
 
John Dineley said:
As I understand it they came out of keeping elephants because they could not control their bull without having to have him in a compound when he became sexually active.
Click to expand...

Also there's an eight(?)year gap between these two situations. So they are entirely seperate issues, entirely unconnected by any descriptive name changes or the benefits that might bring.
 
Pertinax said:
Also there's an eight(?)year gap between these two situations. So they are entirely seperate issues, entirely unconnected by any descriptive name changes or the benefits that might bring.
Click to expand...

If you read back, the reason i brought up those african elephants was to make this point:

john questioned Longleat's request for donations to carry out renovations to their elephant facilities, and suggested that they could and should instead fund those renovations themselves with the money that they would make from increased revenue due to having the elephant on display.

I suggested that this is unrealistic. for if the elephant proved that lucrative for Longleat that they could afford exhibit renovations off the back of it, then surely Longleat would not have gotten out of elephants for exactly that reason [an inability to fund required renovations] all those years ago!
 
peacock said:
I suggested that this is unrealistic. for if the elephant proved that lucrative for Longleat that they could afford exhibit renovations off the back of it, then surely Longleat would not have gotten out of elephants for exactly that reason [an inability to fund required renovations] all those years ago!
Click to expand...

Longleat has just invested 3 million pounds in new animal attractions at the park and, therefore, any suggestion they lack funding for development is incorrect.

As I understand it Longleat moved their last elephant group on some years ago due the ethos of having to keep the bull in a compound which they felt went against the concept of being a 'safari park' it was never an issue of funding the exhibit.

Longleat has now made it clear since my original post that any monies generated by donations for Anne will be placed in a The Longleat Charitable Trust and, therefore, would be subject to independent audit. I have never suggested for one moment that Longleat was engaged in any improper behaviour my original comments relate to a broad concern regarding PLC and Limited companies with animal attractions soliciting money from the general public in an unaccountable fashion.

Interesting overview of the Anne saga here:

Anne The Elephant
 
Last edited:
I don't think Whipsnade would have been a good choice. Her enclosure access would have been restricted by which elephants she could be mixed with. I'm also not convinced about the dynamics of introducing a very old animal to younger, dominant cows in a mixed group. I wonder if this has been attempted elsewhere? I also don't think she should be introduced to a group potentially facing future losses to the herpes virus, given the unfortunate number of deaths so far in that group (I'm not suggesting this is connected to a husbandry issue). If integrated, Anne may have developed bonds with calves in a group where a large proportion of calves have so far been lost.
 
johnstoni said:
I'm also not convinced about the dynamics of introducing a very old animal to younger, dominant cows in a mixed group. I wonder if this has been attempted elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Not quite the same but when Bristol aquired a companion for singleton 'Wendy' it didn't work out as 'Maya' bullied her. She was then moved on to Chester where she seems to have fitted in fine.

I think it depends on the individuals, and not always age-related, as to how they will get on. I tend to agree Whipsnade, which still has issues over dominance in two females so they don't have just a single group anyway, didn't seem the best venue for her. I think just one or two similar aged(compatable) companions would be the ideal outcome for her in the longerterm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top