Elephant Conservation - ex-situ vs in-situ

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Moderator note: topic split from this thread: What was the biggest lie that you ever heard from anti-zoo people?

It's also one of the worst lies I know: Elephants in captivity die at 40 years old,while they reach up to 70 years in the wild.

It's a PETA slogan and it's super dangerous, because it refers to scientific studies. So it looks super real, but only if you look up both studies you will find out that the 70 years is an anecdote of a single wild African elephant and the 40 years is the combined mean of all elephants ever on record in America. From 1800 something on. Stillborn and suspected(!) pregnancies included with 0 years. Of course people fall for that...

I don't like PETA and I am not at all keen on animal rights activists.

However, in spite of the misinformation about their husbandry and quality of life in captivity that you have already mentioned don't you think that elephants are just better conserved in-situ rather than in zoos ?

 

[Sophie Brugmann]

However, in spite of the misinformation about their husbandry and quality of life in captivity that you have already mentioned don't you think that elephants are just better conserved in-situ rather than in zoos ?

Absolutely not. I think elephants just like great apes can greatly benefit from the absence of certain environmental pressures. And while African elephants are actually too abundant in a few regions, Asian elephant populations are only declining. Zoos are on a really good way when it comes to elephants. By now the important factors for welfare are known, a few Zoos need to improve, but that will come over time. Since Zoos have agreed to share the work and have created specialists facilities, there are now solutions for almost all issues. I'm really excited to see if the Pairi Daiza project gets picked up (planned to reintroduce four young males). Then it would be absolutely without fault.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Absolutely not. I think elephants just like great apes can greatly benefit from the absence of certain environmental pressures. And while African elephants are actually too abundant in a few regions, Asian elephant populations are only declining. Zoos are on a really good way when it comes to elephants. By now the important factors for welfare are known, a few Zoos need to improve, but that will come over time. Since Zoos have agreed to share the work and have created specialists facilities, there are now solutions for almost all issues. I'm really excited to see if the Pairi Daiza project gets picked up (planned to reintroduce four young males). Then it would be absolutely without fault.

I see, well thanks for sharing your opinion on this issue Sophie.

Personally I'm far more inclined towards thinking that elephants are probably best conserved in-situ in Asia and Africa rather than within zoo environments.

I would like to see zoos focus on smaller taxa which are in greater need of ex-situ, cost a lot less to maintain and adapt more readily to captivity than elephants.

 

[FBBird]

I see, well thanks for sharing your opinion on this issue Sophie.

Personally I'm far more inclined towards thinking that elephants are probably best conserved in-situ in Asia and Africa rather than within zoo environments.

I would like to see zoos focus on smaller taxa which are in greater need of ex-situ, cost a lot less to maintain and adapt more readily to captivity than elephants.

So you would be happy for most people to never see a live elephant?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

So you would be happy for most people to never see a live elephant?

I wouldn't be happy, no, they are majestic and impressive animals for sure and I think that people all around the world find them fascinating but I feel that is besides the point.

I would reframe your question and ask what does the keeping of elephants achieve? is it necessary ? is it better to conserve these animals in-situ ?

I personally believe that it is better to conserve these animals in-situ in the range countries where they occur across Africa and Asia.

Moreover, I believe that it is actually far more important for the people of those regions to see these animals in the wild and to learn about the ecological importance of elephants and their habitat than it is to keep maintaining elephants in zoos in the West just so that people can see an elephant in the flesh.

Just my opinion of course, people are free to disagree with it and I'm sure that many zoochatters who enjoy seeing elephants in their local zoos will.

 

[gentle lemur]

Don't know! I never listen to them

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

I wouldn't be happy, no, they are majestic and impressive animals for sure and I think that people all around the world find them fascinating but I feel that is besides the point.

I would reframe your question and ask what does the keeping of elephants achieve? is it necessary ? is it better to conserve these animals in-situ ?

I personally believe that it is better to conserve these animals in-situ in the range countries where they occur across Africa and Asia.

Moreover, I believe that it is actually far more important for the people of those regions to see these animals in the wild and to learn about the ecological importance of elephants and their habitat than it is to keep maintaining elephants in zoos in the West just so that people can see an elephant in the flesh.

Just my opinion of course, people are free to disagree with it and I'm sure that many zoochatters who enjoy seeing elephants in their local zoos will.

Keeping elephants in captivity gives us a lot of vital information and research opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be accessed as easily in the wild. Not denying at all that studying elephants in-situ is very valuable (it still is very important), but we can't get some information as efficiently in the wild that we can with captive animals. It's not just allowing people opportunities to view or interact with elephants, its also to provide a scientific resource for studies that could also in turn benefit their wild cousins.

And plus, not everyone can afford to travel to Africa/Asia to see wild elephants either, please consider that as well

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Keeping elephants in captivity gives us a lot of vital information and research opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be accessed as easily in the wild. Not denying at all that studying elephants in-situ is very valuable (it still is very important), but we can't get information as efficiently in the wild that we can with captive animals. It's not just allowing people opportunities to view or interact with elephants, its also to provide a scientific resource for studies that could also in turn benefit their wild cousins.

And plus, not everyone can afford to travel to Africa/Asia to see wild elephants either, please consider that as well

It doesn't ultimately matter what I believe (or any of us believe) about the keeping of elephants in captivity because zoos will either continue to keep them or cease to regardless of my viewpoint.

Yes, there have been things learned through research on captive elephants in zoos but that is a very flimsy argument for justifying keeping them IMO.

Because of the way that national parks / protected areas are now hemmed in by anthropogenic pressures like urbanization / human populations in Africa and Asia there are populations of these animals that are now largely managed in a way roughly similar to zoos (and this will only continue in the future) and much of the same research can be conducted under these conditions.

Furthermore, what is far more important than Western zoo visitors seeing elephants as far as I can see is that Asian and African peoples come to see, respect and value these animals and what remains of their wild habitat as being worthy of conservation.

Otherwise you simply end up with situations like this :

 

[Dassie rat]

I wouldn't be happy, no, they are majestic and impressive animals for sure and I think that people all around the world find them fascinating but I feel that is besides the point.

I would reframe your question and ask what does the keeping of elephants achieve? is it necessary ? is it better to conserve these animals in-situ ?

I personally believe that it is better to conserve these animals in-situ in the range countries where they occur across Africa and Asia.

Moreover, I believe that it is actually far more important for the people of those regions to see these animals in the wild and to learn about the ecological importance of elephants and their habitat than it is to keep maintaining elephants in zoos in the West just so that people can see an elephant in the flesh.

Just my opinion of course, people are free to disagree with it and I'm sure that many zoochatters who enjoy seeing elephants in their local zoos will.

I agree with a lot of this. I joined RSPB when I read that it had paid for some rainforest in Sumatra to protect tigers and other animals. I feel that spending money in this way is better for conservation than spending millions of pounds on enclosures for animals that are not part of a reintroduction programme. I preferred seeing the water vole enclosures at Wildwood, where several voles were being bred to help the wild population.

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

It doesn't ultimately matter what I believe (or any of us believe) about the keeping of elephants in captivity because zoos will either continue to keep them or cease to regardless of my viewpoint.

Yes, there have been things learned through research on captive elephants in zoos but that is a very flimsy argument for justifying keeping them IMO.

Because of the way that national parks / protected areas are now hemmed in by anthropogenic pressures like urbanization / human populations in Africa and Asia there are populations of these animals that are now largely managed in a way roughly similar to zoos (and this will only continue in the future) and much of the same research can be conducted under these conditions.

Furthermore, what is far more important than Western zoo visitors seeing elephants as far as I can see is that Asian and African peoples come to see, respect and value these animals and what remains of their wild habitat as being worthy of conservation.

Otherwise you simply end up with situations like this :

Elaborate on reserves managing elephants in a similar fashion to zoos. The only places I could think of are a few orphanages in which rescued elephant herds are sometimes managed in a semi-wild fashion.

Also, if that happens to be the case, why should some researchers who wish to study elephants have to go out of their way to do so when they could literally contact a zoological facility who's willing to provide elephants for scientific research? Makes absolutely no sense to spend thousands of dollars on plane tickets and housing when you could literally just go to a nearby zoo housing elephants a few hours away.

Also, unfortunately I hate to burst your bubble but elephants are viewed as agricultural pests in many parts of their range, and conflicts can often get so severe both elephants and humans are killed in these disputes. We have to work with stakeholders to hopefully ease these conflicts, and some people who manage elephants in captivity actually are actively involved with these programs.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Elaborate on reserves managing elephants in a similar fashion to zoos. The only places I could think of are a few orphanages in which rescued elephant herds are sometimes managed in a semi-wild fashion.

Also, if that happens to be the case, why should some researchers who wish to study elephants have to go out of their way to do so when they could literally contact a zoological facility who's willing to provide elephants for scientific research? Makes absolutely no sense to spend thousands of dollars on plane tickets and housing when you could literally just go to a nearby zoo housing elephants a few hours away.

Also, unfortunately I hate to burst your bubble but elephants are viewed as agricultural pests in many parts of their range, and conflicts can often get so severe both elephants and humans are killed in these disputes.

The management of elephants in protected areas in Africa and Asia is now roughly (obviously not identical) similar to that provided by zoos and includes aspects such as deliberate husbandry, translocations, veterinary intervention, culling / euthanasia and in some cases provision of food.

That is to say that the boundaries of what have traditionally been considered " the wild" and "captivity" are now blurring and in flux due to the extent of anthropogenic pressures on many wild populations of animals which increasingly require human intervention through conservation.

I wasn't actually arguing that researchers should not study captive elephants held by zoos but rather suggesting that this is not a sound argument for justifying keeping these animals in zoos.

Furthermore it might be argued by some that the more valid data with utility for informing in-situ elephant conservation (on ecology, behaviour, reproduction and the social science aspects of human-wildlife conflict) would be that obtained from studies of elephants in the wild.

As far as I can see the main arguments in defense of the keeping of elephants in zoos are for ex-situ conservation and for educational purposes with visitors and there are some compelling (though I'm not 100 % convinced either) arguments against both of these.

There is no bubble to be burst, I'm a conservationist and while these species are not my area I'm fully aware of the situation of human-elephant conflict such as crop raiding across Africa and Asia that leads to hostility and revenge killings.

Finally contrary to what some people may be thinking I am not a passionate advocate against the keeping of elephants by zoos but rather I just don't think it should be considered a top priority when there are so many other things to tackle and that it is important for the sake of debate to be open to considering other points of view.

 

[amur leopard]

However, in spite of the misinformation about their husbandry and quality of life in captivity that you have already mentioned don't you think that elephants are just better conserved in-situ rather than in zoos ?

Otherwise you simply end up with situations like this :

In the above post you cite one of many examples of human-elephant conflict in Asia, possibly one of the worst instances of it in recent history. These events are becoming more and more commonplace as time goes on as the population of Asia rises. Since the range of the Asian elephant almost perfectly lines up with the most densely-populated areas on Earth, it seems almost obvious that this conflict will increase as time goes on and the population inevitably increases.

What I'm trying to say is that critical endangerment is almost a certainty for Asian elephants now. Their populations are small, scattered and forced into ever smaller remaining patches of forest. Some strongholds still exist, but they too are shrinking, not growing. So what now?

What scares me is that I see parallels between the situations of the Sumatran rhinoceros a few decades ago and the Asian elephant now. Both find themselves in some of the most populated areas in the world, their habitat constantly shrinking due to human development. The only difference is that Asian elephants have a stable, healthy ex situ population. As you know, in the rhinos' case, they were brought into captivity when the population was in the very low hundreds. It is my firm belief that if the rhinos had had a stable captive population before that time, they would be much better off now than is actually the case. If the in situ conservation of the Sumatran rhinoceros has also largely failed, what makes you think it will be any different with the Asian elephant?

My fundamental question is - how do you save a species in situ when there will soon be no situ?

What I meant to suggest with my earlier now deleted comment is that what is far more important than Western zoo visitors seeing elephants as far as I can see is that Asian and African peoples come to see, respect and value these animals and what remains of their wild habitat as worthy of conservation.

Again, you fail to see that the vast majority of the money coming in for elephant conservation is from Western countries. The reality is that countries within the range of the Asian elephant, particularly those where the elephants are rarely seen, have little to no incentive to protect them - they need space for their growing population, and the elephants and their now tiny strongholds are but hindrances. Furthermore, the local people will not begin to value the elephants more as conflict increases, as it will - the only way for this to happen is for elephants to have their own clearly defined areas, absolutely impervious to human development. And as I have already said, this will simply not happen.

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

@amur leopard said it a lot better than I could

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

In the above post you cite one of many examples of human-elephant conflict in Asia, possibly one of the worst instances of it in recent history. These events are becoming more and more commonplace as time goes on as the population of Asia rises. Since the range of the Asian elephant almost perfectly lines up with the most densely-populated areas on Earth, it seems almost obvious that this conflict will increase as time goes on and the population inevitably increases.

What I'm trying to say is that critical endangerment is almost a certainty for Asian elephants now. Their populations are small, scattered and forced into ever smaller remaining patches of forest. Some strongholds still exist, but they too are shrinking, not growing. So what now?

What scares me is that I see parallels between the situations of the Sumatran rhinoceros a few decades ago and the Asian elephant now. Both find themselves in some of the most populated areas in the world, their habitat constantly shrinking due to human development. The only difference is that Asian elephants have a stable, healthy ex situ population. As you know, in the rhinos' case, they were brought into captivity when the population was in the very low hundreds. It is my firm belief that if the rhinos had had a stable captive population before that time, they would be much better off now than is actually the case. If the in situ conservation of the Sumatran rhinoceros has also largely failed, what makes you think it will be any different with the Asian elephant?

My fundamental question is - how do you save a species in situ when there will soon be no situ?



Again, you fail to see that the vast majority of the money coming in for elephant conservation is from Western countries. The reality is that countries within the range of the Asian elephant, particularly those where the elephants are rarely seen, have little to no incentive to protect them - they need space for their growing population, and the elephants and their now tiny strongholds are but hindrances. Furthermore, the local people will not begin to value the elephants more as conflict increases, as it will - the only way for this to happen is for elephants to have their own clearly defined areas, absolutely impervious to human development. And as I have already said, this will simply not happen.

Yes, I agree that human-elephant conflict will increase exponentially during this century due to the shrinking of viable habitat to sustain these animals and growing human populations that require agriculture / arable land and urbanization.

The question is not as you have framed it "how do you save a species in situ when there will soon be no situ?" which is a leading question followed by the already determined answer of zoos.

The truth is that zoos and ex-situ conservation is hardly ever either a desirable or viable long-term or standalone option for conserving a species and I actually can't think of a species as ill-suited for this kind of strategy by zoos as elephants are.

There have been drastic improvements to the welfare of captive elephants in zoos in Europe and the USA (wellbeing, reproduction and general husbandry etc) and there are some compelling arguments that captive populations could be useful as a genetic repository for replacing lost genetic diversity for wild populations but interesting as these are they are not really convincing overall arguments that suggest zoos are an integral component of conserving African and Asian elephants in the wild.

Rather the question should be: How can we effectively conserve what remains of the wild habitat of elephants and other Asiatic and African megafauna so that they can continue to be conserved in-situ ?

There isn't actually any single or fast answer to that question but rather many and there will continue to be new management strategies developed and informed by research and others that through trial and error are found to be less effective and are rejected.

Some common interventions in South and South-East Asia have been to reseach and develop plans to sustain habitat corridors and engage in habitat restoration between fragments / existing protected areas, designation of new protected areas (only 16% of Asiatic elephant habitat is in protected areas) strengthening the capacity of policing of illegal logging and poaching that eats away at wild habitat and populations, developing new technologies (like SMART for example) that help map conflict and coordinate anti-poaching patrols and of course to develop programmes and initiatives with local communities that mitigate as best as possible human-wildlife conflict from occurring.

That is what the Indian government is already engaged in doing across the subcontinent and incidentally the Indians themselves have actually rejected the notion that ex-situ conservation in zoos has any role to play in the conservation of this species and have instead chosen to focus their efforts on in-situ conservation.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Again, you fail to see that the vast majority of the money coming in for elephant conservation is from Western countries. The reality is that countries within the range of the Asian elephant, particularly those where the elephants are rarely seen, have little to no incentive to protect them - they need space for their growing population, and the elephants and their now tiny strongholds are but hindrances. Furthermore, the local people will not begin to value the elephants more as conflict increases, as it will - the only way for this to happen is for elephants to have their own clearly defined areas, absolutely impervious to human development. And as I have already said, this will simply not happen.

I don't fail to see that the vast majority of funding for the conservation of elephants is coming from Western countries, I do see that.

However, is that really an argument that justifies keeping elephants in captivity in Western zoos ?

Granted for some people this connection between the funding of in-situ conservation of elephants might be an argument to justify keeping these animals in zoos in Europe and the USA but personally I myself am just not convinced by that kind of reasoning.

Yes, I agree that the challenges to conserving the world's elephants are immense and uphill but I don't think that the answer to these challenges is zoos (it might be for some species but probably not for elephants).

Well the Indian government and those of many Sub-Saharan African countries not to mention all of the conservation NGO's out there working hard to conserve elephants in the wild would strongly disagree with that point you have made.

That said if you genuinely believe that then I recommend you to reach out and contact them and tell them as you might get some interesting replies and perhaps some that might encourage you to be more hopeful and supportive for the prospects of in-situ conservation.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I agree with a lot of this. I joined RSPB when I read that it had paid for some rainforest in Sumatra to protect tigers and other animals. I feel that spending money in this way is better for conservation than spending millions of pounds on enclosures for animals that are not part of a reintroduction programme. I preferred seeing the water vole enclosures at Wildwood, where several voles were being bred to help the wild population.

Thanks @Dassie rat !

I share that view that it is always more rewarding to know that there is a sound rationale for a species being kept in captivity for ex-situ conservation purposes and wherever possible reintroduced to the wild such as the example you've given with watervoles.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread (and it appears that it was lost in translation) I can totally understand why people want to see large and charismatic mammals like elephants being kept at zoos because lets be honest they are impressive and awe-inspiring animals that elicit a lot of emotions in visitors.

All I am suggesting is that there is quite a debate around the practice and recent trends and evidence don't really seem to support the argument that keeping these animals in zoos complements their conservation.

There was an interesting paper (open access) published this year on the future of elephants in zoos, for anyone interested here is the link: The future of elephants in captivity

 

[Azamat Shackleford]

The management of elephants in protected areas in Africa and Asia is now roughly (obviously not identical) similar to that provided by zoos and includes aspects such as deliberate husbandry, translocations, veterinary intervention, culling / euthanasia and in some cases provision of food.

I don't see herds of zoo elephants being mass-euthanized due to an overpopulation issue.

That is to say that the boundaries of what have traditionally been considered " the wild" and "captivity" are now blurring and in flux due to the extent of anthropogenic pressures on many wild populations of animals which increasingly require human intervention through conservation.

What are you trying to say here? I can’t seem to fully get what you’re saying here.

I wasn't actually arguing that researchers should not study captive elephants held by zoos but rather suggesting that this is not a sound argument for justifying keeping these animals in zoos.

I fully disagree, because that’s what it fully sounds like here.

Furthermore it might be argued by some that the more valid data with utility for informing in-situ elephant conservation (on ecology, behaviour, reproduction and the social science aspects of human-wildlife conflict) would be that obtained from studies of elephants in the wild.

You’re not wrong that research on captive vs. wild animals isn’t always fully accurate, but to say that any research/data obtained in zoos is useless is ludicrous and disrespectful to the researchers who choose to conduct studies on captive animals (in this case, elephants).

As far as I can see the main arguments in defense of the keeping of elephants in zoos are for ex-situ conservation and for educational purposes with visitors and there are some compelling (though I'm not 100 % convinced either) arguments against both of these.

What actually is your beef with zoos having elephants in the first place? I can't seem to get a clarified answer, for me if a zoo can care for its elephants properly I see absolutely no problem with them in captivity at all. From what I’m seeing, you’re saying that having elephants in zoos is useless, which I already said I disagree with. Maybe I myself want to see an elephant at a zoo.

There is no bubble to be burst, I'm a conservationist and while these species are not my area I'm fully aware of the situation of human-elephant conflict such as crop raiding across Africa and Asia that leads to hostility and revenge killings.

At least I’m glad we’re on the same page here.

Finally contrary to what some people may be thinking I am not a passionate advocate against the keeping of elephants by zoos but rather I just don't think it should be considered a top priority when there are so many other things to tackle and that it is important for the sake of debate to be open to considering other points of view.

Refer to my question on your criticisms with elephants in zoos.

Yes, I agree that human-elephant conflict will increase exponentially during this century due to the shrinking of viable habitat to sustain these animals and growing human populations that require agriculture / arable land and urbanization..

Also glad to see we’re on the same page here as well.

The truth is that zoos and ex-situ conservation is hardly ever either a desirable or viable long-term or standalone option for conserving a species and I actually can't think of a species as ill-suited for this kind of strategy by zoos as elephants are.

You’re talking in circles here.

There have been drastic improvements to the welfare of captive elephants in zoos in Europe and the USA (wellbeing, reproduction and general husbandry etc) and there are some compelling arguments that captive populations could be useful as a genetic repository for replacing lost genetic diversity for wild populations but interesting as these are they are not really convincing overall arguments that suggest zoos are an integral component of conserving African and Asian elephants in the wild.

Glad to see you understand that elephant husbandry has drastically improved, but you’re literally talking in circles again.

Rather the question should be: How can we effectively conserve what remains of the wild habitat of elephants and other Asiatic and African megafauna so that they can continue to be conserved in-situ ?


There isn't actually any single or fast answer to that question but rather many and there will continue to be new management strategies developed and informed by research and others that through trial and error are found to be less effective and are rejected.

Agreed that there’s no such thing as “only one answer”, but I didn’t see anyone say that here at all, correct me I I’m wrong here.

That is what the Indian government is already engaged in doing across the subcontinent and incidentally the Indians themselves have actually rejected the notion that ex-situ conservation in zoos has any role to play in the conservation of this species and have instead chosen to focus their efforts on in-situ conservation.

Interesting to see you have faith in the Indian government when it comes to deciding wildlife conservation decisions considering that they banned cetacean captivity in 2013 and deemed them “non-human persons”.

I don't fail to see that the vast majority of funding for the conservation of elephants is coming from Western countries, I do see that.


However, is that really an argument that justifies keeping elephants in captivity in Western zoos ?

Talking in circles again.

Granted for some people this connection between the funding of in-situ conservation of elephants might be an argument to justify keeping these animals in zoos in Europe and the USA but personally I myself am just not convinced by that kind of reasoning.


Yes, I agree that the challenges to conserving the world's elephants are immense and uphill but I don't think that the answer to these challenges is zoos (it might be for some species but probably not for elephants).

Again, please refer to my question on your criticisms with elephants in zoos.

Well the Indian government and those of many Sub-Saharan African countries not to mention all of the conservation NGO's out there working hard to conserve elephants in the wild would strongly disagree with that point you have made.

That said if you genuinely believe that then I recommend you to reach out and contact them and tell them as you might get some interesting replies and perhaps some that might encourage you to be more hopeful and supportive for the prospects of in-situ conservation.

I don’t think any of us have said we’re against in-situ conservation at all, at least I myself never have.

I apologize if I come off as crass, but I just don't fully understand some of the things you're trying to explain here.

EDIT: Oops, just saw your latest response, and you did already actually answer a question I was asking here. I just don't see what's useless about keeping elephants in zoos. Even if they won't be released in the wild as you did say, I see nothing wrong with safeguarding a captive population in case things do improve in the future (though this kind of is an overly optimistic thing myself to say here)

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I don't see herds of zoo elephants being mass-euthanized due to an overpopulation issue.



What are you trying to say here? I can’t seem to fully get what you’re saying here.




I fully disagree, because that’s what it fully sounds like here.




You’re not wrong that research on captive vs. wild animals isn’t always fully accurate, but to say that any research/data obtained in zoos is useless is ludicrous and disrespectful to the researchers who choose to conduct studies on captive animals (in this case, elephants).



What actually is your beef with zoos having elephants in the first place? I can't seem to get a clarified answer, for me if a zoo can care for its elephants properly I see absolutely no problem with them in captivity at all. From what I’m seeing, you’re saying that having elephants in zoos is useless, which I already said I disagree with. Maybe I myself want to see an elephant at a zoo.




At least I’m glad we’re on the same page here.




Refer to my question on your criticisms with elephants in zoos.



Also glad to see we’re on the same page here as well.




You’re talking in circles here.



Glad to see you understand that elephant husbandry has drastically improved, but you’re literally talking in circles again.




Agreed that there’s no such thing as “only one answer”, but I didn’t see anyone say that here at all, correct me I I’m wrong here.




Interesting to see you have faith in the Indian government when it comes to deciding wildlife conservation decisions considering that they banned cetacean captivity in 2013 and deemed them “non-human persons”.




Talking in circles again.




Again, please refer to my question on your criticisms with elephants in zoos.




I don’t think any of us have said we’re against in-situ conservation at all, at least I myself never have.

I apologize if I come off as crass, but I just don't fully understand some of the things you're trying to explain here.

EDIT: Oops, just saw your latest response, and you did already actually answer a question I was asking here. I just don't see what's useless about keeping elephants in zoos. Even if they won't be released in the wild as you did say, I see nothing wrong with safeguarding a captive population in case things do improve in the future (though this kind of is an overly optimistic thing myself to say here)

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions.

You don't come across as crass, don't worry, but to develop your ideas on elephant conservation I would recommend reading that paper I linked to in one of my comments above.

1. I wasn't suggesting that elephants are euthanized on mass in zoos due to problems with overpopulation but rather that the veterinary practice of euthanasia is being used as a conservation intervention with elephants particularly in protected areas in sub-saharan Africa. As you rightly state this is mainly due to elephant populations having crossed carrying capacity and the devastating consequences for ecosystems that this is having in many regions / countries.

2. As viable natural habitat shrinks across the planet due to anthropogenic pressures and is replaced by human settlement/ urbanization, arable lands / monocultures, roads etc the last refuge for many threatened species are ever decreasing mosaics of protected areas. Metapopulations of threatened species are therefore managed by conservationists working within these areas often in a way that approximates the way animals are cared for in zoos (veterinary care, translocation, provision of housing / food, use of technologies such as artificial insemination to assist with reproduction etc). This is what I meant by the blurring of boundaries between wild and captive.

3. Well that is your right to disagree, however, I did not write that comment with that intention so you are mistaken.

4. I didn't say data obtained from captive elephants in zoos is "useless" as it was you who used that term not me. What I actually said was many researchers would argue that data obtained from research on elephants living in conditions as closed to the wild as possible would have more value for informing in-situ conservation of these animals.

5. I don't have beef with zoos keeping elephants but I am cynical that this is being done for conservation purposes or zoos that claim it is or use this as a justification for keeping these animals. Moreover, I think that despite significant advances in husbandry the general consensus and trends seem to suggest that the practice of keeping elephants in zoos is slowly being abandoned.

6. Okay...

7. I don't know why you are saying I am talking in circles, I am making the point that the arguments that hinge on keeping elephants in zoos for ex-situ conservation purposes are not very compelling and don't stand up when examined more closely.

8. Cool.

9. This comment was said in response to @amur leopard and his assertion / question "how do you save a species in situ when there will soon be no situ?" which is a leading question which is followed by the already determined answer of "zoos". I was suggesting that zoos are not the safety net or viable option for elephant conservation that he seems to think they are and that the strategies already in place and being finetuned in Africa and Asia though far from perfect likely represent the best hope of conserving these species.

10. Actually I am generally cynical and have little faith in any government to effectively conserve biodiversity (or to prioritize conservation over petty politics or paradigms of economic growth) and instead choose to place my faith on conservationists working within and outside the system. However, I believe that the Indian conservationists working towards conserving elephants know what they are doing and have no illusions regarding ex-situ as a viable alternative to the gruelling long-term work of in-situ.

11. Really ? I am saying that whilst Western countries funding the conservation of elephants is absolutely wonderful I don't personally think that means there is therefore a need for them to be kept and displayed in zoos in the West. If you do think this way then please explain why you think so as I would be interested to know.

12. I don't think that anyone here is anti-conservation per se, quite the opposite actually, and I wouldn't be on this site or participate if people were. However, I do think that there are a lot of zoochatters who seem to be under the impression that conservation consists of putting animals in a cage and breeding them and that doing so justifies zoos and gives them the right to claim to be centers of conservation. Needless to say, that is not how conserving a species works and ex-situ must not only be heavily complemented by in-situ contributions but in some cases and for some species ex-situ is not even a desireable or viable option.

 

[amur leopard]

Yes, I agree that human-elephant conflict will increase exponentially during this century due to the shrinking of viable habitat to sustain these animals and growing human populations that require agriculture / arable land and urbanization.

The question is not as you have framed it "how do you save a species in situ when there will soon be no situ?" which is a leading question followed by the already determined answer of zoos.

The truth is that zoos and ex-situ conservation is hardly ever either a desirable or viable long-term or standalone option for conserving a species and I actually can't think of a species as ill-suited for this kind of strategy by zoos as elephants are.

There have been drastic improvements to the welfare of captive elephants in zoos in Europe and the USA (wellbeing, reproduction and general husbandry etc) and there are some compelling arguments that captive populations could be useful as a genetic repository for replacing lost genetic diversity for wild populations but interesting as these are they are not really convincing overall arguments that suggest zoos are an integral component of conserving African and Asian elephants in the wild.

Rather the question should be: How can we effectively conserve what remains of the wild habitat of elephants and other Asiatic and African megafauna so that they can continue to be conserved in-situ ?

There isn't actually any single or fast answer to that question but rather many and there will continue to be new management strategies developed and informed by research and others that through trial and error are found to be less effective and are rejected.

Some common interventions in South and South-East Asia have been to reseach and develop plans to sustain habitat corridors and engage in habitat restoration between fragments / existing protected areas, designation of new protected areas (only 16% of Asiatic elephant habitat is in protected areas) strengthening the capacity of policing of illegal logging and poaching that eats away at wild habitat and populations, developing new technologies (like SMART for example) that help map conflict and coordinate anti-poaching patrols and of course to develop programmes and initiatives with local communities that mitigate as best as possible human-wildlife conflict from occurring.

That is what the Indian government is already engaged in doing across the subcontinent and incidentally the Indians themselves have actually rejected the notion that ex-situ conservation in zoos has any role to play in the conservation of this species and have instead chosen to focus their efforts on in-situ conservation.

Before I answer these points, I would like to reiterate my original question - in what way is the in situ situation different enough for elephants as it was for Sumatran rhinos? Here I'm talking about the Asian elephant - for the African elephant I do agree to an extent that in situ conservation makes more sense.

The fundamental difference for me is that the governments of Sub-Saharan countries, particularly those that have large tourist influxes, are more likely to see the tourism factor as an incentive to save the elephant. In South-East Asia in particular (talking about Southern China, Indochina and Indonesia) the governments bring in little to no money from elephant tourism since the elephants themselves are so difficult to see, contrasting with the situation in Sri Lanka and India where elephants are fairly commonplace sightings within their range. What I'm trying to say is that there is massive variation in willingness to allow in situ conservation and to create protected areas for the Asian elephant (though I should of course add the caveat that Thailand is very much a pioneer in the creation of national parks and protected areas across the country).

To me, it is therefore clear that elephants will soon no longer have the viable populations necessary to maintain a stable population in the aforementioned rainforest areas, while the populations in Sri Lanka in particular may even increase. The massive gulf in willingness across the elephant's range is what creates the problem.

In fact, another parallel to draw is that between the leopard and the elephant. They have, or at least had, near identical ranges, though perhaps not facing the exact same threats. Indian and Sri Lankan leopards are doing fairly well, while populations in Indonesia, North China and Persia (all of which being previous areas in which elephants previously ranged but were extirpated), are struggling and (critically) endangered.

So in conclusion, while Indian elephants may be better treated by the government due to the tourism factor (which is not to say there is no human-elephant conflict), the elephants in South-East Asia are struggling not only due to conflict but also the unwillingness of the local governments to help, which is what it comes down to in the end.

 

[Sophie Brugmann]

Oh, wow, that became an intensive discussion and I'm very late to the party, BUT I just wanted to add one more thing: when you look at elephants in particular in-situ and ex-situ will not be separate entities much longer. The EAZA range was planning to reintroduce the first captive bred animals. That might seem strange because Asian elephant habitats are often already at their carrying capacity, But Their genetic variability is heavily reduced, because they are so heavily fragmented. The reintroduction of genetically different bulls will heighten the chance of resistance in face of a changing environment.

I'm also fully confused by the above discussion. There is no argument named why elephants shouldn't be in Zoos. And I personally think that people who see ex-situ as a competition/exclusion of in-situ conservation are a bit short sighted, too be honest. Most people who go to a zoo don't do that to put money towards conservation. They don't ask themselves the question: do I wanna put 150€ towards elephant conservation or do I wanna go to a zoo? The money that that Zoos allocate to conservation is extra money. The existence of elephants in a zoo (even without research, in-situ projects!) Does not have any negative impact on conservation.

And elephants are one of the examples where the behavior of people in western countries actually affects the animals. So creating connection and emotion that is strong enough for people to change their behavior is having an indirect effect.

So to sum it up: Zoos don't have a negative impact for the elephants living there, don't hinder in-situ conservation and have the potential to provide indirect benefits, if done right.