There's strong evidence that welfare assessments by human observers with minimal training can generate results congruent with conventional stress indicators. (...) Wemelsfelder has carried out one (unpublished) study surveying public perceptions of elephant welfare.
This evidence was evidently not strong, because it was not published.
You seem to dismiss the evidence of experienced elephant keepers in favor of laymen.
Which laymen themselves are in strong conflict of interest, because campaigning about elephants provides more funds than campaigning about homeless dogs and cats.
Furthermore, sustained criticism from the antis has often been a major impetus for positive change
Zoos started breeding elephants, researching causes of premature mortality and modernizing exhibits years before 'antis' jumped into bandwagon. One can see it easily by comparing years of zoo publications, zoo breeding with dates of major campaigns to move elephants out of zoos.
Furthermore, fighting misinformation of anti-zoo activists shifts resources from actually helping elephants.
Besides, many proposals of anti-zoo activists are misinformed and hamper elephant welfare. For example, stopping breeding of elephants which causes degeneration of females' reproductive tracts and denies them from inherent part of their normal behavior - raising calves. Or moving elephants to new places where they are dumped with individuals they don't know nor relate too, and must be then again isolated in a new place. So 'rescuing' elephant from a 'bad' solitary life in a zoo results in equally solitary life in a 'sanctuary'.
These problems caused by ignorant activists to elephants which they claim to 'help' are quite similar to harm to animals caused by similar activists 'helping' other species in past years, now shifted to elephants.
There is little evidence that noisy campaigns against zoo elephants have any additional benefit to elephants themselves over what zoos would do anyway. Unlike how these activist organizations justify spending their funds.
