Major news article on elephants in zoos

DavidBrown

DavidBrown

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
The Seattle Times did an in-depth investigative report of elephants in zoos and part one is out detailing the dismal state of elephant demography in American zoos. I think this article will be of interest to many people here.

I found the article even-handed. This is not a flattering portait of the AZA's elephant programs, but nor is it a David Hancockian attack on elephants in zoos (although Hancock and his anti-elephant views are covered in the article).

Elephants are dying out in America's zoos | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much for posting the article, and I just read all of it in its entirety. The piece of literature is almost unrelentingly bleak and yet sadly accurate, as testified by the numerous facts and statistics provided. This explains why Woodland Park Zoo just this week re-posted its "Elephant Care & Conservation" link on the zoo's home page, undoubtedly to deter an anti-zoo backlash. I am still quite shocked that the zoo continues to hold 1 African and 2 Asian elephants, and my gut feeling is that eventually the program will be disbanded. Many major American zoos have shown that it is possible to send elephants away and then year after year attendance records are broken long after the iconic animals have left the facility.

There have been many improvements to the welfare of elephants in captivity, as many northern-based zoos have phased them out of their collection. Also, innumerable zoos have built modern, spacious, multi-acre habitats that allow for growing herds. The downside is that the animals are simply not reproducing at a rate that is sustainable, and perhaps there will be more importations from the wild in the future.
 
snowleopard said:
Also, innumerable zoos have built modern, spacious, multi-acre habitats that allow for growing herds. The downside is that the animals are simply not reproducing at a rate that is sustainable, and perhaps there will be more importations from the wild in the future.
Click to expand...

The only reason why importation is needed is because the management in US zoos is still so poor. Yes, some zoos have build great new enclosures for breeding herds, but it is no good if these zoos don`t get young females to FORM a breeding herd. The problem is that too many zoos with young or even proven breeding females like Woodland keep their females without a bull and consequently no or only very few calves through AI, while bulls in breeding age are kept in other zoos without suitable partners. A breeding program can`t work if you don`t bring males and females together, and instead of working on that, the AZA is allowing its members to act selfishly and tries to compensate with AI. Which is just not working as well as natural breeding.
 
The research is certainly sound, but this isn't the first time its been reported. However, the author did a pretty good and thorough job. If the Seattle public read this, it could be a turning-point for the zoo.

Artificial insemination in any exotic species is difficult. Many people don't understand that we still don't know much about most of the species that are kept in zoos. And the reproductive biology of zoo animals is still a new, limited, but expanding field of science. When you only have a few subjects to work with, AI research will take a long time to develop - unless you get lucky. From the article itself, it appears that Woodland Park attempted to do their AI research mostly in house.

I would like to point out some of the more exaggerated points that the authors claims.

The Seattle Times confronted a significant hurdle in examining elephant deaths in U.S. zoos: The industry doesn't comprehensively track elephant births and deaths.
Click to expand...

Apparently the reporter doesn't know about ARKS, medARKS, or the emerging ZIMS.

In the baby race set off by Packy's birth, zoos in the 1960s and 1970s recklessly bred father with daughter, brother with sister, practices since abandoned. The tainted bloodlines of these offspring still impair efforts to safely breed today.
Click to expand...

This is mostly false - Portland was the only zoo breeding elephants until 1977 when Miami had its 1st Asian elephant birth. The only other 2 zoos to breed elephants successfully in the 1970s were Knoxville (1978, Africans) and Gladys Porter (1979, Africans). Also, I believe there is only one inbred elephant in the US, Khun Chorn at Dickerson Park - I don't see how this one individual is impairing efforts to collectively breed elephants in the US.

By 2003, the weight of scientific evidence that elephants failed to thrive in zoos, combined with pressure from animal-welfare groups worldwide, prompted U.S. agencies to dramatically slow the importation of wild elephants. An easy supply of elephants masked the premature deaths and decline of captive elephants in U.S. zoos. With their supply line nearly closed, zoos stepped up captive breeding to replenish the dying ranks.
Click to expand...

This happened much earlier than 2003. Importing wild elephants practically closed with CITES in the 1970s. Importing African elephant calves in the 1980s were results from culling whole herds and a few Asian have been briefly imported from time to time. But not enough to cause any "masking." Widespread captive breeding in US zoos didn't quite happen until the late 1980s and into the 1990s. In reality, its been the addition of elephants from circuses and private owners that have helped maintain AZA elephant numbers.
 
This is where I must put my foot down, Trails at Birmingham has been open 18 months and has been a tremendous success. So why are they getting no praise or recognition for it?

I mean they've kept 3 (now 4) bulls together with no incidents and yet no one has even had the nerve to say good job.
 
tschandler71 said:
This is where I must put my foot down, Trails at Birmingham has been open 18 months and has been a tremendous success. So why are they getting no praise or recognition for it?

I mean they've kept 3 (now 4) bulls together with no incidents and yet no one has even had the nerve to say good job.
Click to expand...

Because that is not the focus of this article that was written in Seattle.
 
tschandler71 said:
This is where I must put my foot down, Trails at Birmingham has been open 18 months and has been a tremendous success. So why are they getting no praise or recognition for it?

I mean they've kept 3 (now 4) bulls together with no incidents and yet no one has even had the nerve to say good job.
Click to expand...

An article that is anti-elephant like this isn't likely to praise your zoo's exhibit. Please, get over your fits about TOA not getting praised.
 
tschandler71 said:
This is where I must put my foot down, Trails at Birmingham has been open 18 months and has been a tremendous success. So why are they getting no praise or recognition for it?

I mean they've kept 3 (now 4) bulls together with no incidents and yet no one has even had the nerve to say good job.
Click to expand...

I think that a zoo not coming up in this particular article is a good thing.

As gerenuk pointed out this is in the Seattle newspaper so the article is mostly focused on the Woodland Park Zoo.

Have you considered writing a review of your zoo and the elephant exhibit, or have you done so here already? That would bring it some attention here on Zoochat. I would like to know more about the Birmingham elephant exhibit.
 
Sigh----- I was trying to avoid reading this article for as long as possible. But it was inevitable. The writer is clearly using a anti-zoo slant.
-An Asian elephant calf in the USA has not died of eehv1 since 2010 (this was at a private facility, have a trunk will travel, not a zoo). Zoos have come together to prevent infections of the Asian elephant population, and future calves born into SSP. Which would explain the temporary hiatus of breeding activity, as the governing bodies evaluated the risks presented in transmitting the virus via AI AND natural conception. Treatment for infected calves has really come a long way since even 2006, when Hansa the woodland park calf passed away.
I personally feel the Woodland park zoo should end its elephant program on no other welfare grounds than space. There are no (announced) plans for expansion of the barn or outdoor yards. Both of which is necessary.
Chai, their breeding cow, became pregnant almost immediately after arriving at the Dickerson park zoo (where Hansa was conceived). AI has evidently proven less fruitful. As she has had several miscarriages as a result of now countless procedures.
My hopes are that Chai and Bamboo are sent to Portlands groundbreaking facility when it is completed in 2015, where Chai can mate naturally with either Tusko or Rama.

I would like to also address the fact that AI in elephants only became widely used in the US in the 2000's. With the first successful conception through AI occurring in 1998. Using a particular method pioneered by a specialist group in Germany conception can almost be 90% guaranteed. The idea behind the practice is to alleviate stress on animals by eliminating breeding loans. As of yet it has yet to reach its full potential.
 
This second article is not that good, apparently the author decided not to do much research for this article. However, it does a good job detailing PAWS involvement with captive elephants. But as far as research goes, this is just an interview with Ms. Derby and PAWS employees, plus a quick google search of news articles.

Some more inaccuracies:
-I wonder if Pittsburgh Zoo knows about this 2003 US import ban on elephants. Apparently their recent import of 0.3 African elephants was illegal.
-The elephant named "71" was part of an import of over 80 elephant calves by millionaire Arthur Jones who bought those elephant calves from African wildlife agencies after those calves were orphaned by the large number of elephant culllings. Many of these elephant calves were already injured or ill when they arrived stateside.
-Apparently Oakland Zoo now has 15 elephants (though I'm hoping the author confused them with San Diego)
 
gerenuk said:
-Apparently Oakland Zoo now has 15 elephants (though I'm hoping the author confused them with San Diego)
Click to expand...

Lol. I'm sure that Oakland Zoo elephant folks were surprised when they woke up this morning and found 11 more elephants in their exhibit this morning than the day before. They breed like rabbits!
 
When I go to a zoo, I expect to see elephants. Given that we know all the problems with keeping them in captivity, I hope that solutions can be found so that elephants live a long and happy life. I would hate to see elephants being phased out from zoos.
 
I understand the article, I just don't get the reason why negative articles/incidents about elephant husbandry are getting so much more support from the public at large than the successes.

I know it is because people like the person who wrote the article has an agenda, but where are the opposing voices? Why isn't the AZA more vocal about what good work and progress its facilities are doing?

The negative issues got a whole article, and Birmingham finally got a mention and it was a half sentence?
 
I understand the article, I just don't get the reason why negative articles/incidents about elephant husbandry are getting so much more support from the public at large than the successes.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows this for sure. As far as I know, there has never been such a survey/study to determine if what you are saying is true.

Zoos are spending their money on exhibits, husbandry, research, and in-situ conservation efforts. The anti-zoo elephant establishment is spending money on PR, communications, and a little bit on the sanctuaries. For them it doesn't take a lot of time or effort to do some basic research and create statistics that are damaging to zoos.

Zoos on the other hand, will not use these same techniques because they want to base their conclusions on actual science-derived data analysis that looks at multiple factors involved with captive elephant husbandry.

For example the author of these articles quickly scanned the zoo elephant studbooks to conclude that 2 out of 3 elephant births results in death. This statistic is taken from all elephant births in US zoos since 1962. Much has been learned about elephant development, reproduction, and overall husbandry in the last 50 years.

Now if I looked at the same data and only looked at the last five years (2008-2012), I can conclude that about 15% of all US zoo elephant births resulted in early deaths (32 total, 5 deaths).
 
gerenuk said:
Nobody knows this for sure. As far as I know, there has never been such a survey/study to determine if what you are saying is true.
Click to expand...

I quite agree.
Just because the media loves the whiff of controversy doesn't mean the public even has an opinion. And since anti-zoo fanatics often flood the comment sections of such articles (you can tell that they are not general citizens because they all spout the same lines!) one can't judge what the general public thinks.

But in the several years that the anti-zoo/anti-elephants in zoos push has been on, zoo attendance has increased. And a major new elephant exhibit only increases it more.
So do we really have any reason to conclude that the public at large wants elephants out of zoos?
 
I think it would be unfortunate if we all reflexively attacked the messenger here. Yes, the article series is uncomfortable reading - that's a good thing. Either the zoo community has a good rebuttal, or bad practices will be exposed and hopefully improved upon. I have never claimed to be an elephant expert and have never really had an opinion on whether they should be kept in zoos. It is, to borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, a known unknown for me. Having said that, I have some... Let's call them "impressions" that I'll throw out there in the interests of encouraging debate.

1) It's pretty clear to me that the "biological budget bomb" is real. Certainly it's real in Auustralia at the very least. I've seen nothing that satisfyingly explains to me where Luk Chai, Pathi Harn and Ongard are going to go when they're too old to remain with their herd. It also needs to be acknowledged that the breeding strategy being used here in Australia seems to maximise the chances of having male calves - we're quite probably talking about housing not three males but five or six or even seven within 20-25 years. It might be that there's a plan - it's certainly possible that Dubbo, for instance, will have no elephants by the time the bomb goes off. But that hasn't been explained to my knowledge. It's also true that Melbourne and Taronga's exhibits are already out-dated and would be seen as unacceptably small for the size of their herds if they were in the US. I believe if the importation was happening today it could only have been possible if the exhibits were being built at Dubbo and Werribee instead.

2) I would be really interested to see a timeline of elephant births and deaths. My guess is that the "two deaths for every birth" ratio in the US has evened out in recent years, as AI advances were made at the same time as many US zoos modernised and expanded their facilities, thus hopefully reducing deaths caused by environmental factors. It might well be that it's too early for there to be a clear statistical signal of a turnaround, but if my suspicion is correct then you could reasonably argue that the Seattle Times is blowing the lid on what zoos actually solved a decade ago. Of course, that comes with other challenges like the afore-mentioned male surplus.

3) The article makes much out of the use of bullhooks and chains. And guess what? So it should. The one discipline in which zoos need to be unimpeachable is animal welfare. I'm not interested in prosecuting the past but I certainly find the concept of chaining elephants for 17 hours a day, or of using bullhooks for anything other than life and death situations (say, when a keeper is at risk of being crushed if the animal doesn't move) at odds with the passion that any zoo will claim it has for its animals. We wouldn't accept zoos hitting great apes or big cats or bears. Why would we accept it for elephants? The argument put forward by one zoo spokesperson in the article - that the bullhook "doesn't hurt" the animal is patently ridiculous. Either it works as a negative reinforcement, or it doesn't.

4) There are clear Malthusian consequences from a business strategy that depends on regularly breeding elephant calves to get people through the gates. Yes, cute mammal babies are the lifeblood of any zoo but it's much riskier with elephants than virtually any other species, due to their massive size, long natural lifespans and complex, expensive husbandry requirements. The article makes two contradictory claims - that there's a "biological budget bomb" ticking and that elephants are at risk of becoming "demographically extinct" in 50 years. If I'm right and mortality is coming down at the same time that fertility is increasing, it's not hard to see which is more likely to be correct. Have a look at what has happened to human populations in countries where nutrition, sanitation, health care and the outbreak of peace have collapsed mortality rates, whilst the birth rate hasn't dropped nearly as quickly in response. And then think about what this means for zoos if the same applies to elephants.

5) If the allegation is true that AZA members agreed to present a united claim that "zoo elephants are thriving" in the face of contrary evidence, we should all be quite angry. Zoos exist in that uneasy grey area between being for-profit enterprises, municipal bureaucracies and vehicles for science and public education. The last two of those three categories (I would argue all three) have a civic responsibility to be honest and accountable to the public. There can be no education when the public statements are known to be misleading by those that make them.
 
Zooplantman said:
I quite agree.
Just because the media loves the whiff of controversy doesn't mean the public even has an opinion. And since anti-zoo fanatics often flood the comment sections of such articles (you can tell that they are not general citizens because they all spout the same lines!) one can't judge what the general public thinks.

But in the several years that the anti-zoo/anti-elephants in zoos push has been on, zoo attendance has increased. And a major new elephant exhibit only increases it more.
So do we really have any reason to conclude that the public at large wants elephants out of zoos?
Click to expand...

I've noticed the huge media campaign from the anti-zoo/PeTA nuts out there. I even know some of them frequent this forum regularly. Why has the pro-zoo faction (i.e. us) never been as organized? The first line of defense of the antis is to routinely spam every single thread on elephants in captivity in the US. I recognize the same names on every comment section. If the pro-zoo people spoke up, our voice would be heard just as loud, if not louder, as we are the vast majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top