Truthfully I hope sun bears fall through, but that's beside the point. However, surely you understand that there is a vast difference between elephants and the other two species mentioned that makes elephants infinitely more likely. Not only is the elephant population doing significantly better than either of those other populations, but elephants are also one of the most popular charismatic megafauna. If the zoo promised sun bears and at the last minute plans changed to Andean bears, the average visitor isn't going to care. However, if the zoo promises elephants it's going to be a lot more upsetting to the average visitor if the zoo backtracks and changes plans. I sincerely believe that Brookfield Zoo's management wouldn't be stupid enough to announce elephants as part of the first project in the masterplan, of which significant portions of the funds have already been raised, unless they were 99.9% certain that they'd be able to pull off the task of adding the species. For all we know, Brookfield Zoo may already have arrangements made to receive part of a herd from another facility.
New Elephant holding facilities in US Zoos?
- Thread starter Frankie_number_1_fan
- Start date
NNM.
Well-Known Member
So if that's what happens, the monorail will have an empty exhibit?
If it does happen, I can see the monorail putting rhinos there just to fill the space
Or maybe they'll just close the whole thing since, with the elephants being the main reason everyone rides it, they can justify closing it down for a while to do some intense renovation work.
As someone who's driven the Wild Asia Monorail, she can be quite a finicky thing and, IMO, extremely temperamental. So, having a year or a few where they can improve it would be great
Fair points you've made. But we've been there once with Brookfield saying they were going to bring them back only for it to fall through. Maybe I am just too cynical.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call the breeding programs "barely functioning" in the least. Are there issues with management? Yes. But we've seen significant strides in both producing calves (African) and moving animals into breeding situations (Asian) that give them both great boosts.
EEHV has been the greatest issue, but zoos are getting better not only at treating it but detecting it, and the number of lives saved is a testament to that (not to mention the new vaccine trial!).
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
Brookfield would have to be especially foolish to announce that they would be bringing back elephants only to back out (a fact they are 100% aware of). Elephants are an expensive and challenging species to commit to, but those factors don't mean that zoos won't follow through with their plans to aquire them.
We have seen facilities in the past make similar announcements, and those facilities have stellar exhibits today. Unless some serious new legislation is passed, we will continue to see zoos like Brookfield pop up that will decide elephants are worth the investment (just as we have for the past few decades). Despite the expense, they're an instantly popular animal that draws in guests.
There is some hope against the EEHV as the Houston Zoo Elephants are receiving the first-ever dose of an mRNA vaccine created by virologists at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) to prevent the deadly elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (EEHV) 1A—a devastating viral disease in Asian elephants worldwide.
Houston Zoo Elephant Receives First Ever mRNA EEHV Vaccine, The Houston Zoo
Houston Zoo Elephant Receives First Ever mRNA EEHV Vaccine, The Houston Zoo
I think there's about a 50/50 chance of either a very successful program, or a phase out, imo.
While there's been a few years now of increased birth rates, there will be a long-term need for more transfers, shorter interbirth intervals, etc., that I don't know yet if we'll see. Plus, we'll need a drastic increase in the number of males breeding- especially amongst Africans.
That said, I think the more likely reasons for a phase out would either be bowing to public pressure or government regulations. While currently I don't think the majority of the public are against elephant captivity, I'm not sure how much longer that'll be the case. AZA zoos need to be very careful as to not have any unfortunate incidents to turn the public perception away from elephants.
Furthermore, while I don't find a nation-wide ban likely, it wouldn't surprise me if certain states or cities moved to ban high-profile species, especially elephants and cetaceans, from zoos. This already occurred in San Francisco, but where else could it happen? I genuinely think it's only a matter of time before Los Angeles Zoo is forced out of elephants due to public pressure, but what other cities or states might follow suit? Again, all it takes is one instance of bad press for legislation to sweep through nationwide.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
This has been rehashed over and over on Zoochat, but I'm not sure that elephants in captivity will be regarded in a similar route to what happened with Orcas. While there are arguable similarities between the animals, ultimately their needs are very different and the typical exhibit quality of the two animals is night and day. Orca exhibits typically are on the smaller side, lack enrichment and hardly ever resemble anything more than a deep swimming pool, and furthermore those standards haven't really evolved that much since their conception. Blue World was the closest we ever got and it unfortunately came too late. Elephant exhibits however are striving towards larger spaces, increased enrichment and more natural social groupings. The difference between a habitat build in 2024 versus even 2014 is stunning and those standards continue to evolve for the better.
ARAs are a vocal minority, and the primary reason why they managed to suceed in Orca captivity bans is because of several premature animal deaths, several safety issues that resulted in human injury/fatality and the genuinely arguable quality of living space for these animals.
They have a lot less of a leg to stand on regarding elephants when their easiest/most convincing targets are zoos already planning on phasing out their elephants or are planning on improving their exhibits. General public outlook is greatly unlikely to change as well, as regular zoogoers will see a zoo improving an elephant exhibit/a large multigenerational herd and only see the positive. It's a lot easier to sow distrust between guests and a facility when said facility is doing borderline nothing to improve standards of care, and this is simply not the case with elephants. San Francisco's situation occured because of a similar argument like with the orcas: an arguable exhibit/living space quality.
I share similar worries regarding the breeding program (especially the amount of breeding african bulls), but it's also important to keep in mind that we never thought we'd see this many births, and yet we have seen multiple remarkably successul breeding years in a row. Similarly, the SSP is pushing for cows to breed as soon as they're able, a factor we are seeing within the Asian elephant population and presumably Africans as well once we see cow calves come of age (we already have a cow that is confirmed begin being bred at 8 yrs old next year). While these aren't guarantees of course, improvements are being made consistently and I think either program is as doomed as zoochatters make it out to be.
Last edited:
I definitely agree they have less room to stand on...yet. Which is why I said:
All it'll take is one incident to move some portion of the public away from elephants in zoos. If, god forbids, there's an elephant escape at a zoo that causes problems, or there's a series of unfortunate deaths, then the public perception of elephants could easily change. There's already heightened public scrutiny on elephants than there are on any other non-cetacean species, including our closest relatives the apes. There's a reason some ARA groups are more likely to go after good zoos with elephants than they are to go after legitimately awful roadside zoos which lack the most charismatic of megafauna.
And San Francisco didn't occur in a vacuum... a similar law passed in Toronto as well. And just because we view the situation at say, Los Angeles Zoo, acceptable, doesn't mean that the city council will. There's a legitimate risk of city and state government officials listening to ARA groups and putting pressure on zoos to stop housing high-profile species and especially elephants.
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
We've seen several instances of incidents with elephants that have resulted in zero lasting repercussions. Viola escaping and running amok didn't cause a major public outcry. An elephant killing a keeper at the Dickerson Park zoo didn't end the zoo's program. Point being, it's not only remarkably unlikely for something as big as an escape to occur at any modern zoo, but these things are often not taken as seriously as we may expect. The general public is not easily swayed and I'm doubtful they'd be in this aspect. Especially in regards to elephants, a charismatic, iconic species that both adults and children adore.
ARAs will always be loud, but they are not the looming threats you're making them out to be. Many of their points lack any actual scientific proof and the law has sided with zoos repeatedly when they manage to bring the occasional case to court. Their points continously loose validity as exhibits and conditions improve and thus far the law has reflected that.
Of course there is always a potential risk of lawmakers being influenced by them, but as far as US law goes those cases have been few and far between. I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that it's a "50/50" shot on whether elephants in captivity will be legally phased out when lawmakers can and have used the improving standards as a solid way to deny ARAs what they want.
I appreciate your insight. I personally do not expect federal lawmakers to approach this issue and if they do I'm sure they will be as ineffective as they always have been for the issues of our concern - look at the useless, failed efforts to regulate big cats, for example. There are also major efforts to undermine the ability of executive agencies to make their own decisions which will probably cause further issues.
I just don't think the costs of maintaining a captive population of elephants make much sense if the number of holders here continues to decline or stabilizes without change, especially if the standards happen too increase past what is currently acceptable and new investments become needed. They are one of the most demanding species in terms of standards and I think eventually the cost of maintaining them will become prohibitive, leading to a phase-out.
I never heard of this. Seems asinine but I assume it's that Jane Goodall act
New York seems the next city to make such a law, given all the slander the NhRP has been flinging at them regarding Happy.
I want a new elephant exhibit for the Bronx Zoo but I do have to reconcile with the fact that such grifters are going to be a huge obstacle
There have been new Elephant Habitats this Year and Next Year to help with the Breeding exchange of Elephants too.
Examples: Cincinnati Zoo’s New Elephant Trek, Tulsa Zoo’s Elephant Expansion, and the San Diego Zoo Safari’s Park’s Reimagined Elephant Valley.
Examples: Cincinnati Zoo’s New Elephant Trek, Tulsa Zoo’s Elephant Expansion, and the San Diego Zoo Safari’s Park’s Reimagined Elephant Valley.
Elephant Breeding is still ongoing especially from Facilities that have bred Elephants before like mostly African Bush Elephants like Dallas Zoo and Fresno Chaffee Zoo is expecting a couple of Babies.
Fresno Chaffee Zoo shares ultrasound video of two baby elephants | abc30.com
Fresno Chaffee Zoo shares ultrasound video of two baby elephants | abc30.com
Frankie_number_1_fan
Well-Known Member
Dallas has a pregnant female currently? I don't recall an announcement.
100%. I think we honestly are doing pretty decent with the number of breeding holders and holders in general. We have to keep in mind that elephant breeding is a global effort, and that the US isn't operating completely alone in their program. Any current facilities with large, growing herds and well-made facilities are incredibly unlikely to phase out, and we will likely see a few current geriatric animal holders elect to rennovate and hold breeding herds like Tulsa and Cincinnati.
Anytime a case regarding Happy has made it to court, the law has sided with the zoo. Despite unideal living situations, it's evident that Happy is too old and has had too much of a complicated social life to ever make it ethical to shove her into a completely new situation. If Bronx would elect to build an entire new complex, then I'm sure the general public and NY law would welcome it with open arms. It would indeed be a complicated project, but I have little doubt that Bronx would make a fabulous exhibit.
The last time a law banning Elephants in captivity was passed in the US was 20 years ago. Not saying it will never happen again, but if those sentiments were shared by all lawmakers then we've seen multiple opportunities for similar bans to come up. US Lawmakers tend to be fairly fond of their local zoos, and regard ARAs as nuisances like most of us do. San Francisco feels like a unique case since iirc it's not a very well regarded zoo in the first place. Especially not 20 years ago with hideously outdated elephant standards in place at the time.
Last edited:
I think the Dallas mention was in reference to facilities that have bred them before.