North American Asian Elephant Population 2022

[ZCChip]

@Neil chace you have valid points. We do have at least one or two A/R people in here commenting occasionally. I doubt we will hear any suggestions from them.

Some things to remember: zoos are often on a budget and they are always limited by land. The best enrichment would be through building and having families. Baby elephants bring enrichment and fulfillment to herds. Other than that, a quality exhibit with plenty of room to move about and exercise as they are healthier by being mobile just like us. But they do not need as much space A/R says because in the wild they travel further for food.

the A/R hates the conception of having families and breeding. Why do they go so far with the herpes?

The common ground I would see is bringing enrichment in the elephant lives. Do you think they would be able to do that? I know zoos would appreciate the donations with money and toys, sand, and whatnot.

 

[ZCChip]

Here is an example. Those are African elephants in Wuppertal. I already posted this in the UK African thread but I wanted to make an example to my post above. Watch their interactions and enrichment with the banana leaves.

Bananenblätter für die Elefanten Elefanten sind reine Pflanzenfresser und ernähren sich hauptsächlich von Gräsern, Wasserpflanzen, Früchten, Blättern,... | By Grüner Zoo Wuppertal | Facebook

 

[15399]

The common ground I would see is bringing enrichment in the elephant lives. Do you think they would be able to do that? I know zoos would appreciate the donations with money and toys, sand, and whatnot.

If the Animal Legal Defense Fund can spend thousands of dollars on suing the Bronx Zoo, then they would be able to purchase and/or build some long-lasting high-quality elephant enrichment items. Enrichment is something often brought up since it is both essential to high welfare, but also relatively easy for an organization to do. While it may be more expensive to make stuff "elephant-proof", enrichment drives/service building enrichment items can often be done either for free (w/ recycled objects, etc.) or relatively cheap. One common trend nowadays is fire hose enrichment. If these ARAs are dedicated to improving the lives of animals, talk to some fire departments, get some firehoses, and spend a weekend running a community service event cleaning them and turning them into usable enrichment items!

I'm sure there are other ways, too, that the two groups can agree upon. A major issue for ARAs at the moment seems to be social structure, for instance. A lot of zoos clearly agree with this, as evidenced by the work being done by Houston and others having larger exhibits for large, natural herds of elephants. Of course, this is not an easy shift to make, but zoos are getting to the point where the social structure of elephants in captivity is much closer to their natural social structure than it's ever been before. EEHV is another great one- it's clear these ARAs criticize zoos that have lost young elephants to EEHV, why not help join zoos in an effort to fight this disease? If improving the lives of elephants is truly a priority for them, then it should be a no-brainer to invest money or resources into efforts to prevent or cure this horrible disease. I'm sure I could think of others as well, but the real point is that despite having different approaches and different views on some issues, there is a lot more in common between zoo people and ARAs, even if neither side is fully willing to admit it.

 

[15399]

A/R targeting Billy instead of the cows is odd. Like Happy at Bronyx and ignoring Patty and Maxine (in the past, now only one other elephant now).

I wouldn't call it odd for them to focus on the one elephant. And frankly, most animal welfare experts would agree also that this isn't odd. The general consensus in animal welfare is that welfare occurs on the individual level. There is no "this is the right way to elephant" and "this is the right way to polar bear", etc. As such, what's best for Billy may or may not be what's best for any of the cows at Los Angeles, and vice versa. Granted, it's a little ironic on their part for ARAs to focus on individuals when advocating for a uniform welfare standard for the species (especially in regards to social behavior), but the idea still stands that it's important to look at things individually, and improving the welfare of individuals, not a uniformed approach. Furthermore, while not related to welfare, there would be many more reasons why this is from a communications/marketing perspective, as people respond better to "help Happy", "Happy is sad", "Happy", than a generic "the Bronx Zoo elephants", sure you could call that anthropomorphizing, or you could just call it effective messaging for what their goal as an organization is. In the legal system, this becomes even more common, as oftentimes you see class-action lawsuits with one "face case", whose name is on everything despite not being the only person that's being fought for. Likewise, when these groups are bringing law suits for "Happy", she could very well just be the face case for a decision that will effect Patty as well.

 

[StoppableSan]

I would not say that none of them care. Sure, some of the leaders may feel this way, but I do think a lot of them truly care about animals, but are misinformed or ignorant, basing their opinion on emotional perceptions or anthropomorphizing animals, and being manipulated/persuaded by the PETAs of the world. As zoo people, it is important in my opinion to not blast these people as not caring/self-righteous/egomaniacs/etc., as it's impossible to have legitimate discourse with someone if you refuse to listen and blow them off. This applies to Animal Rights Activists as well, just in reverse. Keep in mind that in essence, while the two groups may differ in opinions or approaches, both reputable zoos and ARAs both have some of the same ideals, wanting to make the lives of animals better. If these two groups could actually debate these issues, utilize scientific knowledge to truly understand what's best for these animals, and allow for the free-flow of ideas, there's a good chance that we'd make more progress, both in changing the minds of some followers of these groups and in improving the lives of animals. Think about how much money has been spent in court fees, etc. over Happy the Elephant, from both sides. How much good could be done if, instead of having costly battles over the elephants, WCS and ALDF were willing to discuss how to best help improve the welfare of their elephants. This would require ALDF to accept some facts so far they've been unwilling to (especially about Happy's personal history, unwillingness to get along with other elephants), but this would also require the zoo to acknowledge that ALDF may have legitimate concerns as well, that can best be addressed by working together for a mutually agreeable solution. Perhaps this could've meant, like @StoppableSan mentioned an enrichment drive, or it could mean money for exhibit improvements, or looking into the feasibility of finding a companion for Patty after Maxine's death. If we treat ARAs as the enemy, we are not going to win, as it'd be a constant stream of court cases and deflecting the worst of whatever they try to throw next hoping it sticks. The way to win is to actually get our point across to the people, and allow for legitimate discourse, part of which requires zoos to acknowledge what we can be doing better, and working to find ways to create mutually agreeable solutions. Love it or hate it, the Big Cat Public Safety Act was an example of this, a bill that was able to be passed attempting to improve the lives of animals when both groups worked together. I'm certain there are other places that, working together, the AZA and ARAs could find common ground. Perhaps for starters increasing the welfare standards under the AWA. Under the AWA it's technically considered legal/decent enough husbandry for me to keep six gorillas in my college dorm room. Obviously, my room is not big enough for one gorilla, let alone six. If AZA and ARA groups wanted to work together, rather than fighting between each other, we could see some genuine improvement on the legal standards for animal welfare.

You know what? That's actually a compelling argument - all this time I said what I said mainly out of frustration, rather than considering the fact that maybe ARAs actually do have the animals' best interests in mind. Actually, I'm compelled to start a GoFundMe/enrichment drive myself as a way of walking the walk rather than talking the talk. Only thing now is to figure out the best approach for doing so...