Protected and free contact of captive elephant - EAZA, AZA, CAZA

[Deer Forest]

Hi friends, I am from China. In China we have limited sources of information from western countries, and I think people in western countries have limited sources of information from China as well.

Now I am working on researches about China captive elephant population support by CAZA and we also get cooperation with some non-CAZA institutions.

Then let's go for the topic. Till 2017 EAZA still claimed protected and free contact both have advantages and disadvantages. Does this change now? While AZA has banned free contact since 2014. Do all AZA members really follow this AZA standard.

CAZA is formulating their won standard. They may modell on AZA to ban free contact. I would like to discuss is this really reasonable?

 

[Echobeast]

Do all AZA members really follow this AZA standard.

Yes and famously the Pittsburgh Zoo voluntarily left the AZA in order to stay free contact. Only in extreme circumstances may an institution go full free contact. The “ban” also doesn’t include procedures where the elephant is restrained in some way such as shackles.

 

[Daktari JG]

Protected contact requires more facilities, which is a I guess somewhat limiting factor.
Protected contact really is the way to go. Much safer for the staff , more humane for the elephants

 

[Deer Forest]

The “ban” also doesn’t include procedures where the elephant is restrained in some way such as shackles.

Thank you. Then to be specifically, if an elephant was restrained by shackles, but staff stand very closely to the elephant to conduct treatment or something. Is this called “protected contact”? In this case the staff cannot flee either if the elephant attacks.

 

[Deer Forest]

Well I think this mean AZA do accept free contact for the specific purpose of required. However, protected and free contact need different training methods. If an elephant had only received the training for protected contact, how would the free contact be possible when "specific purpose of required" came (sudden injury for example)

 

[Buldeo]

Protected contact requires more facilities, which is a I guess somewhat limiting factor.
Protected contact really is the way to go. Much safer for the staff , more humane for the elephants

Eh, I'm not against protected contact by any means, but I've never been convinced that free contact with elephants was/is bad. It continues to foster the idea that an elephant is a delicate piece of china.

 

[tigris115]

Aren't some elephants super used to free contact? If that's the scenario, how do you change?

 

[Jurek7]

Till 2017 EAZA still claimed protected and free contact both have advantages and disadvantages. Does this change now?

EAZA Elephant group currently tries to force all members to switch to protected contact by claiming that all zoos should follow the same type of contact because of moving animals between zoos.

The only real reason of switching to protected contacts in cow elephants (mature bulls are different matter as they are aggressive) is the cost of insurance and bad publicity of accidents of elephant keepers.

But why in China to look at Europe or North America? Nearby South Asia maintains huge majority of elephants in human care, has much better breeding record than the West, about 3000 years of experience managing elephants and uses only free contact.

 

[Daktari JG]

No zoo can hope to replicate the mahout system of SE Asia. Mahouts bind with their elephants from a very early age that lasts a lifetime (either the mahout or the elephant). Even then
google "mahout killed by elephant" and you will find no shortage of entries. Free contact pretty much always involved the beating of elephants -not constantly mind you , but pretty much inevitably at times. Personally I don't think that was so bad but obviously that is a point that the
extremists use -and why have to deal with that. With protected contact - it is much easier to
change personnel and safer. And now particularly with the recent ban of importing elephants (which I think there are ways around that -but that's another issue) its best that all zoos world wide are on the same page in dealing with the captive elephant population.

 

[Deer Forest]

EAZA Elephant group currently tries to force all members to switch to protected contact by claiming that all zoos should follow the same type of contact because of moving animals between zoos.

It seems that elephant borns in AZA was few recent years, but many in EAZA. If the mother elephant and newborn calf can do it well by themselves, there will be no need for human help and protected contact will be enough, which is fine and every one hopes so. However, was there any breeding events actually required free contact?

 

[Jurek7]

No zoo can hope to replicate the mahout system of SE Asia.

Its existence invalidates the claim that free contact is bad for elephants.

It is fundamentally similar to contact with other domestic animals as dogs and horses. A well kept dog is better than a dog kept in a shelter with little human contact.

Free contact pretty much always involved the beating of elephants

A source of this claim?

No zoo can hope to replicate the mahout system of SE Asia.

Its existence invalidates the claim that free contact is bad for elephants.

It is fundamentally similar to contact with other domestic animals as dogs and horses. A well kept dog is better than a dog kept in a shelter with little human contact.

Free contact pretty much always involved the beating of elephants

A source of this claim? I will put it this way - suppose elephants in free contact are 'always' abused. So what prevents a working elephant from turning and killing a mahout 30-40 times lighter than itself?

particularly with the recent ban of importing elephants

There is no reason to base a long-time decision worldwide on a recent even specific to the U.S. Especially that Asian elephants imported in recent decades were working elephants kept in free contact.

However, was there any breeding events actually required free contact?

Very many cases. When there are birth complications or a calf has problems, which is regular, there is little a man can do in protected contact. Protected contact can be justified by abstract ideological "naturalness" but without hiding that this carries additional risk to health and life of actual elephants.

 

[Daktari JG]

A source of this claim?

I doubt you can find an experienced elephant keeper that would deny it.

A source of this claim? I will put it this way - suppose elephants in free contact are 'always' abused. So what prevents a working elephant from turning and killing a mahout 30-40 times lighter than itself?

The same thing that keeps a Rottweiler or pit bull from attacking its owner. Generally they love their master, even if they have previously been beaten (notice I did not say abused). Sometimes elephants get cranky and do things they normally would not do, just like humans. Sometimes conversely, elephants wait for their chance and then they take it.

 

[lintworm]

Its existence invalidates the claim that free contact is bad for elephants.

That doesn't make sense. The fact that industrial farming exists doesn't invalidate the claim that that is bad for the Pigs....

It is fundamentally similar to contact with other domestic animals as dogs and horses. A well kept dog is better than a dog kept in a shelter with little human contact.

There is a fundamental difference here and that is that both Horses and Dogs are domesticated and dogs in particular have been bred so that they get on with humans. Elephants haven't ever been properly domesticated, though they have been in close contact with humans for millenia in some cases.

Very many cases. When there are birth complications or a calf has problems, which is regular, there is little a man can do in protected contact.

That is also not true. With the birth complications possibly yes, but Artis and Chester to name some have been able to save a calf from dying from Herpes, while using protected contact. You are right that there are some plus sides, such as how the Elephants in Cottbus can be taken for a swim, but there is a fundamental, partly philosophical/ideological difference between the two. That is without mentioning that being an Elephant keeper in free contact is easily one of the most dangerous jobs in western countries.

The main difference might be a change of perception in general in how humans relate to nature. In large parts of the 20th century man was seen as standing above nature, being superior to it, and able to dominate and use what it wants. Free contact is a derivation from it, the Elephants do not need it, in proper zoos they have a perfectly fine social life with hierarchy that reflects the natural situation. In free contact the keeper - elephant relationship is different as the Elephants have to accept that a human is dominant. That they accept this and get along well with keepers doesn't mean it is the best practice.

In recent years the view of the relation between man and nature has become much more complicated with much research showing how much less unique humans are when compared to other intelligent species. It has also shown that humans cannot dominate nature at will. Research in recent decades has also given us immense knowledge on animal intelligence, emotions and their social lives. This has come with an understanding that zoos should as much as possible try to give animals the possibilities to live a life as close as possible to the wild situation. From that free contact is not a serious option and protected contact is a better option. It can never replicate the wild and target training is necessary to be able to keep up to date about the Elephant welfare.

 

[AmbikaFan]

There is probably no system that universally fits all circumstances. I watch with admiration how the Chester herd helps a new mom through pregnancy and throughout the reading of the calf. However, there are very few multi-generational herds like this in the US, and many first-time mom's have never seen a birth and don't always have the instincts to stimulate the calf to breathe or even remove the amniotic sac from its head. That's why so many zoos here would prefer to have pregnant mom's shackled and comfortable with vets in their space even before delivery, such as for rectal ultrasounds which are admittedly harder to do PC. Then too, calf birth and survival here are so much lower that human nervousness makes them want to be able to "control" the outcome more. In the 1993 birth of Kumai at NZP, first-time mom Shanthi had never seen a birth or a calf and, thinking that the newborn was some sudden danger, decided to step hard on the newborn's head. Eager, worried staff are anxious, if nothing else, to make sure a newborn is not stepped on.

The easy situations are the clearest. Columbus Zoo's Phoebe had many staff in her indoor enclosure during her pregnancy while she was shackled with one front and back leg. However, this isn't really an overall testament to its safety, because Phoebe was handled FC for many years and is comfortable with humans being in her space.

At the opposite extreme, there is really no advantage to handling a bull free contact. It keeps humans safer and eliminates any need for force for compliance, making a better animal/human relationship all around. Here, there no medical procedures for which sedation can't keep humans performing medical treatment safe.

I happen to be one of the biggest fans of Canada's American Lion Safari's huge (18-strong) herd of Asian elephants and their incredible multi-generational breeding success. This institution could probably not exist in the US, because all but the breeding male are FC, but that FC allows for magnificent experiences like meeting a neutered male after a performance and seeing 10-14 parade through the park from their enclosures to the huge lake twice a day, where one can witness moms and their daughters swimming and teaching youngsters to swim. I love this place and would hate not to have the chance to experience it, but a few months ago, an elephant giving rides unexpectedly attacked its keeper. I selfishly want to continue to see what is the closest thing to a real herd North America has and their behaviors, but even in this expertly-run place, there can be accidents.

Overall, PC has been a good thing for AZA institutions. There is no longer the need for force or threats to maintain a safe environment, creating a much happier relationship between animals and keepers. I suspect, however, it will take institutions here quite a while to trust in mom's delivering without medical and keeper presence to guard calves. Between dearth of breeding-age females, females who have not experienced a birth even by witnessing one, and crippling loss of calves to EEHV, calves are simply too precious here for everyone involved not to be nervous.