Valli the Temple elephant

Johnny Morris. said:
Also if this elephant was only one when they acquired it, would it really be a good idea to take it out of it's own environment and place it in an alien environment? Could it cope with other elephants? What if it couldn't? Should it be moved elsewhere to live on it's own? If it does breed as you seem to suggest it should be allowed to, would it have the maternal instinct to raise a calf? Or should that calf be hand reared? If It's not being mistreated leave it where it is.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this position although I like most if not all of the people commenting on this I have not actually seen this animal or been able to make a direct judgement on her living conditions.


That said it should be noted that this animals situation is rather different from Anne as she was taken to this temple when she was one and has lived there for some 30 years and there appears to be no evidence that she has been mistreated (see comments below regard UK law on this matter). Psychological she probably doesn't know she is an elephant and has come to look upon people as her herd.

Under UK law she would be being held under license involving The Dangerous Wild Animals Act which would only be granted if her welfare including her accommodation were deemed appropriate as compared with a zoo. Anne situation was very different as circuses did not need either a Zoo Licence or Dangerous Wild Animal License which has always been a point of controversy for animal welfare groups. The only legal requirement needed to train and present animals in a circus was the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925.

However, in 2006 the UK government did introduce the Animal Welfare Act which covers the welfare of all animals in the UK. The major change being that owners of animals can be charged under this act by omission of care that is likely to cause suffering rather than the old legislation where cruelty had to be actually seen. The law being pro-active rather the re-active. It should be noted that this Act is still evolving and the issues of animals in circuses was an on-going subject for debate.

-
 
If there was any report of this animal being mistreated, then there would be no way that i would defend these people keeping THEIR elephant. But my view is it's been there since it was one year old. It doesn't know any other way of life, to take it out of it's environment, could do more harm than good. Would you take a dog out of it's environment, just because it hadn't seen another dog?
 
Johnny Morris. said:
If there was any report of this animal being mistreated, then there would be no way that i would defend these people keeping THEIR elephant. But my view is it's been there since it was one year old. It doesn't know any other way of life, to take it out of it's environment, could do more harm than good. Would you take a dog out of it's environment, just because it hadn't seen another dog?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has forgotten that the animal is private property of the temple.

Elephants are not domestic dogs, they haven't been bred as human companion animals. People are being selective about what needs they think this animal has in order to promote their own argument. There are many factors, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that reflect on the suitability of Skanda Vale as a home for this animal. Simply 'having been there since she was one year old' isn't going to cut it if she is kept on concrete for much or the year or shut inside a small barn for most of the winter (I'm not saying she is, I'm saying these are factors that would need to be considered before anyone would know how suitable her current home is).
 
Johnny Morris. said:
...But my view is it's been there since it was one year old. It doesn't know any other way of life, to take it out of it's environment, could do more harm than good. Would you take a dog out of it's environment, just because it hadn't seen another dog?
Click to expand...

There is a virtually unlimited amount of examples of elephants that are placed in new circumstances when it suits the people that own them. The recent move of a circus elephant to Longleat is an example, but its happening on a larger scale frequently in zoos over the last decade, as they upgrade their exhibits, change keepers and acquire new animals. My home zoo of Melbourne is an example - The zoos original cow is now living in a new exhibit, with new companions and has many new keepers, from those which she grew up with.

Was it wrong to make these changes for her? Are we to believe that because her old exhibit and decade or so of isolation form other cows was "all she had known" that she was probably better off staying in these conditions? I don't think anyone would argue the answer is "yes". Instead most would say that she is far more happier now living in a herd environment in a better exhibit.

You may not perceive this as a completely different life for this elephant because she is still owned by Melbourne and still living at Melbourne. But thats looking at it from a human perspective. From her perspective he life is radically different, from the life she had, until then, mostly known.

Why is it when it comes to the defence of those who are criticised for keeping animals in a particular way, the "its what they've always known" argument virtually always arises, yet when it suits another scenario, "change" is lauded as beneficial?

Asian elephants have a long history of association with humans. They have been trained, shipped around, forced to work, perform and stand in tiny concrete exhibits for decades. Whilst I wish not to argue that this has not been without negative incident and consequence, I do think it shows that they are a little tougher than a fish or bird, where moving an animal can often lead to more damage that the perceived potential benefits. Elephants are comparatively tough animals. And our current and historic treatment of them proves this.

Potentially, yes, there is a chance that this temple elephant may not get along with other animals. There is potential that she is unhappy being moved. But thats complete speculation. No more valid than speculation that she might be happier.

So the question is this: Are we comfortable with keeping elephants by themselves? The answer within the zoo industry and from the public seems to have been a consensus "Within reason, No."

Now this Temple elephant has no reason why she should be kept alone. She has never been tried or tested with other elephants. Its never been proven or disproven that she would be better off alone. Thus i think its fair to demand such. It fair for people to criticise the keeping of an elephant by itself without reason that relates directly to whats best for the animal. The only reasons why she should be kept there by herself relates to those who keep her their. They love her.

Since the public and scientific consensus is that generally speaking elephants are far happier with company, then the onus is on those wishing to keep her solitary to prove that in theirs is an exemplary case, not in my opinion, the other way round. The only way they can do that is if they prove she doesn't get along with any other elephants. And to do that, she needs to be moved.
 
peacock said:
There is a virtually unlimited amount of examples of elephants that are placed in new circumstances when it suits the people that own them. The recent move of a circus elephant to Longleat is an example, but its happening on a larger scale frequently in zoos over the last decade, as they upgrade their exhibits, change keepers and acquire new animals. My home zoo of Melbourne is an example - The zoos original cow is now living in a new exhibit, with new companions and has many new keepers, from those which she grew up with.

Was it wrong to make these changes for her? Are we to believe that because her old exhibit and decade or so of isolation form other cows was "all she had known" that she was probably better off staying in these conditions? I don't think anyone would argue the answer is "yes". Instead most would say that she is far more happier now living in a herd environment in a better exhibit.

You may not perceive this as a completely different life for this elephant because she is still owned by Melbourne and still living at Melbourne. But thats looking at it from a human perspective. From her perspective he life is radically different, from the life she had, until then, mostly known.

Why is it when it comes to the defence of those who are criticised for keeping animals in a particular way, the "its what they've always known" argument virtually always arises, yet when it suits another scenario, "change" is lauded as beneficial?

Asian elephants have a long history of association with humans. They have been trained, shipped around, forced to work, perform and stand in tiny concrete exhibits for decades. Whilst I wish not to argue that this has not been without negative incident and consequence, I do think it shows that they are a little tougher than a fish or bird, where moving an animal can often lead to more damage that the perceived potential benefits. Elephants are comparatively tough animals. And our current and historic treatment of them proves this.

Potentially, yes, there is a chance that this temple elephant may not get along with other animals. There is potential that she is unhappy being moved. But thats complete speculation. No more valid than speculation that she might be happier.

So the question is this: Are we comfortable with keeping elephants by themselves? The answer within the zoo industry and from the public seems to have been a consensus "Within reason, No."

Now this Temple elephant has no reason why she should be kept alone. She has never been tried or tested with other elephants. Its never been proven or disproven that she would be better off alone. Thus i think its fair to demand such. It fair for people to criticise the keeping of an elephant by itself without reason that relates directly to whats best for the animal. The only reasons why she should be kept there by herself relates to those who keep her their. They love her.

Since the public and scientific consensus is that generally speaking elephants are far happier with company, then the onus is on those wishing to keep her solitary to prove that in theirs is an exemplary case, not in my opinion, the other way round. The only way they can do that is if they prove she doesn't get along with any other elephants. And to do that, she needs to be moved.
Click to expand...

Whipsnade have an elephant that shakes it's head for no reason. They think it's because she was taken from her herd at a young age. Do that elephant a favour and try and liberate it, before you try and liberate this Elephant that as far as any of us knows, hasn't got any peculiarities about it.
 
Johnny Morris. said:
Whipsnade have an elephant that shakes it's head for no reason. They think it's because she was taken from her herd at a young age. Do that elephant a favour and try and liberate it, before you try and liberate this Elephant that as far as any of us knows, hasn't got any peculiarities about it.
Click to expand...

I'm real sorry that you had such a miserable day at Whipsnade Johnny. But this response adds absolutely nothing to the debate - other than that you don't really understand the arguments i put forth.
 
Johnny Morris. said:
Whipsnade have an elephant that shakes it's head for no reason. They think it's because she was taken from her herd at a young age. Do that elephant a favour and try and liberate it, before you try and liberate this Elephant that as far as any of us knows, hasn't got any peculiarities about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, Aziza does weave her head from time to time, she has done it all the time she has been in the care of the zoological society of London, apparently it is thought that it was caused by being shackled up for ling periods of time when in her country of origin before coming to London Zoo. I am sure this elephant does not require anyone to liberate her,she is living in good conditions and looked after by dedicated, loyal keepers.She has the company and companionship of other elephants including a bull giving her the opportunity to mate and have her own calves.I don't think the word liberate is appropriate when we discuss the future of Valli the temple elephant,re homing, re locating yes,we are after all zoo enthusiasts not members of A.L.F.
 
TARZAN said:
...we are after all zoo enthusiasts not members of A.L.F.
Click to expand...

And this is what troubles me most with this forum. Its as if most of its members see zoo enthusiasm as completely polarised from animal welfare advocation.

can you not care about want for higher standards of animal welfare and like zoos?
 
Zoo enthusiasm and animal welfare can be totally compatible.

Zoo enthusiasm/animal welfare is rarely compatible with animal "rights".
 
Re the weaving elephant: I was reading one of Temple Grandin's books recently and it touched on stereotypical behaviors. Interestingly if you have two animals in the same awful enclosures and just one of them is showing stereotypes, then it's been found that the animal with stereotypes will have lower levels of stress hormones. The reason being that the stereotypes are coping strategies which help the animal deal with it's situation. Therefore if you are rescuing animals from bad conditions, it's really the ones without stereotypes that need to go first. However the presence of stereotypes can still be an indicator of bad conditions.

This also explains why the Whipsnade elephant is still weaving. Stereotypes are rewarding activities in some way, so once the animal has the habit, they may continue even if they've been removed from bad conditions.

Whipsnade may well be right in thinking the habit is due to the elephant being in bad conditions in the past, and nothing to do with where she is now. Exactly what would you rescue her from? And to where?
 
RowanGreen said:
This also explains why the Whipsnade elephant is still weaving. Stereotypes are rewarding activities in some way, so once the animal has the habit, they may continue even if they've been removed from bad conditions.
Click to expand...

There is quite a bit of research into stereotypical behaviour. Alison Ames (now Alison Cronin) did some interesting work when she research bears for IFAW some years ago. She made the very valid point you are making that these behaviours can be the result of previous living conditions which sometime do not disappear when the animal is moved.

You can in some cases actually 'train out' these behaviours if they continue to be displayed after the animal has been moved to more suitable accommodation. Sea World did some work on this with a polar bear they received for a new exhibit that had been living an old style bear pit in a zoo for many years and had developed pacing behaviour.
 
John Dineley said:
There is quite a bit of research into stereotypical behaviour. Alison Ames (now Alison Cronin) did some interesting work when she research bears for IFAW some years ago. She made the very valid point you are making that these behaviours can be the result of previous living conditions which sometime do not disappear when the animal is moved.

You can in some cases actually 'train out' these behaviours if they continue to be displayed after the animal has been moved to more suitable accommodation. Sea World did some work on this with a polar bear they received for a new exhibit that had been living an old style bear pit in a zoo for many years and had developed pacing behaviour.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the case of Lanka the Asian sloth bear at London Zoo be a good example of this? She continued to display signs of stereotypical behaviour after coming to live on the refurbished Mappin Terraces, her previous home apparently was not exactly ideal.
 
This is the second lengthy debate regarding animals inparticular elephants kept as solitary animals when they are a herd animal. lots of opinion has beeen voived and yet we never debate animals that would solitary mainly solitary animals being put into enclosures displays as pairs. Just food for thought.
 
Steve Robinson said:
Zoo enthusiasm and animal welfare can be totally compatible.

Zoo enthusiasm/animal welfare is rarely compatible with animal "rights".
Click to expand...

Well said.



zoofari said:
This is the second lengthy debate regarding animals inparticular elephants kept as solitary animals when they are a herd animal. lots of opinion has beeen voived and yet we never debate animals that would solitary mainly solitary animals being put into enclosures displays as pairs. Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting point. Tigers or leopards kept in pairs are potentially just as 'unnatural' as elephants kept singly. Is it possible for excessive social stimulation to be stressful, I wonder?
 
zoofari said:
and yet we never debate animals that would solitary mainly solitary animals being put into enclosures displays as pairs. Just food for thought.
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting observation and its true the focus is always on 'company' for social animals, not 'non-company' for non-social ones.

Someone(yourself?) might want to start a thread in the General Forum on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top