I work in a zoo, and find this post troubing.

Please do not use elephants as the only indicator species in zoos.  Most species can, and do, live well past normal wild lifespans in captivity.  Our biggest veterinary issues are geriatric things that animals would never encounter in the wild.

As someone in the field, I agree that not every zoo that has a certain species should be housing it, but most do what is best for the animal.  I have seen some very poor elephant exhibits, but most zoos are working to make the exhibits better, or move the animals.  One zoo that I know of that has had good success with african elephants, currently has a fairly small exhibit, but they walk the animals around the zoo before it opens to the public.  They are also building a huge off-site facility for them.  By just walking past the elephants, you would never know that.

Zoos have many purposes, breeding animals is not the only one.  We understand that most of the species we house will never be released back into the wild.  But if children never get to see an elephant (or penguin, or lion, or whatever) anywhere but on TV or in cartoons, they don't get that emotional connection that makes them want to do something about that animal in the wild.

I really like this quote, it is the aim of most good zoos:

In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught. Baba Dioum

teri December 13th, 2008 09:32:35 AM

The troubling part is no doubt this: "After all, we do know that zoos impact individual animals adversely."

I find it troubling to make this statement, too.

In no way do I intend to denigrate zoos or downplay their role in the survival of these animals as a species. But it does seem like a stretch to expect that individual animals would be better served in an artificial environment, no matter how many concessions are made to their welfare while there.

Of course some animals live longer through the protections they receive at zoos. But when they don't--as appears to be the case with elephants--does it not behove us to quantify the discrepancy and ask whether welfare issues are at the source?

Though many in the zoo industry are unhappy at these findings (perhaps because it implies that your care is somehow substandard--not that I would agree), I would urge you to look at the bigger picture. Without studies like this, how can you even begin to address the improvement of the welfare of animals under your care?

Thanks for your work, Teri.

Dr. Patty Khuly December 13th, 2008 10:48:24 AM

This issue is a complex one and there are no easy answers.

Captive management of elephant varies vastly from facility to facility. The other captive problem is that these animals take years to show issues that may have come up from poor conditions or handling.

Today people want to live in an ideal world but habitat destruction and problems within the countries of orgin are vastly complex...not to mention the complexity of working with different governments and non-government organizations.

Years ago group management of zoo elephants was proposed (15 and perhaps longer that I know of) but because of gate attraction (animals that bring people in), finances, and red tape this has been slow to change.

Private collections, zoos, elephant rights groups, and other parties whose interests are elephants still don't work together.

Plus, the zoo keeping profession has been slowly morphing from that of the janitorial model to that of the professional one. Management, facilities, and sophistication vary greatly from country to country and zoo to zoo.

There is no doubt that management practices have to change--and they have done so--but it is a slow , slow process.

I remember when I was introducing training as a way of mental stimulation and occupation in the early and mid-1980s--I was considered a heretic--but today environmental enrichment and training is a standard practice in most progressive institutions.

There is not a simple answer to this issue. Captive animals will not adapt back into the wild as most people want to believe without intensive rehabilitation done by savvy personnel.

Sadly, I doubt we will save the elephants and will lose many, many species  in our lifetime because we, as humans, have done so much damage to the environment and to the populations of wild animals that the populations numbers are to small to save them now.

People did not really care about animals until zoos and other captive facilities brought them close up and personal. The world has changed so that the pendulum has swung to the other side.

I remember one child who came up to me after an elephant show to ask me about  the elephant in my charge. The elephant was given the day off but she wanted to know if she was okay and her love for this one elephant expanded to the whole species.

Caring for one animal known personally often sparks care for an entire species--and even an entire ecosystem. That is the upside from close encounters of the wild kind.

I have written a few posts regarding elephants and management but you might find the following interesting:

Elephant Management in the United States (Seven Parts)

Elephant Attacks: New Neurobiological Theory

Ark Lady December 13th, 2008 12:50:26 PM

I attended a lecture given by Dr. Jane Goodall in the mid-90's. Someone asked her how she felt about chimpanzees kept in zoos. She talked about the many dangers in the wild, about how there is no medical care when an animal is sick or injured. She said that if she were a chimpanzee offered a choice between living in the wild and living in a zoo with an appropriate environment, family groupings, enrichment, etc., she knew which one she would choose.

Living in the wild is not idyllic. Few wild animals die peacefullly of old age. Elephants are better off than many species, having no natural predators (other than man), but they are still subject to drought, famine, poaching and hunting. Prey species are always at risk of being eaten, predators of being injured by their prey, or starving if unable to find and catch prey, something even a minor injury could interfere with. A large percentage of the young of most species don't survive to adulthood. A large percentage of adults don't survive to old age.

There are still bad zoos, and bad enclosures for some animals even in better zoos, but I don't think it's a black and white situation. I think life for many, maybe even most, animals in a good zoo can be better than life for those animals in the wild. The key is the right environment, proper family groupings, and enrichment. Elephants may be the exception to the rule rather than showing that zoos are a bad environment for wild animals.

Mary Straus December 13th, 2008 01:23:18 PM

"...we, as humans, have done so much damage to the environment and to the populations of wild animals that the populations numbers are to small to save them now." (from Ark Lady's post)

Population numbers are the issue, specifically the number of humans and their geographic occurance. I realize this is a touchy subject, but if we could all agree - and mean it - that it would be better for every living thing on the planet if there were a way to stabilize our population. Anyone who's ever done a fruit fly/limited space & food study (x = number of flies, y = finite habitat space, z = food supply) has this issue hammered home to them, but because it's just flies, it's not a big deal. Well, yes it is, and even though it only took a small number of people to kill of many species (dodo, Steller sea cow, thylacine, passenger pigeon, need I go on?), with the global environment changing (which yes, it's a natural process, but it's on steroids with human assistance), zoos cannot solve the problem. What they can do is bankroll genetics in the hope that maybe, just maybe, humans will stop taking, taking, taking from the finite resources available to all species as if humans were the only species using them.

That being said, it does behoove zoos to make the limited environments they can provide be the very best they can for the species that can best utilize them. There are species that we can protect from going extinct while changes are made in their natural habitat to allow them to be reintroduced. This isn't an option for every species, and it admittedly seems to only be working in the US. Canada, and some places in western Europe, but it can be done. This isn't the right forum to go into any other issues such as the worldview of these countries versus the rest of the world, but that is another reason why zoos are valuable. As Ark Lady pointed out: "People did not really care about animals until zoos and other captive facilities brought them close up and personal." ... "Caring for one animal known personally often sparks care for an entire species--and even an entire ecosystem. That is the upside from close encounters of the wild kind."

It is in the places where the numbers of people are highest (and their living conditions are often rather tough), that the connections to nature are weakest. As Terri (through Baba Dioum) said, "In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught." (Baba Dioum) People can't be taught about the animals (and their habitat) until they are exposed to them in the first place, and that happens at a zoo. The giant problem in even justifying a zoo in a poorer country with human population issues is precisely because of the population issues. If they were able to stabilize and even lower their population, their living conditions could improve, their educational and economic conditions improve, and their worldview can shift to encompass the other species in their environment, and then maybe zoos won't be needed.

KateH December 13th, 2008 05:54:34 PM

Wow-this is a touchier subject than I expected it to be. Kudos to the deep thinkers. Other perspectives?

Dr. Patty Khuly December 14th, 2008 10:30:14 AM

I don't think the overpopulation issue is limited to third world countries - and the destruction of habitat over there has just as much to do with OUR consumerism as it does with their need to eat and survive.  After all, they're clearcutting their forests to farm vegetables and fruits so that WE can get bananas in february.

Personally, the animals in our family don't breed and neither do we.  ;)  There are more than enough people in this world, and while we may adopt one day (what can I say, a rescuer to the end), I can see no justification for procreating given the state of the earth.

This is my personal opinion of course - although I would like to add that I'm getting a bit tired of all these discovery and life network shows glorifying these families with 8-12 children.  There's going to come a time when someone is going to have to step in and set a limit... as much as I disagree with government intervention in almost all things, the planet can only support so many life forms, and given that we are the greediest, most wasteful, most polluting of all - who are we to control deer/wolf/grouse/dog/cat populations and yet breed ourselves to extinction?

Sorry... got a bit off topic there.  :OP

In regards to the elephant life span, I'd be interested to know how exactly they took into account all of the elephants who died at the hands of poachers.  Or a study on tigers or gorillas or  cheetahs or chimps or pandas... or the black-footed ferret who was all but extinct until a few zoos stepped in and participated in a mass breeding program and are now on the road to recovery.

As an animal welfare activist, I have mixed feelings about zoos.  For example, we happily visit the Toronto Zoo three times a year... and picket Marineland  and two other local zoos 4 times a year.  Such a study is difficult to quantify because there's no way they could possibly take into account EVERY zoo in the US, and there's no way of assuring that the sample section of zoos was a fair representation of the zoos available.  I haven't read the report - do they state which zoos were compared?  To really give an accurate finding, I think they should have studied the top zoos - the ones leading the way for the others who haven't caught up yet.  Progress, as stated earlier, is slow, but it is there (with the exception of roadside and private zoos who for the most part should be deemed illegal, save for registered sanctuaries approved by ZooCheck).

But, after all... that's just my two cents.

Kim December 14th, 2008 11:27:48 PM

Kim: I can't remember how many zoos but more than 200 were included--all were European and a couple in Israel participated. The control elephants in the wild were living on preserves--no poaching, presumably.

The issue with elephant death is reportedly the heavy perinatal death toll and deaths after transport among females (it takes them four years before their risk of death after transport drops). Other factors are present, though, which this study is not purporting to address in any sort of quantitatve manner. They were simply included in the discussion following the results section of the study.

If anyone wants to read the study you need to subscribe to Science online or buy the issue.

Dr. Patty Khuly December 15th, 2008 08:46:32 AM

he first point I would make is that the report did not fully explain the basis of the analysis. Given that the three data sets (reserve, logging camp, zoo) use radically different data collection methods--even zoo have varied greated between sites and across time and between countries). So the odds are that arithmetic mean values withou a variance measure are a simplistic expression at best--albeit of a differential I believe is real. (i.e. How closely to logging camps monitor infants which are free roaming and not tame--and do they always report their deaths?) That said elephants are a very hot topic on many levels. The North American population is aging and not self-sustaining. Although great progress is being made eventually it will probably come down to needing new imports if we are to continue to have elephants here. And having elephants here is a big part of motivating contributions that support those precious reserves that protect free roaming elephants.

emily December 15th, 2008 10:41:10 AM

I'd think you'd need to control for the variation in captive conditions for this study to tell you much about elephants in captivity under modern husbandry practices.  Some of the old timers were kept in lousy conditions, fed poorly, hit by cars, did hard labor, or were kept in solitary confinement for a good portion of their lives.  Not to mention, they were often captured from the wild and raised as "orphans" on what was most probably not the most nutritional formulas/ or diets.  These types of captive conditions would also shorten the lifespans of humans.  (Sedentary lifestyle, crappy diet, solitary confinement, stress, being an badly cared for orphan.)

I like the discussion of the record keeping.  Forty years ago, animals got swapped around by animal dealers, and ages were estimated.

Also, people are a significant source of shortening wild animal's lives now.  Did this paper discount the effect of poaching on wild animal lifespans?  Seriously?  (I could only get part of the radio show to play.)

compcat December 15th, 2008 03:09:22 PM

Gary Winnick

Gary Winnick February 19th, 2009 01:15:15 AM

دردشة

منتديات

يوتيوب

fdd June 26th, 2009 08:00:38 PM

Official abercrombie and fitch Store for all tees, caps, hoodies, bags, abercrombie clothes and much more!

DIDI August 5th, 2009 08:46:08 PM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.

AF September 16th, 2009 08:38:51 PM