Swazi Elephants: U.S. Zoo vs. Death?

Swazi Elephants: Certain/Improbable Death or Prisoners/Guests? 

Well it's that time in the year where we return to the controversy of elephants in captivity. The issue on hand now? Swaziland. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, Swaziland is a small African country located in Southern Africa. How small? Think slightly larger than Connecticut. And it is home to the Hlane Royal National Park, home to many exotic wildlife including elephants. The problem on hand is that elephants are destructive and there is no room in the tiny, landlocked country for them if the country wants the more endangered rhinos to help. The solution? Two options: Cull the elephants or send them to U.S. zoos.

First of all, let me say that I am in no way criticizing zoos in general (at least the good ones). But I have to call utter BS on this. Elephants don't fare well in captivity (with a few notable exceptions) and their breeding rate is nowhere near a self-sustaining population in North America. Despite their controversial status, elephants remain the top draw for American zoos and with the shortage closing in on most major zoos, they must adapt by either closing their popular pachyderm exhibits (generally replacing them with rhinos) or step up their breeding. Neither option has been successful at this point so zoos must look elsewhere for their elephants. 

The perfect solution for their problem is Africa. Elephants are categorized into two species: Asian and African. However, under the Endangered Species Act, it is illegal to import Asian elephants. If you're able to sidestep all the bureaucratic red tape, you might actually be able to get your hands on some African elephants. The San Diego Zoo and Lowry Park Zoo spearheaded an effort that brought thirteen elephants into the United States in 2003. The herd was enormously helpful in stepping up breeding efforts (the San Diego Safari Park at it's peak was home to thirteen elephants), but the move remains controversial. 

This time, the effort is being led by Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, Wichita's Sedgwick County Zoo, and the Dallas Zoo to bring in eighteen elephants. The zoos and the government claim that the elephants (ages range from 6-25) will be culled (aka murdered for "good" reason) to make room for the rhinos. The choice is most likely untrue, designed to get the import permits signed. After all, who doesn't like a good rescue? However, I've perused most articles that ebulliently call for the elephants not to be subjected to the prisons in U.S. zoos. Besides the usual "zoos are awful for elephants" and "I hate zoos!", there wasn't much logical reason against the culling. One article vaguely explained that there were alternatives, but then stopped short of listing any viable options. National Geographic suggested birth control or South Africa as options. South Africa is already full to the brim with elephants and administering birth control in the field still doesn't solve the problem of the current elephants (it could be applied later so we wouldn't have to have this debate).

And now we come to the scenario that the elephants end up coming to the United States anyway despite the strong global opposition. Would it be that bad? While many zoo exhibits are insufficient for the cognitive and physical abilities of elephants, it's hard to paint a picture of loneliness, suffering, and pain when you look at the three zoo elephant exhibits. Dallas Zoo's Giants of the Savanna has five acres (and cost $32.5 million to build), Omaha's elephant exhibit is part of its $73 million renovation, and Wichita's Elephants of Zambezi Valley is the nation's third largest exhibit for zoo elephants at over five acres (and the world's largest elephant pool). While certainly life in captivity is not perfect, would it be that bad? With zoo technology at it's finest, they're not sticking the elephants behind bars in a concrete enclosure. They'll have families, free veterinary care, fresh food, and a safe home. Pardon me for saying this, but most people in the world don't have that luxury. It's not the perfect choice, but at this point, it's the best option if the elephants come to the United States. 

While many conservationists and field biologists are against the holding of elephants in captivity, zoos are evolving to meet those changing demands. Just recently bullhooks (tools historically used to beat captive elephants into submission) were banned and elephants required to be housed in social groups. As I keep on repeating, it's not a perfect system but it's getting better. I am not against the transfer of the elephants, but I feel that the motives of the zoos are not as pure as they portray themselves to be. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the zoos are just greedy businesses capitalizing on their best attractions. Or maybe zoos are the forefront of conservation and they're just receiving a lot of heat for trying to help the elephants. I'm not sure and I cannot state anything as fact if I don't have the real facts. Whatever the end for this, let us keep in mind that the welfare of the elephants should always remain our top priority. As long as the elephants are well cared for, I have no reason (other than ideological) to be against the transfer. 

Blue World: Sea World's Next Great Challenge

Sea World's Blue World Project May Prove To Be It's Greatest Challenge

I seem to write a lot about Sea World nowadays because it is the center of controversy over whether we are allowed to keep charismatic megafauna (elephants, marine mammals, gorillas, giraffes, etc.) or for that matter, any animal in captivity. Let me be clear on that I am not anti-Sea World. Sea World holds one of the largest zoological collections in the United States and they have done much more help than harm with marine species. However, with that, I do not agree with some of their killer whale practices (the size of their tanks for example). If you want to blast me for supporting watery prisons, go ahead, but do not deny that Sea World has done some good things in the zoological world. I support Sea World, but not for their killer whales, for the good they do rescuing marine animals and supporting conservation and research. 

First of all, let's talk about the Blue World Project. It's a humongous renovation of the killer whale habitats in all three Sea World parks which will involve the expansion of the tanks and some new technological advancements that can mimic the wild habitat of killer whales. It includes 1.5 acres of water (double the size), new immersive environments, and even an advanced feature that will allow killer whales to swim up a "current". Let's be frank in that humans will never be successful in recreating the wild. We can barely create suitable habitats for monkeys, let alone marine mammals who swim for miles each day. Does that mean we cannot hold marine mammals on ethical basis? Sea World seems to think so. While the Blue World Project is not a perfect option, wouldn't it be better for the killer whales to have bigger tanks rather than languish in their smaller, concrete "habitats"?

I, for one, would rather see the killer whales in larger habitats and actively swimming rather than their current homes. I first visited Sea World San Diego in 2007 and was disturbed on the swimming pool state of the killer whale homes. However, I don't blame Sea World for their troubles with killer whales. True ethical captivity of animals takes time. Humans have worked with elephants for centuries and we still have major problems of housing them ethically. Sea World pioneered the use of killer whales in captivity and it's surprising that the death count isn't higher considering they ripped them from the ocean at a young age (then again, the zoos of old around the world did the same with pretty much every other animal). How many zoos have let chimpanzees, lions, and hippos die in small, concrete enclosures? Sea World is no different from other zoological facility, but has received the brunt of the criticism due to it's enormous collection of the ocean's top predator.

Sea World's greatest challenge be the Blue World Project. The Blue World Project was meant to reinvent Sea World's image, but the fact that they want major renovations on the killer whale tanks means they admit that the killer whales are not living in an idealistically good habitat. The California Coastal Commission recently told Sea World San Diego that in order to build the Blue World Project, they would be forced to cease killer whale banning. Sea World is currently challenging the ban in court, citing that the Commission has no jurisdiction over captive killer whales. Animal activists and concerned citizens alike have pointed out that even if Sea World builds the Blue World, it will never be enough to house killer whales ethically. 

Sea World has faced serious problems over the past two years since the release of Blackfish. Their once strong attendance numbers have declined rapidly. In 2012, Sea World San Diego reported an annual attendance of 4.4 million. Two years later, the numbers barely eclipsed 3.8 million. Orlando has shown similar numbers, while San Antonio's numbers have not been released to the general public. In addition, Sea World's stock have stumped and many of its corporate partners have abandoned the once strong company. Discounts and a large marketing campaign have seemed to not make a dent in the growing number of people disgusted with Sea World. As you can see above, most don't agree that the Blue World Project will have any effect on the killer whales' welfare. I disagree. How can more space be a bad thing? If they HAVE to stay in captivity, more space is good, right? If they're not going anywhere, we only have one option: improve their current lifestyle as best we can. 

Sea World must evolve sooner or later. They cannot continue in their current state or be shut down. I can think of two likely scenarios, neither of which involves Sea World building the Blue World and then everyone flocking back to the parks. It just doesn't make sense. "Honey, guess what? Sea World built a bigger tank! Never mind all the nasty comments I posted on Twitter or the fact that I protested outside their theme park for ten hours. Let's take the kids and go!" Scenario #1: Sea World caves in to public pressure and sends its killer whales to open-water sanctuaries. That would take the public pressure off and help rebuild its reputation. Scenario #2: Sea World wins the fight against the California Coastal Commission and builds Blue World, while desperately trying to find another way to rebuild its tarnished reputation. This can also extend a third likely scenario to Sea World losing the fight against the California Coastal Commission and then either caving into public pressure and building the open-water sanctuaries or building the Blue World, effectively ending killer whales. Pretty much any scenario results in the loss of killer whales. The end of an era is nearly upon us. Sea World must realize this or be forever silenced. I understand they are fighting for long term survival. Activists already hate dolphins in captivity. But what about sharks? Sea lions? Otters? Marine animals are considered some of the hardest animals to care for in captivity. Sea World may go extinct if everyone suddenly decides it's not okay to house any marine animal in captivity, even rescued seals and sea lions. But for the short-term survival, giving up the killer whales would take immense public pressure off Sea World and ensure they can fight to live another day.

Author's Note: It has become clear that Sea World must change. Ringling Bros. have retired their circus elephants (technically the company will still retain control over their herd). Sea World has great potential to do good for zoological specimens. They are correct in the power of inspiration. Children who leave Sea World have a greater understanding of the marine world and the dwindling wild. Sea World has rescued thousands of marine animals and their zoo technology is the best in the world. Is anyone still complaining about Lolita who absolutely lives in a bathtub? No. As humans, we find it much easier to see the faults in companies than it is to see the potential. We should not see Sea World as the enemy. Like any other corporation, they want money, but the animal department (veterinarians, trainers, research scientists, educators, etc.) employed only want what's best for the animals. We need all the help we can get to combat the increasingly dwindling, polluted, dangerous wild that used to be the home of millions of creatures. Sea World is ready to help with their enormous resources, but it cannot do much if they're increasingly worried about their own survival. We only have fragments of biodiversity left and we must preserve what's left for the future. Can Sea World  hold back the tide? Only time will tell. 

AZA: The Governing body of zoological institutions

The Association of Zoos & Aquariums: Are they really the #1 conservation organization?

The Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) can be described as controversial at best. Founded in 1924, the organization was designed to create a higher standard of zoos and aquariums which is admirable, since it can be argued that the association created higher standards for zoos and forced them to evolve. Nowadays, with zoos becoming under constant pressure from animal rights groups and worried citizens alike, the AZA  has enacted tougher and tougher standards to keep up their fresh face. Let's dive into the world of the Association of Zoos & Aquariums: the governing body of all zoological institutions and who really calls all the shots of the zoo community. 

When the AZA started, it had a tough time getting off the ground. After a series of failed experiments of being affiliates of various park departments, the organization voted to become independent in 1972. But it picked up in steam in the 70's and 80's. Why? With the impact of nature documentaries, zoos suddenly wanted to simulate the "naturalistic" aspects of African savannas, Asian jungles, and South American rainforests to compete with the close-up beauty of those documentaries. The AZA took advantage of the craze to provide accreditation to the zoos that did it successfully. Accreditation is still incredibly important in American zoos now. Accreditation is handed to about two hundred different zoos, aquariums, safari parks, and theme parks around the United States (a few in Canada and Mexico). No circuses or roadside zoos are allowed. Most for-profit companies are turned away (Sea World is a notable exception). 

Accreditation is pretty much key in the zoo business. If you don't have accreditation, you can't qualify for all the cool programs and grants the AZA offers. Forget about charismatic megafauna like elephants, rhinos, or hippos if you're not in the AZA, they're pretty much all controlled by AZA-accredited facilities. Don't even think about red pandas, Chinese alligators, snow leopards, or whooping cranes. Endangered species in the United States are pretty much in the hands of the AZA, so your zoo's name would not be eligible for Przewalski's horses, gorillas, California condors, or any species designated vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. Think of AZA as a really cool fraternity with animals. If you're in, great. But if you're not, you're screwed. Take the Pittsburgh Zoo whose accreditation was pulled after they disagreed with the AZA's mandatory elephant management program. Without accreditation, Pittsburgh's sea turtle program is being shut down and it's $5,000 grant for an educational playground has also been cancelled. 

The AZA styles itself as the nation's largest conservation organization by combining nature with education, conservation, and science. And they've done wonderful things, donating around $160 million to various wildlife projects around the world. Their standards of animal management are among the highest in the world. To be honest, when you look at zoos in Europe or Asia, the complaints that many have about American zoos are minimal. The AZA holds classes, seminars, and summer camps for children. They are responsible for training hundreds of zoo professionals, including veterinarians, directors, curators, keepers, and educators. Thousands of scientific papers have been penned by the AZA and its allies. The AZA has turned the zoo into a "cool" scientific field where the smartest can gather over their love of animals. 

The dark side of the AZA? There's always a dark side. To be honest, the AZA is a bit like a clean-up crew. Whenever something bad happens in a zoo, their job is to cover it up. For instance, nothing galls the AZA more than an elephant death. As you might know, the two animals that animal rights groups love to capitalize on is killer whales and elephants. With the notable exception of Sea World, no one else in the AZA has killer whales (everyone gets really pissed off about killer whales). However, elephants are a different story. 

In 1989, more than half of the 147 zoos accredited by the AZA had elephants. Today, only one-third of the 224 accredited zoos have them. Zoos accredited by the group house around 300 elephants (both African and Asian), though the number on display is lower because some males are segregated for behavioral reasons and some animals are in sanctuaries that are generally not open to the public. Elephants are simply dying out in American zoos (the situation in Europe is apparently worse) and while zoos are investing millions of dollars to unlock the elephant reproduction secrets, it's clear that zoos are sometimes not the best home for elephants. The AZA has insisted that elephants are fine, but most do not make it past the age of fifty-five. However, the AZA has improved its elephant policies greatly. In 2011, they implemented rules that elephants could not be kept alone or in pairs and forced keepers to work with their elephants in a protected-contact method to keep both the elephant and the keeper safe. 

There is also the issue of "entertainment" with the AZA. However scientific the organization is, the main focus is still on entertainment for human guests. Zoos mainly focus on pleasing their guests before its animals which is why many exhibits are still designed to please human senses, rather than actually improve animal welfare. Rides, shows, and other forms of entertainment have been devised to keep visitors pouring in. Which is not to say that the AZA has been improving. With changing technology and a growing interest in wildlife (which means more money), zoos are now building exhibits that are beautiful, naturalistic, and in the best interest of animals. 

The AZA is not perfect. But its crimes against people have been far blown out of proportion. It's true that zoos cannot save all the species in the world. Success stories are thrown around: Przewalski's horses, Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarins, California condors. But what the AZA has failed to mention are the unsuccessful stories: both African and Asian elephants, hippos, polar bears, cheetahs. You can't fault them for shying away from the stories. They are dealing with life here. No one faults anyone when they can't find the cure for cancer. A lot of people treat animals like humans, but rag on zoos for being abusers. Zoos can't save all animals, but they can be valuable, tremendous resources in our battle to preserve wildlife in our ever-growing world. 

Wildlife Sanctuaries: The Blurred Line

The Blurred Line of what defines a Wildlife Sanctuary 

Wildlife sanctuaries have garnered a lot of media attention in the recent years. Seen as the pinnacle of care in the area of captive animals, they serve as homes for animals that are old, sick, injured, crazy, or just need a home. But there is a darker side to the wildlife sanctuaries in the United States. Many are not actually sanctuaries, but private zoos or menageries that use their collections to make money and exploit animals. Sure, there are relatively good sanctuaries in the U.S., mot notably the PAWS Sanctuary, Big Cat Rescue, and Center of Great Apes. But these few "good" sanctuaries are bursting to capacity and the need for sanctuaries is ever increasing. This blog post will attempt to make clear the blurred line of what defines an animal sanctuary. 

What is an animal sanctuary? Most define an animal sanctuary as a facility where animals are brought to live and protected for the rest of their lives. "True" sanctuaries do not breed, sell, buy, or trade their animals, they simply are provided the best of care for the rest of their lives. They are not open to the public and do not allow direct contact with their animals. Unfortunately, many "sanctuaries" in the United States do just that. The best example of an animal sanctuary is pictured above, the Performing Animal Welfare Society sanctuary located in San Andreas, California. The 2,300 sanctuary is home to six African elephants, three Asian elephants, tigers, African lions, bears, and other abused or performing animals. 

Many so-called sanctuaries provide their visitors with the once-in-a-lifetime experience of petting and feeding baby tigers. Sounds cute, right? Your money goes to protecting wildlife and you get a photo opportunity that you can show at every family gathering. Wrong. Many of these "sanctuaries" breed baby tigers by the hundreds in order to keep up the demand, creating a huge surplus of captive tigers. But what happens when the baby tiger is no longer cute and tiny and can bite off a human head?

Unfortunately, this is the destination for many animals that are bred by the hundreds to be petted by visitors. The sanctuaries claim that they provide life-long care for their animals, but what happens when they need room for the crowd-pleasing babies? They are confined to tiny cages to be gawked at roadside menageries, gas stations, exotic animal auctions, or animal shows. True animal sanctuaries are filled to capacity with these animals.

Breeding tiger cubs is a major industry and when you consider that many private breeders extend their practices to lions, leopards, chimpanzees, orangutans, capuchin monkeys, and other exotic animals, you have a serious problem on your hand. However, it is not totally the "sanctuaries" fault that they breed animals for crowd contact. In order to stay afloat in the difficult economy, many have turned to the petting and photo opportunities that pay very well to feed their animals. It's hard to rely on donations when you have several dozen hungry mouths to feed. 

Even true sanctuaries have their problems. The PAWS sanctuary, considered one of the best and brightest of animal sanctuaries have had a recent problem with tuberculosis, with two of their elephants dying in the past year alone and additional four in the past six years. Big Cat Rescue, the top big cat sanctuary has come under fire for breeding and buying cats (although they haven't done the practice in a decade). Even the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is not without its critics, their co-founder was forcibly ejected from the sanctuary and filed a lawsuit against the board of directors, alleging that she was forced to delay telling a wildlife agency that one of the elephants had tested positive for tuberculosis. 

The line between sanctuary and zoo continues to be blurred, as sanctuaries who allow visitors and public contact with animals insist that they are educating the public and their facilities are better than private ownership or injuries. Certainly some sanctuaries who forgo the very philosophy of sanctuaries still provide good care for their animals and are not instantly labelled as pure profiteers. The exotic animal surplus still remains and we need fully-equipped sanctuaries to deal with the issue, not sanctuaries that will feed the problem by breeding even more animals. It is time for sanctuaries to step up and help the exotic animal issue. 

Woodland Park Zoo Elephants: An analysis

Woodland Park Zoo Elephants: An analysis

Baby elephants have always been crowd pleasers and ways for zoos to keep their profits up. In 1962 at the Oregon Zoo, an Asian elephant named Belle gave birth to Packy, the first elephant to be born in captivity. It was clear that elephants, the world's largest land mammals, were indeed "glamour beasts," box-office stars that would help America's zoos through the 20th century and into the 21st. Across the country, the race to produce baby elephants was on. This blog post is an analysis of the controversial elephant program at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington. You might notice that many blog posts are devoted to the welfare of elephants. If you look closely at the war between animal rights vs. animal welfare, you will notice that the species involved usually consist of the so-called "glamour beasts" or animals that people love and gravitate toward. Most notable now are elephants and killer whales, but also extends to tigers, lions, bears, (oh my), dolphins, rhinos, and great apes (gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees). 

It took decades, but Seattle finally got its own baby elephant. In 2000, an Asian female named Hansa was born at Woodland Park Zoo, instantly bewitching the public. But 6 ½ years later, when she was found dead on the elephant-barn floor early one morning, zoo officials knew their gamble had failed. A strain of EEHV or elephant herpes virus had been ravaging baby elephants and little Hansa had fallen victim to the deadly disease. What's the story behind this story?

Up until recently, the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Washington has held three elephants: two Asian females called Bamboo (47) and Chai (35), and a single African female elephant called Watoto who died this year at the age of 45. Hansa, Chai's daughter, lived from 2000 to 2007 before dying of the feared elephant herpes virus. The controversy raging over the Woodland Park Zoo elephants now is that after Watoto's death, the zoo has chosen to send Bamboo and Chai to another zoo, while activists have protested this decision, insisting that they be sent to a sanctuary instead. 


So the debate between the remaining two Asian elephants at the Woodland Park Zoo rages, with neither side giving way. On one side, the growing majority of zoo members and animal rights activists lobby for Bamboo and Chai to be sent to a sanctuary after their long time in captivity. Meanwhile, the zoo administration is insisting that their two elephants will be sent to another AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) facility. The controversial move is being explored by the zoo and a decision will be made by the end of spring of 2015.

First, there is a mound of evidence that Bamboo and Chai have fared poorly at the Woodland Park Zoo and sending them to another zoo would be not the best idea. Bamboo and Chai have exhibited stereotypical behaviors common in distressed zoo elephants who bob their head and rock back and forth. Not to mention Seattle's less than mild climate that is not ideal for elephants or that the their exhibit is quite small, even for zoo elephants. And of course, one should not forget the attempts to artificially inseminate Chai dozens of times. Wouldn't it be better to send them to a sanctuary where they could live out the rest of their days?

On the other hand, consider the zoo's point of view. Bamboo and Chai has been part of their family for decades and have lived in the hearts and souls of many Washington residents. The zoo argues that Bamboo and Chai can live out their days as ambassadors to species which is a valid point. The fact that people are inspired to do conservation work after visiting zoos works well for the zoo's argument that no one would be able to see Bamboo and Chai at the sanctuary. Plus, there are zoos that are equipped with state-of-the-art facilities for elephants. For example, the Los Angeles Zoo spent $42 million of their Elephants of Asia exhibit which only holds three elephants (it's maximum capacity is eight elephants with their young).

The debate is going back and forth and the zoo will soon make a decision. Will they choose to send their elephants to a sanctuary like so many zoos before them or will they continue the increasingly controversial method of keeping elephants in zoos.

What's do you think is best for the elephants?