Zoos' Bitter Choice: Deciding which species to survive and which to die

Zoos' Bitter Choice: Which species must live and which must survive

Newsflash people. Zoos have a dark side. However, don't be so quick to blame zoos because it's not their fault. Let's give a scenario. At the St. Louis Zoo, 13 species of monkeys and apes reside at the primate house. Just 30 years ago, there were 36 species. Zoos are increasingly being asked to save species, such as Grevy's zebras, mountain gorillas, and Wyoming toads. More and more species are disappearing, with more than two-thirds of the world's amphibians in danger of extinction, as well as one-fourth of mammals and seabirds. However, cutbacks in public funding and a poor economy has led to zoos making tough decisions. The simple fact is that zoos cannot save even 2% of the world's species, as they do not have the resources capable of sustaining mass populations. What is the future for species in zoos?

How do zoos choose their animals? Unfortunately, most hard-core animal lovers and zoo workers are forced to make cold decisions when it comes to saving the world's animals. So, zoos exhibit popular animals, like California sea lions, African lions, and zebras which draw large crowds even though they are not in any particular danger. After the crowd-drawing attractions, zoos exhibit endangered animals. If they're crowd-pleasers like Asian elephants, polar bears, or snow leopards, all the better. It is hard to say that every zoo exploits their animals in order to survive. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing if they provide good care for their animals and serve as important educational services.


This enchanting golden monkey above is the golden lion tamarin. Once, their numbers dwindled to a mere 150 individuals in the wild. Thanks to efforts by zoos (most notably the National Zoo) and a successful reintroduction program), an estimated 1,000 golden lion tamarins now live in the wild, with a population of about 500 inside zoos in case the wild population dwindles. The golden lion tamarin breeding and reintroduction program is one of the most successful of all zoo programs, but other species such as Przewalski's horses, Arabian oryx, and Mexican wolves have also had great success. Unfortunately, these successes are the exception rather than the norm.

The polar bear is one of the most popular zoo animals, along with elephants, gorillas, and tigers. To have a polar bear, is one of the most ultimate status symbols among zoos. Why? Polar bears are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, meaning its illegal to take them from the wild. This is bad news for zoos, who need a healthy gene pool for a sustainable population of animals. Inbreeding of animals can cause a host of birth defects. Look at white tigers. They're only supposed to be 1 out of every 10,000, but the number has risen due to inbreeding. Now, they're cross-eyed and have multiple problems that shorten their lifespans. Zoos must either breed polar bears or rescue orphaned cubs. There are 64 polar bears in captivity in American zoos, far short of the 200 considered optimal for maintaining the population over 100 years. So zoos have been adding to the numbers of some species while culling others at the same time. St. Louis says it houses 400 more animals but 65 fewer species or subspecies than it did in 2002.

How the shrinking slots are allocated is becoming more considered and scientific. As conservation pressures mounted in the 1990s, the Association of Zoos & Aquariums began putting together groups of zookeepers that look across entire families of species and advise on which ones should be made priorities and which ones should be phased out. All sorts of criteria are considered, including uniqueness, level of endangerment in the wild, importance of the animal’s ecological role, and whether there is an adequate population in captivity for effective breeding.       

Zoos are essentially given a menu of endangered species that the association is trying to maintain and can then choose according to their particular needs. But final decisions are often as much about heart as logic. For example, the St. Louis Zoo spent $20 million on a massive polar bear habitat. One problem: the zoo doesn't have polar bears. The zoo hopes to procure either captive-bred cubs or rescue orphaned cubs from Canada.

 Should priority be given to animals that cannot survive outside zoos or to those in need of temporary shelter to restock their numbers? It is a hard question that can not be easily remedied. Zoos are attempting to do both, but have to cut back somewhere. An example of this are the beautiful Dama gazelles. They are now being phased out, despite successful breeding programs from the St. Louis and National Zoo. Eighteen babies were born at the zoo during that time, a healthy rate. But with fewer than 50 Dama gazeles left in zoos in North America, there was not enough genetic diversity to reproduce without a risk of inbreeding.

So, in 2008, a North American advisory group on the viability of hoofed species recommended that the animals be phased out of North American zoos and space given to another subspecies of endangered gazelle with more promising prospects.

 

Zoos cannot save every species. Even idiots should realize this. They can save some species, but their resources are not enough to save them. The sad thing is that the wild is disappearing fast. Every day, 100 African elephants are killed by poachers. Every day the Amazon forest disappears faster. Every day, tigers are killed for their skins. It may be that in the future, zoos hold the only representation of many species. Hopefully humanity can sustain the animal populations longer or our ecosystem will suffer. What do you think about how zoos deal with animals?



Circus Elephants: Abused or Amused?

The Plight of Circus Elephants: Are they abused or loved?

 

Elephants have long been trained since 2000 BC for various uses, including logging, transport, and entertainment. In fact, captive elephants in the United States started out in circuses. In the contemporary world, there is a growing issue of whether elephants should be kept in circuses or not. In this blog post, I will focus on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, dubbed "The Greatest Show on Earth". Ringling Bros. owns 47 Asian elephants, the largest herd and Asian elephant gene pool in the United States. Sorry if I'm biased, but I love talking about elephants.This blog post will explore whether elephants should be in circuses or not.

 

A brief history of circus elephants:

Elephants have been in circuses for the last three hundred years and been trained for centuries in Thailand, India, and Burma. The first elephants brought to the United States were mainly used as spectacles, massive gentle giant exhibitions. Circuses capitalized on the elephant craze, transporting elephants by the hundreds. However, due to a lack of knowledge of elephant behavior and physiology, elephants died quickly in circuses. Circuses desperately tried to breed elephants to gain money. Elephant birth rates were mediocre at best and circuses abandoned most attempts to breed their elephants, relying on importing more elephants. However, two things were discovered during the elephant age of circuses. For one, African elephants, while certainly larger than Asian elephants, were harder to train and more unstable. Also, bull elephants were found to go into musth, a period of extreme testosterone that made even the most docile elephants into murderous rampaging beasts. Zoos quietly began to phase out African and bull elephants. The majority of elephants that circus viewers see today are Asian female (they are the most easily trained and compliant) and juvenile males who have not reached sexual maturity.

 

 

Ringling Bros. Elephants:

The circus giant owns 47 Asian elephants as of 2014, the largest of any animal owner in the United States. The circus claims that the best care is given to the animals' health and welfare. The circus believes that promoting human-animal interaction is vital to increasing public awareness of the need to protect and preserve animal species. They state, "Captive animals play an important role as Ambassadors — teaching people about the animals' needs and challenges and about our responsibility to ensure their future survival." CEO Ken Feld of Feld Entertainment, who owns Ringling as well as Disney on Ice, Disney Live!, and  Monster Jam states that they meet all requirements for zoos and circuses for animal welfare. The circus has been a source of controversy since the release of a video that showed employees "breaking in" an elephant. Here is the new about Ringling Bros. circus elephants.

In a statement by Janice Aria, the director of animal stewardship with Ringling Bros., she claims that

"Our animals are inspected by animal welfare officials in nearly every city we visit, including New York City. We are also routinely inspected and are licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/elephant-bullhook-guide-safe-ringling-bros-big-article-1.1620674#ixzz2uNBgfkMo

 

 

Aria then goes on to state that the elephant guide (also known as a bullhook) is a safe and widely used tool. Certainly widely used, but undercover PETA videos show Ringling Bros. elephant trainers abusing their elephants with the metal rods. There is a plethora of abuse videos and websites that are aimed to taking elephants out of circuses. Many local politicians have petitioned to have their cities ban the use of the bullhook. The circus has been on the defense for years by animal rights groups. The circus doesn't have much going for them on the surface, with videos, documents, and pictures of elephants being chained, gouged, beaten, and given inadequate care by circus employees. However, all is not what it seems.

 

The circus does have some advantages on its sides. As a $1 billion company, they wield enormous influence and power, and approximately 30 million people view a Feld entertainment show annually. The circus giant recently won $9.3 million from the ASPCA lawsuit, a lawsuit that involved Ringling abusing their animals. It was discovered that the animal welfare group had paid off the former elephant handler to testify in its case. It is hard to believe that Ringling Bros. is an evil company destined to control and beat generations of elephants. It's quite expensive to maintain elephants, about $60-100,000 a month. Ringling opened its Center for Elephant Conservation in 1995, aiming to promote elephant breeding and conservation. The center has been labeled as a mere place to churn out elephants for the circus, but the circus claims that only a third of the elephants born at the CEC are fit for entertainment. The center has had 26 births since its opening, a rare feat when one considers that the elephant gestation period is 22 months.

 

Bryan's Opinion: This is an ongoing issue that is not easily remedied. On one hand, I like the circus. And also, if the circus had truly been abusing elephants, the USDA (Department of Agriculture) would've most likely shut down elephant care. The circus knows that if true abuse had been going on, public outrage would've been infinite and elephants are expensive and rare. The penalty for killing or even injuring a performing elephant would be severe for elephant trainers. It's hard to believe that the circus abuses its elephants, otherwise injuries and deaths for elephant trainers would be more common. On the other hand, there is much evidence against Ringling for its treatment of elephants. Statements released by the circus giant skate over the treatment of the elephants and focus on the positive things that Ringling does for its elephants. I believe that circus elephants could potentially continue, but it would be best to abandon bullhooks and to stop traveling long hours in chains. If the circus could improve its care for its elephants, then it would be fine for me. But if they continue to ignore the abuse for their behemoth money-makers, then it would be a great idea to get rid of elephants in the circus.

 

For Feld Entertainment CEO  and owner of Ringling Bros. circus Ken Feld's view on elephants, look below:

 

http://sarasotamagazine.com/blog/2013/12/02/glimpse-inside-entertainments/

 

For animal rights groups views on circus elephant, look below:

 

http://www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/

 



Smithsonian National Zoo: An analysis

Smithsonian National Zoo: An In-depth Perspective of the nation's zoological park

The National Zoo is in Washington, D.C. and hailed as one of the nation's premier zoos. They are one of the four zoos that house giant pandas and hosts approximately 2.7 million visitors annually, making it the sixth most visited AZA facility in the United States.  Unknown to many visitors and guests, the zoo has gone under controversy for its poor methods, funding, and staff. Still, the zoo leads in many scientific research techniques and breeding programs. This post will attempt to analyze what the National Zoo is all about. Here is the good, the bad, and the future of the National Zoo.

 

The Good:

1. Free Admission

That's right, free. The zoo charges no admission to its millions of visitors as it is part of the Smithsonian Institution and receives funding from the government. This sends the message that the zoo is not interested in making a profit. However, this is a mixed blessing for the zoo as the zoo relies entirely on government funding to maintain its vast animal collection. If the government cuts the budget or shuts down the government, the zoo is relatively helpless.

 

2. Elephant Trails: A Campaign to Save Asian Elephants
 

Elephant Trails: A Campaign to Save Asian Elephants is a comprehensive breeding, education, and scientific research program. It is designed to help scientists care for elephants in zoos and save them in the wild. The zoo will house seven Asian elephants by the spring of 2014. The zoo spent $52 million on the renovation, committing the zoo to elephant conservation.

 

3. Giant Pandas

Considered to be the most profitable animals of all zoo exhibits, the giant pandas serve to draw crowds from around the country and the world. The zoo spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to help giant panda conservation and research. The zoo also contributed to the giant panda breeding program, in which a giant panda baby was born in 2013.

 

4. The Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute

The National Zoo runs a non-public breeding and scientific research facility in Fort Worth, Virginia. The 3,200 acre complex is dedicated to breeding programs, reintroduction programs, and scientific research and observations. Some notable animals housed in the SCBI are clouded leopards, Eld's deer, red pandas, and tree kangaroos. The Institute has been very successful in its breeding programs and regularly helps breeding populations.

 

5. AZA accreditation

AZA stands for the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, the most prestigious zoo organization in America. AZA accreditation means that the zoo has met or exceeded the requirements of running a good zoo. Less than 10% of all facilities that hold animals are accredited by the AZA.

 

The Bad:

1. Unnecessary Deaths

The zoo has long been under controversy for unnecessary deaths of its animals. In July 2003, a predator managed to enter an exhibit and kill a bald eagle. Also in 2003, red pandas died after eating rat poison that had been buried in their yard by a pest control contractor. Two years later, a macaque was crushed by hydraulic doors by staff error. The zoo recently came under controversy again when a dama gazelle broke its neck, a pregnant kudu killed itself after a zebra attacked a keeper, and a red river hog died of infection. A Przewalski's horse colt also died at the SCBI in the last few months.

.

2. Euthanized Animals

In January 2006, the National Zoo euthanized an Asian elephant named "Toni" after a long time suffering from arthritis and poor body condition. Animal rights groups leveled the accusation that inadequate care over her lifespan in captivity led to the conditions that ultimately led to her death. Only four days ago, a male cheetah was euthanized.

 

3. Provisional AZA accreditation

In 2009, the zoo was operating under provisional accreditation due to reports of inadequate animal care resulting in animal deaths. Errors in care, management and communications were found after a panel conducted an external investigation, including instances where veterinarians significantly altered legal medical records weeks and even years after events occurred. The zoo has since regained its AZA accreditation.

 

4. Budget Shortcomings

The zoo blames budget cuts for the inadequate care of animals. When the government shut down, the zoo was forced to close and staff worked without pay. The current director of the National Zoo told the press that recent issues with exotic animals had happened due to the zoo's resources being stretched too thin. The zoo complains that there is not enough staff or capital to fund the zoo's enormous collection or maintain the zoo. A zebra attacked a keeper in December 2013, with a vulture also escaping its enclosure. A clouded leopard also managed to escape. A wallaby that was forced to share its exhibit with two hornbills bloodied its nose in the process.

 

5. Resignation of Dr. Lucy Spelman

The director of the National Zoo, Lucy Spelman, resigned at the end of 2009. As a veterinarian, it was revealed that Spelman had treated several animals who had died. The source of information; however, was taken from a disgruntled former employee. The problems at the zoo, which coincided with Dr. Spelman's resignation, included facilities and budget shortcomings, although the animal care problems were prominently highlighted. Dr. Suzan Murray continues to serve as the zoo's head veterinarian. One other veterinarian featured frequently in the inadequate care of animals at the zoo also remains on staff, but the zoo has added a new head pathologist and has added other veterinarians.

 

Future of the zoo:

Under the Smithsonian Institution, the zoo will most likely continue to grow and thrive. The zoo will receive three new elephants from the Calgary zoo in the spring of 2014. A giant panda baby continues to push visitors through the open gate. Children laugh and play. Visitors marvel at the sea lions, watch in awe at the gorilla family, and smile at the newborn lion cubs. The zoo is still a subject of controversy, but working tremendously hard to regain an image of one of the best zoo's in the U.S.

 

Bryan's Notes: When I visited the zoo, I was awed of how big the zoo was. The raven exhibit that housed two ravens was as big as a house. The zoo covers 163 acres, giving plenty of space for each animals. The elephants have 1.9 acres of outdoor space. I was especially impressed with the Elephant Trails exhibit, but also fascinated by the Think Tank where they tested orangutan intelligence. My favorite part was the O-line, a system of towers and cables that allows the  orangutans to move between the two buildings. In talking to one of the zoo's staff members, I was shocked to hear that she had to volunteer for two years just to achieve her position (she worked as a gorilla keeper). And she would not be paid during the government shutdown (although she would continue to work). The zoo has worked hard to replace and maintain their staff and is working extra hard to bring the zoo back into a good spotlight. I do hope they can achieve it.

 



Have Trunk Will Travel: The Elephant Company

Have Trunk Will Travel: The Elephant Company

The point of this blog is to give a two-sided perspective of animals kept in captivity. One of the most notorious companies in the animal rights groups perspective is the company Have Trunk Will Travel, Inc. Have Trunk Will Travel, Inc. is currently based in Perris, California and houses five adult female Asian elephants at its ranch. The company also owns elephants on loan at the Oregon Zoo and Houston Zoo. The company rents elephants for movies, most notably for providing elephants for the movies Water for Elephants, Zookeeper, and George of the Jungle. Have Trunk Will Travel has also provided elephants for the music video "Circus". The company generates its revenue through elephant rentals, mainly through movies, but also with rides and special events. The company is run by the couple Gary and Kari Johnson, a legendary elephant training couple.

 

In 2011, the radical animal rights group In Defense of Animals, released a video of elephant abuse at Have Trunk Will Travel. Circling around YouTube, many people were horrified with what appeared to be severe beatings with bullhooks and electric shocks. A baby elephant was being pulled by its trunk. Several females are seen to being poked with bullhooks in order to perform behaviors. Groans are heard from the elephants. All in all, the video is an example of human exploitation of animals, at least, on the surface...


In Defense of Animals have continually lobbied to close down HTWT. In Defense of Animals claims that all the elephants at HTWT have been continually abused and should be set free in an animal sanctuary. According to the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) website,
"HTWT has a long history of exploiting elephants. It uses elephants who as babies were captured in the wild and subjected to intense beatings to break their spirits. In their natural environment, the elephants would walk up to 30 miles per day with their families, but at HTWT, they are chained in place by one front foot and one back foot all night, every night, and for more than half of every day during the winter months.
In addition to abusing their own elephants, the owners of HTWT, Kari and Gary Johnson, have repeatedly opposed legislation to protect elephants. In comments concerning federal policy changes regarding training and handling practices for elephants, HTWT defended the use of cruel electric prods and bullhooks on elephants."


Things haven't gone so well for HTWT since the release of the video. In Defense of Animals timed the release of the video perfectly, at the premiere of Water for Elephants, in which Have Trunk Will Travel's matriarch Tai, was the star. Ironically, in the movie, Tai's character is beaten by circus handlers. The movie's director maintains that the groans of pain were prerecorded and no animals were harmed in the movie. However, HTWT has had a lot of fallbacks in the last couple years. The Santa Anna Zoo stopped the elephant rides that HTWT provided and the San Diego Country Fair banned the elephant rides as well.


However, let's look at it from Have Trunk Will Travel's side and their founders Gary and Kari Johnson. They have been taking care of elephants for four decades, in which only in the last decade, have they become under scrutiny for their elephant care. Why? Animal rights purposely put the Johnsons into the public spotlight in order to serve their cause. In Defense of Animals actually filmed the video of abuse in 2005, but released it another six years later, coincidentally at the premiere of Water for Elephants. If the elephants were being abused, why didn't In Defense of Animals release it in 2005? IDA most likely saw the video as a source to squirrel away until the moment was right.

In a recent email to HTWT, Kari Johnson responded to the elephant abuse video with the following statement:
"We are certified members of the AZA Species Survival Plan, and serve on the California State Fish and Game Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. We have served as members of the animal welfare committees for the Western Fairs Association, the Outdoor Amusement Business Association, have been presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Elephant Managers Association, and are founding members of the International Elephant Foundation.  Our elephants participate in research projects to advance elephant health and breeding programs to ensure the survival of this endangered species.  We work with and for elephants.

We provide the public with up close, tactile access to elephants.  100% privately funded, revenue from our events help fund the ranch and everything we do with our elephants including conservation, breeding programs increasing Asian elephant awareness and health research.  To date, we have succeeded in producing six elephant calves.  We are raising funds for, and contributing to, the species’ survival.  We are dedicated to the enhancement and survival of elephants."  

It's hard to say, but after closely examining the elephant abuse video, there appears to be no real permanent damage to the elephants nor excessive beatings. Unlike some Ringling Bros. abuse videos, HTWT's "abuse" sometimes appears to be nothing more than a gentle poke. And with an elephant's thick skin, it's hard to imagine that there would be any real harm. HTWT also stated

"It's worth noting that the animal rights extremists have no professional expertise in the area of elephant care and training - they have only opinion (which they are certainly entitled to).  However, the USDA (the government body charged with oversight) did not lend the video any credibility at all.  The AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums), of which HTWT is a voluntary member, did exhaustive investigations based on the video and inflammatory allegations and found no evidence of abuse or cruelty.  Their claims simply do not hold up under closer - and unprejudiced - inspection by experts. Experts in both elephant care and video production point out the sloppy, dishonest characterizations used in the video."

So what's the final verdict? It's hard to say, as both sides have equal evidence. HTWT is guilty of using bullhooks, chains, and otherwise, abusing its elephants. However, there is no evidence to suggest HTWT does it regularly. The video shows only snippets of "abuse" and does not immediately conclude that HTWT beats its elephants regularly. It also shows that if HTWT was abusing its elephants, why were there no accidents? Generally, when elephant handlers beat their charges, elephants have a history of lashing back and killing their trainers. HTWT has no recorded accidents or deaths, quite an accomplishment for an occupation that was ranked three times more deadlier than coal mining. In the end, Have Trunk Will Travel will most likely continue, serving in its mission to educate the public with rides and shows. PETA and IDA will continue to hammer away at the company, hurling accusations and mud. Both have legitimate concerns and arguments. Unless Have Trunk Will Travel does something outrageously cruel, they will most likely continue.

Bryan's opinion: I do not believe that HTWT is a terrible organization designed to exploit and beat these majestic animals. I also do not believe that they use positive reinforcement all the time, hence, the video. However, it is plausible that HTWT loves and cares for their elephants deeply. They have an excellent track record when it comes to elephant lifespans, with three of their elephants already in their mid-forties. I believe they have made some mistakes, as people have, and I do not condone with the use of bullhooks or electric prods. However, if they continue to care for their elephants greatly and provide an enriching and comfortable home for their five elephants, then HTWT has my approval (although they don't needs it).

Links:
HTWT abuse video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50wBdPhBQGo
HTWT training:  http://www.youtube.com/user/ElephantAmbassadors?feature=watch