Why Elephants in American Zoos May Be the New Orcas in 'Blackfish'
In the summer of 2005, a female Asian elephant named Happy, 34-years-old at the time, had a brief brush with scientific notoriety. Happy and two of her fellow elephants at the Bronx Zoo were subjected to a test in which they were presented with a mirror in order to contemplate their appearance. For the most part, they acted as you might expect, curious about the image before them, looking around the mirror to see what was behind it. But Happy was different. An X mark, only visible in the mirror, had been painted on her forehead. She returned to the mirror again and again, touching her trunk to the mark on her face like we might after putting on face paint or makeup.
Researchers concluded that this self-recognition test was further evidence of the complex inner-workings of the elephant mind, and may even indicate self-awareness, a trait only possessed by humans, great apes, and some species of dolphins. Long understood as one of the most intelligent species-an elephant never forgets, after all-elephants have exhibited behaviors as complex as grief, the use of tools, and communication, among others. Rare in the animal kingdom, elephants form close familial bonds and share lifelong attachments in closely bonded matriarchal communities. But the ability for an elephant to recognize itself, indeed to perhaps even possess a self, is groundbreaking.
Ten years later, Happy lives alone, isolated, and without contact from any of her elephant companions, one of whom, Grumpy, was euthanized after being attacked by two other elephants at the zoo years ago. It's a life sentence that amounts to solitary confinement, animal advocacy groups like PETA and others have argued. Happy's story earned the Bronx Zoo a rather ignominious place in the Hall of Shame on the 2015 Ten Worst Zoos for Elephants list.
Now in its 12th year, the list, compiled by In Defense of Animals, a non-profit founded in 1983 that claims some 200,000 supporters, once again highlights the cruel conditions (physical or existential) that elephants around North America face. For the first time ever, three zoos share the top spot this year, including Dallas Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, and Sedgwick County Zoo in Wichita, for their efforts to import 18 young elephants under questionable circumstances. Other zoos around the country, from Virginia to Oklahoma and Massachusetts, made the list for treatment of elephants that range from the brutal use of a bull hook tool for beating the animals to forcing the animals to perform, or isolating them from companions.
"Evidence shows that elephants are not thriving or self-sustaining in zoos," Toni Frohoff, Ph.D., elephant scientist for In Defense of Animals, said in a statement. "Urgent action must be taken to stop greedy corporations from plundering elephants from the wild so they can restock elephants dying out in zoo displays faster than they can reproduce."
I asked Frohoff to explain more about the conditions that elephants around North America are subjected to, and what her group hopes to accomplish.
ESQ: What is the purpose of compiling a list of the worst zoos?
Toni Frohoff: We've highlighted zoos that people often think are acceptable because they may be AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) accredited or because their advertising and such seems to be so wholesome. So we try to really unveil what is going on behind the scenes for the animals at these facilities. We care about elephants everywhere in the wild and captivity. For this year's list, we placed three zoos in the worst position because we believe they are doing something that is contrary to good elephant conservation practices.
Are these zoos doing something illegal or simply unethical?
This is the first time which the number-one category has been a tie, so to speak, because the zoos-Dallas, Omaha, and Kansas-they are attempting a highly controversial plan to import young elephants from the African wild to be incarcerated for life in their zoo displays. And there are many, many problems with this, not only for the elephants in captivity, but for the ones in the wild.
What is it that they're doing?
The zoos are claiming that they are saving or rescuing these particular elephants from imminent death by importing them. Swaziland is, I believe, one of the last true monarchies, and they have said they have too many elephants in their region. We say that with some trepidation; it's a dubious claim given that they hardly have any elephants at all in that region. Basically, the zoos are working with a group called Big Game Parks in Swaziland; they're a questionable, family-run outfit that runs the park containing the elephants in Swaziland. They last exported elephants to U.S. zoos back in 2003, claiming they would have otherwise killed the elephants because the population had grown too large. But what's curious, from what data we've seen, there are only about 40 elephants there. At that time, U.S. zoos paid $100,000 to Big Game Parks for 11 elephants who were imported to the U.S. for zoological display. This is an even higher stakes situation.
That number seems low for the price of an elephant.
Well, that was back in 2003. Right now, they're asking $450,000 in exchange for 18 elephants. Reportedly, and dubiously, that money is for Big Game Parks to use for rhino conservation.
That still seems kind of low. I guess I never thought about how much an elephant costs.
It's interesting. One of the arguments we've made is it can easily cost over $100,000 a year to maintain an elephant in captivity. What we're saying, and many other elephant experts and scientists are saying, is that the zoos are claiming to rescue the elephants when there are viable options to keep the elephants in Africa that have been put forward.
You might've seen the movie The Cove, about the dolphins in Japan. With all the fallout from Cecil the Lion, it's really dubious that Swaziland would take 18 elephants and kill them. It really would not look good for them, especially not for tourism. So this is shady on many levels.
What makes a zoo bad for elephants? Is there even such a thing as good conditions for elephants in a zoo?
Empirically speaking, there is a continuum of animal welfare standards from what we know about the biology and psychology of elephants that make certain zoos worse and better. There are philosophical arguments as to whether or not any zoos are adequate for getting their unique needs. We have science to look at, as well as inference, to determine what is acceptable or cruel. Right now, the only facilities that seem to be capable of giving elephants and other animals the lives they truly need to live are certified sanctuaries. There are two sanctioned Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries in the U.S., and they are very unique on many levels. It's still relative captivity, but you can't put these elephants into the wild, and their needs are cared for in a way no zoos I know can approximate.
What is life like for an elephant in the average zoo?
I'm not trying to anthropomorphize, but to put it in human terms, there are some prisons that are more like resorts compared to torture camps. There is that continuum. If you look at some of the zoos on our list this year, for example, we have three elephants who are completely alone, with no other elephants even in sight. That's in Edmonton, Canada. There's the case of Asha at a roadside zoo in Virginia, and Lucky, who a lot of people know about, in San Antonio. The AZA and other organizations recommend at least three, if not more, compatible elephants to be housed together. So clearly they're not even coming close to approaching that most vital of all elephant needs.
Some of the elephants put together don't get along, right?
That's exactly it. There's been quite a bit of research that has documented how elephants-they're not like produce, you can't just plant them together and expect them to thrive. They are among the most social, if not the most social, of all land animals, including humans. The female will stay with their mothers for life, and males will stay in contact typically with their natal family groups for life. So to take two elephants who may not even speak the same language, just because they're the same species from two different areas-I say "speak the same language"-let alone get along reasonably well, is hard enough. But to put them in a tiny, cramped exhibit and expect them to get along shows an appalling lack of knowledge about elephant sociality.
How many elephants are there in North America now? Is it still big draw?
Elephants in captivity are dying faster then they're successfully reproducing, which indicates two things: They don't survive well in captivity, and they are not breeding well in captivity. That's one of the reasons a lot of them are shutting down. Some zoos, the Detroit Zoo, had the foresight to acknowledge they could not properly meet the needs of the elephants in their exhibit, so they closed it down. Especially in cold weather facilities, even though they may create a warm barn for the elephants, some of these Asian elephants are adapted to a tropical environment. For example, in Buffalo, what percentage of their time can they actually spend outside without getting frostbite or worse?
This is comparable to the situation with orcas, right?
There are parallels to orcas-I will mention they're the largest member of the dolphin family; people don't often consider them dolphins. Orcas are exceptions, not only in size and color. They have very many social and cognitive characteristics that have been documented to be uncannily similar to those of elephants, as well as similar physiological characteristics of being far-ranging. Some animals just do not do well in zoos compared to others ... There's a study that documents far-ranging mammals as being particularly difficult to maintain humanely in zoos. So the similarities between orcas and elephants are part of that sociality.
Orcas are perhaps the most social of all animals. Both the females and the male stay with their natal groups, their matriarchal groups, for life. They will breed and interact with others groups, but they stay with their natal family for life, even the males. And that's extremely unusual in the animal kingdom, even among humans.
The other part is, for the human side, they are both as iconic as you can get. If you're looking at a marine park, the iconic animal is the orca, Shamu, right? And at a zoo, it's the iconic elephant. So it's not just size, but it's glamour, it's what they represent.
Do you think that people are more conscious of this now than in previous decades, or is this still a fringe issue?
It's absolutely changed. There are so many layers to be encouraged, or discouraged, by, depending on what side you're on. Legislators are implementing or proposing bans on the bull hook, a cruel device like a fire place poker stick with a sharp hook at the end, with which elephants are beaten or prodded. You might have seen how Ringling Bros. recently said they're going to stop having elephants in their circus act. They announced they're going to stop the use of elephants this year, where originally they were going to wait two years. They have acknowledged public pressure. I think the other part of this I'd really like to emphasize, not only because I'm a scientist, is that the media likes to marginalize this as an animal rights or extremist issue, and it's really not. It's just become a matter of knowledge about these animals and respect for their need as wild animals, and really going on empirically based recommendations for their well-being. It's just a matter of being humane. When we know better, hopefully we do better.
