I've been putting together a list of American zoos that use either protected contact or free contact with their elephants, as I've been curious on the statistics. Some zoos have switched recently (like Toledo and Knoxville after a serious accident and a tragedy) and I scanned zoo websites, emailed institutions and looked at the elephant database website to get most of my information. I would like to stress that this is not a definitive list as there are a few zoos that have at times used free contact with their females and protected contact with their males, and so I am open to comments in terms of switching those zoos into the opposite category. Overall I think that the list is mainly correct, but there might be a handful of zoos that have changed their approach or use both methods. Narrowing down the list to include the 60 best zoos in the country (from the Nyhuis/Wassner "America's Best Zoos" book) made more sense rather than for me to search through the 220 AZA institutions. This way the 60 major zoos are represented and they are in essence "the cream of the crop". If someone is keen to delve into all of the American zoos that keep elephants then be my guest, but things are constantly changing and a number of zoos have phased out or are phasing out elephants in the near future. Those zoos that plan on keeping elephants on a permanent basis are building enormous, multi-acre habitats and spending tens of millions of dollars in the process. I am 100% pro-zoo when it comes to such fantastic exhibits and it is a joy to see zoos provide terrific exhibits and family groups for their elephants. There are 11 zoos out of that 60 that do not have elephants and there are slightly more than double the zoos with protected contact in comparison to free contact. Judging by the fact that protected contact has exploded upon the scene in the past twenty years I'd hazard a guess that in twenty years from now there will only be about 3 of these zoos that still use free contact with their elephants. I'm a high school teacher and I've never worked with elephants, but for better or worse the free contact method of handling captive elephants is seen as being outdated by most modern professionals. How long does it have left? THE STATISTICS: No elephants (11 zoos): Philadelphia, Detroit, Omaha, San Francisco, Gladys Porter, Lincoln Park, Binder Park, Minnesota, Fort Wayne, Brookfield and ASDM. Free contact (16 zoos): National, Nashville, Maryland, Fort Worth, Oregon, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Audubon, Houston, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Roger Williams Park, Sedgwick County, Bronx and Buffalo. Protected contact (33 zoos): Montgomery, Lowry Park, Kansas City, Rio Grande, Cheyenne Mountain, Phoenix, Caldwell, Oklahoma City, Busch Gardens, Denver (beginning in 2012), Disney's Animal Kingdom, Riverbanks, Tulsa, Saint Louis, San Antonio, Utah's Hogle, Dallas, Columbus, Cleveland, Miami, Jacksonville, Memphis, Atlanta, San Diego, San Diego Zoo Safari Park, Los Angeles, Knoxville, Toledo, North Carolina, Oakland, Woodland Park, Point Defiance and Milwaukee County.
Thank you for this facinating list snowleopard! It is interesting the number of zoos that still use free contact, something fairly dangerous. It is surprising that very high-quality zoos, such as Bronx, still use this old practice Just out of curiosity, does the elephant species (African v. Asian), have any effect on this. I ask this because it seems that Asians are easier to handle.
Free contact the following institutions were not listed: Columbus, Burnet Park, Seneca Park, Baton Rouge (switching eventually to PC), Little Rock, Wildlife Safari, Vallejo and Memphis.
Thanks for the list! I explicitly stated that I only analyzed America's 60 best zoos, but I would encourage someone else to delve into ALL of the zoos that hold elephants in the United States.
It really isn't that much more dangerous than working in the paddock with camels or przewalski horses.
The keepers at the bronx zoo are always outside of the enclosure when I have seen them feeding the elephants for the past few years.
More relevant are European zoos, which have better record of breeding elephant. As already pointed elsewhere, type of contact is written in elephant.se website. And stopping free contact is mostly influenced by zoos' fear of lawsuits. It is often not desired by elephant keepers and it is very doubtful that it improves welfare of elephants themselves.
The Cincinnati Zoo does use free contact with their three cows, but they use protected contact with their bull, Sabu.
Couldn't you say that being an orca trainer/keeper is also one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet, or a wild/feral horse breaker is also placed in dangerous situations? I understand it may be the most dangerous job on this earth, but you could say many other non-animal and animal related jobs are close to or even more dangerous to some people than being an elephant trainer. I do not want to get into a debate on this (even if this is a FC vs PC thread), but I think people need to realise any job can be dangerous, even if working in an office. Stasticially it may be 'the' most dangerous, but other jobs are also potentially dangerous which cannot be forgotten. It is also intersting to me that we discuss FC vs PC in captivity about zoos, but there are logging camps and street elephants which are also in captivity, and we never discuss their management positions. Therefore, I would like to ask, how do people feel about FC in street/loggin elephants and should they be placed in the same category as FC elephants in zoos?
What is that statistic exactly? Because 18% of US presidents have died in office - it too could be ranked as one of the most dangerous jobs. And as for the list compiled for this thread, it is rather short-sighted (as the author has mentioned) because it is not a full representation of elephants in US zoos. Only those zoos deemed important enough to put in a book with space constraints were included. Thus it is important to note that the data does not accurately describe elephant management in US zoos. As mentioned many times before, statistics can be skewed to benefit anyone's agenda. And can then be sometimes dangerous when used in this way - look at what some of our least favorite organizations have done with statistics.
Interestingly enough I just began this thread about a week ago and already the Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma has announced that they might phase out elephants in the next few years (according to their 2011-20 strategic plan) and in Canada both Edmonton's Valley Zoo and now Toronto Zoo are both extremely close to phasing out their elephants as well due to various reports and fact-finding missions. The number of zoos with elephants continues to drop over the years, but those that maintain the animals are creating larger herds in multi-acre habitats.
It's now official, and Sept. 1st, 2014 is the deadline. Naturally there are a few clauses and variances to the amendment, but essentially AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) has drafted a new requirement that all accredited zoos with elephants must maintain those animals in a protected contact environment. I personally thought that it would take at least another decade to weed out all of the free contact keepers but I was off by 7 years. The link below has an extremely detailed, 3-page timeline that allows the free contact zoos time to change their management policies. Association of Zoos and Aquariums
I think mistake is that both public and most keepers prefer close interaction with elephants. This is a question of accepting risk. As I said before - working with elephants should be seen as highly entertaining activity where risk is inseparable from appeal, like adventure sports and many other occupations. Such legislation is as absurd as would be prohibiting skiing to prevent skiers from breaking bones and dying every year, and force all tourists in skiing villages to walk carefully downslope. Perhaps a way to go would be people signing papers that they understand the risk.
I generally can follow your line of thought and agree there is not a B / W line there. However, in elephant contact(s) there is no acceptable risk (just as it is in nuclear energy).
