AI of A Elephant » Taronga Zoo

11-09-2008

very well said

12-09-2008

I call Taronga`s enclosure outdated because I do compare the space with elephant enclosures in Europe, designed for a similar group size. 4 females in Taronga = 8 elephants if each female breds once, and 10 or more in less then 10 years when only one or two females have a second calf after the first. So let`s talk about 8-10.

Chester - enclosure has been expanded a few years ago) - 5000 m². Hagenbeck/Hamburg - I have no exact number, but it`s more then 4000. Hannover - which is pretty small - 3500. Howletts - 20.000 or more!! Berlin East - about 3000 for each species. Berlin West - 3.500. Halle/Germany - enclosure opened in 2006, 3500. Vienna, estimated 3.500. Paignton - which is the smallest ele enclosure in the UK and has only 2 old females - 2000 m². Same size in which Taronga wants to keep a family with 4 breeding females. Keep in mind that most of these enclosures are at least 10-15 years old, and that most new enclosures in european and US zoos are much more spacious with more then 10.000 m².

I agree that space is not everything, but it really makes me wonder. Oh, and I do not buy that natural breeding means animals are *happy*. It means they are fertile, not more - many animals incl. the highly intelligent chimps breed in awful conditions in labratories, for example.

I will stop argueing about Taronga with the post because we have exchanged all arguments more then once and if you want to believe 2000 m² is enough for a herd of elephants, so it be.

12-09-2008

Wow, I can't believe that Taronga's enclosure for a breeding group is the same size as Paignton's, which isn't really big enough.

12-09-2008

When the numbers increase I'm sure that more protesters will argue about space and such, again though Taronga doesn't have the space, and calves when older probably will be transferred to others zoos I predict, Its hard for me to say what I think exactly,

13-09-2008

Size of exhibit is a nebulous concept, and two people could argue the point forever. The point about enclosure space is really only valid when you interpret what a 'normal' sized group is for any species. It just happens that we are talking elephants, and that elephants attract alot of flack from animal rights campaigners. To me it doesn't matter what species we are talking about - if a zoo is intending on taking on a species, then part of the planning should look at how big does the area need to be so that the group can expand into it. You should never look at bringing a certain number of animals and only design it for that same number of animals. I could say that Taronga got it wrong with their gorilla group as well. It was never big enough for what was already a decent-sized group to expand into. It never took into account that generally 50% of the youngsters would be males and that at some stage they would be evicted from the group by the silverback. Part of that planning design must take into account that you cannot just expect another collection to take on your surplus, even if they are the most desirable species.

You mention that the exhibit is big enough for the current females and expected young. But what happens when those young grow up? Perth made the same mistake when they imported their three youngsters and did not allow for either the elephants to grow, nor for the bull to mature. This has since been rectified on both accounts, but it did require knocking down other exhibits to increase the space. It was a pity that this was not forseen. I fear that in several years time following successful births that Taronga will also see a need to increase the space.

I appreciate that from I'm told Taronga has built a good exhibit for their elephants, that they are happy and breeding, and that it is a good showcase for all the conservation work that Taronga is doing. However while size of exhibit is not everything, one would have hoped that with such a brand-new exhibit that Taronga should be striving for the best elephant exhibit in the world, not just a good one.

15-09-2008

This is the hub of the problem. Whatever the size of the exhibits, the Melbourne and Taronga exhibits could never be called "generous" and while they may be adequate from a professional husbandry point of view, they are vulnerable to criticism from animal rights activists and from the general public. A former senior curator at Taronga told me they never received complaints about the elephants at Western Plains, but had continual complaints about them at Taronga. What worries me is that by going down the path they have, both zoos have left themselves vulnerable to animal rights criticism, and have cut themselves off from pursuing other options. This could well affect the future of the zoos in a detrimental way. And, as far as I can see, the decision to exhibit elephants would seem to be primarily prestige related.

15-09-2008

I guess the great thing about Australia is sometimes, the problem, that people are so passionate over here,

15-09-2008

I'm not sure what the reference here is, but if it refers to animal rights and general public concern for elephants, it should be noted that the oppostion to elephants in zoos in Australia is not yet anywhere near the level it is in the UK or the USA. That's my point, if opposition does grow, then the two zoos are in trouble with their "minimum size" enclosures.

15-09-2008

Oh, wow, ok I just based it on what I have seen in the news, though I lack knowledge of experince, I just thought the protesting for the arrival of elephants in 2006 was quite big, but from what your saying it seems huge in the USA and UK

15-09-2008

It would seem it was quite big for a FEW people making a lot of noise

15-09-2008

The fact that people dont complain about elephants at Western Plains Zoo isnt so much grounded in a knowledge of what these animals need; its more of a homo-centric projection of values which simply equates space with happiness for these large beasts.
As big as the paddocks are at WPZ, until recent years you could barely call them stimulating, enriched environments. Despite having a potentially viable breeding group of African Elephants for close to two decades this zoo never bred elephants; it never even acheived a pregnancy. Nor have the lifespans of elephants at WPZ been particularly high. Ironically, Taronga's sub-standard enclosure saw many elephants which lived into 60s, 70s and even 80s. And yet, you give elephants a big paddock and people just assume they must be happier.
The point is that there is no simple, and I say simple correlation between space available to elephants and their health. In the heated debate surrounding the importation alot of people had a say who perhaps didnt quite understand the issue fully. The common suggestion that the Asian Elephants should be kept at Dubbo next to the African Elephants clearly demonstrated that many people didnt understand the risk of disease transfer between the two species, amongst other things. Welfare 'experts' just regurgitated the same crap over and over again, that elephants need space, (an argument grounded in as much biological sense as what the average zoogoer has), when in fact we realise now they need more than that. You cant keep elephants on a concrete quarter acre block, but giving them a bare oval sized yard wont make them any happier.
Taronga has demonstrated that given an enriched environment you can keep a small herd of elephants very happy, and you dont need a huge amount of space to do it in.
Having said that, I again argue that Taronga need not stop at expanding its exhibit with the bull paddock; a third exhibit is needed. Melbourne too should look to develop other adjacent enclosures in the future.
Finally, selecting elephants for their prestige value is a little misguided and misses the point. Zoos here in Australia had been developing this program for nearly a decade before the elephants arrived, and informal in-situ links with Asian wildlife agencies going back to the early 90s were formalised by the ASMP for the Asian Elephant. Asian elephant fit the conservation mandate of the regions zoos for a number of reasons....theyre Asian, obviously which fits the orientation zoos in this country are taking.
They do generate interest and zoos had valid resources, skills and monies they could commit to in-situ conservation for these animals.
A viable ex-situ component could be developed for this species; they are slow breeding and suit our low TAG populations. And finally, as exotic animal populations around the country crash, Asian Elephants are one of the few species which actually can be imported. After all, Australian zoos arent very well placed to help bongo, or Arabian Oryx, or birds from the Pacific Islands etc due to our quarantine.
Asian Elephants may be big and for want of a better word prestigious, but you couldnt call them a money spinner. Considering the facts, I think to link the elephant import to commercial imperatives is about as dumb as saying all elephants need is space to be happy. And lots of people are guilty of that.

16-09-2008

As a zoo is run as a business these days. I wonder what the projected increase in atttendance is for a baby elephant?

I bet this has all been costed out.

At a guess,

Melbourne Zoo

1000 extra visits = app $20,000
10000 = app $200,000
100000 = app $2,000,000
300,000 = app $6,000,000

It's a business decision. A Elephant baby will be BIG money for the Zoo. This had to have contributed to justifiying the huge expense thus far with the elephants.

I am not making a judgement on Melbourne or Sydney zoo importing theses elephants, just that it should be transperent.At a guess Sydney may expect double this increase in revenue.

Maybe at a guess the baby elephants at both zoos will be the only animals that are totally self supporting.

__________________
Stuart R Webster
A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

16-09-2008

I guess its good thing to be a zoo member, beforehand, hope there is a naming contest of somewhat, I have so many suggestions prepared,

16-09-2008

That is the point. You can argue in a measured, educated and reasonable way (as you have just done) as much as you like that the elephants are happy campers. But in my experience animal rights activists don't play by these rules - the first accidental death, the first pregnancy that goes wrong and the issue of enclosure size will become paramount. They don't play fair.

Interesting your other comments, re the long term planning because of course in the decade prior the zoos had planned to phase out elephants, and had planned to concentrate the Indian elephants in the country at Monarto. Plans change, often with personal changes. I'm not sure the first plan wasn't the right one.

16-09-2008

Hi Django, I'm not sure where this information came from - as far as I know, there has never been plans to phase out elephants, Asian or otherwise from this region. The bigger zoos will always want to hold elephants. Like it or not, they are one of the key species that the punters always expect - the old lion, tiger, zebra, elephant and giraffe group, and the bigger zoos come under frequent pressure to ensure these species are represented.

Monarto has discussed African elephants in the past, and are still considering this for the future, as the climate there is completely unsuitable for Asian elephants. But I don't ever recall there being plans to phase Asian elephants out.

Oh and Glyn, as usual, your comments are spot on and well thought-out