So this article states that the next importation of African elephants to American zoos might come from Zimbabwe. Of course, since it comes off as an anti-zoo piece of propaganda, it's debatable how much of this is true, but I'll leave it here for your discussion. US to support Zimbabwe's trade in baby elephants
They're clearly using the argument that human care can not provide adequate living conditions for these elephants, and notice that they have to use very outdated "expert" quotes from 2003 since elephant habitats have improved so dramatically since then. What's different in this article is the focus on exchange of money. This is the first time I've seen the 3-zoo acquisition of 18 alleged as being a "purchase" and then two relocations as "re-sale.". In the past, the story was that Zimbabwe would be culling the herd to open up land resources to conserving rhinos; likewise, when Asian Chendra was imported from Borneo, it was because she needed medical attention and had been so badly injured that she could not return to the wild. CITES would not allow direct sales. If this organization has really found that over a million dollars has been exchanged worldwide and can prove it, it could really reduce our chances of getting more elephants from Zimbabwe. Yes, we all know that the US zoos paid for many things, like crating, assistance from Zimbabwean guards, air travel, etc, but no one has yet put it in writing that Zimbabwe is selling elephants. I'm afraid this group has researched and stressed the one tactic that could shut all this down.
There are provisos under CITES regulations for captive-breeding. The whole trade arguement is a terminal smokescreen. It is part and parcel of emo driven news that this is presented as an insidious method to enable "trade" where it clearly is not under this criterium. It is all perfectly in order, so why are some media hell-bent on misrepresenting CITES and its provisos?
I think a big concern is that animal welfare may not be taken as seriously within these operations as it should, especially with Zimbabwe.
Any real proven evidence of that save for sensationalist activism prone media attention to the import and export of elephants, rhinos and other wildlife in Zimbabwe? BTW: wildlife routinely is exported from a number of mainly southern African nations which by and large are operated under strict veterinary and animal welfare guidelines and in full compliance with international wildlife law and CITES regulatory mechanisms. I am not blind to flaws in the system, just wondering what the exact story is here!
I think my point was that activists have always used terms like "ripped from their mothers" or "never to see their families again," i.e. the same kind of emotionally-charged hyperbole as the ridiculous current claim that AI-ing SDSP's white rhino was "rape." Now, however, activists are talking about the Zimbabwe 18 as a "purchase," plus a whole lot of purchases from Asia, as well as moving 2 of those 18 to different zoos as "resale." CITES enforcers and Fish and Wildlife have approved exports for reasons of conservation or culling, but not nearly so quickly for out-and-out monetary exchange. The Wildlife Service was not going to approve of the panda "rentals" because they were just such monetary exchange, effectively not so different from the days prior to 1976 when zoos simply purchased animals for import. To get permission SD had to prove that, not only were they working to research how to breed the species, but that it had to be proven that some high percentage was going directly to active conservation efforts in China. In fact, there was SO much rigamarole to prove it wasn't a mere rental that China nearly backed out in frustration. In other words, to Fish and Wildlife, it would be a CITES violation unless both parties proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not simply a monetary transaction. Now, I really have no idea whether Zimbabwe was actually ready to cull and our three zoos were doing a humanitarian rescue by saving them. But if it is discovered that money really did change hands as a clear "purchase," and if Zimbabwe is simply selling elephants as a commodity, this would be a clear violation of CITES as it was written and understood. This is the first time I've seen an activist group use this argument, and I worry that it could be an effective one. I hope against hope that their accusations turn out to be baseless, because this could make Fish and Wildlife clamp down even harder and refuse to allow even those real individual cases that bring vital new blood to our entire collective gene-pool. I'm afraid this could be trouble.
Below is a link to the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by PETA regarding the FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) import permit of 22 African elephants from Zimbabwe. In 2018, Namibia was the original country of export. However, those elephant populations are protected under CITES I which would have proved difficult. In 2019, elephants exported from Zimbabwe would be easier to import under CITES II. In June 2019, the Elephant Conservation Center in Virginia dropped out of the permit. As of July 2019, Pittsburg was to receive 2 males, 11 females. Maryland, Memphis, and Kansas City were to receive 3 females each. In August 2019 all three AZA facilities dropped their import proposal from the application, leaving just Pittsburgh with a permit for 13 elephants. Information released by the FOIA request do not give any indication as to why the AZA facilities dropped their import, but I’m sure we all have our suspicions – particularly the public relations nightmare that these zoos would face. Interesting to note, Maryland and Kansas City have recently renovated/ expanded their current exhibits. In September 2019, Pittsburgh subsequently dropped the application. There has been substantial discussion within this forum that the AZA was not supportive of this decision. Evidence in this permit do not support those suspicions, however. According to the “Supportive Parties” section; “The zoological institutions involved in the import support a positive finding for all institutions involved in the import. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) supports a positive finding for the institutions involved in this import that are AZA-accredited (Kansas City Zoo, Maryland Zoo, and Memphis Zoo); they would not support a negative finding for one or more of these institutions.” Furthermore, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, “supports the proposed sale and export of these live elephants to the U.S. zoological institutions identified in the application. A letter of support from the International Elephant Foundation was also included in the application.” So overall, while there were some concerns with permits and FWS obligations under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), I can’t find any direct reason as to why those facilities dropped their application. My first thought was since Pittsburgh is no longer AZA accredited, that might have something to do with it. But since all zoos in the U.S. are regulated under the USDA, that would be uncharacteristic for a regulating body to preference a membership in a group over a non-member. Now, FOIA requests do not give the complete picture, so there are certain parts that are missing. Items not made public might provide more information. I just found this entire aspect fascinating and actually have not made an opinion on this subject, yet. I dove head first into this, mainly wanting to learn more and to evaluate the pros and cons to each side. https://www.peta.org/wp-content/upl...bwe-Elephant-Import-FOIA-Response-Records.pdf Also, as a note, since I feel that I'll receive push back from posting a link to a PETA supported document. This is a FOIA request. Not PETA material. PETA requested the FOIA so that is why its under their URL. It is illegal for a FOIA request to be redacted (except for information deemed sensitive - phone numbers, personal information), items removed, added, ect. The PDF posted here is what FWS made publicly available.
I agree, if the SSP will be able to sustain a viable population in North America, an import will be required. Of note, the Asian Elephant SSP also need to come up with a better plan in North America. It would be much more difficult to import elephants from the wild, but I wonder with the current situation impacting elephant tourism, if some of those elephants of breeding age might become available to the SSP from Asia/India?
I don't know if the European zoos would consider this (because it's not entirely clear what they would get from it), but I also wonder whether an import from Europe's much more demographically sound population would be conceivable. I certainly agree that I could envision imports from SE Asian elephant tourism, or perhaps also from elephants used in logging or other industries that could potentially be more easily characterized as rescues and therefore acceptable from a PR standpoint.
The Asian elephant ssp will get some "new" genetics sooner rather than later. It's already in the works.
Do you have a link to where this information can be found? I was thinking about the overall reproductive health of the US population and am afraid if something is not done soon we may have little to no viable breeding age elephants.
Sometimes there is no link. Its elephants already in the country but have primarily not been part of the overall SSP.
Those elephants were never just gonna stay at a privately owned facility forever, so I have been waiting for the past few years to start to see some movement. A long-term solution that brings these animals into the AZA population would be best for them and the population and would elicit virtually no backlash. Athough I am more interested to see which facilities work most closely with these elephants. Their was that rumor a while back of the whole herd moving to one facility.
What's ironic is the groups have tried to work with AZA facilities in the past, to some degree successfully, but stigma attached to them has created conflict. Why couldnt the elephants stay privately forever? In my experiences, its usually best case scenario.
Simply because of money. The elephants cost a large amount of money to upkeep, and I can't see a private enterprise keeping up this bad financial equation forever. As well the animals at the facility as of now aren't a cohesive part of the breeding program, and as they not seen by the public, they do not really contribute to education (which they once did, when they were on tour). As well there has been regular rumors that the company wanted to ofload these elephants, potentially to another privately-held facility (although that is a non-profit).
You made a good point, when they are working they are financially feasible and do have an education/Appreciation aspect. And as I mentioned said facilities did reach out and wanted to work with accredited facilities to progress their non post repro stock. Once again, why couldnt they have stayed private?
I'm sorry. I am not understanding your question. As well sending post-reproductive stock is fine for exhibition and education purposes, yet does very little for the reproductive health of the population. Unless their is an exchange of young elephants, the given facility is simply using AZA zoos to offload animals that do little to further the population.
I apologize for the interjection however I would like to contribute to the conversation. Which group are we talking about? Im assuming it is Ringling's however dont want to provide feedback without any background knowledge.
