I have made a study of all the elephants that have lived at the Bronx Zoo in New York. Some of them lived out their lives; others, mostly males, were shot to death because they acted like males. This zoo never made facilities for keeping a male. Right now, I feel their facilities are awful and the 2 females that are there deserve a better life. That being said, I am trying to get some information and a photo of a young Asian male that was kept at the Bronx Zoo from 1930 to 1940, when he was shot and killed at the age of 13. His name was Runga. There are allusions to him in some old books about the zoo. He was noted as being small and bad tempered. It seems to be impossible to find a photo of him. It is as if he never existed. I am sure that I am not the only person who studies and cares about the elephants that lived at that zoo. Might anyone out there be able to help me?
Yes they are. You can see one of them for about a moment, as they cannot be together. Join the movement to get them out of that antiquated zoo that gives them no life. They belong in sanctuaries where they can choose to befriend other elephants, if they wish, and have lots of room to roam. These two elephants are literally political prisoners.
Tell me you know nothing about Patty and Happy without telling me you know nothing about Patty and Happy. I don't blame you for falling sway to the media's anthropomorphization of Patty and Happy, but good *lord* this is ignorant. Send them to a sanctuary - what, where it'll be more of the same and they'll also be kept in isolation because elephant socialization is complicated as hell? And they're more susceptible to TB? If you look into this situation for more than two seconds, you'll see how much more nuance there is. Happy and Patty are on exhibit together, separated by a fence GIVEN their previous conflict - AND YET, they get along BECAUSE of said fence. Jim Breheny's got a good series of tweets calling out ignorant sentiments like these, and I'd rather hear the testimonial of a man who actually WORKS with these elephants on a regular basis than anyone with an utterly superficial understanding of elephant husbandry. Oof, man. Just... oof.
I know all about Happy and Patti. They cannot be together, Patti and Maxine killed Grumpy and would have killed Happy if they were permitted. There is terrible political angst between zoos and sanctuaries. There are three elephant sanctuaries in the United States, each with plenty of room. They can send Happy to one and Patti to another. The TB is flourishing well everywhere that elephants can catch it from humans as it is a zoogenic disease. Your missive is intent on insult, but that doesn't help the elephants. Have you seen these elephants lately? They are terribly overweight and their limbs are arthritic from the same reason as most other zoo elephants, that is lack of exercise due to lack of room to roam. The Bronx Zoo is waiting for these two elephants to die to end its elephant exhibit. It would be much kinder to send them now, while they are alive, to a place where their lives can be much better and healthier, Do research on the needs of elephants and you will understand,
To reiterate: tell me you know nothing about Happy and Patty without telling me you know nothing about Happy and Patty.
If you think that these elephants "are literally political prisoners" then you have some serious growing up to do.
Ah, 'speciesism' ... I find it to be a concept which has interesting potential to be explored .. but all the same quite a lot of people, numerous AR groups included, tend to use it in a rather curious manner. Such groups don't simply point out how society seems to prioritise the needs of various species in an apparent hierarchy - what they seem to want is animal inclusion within personhood, from what I understand. It is a fair position to state that there is not very much, if anything seperating us from the rest of the animal world, but it is also a fair position methinks to state that human political / law systems have been designed with humans in mind. And so, now that one has given animals personhood in a random scenario, what is the next logical step? Do animals now have the right to vote? Or do we treat them similarly to children / gravely disabled in that they need special laws dedicated to themselves? If we are to tackle speciesism in all parts of the world, does this include remote Tibetean plateaus where yak are farmed moderately intensely [albeit certainly not to the degree cattle are farmed in the Western World] and soy milk is simply not available? I recall also hearing of how in some nations comorants make for submissive birds; they are perched on a stick and then dipped in the water to catch a fish, which is then given to the human. In this case, is the bird displaying speciesism? Are we to tell it that fish feel pain and it's not all too nice to eat them? Such areas, I feel, should be explored.
With all due respect, I am going to trust the person who knows the animals on a personal level over someone just posting on zoochat. They know what is best for those elephants and who the heck am I or anyone else not close to them to make that decision.
