There are already minimum requirements for elephant housing within Europe as well as guidelines set by EAZA
As a Zoo lover and Elephant lover I believe those minimum requirements should be reviewed. As I mentioned further back in the thread, husbandry and accommodation has vastly improved over past 50 years. But if you take Chester as a successful breeding herd ( excluding the sad virus demise of calves, and unexpected loss of Thi and Sithami), investment of a very large grassy paddock should be high on the development wish list. This is good for the species and keeps the public onside.
I hate rules that state it must be a minimal size, obviously there is too small for an enclosure but what you doing is giving them a bare minimum to meet. What makes they strive for the best? What about features in the enclosure for stimulus? (probably more important then another few square metres for Elephants),bull housing suitable? (now this is where size is a big issue). Type of flooring used, different feeding enrichment, shade available, can herd choose where they want to sleep (i.e. not individual stalls). Look at sea world, USA banned breeding of Orcas and they scrapped amazing plans to significant improve the visitor and orcas experience because it is not worth doing so now.
These are continually being reviewed within the European zoo framework and zoos part of either the Asiatic or African elephant EEPs are challenged by species committees and stud book keepers to meet those criteria and guidelines within an acceptable timeframe. In fact, the latest EAZA guidelines have just been published in 2020.
Why doesn't someone actually (politely) reach out to the author and enquire as to why she wrote an article of misinformation ? It seems she is easily reached on social media so why not ? I for my part don't care about elephants in captivity (though I do care about media accuracy) but evidently some of you do care so why not ?
Here is the problem once they start to give ground to AR group demands they just pushing even harder. SW tried to comply to AR groups instead of standing up to them. Give an inch they take a mile. If the AR groups made any headway in regards to elephants in zoos something else will be next perhaps great apes until zoos close for good!
This isn't about AR groups this is just about zoos being better, there are a lot of good zoo but there is room for improvement, no one thing or person is perfect.
A timely article from Mongabay about elephants in zoos : Do we love elephants enough to let them live free? (commentary)
Agreed, as much as AR groups can seem very OTT with pushing, zoos do need to constantly improve and renovate. If a zoo stands still it risks falling behind the standards across the zoo industry. Sure, a lot of UK zoos housing elephants have great facilities, but if they strive to be better and execute it well, as I'm sure they would do, then that's the best thing! That not only improves the lives of eles but also allows for more gains in research and development of care!
I messaged Noah's Ark Zoo Farm about the tragic death of M'Changa. I also enquired about the supposed "news" that Elephants were being banned in Zoos and Safari Parks, within the U.K. This was the response I received "In regards to the news over the weekend, the government have no plans to ban the keeping of Elephants in Zoos". I hope this is clarification that Elephants both Asian and African will continue to reside in Zoos.
I've just read it myself and for the first time in a while I agree with you, it is a crappy article indeed. Fair enough for the author to interview David Attenborough but Simon Cowell ?? !! My concern is that they are taking the practice of keeping elephants in zoos which is genuinely questionable and up for debate and extrapolating this to all animals kept within zoos and zoos themselves. We do need to think critically about zoos and examine welfare concerns and their conservation output and how this can be improved, however, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater as zoos are critical for conservation. The activist in the article states : “They (zoos) are not set up in ways that promote animal welfare or even conservation… especially if it is located in a European city centre.” How can he possibly make such an enormous judgement and factually incorrect assertion ? There are plenty of inner city zoos not just in the UK / Europe but in North and South America which can balance both ensuring welfare and having a tremendously positive impact on both ex-situ and in-situ conservation. The key point about those inner city zoos that do manage this well is that they are focused on the breeding programes of smaller taxa such as small birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, inverts and fish (I'm suprised and disappointed that Attenborough didn't mention this point ). I don't think these columnists or activists ever truly consider this because as usual their argument hinges entirely on the emotive issue of megafauna within zoos.
Believe it or not, that's the founder of a charity called Wildlife Aid - not the Simon Cowell we're all familiar with. They have the exact same name. (God, he must get that a lot) To its credit, it didn't really seem to take a side on the issue - at least not explicitly.
Lol thanks for that, I was wondering why they would choose to interview a reality television "sensation" and producer and purveyor of **** pop music for an article on elephants in zoos. That said, it wouldn't suprise me if they had done this as celebrities unfortunately seem to have more currency and sway in these kinds of debates in terms of influencing popular opinion than anyone else.
