Sunday, December 14, 2008

Elephants live longer in wild than zoos?

(AP) -- Zoo elephants don't live as long as those in the wild, according to a study sure to stir debate about keeping the giant animals on display. Researchers compared the life spans of elephants in European zoos with those living in Amboseli National Park in Kenya and others working on a timber enterprise in Myanmar. Animals in the wild or in natural working conditions had life spans twice that or more of their relatives in zoos.
Animal care activists have campaigned in recent years to discourage keeping elephants in zoos, largely because of the lack of space and small numbers of animals that can be kept in a group. Debates have been especially vocal in Dallas and Los Angeles.

The researchers found that the median life span for African elephants in European zoos was 16.9 years, compared with 56 years for elephants who died of natural causes in Kenya's Amboseli park. Adding in those elephants killed by people in Africa lowered the median life span there to 35.9 years. Median means half died younger than that age and half lived longer.

For the more endangered Asian elephants, the median life span in European zoos was 18.9 years, compared with 41.7 years for those working in the Myanmar Timber Enterprise. Myanmar is the country formerly known as Burma.

There is some good news, though. The life spans of zoo elephants have improved in recent years, suggesting an improvement in their care and raising, said one of the report's authors, Georgia J. Mason of the animal sciences department at the University of Guelph, Canada.

But, she added, "protecting elephants in Africa and Asia is far more successful than protecting them in Western zoos."

There are about 1,200 elephants in zoos, half in Europe, Mason said in an interview via e-mail. She said researchers concentrated on female elephants, which make up 80 percent of the zoo population.

"One of our more amazing results" was that Asian elephants born in zoos have shorter life spans than do Asian elephants brought to the zoos from the wild, she added in a broadcast interview provided by the journal Science, which published the results in its Friday edition.

She noted that zoos usually lack have large grazing areas that elephants are used to in the wild, and that zoo animals often are alone or with one or two other unrelated animals, while in the wild they tend to live in related groups of eight to 12 animals.

In Asian elephants, infant mortality rates are two times to three times higher in zoos than in the Burmese logging camps, Mason said via e-mail. And then, in adulthood, zoo-born animals die prematurely.

"We're not sure why," she said.

The study confirms many of the findings of a similar 2002 analysis prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. One of the authors of the new study, Ros Clubb, works for the society.

Steven Feldman, a spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, contended the report did not reflect conditions in North America. In addition, he said, it is hard to compare conditions in zoos and in the wild. "Every event in a zoo is observed," he said, while scientists can study only a small number of events in nature.

The project, or individual researchers, received financial support from Canada's National Science and Engineering Research Council, Prospect Burma Foundation, Charles Wallace Burma Trust, Three Oaks Foundation, Whitney-Laing Foundation, Toyota Foundation, Fantham Memorial Research Scholarship and University College, London.

Among the researchers, Mason has served as a paid consultant to Disney's Animal Kingdom USA and one of authors, Khyne U. Mar, has been a paid consultant for Woburn Safari Park, about an hour north of London.
*************************************************************************************
This is a very biased, one-sided report, with a very, very limited data source, reminisent of the weak, self serving "animals traveling/living in a performing situation" research done by Dr. Ted Friend, and his Pals. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get a 100% impartial, greatly documented, removing all doubt, leaving nothing to interpretation animal report.

Courtesy of Rambly

22 comments:

B.E.Trumble said...

Bad science always gets trumpeted in the form of press releases. And this is bad science. (1) Longevities in captive animals reflect the very high rate of mortality in neonate and younger elephants -- something that's improving. I will wager if we look at longevities in both wild and domestic elephants that reach the age of seven, the numbers skew in the direct of captive animals dramatically. (2) How can you discount animals that are poached? The report itself suggests that human hunting reduces longevity by a large factor. Suggesting that "natural" longevity is 56 years based on a single study is silly. You can't possibly speculate on that without decades of data. For example, we know that African elephants suffer badly in times of draught. So a ten year draught in a particular region could knock years off natural longevity. While it would certainly take more than ten years of post-dry-spell rains to elevate longevity. In Asia habitate destruction makes it virtually impossible to know what a "natural" longevity might be. The total population of elephants in Asia is fewer than 35000 animals, and it might be argued that half of those are "managed" in some fashion . There are factors to consider as to why elephants managed in domesticity in a lumber camp might outlive animals born in a zoo -- but again the single biggest factor is early mortalities. This is just bad.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
I only got as far as the second sentence, and learned they only used elephants in European zoos, as their "test" group and went WHAT!!!!!!! I didn't need to read it all to realize it was one of those Ted Friend Pro Circus studies, where the results are taken from a core situation/setting, that is set and staged to get a "looks all right to me" result. I hold my breath waiting for a legitimate valid mental stress study, based on how/who handles them, and how who exhibits them. How can any researcher with any preconceived idea or philosophy think they can come to a valid scientific conclusion. It's like injecting sacrin into the blood stream of lab rats, and coming to the conclusion it will kill you. Damn let them put a little in their coffee, don't make them shoot up. LOL
Using only animals from European zoos to "blast" elephants in captivity, is as biased and self serving as the ECA and their members, claiming they are the standard for circus animal husbandry.
Wade

B.E.Trumble said...

Wade. This kind of "research" just makes me see RED. I'll be snapping at people all day long. Bad enough that it involved only one reserve in Africa, a lumber camp in Burma, and only European zoos. You simply can't "assume" that an elephant poached at the age of 38 or 39 would other wise live to 56. There are too many "natural" factors that could either lead to an earlier mortality or a later one. Likewise elephant mortalities from EEHV etc in young animals have been as bad or worse in Europe than in the US. I'd wager that captive elephant longevities have actually decreased slightly as captive breeding successes have gone up. It's not a static number. As treatment and detection improves, larger numbers of young elephants will survive and longevities will rise. What this "study" really does is to penalize captive breeding success. It's a conservation penalty.

And that's bad science.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
Are you going to see as "bright of a red" when somebody says, "see it proves that animals are healthier and live longer in the circus because they are working like in a lumber camp." Equating doing hind leg stands, and waltzes for 5 minutes(forgetting the confiscations for a moment) as to working in a physical environment like a lumber camp. Or comparing a race horse to a grist mill horse. Physical activity will always be healthier and lead to longevity of any animal, human animals included. Just as some activity such as gymnastics will lead to physical problems with shoulders, legs, knees. That's why it is dependent on who is doing the gymnastics, and who is teaching it. But rest, assured a spin will be made to make the study make sense to a personal agenda. When it was suggested recently that per capita, North Dakota is one of the most politically corrupt States in the Nation, an ND politician suggested, it only seems that way because we are so good at catching and trying the corrupter's!!!!!!! Did that gent not twist it into his favor. LOL
Wade

Don said...

Thank you gentlemen for your sanity!! This survey was actually only on British zoos (a ridiculously small sample on which to make these statements), and as one of the collections audited you can imagine we were pretty pissed about the shocking bias which emerged when this survey was presented to the press. Every national paper and national news channel ran big stories, and I've already been approached by zoo visitors who have problems with how we manage our animals. The really annoying thing is that the whole study was sanctioned by BIAZA (British Association of Zoos and Aquaria) and I don't believe anyone at BIAZA realised that the producers of the report would essentially stab them in the back. Many of the actual trainers however were less naive, and warned directors etc beforehand, but of course you may as well bang your head against a tree! At the end of the day, certain collections DO fail in their care of the animals, and if BIAZA won't take measures to rectify the problem, does it really take these other assholes to do it and tar us all with the same brush? THATS the shame of it.

Wade G. Burck said...

Don,
I can't believe it said European zoo's and it was actually British. I had an argument with one of your country women a couple of years ago when she tried to convince me a couple of years ago in the "European Style/American Style" debate that England was in fact Europe. Folks will go to great lengths to validate themselves. LOL

"At the end of the day, certain collections DO fail in their care of the animals, and if BIAZA won't take measures to rectify the problem, does it really take these other assholes to do it and tar us all with the same brush? THATS the shame of it." Brilliant statement, Don. That is what has destroyed the Circus, the protecting of bandits, and the revering of mediocrity. Just be lucky, your industry doesn't give "awards" to that on a public stage. You'll be in a worse fix, similar to my beloved profession. How do you change that mis perception. Some of us offer a public forum to discuss those issues, but to may only want to address it in a politically correct one sided private setting.
This study ranks right up there with the "they are like my children" BS. You have to be pretty ignorant or one sided to buy into it.
Wade

Wade G. Burck said...

Addendum to Don,
I am not endorsing this goofy study at all, but I don't know if somebody impartial coming to a conclusion different then the institution hiring them is a "stab in the back." Not if we want valid answers for the welfare of the animal, and not confirmation of our own private agendas.
Wade

Anonymous said...

Clearly ignorance does not keep any of you from commenting, so why ask if I'm competent to respond? There were TWO DIFFERENT studies announced last week: one was European zoos and one was British zoos. So Don might want to not spout off until he knows what he's talking about. Also, the BIAZA's response to the first (European) study, at least, was basically "this proves we're doing better so this is great" which is a very smart response. As to your outrage, and Ben's, that this is "just' about European zoos - they make that exquisitely clear in the actual report, and in most of the articles about it. So if you think they are trying to pass it off as "all zoos" you simply could not be more wrong. And by the way you discount animals that are poached because - DUH - they aren't poached in zoos and you are trying to determine health issues. Again I will ask you: have you actually read the study, or just an article or two? We all know how inaccurate reporters can be.

Casey McCoy Cainan said...

Anonymous,
Not counting the poached elephants in the wild, then I vote we don't count baby elephants in captivity that die from elephant herpes virus.

If you are going to compare longevity wild vs. captive, you can't rule out "what" they died from, just how old they were when they died. The headline reads: "ELEPHANTS LIVE LONGER IN WILD THAN ZOOS"

I don't believe they proved that.

Wade G. Burck said...

Speaking of studies being done, In 1975 there were 47 baby elephants, all under the age of 5 on a large show in America. Where are they all at today. What year was it that Arthur Jones brought in 55 baby elephants to save them from starvation and poaching, and to give them a good life. Where are they all at now. How many elephants from these two situation's are alive today. The ones in the first scenario should be about 38-40 years old.
Wade

Anonymous said...

This was on one of the national network news reports a few days ago. Can anyone supply an internet address for the (apparently) two reports yet? If you are trying to make a point of where they live longer, you can't discount either poaching or herpes as both happen. And one must take into account all that has been learned and improved about captive raising in the last decade or more--has not the statistic improved in a very short period? Also, Ben's point about the draught is well-taken.
Dick Flint
Baltimore

Wade G. Burck said...

Dick,
By pointing to how smart we have become in the last ten years, am I to assume that it justifies the last 40? Or that we should not address that when we are pointing out all the good that is now done. Why did a "learned" society get so much smarter in the past decade. And it is weak to hold up the efforts of one or two, as an example of an industry. Just as it is unjust to hold up the bad of one or two. as an example of an industry. It is refreshing not to hear trainers referred to by the self serving title of "European/American Trainers any more. It is about individual's as well as individual organizations.
Wade

Anonymous said...

Wade,
As a historian, I certainly don't advocate ignoring the past but it is only fair to acknowledge observable trends when present. You're right, though, that some of that progress is limited to the work of a few.
I certainly respect your gutsy approach towards improving how business is conducted. There is value to understanding the past.
Dick Flint
Baltimore

Wade G. Burck said...

Dick,
Thank you. That is the most insightful thing I have heard on the subject in a long time. That it is uttered by a Historian I guess is expected, but I would have hoped others would remembered what we all learned in school. You don't ignore history, you study it and learn from it, so that it doesn't repeat its self. I grew up in the home of an educator, and maybe it just stuck with me.
It has to be addressed Dick, if it is not to repeat it's self. Do you know how may times I have asked that question about "what happened to those elephants", on every blog and to every elephant trainer in the business longer then 10 years? I would have been pleased if just one had said, "I don't know, but we need to find out." They go deaf, and either don't hear you, or call their friends and tell them what an ass you are for bringing it up. That's how the Circus studies and learns from History, Dick. It might help us understand why we are still singled out, and why the efforts at improving were so long in coming. There was never a standard, Dick. There has been a start yes, but we can't use the recent decade to justify the past century. I love the "craft of animal training" more then I love myself, and "gutsy" may be mistaken for "nothing left to to lose," because the reactions of some are truly frightening and they do scare me.
Wade

Anonymous said...

Casey, the headline of the newspaper article is not something that you can blame the researchers for. That was not the name of the study. And if it's health that you are assessing, it makes absolute sense to ignore the poaching issue. Zoos should be able to keep animals alive for as long as they would be in an equally protected area in the wild, not for as long as they would be if there were poachers running around.

Anonymous said...

Here is the link to brevia of the Europe study, for anyone who is interested. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5908/1649

GaryHill said...

In 1974 I was fortuate enought to bring over from Uganda, 25 baby Africans to Great Adventue in NJ. We did lose one from liver flukes, it so happened to be the smallest of the lot. Today at Great Adventure there are only 8 left and 2 of them are of 4 larger elephants brought down from Canada, to make it the largest herd outside of
Africa back then. I have attempted many times to get info on what happened to all of them, but only know one male was sent to Japan years back.????

Wade G. Burck said...

Gary,
Interesting. Out of 25 brought in 34 years ago, you can account for as I understand it, 6. At least you made an effort. I wonder how many of the Asians brought in around the same time are around, or how many of the over 50 from the Arthur Jones African importation years later. I suggest there are a lot of very valid animal studies that could be conducted, besides whether the tiger is happy with tree branches put in his cage to give him a "feel of the jungle," which is all the rage at Monte Carlo in recent memory.
Wade

B.E.Trumble said...

Records on the Ocala elephants, at least while they still belonged to Jones should be in Gaineville. Elliot Jacobson who ran the exotic animal medicine program at UF would have had them, I think. As incredible as the Jones place was -- it wasn't a zoo -- nor did the standards there rival say White Oak. I knew the croc end pretty well and there were times when over-crowding was an issue. My point is that I would compare the Jones place to an AZA park.

I'm going to guess that many Jones elephants went overseas, particularly to Latin America. There may or may not be a paper trail on all that. That's what happens when you can aln a 747 next to the barns.

Wade G. Burck said...

Ben,
If you are equating an AZA park to size, and species kept possibly. But not if we are considering ethics and professionalism/standards in operations.
Wade

Anonymous said...

compared to asians where they have been incorporated in a circus herd. It will be interesting to see in the Brian Franzen herd which specie will out live the other.For years African elephants have been useless for circuses and it seems they only function now as ride elephants. Feld has only Asians as does Carol Buckley. Buckles documents circus elephants and it is interesting how many decades and shows they were with and when one passes

Wade G. Burck said...

Johnny,
What would be of interest is how many were imported/captured predating the interesting ones that survived. Those documents you mention, I assume are the irrefutable, impossible to be biased, as accurate as accurate gets, undeniably correct word of mouth/jackpot documents. Is that correct? Science/research should only hope for such accuracy.
Wade