Elephants know how to co-operate???? Otherwise known as "it looks good in the press."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9417000/9417308.stm

Courtesy of Mark Rosenthal

As interesting as this "experiment" is, I don't think it proves or shows anything like what Dr. Plotnik would want us to assume:

"elite group" of intelligent, socially complex animals."

It seems the Dr. is playing favorites here in coming to his conclusion of "elite group." Is this his "tell" or his agenda for coming to the conclusion he did?

Researchers from the University of Cambridge built the apparatus, which was originally designed for chimps.
Why don't you have a rhinoceros "use" the apparatus? How about a beaver or a horse? Are they any less "elite" or intelligent or socially complex because they don't have hands with an opposable thumb or a trunk(which reaches) with a similar physical characteristic? An elephant as well as a primate can be taught to stand on it's head, because of it's shoulder structure and how it's body is physically built. A horse can't, or a rhino, giraffe, etc. etc. for the same reason. An elephant can do a front foot stand, but it can't do a front flipper stand, but a sea lion can. A horse can be taught to do a piaffe, because it's spine can "break" at the loin bringing it's hips under, and it can break at it's poll lifting it's shoulders and rounding it's back. That's how they are physically built. It don't make them "elite" because they piaffe naturally in anticipation of say, food coming. When they become "elite" is when that natural behavior of piaffe become "unnatural" or accentuated if you will, through training/operant conditioning to become a collected controlled piaffe, starting when told and stopping when told. That's when they become "elite" and co-operate given their learned intelligence.

To "Deb" if you are reading, you are mistaken and misinformed. An elephant standing on it's head is no more cruel or unnatural then a horse levading, a falcon flying to the fist, an Orca doing a tail walk on the water, a sea lion balancing a ball on it's nose or a dog sitting up, Their body and how it is constructed permit's them to do thing's they would naturally do. The greatest trainer, with the all the positive reinforcement in the world or the worst trainer with the cruelest methods in the world can't teach an Orka to stand on it's head, an elephant to do a tailwalk on the water, a falcon to balance a ball on it's nose or a sea lion to fly. They can only be taught what they have the physical ability to do naturally due to their body structure. The methods are the same, only the animals are different.

Comedian Ron White explains it best, in describing his dog Sluggo's pleading for relief, and wanting Mr. White's assistance. Sluggo doesn't have any thumbs.

"The Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) involved in the study had already been taught that pulling on a rope brought a platform towards them,"

Dr. Plotnik, what did you just say!!!!! "The elephants involved in the study had already been taught to pull the rope!!!!" Impress me. Stick that deal out in the bush, and let me see them figure out this "co-operate" thing on their own. Why did these "elite" animals have to be "taught?" Why didn't they just do it? Is that maybe why in all the video's of "drowning babies" that have become all the vogue and rage, the momma the aunts, cousins, friends, etc. etc. have never just snatched the little whippersnapper with their trunk and pulled them out? Is it because they have to be "taught" lacking the mental capacity to figure it out themselves, which seems odd given their "elite" mental capacity, supposedly rivaling that of humans as well as their human compassion as you folks would have us believe?

"have documented remarkable behaviour by wild elephants, including "targeted helping" of other elephants that become stuck in mud."

Dr. Plotnik, "targeted helping!!!" Boy you folks of letters sure like to impress each other don't you. LOL Are you suggesting that there is a "good help" and a "bad help" and that an elephant knows the difference? If so that really speaks to this rash of animal related accidents in zoo's and sea worlds? You may have vindicated a lot of innocent walls, bars, and over zealous playing. Possibly they were an "accomplice" but no more then that. LOL

"There have even been reports of elephants appearing to mourn their dead."

That's correct, that these reports have only "appeared" to show elephants mourning. Because when they pick up the bones and put them in their mouth or kick the bones around, it "appears" to me that they are disturbing the dead, much like a grave robber of old. Just like the Coast Guard rescues of drowning baby elephants appears to be nothing more then elephants playing in the water and those babies having a hootenanny as baby elephants will.

"One thing that remains is our language. But amazingly complex behaviours - culture, tool use, social interaction"

Dr. Plotnic, is a parrot's(as well as crows and mynahs) ability to mimic or "be taught" our language a sign of superior intelligence if he doesn't comprehend the meaning of the words he is "parroting", or is it a sign of having a unique vocal organ called a syrinx which houses the medial tympaniform membranes and these control the airflow through the throat which is responsible for vocalizations or "talking" if you will, and a unique respiratory system, which has several air sacs, which allows it to vary the vibrations of the tympaniform membranes to change the sounds it produces or "talking up a storm" if you will. You won't get a horse to talk, unless it's a Mr. Ed deal, because he has no vocal cords, not even a syrix. That doesn't make him any less "elite" because he lacks the physical equipment or ability. And Deb, that doesn't make it cruel to teach a parrot to mimic, he can. Any more then it is cruel to teach an elephant to stand on his head, he can.

Dr. Plotnic, why can't an elephant slamming someone with his trunk be his language or social communication or way of communicating with a creature(humans) given he can't speak. Why is it wrong to "communicate back" by vocally saying no followed with reinforcement(learning through experience), uncomfortable, unpleasant counter action so that he learns a "new" language and what it means?

"Dr Karen McComb from the University of Sussex, who studies animal behaviour, agreed that the study enhanced "our understanding of the cognitive abilities of this intensely social animal".

"Dr Plotnik also hopes that his findings will help with the conservation of these endangered animals."

"So when the animals are raiding crops, we need to think of solutions that are based on the reasons why, and that benefit elephants as well as people."

I agree with Dr. McComb, all this study and expenditures of donated funds did was "enhance" our understanding, it didn't prove or illustrate anything else.

Dr. Plotnic, how in the world are your findings going to help with the conservation of elephants!!! If you want to really help, find a way to explain to millions of starving Kenyan's how piling up and burning millions and millions of dollars of ivory, which has an eager market of buyers worldwide, which could have in return bought millions and millions of dollars of foodstuffs makes any kind of sense. Tell the legal elk hunter in North America he can't sell his head mount or skin to feed his family? Tell them that they have to starve because all the antlers that were confiscated from illegal poaching, have to be destroyed instead of sold for foodstuffs. Find away for that to make sense to the peoples, instead of trying to con them with phony "Hal Markowitz" animal experiments. Or do you have another agenda, Dr. Have you ever read, IVORY'S GHOSTS by John Fredrick Walker, Dr.? If not, I highly recommend it. It has all your answer's there, with no agenda or bias. Just unavoidable, researched facts laid out. No games, no smoke and mirrors.
If you think this pulling a rope deal was neat Dr. Bill Woodcock Sr. and others showed a greater intelligence of elephants years ago. They showed, long before you did Dr. that not only do elephants "co-operate" but they have the ability to make 2 + 2=4. They co-operated by one being the barber and one being the client, and they learned that first you put on the shaving cream and then, and only then did you shave. It was called a "barber shop" routine. But I'll bet left alone to their on devices they would have fought over who was going to be the barber and who was going to be the client. Then they would have probably shaved first and then put on the shave creme or in other words tried to make 2 + 7= 4. But those folks proved that they can be "taught" to co-operate as well as put things in an order to get the best result.

• Download Supporting Information (PDF)
• Download Movie_S01 (MOV)
• Download Movie_S02 (MOV)
• Download Movie_S03 (MOV)
• Download Movie_S04 (MOV)
• Download Movie_S05 (MOV)

In coming to your conclusion were any of the animals held back or restrained or were they just standing in the pen when one decides he want a reward and the other thinks, "I better get over there and help?"
Dr. could you help me understand movie SO3 and SO4 in addressing "elite superior intelligence"? It sure looks like in SO3 the second elephant could have gotten the rope, if he really wanted to or "comprehended" the end result? In SO 4 it seems that the first elephant makes no effort at all to try to get the rope. Going under your "assumption" of "elite" do we assume he is cognizant enough to realize it is futile as it it "obviously" to far out of reach? If that's the case why did he grab the useless piece of rope laying at the top of the clip near the fence?(in a bit of anger it seems) Wasn't he smart enough to know that the "working" rope laid straight and at the moment was coiled up? Why didn't he know that the other was just a rope and was of no use? All the clips are pretty cheesy if you look at them close, and you and I sure come to different conclusions in our "assumptions" Dr.

"Tina Dow from US-based Elephant Research International said the findings could also "have positive effects on captive elephants, allowing keepers and mahouts to develop better enrichment tools that can stimulate both mental and physical health".

"Elephants are caring, sentient beings," she added. "

CARING

adj. Feeling and exhibiting concern and empathy for others

SENTIENT

adj. having the power of sense perception or sensation; conscious

PERCEPTION

noun. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or
the mind; cognition; understanding.

immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

CONSCIOUS

adj. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past

known to oneself;felt: conscious guilt.

aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar

deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort

Ms. Dow, are you suggesting that they know right from wrong indicating that they have a conscience? That would seem to suggest that all the elephant accident's may not be accidents at all. Surely then they would know that you can't hit a 100 lb. human with the same force as a 5 ton elephant with out killing it, which I would assume is wrong, if you have a conscience? It would also indicate that they know that raiding a crop is wrong, as it is not theirs to raid, but they do it anyway, indicating that their only concern is self survival and or greed?

Ms. Dow has had her deal(see below) up and running since 2008. I have looked at it quite often as I am truly interested in the plight of all animals, and interested in anything and everything that folks "smarter" then me come up with. On the link to "research" you will see "current research" and "archived research". Click on them and you will learn "coming soon." Click on "conservation" and then click on "human elephant conflict". Here she quotes Hedges: Since elephants can use their size and strength to overcome natural barriers, such as fencing and moats, researchers are investigating things that manipulate an elephants senses, i.e., sight, sound, and smell. Elephants are very sensitive to smell and especially do not like the chili pepper. Farmers have used chili pepper powder mixed with water to coat grass and trees with much success to keep elephants out of crops. Additionally, crops of chili peppers have been planted as barrier crops around other grains or vegetables as protection. Loud noises and light flashes have also been used; however elephants are intelligent and habituate to such occurrences.

How come researchers can "manipulate" an animals sense's but it is wrong if an animal trainer does it? I don't know if smell is the effect of chili pepper power or if taste is what turns them away. Go ahead you can say it, it doesn't seem any worse then smell. Who the heck want's to eat through chili peppers to get to the good stuff? Probably the same animal who want's to eat through feces to get to the donut. None of them. Sounds kind of negative and not to positive to me. Loud noises and light flashes(there is that sense's deal) seem negative and they very quickly "habituate" to such things. I wonder if they would "habituate" if the loud noise's and light were followed immediately with a "rap up side the head." LOL Just kidding, after all we are looking for positive reinforcement not that dastardly negative reinforcement. The only thing I learned from checking the past couple of years(other then a cute Kids Zone with eleFacts) at Elephant Research International is that Ms. Dow is a good looking broad, and I would sure like to take her out for dinner(how's that for political correctness?"

Elephant Research International Home Page

As that's not likely to happen, as much as I would like, maybe I could ask Ms. Dow for clarification to her thoughts on positive as opposed to negative reinforcement on this blog post as she seems to be about captive/zoo elephants as well. Her objective:

Our overall objective is to positively contribute to elephant conservation through comprehensive research of both ex-situ and in-situ elephant populations. It is our goal to expand our knowledge and convey what is learned to fellow researchers, zoological facilities, and academic institutions, as well as educate elephant lovers in general. Our research will be expanded to a variety of species, with a greater emphasis on the elephant. Currently, a few of our research interests include reproductive physiology and endocrinology, behavior, human-wildlife conflict, educational activities in rural communities, and illegal poaching and use of wildlife products. Additionally, we are working to become a non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization.

As well as her mission: The mission of Elephant Research International is to promote and support elephant conservation through research and education. We believe that ex-situ elephant populations should be treated as species ambassadors to in-situ populations. By working with zoological facilities, as well as elephant care managers and staff, it is our hope to help improve elephant welfare and husbandry. It is our goal to take what is learned by research in captive elephants and apply to the conservation of their wild counterparts.

FYI, go to the home page, and you will see a "sunken templed" elephant. I wonder if it is old or sick, or emaciated?

Elephant Research International Blog:

Human-Elephant Conflict

"Lucy King, working with Save the Elephants and student of the amazing Dr. Ian Douglas-Hamilton, has recently published data regarding a possible deterant to elephants traveling too close to human areas. Her solution is sweet and simple, one could say even bee-utiful. Yes, you probably have guessed it, see is using honey bees to keep elephants away from specific areas. Elephants can not only smell the presence of the hive via the honey comb, but they can hear the buzzing. It is the fear of the potential stings that cause the elephant to be cautious of the area, thus deterring the elephants. This not only works to keep elephants out, but also acts as a means of funding for communities and families by harvesting honey. This could also be used together with chili pepper paste/spray that is already in use."

What kind of spin is this, in regards to positive/negative reinforcement. Why isn't the taste of honey reward enough to make them understand. Why does the negative sting have to be the "learning/acceptance tool." What does say for protected contact ever being anything other then what it is, inconsistent at best. Don't give me "potential sting" please, I'm not a moron. Their stung, it is unpleasant, preceding the sting is the buzzing. The sting keeps them away, the buzzing tells them the sting is coming. How is that any different then an ankus on the back of an elephants neck "telling" him to lower his head, instead of raising his head into the, I'll use your term "potential sting," preceded with the "buzzing or the command head down?" How is it any different then a spur in a horses left side "telling" him to step right, instead of stepping left into the, I'll use your term again, "potential sting," preceded with no buzzing, instead just a squeeze/bump of the riders calf? Does a puppy stop defecating on the floor because the human is holding a squirt gun in his hand? No, he stops because what preceded the gun in the hand, was the shot in the face, which was preceded by the buzzing or the command NO!!! Even in child rearing it has been proven it has to be followed by an unpleasantness. Otherwise like the loud noises and bright lights you are just wasting your breath, and they soon "habituate." Why waste money "learning" that. We already know it. Now come to terms you can live with/justify for negative reinforcement.
On another note, see if you can borrow IVORY'S GHOSTS from Dr. Plotnik when he is finished. It might aid you in your elephant/human conflict issues and prevent any bias or agenda other then the only one that is good for all, not just you.

Abstract from Dr. Plotniks study:

Elephants are widely assumed to be among the most cognitively advanced animals, even though systematic evidence is lacking. This void in knowledge is mainly due to the danger and difficulty of submitting the largest land animal to behavioral experiments. In an attempt to change this situation, a classical 1930s cooperation paradigm commonly tested on monkeys and apes was modified by using a procedure originally designed for chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) to measure the reactions of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). This paradigm explores the cognition underlying coordination toward a shared goal. What do animals know or learn about the benefits of cooperation? Can they learn critical elements of a partner's role in cooperation? Whereas observations in nature suggest such understanding in nonhuman primates, experimental results have been mixed, and little evidence exists with regards to nonprimates. Here, we show that elephants can learn to coordinate with a partner in a task requiring two individuals to simultaneously pull two ends of the same rope to obtain a reward. Not only did the elephants act together, they inhibited the pulling response for up to 45 s if the arrival of a partner was delayed. They also grasped that there was no point to pulling if the partner lacked access to the rope. Such results have been interpreted as demonstrating an understanding of cooperation. Through convergent evolution, elephants may have reached a cooperative skill level on a par with that of chimpanzees.

I have been looking for a good place to reinsert this brilliant debate regarding training/conditioning/positive as opposed to negative reinforcement started by Mister's Alexander and Atkinson in the hope that other learned folks will jump in and offer insight and opinion:

"Elephant training starts anew after founder's firi..."