Pittsburgh Zoo to review use of dogs to control elephants

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

WildZoo

Noble Dubz Dictator, Unyeetable Phasing Wolf
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
70,793
Reaction score
116,084
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/c...o-help-control-elephants/stories/201502020150

I thought this story was interesting, and usually when PETA is involved I just kind of roll my eyes, but this looks a little more legitimate than the usual. I've never heard of dogs being used this way in other zoos, and the one where I worked limited contact between the elephants and the keepers in most situations (with fences as mentioned in the article). But I wanted to get some different perspectives so...Discuss!

Members don't see this ad.
 
I don't know enough about their program to discuss well enough...why do the keepers need to be in direct contact with the elephants?
I'm really not sure. It seems like they use the dogs for herding (maybe to get the elephants into the barn at night?) but nothing I can find is giving details on why they are in direct contact enough to need the dogs for protection.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The head elephant keeper at the Pittsburgh Zoo has always been somewhat, uh, controversial in his methods. One of the keepers I worked with when I interned there (different department) went on and on one day about how she doesn't like how he manages the elephants and blames his techniques for the death of an elephant keeper back in the 90s. But they are definitely all about the direct contact with elephants thing. I mean, when I went for a visit to the zoo with a vet who used to be a vet there and was good friends with the elephant guy, we went back and stood right next to a bunch of the elephants (the nice ones) and fed them carrots. This was right after they had started using the dogs, so although I did see one of them hanging out in back (it was a cute, friendly dog...), I didn't get to see how they interacted with the elephants. And one time when I visited the zoo from the visitor side, the head elephant keeper was just standing out in the middle of the exhibit watching the elephants, with the dog next to him, but neither was doing anything.
 
The head elephant keeper at the Pittsburgh Zoo has always been somewhat, uh, controversial in his methods. One of the keepers I worked with when I interned there (different department) went on and on one day about how she doesn't like how he manages the elephants and blames his techniques for the death of an elephant keeper back in the 90s. But they are definitely all about the direct contact with elephants thing. I mean, when I went for a visit to the zoo with a vet who used to be a vet there and was good friends with the elephant guy, we went back and stood right next to a bunch of the elephants (the nice ones) and fed them carrots. This was right after they had started using the dogs, so although I did see one of them hanging out in back (it was a cute, friendly dog...), I didn't get to see how they interacted with the elephants. And one time when I visited the zoo from the visitor side, the head elephant keeper was just standing out in the middle of the exhibit watching the elephants, with the dog next to him, but neither was doing anything.
I guess I just don't get the direct contact thing. Do you know what his rationale is for it?
 
I guess I just don't get the direct contact thing. Do you know what his rationale is for it?
No... I don't know/remember much about the details.
 
I also don't understand the need for direct contact with the elephants. But my local zoo that I did an internship at was VERY big on safety around the elephants, as a keeper there was killed by an elephant in 2013. I was required to stand well back behind a painted line on the floor whenever the elephants were in the same area, and they were always separated from the keepers by a fence.
 
Having volunteered at zoos, I can say that my general experience is that certain species, especially large/potentially deadly ones had very strict regulations and restrictions, and generally speaking husbandry and care was very "hands off". I had a similar experience working with rhinos, where there was a painted line that you had to stand behind, with the animals separated by a fence.

I'm by no means a zoo person, so I can't speak with too much certainty, but I'd agree with others and say that I don't strictly agree with direct contact with the animals. I find it a little concerning that the person issuing the statement cited that it's a safe program simply because they haven't had accidents since 2012, when the program was instated. That's barely three years. While I'd hope that thought went into careful training and accident prevention, I find the mentality a little strange. I don't know too many keepers, but I have spoken to at least a few who fully acknowledge the risks and danger of what they do. They LOVE it, but they're aware that situations can be unpredictable and large and/or potentially aggressive animals can kill people. Simply saying that there isn't any danger because of lack of accidents, rather than citing countermeasures to prevent the unexpected makes me worry. It's not just the keepers that you have to worry about. Accidents put the animals at risk, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm all for very restricted contact with animals of this size. As I'm sure you all already know, they don't have to be intentionally hurting you to kill you...but they are very much known to hold grudges against keepers they dislike/new keepers. I'm pretty sure the elephant holds the record for most keeper deaths. I can completely agree with PETA on that. As much as I would love to get close to an elephant, the risks involved are enough to make me think twice.

My opinion (based off of talking to keepers/general observing) about people who want direct contact with 'their' animals is that they want the whole bond thing. The head rhino keeper at a zoo I spent time at got very close with the rhinos all the time (no thanks) and even advocated urinating in their holding areas so they would get familiar with you. Can't say that is scientifically backed...some keepers seem to lose touch with reality. Sure, that tiger isn't lunging at you or anything when you walk by. But to say you'd go in with it if you wouldn't get fired immediately because you trust it (true story)? There are absolutely zoo species that you can have contact with. But a species that can quite literally squash you like a bug or fit your head in it's mouth?

Just reading the first line has me wondering if the dog actually intimidate the elephants, or if that's PETA being PETA. They say they have footage...but yeah. Either way, if an elephant is pissed enough, nothing will stop it. Not dogs, not bullets (unless it is strategically placed), and sometimes, not the typical amount of narcs/tranqs. If they truly are stressing the elephants out, they are creating a more and more dangerous situation. Elephants get pissed, and they get more and more pissed over time. I'm not sure how a dog would react to a crazed elephant. I need more information on how exactly these dogs are used and frankly, why keepers (or the had keeper) feels the need for dogs. I don't think any other zoo needs dogs to control their elephants...why does Pittsburgh? Is it because a dog can herd an elephant and get away from it's movements quicker than a human? If direct contact weren't involved, I doubt these dogs would exist. They say the dogs don't 'herd' the elephants. What else would they do besides be an aggressive/fearful presence, then?

This raises more questions for me: Do these dogs go home with someone (curiosity)? Are they trained to 'herd' or bite/lunge on command? Do the keepers encourage these dogs to be aggressive so the elephants are conditioned to be fearful of their presence? How many/what kind of dogs, and where do these dogs come from?

Another thing to mention: just because they can claim that there have been no accidents since 2012, doesn't mean there haven't been unreported accidents. Technically, even an elephant bumping or a dog growling at you into you should be reported as a 'near-miss.' A lot of keepers don't report these things for a lot of reasons (fear of repercussion, don't want to lose direct contact privileges, don't think it's a big deal, whatever).
 
Sort of an update, apparently the Pittsburgh Zoo has voluntarily dropped its AZA accreditation in order to continue their direct contact practices with the elephants
http://m.wtae.com/news/pittsburgh-zoo-loses-sea-turtles-in-dispute-over-elephants/34904916
That's crazy. I wonder if they'll loose a lot of funding from benefactors because of that. Has the AZA actually published an updated document about elephant care and captivity yet? The one I found still mentions direct contact.

Have any zoos really had any issues like this with other animals? I really feel like Pittsburgh is acting like a toddler here, but that's just my take. I just don't get why they NEED this direct contact system. Now they have an elephant herd that can no longer participate in any breeding programs they had through the AZA if they had any. Lost their sea turtle program, too.

"The Pittsburgh Zoo has continued to use a hands-on elephant management technique known as "free contact." The technique puts keepers side-by-side with elephants and uses social dominance and threats of physical punishment to control the animals." If this is true, isn't this against most AZA guidelines to begin with? http://news.yahoo.com/pittsburgh-zo...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjA3MDBfMQRzZWMDc2M-
 
That's crazy. I wonder if they'll loose a lot of funding from benefactors because of that. Has the AZA actually published an updated document about elephant care and captivity yet? The one I found still mentions direct contact.

Have any zoos really had any issues like this with other animals? I really feel like Pittsburgh is acting like a toddler here, but that's just my take. I just don't get why they NEED this direct contact system. Now they have an elephant herd that can no longer participate in any breeding programs they had through the AZA if they had any. Lost their sea turtle program, too.

"The Pittsburgh Zoo has continued to use a hands-on elephant management technique known as "free contact." The technique puts keepers side-by-side with elephants and uses social dominance and threats of physical punishment to control the animals." If this is true, isn't this against most AZA guidelines to begin with? http://news.yahoo.com/pittsburgh-zo...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjA3MDBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

I'm trying to see if I can find it in the update here but so far while there is updated elephant stuff I haven't found anything specific about changing the contact requirements.
 
I'm trying to see if I can find it in the update here but so far while there is updated elephant stuff I haven't found anything specific about changing the contact requirements.
I wonder if they are in the process of trying to write it, then. I think it's pretty obvious how I feel about it, but I think it was a very bad move. Not only for their own reputation, but for the SSP's and whatnot they participated in.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I wonder if they are in the process of trying to write it, then. I think it's pretty obvious how I feel about it, but I think it was a very bad move. Not only for their own reputation, but for the SSP's and whatnot they participated in.
I agree and it just seems odd to me that they would risk that for a practice that most zoos have moved away from anyway
 
Yay for articles that list their sources, here's the AZA statement from 2011
https://www.aza.org/elephant-safety-statement/

I'm trying to see if I can find it in the update here but so far while there is updated elephant stuff I haven't found anything specific about changing the contact requirements.
And I did finally find it in this year's update, at the top of page 32
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's crazy. I wonder if they'll loose a lot of funding from benefactors because of that. Has the AZA actually published an updated document about elephant care and captivity yet? The one I found still mentions direct contact.

Have any zoos really had any issues like this with other animals? I really feel like Pittsburgh is acting like a toddler here, but that's just my take. I just don't get why they NEED this direct contact system. Now they have an elephant herd that can no longer participate in any breeding programs they had through the AZA if they had any. Lost their sea turtle program, too.

"The Pittsburgh Zoo has continued to use a hands-on elephant management technique known as "free contact." The technique puts keepers side-by-side with elephants and uses social dominance and threats of physical punishment to control the animals." If this is true, isn't this against most AZA guidelines to begin with? http://news.yahoo.com/pittsburgh-zo...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjA3MDBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

I know some elephant keepers who would take significant issue with that definition of free contact.

I don't know that I'd say that Pittsburgh is acting like a toddler, but it is certainly a huge move, especially since they aren't exactly a small, lesser-known zoo. They are definitely not home to the only individuals that disagree with some of AZA's mandates for elephant management; I think it will be interesting to see whether or not any other facilities follow their lead and take similar actions in the near future.

Also, I'm fairly sure that AZA membership isn't necessarily a requirement for an institution to participate in SSPs... though I am not 100% certain on that.
 
Also, I'm fairly sure that AZA membership isn't necessarily a requirement for an institution to participate in SSPs... though I am not 100% certain on that.
You are correct.
The mission of an AZA Species Survival Plan® (SSP) Program is to cooperatively manage specific, and typically threatened or endangered, species population within AZA-accredited Zoos and Aquariums, Certified Related Facilities, and Sustainability Partners.
https://www.aza.org/species-survival-plan-program/

Though the Pgh Zoo wouldn't fall under the certified related facilities group (those are all conservation centers, sanctuaries, etc) and I'm not sure what the "sustainability partners" designation covers
 
Hi guys, i haven't been around in ages but was just surfing the internet...

This is is really interesting! Our elephants in zoos over here have HEAPS of direct contact with the elephants, and so can members of the public. One of the elephants at perth zoo even gets taken for daily walks around the zoo while the zoo is open, and you can have her and her keeper just casually walk past you. Obviously its only one elephant they have had for many years, and the elephants that get selected for close encounters etc are only specific ones - i know their bull elephants have a hands off policy - but direct interaction between the keepers and elephants is a really important part of the enrichment program at Perth Zoo, I know the keepers do things with them like playing soccer, setting up hiding games, painting etc. And the direct handling means that the elephants don't need to be sedated for much of their routine veterinary work, because every day they practice lifting their feet, opening their mouths, having their eyes and ears looked at etc.

http://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/visit/close-encounters/be-a-keeper-elephants/

Perth Zoo's program for elephant enrichment is pretty well acclaimed and I know they always have plans etc, so I think its so interesting that so many other places have such a hardcore no contact policy. I mean, things can always go wrong, but hands on results in so much good as well.
 
I know some elephant keepers who would take significant issue with that definition of free contact.

I don't know that I'd say that Pittsburgh is acting like a toddler, but it is certainly a huge move, especially since they aren't exactly a small, lesser-known zoo. They are definitely not home to the only individuals that disagree with some of AZA's mandates for elephant management; I think it will be interesting to see whether or not any other facilities follow their lead and take similar actions in the near future.

Also, I'm fairly sure that AZA membership isn't necessarily a requirement for an institution to participate in SSPs... though I am not 100% certain on that.
It is a requirement for the majority of the grants they have applied for/received though. And like I mentioned, they lost the rehab license they held. I suppose they could just apply for one federally as a loophole.

You're right that they don't necessarily have to be part of AZA for SSPs, but now they have to apply to be a certified/partner facility. I'm willing to bet politics and tension might prevent that from being sucessfull. Hopefully not...
I am interested to hear more from the other side though. I can't find much about what direct contact entails exactly or why some keepers prefer it.
Anecdotal, but I know a keeper who fully supported direct contact until she had a close call. Perhaps these keepers haven't had close calls yet.
 
Hi guys, i haven't been around in ages but was just surfing the internet...

This is is really interesting! Our elephants in zoos over here have HEAPS of direct contact with the elephants, and so can members of the public. One of the elephants at perth zoo even gets taken for daily walks around the zoo while the zoo is open, and you can have her and her keeper just casually walk past you. Obviously its only one elephant they have had for many years, and the elephants that get selected for close encounters etc are only specific ones - i know their bull elephants have a hands off policy - but direct interaction between the keepers and elephants is a really important part of the enrichment program at Perth Zoo, I know the keepers do things with them like playing soccer, setting up hiding games, painting etc. And the direct handling means that the elephants don't need to be sedated for much of their routine veterinary work, because every day they practice lifting their feet, opening their mouths, having their eyes and ears looked at etc.

http://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/visit/close-encounters/be-a-keeper-elephants/

Perth Zoo's program for elephant enrichment is pretty well acclaimed and I know they always have plans etc, so I think its so interesting that so many other places have such a hardcore no contact policy. I mean, things can always go wrong, but hands on results in so much good as well.

The thing is, you can still train elephants to work with people for veterinary exams, etc. without having to be hands-on. An acquaintance of mine works with zoo animals and they trained their chimps to offer an arm for blood pressure reading, etc, all hands-off. I think it's great to have enrichment programs, but having humans be a part of that is just not necessary (at least in my opinion) and the rare instance of something going wrong will far outweigh any good that hands-on can claim to have (especially when the same results can be achieved without hands-on approaches).

Frankly I think it just continues to allow the public (or humans in general, for that matter) to think it's okay to interact with a wild animal. Which is the root of exotics/endangered animals kept in inhumane and inappropriate situations, the exotics pet trade, "swimming with dolphins", the list goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Hi guys, i haven't been around in ages but was just surfing the internet...

This is is really interesting! Our elephants in zoos over here have HEAPS of direct contact with the elephants, and so can members of the public. One of the elephants at perth zoo even gets taken for daily walks around the zoo while the zoo is open, and you can have her and her keeper just casually walk past you. Obviously its only one elephant they have had for many years, and the elephants that get selected for close encounters etc are only specific ones - i know their bull elephants have a hands off policy - but direct interaction between the keepers and elephants is a really important part of the enrichment program at Perth Zoo, I know the keepers do things with them like playing soccer, setting up hiding games, painting etc. And the direct handling means that the elephants don't need to be sedated for much of their routine veterinary work, because every day they practice lifting their feet, opening their mouths, having their eyes and ears looked at etc.

http://perthzoo.wa.gov.au/visit/close-encounters/be-a-keeper-elephants/

Perth Zoo's program for elephant enrichment is pretty well acclaimed and I know they always have plans etc, so I think its so interesting that so many other places have such a hardcore no contact policy. I mean, things can always go wrong, but hands on results in so much good as well.
It's interesting to see the other side, but none of this provides benefits that more hands-off facilities lack, beyond a perceived benefit to the public that they get to be "closer" to the animals. As trh mentioned, veterinary care is still possible without sedation even with protected contact - it just involves some training. There's also tons of possibilities for enrichment without direct contact.
There have been enough deaths involving direct contact that I think the AZA and the zoos that had already adopted protected contact were justified in their decisions.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10801738
http://old.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021119zoo1119p1.asp
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local-news/knoxville-zoo-elephant-keeper-injured

That's just a few and I'm sure there are injuries that don't get reported to the news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Pittsburgh Zoo loses sea turtle program, playground grant after dropping accreditation"

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/c...echobox&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Facebook
NOT THE PLAYGROUND:arghh:

In all seriousness, I really think they'll be losing a lot more $$$ in the next few weeks. I'm sure they pissed off a few of their benefactors with this move...a lot of benefactors at the zoos I've worked at would pull their money for this. Heck, one benefactor would have pulled his money if we allowed our Surinam toads to breed. Can't say I blame him...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
NOT THE PLAYGROUND:arghh:

In all seriousness, I really think they'll be losing a lot more $$$ in the next few weeks. I'm sure they pissed off a few of their benefactors with this move...a lot of benefactors at the zoos I've worked at would pull their money for this. Heck, one benefactor would have pulled his money if we allowed our Surinam toads to breed. Can't say I blame him...
Well now I'm curious about this toad situation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I just remembered what species that is. Was he just not a fan of the whole back-birthing thing?
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

It's a legitimate phobia, though. Not the back part, necessarily. It's something that affects me too and really makes me quite uncomfortable to say the least. I'd say look it up, but I haven't met a person who isn't bothered by it yet (examples of said phobia).
 
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

It's a legitimate phobia, though. Not the back part, necessarily. It's something that affects me too and really makes me quite uncomfortable to say the least. I'd say look it up, but I haven't met a person who isn't bothered by it yet (examples of said phobia).
Oh I've seen articles on trypophobia before. It sometimes isn't pleasant but it doesn't actually bother me enough to say that I have the phobia. Some examples are worse than others though, so I can certainly understand the discomfort!
 
Oh I've seen articles on trypophobia before. It isn't pleasant but it doesn't actually bother me enough to say that I have the phobia. Some examples are worse than others though, so I can certainly understand the discomfort!
:barf:
 
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

It's a legitimate phobia, though. Not the back part, necessarily. It's something that affects me too and really makes me quite uncomfortable to say the least. I'd say look it up, but I haven't met a person who isn't bothered by it yet (examples of said phobia).

It really doesn't bother me... :shrug:
 
Cuterebra removal and the hole left after???
Haven't seen it in person yet, but a single hole doesn't bother me nearly as much as a whole bunch of them. Although I still get a little grossed out by one. I watched a tech pop a massive blackhead on a dog that left a gaping hole. Loved the blackhead popping, hated the result
 
Haven't seen it in person yet, but a single hole doesn't bother me nearly as much as a whole bunch of them. Although I still get a little grossed out by one. I watched a tech pop a massive blackhead on a dog that left a gaping hole. Loved the blackhead popping, hated the result

There is a video of a chimpanzee (I think) with numerous bot flies... the amount of holes is just impressive. You should watch it... :p
 
There is a video of a chimpanzee (I think) with numerous bot flies... the amount of holes is just impressive. You should watch it... :p
Hold on, I fell out of my bed just reading that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Another update with more from the Pgh Zoo keepers' perspective. Interesting that apparently more elephants are born at zoos that use direct contact. Also they have not lost the sea turtle program entirely, and the state is looking to change the requirements for their $177k yearly grant so they can continue to receive it.
http://triblive.com/mobile/8989166-96/zoo-elephants-pittsburgh
 
Another update with more from the Pgh Zoo keepers' perspective. Interesting that apparently more elephants are born at zoos that use direct contact. Also they have not lost the sea turtle program entirely, and the state is looking to change the requirements for their $177k yearly grant so they can continue to receive it.
http://triblive.com/mobile/8989166-96/zoo-elephants-pittsburgh
Maybe I'm misunderstanding...but if they're the only (or one of few) zoo with direct contact, and they also have the largest captive herd in North America, they can't exactly say the reproductive success is due to the direct contact aspect alone. The zoos with direct contact might also just happen to have a more intensive breeding program.

I'm surprised they acknowledged a violent death at their own zoo, but continue this practice anyways. It's not like the elephant accidentally backed into him or something. It sounds like the elephant got pissed and nailed the guy. It shouldn't even take a death to stop direct contact (like with Sea World, even though it's my understanding the trainers still swim occasionally).

I just don't get it. No one fights for direct contact with felids. No one goes into the lion exhibit expecting a fulfilling, bonding experience.
 
I just don't get it. No one fights for direct contact with felids. No one goes into the lion exhibit expecting a fulfilling, bonding experience.

Umm, I think we can all agree that big cats are very different in behavior to elephants.

Not saying I agree with the direct contact with elephants, but it is a little over the top to compare that to direct contact with big cats.
 
Umm, I think we can all agree that big cats are very different in behavior to elephants.

Not saying I agree with the direct contact with elephants, but it is a little over the top to compare that to direct contact with big cats.
I'm not specifically comparing behaviors of the species, but the inherent danger of direct contact with either type of animal. Sorry to be unclear. IMO, you can't pick and choose what you have contact with. Basically, they're saying they know elephants can be very dangerous (after all, they lost one of their own keepers), but they choose to go in anyways. You don't go in with gorillas, chimps, bears, etc. Contact with venomous reptiles is extremely limited, and the entire herp team is often present (a lot of zoos do a 'hot potato' line). I just cannot wrap my head around why this zoo is making it seem like the rest of the world is the bad guy for trying to put an end to direct contact.
 
I'm not specifically comparing behaviors of the species, but the inherent danger of direct contact with either type of animal. Sorry to be unclear. IMO, you can't pick and choose what you have contact with. Basically, they're saying they know elephants can be very dangerous (after all, they lost one of their own keepers), but they choose to go in anyways. You don't go in with gorillas, chimps, bears, etc. Contact with venomous reptiles is extremely limited, and the entire herp team is often present (a lot of zoos do a 'hot potato' line). I just cannot wrap my head around why this zoo is making it seem like the rest of the world is the bad guy for trying to put an end to direct contact.

Direct contact with ANY animal can be dangerous. Heck, horses kill people every year, cows kill people every year, dogs kill people every year. There is an inherent risk of danger with working with animals, yes it varies by species, but that is why we study animal behavior. To compare working directly with elephants with directly working with big cats as similar simply because they can both be dangerous, is just stating the obvious. No one would argue that working with elephants can be dangerous, but so is working with any animal species, so what exactly is the point in stating that? You can't compare direct contact with big cats (which does actually occur on occasion) with direct contact with elephants, because they have different behaviors. And I would be careful with that "rest of the world" comment, direct contact with elephants is incredibly common in other countries, to the point that elephant riding is a tourist attraction in some places (not that I agree with it, but it happens).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Direct contact with ANY animal can be dangerous. Heck, horses kill people every year, cows kill people every year, dogs kill people every year. There is an inherent risk of danger with working with animals, yes it varies by species, but that is why we study animal behavior. To compare working directly with elephants with directly working with big cats as similar simply because they can both be dangerous, is just stating the obvious. No one would argue that working with elephants can be dangerous, but so is working with any animal species, so what exactly is the point in stating that? You can't compare direct contact with big cats (which does actually occur on occasion) with direct contact with elephants, because they have different behaviors. And I would be careful with that "rest of the world" comment, direct contact with elephants is incredibly common in other countries, to the point that elephant riding is a tourist attraction in some places (not that I agree with it, but it happens).
I'm aware that elephant riding occurs. Ironically, an elephant trainer just got gored to death during a ride, and the elephant took off into the forest with people still on its back. However, our elephants are not here to be cash cows (not directly, at least) or to do our manual labor. The zoo is making it seem like they're super victimized in the AZA's attempt to update safety protocols. That's what I mean by making everyone else look like a bad guy.

I wasn't trying to provide some deep, insightful statement. I literally was just stating the obvious. We know felids are dangerous, and we don't mess with that. We know elephants are dangerous, but "we want a better relationship with them so we can save them." Eye roll. It's quite comparable to Sea World and their trainers insisting that they swim with the whales for bonding purposes. How many people did Tilikum have to kill before contact was banned? Four, and the last one was extremely high profile and happened in front of hundreds of people. Granted, the deaths were throughout his time in captivity and not just at Sea World. If the media/government/society as a whole didn't put so much pressure on the park, they likely wouldn't have banned anything...but that's another discussion entirely. Almost all keeper deaths are entirely preventable. Why risk it, you know? I don't see the point in risking your life to save an animal, especially when it's daily care can be done 100% without contact. If you end up dying, you can't continue your good work.

Working with cows, horses, and dogs can definitely be dangerous. The difference there is that to some extent, you can control those animals. There are points with the large animals where no one can do anything, but you usually can tell when things are going badly. Plus, if they are really that dangerous, euthanasia is brought up. That won't happen in zoos. With elephants, you can be feeding them like you would any other day, and they decide to gore you for something you did five years ago. There's a reason why elephant teams never let anyone else into the holding areas and are extremely reluctant to hire new keepers (in my experience). I'll repeat myself here, but elephants really are one of the most dangerous animals to have in captivity.

At least they give keepers the option not to go in with the animals. I wonder how many keepers actually take them up on that, though.
 
I'm aware that elephant riding occurs. Ironically, an elephant trainer just got gored to death during a ride, and the elephant took off into the forest with people still on its back. However, our elephants are not here to be cash cows (not directly, at least) or to do our manual labor. The zoo is making it seem like they're super victimized in the AZA's attempt to update safety protocols. That's what I mean by making everyone else look like a bad guy.

I wasn't trying to provide some deep, insightful statement. I literally was just stating the obvious. We know felids are dangerous, and we don't mess with that. We know elephants are dangerous, but "we want a better relationship with them so we can save them." Eye roll. It's quite comparable to Sea World and their trainers insisting that they swim with the whales for bonding purposes. How many people did Tilikum have to kill before contact was banned? Four, and the last one was extremely high profile and happened in front of hundreds of people. Granted, the deaths were throughout his time in captivity and not just at Sea World. If the media/government/society as a whole didn't put so much pressure on the park, they likely wouldn't have banned anything...but that's another discussion entirely. Almost all keeper deaths are entirely preventable. Why risk it, you know? I don't see the point in risking your life to save an animal, especially when it's daily care can be done 100% without contact. If you end up dying, you can't continue your good work.

Working with cows, horses, and dogs can definitely be dangerous. The difference there is that to some extent, you can control those animals. There are points with the large animals where no one can do anything, but you usually can tell when things are going badly. Plus, if they are really that dangerous, euthanasia is brought up. That won't happen in zoos. With elephants, you can be feeding them like you would any other day, and they decide to gore you for something you did five years ago. There's a reason why elephant teams never let anyone else into the holding areas and are extremely reluctant to hire new keepers (in my experience). I'll repeat myself here, but elephants really are one of the most dangerous animals to have in captivity.

At least they give keepers the option not to go in with the animals. I wonder how many keepers actually take them up on that, though.

I guess I was just looking for something more than just, "they're dangerous" when talking about why being against it. I definitely agree with you, just was expecting to see more. And I do still think comparing them to big cats isn't very accurate, even with just saying they are both dangerous, because the level of danger related to each is different. Big cats are predators, elephants aren't... their entire behaviors are different. And I have seen zoos with "direct contact" with big cats, but it was specific to an individual cat who had formed a bond with a specific person and that was the best way to get that cat vet care.

I'm more in the camp of contact needs to be dependent upon the individual animal and what will work best/be safest for that animal and trainer, keeper, and other staff. I think we get too caught up in black and white (either direct contact or no direct contact) with topics like this, when really, there is a lot of gray.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm more in the camp of contact needs to be dependent upon the individual animal and what will work best/be safest for that animal and trainer, keeper, and other staff. I think we get too caught up in black and white (either direct contact or no direct contact) with topics like this, when really, there is a lot of gray.

+2. We need to be very careful about taking a dogmatic, purist approach to any issue in the zoo world, as there are always so, so many different variables at play. Not that we shouldn't take stances on issues by any means, but they should be developed with a healthy recognition of this.
 
Working with cows, horses, and dogs can definitely be dangerous. The difference there is that to some extent, you can control those animals.
Any animal can be completely unpredictable. Horses, cows, and dogs can be uncontrollable when they want to be.
 
Top