By Richard Farinato

When you go to a zoo and follow the signs to the elephant exhibit, what you typically find is a barren and dusty dirt yard surrounded by a fence or moat. There may be artificial rocks or a dead tree trunk in the enclosure; there may even be a huge tire or an enormous ball. There will probably be some sort of pool. In their personal deserts, the elephants likely will be swaying back and forth, or standing quietly in one spot. They will look bored and numb. Some visitors will comment about the animals' lethargy. Others will yell and bang on the exhibit to get them to "do something."

The harsh juxtaposition between this artificial captive setting and an elephant's real life in the wild is beginning to capture the public's imagination. It has even captured the attention of at least one zoo manager.

In mid-May, the Detroit Zoo made a startling announcement: It was going end its 81-year history of exhibiting elephants. Director Ron Kagan decided to retire the zoo's two elephants, Winky and Wanda, because of animal welfare concerns; Wanda had developed chronic arthritis in her front legs, while Winky was struggling with foot problems, likely from the unnatural habit of sleeping while standing. Kagan plans to send the two Asian elephants to an as-yet-undetermined location some time this year.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Zoo announced on May 6 that it was relocating its remaining two elephants, an Asian and an African, after the public loudly complained about the deaths of two former performing elephants who had taken up residence in the zoo's 1950s-era facilities.

These two elephant relocations happened for different reasons—Kagan is credited for being the first zoo director to voluntarily give up his elephants on humane grounds, while the public forced the Bay Area relinquishment—but they both have an underlying theme. After more than 200 years of keeping elephants in unnatural environments, people have begun to realize that zoos and other captive settings can not adequately provide the conditions that meet an elephant's physical and behavioral needs.

Captive elephants, on average, live shorter lives and suffer from debilitating foot conditions, tuberculosis, arthritis, and other medical conditions and ailments. They live in unnaturally cramped conditions, are forced to limit their complex social lives, and are regularly subjected to abusive training methods and handling.

For these reasons, and more, The Humane Society of the United States is asking zoos to completely rethink the way they exhibit elephants. Our idea will take coordination, cooperation and maybe a little seed cash. But the results could radically improve the lives of hundreds of elephants currently held in captivity.

The Great Divide

The long-term scientific documentation on wild elephants shows that their lives are characterized by great physical activity on a daily basis, by life-long bonds between stable female groups, by sophisticated communication, by a large behavioral repertoire, and by successful reproduction into the later years of their 60-plus life spans.

How many of these behaviors are compromised in a captive setting? All of them. There are between 500 and 600 elephants in zoos, circuses, private facilities and sanctuaries in the United States. The vast majority of these animals live a kind of subsistence life, merely surviving in captive environments that cannot provide for their biological or behavioral needs.

These compromised conditions would appear to play a significant role in the captive elephant population's inability to sustain itself. Out of 55 elephants born in captivity over the last 10 years, only 30 have survived. What's more, elephants tend to stop breeding much earlier in captivity, usually in their 40s, whereas in the wild, they often breed right up until their deaths.

The U.S. zoo community is struggling for answers on how to maintain its popular elephant attractions in the face of such degenerative conditions. Zoo managers routinely move animals from one facility to another, employ artificial insemination, perform reproductive research, and, in the last two years, have begun importing wild-caught elephants for the first time in 30 years. The majority (90%) of captive elephants, in fact, have been captured in the wild from either Asia or Africa.

In the past decade, there has been some change in the management of zoo elephants, but those changes have come slowly and have not always improved the animals' lives. Some of the change has come from within the zoo community via new American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) standards. These new standards create general elephant management guidelines.

Other changes have been the result of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulatory policies (such as mandated tuberculosis protocols). And some have come from public pressure, often following a high-profile case of abuse or inadequate conditions.

Yet most of these changes don't go far enough, not by a longshot. For example, the new AZA elephant standards adopted in 2001 say, correctly, that it is inappropriate to keep females as single individuals. However, the standards also still permit the use of electric prods in an emergency and the striking of animals with elephant hooks; they set the minimum indoor space requirement at 400 square feet (a 20 x 20 square, for instance) and the outdoor space minimum at 1,800 square feet.

These standards essentially perpetuate the husbandry and management that have likely resulted in the zoo community's previous failures with elephants.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Six zoos, both AZA accredited and otherwise, have stopped displaying elephants for good. Their decisions to get out of the elephant business were sometimes prompted by financial or economic concerns, such as the inability to replace antiquated housing. Or the institution simply decided its animals would be better off elsewhere, strongly persuaded by one concerned group or individual.

But the Detroit Zoo's decision was altogether different. It did what zoos should do at all times: considered the welfare of the animal first and foremost.

If in the course of evaluating its animals, a zoo discovers there is no way to meet the needs of a species—or that critical needs would go unmet if the animal is kept in the zoo—then the only right and responsible thing for the zoo to do is abandon its plans for that species. And then the zoo must look for the best alternative placement available for those animals.

There are two facilities in the United States (the Performing Animal Welfare Society's ARK 2000 in California, and the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee) that have demonstrated a better way to keep elephants. Although a perfect captive setting is impossible, these facilities provide an elephant environment that is a world apart from the typical zoo, and they should be viewed as examples of what can be done for the welfare of elephants.

What's more, zoos with elephants should forego the institutional model that insists on lions, tigers, bears, and pachyderms in every zoo, and instead try a whole different approach. They should pool the resources that they currently devote to the scattered pairs and trios of elephants and use that money to create several large facilities in appropriate climates. These facilities, designed with the animals' needs in mind, could be true examples of cooperative stewardship.

These cooperative facilities would give elephants the chance to move, and give them a stable environment in which to form social groups that stay together. They would truly focus on providing these creatures with as much of a natural environment as possible. And best yet, they would provide these captive individuals with appropriate care for their lifetimes.

And to continue further along this line of thinking: U.S. zoos should reconcile themselves to managing the captive elephants they already have. Imports of wild-caught elephants will not ease the problems facing the current captives. Conversely, captive breeding, assisted reproductive techniques, and studies of stress levels in zoo elephants will likely do nothing to preserve elephants living wild in Kenya and Thailand.

Working hard to protect the remaining wild habitat, which will ultimately determine the fate of both Asian and African elephants, is a far better use of limited resources than producing a calf who will probably die before he reaches three years of age. And it's far better than keeping swaying elephants on display in cities across the United States.

The Detroit Zoo is to be commended for making a responsible decision based on genuine concern for the elephants' welfare and a realistic assessment of its own abilities. We hope that Detroit's action inspires a serious examination and discussion of whether elephants are suited for zoos at all as well as each zoo's responsibility towards the elephants in its care, and how best to meet those responsibilities in the 21st century.

Richard Farinato is The HSUS's Director of Captive Wildlife Programs and the Wildlife Advocacy Division.