Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T12:16:26.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of major welfare issues for captive elephant husbandry by stakeholders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

V Gurusamy ,
A Tribe  and
CJC Phillips
V Gurusamy
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, QLD, Australia
A Tribe
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, QLD, Australia
CJC Phillips*
Affiliation:
Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, QLD, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Accurate identification of key welfare issues for captive elephants could improve standards and help in the development of a welfare index. In the absence of adequate scientific information on the relative importance of key issues, the views of a range of stakeholders were sought using adaptive conjoint analysis. Fifteen key welfare issues were identified by experts, and three to six Levels of each, representing common husbandry practices. In order of declining importance, 224 stakeholders rated the issues as enclosure substrate > group size > healthcare > enrichment > chaining > enclosure type > exercise provision > enclosure size > interaction with keeper > enclosure environment > keeper knowledge/experience > diet > contact method with keeper > display duration > enclosure security. Enclosure size was considered more important by scientists and keepers than zoo directors/managers and animal welfare organisation representatives. Animal welfare organisation representatives rated enclosure security higher than scientists. Keeper husbandry methods and ability of elephants to be active were two principal components in responses. Three principal groups of respondents were identified: scientists/veterinarians focusing more on conditions for the elephants and less on interaction with the public; keepers, focusing on keeper contact method, feeding and knowledge of elephants; and a group with mainly animal welfare organisation representatives/zoo directors focusing on enclosure security. It is concluded that there are some differences between stakeholders in their recognition of the most important welfare issues for elephants in zoos. However, recognising that a diversity of informed opinion is necessary to adequately devise welfare standards, an index of elephant welfare in zoos is proposed, based on the relative merits of different husbandry practices and the importance of the different issues.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudeelephantsanctuarywelfare indexzoo
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 11 - 24
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Armitage, P and Colton, T 1998 Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. John Wiley and Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
AZA 2001 AZA Standards for Elephant Management and Care. Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Baker, KC 2004 Benefits of positive human interaction for socially housed chimpanzees. Animal Welfare 13: 239–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartussek, H 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’ well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock Production Science 61: 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S03016226 (99)00067-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M, Metz, J, Spruijt, B and Schouten, W 2002 Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows B: Validation by expert opinion. Journal of Animal Science 80: 1835CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, C 2001 Captive elephant foot care: natural habitat husbandry techniques. In: Csuti, B, Sargent, EL and Bechert, US (eds) The Elephant's Foot pp 53–55. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
CAPS 2011 Elephant Protection Project. Captive Animal's Protection Society. http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoosGoogle Scholar
Carlstead, K 2009 A comparative approach to the study of keeper-animal relationships in the zoo. Zoo Biology 28: 589–608Google Scholar
Clubb, R and Mason, GT 2002 A review of the welfare of zoo elephants in Europe. A Report Commissioned by the RSPCA pp 303. University of Oxford: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Faust, L 2005 Technical Report on Demographic Analyses and Modelling of the North American Asian Elephant Population. AZA Population Management Center, Lincoln Park Zoo: Chicago, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Faust, LJ, Thompson, SD and Earnhardt, JM 2006 Is reversing the decline of Asian elephants in North American zoos possible? An individual-based modelling approach. Zoo Biology 25: 201–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, S 1989 Training Working Elephants. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Fowler, ME 2001 An overview of foot conditions in Asian and African elephants. In: Csuti, B, Sargent, EL and Bechert, US (eds) The Elephant's Foot: Prevention and Care of Foot Conditions in Captive Asian and African Elephants. Iowa State University Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Fowler, ME and Mikota, SK 2006 Biology, Medicine, and Surgery of Elephants. Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470344484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A, Carlin, JB, Stern, HS and Rubin, DB 1995 Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall: Suffolk, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M, Sherwin, C and Harris, S 2008 The welfare, housing and husbandry of elephants in UK zoos. Report to UK government's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. University of Bristol: Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Hediger, H 1970 Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M 2006 Variation in nature: its implications for zoo elephant management. Zoo Biology 25: 161–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M and Keele, M 2006 Elephant importation from range countries: ethical and practical considerations for accredited zoos. Zoo Biology 25: 219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, M, Smith, B and Allard, R 2003 In defense of zoos and aquariums: the ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 223: 958966. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.223.958-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koehl, D 2000 Elephant Training, 22 April 2011. The Absolute Elephant website. http://www.elephant.se/Google Scholar
Kohari, D, Kosako, T, Fukasawa, M, Tsukada, H and Sato, S 2006 Animal welfare evaluation of grazing environment by animal needs index: ANI35L/2000-cattle (case study). Animal Behaviour and Management 42: 93–100Google Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellen, JD 1991 Factors influencing reproductive success in small captive exotic felids (Felis spp): a multiple regression analysis. Zoo Biology 10: 95–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430100202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikota, SK, Sargent, EL and Ranglack, GS 1994 Medical Management of the Elephants. Indira Publishing House: West Bloomfield, Michigan: USAGoogle Scholar
Mollenhorst, H, Rodenburg, T, Bokkers, E, Koene, P and De Boer, I 2005 On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: a comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90: 277–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, D 2007 A hypothetical strategy for the objective evaluation of animal well-being and quality of life using a dog model. Animal Welfare 16: 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D and Wiese, RJ 2000 State of the North American African elephant population and projections for the future. Zoo Biology 19: 311–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2361(2000)19:5<311::AID-ZOO3>3.0.CO;2-O3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orme, B 2002a Formulating Attributes and Levels in Conjoint Analysis. Sawtooth Software, Inc April 2011. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/formatt.pdfGoogle Scholar
Orme, B 2002b Interpreting Conjoint Analysis Data. Sawtooth Software, Inc April 2011. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/interpca.pdfGoogle Scholar
Perneger, TV 1998 What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal 316: 1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, C, Wojciechowska, J, Meng, J and Cross, N 2009 Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production. Animal 3: 1152–1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109004479CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pines, M, Petherick, J, Gaughan, J and Phillips, C 2007 Stakeholders’ assessment of welfare indicators for sheep and cattle exported by sea from Australia. Animal Welfare 16: 489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, J 2001 Keynote Address to the 22nd Annual Elephant Managers Workshop’, Disney's Animal Kingdom. 9-12 November 2001. http://www.elephants.com/poole_address.htmGoogle Scholar
SandØe, P, Munksgaar, L, Badsgard, NP, and Jensen, KH 1997 How to manage the management factor: assessing animal welfare at the farm level. In: SØrensen, JT (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems pp 221-230. European Association for Animal Production: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M 1986 Elephants (Proboscidae). In: Fowler, ME (ed) Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine pp 883–923. Saunders Company: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Seo, T, Daigo, T, Kashiwamura, F and Sato, S 2007 Welfare assessment on Japanese dairy farms using the Animal Needs Index. Animal Welfare 16: 221–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serpell, JA, and Hsu, Y 2001 Development and validation of a novel method for evaluating behavior and temperament in guide dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 347–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00210-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimmura, T, Bracke, M, De Mol, RM, Hirahara, S, Uetake, K and Tanaka, T 2011 Overall welfare assessment of laying hens: comparing science based, environment based and animal based assessments. Animal Science Journal 82: 150–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00834.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SMRT 2011 Sawtooth Software Market Research Tools. Sawtooth Software, Inc. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/Google Scholar
Sundrum, A 1997 Assessing livestock housing conditions in terms of animal welfare: possibilities and limitations. In: SØrensen, JT (ed) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Farming Systems pp 238–246. 22-23 August 1996, European Association for Animal Production: Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K and Mills, D 2007 Is quality of life a useful concept for companion animals? Animal Welfare 16: 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, VJ and Poole, TB 1998 Captive breeding and infant mortality in Asian elephants: a comparison between twenty western zoos and three eastern elephant centres. Zoo Biology 17: 311–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) 1098-2361(1998)17:4<311:: AID-ZOO5>3.0.CO;2-C3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmins, R, Cliff, K, Day, C, Hart, B, Hart, L, Hubrecht, R, Hurley, K, Phillips, C, Rand, J and Rochlitz, I 2007 Enhancing quality of life for dogs and cats in confined situations. Animal Welfare 16: 83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veasey, J 2006 Concepts in the care and welfare of captive elephants. International Zoo Yearbook 40: 63–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00063.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and Lawrence, AB 2001 Qualitative assessment of animal behaviour as an on-farm welfare-monitoring tool. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A 51: 21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whay, H, Main, D, Green, L and Webster, A 2003 An animal-based welfare assessment of group-housed calves on UK dairy farms. Animal Welfare 12: 611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, N 2009 Animal based welfare monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28: 545–560Google ScholarPubMed
Wielebnowski, NC, Fletchall, N, Carlstead, K, Busso, JM and Brown, JL 2002 Non-invasive assessment of adrenal activity associated with husbandry and behavioural factors in the North American clouded leopard population. Zoo Biology 21: 77–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, RJ 2000 Asian elephants are not self sustaining in North America. Zoo Biology 19: 299–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2361(2000)19:5<299::AID-ZOO2>3.0.CO;2-Z3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaludik, K, Lugmair, A, Baumung, R, Troxler, J and Niebuhr, K 2007 Results of the Animal Needs Index (ANI-35L) compared to animal-based parameters in free-range and organic laying hen flocks in Austria. Animal Welfare 16: 217–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar