REVIEW: ELEPHANTS CONCEPTS IN CARE AND WELFARE IN CAPTIVITY 63 Int. Zoo Yb. (2006) 40: 63–79 © The Zoological Society of London Concepts in the care and welfare of captive elephants J. VEASEY Woburn Safari Park, Woburn, Bedfordshire MK17 9QN, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Zoos are duty bound to maintain a high standard of challenges facing zoos both from an welfare for all animals for which they are respons- ible. For elephants, this represents a greater chal- animal husbandry and a public perception lenge than for many other species; their sheer size, perspective. This document is not sophisticated social life, high level of intelligence and designed to be a formula for elephant wel- large behavioural repertoire, combined with their fare in captivity because there are still too origins in tropical and subtropical climates mean that replicating the physical, social and environ- many un-answered questions, rather it is mental requirements needed for a high standard of intended as a discussion of some of the welfare in captivity is a significant challenge. This is concepts relating to captive elephant wel- compounded by the difficulties in measuring welfare generally, and specifically for animals such as ele- fare, which it is hoped, might encourage phants within zoo environments. Evidence does exist people from a variety of viewpoints to relating to the longevity, reproductive success and consider elephant welfare in a different the health status of captive elephants which suggests way. I will not go into the issue of whether that their management is not at as high a standard as it is for many other species kept in zoos, and that or not elephants should be in captivity elephant welfare is likely to be compromised as a because this would be a not inconsider- result. It is suggested that for as long as elephants able document in its own right, but I will remain in captivity that their management should be based around the requirements of the animals them- work on the assumption that whilst ele- selves taking into account an understanding of their phants are in zoos, elephant holders are biology and behavioural ecology. Given the difficul- duty bound, as they are with all other ties in measuring welfare, it is suggested that those species, to optimize the welfare of these responsible for elephant management should not rely on proof of suffering prior to making adjustments animals without unduly compromising to their programmes, but in the first instance con- appropriate conservation and educational sider the likely physical and behavioural needs of the aspirations for the herds. With this in elephant. As a minimum, facilities should provide for those behaviours and contingencies which are bio- mind, I will attempt to explain what wel- logically significant in terms of survival and repro- fare is and what it is not, and how it is duction in the wild, which take up a significant measured. I will then give my personal proportion of an elephant’s time in the wild and are not necessarily triggered by external stimuli alone. It opinion on why the management of ele- is suggested that a high standard of captive elephant phant welfare in captivity is a challenge welfare is theoretically attainable and that significant and provide some suggestions of how zoos improvements in welfare are likely to be achieved by might overcome these challenges in the addressing inadequacies in the physical environment which predispose captive elephants to trauma and by future. As will become apparent, there is providing for appropriate social and foraging a dearth of ‘facts’ when it comes to the opportunities. issue of captive elephant welfare, and as a Key-words: digestive strategies, elephant care, ele- result, what I present here, is very much a phant welfare, facilities, guidelines, health, hus- personal opinion, but one I hope that is bandry, management, social groups, standards, zoos as objective as possible, and one for which, I give elephants the benefit of any The welfare of elephants in captivity is doubt I may have when hard evidence is perhaps one of the greatest management lacking. 64 ELEPHANTS AND RHINOCEROS WHAT DO WE MEAN BY WELFARE? welfare (see Fraser & Broom, 1990). Animal welfare relates specifically to an Whilst it is clear that reduced welfare can animal’s state of psychological wellbeing, decrease reproductive output and genetic in other words what it feels, rather than fitness (Archer, 1979), this is not always what it does. In practical terms, one might the case, it would be incorrect for example consider good welfare to be a state in to assume intensively managed livestock which an animal experiences positive emo- benefit from their markedly increased tional states and an absence of suffering. reproductive output over and above wild However, because an individual’s experi- relatives or to assume that their welfare is ences, thoughts and feelings are largely definitively acceptable just because they inaccessible, particularly in the absence of are reproducing. a common language, we are reliant upon In the same way that health, reproduc- indirect indicators of an animals’ mental tion and welfare are not equivalent, death state and hence its welfare. As a result, also has to be differentiated from welfare what are commonly referred to as welfare because death can effectively be defined measures, are in fact welfare indicators, by the cessation of brain activity, and wel- and none should be considered as reliable fare is essentially a function of brain in isolation as will hopefully become activity. However, this does not prevent apparent. death being an ethical issue, and by ethical Having very briefly defined what wel- I mean relating to prevailing moral stan- fare is, it is equally important to under- dards, nor does it mean that the causes of stand what welfare is not. Although the death are inevitably without a welfare health status of an animal can affect its dimension. How an animal dies, and what welfare, and the welfare of an animal can factors precipitated its death; whether it affect its health, health and welfare are was caused by inadequate care or resulted distinguishable. Health refers to the in suffering, etc, must be considered as rel- physical rather than the psychological evant to a welfare discussion. wellbeing of an animal and so, if a disease causes pain, reduces mobility or the HOW DO WE MEASURE WELFARE? ability of the animal to interact with con- If we accept that welfare is a measure of specifics it may reduce the individuals’ an animals’ mental wellbeing, how is this welfare but an ailment that does not (yet) measured? Like the challenge zoos face in impact upon the behaviour or pain recep- managing elephant welfare, the challenges tors of the animal, may not necessarily scientists face in assessing animal welfare impact upon welfare at that time. One is also a considerable one (see Mason & such example of this might be an intra- Mendl, 1993). The methods of assessing cerebral aneurysm where a weakness in welfare can be grouped into three broad blood vessels within the brain has no categories, those that involve measuring impact on welfare until such a point that behavioural and physiological responses the aneurysm bursts killing the individual to stressors which reflect the animal’s concerned. Thus an individual possessing mental state, and those that involve meas- such a defect must be considered to be in uring variables external to the animal that poor health, without actually suffering as we might reasonably assume will affect a result of the defect, unless health itself the animals’ mental state and correlate is defined in such a way as incorporates a with, or indeed cause reduced welfare in welfare component. It should be noted the species concerned. Rarely are these that this view is contrary to some who techniques used in isolation, and variables relate genetic fitness (that is to say, the that may precipitate poor welfare, such as extent to which an individual is able to certain aspects of the animals’ physical or increase the frequency of its genotype) to social environment, can be mitigated by REVIEW: ELEPHANTS CONCEPTS IN CARE AND WELFARE IN CAPTIVITY 65 management practices for example, such may activate an acute ‘stress’ response, that welfare standards can be upheld. As potentially invalidating any worthwhile a result, every measure has to be con- conclusions. In situations of chronic sidered in a broader context. stress, the HPA response can also be Both behavioural and physiological depressed. It should also be noted that in responses to the suboptimal circumstances the UK at least, invasive procedures such that reduce welfare are typically what we as ‘experimental blood sampling’ are would view as adaptive in that they rep- likely to require approval from govern- resent attempts made by the animal to mental agencies. improve its welfare by coping with, or If the ‘stress response’ is not successful eliminating stressors, although in cases of in eliminating the stressor, long-term chronic stress, the prolonged activation of activation can ultimately reduce the health short-term coping responses may not of the individual, and these chronic appear adaptive. The greater the animal is physiological stress responses can also be required to cope, or indeed the greater the measured. These include immunosuppres- animal is motivated to avoid or escape the sion, reduced fecundity, reduction in pro- stressor, the more its welfare is likely to tein synthesis (body-mass loss), elevated be compromised, and the greater the blood pressure, ulceration, thickening of coping response that is likely to become the arteries, premature death, etc. These manifest. As a result, the magnitude of the chronic stress reactions may be parti- animals’ response will give an insight into cularly useful in assessing the level of the degree to which its welfare is everyday welfare of zoo animals because compromised.