Cited by 56Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Variation in nature: its implications for zoo elephant management

Hutchins, Michael·2006·Zoo Biology

Abstract

Abstract Despite many advances in animal care and welfare over the past few decades, zoos have been criticized recently for the quality of their elephant management programs. More specifically, critics have argued that elephants live miserable lives in captivity and thus should not be kept in zoos. Poor health and reproductive success, they say, are the result of the combined impact of: a lack of exercise; exposure to cold temperatures and disease; and stress due to the use of “brutal” training techniques, chaining and inappropriate social environments. Everyone, including zoo professionals, seems to agree that improvements in zoo elephant management are necessary and appropriate. However, there is considerable disagreement on how to proceed and little information on which to base such decisions. One tactic that the critics have adopted in their efforts to promote change is their frequent reference to “nature” as a yardstick for gauging the adequacy of zoo animal management and care. An argument is made that direct zoo–wild comparisons are of questionable utility and may be invalid from a scientific perspective. Some critics talk about “nature” as if it represented a fixed set of rules by which captive managers must either abide by or risk diminishing the health and welfare of their charges. However, many aspects of elephant natural history vary greatly depending on prevailing environmental conditions and elephants may be much more flexible than many critics are giving them credit for. Thus, although zoo animal managers should look to nature for clues about how to best care for captive elephants, they should not feel constrained by them. This revelation is not intended as an excuse for poor elephant management or to support the status quo. On the contrary, a better approach is to develop realistic and biologically meaningful metrics that reflect the quality of elephant care and welfare and to use them to measure the success of evolving zoo elephant programs. Zoo Biol 25:161–171, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.20087

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 56

Authors
Hutchins, M.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Hutchins, Michael
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03-15
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
161-171
ISSN
  • 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2361
OpenAlex
W2006706632
Cited by
56
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
zoo elephants, captive management, animal welfare, reproductive success, physical activity, environmental factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review