Variation in nature: its implications for zoo elephant management
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
High mortality, low birth rates, limited reproduction, and health problems continue to hamper zoo elephant population sustainability.
“However, high mortality, low birth rates, limited reproduction, and health problems continue to hamper zoo elephant population sustainability (38–42)”
From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
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
- ORCID
- 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