Captive elephants – an overview
Heidi S. Riddle 1 &
Christopher Stremme 2
1 Riddle’s
Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary, PO Box 715, Greenbrier, Arkansas 72058, USA
2 Veterinary Society for Sumatran Wildlife
Conservation, Komplek Bumi Asri 60D, Jalan Asrama, Medan 20126,
Sumatra-Indonesia
Email: 1 gajah@windstream.net (corresponding author), 2
stremme@gmx.net
Date of publication
(online): 26 June 2011
Date of publication
(print): 26 June 2011
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) |
0974-7893 (print)
Editor: April Yoder
Manuscript details:
Ms # o2620
Received 01 November 2010
Finally accepted 20 May 2011
Citation: Riddle, H.S. & C.
Stremme (2011). Captive elephants – an overview. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(6): 1826–1836.
Copyright: © Heidi S. Riddle & Christopher
Stremme 2011. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Author Details: Heidi
S. Riddle is co-founder of Riddle’s Elephant and Wildlife Sanctuary, USA. She
facilitates elephant conservation via education and study, and advises
conservation organizations. She is a member of IUCN SSC Asian Elephant Specialist
Group, and Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Christopher Stremme
is a veterinarian active in elephant care and management. He is program director of the
Veterinary Society for Sumatran Wildlife Conservation (VESSWIC) Elephant Health
Care Program, overseeing the medical care of wild and captive Sumatran
elephants. He consults with elephant programs throughout Asia and in western
facilities.
Author Contribution: Both the authors have
contributed equally to this paper.
Keywords: Captive elephants, conservation, education, management,
policies, staff training, standards, welfare.
This paper presents a general overview of
captive elephants - history, current management status and strategies,
contributions via science and education, and considerations for the future.
Captive elephants are those in direct
human care and control. The words “domestic”
and “domesticated” have been used to describe captive elephants; however, that
characterization is not necessarily correct. While historical records indicate that elephants have been
closely linked with humans for thousands of years (Sukumar 2003), they have not
been selectively bred by humans for certain traits, as is the case with other
animals defined as “domestic” such as dogs, cats, or cattle. Furthermore, the majority of captive
elephants in the world today were originally born in wild herds and
subsequently captured.
Currently there are between 30,000 to
50,000 Asian Elephants Elephas maximus, and about 500,000 African Elephants Loxodonta
africana
worldwide (Riddle et al. 2010).
Regional studbooks and government estimates (AsERSM 2006) suggest that
approximately 12,000–15,000 of the world’s elephants are living in
captivity, and most of these animals are in Asia. Approximately 25% of the entire Asian Elephant population is
currently in captivity (Desai 2008), and that number is likely higher. The largest single population of
captive elephants is in India and numbers about 3,400 individuals (AsERSM
2006). According to regional
studbooks, there are fewer than 1000 captive African Elephants worldwide, and
most of these are housed in non-range countries.
Elephants have adapted to a wide variety
of captive environments: in ancient times they were implements of war; more
recently they work in forest camps, are venerated in temples, and displayed in
zoological facilities (Lair 1997).
Today, due to evolving needs and philosophies, changes are occurring in
the uses of captive elephants around the world, and the debate about their
welfare and management is increasing. In a growing number of countries, higher
standards of elephant care and management are being addressed by identifying
welfare parameters (Varma 2008), and developing policies and guidelines
suggesting more opportunities for socialization, larger spaces with natural
substrates, and better handling techniques (Olson 2004). Overall there is a need to recognize
concerns about captive elephant care and welfare, and to implement improved
standards of husbandry, handling, and management allowing captive elephants to
achieve a maximum of their natural behaviors and social interactions. As elephants are long-lived animals, it
is probable there will be elephants in captivity for many years in the future,
even without adding large numbers of new animals to the existing captive
populations. Therefore it is
essential that long-term strategies addressing the need for and care of captive
elephants be developed and implemented without further delay.
Elephants have had a close connection
with mankind for thousands of years.
The first known use of captive elephants in both Africa and Asia was for
war. Their successful military use
spread as far as Europe by 331 B.C. (Scullard 1974). In times of war, elephants carried heavy loads and were used
to charge enemy lines in combat.
With the advent of gunpowder warfare in the 15th century
A.D., the use of captive elephants as war animals began to diminish.
In Asia, ancient Sanskrit texts from
India document the region’s long-standing association between humans and
elephants, where elephants were first captured and trained for warfare and as
beasts of burden. One of these
early texts, the “Arthasastra”, provides some detail about elephant capture,
training and care, as well as use in war (Sukumar 2003). Large numbers of captive elephants were
kept by Asian rulers: during the Mughal period in India in the early to mid 17th
century A.D., there were tens of thousands of captive elephants in the empire,
illustrating that many elephants still lived in those regions. After the Mughal period, the use of
elephants in battle waned, but their functional use transporting military
troops and supplies in Asia continued into the 20th century (Sukumar
2003).
During ancient times in Africa, elephants
were captured and trained by the Egyptians and Carthaginians as implements of
war (Scullard 1974). After about
500 A.D., there are no further records of elephants being captured for use in
battle in Africa. In early 1900,
the former Belgian Congo (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) established a
program to capture and train African Forest Elephants Loxodonta
africana cyclotis for plowing fields and pulling wagons to move soil and
rocks for road construction (Laplume 1911). This practical use of elephants was thought to have little
future as the capture and training process required long delays, was costly,
and risky (Laplae 1918).
Nevertheless, the capture and training program continued until the
country’s independence in the 1960s, and anecdotal information indicates that
there were still trained elephants in the region through the 1970s.
Captive elephants have also been
displayed in menageries, zoos, and circuses since antiquity. Some of the
earliest recorded zoo elephants were acknowledged as being kept by a Syrian
king in the 9th century B.C., having been captured in Syria, which
was then part of their natural range (Sillar & Meyler 1968). Elephants were brought to Rome around
250 B.C. to be used in combat spectacles involving gladiators and wild animals,
and to participate in circus, the first such documented use (Sillar &
Meyler 1968). Across their African
and Asian range and into Europe, captive elephants were part of menagerie type
exhibits for centuries. In
contrast, the first captive elephant to arrive on the American continent was a
single animal brought to New York in the late 1700s from India (Goodwin
1951).
Presently, the majority of captive
elephants come from capture programs.
While the large scale capture of elephants for captivity has declined in
very recent years, both legal and illegal captures continue in some
countries. Some elephant range
countries have used capture as a tool to address increasing conflicts due to
the re-settlement of local people in or near elephant habitat (Basrul et al.
2001). This strategy can cause
welfare issues for the captured elephants when husbandry conditions are
under-funded, and policies guiding the utilization of these elephants are
inadequate (Stremme et al. 2007).
In other countries, capture was one component of management policy to
control overpopulation through culling of wild elephants in areas with limited
space, such as within fenced parks (Balfour et al. 2007). These various types of sanctioned
large-scale captures have diminished significantly; currently most legal
captures are of individual problem elephants that repeatedly come into conflict
with humans, causing damage, injury, or death.
Today in Africa, captive elephants are
primarily used for tourism activities such as elephant back safaris, and for
exhibition in zoos and circus. The
majority of these animals are Savanna Elephants Loxodonta africana africana, with very few
Forest Elephants still in captivity.
Less than half of the 37 African Elephant range countries manage a
captive elephant population, and these are mostly southern African
nations. A very small number of
elephants are in zoos in northern African non-range countries. Many of the captive elephants in Africa
today came from culling operations (Cadman 2007). In recent years, culling as a conservation management tool
has been practiced much less frequently in Africa, and where there is an
interest to supplement captive populations in this region, captive breeding
programs are being established.
Currently all 13 Asian Elephant range
countries have a captive population.
However, the numbers, uses, and need for captive elephants differ from
country to country (AsERSM 2006).
While some uses of captive Asian Elephants have become obsolete (i.e. as
war animals), other uses are increasing, such as elephant-back patrols to
monitor protected areas or to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC) (Azmi et
al. 2006). Within Asian range
countries captive elephants are managed in a variety of environments; their
ownership and management is by government agencies, commercial organizations
(i.e. tourist resorts, circus), religious institutions, and private
individuals. They are used for a
variety of purposes: for practical work, i.e. logging, transport, patrolling,
HEC mitigation, and for cultural activities, i.e. tourism, ceremonial, display,
performance, and education.
Historically, logging was one of the most
locally important economic uses of captive elephants in Asia; this reached a
peak in the mid 19th century (Sukumar 2003). Today, due to a ban on logging in
several Asian countries, the use of elephants for this type of work has
considerably diminished. In countries
where large numbers of captive elephants were used for this purpose, some former
logging elephants now provide tourism activities such as rides and shows
(Godfrey & Kongmuang 2009); however, the lack of this specific work has
forced other elephants to be used for questionable purposes such as begging in
cities, thereby increasing welfare concerns (Angkawanish et al. 2009). Presently a few Asian countries still
rely on logging elephants, and consideration should be given to the potential
of illegal trans-border movement of captive elephants from countries who do not
use these animals for logging to countries who do.
In non-range countries, captive elephants
are primarily used for exhibition, performance, and education in zoological
institutions, commercial organizations (circus), and private facilities. As elephants in these countries are
largely for display, over the past decade the focus has been on developing
management systems. These systems
originate from two basic concepts: free contact management where staff and
elephants share the same space, and protected contact management where staff
and elephants are separated by some form of barrier (Olson 2004). Currently most non-range facilities
manage their elephants using a combination of these two basic systems, however
most adult male captive elephants are managed in a protected contact system, in
contrast to the free contact system used with adult males in range
countries. Variables such as
gender, age, and disposition of the exhibited elephants, staff expertise, and
enclosure design and size all contribute to the management style used by a
facility. Every management system
has inherent rewards and difficulties for the exhibited elephants and staff,
and this needs to be carefully considered when developing elephant programs.
There is a need to better leverage
opportunities in these small non-range country elephant populations for study,
public awareness, fundraising, and advocacy in support of the conservation of
wild elephants and their habitats.
Non-range elephant exhibitors at times overestimate the effect their
outreach programs and fundraising have on conservation and on the general
public’s awareness of issues and challenges facing elephants today. The impact of such programs should be
constantly evaluated and improved to ensure successful public education and
awareness, as well as effective support of conservation actions.
The management of captive elephants is a
controversial issue; there is a great deal of debate as issues of ideology and
ethics are easy topics upon which to disagree. However, the continued discussion has led to increased
efforts to address captive elephant concerns by identifying welfare parameters
important for management (Varma 2008), as well as improving care, husbandry,
handling, and training techniques through the development of professional
guidelines and standards for captive elephant management (Olson 2004).
Successful captive elephant management
relies on a clear strategy, as well as outlining proper policies, protocols,
and standards. Policies need to
assess the purpose for captive populations, long-term goals, and the
implications for humane management of these populations (Desai 2008). Practical standards need to be
developed to address the physical and social environment of these animals, as
well as their purpose. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms need to be
considered so that standards can be successfully implemented (Desai 2008). Written policies and protocols are
important for success as these tools aid the consistency of elephant management
programs; periodic review of the policies ensures that standards are met and
even improved where needed.
Specific captive elephant management
protocols designed with individual, regional, and national differences in mind
are more likely to succeed.
Effective captive elephant management protocols should examine all
aspects of management programs and address individual situations such as the
local need and use of the elephants, number of animals, type of environment
(physical, work, social), personnel support and training, and animal welfare
(Olson 2004; Desai 2008).
Non-existent, poorly written, or poorly executed protocols can
contribute to the neglect of captive elephants’ needs.
Recently, some elephant range countries
have included captive elephant management policy in their national strategy for
elephant conservation. Examples
include the “National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants”
issued by the government of South Africa in 2008, and the “Strategy and
Conservation Action Plan for Sumatra and Kalimantan Elephants 2007-2017” (Strategi
Dan Rencana Aksi Konservasi Gajah Sumatra Dan Gajah Kalimantan 2007-2017) adopted by the
Indonesian government in 2007. The
South Africa document outlines provisions for captive elephants such as
management plans and registration.
In the Indonesian plan, the government highlights the importance of
synergetic elephant conservation addressing both wild and captive populations
via two main points: utilizing captive elephants for various conservation
strategies and programs such as HEC mitigation, and maintaining a stable,
self-sustaining captive population through careful management and
breeding. Decisions and policies
about captive elephant management are more successful when based on a formal
strategy and it is unfortunate that most elephant range countries do not have a
national strategy or goal to address the management of their captive elephant
populations.
Another challenge for national strategies
is the fact that in some range countries elephant populations are classified
under separate legislation: the wild population is offered a protected wildlife
status, while the captive elephant population is considered on the same level
as working livestock (Godfrey & Kongmuang 2009). Without a clear and unified goal, legislation is less likely
to protect elephants adequately.
National elephant strategies need to review and implement systematic
legislation to assist the management and protection of their elephant
populations.
There is heightened awareness about the
welfare needs (biological and social) of elephants (Varma 2008), yet in many
regions these needs are not always served by practical captive elephant
management decisions. Welfare
issues exist in all kinds of management and ownership systems, often due to a lack
of consistent standards and operational procedures for captive elephant
management from government oversight bodies (Lair 1997). Recently, in an attempt to better
address captive elephant well being, a range country issued a national
directive requiring that elephants residing in zoos be transferred to forest
camps. While this type of
directive may offer a welfare improvement for a few captive animals, it does
not provide adequate direction for enhancing the management of the entire
captive elephant population in that country (Bist 2010).
Due to a lack of standardised national
regulations and requirements for the health management of captive elephants
(e.g. preventative and treatment schemes, disease management, medical staff
training, equipment requirements), the quality of implemented veterinary care
mostly depends on the willingness, knowledge, and intent of owners, managers,
and handlers or mahouts (Stremme et al. 2007). Additionally, the lack of resources and of properly trained
staff leads to inadequate health management of vast numbers of captive
elephants, especially in range countries (Stremme et al. 2007; Angkawanish et
al. 2009).
There is a need to improve the capacity
of elephant veterinary care in range countries to advance the welfare of these
animals; so ongoing education and training programs for veterinary students and
local veterinarians are essential (Stremme et al. 2007). Furthermore, ongoing programs should be
developed in close collaboration with responsible government authorities and
elephant owners and handlers to ensure sufficient and sustainable captive
elephant health care.
In addition to providing better resources
and qualified veterinary expertise, it is necessary to develop and support
range country research programs about diseases and health management of local
captive elephant populations (Stremme et al. 2007). Of particular interest are the study, identification,
treatment, and prevention of diseases that may be transmitted from captive
elephants to wild elephants (and vice versa), as well as from other species to
elephants (and vice versa). In
range countries, infectious disease control and management need to be
considered where captive and wild elephants share the same environment (i.e.
forest camps in Asia or elephant back safari camps in Africa), where livestock
potentially carrying infectious diseases that may be transmitted to elephants
enter wild elephant habitat, and when captive elephants are moved between
different environments.
The most common diseases and disorders
affecting captive elephant populations have been described by various authors
(Rüedi 1995; Fowler & Mikota 2006; Stremme et al. 2007; Alex 2009;
Angkawanish et al. 2009; Chakraborty 2009; Chandrashekaran et al. 2009; Sarma
2009) and include:
* Parasitic diseases including various
types of endo and ecto parasites
* Bacterial diseases such as
salmonellosis (Salmonella spec.), colibacillosis (E. coli), hemorrhagic
septicaemia (Pasteurella multocida), tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis),
tetanus (Clostridium tetani), anthrax (Bacillus anthracis), blackleg
(Clostridium spec.)
* Viral diseases such as rabies, elephant
pox, foot and mouth disease, encephalomyocarditis (EMC), elephant
endotheliotropic herpes virus (EEHV)
* Non specific and non infectious
disorders such as various types of foot diseases (affecting sole and nails),
wounds and wound infections, eye lesions (conjunctivitis, keratoconjunctivitis,
corneal lesions), constipation and colic, skin conditions, tusk and molar
problems, malnutrition.
The occurrence of several of these
disorders is often linked to inadequate daily husbandry procedures, poor
hygiene in the elephant housing area, improper use of tools, and lack of
appropriate preventative schemes (Stremme et al. 2007; Angkawanish et al.
2009). To improve the overall
health of captive populations it is crucial to address such basic management
issues.
One of the challenging veterinary issues
is the elephant endotheliotropic herpes virus (EEHV), which was originally
identified in zoo elephants in Europe (Ossent et al. 1990), and has now been
found in multiple wild and captive elephant populations (Wiedner & Schmitt
2009). EEHV is characterized by
high mortality and seems to mainly affect juvenile animals. Diagnosis is only
achieved via blood testing of an elephant with an active case (Metzler et al.
1990; Latimer et al. 2007; Richman 2007), and very few animals have survived
treatment. Intensive study continues in order to determine transmission, and
improve prevention and treatment options
Another recent focus of veterinary
research is tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis) (TB). TB is particularly a concern for
captive elephants in range countries where the human population has a high rate
of infection. Currently a trunk
wash culture is the most widely accepted diagnostic tool (Olson 2004; Abraham
& Davis 2008). Other methods
are being investigated as elephants shed the mycobacterial organisms
irregularly, but techniques used for diagnosis in other species are either not
possible or dependable with elephants (Wiedner & Schmitt 2009). Treatment of tuberculosis in elephants
is difficult as several of the drugs used cause severe toxicity in elephants
(Wiedner & Schmitt 2007), so further study of treatment options is
critical.
Most captive elephant facilities in
non-range countries have preventative veterinary schemes that include regular
vaccinations, blood and fecal testing, TB trunk wash, vitamin and mineral
supplementation, as well as provisions for dung removal, rodent and other pest
management (Olson 2004). However,
many of these facilities manage overweight elephants and this also can
contribute to various problems, e.g. birth problems, joint and foot problems,
as well as arthritis (Sadler 2001; Fowler & Mikota 2006; Lewis et al.
2010). Interestingly, one disease,
elephant pox, has been a problem in Asia and several European facilities (Baxby
& Ghaboosi 1977; Pilaski et al. 1992; Chakraborty
2009; Chandrasekharan et al. 2009), but to date has not been diagnosed in
captive elephants housed in other non-range regions such as North America, and
the reason for this is unknown.
Captive elephants offer unique opportunities
to understand details about how these animals function. In recent years, much
has been learned about elephant physiology, biology, and communication from
captive elephants. However,
biological studies of elephants should not be limited to the captive
environment; every effort should be made to support such research with wild
elephants.
The scientific study of captive elephants
can help improve field techniques.
In one example, controlled testing using captive elephants allowed
comparison of DNA found in dung to DNA found in blood. Matching these samples confirmed that
dung is a reliable source of DNA allowing noninvasive genotyping (Fernando et
al. 2003). Dung extracted DNA from
wild elephants has become a useful tool to address conservation questions such
as genetic diversity in small or isolated populations.
Detailed monitoring of captive elephants
has led to interesting biological discoveries. For example, the observation of
liquid emanating from elephant ears was first documented and studied in captive
elephants (Riddle et al. 2000).
The close proximity of elephants in a zoo allowed the first recordings
of infrasound produced by elephants (Payne et al. 1986). The evidence of such elephant-emitted
sounds paved the way for ongoing field research in Africa and Asia to
understand how wild elephants use these sounds (Payne et al 2003; Nair et al.
2009; de Silva 2010).
While the use of sophisticated electronic
recording equipment allows scientists to listen in on elephant auditory
communication, other modern instrumentation also contributes to a better
understanding of the species: portable ultrasound units allow scientists to
visualize the internal organs of elephants (Hildebrandt et al. 1998, 2000);
video camera technology records distant behaviors under poor light conditions
for subsequent review (Shulte et al. 2007); highly sensitive instrumentation
provides detailed chemical analyses (Rasmussen 1999); and thermal imaging is an
opportunity to measure from a distance the external and, to some extent, the
internal temperatures of elephants (Weissenboeck 2006). Preliminary testing with captive
elephants helped develop the use of these various technologies, now being used
to collect data from wild elephants and inform conservation management.
In addition to sound, smell is an
important sense driving elephant behavior (Rasmussen 1999). By studying captive elephants,
researchers learned which chemical signals were linked to specific behaviors
and used in communication from female-to-female, male-to-male,
mother-to-offspring, female-to-male, and male-to-female (Rasmussen &
Schulte 1998; Rasmussen & Krishnamurthy 2000; Bagley et al. 2006; Meyer et
al. 2008).
Another medium closely studied in the
captive environment is breath.
Elephant breath contains brief, rapidly diffusing social signals
communicating an immediate individual-to-individual message (Rasmussen &
Riddle 2004). Over several years,
more than a hundred breath samples from captive male elephants (African and
Asian) were analyzed (Rasmussen & Riddle 2004). The analyses and concurrent blood measurements confirmed
that breath compounds differ between individuals depending on their overall
health, and whether they were in musth.
Wild and captive male Asian and African
Elephants go through musth, a male-specific condition. Studies of wild male
elephant behavior explain how differences between musth and non-musth males
affect reproduction and social dynamics (Desai & Johnsingh 1995; Poole
1996), while data collected from captive male elephants fills in many details
about musth physiology (Lincoln & Ratnasooriya 1996; Rasmussen et al. 2002;
Greenwood et al. 2005). Male
elephants successfully reproduce while in or out of musth (Hollister-Smith
2005), but have to be in good condition to sustain musth. Observations of wild elephants indicate
that bulls in poor condition do not come into normal musth (Poole 1996), and
this appears to be true in captivity (Brown et al. 2007), indicating that musth
is an important gauge of male health and vigor.
Knowledge about pharmacological
properties and the effects of drugs used for elephant treatment and
tranquilization (Gray & Nettasinghe 1970; Jainudeen 1970; Fowler 1981;
Jacobson et al. 1985, 1987; Fowler & Mikota 2006) has been attained by
studying the effects on captive elephants. This data benefits wild elephant management, e.g. during
sedation of wild elephants for translocation, fitting GPS or radio collars, and
treatment of injured wild elephants.
Reproduction
As wild elephant populations diminish,
the role of breeding programs can be important to sustain captive populations –
where there is a need or desire to do so. The necessity for captive breeding
programs differs from context to context.
In some regions there is no interest or need to increase the number of
captive elephants (AsERSM 2006), and therefore captive breeding programs would
not be implemented. In other
regions, particularly in non-range countries, breeding programs sustain small
populations (Olson 2004). When
captive breeding programs are considered, it is important to carefully assess
and plan for many factors, e.g. cost, resources, genetic stock, and animal
welfare.
If the currently declining captive
population in range countries is considered valuable for long-term conservation
strategies (genetic value, use in conservation programs, i.e. HEC management,
habitat patrols, and eco-tourism), there is a need to establish stable
self-sustaining populations. In
many regions this will require revising existing management structures, from
current systems that often focus on elephant utilization, towards management
systems highlighting planned captive breeding programs as one main goal of
captive management. Captive
breeding in range countries has often been opportunistic, relying on wild male
elephants breeding captive females who are in the forest for grazing; this
situation provides a healthy genetic diversity but can also lead to an
undesired increase in the cost (of funds and resources) of managing additional
elephants. In non-range countries,
captive elephant breeding programs have to rely on small numbers of
reproductively viable animals, and therefore require studbooks and scientific
study to ensure the genetic diversity and health of these small populations
(Olson 2004).
Captive elephant studies have
supplemented the knowledge of female and male reproductive physiology
(Hildebrandt et al. 2006), enabling successful assisted reproduction.
Facilities with a focus on reproduction have produced second-generation (F2)
offspring with both parents also born in captivity (Riddle 2002). The use of technology such as
ultrasound provides a better understanding of the reproductive potential of
individual elephants (Hildebrandt et al. 1998, 2000). The knowledge gained from these studies has been applied to
certain conservation quandaries - for instance, the development of an
immuno-contraceptive vaccine to control locally overabundant African Elephant
populations in a non-lethal manner (Fayrer-Hosken et al. 2000; Delsink et al.
2006).
Elephants appeal to people of all ages,
especially to those who do not have to live with the threats of their
presence. Around the world,
facilities and private owners managing captive elephants have a responsibility
to promote and support ongoing public education about elephant conservation by
sharing information, creating awareness of problems and issues facing wild
elephants, encouraging advocacy, and raising financial support where possible
(Riddle et al. 2003). Every single
facility and owner managing captive elephants reaches members of the public -
from local villagers to international tourists - therefore every elephant
facility should share important educational concepts about wildlife and the
environment. Education can be
started very simply via signage, and/or literature handed out to visitors,
and/or presentations to the public.
As a well-recognized animal, captive
elephants raise public awareness about the species and about challenges
confronting wild elephants, such as loss of habitat. In turn, public awareness helps motivate support for
conservation and habitat protection policies (Nagendran & Riddle 2009), and
provides significant opportunities for fundraising. Many of these opportunities
are being missed. Education should
be ongoing and programs periodically assessed to ensure that every opportunity
provided by captive elephants is leveraged, thereby creating attitudinal and
behavioral changes beneficial to elephant conservation.
Education should also target those people
who directly work with captive elephants. In some regions there is an
increasing interest to educate elephant handlers or mahouts about environmental
management and conservation strategies, therefore enabling them to better
understand and support conservation actions (Azmi et al. 2006). Through improved awareness, the daily
management of captive elephants in the care of these handlers also
progresses. Building networks is
an important tool for creating better communication and improving professional
awareness. Several such captive
elephant manager groups now exist: in 1988, elephant keepers in North America
created the Elephant Managers Association (EMA); in 2006, mahouts in Indonesia
organized as the Communication Forum for Indonesian Mahouts (FOKMAS).
In the future, it is imperative to
continue enhancing the capacity of staff directly responsible for captive
elephants (i.e. elephant managers, keepers, mahouts) via ongoing educational
opportunities and support of the profession itself (Stremme et al. 2007). In most Asian range countries,
knowledge about elephant handling, care, and training was developed long ago
and passed down from generation to generation amongst tribes and families
traditionally managing captive elephants (Vanitha et al. 2009). But in many areas this tradition no
longer continues. Low incomes, a
diminishing standard of living, and fewer work opportunities for mahouts have
reduced the attractiveness of the mahout profession, causing children of
families and tribes traditionally working as mahouts to seek other job
opportunities. This results in the
loss of long-established knowledge and experience. Presently, elephant facilities in these countries either
hire fewer mahouts or hire handlers without extensive elephant background and
experience, which can result in improper care of the captive elephants (Vanitha
et al. 2009).
Another necessary tool to improve
management is through comprehensive registration of captive elephants -
especially of captive Asian Elephants in range countries (Lair 2002). Registration assists in monitoring
captive populations, and may help prevent illegal trade in captive elephants
and their body parts (i.e. ivory) (AsERSM 2006). In some countries, registration is carried out in
conjunction with a specific identification tool, such as the use of microchips
implanted under the elephant’s skin (Dutta et al. 2007). Effective registration strategies
should include a documentation of numbers and specific utilization of captive
elephants, in order to evaluate options available for long-term management of
these animals.
Discussions and efforts to identify and
address concerns surrounding captive elephant populations should continue. This will ensure that in every
management system high standards of welfare and husbandry are implemented, and
that wild populations are not negatively impacted via removal of individuals
for captivity, the introduction of diseases, poorly planned releases, and other
such factors (AsERSM 2006). As
elephants are long lived animals, it is reasonable to conclude that there will
be captive elephant populations well into the future, and effective management
strategies need to include mechanisms to ensure compliance with higher
standards of husbandry and care, as well as identifying long-term goals that
can provide support to these captive populations without affecting wild
populations (Desai 2008).
It would be prudent to seriously consider
and make decisions now about the long-term role of captive elephants,
especially those in range countries.
Considerations should include whether there is a realistic need to
maintain genetically valuable populations to back up conservation strategies
encompassing activities such as reintroduction into rehabilitated habitat,
genetic refreshment of small pocketed populations, or wild elephant and habitat
management (Stremme et al. 2007; Desai 2008). Most importantly, these decisions should benefit both wild
and captive elephant populations, and not simply support one population at the
expense of the other.
Alex,
P.C. (2009).
Common diseases reported in captive elephants in Kerala, pp. 99–103. In: Sarma, K.K.
(ed.) Elephant
Managers Resource Guide. Directorate of Project Elephant, New Delhi,
India.
Abraham,
D. & J. Davis (2008). Revised trunk wash collection procedure for
captive elephants in range country setting. Gajah 28: 53–54.
Angkawanish,
T., K. Boonprasert, P. Homkong, P. Sombutputorn, S. Mahasawangkul, S,
Jansittiwate, T. Keratimanochaya & B. Clausen (2009). Elephant health
status in Thailand: the role of mobile elephant clinic and elephant hospital. Gajah 31: 15–20
AsERSM
(2006).
Report of the Asian Elephant Range States Meeting, January 2006, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. IUCN-SSC.
Azmi,
W., H.S. Riddle, A. Setyabudi, Wiratno, A. Basrul, E. Sunardi, D.M. Ichsan
& S. Hardi (2006). Mahouts and their elephants working as
Conservation Response Units in Sumatra. Gajah 24: 35–38
Bagley,
K.R., T.E. Goodwin, L.E.L. Rasmussen & B.A. Schulte (2006). Male African
Elephants (Loxodonta
africana)
can distinguish oestrous status via urinary signals. Animal
Behaviour
71: 1439–1445.
Balfour,
D., H.T. Dublin, J. Fennessy, D. Gibson, L. Niskanen & I.J. Whyte (2007). Review of
options for managing the impacts of locally overabundant African elephants. IUCN-SSC.
Basrul,
A., M. Hambal & H.R. Sadjudin (2001). The role and strategy of elephant
training centres in human elephant conflict mitigation. FFI-SECP, Banda
Aceh, Indonesia.
Cadman,
M. (2007). An
overview of the commercial use of elephants in South Africa. IFAW.
Chakraborty,
A. (2009).
Diseases of elephants, an experience of a pathologist in Assam, pp. 71–83.
In: Sarma, K.K. (ed.) Elephant Managers Resource Guide. Directorate of
Project Elephant, New Delhi, India.
Chandrasekharan,
K., K. Radhakrishnan, J.V. Cheeran, K.N. Muraleedharan Niar & T.
Prabhakaran (2009). Review of the incidence, etiology and control of common
diseases of Asian elephants with special reference to Kerala, pp. 92–100. In: Healthcare
Management of Captive Asian Elephants. Kerala Agriculture University.
Delsink,
A.K., J.J. van Altena, D. Grobler, H. Bertschinger, J. Kirkpatrick & R.
Slotow (2006). Regulation of a small, discrete African elephant population
through immunocontraception in the Makalali Conservancy, Limpopo, South Africa.
South
African Journal of Science 102: 403–405.
Desai,
A.A. (2008).
Captive elephant management – the way forward, pp. 67–72. In: Varma, S.
& D. Prasad (eds.) Welfare and Management of Elephants in Captivity:
proceedings of a workshop on welfare parameters and their significance for
captive elephants and their mahouts in India.
Desai,
A.A. & A.J.T. Johnsingh (1995). Social organization and reproductive
strategy of the male Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), p. 532. In: Daniel J.C.
& H.S. Datye (eds.) A Week with Elephants. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay and Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
de
Silva, S. (2010). Acoustic communication in the Asian elephant, Elephas
maximus maximus. Behaviour 147: 825–852.
Dutta,
B., B. Chaudhury & A. Talukdar (2007). Project to microchip and register captive
elephants in Assam, India. Gajah 26: 21–26.
Fayrer-Hosken, R.A., D. Grobler, J.J. van Altena, H.J.
Bertschinger & J.F. Kirkpatrick (2000). Immunocontraception of
African elephants: a humane method to control elephant populations without
behavioural side effects. Nature 407: 149.
Fernando P., T.N.C. Vidya, C. Rajapakse, A. Dangolla
& D.J. Melnick (2003). Reliable
noninvasive genotyping: fantasy or reality? Journal of Heredity 94: 115–125.
Fowler,
M.E. (1981). Problems
with immobilizing and anesthetizing elephants, pp. 87–91.
Proceedings of the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians. Seattle,
Washington.
Fowler,
M.E. & S.K. Mikota (2006). Biology, Medicine and Surgery of Elephants. Blackwell
Publishing, Ames, Iowa.
Godfrey,
A. & C. Kongmuang (2009). Distribution, demography and basic husbandry of
the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in the tourism industry in Northern
Thailand. Gajah 30: 13–18
Goodwin,
G. (1951).
The
Crowinshield Elephant. The Natural History Magazine. http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1928_05-06_pick.html Downloaded on
12 April 2010.
Gray,
C.W. & A.P.W. Nettasinghe (1970). A preliminary
study of immobilization of Asiatic Elephant (Elephas maximus) utilizing
etorphine (M99). Zoologica 55: 51–53.
Greenwood,
D.R., D. Comeskey, M. Hunt & L.E.L. Rasmussen (2005). Chirality in
elephant pheromones. Nature 438: 1097–98.
Hildebrandt,
T.B., F. Goeritz, N.C. Pratt, D.L. Schmitt, S. Quandt, J. Raath & R.R.
Hofmann (1998). Reproductive assessment of male elephants (Loxodonta
africana and Elephas maximus) by ultrasonography. Journal
of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 29: 114–128.
Hildebrandt,
T.B., F. Goeritz, N.C. Pratt, J.L. Brown, R.J. Montali, D.L. Schmitt, G.
Fritsch & R. Hermes (2000). Ultrasonography of the urogenital tract in
elephants (Loxodonta
africana
and Elephas
maximus): An important tool for assessing female
reproductive function. Zoo Biology 19: 321–332.
Hildebrandt,
T.B., F. Goeritz, R. Hermes, C. Reid, M. Denhard & J.L. Brown (2006). Aspects of the
reproductive biology and breeding management of Asian and African elephants Elephas
maximus
and Loxodonta
africana.
International
Zoo Yearbook 40:
20–40.
Hollister–Smith,
J.A. (2005).
Reproductive behavior in male African Elephants (Loxodonta africana) and the role
of musth: a genetic and experimental analysis. PhD Thesis. Department of
Biology. Duke University.
Jacobson, E.R., J. Allen, H. Martin&
G.V. Kollias (1985). Effects of yohimbine on
combined xylazine-ketamine induced sedation and immobilization in juvenile
African elephants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
187(11): 1195–1198.
Jacobson, E.R., D.J. Heard, P. Caligiuri, & G.V. Kollias
(1987). Physiological effects of etorphine and carfentanil in African
elephants. Proceedings
of 1st International Zoological Avian Medicine 1987:
525–527.
Jainudeen, M.R. (1970). The use of etorphine hydrochloride
for restraint of a domesticated elephant (Elephas maximus).
Journal
of the American Veterinary Medical Association 157(5): 642–688.
Lair, R.C. (1997). Gone Astray: The
Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity.
FAO, Rome, Italy.
Lair,
R.C. (2002).
A regional overview of the need for registration of domesticated Asian
elephants, pp. 8–13. In: Baker, I. & M. Kashio (eds.) Giants
on our hands: Proceedings of the international workshop on the domesticated
Asian elephant, Bangkok, Thailand. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific.
Laplae, E. (1918). The domestication of the
African elephant in the Belgian Congo, pp. 8–28.
In: Marine World Foundation (ed.) The Domestication of the African Elephant
in the early 20th Century.
Laplume, C. (1911). The domestication of
elephants in the Congo, pp. 2–7. In: Marine World
Foundation (ed.) The
Domestication of the African Elephant in the early 20th Century.
Latimer,
E., L. Richman, M. Garner, K. Helmick, J.C. Zong, S. Jeaggans & G. Hayward
(2007). Elephant
endotheliotropic herpesviruses: update. Annual
International Elephant Foundation Symposium Abstracts.
Lewis
K.D., D.J. Shepherdson, T.M. Owens & M. Keele (2010). A survey of
elephant husbandry and foot health in North American Zoos. Zoo
Biology
29: 221–236
Lincoln,
G.A. & W.D. Ratnasooriya (1996). Testosterone secretion, musth behaviour
and social dominance in captive male Asian elephants living near the equator. Journal
of Reproduction and Fertility 108: 107–113.
Meyer,
J.M., T.E. Goodwin & B.A. Schulte (2008). Intrasexual chemical communication and
social responses of captive female African elephants, Loxodonta africana. Animal
Behaviour
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.12.019.
Metzler,
A.E., P. Ossent, F. Guscetti, A. Rübel & E.M. Lang (1990). Serological
Evidence of herpesvirus infection in captive Asian Elephants (Elephas
maximus).
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 26(1): 41–49.
Nagendran,
M. & H.S. Riddle (2009). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asian
Elephant Conservation Fund - the first ten years of support. Gajah 29: 45–51
Nair,
S., R. Balakrishnan, C.S. Seelamantula & R. Sukumar (2009). Vocalizations
of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus): Structural classification and social
context. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 126(5): 2768–2778.
Olson,
D. (ed.) (2004). Elephant Husbandry Resource Guide. Allen Press,
Lawrence, USA, 262pp.
Ossent,
P., F. Guscetti, A.E. Metzler, E.M. Lang, A. Rübel & B. Hauser (1990). Acute and
fatale herpesvirus infection in a young Asian Elephant (Elephas
maximus).
Veterinary
Pathology
27: 135–137.
Payne,
K., M. Thompson & L. Kramer (2003). Elephant calling patterns as indicators
of group size and composition: the basis for an acoustic monitoring system. Journal
of Ecology
41: 99–107.
Payne,
K.B., W.R. Jr. Langbauer & E.M. Thomas (1986). Infrasonic
calls of the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology 18: 297–301.
Pilaski, J., D. Kulka, N. Neuschulz, R. Ippen & H.D.
Schröder (1992). Outbreak of Pox among African elephants in Thűringer
Zoo at Erfurt, Germany. Verhandlungsbericht
des 34. Internationalen Symposiums űber die Erkrankungen Zoo und
Wildtiere. Berlin Akademie Verlag.
Poole,
J. (1996).
Coming
of Age with Elephants: A Memoir. Hyperion, New York, 287pp.
Rasmussen,
L.E.L. (1999). Elephant olfaction: smell detectors extraordinaire.
ChemoSenses
2: 4–5.
Rasmussen,
L.E.L. & B.A. Schulte (1998). Chemical signals in the reproduction of
Asian and African elephants. Animal Reproduction Science 53: 19–34.
Rasmussen
L.E.L. & V. Krishnamurthy (2000). How chemical signals integrate Asian
Elephant society: the known and the unknown. Zoo
Biology
19: 405–423.
Rasmussen,
L.E.L. & H.S. Riddle (2004). Elephant breath: clues about health,
disease, metabolism and social signals. Journal of the Elephant Managers
Association
15: 24–33.
Rasmussen
L.E.L., H.S. Riddle & V. Krishnamurthy (2002). Mellifluous
matures to malodorous in musth. Nature 415: 975–76.
Richman,
L.K. (2007).
Elephant herpes viruses, pp. 349–354. In: Fowler M.E.
& R.E. Miller (eds.). Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine. Current therapy 6. Saunders.
Riddle, H.S. (2002). Captive breeding of
elephants: managerial elements for success. Journal of the
Elephant Managers Association 13: 58–61.
Riddle,
H.S., S.W. Riddle, L.E.L. Rasmussen & T.E. Goodwin (2000). First
disclosure and preliminary investigation of a liquid released from the ears of
African elephants. Zoo Biology 19: 475–480.
Riddle, H.S., L.E.L. Rasmussen & D.L. Schmitt (2003).
Are captive elephants important to conservation? Gajah 22: 57–61.
Riddle,
H.S., B.A. Schulte, A.A. Desai & L. van der Meer (2010). Elephants –
a conservation overview. Journal of Threatened Taxa 2(1): 653–661.
Rüedi, D. (1995). Elefanten, pp.156–186. In: Göltenboth, R., HG. Klös (eds.) Krankheiten der Zoo– und Wildtiere, Blackwell, Berlin.
Sadler,
W.C. (2001).
The role of nutrition and possible impact on elephant foot care, pp. 13–15e. In: Csuti, B.,
E.L. Sargent & U.S. Bechert (eds.) The Elephant’s Foot. Iowa State
University Press, Iowa.
Sarma,
K.K. (2009).
Healthcare management of the elephants of northeast India, pp. 117–120.
In: Healthcare
Management of Captive Asian Elephants. Kerala Agriculture University.
Schulte, B.A., E. Freeman, T.E.
Goodwin, J.A. Hollister-Smith & L.E.L. Rasmussen (2007). Honest
signaling through chemicals by elephants with applications for conservation and
care. Applied
Animal Behavioral Science 102: 344–363.
Scullard, H.H. (1974). The
Elephant in the Greek and Roman World. Cornell University Press, New York, 288pp.
Sillar, F.C. & R.M. Meyler (1968). Elephants
Ancient and Modern. The Viking Press, New York, 236pp.
Vanitha,
V., K. Thiyagesan & N. Baskaran (2009). Socio-economic status of elephant keepers
(mahouts) and human-captive elephant conflict: a case study from the three
management systems in Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Gajah 30: 8–12
Varma,
S. (2008). Identifying
and defining welfare parameters for captive elephants and their mahouts in
India,
pp.
7–16.
In: Varma, S. &
D. Prasad (eds.). Welfare and Management of Elephants in Captivity. Proceedings of
a workshop on welfare parameters and their significance for captive elephants
and their mahouts in India.
Wiedner,
E. & D.L. Schmitt (2007). Preliminary report of side effects seen in
elephants treated for tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis). Annual
International Elephant Foundation Symposium Abstract.
Wiedner, E. & D.L. Schmitt (2009). Captive
elephant medicine: recent developments. Gajah 31: 25–28.