The chain is used to teach the elephant to tie, when the elephant is young.
Just like a horse the elephant can then be tied with string and not a chain and it will stay tied.
I would say OH&S says they have to be tied with a chain. The elephants don’t actually need it.
[QUOTE=SuzieQNutter;8085731]
The chain is used to teach the elephant to tie, when the elephant is young.
Just like a horse the elephant can then be tied with string and not a chain and it will stay tied.
I would say OH&S says they have to be tied with a chain. The elephants don’t actually need it.[/QUOTE]
Well, the way it was explained, the chain was a signal to the animals, you are in the barn, etc. if not chained the animal became restless about the break in routine.
You can see their facilities here if you click through the links here:
http://www.elephants.com/facilities.php#asian_elephant_house
http://www.elephants.com/slideshow/slideshow.php?id=161
http://www.elephants.com/slideshow/slideshow.php?id=153
They do have heated elephant houses with “stalls,” however the elephants are not locked inside unless it’s for illness, injury, or general safety during an unusual situation. Otherwise they have free access to go in and out as they please and aren’t even required to be fed in the barns unless they choose to come inside. The elephants pretty much call all the shots at their sanctuary. :yes:
Ringling Brothers support a large elephant breeding operation. I wonder what will happen to the animals, now that there will be no more need for them.
I read in the press that all of their elephants will be retired to their 200 acre breeding facility and elephant center. I don’t know if that means they’ll continue breeding for the long term or if they will eventually phase out that portion of their program as well.
I may be naive, but I don’t see a problem with Ringling Brothers opening their Florida facility to the public. Paying visitors could view elephant herds from afar at observation stations while learning about elephants and elephant husbandry in general. It seems like it would be a good compromise so the elephants could continue to bring in some revenue while living much more natural lives. The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is vocally opposed to putting elephants on display in any manner and do not host visitors at their facility. But realistically for Ringling Brothers, I don’t see how else they’re going to support a herd of 40+ elephants for the long term if they no longer need them to perform.
[QUOTE=Texarkana;8085850]
I read in the press that all of their elephants will be retired to their 200 acre breeding facility and elephant center. I don’t know if that means they’ll continue breeding for the long term or if they will eventually phase out that portion of their program as well.
I may be naive, but I don’t see a problem with Ringling Brothers opening their Florida facility to the public. Paying visitors could view elephant herds from afar at observation stations while learning about elephants and elephant husbandry in general. It seems like it would be a good compromise so the elephants could continue to bring in some revenue while living much more natural lives. The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is vocally opposed to putting elephants on display in any manner and do not host visitors at their facility. But realistically for Ringling Brothers, I don’t see how else they’re going to support a herd of 40+ elephants for the long term if they no longer need them to perform.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, an animal with a job is a fed animal. Nobody else will have a need for 40 elephants.
(I saw a documentary about the sanctuary in Tennessee, back when Animal Planted didn’t suck. Like I said, I would like to see how the landscape has changed over the last 15-20 years. Southern vegetation is strong, but elephants are equally so!)
Elephants are more intelligent than horses and due to their size require a lot more resources.
However, if a human has those resources and treats them well, I see no reason to not own one. The more human’s are involved with an animal, the greater it’s chance of not going extinct. Sad, but true.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8085877]
Like I said, an animal with a job is a fed animal. Nobody else will have a need for 40 elephants.
(I saw a documentary about the sanctuary in Tennessee, back when Animal Planted didn’t suck. Like I said, I would like to see how the landscape has changed over the last 15-20 years. Southern vegetation is strong, but elephants are equally so!)[/QUOTE]
Ringling Brothers does sell some of their elephant calves, and I’m sure they go for a TON of money. But I don’t see how even selling the occasional calf could support 40+ elephants. Plus, you have the serious ethical implications that come along with separating calves from their mothers and ending up in other less than ideal situations.
I thought you meant you’d like to see how the facilities have changed over the past 20 years. The vegetation at the Sanctuary in Tennessee is still strong. Sure, there are the high traffic areas that have elephant wear and tear not unlike horse turnouts, but the majority of it is still rolling meadows and forests. They have a lot of volunteers who help maintain the terrain. Volunteering at the Sanctuary is open to the public, but it has gotten to be such a popular event that they now restrict it to donors on a lottery system. I was bummed I didn’t get chosen this year.
Their Elecams are up all the time- you can see quite a bit of the area.
(I LOL’d at your Animal Planet comment- so true!)
I would agree that elephants are smarter than horses and require more space and resources. But they have a long history of working with people in Southeast Asia.
This thread made me think of the movie ‘Blackfish’ and a book, recently published, by John Hargrove, who is an ex-SeaWorld trainer. It breaks your heart. Orcas are not an animal we can keep in captivity, as we cannot (and SeaWorld doesn’t even try) provide them with what they need.
At one point, Hargrove describes how they train the whales – I thought, same behaviourist principles you use to train a horse, but really not the same at all. If I mis-time a cue with my horse or don’t reward a behavior as I should have, my horse does not get pissed off and attack me. She might not do what I want (though she is a good girl and often works it out anyway from my muddled signals) and we try again. BFD. An orca who thinks you have been unfair or is fed up might grab you and drag you under water.
From Hargrove, you get the sense that there is almost like a cult of behaviorism, underpinned by a lot of safety procedures because the trainers know the whales can get aggressive. There is this sense, this confidence, that if you condition X, the animal will do Y, except when it doesn’t, often with disastrous consequences when the safety procedures fail. Those too are reliant on the animals being conditioned to respond to certain signals, and angry orcas might choose not to. After all, they are apex predators who are probably smarter than we are, living in horrendously unnatural conditions.
I’ll stick to horses.
[QUOTE=Caol Ila;8086286]
I would agree that elephants are smarter than horses and require more space and resources. But they have a long history of working with people in Southeast Asia.
This thread made me think of the movie ‘Blackfish’ and a book, recently published, by John Hargrove, who is an ex-SeaWorld trainer. It breaks your heart. Orcas are not an animal we can keep in captivity, as we cannot (and SeaWorld doesn’t even try) provide them with what they need.
At one point, Hargrove describes how they train the whales – I thought, same behaviourist principles you use to train a horse, but really not the same at all. If I mis-time a cue with my horse or don’t reward a behavior as I should have, my horse does not get pissed off and attack me. She might not do what I want (though she is a good girl and often works it out anyway from my muddled signals) and we try again. BFD. An orca who thinks you have been unfair or is fed up might grab you and drag you under water.
From Hargrove, you get the sense that there is almost like a cult of behaviorism, underpinned by a lot of safety procedures because the trainers know the whales can get aggressive. There is this sense, this confidence, that if you condition X, the animal will do Y, except when it doesn’t, often with disastrous consequences when the safety procedures fail. Those too are reliant on the animals being conditioned to respond to certain signals, and angry orcas might choose not to. After all, they are apex predators who are probably smarter than we are, living in horrendously unnatural conditions.
I’ll stick to horses.[/QUOTE]
The biggest thing is I suppose that horses do not habitually hunt.
In a documentary about Orcas the narrator explained the scene of the whale attacking a penguin to what we do with out breakfast egg…sorry dude, I don’t chase it around the table before I eat it! 
but considering Orcas are carnivores, and not over grown dolphins (who would probably not shy away from a good seal either), I suppose the comparison should include a tiger or bear, except, they are much bigger, and probably a lot smarter, too!
There is a wildlife park in the UK, renowned for being one of the first places in the country to have ‘naturalistic’ enclosures for the critters, which was a big, innovative step towards zoo animal welfare back in late 1950s when the place was created. But it was also renowned for its eccentric owner’s attitude towards the animals, which was more questionable – he liked playing with the tigers and the gorillas, like big pets, and encouraged the keepers to do the same, until a tiger killed a keeper. The park changed its practices after that.
I think the difference is similar to keeping a Labrador Retriever for a pet vs. keeping a Greenwing Macaw as a pet. One has been domesticated for many years, bred to be completely different from the wild type, and would be completely lost if released into his natural habitat. The other one is just a few generations (if that) away from the wild type, and would adjust perfectly if released in their natural environment.
Levels of domestication matter when we’re discussing pets. I don’t think either is unethical to own, but they’re not the same.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
