Les Schobert worked in zoos for more than 30 years, including as General Curator of the Los Angeles Zoo and the North Carolina Zoo. He was also a professional member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) and chaired a variety of important committees for that organization.

Most importantly, Les has worked in every aspect of elephant care, handling and maintenance, and has developed a real love and appreciation for these magnificent creatures.

“We are more concerned about the species than the individual specimens.”  I heard that expressed by many zoo folks throughout my career. This is the zoo industry’s position and it is the biggest conflict between animal humane groups and zoos today.  Zoos want to look at the big picture of the species rather than considering the plight of an individual animal and the humane community considers the welfare of the individual.

When you closely examine this statement it is truly ridiculous.  The entire captive population of any species is made up of individuals. The unfortunate issue is that zoos are more interested in the genetics and numbers concerning a species in an effort to breed them rather than consider the welfare of the individual animals.  Should there not be a major consideration given to the welfare of the animals rather than just look at the numbers?  

Right now the big push with elephants in this country is to breed them and produce babies.  Pop a baby out at any cost. Get the cows pregnant – its good for the gate and it can be promoted as a “conservation” effort. What happens to the male offspring?  Are they destined to receive a high quality of life?  One zoo is continuing to produce calves even though its herd is infected with herpes.  13 of 14 calves produced since 1983 are dead - the longest-lived one was 13 years old!  The only surviving calf is less than one year. But they continue to breed and produce calves with total disregard for the welfare of the calves and their mothers.

How are decisions made about individual animals at the zoo? Certainly most zoos provide for the physical health of the animal first and foremost with a cadre of qualified animal personnel but beyond that other considerations are evaluated.  

The first consideration is the institution. What is best for this zoo? What is the allocation of resources (personnel time as well as space and money)?  How much will it cost?  Will it increase the front gate?  Can we get some publicity from it?   What will our donor base think about this situation?  How much of our resources (personnel time, veterinary care, interior space, outdoor space, money, etc.) do we need to spend on this animal?  These are the questions that are asked by the administrators to evaluate the individual animals. Basically they are the same questions that would be asked in any business about allocation of resources and money. This should not come as a surprise to anyone that zoos are big business. But increasingly the public wants their zoo to be a center for animal welfare and not just an enterprise in the community. 

The next consideration is the value of the animal and how it relates to the rest of the captive animal population of that species.  Is this species rare in captivity?  Is it of value to other zoos?  Are the genes important to the captive population?  Is it capable of breeding?  Is there a Species Survival Plan (SSP) for this species and if so what are their recommendations on the placement of this specimen?  In reality, it is how this particular specimen relates to the entire captive population of the species. 

The issue of the welfare of the individual animal is rarely considered.  

Examples of these issues are evident in the press. Recently an elephant was removed from a facility in Florida after having spent over 20 years with her two companions. The zoo wanted to divest itself of all three of its elephants and the Species Survival Plan (SSP) decided that one of the three should be sent to another zoo. Was the fact that the three elephants were tightly bonded considered in the decision to separate this animal from the rest?  I sincerely doubt it. The animal was shipped off to another zoo leaving her long-term “herd members” behind and she was forced to go make a life with a new companion that she did not even know.  Even the signage at most zoos state that elephants are very social.  If this is understood then why is this facet so integral to elephants ignored when making decisions about shuffling them around the country? 

Recently the Edmonton Zoo sent one of their two elephants to the North Carolina Zoo leaving a solitary elephant at their zoo.  Here is the press information about the move:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09/26/4529259-cp.html

September 26, 2007

Elephant from Edmonton zoo headed to North Carolina facility

By THE CANADIAN PRESS 

EDMONTON - One of the biggest attractions - literally - at Edmonton's Valley Zoo has left town.

Samantha, a 19-year-old, 3,200-kilogram African elephant, was put on a specially designed truck Wednesday headed for an elephant facility in Asheboro, N.C.  

Zoo officials said in a news release that the convoy had successfully crossed the American border and would hopefully arrive in North Carolina by the weekend.

The aim of the move is to have Samantha participate in the U.S. zoo's breeding program, which aims to furnish animals for the North American captive population.  

Dean Treichel of the Edmonton zoo has said the program is also important for the overall health of the species.

But an animal rights activist disagrees and says it will hurt the zoo's remaining elephant.

In its news release, the zoo said Samantha will join three other elephants in a herd that could grow to eight by the end of the year.

 "It's the right decision for Samantha and her species, and is a decision based on conservation," said the news release. "Samantha is a viable reproductive female and should be in a facility where a breeding program exists."

Zoo officials have noted that elephants are extremely social animals and breed better when in a larger group.

Samantha's departure leaves the Edmonton zoo's other elephant, a 31-year-old Asian named Lucy, all alone.

Since Lucy has lived in captivity at the Edmonton facility for 29 years, zoo officials said it would be in her best interests to stay there.

"Lucy is highly habituated and is drawn to humans rather than to elephants," said zoo officials. "To help in any transition Lucy might experience, elephant keepers will be spending additional time with Lucy and ensuring that she is given lots of attention, activity and enrichment. Cameras have been installed so that Lucy can be monitored (around the clock)."

Zoo officials said Lucy is treated daily for arthritis and medical experts are trying to figure out why she developed a chronic respiratory condition that causes her breathing difficulty.  

Note that in this information there is nothing about the welfare of the individual animals being folded into this decision except when the move was questioned by an animal rights person.  Was this decision based on what is best for the individuals or best for the breeding of the species?  Even the elephant guidelines from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) state that a minimum of two elephants is mandatory in an accredited zoo. This most basic element of animal welfare was ignored.  Even if the remaining elephant, Lucy was an Asian elephant while Samantha was an African, they were the only companions that they knew for years.  I can’t comment on the degree of bonding between these two elephants but I am concerned about the obvious lack of consideration for their psychological health. 

Note that the aim of this move is to put Samantha into a breeding program and since she is a “viable reproductive female” she should be in a breeding situation.  When questioned, the zoo officials state that Lucy is drawn to humans rather than elephants – who asked Lucy?  Certainly it is easy to fall back on this silly statement – she has no choice but to accept humans rather than elephants as her companions!

No, zoos are more interested in the potential successes of their breeding programs and the front gate than they are with the welfare of the individual animals.  The mantra continues in the halls of zoo offices – “we are more concerned about the species rather than the individual specimens.”  The sad fallacy of this approach is that the true health of the species is the sum of the specimens.  There will never be a robust population of elephants in captivity unless the psychological needs and welfare of the individual elephants are met.  Until zoos decide that the welfare of the individual animals should be their primary consideration, their breeding programs for a species as intelligent and social as an elephant, will continue to fail.