For anyone in BC who would like to join Stop UBC Animal Research:

Stop UBC Animal Research remains committed to exposing the grim realities of the animal experiments occurring at UBC.  We hope you will continue to show your support and compassion as the new school year gets under way.

Please join us at two important outreach opportunities in the coming week.

On Monday, September 17th, the UBC Alumni AGM is being held at the Four Seasons Hotel, 791 West Georgia Street  - we will be meeting outside at 4:15pm and holding a silent vigil for the more than 211,000 animals UBC uses each year in its laboratories.  Please wear your Stop UBC t-shirt. Signs will be provided.  We will be there as the alumni arrive and wait until they leave (by 7pm) so that they are made aware of our concerns and hopefully will feel moved to press their university turn to the many cutting-edge, scientifically viable and ethical alternatives.

On Saturday, September 22nd, the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences holds an Open House at their new building at 2405 Wesbrook Mall.  We will be meeting there at 12:30 to greet the many alumni, students and community members who will be coming to tour the building and take part in opening events.  There is a large portion of the building where research on animals will be taking place.  Please wear your Stop UBC t-shirt and if anyone has an animal mask, that would be ideal as well.

Please contact me if you can come to either event.  Phone number is 604-787-7315

Hope you can join us!

best

Anne

Check it out!

Just a quick note to say if you haven't already, you may want to check out the Saving Dinah blog:  http://savingdinah.com/Wordpress/category/blog/



We manage this blog as well, posting different material than our Animal Alliance and Animal Alliance / Environment Voters blogs.

Thanks!

CAZA'S RESPONSE

BUT THE PROBLEM REMAINS: ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO CAZA

Bill Peters
National Director
Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Suite 400, 280 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, ON K2P 1R7
Canada
bpeters@caza.ca

Dear Mr. Peters,

Last week I wrote an open letter to you, expressing my amazement that CAZA was unaware, after years of reports, demonstrations, news stories, and even a deputation from Zoocheck-Canada, of any "complaint" about Marineland, the facility in Niagara Falls again documented to have a sorry record of animal abuse. You replied: "Your complaint is acknowledged. All such reports are thoroughly investigated and appropriate actions are taken as justified."  I can't recall any zoo losing accreditation from CAZA, not even the one that uses its last, lonely elephant for circus stunts, but perhaps you can enlighten me.

You continue, "The accreditation program of the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums, which regulates the operations of Marineland and all other CAZA accredited members is based on a comprehensive set of demanding standards designed to ensure that all animals kept by our members receive the best of care in modern, appropriate facilities. We conduct regular inspections to verify that our standards are adhered to at all times, and our Accreditation Commission is empowered to investigate any complaints that are brought to our attention. The Commission can order corrective measures or in very serious cases can remove the institution’s accreditation.

"CAZA has not previously received complaints about the treatment of animals at Marineland. CAZA will now thoroughly investigate the allegations with respect to Marineland in an objective manner and will determine what actions need to be taken in light of the facts. We will carry out this inspection in conjunction with the OSPCA."

Clearly, whatever CAZA does to assure compliance to its standards, it doesn't work to protect animals.  Marineland is accredited, and yet articles in The Toronto Star outlined a horrific record of abusive situations, as have previous reports submitted to you by Zoocheck-Canada (which you apparently didn't recognize as being complaints).

One of the CAZA standards used to dictate that when a zoo had fewer than three elephants, it would either have to get more elephants (the idea being that elephants are social animals) or move the one it had.   As amended March 23, 2005, CAZA's Visiting Committee Handbook stated "Elephant management facilities should make every effort to maintain elephants in social groupings.  It is inappropriate to keep highly social female elephants singly.  Elephant care staff should be aware of each animal's social compatibility and the dominance hierarchies of the herd."

In 2007, the Edmonton Valley Zoo was clearly in violation of that standard, and the General Exhibit Standards within the Government of Alberta Standards for Zoos, which state "All animals must be maintained in numbers sufficient to meet their social and behavioural needs" when it was down to its last elephant, Lucy.

On October 25th of that year, R.D. Hale, chair of CAZA's "ethics committee" wrote "After viewing all of the circumstances, the Ethics Committee is satisfied that the decisions made by the Valley Zoo are in the best interest of the animals at this time."

And then, the very next year, CAZA came out with an "Elephant Care Manual" that after still noting that it was "inappropriate" to keep "highly social female elephant's (sic) long term" it added "It is recognized that some socially aberrant adult females currently exist and these elephants can be managed singly if the institution has made every effort to introduce them to a social group and CAZA agrees that the anti-social behavior is not correctable.

Wow...so it's all Lucy's fault that she's alone, apparently being "socially aberrant", although I can't help but wonder how "every effort" could have been made to introduce her to a "social group" when she's the only elephant in Alberta.

If you, or your colleagues at CAZA, can't see the absurdity of all this, so be it, but I don't think you can blame me and a growing number of others if we fail to take CAZA seriously.   The thing that saddens me is that some still do.

The one time I have heard of CAZA seriously threatening to remove accreditation was when Toronto City Council and the Toronto Zoo Board decided to move its remaining three elephants to a sanctuary because the city couldn't afford maintaining and upgrading their quarters.  CAZA's concern was that the sanctuary was not accredited as a zoo.  It is not accredited as a zoo because it is not a zoo.  It's a sanctuary, with much higher standards for animal husbandry than are required by CAZA or the American equivalent, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.  It is accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.

But this is about complaints pertaining to Marineland, and apparently anything less than a formal complaint does not register with you as a complaint.   When I received your reply I called some activists who have spent years complaining about Marineland.   Did any of them complain directly to CAZA?  The answers I have received so far confirm your statement, but the reason they can't remember complaining to you directly can pretty well be summed up by what one told me on the phone:  "Why would I?  They must have known, and yet did nothing.  No one takes them seriously."

And yes, I know that I previously never have complained to CAZA, and for the same reason.  I have spent my life in the animal protection business and have seen firsthand how low the animal husbandry standards for CAZA accreditation can be.  Therefore I also do not take CAZA accreditation seriously as a measure of the quality of the facility.  If Marineland can get accreditation, such accreditation is of no value in determining animal welfare.

But a few people less involved with animals, including legislators and media, sometimes do take CAZA seriously, and I would urge you to try to maintain that faith.   I do this not because I care about CAZA, I don't, but because I know that in the long run the only way CAZA can be taken seriously is to act with an effectiveness so far absent, and start seriously supporting its own stated goal to "promote the welfare of animals by encouraging the advancement of conservation, education, and science."  Those are features I would support, along with, as you said in your letter, animals receiving the "best" care.  In fact, I'd settle for them even receiving reasonably good care.

It seems to me that zoos are at a crossroads.  No one can disagree that they are entertaining and amuse children.   But claims that they serve effectively to actually teach those children, or anyone else, anything about wildlife are not supported by such research as exists.   Such education is at any rate increasingly available through other sources; it's not necessary to put a rhinoceros in a pen to teach a nine-year old what a rhino eats or where it is native.

Captive breeding and release can contribute to conservation, but the 99 percent of a zoo's public infrastructure is rarely, if ever, seriously part of such endeavour.  Endlessly catching beluga whales and putting them in concrete ponds in no way conserves them.  There are certainly some discoveries to be made about animals held captive that are of interest to scientists, but few, and most such information is not easily applicable to the conservation of wild animals.

There are some zoos that are genuinely engaged in these endeavours, and do put the welfare of the animals first, do contribute to conservation and education, and CAZA does them no service by claiming zoos like Marineland are part of these worthy endeavours, or by calling Lucy aberrant. If zoos are to survive, they will have to adapt, and do so on ways that benefit the animals in their care, the species they are involved in, or that provide real education.  And they will have to recognize that in this age of electronic communication, you can fool only a decreasing number of people with bland assurances detached from such horrific realities as those documented at Marineland.

Sincerely,
Barry Kent MacKay
Director
Animal Alliance of Canada

How do you complain to people who can't, or won't, recognize a complaint?

An Open Letter to Bill Peters, Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums: THIS IS A COMPLAINT

Bill Peters,

National Director,

Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums,

Suite 400, 280 Metcalfe Street

Ottawa, ON K2P 1R7

Canada

bpeters@caza.ca

Dear Mr. Peters

I am a life-long naturalist long involved in animal conservation and protection issues.  As I grow older, I am ever more convinced that we must treat other species with respect and compassion.  Being a member, active in many cases, of many organizations involved with wildlife, including the Toronto Zoo, it naturally bothered me to read about the plight of animals held in Marineland, Niagara Falls, such as the solitary orca (they are a social species); six out of seven sea lions being blind or with serious vision or eye problems; the death of the baby beluga because no trainers who knew how to separate her from adult males battering her as her mother sought so valiantly to save her were on the site; the fur loss, weight losses; stresses and skin lesions talked about by staff who have quit in protest and, well, you can read the newspaper, and assuming you have done so, you know the litany of complaints, and to date, focused entirely on marine mammals. (www.thestar.com/topic/marineland)  There have, in the last twenty years, been documented many other concerns about other animals, such as bears, and deer, at Marineland.

And here's the problem: when those reports are submitted to CAZA, people like me think that, because CAZA always claims to share our concerns about animals, they will be read.  I know my colleague, Julie Woodyer, of Zoocheck-Canada, met with you to complain about Marineland, and of course for the last twenty years, and especially the last 14, there have been demonstrations, media releases, and letters sent to CAZA.   And yet, three times in three days the Toronto Star reported that you were not aware of any complaints.

How could you not have noticed?   I mean, I realize that you can't personally take part in all CAZA inspections, that these inspections of member zoos take place only every five years, and with plenty of prior warning, so maybe during the big day things like injuries, wounds, poor sanitation and water quality, inadequate housing and so on just don't get noticed.  Maybe when zoo keepers say "don't go there" the inspectors say "okay" and don't go there; or when zoo keepers say "oh, it's being treated" the inspectors say "okay" and don't make note of the problem.   Or maybe the CAZA inspectors really like the people they are inspecting, and don't really want to get them into trouble, especially knowing that the people whose facilities they are inspecting may some day be inspecting their own.  I mean, there aren't that many zoos in Canada compared to, say, the United States, so the chances of people all knowing each other are quite high and no one wants to be critical of someone who can be critical back.

What surprises me is that you claim to have received no complaints.   I guess the fault lies with the complainers.   So what we need to know, Mr. Peters, is what, in your mind, would constitute a complaint?   I want to send you one so  you know that people who care about animals are deeply concerned about the long history concerns that there are abused animals and substandard husbandry that has been documented at Marineland.  I know other people want to complain, have complained, so since those complaints don't count, how can we make them count?  Do we write "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" on the top of the letter?  Should it be in red, or underlined or in bold print? 

And please understand, Mr. Peters, that this inability to recognize complaints is not restricted to you.  Ontario Community Safety Minister Madeleine Meilleur, who oversees the Ontario SPCA, is quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was in tears" when reading about the plight of the animals at Marineland, and wished she had been told.  I guess it came as a shock to her, since she apparently didn't read the reports Zoocheck Canada has submitted to her government, and earlier governments, in the past, such as the Commentary on the Canadian Association ofZoos and Aquariums (CAZA) accreditation process:  Maineland of Canada Niagara Falls, which was published by the World Society for the Protection of Animals and Zoocheck Canada in January, 2002.  Ms Meilleur was only appointed to her present position last year, and I guess no one would have told her about that report, let alone that it was a complaint. 

But Mr. Peters, you certainly have been around a lot longer than her, and since the report addresses your organization, did you not notice that it opens by saying, "For many years, Marineland of Canada has been the subject of intense criticism from animal protection organizations in Canada and around the world.  A considerable portion of this criticism concerns substandard animal housing and care, and the relatively high level of cetacean mortality at the facility.  Marineland has also been extensively criticized for its practice of capturing cetaceans from the wild and importing them into Canada.  A detailed articulation of some of these concerns is contained in the Zoocheck Canada publication Distorted Nature: Exposing the Myth of Marineland (1998)"?

Now, I realize that no one wrote "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" on the copies sent to CAZA, so you may have not recognized that it was a complaint, or perhaps you received it and thought it only applied to Marineland, and perhaps (I'm really guessing here, since it's hard for me to understand how you would not think it constituted a complaint) you therefore failed to read the next paragraphs, which mention CAZA, specifically.

And note that it references a document published in 1998, that's fourteen years ago!   And all three are still on line.  (www.zoocheck.com/Reportpdfs/Distorted%20Nature.pdf)

I once met a toothless old self-professed "swamp rat" in a Louisiana backwater who was taking me to see some alligators and told me he never read his mail, then said, cackling loudly, "`Cause I just cain't read!"  I sort of liked the old geezer notwithstanding his illiteracy, but I'm sure you can read, so maybe there are folks, and you are one of them, who simply don't read their own mail.   But surely  you noticed news stories on TV and radio...you don't have to read them...and saw pictures of people demonstrating at Marineland, and being as it is a zoo, must have been curious about it?   It's not too late; they're still available (www.thestar.com/videozone/1243689--protest-at-marineland).  There are organizations created entirely to oppose Marineland. 

Anyway, here we are with this horrific situation as outlined in the media (for example, www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx) and since you are quoted you must have talked to the reporter, and unless she is lying, you told her you have received no complaints, and yet her interview was about complaints, not from me, or animal protection groups, or demonstrators, but from people who actually work, or worked, at Marineland.   Do their complaints equal complaints?

I am making this an open letter in an effort to optimize the chances that you will see it, or hear about it.  I really want you to know that it is a complaint.  I would suggest anyone concerned about the horrific conditions at Marineland do the same, but whether they write to you on paper or e-mail, they should first write "THIS IS A COMPLAINT" and hope that you understand.

Sincerely yours,

Barry Kent MacKay

Markham, ON  Canada
Director, Animal Alliance of Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Money wasted on killing wolves in Big Lakes MD 

August 8, 2012 -Alberta wolf bounty programs have been receiving attention recently.  The MD of Big Lakes is one example of numerous programs across the province, providing $300 for each wolf turned in since 2010.

In three years, Big Lakes has spent approximately $87,000 on wolves claimed through the bounty program.  People from the area as well as across the country are justifiably concerned that this is not an ecologically sustainable practice, nor ethically sound.  Many wolves killed had never killed livestock, many of them never would have.

The real shame is that the situation is being portrayed as having two sides; those who want to protect livestock and those who want to protect wolves.  The irony is that both of these objectives could be met simultaneously through working together.  A large amount of money has been invested within Big Lakes to kill wolves.  If preventing livestock losses is the goal, that money could have been better used.

Wolf Biologist Marco Musiani has spent more than a decade investigating the correlations between wolf depredations and raising livestock.  His research has indicated that culling wolves has not been shown to reduce depredation, immediately nor long-term.  Indeed, there is no evidence to show that indiscriminately killing wolves works as a long-term solution; depredations occur in areas that have been practicing lethal control for decades. 

Musiani has described this approach as

            “a short-term response to depredation that does not decrease wolf-depredation at a           regional scale nor over long-term”.

In fact, in certain parts of North America, killing wolves indiscriminately through trapping may have lead to increased depredation rates on livestock the next year.  This may be due to more wolves present in these areas following a disruption of their social structure or maybe wolves avoiding traps had learned to prey on livestock, and become more dependent upon domesticated animals as a food source as pack mates are removed.  Similar research on Dingo’s in Australia also documented pack disintegration (loss of social stability regardless of population size) following indiscriminate lethal control methods.  In this research there appeared to be an increase in attack rates on livestock when using poison baits.

Council members of Big Lakes MD have stated that preventative measures would be extremely expensive.  The following cost comparisons have been  made using information gathered by John A Shivik of the US Department of Agriculture  in his journal article in BioScience,  March 2006  (“Tools for the Edge: What’s New for Conserving Carnivores?”), and through personal communication with  wolf biologists, ranchers, and individuals providing electric fence workshops.

LIST of Cost Comparisons at $87,000 and duration of effectiveness

Fladry:  Cost estimate $781/km.  Could purchase 111.4 km. Duration 60 days

Electric Fencing:

Cost estimate -$250 for Super Energizer IV voltmeter- 50 mile range (if off grid $450)

- grounding plates $17 or rods (rebar)

-rebar posts every 10-12 feet ($600 to $700 per ton)

-stucco wire roll 100 feet $80, or ¼ mile tensile steel $25

Could purchase -348 voltmeters or 5118 grounding plates or 134 tons of rebar posts or 108,750 feet of stucco wire or 870 miles of tensile steel.

Duration of effectiveness would be unlimited as long as fence was properly constructed and maintained.

Turbofladry: Cost estimate $1328/km.  Could purchase 65.5 km.  Duration unlimited as long as fence was properly constructed and maintained.

Livestock Guardian Dogs: Cost estimate $300 - $1000 initial cost, then $500 per year.  Could purchase 108 guardian dogs (at $800 each).  Duration of effectiveness is approximately the lifespan of guard animal, typically years.

Carcass Removal Programs: Cost estimate 9¢/lb for ruminants where programs occur, with a minimum $75 charge.  If the average calf weighs 525 pounds at weaning 1160 calves could have been removed (at $75).  If the average cow weighs 1800 lbs, then 537 cows could have been removed.  In some parts of North America Fish and Wildlife will donate the truck and fuel costs.  Often funds are generated through rancher donations, conservation group donations, local taxes, and grants.  Duration of effectiveness is ongoing.

Range Riders:  Cost estimate $110/day for 2 months/year is $6,600.  In some parts of the US tourists are paying for the opportunity to do this.  Could provide  range riders for 13 ranches.  Duration of effectiveness is ongoing.

Fladry is a simple, inexpensive yet effective method for deterring wolves from entering a pasture.  It is a line of flags hung outside a pasture to dissuade wolves from crossing it and entering the area.

TurboFladry is Fladry combined with electric fencing, and although more expensive, this type of set up has proven very effective at keeping wolves out of a given area.  Initial costs may appear high, but the effectiveness and longevity for preventing depredations should also come into consideration.  As well conservation goals should also be included in the equation.

Husbandry practices where predators share the landscape with domestic stock can have a major influence on whether or not wolves will be attracted to an area.  Many predator-friendly ranching practices are inexpensive but an initial investment into providing this type of information and making it accessible to livestock producers is necessary.  Some of the more commonly used and discussed techniques include: confining or concentrating flocks during periods of vulnerability, establishing a human presence using herders, synchronizing birthing to reduce the period of maximum vulnerability, and pasturing young animals in areas with little cover and in close proximity to humans.  One of the most basic provisions for not attracting predators to areas where livestock is being raised is to remove dead livestock immediately from pastures.  Carcass removal programs occur in parts of Alberta where Grizzly bears are overlapping with ranchers.  Monitoring the health domestic animals regularly is critical to ensure dead and weaker domestics are managed, as these present more of an opportunity to wolves and other predators.  If a producer can remain “unattractive to wolves” by promptly managing for dead and sick livestock, as well as maintaining a strong human presence, livestock depredation rates should decrease in most areas.

Currently, there is no known place in North America where livestock is the majority of wolf prey.  This is not always the case in other countries where wolf populations have been all but decimated, such as Europe and Asia.   It becomes necessary to identify that wolves account for approximately 1 – 3 % of livestock losses on a large scale in North America, with weather, calving, and digestive problems a far larger concern for producers.

Wolf researcher and biologist Marco Musiani has identified that seasonal patterns can be seen in livestock calving, grazing practices, and variation in wolf pack energy requirements.  Understanding these patterns can help improve planning and management, and potentially alleviate conflicts. 

It is also paramount to consider the benefits and costs involved in ecosystem services that are provided for by wolves as a top predator and keystone species.  Wolves help to maintain the health, balance and biodiversity of natural ecosystems.  The Big Lakes Regional District has been advertising lake estates as a “natural way of living”, which is indeed something to boast about.  Especially as wilderness areas and natural predator-prey ecosystems are becoming more rare, and thus precious on a global scale, around the world. 

Residents of Big Lakes have indicated that the elk population in the area may be increasing, and wreaking havoc on canola fields.  This is just one other agricultural concern that may arise when tinkering with the natural system begins. 

Local sustainability also embraces a land ethic.   Aldo Leopold described this basic principal in the following way, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”  Local sustainability is not just about taking care of the people in our community; it also requires stewardship of the plants, animals, land and water around us.

The MD of Big Lakes will be reconsidering the continuation of the bounty program this September. 

-----------------------------------------------(30)----------------------------------------------------------

Contact: Sadie Parr, sadester@hotmail.com

An Animal Protectionist’s source of joy, Disgusts Me

This bird is NOT mourning its lost love!

By Barry Kent MacKay

This is going to sound very disgusting, but please stay with me.  Suppose I offered to send you a photo of an adult male trying to have sex with the dead body of a youngster?   Would you thank me or call the image “sad but tender”?   Would you feel better about it if I told you that the photo was of a familiar species of animal, a dog, say, or maybe a cat, canary or horse?

Of course not, and yet that is exactly what many people, including animal rights activists, have done, and continue to do, to me.  Each time I carefully explain why I am not “touched” by these photos, although I realize that they don’t mean to cause my more negative reaction.   So in the forlorn hope that I can stop from seeing this image again, let me explain in this blog.

You may have seen this series of photos and captions yourself.  It does not really disgust me because I don’t believe that the adult male in question was capable of making a choice that would accommodate our own sense of morality.   I don’t blame him!   I just wish people who care about animals knew more about them.  It is essential in the work we do that we know, exactly, what we’re talking about.

The photo in question is one of a series that shows a type of bird, called the barn swallow.  It is widely distributed throughout much of the world, including North America.  In the latest version sent to me the birds are called “bluebirds”, which is incorrect.  There are no bluebirds that look like swallows, or vice versa. 

The first image shows an injured bird on pavement.  Swallows swoop low to the ground in pursuit of insects and, sadly, are often struck by cars.  He or she (sexes are alike) clearly has at least a damaged wing.  Whether this is an immature bird or an adult is impossible to tell (the main difference would be tail feather length, impossible to judge in the first two photos).

In the second photo an adult Barn Swallow (you can see the long outer-tail streamers that characterize an adult) is hovering over a hurt bird, possibly the same one as in the first photo.  Its mouth is open and seems to show the yellow mouth corners (flanges) that characterize a young bird, and since there is no indication of long tail streamers, it could be an immature, mouth open for food. 

In the third photo a bird, presumably the same one, is dead on the ground and looks like an immature, showing yellow mouth corners, and no sign of long tail streamers.   The angle has changed, or the bird turned right angles before dying if it is, indeed, the same bird (I suspect not).

It is the fourth the adult male is clearly and obviously copulating with the dead young bird.  The live birds is the classic pose whereby the male presses his vent tight against that of the female for the transference of sperm.  This is as obviously a copulating pose to anyone who knows anything about birds’ reproduction, as is a male dog humping a female, if I may be so crude.  The caption says, “He tried to move her - a rarely seen effort.”   That’s nonsense.

To me there is nothing “wrong” with the fact that much behaviour by birds and other animals, including human, is instinctive.  The male swallow is fornicating on a dead baby of his own kind, which would be awful if he were a human, but he isn’t.  Is that okay?  Or must our concern for animals be predicated on their being like us when we are at our best?

Just wondering.

Blogging off,
Barry

A female bluebird was hit by a car as she swooped low across the road, and the condition was soon fatal.

 

Her male mate brought her food and attended her with love and compassion.

 

He brought her food again, but was shocked to find her dead.

 

He tried to move her - a rarely seen effort.

 

Aware his mate was dead and would never come back to him
Again, he cried out with adoring love

 . . . And stood beside her with sadness and sorrow.

 

Millions of people were touched after seeing these photos in America, Europe, Australia, and even India.
The photographer sold these pictures for a nominal fee to the most famous newspaper in France.
All copies of that edition sold out on the day these pictures were published.

And many people think animals and birds don't have brains or feelings.
You have just witnessed love and sorrow felt by God's creatures.

Live simply, love generously, care deeply, give fully

Elephants - Magnificent Mammals

By Lynda Nanders
AAC volunteer

How did the elephants of the Thula Thula game reserve in Zululand  know that their savior and protector had died?  Lawrence Anthony, who had risked taking into his reservation  an elephant herd scheduled for slaughter, died in 2012.  Immediately afterwards, two herds walked twelve miles to visit his home and stayed quietly there, stayed for two days, showing their respect and mourning their human friend. 

Anthony risked taking the first of his elephants because they were about to be killed.  They had been identified as rogue and highly dangerous.  Why?  Because they were suffering post traumatic shock.  The fact that mammals (and perhaps other non-human creatures) experience post traumatic shock is well studied and documented in Bradshaw’s Elephants on the Edge.  This ties in with Jane Goodall’s observations.  Non-humans do have less intellectual power than humans, but they do think, and their emotions are very, very close to ours. Jeffrey Moussieff Masson, explores the emotional lives of many mammals and birds, as well as of elephants, in his When Elephants Weep.

Lawrence Anthony wrote of his experiences with elephants in The Elephant Whisperer. Revealing their ability to plan and to act together, the elephants Nana and Frankie toppled a tree to break through their enclosure. Once they were safely on the reservation  (5,000 acres) again, they learned from Anthony, in ways that we do not understand, that they were safe and should stay.

Nana revealed both her ability to plan and her wish to help other animals when she opened the gate enclosing 30 nyala who were to be moved.  She did not take their food, but desired to help them by setting them free. Elephants follow their matriarch. They live in a mutually supportive social structure.  They celebrate every birth and help raise the young.  When Nandi’s baby was born with deformed feet, the other elephants tried repeatedly to help her stand.  Anthony and the rangers were able at last to take the baby, whom they named Thula, away from her protective mom.  They worked with a vet and their own ingenuity to get that baby to walk.  However, later, the herd came to Anthony’s house.  Wisely, he rubbed Thula’s scent into his shirt and showed this to the elephants.  They understood that the baby was safe, that the humans were helping, and then they left.  The baby died  later, and the elephants mourned her body as it decomposed on the veldt.

Elephants, like primates, enjoy painting!  We are learning to respect animals’ emotions, and, now, we should look into their aesthetic awareness, also.  Bears have been observed standing up gazing at sunsets. Katya Arnold teaches art to children and to elephants. She has written a children’s book, Elephants Can Paint .  There is more information about the elephant art and samples for sale on www.elephantart.com.

Another delightful children’s book, full of information that many adults do not have, is Face to Face With Elephants by Joubert.

I have mentioned only a few books about elephants.  Our library system has thousands!  One suggestion for choosing books on this topic is to check the publishing date.  The more recently such a book has been written, the more useful and accurate it is likely to be.  Unfortunately, we are just now beginning to understand and appreciate the abilities and feelings of other animals on our planet.  We do not understand, for example, why the elephants understood Anthony’s conversations,; however, he was able to persuade them to trust him at difficult times.  We do not know how they communicate with one another through their “tummy rumbles” as well as their trumpeting.  We do know the threats against their survival – habitat destruction, hunting (usually sanctioned by governments under the euphemism “culling”) and poaching.  We should, if we, like them, are moral beings, start protecting them. We know that the wild is the place for them.  Anthony had to relate to his elephants in order to rescue them and care for them.  He hoped that this situation would be temporary, and he discouraged his workers from any personal contact.  He finishes his book with, “To me, the only good cage is an empty cage.”