Zoos are duty bound to maintain a high standard of welfare for all animals for which they are responsible. For elephants, this represents a greater challenge than for many other species; their sheer size, sophisticated social life, high level of intelligence and large behavioural repertoire, combined with their origins in tropical and subtropical climates mean that replicating the physical, social and environmental requirements needed for a high standard of welfare in captivity is a significant challenge. This is compounded by the difficulties in measuring welfare generally, and specifically for animals such as elephants within zoo environments. Evidence does exist relating to the longevity, reproductive success and the health status of captive elephants which suggests that their management is not at as high a standard as it is for many other species kept in zoos, and that elephant welfare is likely to be compromised as a result. It is suggested that for as long as elephants remain in captivity that their management should be based around the requirements of the animals themselves taking into account an understanding of their biology and behavioural ecology. Given the difficulties in measuring welfare, it is suggested that those responsible for elephant management should not rely on proof of suffering prior to making adjustments to their programmes, but in the first instance consider the likely physical and behavioural needs of the elephant. As a minimum, facilities should provide for those behaviours and contingencies which are biologically significant in terms of survival and reproduction in the wild, which take up a significant proportion of an elephant's time in the wild and are not necessarily triggered by external stimuli alone. It is suggested that a high standard of captive elephant welfare is theoretically attainable and that significant improvements in welfare are likely t
Although musth has been likened to the rut of ungulates (Eisenberg et al., 1971), the evolution, function and proximate cues of musth are poorly understood. Musth males seem to be preferred by females. Males in musth travel long distances to mate and this may promote outbreeding (Hall-Martin, 1987). A musth male is a symphony of chemical and apparently vocal signals, so cues are readily available to females and males. Yet we are only just beginning to understand the physiological variation of musth and its potential impact on reproduction. For instance, do females (or competing males) differentiate between early, mid and late musth males? Additionally, how much does musth vary with circumstance? For example, might a male reduce costs by being less `musthy' when traveling yet turn up the musth when confronting other males or when approaching females? Or do the benefits of broadcasting a deep musth outweigh the costs of remaining in musth for a continuous period of time?
Zoos are duty bound to maintain a high standard of welfare for all animals for which they are responsible. For elephants, this represents a greater challenge than for many other species; their sheer size, sophisticated social life, high level of intelligence and large behavioural repertoire, combined with their origins in tropical and subtropical climates mean that replicating the physical, social and environmental requirements needed for a high standard of welfare in captivity is a significant challenge. This is compounded by the difficulties in measuring welfare generally, and specifically for animals such as elephants within zoo environments. Evidence does exist relating to the longevity, reproductive success and the health status of captive elephants which suggests that their management is not at as high a standard as it is for many other species kept in zoos, and that elephant welfare is likely to be compromised as a result. It is suggested that for as long as elephants remain in captivity that their management should be based around the requirements of the animals themselves taking into account an understanding of their biology and behavioural ecology. Given the difficulties in measuring welfare, it is suggested that those responsible for elephant management should not rely on proof of suffering prior to making adjustments to their programmes, but in the first instance consider the likely physical and behavioural needs of the elephant. As a minimum, facilities should provide for those behaviours and contingencies which are biologically significant in terms of survival and reproduction in the wild, which take up a significant proportion of an elephant's time in the wild and are not necessarily triggered by external stimuli alone. It is suggested that a high standard of captive elephant welfare is theoretically attainable and that significant improvements in welfare are likely to be achieved by addressing inadequacies in the physical environment which predispose captive elephants to trauma and by providing for appropriate social and foraging opportunities.