The Truth About Zoos And Elephant Conservation

A. Zoos do not promote true elephant conservation.

"Captivity does not equal conservation. Research shows elephant captive breeding programs fail, and in the rare event a zoo elephant produces a calf, it cannot be released back into the wild . . . The best way for these zoos … to assist with the future conservation of this species, is to support field conservation programs in Asia."
- Vivek Menon, Wildlife Trust of India, Agence France Press, Dec. 2, 2004

Most zoos state that they promote conservation, however their breeding and other programs are often aimed not at saving elephant species in range countries, but rather in propagating elephants for exhibits in U.S. zoos.

German veterinarian and elephant expert Fred Kurt, who has worked with and studied elephants and elephant cultures extensively throughout the world, highlights this distinction clearly:

“Modern conservation should be directly aimed to ensure the future existence of in situ populations and habitat. Therefore we suggest the term preservation be used for species captive propagation.”(i)

Kurt goes on to state that if captive propagation is to be done, it should be done in a setting that recreates an elephants’ natural environment, not in the traditional zoo environment.

Kurt is not alone in the assessment that zoos and breeding programs do not equate with in situ conservation programs. The IUCN (World Conservation Union) African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) definitively questioned the role of zoos in African elephant conservation and welfare:

“. . . the AfESG is concerned by the poor breeding success and low life expectancy of captive African elephants and does not see any contribution to the effective conservation of the species through captive breeding per se. . . . the holding of African elephants by a captive facility is not a necessary precursor for involvement in situ African elephant conservation.”

The AfESG declined to endorse the importation of live African elephants from the wild for captive facilities in importing countries.(ii)

B. It is more cost effective to protect elephants in their natural habitats than to keep them in zoos.

Real conservation takes place where elephants live, and includes effective elephant conservation programs, such as habitat protection and anti-poaching efforts.

The cost of keeping elephants in zoos is 50 times more expensive than protecting equivalent numbers in the wild. (iii)

Currently, American zoos plan to spend well in excess of $200 million on elephant exhibit expansions. (See chart at end of this fact sheet.) Most of these expansions are token improvements that add a few acres or less to current elephant exhibits. This is still woefully inadequate for earth’s largest land mammal, which in the wild can walk ten or more miles a day and has a home range of 200 square miles. In addition, AZA zoos annually spend an estimated $16 million to maintain fewer than 300 elephants, based on an average of $58,000/year/elephant.(iv)

By contrast:

• $400,000 is the entire annual budget for the Amboseli Elephant Research Project, which protects the lives of 1,400 elephants in 52 families in their natural habitat in Kenya. This is the same funding that some zoos spend to maintain four elephants for a year.
• $10,000 is the rough cost of supporting an anti-poaching team (including salaries and food supplements, some medicine support and basic body equipment) in Thailand for one year, according to WildAid.
• $25 million is the entire annual budget for the Kenya Wildlife Service, which protects some of the world’s most diverse wildlife populations, including more than 30,000 elephants across more than 20,000 square miles of natural habitat. The total combined size of all US zoo elephant enclosures is less than 1 square mile.

If the money spent to house and maintain elephants in American zoos were spent on in situ conservation, entire populations of elephants in Asia and Africa could be saved.

C. U.S. zoos currently contribute minimal amounts of funding to support in situ conservation.

While zoos often argue that they support elephant conservation projects directly, most spend paltry amounts of funding on in situ conservation. Many spend more on marketing than they do on conservation.

For example, Los Angeles Zoo, which plans a $40 million exhibit expansion for 5-6 elephants, spends .5 percent ($90,000) of its annual $17 million budget on conservation, while 12 percent ($2 million) of its annual budget is spent on marketing and advertising, according to an AZA 2004 survey.(v)

D. Planned Expansions of Zoo Elephant Exhibits

Of the 75 AZA-accredited zoos with elephants in the U.S., many are planning or undertaking their own costly renovation projects:(vi) Projected costs are well in excess of $200 million.

It should be noted that many of these expansion projects are still in the fundraising phase.