Discussion on treatment of captive elephants continues
After reading the responses by members of the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee to Dr. Paula Kislak’s letter to the editor,1 and after reviewing the AVMA’s policies and positions, I am left to conclude that the committee’s actions are inadequate and insufficient as they relate to animal welfare.
Dr. Kislak’s main point was that a coercive management system used for elephants that is inherently unsafe, inhumane, and prone to serious abuse is condoned by the AVMA’s policy statement. Drs. Miller and Golab sidestepped the issue of humane treatment and discussed management, training, and husbandry of elephants. They did not address the issue of bullhooks and neglected to acknowledge the documented abuses of elephants by Ringling Bros. and other circuses.2
Circus animal abuse is as old as the circus itself. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus will finally stand trial (scheduled to commence on October 20, 2008) for multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act.3 The lawsuit is being brought by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute, The Fund for Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute.4 These organizations should have our full support as they pursue this case, which could have far-reaching effects as related to the use and abuses of animals in entertainment.
Drs. Miller and Golab state, “Articles in the press and lawsuits regarding elephants must be evaluated critically, as the information provided is sometimes misinterpreted or distorted in line with the beliefs of various interest groups.” Yet, in my opinion, it is these groups that are actually making strides forward and truly advancing the cause of animal welfare. We should applaud them for stepping up and actually taking an active and positive role in an area that has often been overlooked in veterinary medicine.
John G. Hynes, DVM
New Providence, NJ
1. Miller DS, Golab GC. Thoughts on AVMA policy on elephant guides and tethers (lett). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008;233:550–551.
2. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Available at: www.circuses.com. Accessed Sep 9, 2008.
3. Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute. Ringling’s treatment of its elephants is indefensible. Available at: www.api4animals.com. Accessed Sep 10, 2008.
4. Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute. US District Court Document, District of Columbia. Available at: www.api4animals.com. Accessed Sep 10, 2008.
Drs. Miller and Golab respond:
We share Dr. Hynes’ concerns about humanely meeting the needs of captive elephants. Where we differ is that Dr. Hynes does not appear to believe that management, training, and husbandry are key components of humane treatment. To the contrary, they are core to maintaining physical and mental health in elephants. Training helps facilitate skin and foot care, as well as our ability to safely administer fluids, assist with parturition, and perform other veterinary procedures. We strongly believe in training animals, where possible, as an alternative to chemical or manual restraint. Guides and tethers are tools that can be used to humanely train elephants. Abuse of these tools is condemned.
Dr. Hynes chooses “coercive” to describe approaches to elephant management. Its use in this context often reflects a philosophic view opposed to human dominion over animals. In our opinion, coercion may apply to a range of methods used to obtain desired behaviors from animals. The spectrum extends from clear instances of animal abuse to actions such as denial of attention or treats, which are more benign than the strategies that animals sometimes use to communicate expectations of appropriate behavior to each other. As everyone should condemn coercion that is abusive, we believe our disagreement centers on coercion that is more benign. If such concerns are specific for elephants or other nondomestic animals in captivity or for specific uses, they are best addressed by discussing the underlying view. If applicable to all animals under human control, then leash training of dogs, harness training of horses, and other activities might also be considered inappropriate. Most of society and the veterinary profession do not currently support this view. A challenge for veterinarians is how to restrain animals for venipuncture, bandage changes, and other procedures in a fashion no more coercive than the application of quality training. Regardless of an animal’s willingness to cooperate, a human is making a decision about what is best for the animal’s welfare and imposing this on the animal.
Implicit to Drs. Kislak and Hynes’ use of legal citations are unstated assumptions that actions against a defendant are indicative of the defendant’s guilt and that all similar persons or entities are similarly guilty of inappropriate activities. We disagree with both assumptions, and our judicial system does not support them either. As it would be inappropriate to ban leashes for all dogs because of the actions of a few people, we do not support universal prohibitions on use of training tools for elephants when they can be, and regularly are, used humanely.
It is not clear whether Dr. Hynes is opposed to the keeping of elephants in captivity or merely to the use of elephants in circuses. Both are valid philosophic views; however, dialogue is best served by addressing those views rather than tangential concerns. The AVMA supports the humane use of animals for human purposes, and the Animal Welfare Committee has developed policy specific to the humane treatment of animals used in entertainment.
David S. Miller, MS, DVM, DACZM
Zoo and Wildlife Medicine Representative, AVMA Animal Welfare Committee and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, MACVSc (Animal Welfare)
Director, Animal Welfare Division, AVMA Schaumburg, Ill
