Abstract

Abstract Winky, an Asian elephant, resided in the Detroit Zoological Institute for 14 years. Wanda, on loan from the San Antonio Zoo, lived with her for eight years. Their one-acre yard was about half the area of a professional soccer field. This outdoor area included trees, toys, and a pool. Inside the barn, they had heated floors for the days when the Michigan winters made it unpleasant for them to be outside. They received food, baths, pedicures, and expert medical care. In return, Winky and Wanda had only to wander through the yard, occasionally tossing dust on their backs to protect against insects and sunburn. Suddenly, in May 2004, the Detroit Zoo announced that it would be sending Winky and Wanda away and discontinuing the elephant exhibit permanently.2 At first glance, this news was unremarkable. Several zoos had closed elephant exhibits in previous years, causing little stir outside their local areas. Some zoos had decided that maintaining elephant exhibits caused too great a financial burden. Others were persuaded to relinquish their elephants by public pressure from the media or from protesters. The Detroit Zoo’s decision, however, was indeed remarkable, because it was motivated fundamentally by moral concerns with implications for many zoos.3 According to Dr. Ron Kagan, a biologist and the director of the Detroit Zoo, “The quality of life for the [elephants] is not adequate and is different from other animals.”4 Over several years, he and his staff observed that the elephants’ health was deteriorating in ways that would not likely have occurred in the wild. Kagan believed that the Detroit Zoo lacked the facilities to care properly for elephants.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call