An elephant has crushed one of its zoo handlers to death, apparently by accident. Once it was established that it was just an accident - that the elephant had not acted out of aggression - zoo authorities decided that the elephant would not be punished.
Suppose for the sake of argument that they determined that the elephant had acted out of aggression, and punishment was warranted. I understand that househould pets (and presumably other animals) respond to negative stimuli when administered during the offending act - for example, squirting a housecat with water when you find it standing on your kitchen countertop - but if you punish an elephant hours or days after it killed a handler, would the elephant be able to mentally connect that punishment with the action that merited said punishment?
I think if you wanted to punish the animal, you would have to recreate the “accident,” preferably with a dummy, and then immediately administer large doses of mice.
I saw that on the news this morning: “Elephant kills handler; will not be punished.” Kind of ridiculous that punishment would even be mentioned. How were they planning on punishing it, anyway? Time out in a really big corner?
I live in the area and go to the zoo all the time because my daughter loves the elephants. I’ve seen the lady who died many times, she was the one responsible for dressing them up for halloween and other special events that my daughter loved. Anyway, I’ve been reading everything in the local press about it and have wondered the same thing.
The only other bit of information I’ve heard is that they won’t be confining the elephants because they don’t think this was an aggressive act. Handlers will instead work with them with a barrier in between. So, i think the punishment might have included keeping it confined in the elephant “barn” with no human contact, maybe no contact with the other elephant and maybe no going outside.
I don’t see them killing an elephant unless it was on a rampage. but I’m just guessing.
Supposedly, elephants understand the concepts of life and death. If the elephant had looked back at what she had done, would she have comprehended that she had caused the handler’s death?
Joanna Burke was killed by an elephant at the Hohenwald sanctuary that had previously attacked handlers; Winkie was not put down.
Elephants should be “punished” for showing aggression. It saves handlers lives, and elephant lives.
Here is the straight dope on Winkie.
Every elephant should be managed with protective handling, but especially Winkie, even if her aggression is due to mistreatment.
The Knoxville Zoo does handle it’s male elephant in protected contact, as is the norm. It seems that free vs protected contact is hotly debated, with many trainers preferring free contact and believing it’s better for the animals.
I can see, though I don’t agree, the reasoning behind saving handlers’ lives. Would you explain to me how killing an aggressive-towards-humans elephant would save other elephants’ lives?
Other elephants seeing an elephant kill a person may do the same thing, and then be killed.
The environment may be closed and the remaining elephants could end up in a worse situation, resulting in deaths from improper care.
Killing a human can be a precursor to a rampage. A rampaging elephant could injure or kill other elephants.
A rampaging elephant could break through fences and enclosures and other elephants could get lose and be killed by vehicles, power lines, or frightened people with guns.
Humans can be stupid and might kill other elephants out of fear or for revenge.
Increased general fear of elephants may cause the precautionary killing of elephants or closing of environments that results in increased deaths.
You can figure out the many derivative ways that elephants can be harmed or badly treated by humans resulting in more deaths.
I’m going to abbreviate: protected contact=PC and full contact=FC
In PC, the elephants are in one room, the keepers are in another and there are bars in between. All contact is done through the bars.
In FC, the keepers walk around and interact with them, becoming part of the herd.
It’s like a political argument where the more you read, the more complex it gets, but from what I can tell, management almost always likes PC (obviously safer) and others are split.
The PC group says elephants are just as happy, the FC group says full contact is a richer experience for the animals.
I read one scientific looking website from a vet who concluded that both have their place, with less intelligent elephants doing better in PC where they could do whatever they want (TV and junk food I suppose) while smarter elephants seemed to do better in FC where they could experience new things. But, of course, the safest one for the handler is PC.
ETA, male elephants are almost always kept in PC because they are naturally more aggressive.
Thanks, Fubaya. Do they always keep the elephants in that enclosure, though, or do they have to get them in at some point? I mean, in most zoos I’ve been in, the elephants are in a big enclosure…for any training, would the keeper then have to get them into a separate room or area?