Animal Abuse in the Media

The recent video of a young woman throwing week old puppies into a river, has horrified all who have watched it.

Hopefully the video is a fake (like the recent fox killings), but watching the squirming and yelping puppies in her hands before she throws them into the river appears to be the Real McCoy.

Sadly, drowning puppies and kittens in rivers has been a method of ‘population control’ for years, especially on farms. In fact, poet Seamus Heaney even wrote an entire poem about growing up where drowning kittens was common place.

The reason for the outcry? The media. With the internet now accessible to almost everyone, videos and pictures depicting animal cruelty are available everywhere.
Recently, a facebook group which tortured and murdered animals and then posted the videos on the group was removed. On the internet, you can find crush videos (videos showing young women in stilettos squashing animals with their feet), animals being tortured and videos depicting animals being hunted. An American court has even placed protection on these videos, as they come under the First Amendment, namely, the freedom of speech.

However, the coverage of these videos means it has been possible in some cases to identify the person in the video. In the case of the woman who bizarrely dumped a cat in a wheelie bin outside a home, only because the cats’ owners placed the video on the internet were people able to identify her. The police and RSPCA are now looking at prosecuting Mary Bale.

Hopefully, with the wide coverage of the puppy deaths, someone out there will be able to identify her, and hopefully the country she resides in, has strong animal welfare laws. What is most horrifying about this video; is the sheer pleasure she seems to take in throwing the defenceless pups into the water.

Whilst publishing this post, a sanctuary goat was brutally mutilated; hopefully the internet sleuths can focus on finding out who tortured this poor animal, who had to be euthanized because of his extensive injuries.

Should Nellie Pack Her Trunk, and Say Goodbye to the Zoo?

The RSPCA has called for an outright ban on elephants in zoos, following a report of the welfare conditions of these highly intelligent animals.

The report, from Bristol University, was reviewed by Zoo Forum, an independent body set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). It found that there are serious welfare problems in UK zoos with regards to the wellbeing of the elephants.

Elephants are wide ranging, travelling between a few kilometres to up to 12 a day. They are highly social animals, living in family groups of up to 15 related females, plus calves. Providing adequate living conditions for captive elephants is a challenge for any zoo, and would involve a large living space with a complex enrichment program, plus areas of seclusion. The enclosure would ideally, accurately represent a wild environment.

When the review was written, there were around 70 elephants in British zoos, with roughly equal numbers of Asian (Elephas maximus) and African (Loxodonta africana). This report can serve as a representation of all elephants in zoos, all across the world.

The original report does not say that the zoos are not trying to improve their elephants welfare, indeed they report that ‘Zoos are acutely aware of the issues surrounding the welfare of their elephants, and attempts to enrich and improve their lives are ongoing.’ Harris et al 2008.

It has previously been documented that the larger the enclosure an animal lives in, the less likely stereotypical behaviour will occur, this report goes on to state that ‘It would not be possible to provide space equivalent to home ranges in the wild.’

While acknowledging lameness in elephants being a serious problem, the report compares the level of lameness in zoos as being on par with lameness with dairy cattle, broiler chickens and factory farmed pigs. This is a damning comparison, but the report seems to defend the level of lameness, saying that is it not a problem of elephants only. Just because it affects more than one species, doesn’t make it right.

The elephant mortality rates in zoos was shocking, both Asian and African elephants in zoos suffered from decreased mortality compared to wild populations and those working in Burmese logging camps. The still birth and infant mortality rates were also shockingly high. One possible reason for this was the behaviour of mothers killing their young, a trait absent in wild elephants.

Zoos are keeping elephants in zoos for conservation, to attract visitors and create fundraising opportunities, to educate the public, to educate keepers on husbandry and elephant medicine and to provide research for conservation efforts.

But if the elephants are suffering, as this report implies, then at what cost is conservation? African elephants are being culled for their effects on farmland in Africa, and there are calls to keep Asian elephants in Asia. Why do elephants need to be kept in the UK, so far away from their homeland?

Why not instead focus on maintaining a wild population, creating a land space in home countries of the elephants, or helping those elephants who are trapped in the tourist industry, those zoos that have phased out the keeping of elephants are still doing well. Zoos, who house elephants today, should follow their example, and work towards making the suffering population of elephants extinct in UK zoos.

Other countries should look at themselves in the same critical light, and take a step forward, as the UK has done, to improve the lives of their elephants that reside within their zoos.