Let Them Be Elephants!.pdf - Elephant Care International

Let them be elephants!
Hilda Tresz and Heather Wright
Phoenix Zoo
1

The Phoenix Zoo
Currently houses three female Asian
Elephants
The zoo, through various circumstances,
acquired
• Indu -1998
• Reba – 1999
• Sheena - 2000
All three came from other organizations with a variety of health and
behavioral problems, some of which have been exasperated since arriving at
our facility . Each of these elephants has has a troubled past and they were
labeled as “problem animals”.
2

INDU
• 41 years old
• Born in Thailand -1965
• Bad teeth
• Recurring hip abscesses
• Good feet
• Stable weight
• History of aggression
towards people and other
elephants
3

REBA
• 36 years old
• Unknown origin (Asia) -
1970
• Recurring abscesses on
front left foot
• Arthritis in front left leg
• Stable weight
• Serious history of
aggression towards
people
• History of aggression
towards other elephants
4

SHEENA
• 35 years old
• Born in India - 1971
• Overall good physical
condition
• Good feet
• Stable weight
• History of aggression
towards people and
other elephants
• Tendency to “shut
down” when confused
or scared
All the animals have injured people – one has killed
a caretaker
5

Change is Good
2003- Management re-evaluates evaluates elephant husbandry and training methods
• Hired Alan Roocroft- well known Elephant Consultant
• Made staff changes in late 2003 and early 2004
• Started the new program in February 2004
Focus Changes
• Shift from simply exhibiting elephants
• Provide complex, interactive exhibit
• Address elephants’ aggressive tendencies
• Increase natural behaviors
• Alter husbandry methods
• Modify training techniques
• Vary feeding schedules
• Diversify feeding methods
6

Exhibit Changes
Before
After
.48 hectares (1 1/4 acres), pool (15m x 24m), elevated concrete island (9 m
x 24 m). Enclosed by a 3m high reinforced gunite wall, slopes outward 60
degree angle. Top pictures the way it used to be, bottom pictures the way it
is now.
7

Exhibit Changes
Before
After
8

Changes to the Exhibit
4 climate controlled feeding stations
Barriers added to break up the exhibit
Grass
Wallow
Elephant activated shower
Scratching post
Numerous smaller puzzle feeders
Large piles of sand added where the elephants
sleep
9

Behavioral
Management
Changes
10

Eliminated bulk feeding from the
ground
11

Started rotating each
elephant on exhibit
equally
Visitors many times thought we
had one single elephant
Since December 2002, all three elephants kept separate due to aggression.
Rotated on exhibit. This allowed them to spend some, but not enough time in
larger exhibit area. Also created confusion with visitors, thought we only had
one elephant.
Sheena had to be the “buffer” between Indu and Reba (dominant elephants),
therefore never spending overnight on exhibit. Barn modifications were
made which made it possible for Sheena to spend overnight on exhibit.
12

Deep Sand Bedding in Holding
Yard
2 feet deep, regularly churned up.
13

New Wallow
Very popular, especially in summer
14

Scratching Post
Stopped giving scrub baths with soap in favor of just giving showers and
letting the elephants do the scratching themselves, as they would in the wild.
15

Sandstone Boulders
Added sandstone boulders to scratch on, also became a great area to rest
heavy trunks.
16

Large Piles of Dirt
Not only good for dusting and laying down, but they also create barriersencouraging
more walking. Softens ground in attempt to reduce foot stress.
17

New Exhibit Feeders
Four elevated
mechanical
feeders were
added
Climate
controlled areas
with fans and
misters
Each feeder has
two feeding
stations which
can be raised or
lowered by
keepers
In this picture, you can also see that Reba had to use problem solving skills
to reach the feeder. She pushed the ball over so she could stand on it and
reach higher. These feeders would be a great help during introductions.
18

Holding Yard Feeders
Different
types of
puzzle
feeders
were added
to the
holding
areas
19

Barn Feeders
20

2002
2005
An interesting side note…. over time we began noticing changes in the elephants. Their trunks were
getting stronger and the muscles in their necks, shoulders and legs became more pronounced.
21

Training Scope Decreased
Trained behaviors
were reduced to
medical and
husbandry
behaviors
Keepers exercise
the animals by
asking them to
walk the length of
the exhibit and
rewarding the
behavior
“Performance”
behaviors were
eliminated
22

Healthcare Revised
Before
After
Alan Roocroft brought in as consultant
Our previous Veterinarian (Dr. Eng) and one of our keepers (Steve Koyle)
attended the First European Elephant Management School in 2004 for
further education on footwork, healthcare, and training. Alan Roocroft
regularly visits teaching proper footcare techniques.
23

The Studies
Three studies were conducted- collected as much info as possible.
24

Volunteer and staff observers
monitored the animal’s
behavior from the front of the
exhibit for specific equal time
periods
Two studies were performed using detailed time budgets
Observed from front of exhibit. Behavioral Observation Team, Behavioral
Management Coordinator, and Elephant Keepers provided observations.
Digital pictures and video were taken for documentation.
25

The purpose of the first
study was to see if the
environmental changes
would make a difference-
particularly regarding
foraging time and
stereotypic behaviors –
Behavioral Study I or
Foraging Study
26

Behavioral Study I or Foraging
Study
Performed in three separate time periods
• May 28 to July 27, 2004 (Base)
• July 28 to September 30, 2004 (Phase One)
• July 14 to August 1, 2005 (Phase Two)
Data collected under focal sampling with a fixed
schedule format
• four times a day for ten minutes
Data calculated using percentage of duration of each
behavior
• Base behaviors lasting less than 1% were opted
out of the study
5562 minutes of observation
27

Behavioral Study I (Foraging Study)
Digging (DG)
Feed (F)
Facing Door (FD)
Foraging via Enrichment (FE)
Manipulate Object or
Locomotion(LO)
Environment (MO)
Stand (ST)
Manipulate Enrichment (ME)
Sway (SW)
Positive Social Interaction with
Dusting (DS)
conspecifics (SIC+)
Wallowing (W)
Negative Social Interaction with
Rubbing (R)
conspecifics (SIC-)
Bathing (B)
Neutral Social Interaction with
conspecifics (NSI)
Lie (LI)
Positive Social Interaction with
Negative Self-directed Behavior
Keeper (SIK+)
(SDB-)
Negative Social Interaction with
Positive Self-directed Behavior
Keeper (SIK-)
(SDB+)
Throwing Objects at Visitors
Drink (D)
(TO)
Vocalizing (V)
Out of View (OV)
Other (OT)
28

Behavioral Study I (Foraging Study)
“Top Five” Behaviors Observed
Feed (F)
Foraging via Enrichment (FE)
Locomotion(LO)
Stand (ST)
Sway (SW)
• All other behaviors opted out because
they occupied less than 1% of time
All other behaviors opted out because less than 1%.
29

Behavioral Study I (Foraging Study)
Foraging
Study
Top five
behaviors
F
Base
Feed from
ground
25.3
Phase I
Small Puzzle
Feeders
0
Phase II
New Feeders
0
FE
9.3
36.9
42.7
LO
13
13.4
12.1
ST
22.2
18.1
15.4
SW
21.2
21.2
19.8
Base- feeding from ground, phase 1 small puzzle feeders, phase2- new
feeders. End of foraging study: foraging behaviors- 9.3% to 42.7%. Expected
higher. Lack of increase, look at individuals: Indu and Sheena great deal of
time foraging, Reba ate faster and looked for other things to do. Locomotionsame.
Indu and Sheena less, Reba more. Inactive behaviors 22.2% to
15.4%. Aberrant behaviors same overall… Sheena, swaying 4.7% to virtually
0.0%. Reba from 33.8% to 10.1%, Indu increased 23.4% to 27.6%. These
changes helped us make decision it was time to try introducing the two
subordinate animals. Theory- elephants would continue natural behaviors,
acting more like normal elephants by using resources and therefore less
aggressive toward one another.
30

45
40
35
30
25
20
Foraging Study Base
Foraging Study Phase I
Foraging Study Phase II
15
10
5
0
F FE LO ST SW
31

Foraging Study Results
End of foraging study: foraging behaviors- 9.3% to
42.7%. Expected higher.
Lack of increase, look at individuals:
• Indu and Sheena (45.7% and 60.5%) great deal of time foraging,
Reba ate faster (32.5%) and looked for other things to do
• Locomotion- about the same. Indu and Sheena less, Reba more
• Inactive behaviors 22.2% to 15.4%
• Aberrant behaviors- Sheena swaying 4.7% to virtually 0.0%,
Reba from 33.8% to 10.1%, Indu increased 23.4% to 27.6%
• These changes helped us make decision it was time to try
introducing the two subordinate animals
Theory- elephants would continue natural behaviors,
acting more like normal elephants by using resources
and therefore less aggressive toward one another
32

The purpose of the second
study was to see if the
behavioral changes would
influence our elephants to
exhibit increased species-
appropriate behaviors and
would help lead to a
successful introduction –
Behavioral Study II
33

Behavioral Study II or Social Study
Performed in three separate time periods
• Phase I - April 16 to July 12, 2005
• Phase II - July 13 to August 2, 2005
• Phase III – August 3 to September 18, 2005
Data collected under instantaneous time sampling
with a fixed schedule format
• Every 30 seconds up to three hours per day
• Scheduled hours were 7:30 AM to 10:30 AM
Data calculated using percentage of frequency of
each behavior
• Base behaviors lasting less than 1% were opted out of the
study
18,426 minutes of observation
34

Behavioral Study II (Social Study)
Forage (F)
Locomotion (L)
Stand (S)
Sleep/Rest (SR)
Sway (SW)
Self-Directed Behavior
(SDB)
Groom (G)
Greeting (NAG)
Body Contact (NAB)
Social Play (NAS)
Submissive (NASUB)
Share (NASH)
Threat (AT)
Attack (AAT)
Food Aggression (AF)
Fight (AFT)
Drink (D)
Manipulate Environment (ME)
Lie changes to Sleep/Rest
Grooming…. Volunteers looked at various grooming behaviors, such as
dusting, bathing, wallowing
35

Behavioral Study II (Social Study)
“Top Five” Behaviors
Foraging via Enrichment (FE)
Locomotion(LO)
Stand (S)
Sway (SW)
Dusting (DS)
• All other behaviors opted out because
they occupied less than 1% of time
36

Behavioral Study II (Social Study)
Social
Study
Top five
behaviors
FE
Phase I
Small
Feeders
30
Phase II
Large
Feeders
30.2
Phase III
Intro
42.9
LO
12.8
12.2
14.9
S
31
25.4
22.4
SW
9.6
18
8.9
DS
4
3.3
1.2
37

50
45
40
35
30
25
Social Study Phase I
Social Study Phase II
Social Study Phase III
20
15
10
5
0
FE LO S SW DS
38

Social Study Results
After introduction of Indu and Sheena
Foraging behaviors 30% to 42.9%
Strengthened theory that elephants will spend most of their time
foraging if resources are provided
Aggressive behaviors- opted out
• Expected higher rate of aggression
• Indu completely ignored Sheena most of the time
Spent most of her time foraging from the feeders
Non-aggressive social behaviors also opted out
Did not anticipate these animals to be overly friendly
Expected they would tolerate each other
Decrease in inactive behaviors 31% to 22.4% due to increased
foraging, increased locomotion (12.6% to 14.9%) and due to the fact f
that the two elephants were now together.
Swaying decreased from 11.5% to 8.9% overall
• Sheena (3.7% to 16.9%)
Up due to being “apprehensive”
• Indu down from 18.0% to 0.8%
39

Aggression Study
The purpose of the aggression
study was to see if all of the
management changes would
decrease the frequency and
intensity of aggression exhibited
by the elephants
40

Aggression Study
Keepers came up with a rating scale for
the various aggressive behaviors
• Scale of 0 to 5
0 - no aggression
5 - intense extended aggression
Keepers evaluated all three elephants
Sheena eliminated from study due to lack
of aggression (only 3 acts since arrival in
2000)
41

Aggression Study
Aggression Scale
0- No aggression
1(a)- Head up/ open mouth directed towards keeper
1(b)- Stalked keeper
1(c)- Blew or exhaled in ŅfrustrationÓ
2- Pressed head into mesh/bars towards keeper
3(a)- Charged gate(s)
3(b)- Rammed mesh
3(c)- Trunk extended horizontally towards keeper (not thrown)
3(d)- Charged other elephant(s)
3(e)- Charged miscellaneous object
4(a)- Charged keeper, may include ramming the mesh
4(b)- Threw trunk out towards keeper
4(c)- Swept trunk under bars towards keeper
4(d)- Threw object(s) towards keeper
4(e)- Climbed bars
4(f)- Headstand
4(g)- Kicked feet towards keeper
5- Intense extended aggression (could include any combination of the above)
42

Aggression Study- Reba
Reba # of acts Avg. Intensity
2003 January 9 4.11
February 5 4
March 26 3.85
April 22 3.55
May 11 4.09
June 6 3.67
July 12 3.92
August 15 3.53
September 5 3.8
October 4 3.5
November 6 3.83
December 13 3.64
2004 January 9 4
February 3 3.67
March 1 3
April 2 3.5
May 11 2.27
June 1 2
July 9 3.56
August 15 3
September 33 2.73
October 16 3.25
November 15 3.27
December 24 2.79
Total number of acts 2003 -134 Average Intensity - 3.79
Total number of acts 2004 -139 Average Intensity - 3.09
43

Reba
Aggression Study # of acts
35
30
25
20
Aggression Study # of acts
15
10
5
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2003 2004
44

Reba
Aggression Study Avg. Intensity
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Aggression Study Avg. Intensity
1.5
1
0.5
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2003 2004
45

Aggression Study- Indu
Indu # of acts Avg. Intensity
2003 January 0 0
February 0 0
March 1 5
April 4 3.75
May 2 4.5
June 10 4.3
July 3 4.67
August 2 2.5
September 1 4
October 3 4.3
November 1 4
December 1 4
2004 January 0 0
February 1 4
March 1 3
April 0 0
May 0 0
June 0 0
July 0 0
August 1 3
September 1 3
October 0 0
November 1 1
December 1 3
Total number of acts 2003- 28 Average intensity - 3.42
Total number of acts 2004 – 7 Average intensity - 1.42
Total number of acts 2003- 28, in 2004- 7. Average intensity 2003- 3.42, in
2004- 1.42.
46

Indu
Aggression Study # of acts
12
10
8
6
Aggression Study # of acts
4
2
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2003 2004
47

6
Indu
Aggression Study Avg. Intensity
5
4
3
Aggression Study Avg. Intensity
2
1
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2003 2004
48

Aggression Study Results
Sheena has only had 3 episodes of
aggression since arriving at Phoenix (2000)
• Not included in study
Reba
• Number of events about the same – 134 in 2003
to 139 in 2004
• Intensity decreased from 3.79 to 3.09
Indu
• 28 events in 2003 to 7 in 2004
• Intensity dropped from 3.42 to 1.42
49

Discussion
50

Prior to the changes in behavioral management program, three
“problem” elephants were exhibited in an inadequate environment
with a very poor activity budget
51

Inefficiently trained staff that followed traditional elephant
management techniques - trained non-natural performance type
behaviors to entertain the public
52

Feeding from ground provided only a short time for foraging behaviors
The elephants had very little to do for the rest of the day
53

Having the elephants locked in barns for extended
periods of time and kept on concrete floors generated
further boredom and foot problems
54

The animal’s past, coupled with boredom and health issues, led to
further aggression towards keepers and conspecifics
By educating ourselves and bringing in a consultant with a new point of
view we were able to shift our way of thinking
55

We began focusing on increasing natural behaviors, such as extending
foraging time, trying to encourage the elephants to just be elephants
56

The elephants became much
more cooperative…..
Sheena extends her foot all
the way through foot
window…. never did this prior
to the changes in the program
We started asking less from
the elephants….
Reduced our training scope to
husbandry and medical
behaviors
We started asking less from the elephants. The interesting thing was that the
elephants actually began offering us more.
57

Reba actually started to lie down
during her showers - had never done
this before
Positive changes in the elephants’
behaviors, both in working with the
keepers and while by themselves
led to a point where introductions
of the two subordinate animals
could be attempted
Reba actually started to lie down during her showers, something she had
never done before. With the positive changes we had seen in all of the
elephants’ behaviors, both in working with the keepers and while spending
time by themselves, it was determined that we were at a point where we
could try to introduce the two subordinate animals.
58

After setting up the exhibit with feeding stations and barriers which broke up the
space, introductions began.
The first few days were difficult, but after just a few instances of keeper
intervention with CO2 blasts to deter aggressive physical contact, the
elephants began to establish a positive relationship.
Both elephants began to calmly eat at different feeding stations
59

Over time the elephants began to be more comfortable in closer proximity
60

At times, they even feed from the same feeding station
Overall, it has been a successful introduction
61

Reba’s future introduction to the other two elephants is being carefully choreographed
We are actually looking into the possibility of bringing in a fourth elephant to
help change the herd dynamics.
62

Phoenix Zoo staff feels that the behavioral management changes we made resulted in significant positive
improvements in our elephants’ behavior. We feel we are beginning to restore the dignity of our elephants!
They seem to be more content, more relaxed, less aggressive and are
spending more of each day foraging, walking and interacting with
eachother… much like their wild counterparts.
63

Special Thanks to our
Behavioral Observation Team
64

Much Appreciation to the
Phoenix Zoo Management and
the Operations Department
Staff for making it all possible
65