THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 17, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:17 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I’m Mobina Jaffer, senator from British Columbia and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: My name is Senator Don Plett, and I’m from Manitoba.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Klyne: Good afternoon. Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from the De Lorimier division in Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Cotter: Good afternoon. I’m Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good afternoon. Manuelle Oudar from the La Salle division in Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting to continue our study of Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome from Amboseli Trust for Elephants, Dr. W. Keith Lindsay, Collaborating Researcher, Amboseli Trust for Elephants and Conservation Biologist and Project Manager, Environment and Development Group. From World Animal Protection, we have Dr. Jan Schmidt-Burbach, Head of Animal Welfare and Research, Wildlife. Finally, appearing as an individual, we have Dr. Bob Jacobs, Professor Emeritus, Neuroscience, Colorado College. Senators, all the witnesses today are by video conference.
We will start with Dr. Lindsay. You have five minutes each.
Dr. W. Keith Lindsay, Collaborating Researcher, Amboseli Trust for Elephants and Conservation Biologist and Project Manager, Environment and Development Group: Thank you very much.
I am a Canadian-British dual national wildlife ecologist and conservation biologist with 48 years of expertise with African savannah elephants and, more recently, with Asian elephants in their native ranges. I also have some 20 years of experience with the issues surrounding elephants held in captivity.
Bill S-15 notes concerns over the welfare of wild species with complex physical and social needs — specifically, elephants and great apes — that are currently held in captive conditions in Canada, far from their native tropical ranges and appropriate habitats and climates. It seeks to phase out this practice by preventing the live importation and breeding of existing animals already in captivity.
My remarks in support of this bill are addressed to elephants, of which I have direct and extensive knowledge. I will discuss aspects of conservation, research and welfare.
On conservation — despite the many claims made, there is no significant contribution by zoo exhibits to elephant conservation. The key principle in the IUCN ex situ conservation guidelines is that wild animals should be taken into ex situ locations away from their ranges primarily for the purpose of captive breeding and then timely release to the wild. This is not remotely possible for African and Asian elephants in zoos, and it was not the original reason they were taken from the wild, which was for display and entertainment. There is no credible independent evidence that zoo visitors gain or retain any significant knowledge about elephants or display any changes in attitudes or practices toward their conservation in the wild.
The small, widely separated elephant groups in the zoos of North America, Europe and other continents do not represent a population or even meta-population in any biological sense. There is no social contact and only limited gene flow achieved, primarily through the shifting of individuals away from one zoo to another, which actually breaks up social relationships.
The IUCN SSC African Elephant Specialist Group has made two public statements, in 1998 and 2003, confirming their view that taking elephants from the wild has no direct benefit to in situ conservation and that any indirect financial or technical contribution by zoos does not require or justify keeping them in captivity.
On research — the vast majority of research undertaken with some elephants in some zoos is aimed at resolving problems faced by their husbandry in captivity. The endocrinology of reproduction, cryopreservation of semen, endocrinology of stress hormones, and elephant herpes virus infection and treatment are all health problems faced only by elephants in captivity. The few examples of research that might be useful for application to in situ locations, largely certain veterinary techniques, could be done with captive elephants in range countries and must ultimately be tested on wild elephants.
On welfare — the small size and generally impoverished quality of elephant compounds prevent elephants in captivity from expressing anything beyond a tiny percentage of the normal behaviours they have evolved for life in natural environments. In addition to a wide repertoire of social interactions and communication modalities, they’re prevented from spending three quarters of their days actively foraging on a broad range of plant species and walking purposely for extended distances, as they would in the wild. Even the larger zoo compounds are a tiny fraction of the normal home range of Asian and African elephants.
Perhaps the greatest limitation imposed upon captive elephants is their loss of autonomy and ability to choose where and how to spend their time throughout their daily and annual cycles. The constraints imposed by the practicalities of zoo management, including their facilities and staffing, particularly in temperate countries with freezing-cold winters like Canada, impose restrictions on elephants’ autonomy and movement that result in physical damage and psychological stress. Welfare is inevitably compromised when very large animals, evolved in and accustomed to life in vast home ranges and dynamic ecosystems, are confined to the cramped condition and unnatural surroundings of zoo displays.
In conclusion, the minimum standards set by the zoo associations of North America and Europe are not based on an elephant’s biological realities and needs but on the financial and logistical constraints faced by the majority of their members. Given these pragmatic calculations, the zoo industry’s self-defined standards are, at best, a dramatic compromise of elephant well-being, failing to provide best-practice health and welfare outcomes, and, at worst, woefully inadequate, resulting in cruel and inhumane treatment.
Elephants have been taken into captivity and kept and bred there for display, entertainment and exhibition. There can be no justification for keeping them in that way any longer. The inescapable conclusion is that captivities in zoos must be phased out through prohibition of live imports and captive breeding.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll now hear from Dr. Schmidt-Burbach.
Dr. Jan Schmidt-Burbach, Head of Animal Welfare and Research, Wildlife, World Animal Protection: Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak and share my expertise.
I’m a veterinarian specialized in wild animals and animal welfare. I conducted my PhD on Asian elephants in European zoos and, over the past 15 years, I have been carrying out one of the largest studies on welfare conditions for Asian elephants in captive facilities in Asia.
Evaluating whether Canada should continue maintaining captive elephants in zoos really boils down to two questions: First, are elephants in Canadian zoos essential to the conservation of elephants in their natural habitat? Second, is the welfare of elephants in Canadian zoos adequate for the species, enabling them to thrive, express natural behaviour and fully meet all their needs?
Captivity will always compromise welfare for wild animals to at least some degree, since captive facilities, either zoos or sanctuaries, never fully replicate the conditions that wild animals need to live full lives. Limited quantity and quality of enclosure space, lack of opportunities to stimulate the natural range of behaviour, confinement to indoor spaces for months due to unsuitable climate and reliance upon dominance-based animal-management tools are only some of the aspects that make it very clear that a Canadian zoo isn’t an ideal habitat for an elephant.
Given the negative welfare impacts, we must think carefully about the rationale for keeping wild animals in captivity. After all, it’s never the choice of the wild animal to be in captivity; it’s always a choice made by people.
In a zoo industry that strives to sustain itself by attracting paying visitors and expand, there’s all too often a lack of scrutiny for whether breeding more animals into captivity or importing them from the wild is justified. In North American and European zoos, almost one out of four captive-born Asian elephants dies within the first year of its life. Only 6 out of 10 survive the first 10 years. Approximately half of these deaths occur through elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus, or EEH, and a recent study found that EEH deaths in captive juvenile elephants commonly occur at an age when stress through separation or training is likely.
In U.S. and Canadian zoos, almost four out of five elephants have been transferred between institutions at least once. A 2012 study found that 42% of captive-born elephants in North America no longer reside with their mothers. It thus seems likely that the overall high mortality rates of juvenile zoo elephants are associated with inadequate welfare or stress.
Most zoos claim that conservation is one of the primary goals for their operation. While conserving wild animals always sounds like a sensible goal, there are significantly different interpretations of what “conserving” really refers to in the context of zoos. Most conservationists would agree that conservation means protecting the species population in its natural habitat so it can continue to play its role in a complex ecosystem, which, in turn, benefits many more species, including people. Many zoos, however, argue that conservation also means establishing and maintaining captive populations of a species, even if there is no reasonable possibility for those animals to ever go back to the wild. Not only is that not helping wild populations or ecosystems, but it perpetuates the suffering of wild animals in captivity and continues to drive demand for animals to be extracted from the wild.
It is also important to look at the zoo industry’s influence through a global lens. Western zoos have, for a long time, been a blueprint for the development of zoos in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Historically, practices from Western zoos were introduced to zoos elsewhere. That continues to this day.
We see substantial issues in the management and unethical sourcing of elephants in various captive facilities worldwide, yet progress to end these practices is often complicated by the acceptance of captive elephant attractions in Western countries. Steps taken to phase out captive zoo elephants in Canadian zoos would be an important stepping stone to open up conversations for ending severe exploitative practices elsewhere.
The practice of maintaining and breeding captive elephant herds in zoos, particularly outside of range countries, is an outdated practice that doesn’t aid wild elephants and leads to suffering in captivity. With Bill S-15, Canada has the chance to contribute to phasing out elephant captivity in an unsuitable climate and support a more meaningful protection of elephants where they belong: in the wild. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Schmidt-Burbach. We will now hear from Dr. Bob Jacobs. Dr. Jacobs, thank you for joining us from the U.S. We appreciate your input. Please proceed.
Dr. Bob Jacobs, Professor Emeritus, Neuroscience, Colorado College, as an individual: Thank you for this opportunity. I’ve been conducting research on mammalian brains since 1984 and have 46 peer-reviewed scientific publications. From 1984 to 2010, my main research focus was on the human cerebral cortex. From 2010 onward, I focused on comparative neuroanatomy, examining the brains of a large variety of seldom-studied species, including the African elephant.
Six decades of neuroscientific research has led me to several conclusions about the state of the brain in captive non-human animals. These conclusions are represented in our 2021 comprehensive review article on the neural consequences of impoverished environments for elephants and cetaceans. Note that no research of this nature has been completed directly on elephants because it would require controlled experiments of litter mates — elephants don’t have litter mates — whereby the animals would have to be killed to extract the brains. Thus, I believe such research would be unethical. Nevertheless, the brains of every species — more than 20 cited in the paper examined to date, from ants to humans — clearly show the detrimental effects of an impoverished environment across multiple brain structures, from the molecular to the cellular level. Thus, our conclusions are not easily dismissed unless one wants to argue that elephant brains somehow respond differently to the environment than the brains of every other species examined to date. In this regard, it’s important to note that brains are highly conserved. Elephant, human, monkey, cat, dog and rat brains all have the same basic structures that perform the same basic functions and respond to the environment in the same way.
To summarize, there are inherent limitations of the captive environment for elephants. In fact, the captive environment is an impoverished environment that negatively affects the cerebral cortex, resulting in cognitive deficits. The captive, impoverished environment also results in chronic stress that compromises the immune system, making the animal more susceptible to infections and illnesses. Finally, impoverishment-induced chronic stress leads to the degeneration and deregulation of several brain structures, resulting in impaired memory and emotional processing, learned helplessness, depression-like symptoms and pronounced stereotopies — that is, repetitive purposeless moments like swaying back and forth. These stereotopies are never observed in free-ranging elephants but are common in captive elephants and reflective of brain damage.
There’s overwhelming evidence that the zoo environment, by any measure, and even when meeting accreditation guidelines, is impoverished and thus negatively affects the overall health of elephants, including their complex brains. I believe it is inhumane and unethical to keep elephants, who are long-lived, autonomous beings with elaborate socio-cognitive and emotional abilities, in zoos. In many ways, it is the equivalent of forcing a human to live for a lifetime in a bathroom. Elephants deserve better.
Insofar as most captive elephants cannot be released into the wild for practical and ethical reasons, the case can be made for transferring them to authentic sanctuaries where they may live in a more natural environment. True sanctuaries report improved physical and psychological health in elephants after their arrival. Thus, I believe elephants should either remain free and protected or, if already in captivity, be released into an authentic sanctuary.
In closing, I will add that what I have said here about elephants also applies to great apes, big cats and probably many other species. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs. We will now go on to questions. We will start with the sponsor of the bill, Senator Klyne, and then the critic of the bill.
Senator Klyne: This question is for the entire panel. Last week, African Lion Safari answered a question about their cancelled sale of two Asian elephants to a zoo in Texas in 2021. That sale would have broken up two mother-daughter pairs, whom I understand normally stay together for life. In one case, 15‑year‑old elephant Emily was to be sold away from her daughter, Gigi; in the other, 8-year-old Nellie was to be sold away from her mother, Natasha. African Lion Safari told us that such a separation would not cause these elephants emotional distress or trauma. However, I have seen elsewhere that mother and daughter Asian elephants remember each other after years apart and experience joyful reunions.
Can you please tell us whether separating mother and daughter Asian elephants, including an 8-year-old, would cause them emotional distress or trauma?
Dr. Lindsay: I think unequivocally it would cause some stress and trauma. I have been in Amboseli National Park in Kenya in the last few weeks. At the moment, there are good conditions, but the groups are often splitting and reuniting. They show incredibly emotional responses when reunited with fragments of their family, even separate matrilines, not splitting the mother and daughter pairs, they’re very pleased to see each other. This implies that when they’re separated, they are experiencing some feeling of loss.
I would suggest that the people at African Lion Safari really do not know what they’re talking about. They’re not basing their knowledge on the biology of natural, free-living elephants but on what they’re seeing in front of them, which is a fragment of the true life of an elephant.
Dr. Jacobs: If I may add something to that, research on human subjects shows that early socio-emotional deprivation results in a variety of neural deficits that correspond with cognitive, behavioural and socio-emotional deficits observed in children. There are suggestions that early childhood trauma may subsequently make the adult brain more vulnerable to maladaptive stress responses. This is an issue that is particularly relevant for long-lived species and highly social animals such as elephants born into captivity, since the younger brain is more plastic and sensitive to environmental changes, including impoverishment or socio-emotional insults.
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: A study in 2008 highlighted that in European zoos, the age of separation and lifetime number of transfers are associated with a higher risk of mortality for Asian elephants. There’s no doubt this will probably apply to African elephants as well.
Senator Klyne: This question is also for the entire panel. Dr. Lindsay and Dr. Schmidt-Burbach, you and about 20 other elephant experts wrote a letter endorsing the policies in Bill S-15 regarding elephants. You wrote about the:
. . . biological, social, spatial, cognitive and intrinsic requirements of elephants. The keeping of elephants in captivity in Canada should be brought to an end, with every effort made to ensure those elephants that remain in captivity are provided with the best possible conditions to meet their welfare requirements and ensure their well-being for the remainder of their lives.
Can you please expand on these remarks?
Dr. Lindsay: For the reasons we’ve already mentioned in our discussions, but also in that letter, there is no justification for keeping them in the conditions of zoos, which, as we’ve said, are set up for display and not the biology or lives of the elephants. The priority is not keeping elephants in good conditions but letting the public see them and getting gate receipts from that.
If one is acting in the interests of elephants, then the breeding should be stopped so that there are no more young animals put in this position for the rest of their many decades of life. There are perfectly adequate sanctuaries. Even the sanctuaries people themselves admit — and this is a testament to their compassion — that the sanctuary environments, even though they are substantially larger, more varied and compassionate toward elephants, are still not adequate for giving elephants a decent life. However, they are much better than any zoo. The elephants should be allowed to live out their lives in such conditions rather than being forced to stay in the inadequate conditions that occur in zoos.
The Chair: Thank you. Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Schmidt-Burbach, I have run out of time for questions from the sponsor, but if you have a short intervention, I will let you respond.
No? Okay, perfect; thank you. We will now go to the critic of the bill, Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: My first questions will be addressed to Dr. Lindsay, although it would certainly be okay if the other witnesses wanted to jump in very briefly.
I found it a little strange, Dr. Lindsay, that you would even suggest that African Lion Safari have no idea what they’re talking about. They are a world-renowned institution, supported by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA, and by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums, or CAZA, and you suggest they don’t know what they’re talking about.
My first question is very brief: Simply yes or no, Dr. Lindsay, have you ever visited African Lion Safari?
Dr. Lindsay: No.
Senator Plett: Thank you. And yet you know that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Dr. Lindsay: Because of what they say.
Senator Plett: Thank you. You answered the question.
I’m certain that all our witnesses are aware that both African and Asian elephants are classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species. The African elephant is endangered because of poaching and habitat loss while the Asian elephant is endangered due to poaching, illegal trade, habitat loss and fragmentation as well as due to human-elephant conflict. I did not notice zoos and wildlife parks on that list, and yet from your statements, it would appear that you would think they should be.
Do you believe zoos and wildlife parks are contributing to elephants being endangered?
Dr. Lindsay: They’re contributing to the extent that any animals are taken out of the wild. That is adding to the depletion of the wild populations.
I would also say that zoos in temperate countries, where people can go and see these animals without having to go to the native ranges, is actually the opposite of conservation. It’s taking animals out of their ecosystems and putting them in an unnatural place where people can feel they’re seeing the animal and that they’re all right because they’re in a zoo. I think that contributes to a complacency about the status of the elephants rather than contributing to their conservation.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Of course, African Lion Safari doesn’t bring their elephants in from out of the wild; 27 elephants have been born at African Lion Safari since 1991, with no infanticides and no stillbirths at all. They have a pretty good track record and do not bring their elephants in from either Africa or Asia.
I have a supplementary to that question. After I ask it, I would be happy to have Dr. Schmidt-Burbach answer the previous question and this one as well.
Bill S-15 claims that science establishes that certain animals — particularly elephants and great apes — should not, because of the cruelty it represents, be kept in captivity — which you’ve alluded to. This statement is not qualified by the conditions under which they are kept, the care the animals receive or the size of their habitat. In fact, there are habitats that are 20,000 square kilometres.
Do you agree with that statement — no matter the size, whether it’s 20,000 square kilometres or 200 acres?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: The larger the available habitat for elephants, the more they have the opportunity to explore different habitats, geographies and climates. As well, they can interact with different individuals in the social environment. So in the wild, a larger habitat goes along with better access to different behaviours, different social opportunities and so on. In this case, a larger habitat is better than a smaller habitat.
Senator Plett: I’ll ask you this question: There are numerous wildlife preserves around the world that hold elephants in captivity — for example, Addo Elephant National Park in South Africa and Lewa Wildlife Conservancy in Kenya, to name two of them. Both of these parks are fenced to protect their wildlife — including elephants — from poaching and conflicts with local communities. According to Bill S-15 and Senator Klyne, this is cruelty. Do you agree that holding elephants in these parks is cruel?
I would like to hear from both Dr. Schmidt-Burbach and Dr. Lindsay.
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: First, I think Bill S-15 is about Canadian zoos in a climate that is totally unsuitable to both Asian and African elephants. So that question about scale —
Senator Plett: I’m sorry, that’s not answering my question. You made your statement. I’m asking you a question. Do you think it’s cruel to keep an elephant in a wild conservancy in Kenya or the national park in South Africa?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: It depends on the purpose, and that’s what I alluded to in my statement. There needs to be —
Senator Plett: Thank you. Dr. Lindsay?
Dr. Lindsay: First, I don’t know where you get your information, but Addo Elephant National Park is tens if not hundreds of square kilometres in size, so it is not a confined area.
Senator Plett: What size is a confined area?
Dr. Lindsay: Hundreds of square kilometres —
Senator Plett: What size is a confined area?
Dr. Lindsay: Hundreds of square kilometres is larger than any zoo.
Senator Plett: So we know that this isn’t, but what is?
Dr. Lindsay: If you would let me finish — the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy that you referred to is not fenced. I don’t know where you got that information, but Lewa is open to the wild, and it is adjacent to a large area of elephant habitat where they are completely free-ranging.
I’m sorry, you’re not saying anything —
Senator Plett: Thank you. Could I go on second round, please? Thank you, sir.
Senator Batters: My first question is to the representative from the World Animal Protection organization. Your website states that “. . . zoos can play a vital role in the conservation of threatened wild species . . . .” and advocates focusing efforts on species at immediate risk of extinction.
Also, African Lion Safari in Canada has demonstrated through its conservation programs a significant positive impact on the preservation of Asian elephants, thereby actively contributing to their survival in North America. However, Bill S-15 could penalize initiatives like that of African Lion Safari, which are crucial for this conservation. Given your organization’s stated position that zoos do play a vital role in the conservation of endangered species, do you support the continuation of conservation programs like that of African Lion Safari, which has been proven to be effective in preserving populations of Asian elephants outside their natural habitat?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: I do not. I don’t believe that the conservation efforts by African Lion Safari make any contribution to wild elephants in their natural habitat. Our organization and policies reflect or respect that zoos can have a conservation role if the endangered animals are bred for reintroduction back into the wild or if zoos take in confiscated animals from the illegal wildlife trade. However, not in the case of African Lion Safari, where elephants are being bred just to maintain captive populations with zero conservation benefit to natural habitat and ecosystems.
That’s another thing: Conservation is not about just preserving the numbers of a species. It needs to preserve the species in its natural habitat so the species can do the natural role in its ecosystem and benefit all the other species in that system.
That is not a given for the activities conducted at African Lion Safari or any other Canadian zoo.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
My second question is to all three of you. I would like a very quick answer from each of you. In your opinion, does maintaining animals in human care institutions that do adhere to animal protection standards necessarily constitute cruelty to animals?
Dr. Lindsay: As I noted, the standards for elephants are set by the zoos themselves and not based on the biology of the elephants and their needs; they’re based on what the zoos can afford to provide.
The standards for Canadian and American zoos are 500 square metres per individual in outside enclosures. That is not a care standard; it is a standard based on what the zoo can afford.
So no, they’re not adequate whatsoever.
Senator Batters: So your answer is that the North American standards you’ve just described do constitute cruelty to animals.
Dr. Lindsay: Absolutely.
Senator Batters: We’ll hear from Dr. Schmidt-Burbach next, please.
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: Any captive environment is a compromise to the welfare of the wild animals. It just depends on the justification for why the wild animals are being kept in captivity.
Senator Batters: Is there a size limit as to what you consider to be captivity or is it unlimited size?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: It should be as large as it can be. Every sanctuary will strive to replicate, as well as it can, a habitat for its animals, and that includes being as large, rich and diverse as possible.
Senator Batters: Right. But do you have a particular size limit in mind when you consider what captivity is or not?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: No, I don’t have a particular size limit. It depends. When we talk about North American zoos, the size limits are vastly smaller than any sort of wild habitat. Any of those available size limits in North American zoos would clearly be captivity.
Senator Batters: All right.
Dr. Jacobs, does maintaining animals in human care institutions that do adhere to animal protection standards necessarily constitute cruelty to animals?
Dr. Jacobs: It depends upon your definition of “cruelty.” It also depends upon which animal we’re talking about.
Senator Batters: Well, let’s look at the act, then. Bill S-15 has the word “cruelty” in it. Would you consider the fact that they are simply in these human care institutions alone as being sufficient?
Dr. Jacobs: Yes. I think those environments are impoverished, insufficient and result in brain damage. I would consider that to be cruelty.
The Chair: I will put you down for a second round, Senator Batters.
Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Schmidt-Burbach and Dr. Jacobs, you did not get to finish your sentences earlier on. Would you like to finish what you were saying? I’m going to use my time to allow you to answer in full if you wish, but there’s no compulsion.
Dr. Lindsay: I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you asking if we have anything to add to our previous statements?
The Chair: No. Senator Plett was asking you questions. He had many questions to ask, so he went on, and you still had something to explain. So I’m asking you to explain what it was.
Dr. Lindsay: I see. I mean, the —
The Chair: If you remember later, it’s okay.
Dr. Lindsay: Okay. I will just go back to the point that the so‑called standards for zoos in North America, as I’ve said, have nothing to with the biology of the animals. You have large, highly cognitively and socially complex animals that are evolved, adapted and accustomed to living in home ranges of hundreds of square kilometres of varied complex habitats, spending three quarters of a 24-hour period foraging on a huge number of different plant species and travelling an average of 10 kilometres per day. For every elephant population that has been studied, that’s the average amount of land they cover per day. It’s not just localized movements, as some zoo studies have suggested, but land covered ranges from 2 or 3 to over 30 kilometres a day.
When you take an animal like that and try to put it in a confined area, even if it’s some 10 or even 100 acres, that’s not anything near adequate to give it the kind of life that they would have. Inevitably, it suffers, and inevitably that is inhuman and should be phased out.
The Chair: Thank you.
Dr. Jacobs, did you want to add anything else? No? Dr. Schmidt-Burbach, did you?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: No, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, panellists. It’s always very interesting to hear from people who are familiar with the animals we’re talking about.
Dr. Jacobs, I think you said in your small brief that there are two elephant sanctuaries in the U.S. Would you describe those sanctuaries for me? Are they located in the north or in a warmer part of the U.S.? How big are they and what are they providing to the elephants? You say they are still in captivity, I assume, but how big are these things? How many kilometres can they run, for example?
Dr. Jacobs: One is in northern California, and that is the Performing Animal Welfare Society, or PAWS, sanctuary. The other is in Tennessee. I’ve been to the PAWS sanctuary, but I have not been to the Tennessee sanctuary.
I do not know what the size of those are off the top of my head, but I know the elephants are free-roaming to the extent that they can within the limited confines. And yes, sanctuaries are a form of captivity. They’re not ideal. They are, however, better than a zoo environment. The main difference is that zoos are designed primarily for people, while sanctuaries are designed for the animals they have there. That, I think, is the main difference.
Keith or Jan might know the actual sizes of those facilities.
Senator Dalphond: But in these sanctuaries, are elephants confined to sleep inside for the night? Because we hear some people try to compare the sanctuaries with African Lion Safari, where they say they are 200 acres. So they challenge the idea that they are in captivity. I understand that during the winter, they cannot sleep outside; they have to go back to the same — I would not say “cage” — but they have to get back to the same room to sleep.
Is that a similar thing in these sanctuaries?
Dr. Lindsay: May I answer?
Senator Dalphond: Yes, please.
Dr. Lindsay: There are actually three sanctuaries in North America. There is a third one in Georgia. That one does not have cold winters at all. The PAWS sanctuary in northern California is cooler in the winter but it doesn’t snow. In Tennessee, I think the conditions are cooler, but it’s not a northern state or Canada.
Certainly, at the sanctuary in Tennessee and at Elephant Refuge North America, EARNA, in Georgia, the elephants are allowed to go in and out of the barns at will. They have the freedom and autonomy to choose. The barns are heated and dry, and if they want to go into them to escape conditions outside, they can; however, they are not herded back there in the evenings, though.
It’s interesting. I have been reading some of the testimony from earlier. When asked, African Lion Safari stated that the use of their 200 acres depends upon when the staff are working. This implies that every day, the elephants are taken back into the barns. Even in that situation, they do not have the chance to choose whether to go in or out. Certainly in the winter, they cannot spend much time outside. Something has been made of the fact that they do go outside — they mentioned baby elephants playing in the snow — but they certainly don’t spend more than a few hours out in the icy conditions in winter. That means they’re confined to their stalls inside a barn for much of the day, and probably — even in summer — during the night.
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: Apart from the vastly better habitat and conditions for the elephants in those sanctuaries, the big difference here is that none of those sanctuaries breed their elephants. That’s a big difference between sanctuaries and zoos. Sanctuaries do accept that even their captivity is a compromise, but they don’t further increase the captive population. They want to be a solution for the captive population that is out there and needs care. Breeding elephants into conditions that compromise their welfare and have no value for conserving elephants in their habitat really can’t be a solution.
Senator Simons: I’d like to pick up where Senator Dalphond left off. One of the challenges is that it’s fine to say we shouldn’t have had the elephants in the first place, but we have them. African Lion Safari has more than two dozen elephants. I don’t know if there’s any sanctuary in the United States that is large enough to accept two dozen elephants. It’s also not clear to me how many of those sanctuaries are inspected and accredited. The one in Tennessee, I believe, has AZA accreditation, but I’m not sure about the other ones. If somebody sets up and says, “I’m an elephant sanctuary,” who is establishing the guidelines for that? Clearly, there’s a compelling argument to be made that we should never have had elephants, but we do have elephants. I’m not sure that just sending them to a somewhat better form of captivity in the United States morally absolves us of the decisions that we’ve taken. Practically speaking, what do we do with two dozen elephants?
Dr. Lindsay: In the first instance, you stop them from breeding. They could stay at African Lion Safari as long as they don’t breed. As zoos go, African Lion Safari is on the better end. It sounds like it does have a larger area of habitat and relatively natural foraging, at least for part of the day. First, they must stop breeding. Those elephants can continue being on display and living out their lives, but their numbers will not be increasing anymore.
The sanctuaries can take some of the elephants. There are three sanctuaries and there is capacity for some more of those elephants. However, they have to stop breeding. Gradually, then, the animals will decline in number.
Senator Simons: So we end up with a series of poor choices. If we let the elephants die off naturally, then you end up with a situation where you have a smaller and smaller population, until you have one or two lone elephants who will be as lonely as poor Lucy is at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. If you divide them up among elephant sanctuaries, then you’ve divided up the family unit.
While I respect and defer to the expertise you’ve all had on offer, I don’t know that it’s that simple. I can’t wiggle my nose and make the elephants go back to their natural habitat.
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: It’s definitely a tricky question and a problem with some ethical dilemmas, but we have to separate the question. Should we breed more elephants into the population and further that critical dilemma of what to do with those captive elephants — that is, increasing their numbers? Or should we cap their numbers and say, “This is the last generation in captivity. We’ll try, either on an individual or on a social group basis, to find best solutions for each of those subgroups.” Yes, some of them will not have the opportunity to go to a sanctuary, let alone return to their natural habitat. Unfortunately, that is the price we have to pay with having elephants in captivity in an unnatural habitat at the moment.
If we stop the breeding, at least the end is there. We need to get to that. In my organization, we deal with issues where we sometimes have 20,000 or 30,000 animals in industries that we try to end. There is no sanctuary solution for those animals. The only chance to go forward is policy changes to prevent a further increase of that population. Then you try to make the best solutions available for as many animals as possible. That’s the critical thing.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’d like to come back to the issue of elephants, especially in sanctuaries.
I’ve seen snow and periods of snow at the Tennessee sanctuary and I’ve seen elephants who seemed to be enjoying themselves tremendously, from news reports I’ve watched. They didn’t seem bothered at all.
Have you studied the effects of snow or colder weather on elephants specifically? I say this because in the videos I’ve watched, particularly on YouTube, I was quite impressed to see elephants enjoying themselves.
[English]
Dr. Lindsay: You can shoot a video of elephants amusing themselves in the snow for some minutes, maybe even an hour or so, but they do not spend the whole 24-hour period out in the snow. My understanding is it doesn’t snow often in Tennessee, but when it does, the elephants choose to go into the barns. The barns are heated and the elephants avoid the cold.
Senator Carignan: I want to clarify my question.
[Translation]
Have you specifically studied the effects of snow and cold temperatures on elephants at the Tennessee sanctuary?
[English]
Dr. Lindsay: I’ve seen a few papers. I saw one today that was a comparative study of an enzyme system that is responsive to cold conditions. It was a comparative study that was looking at a range of species, including cold-adapted ones like penguins, and warm-adapted ones like elephants. With the penguins, this enzyme system didn’t kick in until it was distinctly sub-zero.
In elephants, this enzyme system which is responding to the cold and creating a restriction was over six degrees —
Senator Carignan: Excuse me, doctor. I don’t know if it’s the translation, but my question was not about the penguins. It was about the elephants.
Dr. Lindsay: Yes, but I’m talking about a comparative study across species.
Senator Carignan: Did you study specifically those elephants at the Tennessee sanctuary after the events of snow or cold weather?
Dr. Lindsay: I didn’t study them at Tennessee, but I’m aware of the reports of what they do when it’s cold. When it’s cold, they go indoors.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
Senator Clement: Thank you to all the witnesses for your work and careers — it’s impressive.
I was raised by teacher parents who subscribed to the notion that they should take us to zoos, so I went to zoos and safari-type places a lot. They just made me feel sad.
Dr. Jacobs, it was interesting to hear you say that our brains are all very similar, human and animal. Could lean into that comment?
Also, I’m supportive of this legislation, by the way. However, I am sad that it doesn’t have something more, to be able to add wild species. They call that the “Noah Clause,” being able to have executive authority to add big cats, for example. Dr. Jacobs, you spoke specifically of big cats. What do you think about adding that kind of authority of this type of legislation? What do you think about adding big cats to this list of wild species? What do you think about what I just said?
Dr. Jacobs: As I said, what I said specifically about elephants also applies to, at the very least, large carnivores, which would include big cats. There have been studies addressing this issue of large carnivores in captivity. Dr. Marino will talk about this tomorrow, I believe. I would be in favour of adding big cats and large carnivores to this.
The question is, of course, how far does one go in terms of keeping animals in captivity? I remember a quote someone said once, about how the only animals that don’t suffer in captivity are the ones that don’t know they’re in captivity. There’s probably some truth to that.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question follows up on what Senator Clement was asking. Similarly, I remember when we moved from cages in zoos to so‑called more natural habitats. The impact, when you described it, Senator Simons leaned over and said, “It reminds me of when you’re talking about the segregation of people.” Your description of the impact on the animals is eerily familiar.
My question to each of you is about a recent media report which indicated that bullhooks have been or are being used at African Lion Safari in Ontario, and that CAZA — the Canadian accreditor — has not banned bullhooks, unlike the American association.
I understand these implements may involve pain or fear. I understand that African Lion Safari told this committee they don’t use bullhooks but use items called guides. However, Zoocheck Canada said these terms are interchangeable. Photos last year appeared to show the use of these implements.
Can each of you please tell us what the difference between bullhooks and guides, their use and effect on captive animals — in particular, elephants — is?
Dr. Lindsay: It’s all about branding, isn’t it? If you call it a bullhook, it sounds bad; if you call it a guide, it’s as if it’s all right.
My understanding is a bullhook is based on the implement that is used in Asia by mahouts. It’s called an ankush. It’s the same thing. It’s like a fireplace poker with a pointy end and a round hook. The hook is used for tugging on the elephant’s ears. The pointy end is for poking the elephant with a sharp, pointy thing.
I understand that the “guides” that are employed at African Lion Safari don’t have the hook, but they still have the pointy end and are still metal.
It’s a reinforcement of cruel treatment that was imposed on the animals over a period of time previously. Simply holding the bullhook in the keeper’s hand is enough to remind the elephant who is in charge. One may not see it deployed in a cruel manner, but the fact that it’s there at all is indicative that it is a conditioned response. The elephants obey commands because they know there’s going to be an outcome if they don’t. That’s my understanding. There’s no real difference between a bullhook and a guide.
The Chair: Senator Cotter, we’ve run out of time. I’ll give you three minutes.
Senator Cotter: It’s a simple question. One of the issues that arises here is the degree to which zoos foster a kind of engagement with conservation for young people. They don’t have the reaction that Senator Clement described, but you, a colleague of yours, or maybe I — encountering an animal in captivity — might be inspired by the animals, and by the support for conservation initiatives generally. I don’t know about the legitimacy of that.
I am interested in your view about whether there’s value in that dimension, of exposure to animals that people wouldn’t otherwise see, unless they’re wealthy enough or are researchers and can go to Africa to see the animals themselves?
Dr. Schmidt-Burbach: I can start on this. First, looking back on my own childhood, and looking at children of friends and so on, the most engaging experience in the zoo is usually when they go to the petting zoo, where they can interact with livestock and domesticated animals. They care less about the endangered animal in a cage or small enclosure.
Further to that, there are studies that looked into the effect of a zoo visit and whether visitors changed their behaviour afterward and became more active in sustainable behaviour or supporting conservation. The various studies — there are several of them — conclude that zoo visits fail to lead to actual sustainable behaviour change.
Another study in the U.K. looked at 1,000 people and it:
. . . found very little evidence, in the zoos we sampled, of any measurable effect of a single informal visit on adults’ conservation knowledge, concern, or ability to do something useful.
This is a very overrated myth that we often hear, that zoo visits instill a sense of conservation. In fact, most zoo visitors believe that zoos contribute more to conservation than they actually do. There’s another study that looked at the mismatch between how much visitors believed a zoo would do for conservation and how little actually ends in conservation projects.
Senator Cotter: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Madam Chair, when I asked my question earlier, Dr. Lindsay refuted a comment I made.
The Chair: Go ahead, ask it.
Senator Plett: I’m not going to ask it, but I would like to read into the record.
He said he didn’t know where I had my information, but that the Addo facility was not fenced. I am going to read into the record off their website:
. . . in 1954, Graham Armstrong (the park manager at the time) developed an elephant-proof fence constructed using tram rails and lift cables and an area of 2 270 hectares was fenced in. There were 22 elephant in the park at the time. This Armstrong fence, named after its developer, is still used around the park today.
Dr. Lindsay said what I had said was not true. I want the record to show that what he said was incorrect and what I said was true.
The Chair: I’m forced — just a minute, Dr. Lindsay — to respond to that.
Senator Plett: No, there is no response required. The time has run out. I have read something into the record.
An Hon. Senator: In 1954. Let’s let him answer.
Senator Plett: Are you running this?
The Chair: Dr. Lindsay, please answer.
An Hon. Senator: No, but you are.
Senator Plett: No, I’m not.
Dr. Lindsay: If I may answer, I did not say that Addo wasn’t fenced. I said it was a fenced area that was several hundred square kilometres. I said that Lewa Conservancy was not fenced. So if you want to correct the record, you could correct it in that sense. Lewa is not fenced. Addo is fenced.
The Chair: Thank you.
Dr. Lindsay: That’s what I said.
Senator Plett: That changed from before.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lindsay.
Dr. Lindsay: That’s not a change.
The Chair: Senators, we have completely run out of time. Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Schmidt-Burbach and Dr. Jacobs, thank you very much for giving so much of your time. You’ve really enriched our discussions, so thank you for your presence here.
For our second panel, please join me in welcoming Dr. Christopher Stremme, Senior Veterinarian, Siyah Kuala University; Dr. Imke Lueders, Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarian and Conservation Researcher, Allwetterzoo Münster; and, as an individual, Dr. Dennis Schmitt, Professor Emeritus, College of Agriculture, Missouri State University.
I will ask Dr. Christopher Stremme to start. You have five minutes.
Dr. Christopher Stremme, Senior Veterinarian, Syiah Kuala University: Thank you very much, and good evening.
In addition to being a veterinarian, I am a former elephant keeper. I’m a member of the IUCN Asian Elephants Specialist Group and have been working with elephants since 1992. I’m a lecturer for elephant medicine at Siyah Kuala University in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and have spent 20 years in wild and captive Asian elephant welfare and conservation programs in several Asian countries, such as Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar, India and China.
Regarding the bill, I have to actually object to the bill’s preamble statement in the second paragraph, which states:
. . . science establishes that certain animals, particularly elephants and great apes, should not, because of the cruelty it represents, be kept in captivity.
In fact, there is no such independent and unbiased scientific evidence available to justify such a generalized statement about apes and elephants in captivity. Such a generalized statement as the one made in the preamble’s second paragraph is even contradicted by the preamble’s third paragraph, which states:
. . . keeping these animals in captivity is justified in certain circumstances, including when it is in the best interests of their welfare or for the purpose of a scientific research or conservation program.
Thus, it recognizes that the welfare needs of those animals in captivity can be met.
In fact, modern captive wildlife facilities led and operated by qualified staff, such as managers, zoologists, animal keepers and veterinarians, are very capable of providing good welfare for elephants and apes in captivity and not causing suffering. Furthermore, managing the populations of these animals in captivity can support and serve conservation of these species through education awareness among the public. Maintaining self-sustaining ex situ populations can act as genetic backup and as stock for repopulating diminished or extinct populations in revitalized habitats. Third, it can provide fundraising for direct financial and technical support for in situ conservation programs of the species.
In the first paragraph of the preamble, it is stated:
. . . Parliament recognizes the evolution of public opinion on the captivity of certain animal species that are not domesticated.
If this is meant to claim that there is a broad objection among the general public to apes and elephants in captive wildlife facilities, this is contradicted by the millions of visitors to facilities in Canada that manage some of these species. Therefore, it seems that the statement is the rather well-orchestrated opinion of a minority and not a majority opinion of the public.
To impose a general ban on breeding and captivity actually contradicts the purpose of improving animal welfare. All aspects of reproduction, such as interaction between males and females, mating, pregnancy, birthing, raising offspring and various kinds of interactions between animals of different ages, represent the most integral parts of animals’ natural behaviours and are important for their emotional and social well-being.
In conclusion, this bill does not really help to improve animal welfare. It contradicts itself and suggests several actions that will not benefit — rather, they will disbenefit — welfare. I’m very much in support of improving welfare in captivity; however, to do so, we need to improve standards and requirements and not put generalized bans on things — they do not help with the improvement of welfare.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll now go on to the next witness, Dr. Imke Lueders. You have five minutes.
Dr. Imke Lueders, Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarian and Conservation Researcher, Allwetterzoo Münster: Hello and good evening. I am a veterinarian from Germany. I’m board certified with the European College of Zoological Medicine. I’ve been working for nearly 20 years in zoo veterinary medicine. Due to my work, I’ve travelled the world and worked with wild and captive elephants around the globe, and taken part in several research projects. I’m also a veterinary advisor to the Elephant Taxon Advisory Group of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. I also serve as a great ape reproduction advisor.
While I always fully support the goal of improving welfare of captive animals, Bill S-15 is simply designated to ban elephants and great apes from Canada, as it contains no justification for improving the welfare of the existing individuals. Banning captive elephants seems like a very simple answer to an extremely complex issue. How can this bill make a difference to two rather randomly selected non-domestic species when those species are already kept in Canada only in accredited facilities?
I think Canadians should be proud of what has been already achieved and continue to strive for leadership in non-domestic animal care. Instead of trying to criminalize long-standing facilities, Canada should be a role model and reinforce improvements.
For example — and we cited this facility a few times already — the outstanding elephant program at African Lion Safari is actually renowned worldwide. Several experts and numerous leaders in conservation and research in elephant care have been to this facility. African Lion Safari is a leader in supporting elephant research, conservation and breeding, providing a wealth of knowledge. They are dedicated specialists in their field. We should support them so that others can learn from this facility.
I have travelled the world and seen excellent, average, not as good and bad elephant programs. One of the best that I’ve had the opportunity to see is located in Canada.
In my experience, elephants and great apes, due to their social nature and high cognitive abilities, adapt very well to captive conditions and do much better in human care than many other species that are of less public interest. Keeping healthy elephants in captivity requires their breeding to keep them healthy and social. This also means the exchange of animals is important for their genetic health. In this context, international breeding efforts need to happen to conserve elephants. This implies the import and export of individuals.
Today, of course, this only applies to captive-bred individuals. Nothing is taken from the wild in excellent programs anymore.
The European Endangered Species Programme for Asian Elephants, for example, has become self-sustaining since I started my career, highlighting the achievement of zoological institutions.
Many people who oppose captive elephant breeding have never been to one of the many excellent facilities. I have often encountered the challenge that little insight leads to misconceptions; and, of course, that always reflects rejection. Making an effort to understand a situation is time-consuming, and complex situations require resources to understand them. Sadly, this bill shows that we shy away from this work nowadays and, instead, will ban something straightaway.
The world’s human population is growing while wildlife habitats are shrinking. I strongly believe that we need captive elephants in Western zoos now, and will even more in the future. The high level of knowledge in daily care will be lost if we discontinue this effort.
Substantial contributions can be found online everywhere right now. The website of Zoo Science Library shows the research engagement and output.
In the end, I believe it is wrong to make the public feel guilty for enjoying, admiring and having close contact with these fascinating creatures. Making it a criminal act only promotes the separation of man and nature. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lueders. We’ll go to Dr. Schmitt.
Dr. Dennis Schmitt, Professor Emeritus, College of Agriculture, Missouri State University, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation. I am a veterinarian as well, and I am board certified in veterinary reproduction. I have been working with elephants since 1983. I am a member of the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group. I am a co-advisor for the North American Taxon Advisory Group for elephants, serving in both the veterinary care and reproduction advisory roles since 1987.
The proposed Bill S-15 bans the breeding and movement of elephants and great apes in Canada in the name of welfare. Of the two, my experience is with elephants, and I will be addressing that portion of the bill.
While proposing to improve the welfare of Canadian elephants in human care, in fact, this disrupts the welfare of elephants in human care and would make it a crime to move or breed elephants in Canada without a special permit, which may be withdrawn at any time.
As background, the bill proposes that elephants in free-ranging environments walk long distances daily for adequate welfare and that, therefore, elephants in human care must be provided habitats that provide similar distances to move for adequate welfare. However, a summary of several peer-reviewed articles paints a varied picture of the distances travelled by elephants in free-ranging conditions.
In Asian and African elephants, the distance travelled per day is determined primarily by forage and water availability, among other variables. Savannah African elephants do travel large distances, as dictated by their environment, where water holes and forage are separated by large distances. African elephants in national park environments, where plentiful water and forage are available, travel very few kilometres per day. Free-ranging Asian elephants may only travel an average of three kilometres per day, as reported in five different Bornean herds, with a maximum travel of four kilometres per day. This makes invalid the statement that elephants must travel long distances for their welfare.
In addition, the proposed ban on breeding interferes with an innate driver of elephant behaviour and welfare. Reproduction of an endangered species is essential to the future of that species, both in human care and in free-ranging environments. There is a difference between Asian and African elephant numbers both in total numbers and in the percentage of elephants in human care. The total African elephant population, according to World Wildlife Fund estimates, is approximately 415,000, with much less than 1% in human care. Asian elephants are estimated to number 40,000 to 50,000, with one third of those currently in human care, primarily in range countries.
A ban on reproduction in reproductively viable elephants will, over time, result in a large percentage of them developing pathologies of the reproductive tract that can affect the elephants’ general health. Most Asian elephants develop uterine leiomyomas, which in humans are called fibroids. Growth of multiple fibroids can result in the uterus weighing 400 to 500 pounds and can cause intermittent bleeding from the necrosing tumours. For African elephants who are cycling and not reproducing, most develop endometrial cysts of the uterus.
In contrast, I have seen Asian elephants continue to reproduce into their mid-life age. I was struck in India when I conducted ultrasounds on over 100 elephants in government camps. One was 62 years old and pregnant with her thirteenth calf. The loss of reproductive ability through banning reproduction in Canada would prevent the social interaction shown by generational herds.
While I have provided services to several of the zoos who were holding elephants in Canada, I want to hold up African Lion Safari as an example of a successful Asian elephant program in North America. The quality of life provided to these elephants is an example for other elephant programs to mimic.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns regarding the bill.
The Chair: Thank you to all three of you for your opening remarks. We will now go on to questions, starting with the sponsor of the bill, then the critic and other senators.
Senator Klyne: Dr. Schmitt, you authored a publication entitled View from the big top: why elephants belong in North American circuses. Can you please tell us why, in your view, elephants belong in circuses as opposed to being in nature or sanctuaries?
Dr. Schmitt: Obviously, there are different environments that elephants can thrive in. One of the things that circuses can provide is a novel environment, as they travel from place to place. Elephants can be adequately cared for. Circuses provide an opportunity for people to see the connection between the caretakers and the elephants. Many people aren’t able to go to zoos, and there are not many elephants in zoos in North America.
Senator Klyne: You served as head veterinarian at Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation in Florida. Was the answer that you provided your view or perspective as a veterinarian?
Dr. Schmitt: Yes, and not just at Ringling Bros. but at several facilities.
Senator Klyne: You were a veterinarian at a number of places, including at Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Bill S-15 would prevent the use of elephants in performances for entertainment purposes. I understand that circus ended in 2016. In your view, should elephants be used in circuses in Canada and the United States? Do you support a ban on elephant rides and performances for entertainment?
Dr. Schmitt: That’s a complex question, and it depends. Just as some zoos are better than others, some circuses provide better care and opportunities. That is shown through the handlers and caregivers, visually, for the public. It’s just like this bill. It’s not an easy answer.
Senator Klyne: Thank you. Dr. Lueders, in your remarks, which I thank you for, you mentioned that you had seen a zoo in Canada and you were quite impressed with it. Could you tell us what zoo that was?
Dr. Lueders: Yes. In Canada, I mainly worked and had a lot of insight with African Lion Safari.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Klyne.
Senator Plett: Briefly, chair, before I ask a question, I want to go back to what Dr. Lindsay said earlier when he again refuted my comments about fencing. He said he meant Lewa Wildlife Conservancy. I’m reading off their website, which states that:
The external boundary fence is 142-km long, 7-feet high, and has 12 strands of alternating live and earth wires. . . .
It goes on but I won’t read it all. I will submit this to the clerk for the record because twice Dr. Lindsay said that I had the wrong information and didn’t know what I was talking about. Twice I have proven him wrong. I hope he is watching. I will submit that. Both of these sanctuaries have fences around their entire perimeters.
My question is to the three witnesses — and thank you so much for being here. If you could, please be brief, because I have a few questions. You were all signatories to a letter sent to Senator Klyne on November 23, 2023, as a rebuttal to the claims made by individuals claiming to be distinguished international elephant specialists who insisted that elephants should not be held in human care. In your letter, you said:
Regrettably, most, if not all, of the claims made in the . . . letter are intentionally misleading and lack sufficient, current scientific support.
That’s a pretty strong statement. Could you elaborate a bit on how you can be so definitive in your ideas?
Dr. Stremme: Thank you, sir. Of course, working with elephants, I’m aware of a number of these studies that come to the conclusion — some of them mentioned by Dr. Schmidt-Burbach — that elephants would suffer in captivity.
All of these studies are conducted by organizations or individuals which do these studies with a certain political intention. In fact, they are not unbiased, neutral scientific evaluations. They are usually launched or conducted by people who try to produce scientific-looking publications which support their opinions and goals, but that is not really what we should do in science. In science, we should do evaluations to see what outcomes we get and not produce papers with the intention of having certain outcomes.
Senator Plett: Thank you. Quickly, Dr. Lueders, and then I’m going to ask another question of Dr. Schmitt because these answers might be similar.
Dr. Lueders: My biggest worry or problem was that most of the elephant specialists are from South Africa or African countries and they’ve never been to a Western zoo. This is what I mean about misconceptions and having little insight into what is really happening without taking time to see the elephants and what they are doing.
Regarding the cruelty they’re always pointing at, I do not see it. I think this is because we have been working in different environments and surroundings.
Many things were named here — for example, that elephants should not breed. This shows that these researchers had no idea what they were saying; elephant breeding and their health and welfare are very much interconnected, so how can we take this away? This statement is wrong.
In addition, with respect to the statement that elephants suffer in captivity due to the lack of space — due to their brains and ability to interact with humans and to adapt to different environments, in my experience, it is actually possible to keep elephants much better than any other wildlife species.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments about African Lion Safari. I’ve been lobbying that this committee should go and visit African Lion Safari. I’ve been there a number of times but can’t convince the committee to do the right thing and visit them, so that we can have the proper information on them.
In your letter of November 23, you also stated that without elephant populations in zoos, supporting and conserving wild populations would be drastically more difficult. Can you expand on this and help the members of the committee to understand the essential linkage between elephants held in human care and elephant populations in the wild? Maybe I’ll start with Dr. Schmitt. I’m not sure how much time I have.
The Chair: You have run out of time, but I will give you one more minute.
Senator Plett: Maybe Dr. Schmitt will give us a brief answer.
Dr. Schmitt: The emphasis on elephants over the last several years has resulted in increased amounts of money going through an organization called the International Elephant Foundation, of which I am a charter member. Over a span of 25 years, over $20 million has been put toward the welfare and care of African and Asian elephants, both in free-ranging conditions and in captivity. About 90% of it is for free-ranging elephants and the communities surrounding them.
Dr. Stremme: If I may comment on that, I’m managing a wild elephant conservation program in Sumatra, Indonesia, in the Way Kambas National Park, where more than 10% of the remaining Sumatran elephants live. We get substantial support from different zoos, including through the International Elephant Foundation, which also gets money from African Lion Safari. Without these zoo-raised funds, we could not run this program in the way we are at the moment. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much.
The Chair: We will now go to Senator Batters, deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Batters: My first question is for all three witnesses, if I could get a fairly brief answer to it. Canada’s Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has emphasized that Bill S-15 is based on consultations with veterinary experts who also work in the zoological community. These experts have examined the available evidence and scientific literature and believe it shows that the captivity of elephants and great apes reaches a threshold of cruelty, after considering many biological and ecological factors and well-being indicators. This conclusion served as the primary basis for the proposal of this bill.
As veterinarians, do you agree with these conclusions of the consulted veterinarians that the captivity of elephants in human care institutions amounts to cruelty? What are your observations on the well-being conditions of these animals in captivity? Maybe we could start with Dr. Lueders.
Dr. Lueders: No. I completely disagree. This is why I have been working at African Lion Safari and many other different facilities for many years. I can see that these elephants thrive well. They have their families and bonds with their keepers. I strongly believe that these animals have a good quality of life. Obviously, there are always good and bad zoos. There is always room for improvement. I think the entire zoo community has improved a lot over the past 20 years. I disagree with calling keeping an animal in captivity cruelty, because then we would have to rethink our entire system of humans and animals.
Dr. Schmitt: No. In fact, when Asian elephants were being brought in — they are no longer coming in — they were captive elephants that came from government camps that were bred to wild bulls. The bulls would come in and breed them. They weren’t taken from the wild. They were captive elephants brought to North America.
Dr. Stremme: As I stated already, I completely disagree with that generalized statement. Of course, as Dr. Lueders said, cruelty can occur in captivity if the conditions are not correct, but I completely disagree with generally stating that keeping elephants and apes in captivity is automatically cruelty.
I see many zoos — including some in Canada — that provide very good welfare for the animals, and the elephants there do not suffer. Their welfare needs are very well met.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
My second question is for Dr. Schmitt. Arguments in Bill S-15 state that elephants must have large spaces to walk daily to ensure their well-being based on the idea that elephants in the wild cover great distances every single day. But in your introduction, you were stating that the distance travelled by elephants varies significantly depending on the availability of food and water, and that some elephants in the wild — in environments where these resources are abundant — travel just a small number of kilometres a day.
African Lion Safari offers 200 acres of land for its Asian elephants. That — even for me in Saskatchewan — seems to be a substantial space. In your opinion, Dr. Schmitt, is this space sufficient to ensure the well-being of the Asian elephants, and do you think it’s reasonable to qualify the captivity of these elephants as cruel?
Dr. Schmitt: I have actually been to African Lion Safari several times. Most recently, I interacted with them in the environment outside, and it certainly isn’t cruelty. They’re monitored. Actually, to put it in a broader picture, I agree that there is no cruelty involved. They are given a lot of free choice at African Lion Safari. Yes, there are times when they don’t need to be given free choice. It’s for their own welfare, when they may not make the best decisions themselves. It’s not cruelty to reduce their choices.
Senator Batters: Thank you, and in your opinion, does 200 acres of land seem to be sufficient, space-wise?
Dr. Schmitt: Yes, ma’am.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: First, I want to thank the witnesses. I understand one is in Germany, so it is rather late in the evening. The other is in Indonesia, and I see that on the clock behind you, it’s almost five o’clock in the morning, so we appreciate the fact that you are here with us today. Thank you for that.
My question is for all of you. You seem to favour the model of African Lion Safari. I suppose you are aware that in 2021, they attempted to sell two Asian elephants to a zoo in Texas for $1 million each in a transaction that would have broken up two mother-daughter pairs of elephants, who normally stay together for life. Do you support that kind of transaction? Do you think it’s in the best interest of the animals?
Dr. Lueders: One always has to look at the situation. Of course, ideally, mothers and daughters should stay together. These are some of the policies — this is what we feel is best, and it mimics nature. However, there is evidence that in some instances, mothers and daughters do not get along in the long run when new babies are born. At African Lion Safari, there is frequent birthing occurring. That also means that sometimes, if there are youngsters coming, there can also be — at least, I’ve seen it in one case where the mother is not really happy having the daughter around anymore. Sometimes, other members of the family do not accept a female, and this disrupts the entire group. In that situation, in all zoos around the world, single decisions are made to take certain animals out. One has to see it as a case-by-case scenario.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. I don’t want to interrupt, but my time is limited. I understand from your answer that the general principle is that you should avoid separating them, but in exceptional circumstances, when there is some bad relationships between some members of the group, it could be the proper thing to do.
Were you involved in 2021 in the decision to send these two young elephants to Texas?
Dr. Lueders: No, I was not involved.
Senator Dalphond: You were not consulted. You were not asked if it was a case of an exceptional situation.
Dr. Lueders: No, I was not around at this time and was not involved. I cannot say more.
Dr. Stremme: I work a lot with wild elephants and — as I said — manage a conservation program in Indonesia. It is mostly the case that female daughters stay for most of their lives in the same group as their mothers, but that does not always happen. It also happens in the wild that, of course, if a herd continues to breed and grow, groups split up. It can also happen that, actually, daughters separate from their mother’s group. That is not completely unnatural. More often, it happens that they stay with their mother’s group, but it’s not completely, 100% the rule.
Also, it happens in nature that mothers die and the daughters get separated. Therefore, it’s not completely unnatural if, in some cases in a captive environment, calves, at an age when they are already productive — I understood that they were at the ages of 8 and 15, so at ages when these young females were already productive — are separated from their mother and their mother’s herd.
Senator Dalphond: Okay, I understand you agree with your colleagues that it’s not the normal thing to do.
Were you involved in the decision to sell these elephants to the Texas circus?
Dr. Stremme: No, not at all. I’m not involved with African Lion Safari. I’ve visited African Lion Safari, but I’m not a consultant. I’m not involved in any way.
Senator Dalphond: If the sole purpose is not to remove some problematic elephant from a group where the relationship is bad, but rather it is done for breeding in another zoo, do you think it’s a good decision?
Dr. Stremme: For me, that would also be a viable decision. If you have a growing population in your own facility, and if you have the goal — which I support — of maintaining a self-sustaining, breeding captive population, of course you have to exchange animals between facilities. This is to create as large as possible a breeding population between different facilities, which also ensures the highest genetic variety. Therefore, I would definitely encourage an exchange of animals between different captive facilities.
Which one and how we do that — whether we exchange single animals, small groups or mothers with calves — needs to be decided from case to case, and it also depends on the characteristics of the individuals.
Dr. Lueders: Also, at that time, those two females were only with their father. There was no other breeding bull. At a certain stage, these animals need to be bred to keep them healthy and get them going. I think this can also play a part in a decision to exchange females if there is no other bull than their own father.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m wondering about the relationship between elephants and humans, and I’m trying to draw a parallel with horses. Senator Dalphond’s questions could also be applied to horses. I read that elephants are animals that can be domesticated, even self-domesticated. I’ve been to Kruger Park —
[English]
Dr. Stremme: I’m sorry. I’m not getting interpretation.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, do you mind if I call on another senator and come back to you, to make sure they get translation? Is that acceptable? Okay, thank you.
Senator Simons: A few of you made reference to the idea of having a gene pool, and that one of the reasons you saw conservation value in having captive elephants was to have a gene pool that could be dipped into if need be. How practical is that, especially, as you were noting, at African Lion Safari, where they don’t have enough males that are unrelated to the females to make a legitimate breeding population? Could you explain in a bit more detail where you could see the conservation value in maintaining these species in captivity, and if that kind of gene pool is legitimately useful?
Dr. Lueders: That is because a place like African Lion Safari doesn’t stand out as a single point for breeding elephants. It’s all connected through the Species Survival Plan Program in North America. That is why it’s also vital to exchange animals with the U.S. This is why they are all kind of together in a breeding plan. African Lion Safari, for example, has given two male elephants to Europe, and they have both been really successful breeding bulls here in European zoos. They have really supported the growth of our population in Europe, which, as I mentioned earlier, is now self-sustaining, so we are at a level where we can say we have enough births every year to outweigh the deaths, and the population can live on without further imports of elephants.
Within that pool of elephants that we exchange for breeding, we say we have enough genetic variation in case of a total crash. For example, in the case of a wild population, we can take animals out in the future for breeding programs to be later put back in their natural habitat. But at the moment, giving elephants back to the natural habitat is not realistic, because in all those range countries, no country wants more elephants — that’s the other sad story — because the habitats are shrinking.
Senator Simons: That leads to two questions. One is this: How likely is it to have a total collapse? This is a time when Botswana got salty the other day and threatened to send a bunch of elephants to Germany and Great Britain if they didn’t stop making comments about their animal management laws. How realistic is the idea that there could be a collapse?
Then I have a second, more technical question: Can elephants be bred in this way, with frozen sperm samples and donor eggs? For horses, dogs and cattle, that’s quite commonplace.
Dr. Lueders: I cannot predict how realistic it is, but it’s not unrealistic, given the current population growth and other threats, especially for Asian elephants; I’m talking about Asian elephants right now. We definitely don’t know what will happen in the future. Fragmentation is a problem. It’s always good to have the knowledge now and not start too late, like with the northern white rhinos, where we have only two animals left. Then we try to do something, and it’s way too late.
To the second question, yes, frozen semen has been used in African elephants to fertilize females, so it’s a great way of exchanging genetics. It has not yet been successful in Asian elephants to the point where a live calf was born.
Senator Simons: Really? That’s interesting. I wonder why there is a difference.
Dr. Schmitt: I can speak to that. There are differences in sperm membranes and morphology between Asian and African elephants. That is the simple answer.
Senator Simons: Now I know.
Senator Pate: My question is for each of you.
It sounds like your livelihoods depend upon the continuation of animals in captivity, elephants in particular. If that’s not true, please indicate otherwise. That would be great.
My question is this: Have any of your organizations been involved in the training or husbandry of animals with bullhooks, or ankushas, which are banned by the American association but not the Canadian and which have been used, we understand, used by Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey. If so, what can you tell us about the use of those weapons or instruments — however you would refer to them — on elephants?
Dr. Stremme: My livelihood does not depend on captive elephants. I’m working with elephants, wild and captive, because I’ve decided to. I would probably make a better living, financially, working as a livestock vet in Germany than as an elephant vet in Southeast Asia.
I’m a former elephant keeper myself. I’ve worked with elephants myself and have worked, hands on, using management tools such as a bullhook or guide. The name doesn’t matter; it’s the same tool. If it is used in the right way, it is not cruel. It’s a management tool. It’s the same with a hammer: You can kill somebody with a hammer — beating them on the head — or you can construct something using a hammer. The same applies to the leash of a dog. You can use the leash of a dog to guide a dog properly, or you can use a leash of a dog to beat them to death.
The same applies for other management tools and other animals we have in captivity, such as horses and so on. So it’s not a question whether it’s a good or bad tool; it’s a question of how this tool is used and applied, and what kinds of management and training strategies are applied.
Working in Asia with many different Asian captive elephant cultures over several years, I must say that, in Asia, the tradition that I use to tame and train elephants that I captured from the wild partially do incorporate harsh procedures. Those have never been Asia-reviewed. Actually, in Asian countries, we have benefited from modern, more welfare-conformed training and handling methods that have been developed in European and American zoos over the past 50 years, where people try to think past traditions and ask how it can be done better to conform with the animal’s behaviour.
We’ve actually also had some trainers, including from African Lion Safari, visit facilities where I’m working here in Indonesia and training mahouts on better welfare and handling methods. That’s made a very significant impact on the handling of elephants, especially of the captive-born calves here.
Dr. Schmitt: I would add to Christopher’s comments that it’s how you use the tool. The example the hammer brought back to me that when I was in an Asian country, they were using hammers for the elephants. There were more abscesses than anywhere I had seen on elephants because of the inappropriate use of a hammer to guide and work with the elephants.
I was in a Western zoo, and you don’t think of pliers as being a cruel thing, but they were bragging they weren’t using a bullhook or guide. They were taking pliers and pinching the elephants’ skin. That was much more cruel. The pressure that might be applied — they’re not swinging at the elephants with their guides. They are just using them as a cue. It depends on how it’s used, what it is used for and the environment it’s used in.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m wondering about the relationship between elephants and humans, and I’m trying to compare it to the relationship between horses and humans. I see many similarities between horses and elephants when it comes to transporting people and working. In the past, elephants have even been used in warfare, just as horses were. Elephants seem to be fairly easy to domesticate. I even read an article by Limor Raviv that talked about elephant self-domestication and how elephants are very similar to horses.
I’d like to hear from you on this aspect, namely how elephants are similar to horses. In other words, are we putting elephant captivity on trial, whereas for horses, it’s the same thing and they are no more traumatized than elephants?
The Chair: To whom are you addressing your question?
Senator Carignan: To the whole group.
[English]
Dr. Lueders: I would say yes and no. There is a long history, with both elephants and horses, with humans. It’s difficult to say, but elephants are more intelligent. Their cognitive abilities are so much higher and it is much easier to work with and teach them things. It forms a much stronger bond once the elephant has understood the communication.
It’s actually very impressive, if you have the chance to go to African Lion Safari, that they can let those elephants roam around these 200 acres and they, with a very low voice, call each elephant by their name. They know exactly when to come and what to do. They have learned more than 50 different word commands and can act fast. That is very impressive to me.
Of course, we do train and form bonds with horses. However, with an elephant, it’s a more intense relationship.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Actually, what I’m asking you is whether elephants suffer any more than horses do from the presence of humans, for example.
[English]
Dr. Lueders: No. In my opinion, elephants do not suffer from the presence of humans. I’ve never seen elephants running away from humans in zoo facilities. They always come to see what’s happening. They want to be with the people and to interact.
Dr. Stremme: In the conservation program that I’m managing in Indonesia, we also employ trained captive elephants for forest patrols inside the national park. These elephants have developed very strong bonds with their keepers.
Every day, during certain hours, these elephants are let free for grazing in the national park. These elephants could walk away and leave and not come back, but they don’t. They always come back to the camp because they have become accustomed to living with the people and with their caretakers as part of their families. They have a very close emotional bond.
I have several years of experience working as an elephant keeper myself. Every day, in the morning, we came into the elephants’ barn. The elephants got excited, like with a herd mate, trumpeting and greeting the person, like dogs do when their master comes back. With good management, it’s a very positive relationship.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, if you can indulge me for two minutes, I’ll give one minute to Senator Klyne and one minute to Senator Plett for the last questions.
Senator Klyne: Thank you, chair.
This could be for anyone. I could pose it to Dr. Lueders, or anyone who wants to jump in.
If this committee concludes elephants generally suffer in captivity at zoos as compared to sanctuaries or the wild, do you think it’s justified to keep them in North America for public display purposes, or for doing exchanges for breeding in Europe, or for elephant rides and performances for entertainment purposes, including circus-like tricks?
The Chair: Can you tell us who you want to answer?
Senator Klyne: Dr. Lueders.
Dr. Lueders: Yes. I strongly believe it shows their abilities to the public — that it’s not just animals standing around in a paddock doing nothing. Through doing tricks, shows and showing what they can do, you can show how smart, intelligent and fragile these elephants are. Also, I think that people should become more involved and admire these elephants in that way. I strongly believe, for that reason, it’s justified for them to be in captivity.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Very quickly — Dr. Schmitt, you have addressed some of this already. You said you were a member of the IUCN Asian Elephant Specialist Group. Can you tell this committee what the IUCN’s position is on elephants held in captivity and why the committee should place value on that position?
Dr. Schmitt: I’m a member of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group. I’m not a member of the African Elephant Specialist Group, which have two very different opinions regarding that.
The Asian Elephant Specialist Group recognizes that a third of the Asian elephants currently living are in human care, so we need to provide guidance for different countries regarding the conservation of those elephants as well.
Senator Plett: Thank you, sir. Thank you to the rest of the panel for being here; I appreciate it.
The Chair: Thank you, all three of you, for your presentations and your patience in answering our questions.
Senators, thank you for indulging me for a few minutes.
(The committee adjourned.)