Elephant

Appendix

Figure 1. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606230/Heartbreaking-aerial-images-bodies-elephants-slaughtered-vicious-poachers-lying-Kenyan-wilderness.html

Figure 2.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/19/elephant_tug_of_war_the_story_of_the_toronto_zoo_transfer.html

Elephant 5

References 

Berger, John

1980    “Why Look at Animals?” in The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings. Eds Linda Kalof and Amy Fitzgerald: Berg Publishing, 2007: - Uk and New York.

Mason, Jeffrey Moussaieff, McCarthy, Susan

1995    Greif, Sadness, and The Bones of Elephants. In The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings. Eds Linda Kalof and Amy Fitzgerald: Berg Publishing, 2007: - Uk and New York.       

Mendelson, Rachel

2013    “What’s Best For Aging Limba?”  The Toronto Star, GT1; GTA. Saturday July 27.

Singer, Peter

1987    “Animal Liberation or Animal Rights?”  In The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and Contemporary Writings. Eds Linda Kalof and Amy Fitzgerald: Berg Publishing, 2007: - Uk and New York.

Wylie, Daniel

2008    Elephant. REAKTION Books LTD: London, UK.

Elephant 4

     The main theme that emerged from all the sources and writing on elephants is their treatment by humans and the debate of animal rights and liberation. I will have to say that I am surprised that that was the main theme that came out of this paper as that was not the intention when the paper was first thought of. The sources used seem to have guided and lead to this being the main theme of the paper even though it was unintended. I tend to agree with Peter Singer that there is a difference between animal rights and animal liberation.  The main idea is that animals should not be treated in a manner less than humans in that we are all living creatures. Animals are to be treated fairly and taken care of and not be kept in captivity. Singer when he speaks on liberation is referring more to animals been either kept in captivity or raised in questionable conditions for human consumption.

            One might argue that we as humans are above other animals because we can convey conscious thoughts and recognizes other beings also. Humans because we are considered ruler of other animals are entitled to capture and breed for consumption other animals. Others will disagree with that argument and so the discussion will continue and people will continue to have their own opinions and arguments to support their stance. I for one am not a vegetarian; I do eat meat so I am not arguing that animals should not be consumed. One only has look in nature to see specie consuming another it is the way of survival. What I will argue is that there acceptable ways of treating animals even those raised for consumption.

Elephant 3

Figure 1 Taken from the dailymail.co.uk

The image above shows 5 of 11 elephants that were killed by poachers in the Tsavo conservation Area in Kenya in January 2014. Poaching is a real problem for elephants whether in protected lands or not depicted in the image above. Elephants have no natural predators except for humans. The image above caught my attention when I did a simple search on elephants. To me it is a reflection of the danger posed to these animals from us humans. The conservation area is a place that should have allowed these animals to roam free from danger of being poached. This image I think is a perfect example of the “rupture” that Berger talks about of man from nature (Berger, p. 252). This rupture is to me the senseless killing of these animals. Berger talks of the relationship that man and animals once had where man depended on animals for labour, clothing etc. an animal would not have been killed just for the act of killing. 

I would have to agree with Berger in that animals were dependent on for survival and so were taken care of and not ill treated or killed. I question what is happening in areas that are not as well patrolled or easily seen as the conservation area. Peter Singer’s article on animal rights and animal liberation also applies to this image a because if animals are afforded the same rights as humans then the above image would be shocking and maybe they would happen less frequently.

Figure 2 Taken from the Toronto Star.com

The image above is of 2 of the first elephants to arrive at the Toronto Zoo in 1974.  What is interesting about the image above is the chains that a visible around the ankles of the elephants. These elephants had become the centre of a headed debate about their welfare and relocation to a animal sanctuary in California. These animals are aging and it has been decided that the elephant exhibit at the Toronto zoo is too costly to be sustained and revived and therefore the zoo claims for financial and not ethical reasons the will close the elephant display and the existing elephants will be relocated. My first thought when I saw this image was why would they need to have chains on because they are leaving and then I also realized that I would not accept any explanation given as valid and therefore I have drawn a foregone conclusion that they should not have chains on no matter the reason.

The article by Rachel Mendelson “What’s Best For Aging Limba?” could very well have been written for these elephants of the Toronto zoo. Their continued captivity, even after it has been proven that it is putting them at serious risk of death and, is very un-healthy for the animals and their welfare seems to be neglected and ignored by zoo officials. The animals’ welfare need to be taken into account and what is best for them is for them to be relocated to a habitat more suitable to and similar to their natural environment. Hopefully the planned relocation becomes a reality after more than 18 months of delay since the decision was made to move them.