Elephants are one of the most majestic creatures on the planet today. Since ivory is in such high demand, illegal poaching of elephants is happening all over the world. Illegal hunting and killing of elephants is causing these animals to be held in captivity so that they are not killed in their natural habitats. Unfortunately, zoos are considered to be amusing and entertaining. This may be the case to a degree, however, to hold massive land animals that are born and raised in the wild and moving them to extremely confined spaces is immoral. According to researchers, the longevity of an elephant's life is based on diet and exercise, reproduction in females and companionship, just like humans. All three of which are not met to full potential locked inside a minuscule-gated area compared to the vast environment that they naturally belong in. In order to keep a population of elephants alive, a plan must be implemented to change how this issue is being solved unethically. People do not understand the vital role that elephants serve in the wild. Outsiders may wonder why exactly it is important to save the elephants, and it is because they are imperative to African ecosystems for various ecological reasons. Zoos should consider that their idea of saving the elephant species is actually killing them faster. Holding elephants captive to save them from poachers and use them for public entertainment by placing them in an unhealthy environment is counterproductive. 

To begin, a zoo as most people know it is meant for entertainment and tourist attraction. From the outside looking in, it is easy to see a zoo as a beneficial part of many communities. However, the effects that zoos have on many endangered species, elephants in this case, is life threatening. Elephants need an immense amount of space and care in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Despite their efforts, zoos do not have viable conditions for the elephant population. According to researchers who did a study that compared survivorship between wild caught elephants and captive born elephants, the welfare of an elephant that is not left in the wild is jeopardized. During this study, it was proven that zoos lead elephants to experience "infanticide, Herpes, tuberculosis, and infertility" much more often than elephants that are left in their wild habitats (Clubb). These diseases are transferred to the animal from the harsh conditions that the zoo has. In continuation, "elephants need to be in constant motion" in order to get the exercise that is needed (Saragusty). When an elephant is expected to walk up to 50 miles per day and they are limited to such a confined space is when diseases are formed. Following that idea is where another problem arises, "in zoo environments, elephants are not under pressure to seek food or water, and instead are more prone to obesity" (Posta). But on the contrary, "in the wild they spend most of their days roaming and foraging for food", leaving them to exercise when they do not even realize they are doing so (Posta). Obviously it is apparent that optimal life for an elephant is in their natural habitat when health and exercise is in mind. This fact was proven further when The Times did a study on the 390 elephants that have died in United States zoos in the past 50 years. The results stated that, "most of the elephants died from injury or disease linked to conditions of their captivity, from chronic foot problems caused by standing on hard surfaces to musculoskeletal disorders from inactivity caused by being penned or chained for days and weeks at a time" (Berens). The listed issues that are stated in this claim are among many that would be avoided if the elephants remained where they belong. In the future, it may be possible that zoos become more aware of how harsh their conditions are and will develop better ways to house these animals. But in the grand scheme of things, as of now, zoos are potentially one of the worst environments that an elephant could live in, mainly because of their lack of space.

Furthermore, along with the lack of vast environment that these animals need, the mortality rate for elephants in captivity is excessively high. In comparison to elephants that live in natural habitats, the number of elephants that die long before they are supposed to exceeds the quantity of elephants surviving in the wild. According to a report published by the Seattle Times, "the infant mortality rate of elephant in U.S. zoos was almost triple that of elephants in the wild. 'Of the 321 elephant deaths ... half were dead by age 23, more than a quarter of a century before their expected life spans of 50 to 60 years'" (Russo). The relevance of this idea is that it is a reality. It is no longer an opinion, but rather a fact, that zoos do more damage to elephants than the wild. Russo uses this evidence to exemplify how experts on elephants are refuting the idea that the 18 African elephants should be imported into America and put into zoos dispersed around the country. Russo is not the only one to publish claims against keeping elephants captive. An interesting statistic was broadcasted after a zoo in Springfield lost one of their elephants. According to zoo-industry research, "for every elephant born in a zoo, on average another two die. At that rate, the 288 elephants inside 78 U.S. zoos could be "demographically extinct" within the next 50 years because there'll be too few fertile females left to breed" (Berens). The increasing number of deaths that elephants are exposed to in zoos will fail to subside if actions are not taken to prevent the importation of elephants to the United States. In captivity, elephant husbandry is far from optimal (Bacon). In order to maintain this better outsiders must understand that stress on an elephant from losing their young is very unhealthy for them. Elephant calves are supposed to be born into the vast environment that their mother is aware of; when the calf is born in a zoo it automatically has a higher mortality rate than any elephant calf born in the wild. This is a consequence of the chronic physical ailments they endure. This statistic goes to show that it is counterproductive to bring a mother and her calf into a zoo where they could both die, rather than keep them in their environments where they live much more healthier. Also, a valid reason to keep the female elephant and her young in the wild is because by taking them out of this area is detriments the ecosystem they belong too.

Lastly, similarly to humans, elephants suffer from extreme separation anxiety when taken away from their own. Elephants have the cognitive ability to know when they are forced to part from their family. The biggest issue with this is that "too often baby elephants born in zoos are later separated from their mothers and sent to other zoos," when forced to split up from their mothers this causes depression in the elephant calf. In continuation, these social animals prefer "living in herds at least a half-dozen strong" which zoos are incapable of allowing (Berger). Unfortunately, zoos cannot withhold that large of a population of elephants because the living conditions would become increasingly worse. Due to this issue, elephants inhabited in zoos become very distressed. If these elephants were left alone in the wild, they would strive in their herds and only have to avoid natural issues that they are used to. Comparable to many other mammals, an elephant's natural habitat is a key component in survival rates, especially because the relationships with families are very strong. Not only do the elephants dislike being separated from loved ones but they also do not like when new elephants intrude on their habitats. This is where another point arises; "the senior females have a lot to say ...  they do a lot of communications and are not open to newcomers" (Berger). After being separated, more often than not elephants are sent to another zoo. When this occurs, the elephants are uncomfortable which leads to many matriarch issues. The dominant elephant will promote a threat to the newcomer. Elephants, when left alone in the wild, do not have this issue because throughout the duration of their life they stick with their herd. One final problem that emerges when elephants undergo interzoo transfer is the diseases that were mentioned earlier. If an elephant has a disease that can be passed onto another elephant it is crucial to their health. The elephant that is infected can easily pass the disease onto another elephant. This then causes a domino effect with all of the elephants that inhabit that area. This leads to more and more health related issues in more elephants than just the one that the disease started in. 

In addition to that idea, for example, this exact scenario was seen when an Asian female, Hansa, was born at the Woodland Park Zoo. Due to the fact that "they circulated elephants around the country to try to breed much-desired offspring" the "same kind of virus that felled Hansa, now has been found in a dozen zoos" (Berens). This disease would not have circulated around the United States if the elephants were not imported to America by U.S. zoos. In the event that elephants were left in the wild it would be uncommon to see elephants pass on diseases to one another because they do not live in the austere conditions of a zoo. Consequently, by bringing one elephant in that has poor health could be detrimental to a plethora of elephants around the country.

In opposition, many zookeepers around the United States argue that zoos have changed their living situations for the elephant species. This may be the case but the changes in these areas are still not sufficient. A debate between the two arguing sides resulted in the zoos stating, "the number of wild elephants over the last several decades has fallen because of poaching for ivory, habitat loss and human elephant conflicts" (Cohn). Zoos profess in this situation that elephants are safer in a closed, confined area away from poachers despite all of the considerable health risks that a zoo entails. Nevertheless, it is evident that poachers in the wild will kill elephants. This is something that is extremely hard to control. 

To build off of that thought, according to Charles Darwin's Theory of Biology, animals survive in the wild according to natural selection. Natural selection is a theory that describes the idea of survival of the fittest. In this case, it is inevitable to stop poaching because this is a sport to people in other countries. Putting elephants in zoos to avoid being prey to poachers is not a rational enough reason to dump this species population into a health-harming situation. The action of putting elephants in captivity, however, is a conscious decision done by human beings that are aware that the elephants die faster in the zoo conditions than they would by a poacher. Additionally, Kenneth Feld, a CEO of a circus, attests that "we're in the entertainment business. It takes away from the total enjoyment when you're getting yelled at  ...  by these activists" (Ager). As another challenger in this dispute, Feld proves to the media world that they do in fact use the elephants for immoral purposes. The use of elephants for entertainment does not warrant for the stressful, tense setting. All in all, the opposing side to this argument makes good claims but lacks statistical knowledge to support their argument to continue housing elephants in zoos.

Ultimately, the major reason this debate is such a pivotal one for the environmental world is because elephants play a chief role in African, Asian and European ecosystems. It is important for one to realize that an elephant is one of the most amazing creatures, with personality traits such of humans. This is something that is unnoticed and underrated. Elephants in many ways benefit humans and many ecosystems. Expert Cynthia Moss makes an attempt at helping people understand the importance of these animals by speaking about how immoral the actions of moving the elephants are. She says, "What they're doing is farming elephants. They're breeding them to export" (Russo). This claim helps support an argument to keep elephants out of zoos, and ties in with the rest of the controversial issue because it is a point of validity that proves that these organizations are not moving elephants for the proper reasons. They are moving them to zoos to benefit themselves. Elephants cannot perform their necessary actions in a zoo to benefit their ecosystems. Some of the major reasons elephants should remain in their foreign homes are because they have been noted to "maintain the balance of all other species in the community". They do this by "helping to create grasslands for other animals to survive, dig waterholes in dry river beds for other animals to use as a water source ... " (Palca). Without elephants in these areas, many other species would suffer. All elephant and other animal activists continue to voice their opinions and reasoning in hopes to find a way to save the creative, amazing land mammals that one day will go extinct due to the harsh settings they are being forced into.

In conclusion, instead of denying the issues at hand that zoos face every single day, it seems much more reasonable to face the wrongful environment that a zoo is. By doing this it would allow for an elephant to strive much better in the world we live in. The elephant species should grow up in habitats that are healthy and viable, not confined and adverse. Although zoos make forceful arguments, their negatives effects on elephants outweigh the positive ones. It is undeniable that with further research on these amazing animals, one would believe it is healthy for elephants to live in captivity. These captive homes cause them disease, infant mortality and anxiety due to separation from their families. How does that seem fair? With this in mind, by advocating to keep elephants in their original residence, these animals have the potential to prosper and grow again without conflict. Elephants are one of the most critical animals in the African world and by taking them away from these communities it is hurting other life forms; people forget that. In order for endangered species numbers to decrease, it is imperative that we move each individual elephant out of the zoos and back in the natural forests they belong in. By doing so, the health benefits will increase, the mortality rate will decrease and elephants around the world will experience the true, innate happiness that they deserve. Although there are negative outcomes of the wild as well, such as diseases, failure to adapt, irrational behavior towards humans etc, this is why it is called a natural habitat. Animals and humans were born into an environment of their own to prosper, some innate aspects in our world should be left alone. 

