Ah. So if China were to capture entire families of elephants, you'd be ok with it?

I'm just trying to determine where the line is.

I went to a zoo a couple months ago. The elephants' tusks were cut, presumably so that the elephants wouldn't be able to impale each other. That was a bit too sad for me to want to go back to zoos anymore.

> Ah. So if China were to capture entire families of elephants, you'd be ok with it?

Ok? No. It would be slightly less terrible though. And if the elephants had "ok" living conditions, not like cages where they can't move.

> I'm just trying to determine where the line is.

Like with most things, there isn't really one.

> I went to a zoo a couple months ago. The elephants' tusks were cut, presumably so that the elephants wouldn't be able to impale each other. That was a bit too sad for me to want to go back to zoos anymore.

I don't go to zoos and I wish they were closed.

I go to zoos somewhat frequently, mostly the National Zoo in D.C. and Omaha zoo, both well-regarded. Neither or them cut the tusks of their elephants. I wouldn't expect any zoo would cut the tusk to prevent them from harming one another, because elephants are perfectly capable of killing each other without the tusks. There are a couple reasons why you might have seen that, aside from animal cruelty.

1. They were rescued from another facility that cut the tusks.

2. The tusks weren't actually cut. You don't elaborate on what you mean by "cut," perhaps you mean you see the large base of tusks but very short and clearly cut by a saw or something. But if you just mean the tusks are very short or absent, that's actually somewhat common, especially in Asian elephants.

3. Depending on where this zoo is, the zoo could have been worried about poachers. There have been incidents where poachers have broken into zoos and killing elephants and rhinos for their ivory.

In response to your question about capturing elephants in the wild, my response is that the primary moral imperative here is the preservation of the species. If the limited capture of a small number of elephants was being done as part of a plan to reintroduce elephants to a region where they have gone extinct, I would be in favor of that. If these elephants were going to a respected zoo as part of a breeding program with goals to re-vitalize the species, I would be in favor of that. I would even consider arguments that taking a few elephants to a respected zoo for research or education purposes would be better for the long-term survival of the species, though I generally reject that idea because there are a sufficient number of elephants available for rescue that are not capable of entering/returning to the wild.

As an example, the African elephants at the Omaha zoo previously lived in a wildlife preserve in Swaziland. But a record drought threatened their survival. By moving the elephants to a zoo, they reduced the elephant population in the park, leaving enough resources for the other animals in the park to survive. http://www.omaha.com/living/zoo/year-later-elephants-have-ma...

> The elephants' tusks were cut, presumably so that the elephants wouldn't be able to impale each other.

It may be to prevent someone killing the animal for the ivory.

A French zoo had one of its rhinos killed for its horn: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/03/09/a...

> The elephants' tusks were cut, presumably so that the elephants wouldn't be able to impale each other. That was a bit too sad for me to want to go back to zoos anymore.

Hint: the same is being done in mass animal production - pigs have their tails capped to prevent cannibalism from boredom, and chickens get "debeaked" (yeah it's an actual word). Male chicks actually get gassed or shredded alive (!) to death right after hatching because they're fairly useless for the meat production. Sows are often restricted in movement after giving birth so they cannot accidentally crush the piglets due to the litters being too large, and the conditions on transports to slaughterhouses... let's just say that's bordering on torture.

True. Also, it occurred to me just now that maybe the elephants' tusks were already cut before they arrived at the zoo, and the zoo was protecting them. So I don't know enough about it.

> Male chicks actually get gassed or shredded alive (!) to death right after hatching because they're fairly useless for the meat production.

This isn't true. Most male chicks are slaughtered as broilers, just like most female chicks. (In fact broilers were initially the males that were culled from the egg-laying females.)

Sadly that part is true. The actual method used to slaughter them is fairly humane (they're crushed to death almost instantly) but the male chicks do get killed since there's no economic benefit in raising them.

This isn't true for chickens raised for meat. If you buy a "broiler" chicken at the store, it's as likely to be male as female. (Actually probably slightly more likely to be male since they raise fewer to adulthood for breeding.)

It is (the video is disturbing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vgTLkE3uqk

This might indeed be the case for chickens raised for egg laying. The GP referred to raising chickens for meat. Males are definitely raised for meat (but slaughtered as juveniles, just like most females).

But yeah, that video is disturbing.

Sorry for the confusion - I summed up meat and egg production. However I believe that, same as with pigs/boars, male chicken meat isn't too desirable either, and you don't want male chickens fighting in the herd or impregnating the hens.

Broilers are slaughtered as juveniles so the meat is essentially indistinguishable.

To be clear, I'm not pro-factory farming or chicken cruelty. Just saying that when you buy a broiler chicken, it's about 50% likely to be a male.

Hmm. Did some more research. Seems that male chickens are discouraged for meat because they grow slower and need more food to gain the same net meat: https://web.archive.org/web/20131226071033/http://www.br.de/...

Might be possible that's a German uniqueness, can't tell about the US.

My understanding has always been that for broilers, the difference is minimal. And so farms raise both.

For older chickens, yes. The difference is important.