Content uploaded by Ingrid C. Suter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ingrid C. Suter on Nov 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
38
It would be difcult to nd a sector of the tourism
industry more polarising than Asian elephant
tourism. For thousands of years Asian elephants
have played both practical and symbolic roles
for humanity; shaping human settlements
and holding prestigious positions in religious
ceremony. But it seems captive elephants and
their current role in modern-day society are
facing their highest level of scrutiny and criticism
yet. Fervent Western values imposed onto
countries with vastly different socio-economic
and geopolitical contexts are threatening to undo
the positive changes that are quietly occurring at
many elephant camps. Instant industry reform
at all elephant camps is logistically unfeasible;
there are over 10,000 captive Asian elephants
that need managing. But positive industry change
has begun to occur and it’s time to acknowledge
the progressive changes in attitudes and welfare
that are being implemented. Elephant-based
tourism and the management of a substantial
population of endangered species requires a fresh
and holistic approach. The combination of visitor
needs and endangered species conservation will
always be controversial, but a voice needs to be
given to the quiet achievers of the industry, not
just the loud and powerful international animal
welfare organisations.
It is common for tourists to seek out wildlife
encounters while holidaying. Particularly within
southeast Asia, there is a compelling desire for
visitors to experience elephant-based tourism. Yet
it seems barely a month can pass without another
media article emerging, describing the appalling
conditions captive elephants throughout southeast
Asia are kept. Images of captive elephants being
‘broken in’ by men intent on capitalising of the
growing elephant tourism trade, or elephants
collapsing from heat exhausting while working
in extreme temperatures. While these stories can
Short Communication Gajah 50 (2019) 38-40
In Defence of Elephant Tourism: The Role of Captive Elephants in the 21st Century
Ingrid Suter
Asian Captive Elephant Standards (ACES), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Author’s e-mail: icsuter@hotmail.com
© 2019 The Author - Open Access
be disturbing, and animal cruelty is in no way
condoned, the validity or legitimacy of the content
is rarely disputed or constructively analysed. Old
footage is often recirculated with the advent of
another sensational exposé into elephant tourism.
Animal rights organisations frequently call for
the total ban of all elephant-based tourism and
the release of captive elephants into the wild.
These images and representations rarely offer a
balanced, unbiased view of elephant tourism or
the complex nature of Asian elephant ownership
and endangered species management. In some
cases, reactive and short-sighted boycotts of
elephant-based tourism may do more harm than
good for captive elephant welfare.
Western tourists in particular hold very strong
emotions and values about the ethics surrounding
elephant riding, elephant shows and other
perceived ‘unnatural’ behaviours that elephants
are ‘forced’ to participate in. Emotive words
such as fear, suffering, agony and torture are
commonly used throughout articles discussing
elephant tourism. Yet the sources and accuracy of
these statements are seemingly never questioned
or analysed in-depth. Most information regarding
elephant tourism is distributed by a handful
of animal welfare activist organisations such
as Word Animal Protection, PETA and IFAW.
Rarely offering peer-reviewed substantiation,
animal rights organisations all have their own
agendas to push and rely on media sensationalism
to drive their campaigns and raise donations.
Of course, no one wishes to support a harmful
industry, and some tour operators have banned
selling elephant-based tourism products for
fear of supporting cruel practises. While this is
commendable, bans and boycotts often have the
reverse effect and can actually reduce positive
industry changes. The visitors are still visiting
the elephant camps. But without consultation and
39
discourse from leading elephant experts or tour
operators, unscrupulous elephant camps have
zero incentive to improve elephant care.
Visitor education and evidence-based awareness
around what constitutes elephant cruelty is sorely
lacking. If done correctly, riding an elephant is
not harmful and can actually be benecial to
the elephant. Evidence suggests that the captive
elephants participating in riding activities have
better body score conditions and general health
outcomes than captive elephants that do not
undertake riding. Adult Asian elephants are easily
capable of carrying 200–300 kg on their back,
and benet from a minimum of eight kilometres
of gentle walking each day. If used appropriately
the ankus is a guiding tool, not a cruel weapon
of torture. Asian elephant experts all agree on
these statements, yet years of academic research
and evidence is overshadowed by reactive
and emotive arguments that perpetuate old
stereotypes about the inherent inhuman nature of
elephant tourism.
Captive elephants were once commonplace in
villages throughout southeast Asia. Used by
royalty and peasants alike, elephant relationships
are both symbolic and utilitarian. These
complicated and intimate connection between
human and elephant still have a role in the 21st
century. To argue that every community in
southeast Asia that keeps elephants must now
stop is to sever thousands of years of cultural and
religious practise, and deep knowledge about
living with these animals. This is not to say that
all traditional methods of training and care need
to continue – every culture adapts and evolves
to modern-day technology, industry and ethical
changes.
A constant criticism pitted against elephant
tourism is that young calves are separated from
their mothers at birth and forced into submission
using severe punishment techniques and beatings.
While this practice may infrequently occur in
remote regions of Thailand, these days the vast
majority of calves at elephant camps are born
into captivity. Most calves are reared alongside
their mother, are allowed to suckle freely, and
are naturally weaned from their mother around
age four. Neither cow nor calf engage in tourism
practises during these years, except for passive
walking and feeding. In general, most elephant
calves are very spoiled. Calves are trained from
birth by experienced national and international
mahouts using positive training methodologies
(for an example, see H-ELP). The perpetual
folklore that all captive calves are whipped,
beaten and ‘broken in’ by mahouts is designed to
be divisive. This old stereotype creates mistrust
between foreigners and locals and polarises the
issue further.
While some elephant camps are exploring the
possibility of wild reintroductions, the majority
of captive elephants are not in the position
to be released. Habitat destruction, forest
fragmentation, poaching and human-elephant
conict means reintroduction is currently a
largely unfeasible option. An intelligent approach
to the issue of elephant welfare and management
would be to work alongside governments and
individual camps to develop and implement high
standards of welfare, conservation and breeding
for the captive elephants that currently need it.
Yet a growing number of Western tour operators
have banned the sale of elephant-based tourism
products, citing animal welfare concerns and an
unwillingness to support animal cruelty. But as
with most things, a total ban rarely produces the
40
desired result. A boycott on all elephant tourism
does not incentivize poor camps to improve
their practises. Banning all elephant tourism
disempowers local communities; reduces local
employment, while ignoring the point that
captive elephants rarely have the option of
successful reintroduction into the wild. Tour
operators are simply hoping that elephant tourism
will miraculously x itself or disappear entirely,
without recognising the positive and real impact
their own patronage can have in affecting change
in struggling communities that may need their
continued assistance.
An elephant camp that harms elephants should
not be supported. But banning all elephant-
based tourism will not improve elephant welfare
standards. Banning all elephant-based tourism
doesn’t reward camps that promote high levels
of elephant welfare and conservation strategies.
Banning elephant tourism simply perpetuates
poor camp conditions. A better strategy would
be for tour operators to promote and visit
elephant camps that have strong animal welfare
procedures, passive elephant viewing, and
supporting the camps that engage in sustainable,
local community engagement and species
conservation. Those poor-quality camps are still
open and operating– but they are shut out of the
discourse and are given no opportunity or reason
to improve their welfare practices. Instead they
attract a visitor demographic that may not worry
about animal welfare. This does not assist the
end goal of providing a better quality of life for
captive elephants.
Further, the captive Asian elephant population is
relatively large and should be afforded the same
conservation goals and outcomes of wild elephant
populations. If anything, the captive elephant
population is in a unique position as their age,
sex and reproductive ability has the potential to
be saving reservoirs for species continuity. As
wild elephant numbers continue to decline, the
captive elephant population can be managed,
maintained and even increased. This in itself is
a compelling enough reason to ensure that the
welfare of captive elephants is protected. To ban
elephant tourism is to stop the ow of funding
and research to this core elephant population. It
is time to think strategically about what captive
elephant management can bring the species as a
whole. Calling for a total ban will not improve or
increase the number of this endangered species.
Positive changes in elephant-based tourism
are already occurring. Accreditation standards
for elephant camps are being trialled and
implemented throughout camps in southeast
Asia. Asian elephant experts have collaborated to
create an extensive collection of elephant camp
standards; covering issues such as veterinary care,
dietary requirements, living shelters, exercise,
socialisation, positive reinforcement techniques,
mahout training and much more. Camps are
volunteering to be assessed and critiqued. This
willingness and openness to change should be
supported, as these camps are leading the way
in elephant welfare, transparency and ensuring a
high level of animal welfare is standard practice.
Creating a benchmark of targets to meet gives all
elephant camps the ability to create changes in
areas they may lack knowledge or guidance.
Tourists also have the ability to improve elephant
tourism and elephant welfare by supporting
elephant camps. There is nothing morally or
ethically wrong in wanting to enjoy an elephant
experience while on holiday. Visitors should be
empowered into making an educated choice and
seek out camps that have standards reecting a
high level of elephant care. Banning all tourism
does not achieve anything. It simply reinforces
stereotypes and does not motivate elephant camp
managers to improve their standards.