Thank you khunwilko for your thoughtful and insightful posts (hawaiiantraveler, if you're going to make snarky and condescending comments, at least spell the target's name correctly). And thursdaysd, thank you as well.

Thank you for your well thought out comments wiener :)

Oops darn auto correct ;)

Are you channeling Girlspytravel? The former poster who thought she could post any kind of insulting crap as long as she stuck a :-) or ;-) at the end of her dreck? It didn't work for her then and it's not working for you now.

Seems to be working :)

This used to be a site where people could share their travel adventures and others would take or not take the advice. It has now deteriorated into a site of people who will assasinate a thread because they would never travel that way or have different points of view. This is no longer a travel forum it's a forum of people's political beliefs. Sad actually...

I was in Sai Yok and Kanchanaburi on the 26th and 27th of this month - it is an area I'm very familiar with.

Sadly, it seems that form some the definitions of discussion are obscured by their own vitriol......"advice" it appears is something you agree with, and if you don't it is "political".
it's a pity that reasoned argument, logic and critical thinking don't appear to be on within their range.

You miss the whole point but not surprised at all. Another traveler has left this site and will post no more travels reports because of your political beliefs constantly being forced upon them. It's difficult to write a trip report and extremely time consuming. No one enjoys writing one when their mode of travel is ridiculed and berated. Too bad for everyone but you and the few it seems. Enjoy!

Blatant promotion of a favoured 3rd party commercial enterprise is as bad as blatant self promotion. Rather than the opening posting being easy reading and part of a trip report, it's an obvious attempt to promote the business of someone who reading between the lines has become something more than a friend.

I must admit that I find some of the comments on this thread confusing.

The OP provided a description of an experience that he seems to know would be contoversial and offered opinions about the treatment of the elephants that are is difficult to consider authoritative (because by definition, no single visit by a tourist can provide a comprehensive assessment of ongoing animal safety or treatment). The OP points to lots of positive reviews, but without noting the extensive research showing that yes, lots and lots and lots of people can be wrong. I get that people don’t know what they don’t know. And I understand that well-intentioned people are loath to acknowledge the potential unintended, but adverse, consequences of their actions. But it seems to me that if one recommends an experience on a public forum, then it would not be unreasonable for the OP to expect a robust discussion of the pros and cons. Instead, the OP characterized the first questions posted as “negative comments” (why? they were just questions!), offered what seemed to be a less than positive (and IMO unwarranted) characterization of the next few posters without addressing the substance of their comments, and, after offering several other nonresponsive comments that could be construed as pejorative, the OP eventually claimed that people were denying him free speech. Huh?!?

In the meantime, others jumped in to lament that this forum is no longer a place where people can share their travel experiences without being received (to paraphrase based on my reading) with utter enthusiasm, or some such thing. Really? If that was EVER the case, it was, I think, a LONG time ago. I’ve been reading Fodor’s since 2005 and participating since 2006, and IME, some of the posters on this forum have been stunningly viscious in their remarks with notable regularity.

Much more importantly, I must admit that I don’t understand the claims that this thread has been politicized. I would suggest that questioning is not a bad thing, disagreement can be healthy, and exploration of moral / ethical issues is a worthy endeavor. To me, the ability to participate in civil discourse (in both major meanings of the word "civil") is a fundamental requirement for democracy, so I find the suggestion that raising questions, noting points of disagreement, or exploring issues is somehow "political" and should be avoided to be the ONLY potentially “political” slant here -- and it is one that to me hints of fascism. JMO.

By and large, I still find Fodor’s a place where travelers can generally share their experiences, offer and seek advice, and raise issues for a thoughtful and considerate discussion of various perspectives – and I offer my thanks to all of you who have participated on Fodor’s and joined this thread in that spirit.

While I have found the discussion confusing, I have also found the comments illuminating – as back-facing flashlights often are.

LL and kja very well said.

Abusive behavior with demeaning comments about disagreements is juvenile.

I think the problem with the disagreements on this thread is the same as that with current politics in general. There appears to be no middle ground. Each side is absolute in their conviction. So for in this example, the elephants are treated better, but tourists still ride on their backs so we have no progress (according to the naysayers). I for one, believe the naysayers are wrong.

I think kja expressed things very well without pointing fingers as did LL. There was no judgementalism. Most who disagreed gave their reasons, others resorted to innuendo, sniping and name calling. We never resolve anything that way. That’s how I see it.

With respect, Larry.

Craig you are dichotomizing...there are several issues that affect elephant tourism...the riding is just one of the more obvious and a useful yardstick.
As a layperson without long term 24/7 access we are unable to drawn any conclusions about the welfare of elephants in tourism, this is best done by the various NGOs involved.
We also can't deny the almost total lack of government regulation concerning wild and captive elephants
The policy of putting the whole affair in private hands can’t be denied
The result of this is the fragmentation of the elephant industry into small enterprises, which can’t be, could for animals that require huge amounts of space.
The fact that Thailand's elephant industry is 4 times bigger than the rest of Asia's put together should also raise concerns.
The logging industry was illegalized in Thailand 30 years ago and the tourist industry often claims to look after elephants made redundant from the industry (about 3000 animals), yet many of the elephants we see are under 30 - so where do they come from.??
The fact is that the lack of regulation and profitability of the elephant industry has lead to undesirable captive breeding and worse still the pooching and plundering of the wild elephant population in Thailand and neighboring countries.
Baby elephants stay with their mothers a long time 2 to 3 years before they are weaned; they are raised by a collective family. Until it is a teenager the young elephant stays with the herd and learns both physical and social skills.... yet we are repeatedly introduced to baby elephants who have been separated from both mother and herd way to early.
In this way and others elephants are forced into unnatural behaviours, which cause the animals to be stressed.
Training elephants to do tricks is not a happy affair they are forced to do this too, normally with the use of violence to varying degrees...e.g. the bull hook or goad which is used discreetly in sensitive areas - e.g. anus, behind their ears, around their eyes and on their trunk. Areas, which are not routinely checked by tourists, I might add.
Management in many camps is questionable, even if an owner or management claim to be treating their animals well, it is frequently shown that practices by their employees to not comply with this.....how complicit the managers may be themselves is rarely disclosed. Anyhow even if the activity is exposed, there is seldom a Thai law to cover the “offence”. Recent example was that of a tiger being repeatedly poked and a park in Pattaya.
Another problem here is that owners of elephants are frequently completely unqualified to look after these animals and claims of “experience” can turn out to be just a litany of long term abuse by people who no little more that folkloric methods of husbandry.... for example th much promulgated myths surrounding the mahout.
So just claiming the elephants are “better off” - may actually be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.
The unemployed elephant population was the result of government action to end logging and preserve forests.....this is itself was a great idea, but they have failed to address the resultant captive elephant population and hoped that “private enterprise” would solve the problem - patently it has not. Some things are better handled by the state and animal welfare is IMO one of them.
There needs to be a policy of housing elephants in an environment that allows them to carry out their days in as near as possible a natural environment. This is possible in Thailand and their is space. They can’t easily be released into the wild but sanctuaries can be set up...
It has been shown in other countries that tourists are perfectly prepared to see/encounter elephants in much more natural circumstances and will forego tricks, treks and rides for the animals welfare - they just need to know this.
So by supporting a funding private projects tourists are seldom actually helping captive elephants they are at best slowing up progress, and they are very likely actually contributing to pressure on the elephant population through killing families and poaching and smuggling of babies.

As I wrote above, it is a matter of supply and demand. If tourists continue to visit camps that provide rides and tricks, camps will continue to offer those experiences, and indeed will proliferate. If, instead, tourists visit places that do not offer those experiences, the practice will die out.

I must say, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can enjoy riding an elephant when they know that doing so can cripple the animal, never mind enjoy watching tricks when it takes to torture to teach the animal to perform.

It is one thing to visit such a camp out of ignorance - I regret to say that I did so myself on my first visit to Thailand back in the 90s - but it is quite another to do so when the situation has been explained to you.

"With respect, Larry," I seem to recall being the target of some unpleasant comments from your direction a while back. I may have been wrong and you'd be right to point it out, but, as you say, "with respect". It didn't feel respectful.

If you mean the comments about you insisting about the properties of Valium I disagree. I was pointing out how poor your advice was and dangerous too and your inability to say your non-professional advice was way off. I do seem to recall you were pretty snippy so don’t point fingers.

And as I said before “goodbye.” No disrespect intended, just goodbye. Move on.

No disrespect intended?

Sorry rhkkmk & all for the interruption.

It appears that some feel that government is the solution - to set up more sanctuaries. Wonderful, but not the approach I would favor as more government is seldom a good solution. Why not just let these particular elephants and those in other areas in the same situation just live out their lives under better conditions? Yes, they might do tricks and take riders while the local business folk benefit financially. But laws that prohibit taking young elephants into captivity and/or abusing them could stop the cycle. That is the middle ground of which I speak and is a more common-sense approach than one that is all or nothing.

Who said anything about the government?