Elephants in Northern Thailand
Dec 25th, 2014, 01:59 AM
#21
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly lets put one thing straight - elephants are not by modern thinking domesticated animals. Never were.
When was the last time your saw a wild Holstein Friesian, Lincoln Longwool, or Saddleback in the wild?
The definition is not set in stone but the criteria are there and the elephant doesn’t make the grade to qualify on most counts, so comparisons with “domestic animals” as a genre are both ill informed and spurious and therefore the premise is false.
It would seem that Lauren’s misquote on my comments on land shows that she doesn’t really understand the argument - yet she still feels compelled to gainsay.
There is of course no single solution to the problem but I feel it is best to exclude those that involve abuse ands exploitation of any animals.
As regards to elephants in Thailand, and S.E. Asia for that matter: Thailand bought and bred elephants primarily for draught work and are now saddled with the results. It didn’t just happen it was a requirement of industry that the country profited from. Now they are no longer required, in my view, it follows on that the Kingdom now has a duty of care to these animals. Further exploitation in the name of tourism seems to me to be neither necessary nor desirable.
It has been demonstrated both here and abroad that existing stocks of elephants can be housed in wildlife parks and camps without the need for the abuse that is so often concomitant with tourism.
To seek to justify the current arrangements as the best possible solution by dichotomising the situation by erroneously suggesting there is no space and therefore the current situation is the only alternative is to ignore the evidence to the contrary.
There is also the question of the sources of these elephants - Apart from the elephants already in captivity and used by the tourist industry, there is the second problem that the tourist industry (along with the ivory trade) has now created a market for new and replacement elephants - in particular calves. This demand can only be sated by a combination of breeding from stock or the far more profitable smuggling of animals captured in the wild. This is of course resulting in the slaughter of adult wild elephants and the depletion of the wild population. On top of this the wild elephant is already facing various other threats such as illegal encroachment and the diminution of food supply.
Some legislation exists to counter this - mostly the result of international treaties and agreements, but enforcement is quite another thing; the tourist trade is virtually devoid of any regulation as regards to the welfare of elephants - or any other animal for that matter.
Given these problems it is hard to see how current practices in the tourist trade are helping the elephant in any way at all.
I have never in any post suggested that all elephants should be returned to the wild - in fact I’ve posted to the contrary. It seems that Lauren, devoid of any concrete argument is attempting to cling to the false dichotomy of “nowhere else for the elephants to go, so use them as shows” as if it is some lifesaver for a sinking standpoint.
Elephants can still be and, in places, are tourist attractions without the accompanying abuses. In Africa wild and park elephants are a huge draw and riding of animals is a rarity.
There IS space for abuse-free elephant parks where the animals aren’t forced by torture and beatings into giving rides, performing tricks and other anthropomorphic antics designed solely to get money from an uninformed or gullible public.
Thailand is a big country - twice the size of the UK with a similar population. Together with neighbouring countries there is still a massive amount of natural, unspoiled habitat - between quarter and a third of Thailand is still covered in forests of one type or another; the claim it has all gone is a myth. It is of course under threat and still being reduced at an alarming rate. The WWF is among the bodies working with the Thai government to improve the situation and maintain these vital natural resources. Total forest area in Thailand was measured in 2010 at just over 37%. - Tropical evergreen forest accounts for 10 percent of the forested area. A lot of this land (nearly 10 % of the country) is “protected” either by National Parks or as Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The Western Forest Complex is part of one of the largest and most important eco-systems in S.E. Asia - it has a large wild elephant population that is being put at risk by the ramifications of the tourist trade - however the demise of such regions is not a given.
Much of this areas is quite capable of supporting complete and sustainable eco-systems; ones that include keystone species such as elephants and apex predators like leopard and tiger. However all this needs to be protected - one primary concern is enforcement, but without a “will” there can’t be a “way”; public perception is crucial in this - and I find it very sad when I see or read of visitors to Thailand who clearly have no idea of the issues involved or the impact their visits can have on these fragile areas... we need to realise that we the tourists are contributing to the damage and destruction in these areas and if they were to be seriously depleted or destroyed altogether the results for the human population would be severe and tangible.
Some people seem to take the “it’s inevitable so there’s nothing we can do” attitude - well the end isn’t inevitable... but there’s a lot to be done - not just by governments but by tourists too - this is involves responsible tourism - keeping informed on issues and respecting the environment and the welfare of animals. - Feeding a mango to a monkey or washing an elephant is not enough - we need to spend out holiday money where it will do the most good.
Many people in Thailand, especially foreign visitors feel their holiday isn’t complete without some form of “wildlife encounter”. This is often fuelled by the perception that wildlife outside their own life or country is more exotic - this is a potentially lucrative aspect of tourism. It is, however, the nature of these encounters and how they are managed that is of such concern. The unregulated pursuit of profit so often means terror and abuse for the animals bought for this purpose.
People need to be aware of the issues before they arrive in Thailand; unfortunately, when the visitors do become aware of the problems it is often AFTER they have taken part. They are then faced the dilemma of with dealing with their own actions - a realisation that they have in fact been contributing to the abuse of these animals. This can raise a lot of mixed feelings. On one end of the scale are the people who are disgusted and from then on take steps to avoid places they suspect are exploitative, educate themselves and research the establishments before visiting.
At the other end of the scale are those in denial; a matter of ego? They find it hard to accept they have been hoodwinked, conned or simply through their own ignorance have contributed to the abuse of animals. Their reaction so often is to try and justify their actions by arguing against the weight of evidence and reason presented to them.; nit-picking, quibbling, semantics, ad hominem attacks, distorting evidence and misquoting - clichéd facile and shallow arguments based on little or no understanding of the real issues - it really isn’t worth debating with those who aren’t prepared to listen to reason, but instead just make up their fallacious and spurious arguments as they go along. However one can take some pleasure in knowing that the seeds of doubt have been shown and they won’t be so gullible next time.
When was the last time your saw a wild Holstein Friesian, Lincoln Longwool, or Saddleback in the wild?
The definition is not set in stone but the criteria are there and the elephant doesn’t make the grade to qualify on most counts, so comparisons with “domestic animals” as a genre are both ill informed and spurious and therefore the premise is false.
It would seem that Lauren’s misquote on my comments on land shows that she doesn’t really understand the argument - yet she still feels compelled to gainsay.
There is of course no single solution to the problem but I feel it is best to exclude those that involve abuse ands exploitation of any animals.
As regards to elephants in Thailand, and S.E. Asia for that matter: Thailand bought and bred elephants primarily for draught work and are now saddled with the results. It didn’t just happen it was a requirement of industry that the country profited from. Now they are no longer required, in my view, it follows on that the Kingdom now has a duty of care to these animals. Further exploitation in the name of tourism seems to me to be neither necessary nor desirable.
It has been demonstrated both here and abroad that existing stocks of elephants can be housed in wildlife parks and camps without the need for the abuse that is so often concomitant with tourism.
To seek to justify the current arrangements as the best possible solution by dichotomising the situation by erroneously suggesting there is no space and therefore the current situation is the only alternative is to ignore the evidence to the contrary.
There is also the question of the sources of these elephants - Apart from the elephants already in captivity and used by the tourist industry, there is the second problem that the tourist industry (along with the ivory trade) has now created a market for new and replacement elephants - in particular calves. This demand can only be sated by a combination of breeding from stock or the far more profitable smuggling of animals captured in the wild. This is of course resulting in the slaughter of adult wild elephants and the depletion of the wild population. On top of this the wild elephant is already facing various other threats such as illegal encroachment and the diminution of food supply.
Some legislation exists to counter this - mostly the result of international treaties and agreements, but enforcement is quite another thing; the tourist trade is virtually devoid of any regulation as regards to the welfare of elephants - or any other animal for that matter.
Given these problems it is hard to see how current practices in the tourist trade are helping the elephant in any way at all.
I have never in any post suggested that all elephants should be returned to the wild - in fact I’ve posted to the contrary. It seems that Lauren, devoid of any concrete argument is attempting to cling to the false dichotomy of “nowhere else for the elephants to go, so use them as shows” as if it is some lifesaver for a sinking standpoint.
Elephants can still be and, in places, are tourist attractions without the accompanying abuses. In Africa wild and park elephants are a huge draw and riding of animals is a rarity.
There IS space for abuse-free elephant parks where the animals aren’t forced by torture and beatings into giving rides, performing tricks and other anthropomorphic antics designed solely to get money from an uninformed or gullible public.
Thailand is a big country - twice the size of the UK with a similar population. Together with neighbouring countries there is still a massive amount of natural, unspoiled habitat - between quarter and a third of Thailand is still covered in forests of one type or another; the claim it has all gone is a myth. It is of course under threat and still being reduced at an alarming rate. The WWF is among the bodies working with the Thai government to improve the situation and maintain these vital natural resources. Total forest area in Thailand was measured in 2010 at just over 37%. - Tropical evergreen forest accounts for 10 percent of the forested area. A lot of this land (nearly 10 % of the country) is “protected” either by National Parks or as Wildlife Sanctuaries.
The Western Forest Complex is part of one of the largest and most important eco-systems in S.E. Asia - it has a large wild elephant population that is being put at risk by the ramifications of the tourist trade - however the demise of such regions is not a given.
Much of this areas is quite capable of supporting complete and sustainable eco-systems; ones that include keystone species such as elephants and apex predators like leopard and tiger. However all this needs to be protected - one primary concern is enforcement, but without a “will” there can’t be a “way”; public perception is crucial in this - and I find it very sad when I see or read of visitors to Thailand who clearly have no idea of the issues involved or the impact their visits can have on these fragile areas... we need to realise that we the tourists are contributing to the damage and destruction in these areas and if they were to be seriously depleted or destroyed altogether the results for the human population would be severe and tangible.
Some people seem to take the “it’s inevitable so there’s nothing we can do” attitude - well the end isn’t inevitable... but there’s a lot to be done - not just by governments but by tourists too - this is involves responsible tourism - keeping informed on issues and respecting the environment and the welfare of animals. - Feeding a mango to a monkey or washing an elephant is not enough - we need to spend out holiday money where it will do the most good.
Many people in Thailand, especially foreign visitors feel their holiday isn’t complete without some form of “wildlife encounter”. This is often fuelled by the perception that wildlife outside their own life or country is more exotic - this is a potentially lucrative aspect of tourism. It is, however, the nature of these encounters and how they are managed that is of such concern. The unregulated pursuit of profit so often means terror and abuse for the animals bought for this purpose.
People need to be aware of the issues before they arrive in Thailand; unfortunately, when the visitors do become aware of the problems it is often AFTER they have taken part. They are then faced the dilemma of with dealing with their own actions - a realisation that they have in fact been contributing to the abuse of these animals. This can raise a lot of mixed feelings. On one end of the scale are the people who are disgusted and from then on take steps to avoid places they suspect are exploitative, educate themselves and research the establishments before visiting.
At the other end of the scale are those in denial; a matter of ego? They find it hard to accept they have been hoodwinked, conned or simply through their own ignorance have contributed to the abuse of animals. Their reaction so often is to try and justify their actions by arguing against the weight of evidence and reason presented to them.; nit-picking, quibbling, semantics, ad hominem attacks, distorting evidence and misquoting - clichéd facile and shallow arguments based on little or no understanding of the real issues - it really isn’t worth debating with those who aren’t prepared to listen to reason, but instead just make up their fallacious and spurious arguments as they go along. However one can take some pleasure in knowing that the seeds of doubt have been shown and they won’t be so gullible next time.
Dec 25th, 2014, 03:07 AM
#22
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not all baby elephants are the victims of the abuse in the videos." I fail to see how this is justification of anything. Would you care to explain your comment or back it it up?
There are humane ways of trading an elephant once broken or born in captivity they are few and far between - this is further exacerbated by the inexperience and poor training of the handlers (jokingly called mahouts) who for the most part have no concept of what is or isn't cruel. - I doubt if breaking is possible without violence
.....wild elephants are usually captured as calves - they are BRUTALLY treated to a man to break their spirit and make them subservient.
Elephants born in captivity are not so cruelly broken, but various establishments admit that the training can be pretty rough on a young animal.
However if you take part in riding of elephants you are contributing to the illegal trade in these animals that involves the brutal treatment of young calves - it is a Thai "tradition" that goes back centuries. It certainly does NOT mean that crushing isn't used on elephants born in captivity as it is considered the most effective way of "breaking " and elephant.
i suggest you take a look to find humane ways used to break an elephant in Thailand
Here is a circus elephant being trained - the fact that it shouldn't even be away format's mother hardly comes into it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...t_training.jpg
..or perhaps a Nat Geo article?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_phajaan.html
There are humane ways of trading an elephant once broken or born in captivity - I doubt if breaking is possible without violence
There are humane ways of trading an elephant once broken or born in captivity they are few and far between - this is further exacerbated by the inexperience and poor training of the handlers (jokingly called mahouts) who for the most part have no concept of what is or isn't cruel. - I doubt if breaking is possible without violence
.....wild elephants are usually captured as calves - they are BRUTALLY treated to a man to break their spirit and make them subservient.
Elephants born in captivity are not so cruelly broken, but various establishments admit that the training can be pretty rough on a young animal.
However if you take part in riding of elephants you are contributing to the illegal trade in these animals that involves the brutal treatment of young calves - it is a Thai "tradition" that goes back centuries. It certainly does NOT mean that crushing isn't used on elephants born in captivity as it is considered the most effective way of "breaking " and elephant.
i suggest you take a look to find humane ways used to break an elephant in Thailand
Here is a circus elephant being trained - the fact that it shouldn't even be away format's mother hardly comes into it.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...t_training.jpg
..or perhaps a Nat Geo article?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...6_phajaan.html
There are humane ways of trading an elephant once broken or born in captivity - I doubt if breaking is possible without violence
Dec 25th, 2014, 04:09 AM
#23
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Khun's assertion that there is plenty of jungle to support a hugely increased elephant population simply is not true."
I want to reiterate the error of this statement: The Thai elephant population has been severely decimated over the last century, not increased! The elephant population once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but poaching, the capturing of elephants for human profit, and severe habitat loss has lowered the population of Asian elephants to crucial lows.
I want to reiterate the error of this statement: The Thai elephant population has been severely decimated over the last century, not increased! The elephant population once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but poaching, the capturing of elephants for human profit, and severe habitat loss has lowered the population of Asian elephants to crucial lows.
Dec 25th, 2014, 05:10 AM
#25
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me make one thing clear - it is not just a matter of SPACE it is how the wild populations are managed and that space is managed. .The national parks present a fragmented environment, some are simply too small to support a sustainable elephant bio-system, but the plan is to link as many of these places as possible so that herds of elephant and other animals are not trapped in one location and are able to migrate from region to region without encounters or confrontations with humans.
This will benefit many other species of wildlife in Thailand too. The plan transcends national borders as well as animals don't have the same concept of "nationality" as humans.
This will benefit many other species of wildlife in Thailand too. The plan transcends national borders as well as animals don't have the same concept of "nationality" as humans.
Dec 25th, 2014, 05:10 AM
#26
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I am glad I did what I did regarding elephants while I was here because I know I helped keep them alive by participating in elephant tourism.” - this is such a facile thing to say.
It also seems not to realise that there are 2 separate but interlinked issues here - that of the captive animals and that of the wild population.
It is the wild elephant population in Thailand that is under the severest threat. The population is estimated at anywhere between 1000 and 3500.
Captive elephants number around 4000 - the main concern here is their welfare as there are virtually NO regulations or laws to protect them whatsoever.
The sad thing about attitudes like those expressed above is that visitors actually think they are helping elephant conservation in some way. It’s closer to the truth to suggest it can actually damage genuine efforts.
Keeping an elephant in captivity does little or nothing for conservation.
All you achieve in the long run is a population of captive elephants - for what? Well people can look at them..........there is no call for a large captive elephant population in Thailand - it should be allowed to dwindle naturally as was originally intended, but now tourism has reversed that .....
The point of conservation is not just to keep elephants in existence; it is to preserve the entire eco-system they are part of. Elephants play an important part in maintaining the environment they live in, to the benefit of both flora and fauna. They clear trees allowing sunlight in and regeneration; they spread seeds and vegetation and help to maintain a balance of food supply for other animals.
I’ve pointed out above that I consider the Thai government has a responsibility for the welfare of both captive and wild elephants, but to suggest that riding a captive elephant and the cruelty involved is “keeping them alive” is quite preposterous. What is needed is a change of attitudes and this can be achieved or at least helped by us the customers acting responsibly. So long as theirs money in cruelty then it will continue - but if the owners of the animals realise they only get customers if they treat their animals appropriately then they will change.
This kind of thinking prevents true conservation efforts as people do not see the whole picture and fail to understand that their behaviour is in the long run detrimental to the future not just of the elephant but of the health of environment they contribute to - and an environment that we, as humans, need too.
It also seems not to realise that there are 2 separate but interlinked issues here - that of the captive animals and that of the wild population.
It is the wild elephant population in Thailand that is under the severest threat. The population is estimated at anywhere between 1000 and 3500.
Captive elephants number around 4000 - the main concern here is their welfare as there are virtually NO regulations or laws to protect them whatsoever.
The sad thing about attitudes like those expressed above is that visitors actually think they are helping elephant conservation in some way. It’s closer to the truth to suggest it can actually damage genuine efforts.
Keeping an elephant in captivity does little or nothing for conservation.
All you achieve in the long run is a population of captive elephants - for what? Well people can look at them..........there is no call for a large captive elephant population in Thailand - it should be allowed to dwindle naturally as was originally intended, but now tourism has reversed that .....
The point of conservation is not just to keep elephants in existence; it is to preserve the entire eco-system they are part of. Elephants play an important part in maintaining the environment they live in, to the benefit of both flora and fauna. They clear trees allowing sunlight in and regeneration; they spread seeds and vegetation and help to maintain a balance of food supply for other animals.
I’ve pointed out above that I consider the Thai government has a responsibility for the welfare of both captive and wild elephants, but to suggest that riding a captive elephant and the cruelty involved is “keeping them alive” is quite preposterous. What is needed is a change of attitudes and this can be achieved or at least helped by us the customers acting responsibly. So long as theirs money in cruelty then it will continue - but if the owners of the animals realise they only get customers if they treat their animals appropriately then they will change.
This kind of thinking prevents true conservation efforts as people do not see the whole picture and fail to understand that their behaviour is in the long run detrimental to the future not just of the elephant but of the health of environment they contribute to - and an environment that we, as humans, need too.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mike_Robinson
Asia
9
Apr 8th, 2012 08:42 AM
SFtravlr
Asia
6
Jan 5th, 2012 08:44 PM
