Kawh - "So it's too late for them and riding them doesn't hurt them per se at this point."

Riding hurts elephants every time! There backs are not suited to carrying loads. Anything over 100kg can damage an elephants spine/vertebrae.

another very moving video.

here is Lek talking about the elephants she saves-- often having been crippled or blinded by their trainers or from cars on the streets where they work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uRbZDeBKVw

Many elephants rear legs are "paralysed" or otherwise damaged by spinal injuries caused by overloading their backs.

Can anyone suggest a location near C.M. that is truly an elephant sanctuary? I was quite excited at the idea of seeing these magnificent animals up close, but certainly don't want to support the abuses catalogued above

The place I linked above for Bangkok has a CM location:

http://www.elephantjunglesanctuary.com/

But I only know what the website says.

Elephant Nature Park, run by Lek, in the video i posted above, is about as good and authentic as it gets. She has dedicated her life to saving elephants all over the country. They have great feedback on tripadvisor. it's a little more expensive than some, but all the money is well spent and put back into the elephants.

This is a wild preserve!! When we were there several years ago, she sat next to a baby elephant in the middle of a huge pasture. We were all mellow as she talked about elephant behavior, etc... and we cuddled the baby. Mama was fine with this... UNTIL two dogs started frantically barking and chasing each other around the baby. (people from all over seem to drop off their unwanted dogs there...) This freaked mama out and she and 2 other elephants took off running toward our little group. I've never run so fast in my life!! (I heard them coming before i saw them coming... the earth shook!)

so yes... it's the real deal! luckily, she had told us that if ever the elephants freaked, RUN! Had no idea that the information would be so essential!!

Lek is undoubtedly one of the most successful elephant "sanctuaries" in Thailand and her reputation is very high...but not untarnished. It may well be that although her heart is in the right place, she doesn't actually have the scientific expertise to make the best of things.

Wish I'd not opened this thread.....I'm a zealot too.

scientific expertise can be borrowed, if one does not own it

True.

And for the most part, elephants don't need scientific expertise on a daily basis. They just need food, water, space and to not be messed with all the time.

Animal welfare is a science - they need a correct diet and this needs to be scientifically understood.
It is simply not good enough to treat elephants "because that's how it was always done" - the truth is we now know a lot more about animal welfare than ever before; we are able to assess stress levels and behavioural problems and address them properly....
we know how much space elephants need to behave naturally we know what comprises a good diet and how best to deliver it and we know how to keep and supply water. These things need to be installed and monitored on an ongoing basis by the government or at least DNP/wildlife and fauna.

unfortunately there are no laws in Thailand to stop just about anyone buying land and opening up what they call a "sanctuary" for elephants. The system for checking the origin of elephants is in its infancy in Thailand and only patchily enforced. Those running these establishments are seldom if ever taken to task. ( the tiger temple was a classic example of this)

the result is that many elephant attractions are too small there are far too many people climbing onto the elephant bandwagon and none of this is to the benefit of the animals.

How did elephants live for generations without all this "scientific" info...

Spare us the constant lectures of your superior knowledge.

I'm soooo sorry I started this thread. I just thought that new and long term tourists might like to know of a new venue.

Most of you have been so negative that many will be scared off, BUT DON'T BE SCARED.... many of these people have a long history of negativity on this site, and spewing outrageously excessive PC BS...

<i>It is simply not good enough to treat elephants "because that's how it was always done"</i>

Perhaps. I guess in the end, you have to ask "where would you prefer to put these animals today if not where they already are?" Assuming one can not will the powers that be into higher budgets and greater focus on animal welfare. And assuming there will not be a significant increase in national parkland and government reserves in the near future... are these animals in the hands of a person who at least provides space without requiring unnatural interaction with humans a reasonable compromise to culling?

Thailand has changed it's attitude and methods of dealing with wildlife and other animals over the years. There have been definite and positive changes. This happens at least in part because of public awareness.
If tourists shun particular kinds of entertainment than that form will diminish.

there are ways of conserving wildlife and treating animals in general with respect.. these ways can at least in part be financed by tourism. As more and more people are aware of the abuse and the opportunities for green tourism then demand will influence and change the market.

Sounds positive, khunwilko. And I am of the sort that would appreciate that. I don't think much of "attractions" or "venues" that offer the public a chance to treat animals as more or less an amusement park ride.

Still, I know, (at least from rural areas I've lived in) that private lands can support wildlife if you let it. That's what I meant by animals only requiring space, food, etc. That without interference, then there really isn't any difference to a native endemic species of animal as to whether it's on public or private land. Whatever expertise is brought in to track the animals needs is another matter - the same expertise *could* be called upon wherever an animal is as long as the expertise is willing to show up.

We'd taken a ride by Jeep around Udawalawe, a national park in Sri Lanka that is home to herds of wild Asian elephants. Of course, rangers track these animals much more closely than truly wild, free-ranging animals would be tracked. And even with public land and subject to expertise, there we were, an unnecessary element in their elephant world, That's still probably as "free" as they can be in our ever shrinking world. And it's through interest like that that brings some of the funds needed to pay for that expertise, rangers, tools and even the land itself.

So then you've populated that space with truly wild elephants. Then what? What of the elephants bought off these trekking camps as the woman at the Elephant Reserve is doing? So yeah, they're not being turned out to a wildlife area. That's true. Not sure there ARE wildlife areas they could be turned over to or if the elephants, having been in captivity, are suited to become a self-sufficient wild animal. But it's an environment exceedingly better than where they came from, from the places with the elephant riding and the forced interaction with humans, isn't it? Yet still with the same financial needs for operating budget that even national parks have. Overall, the "reserve", essentially animal rescue with a visitation and appreciation component, seems like as good as you could do for these animals, realistically.

I am not necessarily opposed to "sanctuaries". I am opposed to elephants being ridden, and to them being tortured to perform unnatural "tricks".

I fail to see why Bob finds it so difficult to acknowledge the problems with this. I suppose "there are none so blind as those who choose not to see". And there is certainly no reason to yell or to swear at people - the rest of this discussion has been polite.

Alternative facts, again.

Sorry, Marija, which facts are you labelling alternative?

What "facts" are "alternative"?