20 Things to Keep in Mind About Elephants in Thailand

Many of us grew up seeing elephants as part of the charm of visiting Thailand — rides, shows, parades. Times have changed, though, and we now understand far more about the cost of these practices to the animals themselves. Here are 20 points that may help if you’re considering an elephant encounter on your trip:

1. Captive is not Domesticated – Elephants are not like dogs or horses; they are wild animals even if bred in captivity.
2. Not Built for Riding – An elephant’s spine isn’t designed to carry heavy loads, and repeated rides can cause lasting harm.
3. The Training Question – Most captive elephants are “broken in” through a process called the phajaan — often harsh and traumatic.
4. Chains and Hooks – Even in “ethical” places, elephants may still be controlled with restraints.
5. Marketing Language – Words like “sanctuary”, “rescue”, or “ethical” are not always reliable indicators of good welfare.
6. Bathing Activities – Letting tourists bathe elephants makes for nice photos, but it’s not a natural or stress-free activity for the animals.
7. Feeding Lines – In the wild, elephants forage for hours; in camps, they line up for tourist handouts.
8. Bred for Tourism – Many elephants aren’t rescued; they’re bred to supply the industry.
9. Follow the Money – Where you spend your tourist dollars directly affects what continues.
10. History vs. Welfare – Elephants were once used for logging or war, but “tradition” isn’t a welfare standard.
11. Horses are not the same as Elephants – They are fundamentally different; elephants don’t have a history of domestication.
12. Stress Signs – Swaying or head-bobbing usually signals distress, not playfulness.
13. “Rescues” With Strings Attached – Some camps buy elephants from exploitative owners just to profit from them under a new label.
14. Thai Law – Captive elephants are classed as livestock, so protections are weak.
15. Patchy Enforcement – Even existing laws are rarely enforced.
16. Not Just a Western Concern – Many Thai people are leading calls for reform.
17. Tourism is powerful – Roughly 20% of Thailand’s GDP comes from tourism; tourists do influence policy.
18. Don’t Trust the Gloss – Influencers and travel writers may not be qualified to judge welfare standards.
19. Positive Change – The fact that camps feel pressure to call themselves “ethical” shows tourists are changing expectations.
20. Your Role – Choosing genuine sanctuaries (where elephants aren’t made to perform or interact unnaturally) helps set higher standards.

Even though I highly doubt I'd go to an elephant sanctuary, I found this video to be interesting and informative:

Paddy Doyle makes some thoughtful points in his video, particularly in his description of Elephant Nature Park (ENP).
ENP is quite unique among elephant attractions. Lek has been running it for so long that it isn’t really comparable to newer operations, and in some ways her methods may even sit outside today’s mainstream welfare practices. What can’t be doubted, however, is her lifelong commitment to elephant welfare.
It’s important to recognise that there are degrees of “sanctuary.” Some elephants are healthy enough to be left alone and live as naturally as possible. Others, however, are so physically injured or psychologically damaged that they require constant care — full liberty is simply not an option.
One of the real challenges for visitors is getting accurate information about elephant venues. Asking the establishments themselves rarely produces an unbiased answer, and some outright mislead. Tourist reviews are also unreliable, as most visitors lack any grounding in animal welfare and are too captivated by the owner’s sales pitch and the novelty of the experience to give an objective account.
Mr Doyle is right to highlight the issue of space: most facilities are far too small to support a herd of realistic size or provide enough room for elephants to behave naturally. He also captures the human side of the experience well — and reminds us that there’s always a tension between the tourist’s entitlement and what is genuinely beneficial for the animals.
He touches, too, on the use of the term “sanctuary.” This word, along with others in the common marketing lexicon of elephant camps, is often deployed loosely to project a sense of ethical tourism. In reality, the label “sanctuary” in Thailand is applied to many places that are anything but.
For context, Thailand’s wild elephant population is roughly the same size as its captive one (around 4,000). Instead of supporting the captive industry, visitors might consider seeking out elephants in the wild under controlled conditions. While difficult and sometimes dangerous, this can be a far more rewarding experience.
Wild elephants can be seen in:
• Khao Yai National Park (salt licks often attract them, and I’ve seen them here often myself)
• Kui Buri National Park – the “number one” place
• Kaeng Krachan National Park
• Dong Phaya Yen–Khao Yai Forest Complex along the western border
• Khao Sok National Park in the south
• Khao Ang Runai Wildlife Sanctuary in the east
• Huai Kha Kaeng (where an elephant attack led to the campsite being closed a few years ago).
Spotting elephants in these settings is never guaranteed — it’s both difficult and potentially dangerous — but it is a way to appreciate them as they should be: wild, free, and beyond human control.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. And for listing which parks have elephants in the wild. Worth considering.

I doubt if the list is complete, but one needs to be aware that seeing elephants in the wild is potentially dangerous – one should always have an experienced guide.THe situation in Khao Yai is frankly a bit out of control, as there are a lot of tourists and encounters, and this impinges on the animals' natural behaviour.

The issue of elephants being exploited as domestic animals or in tourism for conservation must be judged based on individual cases. We shouldn't judge all incidents from the above points of view. Otherwise, it will be unfair and a blunder, which will lead to encouraging poaching and even worse treatment of the poor animal.
I don't agree with the view that it is less cruel to ride horses, use them for hauling carriages, and train them for races or other means of entertainment. In regions where horses were not native, they used elephants, and the history of elephants being used in wars, royal carriages, and other chores is as old as the history of horses.
In many places in Africa, India, and Nepal, elephants are now bred under the supervision of national parks and are used for patrolling the jungle. They were not captured from the wild but have lived among humans for a long time. So they can't be rescued and sent to the wild.
Thousands of these elephants were used during the British rule for big game hunting, especially between the 19th to late 20th centuries. Colonel Geoffrey Nightingale in India alone shot more than 300 Tigers. Tens of thousands of Royal Bengal Tigers were killed in the name of game hunting, which employed hundreds of elephants. After the 20th century, rampant poaching and logging for railway ties destroyed the Terai jungle and its wildlife under British rule. Europe and America were lucrative markets for Tiger skins, causing the price of the hunt to go as low as USD 50 per Tiger in India and Nepal. Records show that Tiger skins are still trafficked for decorative purposes and use in traditional medicines, with evidence of sales and seizures in countries like the US and within the EU.
Elephants are the only effective means of patrolling and rescue associated with conservation, as they can better maneuver through the deep jungle. So the government and national parks of these countries are struggling to breed and keep the healthy population of the elephants. Elephant Tourism is a much-needed source of income to run these expensive and ambitious projects of protecting these last vestiges of the endangered wildlife. Sustainable tourism is supposed to involve locals and create income-generating opportunities for them. Each Elephant employs four individuals, which feed four families. National parks of poor countries like Nepal have been awarded international recognition for their successful execution of conservation of these endangered wildlife. Make sure, hypocritical statements won't turn things into more disaster.

itournepal -

​​​​​​I think there are a number of misconceptions in what you’ve written, so let me address them point by point.
“The issue of elephants in tourism must be judged individually — otherwise it’s unfair and may encourage poaching or worse treatment.”
Why? How does calling out cruelty “encourage poaching”? That doesn’t follow logically. The real issue is whether elephants are being treated humanely, not whether we should avoid making judgements at all.
“Horses and elephants are the same — both used for work and riding for centuries.”
This is factually incorrect. Horses are a domesticated species selectively bred over millennia for riding and pulling. Elephants are wild animals with a completely different skeletal structure. Carrying repeated loads damages their spine and can lead to paralysis. The comparison is misleading at best.
“Captive elephants in parks can’t be released, so breeding and tourism income are necessary.”
Yes, captive elephants can’t simply be “returned to the wild”—but that doesn’t mean we should breed more. Thailand already has around 4,000 captive elephants, more than any other country. Nepal is home to an estimated 170 to 200 captive elephants, a number that has been relatively stable and similar to the wild population. The real challenge is ensuring those already in captivity are provided with humane, natural conditions rather than being forced to work or perform.
“Elephants have always been used in history, wars, royal carriages, logging, hunting…”
Appealing to the past is not a justification for continuing harmful practices today. Science and ethics have moved on. What people did centuries ago — often out of ignorance — does not excuse exploitation in 2025.
“Elephants are the only effective means of patrolling and rescue in conservation.”
That’s not accurate. In some regions, elephants may be useful, but many habitats don’t require them at all. Technology, vehicles, and drones also play an increasing role. And let’s not forget: not all elephants live in “jungles” — their habitats vary widely.
“Elephant tourism provides essential income for locals and conservation.”
This is the heart of the marketing pitch, but it’s built on a false dichotomy. It assumes elephants must perform, be ridden, or be touched to generate income. That isn’t true. Ethical sanctuaries exist — even in Thailand — that provide livelihoods through hands-off tourism models. People still come, money still flows, but the elephants are not exploited.
Finally, yes, supporting local communities is important. But involving them in exploitative practices isn’t a solution. Tourism can support both people and wildlife — but only when animal welfare comes first.

You come off as being an apologist. It is an industry, and we should not apologize for them. We should encourage change. No adult should go to an elephant experience blithely and report back with all grins. And if they bring their eager children along, they should be brave enough to explain to the kids the reality of the situation.

iTourNepal is an online travel company, and information about their services in relation to elephants is limited, so I'm guessing they're coming from on this...It sounds like the “I do it so it can’t be wrong” logic.