Elephant picks up woman in Ayuthaya in its trunk and tosses her to the ground - she is severely injured

[Wilsonandson]

"If a stranger forced bananas down your throat how would you react?" - pray tell, how would you do that to an elephant???

You sound like Johnny Morris from Animal Magic or is it Dr Doolittle, he talks to the animals. Do you have human friends or is your home managery of animals, a Noah's ark?

"Hello Peter the dog and how are you? Clare the cat? I hope you didn't frighten Percy the pigeon, again."

[cumgranosalum]

18 minutes ago, Wilsonandson said:

You sound like Johnny Morris from Animal Magic or is it Dr Doolittle, he talks to the animals. Do you have human friends or is your home managery of animals, a Noah's ark?

"Hello Peter the dog and how are you? Clare the cat? I hope you didn't frighten Percy the pigeon, again."

it would appear that now, bereft of any constructive arguement you have resorted to nonsense and unsupported ad hominem attacks.

please have the decency to explain or correct yourself.

Edited October 6, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[Johpa]

5 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

Virtually every point in this post is wrong.

The logging elephants don't live in the wild.

Nor are they are not hobbled a left in the wild.

There IS enough space for elephants both wild and captive - but unfortunately it is being illegally encroached and broken up leaving wild herds isolated and reserves for captive elephants without sufficient finance.

What is meant by "self-sustaining"? Ay wildlife or captive animal requires protection and care.

The capture of wild elephants is on the increase as the original population of logging elephants dwindles the "owners" wish to continue making money from exploiting elephants as tourist entertainment.

Most of the smuggled elephants come across the Thai/Burma border where the extensive jungle and lawless borders make this relatively easy.

There are MANY instances of elephants being killed in Thai national parks - and it has been suggested that the ones reported may just be the tip of the iceberg

 

 

 

Rest assured that sometimes even owned working elephants, whether in logging or in tourism, have disappeared for a few days. They have no problem finding food in the forest or in someone's garden.  They are often allowed to wander in the forest at night to search for food but they are  indeed hobbled by a chain attached to their front feet that prevents them for wandering too far and the chain also leaves marks on the forest floor so the mahout can track down the elephant in the morning.

 

Because of all the encroachment, both permitted and illegal, the amount of land available in the national parks for free ranging elephants is no longer sufficient to accept all the elephants in Thailand.

 

By self-sustaining I am referring to the large elephant camps such as Mae Sa that breed their own stock.  Mae Sa is not self-sustaining as far as food and large quantities are trucked in daily,

 

I have seen no notice of large scale killings of elephants in national parks although one does read of the occasional killing for the ivory.

 

Look, in a perfect world there would be no elephant camps and no "trained" elephants.  But this is not a perfect world and the better run elephant camps such as Mae Sa and up in Mae Tang are part of the solution.  The BS little me-to tourist elephant camps on the islands are a problem as are all the other amateur run me-to tourist sites that the government tolerates.

 

As for the smuggling of elephants along the Thai-Burma border, that is a problem but is not the biggest smuggling problem on that border.  Remember that the Thai military, those who inherited the border business of General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, control all the trade across the border, people, elephants, rubies, you name it.  The RTA is the law on east side of the border.

[DSJPC]

Elephant...1    Tourist...0!

[mikiea]

On 10/5/2016 at 7:45 AM, ukrules said:

What are you supposed to do - cook them ?

 

If this dumb ass elephant didn't want to eat them it should have ignored them.

 

Stupid elephant.

 

good god man are you that dim ? raw = green . 

[cumgranosalum]

3 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Rest assured that sometimes even owned working elephants, whether in logging or in tourism, have disappeared for a few days. They have no problem finding food in the forest or in someone's garden.  They are often allowed to wander in the forest at night to search for food but they are  indeed hobbled by a chain attached to their front feet that prevents them for wandering too far and the chain also leaves marks on the forest floor so the mahout can track down the elephant in the morning.

 

Because of all the encroachment, both permitted and illegal, the amount of land available in the national parks for free ranging elephants is no longer sufficient to accept all the elephants in Thailand.

 

By self-sustaining I am referring to the large elephant camps such as Mae Sa that breed their own stock.  Mae Sa is not self-sustaining as far as food and large quantities are trucked in daily,

 

I have seen no notice of large scale killings of elephants in national parks although one does read of the occasional killing for the ivory.

 

Look, in a perfect world there would be no elephant camps and no "trained" elephants.  But this is not a perfect world and the better run elephant camps such as Mae Sa and up in Mae Tang are part of the solution.  The BS little me-to tourist elephant camps on the islands are a problem as are all the other amateur run me-to tourist sites that the government tolerates.

 

As for the smuggling of elephants along the Thai-Burma border, that is a problem but is not the biggest smuggling problem on that border.  Remember that the Thai military, those who inherited the border business of General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, control all the trade across the border, people, elephants, rubies, you name it.  The RTA is the law on east side of the border.

"Because of all the encroachment, both permitted and illegal, the amount of land available in the national parks for free ranging elephants is no longer sufficient to accept all the elephants in Thailand.' - quite simply, incorrect. You have no basis for that comment.

 

"But this is not a perfect world and the better run elephant camps such as Mae Sa and up in Mae Tang are part of the solution." - i'm sorry but you are jumping to conclusions - firstly I'm not making a comment on any particular "elephant park" as it is incredibly difficult to judge how effective they are - and as a lay-person i wouldn't presume to do so - but you are making a big mistake in assuming that because they are "OK" they are part of the solution. The problem is manifold, smuggling, treatment conservation and welfare - so long as camps whoever they are - are promoting tourist entertainment that is abusive or counter-productive ecologically they are CONTRIBUTING to the problem.

 

there isn't a single one step answer to the problem but what would help is if tourists, visitors and expats alike had a little bit more idea of what the actual problem was.

 

PS - because "you haven't noticed" doesn't mean that the slaughter of elephants isn't continuing it seems your ideas are based largely on personal perspective and assumption, which in itself in the long run only contributes further to the problems.

Edited October 6, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[MiKT]

10 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

you are making assumptions that completely ignore the evidence.

 

"However, I think that there is less smuggling than before and certainly you don't see elephants being paraded around in Bangkok like they used to be; and even in Pattaya, not very many  now."

 

"Less smuggling than before"?? - it is on the increase  - what do you mean "before" - before what???

 

tHe value of a baby elephant has been estimated as high as 800,000 baht.

ivory for adults  is also sought after 

The value of young elephants as tourist attractions has made them a highly desirable product.

 

"However, I do think that there are not many wild elephants killed here for their babies, - Elephants have been reported killed in several locations in Thailand over the last few years - many more are believed either not reported or eve discovered....however animals in the wild do not have passports and the slaughter continues over the border as families of wild elephants are killed for the babies for smuggling into the lucrative tourist trade and ivory is taken from the adults as a bonus.

 

" elephant deaths are usually well documented in the papers" - no they are not - only the few discovered are reported - the Western Forest Complex is massive and a whole group of dead elephants can remain undiscovered in such a vast region.

 

 

"as their are so few places left for elephants to live in the wild left in Thailand" - again pure assumption - there is a large amount of forest - pristine and otherwise that is suitable for elephants, it is illegal encroachment causing conflict with humans, poaching and poisoning by those wishing to take over land that is a major threat. It is regrettable that the law is simply not enforced - or due to the topography, an't be enforced.

 

 

Well, if you think there are still plenty of places left in Thailand where elephants can still live in peace, you simply have not been around enough. The "Massive" Western forest complex is no longer massive or much of a forest complex any more, it has been very largely taken over by local (mostly Karens) illegally cutting down the trees and planting cash crops. This is not an "assumption" I have been often and seen the dreadful spreading results over the years. It is terrible and well known indictment of successive Thai governments that they have done very little to redeem this situation.

 

Its the same everywhere, Khao Yai used to be full of Tigers and Elephants, but if you go up one of the mountains and have proper look around you will find that it is yet another sham with many areas denuded of decent trees and only secondary jungle left which is not very good for big animals. Still some wildlife left, but not very much.

 

NB Before now, means before now, have you seen any elephants in Sukhumvit Soi 4 or Patpong lately? It used to be common, but at least that is something that has been cracked down on.

 

NBB If you have actual evidence of smuggling being on the increase please produce it. I will happily support any actions to prevent it, but from the evidence of the hundreds of thousands of k's I have spent visiting nearly every area in Thailand over the past 20 odd years I think (hope) that things are not as bad for elephants in Thailand (as far as exploitation for tourism is concerned) as they were 20 years ago. Much worse for wild elephants of course.

 

But smuggling from where? You would I think be surprised just how much elephants are cared for in some places, a couple of weeks ago in Bangladesh an elephant was washed down in the floods on one of the big rivers from India and they could not coax it ashore to tranquilise and take back for 3 weeks. Unfortunately it was too late when they did and the exhausted elephant died, But it was tracked the whole time. I think I can categorically say that places in Thailand where there are "unknown" groups of elephants living in tranquil surroundings untroubled by mankind is just a  wishful thinking fantasy.  Same for Myanmar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Johpa]

8 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

"But this is not a perfect world and the better run elephant camps such as Mae Sa and up in Mae Tang are part of the solution." - i'm sorry but you are jumping to conclusions - firstly I'm not making a comment on any particular "elephant park" as it is incredibly difficult to judge how effective they are - and as a lay-person i wouldn't presume to do so - but you are making a big mistake in assuming that because they are "OK" they are part of the solution. The problem is manifold, smuggling, treatment conservation and welfare - so long as camps whoever they are - are promoting tourist entertainment that is abusive or counter-productive ecologically they are CONTRIBUTING to the problem.

 

 

This "lay-person" owned an elephant for nearly 20 years, is acquainted with countless people involved within the elephant business, and whose father in-law some 30 years ago was one of the go-to traditional elephant doctors in Lanna Land.  (Thankfully he has been replaced by real veterinarians although like many traditional doctors he did have his successes).  The elephant camp owners that I have met, the likes of Khun Et, Lek, and others, are all committed to conservation, humane treatment and the best welfare of the animals. We disagree as to whether there is enough space in the national parks to absorb all the elephants in Thailand. But given my position that (1) there is not enough space and (2) such sanctuaries have not proven to be successful in protecting African elephant populations then I believe that the better run elephant camps up north are part of the solution and a component of that solution is to grab some of that tourist money to cover the costs of the care of the animals in the camps, costs ranging from food to medical care.

[jak2002003]

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 6:22 PM, Wilsonandson said:

Meanwhile in Koh Chang....

The baby elephant stays with it's mother for the first 2 years. Then if there are other babies a cresh is formed. A bit like going to preschool. They go off together in the morning. Say goodbye to mum. Walk down to the beach have a swim in the sea. Some of the older elephants might let some of the younger children ride on it's back. Then it's back to camp for breakfast. Which takes up alot of the elephants time, eating lots of fresh elephant food. Then its check up time. Each of the elephants feet are checked, they're skin, temperature, teeth, ears, ...

During the hot part of the day all the elephants return to camp. So the babies are reunited with their mothers. Then late afternoon they all travel down to the beach each holding the others tail for an afternoon dip and then it's back to camp for more food and an early night's sleep.

I know this, because I have spent the whole day with them. Just once. 7am-5pm. A day I shall always remember as I hope the elephants do also when I visit them again. Hopefully soon.

You are putting human sentiments onto elephants.  What they are doing is not natural and is cruel.  Surely you know elephant mothers and calf are never separated from each other in nature.  How is the elephant mother or calf to know they are not being separated for good every day?

 

Why are the baby elephants make to carry humans in the first place?

 

Why are the elephants feet checked?  Its because in captivity they develop foot disorders from walking on concrete and hard surfaces and carrying humans about.  That never happens in the wild.

 

Why do they hold each other tails?  Its because they are forced to do it by humans ... this is not a natural thing for them to do. 

 

So you are an expert because you spend only 10 hours of your entire life with that camp as a paying tourist?  Did you look closely behind the scenes?

 

Did you see the first time they took the baby away form the mother?  Did you see the chained up for hours alone over night?  Did you see them getting stabbed over and over again day after day with metal spikes?  Did you see them in chains for the rest of their lives, like criminals? 

 

You really think they are happy?

 

 

 

[jak2002003]

On ‎05‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 9:55 PM, Grubster said:

This would require killing of a few thousand elephants that were trained for logging, They don't know how to live in the wild. Its a big problem for Thailand and nobody really wants to pay to feed them except tourists.

Of course they know how to live in the wild.  They are wild animals with wild instincts... they eat plants and drink water and have no natural predators... so how hard can it be?

 

They don't have to learn to hunt food. 

 

Don't lie about paying for feed.  The tourists pay well over what the elephants need for food.  That's why its such a profitable business and makes lots of money from ignorant ill informed or uncaring tourists.

 

Food bill if release into the wild... zero.

 

 

[MiKT]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Of course they know how to live in the wild.  They are wild animals with wild instincts... they eat plants and drink water and have no natural predators... so how hard can it be?

 

They don't have to learn to hunt food. 

 

Don't lie about paying for feed.  The tourists pay well over what the elephants need for food.  That's why its such a profitable business and makes lots of money from ignorant ill informed or uncaring tourists.

 

Food bill if release into the wild... zero.

 

 

 

Sorry jak, you seem to be a little bit mixed-up. There is not anywhere near enough "wild" left in Thailand to support more elephants, I wish their was, but their just is not.

 

Look at Africa if you want to see what happens to wild elephants, many, many, many slaughtered every day for their ivory. 

 

Some form of conservation is necessary and elephants are intelligent enough to know to keep within areas where people are actively trying to stop the poaching.

 

 In the few areas left for wild elephants in Thailand the main problem is speeding motorists and poisoning, not hunting.

 

A little more research to go with your admirable, but uninformed rants please.

 

PS never heard of Lions or Tigers?

[cumgranosalum]

13 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

Well, if you think there are still plenty of places left in Thailand where elephants can still live in peace, you simply have not been around enough. The "Massive" Western forest complex is no longer massive or much of a forest complex any more, it has been very largely taken over by local (mostly Karens) illegally cutting down the trees and planting cash crops. This is not an "assumption" I have been often and seen the dreadful spreading results over the years. It is terrible and well known indictment of successive Thai governments that they have done very little to redeem this situation.

 

Its the same everywhere, Khao Yai used to be full of Tigers and Elephants, but if you go up one of the mountains and have proper look around you will find that it is yet another sham with many areas denuded of decent trees and only secondary jungle left which is not very good for big animals. Still some wildlife left, but not very much.

 

NB Before now, means before now, have you seen any elephants in Sukhumvit Soi 4 or Patpong lately? It used to be common, but at least that is something that has been cracked down on.

 

NBB If you have actual evidence of smuggling being on the increase please produce it. I will happily support any actions to prevent it, but from the evidence of the hundreds of thousands of k's I have spent visiting nearly every area in Thailand over the past 20 odd years I think (hope) that things are not as bad for elephants in Thailand (as far as exploitation for tourism is concerned) as they were 20 years ago. Much worse for wild elephants of course.

 

But smuggling from where? You would I think be surprised just how much elephants are cared for in some places, a couple of weeks ago in Bangladesh an elephant was washed down in the floods on one of the big rivers from India and they could not coax it ashore to tranquilise and take back for 3 weeks. Unfortunately it was too late when they did and the exhausted elephant died, But it was tracked the whole time. I think I can categorically say that places in Thailand where there are "unknown" groups of elephants living in tranquil surroundings untroubled by mankind is just a  wishful thinking fantasy.  Same for Myanmar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"But smuggling from where?" - It is clear you are completely uninformed on the topic - your travels have taught you nothing,.

 

i'm not in the business of researching on your behalf - if you want to take a constructive part in this thread may I suggest you do some proper research - not "search".

 

just to get you started - you might want to understand the link between tourism and smuggling - which you obviously are unaware of.

 

baby Elephant smuggling

 

Baby elephant Smuggling doco

 

i think you'd find that you were making more informed comments if you didn't just rely on your own limited perspective that you obviously overestimate.

It is a classic mistake to claim that because you have visited a place you are then fully informed about wat is happening.

(I too have travelled thousands of KM in Thailand and do not rely on this for any myopic mis-interpretation of the situation)

may I suggest you read this report?

 

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LIVE ELEPHANT TRADE IN THAILAND

 

hopefully it will put you straight on a few things. If you are going to contribute at least make the effort to inform yourself of the basics of the issues instead of just posting your own personal unsubstantiated assumptions.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[jak2002003]

10 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

Sorry jak, you seem to be a little bit mixed-up. There is not anywhere near enough "wild" left in Thailand to support more elephants, I wish their was, but their just is not.

 

Look at Africa if you want to see what happens to wild elephants, many, many, many slaughtered every day for their ivory. 

 

Some form of conservation is necessary and elephants are intelligent enough to know to keep within areas where people are actively trying to stop the poaching.

 

 In the few areas left for wild elephants in Thailand the main problem is speeding motorists and poisoning, not hunting.

 

A little more research to go with your admirable, but uninformed rants please.

 

PS never heard of Lions or Tigers?

What do you mean I never heard of Lions or Tigers?

 

I am not ranting.. I am only stating my opinion. 

 

There is plenty of space for wild elephants still left in Thailand.  You suggest I do some research... so here you go....

 

Kaeng Krachan was declared as a national park on 12 June 1981. Covering an area of 2914 km² it is the largest national park in Thailand. The park is located in Phetchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan Provinces, bounded by the Tanintharyi Nature Reserve along Myanmar's border to the west. The park is not only part of the rainforest area north and south of the park in Thailand, but also part of the Western Forex Complex that covers 18,730 km² across 19 protected sites between Myanmar and Thailand.

 

You must not have read or understood what I was saying in my post.  Because I suggested alternatives.. such as safari park kind of habitats.. where the elephants could still be cared for and monitored... but they were free to roam and act naturally over a huge area... and never chained up or forced to do shows and carry people.  Tourist would still come to see them and get educated about the conservation of elephants.

 

 

[cumgranosalum]

10 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Of course they know how to live in the wild.  They are wild animals with wild instincts... they eat plants and drink water and have no natural predators... so how hard can it be?

 

They don't have to learn to hunt food. 

 

Don't lie about paying for feed.  The tourists pay well over what the elephants need for food.  That's why its such a profitable business and makes lots of money from ignorant ill informed or uncaring tourists.

 

Food bill if release into the wild... zero.

 

 

You can't release captive elephants into the wild - they arre too familiar with humans and although could probably learn to eat for themselves, being held in captivity - especially being separated from the ir mothers when young - can lead to problems in functioning correctly in an elephant herd - elephants have a complex social structure that is largely learned from piers and parents - this does t necessarily happen in captivity.

 

the result is that you end up with large numbers of socially immature elephants running around the countryside with no "fear" of humans and the resulting clashes can be devastating.

 

There is an alternative and that is "fenced" parks and reserves - contrary to popular belief, Thailand has the space for such places and furthermore has a moral obligation to provide this as part of their policy to stop logging. as with so many things in Thailand - the dictum was not accompanied by any measures to support the original idea...i.e. you make 3000 elephants redundant but don't think what to do with them.

 

any captive elephants wherever they are kept - (even in the wild) require management of their environment - so to suggest cost of food is nil is misleading - all environments now have to be managed to some extent - and that COSTS!

however it has been clearly demonstrated that the public will pay to view elephants in a natural setting from a distance, and it isn't necessary to force them into performing uncharacteristic or unnatural behaviours just to entertain tourists.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

4 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

You can't release captive elephants into the wild - they arre too familiar with humans and although could probably learn to eat for themselves, being held in captivity - especially being separated from the ir mothers when young - can lead to problems in functioning correctly in an elephant herd - elephants have a complex social structure that is largely learned from piers and parents - this does t necessarily happen in captivity.

 

the result is that you end up with large numbers of socially immature elephants running around the countryside with no "fear" of humans and the resulting clashes can be devastating.

 

There is an alternative and that is "fenced" parks and reserves - contrary to popular belief, Thailand has the space for such places and furthermore has a moral obligation to provide this as part of their policy to stop logging. as with so many things in Thailand - the dictum was not accompanied by any measures to support the original idea...i.e. you make 3000 elephants redundant but don't think what to do with them.

 

any captive elephants wherever they are kept - (even in the wild) require management of their environment - so to suggest cost of food is nil is misleading - all environments now have to be managed to some extent - and that COSTS!

however it has been clearly demonstrated that the public will pay to view elephants in a natural setting from a distance, and it isn't necessary to force them into performing uncharacteristic or unnatural behaviours just to entertain tourists.

 

 

Yes - MiKT is making some pretty wild assumptions about space in Thailand. I guess he is aware of the terrible loss of forest  in the last century and assumes that means there is no space left.

 

the truth is that populations have dwindled faster than their habitats.

 

A study about 9 years ago suggested that with correct management there was in fat enough room for up to 2000 wild tigers in Thailand - there are in fact only about 200. 

[djayz]

I made up my mind who's to blame after reading "the mahout had tried to stop her feeding the elephant bananas but she had ignored his pleas"

People who handle animals on a daily basis generally know their animal's temperament, what you can and can't do with them, etc.

Silly woman, get well soon. 

[MiKT]

8 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

What do you mean I never heard of Lions or Tigers?

 

I am not ranting.. I am only stating my opinion. 

 

There is plenty of space for wild elephants still left in Thailand.  You suggest I do some research... so here you go....

 

Kaeng Krachan was declared as a national park on 12 June 1981. Covering an area of 2914 km² it is the largest national park in Thailand. The park is located in Phetchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan Provinces, bounded by the Tanintharyi Nature Reserve along Myanmar's border to the west. The park is not only part of the rainforest area north and south of the park in Thailand, but also part of the Western Forex Complex that covers 18,730 km² across 19 protected sites between Myanmar and Thailand.

 

You must not have read or understood what I was saying in my post.  Because I suggested alternatives.. such as safari park kind of habitats.. where the elephants could still be cared for and monitored... but they were free to roam and act naturally over a huge area... and never chained up or forced to do shows and carry people.  Tourist would still come to see them and get educated about the conservation of elephants.

 

 

 

Dear Jak,

 

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on elephants, but I don't make assumptions and I do my homework by actually visiting most of the National parks in Thailand, which is why I know for a fact (as I noted in my post #127) that huge swathes of the national parks have been taken over by people illegally clearing the forests and planting crops.

 

There are now not many more than 2000 wild elephants left in Thailand and the spaces for them to live in safely are shrinking by the day.

 

Most of the national parks are intersected by more and more roads; and wild elephants getting killed by speeding drivers; and wild elephants reacting unfavourably to cars in their domain, are commonplace incidents here.

 

Indeed it would be nice to make the national parks safer, if only by imposing and really policing realistic speed limits and by actually closing the park roads at night as they do in South Africa for instance, which is the one country (possibly Botswana excepted) that has done a good job of creating national parks where elephants and other large animals can live (yes, I have visited quite a number of them). Some roads in Khao Yai do get closed at night and in Khao Sok & kaeng Krachan where the few tigers left in Thailand live, but these are the exception.

 

But proper elephant proof fencing won't happen here as the topology and location of the many parks makes it almost impossible to fence them off to prevent wild elephants roaming (let alone the huge costs of elephant proof fencing) and the national economic necessity to keep goods moving on the limited number of roads in the mountainous areas will prevent the park roads being closed to the daily increasing traffic.

 

But I do think you are wrong about some aspects. As has been well noted by others in this thread, most of the elephants left in Thailand were logging elephants that were put out of work when the government did one of its few good things and banned unregulated logging. These elephants are used to humans and most of them now live in the tourist elephant camps. If the camps were not here those elephants would simply have been killed. Full stop.

 

Elephants are pretty clever animals and they seem to take quite well to work and carrying humans as they have done for thousands of years, so if they are not trained by the brutal methods I pictured earlier and smuggling is clamped down on, there is no real reason why they should not take a (relatively) few tourists for rides, as it is the only way the species will thrive in Thailand.

 

Thailand is not Africa and the topology and jungle of the Thai national parks mean that you will never have the kind of safaris for tourists that you get in Africa. Let the tourists pay to ride the elephants that are mostly well looked after in the camps; and keep them well away from the few wild elephants left.

 

NB Lions and tigers are natural enemies of elephants. 555.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grubster]

20 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Of course they know how to live in the wild.  They are wild animals with wild instincts... they eat plants and drink water and have no natural predators... so how hard can it be?

 

They don't have to learn to hunt food. 

 

Don't lie about paying for feed.  The tourists pay well over what the elephants need for food.  That's why its such a profitable business and makes lots of money from ignorant ill informed or uncaring tourists.

 

Food bill if release into the wild... zero.

 

 

Elephants learn from their mothers just like you and a domestic elephant has no chance in the wild.

[Ace of Pop]

Good Old Nellie.Mess about with Animals At Your Own Risk. They can have a Bad Day like anyone


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[cumgranosalum]

11 hours ago, Grubster said:

Elephants learn from their mothers just like you and a domestic elephant has no chance in the wild.

This isa not 100% true - elephants learn fro their mothers and other elephants, but unlike many species it has been demonstrated that some suitably chosen elephants can return to the wild. The problems arise not out of feeding themselves but in their lack of fear of humans which leads them into conflict with local farmers etc.

 

elephants are not a domestic animal - genetically they have never been selectively bred - they are identical to the wild elephants of Asia.

[Grubster]

6 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

This isa not 100% true - elephants learn fro their mothers and other elephants, but unlike many species it has been demonstrated that some suitably chosen elephants can return to the wild. The problems arise not out of feeding themselves but in their lack of fear of humans which leads them into conflict with local farmers etc.

 

elephants are not a domestic animal - genetically they have never been selectively bred - they are identical to the wild elephants of Asia.

Since we never seem to address the biggest problem on the planet " human overpopulation ", I doubt big animals requiring large tracts of land have much of a future here. We can't even get a handle on elephant hunting in Africa. Why doesn't the world community ban all Ivory everywhere, turn it in and burn it all, then put huge fines and imprisonment on the holding of any ivory. If they can't sell it they won't kill it. Never happen I'm sure. We are such a nasty breed of animals. You may be right or wrong about turning captive elephants back to the wild but I don't think it will help much in the long term anyway. Your heart is sure in the right place.

[cumgranosalum]

13 hours ago, MiKT said:

 

Dear Jak,

 

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on elephants, but I don't make assumptions and I do my homework by actually visiting most of the National parks in Thailand, which is why I know for a fact (as I noted in my post #127) that huge swathes of the national parks have been taken over by people illegally clearing the forests and planting crops.

 

There are now not many more than 2000 wild elephants left in Thailand and the spaces for them to live in safely are shrinking by the day.

 

Most of the national parks are intersected by more and more roads; and wild elephants getting killed by speeding drivers; and wild elephants reacting unfavourably to cars in their domain, are commonplace incidents here.

 

Indeed it would be nice to make the national parks safer, if only by imposing and really policing realistic speed limits and by actually closing the park roads at night as they do in South Africa for instance, which is the one country (possibly Botswana excepted) that has done a good job of creating national parks where elephants and other large animals can live (yes, I have visited quite a number of them). Some roads in Khao Yai do get closed at night and in Khao Sok & kaeng Krachan where the few tigers left in Thailand live, but these are the exception.

 

But proper elephant proof fencing won't happen here as the topology and location of the many parks makes it almost impossible to fence them off to prevent wild elephants roaming (let alone the huge costs of elephant proof fencing) and the national economic necessity to keep goods moving on the limited number of roads in the mountainous areas will prevent the park roads being closed to the daily increasing traffic.

 

But I do think you are wrong about some aspects. As has been well noted by others in this thread, most of the elephants left in Thailand were logging elephants that were put out of work when the government did one of its few good things and banned unregulated logging. These elephants are used to humans and most of them now live in the tourist elephant camps. If the camps were not here those elephants would simply have been killed. Full stop.

 

Elephants are pretty clever animals and they seem to take quite well to work and carrying humans as they have done for thousands of years, so if they are not trained by the brutal methods I pictured earlier and smuggling is clamped down on, there is no real reason why they should not take a (relatively) few tourists for rides, as it is the only way the species will thrive in Thailand.

 

Thailand is not Africa and the topology and jungle of the Thai national parks mean that you will never have the kind of safaris for tourists that you get in Africa. Let the tourists pay to ride the elephants that are mostly well looked after in the camps; and keep them well away from the few wild elephants left.

 

NB Lions and tigers are natural enemies of elephants. 555.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several apparently informed comments from MiKT - i will attempt to address some of them

 

“I don't claim to be any kind of expert on elephants”

- Seems to think that the word “expert” is some kind of authoritative panacea - even experts can be wrong.

 

What really matters is careful consideration of the material available and a critical understanding of it - not really show much evidence of this.

 

“but I don't make assumptions and I do my homework by actually visiting most of the National parks in Thailand,”

This appears to be the root cause of the lack of understanding of the issues. Simply visiting an NP and relying on one’s own observations as a view of the whole situation is way too blinkered; the fact is that this doesn’t seem to be understood properly and it is believed to be a valid basis for an opinion which  makes all further arguments from that poster somewhat flawed

 

“huge swathes of the national parks have been taken over by people illegally clearing the forests and planting crops.”

 

Again a wildly inaccurate conclusion.

The WFC has been inhabited by people for decades - centuries even - whereas encroachment is a huge problem your use of “huge swathes” further indicates the processes afoot are not fully understood.

 

“Most of the national parks are intersected by more and more roads; and wild elephants getting killed by speeding drivers; and wild elephants reacting unfavourably to cars in their domain, are commonplace incidents here.”

 

- yet again another comment that misinterprets the situation.

 

In reality Thai national parks are NOT intersected by many major public roads at all - there are problems with illegal logging tracks and those made for building dams etc.

There have been two major threats recently - the proposed road from Kanchanaburi to Burma and the reconstruction of a road from Mae Wong to Umphang. - both these roads would intersect the WFC - the former looks like happening - the latter has been discarded on several occasions, for the very reason it intersects the WFC.

There are roads that run along the edge of the WFC. Any wildlife sanctuary or NP is better protected with a buffer zone - unfortunately these roads prevent this.

The military also build roads/tracks into the WFC in the name of national security as the region straddles the Thai/Burma border - whilst undesirable the traffic is low on these roads.

 

One gets the impression that MiKT - is referring to the situation of the road through Khao Yai and suggesting this applies to all national parks. This is not the case.

Deaths of elephants on roads are relatively rare - most of them are captive elephants that have bee exploited by those fake mahouts who tout them around towns.

 

Encroachment and habitat destruction doesn’t mean loss of space.

Fragmentation of elephant areas is a problem and roads are part of this - it is not “swathes” Karen as MiTK suggested, it is Thai developers, illegal loggers and poachers who do the damage.

 

Elephants are a keystone species in the environments they inhabit in the wild - and herds need to be kept at a size that allows them to thrive without the threat of interbreeding and conflict with man......the amount of vegetation they eat means they need to roam larger distances/areas every day in search of food - and these areas - if protected - are there; they are still available.

 

Re -  the logging elephants: -

 

“These elephants are used to humans and most of them now live in the tourist elephant camps. If the camps were not here those elephants would simply have been killed. Full stop."

This is a pretty facile comment. Whereas it is true that the Thai authorities failed to make proper provision for the thousands of “redundant” elephants, there never was any threat to kill or cull. What is so unfortunate is that because of lack of fore-planning the elephants - whose legal status is about the same as a pick up truck - were left open to exploitation in ay way an entrepreneur felt was profitable.

This has led to the growth of a profitable industry that has exploited elephants in the name of tourism.

Contrary to MiKT’s assertion there ARE also reserves and organisations that are dedicated to allowing these elephants to spend the rest of their lives is relative peace and security in environments that are as natural as possible. The problem is not space...or fencing - it is the will to do it - something that is notably lacking is successive Thai governments - and if they adopted to same attitude as MiKT - it is likely that they would continue to do nothing.

 

“there is no real reason why they should not take a (relatively) few tourists for rides, as it is the only way the species will thrive in Thailand.”

Again another really poorly informed comment.

Elephant do not have spines suitable for carrying loads - a cursory glance at an elephant skeleton will show you why.

In fact in history, although elephants were occasionally used in war or for carrying in ceremonies - the main use has always been for pulling or pushing. even ancient civilisations saw that loading an elephant's back could easily cripple or paralyse an animal

Rule of thumb - if an elephant attraction is selling rides, it is abusing the animals. This may not be from intention - it is just from ignorance.

(Hannibal used only 40 elephants - and they almost all died before the end of his campaign)

 

The truth is however thank Thailand is under both international and public pressure to do something - not just about the plight of captive and wild elephants but all wildlife in Thailand and the region.

They are now under serious pressure from CITES to get their act together or face serious actions that could cost the country trillions of baht in lost exports - this is a vey REAL threat.

 

The solutions are there and for the most part, quite achievable - The main threat to elephants - wildlife and conservation though, is public ignorance that leads to a general apathy about all matters ecological. MiKT has shown how with a poor understanding of the issues the wrong conclusions can be reached and this kind of misinformation especially in the hands of the authorities is in the final count one of the most dangerous threats to elephants in Thailand and wildlife in general

 

PS - lions and tigers are NOT the natural enemies of elephants!

Edited October 8, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[cumgranosalum]

54 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Since we never seem to address the biggest problem on the planet " human overpopulation ", I doubt big animals requiring large tracts of land have much of a future here. We can't even get a handle on elephant hunting in Africa. Why doesn't the world community ban all Ivory everywhere, turn it in and burn it all, then put huge fines and imprisonment on the holding of any ivory. If they can't sell it they won't kill it. Never happen I'm sure. We are such a nasty breed of animals. You may be right or wrong about turning captive elephants back to the wild but I don't think it will help much in the long term anyway. Your heart is sure in the right place.

 

I can;t see that you actually have an argument here.

 

Your premise appears to be "human overpopulation?

 

are you suggesting that we should do nothing and just let humans continue to develop wherever they like without worrying about "big animals"?

 

the problem with this it seems to ignore that these creatures are part of an ecosystem and it reality it is the eoc-system we need to protect.

 

The reason for this is that we are inherently part of the global eco-system - if that system fails to work, then so do we.

we really of a stable eco-system for water, climate, ability to grow crops etc etc.

 

Removing keystone species from ecosystem leads to the degradation of the system and potentially to its ultimate collapse.

 

you comments about ivory are not really new - the measures you suggest are in place and in many cases, activated - however in Thailand the key issue here is enforcement - corruption graft and ignorance are thew main threats to the environment - not really overpopulation - there ae well established ways of preserving environment and living with that. what people overlook is that science pints out the problems and they are manifold, but science also puts forward solutions which many ignorant authorities choose to ignorance and I have to say your defeatist attitude is just the sort of stance that makes things more difficult for those with positive ideas and solutions.

Saving the environment is not just about being nice to elephants, it is in the end about saving us.

[Grubster]

2 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

I can;t see that you actually have an argument here.

 

Your premise appears to be "human overpopulation?

 

are you suggesting that we should do nothing and just let humans continue to develop wherever they like without worrying about "big animals"?

 

the problem with this it seems to ignore that these creatures are part of an ecosystem and it reality it is the eoc-system we need to protect.

 

The reason for this is that we are inherently part of the global eco-system - if that system fails to work, then so do we.

we really of a stable eco-system for water, climate, ability to grow crops etc etc.

 

Removing keystone species from ecosystem leads to the degradation of the system and potentially to its ultimate collapse.

 

you comments about ivory are not really new - the measures you suggest are in place and in many cases, activated - however in Thailand the key issue here is enforcement - corruption graft and ignorance are thew main threats to the environment - not really overpopulation - there ae well established ways of preserving environment and living with that. what people overlook is that science pints out the problems and they are manifold, but science also puts forward solutions which many ignorant authorities choose to ignorance and I have to say your defeatist attitude is just the sort of stance that makes things more difficult for those with positive ideas and solutions.

Saving the environment is not just about being nice to elephants, it is in the end about saving us.

First of all I didn't know I was in an argument until now. Yes my biggest premise is human overpopulation and if elephants could talk I think they would agree. Where did I say we should do nothing? When did I ignore the fact that creatures are part of the worlds ecosystem?  I never said I was the first to suggest making hard laws and enforcing them did I? I asked why doesn't the world have and enforce strict laws on owning any Ivory. My attitude is to do something about it, is that defeatist? If you think you can have your cake and eat it too then you are wrong. If you think that you can continue the fast growth of the human population without further invasion of the natural environment then you are a fool indeed. The use of chemicals to produce enough food to feed all will be the biggest problem, not to mention deforestation in all continents outside Antartica. Slash and burn.  Can you please offer some of your positive ideas and solutions that take into account that there will soon be another billion people to house and feed. I will be waiting.

[cumgranosalum]

4 minutes ago, Grubster said:

First of all I didn't know I was in an argument until now. Yes my biggest premise is human overpopulation and if elephants could talk I think they would agree. Where did I say we should do nothing? When did I ignore the fact that creatures are part of the worlds ecosystem?  I never said I was the first to suggest making hard laws and enforcing them did I? I asked why doesn't the world have and enforce strict laws on owning any Ivory. My attitude is to do something about it, is that defeatist? If you think you can have your cake and eat it too then you are wrong. If you think that you can continue the fast growth of the human population without further invasion of the natural environment then you are a fool indeed. The use of chemicals to produce enough food to feed all will be the biggest problem, not to mention deforestation in all continents outside Antartica. Slash and burn.  Can you please offer some of your positive ideas and solutions that take into account that there will soon be another billion people to house and feed. I will be waiting.

You don't seem to understand the word argument - or is your implication deliberately obtuse?

 

as for defeatism - "I doubt big animals requiring large tracts of land have much of a future here."

 

I asked you to clarify, but you have just avoided answering.

 

your argument is based, it would appear on a single premise that of "human overpopulation" - I have said that there are solutions to this - your implication is that disaster is inevitable.

 

you then on realising the flaws in your argument appear to have tried to move the goal posts - doesn't work for me - your original post is there for all to see.

 

 

 

 

[Grubster]

3 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

You don't seem to understand the word argument - or is your implication deliberately obtuse?

 

as for defeatism - "I doubt big animals requiring large tracts of land have much of a future here."

 

I asked you to clarify, but you have just avoided answering.

 

your argument is based, it would appear on a single premise that of "human overpopulation" - I have said that there are solutions to this - your implication is that disaster is inevitable.

 

you then on realising the flaws in your argument appear to have tried to move the goal posts - doesn't work for me - your original post is there for all to see.

 

 

 

 

WOW you do like to argue. Yes I do feel that with the ever expanding overpopulation of humans that all animals requiring large tracts of land to survive are in big trouble. Yes I feel that disaster is inevitable if people like you think that they can sustain this massive human population growth and still provide safe haven for wildlife. I did indeed clarify by telling you that in order to sustain the growth curve we are on that we will need to substantially increase food production, using much more land and chemicals to do so, what is it you don't understand about my clarification? Yes you have said there are solutions to this but rather conveniently decided not to divulge any of these to us. I don't see any flaws in what YOU call my original argument. I said what I think and I stand by that. You on the other hand have only criticized me and offered nothing else. Buck up with your solutions or shut up.

[cumgranosalum]

2 minutes ago, Grubster said:

WOW you do like to argue. Yes I do feel that with the ever expanding overpopulation of humans that all animals requiring large tracts of land to survive are in big trouble. Yes I feel that disaster is inevitable if people like you think that they can sustain this massive human population growth and still provide safe haven for wildlife. I did indeed clarify by telling you that in order to sustain the growth curve we are on that we will need to substantially increase food production, using much more land and chemicals to do so, what is it you don't understand about my clarification? Yes you have said there are solutions to this but rather conveniently decided not to divulge any of these to us. I don't see any flaws in what YOU call my original argument. I said what I think and I stand by that. You on the other hand have only criticized me and offered nothing else. Buck up with your solutions or shut up.

I take it you didn't read or understand my post - it increasingly appears that you have no real argument to make and have resorted to bluster. 

[Grubster]

23 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

I take it you didn't read or understand my post - it increasingly appears that you have no real argument to make and have resorted to bluster. 

And your self proclaimed solution is?

[cumgranosalum]

7 minutes ago, Grubster said:

And your self proclaimed solution is?

Seriously - that is an argument?

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, cumgranosalum said:

Seriously - that is an argument?

No it isn't, Im waiting for the solutions you said you offered. You wrote  " I have said there are solutions to this " . What are your solutions, is that a tough question for you. I offered mine, stop overpopulating the world, wether mine is right or wrong has no bearing on the fact you won't give yours. Lets have it, your solution is?