[3] Q: Is it ethical to chain elephants?

Characters:

Dr. Anya Sharma: An Animal Welfare Scholar
Mr. David Chen: An Animal Rights Activist
Uncle Kham: A Veteran Laotian Mahout from Manifa Elephant Camp

Moderator: Thank you for those broad perspectives. Let’s narrow our focus to a specific management practice. Many camps, including some here in Laos like Manifa Elephant Camp, utilize long chains for elephants overnight. Uncle Kham, perhaps you could share how and why this is done at your camp, which I understand is set in a secondary forest bordering villagers’ fields, and not far from a village?

Uncle Kham: Yes, Khun Moderator. At our camp, Manifa, our elephants are part of the forest, but also part of our human world. At night, for their safety and ours, we use a long chain – about 45 meters. This allows them to walk, to find food we ensure is plentiful in that area, to drink from the streams. It is not a small space for them. The reasons are many and important to us. Our land borders the rice fields and vegetable gardens of our neighbours. If an elephant, even by accident, wanders into these fields, it can destroy a family’s whole crop in one night. This causes great trouble, and sometimes, sadly, people might try to harm the elephant to protect their livelihood. The long chain prevents this.

Mr. David Chen: Uncle Kham, while I appreciate your concern for your neighbours, isn’t this a consequence of keeping elephants in an area so close to human agriculture in the first place? From a rights perspective, the elephant is being restrained because of a human-created conflict.

Uncle Kham: It is the world we share now, Khun David. The forest shrinks, the villages grow. We must find ways to live together. Also, the chain protects the elephants from other dangers. There are still people who would steal a young elephant, or worse, harm a bull for his ivory. Our camp is a safe but the world outside can be dangerous. And even among themselves, elephants can sometimes have disagreements, especially bulls, or if a new mother is protective. The night chain gives each elephant its own safe space, preventing injuries to each other, or to any staff or visitor who might be nearby, though visitors are not usually in those areas at night. Even our gentle female elephants are immensely powerful.

Dr. Anya Sharma: This specific practice of using a 45-meter chain overnight for ranging and foraging, as Uncle Kham describes, presents a very interesting case from an animal welfare viewpoint. The length is significant; it allows for a considerable degree of movement, choice in foraging, and access to water, which are all positive welfare indicators compared to, say, very short chains or confinement in small, barren enclosures for 12-14 hours. The stated purposes – preventing human-elephant conflict, protecting elephants from poaching or theft, and ensuring safety for humans and other elephants – are all legitimate welfare concerns. If the alternative to this type of managed chaining is a higher risk of injury, malnutrition from being unable to access their own land safely, or severe stress from being kept in very small, inadequate spaces to prevent escape, then this long-chain system could represent a better welfare outcome under specific environmental and social constraints.

Mr. David Chen: But Dr. Sharma, does “better” than a worse alternative make it ethically right? The elephant still did not choose the 45-meter radius. It is still a form of confinement, a denial of its fundamental right to freedom and autonomy. While I acknowledge the practical dangers Uncle Kham describes, these dangers often arise precisely because elephants are treated as property to be managed, stolen, or to wander. If they were truly free in vast, protected natural habitats, these specific justifications for chaining would largely disappear. The 45-meter chain, however long, is still a chain, a symbol of their captivity.

Dr. Anya Sharma: From a purely animal rights perspective, Mr. Chen, your point is consistent: any imposed restraint is a violation. However, welfare science often operates in a sphere of pragmatic ethics, aiming to optimize well-being within existing, often imperfect, systems. The key welfare questions here would be: Is the chain designed and used in a way that prevents chafing or injury? Is the area truly rich in diverse browse and water? Are social needs considered – for instance, can compatible elephants see or hear each other even if chained separately for safety? Is their daytime experience rich with exercise, social interaction, and stimulation, as Uncle Kham mentioned they are not chained during the day at Manifa? If these conditions are met, the negative welfare impact of such specific overnight chaining might be minimal, and outweighed by the protection it affords against greater harms in that particular socio-ecological context.

Uncle Kham: We mahouts, we check the chains every day, to make sure they are smooth, not twisted. We move the chaining area so the forest can rest and regrow, and so they always have fresh things to eat. And yes, they can hear each other, smell each other. They are not alone in the deep dark. We are also nearby. This is our way of being responsible, not just for their food and water, but for their safety from all dangers – the ones inside our camp, and the ones that might come from outside. This is our tradition of care, to think of everything that keeps them well and peaceful. We do not leave them in small concrete boxes. They are in their forest.

Mr. David Chen: I understand the intention of care, Uncle Kham. But the ideal we should strive for is a situation where such “protective” chaining is rendered completely unnecessary because elephants are in truly vast, secure wild or semi-wild reserves, managed primarily for their own intrinsic value, not as components of a tourist camp, however well-intentioned. The resources spent on managing chained systems, perhaps, could be redirected to creating these more ideal environments.

Dr. Anya Sharma: That’s certainly a long-term goal many would share, Mr. Chen. However, in the interim, for existing populations of elephants in human care, especially in landscapes like much of Southeast Asia where truly vast, secure, and entirely separate wild spaces are increasingly rare and often fragmented, we have to address the “here and now” ethically and pragmatically. If a camp like Manifa can demonstrate that their specific overnight chaining practice with long tethers genuinely prevents significant, documented risks – such as severe crop conflict leading to elephant injury or death, or poaching incidents – while providing for a range of natural behaviors and ensuring no physical harm from the chain itself, then it becomes a complex ethical calculation. Banning this specific practice without a viable, safer alternative already in place could inadvertently lead to worse welfare outcomes, such as elephants being confined to smaller, less enriching “chain-free” enclosures overnight, or increased human-elephant conflict if they are left to roam entirely freely in an unsecured, shared landscape.

Uncle Kham: For us, it is simple. We love our elephants. We want them safe. We want our neighbours safe. The long chain at night helps us do this, while still letting the elephant be an elephant in the forest. During the day, they walk with us, they bathe, they are free in our protected areas. It is a balance.

Moderator: This highlights the immense challenge of balancing ideals of complete freedom with the practical responsibilities of ensuring safety and welfare in a world where human and elephant habitats are so closely intertwined. The specific details of how such management techniques are implemented seem absolutely critical.

[4] Q: Is it important to use a hook with elephants?