[1] Q: Are Elephants in Tourism Wild or Domesticated?

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: Sabaidee, and a very warm welcome to you all. Thank you for joining us here in the heart of Luang Prabang for what I know will be a vital and enlightening conversation.

The image of the elephant is central to the identity of Laos—a symbol of strength, history, and a deep connection to the natural world. Yet, in recent years, the ethics of elephant tourism have become a global flashpoint, sparking passionate debate, well-intentioned concern, and at times, deep misunderstanding.

We see a conversation often shaped by different, sometimes conflicting, ethical frameworks: the powerful call for universal animal rights, the evidence-based approach of animal welfare science, and the deep-rooted local traditions of care between mahouts and the elephants they have lived with for generations. Too often, these perspectives talk past one another rather than to one another.

Our goal today is not to find easy answers, because perhaps there are none. It is, instead, to foster a deeper understanding, to listen with respect, and to explore the complex realities behind the simple questions that so many visitors ask.

To help us navigate this terrain, we are incredibly fortunate to have three distinguished guests. Please welcome Mr. David Chen, a passionate advocate representing the international animal rights perspective. Beside him is Dr. Anya Sharma, a renowned animal welfare scholar who has dedicated her career to the scientific study of elephant well-being across Asia. And grounding us in generations of lived experience, we have Uncle Kham, a respected veteran mahout from a local elephant camp here in the Luang Prabang. (These characters are fictitious.)

Together, we will explore the most pressing ethical questions facing elephant tourism today—from riding and chaining to training, rewilding, and the very meaning of conservation itself.

Let me start by asking a question that tourists often ask, and which is at the heart of much of the debate: “Are the elephants used in tourism wild or domesticated?” Dr. Sharma, how does animal welfare science approach this issue?

Dr. Anya Sharma: Thank you. From an animal welfare and practical management perspective, elephants working in tourism are generally not considered wild. While many, especially older individuals, may have wild ancestry, their current lives are managed by humans. They’ve typically been trained to work with people, often since a young age, and an increasing number are now born into human care. They are accustomed to human presence, and in countries like Thailand and Laos, they are often registered with local authorities, sometimes even microchipped. If we use internationally accepted definitions – where wild animals live and survive independently of direct human control – then elephants in camps, while not fully domesticated like dogs or cattle, are considered managed or semi-captive animals.

Mr. David Chen: And this classification, Dr. Sharma, is precisely where the ethical concern begins for many. The question “Are these elephants still wild?” often carries an implicit, powerful moral undertone: that they should be wild. From an animal rights perspective, any deviation from that perceived natural state of wildness is viewed as a form of harm, a state of captivity, and a moral transgression. Wildness becomes the ethical benchmark against which all forms of human interaction and management are judged, and frequently condemned.

Dr. Anya Sharma: You’re right, Mr. Chen. The scientific classification doesn’t fully account for why this question is asked with such urgency. It does indeed tap into a deeper ethical framework. This desire for elephants to be “wild” is central to many advocacy campaigns that frame elephants in tourism as victims of a global system of exploitation. The imagery often ties elephants to an ideal of untouched wilderness, complete autonomy, and purely “natural” behavior – ideals believed to be violated by any human use, whether it’s tourism, traditional labor, or even long-standing companionship.

Mr. David Chen: Exactly. So, the question of wild versus domesticated isn’t just about taxonomy for us; it’s deeply political. It becomes a proxy for judging the legitimacy of elephant tourism itself. Campaigns often use emotionally charged language, describing elephants as “poached from the wild,” “broken by force,” or “enslaved” to galvanize public opposition. This has undeniably been effective in influencing tourism policy and public opinion.

Uncle Kham: (Sighs softly) These words… “poached,” “enslaved.” They are heavy words. They paint a picture that is not the life I know with my saang (elephants) here in our village, not the life my grandfather knew. For us, in our Lao culture, the elephants we live with are… neither truly “wild” like a tiger in the deep forest, nor “tame” like a buffalo in the rice paddy. They are something… in between, something special to us.

Dr. Anya Sharma: Uncle Kham touches on a crucial point. The intense emphasis on “wildness” as this lost, pure ideal reflects more than just concern for animal wellbeing; it often reflects what some humanities scholars, like Foucault or Haraway, might call a “politics of purity.” This is frequently rooted in Western environmental imaginaries where “wildness” is equated with freedom, authenticity, and moral innocence, while any human involvement is associated with control, corruption, or captivity. These moral categories aren’t neutral; they structure power. They determine whose knowledge counts, whose practices are deemed legitimate, and whose voices, like Uncle Kham’s, might be inadvertently excluded or devalued when they don’t fit neatly into this wild-versus-captive binary.

Mr. David Chen: But surely, the aspiration for an animal to live according to its natural instincts, free from human coercion, is a universal ethical good? The suffering in “breaking” processes and the limitations of captivity are well-documented.

Dr. Anya Sharma: The suffering in improper training and poor captive conditions is absolutely undeniable and must be condemned and rectified. No one disputes that. However, the very definition of “natural instincts” and “freedom” can become problematic when applied as a universal moral stick without considering diverse cultural contexts and long-standing, complex interspecies relationships. By insisting that all elephants must conform to one particular image of “wildness,” global campaigns risk undermining Indigenous and local forms of animal care that have existed for centuries and are built on different understandings.

Uncle Kham: In our villages, an elephant is a relational being. We see them as intelligent, with spirits, as important members of our community, not just animals. A mahout doesn’t just “own” an elephant like a cart. He enters a lifelong bond – a promise of care, of respect. We learn their ways, their moods, their families, like we know our own relatives. They helped us in the fields, carried goods through forests where no roads went, were part of our festivals. They would often move between our village and the nearby forest, sometimes foraging on their own, sometimes working with us. It was not just about using them; there was a sharing, a mutual understanding. These are not practices that fit easily into “wild” or “domesticated” as words from outside.

Dr. Anya Sharma: This “relational ontology” Uncle Kham describes, where beings are defined less by a fixed status like “wild” or “captive” and more by their relationships and their role within a community, is often overlooked. Elephants in such contexts are not just objects to be managed or abstract symbols to be “liberated” into a theoretical wild. They are social partners whose lives have been interwoven with human lives for generations.

Moderator: So, if the question “Are they wild or domesticated?” is itself loaded with certain assumptions, how should we approach this?

Dr. Anya Sharma: I believe we need to start by deconstructing the question itself. We should ask: Who is defining “wildness” and “domestication,” and for what purpose? What moral and political work do these definitions perform? And, crucially, what kinds of knowledge, like Uncle Kham’s, and what kinds of existing, nuanced relationships are obscured or invalidated when we insist on “wildness” as the only legitimate or ethical form of elephant life?

Mr. David Chen: While I maintain the ethical ideal of animals living free from human exploitation and control, I recognize that existing situations are complex. The path to achieving that ideal needs careful thought, especially for animals already in human care.

Uncle Kham: For us, it is about living well together. It is about respect, day by day. That is the Lao way we know.

Dr. Anya Sharma: Exactly. To truly support elephant wellbeing, globally and locally, we must move beyond these rigid binaries. We need to recognize the diversity of ways humans and elephants have lived together and can continue to live together. This means respecting not just the biological and psychological needs of elephants, as welfare science strives to do, but also the deep cultural and specific ecological contexts in which their lives are embedded. By shifting the frame from a simple “wild or not?” to “what kinds of ethical, respectful, and mutually considerate relationships are possible?” we can open space for more grounded, plural, and ultimately more sustainable forms of coexistence.

[2] Q: Is elephant riding harmful?