[7] Q: Are elephants working for people eligible for rescue and conservation?

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: Let’s turn to another critical issue. When we talk about animal protection, the terms “rescue” and “conservation” are paramount. So, the question is: Are elephants working for people eligible for rescue and conservation? Mr. Chen, your perspective often drives the rescue narrative.

Mr. David Chen: Thank you. From an animal rights perspective, the answer is clear. Any form of elephant labor—whether in tourism, ceremonies, or otherwise—is a form of exploitation and a violation of that elephant’s autonomy. Therefore, every working elephant is inherently a victim of this system, and “rescue” becomes a moral imperative to liberate them from that subjugation. “Conservation,” in its purest form, should mean restoring elephants to a world free from human interference. So, yes, they are eligible for rescue, because their labor itself signifies a state from which they need to be rescued.

Dr. Anya Sharma: This is where the animal welfare framework diverges significantly. From a welfare standpoint, an elephant’s eligibility for rescue depends entirely on its individual physical and psychological wellbeing, not its job description. Rescue is absolutely warranted when an elephant suffers from documented malnutrition, abuse, overwork, or social isolation. However, it is not warranted simply because the elephant performs tasks with a human. An elephant’s needs for good nutrition, social interaction, exercise, and freedom from pain are what matter. Working elephants can and do thrive if their routines are well-managed. Conservation, similarly, should aim to protect all elephants, not just those deemed “wild enough” by certain ideological standards. This view pushes back against what we might call “purity-based exclusions.”

Uncle Kham: (Shakes his head slowly) For me, and for many mahouts in my village, the question itself feels strange, from a different world. “Eligible for rescue?” My elephant, Mae Bounma, does not need to be “rescued” from me. She needs to be rescued with me from dangers like poaching or sickness. For us, working with our saang (elephants) is not abuse; it is a form of relational labor, a way of living together that we have learned from our ancestors. They are not our tools or slaves; they are our companions in a shared world.

Dr. Anya Sharma: Uncle Kham is highlighting a key issue: the question itself carries the weight of a particular ideology, one that often assumes real nature is separate from people and that all labor is inherently exploitative. The Laotian situation requires another model. The goal isn’t separation, but making the existing, interdependent relationships more just, respectful, and sustainable. Welfare-based conservation should not oppose human-elephant relationships; it seeks to improve their quality.

Mr. David Chen: But can a relationship truly be “just” or “respectful” if it is fundamentally unequal? Even with the best care, the elephant has not consented to its role. Our campaigns have gained global visibility precisely because the public increasingly sees any form of animal labor for entertainment as a violation. By asserting that only non-working elephants are worth placing in true sanctuaries, we are trying to shift the entire market away from using animals as a resource.

Uncle Kham: We do not see our elephants as a “resource.” We see them as individuals, with histories, with personalities. We do not divide the world into “wild” or “captive.” Mae Bounma works with us for part of the day, rests and forages in the forest for the rest. She is cared for, she is respected, she is part of our family’s story. Does she deserve less protection, less conservation effort, than an elephant in a distant national park that no one knows by name? Her life, our shared life, is also worth protecting. This is a place-based ethic; our care is grounded in being close to her every day, not judging her from afar.

Dr. Anya Sharma: And this is the danger of turning conservation into a purity contest. If we exclude elephants and people who don’t fit a narrow, often Western, ideal of untouched nature, we risk abandoning the majority of elephants in human care in Southeast Asia. The focus should be on individual well-being over symbolic categories. We must avoid a situation where an elephant in a loving, well-managed working relationship receives less support than a “rescued” elephant living in a poorly funded sanctuary with little social interaction.

Moderator: So, to bring it all together, what is the conclusion? Are working elephants eligible?

Dr. Anya Sharma: Yes, absolutely. Not because they are victims in need of salvation simply for working, but because they are living beings with histories, relationships, and futures that matter. The real ethical questions we should be asking are: What kind of life does this specific elephant live right now? What kind of care is possible and sustainable here? And whose values are we using to define what counts as “natural” or worth conserving?

Uncle Kham: We must not confuse working with suffering. My elephant is a co-worker, a companion, a kin. That is a life worth protecting.

Mr. David Chen: And we must not confuse care with consent. We will continue to advocate for a world where that companionship doesn’t rely on a dynamic of labor and control.

Dr. Anya Sharma: And in the meantime, our collective responsibility is to support the well-being of all elephants, in all the diverse and complex ways they live alongside people, ensuring conservation is about inclusion, not erasure.

[8] Q: Should all activities involving interactions with elephants be banned or boycotted?

Post Views: 8