Protecting Elephants Without Erasing Relationships

Why We Are Careful with the Words “Rescue,” “Sanctuary” and “Rewilding”

“Rescue,” “sanctuary” and “rewilding” are powerful words. They suggest that an elephant has been removed from suffering and brought closer to a natural and independent life.

Sometimes this is true. An elephant in immediate danger may need to be relocated. A well-managed sanctuary may provide excellent lifelong care. Rewilding may be possible for some elephants under suitable conditions.

But these words alone do not tell us whether an elephant’s life has improved.

A label can describe an organisation’s intention. It cannot replace an assessment of the elephant’s whole life: its health, movement, food, rest, social relationships, individual history, care system and future security.

That is why we approach these concepts carefully.

What Human Welfare Can Teach Us

Imagine an elderly person who has lived for many years in a rural community. This person works with family members, knows the surrounding landscape and depends on relationships built over a lifetime.

If we were concerned about this person’s welfare, we would not ask only:

“Does this person work?”

We would ask:

• Is the work excessive or appropriate?
• Is the person healthy and properly supported?
• Can they rest when they need to?
• Do they wish to remain with their family and community?
• Can difficult conditions be improved without removing them from their home?
• Who will care for them in the future?
• What knowledge, relationships and sense of belonging might be lost if they are relocated?

We would not automatically assume that placing the person in an institution and ending all work would improve their life. The institution might provide better medical care and physical safety. It might also create isolation, dependency or the loss of meaningful relationships.

Human welfare is normally understood in context. Family, community, personal history, practical knowledge and long-term relationships matter.

Yet when the subject is an elephant, this contextual thinking is often replaced by a much simpler story.

Who Decides What a “Real Elephant” Should Be?

People often define the authentic elephant in advance.

A “real elephant,” they may say, should not work, should not be ridden, should have minimal human contact, should live only with other elephants and should move towards a life resembling that of a wild population.

This image may appear to place elephants rather than humans at the centre. But there is a hidden form of human-centred thinking within it.

Humans are still deciding what an elephant should become.

When outside experts define the authentic elephant, select which relationships are acceptable and reorganise an elephant’s life according to that image, humans remain at the centre as designers—even when the stated goal is to remove human influence.

Human absence is not the same as overcoming human-centred thinking.

The real question is not whether an elephant looks sufficiently wild to us. It is whether the life of that particular elephant is becoming healthier, safer and more meaningful within the circumstances in which it actually lives.

“Rescue” Is the Beginning of a Question

An elephant may genuinely need rescue from injury, abandonment, dangerous labour or inadequate care. We do not deny the importance of such interventions.

But the word “rescue” should begin an investigation, not end one.

We should still ask:

• What exactly was the elephant rescued from?
• Was relocation necessary, or could the original conditions have been improved?
• Who decided what was best for the elephant?
• What happened to the mahout who knew the elephant?
• Who is responsible for the elephant after the rescue?
• Is there sufficient land, food, veterinary care and stable funding for the rest of its life?
• Has one problematic relationship been improved, or simply replaced by another system of control?

Moving an elephant does not remove it from human management. It transfers responsibility from one group of people to another.

The quality and accountability of that new relationship must also be examined.

“Non-Riding” Describes One Activity

“Non-riding” tells us that one activity does not take place. It does not tell us how the elephant lives during the other twenty-four hours of the day.

A non-riding facility still makes decisions about where elephants can move, what and when they eat, which elephants they meet, how they bathe, when visitors observe or photograph them, where they remain at night and how illness or dangerous behaviour is managed.

These decisions can be made well or badly.

In the same way, the presence of riding does not by itself describe the elephant’s welfare. Responsible assessment must consider the individual elephant, its health, the weight carried, equipment, duration, terrain, temperature, opportunities for rest, freedom to forage, daily exercise and the judgement of the mahout who knows it.

Riding may be inappropriate for a particular elephant or under particular conditions. It should never be forced simply to satisfy visitors. But its presence does not automatically prove poor welfare, just as its absence does not automatically prove good welfare.

A prohibited-activity list is easy to communicate. An elephant’s whole life is more difficult to evaluate—but that is where welfare actually exists.

A Sanctuary Does Not End Human Relationships

The word “sanctuary” often creates an image of an elephant finally being free from people. In reality, a sanctuary does not remove an elephant from human relationships. It replaces one set of human relationships with another.

The elephant now depends on an organisation, managers, veterinarians, caregivers, donors and often visitors. These people decide how the elephant will live and what kinds of contact are permitted.

This new system may provide excellent care. But the word “sanctuary” is not itself a welfare certification.

We must ask the same practical questions of every institution:

• Who knows each elephant as an individual?
• How stable are the elephant’s relationships with caregivers?
• Is there enough space, food, exercise and medical support?
• How are stress, fatigue and social incompatibility recognised?
• Can staff question management decisions?
• Can the elephant’s behaviour change the plan?
• Is care financially sustainable throughout the elephant’s lifetime?

A place should be judged by what happens there, not by the moral power of its name.

Rewilding Is a Possibility, Not a Universal Destination

Rewilding can be valuable when suitable elephants, secure habitat, long-term monitoring and sufficient resources are available. But it is not a natural or inevitable destination for every elephant living under human care.

Elephants have individual histories. Some have spent decades living and working with people. They have learned particular habits, formed attachments and developed ways of communicating with specific mahouts. Greater autonomy may be possible, but it cannot simply be assumed that every relationship with humans is an obstacle to be overcome.

Rewilding is also not the absence of human decisions. People select the land, elephant groups, release schedules, breeding plans, monitoring systems and acceptable levels of intervention.

A responsible rewilding project must therefore remain accountable for what happens after human contact is reduced. If elephants do not respond as expected, the project—not the elephants—must be capable of changing.

Respecting Relationships Does Not Mean Defending Every Tradition

Relationships are not automatically good because they are old or local.

Human–elephant relations can contain knowledge, trust, care and mutual familiarity. They can also contain coercion, danger, overwork and neglect.

Respecting mahout traditions does not mean that every inherited practice must continue unchanged. It means that change should begin with careful attention to the elephant, the mahout and the conditions in which they live—not with a verdict imposed from outside on the basis of a single visible activity.

For every practice, we should ask:

• What should be sustained?
• What needs to be improved?
• What should end?
• What evidence supports the decision?
• Whose knowledge is being considered?
• Can mahouts question and redirect the plan?
• Can the responses of a particular elephant change what people decide to do?

Science and veterinary expertise are essential. But they should work with situated knowledge, not place themselves above it.

Our Approach at Manifa

At Manifa, we understand elephant welfare as part of a living system of relationships.

That system includes:

• Each elephant’s health, personality, history and preferences
• Relationships among elephants
• The knowledge and daily judgement of mahouts
• Mahout families and the local community
• Forests, water, seasons and natural vegetation
• Veterinary care and continuous health monitoring
• Tourism income and the long-term resources required for care

We do not believe that the removal of one activity automatically creates good welfare. Nor do we assume that a practice is acceptable simply because it is traditional.

Activities must be evaluated according to the condition and responses of the individual elephant. A mahout may alter the daily plan because an elephant appears tired, uncomfortable, unwell or unwilling to continue. Where both riding and walking are appropriate, visitors may choose between them. Neither option creates an automatic ethical hierarchy.

The welfare of the elephant must come before the expectations of the visitor.

What Your Visit Supports

A visit to Manifa does not “rescue” elephants from the people of Laos.

It supports the shared system that makes long-term care possible:

• Food, healthcare and monitoring for elephants
• Daily movement, forest access and natural foraging
• Skilled and stable employment for mahouts
• Livelihoods for families and the surrounding community
• The continuation and improvement of practical elephant knowledge
• A future in which elephants can remain part of the living landscape of Laos

Protecting elephants does not mean separating them from every human relationship.

It means taking responsibility for the relationships in which they already live—recognising what is harmful, improving what can be improved and allowing both elephants and the people who know them to influence what responsible care requires.

Elephants do not need a label. They need a good life, responsible care and relationships that can continue to change for the better.

For those who would like to further explore the issue of human-elephant relations in tourism and conservation, please read our paper “The Making of Elephant-Centrism – Moral Reorganisation in Lao Elephant Tourism and Conservation“.

Manifa Elephant Camp Top Page
Explore Manifa Elephant Experiences

What Makes Manifa Elephant Camp Ethically Different?
Protecting Elephants Without Erasing Relationships
About Elephant Riding at Manifa

“The Making of Elephant-Centrism – Moral Reorganisation in Lao Elephant Tourism and Conservation“