We need to be sure what we're breeding for...

By John Roberts 19 March 2008 03:37:00

I'll admit it, I have a problem of a sexual nature, well, more a reproductive dilemma I suppose.  As you'd expect though, my furrowed brow is elephant related as I try to juggle my cold, hard, scientific, dogmatic background and the obvious happiness that greets every new elephant birth.  

    I have long held that while there is so little work for elephants in Thailand, while, in order to turn a banana, they find themselves on the street or giving five hours of treks a day for a starvation wage; while there is nothing for them but tourist work and no forest to retire to at night; while all these situations hold I cannot see why on earth would think about increasing the population.

    I've always said that I'd rather work hard give the eles that exist a better life than create more - of course the problem is how to make sure it is not a Catch 22.  Many owners wouldn't breed if there wasn't a market for baby elephants (in Laos and Cambodia a baby is seen as a liability, in Burma they smuggle them to Thailand), how do we ensure we're not creating, or at least feeding, that market - I believe the Rescue Rental idea is one such way, but that's another blog.

    By all means let's hold the population steady, let us - as the TECC are doing - investigate Artificial Insemination as a safety net against true extinction should that population collapse at some time in the future, but why on earth would we embark on breeding programmes?  

    Most places that trumpet their mating eles - under slogans such as "Extinction is Forever" or "Breeding for the Continuation of the Species" - cannot lay claim to the title of Breeding Programme which, to me, infers some control, the keeping of a studbook, the deliberate broadening of the gene pool rather than one or two males getting their oats and cute baby elephants being produced.

    One camp in Ayuthhaya is taking a different controlled approach, breeding friendly elephants from friendly elephants, a deliberate domestication of the species after 4,000 years.  The owner, K. Aom, points out that if domestic elephants are going to continue to have a place with us then they're going to have to be friendly and live well in increasingly less wild circumstances, live in close proximity with humans who - unlike mahouts - have not grown up with elephants and will not excuse the natural propensity of some to squash a person every once in awhile.

    If we accept K. Aom's 'if' then it is difficult to argue with his logic - if we go on at this rate there'll be not much left but cities and orchards; eles, if they are going to remain with us, must learn to go down the route of dogs or horses.  My question would be, then, why?

    Why are we breeding?  I was recently asked to support a campaign to let this current generation of domestic elephants die out as comfortably as possible and concentrate on helping our wild populations - perhaps returning as many domestics as possible to the wild, a well regarded Indian vet also whispered (over a beer) a campaign to ban domestic elephant breeding over there.  

    From a cold conservation principle this makes sense, why do we need domestic elephants?  Emotionally living in Thailand I can come up with 1,000,000 reasons (or at least 3,456) but none are scientific and none answers the pivotal question - what are the elephants born today going to be doing when they are 50?  At least concentrating on the wild populations has the bonus of saving the forest as well as a species - should the wild population recover and should we run out of oil and need domestic elephants again, well, there are always the old ways of bringing wild elephants into the human population, nasty and unnecessary as they are today.

    I didn't add my name to the campaign though, I acknowledge the sense it makes from a distance but it doesn't feel right when there's a baby elephant headbutting your knees or suckling on your thumb - perhaps I am too close, often being trampled by, the problem.

    So, having once again acknowledged that everyone's argument has value and that the scientists probably hold the high ground and my friends and colleagues hold an emotional but non-sustainable island in the flood where do I stand with my charges, the ones that caused this dilemma in the first place?

    First, the part that I can do not much about, over at Four Seasons Boun Liang has allegedly found his form and taken a shine to both Yuki and Puang Phet (I'd expect it from the former but expected better from the latter), ought I be overjoyed as the mahouts and all guests are or ought I be holding onto the moral high ground?  Well, an over amorous embrace doth not a baby make so I get to dodge the issue for 22 months and then, if faced with a baby, probably, honestly, come down on the side of the emotionalists.    

    Second, Boun Na's owner has asked for her to go on mating leave, do I lecture the man that I believe his livelihood and generational lifestyle, that of his village, is finished and offer to teach him truck driving or computer skills, do I ask him what he intends to do with the baby? how can he guarantee that it won't end up on the streets?  Does he even worry about this? ....or do I agree, on my terms, and admit that I secretly relish the arrival of a little Boun Na?

    I'll let you know! 

Add your comment

Carl Thompson Says
17 April 2008 01:45:00

Hello, I'm a journalist, and a few years ago I wrote an article about the elephant camp (just after it opened). Now the article will finally be published in a UK newspaper (I've no idea why it was delayed so long). Anyway I need to check some of the facts before publication, so I'm hoping John still works at the elephant camp. If this is the case, could you please give him my email address and ask him to get in touch? Many thanks Carl Thompson

Back to Top