Like plastic pink flamingos, the charismatic elephant is an iconic species in the western world. Coming to Nepal, they were one of the few emblems that felt familiar to me, and I was excited to see them in person at the NTNC. When I arrived in Sauraha, however, I was surprised to discover how little I really knew about the species. Elephants have a long and sometimes bloody history of cohabitating with humans here. While elephants are integral to conservation efforts in the parks, their use in tourism and history of conflict with humans has also spurred controversy over their keeping.

For background, the history of captive elephants in Nepal goes back thousands of years. The first elephants in captivity date back to the fifth century A.D. They’ve been used by humans over the years as transportation, religious icons, and even as carriers in war. The history of “mahouts,” or elephant-keepers, is just as ancient. Mahouts start their days early—typically around four am—collecting fodder and grazing their elephants. They maintain a traditional way of caring for and training their elephants which is still evident today, though their methods are criticized as cruel by some animal welfare advocates. In modern times, it is estimated there are just over 200 captive elephants in Nepal. This is compared to about 150 wild Asian elephants. In and around the park, elephants are used in forestry work and research by the Nepali Army and the NTNC, and there is a growing population of privately-owned elephants employed for tourism purposes as well.

Owing to their unique biology and traits, elephants have been held captive by humans for research and business. It is this same biology, however, that predisposes elephants to being a dangerous and destructive animal. When asking Shashank about the elephants stabled at the NTNC, he assured me that they’re the only possible means of navigating the dense jungle in the parks. An elephant escort is required for any species monitoring or animal rescue missions, for example. The NTNC therefore maintains somewhere around five elephants at a time, the majority of which are female.

As for male elephants, bulls are rarely kept in captivity due to their aggression during the breeding season. Bull elephants exhibit a seasonal “musth,” during which time they become extremely dangerous to humans and elephants alike. Musth is characterized by a steep spike in testosterone (up to 140 times non-musth levels!) and secretion of the hormone temporin from glands just behind their eyes. This is accompanied by swelling of the temporal glands which causes acute pain that may further contribute to aggression. In Sauraha, captive females act as magnets for wild male elephants in musth. Bull elephants come out of the park to breed, often killing people and destroying property in the process. Over the past 20 years, just under 275 people have died from human-elephant conflict in Nepal.

Human-elephant harm in Nepal is not unidirectional, however. Privately-owned elephants in particular often suffer at the hands of their captors, due in part to the development of tourism in Chitwan. Whereas elephants would traditionally be owned by their mahouts or the community, privately-held tourism elephants are a frequent sight on the streets of Sauraha. These elephants can cost up to 90,000 USD (90 times the average annual income in Nepal!), and their purchase contributes to local wealth inequality. Private elephants are seen as a business investment, and they may work long hours under harsh treatment and limited veterinary care. Under such conditions, it is no wonder elephants occasionally rebel. Just yesterday, I heard news that a captive male elephant had returned to Chitwan after his “retraining,” having killed his mahout earlier this year.

Overall, the dimensions of human-elephant conflict in Nepal are complex and political. On one hand, captive elephants are necessary to conduct conservation missions and their use in tourism is a major source of income in Sauraha. On the other hand, they may face poor working and living conditions and their keeping can prove dangerous and even deadly. From a western perspective, it is hard not to sympathize with the heavily chained elephants seen shackled around the park. Still, as Shashank pointed out to me, the conditions are not much different than those faced by production animals or racehorses in the states. While two wrongs certainly don’t make a right, there is evident room for improvement to mitigate human-elephant conflict in Nepal.