Current tactics are failing in human-elephant conflicts — it is time to question efficacy of confrontational methods

The media was awash with words laden with deep emotions of anger and sympathy when an elephant in Jhargram, West Bengal, was fatally injured by a flaming rod wielded by members of a ‘hula party’ — a group of youths recruited by the state forest department to drive away elephants from human-populated areas. The collective angst over the tragic incident spilt over into days, during which many people learned of the existence and role of these parties for the first time.

However, the effectiveness of such confrontational practices in driving wild animals away from human-dominated landscapes was not questioned. While there is an urgent need to mitigate these interactions to prevent loss of human lives and livelihoods, there is ample evidence to show such aggressive drives remain one of the leading causes of deaths of humans and elephants.

The current status

Over the last few decades, the most commonly used confrontational practices to mitigate human-elephant interactions have included loud alarms, drums, bursting crackers, chasing animals by mobs, forest departments with vehicles, and, at times, taking help from groups like hula parties. Some of these practices have been brought to the spotlight for their negative implications and even petitioned against in the Supreme Court.

The practice of supporting local mobs to drive away elephants needs to be reconsidered, especially since the forest department and hula parties have very few success stories to offer. These encounters often result in the death of either the animal or members of the hula party.

The forest department has now proposed further training and sensitisation for these members, yet this does not address the core problem: The use of loud noises and torches by mobs often leads to more aggression and retaliation from elephants. When these extreme measures fail, people may resort to more lethal methods.

“Firecrackers do not deter elephants here; they actually charge at us, more so now than before. I have witnessed a forest guard lose half his face from an elephant attack when people and the department were chasing a herd,” said Indira P from Cauvery, Karnataka.

Numerous similar cases have occurred across the country, where members of the forest department or local residents have been killed in retaliatory attacks during such drives. Moreover, elephants often remain aggravated and stressed after being chased, which can lead to numerous incidents of interactions as they retreat into other areas.

The negative effects of using loud drums and firecrackers are often demonstrated among captive elephants in temple processions in India, where sudden explosions cause aggressive reactions. These incidents have sometimes resulted in fatalities.

Traditional practices, overlooked reports 

A study in Sri Lanka found that the constant use of loud firecrackers to deter elephants also impaired their hearing, rendering them unresponsive to such methods and leading to an increase in interactions. Another study highlighted that using loud noises to chase away elephants in India raises stress levels, particularly in young males, which can escalate interactions.

Across Asia, many have pointed out the temporary relief and long-term futility of these measures. “Almost all current and past mitigation measures will not stop interactions,” said Sri Lanka’s foremost elephant expert, Prithviraj Fernando, at a recent event in Bengaluru.

Since the 1990s, numerous reports have repeatedly cautioned against several practices for mitigating conflicts. These are:

• Short drives to drive elephants away from villages often fail, as the animals either return or move to the next town, triggering new conflicts.

• Methods, such as beating drums, bursting crackers and using drones provide only temporary solutions, potentially shifting, aggravating or delaying conflicts.

• These tactics exponentially raise stress levels in elephants, increasing their aggression and leading to greater destruction during conflicts.

• A review of human-elephant conflict mitigation strategies in South Asia revealed that confrontational methods heighten the risk of injury and death for both farmers and elephants as aggression levels rise on both sides.

• A study of mitigation measures used across Asian elephant habitats shows that firecrackers, fires around homes, or gunshots often lead elephants to become habituated to these methods, but not without becoming more aggressive over time.

Impact on interspecies relationship

While we must address these interactions as they arise, it is equally important to assess how confrontational approaches may exacerbate or even cause such conflicts.

Understanding how these measures impact and influence locals’ perceptions, interactions and associations with elephants is equally essential. Many studies have proved that failures of traditional method, especially when repeatedly employed, will likely make people less tolerant of elephants, often prompting them to resort to more lethal methods.

How does the persistent use of aggressive mitigation tactics influence and motivate local communities? Are these methods altering people’s perceptions of elephants, shifting from reverence and empathy to viewing them as pests? And are these tactics negatively affecting culturally ingrained relationships with nature?

Are these measures, which could potentially make people unsympathetic and negatively impact their empathy toward elephant suffering, widening the rift? Now, more than ever, we need to assess if such practices are giving birth to future generations of traumatised elephants and humans with acquired or learned aggression towards each other.

Time to look back

Elephants are intelligent animals with agency, culture, strong family bonds, and memory. They think, socialise, and strategise. As large social nomads, they frequently venture beyond protected areas. Thus, efforts to deal with so-called “straying” or “rogue” elephants, terms that misrepresent their natural behaviour, are misguided and set a wrong precedent.

Accepting this fact is critical because we urgently need to move away from distractions that offer permanent solutions to migrating mammals. When most political discourse is still hung on grand promises of such solutions, resources and pressure on those responsible (forest department, locals) for mitigation will only escalate with no clear respite.

There is also a need to understand that coexistence, as the majority perceive and glorify, is, in reality, a forced coexistence — since the humans and wild animals here are both victims in equal measure of unequal policies and unscientific development, suffering immense losses.

As highlighted in a 2010 study, human-wildlife conflict, most times, is also human-human conflict: “Conflicts that tend to occur among humans deciding how best to address potential wildlife threats to human property, health, safety or development objectives.”

When two sentient beings, often portrayed as those with an unyielding memory, are involuntarily pitted into a competition for resources and space, the prolonged use of aggressive tactics could significantly reshape their adaptive strategies and behavioural flexibility — even towards each other. The potential consequences of this impact should give us pause and strongly encourage us to consider the implications. 

Gana Kedlaya is an independent journalist based in Bengaluru

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth