The dark side of elephant sanctuaries

When Sarah Filipowitz, 25, started planning her backpacking trip to Southeast Asia, one of the first activities that turned up in her research pointed her elephant sanctuary. She had heard about the dark side of wildlife tourism in the past and was deeply opposed to riding elephants. When she learned about elephant sanctuaries, she was overjoyed.

The sanctuary appeared to be a wholesome experience that allowed tourists to spend a day with elephants. Tourists could feed the elephants bananas, clean their sleeping quarters, take them on a jungle walk, feed them more bananas, and the highlight of the day—give them a bath—the crux of thousands of photo ops and Instagram influencer posts. 

For Filipowitz, this was a perfect opportunity to interact with elephants without compromising their welfare—so she thought.

Before leaving for the tour, Filipowitz could not ignore a feeling of uneasiness. Unable to shake it, she approached the owner of the hostel at the front desk.

“Good morning,” said Filipowitz, startling the woman. “I have a quick question about this tour. They don’t let people ride the elephants, right?”

After some thought the woman responded in broken English. She explained the tour Filipowitz was about to embark on did not allow tourists to ride elephants, but that same company still ran other tours that allowed for elephant riding. 

Filipowitz was dumbfounded. How could the same company that ran the elephant sanctuary also allow tourists to ride elephants on another tour? 

She never boarded the bus to the elephant sanctuary.

The best intentions

Filipowitz chose to book a tour with an elephant sanctuary because she believed it was ethical for the elephants. She felt betrayed when she learned that was not the reality. 

Two years later, Filipowitz reflects back on the experience and everything she has learned since.

“At the time I wanted that experience with elephants,” she said. “Because that’s what you do in Thailand.”

Her experience motivated her to look for the answer to a difficult question: are these sanctuaries really the ethical experience they are made out to be?

“Tourists don’t want to ride the elephants anymore,” said Filipowitz. “They want a very ethical experience, but they still want to interact with the elephants. So all of these tour companies are profiting off of that. But the more you look into it, you realize that not all of them are actually caring about the elephants.”

It is difficult to deny social media’s role in painting elephant sanctuaries as these amazing bucket-list experiences. Travel Instagram accounts are overflowing with candid photos of tourists playing with elephants in the mud. However, these photographs fail to paint the entire picture. They show the fun moments, but rarely ever acknowledge what goes on behind the lens.

The reality of sham sanctuaries 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a nonprofit organization that exposes animal suffering in the food industry, entertainment industry and in the clothing trade. According to PETA, even if a company does not provide elephant riding tours, they likely still utilize the same practice performed to tame elephants for riding. This practice involves beating the elephant to break, or “crush,” their spirits in order to make them fearful and submissive. Elephants used for human entertainment—even at sanctuaries—have been subject to this process to make sure they are docile around tourists. This abuse is carefully hidden in what PETA refers to as “sham sanctuaries.” 

Many facilities tack on compassionate-sounding descriptors to their names such as sanctuary, refuge, rescue or orphanage. These buzzwords are if anything, misleading. 

Elephants are forced to follow a strict schedule which, at the surface level, succeeds at creating the illusion of a sanctuary. They are required to go on jungle walks and take baths with tourists, even when they do not want to participate. Which begs the question, is this more ethical?

According to PETA, a real sanctuary would never buy, sell, trade, exploit or profit from elephants. They do not use physical force to break an elephant down into interacting with humans—something they would instinctually never do under any other circumstances. True sanctuaries provide elephants with the companionship of other elephants in an environment that mimics their natural habitat. Elephants in real sanctuaries are not forced to follow an itinerary to appease eager tourists, rather they are given freedom to do what elephants do—knock down trees, swim in ponds and forage in the forest.

Perhaps one of the most important distinctions between true sanctuaries and sham sanctuaries is that the elephants are not there to entertain tourists. In sham sanctuaries, elephants are overworked to make a profit for the operators of the company. In real sanctuaries, animal welfare takes precedence over money and facilities are only open to the public on select days. 

Wildlife tourism is not black and white. Animal care is a poorly regulated industry. The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) is the only globally recognized organization for certifying that a facility meets the GFAS Standards of Excellence and recognizes those as a true sanctuary.

According to GFAS, thousands of organizations across the world describe themselves as sanctuaries or rescues, but fail to uphold any semblance of humane care for the animals.

That is why GFAS works to give accreditation and verification to any facility that is a true animal sanctuary. So far, no organization in Thailand has received accreditation. Only three facilities have been verified in South East Asia, which encompasses 11 countries. 

“I think in a perfect world, we wouldn’t be interacting with the elephants at all,” said Filipowitz. “That is probably what is best for the elephants.”