Welfare impacts associated with using aversive geofencing devices on captive Asian elephants

Mel, Surendranie J. Cabral de; Seneweera, Saman; Mel, Ruvinda K. de; Dangolla, Ashoka; Weerakoon, Dushni; Maraseni, Tek; Allen, Benjamin L.

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105991

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Respondents questioned the impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of elephants in response to electric shocks. Previous studies conducted on other species [ 63 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ] and with captive Asian elephants [ 76 ] showed that the expected increase in acute stress levels measured using behavioural (e.g., aversive or anxiety/stress related behaviours) and physiological (e.g., cortisol hormone levels, heart rate, body temperature) responses to electric shock rapidly returned to baseline levels soon after experiencing them. Further, by ensuring that stimuli are delivered only when the elephant moved in the ‘wrong’ direction and not based on its location, will permit elephants to learn accurately and move in the ‘right’ direction to avoid the shock [ 96 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Part of the reason for this debate may be the many nuances associated with the way electric shocks are used with these species, e.g., the strength of the shock, or whether shocks are delivered by humans or if animals can avoid the shock if they choose, and the possible stress that it would cause on the animal. Non-lethal electric fences used for elephants typically deliver electric shocks of 5500–10,000 V with very low amperage (~5 mA) and a pulse duration of about a few milliseconds [ 25 , 40 , 59 , 60 ], and are generally perceived as an acceptable HEC mitigation tool [ 61 ]. AGDs used on livestock are also designed to deliver shocks with similar characteristics, but use a much lower voltage (e.g., ~800 V [ 47 , 62 ]) and lower energy than that given from electric fences used for these species [ 63 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We previously conducted pilot studies on AGDs which revealed that electric shocks (~4000 V, ~51.7 µs, with no resistance) from a modified dog-training collar delivered on the neck of captive Asian elephants produces desirable aversive responses, and that there is potential to condition elephants to avoid the shock with a prior audio warning [ 64 ]. Furthermore, our assessment of behavioural and physiological stress responses to electric shocks of these captive elephants showed that the expected increase in acute stress responses returned to normal levels soon afterwards [ 76 ]. These studies revealed promising results for the potential use of AGDs to manage wild elephants, but their successful use may depend on their acceptability just as much as their efficacy [ 36 , 77 ], which was not assessed in these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

Cabral de Mel,

Seneweera,

Dangolla

et al. 2023

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aversive geofencing devices (AGDs) or animal-borne satellite-linked shock collars might become a useful tool to mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC). AGDs have the potential to condition problem elephants to avoid human-dominated landscapes by associating mild electric shocks with preceding audio warnings given as they approach virtual boundaries. We assessed the opinions of different stakeholders (experts, farmers, and others who have and have not experienced HEC; n = 611) on the potential use of AGDs on Asian elephants. Most respondents expressed positive opinions on the potential effectiveness of AGDs in managing elephant movement (62.2%). About 62.8% respondents also provided positive responses for the acceptability of AGDs if pilot studies with captive elephants have been successful in managing their movements. Some respondents perceived AGDs to be unacceptable because they are unethical or harmful and would be unsuccessful given wild elephants may respond differently to AGDs than captive elephants. Respondents identified acceptability, support and awareness of stakeholders, safety and wellbeing of elephants, logistical difficulties, durability and reliable functionality of AGDs, and uncertainties in elephants’ responses to AGDs as potential challenges for implementing AGDs. These issues need attention when developing AGDs to increase support from stakeholders and to effectively reduce HEC incidents in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

Cabral de Mel,

Seneweera,

Dangolla

et al. 2023

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“There will always be collars in my future”; Exploring US ranchers’ and company representatives’ perspectives of virtual fencing for livestock

Melo-Velasco,

Wilson,

Heimsoth

et al. 2024

Smart Agricultural Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

Cabral de Mel,

Seneweera,

Dangolla

et al. 2024

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many Asian elephant populations inhabit fragmented human‐dominated landscapes. Human–elephant conflict (HEC) has intensified in such regions, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people and elephants each year. Controversy between stakeholders then arises as people debate the merits of HEC mitigation approaches, stifling progress. We conducted a survey to evaluate the opinions of experts, farmers and others who have and have not experienced HEC (n = 611), on the causes of HEC, the importance of, conservation of and co‐existence with elephants, and on the acceptability and effectiveness of potential HEC mitigation methods. Analysis of variance and the Potential for Conflict Index showed that all groups agreed with nine of the 10 causes of HEC assessed, on average. All respondent groups had mostly positive attitudes towards the importance and conservation of elephants. However, farmers exposed to HEC disagreed that people should co‐exist with elephants and supported the view that elephants should be removed from human habitats. All groups agreed on the acceptability and effectiveness of electric fencing, early warning systems with infrasonic call detectors, Global Positioning System collars and geophones. However, there was disparity in views between the experts and other stakeholder groups on the acceptability and effectiveness of restricting elephants to protected areas, and translocation of problem elephants to protected areas away from their capture site or to wild elephant holding grounds. While similar views between stakeholders on many subjects are encouraging for elephant conservation, the disparities identified should be given greater attention when planning HEC management programs to minimize conflict between stakeholders.

show abstract

Welfare impacts associated with using aversive geofencing devices on captive Asian elephants

Cited by 3 publications

References 96 publications

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement

“There will always be collars in my future”; Exploring US ranchers’ and company representatives’ perspectives of virtual fencing for livestock

Attitudes towards causes of and solutions to conflict between humans and Asian elephants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About