New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Elephant Relocation Scheme Fails to Prevent Deaths

Pachyderms moved away from human populations often wander back, ransacking houses and killing villagers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

An attempt to save the lives of both elephants and people by moving the pachyderms away from humans has failed in Sri Lanka, a new study finds.

Instead of the relocated elephants living peacefully in their new homes, they wandered, researchers found. Relocated elephants died more often than problem elephants left in their original range. The relocated elephants also killed more people than elephants that stayed put.

"We were stunned that translocation neither solves the conflict nor saves elephants," study researcher Peter Leimgruber, a research scientist at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, said in a statement.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Relocating elephants

Elephant-human conflicts are a big problem, as an incident on Nov. 4 illustrates. On that day, a herd of elephants reportedly ransacked three houses in the village of Dumurkota, India, guzzling a shop's reserves of a local alcoholic brew called mahua.   

In Sri Lanka, about 70 people and 200 Asian elephants die each year as a result of human-pachyderm conflict, according to the Smithsonian. A common solution is to move the elephants to protected areas, such as national parks. [Elephant Images: Largest Beasts on Land]

But a new study using GPS-enabled collars to track elephants found that relocating the animals did little good. The researchers followed 12 relocated male elephants and compared them with 12 male elephants left in their home ranges. All 24 elephants were "problem" elephants, meaning they had a history of conflict with humans.

Tragic ends

Two of the relocated elephants were killed in the national parks where they had been moved. The rest had wandered out of the park boundaries by 260 days after the release (some stayed around as little as a day). The wandering elephants either returned to their original range or settled somewhere new, but nearly all of them got tangled with humans again. Five of them died within eight months of the release. The relocated elephants were also responsible for killing five people in that time period.

The elephants left in their ranges didn't kill anyone, though one elephant was shot and killed.

There are only 35,000 to 50,000 Asian elephants left in the wild, making their conservation a priority. But conflicts stymie that goal, researchers said.

"As you track the elephants, you identify with these animals, you see their struggles and understand why they're doing the things that ultimately get them killed," Leimgruber said. "But you also understand that elephants represent a serious threat to humans and their livelihood."

The researchers suggest land-use plans that minimize crop-raiding might be more effective than moving elephants away.

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe