<p>The escalating human-elephant interactions in Karnataka have become a significant concern. It’s now even more crucial to question the effectiveness of our persistent actions and reevaluate our conflict mitigation practices and solutions to this crisis.</p>.<p>In the past few years, one of the most prominent and common strategies adopted by the Karnataka Forest Department has been the capture and translocation of elephants. As evidenced by science (globally) and actual accounts on the ground in Karnataka, this solution has failed repeatedly. A case in June 2025 illustrates this pattern. An elephant from Hassan, which had been captured, radio-collared, and released into the Bhadra Reserve, was later found in Siddapura. Over 150 personnel and six kumkis were used to recapture the elephant for permanent captivity.</p>.<p>The Forest Minister has announced plans to establish an elephant camp in the Bhadra Tiger Reserve as a new, radical solution – hailed as India’s first soft-release centre for elephants in conflict. The plan is to capture elephants involved in interactions and release them into this centre, hoping they will adapt and gradually shift from crop-based foraging to relying primarily on native forest species and exhibit diurnal behaviour. Regrettably, this plan is marred by significant gaps and unanswered questions.</p>.<p>The persistent concern of capturing the ‘wrong’ individual without categorical evidence of their history of involvement in interactions is a pattern that cannot be ignored and requires resolution. Over the years, as witnessed, in the majority of cases, males are captured. This raises another question – how many males will be captured; how many herds? Within a 20-sq km area, males of different age groups, with varied musth periods, will be interacting with each other. It doesn’t sound comfortable. What about knowledge sharing – what will younger elephants learn from peers allegedly considered rogue or habitual raiders? The centre will be fenced using railway barricades. In the wild, many individuals have attempted to cross these and have been severely injured. Will they not try to do so when forced into a smaller space, surrounded by forests that host fellow wild peers? The issue of connectivity is also a concern; unlike other tiger reserves, Bhadra offers less contiguous forest connectivity.</p>.<p>The plan involves biologists monitoring the enclosure to assist and observe the elephants in their transformation. Is such a change possible? In the words of the scientists involved in the project, this is an experiment and a learning process. However, the timeline for such changes and the likelihood of successful reintegration remains uncertain. Elephants exhibiting changed behaviours may be released back into the wild. Scientifically, what evidence would we need to arrive at who gets to leave or stay within the centre? Also, what happens when some of these released elephants return to human-dominated areas? Will we capture them again and put them in permanent captivity? What if we don’t release them at all? Will a long-term, expensive, possibly traumatic experience for elephants result in adding to the growing number of elephant camps in the state?</p>.<p><strong>Unscientific approach</strong></p>.<p>Over the past two years, the strategies adopted in Karnataka to mitigate human-elephant interactions have been short-term. In 2024, the increased translocation of wild elephants led individuals to travel across states, while attempting to return to their home range or exploring new landscapes. This resulted in many translocated elephants from Karnataka being involved in interactions in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, ultimately necessitating the formation of an inter-state committee to address the issue. Although human-elephant interactions are higher in states like Assam, Odisha, and Kerala, Karnataka is the only state resorting to capture as the primary solution.</p>.<p>The urgency of the issue is underscored by our continued reliance on a failed strategy of removing wild elephants from human-dominated landscapes in the hope of reducing interactions. This approach, proposed by scientists in 2012 in the state, has proven ineffective, as observed in Hassan, which was under the ‘elephant removal zone’. Now, with interactions having intensified in other districts, will we term those areas ‘removal’ zones as well? Shockingly, such plans are afloat – the Forest Department plans to relocate over 185 elephants in Kodagu with discussions on for a new rehabilitation facility.</p>.<p>Politicians, including some members of the Forest Department, continue to call migrating mammals ‘stray’ despite having been scientifically proven since the early 1900s that elephants feed on crops during their seasonal movements as part of their optimal foraging strategy. How does one offer solutions to problems that are framed unscientifically? The lack of a collective voice from the conservation and science community is also regrettable.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a science communicator)</em></p>
<p>The escalating human-elephant interactions in Karnataka have become a significant concern. It’s now even more crucial to question the effectiveness of our persistent actions and reevaluate our conflict mitigation practices and solutions to this crisis.</p>.<p>In the past few years, one of the most prominent and common strategies adopted by the Karnataka Forest Department has been the capture and translocation of elephants. As evidenced by science (globally) and actual accounts on the ground in Karnataka, this solution has failed repeatedly. A case in June 2025 illustrates this pattern. An elephant from Hassan, which had been captured, radio-collared, and released into the Bhadra Reserve, was later found in Siddapura. Over 150 personnel and six kumkis were used to recapture the elephant for permanent captivity.</p>.<p>The Forest Minister has announced plans to establish an elephant camp in the Bhadra Tiger Reserve as a new, radical solution – hailed as India’s first soft-release centre for elephants in conflict. The plan is to capture elephants involved in interactions and release them into this centre, hoping they will adapt and gradually shift from crop-based foraging to relying primarily on native forest species and exhibit diurnal behaviour. Regrettably, this plan is marred by significant gaps and unanswered questions.</p>.<p>The persistent concern of capturing the ‘wrong’ individual without categorical evidence of their history of involvement in interactions is a pattern that cannot be ignored and requires resolution. Over the years, as witnessed, in the majority of cases, males are captured. This raises another question – how many males will be captured; how many herds? Within a 20-sq km area, males of different age groups, with varied musth periods, will be interacting with each other. It doesn’t sound comfortable. What about knowledge sharing – what will younger elephants learn from peers allegedly considered rogue or habitual raiders? The centre will be fenced using railway barricades. In the wild, many individuals have attempted to cross these and have been severely injured. Will they not try to do so when forced into a smaller space, surrounded by forests that host fellow wild peers? The issue of connectivity is also a concern; unlike other tiger reserves, Bhadra offers less contiguous forest connectivity.</p>.<p>The plan involves biologists monitoring the enclosure to assist and observe the elephants in their transformation. Is such a change possible? In the words of the scientists involved in the project, this is an experiment and a learning process. However, the timeline for such changes and the likelihood of successful reintegration remains uncertain. Elephants exhibiting changed behaviours may be released back into the wild. Scientifically, what evidence would we need to arrive at who gets to leave or stay within the centre? Also, what happens when some of these released elephants return to human-dominated areas? Will we capture them again and put them in permanent captivity? What if we don’t release them at all? Will a long-term, expensive, possibly traumatic experience for elephants result in adding to the growing number of elephant camps in the state?</p>.<p><strong>Unscientific approach</strong></p>.<p>Over the past two years, the strategies adopted in Karnataka to mitigate human-elephant interactions have been short-term. In 2024, the increased translocation of wild elephants led individuals to travel across states, while attempting to return to their home range or exploring new landscapes. This resulted in many translocated elephants from Karnataka being involved in interactions in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, ultimately necessitating the formation of an inter-state committee to address the issue. Although human-elephant interactions are higher in states like Assam, Odisha, and Kerala, Karnataka is the only state resorting to capture as the primary solution.</p>.<p>The urgency of the issue is underscored by our continued reliance on a failed strategy of removing wild elephants from human-dominated landscapes in the hope of reducing interactions. This approach, proposed by scientists in 2012 in the state, has proven ineffective, as observed in Hassan, which was under the ‘elephant removal zone’. Now, with interactions having intensified in other districts, will we term those areas ‘removal’ zones as well? Shockingly, such plans are afloat – the Forest Department plans to relocate over 185 elephants in Kodagu with discussions on for a new rehabilitation facility.</p>.<p>Politicians, including some members of the Forest Department, continue to call migrating mammals ‘stray’ despite having been scientifically proven since the early 1900s that elephants feed on crops during their seasonal movements as part of their optimal foraging strategy. How does one offer solutions to problems that are framed unscientifically? The lack of a collective voice from the conservation and science community is also regrettable.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a science communicator)</em></p>
