The Asian elephants-driver partnership: the drivers' perspective

APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE

E LS EV I ER

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

The Asian elephants-driver partnership: the drivers' perspective L y n e t t e A. H a r t Centerfor Animals in Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

Received 18 August 1993; accepted 21 January 1994

Abstract Elephant drivers, sometimes termed mahouts, are known to share a relationship with their elephants rarely matched in other human-animal interactions with regard to time invested, extent of cooperative activity, and everpresent risk to the driver. An investigation of this relationship was pursued at two tourist lodges in Nepal where elephants are used to transport tourists into a nearby jungle to view wildlife. The study sought to investigate the drivers' perceptions regarding the individual and social behavior of the elephants, the perceptions of the elephants, and the elephants' interactions with drivers. Standardized open-ended questions were administered with translator assistance to 17 head drivers of elephants. Drivers attributed their management success to the time and care they invested in caring for and becoming familiar with the elephant. Drivers worked in partnership with elephants to gather and prepare the elephants' food. Elephants responded to vocal commands of drivers for saddling. Drivers also took responsibility for elephants in their varied interactions with tourists. Although drivers varied in specifying the most desirable elephant at their lodge, they highly agreed on the identity of the worst elephant because of its aggressivity. In general, drivers believed that their elephants loved and trusted them. Most drivers reported that their elephants did not get angry with them. Yet, they knew that elephants would most like to be free in the jungle. Drivers presented consistent information as to the elephants' social preferences for and dislikes of one another. Keywords: Elephant; Animal training; Domestication; Mahout

1. Introduction Throughout h u m a n history humans have established working partnerships with animals. Some animals' greater size and strength multiply severalfold the work a 0168-1591/94/$07.00 © 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDI 0168-1591 ( 94 ) 00484-V

298

L.A. Hart/Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

human can accomplish. Working as beasts of burden to pull wagons or carry heavy loads continues to be a very common use of animals, especially for donkeys. Even dogs, when combined into sled teams, facilitate surface transportation in brutal climates where the partnership between dogs and people becomes the central element in travelling for weeks across the Arctic (Thayer, 1993) or for months in the Antarctic (Steger and Bowermaster, 1992). Through the process of domestication, working species are genetically altered to become more manageable and to readily reproduce in captivity. A reduction in body size almost always occurs, and is the main criterion for distinguishing domestic from wild skeletal remains in archeological study (Clutton-Brock, 1987). Special methods of behavioral management enable humans to establish and retain the leadership role visa vis animals. For example, by entering into the social system of the cattle, Fulani herdsmen successfully control and herd their cattle by mimicking some of the cattle's own species-specific behaviors (Lott and Hart, 1977, 1979 ). Wild species that are not altered genetically may be tamed. For example, in the husbandry of reindeer, regular interaction with the animal establishes and maintains tameness. Traditionally, reindeer were used as meat-producing and dairy herds and kept on smaller ranges and given close personal attention (Beach, 1981 ). The herder imposed control that was built up slowly and maintained constantly. The cooperative working relationship seen in familiar species, such as dogs and horses, is rare in wild animals. However, for a wild animal to provide complex cooperative assistance to people, one requirement for the animal might be a highly evolved brain that would provide the animal with an ability to adapt to human control. For example, special relationships have developed between certain chimpanzees or gorillas and a few people. Dolphins, who are also endowed with a complex brain, have subtlely responded to unfamiliar people in swim-with-human programs, and in military projects of the past. Elephants are the only species that have extensively worked for humans but have not undergone artificial selection for compliance to humans. Elephants possess a highly evolved brain that is the largest of any land mammal. The encephalization quotient (brain/body ratio corrected for body size) for the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is similar to the great apes (Eisenberg, 1981). Accordingly, elephants are legendary for using tools in a variety of circumstances (Chevalier-Skolnikoff and Liska, 1993), more than any non-primate species (Beck, 1970). A recent study showed that elephants use switches to repel flies effectively and revealed that elephants may modify a branch to fashion an improved tool (Hart and Hart, 1994). Further, elephants have not been altered genetically, although their behavior is shaped through training, nutritional, and behavioral management. Working elephants commonly react differentially to 2123 different verbal commands, and with special training an elephant can recognize as many as 100 words and phrases (Lewis, 1971 ). With the largest body size of any mammal on land, the elephant possesses daunting physical strength, making its cooperation with humans all the more remarkable and valuable. Zeuner (1963) concluded that it was probable that the Asian elephant was

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 247-312

299

tamed by the time of the Indus Valley civilization (2500-1500 BC ). Historically, Asian elephants were managed by men, variously called mahouts or panits, that spent their lifetimes in partnership with a particular elephant, caring for and working closely with it (Freeman, 1980). The elephant has a life span similar to humans, and a common practice was to assign a young boy to a young elephant as its future driver, so that they could grow up together (Eltringham, 1982 ). Elephant power was relied on for logging and transport. For some purposes, the elephant still outperforms any vehicle in fording streams or silently moving through jungle. Instructions for the rather brutal, traditional modes of training were set forth in text and illustrations by the ruler Suhungmung Dihingia Raja from the sixteenth century (Choudhury, 1734; Delort, 1992); some of these harsh methods of discipline persist (Rensch and Altevogt, 1955 ). Prohibitions against capturing wild elephants are increasing, recently leading to some captive breeding programs where a few elephant young have been born. In the main, however, working elephants have been wild caught and tamed, either while young or as adults (Fernando, 1990). By the age of 3, animals can master simple commands, such as lie down, stand up, stop (Dinerstein, 1988 ), but they must be nearing 20 years of age to be used for tourist transport. A primary use of elephants in Nepal today is for tourism in the jungle. Each of several tourist jungle lodges in the Chitwan National Park maintains a stable of elephants that transport tourists to view wildlife. In addition to spending hours with their own elephant, drivers inevitably interact with all the other elephants and drivers. Currently, drivers are employees that lack a lifetime assignment to a particular elephant, or even to the job of driver. The groupings of drivers and elephants at two lodges offered an opportunity in this study to assess, through interpreted interviews, the quality of relationship of elephants and drivers from the drivers' perspectives. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge and experience that drivers have gained through successfully managing elephants. The drivers would have preferences for certain types of behaviors in elephants, and would perceive some differences among individual elephants in their behavior. Would their opinions on the individual differences among elephants converge? How do drivers characterize their relationships with their elephants? Drivers would be expected almost inevitably to speculate as to what elephants might be thinking. What do drivers think about the elephants' thoughts and feelings? Is there a consensus among drivers concerning-the social attachments among their elephants, who presumably are unrelated? 2. Animals, materials and methods 2.1. Study sites

The study was conducted in March and April 1992, at two tourist lodges in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Elephant-back tides through the jungle to

300

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

observe wildlife, especially rhinoceros, are the primary tourist attraction. For this purpose, the two lodges each own and maintain elephants with drivers and helpers who care for the elephants. When not in the jungle feeding or transporting tourists, the elephants are housed at stables. Site 1 is in a forest where, at this season, a nearby meadow features a lush growth of fresh new grass that reliably attracts rhinoceroses for feeding. Site 2 is located beside a riverine habitat.

2.2. The drivers and elephants The elephant drivers at two lodges at the Royal Chitwan National Park, hereafter, the park, were interviewed. The names of the head drivers and their respective elephants are shown in Table 1. All elephants were females, as indicated by the surname Kali, except one, indicated by the surname Prasad. At Site 1 each elephant was served by two men. The head driver assisted the helper in food preparation and cleaning, as well assuming the primary role in driving the elephant. Ten head drivers were interviewed at Site 1. At Site 2 each elephant was assigned three men. The head drivers' major task was driving the elephant. The two helpers had the major responsibility for obtaining and preparing the elephants' food and for cleaning the elephants' area in the stable. At both Table 1 Head drivers Driver

Years as driver

Elephant - - years w i t h this elephant

30 48 17 12 8

Laxmi Kali -- 1 Appu Kali -- 8 Laxmi Prasad -- 1 Anar Kali Jr -- 2 Raj Kali -- 1 Pawan K a l i - - 1 Anar K a l i S r - - 6 Champa Kali Sr -- 3 Champa K a l i S r - - 3 Champa K a l i J r - - 1

Site 1 Kheru ~ Maji"

DhanulaP Ratan ~ Resham ~ Ramlakhan" Tahalram ~

6 6

Sombahatu#

6

Nilpratap Shanka#

5 4

Site 2 Seshman Ram

Jlana Laxman a

Baburama Kanun Jagdish a,b

15 14 10 9 8 7 4

alnterested since childhood. bSecondary driver.

S h a n t i K a l i - - 12 P a w a n K a l i - - 10 Chanchil Kali -- 4 Rup Kali -- 5 Raj Kali -- 6 Laxmi Kali -- 7 Prem Kali -- 4

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 247-312

301

sites it was required that at least one person assigned to each elephant be on the premises at all times. Seven head drivers were interviewed at Site 2.

2.3. Daily schedule and routine for elephants Most elephants were used for 2 h in the early morning and again in the late afternoon to take tourists into the park to view wildlife. At midday the drivers took the elephants out to the jungle for several hours, where they moved through the jungle freely selecting their own foods. The driver or helper gathered grasses, branches, banana stalks and vines for supplementary feeding, and these were carried back to the stable on elephant-back for feeding during the night. While the driver was cutting food, the elephants commonly grazed under vocal control. An additional food supplement was prepared for elephants to eat at the stable. Helpers assembled the favored snacks called kuchi, packets of concentrated food, grain and molasses wrapped in grasses or strips of banana stalks tied together with grass. At the stables each elephant was tethered to a post with a foot chain. The tether posts were 9-20 m apart. Thus, elephants typically were not allowed tactile contact with each other, except in the early morning while in a circle or line, saddled, and awaiting the tourist passengers.

2.4. Methodology Drivers were individually interviewed under a shade structure at the elephant stables, as shown in Fig. 1. Standardized open-ended questions were verbally administered one-at-a-time to an interpreter who then delivered the questions to an individual driver. The driver responded, and then the translated response provided by the interpreter was written in a notebook by the interviewer. Interviews ranged from 20 to 45 min in duration. The interview was designed to address several topics.

General knowledge and view of elephants How did you decide to become an elephant driver? What has been your experience with elephants? Have you had any dangerous experiences with elephants? What is required to be a good driver?

Desirable and undesirable qualities of elephants What kind of elephant does a driver want? What behaviors of elephants do you like? Dislike? What is special about your elephant?

Opinions regarding individual differences among elephants Which is the best elephant? Which is the worst elephant?

302

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimalBehaviour Science40 (1994)297-312

Fig. 1. Interpreter Uddhav Bhatta relaysin English the answerof the elephant driver to the interviewer.

Drivers" impressions of what elephants think of them What kind of driver does an elephant want? How does your elephant feel about you? Why does your elephant obey? Does your elephant trust you? Does your elephant get angry? What kind of life would your elephant most like to have?

Functioning of elephants as a social group Which elephants does your elephant like? Which elephants does your elephant not like?

3. Results Except as indicated, the general statements below are a consensus from interviews with drivers.

3.1. General knowledge and view of elephants For each driver interviewed at the two lodges, the years working as a driver and the number of years with the current elephant are shown in Table 1. At Site 1, drivers had worked with elephants a median of 6 years, and had been with the

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 247-312

303

current elephant for 1 year, and at Site 2 drivers had worked with elephants for a median of 9 years, and with their current elephant for 6.5 years. These figures reflect the common practice for managers to reassign drivers depending on the drivers' abilities to manage particular elephants. The wish to become a driver had dated from childhood for all but one driver at Site l, and for three of the drivers at Site 2. For two drivers, elephants were a family tradition. Others had been intrigued as children by the elephants they saw in the fields. One began working with the elephants as a hobby at 9 years of age, and another at 12 years. The remaining men had become drivers for economic reasons. Some mentioned their landlessness and limited employment opportunities. Because they had to work in the fields since childhood, they were uneducated. Becoming a driver afforded the drivers a position with some status. The modest pay included fringe benefits of food, lodging, and medical care. Additionally, the elephant stable was conveniently located near the home village of most drivers, where their families and friends subsisted on the rice crops and maintained a few farm animals. Drivers took pride in knowing their elephants well as a result of spending years with them. With one exception, drivers had not experienced dangerous encounters with their own elephants. They attributed the lack of problems in dealing with their elephants to knowing the elephants very well, and being able to avoid risk, being especially cautious at times when the elephants were moody. As an example of their familiarity with their elephants, some drivers described being able to recognize the trumpeting call of their own elephant, and to distinguish among calls made when the elephant was happy, fearful, or agitated. Several drivers reported that elephants would obey only their own drivers. Elephants that were willing to accede to orders from other drivers reportedly would take longer to follow the request, performing it sluggishly, as ifunwiUing to accept orders from another person. The drivers attributed the obedience of the elephant to the extended time the driver spent with the elephant looking after it, and to the love that the elephant developed for the particular driver. It was stated frequently that unfamiliar drivers who knew all the commands could not be assured of that elephant's compliance to a command. The initial taming of the elephants was essential to the elephants' learning obedience. Five men who had been drivers for a median of 17 years described their experience in breaking wild elephants. The method required from 1 to 6 months and involved tying the elephant to a post or to two adjacent tamed elephants. Four or five drivers then handled and spoke to the restrained elephant, issuing commands as the elephant was led through various tasks. In the exchange between the elephant and driver, what the elephant can offer is obedience, while the driver offers food. Assistant drivers often cut up stalks or vines into foot long, bite size pieces, even though the elephant was capable of breaking apart trees, branches, and vines into appropriate sized pieces. Drivers sometimes hand-fed the special molasses snacks to their elephants, particularly after the elephant had been corrected. As depicted in Fig. 2, gathering the food

Fig. 2. The cooperative partnership of driver and elephant involved in the daily feeding of the elephant. (a) Branches are carried back from the jungle for evening food. (b) Stalks are unloaded. (c) Vines in foreground have been chopped into bite size pieces by the assistant driver. (d) Assistant driver prepares kuchi, wrapping grain and molasses in grass packets.

L,o

7~

v,j

",O ',o

Z3

g~

:x

Fig. 3. Cooperation of the elephant in response to vocal commands. (a) Elephant lies on each side in turn upon command, permitting driver to dust off back with a burlap cloth. (b) A saddled elephant rises in preparation for tourist rides. (c) A driver mounts the elephant's trunk, joining the assistant driver to cut food for the elephant in the jungle. (d) An elephant remains quiet during minor surgery to excise a boil.

tJr

e~

306

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

Fig. 4. The typicalcurledpositonof the trunk whenan elephantliesdown. that the elephant requires each day demands close cooperation of the elephant and driver. The vocal control exerted by drivers also was used to require that the elephant cooperate with saddling, as shown in Fig. 3 (a-c) or permit unpleasant tasks. For example, during jungle rides if the elephant resisted climbing down steep stream banks she would be verbally or even physically corrected, and after complying would be given a warm gesture of affection, such as a soothing pat or a sprig of tender leaves. One elephant shown in Fig. 3 (d) cooperated while minor surgery was performed on her ear to lance a boil and clean the wound. Lying under vocal control, she remained quiet throughout the operation. On the other hand, the elephants appeared to be very protective of anyone touching their trunks. The trunk invariably was rolled up before an elephant lay down, and then placed in a sheltered position, as shown in Fig. 4. An elephant that had a large thorn at the sensitive tip of her trunk refused to allow her driver to touch the trunk. The driver ultimately ordered her to lie down and only succeeded in removing the thorn by nimbly snatching it while the elephant sought to elude his actions. At these tourist lodges, the drivers had the additional responsibility of assuring the safety of tourists in the elephants' presence. In addition to riding through the jungle on elephant-back, tourists enjoyed having photographs taken with the ele-

Fig. 5. Cooperation of the elephant required in the presence of tourists. (a) Monitored by the driver, a tourist feeds kuchi to an elephant. (b) Loading and unloading the howdah requires the precise direction of the driver and cooperation of the elephant to safely care for the tourists. (c) Although tourists are less agile and graceful than the drivers, the drivers assist them in mounting the elephant. (d) During an elephant bath in the river, the elephant must be gentle with tourists even as she submerges her whole body except her trunk.

t,,a

too

t-o 4~

ev

308

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

phant, climbing up onto the elephant, and bathing in the river with the elephant, as shown in Fig. 5. The driver also supervised the elephant's behavior during an instructional presentation on elephants offered to tourists by the lodge naturalist.

3.2. Desirable and undesirable qualities of elephants When asked to describe the desirable qualities of elephants, drivers mentioned behavioral traits: gentleness, obedience, and smooth rapid walking, in decreasing order of mention. Drivers disliked the traits of slow walking, deliberate body shaking, running away from the camp, and disobedience. Elephants sometimes succeeded in escaping from their posts by persistently working with the locks on their chains, either unscrewing the lock to make a getaway, or breaking it loose by brute force. Upon recapture, one elephant was seen to be presented with an abundant array of food beautifully arranged at her post, including the favored molasses snacks. Two drivers, one at each site, wished to work with elephants other than their current ones, Laxmi Kali and Pawan Kali. Laxmi Kali's fault was a rough walk stemming from an old leg wound. Riding her was extremely uncomfortable, leading to frequent complaints from tourists. Pawan Kali had become a dangerous elephant, and her driver did not trust her. The occasional incidents of aggression against drivers invariably were associated with elephants known to be troublesome. In describing special qualities of their own elephants, drivers mentioned them being courageous with wild animals, having an especially smooth stride, and being gentle, "so as not to even harm a baby." One driver was pleased that he could leave his elephant behind a tree and she would not run off. Another mentioned that his elephant would consistently refuse to obey a new person, a trait regarded as loyalty.

3.3 Opinions regarding individual differences among elephants Appu Kali at Site 1 and Shanti Kali at Site 2 were regarded as highly manageable and reliable. The calm temperament of each was evident even to tourists, since this elephant was used for teaching presentations by naturalists, or when tourists wished to climb up onto an elephant's back. Drivers were consistent in designating the most desirable and the most difficult elephants. When asked to name the best elephant, drivers did not necessarily cite their own elephant or the elephant that was most manageable. At Site l, four different elephants were mentioned, none with a majority. Appu Kali, the very manageable elephant, was named by two drivers but not by her own driver, apparently because of her severe cataracts. Site 2 drivers showed high agreement (5/7) in naming Shanti Kali as the best elephant. Showing strong agreement concerning the worst elephant, all but one driver independently at Site 1 named Pawan Kali and at Site 2 Chanchil Kali. These elephants were viewed as being particularly unpredictable and disagreeable, even dangerous.

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 247-312

309

3.4. Drivers' impressions of what elephants think of them A majority of drivers volunteered that elephants want a driver who loves and spends time with the elephant. Almost half mentioned that elephants wanted a driver who can control them. One third mentioned the importance of providing them with a variety of good foods. It was also suggested that elephants wanted drivers who spoke kindly to them and did not discipline them harshly. Drivers felt that they could tell that their elephants trusted them. One reported he knew she loved him because she had a twinkle in her eye when she saw him, and she also reached out to touch him with her trunk. During elephant rides he gently rubbed her head or trunk, and at the river during her bath he carefully polished her tusklet with sand. Over half of the drivers (9/17) claimed that their elephants never got angry with them. Among the drivers who reported anger in their elephants, it was provoked (in diminishing order) by beating or poor welfare, poor or insufficient food, excessive work, or having to respond to too many different people. Most drivers reported that their elephants would most like to be free in the jungle. Drivers did not wish the elephants to have this freedom, for although the driver may love his elephant, she also is the key to his employment. Several drivers reported feeling pity for the elephant not being able to be free. One driver said that if he owned the elephant he would not have her work by carrying tourists, but would let her spend her days grazing in the jungle, while still being his elephant. Another said he would continue to bring food to his elephant even if she had a new owner. A few felt that life at the stables was ideal for the elephants so long as they were fed a wide variety of foods.

3.5. Functioning of elephants as a social group Drivers were conscious of the elephants' social preferences and readily specified the friends and enemies of their own elephants. There was no conflicting information from the various drivers on the social preferences of the elephants. Certain elephants were predisposed to fight with each other. Successful elephant management required understanding the likely social behavior and the preferences of all the elephants at each lodge. At Site 2, drivers consistently volunteered that one elephant was disliked by each of the other elephants, and also that she did not like any other elephants. Raj Kali's driver described her as neither liking nor disliking other elephants, and no other drivers mentioned her as being either liked or disliked by their elephants. Another elephant was consistently described as fighting with all the other elephants except two. The favored elephant, Shanti Kali, was described as liking all elephants except one. At Site 1, drivers described special friendships among certain pairs of elephants. According to all the drivers involved, very close friendships were shared by three pairs of elephants, and one trio. One elephant harbored a strong dislike that was mutual with two other elephants that she would attack, along with one

310

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

other small one who was reputedly afraid of all others. One pair disliked each other. One elephant of the trio disliked all except her two partners.

4. Discussion

Many of the Nepali elephant drivers interviewed were in transition from the former cultural tradition where elephant driving was an assigned male role in some families, passed from father to son (Eltringham, 1991 ), to viewing driving as one employment opportunity. Further, this group of drivers did not appear to have an opportunity to remain with a particular elephant over many years. Yet drivers spent hours each day nurturing and caring for their elephants, more time than a European or North American person would typically spend with any family member, except perhaps a newborn. This close contact presumably has an effect on the elephants, as well. For example, the unpredictable elephant at Site 1 was said to have been well-tempered in years past. Some drivers blamed a succession of drivers for the problem behavior. The Nepali elephant drivers in this study revealed their combined respect and affection for the distinct personality of each elephant at their stable. They practiced constant vigilance in managing their elephants. Drivers sought to provide a desirable variety of favored foods to the elephant, attend to the mood of the elephant, and maintain the training of the elephant by seeking to evoke good behavior in each interaction. Drivers reported that the elephant's obedience was based on the love and relationship with the driver, and the care he provided. They frequently used positive reinforcement in the form of food rewards and affection for desirable behavior. This was noted several times immediately after a correction had been made and the elephant was demonstrating proper obedience. The folk tradition for training elephants to accomplish cooperation with humans appeared fully as successful as more recently developed training methods, often with primates or marine mammals in zoos, based on sophisticated learning paradigms (e.g. Reinhardt, 1992 ). Current practices at North American zoos in training elephants also emphasize developing an awareness of the unique personalities of each elephant. For example, at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, handlers are taught that elephants are curious, yet easily frightened, and that they seem to want consistency in their environment (Yapko and Campbell, 1990). Handlers are taught to provide elephants with their total attention. Knowing the overt signs of aggression in elephants becomes crucial when a keeper deals with an elephant known to attack people. Following a systematic strategy can give the keeper an advantage from the outset when the elephant is seeking to establish dominance and lead to improved behavior (Bousquet, 1992 ). A sequence of aggressive behaviors escalates from balking at instruction (sometimes termed 'relucting'), to holding ears out, to plowing up the earth and rushing and trumpeting; all of these typically precede attack. Although aggression was unusual among these female elephants, drivers

L.A. Hart/AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 247-312

311

were conscious of the risk. None wanted an aggressive elephant, and almost all wanted an elephant to be gentle and obedient. Asian elephant herds organize along matriarchal lines in the wild (Shoshani and Eisenberg, 1982), and even in zoos, groups may be built around a matriarchal nucleus to which unrelated individuals are added (Rapaport and Haight, 1987). In this study, there was little likelihood that any of the elephants were related. Yet, they established social relationships with each other, preferring certain elephants and avoiding others. The drivers accommodated these preferences in coordinating pairwise foraging visits to the jungle. It appeared that, even lacking a shared family history, elephants develop significant relationships with each other that are meaningful and comforting to them. They also appear to harbor a dislike for certain individuals. No standardized marking system for identification and no systematic records are kept on individual elephants. Ages and behavioral histories of animals for sale by dealers are unknown. Thus, obstreperous elephants can readily be sold at an elephant market with no warning to the prospective buyer. Historically, the elephant keepers remained with the elephant throughout its life, but current practice frequently involves reassignment of drivers and helpers by management to help gain control of a difficult elephant. Developing an identification and recordkeeping system would permit improved care for the elephants and greater safety for the drivers.

Acknowledgements The management at Chitwan Jungle Lodge and Gaida Wildlife Camp cooperated in providing staff time to make this study possible. The author appreciated the participation of the 17 drivers, as well as the translation assistance provided by Uddhav Bhatta and Bishnu Gurung at Chitwan Jungle Lodge and Baburam Regmi at Gaida Wildlife Camp. Michael McCoy made the local research arrangements, and through Research Expeditions International, Winters, California, also provided financial assistance. Wilderness Travel of Berkeley, California, made the logistical arrangements. The author thanks Andrew Karter, Dale Lott, and Benjamin Hart for their suggestions throughout the study, and David Anderson for bibliographic assistance. John and Anne DiCkens provided photographs 3 (d), 5(a), and 5(d).

References Beach, H., 1981. Reindeer-herd Management in Transition: The Case of Tuorpon Saameby in Northern Sweden. Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm. Beck, B.B., 1970. Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. Garland STPM Press, New York, NY. Bousquet, J.L., 1992. A new life for Mona the elephant. Anim. Keepers' Forum, 19: 204-210.

312

L.A. Hart / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 40 (1994) 297-312

Chevalier.Skolnikoff, S. and Liska, J., 1993. Tool use by wild and captive elephants. Anim. Behav., 46: 209-219. Choudhury, P.C. (Editor), 1734. Hastividyarnava. Publication Board, Assam, Gauhati (reissued 1975 translation). Clutton-Brock, J., 1987. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Delort, R., 1992. The Life and Lore of the Elephant. Harry N. Abrams, New York, NY, 191 pp. Dinerstein, E., 1988. Elephants, the original all-terrain vehicles. Smithsonian, 19:70-81. Eisenberg, J.F., 1981. The Mammalian Radiations: An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation and Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Eltringham, S.K., 1982. Elephants. Blandford Press, Poole. Eltringham, S.K., 1991. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Elephants: From Their Origins and Evolution to Their Ceremonial and Working Relationship with Man. Crescent Books, New York, NY. Fernando, S.B.U., 1990. Training working elephants. In: Animal Training. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Hertfordshire, pp. 101-113. Freeman, D., 1980. Elephants: The Vanishing Giants. Hamlyn, London. Hart, H. and Hart, L., 1994. Fly switching by Asian elephants: tool use to control parasites. Anim. Behav. (in press). Lewis, M. 1971. Of the kingdom ofAbu. Dinny's Calgary Digest. Calgary Zool. Soc., 1(7): 19-23. Lott, D.F. and Hart, B.L., 1977. Aggressive domination of cattle by Fulani herdsmen and its relation to aggression in Fulani culture and personality. Ethos, 5 (2): 174-186. Lott, D.F. and Hart, B.L., 1979. Applied ethology in a nomadic cattle culture. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 5: 309-319. Rapaport, L. and Haight, J., 1987. Some observations regarding allomaternal caretaking among captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). J. Mamm., 68: 438-442. Reinhardt, V., 1992. Improved handling of experimental rhesus monkeys. In: H. Davis and D. Balfour (Editors) The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 171-177. Rensch, B. and Altevogt, R., 1955. Zahmung und Dressurleistungen indischer Arbeitselefanten. Z. Tierpsychol., 11: 497-510. Shoshani, J. and Eisenberg, J.F., 1982. Elephas maximus. Mamm. Species, 182: 1-8. Steger, W. and Bowermaster, J., 1992. Crossing Antarctica. Dell Publishing, New York, NY. Thayer, H., 1993. Polar Dream: The Heroic Saga of the First Solo Journey by a Woman and Her Dog to the Pole. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Yapko, M.D. and Campbell, W., 1990. Safety issues in elephant management. Hum. Innovations Alternatives, 4:136-137. Zeuner, F.E., 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. Harper & Row, New York, NY.