ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Historical Account of Managing Overabundant Wild Asian Elephants in Myanmar by the Kheddah System of Capture: Philosophy, Principles and Practices.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When standard methods of human-elephant conflict mitigation are not successful, free-ranging wild elephants may continue to come into close contact with people. This results in more frequent and severe conflict, with consequences ranging from crop raiding to loss of human and elephant lives. Understandably, in such situations, local communities may want to be rid of entire herds of elephants. Historically, one of the strategies the Myanmar Government practiced to resolve human-elephant conflict was the capture of whole herds using the Kheddah system. This involved trapping the herd in a stockade, immediately followed by on-site post-capture taming. After taming, the captured elephants were utilized as logging elephants. Elephants worked in timber extraction, retired at age 55 years and were then cared for by the Government until they died. The capture of wild elephants by the Kheddah system was formally banned in Myanmar in 1985 but occasional, small-scale, captures were allowed until 2013 under the strict control of the Myanmar Government. These operations were aimed primarily at capturing elephants involved in human-elephant conflict, rather than to supplement the working elephant population. One of the last Kheddah operations, organized and managed by the author, was conducted in 1996 at the Taikkyi township of the Yangon Region, as a last resort to end human-elephant conflict in an emergency. While chemical immobilization was being used at this time, it was not logistically possible with the high numbers of elephants engaged in the conflict. This review aims to record the history of an activity that was an important element of Myanmar's timber industry more than three decades ago. In this paper, the author presents a description of Kheddah not to endorse it, but to document (1) the Myanmar elephant population management strategy in the past, before it is forgotten, and (2) the practicality of the Kheddha operation when the singly selected commonly- used immobilization or noosing method of elephant capture is unfeasible. The author attempts to shed light on the modern veterinary procedures that may significantly reduce the notorious historical outcome of Kheddha, especially the resulting mortality of captured elephants, should the Kheddha system of capture ever be used as an emergency solution for ongoing problems of human-elephant conflict in the range states of Asia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.