On Friday afternoon, nature guide Samjhana Tiwari posted a video on Facebook showing a long queue of tourist vehicles heading towards the Baghmara Buffer Zone Community Forest for elephant and boat safaris.

“There are so many vehicles. You would not even see this many at a bus station,” Tiwari said in the video.

The footage came during the off-season, yet it showed a steady stream of visitors arriving for jungle activities in the forest area adjoining Sauraha, Nepal’s largest wildlife tourism hub. Tiwari had posted the video to draw attention to growing concerns over crowd management after seeing vehicles carrying tourists move directly towards elephant and boat boarding points.

But a Supreme Court order published just a day earlier had shifted the conversation in Sauraha from managing tourist crowds to questioning the future of one of Chitwan’s most recognisable attractions.

The court’s directive asking authorities to explore alternatives to elephant safaris has opened a debate among tourism entrepreneurs, conservationists, elephant owners, and local communities over whether traditional elephant rides can continue and how a transition to more ethical models could affect the local economy.

On September 14, 2021, animal rights advocates, including Sanjay Adhikari of the Forum for Protection of Public Interest (Pro Public), filed a writ petition at the Supreme Court seeking stronger legal protection for elephants. The petition called for an end to practices considered cruel to elephants, proper documentation of elephant ownership transfers, action against illegal trade, restrictions on prolonged chaining and a shift away from using elephants for rides, arguing that they should be used primarily for viewing.

The Supreme Court issued its verdict on December 17, 2025. The full text of the order, passed by a joint bench of Justices Hari Prasad Phuyal and Tek Prasad Dhungana, was published on the court’s website last Thursday.

The 62-point order includes several directives on elephant welfare, with one of its key provisions calling for alternatives to elephant safaris. The decision has since triggered a wider debate in Chitwan’s tourism sector about how to balance animal welfare with the economic importance of an activity that has supported local businesses for decades.

Point 48 of the order states that allowing tourists to ride elephants must be reconsidered from an animal welfare perspective and that alternative approaches should be adopted. At the same time, the court acknowledged the economic role of elephant safaris in generating income, promoting tourism and creating employment in places such as Sauraha.

For decades, elephant safaris have been among the main attractions for visitors to Chitwan National Park and its surrounding areas. Tourists, especially international visitors, have traditionally taken elephant rides to explore grasslands and forests to spot rhinos, deer, wild boars and other wildlife.

Tourism entrepreneurs say any transition away from elephant rides must be carefully planned, as thousands of people depend directly or indirectly on wildlife tourism.

“We cannot ignore animal welfare, but we also have to consider the livelihoods of people who depend on elephant safaris,” said a tourism entrepreneur in Sauraha. “The transition should be practical and involve all stakeholders.”

Conservationists, however, see the court order as an opportunity to redesign Chitwan’s wildlife tourism model.

They argue that alternatives such as jeep safaris, guided jungle walks, canoe trips and birdwatching tours can offer visitors rewarding wildlife experiences without relying on elephant rides.

“Tourism must evolve with changing global practices,” said a conservationist involved in wildlife protection. “The focus should be on observing animals in their natural habitat rather than using them as a means of transport.”

Elephant owners and mahouts, meanwhile, have raised concerns about what will happen to domesticated elephants if safari rides are discontinued. Many elephants currently used in tourism are maintained through income generated from safari operations.

Stakeholders say the government must prepare a transition plan covering elephant care, employment support and the development of alternative tourism products before introducing major changes.

The debate comes as Nepal’s wildlife tourism sector faces the challenge of balancing conservation priorities with economic realities. Chitwan National Park attracts hundreds of thousands of domestic and international visitors every year, and tourism remains a key source of income for communities surrounding the park.

Sauraha, located on the edge of Chitwan National Park, has long built its tourism economy around jungle activities, including elephant safaris. Local businesses fear that a sudden end to elephant rides without viable alternatives could affect hotels, guides, transport operators and communities dependent on tourist spending.

Environmental groups, however, argue that Nepal must gradually move away from tourism models that rely on animals for entertainment and align with growing international demand for ethical wildlife experiences.

As authorities and stakeholders begin discussions on implementing the court’s directive, the challenge for Chitwan will be finding a way to protect elephants while preserving the economic lifeline that wildlife tourism provides to local communities.

Point 48 of the court order states that “forcing a gradually disappearing species like the elephant to carry humans appears to be inherently irresponsible behaviour”. The court observed that an elephant’s spine, legs and body structure were not naturally designed to carry human weight. Carrying heavy loads for long periods and walking continuously, it said, can cause physical stress, including joint and leg problems.

“Thus, using elephants merely as tools for entertainment or tourism is incompatible with our obligation towards their value and welfare as living beings,” the order states.

In Point 51, the court suggested replacing traditional elephant safaris with alternatives such as “elephant walks” and “elephant bushwalks”.

“In accordance with welfare standards, it is essential to establish legal and policy frameworks to replace elephant safaris and cruel tethering systems in Nepal, transitioning towards an ethical and eco-friendly model,” the order states.

The court has also encouraged Nepal to adopt wildlife tourism practices used in other countries, including elephant-friendly walks and observing elephants from a safe distance without direct interaction.

But implementing such changes could have major economic consequences for communities around Chitwan National Park, where elephant safaris have long been a source of income.

The Baghmara Buffer Zone Community Forest, located on the outskirts of Sauraha, covers only 215 hectares. Yet at its peak, the forest generated around Rs30 million annually, according to former chairman Jitu Lama Tamang. Nearly one-third of that revenue came from elephant safaris.

Around seven or eight community forests surrounding Chitwan National Park rely heavily on elephant safaris for income. Elephant rides have not been allowed inside the national park for nearly 15 years. The activity is now limited to buffer zone community forests bordering the park.

Government-owned elephants are not used for tourist rides. The safaris are operated using privately owned domesticated elephants.

“Chinese tourists have a strong interest in elephant safaris. Even during the monsoon, when tourist arrivals usually decline, Chinese visitors have continued to arrive, and almost all of them take elephant rides. After safari income declined following Covid-19, Chinese tourists brought some hope,” said Bhuwaneshwar Prasad (BP) Chaudhary, chairman of Baghmara Buffer Zone Community Forest.

He warned that replacing elephant safaris without proper alternatives could significantly reduce the forest’s income.

However, Chaudhary also acknowledged that demand for elephant rides has been declining. In December 2014, Munich-based organisation Pro Wildlife had urged tourism operators to reduce activities involving elephant rides, arguing that such practices were inconsistent with modern wildlife tourism standards.

“European tourists generally do not ride elephants anymore. Nepali tourists may try it once but rarely repeat the experience. These days, Chinese tourists are the main group taking elephant rides,” Chaudhary said.

Former Baghmara chairman Tamang said local communities have also become increasingly concerned about keeping domesticated elephants near settlements. He said captive elephants often attract wild male elephants, increasing the risk of human-wildlife conflict.

“There were discussions about keeping domesticated elephants together on the edge of the forest rather than scattered around settlements. The government needed to provide land for that purpose. The Supreme Court order has also moved towards a sanctuary model,” Tamang said.

He said the time had come to ensure that tourism activities do not come at the cost of elephant welfare.

Most elephant safaris in Chitwan operate around Sauraha. The elephants involved are affiliated with the United Elephant Operation Cooperative Limited.

According to cooperative chairman Dipendra Khatiwada, the cooperative currently has 30 elephants, while another 14 operate independently. Around 38 to 40 elephants are used for safaris daily.

The cooperative was also named as a defendant in the writ petition filed at the Supreme Court.

Khatiwada said elephant safari operations had already declined significantly. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the cooperative alone had around 63 elephants working in safaris. As tourism collapsed during the pandemic, some rented elephants were returned while others were sold to India.

“Everyone now agrees that the elephants that remain must be managed properly,” he said.

However, he said developing alternatives would require government support and clear policies.

“We have been asked to find alternatives to safaris, but this cannot be done through our efforts alone. How far will an ‘elephant walk’ extend? How will it operate? What policy framework supports it? The government must answer these questions,” Khatiwada said.

He said tourism stakeholders would respect the court order but cautioned against an abrupt transition.

“Replacing elephant safaris overnight could disrupt the entire tourism sector. We need enough time, clear policies and promotional campaigns to introduce new models properly,” he said.

Khatiwada also urged the government to address broader issues related to elephant management.

“The court has shown concern for the welfare of the elephants we rear. But it would have been better if it had also addressed issues such as the shortage of grazing land and difficulties in providing enough grass for elephants,” he said.

Tourism entrepreneur Hari Bhakta Ghimire said the government must introduce a clear policy following the court ruling.

Ghimire, who opened a hotel in Sauraha in 1982, introduced elephants for safari operations soon afterwards. He currently owns two adult elephants and a two-year-old calf.

He argued that elephant safaris have been closely linked with Chitwan’s tourism history and should not be viewed only from the perspective of animal welfare concerns.

“People in Nepal and India have used elephants for riding since ancient times. Elephant safaris in Chitwan began with the establishment of the national park. Tiger Tops, which opened in 1964, eight years before the park was established, also operated elephant safaris. It is a long-standing tradition,” Ghimire said.

He said tourism entrepreneurs had invested heavily in caring for domesticated elephants and that these realities should also have been considered.

Basu Dhungana, a conservationist and owner of a tourist resort in Kumroj near Sauraha, said the shift away from elephant rides is becoming inevitable as global tourism increasingly moves towards ethical wildlife experiences.

Dhungana, who opened his resort three years ago, does not offer elephant safaris. He said the government, community forests, hotels and tourism entrepreneurs should work together to develop genuinely elephant-friendly tourism models.

Bed Kumar Dhakal, spokesperson for the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, said elephant management was a serious issue for the department.

He said the government would work to implement the court’s directives while balancing them with the practical concerns of elephant owners.

Chitwan National Park remains Nepal’s most popular wildlife destination, attracting around 300,000 domestic and international visitors annually. Besides elephant safaris, the park offers jeep safaris, boat trips on rivers and streams bordering the park, and guided jungle walks.

The challenge now is to determine whether Chitwan can preserve its appeal as a wildlife destination while moving towards a tourism model that protects elephants and sustains the communities that have long depended on them.