Elephants wandering out of forests and into villages have become an all-too-familiar scene in Kerala and other parts of India. The devastation left in their wake—destroyed crops, damaged homes, and tragically, loss of human and animal lives—raises urgent questions about coexistence. In recent years, the forest department has increasingly turned to fitting elephants with GPS collars as a way to monitor and potentially manage these giant wanderers. But is this high-tech solution truly enough? Or are we simply putting a band-aid on a far deeper wound?

GPS collars are undoubtedly useful tools. They provide real-time data on elephant movements, helping officials anticipate when herds approach human settlements and potentially intervene before conflict arises. This can enable timely warnings and reduce surprise encounters that too often end in tragedy. Yet, collars alone cannot stop elephants from leaving their natural habitats in search of food, water, or migration routes blocked by expanding human activity.

The root causes of human-elephant conflict lie beyond the range of any collar signal. Rapid deforestation, shrinking forest corridors, agricultural expansion, and habitat fragmentation have left elephants with fewer resources in the wild. When their natural food sources dwindle, the only alternative is often to forage in nearby fields and villages. Collars do not restore lost habitat or reconnect broken migratory pathways.

Moreover, the technology depends on swift and coordinated action after elephant movements are detected—a task complicated by understaffed forest departments, limited resources, and delayed responses. Without adequate infrastructure for rapid human intervention, alerts triggered by collars may come too late to prevent damage or casualties.

We must also consider the welfare of the elephants themselves. Collaring wild animals carries risks—stress, injury during fitting, and the potential for malfunction or misuse. Over-reliance on technology risks sidelining more holistic and sustainable approaches to coexistence.

True solutions demand a multi-pronged approach: restoring and protecting forest corridors, community engagement and education, better compensation and insurance schemes for affected farmers, and improved early warning systems integrated with local response teams. Equally critical is involving local communities as active partners rather than passive victims.

In essence, collars can be a valuable tool in the toolkit—but they are not the toolbox itself. They are not sufficient on their own. Until we address the systemic issues that push elephants into conflict with humans, collars remain a temporary fix in a much larger, ongoing crisis.

Kerala and other elephant habitats deserve more than quick technological fixes. They need vision, commitment, and sustainable coexistence strategies—before the fragile balance between man and beast collapses irreparably.