# Attitudes towards the Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices to Manage Wild Elephant Movement
## 1 Introduction
This approach has also been tested on several wild canid species to minimise human-wildlife conflict or prevent predation, and has been identified as an acceptable alternative to lethal control [49; 50; 51; 52]. AGDs could also actas an early warning system which can automatically send a message to mobile phones warning villagers and wildlife managers about the presence of a problem elephant near the village and the potential breaches of virtual fences by those elephants that ignore the audio warnings and electric shocks [38]. AGDs could, therefore, help reduce conflict incidents with problem causing elephants. Although the use of electric shocks to manage domestic pets and livestock species have been in existence for many decades [53], their use is still debated over animal ethics and welfare concerns [54; 55; 56; 57; 58]. Part of the reason for this debate may be the many nuances associated with the way electric shocks are used with these species, e.g., the strength of the shock, or whether shocks are delivered by humans or if animals can avoid the shock if they choose, and the possible stress that it would cause on the animal. Non-lethal electric fences used for elephants typically deliver electric shocks of 5500-10,000 V with very low amperage (\(\sim\)5 mA) and a pulse duration of about a few milliseconds [59; 60; 25; 40], and are generally perceived as an acceptable HEC mitigation tool [61]. AGDs used on livestock are also designed to deliver shocks with similar characteristics, but use a much lower voltage (e.g., \(\sim\)800 V [47; 62]) and lower energy than that given from electric fences used for these species [63]. Similarly, a much milder electric shock than that used in elephant electric fences might be used with AGDs for elephants as well [64]. However, compared to capturing and attaching collars with AGDs on other smaller or domesticated animals, fitting AGDs on elephants would pose a risk to both elephants and humans involved in the collaring process [65]. Stakeholders' interests and ideas about managing wildlife, especially on controversial management tools may differ [66; 67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72]. Public opinion can also be stronger when it comes to large, charismatic, and symbolic species [73; 74; 75]. Understanding the opinions of stakeholders towards potentially controversial but otherwise effective human-wildlife conflict mitigation approaches is important for their successful implementation. We previously conducted pilot studies on AGDs which revealed that electric shocks (\(\sim\)4000 V, \(\sim\)51.7 us, with no resistance) from a modified dog-training collar delivered on the neck of captive Asian elephants produces desirable aversive responses, and that there is potential to condition elephants to avoid the shock with a prior audio warning [64]. Furthermore, our assessment of behavioural and physiological stress responses to electric shocks of these captive elephants showed that the expected increase in acute stress responses returned to normal levels soon afterwards [76]. These studies revealed promising results for the potential use of AGDs to manage wild elephants, but their successful use may depend on their acceptability just as much as their efficacy [36; 77], which was not assessed in these studies. Evaluating and considering the views of experts and non-experts, and those who are and are not affected by HEC is important for developing consensus around the successful deployment of AGDs. Therefore, in this study we aimed to assess the perceptions of different stakeholders towards the potential use of AGDs as an HEC mitigation tool. We further explored the respondents' stated reasons for unacceptability and solicited their views on potential challenges that could be faced when developing AGDs. The overall aim of the study was to identify issues that may need further research as the development and use of AGDs continue.