While some are calling to reinstate culling of elephants for the first time since 1994, other conservationists worry that the effects of killing elephants run deeper than we understand. In 1900, the elephant population sunk to only 200 due to hunting; now, the population is estimated to be 17,000. This soaring number combined with their individual demand for feed can result in over-grazing, which hurts the rhinoceros and gazelle populations first. Due to the emotional impact on other elephants, the government would require that entire families of elephants be killed rather than only the old or sick. Contraception and translocation have been deemed too expensive to use. Other parts of Southern Africa are experiencing similar over-population, but forest elephants in central Africa still face numerous threats. Conservation group the World Wildlife Fund agrees with South Africa’s plans. “In some areas there may be too many elephants for the available area, and culling may be needed,” said Sue Lieberman, director of the WWF International species program. “It’s not a preferred option and it’s not a pretty sight. Nobody wants to do this, but the option of doing nothing doesn’t exist.” "I wonder if a historic population of 200 in 1900 is to small to save, as Ryan Easley suggested with the small population of the "P" Horse?"
Friday, December 26, 2008
South Africa Could Soon Allow Controlled Elephant Hunts
The animals, which can live up to 70 years, seem to have strong familial bonds that extend to death. After one of their own dies, elephants often sit near the body for days and sometimes try to cover the body with sticks.
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
One of the things that's pretty interesting about African elephant populations are huge historical swings in numbers. Climate has been a factor, but human predation seems to have played an enormous role going back several thousand years. Much more so than with Asian elephants where there are no "up swings." Managed "culls" aren't a bad thing -- but it's truly ridiculous to allow hunting while denying live export/import. I'll just never buy into the notion that "training" is somehow worse than death.
Ben,
I will buy into the notion that death is better, until there is a standard for training and husbandry. I think the Elephant Managers Association is on the right track, but will all accept one standard? Or will they do what they suggest is best based on variables such as finances.
Wade
Wade,
Several year PETA endorsed culls over placement in the San Diego Wildlife Park for several young elephants out of Africa. Not over placement in a circus -death over placement in a pretty good park. Liberation will never accept any standard. And if the position is all or nothing, it's though to say that nothing is somehow better than captivity with or without a common set of standards.
Wade - the figures answer your question. IF the figures are right.
IF 200 animals bred up to 17000 in 100 years then there can be no argument against managed culls.
I'm with Ben on the live export scenario. Not the Arthur Jones type of bulk deal but exporting to licensed facilities should not be a bad thing.
Wade-
My comment was never that the group was too small to save, but rather questioned the genetic diversity that could stem from such a small group. Though 200 does seem like a large enough number to handle the situation. Though what of the dozens of Borneo rhinos?
Ryan,
Would a dozen be to small of a viable population of elephants, to attempt to save them?
Wade
Ben,
Both you and Anonymous asked what I was asking. What assurances are there, that it would not turn into another Elephant Flea Market, where anybody and everybody could acquire them for a couple of grand. When there are not even reliable figures as to the number imported by Jones and where they are today, or the issue of the 47 Asian offspring in 1975, and where are they today that we can't seem to find answers to. What is the solution. Import only 4 or 5 to keep track of them. Keep them all in holding pens in Africa, ala horse pens, and only release a few at a time. Or mass import and then look for a place for them. No way would that ever be a humane alternative. I have spent time around elephants also, gents. What genetic diversity would be saved in keeping as many individuals as possible?
PS: Anonymous above was Steve who was too tired after his Christmas celebrations with the grandkids to remember to sign his name!!!
Guess you must have known Wade or I would have been censored!!
From Jim Stockley:
A belated Merry Christmas to all.
An odd article...... it falsely gives the impression that South Africa's elephant population was reduced to 200 animals by sport hunting by the year 1900 and that this population had now re-bounded to 17000 individuals from this 200 founder stock? [it also strangely mentions impact on a 'gazelle population' when we don't have either Grant's or Thomson's in South Africa]. The elephants now in the Kruger National Park (KNP) moved down from Zimbabwe & Mocambique from 1905 to the closing of RSA's borders in the late 1950s and lately have been sustained by artificial watering points.
In 1967 KNP introduced culling to keep the elephant population at an arbitary number of 7000. This it did until 1994 when animal rights pressure and scientific questions over the true carrying capacity of KNP cause a moratorium to be placed on culling. KNP's elephant population has boomed and conservative estimates at 12000 but some claiming a true figure of 15000. There are also a large number of elephants outside of KNP, in private hands on privately-owned game farms.
Southern Africa has a LOT of elephants and they (the elephants) are doing what they are meant to do ..... modifying habitat and opening up forests so that fire can get in and create new grasslands. Botswana could shoot twenty thousand elephants today and not miss them. The damage they are doing in the Tuli block is huge, bio-diversity is under threat from elephant. South Africa is opening trans-frontier parks with Zimbabwe (hampered by Mad Bob Mugabe) and Mocambique (hampered by poverty, lack of resources, uncontrolled hunting and landmines). Until these parks are a reality and the elephants are using them, culling is inevitable to prevent serious habitat loss for other species (especially browsers like Black Rhino).
Against this backdrop are the issues raised on this blog. Culling is going to be difficult because of the numbers involved and the lack of trained staff. RSA used to cull approx 500 pa when we had 7000 in KNP but now the population has been allowed to grow to 15000 and still increasing at 6% pa, so bigger quotas need to be taken and that will cause disruption. Also the 4 man sticks who could shoot 30 elephants in 90 seconds have grown old or moved on and scoline is out of the question.
I have mixed feelings about catching and exporting young elephants. I agree with Ben that there must be some version of captivity that is better than death but I also think Wade is right about the standard of husbandry and the variables allowed by lack of finance and the like. I have seen captive elephant situations where death would be an acceptable alternative. I wouldn't want to see a return to the days when African elephants were cheap and easily available to anyone with a few bucks. For the moment, my feelings are of no consequence as South Africa has banned the taking of wild elephants into captivity and also banned the export of all elephants except family groups going to wild release in neighboring countries.
As captive elephants become scarce and the price of young elephants rises, this will be challenged by private elephant owners who want to profit from selling their surplus animals to China and who argue that elephants should not be treated any differently from any other game species. We allow the shooting of surplus white rhino bulls and are exporting large numbers of white rhino, why not the live capture and export of elephant? South Africa's Constitution enshrines the concept of 'sustainable use of natural resources' so it is only a matter of time before there is a constitutional challenge from private elephant owners. If private game farms start to overflow with elephant (as they already are) and owners are prevented from reaping financial benefit, then why keep elephant?
Sorry for being so long winded !
A safe and healthy New Year to us all.
Jim
Jim,
No apology necessary for brilliance, in giving a "clinic" on how to respond to a study which may not be valid, or biased. Much more becoming and educational then, charges of assholes, or kill them, and plant marijuana. Present other valid fact's and let the "two" sides mesh together someplace as truth.
I was involved very closely in an elephant confiscation that made me look at things differently then I ever had before. I saw animals that I had known years before, reduced to a hands off situation, jambed into a "cell" that would not be allowed at Guantanamo. It changes how you see things, and I will be asking myself for the rest of my life, how could that have been allowed to happen, and what part was my fault, being a part of their life earlier. As a person who appreciates animals, I have to look at that and other things I have seen. I used to be forced to do things with animals that I didn't feel comfortable doing, because I thought it was temporary and after all I was a trouper. Thirty years later, I am still a trouper, the difference is I have seen the residual/end result of individuals being allowed to do what ever they want with an animal, and it is indeed a sorry statement on mankind and the human mentality.
I can justify rejoneador, because the bull is killed and killed fairly quickly. He is never fought again. If he is a superior animal he becomes a herd sire. If he went through the same thing 2 or 3 times a week, I would object greatly, cultural/religious significance be damned. An improper captive life is not an alternative to humane quick death.
I thank you again, Jim for the great insightful thoughts on a tough situation. When it is the world you live in, you can surely have a different look at it, then somebody on the outside looking in.
Wade
Post a Comment