Cat-EYE and Nkorho Cams are down. We are working on solutions.

Debate about elephant culling intensifies

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous's picture
Debate about elephant culling intensifies

Original post The Star Newspaper
Secondary Source

By Peter Borchert
Culling elephants has been an accepted management practice in many parts of Africa since the 60s.

Kruger Park's managers of the day believed that the elephant population (which had grown steadily since the park's inception in 1926) should be stabilised at around 7 000 individuals if severe habitat alteration were to be avoided.

Thus began an annual cull which resulted in about 17 219 elephants being killed or removed from 1967 to 1996. In the eyes of many African and international conservation agencies and individuals, culling as a management strategy had always been unpopular, so when SANParks announced a moratorium on killing, it was widely applauded.

Culling has always been unpopular
The decision was taken after a SANParks-initiated debate on the ethics and morality of killing elephants, but also influencing the stance was the fact that they were moving away from the "7 000 elephants is the correct number for Kruger" approach, to arguing for strategies aimed at managing num-bers at either low, moderate or high levels in different parts of the park.

They also wished to change these areas and numbers through time, pending the response of biological diversity to elephant numbers. But what is this obsession with the number 7 000 that has dominated several decades of Kruger Park's history?

The number represents about "one elephant per square mile" (roughly 0,4 elephants per square kilometre), a calculation based on personal observation and a research paper published in 1969, two years after culling started.

Currently, elephant numbers in Kruger are increasing at near maximal rates, and are now well above one elephant per square mile, showing that resources are not limiting their numbers. This may be due to management actions such as fencing that override natural limitations.

Others have argued that 7 000 is much too high as impact was already apparent when elephants reached this number. From population trends elsewhere it is unlikely, without strong human intervention, that Kruger's population will stabilise before a density of at least one elephant per square kilometre (that's 2,6 per square mile) is reached.

'One elephant per square mile'
By then the population will have grown to about 20 000 and the park's savannahs will look very different to the way they do now, but they will be savannahs nonetheless. SANParks conservation managers have argued that to allow such a scenario to play out - in effect, to let nature take its course - would be un-advisable. Accordingly, they proposed that culling again be available as a management option.

Not surprisingly, the local and international media had a field day with this news and the voice of protest, especially from animal rights campaigners, raised itself in no uncertain terms, some actively branding South Africa as "a last outpost of wildlife tyranny" should elephant culling occur.

The Humane Society of the United States has already publicly stated that if culling takes place, they will advise their 8,5-million members not to visit South Africa.

Amongst the more pragmatic of the conservation NGOs this confrontational stance is decriedbut the threat and the serious impact such an action would have on the local tourism industry cannot be taken lightly.

In the face of this protest Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa's Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, found himself between a rock and a hard place his conservation colleagues at SANParks were urging the need to consider culling while his other portfolio, tourism, would be threatened by such an action.

Wisely, he put together an advisory board of experts and has heard their counsel over the intervening months. In February he announced that more scientific information was needed.

Some argue that he is simply buying time, many think it a sensible move. Elephant impacts in Kruger are being monitored; if this process continues over the next three years, the results may suggest strategies less traumatic than culling.

One possible outcome is that with the advent of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park (which embraces Kruger, a million-hectare slice of land in Mozambique and a section of Zimbabwe), elephants may begin to exploit these "new lands", resulting in a more dynamic ebb and flow of elephant numbers within a more "natural" migratory system (see The Big Picture on page 76).

The way in which events unfold could well be a watershed in conservation thinking and action, not only in South Africa but in elephant range states across the African continent.

This article was originally published on page 2 of Saturday Star

Anonymous's picture

"Anniecat" wrote:
Your signature says it all, agree with me or I will bash your head in. I have met you, know that you are joking but what about those who haven't. What is it saying to them? We need to make this place safe for all to air their views and to make it accessible.

OK Anniecat; as you know my signature is indeed meant to be lighthearted and, whilst I am very sure that most of the regulars here are aware of that (and any who think that it is seriously intended must have a very 'different' sense of humour - or a lack of?) I am also sure that my signature does not make many, if any, feel that this forum is an unsafe place as a result.
To imply so is to imply that I have some kind of power or influence here, which I do not have and do not desire to have.

However I will change my signature to something equally lighthearted.... please do let me know if you have any further objections!

Nice to see you here BTW - I hope you can make it to our next London Meet Sticking out tongue

Anonymous's picture

I agree that it is hard to figure out what is really going on when you do not belong to the country. It is easy to get caught up in the emotion of the thing as well. I am overjoyed that some of the fences are coming down and with that the prospect of ellies moving out and about. I have seen the devastation that they cause and have looked at all of the solutions and none of them are without complications. I know that Sanparks have a real long term plan which is something to behold but there must also be short and medium terms answers otherwise the damage done will be too great. Culling whilst an option should I believe be one of the last to be considered but I need to know more re other methods before I can make any rational conclusion.

krukab's picture
Joined: Feb 18 2006

*** hi game ranger - just read your posting again - and noticed **anniecat is right not enought of us so called africamers posting out thoughts --- ( in your posting are you talking about parks in africa ) or all land in africa - pertaining to the elephants ???? - its hard for us in canada to judge the actions of a government in another country or continent on thier conservation methods - in canada in all national parks ** all animal-birds- plants -tree,s etc are protected by the canadian government- the ( poaching of any animals will bring fines - ++ the development of communities within the parks is regulated by the federal government- some parks capture some animals in live traps and re-locate them out side of parks - to regulate a animal per square mile quota -*** animals outside the national parks are regulated by a hunting seson to keep numbers at certain levels depending on the species- *** un fortunatly thier are more animals killed by trains and automobiles in our province each year then hunters take - this keeps herds strong - not hunting - has led to over population of some species and then diease has taken 80% of the herd - *** well i said my 2-cents -- keep the topics comming the only way we can learn about other parts of the world is by ** game rangers - giving us topics to read - barry - ( and thanks)

Anonymous's picture

Your post poses many questions, most importantly why do people not get involved. I do not believe that they are disinterested at all but reluctant to air their views for fear of being shot down. Your signature says it all, agree with me or I will bash your head in. I have met you, know that you are joking but what about those who haven't. What is it saying to them? We need to make this place safe for all to air their views and to make it accessible. I have read the posts and been off researching here and there, I shall be posting some more tomorrow in the hope that others will follow, let's see eh but ultimtely no one has a right to make any judgement on what others do or not do here

Anonymous's picture

It saddens me to see that most 'Africammers', who proffess to be interested in Wildlife Issues, have ignored this posting and many of your previous postings....maybe this is because they are only interested in their own immediate environment, or because they are scared to enter into serious debate.... which I cannot judge.... but whatever their reasons, the apathy that is displayed to serious debates here - and elsewhere - gives me little confidence in the Human Race and our ability to manage our environment and the many and various species that inhabit our world.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.