The Big Question: Why is South Africa proposing to cull thousands of elephants?

[Guest guest]

2 very important aspect regarding this whoel issue of culling -

 

1) Humans continue on an unplanned destruction of the ecosystem thereby

completely cutting off elephant corridors forcing these national parks to

become islands in the pacific where the elephants have continued to breed.

 

2) The " yes " lobbby - those who are supporting culling... they have made a

completely unproven assumption.... this is more humane than leaving nature

to take its toll. On a one to one measurement may be they score some points,

but dont they believe that the elephants need to be given the benefit of

doubt and allowed to live. Survival of the fittest has been nature's mantra.

If they die in a drought, they die but atleast they had a chance.

 

i have a question for the " yes " lobby.... do you prefer being shot in your

head today rather than face an impending meteor strike on plant earth. After

being struck by a bullet I WILL ASSUME is far less painful than a meteor

crashing on your head.

 

We are setting up for the same frame to be replayed in Asia with all the

unplanned encroachments going on here.

 

THanks, Pablo.

 

 

On 2/27/08, AZAM SIDDIQUI <azam24x7 wrote:

>

> Link:

>

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-big-question-why-is-south-af\

rica-proposing-to-cull-thousands-of-elephants-787832.html

> The Big Question: Why is South Africa proposing to cull thousands of

> elephants?By Steve Connor, Science Editor

>

> *Wednesday, 27 February 2008*

>

>

> ***Why are we asking this now?*

>

> The South African government has decided to lift its moratorium on the

> culling of elephants in the country's national parks because populations in

> the country have risen from about 8,000 elephants to nearly 20,000 over the

> past decade or so. South Africa says, for instance, that there are some

> 5,000 more elephants living in the Kruger National Park, where numbers have

> almost doubled to 12,500, than can be sustained by the park's enclosed

> habitat.

>

> *What are the arguments for culling elephants?*

>

> Elephants are the largest land animal, reaching 13 feet in height and

> weighing up to seven tons, and as such they need a lot to eat. Not only do

> they consume vast amounts of vegetation, they do it by flattening bushes,

> ripping up tree roots and generally trashing the immediate environment where

> they live.

>

> Some conservationists say that enclosed national parks such at the Kruger

> just cannot afford to let elephant numbers get too big otherwise the entire

> habitat will be seriously degraded, which is bad news not just for elephants

> but for all other creatures that have to live in the same habitat.

>

> As elephants do not have any natural predators to speak of, the only way

> of keeping their population at sustainable levels is by killing off selected

> family groups. In other words, the planned culling is a necessary evil,

> according to its proponents.

>

> *Are there anyalternatives to culling?*

>

> The South Africans and their supporters have gone to great lengths to

> emphasise that culling must be the option of last resort. They want, for

> instance, to investigate the possibility of using contraceptives, which are

> administered to females using hypodermic darts loaded with drugs and fired

> from powerful guns.

>

> Another alternative is to allow elephants to migrate to other regions

> where numbers may not be so high, such as the neighbouring state of

> Mozambique. However, both of these alternatives have their problems. Not all

> the excess elephants can move to another country, and females will have to

> be repeatedly injected with contraceptive hormones if they are to remain

> infertile, which presents logistical difficulties. Another problem with

> contraception is that it prevents an entire generation of elephants from

> being born, which can upset the long-term demographic structure of herds.

>

> *Why has this situation arisen?*

>

> The big problem is that elephants in Africa can no longer roam freely. In

> the past, as the population of a herd increased, it would migrate to

> another, less populated region, thus allowing the grazed and degraded

> habitat it left behind to recover. However, there would have been some sort

> of natural culling process as well. Major droughts, for instance, would have

> occurred every couple of decades and these would have killed off many

> elephants.

>

> Whatever the arguments against the cull, not least the cruelty involved,

> it must be remembered that death by drought is a long, drawn-out process and

> much less " humane " than culling. So, with a growing human population needing

> more land for agriculture, and a fixed area of land set aside as national

> parks for African wildlife, culling was bound to come to the fore again.

>

> *What has happened with elephant culling in the past?*

>

> In South Africa, elephant culling stopped in 1995. It is estimated that

> between 1966 and 1994, some 16,210 elephants were culled in the Kruger

> National Park alone. It is testament to the success of national parks such

> as the Kruger that elephants living in them did so well – after all, it was

> only a hundred years ago that there were just a few hundred elephants left

> after they were hunted almost to extinction.

>

> Culling was seen as a necessary way of keeping the growing numbers in

> check. However, it was stopped in 1995 as a result of pressure brought to

> bear on the South African government from groups such as the International

> Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), which insists that culling is not supported

> by the science.

>

> " Culling is cruel, unethical and a scientifically-unsound practice that

> does not consider the welfare implications to elephant society as a whole, "

> said Jason Bell-Leask, the IFAW's southern African director.

>

> *How is culling carried out?*

>

> In the past, the elephants were herded together by helicopter, before

> sharp-shooters tranquilised them and then killed them with a shot to the

> head. The drug they used was Scoline (succinylcholine chloride) which

> brought elephants to their knees with its nerve-toxin formulation.

>

> IFAW said that many of the animals were often left to suffocate to death

> while remaining fully conscious and unable to move, a process that took

> several minutes. If the cull resumes, it is unlikely that Scoline will be

> used. Instead, marksmen on the ground and in helicopters will attempt to

> fell the animals with powerful bullets.

>

> *Does anyone outside South Africa support the cull?*

>

> The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) supports the cull but only as a last

> resort. The WWF says there are compelling reasons to believe that culling is

> one of the ways to deal with the crisis of growing elephant numbers. It

> argues that the national parks in South Africa will not be able to support

> either elephants or many of the other large species if matters continue. If

> left unchecked, elephants in South Africa could, in theory, number 34,000 by

> 2020, a population that could not be sustained by the land given over to

> national parks.

>

> *Why can't elephants be moved?*

>

> Their size is the first problem. The second is that they would find the

> move stressful. The third is knowing what they are being moved to. In

> central, west and east Africa, elephants are still being widely poached for

> the illicit ivory trade. It would be no good moving them to another area if

> they are just going to be fresh targets. The final problem is that the

> subspecies of Loxodonta africana in South Africa is different to the ones

> further north. So it would not make sense from a conservation point of view

> to mix two different subspecies.

>

> *Is killing elephants the only solution?*

>

> *Yes...*

>

> * The population cannot be sustained by the habitat, so numbers have to be

> reduced

>

> * Letting them die of starvation or drought is far more cruel than a

> controlled cull

>

> * Culling elephants will preserve the habitat for all the animals living

> there, protecting the entire ecosystem

>

> *No...*

>

> * There are other alternatives, such as contraception, which could reduce

> the population

>

> * Killing with guns is never guaranteed to be a quick and humane method of

> culling

>

> * Elephants should not be culled as they are intelligent creatures who

> suffer emotional trauma

>

> --

> United against elephant polo

> http://www.stopelephantpolo.com

 

 

 

 

--

WOCON: http://groups.google.co.inwocon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

How come at a time when bodies can be reshaped, infertile couples can have

children and monkeys can steer robots across the world no scientist has

come up with a better solution? How about WWF investing some of its wealth

in better Animal Birth Control measures among elephants?

 

*Does anyone outside South Africa support the cull?*

 

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) supports the cull but only as a last

resort. The WWF says there are compelling reasons to believe that culling is

one of the ways to deal with the crisis of growing elephant numbers. It

argues that the national parks in South Africa will not be able to support

either elephants or many of the other large species if matters continue. If

left unchecked, elephants in South Africa could, in theory, number 34,000 by

2020, a population that could not be sustained by the land given over to

national parks.

 

 

At 12:29 PM 2/27/2008 +0530, you wrote:

>2 very important aspect regarding this whoel issue of culling -

>

>1) Humans continue on an unplanned destruction of the ecosystem thereby

>completely cutting off elephant corridors forcing these national parks to

>become islands in the pacific where the elephants have continued to breed.

>

>2) The " yes " lobbby - those who are supporting culling... they have made a

>completely unproven assumption.... this is more humane than leaving nature

>to take its toll. On a one to one measurement may be they score some points,

>but dont they believe that the elephants need to be given the benefit of

>doubt and allowed to live. Survival of the fittest has been nature's mantra.

>If they die in a drought, they die but atleast they had a chance.

>

>i have a question for the " yes " lobby.... do you prefer being shot in your

>head today rather than face an impending meteor strike on plant earth. After

>being struck by a bullet I WILL ASSUME is far less painful than a meteor

>crashing on your head.

>

>We are setting up for the same frame to be replayed in Asia with all the

>unplanned encroachments going on here.

>

>THanks, Pablo.

>

>

>On 2/27/08, AZAM SIDDIQUI <azam24x7 wrote:

> >

> > Link:

> >

>

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-big-question-why-is-south-af\

rica-proposing-to-cull-thousands-of-elephants-787832.html

> > The Big Question: Why is South Africa proposing to cull thousands of

> > elephants?By Steve Connor, Science Editor

> >

> > *Wednesday, 27 February 2008*

> >

> >

> > ***Why are we asking this now?*

> >

> > The South African government has decided to lift its moratorium on the

> > culling of elephants in the country's national parks because populations in

> > the country have risen from about 8,000 elephants to nearly 20,000 over the

> > past decade or so. South Africa says, for instance, that there are some

> > 5,000 more elephants living in the Kruger National Park, where numbers have

> > almost doubled to 12,500, than can be sustained by the park's enclosed

> > habitat.

> >

> > *What are the arguments for culling elephants?*

> >

> > Elephants are the largest land animal, reaching 13 feet in height and

> > weighing up to seven tons, and as such they need a lot to eat. Not only do

> > they consume vast amounts of vegetation, they do it by flattening bushes,

> > ripping up tree roots and generally trashing the immediate environment

> where

> > they live.

> >

> > Some conservationists say that enclosed national parks such at the Kruger

> > just cannot afford to let elephant numbers get too big otherwise the entire

> > habitat will be seriously degraded, which is bad news not just for

> elephants

> > but for all other creatures that have to live in the same habitat.

> >

> > As elephants do not have any natural predators to speak of, the only way

> > of keeping their population at sustainable levels is by killing off

> selected

> > family groups. In other words, the planned culling is a necessary evil,

> > according to its proponents.

> >

> > *Are there anyalternatives to culling?*

> >

> > The South Africans and their supporters have gone to great lengths to

> > emphasise that culling must be the option of last resort. They want, for

> > instance, to investigate the possibility of using contraceptives, which are

> > administered to females using hypodermic darts loaded with drugs and fired

> > from powerful guns.

> >

> > Another alternative is to allow elephants to migrate to other regions

> > where numbers may not be so high, such as the neighbouring state of

> > Mozambique. However, both of these alternatives have their problems.

> Not all

> > the excess elephants can move to another country, and females will have to

> > be repeatedly injected with contraceptive hormones if they are to remain

> > infertile, which presents logistical difficulties. Another problem with

> > contraception is that it prevents an entire generation of elephants from

> > being born, which can upset the long-term demographic structure of herds.

> >

> > *Why has this situation arisen?*

> >

> > The big problem is that elephants in Africa can no longer roam freely. In

> > the past, as the population of a herd increased, it would migrate to

> > another, less populated region, thus allowing the grazed and degraded

> > habitat it left behind to recover. However, there would have been some sort

> > of natural culling process as well. Major droughts, for instance, would

> have

> > occurred every couple of decades and these would have killed off many

> > elephants.

> >

> > Whatever the arguments against the cull, not least the cruelty involved,

> > it must be remembered that death by drought is a long, drawn-out

> process and

> > much less " humane " than culling. So, with a growing human population

> needing

> > more land for agriculture, and a fixed area of land set aside as national

> > parks for African wildlife, culling was bound to come to the fore again.

> >

> > *What has happened with elephant culling in the past?*

> >

> > In South Africa, elephant culling stopped in 1995. It is estimated that

> > between 1966 and 1994, some 16,210 elephants were culled in the Kruger

> > National Park alone. It is testament to the success of national parks such

> > as the Kruger that elephants living in them did so well ­ after all, it was

> > only a hundred years ago that there were just a few hundred elephants left

> > after they were hunted almost to extinction.

> >

> > Culling was seen as a necessary way of keeping the growing numbers in

> > check. However, it was stopped in 1995 as a result of pressure brought to

> > bear on the South African government from groups such as the International

> > Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), which insists that culling is not supported

> > by the science.

> >

> > " Culling is cruel, unethical and a scientifically-unsound practice that

> > does not consider the welfare implications to elephant society as a whole, "

> > said Jason Bell-Leask, the IFAW's southern African director.

> >

> > *How is culling carried out?*

> >

> > In the past, the elephants were herded together by helicopter, before

> > sharp-shooters tranquilised them and then killed them with a shot to the

> > head. The drug they used was Scoline (succinylcholine chloride) which

> > brought elephants to their knees with its nerve-toxin formulation.

> >

> > IFAW said that many of the animals were often left to suffocate to death

> > while remaining fully conscious and unable to move, a process that took

> > several minutes. If the cull resumes, it is unlikely that Scoline will be

> > used. Instead, marksmen on the ground and in helicopters will attempt to

> > fell the animals with powerful bullets.

> >

> > *Does anyone outside South Africa support the cull?*

> >

> > The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) supports the cull but only as a last

> > resort. The WWF says there are compelling reasons to believe that

> culling is

> > one of the ways to deal with the crisis of growing elephant numbers. It

> > argues that the national parks in South Africa will not be able to support

> > either elephants or many of the other large species if matters continue. If

> > left unchecked, elephants in South Africa could, in theory, number

> 34,000 by

> > 2020, a population that could not be sustained by the land given over to

> > national parks.

> >

> > *Why can't elephants be moved?*

> >

> > Their size is the first problem. The second is that they would find the

> > move stressful. The third is knowing what they are being moved to. In

> > central, west and east Africa, elephants are still being widely poached for

> > the illicit ivory trade. It would be no good moving them to another area if

> > they are just going to be fresh targets. The final problem is that the

> > subspecies of Loxodonta africana in South Africa is different to the ones

> > further north. So it would not make sense from a conservation point of view

> > to mix two different subspecies.

> >

> > *Is killing elephants the only solution?*

> >

> > *Yes...*

> >

> > * The population cannot be sustained by the habitat, so numbers have to be

> > reduced

> >

> > * Letting them die of starvation or drought is far more cruel than a

> > controlled cull

> >

> > * Culling elephants will preserve the habitat for all the animals living

> > there, protecting the entire ecosystem

> >

> > *No...*

> >

> > * There are other alternatives, such as contraception, which could reduce

> > the population

> >

> > * Killing with guns is never guaranteed to be a quick and humane method of

> > culling

> >

> > * Elephants should not be culled as they are intelligent creatures who

> > suffer emotional trauma

> >

> > --

> > United against elephant polo

> > http://www.stopelephantpolo.com

>

>

>

>

>--

>WOCON: http://groups.google.co.inwocon

>

>

>