BBC: Cull concerns 'miss bigger picture'

[Guest guest]

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7300570.stm

*

Cull concerns 'miss bigger picture'*

 

*VIEWPOINT*

Richard Leakey

 

* It is too soon for conservationists to ring the alarm bells over South

Africa's elephant management plan that includes culling, argues Dr Richard

Leakey. In this week's Green Room, he says the measures are necessary and

based in animal welfare concerns. *

 

 

The issue of culling is highly emotive

Last month's report on elephant management in South Africa has sent alarm

bells ringing throughout the conservation and animal welfare circles, and

headlines have been screaming that culling is about to be re-introduced.

 

This is a highly emotive issue and I have studied the government's report

before making any judgment. Indeed, the report goes far beyond culling, and

the headlines I have seen have been rather misleading.

 

Let me explain my position. By 1990, long-term research in Kenya and

elsewhere had revealed that elephants have highly organised societies and a

surprisingly well developed ability to communicate.

 

We consider them sentient creatures like whales and apes that deserve

special consideration when it comes to their management.

 

I was part of the community of concerned professionals who objected to the

culling of elephants in southern Africa during the 1990s and before because,

at that time, the body of knowledge about elephants was ignored.

 

 

* Elephants... will become an increasingly serious problem unless some key

populations are reduced and maintained at appropriate levels *

 

Culling appeared to be largely commercially motivated (for ivory and trade

in baby elephants); it was not managed in a scientific manner and was

unacceptably inhumane.

 

Unable to ignore the global concerns for the ethical and inhumane treatment

of elephants, the South African government then banned the culling of

elephants in the 1994.

 

The statement made by Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South Africa's Minister of

Environmental Affairs and Tourism, on the publication of the final Norms and

Standards for Elephant Management, reveals that the nation has come a long

way since its position in the 1980s.

 

The country has clearly looked seriously at the issues raised by experts

from around the world by consulting widely within and beyond South Africa,

and has prepared a carefully considered position on the management of

elephants that aims to serve the interests of elephants as a species, their

welfare, their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, and their

effects on the people - both locally and nationally.

 

* Pleasant surprise *

 

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the guiding principles behind this

piece of legislation begin with an acknowledgement that " elephants are

intelligent, have strong family bonds and operate within highly socialised

groups, and unnecessary disruption of these groups by human intervention

should be minimised " .

 

 

 

The welfare of elephants is further emphasised in the statement:

" Management interventions must, wherever practicable, be based on scientific

knowledge or management experience regarding elephant populations and must

take into account the social structure of elephants.

 

" (It must) be based on measures to avoid stress and disturbance to

elephants, and, where lethal measures are necessary to manage an elephant or

group of elephants or to manage the size of elephant populations, these

should be undertaken with caution and after all other alternatives have been

considered. "

 

While I will never " like " the idea of elephant culling, I do accept that

given the impacts of human induced climate change, and habitat destruction,

elephants in and outside of protected areas will become an increasingly

serious problem unless some key populations are reduced and maintained at

appropriate levels.

 

* Human pressures *

 

A part of the problem is caused by increasing demand for resources by

humans, and I believe that we have a responsibility to check habitat impacts

in order to reduce conflicts between elephants and humans by controlling

human activities as well.

 

Reducing elephant populations may therefore be a necessary part of

population management, and this will be done in a humane and considered

manner.

 

South Africa intends to reserve culling as a last resort after all other

options such as translocations and fertility control have been exhausted.

 

Though I find elephant culling repugnant, I can see the sense in it in

these scenarios, as I imagine many others do also.

 

If culling is deemed necessary, then I would personally like to see the

management authority ensure that entire families or bond groups are removed

intact to eliminate or minimise the emotional trauma to remaining

individuals, and secondly, to maintain smaller populations using tested and

approved fertility control.

 

It means that the authorities have much work to do in terms of studying the

family and bond groups and maintaining good records. If done well, culling

entire bond groups would reduce cases of rogue elephants and would eliminate

or reduce the frequency of further culling in the future.

 

Finally, it is with great relief that I note that the minister has

prohibited any further capture of wild elephants for captivity.

 

He acknowledges the unacceptably cruel practices that are common in captive

elephant care and training in South Africa where baby elephants are beaten

and tortured to " break their will " in order to train them for tourism,

circuses and even zoos.

 

I look forward to seeing new legislation that completely eliminates cruelty

in the captive care and training of these highly intelligent and feeling

animals.

 

* Dr Richard Leakey is the founding chairman of WildlifeDirect, a former

head of the Kenyan Wildlife Service and a leading palaeontologist *

 

* The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics

running weekly on the BBC News website *

 

* Do you agree with Dr Leakey? Should culling be allowed as a last resort

in the effort to control elephant numbers? Does the South African report

show that governments have made progress when it comes to understanding

conservation? And should more attention be focused on limiting human

consumption of natural resources? *

 

Perhaps all those who suggest culling humans would go outside and do the

decent thing starting with themselves. Or do they only speak so freely about

culling other less deserving humans?

* Paul Martin, London *

 

instead of wasting resources harrasing whalers ( there are enough whales for

people to see them and to eat a few ) use the funds to relocate elephants

and curb poaching. also remember dr.leaky's opinion is not always the most

rational, his opposition to hunting in kenya resulted in the near total

collapse of wildlife there as poaching simply exploded after the hunting ban

 

* derek, deconow *

 

I am frankly disgusted that a very sensible and thoughtful article by

Richard Leakey has provoked so many posts calling for the " culling of

humans " . Just who exactly are these people suggesting should be culled? Are

they saying that they, the writers, are prepared to sacrifice their own

lives, and the lives of their friends and loved ones in order to help halt

human population growth? Are they willing (as one writer so prosaicly puts

it) to die from " disease and pestilence " in order to help reduce the

population pressure on the planet? No, of course not. These spoilt

individuals, writing from the safety of " developed " countries that have

already wiped all but the last traces of their natural environment in

pursuit of comfort and security, want other, less important people to do the

dieing. People who are far away from them and out of sight. People in

Africa. The less drastic proposal that we should be " moving the humans away

who are causing this population pressure on the elephants " is also selfish

and obnoxious. It is, after all, a very easy thing to propose that people

should just be " moved " when it is not you and your family who must do the

moving!

* David Easterling, Durban, South africa *

 

I too understand the need for culling animal populations because they are

not sustainable due to human impact. But I don't believe it's fair at all.

In fact, I think that for every animal 'culled' a human ought to be 'culled'

as well. It's not the elephant's fault that its habitat is being destroyed

by us - we should be the ones paying the ultimate price for our

uncontrollable population expansion. Imagine that - a population cap and

meaningful controls on growth for humans. And, I can think of a lot of

people who don't really contribute to society in any meaningful way and thus

we can also minimise the disruption to our comnplicated social interactions

just as effectively as we can for elephants! This might meet with a lot of

concern out there, but all the arguments supporting culling can be turned

around to support this argument. Thus if you're against this argument but

support culling, you have a human-centric view of the world. We're not the

only ones here and we're not the only ones who deserve to survive. The

sooner we realise that and stop our ever-expanding population from becoming

unsustainable the better off all life will be.

* chris, *

 

Humans are overpopulated too and are leaving a lasting negative impact on

the environment. Should we suggest culling humans?

* , Kolkata, INDIA *

 

I am a kenyan and I remember so well all the hard work Dr Leakey and his

team put in to save the elephent - We need to be careful how we say things

as it can be mis interpreted - culling of course can be done in many way but

killing is really not an option here - why un do all that work - like many

have said the population of humans need to be controlled in order to leave

large areas for the wildlife. We can barley make ends meet now with large

familys - contraception and maybe one wife only ?

* Sara, Brighton, UK *

 

Just one comment, I wonder if those that calls for " human culling " will

stand first in the line to be culled!

* Grim reaper, South Africa *

 

I work in conservation but am also a humanitarian. While I might not like

the idea of culling elephants, as elephant numbers increase in reserves,

they destroy the very habitat that they, and so many other animals, depend

on. Translocation of large numbers of big mammals is both extremely

difficult and unbelievably exensive. Even if it weren't prohibitively

expensive for African governments to relocate large numbers of elephants,

where are they going to relocate them to? Habitat suitable for elephants

persists mainly in national parks, and those parks can only support a

certain number of animals before being becoming severely degraded. And where

is the money going to come from? Can we justify diverting money away from

health care, AIDS, education, etc into translocation of elephants?

Personally I can't. I may not like the idea of culling elephants, but

sometimes it is necessary to kill some animals for the good of the species

as a whole - and all the other species that depen! d on the habitat that

elephants are capable of destroying. Blaming population growth in Africa is

not helpful, and curbing it, though it may reduce some pressure on wildlife

habitat, will not make the problem go away. Europeans must also take some

responsibility for the reduction in both habitat and numbers of mammals.

Colonisation, urbanisation and changes in pastoral / agricultural systems

contributed to the problem, and the numbers of elephants, rhino, and other

large animals were depleted to near critical levels by white game hunters

before poaching started to take its toll. Whatever other criticisms we may

throw at South African countries, they know how to manage culling to cause

the least physical and psychological pain to the animals.

* Deb, Cairns, Australia *

 

It may be time to reconsider all of the traditional approaches to

conservation as a whole, as their efficacy are becoming less and less

apparent. Several proposals that merit closer scrutiny and consideration

have been to establish large nature reserves in America's midwest plains

replete with non-native species but established to merely guarantee that

viable populations continue to exist, allowing private ownership of certain

animals in a more regulated animal trade and pet ownership style scheme with

registration and monitoring of gene pools and breeding, and of course a

means that truly empowers legal enforcement directed at conservation

management. Wealthier nations with large land expanses and a regulated

animal trade & ownership scheme to maintain populations both have the

further benefit of market forces driving their operations, whereby profits

provide ulterior motives to prevent abuses of these schemes. Having visited

national parks and conservation areas in nearly all of the 28 countries that

I have been to has left me with the impression that current methods simply

do not provide an appropriate means to guarantee the survival of viable

populations of any of the larger mammal species with a few exceptions always

invariably found in 'developed' countries. As things are now, the ever

growing plethora of animals whose impending demise is certain, is simply

growing in numbers day by day. Market forces, land use, resource

exploitation and livelihoods have consistently shown themselves to be much

stronger forces in the ongoing effort to guarantee conservation.

* Jeff Richardson, Hanoi, Vietnam *

 

I grew up in Tanzania circa 1949-1970. On the way to boarding school a 2 day

journey by bus, we would stop to let elephants & other wildlife cross the

" road " . In some of the bush towns we lived in we would keep our dogs in at

night afraid they would be taken by leopards. I returned to Tabora in the

centre of Tanzania in 2003 for the first time since leaving in Jan. 1964. I

was shocked to see the amount of people there 3 times as many at least. This

in a country where so many are dying of HIV/AIDS? There was no wildlife to

be seen at all there or anywhere outside the national parks. It was very

depressing, there needs to be a government program to sterilize the

men/women, similar to the one in China which sterilized women after giving

birth to one child. Humans need culling, we are the ones causing the

environmental problems on the planet.

* Jacqueline Simone Ambrose, Wailuku Maui Hawaii *

 

This is a very balanced article. Most people who comment against culling

have very little information on the elephant conservation efforts in

Southern Africa. South Africa is going about it thoughtfully and it must be

commended for it. Visit a few national parks where elephants live to get a

clearer picture of the ecosystem. You mgiht not change your views, but

you'll certainly be more enlightened.

* Russ, Gabrone, Botswana *

 

I am doing the only thing to stop culling. I am canceling a trip to South

Africa and will not travel to a country that even considers this cruel

solution it human overpopulation.

* Carol Botten, Newport Beach California USA *

 

I agree, we have got to manage both our material resources and biodiversty

resources. There are many complexities to the process but its refreshing to

hear the approach outlined in Dr leaky's article. If other issues where

dealt with in this way the world would be in a better place. ..

* Luke Smith , Manchester,UK *

 

To those who recommend culling humans...you don't mean yourself of course,

just the poor folks trying to scratch out a living in these areas that

conflict with the elephants, right? I'm not arguing for human supremacy over

all non-human animal life, but these 'cull the humans!' calls seem as

insensitive to the complicated dynamics at work in these conflicts between

people and animals as those who simply say 'it's only a dumb animal'.

* D Racey, Carbondale, Illinois, United States *

 

Killing yet more elephants? Why not just hire the poachers. It's no

difference really. " If done well, culling entire bond groups would reduce

cases of rogue elephants " Killing entire elephant families that means. So a

rogue elephant is really an angry elephant. Angry because his or her family

has been murdered in front of them. Population management? It is called

killing elephants. So Richard Leakey wants to kill entire elephant families

so there are no elephant witnesses. Stop hiding behind niced-up language and

think of a better solution instead of the final solution.

* Toners Bruxtin, Great England *

 

To all the people who suggest that humans should be " culled " before

elephants, I would like to suggest that they should be culled before anyone

else! Then someone from the elephant impacted areas can move into their cozy

condo in the first world. The answers to conservation issues are not always

straightforward and easy, and yes, they involve difficult choices. I applaud

Dr Leakey for having the courage to take this stand.

* Daniel Pike, North Bay, Ontario *

 

I totally agree with the above comments... why do humans have to dominate

and manipulate every aspect of this planet we live on for our own ends at

the expense of any and every other living creature who also have equal

rights to live out their lives? We need to respect the rights of the other

living species we live along side, and manage ways to live in co existence

not abolish any creature that comes in our way. Given that we refuse to

respect the rights of other livng creatures family planning as a means of

'control' may be the best way forward and more should be directed towards

these such methods.

* victoria martindale, derby, uk *

 

The elephant is not the problem! Overpopulation in Africa is the problem.

African custom allows for too many wives, children and grand-children…BIG

families, whether or not they can be fed - hence the continuing 'poverty

problems' here! The cure all for Africa's present (and future) woes, lie in

the national distribution of family planning material, on-site education in

the mother tongue…and triple-thick condoms!

* Derek Ramsden, Durban, South Africa. *

 

I applaud Dr. Leakey for his attempt to look objectively at the ecological

principles behind managing elephant populations instead of bellying up to

animal rights extremists who don't take the time to look at the hard

science. I am a field ecologist and active supporter of a variety of

conservation programs for elephants in East and Southern Africa and I have

seen first hand some of the areas where elephants are overpopulated and

destroying the environment and neighboring communities. Places where the

elephants and locla people are stressed and in direct competition with

eachother. When there are too many elephants in a limited amount of space

(over an ecosystem's carrying capacity) the result is desertification; which

leaves no trees, birds, herbivores or carnivores ... in essence a savanna

wasteland where large numbers of elephants then die of starvation after

there are no plants or water left. A complete loss of biodiversity. While

translocation seems logical, the costs a! ssociated with moving entire

families of elephants is in the hundreds of millions of dollars and utterly

unrealistic. Not to mention the practice is extremely questionable to many

elephant biologists for its effect on family social structure, social

organization, and individual behavior. This has been proven in South Africa

before, in the Pilannesburg mountains, where the relocated elephants began

killing all of the endangered white rhinoceros in the nature reserve because

their social structure was artificially created and the young bulls killed

the rhino simply because they enjoyed overpowering the rhino when they were

in musth. I do not know of many conservation organizations, or African

governments for that matter, who have a few hundred million dollars extra to

put towards moving elephants into areas they haven't been found for decades

and likely would not know how to survive in.

* Nick, Seattle, USA *

 

Dr. Leakey, you have my deepest sympathy. It's a miserable problem; with no

happy solution. And quite obviously, no end to the humans who are quite

willing to offer vehement opinions that start: " I'm not a trained scientist,

BUT... " " I know nothing about elephants, or animals, BUT " ... " I don't live

in Africa, BUT " ... " I've owned Siamese cats for 30 years, AND... "

* Paul, Minnesota, USA *

 

As harsh and inhumane as it sounds to cull elephants in South Africa, it is

the last resort they have in that country. We must remember culling exstites

here in the USA. Land Reform is a big issue in the country, which was caused

by the apartheid system. Relocating the elephants is a gread idea. South

Africa does not have the resourses to move the elephants. I believe Peta and

other animal rights groups should be lobbying their governments for the

neccesary cash and logistics for relocation. Most of these comments fail to

see that consevation has been working. Most of the human population that

leaves in these areas were put there because of the apartheid system, so

they could have the farmlands and offcourse the mining. Most of these

farmers and mining companies are from the Western Countries. Should they not

all so be held liable. I am from Africa myself, and would like to look

forward to a brighter future for the humans and animals. In conclusion

people should r! ealiaze that the human population in these rural areas, it

not there by choice. Please be more open minded and lets find a lasting

practicle solution. Land Reform as harsh it sounds in the media is the long

term solution. Thanks everybody for your comments. George, USA

* George Sachirarwe, USA *

 

I totally agree with Dr. Leakey's clearly reasoned and empathetic comments,

and happily the report does seem to suggest progress in factoring in the

realities involved in conservation. Though not easily done, more effort

should be made toward understanding natural resources and limiting human

consumption of them. There is simply more to life on earth than just us

humans. We have the power and freedom to make choices and with that comes

the responsibility to care for our natural resources - especially the living

ones.

* A. Devereux, Philadelphia, USA *

 

Now that Leakey seems to " understand " what overpopulation of elephants could

lead to, which has been a product of his conservation campaigns in 80s%90s.

Does he now together with other conservatist realise what consevation can

mean to nature? Because conservation is not Natural let the " Survival for

the fittest rule " ! Rahab

* Rahab Kinyanjui, Nairobi, Kenya *

 

During the last big cull the elephants were distressed just hearing the

approach of the helicopters, as though they knew that their extermination

was imminent. If a cull is absolutely necessary, have the South Africans

learnt anything, or will they approach the matter in the same gung-ho manner

(I suspect that we may be kept in the dark over this until the completion of

the cull)

* Babar the elephant, Co Durham *

 

I am simply and utterly oppposed to any action which cull's animals simply

to make more space for the human species or because it is inconvenient for

us. We are the ones taking up the space, inconveniencing the animal

population on the planet and are the ones who need control...

* Rich, Reading, UK *

 

I love all the cull the humans comments. Will each and every one of the

humans who said this now kindly cull themselves? And don't forget to leave

your house/ job/ bank account to someone relocating from an elephant area.

* Jacky, UK *

 

i do agree with dr. leakey's insights. i have great respect for his work and

contribution to conservation. mine are queries more than comments: 1) is it

feasible to castrate/spade the elephants so that they dont reproduce beyond

what is sustainable instead of culling? creating limits right from the

beginning instead of at the end? 2) what happens to the diversity of the

gene pool if whole familes and bond groups are eliminated? 3) what

programmes are in place/being developed to help with the human impact around

these conservation areas? eryll jalipa

* eryll jalipa, nairobi,kenya *

 

Why do they call it culling? It's KILLING, plain and simple, and wrong.

* Kathy, Boston, MA USA *

 

Yes population control is the answer but I mean the human population which

is already at unsustainable levels and rising. I know the west per capita

uses far more resources than those in the majority world and we must curb

our population growth and our consumption but in Africa etc population

control is also vital. Too many people take up too much space and use too

many resources (eg. food - land cleared, energy - greenhouse gases) and

inevitably create waste and pollution. There are over 900m people in Africa

- a much lower density than say China but does Africa really want to end up

in the environmental mess that China is in today? A little forethought now

could save a lot of trouble in the future. It must also be remembered that

the level of desertification in Africa means that the usable/useful to life

landspace is shrinking.

* Helena Forsyth, Edinburgh, Scotland *

 

No I do not agree what gives us the right to say when a population of any

animal is " too much " and should be kept in check, when we can't even keep

our own numbers in check. I don't understand why we think we own every bit

of land on this planet and that if animal numbers are too high they need to

be kept in check but it's fine for the Human species to carry growing.

Elephants aren't infringing on Human land we are infringing on their habitat

for Christ sake. it is barbaric how the hell is a population of 18,000

excessive? Yet 6 billion and growing is fine isn't it? I'm glad the report

says disturbance should be kept to a minimum but let face it thats probably

just a front to make them seem to be taking a scientific view, but if they

aren't going to make money out of culling them then thats a load of bull.

Why can't they leave them be and maybe practice safe sex and keep their own

numbers in control and maybe demand for land wouldn't be high enough for

Elephants to get the c! ull to make room, it's sick they make them sound

like an old building that needs to be removed in order for a new project to

take place.

* William Heyes, *

 

Although as a biologist I do understand the arguments of Dr. Leakey, I still

believe that an option to culling entire families is to translocate entire

families to other parts in Africa where their populations are low. I am sure

that the S.African gov will find both economic and moral support from

African and European countries for such a measure. Culling should not be an

option.

* Matthew, Malta *

 

What Dr Leakey says makes perfect sense. I just wonder why we aren't

thinking in the same way about the human population; the major contributor

to the elephants' demise and ultimately our own.

* Quentin, Camberley, UK *

 

I am completely opposed to elephant culling. The human race has done enough

harm to these creatures, it is time to leave them alone. Stop the

competition for land, move the humans to the cities and leave the interior

areas to the animals, including elephants.

* L. Lorraine, Eastbourne *

 

Know, I do not agree with the doctor. I once had respect for him but

obviously his will has been broken. The problem is man. The human population

needs to be culled not Elephants. The good doctor needs to address the issue

of " carrying capacity. " In terms of humans not animals. Humans do far more

damage to the land than animals and their destructive practices are aloud to

continue in the name of progress. I think humans need to stop raping the

land and stop thinking they are so superior to other species. I also think

that the african people should stop killing one another. They should put

their energy into saving their beautiful country. They should drive out the

Chinese and British.

* William B. Graham, Portland U.S.A *

 

The same need for culling and/or population management could be said about

humans too. But unlike other sentient species, humans have developed a

higher sense of entitlement to natural resources. We look at those resources

as a possession, rather than something to respect and use in a sustainable

manner. I wonder how different this story would end if elephants, whales,

gorillas, and other species knew how to use a high-powered rifle. Survival

of the fattest, I suppose.

* Scott Goldsberry, Ontario, Canada *

 

I respect and believe Dr. Leakeys assessments about the current situation.

And am grateful there is someone such as he to review South Africas policies

and to get involved in the oversight of whatever action is taken. I feel

distressed by the plan to cull elephants, knowing they have such developed

social communities, and hope that no time or money is spared in looking

carefully into what can be done alternatively. Thank you Dr. Leakey for your

involvement and writting on this issue. Respectfully, Amie Walter

* Amie Walter, Bellows Falls, VT USA *

 

I think putting elephants in captivity is a much better solution than

culling. You are wiping out entire generations of DNA - DNA which has

survived for thousands of years. I do not know how anyone involved can sleep

at night - as with any form of culling (unless animals are deseased of

course). How would they liked to be culled along with their families so that

thier DNA is wiped out from existance? Show some respect and find a solution

to work with the animals not against them. Hypocrites - esp as he is a

founder of a wildlife charity.

* Dave, Bournemouth *

 

" Elephants... will become an increasingly serious problem unless some key

populations are reduced and maintained at appropriate levels " .. What about

human beings?

* Thomas, Heumen, The Netherlands *

 

While the guiding principles of the elephant management plan are to be

lauded, there should be greater acknowledgement that humans are the biggest

contributors to habitat destruction, and unsustainable exploitation of

natural resources. Perhaps we should first take the log out of our own eyes

before attempting to deal with the speck in the eyes of elephants.

* Tony, Christchurch, New Zealand *

 

I think it rather daft. You go to all the trouble of investing in and

guarding against poaching and now it's acceptable to eliminate entire bond

groups in order to satisfy humans unchecked and mismanaged consumption of

natural resources. It may be that the wrong species has been selected for

culling...

* George, Bass Harbor, Maine USA *

 

Should we cull elephants? No. I think we are asking the wrong question.

Should we cull the humans that are causing theses issues in the first place?

Possibly yes. The only reason the elephant population is in trouble, again,

is that instead of their natural huge area's that they should be allowed to

roam, they have in comparison small strips of game reserve and protected

areas which they are now over populating. We should be moving the humans

away who are causing this population pressure on the elephants. It is our

activities that are and always have caused these issues with most if not all

animal population issues that occur in their own natural environments. We

should be looking into real measures in how to curtail the unsupportable

explosion of the human race. Not limiting the numbers of other animals we

are supposed to be sharing this planet with.

* Leon Cook, Sutton Coldfield *

 

I think Dr Leakey is the one who is not seeing the " big picture " . Contrary

to his understanding, there is plenty of space for a growing elephant

population in the brand new Trans Frontier Parks that border Kruger on the

east and north. These are massive, pristine bushveld areas. However, these

new park areas are inhabited by poor villagers who trap and poach wild

animals to make a living. Elephants avoid these areas - clearly they are

smart and sentient! Instead of culling, the South African government needs

to implement education projects and to incentivate the inhabitants of the

new transfrontier parks to keep wild animals alive, instead of killing them.

The issue is not about lack of space for elephants, Dr Leakey, it is about

lack of political will and lack of environmental passion. Furthermore, I

cannot imagine how Dr Leakey can think there can be a " sensitive " way of

" removing " family groups of large mammals such as elephants. It is always

going to be traumatic, horri! fic, and every kind of scene from hell that

one can conceive of. I wonder how Dr Leakey would feel if this course of

action was about to be embarked upon in his own country? Furthermore, South

Africa DOES allow ivory trading, while Kenya does not, so there will always

be that taint attached to the culling exercise. I am personally bitterly

disappointed in Dr Leakey's stance, and yes, I do think less of him as a

person and as a conservationist in the light of his comments.

* Marianne Birrell, Paarl, South Africa *

 

You are so right when you say: " A part of the problem is caused by

increasing demand for resources by humans, and I believe that we have a

responsibility to check habitat impacts in order to reduce conflicts between

elephants and humans by controlling human activities as well " . But it's not

just our activities, how about our responsibility to bring our human NUMBERS

into balance? We are such a numerous species (and increasing by 79 million

per year) that we relentlessly commandeer the habitats for all wildlife, not

just elephants. That's hardly rocket science! Not talking coercion here, but

my experience of Africa (born in what was then called Ruanda-Urundi,

educated Kenya, regularly visiting) tells me there is an immense amount of

unmet need among women for family planning, the simple choice to not have a

baby yet that UK women can take for granted. Along with properly resourcing

education and correct information about fertility and sustainability, we

have a win-win opportunity we are just not taking all over Africa: voluntary

family planning for humans as a truly cost-effective intervention for

wildlife. PS And how about family planning rather than culling for the

elephants ALSO? I'm not joking: As a medical specialist in family planning,

if you get the dose right there's no reason why large mammals should not be

given the same contraceptive hormones that work so well in humans. John

Guillebaud, Prof of Family Planning and Reproductive Health, UCL

* John Guillebaud, Oxford, UK *

 

I am quite surprised a Dr Leakey's comments. Especially considering the wave

of killings of elephants in Ambolesi Park in Kenya. I would like to

understand what the term " culling " really means. To shoot from a distance is

completely cruel and obviously not always accurate. Will they be culled by a

dart tranquiliser which would send them to sleep I wonder instead? I would

have thought Dr Leakey would have encouraged a different stance of actually

moving whole " elephant families " to different parts of Africa to other

National Parks where they will be protected. I do agree that there is a

problem and agree with the fact that the human element needs to be looked at

as well. There really needs to be " human only areas " and " animal only areas "

putting up electric fences around these areas. I know this is costly and

covers a vast area but it has to be worth it in the long term. I would like

to know what the followers of Wildlife Direct think of these comments, as

there are m! any regulars who write on there everyday and donate money to

help conservation. To then have Dr Leakey suggests culling is a good option

seems quite hypocritical.

* Joanne, Newcastle, UK *

 

The article states that " human induced [issues] will become an increasingly

serious problem unless some key populations are reduced and maintained at

appropriate levels. " I fully agree. However it is not the elephant, but

rather the human population which must be controlled! After all, it is our

exponential population growth which is leading to uncontrolled climate

change, the widespread depletion of our planet's resources and the

extinction of animal species. I find it incredible that a leading

conservationist's " solution " to increased human activity is to reduce the

elephant population to a level consistent with their reduced habitat. It

would be much wiser to implement a global program to reduce the human

population to a level consistent with our voracious use of scarce resources!

 

* Richard Chrenko, Milan, Italy *

 

As a wildlife conservation student and having worked as a ranger in South

Africa I agree with what Dr. Leakey is saying. I would say (as Dr. Leakey

alludes to) that culling needn't mean killing. Contraception and

translocation are alternatives - and both fall under the term culling - but

often the economics become the pressing factor. I think the key point to

highlight is that the need for a cull is due to these animals being

restricted in areas by human made fences. The fences are in order to protect

both the animals but also the human populations outside them. Therefore the

need for the cull is the balance of importance on species. Are humans more

important that elephants? How do we rank species importance? Discuss... In

general I'm against culling but I understand the need to do so to preserve

biodiversity in the current environment of game reserves and fences. It

should be remembered that many other species are at risk due to the elephant

over-population of areas too small for them.

* Ben, Canterbury *

 

I don't trust the motives behind this as South Africa has been shown to have

some shady motives in the past. Why not relocate them? We really shouldn't

be killing other sentient creatures because they pose a threat to our way of

living unless we are willing to " cull " our own species as well.

* Kim, US *

 

I'm horrified. When we start culling humans because of over population and

too few resources to support them, then I'll happily entertain the idea of

including the animal population in that initiative

* soo, West Midlands UK *

 

As a practicing Social Ecologist in Southern Africa, i believe Dr Leakey has

some valid points. It is important to note that conservation of elephants or

any other natural resource can lead to overpopulation meaning that time and

time again the ecological balance has to be maintained through certain

inteventions. Elephants do not inhabit infinite space and once they exceed

the carrying capacity of their habitats this poses a serious threat to other

ecological elements in the same confine. The question scientist should be

exploring is, " Is culling the best option? "

* Dowsen Sango, Harare, Zimbabwe *

 

While my thoughts are close a reflection of Dr. Leakey's, that it is, under

the circumstances, perhaps in the best interest of the elephant populations,

I also feel that it is a shame that the wise apes (humanity in general) that

are making these decisions about how to manage other species don't find it

reasonable that their own population could be rationally managed as well.

Richard Dawkins is right, the genes are selfish - I wonder if human-kind is

capable of changing that?

* Jim Berneike, Salt Lake City, UT United States *

 

" ...ensure that entire families or bond groups are removed intact to

eliminate or minimise the emotional trauma to remaining individuals, and

secondly, to maintain smaller populations using tested and approved

fertility control. " I totally agree with this method of population control.

For humans, I mean. We are the ones intruding on the elephants' territory,

not the other way around. Why don't we limit the spread of the humans

instead? Oh right, because the Bible says we're " above " the animals. Right.

* Anders Lenart, Tokyo, Japan *

 

Cull the humans!

* Dane Traber, Raleigh/USA *

 

I think that Dr. Leaky is right in that culling should be allowed as a last

resort. Having done some conservation work in South Africa, I've seen the

problems first-hand and in some areas the elephant populations are not only

encroacing on human resources, but also destroying the habitats for other

species. I am glad that the governments have made some progress and are

putting culling as a last option as opposed to using it as an easy one.

* Clare Simm, Oxted, Surrey *

 

It is equally important to cull the human species in this world. There are

too many humans swamping the globe and the other animals who inhabit the

place alongside us, are gradually being killed off. We must find a a way to

reduce the human species by 50% ! How should that be done? Allow disease and

pestilence to cull us humans.

* Ray Forder, Kalamunda,Perth, WA ,Australia *

 

This is a very measured article by Richard Leakey and I suspect that most

readers will not realize what it represents in terms of his previous

position on the same issue: it means that the legislation must be carefully

thought out and worded. Most remarkably, he is suggesting that economic

interests might be made secondary to conservation and welfare issues (though

I'm too cynical to swallow that completely)! More, there is much that lies

between the lines here: ivory will be a by-product of any elephant culling

operation. At some point (and possibly sooner than the nine years' ban

agreed at the last CITES Conference of Parties), South Africa will want to

sell its ivory stock pile ... Is this tantamount to a Leakey endorsement of

controlled trade of ivory (and this, I realize, is a much thornier question

than any you ask)? Humans and elephants cannot coexist when humans reach a

threshold density. This means that as human populations grow (and in the big

picture, Africa's population is projected to reach 1.76 billion by 2050 from

about that it is today 800 million). One inevitability of this will be that

elephant populations will be cornered in smaller and smaller areas (somewhat

offset as human urban populations grow through immigration). These

'cornered' populations will have to be managed - and culling is one tool in

the toolkit that will have to be brought out from time to time, unpalatable

though that may be. And so culling is an inevitable outcome to the bulldozer

that is humanity. Setting aside large enough patches of land in Africa to

have free-roaming elephant populations that are regulated by anything other

than culling operations (and the other management tools) is simply

pie-in-the-sky dreaming in the political and socio-economic realities of

Africa today and, increasingly, in the future. Keeping large patches of land

(relatively) free of human exploitation is challenging enough in 2008, let

alone in 2050 or thereafter.

* s williams, Maputo, Mozambique *

 

A series of thought-provoking environmental opinion pieces

 

 

 

 

--

United against elephant polo

http://www.stopelephantpolo.com