Elephant Emergency! South Africa Slaughter!

by Marula lover Fri May 02, 2008 00:49

I think what you write is disingenuous, and appears to be based on loud press releases (that have been picked up by lazy journalists in the BBC and the British Guardian) sent out from a tiny minority of people who perhaps do not even live and work in South Africa.

The elephant cull has not come about because of a blood-thirsty whim, this decision has been talked about, researched and debated in South Africa by conservationists, local farmers and experts for the last few years.

Thanks to an amazing international conservation effort, elephant numbers have swelled over the past 15 years; but now, unfortunately, their numbers are becoming too large for the enclosed and protected national parks to cope. The elephants have started to overpopulate these game parks, as they have no natural predators. In some cases they are double the optimum capacity. The world famous Kruger Park, for instance, now has 13 500 elephants, although park management set an optimum count at 7 500.

Because they are such huge animals with such huge appetites this has put a severe resource stress on the vegetation and biodiversity in the area (a large elephant can strip up to 3 trees per feeding session). Also one must bear in mind the flora of sub-Saharan Africa is already under stress because of the drought effects of climate change.

I have visited wildlife parks in both South Africa, Botswana and Zambia and the increased destruction caused by elephants to trees and shrubs is blatantly evident. Once the trees (often fruit trees like the marula tree) are stripped of their bark and leaves, the trees die. Drive through these parks (or cycle or walk if you are allergic to cars and feel brave) and you will see just how widespread the destruction is -dessicated remains of trees follow in the wake of the elephant meanders. This affects the biodiversity of the area as other species (insects, birds, small mammals) lose the specific vegetation they depend on for their food and shelter.

No one wants to see the elephants slaughtered (and I am sure the trained conservationist pulling the trigger will do so with huge regret); but if you go and protest this cull you will be just be choosing one species that is already winning the war against extinction over others who don't have as good a PR campaign.

by elefriend Fri May 02, 2008 02:36

Surely their are better ways then slaughtering whole families. Elephant populations in many other parts of Africa are under severe pressure including countries near South Africa. Eg Angola were the civil war wiped out most of the countries large mammals Surely tranlocation and the opening up of safe migration corridors would be a better option.

by Trunk Call Fri May 02, 2008 03:29

Like Marula lover, I've visited game parks in Zambia, Tanzania, Malawi and Kenya. I know the wildlife ministeries in such countries have a concern to maintain a balance between species in the game parks. Thus every couple of years they authorise the culling (slaughter) of a percentage of elephant in selected parks, the idea being to protect the supply of food available to the other species as well as to protect young trees (needed for forest regeneration) from destruction by hungry elephant. In Tanzania I know that there are authorised culls of zebra, again to protect the supply of grass available to zebra and other species. The wildlife authorities supply skins of these beautiful animals to the tanning industry for processing as material for rugs, handbags & purses and wall drapes. These products are part of the tourism industry that brings hard currency into Tanzania and other countries. When game wardens cull elephant and zebra and supernumary eland and other types of deer the meat is supplied to butcher shops and hotels in the big towns. When rumours of newly arrived elephant meat get around the compounds of the townships in Zambia's copperbelt or Arusha, Dar or Nairobi elsewhere there are huge lines of people on the pavements waiting to buy the meat, regarded as a rare delicacy.

In Zimbabwe there are licensed crocodile farms in towns along the banks of the River Zambesi. Farmers collect newly laid crocodile eggs found among grass on the banks and take them to special incubators. After being hatched the baby crocs are fed for a year, then ten percent of the yearlings are let free in the river. This is a scheme of managed conservation of the amphibian species. The remaining ninety percent are fattened at the farms for a couple of years, then slaughtered. Meat is sold to hotels etc and the skins exported after tanning to Italy and other high fashion countries for making into handbags and other luxuries. The foreign currency earnings theoretically benefit the economy, though Zimbabwe has obviously been destroyed by Mugabe's vindictive tribal and racial policies.

I have tasted deep-fried crocodile meat with two veg in Zimbabwe. It is a cross between strong-tasting breaded chicken and breaded fish. I also tasted grilled pepper zebra steak in an Arusha hotel.

The ecology of Africa's game parks is under constant professional review by government wildlife departments. In some countries they try to get the co-operation of villagers on the perimeter of game parks by training them in various trades and businesses so that they will/may resist the temptation to poach game under cover of darkness. Game conservation is a complicated continuing process.

by animal lover Fri May 02, 2008 19:20

"I have tasted deep-fried crocodile meat "
I personally find that disgusting T C . I wouldn't mind trying a crocodile egg sometime though . Having said that ,I wouldn't fancy being the one who had to swim into the river to get it.

by ecologist Fri May 02, 2008 23:49

For the benefit of trunk call , crocodiles are reptiles not amphibians.

by Trunk Call Sat May 03, 2008 07:29

You are quite right, ecologist, crocs are reptiles as this quote confirms - "Amphibians have smooth skin and generally hatch as aquatic larvae with gills. As these animals grow into adults they develop lungs which they use to breathe, and are then capable of living in both land and water. Examples of amphibians are frogs, toads, and salamanders.

Reptiles have scales or horny plates; they use lungs to breath, and generally lay eggs. Some examples are snakes, turtles, and lizards."

See: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/deptmpl.asp?url=/Cont...e.asp

You may find it disgusting that I have tasted crocodile meat, deep fried in batter, animal lover. If I am what I eat that makes me a croc that brushes his teeth regularly. So bring along a pack of cards some day and we'll have a game of snap.

The edible part of the *reptile* happens to be the tail of the animal as this is tender and most digestible. I have also eaten a chinese-style stew containing frogs legs, celery, and other vegetable matter, which makes me an amphibian frog. So bring along your Larousse dictionary some day and we'll parler un petit peu francais while playing snap.

by ecologist Sat May 03, 2008 08:30

I've no problem with people eating any kind of meat (wild or domesticated) so long as the species in question is not endangered in anyway and has had a decent quality of life in the case of domestic animals before it is humanly slaughtered. In my time I've eaten along with the regular every day stuff, hare, rabbit, guinefowl, pheasent, wild duck, horse meat, quail, pigeon, venison, ostrich and buffalo.

In my experiance wild meat always tastes better for obvious reasons.

by Trunk Call Sat May 03, 2008 10:53

You have taste, ecologist. Crocodiles in Africa are not an endangered species - but they endanger human beings in villages near rivers. I think the licensed crocodile farms in Zim and elsewhere are the way to manage and conserve the reptilian species.

by animal lover Sat May 03, 2008 13:08

Ecologist has eaten hare, rabbit, guinefowl, pheasent, wild duck, horse meat, quail, pigeon, venison, ostrich and buffalo.

But a crocodile ? C'mon now ,that's going a bit too far .

by Carnivore Sat May 03, 2008 14:44

It is Trunk Call above, not ecologist, who claims to have eaten deep-fried crocodile tail in Zimbabwe. Children in Africa collect grasshoppers in bags and take them home for their mothers to fry. Live caterpillars fried in cooking oil are another delicacy, and after the first rains in East Africa following the dry season people collect grounded flying ants that have lost their wings in torrential rain to cook and eat similarly.

Tell that to your kids next winter so they eat up all their breakfast porridge before going to school.

by animal lover Sat May 03, 2008 15:41

carnivore says :
“Live caterpillars fried in cooking oil are another delicacy,”
I've been thinking about that and reckon somebody is definitely trying to have me on . I don't know what their game is or what they're up to. How could a caterpillar possibly be still alive after being fried in cooking oil ?

by Carnivore Sat May 03, 2008 23:15

Right, animal lover, I got the syntax bockety and you've asked "How could a caterpillar possibly be still alive after being fried in cooking oil ?"

They actually collect live caterpillars and fry them in that state and then eat them dead. Same goes for the grasshoppers. When grasshoppers 'invade' african towns children dash from one shop window to another catching them (they are attracted to lights at night) and then bring bagsful of the jumpy creatures home to their mamas for delicious fryups.

Now eat up your winter porridge, good children.

by Mr. Man Tue May 06, 2008 05:49

Wandering off topic slightly...... Trying to get back on track, whoever wrote this article is misinformed. Yes, no-one likes to kill elephants, but it is quite necessary. Without sufficient predation, a large elephant population becomes unsustainable and causes a dramatic ecological collapse. This has been well studied, both on elephants and other ecological models. If you know of a better way, i'm sure they would love to hear about it. I worked in ecology briefly and a large proportion of these ecologists who are killing the elephants are basically highly eduacated hippies who really resent having to do so.

by Intrigued.by.Wildlife Sun Jun 01, 2008 22:14

How can the government do such a thing?! With the state of elephants where it is and all, they should be doing all they can to PROTECT the species, not kill more! What are they thinking?!

Sometimes, I think it's people like THEM who are responsible for the state of today's Africa...oh wait...THEY ARE.

by Trunk Call Sun Jun 01, 2008 22:52

By culling a certain number of adult elephant every year or two the wildlife department of an african country helps preserve the species in each game park. If the numbers of elephant are allowed to grow unchecked there won't be enough grass to sustain the herd. Hungry elephant will destroy young trees, desperately searching for leaves to browse. Other species won't have enough food either as all the grazing will have been eaten away by the supernumary elephant.

by Janus Tue Mar 31, 2009 01:48 transmogrificatorist at gmail dot com

I find it amusing to read some of the comments posted on this subject. Not because of any love for elephants, or animals in particular. But, having studied humankind for most of my life, I am constantly bewildered by the apparent inability of humans to comprehend the simple fact that they - humans - are also animals. For example I watched a film recently which tracked a family of elephants through some desert or other. There was a severe shortage of water and the family were trying to get to some. I watched as the "baby" elephant died of thirst. So, I imagine, did the film crew. The commentator spoke in quiet tones - was this meant impart a sense of sympathy? As I said the creature died and was filmed doing so. Oh, what marvelous footage! Netted a few more lumps of currency for the crew no doubt. But it begs the question, why not give the dying animal some water to drink? When these people are asked this question directly they usually answer with the completely inane, "Oh, we must not interfere with the balance of nature." If these people were to witness a group of lions attack a child - a human child that is - would we get the same ridiculous answer? I don't imagine we would. Dear god, I hope not!

In my opinion, this particular piece of filming, and the many similar examples, serve only to re-inforce one type of feeling in the viewer and that is that WE are NOT part of this thing we call "NATURE"........ And so we must not interfere. If, as most of them claim, they wish to EDUCATE, then I am afraid they are failing dismally.

by Mr Man Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:18

"But it begs the question, why not give the dying animal some water to drink?"

Elephants need 150-200 Litres of water a day. Somehow I dont think the camera crew would have anything near that in their truck. And if they did, they would be artificially inflating the elephant population, which would in turn decrease the resources for other animals. This isn't an original point, the ethics of nature reporting in these instances has been widely and thoroughly debated and consensus has been not to interfere.

"serve only to re-inforce one type of feeling in the viewer and that is that WE are NOT part of this thing we call "NATURE""

We aren't part of it. If we were, we would have killed the whole family for some elephant snacks.

"If, as most of them claim, they wish to EDUCATE, then I am afraid they are failing dismally."

It would appear so, by your willful ignorance.

by Janus Wed Apr 01, 2009 00:59

"artificially inflating the elephant population,"

One elephant?

"We aren't part of it. If we were, we would have killed the whole family for some elephant snacks."

So, being a part of nature would mean that we must dump all of our so-called
intelligence and kill the nearest creature for a snack?

"It would appear so, by your willful ignorance."

Personal insult? Well, I suppose it's only natural.

by Mr Man Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:30

"One elephant?"

I was merely following your argument to its logical conclusion, in any case, yes, one elephant. The massive nutritional requirements of even a single elephant can result in drastic change in the population balance, compounded with the chance that a female elephant will produce more elephants, resulting in more drain of resources etc.

"So, being a part of nature would mean that we must dump all of our so-called intelligence and kill the nearest creature for a snack?"

Yes.

by Janus Tue Apr 28, 2009 16:27

"The massive nutritional requirements of even a single elephant can result in drastic change in the population balance, compounded with the chance that a female elephant will produce more elephants, resulting in more drain of resources etc."

Their home grounds were once "massive".
Their resources were once "massive".
Their numbers were once "massive".
Just one more "massive", I promise you ........
It does not take a "massive" effort to realise who changed most of this?
Is this not interference?

by Animal Magic Tue Apr 28, 2009 23:46

Well said Janus! - Human numbers are the ones crippling the planet

PS - A recent report from WWF in central Africa has said that at the current rate of poaching for the ivory trade, forest elephants(a unique subspecies) could be extinct in Cameroon and the greater Congo basin basin within ten years from a population of over a million only a few decades ago