7% of 13,000 is 910. Based on supply and demand the price could come down and they would still make good money and solve their problem. Not to mention all the incidental expenses. The part that makes me sick is the quote comparing culling of elephants to the Holocast. That's about as ignorant a comment as I've ever seen. The animal rightists will never understand that it is the health of the herd not each individual that is important.

Jeff

As usual, the animal rights crowd gets it all wrong. In trying to "save" elephants, they ignore the most effective solution to the problem. A controlled sport hunt would solve their problem and bring huge amounts of money into the economy that could be used for effective conservation programs. I recently visited Kruger, and the evidence is there. Elephants are changing the landscape, and the park will suffer as a result.

Of course the ARF's trot out the old birth control solution. It is their stock in trade. It doesn't work to control human populations in the "wild" so why would it work to control any wild animal population? The problem with the animals is that it is difficult to get enough of them treated unless you are dealing with a captive population. I guess the ARF's will want us hunters to fund their research so they can spend their money on publicizing their crapola.

I could envision a program in which hunters took care of the problem. If there are 13,000 elephants in Kruger, and if the population is growing at a rate of 7%/year, that means that there are at least 91 elephants that could be taken by sport hunting without effecting the population. Permits could be issued for that number of elephants, divided into categories such as the following: Bulls, tuskless females, and surplus juveniles? In this way, the population would be reduced in all categories and not just in the male portion. I would be willing to bet that 91 hunters could be found to buy the tags at nearly any reasonable price.