I heard this on a TV show the other night.

It was stated that years of poaching elephants with big tusks had significantly reduced the gene pool of elephants that would normally grow large tusks. The show was about evolution in general and the elephants and their tusk size (and absence of tusks) was given as an example of changes occurring to animal in a relatively short perior of years.

It also said that the percentage of elephants without tusks is now much higher because of the change of the gene pool as a result of previous years of poaching.

Mike

I would be surprised to learn that this was not the case. With something over a century of emphasis on the taking of the largest tuskers, I would expect nothing else. Who knows, perhaps the gene pool and the habitat conducive to the production of the very biggest tuskers was obliterated 80 years ago. The same may be said of crocodiles, whales and an untold number of other species and subspecies.

[ 05-23-2003, 16:39: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

/

"Two factors mainly determine tusk size: 1) genetic predisposition to and 2) age:"

True. But it is my thinking that the lack of free migration of herds to their "memory" locations is a third and equal factor, today. How many prime feeding areas, mineral locations and watering spots have been lost to the collective memory of the elephants via human development over the century? This factor will vary in import from locale to locale but the general theme of discord is there and along with all the other factors concerning their well being, maximum tusk size is surely affected.

[ 05-23-2003, 18:24: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Perhaps this is natures way of saving the species? No Tusks= No poaching/Hunting? Survival of the least valuable!

Bakes

Knocking off the big tuskers probably doesn't help, but what about Botswana? Some big tuskers have come out of there of late, after the season had been closed for many years.

I think the same thing is true for elk and whitetails, if you shoot every two year old, you can't expect ever to have big elk and big deer.

It all can be lamented but what are you going to do about it? If it wasn't for us fortnight gringos there probably wouldn't be an elephant left.

Will

Good Points Mac,
I doubt there is a valid analogy to deer, or most any other animal, for that matter, due to the extended life cycle of the elephant. With their long lives and gestation periods, they are not easily compared to other creatures. Let's go back, way back, to the 1890's - 1910's, for a moment. Who is to say, nowadays, what the prevalence of 100 pounders was in any given area? Nobody, IMHO. Who's to say what % of the very best bloodlines were stiffled or even halted during that period, or perhaps over the next few decades due to the reduction in offspring from these superior bloodlines, with a higher % of the total succuming to rising natural mortality rates, along with increased hunting pressure?

Sad to say but I think the best of them are already gone.

[ 05-23-2003, 22:39: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Mac,
When you think about it, sporthunters, have likely taken the lowest toll of any other group. Ivory hunters, poachers, market hunters, culling & control and the despicable acts of berserk militaria have done the majority of the damage from the perspective of outright killing. Overall, the loss of access to historic habitat has been the most destructive and at the heart of the need for the culling & control work mentioned above.

[ 05-24-2003, 03:58: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

When the parks were off limits the big boys had a place to go. Now most od the poaching is done in the parks often times by the rangers themselves. Also the decline of the ele in places like Zim are due to human encroachment. The parks themselves are being mismanaged with improper or no culling forcing the bulls to leave just to find enough to eat.

I find these numbers staggering, and I am certain that the elephants do as well:

HUMAN POPULATION INCREASE:

COUNTRY------1900---------2000

Kenya---------1.35 mil----30 mil
Tanzania------4.8 mil-----35 mil
Zimbabwe-----.48 mil-----11.5 mil
Zambia--------.67 mil------9.6 mil
Botswana-----.11 mil------1.6 mil
Namibia-------.13 mil------1.8 mil

Regards,

Terry

[ 05-24-2003, 05:47: Message edited by: T.Carr ]

Those numbers are staggering Terry. Here's my thoughts on the population explosion (this may seem heartless)
1. Not as much tribal conflict anymore. It still happends but not on the scale as before.
2. In 1900 it was still a subsistance life, if the crops failed due to drought, people died. Now we have western countries sending aid.
3. Modern Medicine (when they can get it)has increased the lifespan. I know disease still kills alot of people in Africa, but they are better off now than the 1900's.

Bakes

Man's intervention in nature is the problem with anything you can name! The tribe of only 18 people discovered on one of the Islands of the South Pacific, a few years ago, the elder of this tribe was only about 30 years old. The wore no cloths, and ate what they could find, made no shelters but slept in nests like Gorillas!

What was the first thing the discoverors did? They inoculated them, and gave them cloths. Now they are liveing longer, and are influenced by the visiters! These people lived for thousands of years with out change,in perfect hormany with their habitat. The birth/death rate was according to nature, and we changed them in 15 years!

You can fly accross Africa today, and you will see giant circles of devestation, with a bore hole at it's center! Man's thinking he knows better than nature!

With game, we have so influenced it, that we have no other choice, today, but to manage it! Trouble is Man has a tendency to regulate with emotion, rather than as nature has mandated! Nature is neither right nor wrong, she just "IS", and she is right!

Bakes and Mac,

You are both correct.

But who is going to refuse the magic, modern medicine, pill to save their own life?

A lot of us old geisers would probably not be around if we had refused.

Will

I have devoted some time to this study and one thing that has not been mentioned here, is that an old bull will get a tremendous growth spurt a year of two before his natural old age death, apparantly all nutrition goes to the tusks at some point and his health goes down...Based on this age definately has a big hand in tusk size....I thought this was an interresting phenominum that came out of Kruger Park Studies..It was passed on to me by Hannes Swanapol who was a problem control officer in Krugher for many years...

Ray,
Ya think that may be the origin of the phrase:
"He's getting a bit long-in-the-tusk?"

Nick,
You may be closer to right than you think, makes since to me!! but it may have come from horses who share the same stigma but to a lesser extent.

We on the other hand seem to become deleted of tusk or tooth and according to a waffle booted, liberal, vegatarian, meadow muffin aquaintence of mine, its because we are carnivours...

He on the other hand is a pale, freaked out, escapee form a German death camp by appearance, highly educated idiot whos blood won't clot, and his teeth ain't all that good from eating veggies.

So whats the point?? there is none!

Ray, after 10,000 tries you've finally done it.

The unanswerable post!

What thuh!?!