SA rangers mull pros and cons of culling

March 13 2005 at 02:04PM

By Ed Stoddard

Laohu Valley Reserve - South Africa may cull elephants for the first time in a decade, a move animal welfare groups say is cruel and unacceptable but which may be needed to control a surging population.

"We are strongly leaning towards culling and we want the public to digest this hard fact," Hector Magome, director of conservation services for South African National Parks, told Reuters in an interview.

"There is a consensus that we need to reduce the population now in the short term while we look at long-term solutions."

He said a decision should be made by October.

His comments are the clearest so far to indicate conservation officials may push for culling. They have worried for years about how to prevent elephant herds growing and many see it as the only effective solution.

No longer free to roam, elephants can wreak havoc in their restricted terrain, destroying large areas of trees and making survival hard for other animals they share their space with.

But culling would be sure to provoke strong protest from animal welfare groups worldwide who argue that elephants are intelligent and emotional animals and the practice is cruel.

Before South Africa stopped culling in 1994, scenes of it shown on television provoked an outcry at home and abroad.

Culling typically involves the herding and then shooting of whole family groups - a practice even supporters say is highly unpleasant.

But biologists say South Africa's flagship Kruger National Park is in crisis because of rising numbers of the world's largest land mammal, which can eat up to 170kg of vegetation a day.

Roughly the size of Israel, the Kruger is enclosed and its elephants are gradually eating themselves out of house and home. Other species are suffering as a result.

Since culling was halted under a moratorium when apartheid ended in 1994, the park's elephant population is estimated to have swelled to close to 12 000 from around 7 000.

"We are going to publish four proposed options in the government gazette in April and invite public comment on them," Magome said.

"We hope to have the final elephant management plan approved by the environment minister by October."

He said the first option was culling, the second was relocation, and the third was contraception.

The fourth would involve a combination of culling in larger parks and contraception in smaller ones.

"For contraception to work in Kruger, we would need to put 4 000 sexually active females on the pill," he said - a policy that was effectively being ruled out on grounds of costs and practicality.

Relocation remained an option but the number of places that could take the animals was dwindling, with smaller reserves also facing elephant overpopulation.

In modern times it would seem to me that there is a better option than culling. I would increase the quota for sport hunters. Allow the export of cow and pac bull ivory, skin, etc.
Lower the "kill fee". It would seem to me to be a win,win if sport hunters got to shoot the excell animals, pay a fee to boost the economy, the natives get the meat, the Safari companies make money, the food companies sell morte food [hunters and camp staff have to eat] airline tickets have to be bought.... etc. You get the idea. A hunters kill generates much more economic value than a "cull".

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
In modern times it would seem to me that there is a better option than culling. I would increase the quota for sport hunters. Allow the export of cow and pac bull ivory, skin, etc.
Lower the "kill fee". It would seem to me to be a win,win if sport hunters got to shoot the excell animals, pay a fee to boost the economy, the natives get the meat, the Safari companies make money, the food companies sell morte food [hunters and camp staff have to eat] airline tickets have to be bought.... etc. You get the idea. A hunters kill generates much more economic value than a "cull".

The above is undoubtably the smart way to do it.

Unfortunalty, this would mean that the government in RSA would have to make an intelligent decision which is unlikely.

It seems to me that a cull represents at least a few hundred thousand dollars, and possibly a few million dollars of lost revenue had those elephant family groups been sold instead of culled by a professional. But I am not a wildlife biologist, so that's just an opinion.

Having looked at this issue and read up on it. Some points need to be digested:
-- the key to a cull is to take out entire elephant family groups to keep an age balance in the population. That means a matriarch and her daughters and their young in groups up to 15 or so beasts.
-- Also keeping the balance culling the bulls is more complicated as they are in smaller groups, but fewer can be left as one bull can service an number of cows.
-- The South Africans have been vulnerable to the Humane Society of the U.S. and others who argue they will work to destroy tourism if Nature Conservation resumes culling. Hunting might risk to inflame these views.
-- Unfortunately, most hunters do not shoot well enough/cannot stay cool enough under pressure to cull a cow family group, much less a group of bulls. This is apart from the reality that culling is not hunting, and many of us may not want to cull, although it is a vital part of modern game management.
-- All of this makes sport hunting as part of a cull difficult, maybe impossible despite the revenue potential.

With imagination, maybe The South African Professional Hunters Assn. together with Nature Conservation could organize a two week course in which 10 days are spent with DGR firing and loading and the last four out on a cull. Might be a money-earner for PHSA and Nature Conservation and give hunters a broader grasp of modern wildlife management. Who knows what the lawyers would say, tho...
Regards

One cannot just increase quotas. Zim tried that back in the early 80's and the effect on bull tusk size was disasterous. We quickly took cows off quota for that very reason. We have since put tuskless ele (both Sexes) on quota to try and correct the damage of 25 years ago. And lately due to hunger for money some cows have been appearing on quota again, but we will regret that. Hunters invarably take the cow who is mature and has the biggest tusks. Wrong- at least in regard to elephant management.

Also hunting pressure on cows increases the aggresion of the herds, so you get cars attacked and vilagers stompted much more frequently if you are regularly shooting a few cows out of the herds.

Be interesting to see what most people would pay to participate in a cull. Say keep the biggest set of tusks but you have to shoot everything offered - including calves a day old. Would also need to be a fee based on the number of ele in the herd not the number the hunter acctually shoots. Ie if the hunter shoots one and the parks guys shoot the other 30 then the hunters bill would need to be based on 31 ele.

Oh and then there is the insurance bit... Zim was forced to drop Honory parks officers (essentially reservists) after a series of fatalities on culls. Insurance wouldn't pay and government was sued - so we last the services of hundreds of dedicated wildlife people. Looking at the safety record on our culls you are safer being an American living outside the green zone in Bagdad than participating in a cull. ( 11% fatalities amongst those participating over 10 years)

i would pay alot to go cull, who do I makre the check to?

Private individuals culling in the age of liability....
Wasn't Jim Carmichael asked to cull buffalo in Kenya a couple of decades ago? What a dream invite!

Probably the worst way to select hunters to participate in a cull (if that were to happen) would be their ability to pay. I have never participated in any wildlife management program but I do know and work with one Senior Game Warden in East Africa. I can just imagine his reaction to a program design where he has to incorporate into a complicated semi-military operation one or several fifty to sixty year old, very wealthy, know-it-all been-there-done-that individuals who don't speak the same language as his staff. A nightmare.

My two cousins and I participated in a small buffalo cull in 1973. It was interesting but didn't really bear much of any resemblance to sport hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Probably the worst way to select hunters to participate in a cull (if that were to happen) would be their ability to pay.

But lets face it the outfitters are out to make every cent they can, and that is the way it would be marketed. No offense intended or implied..

Ropes,
Somehow I don't think this would be handed over to Outfitters to organize. It would most likely be handled by the South African National Parks and in their position they will probably want to control just whom would participate.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
Looking at the safety record on our culls you are safer being an American living outside the green zone in Bagdad than participating in a cull. ( 11% fatalities amongst those participating over 10 years)

Yikes! I wonder how that fatality rate compares to hunting tuskless cow, or other DG hunting. I suspect the fatality rate for DG hunting in general hovers just above 0.00%.

It is easy to see how culling could be dangerous. Multiple shooters engaging multiple targets simultaneously. Multiple wounded animals to track down and finish off more or less simultaneously.

Even if they wanted to allow paying hunters into the National Parks they would not be allowed to do so as it's highly illegal.

But culling elephants is not a job for amateurs......any amateurs, no matter how wealthy or experienced in other forms of hunting. There are plenty of reasons why not - and those interested could do no better than to read Ron Thompson's books. (Amongst others)

Sport hunting for wild Elephants is a different matter and (IMO) should happen more often.

However I believe there are lots of ethical considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether (for example) a Kruger bull is actually a truly wild Elephant............in my opinion it's not.

What to do with these bulls is a harder decision to make. Should you let the culling teams take them as well - or should you allow sport hunters to take animals that you know are very well habituated to vehicles and people......anyone who has visited the KNP will understand how relaxed the KNP elephants usually are around vehicles and to a lesser extent pedestrians.......I've walked up to Elephant bulls in the private areas of the KNP and we have looked each other over from just a few yards apart before they turn and wander off.

Translocation is a short term answer for the parks involved but when these translocations happen the Elephants are always put into an area that is smaller than the area they came from.......consequently they quickly breed thwmselves out of habitat again and then the new landowner is faced with the even harder decision of culling some of the herd (which does a lot of damage to the herd dynamics) or of culling the lot and losing all his Elephants......so it's not an easy decision to make.

Contraception does't work unless you give the cows regular measured doses of the correct drugs. That means that every cow Elephant that's treated in this way has to have some kind of identification and tracking device attached to it so that they can be found, identified & correctly treated at the correct times.....even if the park vets were able to do this they wouldn't have anywhere near the finances. Another problem is that it has been found that when you treat the Elephant cows with such large doses of hormones they tend to get very "cranky" from time to time.

........I wonder if someone has been trying that on my ex-wives....... it could explain a lot!

Steve,

Sounds like you are talking about my ex

Not an easy subject, and I agree the KNP Elephants can't be considered a truly wild one.

To my mind, the culling is essential, but should not be turned into a commercial 'hunting' operation.

I agree completely........but I do have to say that there can't be very many properly experienced cullers around nowadays....esp in RSA..........they might find it difficult to recruit the right calibre of staff.

Sport Hunting of ANY animal in the KNP will never happen.

1. It is laid down in the charter for the National Parks that it will not take place.

2. There is too much at stake in terms of the tourism industry and the outside face the Parks presents to the international community.

3. It is BLOODY HARD WORK. It has to be done quickly, effectively and with as little impact on the environment as possible. The teams that do it now have it down to a fine art. Sport hunting the ele down to manageable numbers is just too slow.

Politics - U.S. Newswire Press Releases


SANParks Accused of Trying to Force Through Elephant Cull Plans

Tue Mar 15, 1:04 PM ET


To: National and International desks, Environment Reporter


Contact: Christina Pretorius of IFAW, (011) 27 21 424 2086; or (011) 27 82 330 255 2558 (cell); e-mail: cpretorius@ifaw.org


CAPE TOWN, South Africa, March 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- South African National Parks (SANParks) appears ready to steamroll its plans to resume culling elephants despite scientific opinion suggesting that there has been insufficient research and that animal welfare and ethical concerns have been ignored.


"IFAW is very concerned that SANParks appears to be presenting a fait accompli in asking the public to prepare itself for the imminent resumption of an elephant cull," said Jason Bell, Southern Africa Director of IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare - http://www.ifaw.org ).


"In IFAW's opinion SANParks has had 10 years to come up with an appropriate and scientifically sound management plan for elephants and haven't done so -- now, with their backs against the wall, it seems they are looking for a quick-fix solution for reducing elephant populations."


Bell was responding to comments by Hector Magome, Director of Conservation Services for SANParks, this weekend in which he said there was "consensus" that elephant populations need to be reduced in the short-term.


Interviewed by Reuters, Magome is quoted as saying: "We are strongly leaning towards culling and we want the public to digest this hard fact."


"To claim there is consensus that culling elephants is the only short-term answer to reducing populations is not true. There are many independent scientists who believe that there is no need to reduce the population at this stage. We shouldn't even be talking about management options right now, rather we should focus on gaining a better understanding of the interactions between elephants and their environment," said Bell.


"These experts have said time and again that much more research needs to be done before we can properly understand the complexity of the issue. Sound science should be informing the management of Kruger National Park and by dealing with elephants in isolation SANParks are not considering a holistic approach to the management of the Park and its resources as a whole."


SANParks imposed a moratorium on culling elephant in 1994, largely because of local and international public outcry and the protest of animal welfare organizations like IFAW.


"The comment that the public needs to 'digest the hard fact' of the possible resumption of an elephant cull suggests this is a done deal. SANParks need be in no doubt that the South African public and international community will surely not tolerate a call for the resumption of culling, particularly in the light of there being no scientific justification for one," said Bell.


"IFAW believes culling is a cruel, unethical and scientifically unsound practice that does not consider the welfare implications to elephant society as a whole. SANParks needs to think again."


Bell said 2005 was turning into a disaster for wild animal conservation.


"It will be seen as the year South Africa legally made its wild life heritage a commodity. The Large Predator bill will effectively legalise commercial breeding for canned hunting of five predator species -- including three protected species -- and one suspects the same commercial motives will drive the resumption of elephant culling."


SANParks said its elephant management plans will be open for public comment in April, and finally approved in October 2005.


Founded in 1969, IFAW is an international animal welfare and conservation organization that works to protect wild and domestic animals and to broker solutions that benefit both animals and people. With offices in 15 countries around the world, IFAW works to protect whales, elephants, great apes, big cats, dogs and cats, seals, and other animals. To learn how to help IFAW protect animals, please visit http://www.ifaw.org.

As to Kenya: practising licit but illegal culling - with the usual "secret understanding" with the authorities, and the respective extra-legal emoluments for those who think they are entitled to them - can ultimately get you into a murder charge, as Tom Cholmondeley has found out.

First court hearing of the case in Nakuru High Court will be on May 6th. Poor guy; he seems to be a very decent chap.

C.

From my reading on this subject, there really is no choice. Elephants must be professionally culled, especially in the national parks.

They are multiplying unchecked, destroying habitat, causing localized animal and plant extinctions, and heading toward a total population collapse in some areas.

There is no political will to do this, however, because the world has allowed wildlife policy to be dicated by ignorant bambiists.

Culling is definetely for pros. It is not even sane to expect Sport Hunters to do it. No matter how many Elephants you have shot as singles there is nothing that will prepare you for a cul of a family group.

After the lead cow is down the screaming and the confusion is unfathomable. Dust that you can't see through, animals milling in a circle, always being covered by others in a chaotic mess. Animals falling, totos being crushed. You can smell the fear and the piss and the shit.

Did I mention all head shots? No heart shots unless you want to track down a wounded animal that is terrified and more than upset with anything else.

It is not clean. It is not fun. It is not sport.
It does need to be done, but not by me.

In the end is so quiet you can hear your heart pounding. Then it is shoot the babies that are still alive and shoot the dead ones again. Count the number there and hope that noe made off.

Along time ago i asked Peter about culling, he went silent for quite some time. His answered " the most sad thing i have ever done or will ever do in my life". Its the first and last time i have ever saw his eyes tear. Culling has been going on for a long time maybe too long. Its one of things that make no sense, and is sensless. There has to be a better way. Charlie

Let me see if I understand this right. Are these culls mainly to improve trophy quality? Seems like a pretty piss poor excuse to me. There are better ways to achive this. I also can't imagine someone wanting to pay fro that. Just doesn't seem sporting IMHO.

7mm. guy

No, I don't think it's about trophy quality at all. It's about food and having enough to feed all the elephants, and all the other animals in the restricted area, and the current number of elephants are destroying too much land.

quote:

Culling is definetely for pros.

Many PH's I know brag about starting out culling elephant. So the "pros" had to start somewhere. I guess when the "pros" die off, elephant culls are out of the question.