1st example; the elephant.

In brief, it is the most destructive animal if concentrations per square kilometer of land reaches its maximum carrying capacity. In other words, if too many elephants live in a small area, they will totally destroy the ecosystem. The reality is that numerous wildlife areas have reached or are close to reaching this maximum carrying capacity (Botswana, Zimbabwe all have very good examples of this situation). So there are 4 solutions:

1- Allow nature to take its course and risk loosing 1000's of other plant and animal life as a result earning no revenue in the process. Ele populations would also crash as seen in some parks across Africa

2- Translocate 100's of animals to other areas at prohibitive costs earning very little revenue. costs are just too high and eventually you would end up having a similar scenario as 1 above.

3- Culling the excess number of animals earning no revenue in the process.

4- Allow tourist hunters to pay big bucks to control populations earning huge revenue.

Number 1 and 3 also have a further effect in that ivory stock piles would increase. The fact that legal ivory stock piles cannot be sold is a travesty in itself as the money so raised could be ploughed back into conservation efforts. It would also lower demand for illegal ivory so by default slow down poaching of ivory.

Bwanamich:

You are far deeper into wildlife management than I and know far more about it, so I hope to learn from you in the future and perhaps you can change some of my feelings about some of these things.

From a simple wildlife lover's point of view who has loved every minute of my time with wildlife in Kenya, I would say none of the four points noted are "acceptable". Why, because if the government had done their job 50 - 100 years ago elephants probably would not be a problem now. The government gave in (and continues to do so) to human cries for "give me land" and that is why there is the mess now.

1. No one would like to see thousands of dead elephants (or any other species) but one can't help wonder if "nature knows best". Thousands of elephants died slow, agonizing but natural deaths in Tsavo. It must have been appalling to see. Yet it was done without man's intereference. Prior to that in Tsavo people were yelling for a cull because of all the trees the elephants downed. That didn't ruin the park. It just changed it from thick nyika to savana-type area in which now hundreds of species can live. Just think, if there had been a cull, and then thousands died in the drought, no elephants would be left in Tsavo. What a tragedy that would have been!

2. Translocations are expensive. However, I would love to know how they come up with the exorbitant pricing for this. The men, vehicles, veterinarians are already being paid by wildlife organizations so they aren't hiring new people to do the job. All the "extra" they would be paying for would be fuel, M99, temporary housing for staff.
Nothing has yet been reported (that I'm aware of) at how successful these transloca-
tions have been. Haven't seen any documents on number of deaths and whether or not the animals tried going back to their original homes or were content to stay in the new area.

3. Culling. Horrible! Cruel. Barbaric. Caused problems like the Tuli debacle and the young bull elephants killing rhinos. When you are talking of elephants you are talking about living, caring, thinking beings closer to humans than most species. If you want to cull, why don't they start culling the people instead? After all, they have more of a population problem than elephants and are worse on the environment! Remember, an elephant has only one calf every 4 - 5 years. A woman can have 5 - 6 babies in that period of time

4. Hunting. If the hunting were to be done on certain animals by "wildlife experts" such as the old professional hunters of old, perhaps I could see the point. They were expert marksmen. Many of them have now seen the folly of their ways and have turned into conservationists on behalf of the species they formerly killed. However, to "sell" an elephant's life to a rich, testosterone depleted, eunuch, gutless male who has to get his jollies on killing a magnificant animal - I would disagree with you 100%. Many of these guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a gun let alone do a proper brain shot (same as some current wildlife people)!

Yes, they would bring in some money. However, I'll bet you I have brought more money into Kenya in my ten trips than a hunter would bring in on his "once in a lifetime" big elephant killl.

And if tourists, out on game drives, start hearing guns going off, they will no longer come back to Kenya and you would be losing a even bigger proportion of money than what you might gain by a few wealthy hunters.

I am not trying to give you a hard time about this. I am just an honest, caring person who loves wildlife, and it seems the more MAN (humankind) does to wildlife, the more problems we create.

Remember, in the latter half of the 19th century we in the US did the same horrible thing wiping out all the bison and predators. Now people can't understand why there are so many deer now coming into cities and towns (no predators to wipe them out). We are now breeding bison and buying wolves from Canada to right the wrong that was done. I hate to see this happen to African countries.

I hope perhaps you can enlighten me. We can all learn from one another. Please keep posting.

Jan,

We all agree that our Gov's made mistakes in the past that have resulted in todays' problems. The fact is these problems exist and so need to be solved. Population growth continues and need for land too. This is an irreversible phenomena. You must understand this and accept it as reality in order to understand what I will add below. If you don't, then no need to read on and agree to disagree.

1- The point on culling the Tsavo elephants is that the culling would have been done BEFORE the destruction of habitat which resulted in a severe drought and massive die offs. Either, or! In my view, the culling would have avoided the irreparable habitat destruction and with it 1000's of other animal and plant life that were in turn destroyed. It is well documented that an ecosystem that has exceeded its maximum carrying capacity in terms of elephant numbers, if left to continue will be completely destroyed in a very short time. This has been witnessed in certain areas of Botswana. Flip the coin on your argument and ponder; had the proper culling been allowed to take place, there would have been less habitat destruction, less of a drought (The 2 are inter-linked), more live elephants (i doubt the culling would have removed the quantities of elephants that actually died) and the same animal species now occuring.

2- I personally do not know much about the complications of translocating elephants but understand that they are expensive. I assume the main expense is the logistics. We are talking of translocating enitre family groups and quantities that in some areas mean 1000's of animals. Rounding up an entire family group of say 20 animals is a daunting task. There are young, sub-adults and adults in every family group. Differnt dosages of M99 are required for each animal. You need to move the entire family together to lessen the translocation trauma. How long will the first sedated elephant remain under narcosis (M99 is a narcotic not an anasthetic) before the entire family is loaded on to the trucks? What side effects will this have? How many months, years will it take to move the required numbers? How will the translocated animals cope with their new environment? These are just some of the complications involved in such an endevour. Addendum: M99 is a powerful narcotic. A needle prick in a human can be fatal. M99 handlers always have a ready dose of 50/50 (the antidote) at hand and protocol insists that a 2nd person be nearby and informed on how to immeadiately adminster it in case the m99 handler get's pricked. An elephant that has been injected with M99 still retains all ist normal senses of sight, hearing and smell. Hence the need to be as quiet and unobtrusive as possible when handling elephants under narcosis. So after an experience with m99, elephants will remember the events vividly.

3- Not sure i want to answer your rebuttal......What i will say is that a lot of research has gone into culling and the way it should be done so as to have the least impact on remaining elephant populations. It is a drastic measure useful for drastic situations. Unfortunately, drastic situations are emerging more and more frequently. Besides, how many volunteers do you know amongst humans that are willing to remove themselves from this earth to lower population growth??

4- Remember that conservation includes both "consumptive" and non-consumptive utilisation! The whole idea of hunting is for it to earn money that can be used for conservation. That is the magic formula! Old time (and new) professional hunters conduct all tourist hunting activities in every country in the world, so in essence they are doing what you say. The difference is that the PH (professional Hunters) would bring in much less money than tourist hunters would. Do not underestimate the money tourist hunting generates to Gov coffers! How much of that get's used for its intended purpose is the problem. But that is the same if not worse with money generated by non-consumptive forms of wildlife use. Name an old time professional hunter who disagrees with the above? What the old time PH's regret, is having exterminated animal species to make way for agriculture or settlement. But then those were pioneering days when little research was available to them. We have now learned from their mistakes; or so we hope! And do not categorise all client hunters as "males". There are many women hunters amongst them. And the vast majority do know how to shoot and can hit the broadside of a barn. Hunters contributions to conservation, both in money and kind, is kept "underground" if you like due to the controversy hunting generates but in substance matches what the greenies bring to the conservation table. There is irrefutable evidence that without controlled hunting, many dispersal areas of many sub-saharan countries in africa would contain little or no wild game populations. In your own country, USA, white tail deer has been saved from the brink of extinction by hunters. It is now the most numerous specie of game in North america!!

You say you have brought in more money to Kenya than a hunter? I won't doubt you but I will add a few comments:
1- Are you the norm as far as photo tourists are concerned?
2- An elephant hunter in Tanzania will generate as much as $100K to the national economy per trip. That is one person over 3 weeks! How many photo tourists need to visit a park to generate the same amount? And is that not one of the main causes of habitat and cultural degradation; mass tourism?

There is a place and a role for both kinds of wildlife use in every country. To degrade one over the other is pointless and while we argue over who does more, the conservation clock keeps ticking.

bwanamich:

Wow! You've given me a lot to think about.

When I get to work this morning I'll print up your notes so I can read and think about things again and ponder more the implications.

Thanks so much for jumping into the website and participating. We'll all be better off for knowing all sides of the issues.

bwanamich:

I just got home from work and haven't yet had a chance to digest all you explained, but one thought has been running through my mind and bothering me all day so I'll run it by you.

As you know, there was formerly a hunting camp in Tanz just across the border from Amboseli. In the past, when the animals were migrating, many, many of the big Amboseli bulls were shot. Indeed today I am told there are only 4 MATURE (older than 40 years old) breeding bulls left in the Amboseli elephants.

Since the above deaths, and natural deaths that have taken place, so many more tuskless elephants are being born. Whether these have had an effect in creating these genetic problems we may never know. However, it is a concern.

As you well know, hunters will always go for the biggest, healthiest animal they can find. Are we then contributing to possible further genetic problems in the future?

Have you read about "green hunting". From what I have read, I love that idea. The hunter still shoots his elephant (with a dart with veterinarian present) and when the elephant is down measurements are taken, blood samples taken, a plaster cast of the tusks is made and a tracking collar put on them. Then the reversal drug is given and the elephant gets up and walks away! The hunter gets bronzed tusks of the elephant he shot and can track his elephant from Europe or the US on his computer. I would love to see this become more popular. It serves the purpose of the hunter and the wildlife at the same time.

I just think it is so unfair to have an Amboseli "almost tame" elephant who will walk right up to your vehicle, cross the border into Tanz and be immediately blown away! What is good for one country might not be good for another. How do you reconcile those differences?

Jan,

Indeed this was so in the past with regards Amboseli elephants crossing into Tz and into a hunting concession. Not any more though....I believe a decade or so ago, one particular incident resulted in 3 bull elephants being shot near the Kenya/Tz border by hunters. It caused an outrage (rightly so) as the Amboseli ele researchers went up in arms. The result of that boo boo was that a ban on elephant hunting along the entire Tanzania/Kenya border was enacted. This "non-hunting" zone extends for 150 kms in a straight line from the border along the entire length East to West and is only for elephant.

With regards tuskless elephants being on the increase my observations are that this is purely genetic. The more tuskless elephants breed the more chances that offspring will also become tuskless. How do you slow this down? By lowering the number of tuskless elephants that can breed and pass on those genes. In Zimbabwe, for example, tuskless elephant hunts are very common. They are much cheaper than a trophy bull hunt for the exact purpose of trying to encourage the removal of undesirable genetics in elephant populations. Before we criticise this, understand that it is proven that tuskless elephants are much more aggressive in behaviour not only towards humans but also towards their own and other wildlife - possibly as a result of having to continously struggle and fight for food against its peers due to its "disability" (for want of a better word). Often this behaviour disrupts a herds social interaction and eventually the more "nasty" of tuskless elephants will be chased away from the herd. These often end up being the most culpable in terms of human-wildlife conflicts as they plunder surrounding farms and destroy crops. Eventually they need to be destroyed . So rather they earn some revenue by allowing a hunter to pay for its destruction and use some of that money to compensate the land owner. and to answer the back end of your question, if hunters are only allowed to hunt trophy elephants in areas were tuskless elephant numbers ar eon the increase, then yes we are encouraging this. The study of this phenomena is still very young so there might be other appropriate solutions liek contraceptives, etc but if a drastic measure needs to be taken now to keep it in check, than i am for allowing hunters to participate.

FYI, the total number of elephants allowed by CITES to be shot by hunters in Tz per year is 50! On average approx 25 - 35 are shot each year by hunters. Tz estimated populations are over 100,000 countrywide. Far more elephants are being lost AT NO ECONOMICAL VALUE to the country by poachers, PAC as a result of human-wildlife conflicts and old age.

I will be posting soon a brief synopsis of how the tourist hunting industry works in Tanzania. It is far from perfect and amongst the players there is bound to be a few rotten apples but in principle, it works as a conservation tool particularly in non-protected areas.