bwanamich:

Yea! I knew if we talked enough I'd find things I could agree with you on!!

Your statement about "my bull" acting differently in a different situation is so true becacuse I've see him in a different frame of mind actually charging someone. An elephant who "knows" you and isn't bothered by you when you are sitting down on a veranda could act like an entirely different animal if you stood up and he had never seen you stand up before. You are then bigger than he is used to seeing you and are more threatening.

The place where we part company though is "In the locals mind the sooner they get rid of him the better". The fact of the matter is, that in many, many cases the "local" just moved into the area knowing full well it was elephant territory. Then they started their shambas and when the elephant eats their garden want the elephant shot. In a case such as this I have no pity on the farmer at all. For those people who have lived in the area for years, I feel differently.

Don't know if you have been in Amboseli lately over by the Serena. Five years ago when I went on my first trip there were only a couple of families there. Now it is amost a village. They knew, supposedly, when they moved there they were right in the middle of a corridor but they moved there anyway. The number of cattle is increasing rapidly. Do I feel sorry if one of their 300 cows gets tusked. Not a bit - other than the fact that if they aren't paid off, they will retaliate.

Sit and watch the animals in Ambo some time. Elephants never go after any other animal in the park. They co-exist peacefully. Why then do they go after the cattle outside the park? My gut reaction is that the herder is yelling or perhaps even throwing things at the elephant and he retaliates. Can't blame the elephant for that.

I haven't seen the movies of which you speak and I agree with you that part of the way we think about wildlife is due to that warm fuzzy feeling.

My favorite story was one in Joyce Poole's book. A camel herder in Kenya went out with his camels. The camels came back at night but he didn't. Early the next morning they sent out a search party. They found the man sitting propped up against a tree with an elephant standing beside him. They tried shooing it away but it wouldn't go, and they were prepared to shoot it. He said "don't shoot it, it saved my life" Turns out that the elephant had charged him. He fell breaking his leg. The elephant turned around and realized it had hurt him and picked him up with trunk and tusks and placed him up against the tree, guarding him from lions at night. I felt this story was too good to be true and only half believed it. When I stayed at Elephant Watch Camp in Samburu I mentioned it to Iain Douglas-Hamilton. He said he knew the story to be true because he knew the man it happened to. Truly incredible.

Must run and put dinner on the table. Will talk later.
- Edited by Jan on 06.12.2006, 02:33 -
- Edited by Jan on 06.12.2006, 02:35 -

The place where we part company though is "In the locals mind the sooner they get rid of him the better". The fact of the matter is, that in many, many cases the "local" just moved into the area knowing full well it was elephant territory. Then they started their shambas and when the elephant eats their garden want the elephant shot. In a case such as this I have no pity on the farmer at all. For those people who have lived in the area for years, I feel differently.

Instinctively, I feel the same way. But after more deliberation I also feel for the locals. One would need to examine what is the reason they have settled where they have? Each case will be different which makes it difficult to generalise. I think if we were in their shoes and our son/brother/father/mother/etc got torn to pieces by an elephant I would be the first one to pick up a weapon with the intent of retaliating.

Do I feel sorry if one of their 300 cows gets tusked. Not a bit

Do you feel sorry for the innocent cow?. This is meant tongue in cheeck of course! I also don't necessarily feel sorry about them losing some of their cattle as their existance is not threatened. But here is another scenario to throw in the mix; in several cases, elephant and rhino have come together over a favorite salt lick or mud-wallow. A particular elephant ends up killing the rhino which is far more threatened as a specie than elephant in Kenya. How would you react?

Joyce Pool's story sounds like a fable. While I respect the trusted opinions of Mr. Douglas-Hamilton I would hesitate to believe that story to be true as recounted. I would not be suprised if the real story differed somewhat. And even if true, it only tells of one particular positive incident. And we know that for every positive incident there are an equal number of negative incidents. I guess what I am stating is that WILD animals are DANGEROUS and should be respected as that during interaction.

bwanamich:

As to your question regarding the elephant killing the rhino - as much as I hate the idea of a rhino being killed by anyone or any animal, it is two wild animals "having it out" so to speak. If it was only once instance, I would do nothing. If it became a pattern as it did in southern Africa with many rhinos being killed, then something else might indeed have to be done. It is interesting question.

As to your statement that wild animals are dangerous and must be respected, I agree 100%. In fact I wrote KWS suggesting they have a regular article (perhaps once a month) in the newspapers and maybe TV, of trying teach people who come in contact with wildlife what to do and what not to do. Despite the fact that the people live with wildlife all the time, when they start yelling and throwing things at animals it is only natural for the animal to respond angrily. The children particularly should be taught what to do and not turn and run away screaming. It only invites further danger, particular if a lion is chasing them.

Though I first thought Joyce's story was a fable, I am now certain of it. Get Joyce's book, "Coming of Age with Elephants". Not research oriented - just great human/
elephant stories (my favorite book).

Excerps from "Botswana's elephant overpopulation: Who should decide what?" by Ron Thompson

- "The biggest wildlife management issue in Botswanan today is its huge elephant population and its serious ramifications on wildlife populations and habitats.As early as 1960 scientists warned the Gov that elephants were causing irreparable damage to the Chobe National Park habitats.

Noboy knows what the ele population was in 1960, but the official 2000 elephant count was 120,604 - more than double the 1990 number. Using 120,000 as a baselin and the fact that the population at least doubles its numbers every 10 years, there must be 180,000 today, from only an estimated 7,500 in 1960. Even 7,500 was not the sustainable elephant carrying capacity, for there was already irreparable elephant habitat damage occurring. A better number would probably be 5,000.

With a high degree of confidence we can say that Botswana is currently 3,600% overstocked with elephants. Today, the habitat will not sustainably carry 5,000 elephants, because of progressive habitat destruction from anincreasingly excessive elephant population.

My assessment is that 95% of the trees and other plants comprising the Chobe riverine forest has been eliminated over the last 46 years. I further estimate that 99% of the Combretum/Acacia woodland, which once grew on the rich alluvial soils immeadiately behind the riverine forest strip is gone. Damage of varying degrees has also been caused to the mixed teak forest habitats that extend away form the Chobe river for a distance of 25KM. The Chobe river is the only permanent water in the National Park.

Severe elephant inducent habitat destruction can be found in Botswana's Moremi Game Reserve, at Savuti, At Linyati, on many of the islands in the Okavango delta, and on the Kwando river. The habitats of nearby Namibia's Mahngo, Caprivi-West and Kaoudom Game Reserves have been similarly devasted, and the habitats of Tuli block in the far East have been almost completely destroyed.

All this impacts on the wildlife of the region in a number of ways. Progressive habitat damage causes the local extinction of large numbers of plants. Favourite elephant food items are the first to dissapear, followed by those that are consumed when there is nothing else for them to eat. Other animals also eat the plants the elephants eat. As more successful competitors, elephants cause other animal species to go into decline, which has a ripple effect right down the entire ecosystem, including on top predators, because their prey bases are reduced.

a host of plant species become locally extinct, because they can only survive in the micro-climatic conditions that exist in the shade of top canopy trees. When the big trees are killed off by elephants, these under-storey plants die out.
There is a myriad of animal species that are especially adaprted to particular habitats - whether the top canopies of the bigger trees or the forest floor. When their specialised habitats disappear, these animals die out too. The smaller animals that are adversely affected are too numuerous to mention.
The number of those species of larger animals that can survive a high degree of habitat change are also adversely affected. They may survive, but only in small numbers and under conditions of great nutritional stress. A piece of ground can produce only so much edible vegetation every year, and this must be shared by all the animals that eat it.

Africa's national Parks were not created for the sole purpose of allowing the uncontrolled proliferation of elephants, but rather to maintain a healthy and balanced cross-section of every endemic plant and animal. Yet Botswana's elephant population is destroying the country's species diversity and threatening the delicate balance between the soil, plants and animals.

There is no doubt the elephant population will crash if it is not drastically reduced in number soon. It has already had a horrific impact on habitats and species diversity. In my opinion, it is time to question the wisdom of the country's approach to managing the elephant problem - especially as it appears to consort with animal rights bedfellows, including several South Adfrican academicians advising Botswana not to cull its elephants.

Animal rightists oppose culling because they say it is cruel. But what could be more cruel than supporting lingering deaths from starvation, or being pulled to pieces by lion and hyen, which happens over several years preceding an elephant population crash?"

Bwanamich:

I do not know who Ron Thompson is, if he is a scientist, hunting advocate or what.

Nevertheless, he is, as are many people, overlooking one important thing. If they cull many of the elephants the remaining elephants will become more productive again increasing the population. Thus the overpopulation would be an on going thing.

If there are too many elephants in an area and not enough food, the animals usually wander off (if there is any space for a corridor for them to move) to another place where there is food and water. If they are unable to move to better feeding grounds the first thing that will happen is when there is a shortage of food the females no longer come into estrus and thus there will be markedly reduced numbers of births. Eventually the young, old and unhealthy animals will die of natural causes. Sorry and grisly to see, yes. However, it is natures way of taking care of things.

If hunters come in and kill 10,000 elephants it will only temporarily reduce the population. Because there would be more food left for those remaining, they would reproduce very quickly and you would be back to square one.

This is why it is imperative that corridors be available to all animals so that they can move to other areas for food and water.

Jan,

I am not sure who Ron Thompson is either, as it did not state his credentials in the article, but I have seen his name pop up within conservation circles many a times. My guess is that he has been in employment with the Botswana Game Department, most probably as a Vet. This is just speculation though.

As to your comments, culling was never meant to be a one-off solution to herd overpopulations. It is a continuous process of herd management. The irony is that had culling been allowed from the beginning, annual cull quotas would have been a fraction of what they would need to be now. The numbers in Mr. Thompsons' article are staggering! To bring the animal count to what it should be for say the Chobe, would mean culling tens of thousands of elephants; an almost impossible task! I am not always in favor of culling myself, primarily because it rarely brings in any monetary benefit to conservation. But let us assume that in the 60's an annual quota of 1000 elephants was the required quota. If you sell half of these to hunters and the other half get's harvested by the Game Dpt some of the benefits would be:
1- Huge revenues accruing form the hunting that can be utilised for various conservation issues.
2- Meat can be processed as a cheap source of protein for the large poor rural populations which would reduce the dependancy on bush-meat and hence poaching.
3- Skins, etc could be tanned and sold for additional revenue.
4- Population of elephants would be kept in check and hence habitat degradation and related animal and plant life preserved.

As it stands now, Botswana is faced with a potential natural disaster of staggering proportions. You are focusing too much on "the elephants". Don't keep overlooking the equally huge loss of plant and animal life that has resulted. Hundreds of species extinct from those areas. and letting nature take its course as you suggest would have no conservation value at all. In this day and age conservation is synonimous with money. The more money you have available the more you can do. Voluntary donations from well-wishers is no where near sufficient. I've said it before and will sayn it again, Wildlife is a renewable resource and should be managed with that in mind.
- Edited by bwanamich on 20.02.2007, 11:46 -