South African National Parks denies plans to cull elephants despite documented evidence to the contrary
Fiona Macleod
South African National Parks (SANP) and the Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism this week vociferously denied plans to resume culling elephants in the Kruger National Park, despite documentary evidence that the park proposes to cull between 400 and 1E000 elephants a year over the next five years.
A Mail & Guardian article last week (“1E000 Kruger elephants to be culled”) based on the document, which was supplied to the newspaper by a senior Kruger scientist, was publicly labelled “sensational and misleading” by the ministry. The SANP accused the M&G of stoking “emotive potential and hysteria” in the run-up to an international convention on trade in endangered species next month – despite the fact the document on the culling plans speaks for itself.
No elephants have been culled in South Africa’s premier game park since late 1994 because of the controversy caused by culling which, anti-culling groups say, is unnecessary, unethical and cruel.
Ian Whyte, the senior scientist in the Kruger who co-ordinates research on elephants, presented the park’s new elephant management policy to diplomats and the media at a briefing last week. He discussed a document setting out the park’s proposed culling schedule, and handed the document to the M&G after the briefing.
The document divides the park into six zones and sets out the number of elephants that should be culled in each zone.
It recommends that in areas called the north and south botanical reserves, where elephant numbers should be kept static, 442 elephants should be culled in the first year of the plan’s implementation.
In the north and south “low-impact” zones, 521 elephants would be culled in the first year, and there would be an annual take-off of 7% in the following years.
In the two “high-impact” zones, none would be culled and the herds would be allowed to grow unhindered over the next 20 years.
In the first year – designated 1999 in the document – a total of 963 elephants would be culled. The numbers taper off after this, until by 2020 only 169 would be culled and the projected elephant population in the park would be 18E955.
“By then we may need to look at swapping the low-impact and high-impact zones, in which case we will need to remove a large number of elephants,” said Whyte.
Various sources close to the Kruger have been saying for the past two years that its scientists are keen to resume culling. Problems experienced with translocating them to other areas include traumatising the animals, many have become delinquents, some have been shot after escaping and others have had to be moved again after wreaking havoc in their new homes.
The topic of the resumption of culling is particularly touchy in the Makuleke region of the Kruger park, where communities have been taking flak for planning to hunt two elephants in the north botanical reserve to raise funds.
The M&G article pointed out that SANP officials would prefer to find non-lethal means of removing elephants from the park, and quoted them saying that where culling was the only option the most humane methods would be used.
But it also pointed out that contraception has been discounted as unfeasible for such a large elephant population, and that there are various problems with translocating them. In the past 19 years, the Kruger has managed to translocate only 1E626 elephants.
Anthony Hall-Martin, director of conservation at SANP, said this week the new management policy document is “theoretical. We mustn’t be blinded by the scientists’ figures.”
He told the parliamentary portfolio committee on environmental affairs and tourism, which raised questions about the M&G article this week, that the term “cull” in the document was used in a wide sense to include removal by translocation.
He said the Fish River complex in the Eastern Cape was preparing to accommodate between 40 and 100 Kruger elephants, and the SANP was optimistic it would be able to move large numbers into transfrontier conservation areas in Mozambique in the future.
In an angry letter to the M&G, Hall- Martin accused the newspaper of placing itself “squarely on the side of those opposed to the rational management and utilisation of natural resources. In general, that is the NGO community of the developed world …
“You appear to have chosen to make the debate about the South African proposal to Cites [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species] as difficult for this country as possible.” South Africa’s proposal to Cites includes selling about 30 tons of stockpiled ivory in a one- off sale to Japan.
His view that the M&G article was unpatriotic was echoed by one of the participants in a chatroom on the WildNet Africa Internet site, where the topic of elephant culling has sparked ongoing and particularly lively debate.
Far from being “unpatriotic”, the M&G article tuned in to the huge public interest in culling. It is not the newspaper’s place to determine whether culling elephants should or should not resume in national parks – but it is our role to ensure open, transparent public participation in that decision.
The M&G was also taken to task in a media statement issued by the ministry for “surreptitiously” linking a report by the police’s endangered species protection unit (ESPU) to South Africa’s ivory proposal to Cites.
The ESPU report, drawn up in February and leaked to the M&G, raises serious doubts about the country’s capacity to enforce regulation of the animal trade in accordance with the international convention.
The point is opponents of South Africa’s proposal at the Cites meeting in Nairobi from April 10 to 20 will hone in on “effective enforcement controls” and the country’s capacity to honour its Cites obligations. The government won’t make that go away by slinging mud at the messenger.
See the full document at www.mg.co.za/mg/ news/2000mar2/17mar-elephants.html