Africa Geographic April 2008 [antikvár]

founder's note ^^ And so I wonder why there is a sense that culhng will recommence sooner rather than later In April 2006, we devoted an entire issue to Africa's elephants. At the time, the controversy was culling, particulariy in the context of its possible re-introduction in the Kruger National Park where, until the mid-1990s, this strategy (also applied elsewhere in southern Africa) had been used to cap the park's elephant population at some 7 000 Individuals. It was thought, with rather flimsy evidence to support it, that this number was the carrying capacity of the park. Elephant numbers in Kruger are now estimated to be in excess of 12 500, and the growing concern of the South African National Parks management is that the ballooning population is becoming detrimental to the general biodiversity of the park. 'If there is no culling done from now, by 2020 there will be 34 000 elephants,' says David Mabunda, the organisation's head. And so culling remains the central debate in this part of the world, particularly following the South African government's recent announcement that the moratorium of some 13 years will be lifted from May this year. 'Our department has recognised the need to maintain culling as a management option, but has taken steps to ensure that this will be the option of last resort that is acceptable only under strict conditions,' said South Africa's Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism. I hate the thought of elephants being killed and I know that many, many people feel the same way. As Rob Little of WWF-South Africa said: 'We are not pleased with the thought of culling elephants, but we do recognise it as a management tool. We all love our elephants, they are the most charismatic icon of Africa.' A report in the Washington Post stated that 'Large swaths of Kruger have been transformed from woodland to grassland as thousands of elephants eat more than 300 pounds [136 kilograms] of vegetation apiece daily, leaving a trail of flattened trees. Among their targets are centuries-old baobab trees, which they slice open with their tusks and gradually topple.' This supports the notion that elephants in Kruger are wreaking habitat havoc and that something needs to be done to stop them. But I find such writing alarming, as it describes a Kruger that is unfamiliar to me. Over many years and many visits to the park, in dry times and in wet, I see lots and lots of elephants, but no evidence that they are devastating the landscape. And so I wonder why there is a sense that culling will recommence sooner rather than later after 1 May. Is it now truly the 'option of last resort'? Have all the alternative strategies, including contraception, been properly explored? Could there be other factors? Some opponents of culling have suggested that the procedure masks an undeclared motive of profit. The sale of meat, skin and elephant by-products would garner a tidy annuity income, close to US$l-million for every 800 elephants killed. Whatever the real motives are, conservation priorities or commercial opportunity, or a combination of both, I urge great circumspection before any killing commences. Decisions taken on anything other than incontrovertible scientific evidence could backfire very seriously About our magazine A/rica Geographic is editorially and financially independent. It enjoys tfie support and endorsement of several non-government organisations, but it is not affiliated in any way to these bodies or to any other publishing, environmental or political interest group. Africa Geographic strives to foster an awareness of wildlife, consen/ation, ecotravel, indigenous cultures and the general environment, it consistently advocates the wisest use of natural resources in a manner that involves and is of real benefit to the people of Africa. Africa Geographic is published 11 times a year.