ANIIMAL RIGHTS
BRIEFING DOCUMENT ON ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT
TO ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM PARLIAMENTARY
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
11 SEPTEMBER 2007
3. ELEPHANTS
ARE LIVING HERITAGE
4. LIVE
ELEPHANTS ALREADY CONTRIBUTE HUGELY TO ECOTOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
5.2 The Negative Impact of Culling on
Tourism
5.3 Communities should not profit
from culling elephants
5.4 Conflict issues cannot be an
excuse to cull elephants
5.5 Culling: Decision-Making
Processes and Procedures
6. ELEPHANT
BACK SAFARI INDUSTRY
It needs to be stated at the outset
that the argument in favour of culling is based on the false premise that there
are currently too many elephants. It is our contention that there is no
scientific argument, using the overpopulation fallacy, which supports
culling. There is absolutely no proof of
any overpopulation of elephants, either in Kruger or elsewhere in
Where the reason for culling is
given as overpopulation shown by the number of breakouts from parks, Kruger
specifically, it has been shown that this is unsupported by facts – elephant
leave Kruger and enter the community land and private reserves adjacent to
Kruger because fences are deliberately breached by people wanting to hunt the
so-called “problem” elephants, or because the fences break due to poor
maintenance. Address these factors and elephant will not become so-called “problem
animals” that need to be killed and “culled”.
It is our considered opinion that
the call to cull is motivated purely by commercial interests such as ivory and
by the bloody-minded hunters who stand to derive pleasure and profit from being
allowed to kill elephants. The local and
global public will not tolerate this.
Humans typically do not see the animals as they really are:
sensitive, intelligent, complex, living beings that suffer and die at our hands
with no hope of relief. Now that
“Might” is not “right” and power over the weak does not give
the right to exploit the weak, but is rather an obligation to protect and
assist them. Currently, humans are treating elephants no better than white
people treated black people during the colonial and apartheid eras. We see the
comforting web of lies that humans spin to justify speciesist oppression – that
animals are stupid, that they don’t really suffer the way we do, that they
exist solely to serve our ends – the same web of falsehoods and propaganda that
whites once wove around blacks, and men continue to weave around women.
And to add insult to injury, the victims cannot plead their
own case; they cannot describe their suffering or show us how the world looks –
and how we appear – from within the slave quarters to which we have consigned
them. For this, they have to depend on the conscience and goodwill of those who
benefit from their exploitation. It is similar to a situation where African
slaves were dependent on slave owners to speak out on their behalf.
The truth is that culling spreads
terror from air and land, breaks apart families, and causes acute distress
among herds near and far (who can hear and sense the fear, panic and slaughter
of their fellow beings). There is a need to re-imagine the issue of our
relationship with elephants and move away from our historic culture of killing
– where pulling out a gun is seen as the easiest solution.
Like humans, chimpanzees and other
animals, elephants have complex minds and social structures. This is an
undisputable fact and it requires that any policy document in relation to
elephants must, at the very least, acknowledge that they have moral standing
and that we have a duty of care towards them.
On the occasion of the publication of the Draft Norms & Standards for
Elephant Management on 28 February 2007, Minister Van Schalkwyk
emphasised the following points:
§
The Norms and
Standards merely represent a new chapter in the ongoing debate about elephant
management and that “our department does not pretend that this will be the
final word”;
§
DEAT is committed to finding solutions that are fair to elephants;
§
The principles that inform
the decision-making process will display respect for elephants;
§
Ethical dimensions will be
included;
§
The management process shall
be conducted ethically, humanely and rationally;
§
Wilful cruelty to animals
must be condemned and avoided at all costs.
DEAT thus understands that the culling
of elephants should be approached differently from other interventions. The Guiding Principles of the National Norms and Standards
for the Management of Elephants in South Africa claims to understand the
complexity of elephants, and consequently acknowledges
that:
In light of the above, the N&S should clearly reflect
that there is a strong ethical case for viewing elephants as sentient beings
that should not be classed as “renewable natural resources”. It is a
complete contradiction to acknowledge on the one hand that elephants are
complex subjects of a life that has meaning and value quite apart from human
purposes, and then on the other hand to reduce them to simple beings and
ultimately objects, resources and commodities for human gain.
However, in its
present form the Draft N&S is hopelessly inadequate in the way that it
deals with, and refers to, culling. Moreover, of deep concern to us is the fact
that it actively transforms complex social beings as mere things, resources,
and commodities.
Government must abandon the speciesism that clouds its minds
with double standards and begin to think in a logically and morally consistent
way. For – just as the substantive grounds for culling overpopulating humans to
conserve biodiversity are overridden by ethical considerations – the exact same
reasoning applies to the case of (allegedly
overpopulating) elephants. We approach both cases with ethical, not ecological
principles, with compassion not indifference, and with non-violent rather than
violent means. Moreover, ample management tools that exclude culling and
killing are already available to conserve biodiversity.
The South African conservation
system was conceived during the periods of colonialism and apartheid and
reflects the authoritarian norms of those eras. These were landscapes that
produced both human and other animals as victims. The practice of culling is thus grounded in these
medians of control and in anthropocentric resourcism. And our government appears merely to have adopted
the old practices of the previous regime.
Killing elephants using the “too
many”/over-population argument is ecologically meaningless. It has been
irrefutably shown that using numbers and population size as a means on which to
base decision-making is fallacious. This is true for large and small reserves. If
one examines the history of culling elephants in
The practice of culling and the
ivory trade are inextricably linked. Along with slaves, gold and rubber, the
allure of ivory drew Europeans to
The apartheid regime also
profiteered from the ivory trade – both legally and illegally. When culling was
initiated in
Consequently, the factors that informed decisions to kill
elephants (via culling and other means) were colonial, apartheid and farming-type
mindsets; the ivory trade; the strong hunting fraternity’s control over the
conservation sector (hunters and elephant traders always push the culling
agenda); and more recently the subversion of concepts such as “sustainable
use”.
Culling should not be driven by economics. In addition, the
concept of sustainable use cannot be taken in its most shallow sense and then
applied across the board. We are sure that this is not what policy makers are aiming
at when it comes to developing a policy on elephants. We are equally sure that policy
makers recognise that this kind of naked utilisation position is totally
inappropriate within the current democratic dispensation. DEAT’s policy and attitude towards whales has
reflected this and has, as a result, set a precedent for its policy and
attitude towards elephants.[1]
It is ironic that those currently in favour of
reinstating culling are the same people who criticised the rationale for the
1995 moratorium by calling for a more scientific approach, but are now
downplaying the role of science in the debate.
This is a deliberate manipulation, where those in favour of culling
expediently and dishonestly used creationist science as a reason to kill
elephants, but when, in the post-apartheid period, this argument was
scrutinised and criticised, the goal posts were moved and the defence then
became about “values”.
The fact is that there are many different values to consider,
including those of compassion. The existence of a plurality of values that are
often in conflict does not mean that the “sustainable use” lobby should
automatically triumph. The future of elephants as individuals and as a species
cannot be left up to the market to decide. To elaborate on this point:
landmines have a definite military utility but humanitarian consequences have
outweighed their use and have resulted in a global ban on their production and
use. The N&S cannot give carte
blanche license to those who want to treat elephants in any way that
advances their economic interests. Elephants are not tools or objects, or
unworthy and unfeeling brutes. Surely the N&S cannot endorse such a value
system?
A moral framework must inform decisions and it is not enough
to say values play a role. What is crucial is: what informs those values, how
legitimate are they and what consequences do they have? The value of “sustainable
use” does not provide a moral framework in which an unjust war on elephants can
be waged, particularly when other more reasonable and justifiable responses are
available rather than taking the drastic decision to go to war.
The deep and rich emotional,
psychological, and social lives of elephants, including their feelings of
altruism and friendship, aggression and fear, are scientific facts that cannot
be ignored. When an elephant is shot, there is immediate distress on the part
of the family and this trauma lasts over a long period of time. Like every
human person, elephants have lives that are inherently valuable to themselves
and important to their families and communities. And like humans they are also subjects-of-a-life.
One factor that has moved decisively
against the culling of elephants is the research work of field biologists,
psychologists, philosophers and ethologists.
As a result, we are beginning to understand that culling practices
affect elephant societies profoundly and as their world is diminished so is that
of human beings. This understanding of who elephants are has given rise to widespread
public affection and recognition for elephants, both locally and globally.
It cannot be disputed or ignored that elephants live
in a complex society bound together by different layers of social bonding and
communication. They exhibit skills and qualities such as good leadership, good
communication, clear roles, co-operation, consensus building, respect for one
another, and reconciliation. Moreover, the complex way in which elephants use
sound to communicate demonstrates their intellectual and emotional complexity
and understanding.
The suggestion from the N&S that it is more
ethical to cull only entire family groups is hugely problematic because we know
that their social and communication systems are complex and that they have
close relationships outside of family groups. Removing members of these family
groups, which include older females, means a loss of cultural information and a
major and irreversible disruption of their complex social network. One of the
long-term consequences of culling will also be that the average age of the
matriarch will decrease and there will be fewer larger groups and an ever
increasing number of smaller groups led by younger and younger females.
Culling
and hunting, because of the loss of kinship and matriarchal information and
experience, traumatises elephant groups and clans for decades and also results
in unpredictable and dangerous behaviour.
Elephants are our living heritage and are a cultural and
historical asset. South African heritage has been dominated by the colonial and
apartheid legacies which were fixated on hierarchical domination and
distinctions of superiority/inferiority. Through various heritage programmes,
position papers, policy formulation and international treaties,
Killing animals for sport and culling is
un-African. Culling is not an
African practice or tradition but an imposed colonial and apartheid subversion,
which along with similar aberrations has negatively impacted on the African
landscape and traditions. Significantly, elephants are part of
If the sole focus of African orientation to elephants is on economics
rather than ethics, on what benefits humans not animals, it is crucial to
emphasize that there is far more economic
value and gain in ecotourism. Elephants already more than pay their way
through local and foreign tourism and there presence has enormous benefits for
communities who live near reserves where elephants live.
Benefit for rural communities can indeed be derived from
reserves, but there is no prerequisite that this must involve consumptive use
of elephants. Indeed, non-consumptive use is the most economically sustainable
approach, because it builds local capacity and infrastructure, increases skills
and creates financial self-sufficiency and independence, while minimising the
potential harm done by killing elephants.
Culling alienates tens of millions
of western tourists who will take their travel dollars elsewhere if they learn
that
The
culling of elephants for any reason is indefensible.
Managers responsible for conservation areas frequented by elephants in any
numbers must be compelled to manage their elephant populations using the other,
very viable, non-lethal options already available.
The case for removing culling as a
management option is compelling. This is because:
§
Culling is so onerous that it needs to be treated in isolation, that is, culling
must be treated completely separately from the other so-called “management
options in the tool box”.
§
Culling is a bad management practice.
§
Once the floodgate of culling has been
opened it will be very difficult to control or halt it.
§
There has never been a case where
killing/culling elephants resolved a perceived threat to biodiversity.
§
The negative consequences of culling are
likely to persist for more than 100 years.
§
Culling cannot be scientifically, ethically
or economically justified.
§
Culling, of all the interventions, is not
only the most onerous but also the most scientifically questionable.
§
Culling decisions are largely profits-driven
which not only have no ecological basis but also lead to the fudging of data
and the push for increasing culling quotas.
§
Culling disrupts population dynamics.
§
Culling causes eruptive population growth
(the very thing culling is supposed to address) which creates long-term
problems and sets off a process of continual human intervention. To use a
highly problematic and damaging intervention such as culling to try and fix a
problem caused by this highly problematic and damaging intervention is irrational.
§
Culling will not change the state of ecological
systems and will not reverse trends (the very reason why culling is supposedly
proposed in the first place).
§
Culling elephants keeps the population
density high so that they are at a maximum sustainable yield. In addition, at
lower densities population growth rate may increase so culling could
effectively increase growth rate.
§
Where elephants have been removed their
space is filled by other elephants or by competing herbivores.
§
Selective culling, targeting bulls or
animals of certain age classes, distorts age structures and enhances, rather
than suppresses, growth rates and so negates the intention of culling.
§
Culling has severe behavioural consequences
on the elephants left behind. This raises a red flag for both elephant-human
interaction in the future as well as for the welfare of elephants.
§
There are enormous ethical and ecological
concerns about killing specific age-sex classes from within breeding groups.
§
Culling deliberately traumatises elephants,
both in the short and long term, and
there are obviously negative behavioural consequences to this.
§
There is an indisputable case to be made
for viewing elephants as not being
renewable natural resources.
§
Culling employs disproportionate force.
§
Culling has severe welfare implications
which manifest themselves in both the short term and the long term.
§
Culling and its effects, ecologically,
behaviourally and on human-elephant risk/conflict, will require very costly
human intervention over extensive periods of time.
There is no urgency. Elephants are
not irreversibly threatening ecosystems or human existence and elephant
management policies should be aggressively promoting alternatives to culling
and going to extraordinary lengths to avoid violent responses.
To employ culling as a
methodology and solution, knowing what we know in this modern day and age – scientifically,
ecologically and ethologically – is simply not appropriate.
The global context cannot be ignored
– i.e. the position elephants find themselves in globally. African elephants on
the whole (like their Asian counterparts) are an endangered species, and any
renewal of culling policies can revitalize the ivory trade and jeopardize their
survival. The rate of decimation is frightening. It is not acceptable to
consider culling as an option in the context of very real threats to elephant
survival: global warming and climate change; overdevelopment; human population
growth; hunting (particularly in protected areas where fences are being taken
down); and the extinction of species at an unprecedented rate, where over the
last thirty years we have seen more extinctions than were seen during the previous
sixty-five million years.
A huge flaw of the Minister’s Science Roundtable (SRT)
process was that no-one was given an opportunity to make a case against culling
being included as a management tool. It thus seems that culling was included in
the management ‘tool box’ for political and economic reasons as there is no
sound scientific reason for it being there. Given the major implications and
sensitivities in relation to culling this is tremendously problematic, if not
outrageous.
Much of the “science” which supports culling is anecdotal. Because
of its burdensome and risky consequences, culling cannot be included as an
option merely because some people think there may be a reason to cull “one day”
or because some managers are so immersed in a culling mindset that they see
this as a so-called solution to a perceived problem.
There is absolutely no evidence of an imminent risk to biodiversity in relation to the
numbers of elephants as they are at present.
Adaptive Management cannot be interpreted as
shooting elephants first and seeing what happens to biodiversity later; this is
not only unscientific and goes against ecological processes, but also has
serious ethical dimensions which cannot be ignored.
No scientific or
ecological justification exists to cull or hunt elephants. Simply
put, the supposed ‘scientific’ and ‘ecological’ reasons put forward by some managers for culling are flimsy and
weak and do not stand up to interrogation.
The culling of elephants is in direct violation of the
interests of individuals and the community of those who are concerned with the
welfare and interests of animals, locally and internationally. The effect of
culling may also involve a significant tourist boycott of
If culling is reintroduced it will send a
disturbing message to the world about
The N&S needs to promote ethical
conservation. It should endorse and
support compassionate human/elephant conflict resolution measures and assist
local communities in ways which bring real, lasting benefits to people without
killing elephants. To include culling as an option under the guise of development,
income generation and poverty alleviation is disingenuous and unsustainable.
Instead the N&S should foster
other, more sustainable and humane forms of income generation.
It is a fallacious premise to argue
that the only way rural communities can benefit from conservation is if the
animals pay with their lives. This is not a long-term option for poverty relief
or for sustainable livelihoods. Poverty
alleviation programmes need to be designed that avoid animal suffering and take
into account respect for other species.
Killing of elephants cannot be maintained at a
rate that will bring sustained development to rural communities. As Purvis
(2001) notes: "Orders composed of large species with slow life
histories (e.g. elephants and perissodactyls) have a high prevalence of threat
due to overexploitation", which means that their low productivity
makes them vulnerable to unsustainable off-take and potential extinction. To
base poverty reduction on elephant products that are handed down from managers
will create expectations and dependencies, which will, sooner or later, run
counter to conservation objectives while at the same time fail to deliver
sustainable social development to the communities.
Increased incidence of fence problems is not
an ecological effect, but an administrative failure. The agency responsible for
fence breakage should be clearly identified and properly supported, so that
fences are maintained.
There is no specific data for claims of
serious human-wildlife conflict along borders of reserves. Where conflict does
exist this can be mitigated in a compassionate and win-win way that does not
include labelling elephants as ‘problem animals’ and killing them.
Where there is a will there is a way. It is
incumbent on the N&S to provide frameworks for humane conflict mitigation
and for educational projects and programmes.
Merely including culling in the management tool box
as if it were just another management “tool” is unacceptable, unnecessary and
wrong. The decision to cull elephants must be treated very separately because,
unlike other management options, it is very onerous and therefore has to be
justified.
Indeed, instead of including culling
as simply one of the management options, the N&S is legally obliged to
provide a set of properly conceptualised procedures and processes which make
provision for a compelling justification if any management
authority or entity (national, provincial, local or private) may be
contemplating culling.
The option of culling needs to
be removed from the current draft N&S on elephant management and there needs
to be a totally separate policy document if ever culling is seriously considered.
Any
decision to consider culling as an option should have its own strictly
controlled set of processes and procedures and
must be subjected to a public participation and review process
before implementation is even considered.
Conservation managers and decision-makers do not have a set
of ethics that is removed from other forms of ethics. Culling should not be driven simply by
management decisions without following strict procedures on decision-making.
Since the act of killing is highly problematic and ecologically risky, the
proponents of culling have to provide a substantive reason for why elephants
are targets in the first place. Rigorous procedures
need to be put in place in the event that culling is proposed and the burden of proof should be on the culling
proponents, who
would need to make a convincing case, in a transparent and open way, that this
is the correct and only choice.
There is a rapidly growing ‘elephant industry’
in
We do not
believe that sufficient thought has gone into the formulation of an elephant
management plan for