A Scientific Compilation

by Earth Org · Published November 18, 2008 · Updated June 14, 2014

Dr Ian Raper National President Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science (S2A3) presents his case for why the culling of the elephants is unneccessary.

The purpose of the following report is to provide up to date information concerning the topic of elephant culling, with special reference to the Kruger National Park.

Senior scientists have produced evidence to the effect that the cull is certainly not necessary in the Kruger Park. It cannot be considered in any sense as a management tool. If there is a need for management in Kruger, it can be effected far more scientifically and humanely by closing tourist directed artificial water holes, implementing non-hormonal contraception and other extremely promising non-lethal methods.

It is not apparent that there is in fact an elephant population problem in Kruger. An arbitrary figure (carrying capacity) of 7000 elephants was accepted. Since the moratorium on culling, introduced in 1995 because of a very substantial grant to SanParks from the HSUS, numbers of elephant in the park of up to 20 000 are quoted. Very little certainty applies to these figures, either in terms of their accuracy or the accuracy of the carrying capacity. (The grant from HSUS was to fund research into non-hormonal contraception.[1])

Reasons given for the culling option

The chief reason adduced for concern at increased elephant populations, thus ultimately for exercising the culling option, is that the elephants, exceeding their allotted carrying capacity, pose a threat to biodiversity. The scientific evidence to the contrary is succinct. The challenge to SANParks is to produce any scientific (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence of elephnats sustained threat to biodiversity.

Elephant threat to biodiversity

(T)here is not a shred of evidence in papers published in the primary scientific literature that elephants adversely affect biodiversity. Despite this, the Kruger Park authorities have recommended that numbers be reduced by culling (Skinner, J, 2005. Sunday Independent. )

Elephants and their management in the Kruger National Park, R J van Aarde, et al:

We have collated information from over 200 studies published on the consequences of elephant presence for the environment (Guldemond & Van Aarde, in review). These studies were conducted at 74 study sites over a period of four decades … Our results indicate that over short time periods (<5 years) elephants have a significant effect on individual plants. These effects, however, disappear with an increase in the time period over which the study was conducted.

Based on studies from across Africa we conclude that SCIENCE does NOT provide satisfactory evidence that elephants had a lasting negative effect on either animals or plants.

Elephant overpopulation

It is often treated as self-evident that a large and increasing opulation of elephants is itself a problem, i.e. as if in a zoo setup, management has the information, the wisdom, the justifcation and the authority to decree the sizes of all populations in the park. This would seem to run counter to the aim of conserving biodiversity, replacing it with human intervision and fiat, aimed at providing visitors with a variety of experiences and sightings. The course taken by nature in terms of gene pools, changes in habitat, etc. would play no role.

Understanding elephants as agents of heterogeneity in Kruger, Johan T. du Toit:

So, the question emerges: do we know the right density of elephants for any PARTICULAR LANDSCAPE? The answer is a resounding no …
if culling is applied as a management tool to serve the objectives of biodiversity conservation, then prior understanding is required of the relationship between elephant population density and biodiversity in EACH LANDSCAPE. That understanding does not exist, and in my opinion it is naive to propose that culling can be used within an experimental design to reach that understanding.

The Efficacy of culling

It is not true that culling reduces numbers. (So: what purpose does it serve?) Elephants and their management in the Kruger National Park, R J Van Aarde, et al.

In the year immediately following culls, elephant numbers declined due to the cull (Van Aarde et al. 1999; Whyte et al. 2003). The following year, however, trends were reversed with more elephants within the previously culled management zones than expected from population growth alone (Van Aarde et al. 1999; Whyte et al. 2003). This suggests that region-specific culling induces inter-regional movement.

The accuracy and precision of Krugers reported elephant counts clearly deserve further attention.

managing ONLY elephants does NOT address the issues surrounding the maintenance of biological diversity as a primary conservation objective.

We contend it is premature to instigate elephant management without an adequate knowledge base..

Some considerations regarding the management of the Kruger national Park elephant population SCJ Joubert

The only reasonable and rational reason for the management of the elephant population rests on the impact the elephant have on their habitats, and, by implication, on associated animals. Howevere, very little evidence of this was presented at the Indaba … In this respect I believe that SANParks were let off very lightly.

Clearly, elephant are highly selective for both particular plant species and also for favoured vegetation communities.

ANNOTATED PRESS RELEASE 15 NOV

A press conference on the topic of the cull was held at 10.30 a.m. on 18 November 2005 at the ACSA Business Centre, International Arrivals Terminal, Johannesburg International (now OR Tambo) Airport. The conference was arranged by The Earth Organization, and the panel comprised the following members:

Mr Lawrence Anthony, Founder of The Earth Organization

Professor John Skinner, President, Royal Society of South Africa

Dr Ian Raper, National President, Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science (S2A3),

Mr Mike Speed, Chairman of SATSA

Mr Rod McLeod, Merchant Banker, member of The Earth Organization

Mr Jason Anthony, The Earth Organization.

The full transcript of the press release appears below.

Both august scientific bodies, the Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science (S2A3) and the Royal Society of South Africa, were represented by senior office-bearers at the conference. S2A3 was established in 1902; its past presidents and medallists include some of the foremost scientists and luminaries in the countrys history. S2A3 has played an important part in the advancement of science in the country, including the recognition of excellence in the field of environmental protection. In recent years it has for example honoured the SABC programme 50/50, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA), the eminent botanist Prof Gideon Smith of SANBI, one of the authors of the internationally acclaimed Gondwana Alive, and your respected predecessor, Mr Mohammed Valli Moosa (2003).

Professor Skinner has also been honoured by S2A3. He is one of the most distinguished scientists in the country, and was Director of the Mammal Research Institute at the University of Pretoria for 26 years, since 1972. He is currently Professor Extraordinaire at the Veterinary Wildlife Unit, Onderstepoort, and the 4th dition of his encyclopedic Mammals of the Southern African Subregion (Cambridge University Press) was launched on 23 November 2005.

In addition to the scientific evidence presented at the conference, statements were included by the Chairman of SATSA, Mr Mike Speed, and Mr Rod McLeod, a prominent merchant banker. The gist of their statements was that the effects of the cull would be extremely adverse to the tourism industry in the country, and to our economy as a whole.

Support for the appeal against the cull has been received from many quarters. Examples are appended.

At the press conference,The Earth Organization announced the formation of an independent advisory board under the chairmanship of Dr Raper. The board, comprising leading scientists and top experts and practitioners in the fields concerned, will continue the investigation into the matter and report periodically to the Minister. The board is a South African entity informed by and collaborating with the International Scientific Advisory Board.

The Earth Organization has also announced that it will initiate and lead a national fund-raising campaign to finance further studies, and implement contraception.

Senior scientists oppose slaughter of thousands of Kruger Park elephant

DATE: 12th November 2005

FROM: The Earth Organisation

South African National Parks Boards (SANParks) proposed slaughter of over 5,000 elephants in the Kruger National Park (KNP) is indefensible, according to Lawrence Anthony, Founder of The Earth Organization, a South African-based international conservation organisation.

The Earth Organization, working in co-operation with Dr. Ian Raper, National President of the Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science, and other leading researchers and scientists, announced today that recent breakthroughs in non-hormonal elephant contraception lay the foundation for an acceptable and workable alternative to the planned slaughter of many thousands of elephant in the KNP.

Contraception as an option is fully backed and supported by South Africas leading veterinarians, said Dr Raper. We find it remarkable that Kenya (a strong competitor of South Africa for tourists) has recently approached South African researchers to implement a major contraception programme on elephant in Kenya, while our own parks authorities are rejecting the option.

According to senior researchers, contraception will shortly be even further simplified by the much anticipated release of a one-shot, five-year treatment, thus making contraception both highly effective and easy to administer.

Lack of scientific progress

(a) Professor John Skinner, Vice President of the Royal Society of South Africa, recently stated of Kruger Park: A lack of scientific progress continues to hound park policy. I attribute this to a lack of fundamental research, an attitude of this is our farm and we know the answers and an inability to consult or accept outside advice.

I gather from colleagues who attended these earlier meetings that there is not a shred of evidence in papers published in the primary scientific literature that elephants adversely affect biodiversity. Despite this, the Kruger Park authorities have recommended that numbers be reduced by culling.

Prof Skinners sentiments are echoed by other scientists, said Raper.

[1] Understanding elephants as agents of heterogeneity in Kruger: Johan T. du Toit:

p 329: So, the question emerges: do we know the right density of elephants for any PARTICULAR LANDSCAPE? The answer is a resounding no …
Ibid: if culling is applied as a management tool to serve the objectives of biodiversity conservation, then prior understanding is required of the relationship between elephant population density and biodiversity in EACH LANDSCAPE. That understanding does not exist, and in my opinion it is naive to propose that culling can be used within an experimental design to reach that understanding. ]

[2] Elephants and their management in the Kruger National Park, R J van Aarde, et al:

p 339: We have collated information from over 200 studies published on the consequences of elephant presence for the environment (Guldemond & Van Aarde, in review). These studies were conducted at 74 study sites over a period of four decades … Our results indicate that over short time periods (< 5 years) elephants have a significant effect on individual plants. These effects, however, disappear with an increase in the time period over which the study was conducted.

p 339: Based on studies from across Africa we conclude that SCIENCE does NOT provide satisfactory evidence that elephants had a lasting negative effect on either animals or plants.

Tourism fallout

Anthony expressed concern that SANParks may be railroading its decision to cull before a proper appraisal is done on the potential fall-out on other related sectors. This is not just a parks decision, he said.

For example, Anthony said, an elephant cull of this size and scope is unprecedented in international conservation history and will undoubtedly precipitate a concerted international animal rights campaign directed against our country.

The Humane Society of America has already publicly stated that, if the cull takes place, they will advise their eight and a half million members to avoid visiting South Africa. Other groups will follow suit and the effects of this and other negative PR on tour operators, travel agents, and ecotourists should not be underestimated, he said.

Rod MacLeod, a member of The Earth Organization and a well-known Johannesburg merchant banker, said: Tourism is a significant foreign exchange earner for South Africa, and as a sector is possibly the countrys largest employer. We need to avoid a confrontation with animal activists and environmental pressure groups to maintain our hard-won image as a wildlife haven for tourists.

South Africas tourism industry already suffers from a perceived crime problem, MacLeod continued, and this could easily be compounded by animal activists, who have already started branding us as a last outpost of wildlife tyranny on the Internet as they fire the first shots in their campaign.

Information Age

This ill-advised cull is generating a great deal of controversy, as it properly should, said Dr Raper. We are now in the information age in which tens of millions of members of influential international animal rights movements can be effectively mobilised against us. These media will bring far greater pressure to bear than at the time of the previous cull, ten years ago, when the Internet, cellular communications and reality news were in their infancy.

Imagine if you will, said Anthony, the effect of the worst possible images of dead and dying elephants, and the butchering of slain carcasses being projected into the living rooms of households across Britain, Europe, the USA and elsewhere. Because that is exactly what is going to happen.

Anthony went on to say: Have we forgotten that we are soon to be hosting the Soccer World Cup? Do we really want this incredible moment in our countrys history to be coupled to the most controversial elephant cull in our history?

Kruger Park unsafe because of cull?

Expert opinion and common knowledge dictate that the many traumatised elephant that escape death are going to be dangerous to humans. Yet quite unbelievably this issue has not been publicly addressed, and no known studies exist.

Kruger has a million unescorted visitors a year. With nearly one out of every two elephant being killed, park authorities must be able to ensure visitor safety and, per Anthony, an acknowledged elephant specialist, Simply put, they cant, and it may well be irresponsible to keep large sections of the park open if the cull goes ahead. And let us not forget, elephants will have long memories of the slaughter.

This cull cannot be seen separately from our tourism industry; they go hand-in-hand.

[1] Elephants and their management in the Kruger National Park, R J van Aarde, et al:

p 340: In the year immediately following culls, elephant numbers declined due to the cull (Van Aarde et al. 1999; Whyte et al. 2003). The following year, however, trends were reversed with more elephants within the previously culled management zones than expected from population growth alone (Van Aarde et al 1999; Whyte et al 2003). This suggests that region-specific culling induces inter-regional movement.

Kruger Park factory farm

There is growing concern that profits from the sale of elephant meat, skin, and by-products are an underlying motivation for the cull.

Figures to hand reveal that at only R6, 50 ($1.00) per kg for meat and R65, 00 ($10.00per kg) for skins, the profit will be about R6, 500,000 ($1,000,000) for every eight hundred elephant killed. If the cull of 5,000 7,000 elephant takes years as has been mooted, new births will ensure a steady supply of elephant meat, thus generating income for many years.

This would of course explain the reluctance to fully explore contraception as a viable alternative, for contraception means no births, no meat no extra income, said Anthony. Are we now converting the priceless Kruger Park into a gigantic elephant meat factory farm under the guise of a cull? This perception would be a public relations debacle for the country.

[2] Graeme Caughley (1981): Is containment of eruption necessary? That is a scientific question and I interpret the evidence available as implying that it is seldom or never necessary. Is containment of an eruption desirable? That is not a scientific question. I can boast no qualifications that would make my opinion any more valuable than tose of my two immediate neighbours.

Implementation of a contraceptive program

Leading researchers confirm that, with the use of helicopters, the first phase of the exercise could be completed in a few months. The matriarch of each herd will receive an indelible dye on her back ensuring no duplication of treatment.

Anthony confirmed that associated studies reportedly demonstrate no adverse social reaction amongst treated herds. Scientists recommend that 20% of females in each herd be left untreated to ensure that infants and young are always within a herd, albeit in reduced numbers, in order to maintain suitable social structures.

Conclusion

This is a decision which has significant implications for South Africa on many levels, and SANParkss push for a slaughter as a sole remedy is deeply troubling, said Anthony.

In view of the fact that the foundation for a workable solution exists, there is clearly no logical or valid need for a cull, and with a little effort and initiative, we can overcome this problem for the country, said Raper. A question that needs to be asked is: what has happened to the research on contraception for which the Parks Board was paid $1 million eight years ago to refrain from elephant culling and research contraception?

[1] The SANPArks elephant debate: a review of what has happened in the past and the suggestions of how to proceed, by Gus Mills:

p 327: SANParks approved the policy (for the management of elephants in the KNP) on 12 March 1999. Six years later THE POLICY HAS STILL NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED and another round of meetings has been implemented, i.e. the Elephant Indaba held at berg-en-Dal in 2004 and now the Scientific Meeting to be held in March 2005.

[2] Wessas Roadmap for negotiating the elephant cull providing the basis of the executive summary titled the role of science in Sanparks decision making, by Tony Ferrar and Andrew Rossaak

p 332: Like all interested and affected parties WESSA has inadequate information to recommend an immediate solution.

p 333: WESSA is concerned that confusion and disagreement exist as to what the data mean and what solutions should apply. In particular, in the decade since culling was halted in Kruger, there seems to be little evidence that ten years of expensive research and monitoring has produced any significant increase in understanding of the problem.

p 333: It is notworthy that during the ten-year moratorium on culling, the Kruger management plan was extensively reviewed and major changes implemented. Artificial water supplies and fire management practices were changed radically. Potentially, both have a similar scale of impact on bioidiversity to that of elephant overpopulation. The elephant management policy was also revised but was not implemented. Why?

Government advisory board

The Earth Organization today announced the formation of an independent government advisory board under the chairmanship of Dr Ian Raper. The board, comprising leading scientists and top experts and practitioners in the fields concerned, will continue the investigation into the matter and report directly to the Minister.

Appendix 2: HOW THE CONTRACEPTION WORKS

Unlike human oral contraceptives, the drug used to stop the elephants from reproducing does not rely on sex hormones. Rather, it uses proteins extracted from eggs produced by female pigs. When injected into elephants along with an immunologically enhancing substance, these proteins (known as porcine zona pellucida proteins) successfully stop sperm from binding to, penetrating and fertilising the egg produced when an elephant cow ovulates.

This method of contraception is known as immunocontraception, as it relies on the elephant creating an antibody to the pig proteins. This antibody is what stops sperm from penetrating the egg. The method has been used in 35 species, such as horses, and was first tested on zoo elephants.

2. PAYMENT TO RESEARCH CONTRACEPTION

Committee on Resources: Witness Testimony

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans,
Thursday, March 13, 1997

Statement of Dr. Teresa M. Telecky, Director of the Wildlife Trade Program, the Humane Society of the United States on H.R. 39, the African Elephant Conservation

Reauthorization Act of 1997

The HSUS is the nation’s largest animal protection organization, with more than 4.1 million members and constituents.

In 1987 when Congress first considered the Act, and in 1988 when the Act was passed, Americans had become alarmed by reports on the rapid decline of African elephant populations due to ivory poaching.

In addition, if passed, the proposals will also allow these countries to clear out their ivory stockrooms in order to make way for new ivory from culled elephants. Both Botswana and Zimbabwe claim enormous problems with human-elephant conflict and growing elephant populations which are causing people to ask for a political solution to crop-raiding elephants. In culling operations, entire elephant families are gunned down; traumatized infants are pulled away from their dying mothers and sold to circuses and zoos. The ivory is stockpiled, hide sold to make shoes and briefcases, and the meat is sold to crocodile farmers. THE HSUS OPPOSES ELEPHANT CULLING AS A MEANS TO CONTROL ELEPHANT POPULATIONS AND OFFERS A HUMANE ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WE WILL ADDRESS IN THE SECOND HALF OF OUR TESTIMONY.

In 1993, we provided a $10,000 grant to the Owens Foundation for Wildlife Conservation for their work on the North Luangwa Conservation Project (NLCP) in Zambia and we have continued to leverage about $30,000 for the Foundation each year through private granting agencies. The HSUS considers the NLCP to be a model program for combining wildlife conservation with development of rural African communities without resorting to consumptive use of wildlife.

In 1986, Mark and Delia Owens established the NLCP to rehabilitate, conserve and develop the 2,400 square mile North Luangwa National Park in Zambia. At that time, 1000 elephants were being killed in the Park each year by commercial meat and ivory poachers. In the previous 15 years, up to 100,000 elephants had been poached in the Luangwa Valley. Wild fires set by poachers had burned over 80% of the Parks vegetation every year. If left unprotected, North Luangwa would be sterilized by 1996.

The Zambian government had limited resources to protect or develop the Park. Therefore, the Owenses first priority was to decrease poaching by improving the efficiency of the government Game Scouts. New equipment, housing, training and incentives were provided to the Scouts. After working closely with these men for years, the North Luangwa Scouts have been declared the best in Zambia.

At the same time the Owenses developed a plan to involve the local people in the conservation of their greatest resource, their wildlife. Poaching was the primary industry in the area, providing more jobs and more sources of protein than any other. Therefore, the Owenses began a Community Development Program of the NLCP that established small sustainable businesses that offer basic goods and services to the local people and provide alternative legal jobs to poachers. These services are not a free hand out. Each business is based on the free enterprise system and the initial start-up loan must be repaid to the project so that new businesses can be started in the village.

In the past, many of the villagers could obtain ground corn, their staple diet, only by trading poached meat for it. Now the NLCP grinding mills provide this service for pennies and, at the same time, offer employment to millers, mechanics and bookkeepers. Villagers used to poach bush meat to trade it for cooking oil, a much prized commodity in rural Africa. NLCP has taught them to grow sunflower seeds and press oil using simple seed presses. Again, poaching is replaced by sustainable legal trade. Other cottage industries that have provided jobs, food or services to the local people are carpentry shops, sewing co-operatives and cobbler shops. In some villages, small shops are opened to provide simple goods to villagers such as matches, soap and salt. Farmers are assisted with seed loans, transportation and technical assistance. More than 2000 families in the NLCP target area are benefiting from NLCP’s Community Development and Agricultural Assistance Programs.

The Owenses established the NLCP Conservation Education Program in fourteen remote villages near the National Park. Many students had never seen a color photograph and schools lacked the most basic supplies. The NLCP Education Officer visits schools monthly, weather permitting, offering a 500 volume mobile library, curriculum guidelines, school supplies, wildlife slide shows (powered by a gasoline generator), lectures, projects and contests. Forty-eight American schools participate in a conservation oriented exchange program with NLCP’s students, exchanging letters, art work, reports and essays. American schools sent school supplies, books and donate magazines. These Zambian students will not grow up to be poachers.

NLCP’s Rural Health and Family Planning Program teaches hygiene, first aid, preventative medicine, family planning and advanced clinical techniques to village medics. NLCP has trained and equipped 48 “Traditional Birth Attendants” to assist the pregnant women in the villages near the Park. The Attendants also teach AIDS prevention, early childhood development and nutrition to the women of their villages.

The ultimate goal of the NLCP is to ensure that tourism development in North Luangwa National Park will have a low impact on the environment and return revenue to the local villagers. Once the local villagers are benefitting legally from the National Park through tourism, there will be even less incentive to poach. The Owens have worked with the Zambian government to develop a plan for tourism in the Park.

The NLCP has been very successful. When the Owenses arrived, 1000 elephants were being poached each year. Since September of 1994 not one has been poached. However, after nearly six years of almost complete protection, the elephant population of North Luangwa has not increased. This argues strongly for continued protection for the African elephant under a CITES moratorium on trade in elephant parts and continued funding by the U.S. government for research, management, protection, and conservation of African elephant populations. Twenty elephants have been collared with radio transmitters and aerial data is being obtained to chart their movements, habitat usage, and more.

Likewise, the people near the Park no longer have to poach to feed their families. Over 2000 families, many of whom were once involved with poaching, now have legal, sustainable jobs. Leaders from villages outside the NLCP range are now coming to the Owenses and requesting their advice on how to start programs such as those implemented by the NLCP.

In January 1997, HSUS along with Humane Society International (HSI), signed a US$1 million, five-year agreement with the National Parks Board (NPB) of South Africa to conduct a study on the use of contraception as a means for controlling reproduction in elephants and humanely controlling the size and growth of elephant populations. Additionally, under the agreement, The HSUS/HSI will develop, promote and conduct ecotourism programs in South Africa. The NPB will undertake to extend the range of elephants in South Africa and will use the contraception program to control elephant population sizes if it is shown by research to be safe, feasible, economic, and appropriate. Additionally, the NPB will examine and implement other means of reducing conflicts between elephants and other wildlife and human interests, including fencing, and translocating elephants to other parks and protected areas in South Africa.

The elephant contraception experiment is being conducted in Kruger National Park, which is home to over 8300 elephants. Within the Park’s fenced boundaries, rangers have culled about 600 elephants each year in an attempt to maintain a population of 7500 elephants. But widespread opposition to culling has led South Africa to consider alternative means for controlling elephant populations and providing more habitat for elephants. In May 1995, after a public debate on the Kruger National Park’s elephant management policy, the NPB undertook a review of that policy. The NPB announced that no elephants would be killed in Kruger National Park in 1996, although the NPB retains its policy to allow elephants to be killed when necessary as a last resort. The moratorium has been extended through 1997.

The HSUS/HSI is sponsoring the program which is being conducted by a team of scientists from Zoo Montana, the Medical College of Ohio, the University of Georgia, and the University of Pretoria in South Africa. Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, HSUS consultant for contraception and director of science and conservation biology at Zoo Montana, is leading the scientific research team. These organizations have joined with the South African NPB to administer a contraceptive vaccine to elephants in Kruger National Park.

This vaccine, the PZP (porcine zona pellucida) immunocontraceptive vaccine, was first developed in the 1970’s, and works by stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies that block pregnancy. Since its development, PZP has been tested and adopted by the national park service for management of wild horses on Assateague Island national seashore, Maryland; successfully tested by the HSUS and the bureau of land management on wild horses in Nevada; successfully tested by the HSUS in collaboration with the national park service on white-tailed deer at Fire Island national seashore, New York; and is currently being used on over 90 species in 60 zoos and aquaria throughout the world.

Before allowing this technique to be tested on wild, free-ranging african elephants, the research team vaccinated three female zoo elephants with PZP. These elephants, which were not mated, showed the strong immune response to the vaccine that is required for successful contraception. Before taking the vaccine into the field, the research team also showed that antibodies produced in response to the PZP vaccine would prevent sperm from attaching to elephant eggs in the laboratory.

Between October 2 and 12, 1997, the research team and staff from Kruger National Park Captured, radiocollared, and treated with PZP 21 adult female elephants in Kruger. Twenty additional animals were radiocollared but left untreated to act as controls. Before treatment, non-pregnancy of each animal in the study was confirmed with ultrasound. In November, the 21 experimental animals were successfully given booster shots using PZP-containing darts fired from an airborne helicopter. Once the elephants have been marked the vaccine can be delivered without ever capturing them again.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion between The HSUS/HSI sponsored immunocontraception project and a concurrent elephant contraception project being carried out in Kruger National Park by a German team from the Institute for Zoological and Wildlife Research in Berlin. This team placed implants containing a six-month supply of the steroid hormone estrogen in the ears of a sample of adult female elephants. The HSUS/HSI and our research team strongly opposed this project, because, among other reasons, we believed that the estrogen implants would lead to prolonged and sustained estrus in implanted females. We have received preliminary reports from our colleagues at the University of Pretoria that just such an effect is being seen among the elephants treated by the German research team. We stress, however, that No such indications have been reported for the PZP-treated elephants.

There are several reasons that it could be a useful management tool for free-ranging elephants. First, it can be delivered directly from the air without capturing the elephant. Second, the vaccine itself should be relatively inexpensive to produce. Third, non-pregnant females can be distinguished from the air with 85-90% accuracy by the age of calves accompanying them, a technique whose effectiveness was confirmed with ultrasound during the initial captures. Clearly, further research would be required to refine the vaccine, assess its effects on elephant health, reproduction, and behavior, and develop efficient techniques for delivering the vaccine to significant numbers of elephants.

Nevertheless, the HSUS/HSI feels that the PZP immunocontraceptive vaccine offers the promise of a practical, cost-efficient, humane alternative to the barbaric practice of destroying these magnificent, sensitive, and complex animals.

Elephant trophy hunting is an activity that is opposed by 84% of Americans (according to December 1996 nationwide poll conducted by Penn& Schoen Associates Inc.). The same percentage of Americans oppose u.s. foreign assistance being used for this purpose. None of the scarce funds available under the African Elephant Conservation Act should be used to promote or enable elephant trophy hunting.

Appendix 3: Estimated costs of using contraception to manage
the elephant population of KNP

P E Buss

Helicopter

Cost Total (rands) Units (rands)

Operating costs of an EC-120 helicopter j?er hour

2400 160 384000

Fuel delivery

5000 1 5000

Vaccines

Cost of vaccine per dose

120 5326 639120

Cost of a dart

60 5326 319560

Cost of a dartgun

8500 1 8500

Cost per explosive charge

1 5326 5326

Personnel

Cost of helicopter pilot per hour

222 160 35520

Cost of a veterinarian per hour

III 160 17760

Cost of a veterinary technologist per hour

65 160 10400

Cost of a veterinary assistant per hour

50 160 8000

Miscellaneous

Accommodation per night

600 20 12000

S & T per person per day

65 80 5200

Vehicle

13000 1 13000

TOTAL : R1 463 386

For 5326 elephant cows, this works out to R247-76 a cow. Whyte et al (2004) state that 75% of reproductively active females will have to be targeted. The census of 2004 counted 11454 elephants; about 5326 (46.5%) are breeding females (Whyte, quoted in Buss). The figures are therefore for a 100% vaccination programme.

Appendix 4: A conservation alternative for African elephants:
the megaparks and metapopulation metaphor

Rudi J van Aarde

Conservation Ecology Research Unit, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002. rjvaarde@zoology.up.ac.za

Savanna elephant may be over-abundant in some places and threatened with local extinction in others. About 60% (220 000) of Africas savanna elephants live in seven clusters of conservation areas across eight neighbouring southern African countries. These countries stretch over an area of about six million km2 where some 116 million people live. About 17% of the land across these countries has been set aside for a form of conservation.

Solutions for the conflict seem to be case specific and the conflict may be resolved through land-use planning options that exclude agricultural activities in buffer zones around existing conservation areas. People living in such buffer zones may benefit from a variety of form of use of the wildlife living here. The extension of range utilization by elephants may be considered an as an opportunity for resource use and may call for the allowance of selective culling in areas beyond formal conservation land.

Elephants also alter native vegetation and influence the habitats of other species in many of the conservation areas in the region. Some conservation managers therefore have a need to control elephant numbers. Such control needs to be aimed at the causes rather than the symptoms of hyper-abundances. Management options include contraception, culling and translocation. More recently, the restoration of metapopulation dynamics also became an option.

Contraception as a population control measure has unacceptable outcomes. It does not prevent the destruction of vegetation and is costly. At present, conservation authorities cannot afford to apply contraceptives to relatively large populations of free-ranging elephants. Culling may reduce populations, but in Kruger National Park also stimulated population growth and induced intra population movements, thereby nullifying objectives to reduce the impact of elephants on vegetation. Culling is relatively expensive and for many it is ethically unacceptable. Translocation to confined areas cannot reduce population growth rates and newly established confined populations have negative impacts on the vegetation of their new ranges. Contraception and culling aim at symptoms and not at the causes or consequences of hyper-abundances and I therefore do not considered them as sustainable management options. These management actions may serve their purpose in managing small, confined populations, but can not be considered for relatively large free-ranging populations.

The restoration of metapopulation dynamics may allow elephants of the seven principal conservation clusters to disperse and function as a single unit. Our studies on elephants living in each of these clusters concentrate on their demography, landscape needs and spatial dynamics. Our findings to date do not appose metapopulation dynamics as a process that can reduce local population growth if source-sink interactions can be advanced. the application of the metapopulation concept therefore may improve regional stability and may halt the local destruction of vegetation. metapopulations may be restored through the development of a network of megaparks across ecological gradients. the peace parks foundation is now addressing the development of transfrontier conservation areas that also could lead to the development of metapopulation dynamics. These areas may extend across the range of elephants in southern Africa and may help to limit their numbers by natural forces.

Costs of culling

Based on information supplied by: I Whyte, H Beneke, M Coetzee And T Van Wyk

The costs of culling elephants given are based on estimated figures. Full scale culling last took place in 1994. This estimate is based on an annual cull of 800 elephants, over a period of 5 months a year, over the winter period i.e. 100 working days.

The estimated costs do not include annualised figures for the cost of major refurbishment of equipment and de-mothballing of existing facilities. This may be a significant expense and will need to be determined. Decisions on the actual ownership of newly refurbished facilities, as well as the positioning thereof must still be made.

The full complement of personnel (as previously used) to operate the total facility (abattoir, and processing units) has been considered. Depending on the specific configuration of SANParks owned and operated, and community owned and operated facilities in the final configuration, the costs here may differ considerably,

Some estimated costs of future elephant culling operations

Cost of capital not included

Operating cost of processing (e,g. canning) not included

OPERATING COSTS (Based on an annual cull of 800 elephants) Yearly costs

Helicopter costs (200 hours @ R2 200 per hour) 440 000

Transport truck @ 62 200 per month 311 000

Trailer for transport truck @ R21 000 per month 105 000

Tractor (x2) costs @ R38 826 per month each 388 260

Trailer (x2) @ R620 per month each 6 200
Mobile crane @ 21 160 per month 105 800

Ground crew transport @ R10 600 per month 53 000

Staff salaries (if all staff are S ANParks) 3 009 000

Operating costs -Salt, spices, cleaning materials, PPE, etc. 100 000

Abattoir costs: water, electricity, etc. 420 000

Abattoir maintenance 360 000

TOTAL: 5 298 260

INCOME (Based on an annual cull of 800 elephants)

(300 kg deboned meat/elephant)

Meat products @R4-R11 /kg (“average R5.OO”) 1 200 000
Hides (Ave 200kg/ele: last sold at R60 /kg dry salted 9 600 000
Carcass meal (not calculated)

TOTAL: R10 800 000

Appendix 6: PRESS RELEASE

Senior scientists oppose slaughter of thousands of Kruger Park elephant

Date: 18 November 2005

From: The Earth Organisation

South African National Parks Board’s (SANParks) proposed slaughter of over 5,000 elephants in the Kruger National Park (KNP) is untenable, according to Lawrence Anthony, Founder of The Earth Organization, a South African-based international conservation organization.

The Earth Organization, working in co-operation with Dr. Ian Raper, President of the Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science, and other leading researchers and scientists, announced today that recent breakthroughs in non-hormonal elephant contraception lay the foundation for an acceptable and workable alternative to the planned slaughter of many thousands of elephant in the KNP.

Contraception as an option is fully backed and supported by South Africas leading veterinarians, said Dr Raper. We find it remarkable that Kenya (a strong competitor of South Africa for tourists) has recently approached South African researchers to implement a major contraception program on elephant in Kenya, whilst our own parks authorities are rejecting the option.

Lack of scientific progress

Professor John Skinner, President of the Royal Society of South Africa, recently stated of Kruger Park, A lack of scientific progress continues to hound park policy. I attribute this to a lack of fundamental research, an attitude of this is our farm and we know the answers and an inability to consult or accept outside advice.

Prof Skinners sentiments are echoed by other scientists, said Raper.

Tourism fallout

Anthony expressed concern that the SANParks may be railroading its decision to cull before a proper appraisal is done on the potential fall-out on other related sectors. This is not just a parks decision, he said.

For example, Anthony said, an elephant slaughter of this size and scope is unprecedented in international conservation history and will undoubtedly precipitate a concerted international animal rights campaign directed against the cull.

The Humane Society of America (HSA) has already publicly stated that, if the cull takes place, they will advise their eight and a half million members to avoid South Africa as a destination. Other major groups may follow suit and the potential effects of this on tour operators, travel agents, and eco-tourists should not be under estimated, he said.

Rod MacLeod, a member of The Earth Organization and well-known Johannesburg merchant banker, said: Tourism is a significant foreign exchange earner for South Africa, and as a sector is possibly the countrys largest employer. We need to avoid a confrontation with animal activists and environmental pressure groups to maintain our hard-won image as a wildlife haven for tourists.

Information Age

This ill-advised cull is generating a great deal of controversy, as it properly should, said Dr Raper. We are now in the Information Age, and these media can be effectively mobilised against the cull and will bring far greater pressure to bear than at the time of the previous cull, ten years ago, when the Internet, cellular communications and reality news were in their infancy, he said.

Imagine, if you will, said Anthony, the effect of shocking images of dead and dying elephants, and the butchering of slain carcasses being projected into the living rooms of households across Britain, Europe, the USA and elsewhere, because that is exactly what is going to happen.

Anthony went on to say, Have we forgotten that we are soon to be hosting the Soccer World Cup? Do we really want this incredible moment in our countrys history coupled to the most controversial elephant cull in history?

Kruger Park unsafe because of cull?

Expert opinion and common knowledge dictate that the thousands of traumatised elephant that escape death are going to be dangerous to humans. Yet, quite unbelievably, this issue has not been publicly addressed, and no known studies exist.

Kruger has over a million unescorted visitors a year. With nearly one out of every two elephant being killed, park authorities must be able to assure visitor safety and, per Anthony, an acknowledged elephant specialist: Simply put, they cant, and it may well be irresponsible to keep the park open if the cull goes ahead. And let us not forget, elephants will have long memories of the slaughter. What of the future safety of tourists?

This cull cannot be wrestled away from our tourism industry; they go hand-in-hand, he said.

Kruger Park factory farm

There is growing concern that profits from the sale of elephant meat, skin, and by-products are the underlying motivation for the cull.

This would of course explain the reluctance to fully explore contraception as a viable alternative, for contraception means no births, no meat no extra income, said Anthony. Are we now converting the priceless Kruger Park into a gigantic elephant meat factory farm under the guise of a cull? If this perception takes hold it will be a public relations debacle for the country.

Implementation of a contraceptive program

The programme can be complemented with other solutions such as the closure of artificial water points. We need to stop thinking of a cull and start getting creative, said Anthony.

Conclusion

This is a decision which has significant implications for South Africa on many levels, and SANParkss push for a slaughter as a sole remedy is deeply troubling, said Anthony.

What has happened to the research on non-hormonal contraception for elephant for which the Parks Board was paid $1million a decade ago by the Humane Society of America to avoid elephant culling? Why did this research have to be done independently to bring us to where we are now?

The Kruger Park is a South African icon and it behoves us to implement a solution that will enhance SANParks reputation, and increase tourism, not turn the world against us.

Government advisory board

The Earth Organization today announced the formation of an independent government advisory board under the chairmanship of Dr Ian Raper. The board, comprising leading scientists and top experts in the field, will continue the investigation into the matter and report directly to the Minister.

Overview

The 21st century is the century of conservation and the environment. Species extinction, global warming, climate change, deforestation, desertification and a host of other tribulations threaten mankind. There is a fast growing awareness that if Homo sapiens is to survive, we urgently need to lift our level of responsibility for the natural world of which we are so much a part.

With all of our expertise, knowledge and ability we can certainly find a better solution than slaughtering them by the thousands, and in so doing we can set new standards in elephant and park management which will serve as an example to the rest of the world.

Appendix 7: Topics to deal with: Mabunda Report

These topics are presented in the order of their occurrence in the Press Release.

1. The proposed cull

Reasons given for favouring the culling option

Elephant threat to biodiversity

p 6: (B)iodiversity is very likely to be degraded if population management is not practiced (sic).

p 6: Scientific certainty regarding biodiversity losses will very seldom be attained until the losses have actually occurred.

p 6: Biodiversity losses are likely to be increasingly irreversible with the increasing transformation of surrounding land and isolation of protected areas

p 7: The precautionary principle, as formulated in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, is central to conservation decision-making in the face of uncertainty. This states that: In order to protect the environment the Precautionary Approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

p 9: There are biodiversity concerns with regard to the management of elephants in the Kruger, Mapungubwe, Marakele and Addo Elephant National Parks and in the case of Kruger there is a grave risk of economic impacts resulting from disease spread. There is broad consensus that decisive action is required. It is therefore recommended that a decision on the use of culling as a legitimate option for management of elephants, and the approval of norms and standards should not be delayed beyond March 2006.

p 10: Decision-making on environmental/conservation problems should be informed by science but cannot be determined purely by science.

p 17-18: Because of their propensity to alter their habitats elephants and other large mammalian herbivores often give cause for concern in this regard. Elephants are potentially difficult to confine within protected areas, and if they leave the area they are likely to pose a threat to the lives and property of neighbours.

Elephant overpopulation

p 9: It is recommended that application of lethal means, specifically culling, be approved as part and parcel of a range of options for the management of elephant populations. The implementation of culling should be informed by the application of adaptive management principles, while also not excluding the application of and learning from other viable management options.

p 20-21: In the context of the KNP, SANParks believes that the best approach to maintaining biodiversity is to identify certain specific zones in the national park within which elephant numbers will be reduced (Whyte et al. 1999). Outside these zones elephant numbers should be left to fluctuate naturally.

Elephant threat to communities

p 7: In certain situations, for example the western boundary of the KNP, elephants at high densities tend to disperse, breaking fences and invading cultivations or allowing other species such as buffalo to leave the park.

p 7: Communities on the western boundary of the KNP currently experience occasional elephant-related impacts, and are acutely aware and apprehensive of the possibility of increased impacts if the elephant population remains uncontrolled.

p 8: It needs to be accepted as legitimate to apply population management as a precautionary measure to avert risks to biodiversity and/or community livelihoods.

p 10: The first step in drafting a strategy for elephant management in national parks has been the stakeholder consultation.

p 35: Owing to the urgency of this matter in some regions SANParks recommends January 2006 as the deadline for publication of the norms and standards for public comment.

p 12: Concern regarding the disease risk associated with elephant breakouts, for example the economic impact of foot and mouth and bovine TB in the areas adjoining the KNP, and the costs of fence maintenance.

Profit and entitlement

p 7: Government conservation agencies indicated a need to consider a solution that is practical and economically viable as they are faced with more challenges than just the management of elephants.

p 8: (We advocate that) it be accepted as legitimate to apply lethal rather than non-lethal population management in situations where economic benefits for stakeholders, amongst other considerations, can be derived from this course of action.

p 14: The community should stand to benefit from the culling process in as many ways as possible and this could include:

outsourcing of various functions associated with the processing of the carcases

community canning plants or butcheries

processing, marketing and selling of bi-products

tusks and tusk carving.

bones and bone carving

elephant hair products

employment of community members to be involved in all aspects of the culling process

training and skills transfer to communities

p 14: Repeated calls were made for negotiations to ensure that DCAs (damage causing animals – IR) become the property of the community so that real benefits can be realised.

p 14: A suggestion was made that licences should be granted to communities to enable subsistence and trophy hunting of animals on communal land.

p 18: Both the Protected Areas Act and the Vth World Parks Congress (WPC), hosted by South Africa in 2003, urge protected areas to provide a sustainable flow of benefits to local communities. Recommendation 5.20 of the Vth WPC calls on protected area agencies to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. WPC Recommendation 5.29 urges that protected areas should strive to contribute to poverty reduction at the local level, and at the very minimum must not contribute to exacerbating poverty.

p 33: (T)he use of animal products from a national park for economic gain would only be considered if population management was deemed to be desirable to maintain biodiversity or to reduce risks to neighbours. In other words, economic gain would not be the primary consideration in making the decision. However, this may not apply to all categories of protected areas; in certain categories it may be accepted as legitimate to cull animals to generate economic benefits irrespective of considerations of risks to biodiversity or impacts on neighbours.

Reasons advanced against the cull

Humane objections

The inefficacy of culling

p 12: Evidence from Chobe National Park (has shown) that although elephants contributed to the removal of large tracts of riparian forest, it is currently smaller herbivores, e.g. impala that are responsible for preventing Acacia regeneration. This raises the risk that in some situations resources spent on elephant population management could be wasted.

Danger to visitors

1. Alternatives to the cull

Examples of alternative solutions in Africa

Contraception

p 7: Groups in favour of sustainable use, and also a number of local community representatives oppose contraception on the ground of cost and the fact that it wastes the economic benefits that can be derived from animal products.

The history of culling in the Kruger Park

The moratorium on culling(1994)

The inefficacy of culling

1. The threat to tourism

Boycotts

p 12: Concern that international outrage about elephant culling may seriously affect tourism (

Danger to visitors

Written and compiled by

Dr Ian Raper

National President

Southern Africa Association for the Advancement of Science (S2A3)

[1] In January 1997, HSUS along with Humane Society International (HSI), signed a US$1 million, five-year agreement with the National Parks Board (NPB) of South Africa to conduct a study on the use of contraception as a means for controlling reproduction in elephants and humanely controlling the size and growth of elephant populations. Additionally, under the agreement, the HSUS/HSI will develop, promote and conduct ecotourism programs in South Africa. The NPB will undertake to extend the range of elephants in South Africa and will use the contraception program to control elephant population sizes if it is shown by research to be safe, feasible, economic, and appropriate. Additionally, the NPB will examine and implement other means of reducing conflicts between elephants and other wildlife and human interests, including fencing, and translocating elephants to other parks and protected areas in South Africa.