Elephant Numbers in South Africa

Discussion on Elephant Management and poaching topics
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

Dr Joubert's response has not been forgotten, Ginzy! ;-)


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Ginzy
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:18 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Cape Town
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Ginzy »

Good stuff :ty:


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

Ok, Ginzy, It's ready - have sent you a PM! :-0


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

Seems Ginzy has vanished!

Here is Dr Joubert's 2018 treatise:

INTRODUCTION

Since 2010 three reports have been submitted to Dr Sam Ferreira and other senior research and conservation staff. No response was received to any of the submissions (see D, below).

All the previous reports were submitted for consideration during the revision of the Kruger Park’s Elephant Management Plan. On studying the EMP it was obvious that none of these contributions were considered, as pointed out in this document. Be that as it may, what is important is that the documents are now in the public domain. I had previously exercised strict discretion with who I shared them due to my continued loyalty for an organisation that I served with pride, dedication and commitment.

Now that my concerns have entered the public domain I believe that I can circulate them to a wider audience without forfeiting any of my principles or loyalties towards SANParks and also due to my conviction that many share the concerns regarding the direction the current elephant management strategy has taken.

Many of the statements and arguments contained in this document are repetitions from the previous reports. I am, nevertheless, including all for the benefit of sharing the route I have taken in expressing my concerns.

This is, hopefully, my last submission to the powers that be at SANParks. I have reached the age at which I will hopefully still be in a position to enjoy our national parks for a few years and to find closure as far as their management is concerned.

A. ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Elephant culling

With the upsurge in the elephant population during the 1960’s and the sharp increase in the impact of elephants on trees, in particular on the eastern basalt plains, an elephant culling programme was initiated. At that stage regular annual aerial censuses of elephants, buffalo and other large plains game were also initiated.

From the recording of elephant distribution patterns and observations of research and field staff the major elephant concentration areas were determined, the density per km2 calculated and a carrying capacity of 7 000 elephants for the KNP determined. A survey of elephant impact was also, albeit after the commencement of culling, undertaken and the carrying capacity of 7 000 confirmed (Van Wyk et al 19????).

Applying this approach the identification of areas sensitive to elephant impact, in consultation with field staff, were determined during and considered after the aerial censuses. Culling quotas based on recruitment were then allocated to the affected areas.

By the mid-1970’s, when a comprehensive ecosystem research and management approach was adopted, the culling of several herbivore species (e.g. impala, blue wildebeest and zebra) was terminated. In addition, it was also decided to allocate research and management responsibility of elephant and buffalo, which continued to be culled, to specific research officers. Dr Anthony Hall-Martin, an acknowledged authority on elephants, was transferred to the Kruger Park for this purpose.

Validity of carrying capacity and management strategy

In spite of culling the impacts of elephant continued in several areas. This prompted Thomson (Pers comm) to suggest that a more accurate carrying capacity for the KNP was closer to 3 500, or possibly even 3 000. However, culling continued on the assumption of a carrying capacity of 7 000, within the limits of 6 000 to 8 500.

The upper limit of 8 500 was maintained to keep the population within manageable proportions, should reductions be required.

Furthermore, accepting more flexibility created an opportunity for controlled manipulation of elephant densities to establish optimal ecological carrying capacities and to impose simulated population fluctuations (cycles).

1986 Management Plan and elephant issues

By the mid-1980’s, during the revision of the KNP’s management plan, the following situations were identified as priority areas of concern in the management of the elephant population:

✓The possibility of adverse effects on the vegetation over time due to the maintenance of the population at a stable number, and
✓The possibility of imposing some form of population cycle, in keeping with the principle that the populations of all organisms are subject to
cycles.
✓This could be achieved by successively concentrating culling in different areas of the KNP for varying lengths of time but maintaining the
overall population within desired limits (Joubert 1986, 2008).

The priorities outlined above, together with the relaxation of the upper and lower population limits, provided the potential guidelines of what could quite feasibly have developed into a controlled exercise in determining the role of elephants as an integral component of natural ecosystems and the management of acceptable limits of population cycles within large but confined conservation areas.

This approach could not be implemented before the moratorium on culling was imposed in 1994.

Amendment to the accepted approach

In subsequent years further attention was given to finding more acceptable approaches towards culling. This culminated in a proposed process based on Thresholds of Concern, which defined specific limits of impact at which culling would be justified. Essentially, this represented a mutation of the 1986 proposals referred to above (Whyte et al. 1999).

However, this proposal could also not be implemented due to the moratorium.

Enter Professor Rudi van Aarde

In circa 2008, under the assumed influence of Prof van Aarde and the appointment of Sam Ferreira the moratorium on the culling of elephants was recalled and replaced by the acceptance of a policy of no culling. Prior to this, in 1994, the closure of selected artificial waterholes had commenced. This initially included boreholes and, during the early 2000’s, the demolition of some of the large earthen and concrete dams.

Incidentally, the addition of several of the large private nature reserves on the western border of the KNP (1993: Sabi-Sands, Timbavati, Klaserie and Umbabat) and the dismantling of sections of the eastern border fence to create the Greater Limpopo TransfrontierConservation Areawere were solely due to the initiative aimed at creating more intact ecosystems and larger reservoirs of biodiversity. The initiative would also benefit elephants but was certainly not intended to create single-species dominance.

Some time before the moratorium on culling in 1994, Rudi van Aarde, et al (1989) gave the assurance that elephants would not overrun the KNP if culling was terminated. According to their calculations the elephant population would stabilise when reaching a predetermined density which was within acceptable carrying capacity limits.

However, this carefully calculated density has long been exceeded and the elephant population continues to increase: a rather unfortunate miscalculation when dealing with animals capable of massive impacts with far-reaching, negative consequences – and which would, furthermore, be difficult or impossible to redeem.

Elephant calves, old cows and weaners

Not long after the acceptance of the new approach, Sam Ferreira is reported to have assured Honorary Rangers that the policy of closing artificial watering points would lead to reduced recruitment to the population as young calves and old cows would succumb to the larger distances they had to commute between water and food resources. Furthermore, during droughts deaths would increase, the population would decline and the habitats would have respite (Joubert ????).

During the meeting in May 2017 Ferreira’s version changed: it was not the calves that were dying but the weaners.

This line of argument continued and in the following years Sam Ferreira claimed that the elephant recruitment rate had decreased from 6.5% at the time when culling ceased to 2%, 3.5% and 4.0% (O’Hara 2015, Sapa correspondent 2013). Rudi van Aarde is also on record claiming that the recruitment rate was “lower than 2%” (Van Aarde 2016). In the same vein, it was reported that the intercalving period had increased from 3 years to 4.2 to 4.5 years.

Ferreira’s assertions have been vigorously challenged by Joubert (September 2015), [and, by implication, also those of Van Aade (2016)].In accumulating a sample of 862 elephants in breeding herds across the KNP during 2015 the structure was shown to be as follows: adults 395 (45.5%), 300 sub-adults (4 – 10 years) (34.8%) and juveniles (1 - 3 years) 167 (19.4%).

During the deep drought of 2016/’17, shown to be more severe than that of 1991/’92, section rangers were requested to report all elephant deaths that could be related to the drought. Not a single return was received (Zambatis, Pers comm). This in spite of the fact that the KNP has never in its history been more intensively covered by aerial surveillance and foot patrols (due to anti rhino poaching operations).

Ferreira’s interviews

In interviews with an award-winning correspondent, Glynis O’Hara and a SAPA reporter (Joubert 2017, Appendix 3, 4), Sam Ferreira was reported to have made, amongst others, the following statements:

a. The “natural” way of managing elephants brought the recruitment rate down from 6.5% at the time that culling was terminated (in 1993/4) to 2%. According to the Sapa correspondent the population growth rate had decreased to 3.5% per annum. On the basis of Kruger Park’s census data available to him, Ian Whyte (Pers comm)determined a recruitment rate of 5.3% between 2010 and 2015.

b. Managing elephants was not about manipulating numbers but rather to let natural processes take their course. It was contended that culling did not curtail environmental impacts. Ian Whyte’s (Pers comm) response to this statement is “this is a statement I have now heard many times and from a few different people, and I fail to understand it. If you have no elephants, there would be no impact, and if you have lots of elephants, the impacts are considerable. Somewhere in between there must be a level where impacts are sustainable. The question is how many elephants is this? And if there are too many, the only way to get them to the desired level, is by culling.”

c. The population was currently (Nov 2014) considered to be 16 900, based on a census done in 2012. (According to the Sapa correspondent, quoted above, “Ferreira said the 2012 census counted 13 700 elephants in the park while it was 8 000 when culling was stopped. Had it continued to increase at 6.5% per annum it would now (2013!) have totalled roughly 25 000”).

d. The new approach was based on the closure of artificial waterholes, roughly 65% since 2003, and the “landscape and vegetation got respite from elephant use”.

e. Natural patterns were now being restored: elephants had to move more extensively to find water while additional land was being made accessible, e.g. into Mocambique and private nature reserves.** Due to this the intercalving period had increased from 3 years to 4.2 to 4.5 years, “a classic population response”.

f. In the northern areas of the Park “survival rates have declined, while in the south (where there’s more water) the birth rates have declined.” Though this phenomenon could not be explained the conclusion was drawn that “natural regulation is taking place.”

g. An important consideration is that “now that boreholes are closed … elephants have moved to the rivers, accentuating vegetation impact there, and such ‘lag effects’ have to be studied and monitored.” Thirty-two (32) areas with ‘lag effects’, referred to as “areas of concern” have been identified.

h. Tourist considerations were important and where excessive impact was taking place elephants could be driven away by simulating human presence.

i. Highest rates of impact did not necessarily coincide with the highest densities but, in many cases, could be ascribed to young bulls in puberty or early adulthood.

j. Of some 150 elephants collared in the Kruger Park all but one have strayed from the Park, albeit only temporarily.

k. Ferreira, as quoted by O’Hara, described the approach adopted in the management of the elephant population as a ‘giant experiment’” (from O’Hara, November 2014; Sapa reporter 2013: see Joubert 2017; Appendix 3 and 4.

**Incidentally, the addition of several of the large private nature reserves on the western border of the KNP (1993: Sabi-Sands, Timbavati, Klaserie and Umbabaat) and the dismantling of sections of the eastern border fence to create the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Park were solely due to an initiative aimed at creating more intact ecosystems and larger reservoirs of biodiversity. The initiative would also benefit elephants but was certainly not intended to create single species dominance.

In the Winter 2016 edition of SANPark’s Wild magazine Rudi van Aarde is quoted as follows:

• “now the emphasis has shifted to the management of impact rather than elephant numbers.
• Conservation … is about medium and long-term zero growth and sustainable land use patterns.
• Drought and stress-related die-offs of juvenile elephants keep overall population growth in check.
• The current growth rate, lower than two percent, is a major response compared with the past growth rate of 6.5% when culling was the method of managing elephant numbers.
• Over two-thirds of boreholes were closed after 2003 …. As expected, with less available water, more calves and elderly elephants died.
• As elephants moved away, the landscape and vegetation got respite from elephant use and biodiversity benefited.
• Kruger’s elephant population is tending towards stability ….

The comments made by Ferreira and Van Aarde show many similarities and contain several outrageous statements, which need to be challenged.

Playing with numbers

Similar to the birth and recruitment rates the KNP census figures can also be ridiculed:

2010 13 700 (Ferreira, et al.);
.......13 750 (Cathy Greaver, SANParks)

2011 14 273 (Cathy Greaver, SANParks)

2012 15 850 (Cathy Greaver, SANParks);
.......16 700 counted (SAPA correspondent 2013, from Ferreira – could have been 25 000);
.......13 700 (O’Hara 2014, from Ferreira)

2014 16 900 (O’Hara 2014, from Ferreira – estimate derived from 2012 census)

2015 17 800 (Ferreira 2016 – “live elephants counted”, believed to be 30% less than actual total due to census error).
.......Van Aarde – 16 900 (Wild, Winter edition, 2016).

23 Sept 2016...17 000 – Ferreira (interview with Elize Parker, reported in Lowvelder newspaper)

These figures make very little sense. Furthermore, from an interview with various senior research staff in May 2016 (Pienaar, Venter, Ferreira, Smit) I was informed that the elephant census figures for the KNP carry a 30% undercount error. Between Ferreira, Greaver and Van Aarde there seems to be no concensus of what the elephant population really is.

• From 2012 to 2016 the figures dilly-dally around 17 000.
• Starting with 17 000 in 2012 the total, at 6% recruitment, would have been 21 461 in 2016, and at 3% 19 133.
• And if these were 30% undercounts the total in 2016 was closer to 29 573 and 25 618, at 6% and 3% recruitment rates respectively.
• And currently (2018) the totals, at 6% and 3% respectively, are probably in the order of 33 227 and 27 177 (these totals take into consideration
the adjoining private nature reserves that share an open ecological unit with the Kruger Park).

Surely, this is totally unacceptable. Questions on how the 30% undercount was determined have gone unanswered. The most likely explanation is the story conveyed to me by Karen van Rooyen (the slide showing 5 elephants but actually having 9 - Joubert 2010).

What makes matters worse is that I have never seen/heard Ferreira, or any other SANParks official, informing the public of the undercount error. In interviews Sam Ferreira has consistently only referred to the undercount figure. This, I believe, is a deliberate ploy to downplay public fear of the escalating elephant numbers and, if correct, is nothing but deliberate deceit.

From a conservation management point of view the elephant is arguably the most important species capable of contributing towards biodiversity enhancement but also capable of causing the greatest destruction to biodiversity. It is incumbent on the KNP to be more accurate and precise regarding the elephant population and to be straight, honest and open towards the public, their shareholders, regarding the status of the population.

Density, stability and benchmarks

The miscalculation by Van Aarde et al, 1989, in predicting the stabilisation density of elephants after the cessation of culling was an unfortunate mistake and cannot foster any confidence in even bolder predictions – with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The prediction that the elephant population will stabilise in perfect harmony with its habitat once the water points have been closed and the fences dismantled is an hypothesis based on no scientific evidence. It is, indeed, nothing but a “giant experiment”.

Finally, in a research article Published in PLOS ONE, with IFAW as one of three funders, Robson et al 2017, calculated elephant “benchmarks” in some 73 African conservation areas and concluded that elephant numbers are a mere 25% of their expected values. Interestingly, the article is divided into several sub-sections with the contributors to each noted. Of the six co-authors Rudi van Aarde had the most credits, and Sam Ferreira – though not a co-author - is acknowledged as one of only two for his assistance.

The “benchmarks” were determined on the basis of primary production and water, with some consideration given to poaching. The areas where the elephant populations came closest to the calculated values, at a value in the region of 75 %, or more, were Chobe, Tuli (Botswana), Chirisa, Hwange, Ghonarezhou (Zimbabwe) and Tsavo (Kenya). There is no indication of where the KNP features but enquiring from Sam Ferreira I was told the authors gave a figure of 30 000 to 35 000. Strange that KNP was not grouped with those listed above as it is already at 30 000, or quite possibly even more. Joubert (2015) showed that juveniles up to three years of age made up 19.4% of breeding herds and casual observations over a period of six weeks during June/July 2018 again confirmed this same percentage of juveniles.

Should the KNP’s elephant population now have reached its idealistic and highly questionable “benchmark” status, what happens next? Does the population now stabilise, in spite of a maintained approximate 6% recruitment rate or will some other rabbit be pulled out of the hat to “prove” that the population is not near its asymptote?

Incidentally, is “benchmark” now the fanciful name for “carrying capacity” and is the CERU crowd now reverting to management by numbers, instead of their “events”-driven management?

My impression of this latest approach is that it is nothing but a tactic to deceive a gullible audience, including SANParks, that there is nothing to be afraid of. This, as the assurance of a density-stabilised population in a Utopian state of perpetual harmony with its environment is rapidly wearing thin.

SANParks has, by all indications, committed itself to the policy of allowing the KNP’s elephant population to take its course. My submissions have consistently been brushed aside without any response, also in the case of the revision of the elephant management plan. Needless to say, the warning issued in October 2010, repeated here as it remains as relevant as then, was also just shrugged off:

CONCLUSIONS

I seem to sense that the new approach towards the management of the elephant population is essentially an attempt to avoid population control by means of culling. Other than culling, it is highly unlikely that population control will be possible by any alternative means, such as translocations. If population control cannot be exerted I regard the new approach as extremely high-risk. This is based on the following:

• It is quite apparent that the Park does not have the research capacity to properly evaluate and prioritise areas that would qualify for ‘event-
driven’ intervention.
• It is not clear what ‘intervention’ implies. If it does not entail the reduction of the elephant population where are the elephants of the
impacted areas supposed to go?
• Justifying the unchecked increase in the elephant population on the basis of an “early signal”, supposedly signifying the reduced increase and
levelling off of the population, is scientifically unfounded.
• Any suggestion that the elephant population would eventually level off and continue at a stable level in harmony with other ecosystem
components does not take into account elephant population cycles and is therefore equally unfounded at a factual/scientific level.

After nearly 30 years of culling the elephant population showed no discernable ill effects and was kept at a stable level. This, in itself, is not without problems as indicated elsewhere in this submission. However, it was possible to maintain the population within manageable levels and offered the opportunity of adjusting to identified and/or perceived problems.

To let the population go on the grounds of unproven and wishful assumptions (however popular this may be in terms of public sentiment) can very well lead to an irreversible situation that offers very little opportunity to manage the population or effect rehabilitation of disturbed areas if and when the “early signal” assumption may, in fact, prove to be false. This would be akin to signing a contract without an escape clause!

If one has to err, err on the conservative side and retain the opportunity of redeeming mistakes, even if they are – as accepted - made with the best possible intentions.

FOOTNOTE

These notes, following a welcome engagement with Dr Sam Ferreira, are submitted as an official submission to, and for consideration by, the Research and Management sections of the Kruger National Park and copied to Dr David Mabunda, CEO, SANParks, who first informed me of the change in direction in the management of the KNP’s elephant population.

Dr SCJ Joubert
5 October 2010”

Elephant Management Advisory Committee
The EMP makes provision for an Elephant Management Advisory Committee, consisting of 10 members, including experts in the fields of elephant populations, elephant behavior, biodiversity impact, human interaction and ethics. SANParks liaison will also be represented on the committee.

New members will be appointed on a five-year basis with a maximum membership of 10 years.

Who are:
i. the current members of the EMAC,
ii. the previous (retired) members, and
iii. which members’ term of office has exceeded 5 years?



B. VEGETATION

Elephants richly deserve their status as one of the world’s most iconic megaherbivores. They are gracious, have well-structured social units and play an important role in shaping environments and enhancing biodiversity.

On the other hand, they are highly competitive for vital resources of food and water and, if left unchecked, can cause severe damage (degradation) to the structure and composition of habitats with consequent loss of diversity.
The advantages and disadvantages of elephants present a conundrum that has attracted the attention of conservationists for the best part of the past century. However, great strides have been made over the past 15 to 20 years as more sophisticated instrumentation has allowed ever larger tracts of land to be recorded and monitored on steadily increasing scales. The Kruger National Park has been especially fortunate in having had contributions from teams under the lead authors of Viljoen 1988, Trollope et al. 1998, Vanak et al. 2012, Asner et al. 2009, and Asner et al. 2015 amongst others. It should also be noted that the references and quotes referred to by these authors and their co-authors contain numerous references to the work of other roleplayers in the fields alluded to.

When the Research Unit of the Kruger Park committed itself to an all-inclusive ecosystem-orientated research and management programme in the mid-1970’s the study and interpretation of vegetation dynamics was identified as a key priority. The first steps in this project were taken in 1977 with the establishment of 74 fixed-point photographic sites, incorporating a wide range of landscape types. Due to the major changes detected in the Acacia (thornveld) communities on the eastern basalt plains three years later, this project was extended to around 500 fixed points and repeat surveys undertaken bi-annually.

This project was elevated to a different level in 1982 when a latch was built into the floor of the Park’s Cesssna 206 aircraft which allowed the establishment of more than 160 aerial photo transects throughout the Park. These transects covered an area of approximately 1200m x 500m. The primary objective was to study the dynamics of important woody plant species.

A second major step forward was also achieved in 1982 when the Research Section was fortunate in obtaining the negatives of five aerial-photo transects undertaken by the Department of Trigonometrical Surveys over the period 1940 to 1985. These negatives provided the first quantitative assessments of the loss of large trees with canopy diameters of 5m or more. Essentially, these analyses indicated steep increases in losses from 1965 onwards. Though it was accepted that fire played some role in the losses elephants were identified as the major cause. These results were obtained from two sites on basalt soils and involved especially Acacia nigrescens (Knobthorn acacia) and Sclerocarya birrea (Marula) trees. The lesser role ascribed to fire could largely be ascribed to the fact that the trees sampled were beyond the 3m “fire trap”.

The survey conducted by Trollope et al 1998 also compared tree losses on community land to the immediate west of the Park and the adjoining area in the Park. Tree losses in the Park were significant while no losses were recorded on the community land.
In both surveys referred to the recommendation was made that the elephant population required management intervention.
In the more recent and extensive studies of the other researchers referred to, the following were the major features reported:

i. The greatest losses were recorded on basalt substrate.
Comment: This is not surprising as the woody vegetation on the western soils derived from granite are primarily comprised of Combretum spp
and Terminalia sericea, which are short to medium tall trees and only scattered large trees, mainly Schotia brachypetala, Combretum
imberbe, Sclercarya birrea, Acacia nigrescens and Colophospermum mopane. The latter are, furthermore, largely concentrated in the
bottomlands with more clayey soils. The A nigrescens is, however, an important species in these landscapes and is targeted by elephants
(Joubert 2017).

ii. Fires played a role in the loss of trees, but considerably less than elephants. Their major influence may be in retarding growth and promoting
coppicing of trees initially felled by elephants.

iii. From Asner et al. 2009: Over longer-term periods, ranging between 22 and 41 years “herbivore exclusion manifests at a much larger scale,
with both upland and lowland areas experiencing increased woody canopy cover and 3-D structural diversity. These differences in turn affect
the diversity and richness of animal species, as well as the ecological functioning of these systems. Greater canopy structural diversity
enhances the habitat available for a wide range of organisms beyond the herbivore communities … and alters such ecological processes as
nutrient cycling, seed dispersal and germination.”

iv. Vanak et al. 2011 have also emphasised the important role played by large trees “… in ecosystem function through the provisioning of forage,
shade and refuge”.

v. Furthermore, Anser et al. 2009 assert that “ensuring the sustainability and successful conservation of biodiversity and ecological functioning
within KNP …. requires explicit understanding of the spatial and temporal trends in 3-D vegetation structure at multiple scales. Isolated field
studies provide a necessarily limited view of the changes incurred by management decisions, including herbivore densities, over large natural
protected areas. New approaches that integrate high-resolution imaging spectroscopy and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) can provide
large-scale, quantitative insight into system structure and dynamics, allowing managers to make more informed decisions regarding the
sustainability of their actions.”

vi. Vanak et al. 2011, have also pointed out the “….. increasing concern that the loss of large mature trees in landscapes frequented by elephant
and where fires are intense may result in the transformation of woodland savanna into scrub or grassland.”

vii. Anser et al. 2015 caution that once the numbers of elephants show sharp increases “…. management must then turn to issues of sustainability
in order to maintain the ecosystem as a whole. Doing so requires an understanding of ecosystem-wide responses of vegetation to changing
elephant populations, yet large-scale quantification and monitoring has remained a challenge …… Resolving the interactive role of
environment, fire and megafauna on African savannas remains a priority in ecology as well as for the conservation and management of
protected areas.”

viii. Anser et al, 2015 also reported that “recent landscape studies suggest that current treefall rates in KNP are locally up to 100 times the
background rate with elephants excluded …..” These authors further report that, in spite of shortcomings in their research, “our results are,
nonetheless, the first to reveal such massive average rates of savanna treefall on a very broad ecological scale.”

ix. Referring to the results obtained during an earlier study (Anser et al. 2012) Anser et al. 2015 reported that the results from their follow-up
research suggested an “…. elevated rate of elephant-caused treefall throughout the KNP.” Their results further suggested that “elephants are
currently (2008 – 2014) up to two times more important than fire frequency in determining treefall across the KNP.”

x. Anser et al. 2015 allude to the fact that the KNP is probably in a state of disequilibrium due to the previous control of the elephant population
and that long-term effects on the habitats are difficult to interpret due to a lack of baseline conditions. However, they conclude that “what
we do know is that, as a protected area, Kruger has in recent years been undergoing change in the size and spatial distribution of woody plant
canopies. Our results strongly suggest that changes are to a large extent driven by elephants. The cascading effects on other plant and animal
species are only partially known, and are often complex and context-specific, leading to apparently contradictory studies. ……. Combining our
type of large-scale woody canopy structural change data with species compositional change data will yield the best estimates of elephant
impact and potential multi-trophic cascades.”

Vegetation concerns

In the section above various authors have expressed concern regarding the number of elephants in the Park and have identified elephants as the major drivers of the “massive” tree losses and their real and potential impacts on biodiversity.

In the publications it is either directly stated or clearly inferred that management intervention regarding the elephant population is required in the interests of maintaining healthy ecosystems, at all levels of biodiversity integrity.

The results of these selected publications are profound and cannot be ignored.

Sadly (scandalously?), the two papers by Anser et al. 2009, 2015 and Vanak et al. 2011 are not even listed in the bibliography of the EMP. Are their results of no concern to the managers of the KNP?

Of particularly deep concern is whether the callous attitude adopted towards the impacts elephants are having on the vegetation is merely regarded as the “preferred state”, shrugged off as just another phase in the “natural facets and fluxes” of ecosystems. Should such an absurdity be true it will be tantamount to the wilful sacrifice of every norm and standard in maintaining viable ecosystems.

Elephant Management Plan

In Objectives 1, 2 and 5 of the EMP various items are included that have a direct bearing on elephant/plant interactions. In the introductory paragraphs it is stated that elephant impacts will be directed by a formal monitoring programme that evaluates Thresholds of Potential Concern and that the monitoring will provide feedback in the form of Annual and Scientific reports, as well as Interim Management Plan Evaluations and Audits.

These high ideals are welcomed and supported.

However, in practice the following begs a number of serious questions:

i. In a formal discussion with Dr Sam Ferreira in May 2010 I expressed serious concern regarding the all too obvious “devastation” of especially
the Knobthorn trees along the Crocodile River, and various other areas comprised of soils derived from basalt, gabbro and dolerite.
He agreed re the Crocodile River and assured me that action would be taken – action based on mimicking human occupation.
In a follow-up report to him (October 2010) I enquired how the Crocodile River was identified as an area of concern: whether any surveys had
been undertaken and whether any reports, published or unpublished, were available.
No response was received regarding my questions and, to this day, nothing has been done to the area referred to. Rather, the devastation has
currently reached a level that should be regarded as a serious indictment of the management of the Kruger National Park.

ii. In November 2014 an article written by Glynis O’Hara, following an interview with Sam Ferreira, stated that 32 areas of concern had been
identified in the Park. His denial that he had made such a statement has been rubbished.

From the above the following questions arise:

• How are the Areas of Concern defined?
• What monitoring actions (methods) are being applied?
• Are there any annual or scientific reports available on this matter, as required by the EMP?
• Table 3 (p 54 of the EMP) identifies various areas (regions) that need attention. Who is the responsible person(s), how were they assessed and
have any remedial actions been taken? How does this tally with Dr Ferreira’s denial?
• What actions have taken (are taking) place along the Crocodile River. If nothing has been done since 2010, why not?

What is disconcerting is Dr Ferreira’s denials but this will is dealt with elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

a) Responses to the questions raised in this section are awaited.
b) I find it quite extraordinary that key publications/reports do not appear in the reference list of the EMP: may it be assumed that they were
regarded as of no relevance or importance to the management of the KNP, in particular elephants, or were they wilfully ignored as being too
uncomfortable to address in the light of the selected management strategies?

C. THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR ANIMAL WELFARE (IFAW)

Towards an elephant management plan

In 1966 a policy of elephant culling was initiated in the Kruger National Park. This was based on the rapid increase in the elephant population and the conviction that environmental qualities could be sustained in harmony with a calculated carrying capacity of 7 000 elephants.

In 1994 the National Parks Board, urged by the CEO, Dr GA Robinson, accepted a voluntary moratorium on the culling of elephants. This was largely due to continued pressure being exerted by animal rights movements and an agreement reached between Dr Robinson and Dr Richard Leakey, CEO of Kenya Wildlife Services.

This moratorium was maintained amidst growing pressure from the animal rights movements (NGO’s) to finally terminate culling. This pressure eventually led to the so-called Big Elephant Debate in 2004. Held at the Berg-en-Dal Rest Camp in the Kruger National Park the conference was attended by both local and foreign conservationists and a number of NGO’s.

The stand taken by the SANParks team was firm: the elephant population was being maintained within the limits of 7 000 to 8 000, which was regarded as the general carrying capacity of the KNP; the population was healthy and recruiting at 6.5% per annum; and, the objective of maintaining healthy ecosystems was fundamental to the culling. This conviction was strongly supported by the entire team, including the then CEO Dr David Mabunda and his chief of Conservation, Dr Hector Magome.

At the meeting the NGO’s FALCON headed by Steve Smith and ANIMAL RIGHTS AFRICA (ARA) of Michelle Pickover argued vigorously against culling of elephants. It is not certain whether the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was officially represented or whether Prof van Aarde represented it (see below).

After the Big Elephant Debate a panel of experts was appointed by the Minister of Environmental Affairs to investigate the issue of elephant management and to formulate a national policy. This was done and in 2008 the Norms and standards for the management of elephants in South Africa was accepted.

Subsequent developments

In circa 2007/2008 Dr Mabunda called me to his office and in a most adamant fashion informed me that he had appointed someone from the “brains trust” of the University of Pretoria to advise him on the management of the elephant population. This new appointment convinced him that:

 no animals could be censured over large areas and that censurring elephants (and other species) would therefore cease, and
 the KNP could carry a considerably larger population of elephants and that culling was no longer necessary.

The statements were formal and final and no exchange of opinion on any of these matters was entertained. Any attempt to justify censusing was nipped in the bud.

What it took to bring this abrupt and dramatic change of heart to a staunch supporter of the previous elephant management strategies of the KNP continues to linger as an unanswered question.

At the Big Elephant Debate Professor Rudi van Aarde, head of the Conservation Ecology Research Unit (CERU) of the University of Pretoria, introduced the concept of elephant metapopulations, arguing that over large landscapes elephants could reach a stable state in harmony with their environment. This could be achieved through cross-border conservation areas. It was also argued that all that was required of the KNP was to close artificial water resources and drop its fences.

It is known that Prof van Aarde has a very close relationship with IFAW. This is based on the following:

 Since 2002 IFAW has funded his Elephant Management Programme (megaparks for metapopulations) to the tune of R9.2m (Van Aarde CV: 5.3).
This is considerably more than the sum-total of R7.18m received from 10 other contributors.

 In a booklet, Elephants, Facts and Fables (undated), by Prof Rudi van Aarde, it is stated that “IFAW has partnered with the Conservation
Ecology Research Unit (CERU) of the University of Pretoria on a research programme aimed at understanding the dynamics of elephant
populations in southern Africa. IFAW’s interest in the conservation management of elephants in the region spans more than 15 years. Through
dedicated support for research and practical on-the-ground solutions, IFAW aims to promote ethically and scientifically-sound solutions to
conservation management predicaments related to elephants.” The foreword to the booklet is by Dr David Lavigne, Science Adviser, IFAW.

 In September 2007 Van Aarde represented IFAW at a meeting with the Environmental Affairs and Tourism Portfolio Committee in an attempt to
exclude culling as an option in compiling the Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephant Populations. This was based on the
argument that the KNP culling operation was instituted for commercial reasons to enhance the ivory trade. Furthermore, should it be included
as an option it would have a negative effect on tourism and contribute towards economic decline.

 Incidentally, at the same Portfolio Committee for Environmental Affairs and Tourism meeting on 11 September 2007, “Professor Rudi van Aarde
indicated that it was difficult to count the number of elephants in any given space as they varied across space and time” [from the minutes of
the meeting, chaired by the Acting Chairperson, Mr D Maluleke (ANC)].

Who is the International Fund for Animal Welfare?

IFAW is regarded as an NGO with an extreme stance regarding animal rights. It maintains a rigid anti-culling point of view and targets specific species in fundraising campaigns. This is especially evident in their attitude towards seal culling in Canada and elephant culling in Africa.

In Africa IFAW has been a major campaigner against elephant culling, as evidenced by their efforts to avoid culling being added as an option in the official Norms and Standards related to elephant management in South Africa.

In a Special Edition of the Conservation Tribune, 25 June 1996, it was reported that SANParks and IFAW had concluded a deal worth US $2.5 million for SANParks for the acquisition of more land for elephants, but with the explicit undertaking that, amongst others, it “would never allow the culling or hunting of elephants or any other species of game on any land purchased by IFAW.” Furthermore, it would also “undertake not to submit a proposal to resume international trade in elephant products to CITES at the next COP meeting scheduled for 1997.”

It further reported “in conjunction with the agreement, the Humane Society of the United States offered another US $2.5 million to the NPB (National Parks Board) to seek viable contraceptives for elephants.”

“David Barrit, IFAW’s African director, defended the deal as …… IFAW was opposed to the Kruger Park cull, in particular, because of its extreme cruelty …. “ And that “IFAW has never accepted the so-called sustainable utilization of animals.”

Following these deals “Eugene Lapointe, the former secretary general of CITES, roundly criticized the move, saying the NPB had abdicated the sovereign rights of South Africa for a bowl of porridge.”

Notably, the article also states that “many conservation groups are asking hard questions about the deal. What is the long-term impact of elephant translocation as the carrying capacity is exceed (sic) in Kruger and other national parks which have received its elephants? Simply, where do all the elephants go? How are the needs of humans met if the Kruger expansion represent (sic) the first instalment of massive wildlife set-asides in Africa?”

Article entitled: “The Growing Influence of Overseas NGOs in Setting Government Policy in Kenya

Briefing Note “Wildlife Policy”July 4th 2007

RECENT TRENDS IN NGO ACTIVITIES IN KENYA”

“Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have a long and on the whole good record in Kenya, working alongside Government to assist in the implementation of policy and programmes, whether social, civic, governance, health, educational, development or conservation. There is hardly an area where international NGOs and their Kenyan counterparts have not been active, and while they have certainly on occasions been a thorn in the side of Government they have in general been supportive and complementary.

In these activities, the NGO community has followed more or less closely the "NGO Code of Conduct 1995", laid down in Legal Notice 306 . This Code of Conduct explicitly sets out how NGOs should behave and operate in Kenya.

More recently, some NGOs -- specifically the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and ActionAid -- have gone far beyond this normal remit and have become directly involved in formulating and setting Government policy in the sensitive areas of wildlife conservation, land use and land tenure.

In pursuit of their extreme animal rights agenda, IFAW and their local associates have taken control of Government policy making by undermining the National Steering Committee (NSC) which was set up by Government to review wildlife policy and law.

Kenya is a democracy, and it is the Parliamentarians who should decide policy not overseas NGOs with extremist minority agendas who do not have Kenya's real interests at heart. This is clearly demonstrated in the email from the Africa Network for Animal Welfare now triumphantly circulating world wide (Briefing Note #4).

This entire network of what superficially appears to be local animal welfare NGOs is in fact linked back to IFAW and to ActionAid who in turn tap into international donor funds and membership funds. This gives these overseas NGOs, and their local chapters, a completely inappropriate level of influence for they have the financial strength to simply overwhelm local Kenyan institutions.

The NGO Code of Conduct lacks guidelines on the involvement of NGOs in the policymaking process, undoubtedly because it was never considered to be their business. But there is no doubt that these two overseas NGOs in particular, along with their local counterparts, have crossed some previously undefined threshold and are now in serious breach of the spirit of the Code of Conduct, if not of the letter.

It is for this reason that IFAW has been banned from most African countries. The only countries now prepared to host an IFAW office are Kenya and South Africa.”

My interpretation of the facts may be wrong but I cannot help but see all the elements of “state capture” in the realm of elephant management in the KNP.

D. INTERACTION, OMISSIONS AND DENIALS

INTERACTION

A number of documents have been submitted to Dr Sam Ferreira and either copied or directly addressed to the Director (KNP), Head of Research and Head of Wildlife Management (Conservation). The last (Joubert 2017) also to Dr Izak Smit. The documents were Joubert (2010), Joubert (2015) and Joubert (2017).

With the exception of the last document, which received an acknowledgement of receipt from Danie Pienaar, no acknowledgement or discussion followed any of these submissions.

In May 2016 I mentioned to Glenn Philips that the senior research staff were paying no attention to my submissions, in particular the one of 2015. This prompted arrangements for a meeting with Danie Pienaar, Freek Venter, Izak Smit and Sam Ferreira. Some aspects of my submission were discussed, most significantly that it was not elephant calves that were dying but “weaners” and that the elephant census results represented a 30% undercount.

Whether my submissions regarding the revision of the KNP management plan received any consideration, is not clear. They do not feature anywhere in either the text or the list of references.

I did have a sincerely-appreciated one-on-one meeting with Danie Pienaar on 28 May 2018. A wide range of topics was discussed and Danie did shed light on a number of concerns.

OMISSIONS: THE “GLARING GAP”

Sam Ferreira and Rudi van Aarde make a big issue of the change in the approach towards the management of the KNP’s elephant population from a numbers-based “carrying capacity” approach to “an event driven” approach. Sam’s rhetoric on “carrying capacity” in the elephant management plan can be seriously challenged but is best left for now.

What is of greater concern is Sam Ferreira’s apparently total ignorance of how research and management developed in the KNP.
In its formative years the KNP faced grave problems involving competing interests on its borders. This necessitated the institution of a research unit, largely to find solutions for specific problems (carnivores, veld fires, diseases). The research effort had to contend with daunting challenges merely to establish a baseline on which to formulate management strategies.

The culling option was a logical option, amidst:

• a deep drought extending over many years and culminating in the critically severe drought of 1970/71,
• the steep increases in the populations of elephant, buffalo, wildebeest, zebra, impala and other plains game species, and
• the dwindling surface water resources (amongst others, the transformation of once perennial rivers, such as the Luvuhvu and Letaba, into
seasonal watercourses).

However, as it happened, with the exception of elephant and buffalo, the culling of all other species was terminated by the mid-1970’s.

This is where Ferreira seems to have lost track, until the 1990’s, of what transpired in the KNP. “In the 1990’s SANParks adopted an adaptive management approach and redefined the KNP objectives …. The new approach set Thresholds of Potential Concern as triggers for decision making and shifted using numbers to environmental indicators.”

Research and management programmes underwent some major changes during the “glaring gap” between the “interventionist” approach and the “adaptive management approach” of the 1990’s. The road to this decision came a long way and needs to be elaborated on.

In 1975 the Research Section altered its focus and adopted an all-inclusive ecosystem-orientated research programme. This approach was defined as: “a study and analysis of the ecosystem, with detailed consideration of the dynamic nature and interdependency of the individual components comprising the system, with a view to interpreting and predicting changes within the system and therefore also to serve as basis for the implementation (and evaluation) of management strategies as necessitated by circumstances” (Joubert 1975).

Furthermore, it was stated that “research is intended to enable an understanding of the natural processes regulating ecosystems and to allow managerial strategies, intended to sustain those natural processes, to be prescribed …… Only through a clear understanding and knowledge of the functioning of the natural ecosystem can the necessity for management be evaluated and, where necessary, be prescribed to endorse the intrinsic values of the area” (Joubert 1975).

In accordance with this philosophy it was also decided that a dedicated research officer would be appointed to study, monitor and prescribe management approaches applicable to all species that were subject to culling. Dr Anthony Hall-Martin was transferred to the KNP research team to accept responsibility for elephants.

During this period the need to monitor vegetation changes, in addition to refining the identification and recording of vegetation communities, was accepted as a priority. Fixed-point photography was initiated and shortly afterwards aerial photography.

During the early 1980’s the ecological management plan for the KNP was again revised. At this time the management philosophy was based on the ”concept of life”, where life, at all levels from unicellular to ecosystems, was defined as:
“The spontaneously dynamic symbiosis of interacting and interdependent systems, each having its own composition and structure, with the inherent capability of reproducing and perpetuating” (Joubert 1986, 2008). Within this philosophy and underpinning all management strategies the identification of composition, structure and function played a key role. Natural cycles were also identified as inherent in all natural functions, at all levels of life.

At this time the management of elephants was also reconsidered, as reported under Elephant Management Issues.

The acceptance of Thresholds of Potential Concern at the end of the 1990’s was little more than a mutation of what had developed from the mid-1970’s.
The Master Plan for the management of the Kruger National Park was accepted as official policy in 1986 by the National Parks Board.

What I find particularly strange is that there is no mention of the acceptance of an all-inclusive ecosystem approach towards research in the mid-1970s (Joubert 1975) nor any reference to the KNP management plan (Joubert 1986, 2008), neither in the text nor in the list of references.

DENIALS: INTERACTIONS WITH DR SAM FERREIRA

1. During the Big Elephant Debate of 2003 the unified stand of SANParks was that the management of the elephant population was essential in the overall interests of the ecological management of the Kruger National Park. Until a satisfactory alternative to culling could be found it would remain the major instrument in maintaining the desired number of elephants. Live translocations to areas requiring elephants were also part of the management strategy. This point of view was also sternly defended by the then Director of the Kruger National Park, Dr David Mabunda.

2. In circa 2008/2009 I was called into the office of Dr Mabunda, the then CEO of SANParks. In a firm and decisive statement, without allowing further debate, I was told that SANParks had made the appointment of an ecologist from the top “brains trust” of the University of Pretoria. This new staff member assured him that animals could not be censused in large conservation areas and that, consequently, no further censusing of elephants (or any other large animals) would take place. It was also conveyed to me that culling of elephants was no longer required. That was it, no further argument.


3. During March 2010 I was introduced to Ms Karen van Rooyen who had been appointed as head of the By-products Depot. During the course of our discussions she spontaneously told me that she had, on the previous day, attended a seminar given by Dr Sam Ferreira at the annual research meeting. During his paper Ferreira presented a slide of elephant bulls and asked the audience how many they could count. The unanimous answer was, say 5. No, said Ferreira, there were actually 9, the other three being highlighted under trees. The logical conclusion to this exercise: elephants could not be censused without considerable bias.

When confronted in an interview some time later Ferreira denied Ms van Rooyen’s version. However, having heard it from other sources and given Ms van Rooyen’s spontaneous reflection of Dr Ferreira’s seminar only a day before I have no reason to doubt her version. I fully accepted it [confirmed with Ms van Rooyen (082 333 8835), 15 September 2018].

4. During a visit to the northern areas of the Kruger Park in ????? my wife, her sister-in-law and I stopped at Babalala picnic site. While bird-watching the two women became involved in exchanging experiences with a group of ex-Honorary Rangers. The conversation turned to elephants and the ex-HR’s excitedly informed the ladies that they had attended a get-together arranged by the Park authorities to acknowledge the contributions of the HR’s. At the meeting Ferreira informed them that they had closed several waterholes which induced the elephants to travel larger distances between water resources and their grazing grounds. This led to a drop in the recruitment rate of the elephants due to increased deaths of the older cows and young calves.
On a number of occasions similar versions have been given by Ferreira. He denies them and, as reported with reference to an interview with Ms Glynis O’Hara (reported below) his denials are rejected.

5. In 2015 I submitted an article on the age structure of elephant breeding herds. No response to the submission was received. However, at a later stage I had a conversation with Ferreira, who had some problem with age determination and said that the University of Pretoria would be doing back measurements of elephants to determine accurate ages. At that stage I suggested that he arrange a 2 – 2.5 hour flight in a helicopter and I would point out the criteria by which I aged the elephants. However, he said he could not arrange the flight. I challenged that as he was the senior research officer responsible for large mammals, to which he rather bluntly responded that it was not possible. A senior research officer who could not arrange a flight to settle a difference regarding elephant age groups, especially important as he was making public statements that the elephant population growth had been arrested and reduced? His attitude was anything but convincing.

6. In, I believe 2016, I entered the annual “Joke of the Lowveld” golf tournament at Skukuza. Having entered for three competitions I was pleasantly surprised to find that Ferreira and I were drawn in the same four-ball for two competitions and were also to play in the same morning competition on the final day.

On the first day we agreed to meet after the game to discuss the elephant situation. After a few holes he approached me and said he had forgotten that he had a dentist appointment that afternoon. It was then agreed that we would have our meeting the next day as we were again playing together.

Starting the next morning we confirmed the agreement to meet after the game. In spite of the other members of the four-ball and I meeting after the game, Ferreira did not pitch. I waited, in vain, for most of the afternoon.

On the final day we, once again, agreed to meet after the game. Exactly the same as the previous occasion: Ferreira just did not make an appearance. Furthermore, at no stage has any form of explanation or apology been received.

7. On 22 November 2014 Glynis O’Hara published an article based on an interview she had had with Ferreira. However, in a discussion with Mr Danie Pienaar, head of research, Dr Freek Venter, head of Wildlife Management, Dr Izak Smit, senior research officer and Ferreira in May 2017, Ferreira first denied that he had made the statements reported by O’Hara, during the course of the discussion he further denied that he had given O’Hara an interview and, later in the same meeting, he denied that he even knew O’Hara. The same article is currently still on what appears to be a Conservation Action Trust website with a request for “republication”.

As in the other matters reported above, Ferreira’s denials are rejected with contempt.

8. From a reliable source it has also been learnt that Ferreira cancelled a meeting with important neighbouring landowners, concerned about their elephant populations, a day before the meeting. This, apparently, was ostensibly due to a mix-up of dates.

Why the denials and evasions?

SANParks, a state-owned entity within the national Department of the Environment, is mandated to manage national parks on behalf of the people of South Africa. The public are stakeholders and are entitled to submit contributions and/or request information related to the national parks.

The refuted denials by Sam Ferreira and inaccurate reporting are unacceptable from an official in public office and Dr Ferreira’s fitness for the post he occupies is questioned.


E. REFERENCES

Van Aarde, R.J. Undated. A collaborative publication with the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Van Aarde, RJ, IJ Whyte and SL Pimm. 1989. Culling and the dynamics of the Kruger National Park elephant population. AnimalConservation 2:287 – 294.
Asner, GP, SR Levick, T Kennedy-Bowdoin, DE Knapp, R Emerson, J Jacobson, MS Colgan and RE Martin. 2008. Large-scale impacts of herbivores on the structural diversity of African savannas. PNAS early edition (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0810637106).
Asner, GP, N Vaughn, IPJ Smit and S Levick. 2016. Ecosystem-scale effects of megafauna in African savannas. Ecography 39: 240 – 252.
Conservation Tribune, Special Edition 25 June 1996. International Wildlife Management Consortium.
Joubert, SCJ. 1975. Meesterplan vir die bestuur van die Nasionale Krugerwildtuin. KNP unpublished document
Joubert, SCJ. 1986. Master Plan for the Management of the Kruger National Park. National Parks Board, Unpublished document.
Joubert, SCJ. 2007. The Kruger National Park – a History. High Branching, Johannesburg.
Joubert, SCJ. 5 October 2010. Some comments on the management of elephants and related management issues in the Kruger National Park. KNP Unpublished document.

Joubert, SCJ. September 2015. Elephant breeding herd analyses, Kruger National Park. Unpublished document, submitted to KNP.
Joubert, SCJ. November 2015. Drought and the Kruger National Park. Unpublished document, submitted to KNP.
Joubert, SCJ. May 2017. Casual observations: (b) Destruction of Acacia nigrescens trees. Unpublished document, submitted to KNP.

Joubert, SCJ. 2017. KRUGER NATIONAL PARK ELEPHANT POPULATION,Current situation and management considerations. Unpublished document, submitted to KNP.
O’Hara, Glynis. 22 November 2014. Natural ruses rule out elephant culling in the Kruger National Park. (http://conservationaction.co.za/recent- ... elephants/
Robson, AS, MJ Trimble, A Purdon, KD Young-Overton, SL Pimm and RJ van Aarde. April 2017. Savanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected values. PLOS/one (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.prone.0175942).
Trollope, WSW, LA Trollope, HC Biggs, D Pienaar and ALF Potgieter. 1998. Long-term changes in the woody vegetation of the Kruger National Park, with special reference to the effects of elephants and fire. Koedoe 41/2: 103 – 112.
Whyte, IJ. 2007. Results of the 2006 and 2007 censuses of elephant and buffalo in the Kruger National Park. Scientific Report 06/2007. South African National Parks.
SAPA reporter (Sapa/str/gm/hdw/dd/jk/ks, 3 May 2013; OrigID: LP 145661)
Thomson, Ron. Pers com.
Van Aarde, R.J. Undated. A collaborative publication with the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Van Aarde, RJ, IJ Whyte and SL Pimm. 1989. Culling and the dynamics of the Kruger National Park elephant population. AnimalConservation 2:287 – 294.
Van Rooyen, Ms K. Pers com
Vanak, AT, G Shannon, M Thaker, B Page, R Grant and B Slotow. 2012. Biocomplexity in large tree mortality: interactions between elephant, fire and landscape in an African savanna. Ecography: 35: 315 – 321.
Van Wyk, P and N Fairall. 1969. The influence of the African elephant on the vegetation of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe 12: 66 – 75.
Viljoen, AJ. 1988. Long-term changes in the tree component of the vegetation in the Kruger National Park. Pp 310 – 315. In: MacDonald, LAW and RJM Crawford (eds). Long term data series relating to southern Africa’s renewable natural resources. Pretoria: CSIR: South African national Scientific Programmes report 157.
Whyte, IJ, HC Biggs, A Gaylard and LEO Braack. 1999. A new policy for the management of the Kruger National Park’s elephant population. Koedoe 42: 111 – 132.

ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT ISSUES - Edit.docx
(56.46 KiB) Downloaded 115 times


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

The above is hitherto unpublished but Dr Joubert gives permission. \O


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Lisbeth »

Posted without intervals, it's almost impossible to read. I'll try to correct it.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

:ty:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Lisbeth »

Most of it is all very old stuff :-?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Richprins »

No, not old stuff at all! :no:


Here is a 2012 pic of Roodewal Camp, interestingly. It was built around 1983. One can see that given the right conditions and freed from elephants, the trees grow very nicely compared to outside the fence:


Image
Last edited by Richprins on Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Elephant Numbers in Kruger

Post by Lisbeth »

Not because they are closer to the water? ;-)


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Post Reply

Return to “Elephant Management and Poaching”