Elephant Numbers in South Africa

[Richprins]

The Kruger Controversy – PART III
April 14, 2020 Ron Thomson
Mis-Management of the Kruger National Park

Elephant Population Management:

A Tale of Two Countries.

South Africa cf. Zimbabwe

When debating the elephant management issue in South Africa – or in any other country in southern Africa for that matter – the reader must determine just WHAT the purpose of a national park is because THAT purpose is what must guide our intellect, and our intimate and responsible thought processes. I have always been led to believe – going back more than 60 years – that the primary purpose of a national park is to maintain its endemic species diversity; and to protect the natural landscapes. All the literature will tell you that that was certainly the reason why Kruger National Park (KNP) in South Africa was created; and throughout the developmental journey it has been regularly stated that every living organism in KNP should be treated with equal reverence. No one species (of plant or animal) should be considered greater than the whole; or, individually, more important any other.

The simple purpose of the parliamentary mandate handed down to SANParks many moons ago – ‘to maintain species diversity’ – therefore, clarifies parliament’s intentions with regard to how SANParks should manage living resources within South Africa’s national parks and wildlife estate; and it provides the direction I am trying to define. The idea is intrinsically holistic. It tells us that KNPs various parts are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.

The parliamentary mandate, therefore, is simple; its intentions are good; it covers all eventualities; and it can only be misconstrued with a great deal of pernicious mischief.

In August 2004, Dr Graham Child, former Director of the Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, wrote (ZimConservation Opinion 1:1-6):

Zimbabwe has a population of 100 000 elephants in habitats that can support about half that number. This does not indicate successful conservation, but failure of the conservation authority to preserve natural values. By not fulfilling its mandate the authority is guilty of allowing elephants to prejudice their habitats, those of other animals and the nation’s biological diversity. It also encourages local destruction of the country’s long-term ecological productivity. Put differently, mismanagement of over abundant elephant is a serious danger to the human environment and to wildlife and its habitats, including healthy elephant populations.

No species, other than man, can modify habitats as rapidly and extensively as elephant. As dominant herbivores, elephant damage has a cascading effect through the ecosystem, affecting many sympatric plants and animals. Commonly, ecosystems are simplified with a loss of species and an impoverishment of the soil/water relationships, which is accentuated in ecologically sensitive sites or poor rainfall years. For example, a frequent manifestation of too many elephant is a loss of large trees and perennial grasses, leading to bush encroachment, a loss of sensitive grazing species like roan, sable and tsessebe, and their replacement by thickets and increased numbers of impala and kudu. The process is often accompanied by soil capping, reduced infiltration and increased run off of rainwater, leading to accelerated soil erosion.

Veld degradation, including that caused by elephant, obeys two principles. Firstly, it is not a uniform process, but proceeds past a series of critical thresholds over which recovery is, at best, problematical. If recovery occurs naturally, or can be induced, it may take hundreds of years, or cost many times the market value of the land. Secondly, recovery is more rapid in successively higher trophic levels of the ecosystem, making it ecologically and economically preferable to deal with an over-abundance of herbivores.

The recently late Dr Graham Child was one of Africa’s foremost elephant management experts. He created a circle of equally competent scientists around him: including Dr David Cumming, Dr Rowan Martin, Vernon Booth and others, who share their understanding of man-dominated elephant management principles.

The current KNP scientific elephant management regime (circa 2007/8) – consequent upon it having implemented its no-intervention-by-man Landscape Management programme (beginning 1994) – has announced that ‘there is no point in trying to census elephants’ (because, it says, ‘it is not possible to do so accurately’). This means that whatever these KNP scientists say about the current size of KNP’s elephant population, it is just a personal preference guesstimate. They also ‘give the assertion’ (without proof or guarantees) that the elephant population will ‘stabilise at a certain density and perpetuate itself in harmony with its environment’. And finally, they state that ‘culling will not be reinstated as the park can accommodate a much larger population (of elephants)’ – which statement was again provided without any kind of corroborating support. And they make no comment about the likely concomitant and massive loss of species diversity consequent upon the application of this very unconventional ideology.

The current KNP scientific regime is claiming that that level of desired homeostasis has now been achieved – which they say is why the elephant population has stopped expanding. How can they say that when no recent counting has taken place?

South African society, therefore, has every reason to be concerned when the current scientists in KNP are seen to be working within wildlife management parameters that highly experienced elephant managers strongly reject; and when the red-flag signals attached thereto are abundantly obvious.

There is a general public belief that African elephants are a dying breed and that the species will soon be extinct. The general public’s reaction to this myth – grossly overstated by the animal rightists in their propaganda – is to demand the closure of all lethal elephant management activities: no population reduction; no culling, no hunting, no trade in ivory, and no capture and removal of individuals. In other words, they want nature in a national park to be left to its own devices. Blaming man-induced elephant deaths/reductions to be the reason for (imagined) elephant population declines, however, is also a myth.

Consider these figures (by Cummings). Zimbabwe’s elephant population in 1900 – throughout the whole country – was estimated to be 4 000. By 1930 this figure had grown to 10 000 – at which time, the national herd entered a phase of exponential growth. By 1940 the number was 17 000 and by 1950, 25 000. Furthermore, in spite of removing 46 775 elephants between 1960 and 1991, the national population grew to 76 000 head (G. Child 1995). And it exceeded 100 000 in 2003. The increase in elephant numbers is attributable mainly to population growth which has been measured at between 5% and 7% in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Vernon Booth (1989) records the numbers of elephants killed in Zimbabwe between 1960 and 1988, mostly on culling operations, at 44 500. Despite this large number, the overall population estimate grew from 32 700 in 1960 to 51 097 in 1988. And while Graham Child was Director of Zimbabwe’s Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (1971-1986), 30 529 elephants were killed, mostly on culls, and the countrywide population grew from 44 109 to 52 583.

Child commented: Clearly, we were taking too little action, too late, to curb population growth and habitat destruction; and he said that ‘the Department’ was sensitive to the political repercussions of over-culling a charismatic species like elephant and (the department) had no measure of what constituted a ‘safe density’ for the species (i.e. it had no idea what the elephant carrying capacity was) .

NB: My own records indicate that (in 1960) the Zimbabwe National Parks’ Board – noting that 3 500 elephants were definitely too many for Hwange National Park to carry sustainably (because of continuing habitat damage) – judged that the probable carrying capacity was more likely to be 2500. This equates to about one elephant per five square kilometres or one elephant per two square miles.

And within the body of this extended article, I have presented an argument which supports the view that the sustainable elephant carrying capacity for the Kruger habitats is 3500 (calculated at a time when the habitats were still healthy – 1955). This equates to one elephant per six sq. kilometres.

The important conclusion we should draw from these figures is that the calculated elephant carrying capacities for both these important wildlife sanctuaries – although very similar – are infinitely less than anybody has every suggested in the past. And THAT is probably where all our ‘mistakes’ have originated. We have all erroneously assumed that the elephant carrying capacities of our national parks are far greater than is actually the case.

The official attitudes towards elephant management controversies in these sister organisations (in Zimbabwe and in South Africa) is profound.

A Zimbabwean excerpt: In spite of removing 4000 elephants in three years, the population index increased by 2 650 head. We, therefore, had to increase the rate of take-off to reduce elephant pressures on habitats and to conserve biological diversity (Child). He then goes on to say: “Clearly, controlling elephant (numbers) was a major priority and had greater importance to conserving biological diversity than trying to obtain better protection of the country’s ecotypes. To be true to its mandate the Department had to intensify elephant culling.

Child goes on to say “Off-takes were increased to between 3 019 and 5 339 in 1983 through 1986 (my last year as Director). Removal of 17 845 elephant reduced the countrywide population index to 51 097. By then it was obvious that Zimbabwe could not support more than 50 000 elephant and a more modest population was safer. I therefore believed we had to reduce the countrywide population by a further 5 000 to bring it down to 50 000 head. Thereafter, we would have had to cull around 2 500 elephant each year, while monitoring elephant/habitat relationships and watching for in-migration.

After my retirement at the end of 1986 (Child goes on to say), culling is reported by Martin and his co-workers in the Department’s Terrestrial Ecology Branch. The data suggests that annual culls after 1986 were never adequate to curb population growth. Some 1 525 and 2 861 animals were removed in 1987 and 1988. Thereafter, the countrywide off-take of elephant for all purposes, including recreational hunting and problem animal control, was between 403 and 624 head. The national herd rebounded and grew to 75 000 animals in 1992, and 100 000 a decade later, but no further culling took place. The department was (thereby) giving a clear signal that it had abandoned its mandate to conserve biological diversity. This is something that KNP has done too.

Looking at the KNP scenario as in an open book, we have:

An elephant population the numbers of which (in 2020) change according to who is making the assessment. Ferreira and van Aarde, for example, state the number is now static at 15 000 to 17 500. Joubert claims the figure cannot be less than 32 000. Thomson aligns himself with Joubert. Who should the reader believe?
Thomson claims the KNP’s sustainable elephant carrying capacity is 3500 (when the habitats were healthy – circa 1955). Thomson claims Hwange’s elephant carrying capacity was probably 2500 in 1960 (when the habitat was reasonably healthy).
The KNP habitat (AND the Hwange habitat) – for the last 50 years – has been trashed by far too many elephants (Generally accepted scientific statements).
A situation where ‘more than 95 percent’ of KNPs Top Canopy Trees have been eliminated (ref. KNP scientists)
A situation where the understory habitats in all former deciduous woodland habitats have been totally exterminated (Thomson);
A situation where an excessive number of elephants, over far too long a period of time, have stripped the habitats of all edible plants within elephant-walking-distance of permanent water during the dry season (Thomson).
A situation where all ‘lesser’ animals (lesser, that is, than elephants) are unable to walk the prestigious distances that the elephants are required to walk every day during the dry season, between water and food, and back to the water again. These lesser animals, therefore, have to scratch-out a survival by ‘somehow’ continuing to exist in the foodless (desert) zone that the elephants have created within elephant-walking-distance from dry season water. These lesser animals HAVE to stick close to the water or they will die of thirst; yet all food plants that were once available within a reasonable walking distance of the water during the dry season, have been long ago eaten to extinction. The focal zones of all wild animal home ranges in KNP, therefore, are nothing less than barren and foodless slums. (Thomson).
So, for the duration of the life-spans of those elephants that are alive in KNP today (max 60 years) the elephant, as a species, will likely cling onto survival. But for all the other species, they are slowly dying out – and one really severe drought will knock them all out completely (Thomson). This reality, however, doesn’t seem to bother the KNP scientists, just so long as the elephants of Kruger are not stood up against a wall and shot by man.
And all the while consideration of our vitally important conservation priorities – the soil, the plants, and our animal species diversity – is being sacrificed on an alter that has been created and erected by the animal rights brigade, to safeguard the new God in their lives, the African Elephant.
The elephants in KNP have already extirpated the kind of habitats (thicket vegetation) that Black Rhino’s require to survive; and in which black rhino mothers require to hide their babies in at night, from spotted hyenas – when the mother rhinos go down to the waterholes, alone, to drink. The black rhino, therefore, will soon be unable to rear their babies, and the species will become extinct in KNP without a single poacher’s bullet being fired.

Few people understand the ecological havoc that the elephants have already caused by eliminating ‘more than 95 percent’ of KNP’s Top Canopy Trees. All animal species exist because they are adapted to the particular kinds of habitat that occur in the sanctuaries where they live. If those habitats are extirpated – as they are being destroyed in KNP – therefore, the animal species that are adapted to them will die out, too.

Certain dominant botanical features characterise the more important habitats – features such as the nature and the size of Top Canopy Trees. So, when a major habitat in a game reserve (like KNP’s deciduous woodland habitat) loses ‘more than’ 95 percent of its Top Canopy Trees, you must understand that several major habitats have already disappeared; and that many animal species have already been rendered extinct, too.

CONCLUSION: This three-part article has exposed readers to two official ‘attitudes’ towards the scientific management of the African elephant; and to the scientific management of our national parks. The one, the old Zimbabwe example, focusses public attention on the loss of species diversity when elephant numbers are not maintained at levels that are at, or below, their habitat’s elephant carrying capacity. The other, the South African example, gives readers a glimpse into how deserts, with very limited species diversity, are being created right under our noses.

The author will be forwarding copies of this article to the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries with the request that an official Commission of Inquiry be conducted into the wildlife management practices of SANParks in Kruger National Park.

Ron Thomson CEO – TGA

[Richprins]

the primary purpose of a national park is to maintain its endemic species diversity; and to protect the natural landscapes

This is the International bottom-line.

There are indeed two camps regarding the pros of culling, and the dealbreaker will be the apparently non-event of a formal elephant census in Kruger.

This is the Eskom approach to wildlife management in action, IMO.

[Lisbeth]

[Lisbeth]

Spotting elephants from space

Posted on January 11, 2021 by Team Africa Geographic in the DECODING SCIENCE post series.



An accurate estimate of a species population is an essential starting point for conservation efforts and shapes everything from on-the-ground activities to policy decisions and legal protection measures. Nevertheless, attaining and updating these population estimates can be complicated, and scientists are always working on new ways to improve the process. Researchers from the University of Oxford Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) and Machine Learning Research Group have found a new way to use technology to count elephants – using satellites to spot elephants from space.

Monitoring elephant numbers in Africa is vital, especially since their numbers have been decimated over the past century due to poaching, habitat fragmentation and uncontrolled trophy hunting of large-tusked individuals. Researchers use several different techniques to count elephants depending on the size and logistical realities of an area, including dung and track counts, camera trap grids and aerial surveys. However, all of the current methods are usually time-consuming, labour-intensive, and prohibitively expensive, where large scale aerial surveys are concerned. All of the traditional techniques are also subject to considerable human bias and, potentially, fatigue.



Satellite remote sensing is one of the newest approaches to emerge as a viable monitoring technique in detecting wildlife and has been used in previous research to detect animals in homogenous landscapes and seascapes. It offers several advantages, including the capacity to cover a large area in a short space of time, allowing for regular reassessments. This also reduces the risk of double-counting animals that may move during a count. Furthermore, it removes the risk of human disturbance of the animal entirely.

Both practically and politically, satellite remote sensing can also render previously inaccessible areas accessible and avoids the complex and time-consuming process of applying for permits. It is, however, influenced by the size of the animal and the type of habitat.

The satellites generate enormous quantities of imagery that require processing. If this were to be done manually, it would take researchers months to work through the data and pick out individual elephants. However, through automating the detection process, the process can be completed in a matter of hours.

Biologists have been using machine learning to detect wildlife in several different images, including camera trap images, aerial survey images and unmanned aerial vehicle images. However, before this study, only three species had been detected by satellite using deep learning (an artificial intelligence function that mimics the human brain): albatross, whales, and pack-ice seals.


Individual elephants highlighted by yellow squares demonstrate just how tricky it can be to distinguish them from surrounding vegetation

The study was conducted in Addo Elephant National Park in South Africa and to test the technology, the research team used a training image dataset of 1125 elephants. These images were sourced from the highest resolution satellite imagery currently available – Worldview 3 from Maxar Technologies – and fed into a Convolutional Neural Network (a type of deep learning algorithm). The results were compared to human analysis and confirmed that elephants could be detected in satellite imagery with an accuracy equal to human detection capabilities.

While previous studies have primarily focussed on marine species due to their inaccessibility, the results of this research indicate that it is possible to teach a machine to automatically detect elephants in satellite imagery, in both homogenous and complex heterogeneous habitats. The authors of the study believe that these conservation technologies will open a new world of possibilities. This power, say the scientists, should be embraced as a matter of urgency as we barrel through the sixth mass extinction event in our planet’s history.


The technology was able to distinguish elephants in both woodland and open habitats

[Alf]

It’s amazing

[Klipspringer]

But the elephants in Addo are usually taller than the "woodland" there, don't think that this would work in Tembe

[Richprins]

Brilliant!

[Lisbeth]

THE MYTH OF “TOO MANY ELEPHANTS”


Ross Harvey - Business Live, 01.07.2024

If you’ve had a conversation with anyone recently returned from the Kruger National Park (KNP), you’re likely to hear: “It was lekker, but there are too many elephants! The damage to the trees is crazy.” The idea is often linked to thinking that suggests we should cull elephants as a ‘necessary evil’ to manage numbers, and that we should reopen a global trade in ivory. I’ve written at length on why the latter is a poor policy idea. But there are three major problems with the idea of “too many elephants” that need to be addressed.

First, the idea that reduced poaching has exploded elephant numbers feeds a myth that the Kruger’s “carrying capacity” has been exceeded and that “too many elephants” destroy big trees, especially knob thorn and marula. Incidentally, reduced poaching has had very little effect on population growth rates. But the myths persist because of historical thinking in conservation that idealises wild landscapes as static entities that must possess a certain unchanging proportion of beautiful old trees to other plants and animals. But wild landscapes are not farms that must strike a balance between marauding elephants and old trees. Wild landscapes the size of the Greater Kruger – now nearly 2.5 million hectares – require heterogeneous, dynamic impact, which renders concepts like “carrying capacity” obsolete. In other words, the space is technically large enough to allow elephant populations to increase naturally and engineer the landscape the way they are designed to.


By way of evidence, a 2022 scientific paper indicates that there has been no decrease in heterogeneity within the Kruger Park since the 1990s, despite elephant populations having grown at just over 4.1% per annum on average post-culling. There are approximately 30,000 elephants now and KNP management has not suggested that this is ‘too many’. A 2017 paper is similarly clear that elephants are important seed dispersal agents, able to carry seeds up to 65km away from the parent tree. They open thickets of invasive species and thin out trees that are too thickly concentrated. This creates habitats for a variety of other species to flourish. A 2019 review paper showed that “maintaining elephant numbers at a pre-determined carrying capacity level did not prevent the loss of large trees.” My conclusion on this paper at time was that “in large ecosystems, managing elephant numbers so they don’t exceed a certain threshold number is arbitrary”.


Evidence for the importance of heterogeneity undermines the usefulness of the ‘carrying capacity’ concept. Scientists Phyliss Lee, Keith Lindsay and Katarzyna Nowak say: “Much of the research community, and many managers, accept that ecosystem structure and function are not about elephant numbers but instead about elephant distribution across a landscape and in relation to plant communities.” Ian McDonald, similarly, has written that the idea of carrying capacity derived from an outdated Hwange Game Reserve management policy that had no scientific basis. Good management is, then, ultimately about dispersion and concentration. A high density of elephants in one area may result in some aesthetically undesirable impacts, but these are largely temporary.


It is true, however, that some vegetation in the Greater Kruger has been unduly affected. However, this is not because elephants are arbitrary tree destroyers. Elephant density has increased in the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), for instance, due to the high number of artificial waterholes. The elephant population within the APNR grew from 1,666 in 2012 to 3,144 in 2021. Inward migrations should be anticipated if artificial water sources are opened so that each fancy lodge can offer tourists their ‘own’ elephants. An abundance of artificial water sources also runs counter to the Kruger’s own strategy. To KNP management’s credit, their current elephant management strategy steers clear of controlling numbers and towards managing impact for maximum heterogeneity. A major strategy has been to close two thirds of the approximately 400 artificial waterpoints in order to manage the spatial distribution of elephants. The key point is that negative impact (where that actually occurs, not just where tourists perceive it occurs) is more a function of artificial waterpoint placement than of elephant density per se.


Moreover, tourist experiences of the Kruger Park are necessarily biased, as they can only see roughly 20% of the Park’s entire vegetation range from the roads. Roads themselves tend to increase the “encounter rate” between elephants and trees, a scientific way of saying that elephants whack trees that are closer to roads more than those further away. Tourist roads also tend to run along rivers and close to waterholes, which naturally maximise the game-viewing experience, but the resultant negative impact on trees is predictable and can be managed.


Second, the myth of “too many” supports the logic of ‘harvesting’ “excess”, which rationalises trophy hunting (and even culling) today. But the term “harvesting” dresses these interventions up as legitimate, scientific conservation tools. Worse, it provides sanitised language for culling. The truth is that culling elephants amounts to literal slaughter of families of sentient, long-lived beings. Elephants are so like humans in their mental and social capacities that it is highly subversive to liken them to inanimate crops that can be ‘harvested’.


Moreover, culling was implemented in the Kruger before the relationship between elephant density and large tree cover had been scientifically established. Ecologically, we now know that elephants start to disperse once they reach a certain density, and the population growth rate naturally starts to slow down. Ironically, culling prevents this threshold density being reached and caused abnormally high levels of population growth rates in Kruger; the population growth rate has since been successfully reduced (from above 6% to just above 4%) by the closure of two thirds of the artificial waterpoints.


What is clear from the culling debacle (where 14,629 elephants were slaughtered in South Africa alone between the 1960s and the 1990s) is that we destroy our own humanity by destroying elephants. For this reason, it is likely also “inhumane and illegal” under South African law. South Africa ended culling in the 1990s because it lacked scientific justification, generated international opprobrium, and caused long-lasting trauma both to orphaned elephants and to the human executioners. Or, in the words of a paper by Hennie Ltter: “We have a prima facie case not to kill elephants, as all humans have both a moral reason not to kill, as well as an absence of economic or survival reasons to kill.”


Third, the idea that there are “too many elephants” betrays an ignorance of the nature of elephants in maintaining healthy ecosystems. They are not just one modest component of a habitat – they often create that habitat, provided heterogeneity is maintained. Elephants are a ‘keystone’ species and their population health in the landscape positively affects the health of interconnected and dependent species. We should not be slaves to static subjective aesthetic preferences but instead committed to ensuring long-term, dynamic ecological sustainability. Putting elephants at the centre of that is scientifically and morally desirable.

Earlier this year, the government released an updated Biodiversity Economy Strategy, which envisages a massive revenue increase from trophy hunting (“harvesting”) of Big-5 animals. For the reasons outlined above, and others, this kind of policy thinking needs to be reversed.

Original source: https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opini ... elephants/

[Richprins]

Nope, this article is fanciful and full of opinions and discrepancies.

Kruger is not a truly wild place, it is fenced and its water inflow is human-dependant.

Secondly, Kruger has no real idea of how many elephant there are, nor how quickly they are increasing, as they are too lazy to do full censuses. Dr Joubert estimated 50 000 elephants two years ago, after actual scientific observations.

Thirdly, culling was undertaken after extensive research by highly-qualified scientists, while the same can not be said of current experimental policies.

[Lisbeth]

SANParks is concentrated too much on increasing the visitor numbers and spending too little time7money on conservation