Africa Wild

Ja, you stay with commercial developments, professor!

Gump and myself are going, input needed!

Richprins wrote:Ja, you stay with commercial developments, professor!

Sometimes wish to see you on a skewer!!!, Boon the braaimaster!!

Interestingly, an elephant weighs about 4500 kg on average, thinking about a family group now.

While cattle etc will deliver maybe 50% of bodyweight in meat, elephant have heavy bones and a huge stomach space, and heavy skin, so will conservatively deliver maybe 1500 kg of usable meat on average each, which increases as the ellies get younger.

A healthy buffalo may weigh about 400 kg, taking herd average, so deliver 150-200 kg meat at the absolute best. So one ellie equals roughly 10 buffalo...

Experts?

I think the most urgent representation by us is regarding the disease impacts, potentially, of buffalo meat being distributed anywhere? This is a good excuse to stop the whole thing in its tracks, and communities will understand.

There have been no details, officially, as to how meat has actually been distributed so far, or events in that regard.

It is a potential threat to national food security, make no mistake, should untreated TB or Foot and mouth reach Gauteng or Mpumalanga Highveld cattle feedlots.

It is strange that nothing more has been revealed, but I suppose that they are waiting for the outcome of the Skukuza meeting..........if anybody will be able to attend seeing the road situation. Coming from the south as most will be doing, there should not be any difficulties, I think

Ja, we should be fine!

Ok, here is our submission for the culling meeting this weekend:

Comments on Culling in Kruger
13 March 2017

Our greatest concern about the culling of buffalo and sale/distribution of said meat is that it poses an immense potential threat to national food security, in these perilous economic times. While promises may be made regarding strict veterinary inspection of distributed products, it is our experience that management oversight and culpability in South African parastatals is questionable at best, and open to malfeasance, corruption, manipulation and political interference at worst.

It is entirely plausible that the distribution system may lead to an overnight transfer of meat infected with bovine tuberculosis, foot and mouth disease, corridor disease, anthrax and/or others to domestic cattle herds in the Mpumalanga highveld and Gauteng, or further afield, as unauthorised or insufficiently sterilised products leave the Lowveld.

While these diseases are endemic to the Lowveld, domestic animals are very vulnerable to them, especially untreated herds and the huge foodlots in the abovementioned areas.

This process requires immense scientific study, preparation, proactive information releases, and, especially, transparent monthly monitoring and reporting by both national and independent veterinary authorities and agricultural bodies, before any firm decision can be taken regarding the future. It is not possible to make ad hoc decisions in this case, as the repercussions may far exceed any short-term benefits.

Secondly, we believe the decision to distribute conservation-asset meat, which is what it is as Kruger belongs to the entire South African public, not SANParks, is political in both design and intent. The initial justification for this venture as being drought-related has been proved to be questionable in terms of natural and scientific principles relating to long-term selective interference, simply letting nature take its course, as repeatedly stated by SANParks officials when the drought began. The subsequent redirection of culling to feed settlements, regardless of the ended drought, is alarming given the timeframe of a few months, and creates many questions regarding management planning and motivation, and confusion amongst scientists and the public alike.
This about-turn warrants close investigation and concern, given the fact that Kruger Park has never been mandated to provide emergency sustenance to communities by a board of directors of SANParks. This particular directive appears to have come from national government, prior to local elections in 2016, and Kruger should stand up and state that it is not their job, bluntly, as there are other government departments with immense budgets that are tasked with rural upliftment.
In this light we query the SANParks strategy of community benification and sustainable utilisation and commercialisation that has, it seems, taken priority over the conservation mandate given to the organisation over many decades, if not a century. This implementation strategy has not borne public scrutiny, and the next 10 year developement plan will be the first to invite said scrutiny, but only later this year.

In simple economic terms, Kruger has done more than required concerning the upliftment of communities and regarding employment within and outside the Park, and provides an almost incalculable amount of revenue, especially from international tourism, benefiting both local and national economies. It is a free source of income in these troubled times, requiring little annual financial input, yet reaping massive rewards monetarily.

Local communities are generally perfectly aware of the benefits created by Kruger, despite the opposite perception patronisingly perpetuated by government and SANParks without significant research being undertaken to prove the point. The culture of entitlement is not as prevalent as in the rest of SA, but political promises are part of a fertile breeding ground of desperation in these areas which descend increasingly into squalor due to various factors beyond Kruger’s control.

To put it simply, National Parks cannot be held to ransom by the populace of the countries that have created them. Should the political agendas of the day indicate otherwise, then surely these Parks must be deproclaimed, according to that logic?

The culling cannot be regarded as separate from the greater strategy, unfortunately, as it is patently part of a general shift in ethos and management planning that includes a plethora of new developments that have taken place over the last few years in Kruger. The mere fact that in this case, serious public involvement is only now taking place, after the deed and subsequent outcry, signifies that this question has not been properly thought out.

Thirdly, on a simply scientific level, there is a glaring contrast between the culling of hippo and buffalo, both species of which have a negligible long-term impact on the ecosystem, versus the lack of intent to cull elephant (which provide on average a tenfold supply of meat compared to the abovementioned species) and have an absolute impact on the ecosystem, regardless of drought, which scarcely affects them in the short term.

If SANParks were indeed to intend supplying communities with a sustainable source of protein, this ommission surely contradicts the principle, and negates all moral basis for an apparently selective removal of convenient species? Starving buffalo and hippo provide very little meat, which is perhaps why the culling project has been extended?

Fourthly, we have some practical questions:
1. What number of buffalo and hippo is planned to be culled in future?
2. From what budget will the financing of this operation come?
3. Will tenders be allocated for any part of the process?
4. How are the animals killed?
5. Who bears responsibility should a member of the public become ill through ingesting or having contact with the meat?

To conclude, the following:

Kruger is a South African and International heritage. It has been presided over by many governments, which come and go, but remains strong for now. That could change very quickly. We cannot let our children and grandchildren be deprived of this asset due to short-term philosophies and agendas that may lead to catastrophe. Should gradual or quick catastrophe occur, other market players and countries will take advantage of that, and the communities will be in a far more dire situation than they are now, and forever regret the lack of preventative action displayed by all stakeholders at this moment in time.

The Africa Wild Committee
info@sagr.co.za

Comments? Going to press tomorrow!