Africa Wild

You have changed it Now I have to read it again

Good piece.

Is somebody from Africa Wild going to be present at the meeting on Saturday to present this? Is there going to be any representation at all? I am given to believe that Sanparks has not issued an agenda for this meeting so they can presumably discuss and tell whoever is present whatever they choose. If nobody is present and the opportunity not afforded a question and answer time during this meeting it will no doubt become yet another public relations exercise dictated by Sanparks and methinks that following that and should that be the status quo there will be no other recourse than to take some form of legal challenge route or this is simply going to go ahead unhindered like so many of the other things that Sanparks and the DEA have come up with!!!!!

Yes, Penny! Gump and I will be there.

Thanks RP.

I never use emoticons!!!! So this is to show my appreciation to both of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr Joubert, Ex Head of Kruger, agrees with this summation, and adds some further points:

Many thanks for the article on buffalo and hippo culling. Herewith a few comments which you may want to consider. They are, however, entirely “off the cuff” and not necessarily in any rational sequence. Nevertheless:



What I feel very strongly about is that SANParks have not provided any rational or principled motivation for culling and certainly no policy statement. Why not wait for this “culling” until after the public participation in the revision of the KNP management plan?



In adopting an ecosystem approach towards the management of the KNP it was the principled approach until at least 1994 that animal populations that were not subject to any artificial/unnatural disturbances be left to follow their course in harmony with the other ecosystem components.



In line with this approach there was every justification for managing the elephant population. Buffalo provided one exception to the principle: they are highly susceptible to droughts but also flourish under favourable conditions. This was dramatically illustrated from the end of the 1970/71 drought when their numbers dropped to 19 000 but, in spite of culling 19 782 between 1973 and 1980, increased to 34 912 by 1981. At that time it was calculated that, had culling not taken place, the population could have increased to roughly 70 000, or even more. Due to this situation it was considered prudent to retain the population, by way of culling, within more manageable numbers – primarily due to the negative impact large-scale die-offs would potentially have on tourists. At least it is documented that specific research was required to finally resolve this issue.



The KNP has asserted that their population was at 49 000 when the recent drought manifested itself. Given the buffalo’s performance during the 1970’s and even accepting that the interim period since 1992 was not as favourable as the 1970’s, I rather seriously doubt their figure (as I also seriously doubt their rhino and elephant population figures).



That the sudden necessity for culling may have had a political colour seems quite plausible, but so does the concern regarding the reaction of the public to the widespread die-offs.



Whatever the case, SANParks have not defined any rational principle or acceptable motivation for the culling and hence the public reaction!



As far as assistance to the neighbouring communities is concerned, I agree that “giving” them the proceeds of culling will only contribute to the culture of entitlement. Recall that a vast stretch of land on the western boundary of the KNP, north of the Letaba River, will form of a corridor for the benefit of the neighbours, and what about a 1% levy on entrance fees that go towards community infrastructure projects. And were the communities not also allowed to harvest Mopani worms at some stage?



I am not against support for the communities but believe it should be justified!



In a document submitted to KNP I challenged them to undertake elephant surveys after the drought (see attached document) to test their statements (not hypotheses!) that young calves and old cows would die during droughts and thereby stabilise the population (also see document of elephant population analyses). You can do whatever you like in Kruger – just do not touch an elephant!!



The questions at the end of your paper again largely revolves around “principles”. Principles and policies – and the public will have a much more understanding attitude.

Excellent to hear Dr.Joubert's inputs.