Hans-Georg,
I appreciate your idealism and I too would love to see vast preserves where
a natural balance can occur.
Africa however belongs to the Africans and they have concerns other than
nature preserves, such as agriculture, industry and politics. They will
decide what land will be set aside for the use of elephants.
In prehistoric Africa elephants wandered in very long migration paths. This
enabled them to keep moving and prevented over use of any specific area.
Obviously something controlled their population over time. I certainly
don't know the mechanism, whether it was drought, disease or some other
factor such as natural reproduction limitations. It does not appear that
predation was a significant factor.
Now elephant are confined to areas that are much smaller than their original
natural ranges. Relatively small areas have been set aside to preserve
samples of Africa as it was. Certainly these small areas could be left to
develop an ecological balance, but that balance would not be the same that
developed when animals that shape the environment, to the extent that
elephants do, could range over much larger areas.
That brings the dilemma, do we want these parks to preserve the old Africa
or do we want to develop a new ecology that is formed by an interaction of
the new range limitations and the old native species. Unlimited elephants
in small areas that would likely lead to more open savannah grasslands with
scattered trees and the disappearance of naturally occurring animals that
depend on more dense forests. That may not be the ecosystem the park was
established to protect. If we want to see the natural ecology, we may have
to manage some of the major factors that shape it, and that includes
elephant.
Unfortunately, man has not proven to be very good at managing natural
environments (or unnatural environments for that matter), but management
techniques are improving. An example of this is fire that has traditionally
been suppressed in parks. The lack of fire has then led to unintended
changes in ecotypes. However, we do learn and if you now go to parks such
as Kruger in Africa or Banff in America you will see areas where fire has
been allowed to occur and the natural fire formed environment allowed to
re-establish itself.
There are many experienced biologists, ecologists and other specialists that
work on maintaining parks. The best of these people combine the knowledge
gained through modern science with the native knowledge of aboriginal
populations to manage parks to meet the objectives for which the parks were
established. If these well trained people say elephant populations have to
be controlled, I believe them.
I am sorry you feel this is nonsense, but the people charged with managing
the natural parks seem to feel it is necessary. I am certain that they have
much more knowledge of the subject than either you or I.
Scott
"Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message
news:vvkco09kgbjpoih2413c832jvldhrp15mj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:44:52 GMT, "Scott Elliot"
> <19elliot46@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Fences are not going to help with the problem of over-population of
>>elephants destroying the environment.
>>
>>When I was in Hwange, Zimbabwe several years ago I saw a few areas that
>>looked like they had been subjected to intensive bombing. The elephants
>>had
>>knocked down just about every standing tree.
>
> Scott,
>
> this has to be sheer nonsense, because the elephants have been
> there for millions of years. They were there before humans
> existed.
>
> Elephants certainly shape their environment to some extent, but
> there is a balance of nature which even they cannot topple.
>
> What you have seen is not the product of just the elephants.
> They do contribute to it, but I can blindly put a bet on things
> being much more complex than what you are trying to describe.
>
>>It is no longer possible to let elephants just wander wherever they want
>>on
>>the African continent so they will be confined to parks and preserves. In
>>the long term it will then be necessary to control populations if we don't
>>want the more cruel option of self control by starvation when the
>>population
>>exceeds the carrying capacity of those areas.
>
> The population can never exceed the carrying capacity for long,
> obviously. But it takes a second thought to understand this.
>
> The "cruel option of self-control by starvation" is another
> myth, sometimes put forward by culling proponents. The truth is
> a bit more refined. Elephants do not breed when they starve.
> They already have their own birth control and had it also before
> humans existed.
>
> Even other species, that do control their numbers partly by
> starvation (like lions), do not constantly look starved. The
> reason is that animals starve and die only during the worst
> draughts (or during the worst wet seasons for some predators
> like, again, lions). Most of the times are good for them, so
> they usually look and are healthy and reasonably or even well
> fed.
>
> The real problem is different. It is that many of us do not want
> untouched, primeval nature. (Though I do.) Many of us want
> managed nature, beautiful lush, green parks with a few beautiful
> picture-book elephants. And we want them to stay within their
> shrinking gardens, away from the fields of the ever-expanding
> human settlements. This, of course, can only be achieved through
> constant human "management". More precisely, through killing
> elephants.
>
> I personally have a very different attitude. I would like to
> keep large areas entirely untouched and leave them to nature.
> Humans should be able to visit these areas, but only if they
> leave them essentially untouched. But of course most people will
> not listen to me or to others who think the same way. But the
> least I can do is uncover the lies and misinformation due to
> lack of understanding.
>
> I will not even to try to go into the question whether elephants
> are sentient beings, and whether it would therefore be immoral
> to kill them.
>
> Hans-Georg
|
