Volunteer Programmes Latest News - Elephant Human Relations Aid

Ministry defends trophy hunting
Posted on: Wednesday 27th Aug @ 07:08 (-0700)
http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/August/national/082358C4EB.html Click on the link to read the latest update from the government. EHRA still remains firm on its position that the population in our region can not sustain any more bulls being shot.

Press Release written by Johannes Haasbroek
Posted on: Wednesday 20th Aug @ 04:15 (-0700)
PRESS RELEASE FROM ELEPHANT-HUMAN RELATIONS AID Six elephant trophy permits were issued recently for the Kunene region conservancies and to date five out of the six elephants have been shot. As we firmly believe the population cannot sustain this take off we have decided to issue a press release to clarify our position on this matter. Elephant-Human Relations Aid is a Namibian based Non-Governmental Organization, established in 2003 in the Southern Kunene Region, helping communal farmers in the region to deal with elephant-human conflict issues. We have been focusing on the main conflict area, which is the destruction of water-points and windmills by the resident herds of elephants. Since 2004 up until now we have constructed 60 protection walls around fragile water-infrastructures in the areas surrounding the Ugab and Huab River basins. This action has safeguarded the livelihoods of around 1200 people that live in areas traversed by desert elephants. In this period we have also completed +-500 patrol days in the field, establishing a photographic database and GPS movement study of every elephant that lives in, or traverses the area. This information is made readily available to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism on a regular basis. With the help of British Schools, we have spent over N$ 200 000 on upgrading A.Gariseb Primary School in the Sorris-Sorris area, where 220 children from the affected communities go to school. As a result of some of Namibia�s good conservation practices, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), recently issued Namibia a number of permits for the sale and export of trophy elephant bulls. This permit requires that for any export of a CITES listed species, a non-detriment finding (NDF) should be made that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species, which in the CITES context means any �species, subspecies, or geographically separate population� (Article 1 of the Convention). As the desert dwelling elephants of the Kunene region falls within this category, we would expect that the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) would have conducted such a study, before issuing the hunting permits to the various conservancies involved. This has not been done on any level that can be regarded as scientific. The killing and export of such trophies is therefore in contravention of the international convention and law the government subscribes to. Debates are raging about exactly how many of these elephants are actually roaming around in the desert, and how many of them can be regarded as �true desert elephants�. As to the numbers, EHRA have exact figures only for the Southwestern regions surrounding the Ugab and Huab basins. This area has six permanent breeding herds, with another four migrating temporarily into the area from the north and northeast. With an average of 6 breeding cows per herd, this leaves us with a minimum of 36 to a maximum 60 adult cows. The number of young non-breeding males varies from 6 to 12. At the start of last year there were five large bulls (trophy size) counted in the area, and at the start of this year only 3. After the latest hunting, one was shot in the Huab; so only two bulls are now left. There is still one more outstanding permit around the Ugab area that has not been issued as a result of leadership problems in the Sorris-Sorris conservancy. Once this bull has been killed, there will be only one large bull left. According to journals publish by the principal investigator for the Desert Elephant and Giraffe Trust, Dr. Keith Leggett, the Northwest (Hoanib and Hoarisib River basins) there is a total of 38 adult females and 16 adult males, with no clear indication on how many of them are trophy size. (Leggett, K.E.A. 2006, Home range and seasonal movement of elephants in the Kunene Region, Northwest Namibia). Although around 10 elephants had been collared in the Omusati area, between Etosha National park and the Northwest region, no exact data seems to be available on the numbers for the area. An incomplete and inconclusive aerial survey done in 2007 by the MET of the Northwest came up with an estimate of 365 elephants in total. Only one herd was found in the Ugab/Huab area, and four bulls in the Huab River. So exactly where the guestimate of up to 800 elephants originates is anybody�s guess. Definitely not from scientific research. Scientists works on all sorts of formulas and counting methods that often boggles the mind, and is left open for interpretation by those who have either a vested interest in higher or lower numbers. There also seems to be assumptions made on population growth rates, based on other African elephant populations, and researchers take previous accurate data, add these rates and come up with a hypothesis of where they should stand today. Well, in the Southwest we have recorded a negative growth rate, and an 80% calf mortality over the past 5 years. There are today less elephants in the Ugab/Huab basin than ten years ago. Why, we do not know. If you look at the dramatic decline in numbers during the poaching era of the 70�s and 80�s, (Owen-Smith (pers.com) reported that in the Hoarusib there were 80 individuals in the 1960�s, and after the shooting only 3 individuals remained in the poaching era) it could mean that the genetic stock has already been dramatically depleted, and has not recovered yet. In 1977, Visagie reported 82 elephants in Southern Kunene (Visagie, 1977), so if there are lower numbers in the same area today, how can we claim that numbers have risen to the 1960 figures? (Owen-Smith, 1970, 600-800, Northern Kunene). This points to an urgent need for a proper, and transparent census of the Kunene regions desert dwelling elephants, and understanding that this is a costly endeavor, EHRA offers to co-fund such a census, or do it independently. Coupled with this should be a genetic assessment of the whole population, where we can also assist in gathering the data needed. Up until such studies have been done CITES should revoke all trading permits, and the Government should stop issuing �problem animal� and trophy permits. From Sept 2006 to Sept 2007, 12 large bulls have been shot in the Kunene Region as �problem animals�. These are not bulls that have been positively identified as problems, but permits issued to merely placate pressure on the MET from surrounding communities. This off take, added to the trophy hunts, could have catastrophic affects on the desert elephant population. According to Dr. B. Fox, the recently retired Conservation Scientist for the MET, Northwest Region, working on an optimistic figure of 800 elephants left, the off take has already exceeded 4 to 7 times the sustainable figure in one year, without the addition of trophy animals. This eradication of large bulls has left a breeding ratio of one large bull to 30 cows in the Ugab/Huab, whereas the ideal ratio is around 1:10. Likely as a result of previous poaching, the desert dwelling elephants behave much more anti-socially than their savanna counterparts. In fact Dr. Leggett has recorded three distinctly different genetic groups in just 7 different herds in the Northwest. (Leggett, 2006). Making the distribution and communication amongst the scattered herds much more difficult. Elephants, very much like humans are totally dependant on memory and communication to assist them in becoming a mature elephant. All their actions are learned from their family unit and their environment (i.e. reactions to humans). This eventually builds up to what we can call an elephant culture. What makes the desert elephant so unique is this culture, which determines their relationship with their environment (there is by the way, no evidence that they differ physiologically from other elephants). They have known what other elephants all around Africa seem to have forgotten - to live in balance with their environment. Although major poaching in the 70�s and 80�s has decimated elephant populations all through Africa, we must not forget that in the slave trade period millions of adult elephants have been killed all round. The biggest consequence in my personal opinion, is that the current problem we have with elephants destroying their own environment, is not only a result of current land use issues, but as a result of a loss of culture through the eradication of the behavioral memory bank of the elephants. Why would an adult bull in Kenya push over an average of twenty trees a day and in ten years I have only seen it happen three times in the desert? They learn to do that. Perhaps there was no slave trade related hunting in the desert, so a small pool of elephants with ancient knowledge survived. So similar I think to the human loss of �ecological intelligence�. We have a lot to learn from them. The point is that mature elephants play an important social role well beyond breeding age, in transferring knowledge to the youngsters. Although within a herd, older cows mostly transfer that knowledge, the bulls are the ones that wander the furthest, and discover new resources. This knowledge is brought back to the herds. It was after all the big bull Voortrekker that first came down to the Ugab River. Only after a thorough assessment he went to fetch two herds. Younger post-adolescent bulls, already out of the influence of the Matriarchs, cause most problems at water points. These young delinquents are disciplined and taught by the older bulls, which also prevents them from breeding until they are responsible adults. Eradicating the bulls could lead to a social breakdown, and a massive loss of knowledge. This knowledge is needed to alleviate the pressure on resources. Lack thereof would leave the elephants vulnerable to change for example how to survive droughts (very few elephants died in the 82� drought that killed thousands of animals). Misuse of resources will only lead to more conflict with humans, more pressure on Government and more elephants being shot. This domino effect can head them to extinction faster than we can ever believe. It always surprises me that so many conservation scientists can look at these complex and intelligent creatures and think they can be treated like cattle, or just a �resource� to be utilized without studying or realizing the implications. We must assume that the Namibian government has done a cost-benefit analysis of such a radical decision. How otherwise to justify the effect it could have on tourism and public opinion in this country? The benefits are easy. The hunter is prepared to pay around N$ 280 000 (US$ 40 000) to kill the elephant (note: not hunt, you can walk to easily 10m from a large bull). From this, the conservancies earn around N$ 80 000 ( US$ 11 800, one permit per two conservancies, so N$ 40 000 each). The professional hunter/outfitter pockets a nice N$ 200 000 ( US$ 28 600). Government earns N$ 25 for the permit. ( US$ 3.60 ) If the trophy money and meat is distributed evenly amongst all members of the community, each individual stands to earn N$ 40 per person. ( US$ 5.70) On top of this about 1kg of elephant meat per person. (As a result of the Hunter not telling the community in time about the last elephant shot in the Huab, the meat was rotten by the time they received it). And the benefit of these same elephants alive? In the Ugab/Huab basins, where three of these permits have been issued, there are 8 tourism camps and lodges, all specializing in bringing tourists close to desert elephants. Amongst these lodges 263 people from the surrounding communities are employed. These people earn a total of N$ 3 787 200 per year ( US$ 541 029 ), directly from elephant-related tourism. This does not take into account that every one of these lodges/camps also has profit share agreements with the surrounding communities, earning on average 10% of the price paid for every tourist sleeping in a bed. In highly populated areas like the Northeast Caprivi regions, trophy hunting far outweighs revenue earned by tourism, and utilization of wildlife as a resource gives a lot of benefits to the people living under constant pressure of wildlife. Without this strategy, disgruntled community members could resolve to poaching and revenge killing, and we could witness the death of many more elephants. This does not however apply for low-density areas with tourism as the main income base, and conflict issues, like water point protection is much easier to resolve. And the cost of losing these bulls? From my previous statements, we have a fair idea of what it could mean for the elephant population. What it will cost in terms of tourism revenue lost we could never know. And when the last herds disappear from the area, and the lodges start closing down, how much revenue will be lost in an area where few other employment opportunities exist? So the question still begs, why have these permits been issued if the cost so far outweighs the benefits? And who will be held accountable when the realization kicks in that this decision could be to the detriment of the 6.6 billion per year tourism industry? I believe that the term �sustainable utilization� has become an overused catchphrase in conservation circles to hide political intent. Community members with political aspirations grossly over inflate the so-called �elephant-problem�, knowing full well that with enough pressure the government will eventually capitulate to their demands. Now the desert elephant has become a �resource� to be �utilized� as a political placebo. A resource that does not cost the government to directly have to dig into their coffers. Individuals within the communities that stand most to gain to delivering an elephant will automatically gain massive political kudos, so it stands to reason that they would pitch problems out of proportion. Can the Namibian government justify turning a national asset into a political pawn to gain support? Or should more funds be made available for proper research and the development of more non-consumptive Community Based Natural Resource Management? It is logical that people most affected by animal-human conflict should get benefits from having to live with this risk. The decision making on how those resources should be used should be in the hands of the people. A lot of groundbreaking work has been done by various NGO�s in Namibia to that effect, and should be built on. However, if all this good intent is hijacked by political manipulation, we also have a duty to bring this to the attention of the public, as this resource belongs to us all. It is in the interest of a lot of people dealing with community based natural resource management to see it work, and therefore turn a blind eye to obvious abuses taking place. There are also numerous success stories in CBNRM that should not be overlooked, and in some areas game numbers have increased. Some conservancies in the far northwest actually chose not to shoot offered trophy elephants. But if CBNRM becomes an empty vessel, driven by political intent, the system needs urgent revision, and ostrich attitudes from large conservation NGO�s will only assist the practice of abuse. With game numbers positively increasing in the far northwest of the Kunene region as a result of the work of organizations like IRDNC, in the southwest we have witnessed an unprecedented decline, bordering on slaughter. The quotas on all species far outstrip the available resource. And the professors of CBNRM are nowhere to be seen to witness this. Tourism is the second largest industry in the country, and should be cultivated as one of the only options for revenue earnings for marginalized communities when it comes to keystone species like desert elephants, rhinos, giraffes and lions. There are tried and tested ways to help communities cope with the conflict, water point protection walls just being one example. Large amounts of international donor funding is made available to assist this process, and it would be a shame if this funding gets withdrawn as a result of this sort of misuse of these valuable resources for political intent. Although I would not be a conservationist if I am not emotional about these issues, purely on an economical base, the issue of trophy animals and hunting of problem animals, does not make sense to the people actually living with the problem, or for the Namibian nation as a whole. In a day and age when we witness the consequence of the terrible mistakes made by our fathers on a global scale, could we afford to repeat their sins? There are not seven generations left to bear this consequence. Johannes Haasbroek Operations Director Elephant-Human Relations Aid Ugab River, Anna tree nr. 512516811420

Communications of Trophies
Posted on: Wednesday 13th Aug @ 01:46 (-0700)
Hello to everyone that has been privy to the conversation that has been happening whilst I had been out of communication range. Seeing that my so called "activism" has ruffled some feathers I feel I should state my case towards everyone that is interested in this debate. Therefore, I have attached a few documents to this in support, and also copied some mails written by Dr. K. Legett, and Dr M. Jacobson on this topic. Firstly, I fully agree with Keith's statement about the mentality of anyone that wishes to shoot a trophy elephant (note-shoot, not hunt. They don't need to be hunted). However, the ethics of trophy hunting is a debate of its own. Keith, I used your name as the only other possible accurate source for elephant numbers in the area and those where the figures I recall you claimed in a paper you produced. Therefore I would find it really beneficial to have information on exactly how many elephants you have on your books for your study area, we should share our information from this point on. EHRA runs a week long patrol every second week i have made identikits for every single elephant that operates in the southern Kunene region, so the figures I give the MET are exact. Your research states there are approximately 760 elephants in the Kunene region. It would help me to know how you collect accurate data which leads to these approximations. If you look at the attached census figures from the METs own sources, there are guesstimates of anything from around 200 up to Dr. Fox's highly optimistic best case scenario of 800. Even on such high numbers the 'off take' is unsustainable (she was, after all the METs research scientist for the area). I have not seen anyone in the southern Kunene doing any research for the past ten years and in the METs last attempt at an aerial survey of the area, they manged to find only one herd and four bulls (no ages given) so therefore, I can postulate that EHRA's research done over 500 days observing elephants in the last five years is accurate. There are less than 90 elephants in the Huab and Ugab rivers. Once this figure is added to your data, where does it leave us? I read your last research paper which was on the Internet and despite the GPS collared elephants proving otherwise you still state that 160 true desert elephants exist. This is clearly not the case. Like all other desert dwelling species, the elephants wander seasonally from the high rainfall areas, into the lower rainfall areas as water and vegetation decrease. The herds in the south have been recorded to travel annually through an east-west belt that is 210km wide (up to 18km from the coast) and 65km from north to south. 80% of their time is spent in the 50-100mm rainfall isohyet. Some of the individuals in herds in the south have been positively I.D as groups that migrated down from the Palmwag area. So what is a desert elephant? That is part of what makes them unique, as you have discovered. Bulls (and some herds) will travel vast distances, linking with Etosha ellies, and back into the true desert. This is part of the importance of the social and breeding habits of these elephants. The first elephants to enter the Ugab river were two large bulls. Only after investigating the area thoroughly did they leave to return with the herds in tow. If we eradicate this transfer of knowledge by eliminating the largest older animals (even if they are not active breeders anymore), we are endangering the species as a whole. They depend on this transfer of information to survive periods of drought and their unique behavior that prevents them from over-using their own resources. I truly believe, your understanding of the impact of these six hunting permits is mistaken. Three of the trophies are allocated to the conservancies surrounding the Ugab and Huab and in this area there are only three bulls left. The other three have been allocated to the conservancies in the area where you work and I would like to know how many trophy sized bulls there are? You have no data on the figures for the south(besides my research), so how can you claim the population can sustain the off take? Three bulls out of three, sustainable? If they repeat the annual "problem animal" off take of 12 animals last year? You know as well as I that the shooting of those bulls had nothing in the slightest to do with "problem animal control" as you call it. They where allocated as trophy animals as a result of community and political pressure. Wrong place at the right time. So never mind long term sustainability, short term it is catastrophic. And as to 3 individuals carrying 80% of the diversity? This cannot even be debated unless we actually know what the genetic makeup is. Given the extreme low the population has dropped to (82 elephants-Visagie 1977) it could well be that all these bulls are closely related as it is. As I have stated to the MET in my letter, we have had a 80% calf mortality in the Ugab/Sorris-Sorris area over the past five years and we have found hip defects in older cows that have died in the area. Some serious work first needs doing in this field before we can make any assumptions about genetic integrity. Your further statements about genes being passed on already, and therefore old bulls can be condemned to die, again surprise me from someone that has lived so close to them for so long. With the proved level of intelligence and dependence on the transfer of knowledge from generation to generation, older bulls and cows play a crucial role in elephant society way beyond their breeding age (only humans seem to share this social trait). So yes, I will venture to predict the future, as we can see it throughout Africa. The so called "elephant problem" seems to me to be a result of exactly this. For over 500 years the older elephants throughout Africa have been systematically wiped out. And with it ancient knowledge of how to behave in your environment. Somehow this unique population seems to have retained this culture and knowledge which is absent throughout Africa. Eradicate that knowledge, and coupled with the social trauma of hunting in such a small community and you will be left with aggressive fragmented herds, that will start applying more pressure to their environment, as they do not know any better. This will result in the depletion of their and the humans resources and therefore, more pressure to shoot them. So possible extinction is what I would predict. As to rebounding from a historic low from anything between 50 to your data of 270 in the late 70's (sources vary) where exactly do we stand now? We will differ as long as we have no facts for the whole region and how can any decisions on sustainability and/or genetic impact be made without facts? Should we not stand in union and insist on condemning such an action unless a thorough and transparent study has been made of this issue? The difficult pill is actually coming to the core of this issue. Firstly why this dung beetle syndrome in conservation circles in this country? Is it a dependency on government goodwill that makes everyone turn a blind eye? I am not a scientist with credentials behind my name. I just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time and realized nobody else is going to do something about the escalating problems in the south (and this was only after meeting the folks at IRDNC and SRT and Keith). I wanted and knew that I could help, my intention was just that - to help the people of the area and the elephants. Elephants to me are an amazing species, they inspire me and of course I care deeply about their welfare. However, I totally understand the problems my neighbours encounter, I understand their fears and the negative feelings towards co-habiting with herds of elephants. Again, knowledge on how to co-exist has been lost. Within this small area of Namibia, I have tried to make peaceful cohabitation possible, through simple solutions and I believe I have achieved this. However, these elephants encounter situations which will make them aggressive, for instance badly informed tourists who have 4x4 races through the Ugab or elephants being shot at through attempts to move them away from farms. I also believe it is not easy for the elephants, particularly of the Ugab river, to cohabit with the humans. However, t is possible and the Huab area is a brilliant example of how the elephants have injected an entire industry, with employment and other financial benefits into an area. The elephants are relaxed and the people have financial benefits. I set out from the start with two strong ideas in my mind. The first was not to ever become donation dependent and therefore having to work under the goodwill and mercy of political intent, and the second was that to be an effective organization, I have to fix the problem, and once that is achieved, EHRA should have no need to exist. This approach has given EHRA the ability to protect 60 farms in five years without allowing ourselves to be governed by political manipulation. This also makes people very nervous about us, as we cannot be boxed in. We do not eat out of the same pot, where everyone seems to not want to rock the boat in fear of losing their share of the pie to a competing organization. So not rocking the boat also entails not making information public, or giving an opinion if asked for one by a reporter already in the know? I would not need to be an "activist" if meetings about quotas had been held years ago or if I was asked for my opinion. For a long time I have also been very concerned about the drop in game numbers and what I have witnessed in the southern conservancies has been wholesale slaughter, not sustainable utilization. Very few, if any of the people that need it the most are getting any benefits from hunting, besides a few mouth fulls of meat, while on the other hand there is this fabulous increase in the wealth of those in charge. Can someone give me statistics of how much of the trophy hunting money in some of the more successful conservancies has gone directly towards elephant-human conflict? I dont think it is happening, as I still see external funding applications to the Game-Products Trust Fund and other politically attached sources from these same communities. We all want the conservancies to work and I am sure a certain amount of activism was needed in those years when it started, (I was not here, I have only been working in the region for 10 years, but maybe I would also look back in ten years in retrospect)but to me it seems that the issue of resource management has, like any other development projects around Africa, become another resource for government to manipulate with political intent. So if the killing of these bulls could lead to a massive outcry from the international community, potentially harming one of the largest contributors to the countries economy (tourism), could the government justify the cost-benefit of this action? We must assume that the sums have been made. In addition, the METs own scientists reason that killing them is not sustainable, but actually its far from it. Adding the research and observations of other NGO's that point to the same unsustainable conclusion, we have to wonder why. We have to ask ourselves then what is the intent of this decision? Government stands to make N$125 from the permit fees, so it cannot be money (the combined hunters will make around N$1.7 mil, the conservancies between N$360 000 and N$500 000 between 12 conservancies). This amount is less than our budget per year to build protection walls in one conservancy, so a mere drop in the communal bucket when it comes to human-wildlife mitigation measures. There must be some other reason behind this "once off" quota. In the south, as a result of our work, there are almost no elephant-human conflict reports, besides the tragic death of my neighbour (mainly as a result of MET officials shoot at other elephants a few kilometers away the previous day), the only fatality in ten years in the region. So for government to succumb to pure pressure for elephant meat and some small change to cover their losses, is not really the answer. It could however have to do with regional elections coming up and having a handy carrot at hand to deliver at the right moment. All under the overused scam of "sustainable utilization" and supported by those whose livelihoods depend on no one contesting such short sighted decision based on regional political gain? I think I would have to seriously rethink my mission as conservationist if I should try to justify this. Amazing work has been done towards community based conservation in Namibia and IRDNC is at the spearhead of all this. I fully realize that someone has to play the role of juggling political, communal and conservation needs and I know that the meeting point is in a very grey world indeed. I do not envy anyone in that position. Like a good friend said to me the other day, "there comes a day when you have to stand up and be counted for your deeds", even at the risk of your head getting chopped off. As predicted by Dr. Jacobsen, the MET has done an effective job by turning a blind eye to any criticism, and as far as I could find out, the hunters are already out there, and possibly one bull has been shot already. In my opinion we should call for a total ban on trophy hunting until a proper independent census has been done, including a genetic study. I now stand accused of publishing emotional material, that is clouding the issue at hand. This is actually the first public letter I have written and yes we do have emotions as well. In this day and age we look around us, and we realize that what we are doing is criminal, and I hope that people like Bush would one day be tried for crimes against humanity, purely based on the environmental consequences of his decisions. So where would we stand if we had to testify? Please feel free to contact me for more information. Johannes Haasbroek Operations Director Elephant-Human Relations Aid www.desertelephant.org Hi Mike, You know I wish Johannes wouldn't include my name in things until he asks me. I will preface everything I am about to say by saying that I think anyone who wants to shot an elephant has a small dick complex. Be this as it may, scientifically, the elephant population will not be seriously affected by the proposed hunting. We have a constant input of elephants from Etosha, the GPS collaring data shows this and while I would be more concerned if the offtake was set at a level that would upset the population balance, it wont. However, having stated this I am far more in favour of the letter written by Dr. Betsy Fox. Hunting will not have a serious effect on the elephant population, but the combination of elephant hunting and problem animal control, may, especially in areas where there is little input from overflow out of Etosha National Park, have a serious impact on male elephant populations. There are approximately 760 elephant in the Kunene Region, from the Ugab River in the south to the Kunene River in the north. It is true there are only about 160 elephants west of the 100mm rainfall isohyet, the true desert-dwelling elephants. The rest are the area to the east of this, where rainfall is higher and vegetation more plentiful. My understanding of the new quotas are that only one or two bulls will be shot in the western regions and 6 in the eastern (higher rainfall areas), both populations are capable of this offtake. The question remains as to whether they are sustainable long term and they are probably not. However, the MET has stated that this is a one-off quota and while this is always subject to political will, the quota will probably not be repeated for several years. The number of males in a population that is necessary for success growth and genetic integrity is a very difficult question. If you consider that 3 individuals from separate populations can carry up to 80% of the genetic diversity of a species. Added to this is the fact that you only need one male elephant for 10 females (even higher ratios have been suggested), so the proposed offtake will not effect the genetic integrity nor its population reproductive potential. What may occur is a skewering in the population age structure where younger males are the only ones left to breed, but even they are capable of breeding, there will simply not be the fierce competition for females that normally occurs in elephant male populations. This has some serious implication for the "best individual" passing on its genes to the next generation, however, I seriously doubt that there will be a decrease in tusk size and "fitness" in the short term (up to about 60 years) as the bigger tusked and stronger bulls have already passed on those genes to the next generations. Who can predict what will happen in the long term? At the moment the human population is on side, and the elephant population has rebounded from a low of approximately 270 elephants in the early 1980's to todays high. The numbers of elephants are at an historically high levels, approximating those of the 1960's, so it has taken a lot of support from communities, NGO's and Government to get them to this level. While it is a difficult pill for many conservationists to swallow, it is probably better to keep the good will of communities and Government then to risk isolation on this issue. If the locals once again turn to poaching either for profit or out of a genuine fear of elephants, there is nothing you can do about it and large numbers of elephants will die. Biologically speaking the population can probably handle the offtake, although I would like to see only specially selected elephants shot (those that are too old to reproduce and hang around doing nothing but eating). I do question the integrity of professional hunters in Namibia who are generally of pretty poor standard and have little experience hunting elephants. There have been several professional elephant hunts in the Kunene Region already and most have not gone particularly well. Okay, so there you have it, a few thoughts. While I think it is important to continue to monitor and research this population I cant honestly state that I think the current off-take levels and proposed quotas will detrimentally effect the population of elephants west of Etosha National Park. Cheers Keith From: Dr M Jacobsohn [mailto:mjacobsohn@mail.na] Sent: 01 August 2008 15:09 To: Mark Subject: Re: FW: Desert Elephants Namibia - URGENT!!!!! A great pity Joe did not talk to a few other NGOs working out there. He would have found that all share the same concerns about hunting desert elephants although his 'population data etc' is not right, to say the least aand making such errors weakens the case. Consensus of all CBNRM NGOs working in Kunene is that the NW eles are 1) more valuable to conservancies for tourism than trophies, 2) the bulls are a stablizing influence on herds and should therefore not be shot; and 3) they are still contributing the breeding and should therefore not be shot. If Joe had contacted others he would also have discovered that after much pressure MET had agreed to a 'quota meeting' in Windhoek, due to take place next week, assuming MET does not cancel after the media report. We had expected to be able to get some of the crucial changes effected then (including reducing some quotas of other animals, not just elephants, revising process quota setting plus re shoot and sell, and basically addressing a number of problems that have emerged as hunting has taken off at a far faster rate than was expected. We hope Joe's activism has not closed the METs ears. I did phone Joe's cell when I got this email but have not heard back from him and was told a few hours later the same day that his story was in the Namibian anyway. Activism is definitely needed at times but this time, in my opinion, it was premature. Feel free to pass this on to anyone concerned - cheers - mj Dr Margaret Jacobsohn IRDNC - Co-director Namibia From: Dr M Jacobsohn [mailto:mjacobsohn@mail.na] Sent: 02 August 2008 13:42 To: Mark Subject: Re: FW: Desert Elephants Namibia - URGENT!!!!! Yes, and of course Keith makes the point that eles are expanding and increasing, BECAUSE communities/conservancies are on side, even though there are complaints, understandably, when farmers suffer damage. Joe was not around in the bad days but he needs to read some Kunene conservation history and get some context. Hope the MET hunting workshop goes well on the 6th - Garth's going so we'll here all about it when he gets here the next day. Still hoping we'll see you on Sat - cheers - mj

The end of the road for the Namibian Desert dwelling elephants?
Posted on: Tuesday 12th Aug @ 02:07 (-0700)
When the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism decided to issue trophy hunting permits for six bulls in the conservancies north of the Brandberg, it was not only a death warrant for these bulls, but likely to all the desert elephant in the Kunene Region. Last year a local farmer was killed by an elephant cow behind the Brandberg in the Ugab River. How can the terrifying way she followed him onto a rocky outcrop, and the gruesome way in which he was torn apart be explained? It is rumored that he had a rifle, and has previously wounded an elephant. Or could it be because local conservation officers had shot at some young bulls the previous day, not far away from the herd with their new-born baby? It may even be because the herd�s matriarch was killed in this area a few years ago? The farmer�s tragic death was the first fatal casualty in the area, but seemed to have triggered the decision by the Ministry. Obviously it does not suit those with a stake in the hunting of elephants to blame the killing on a cow. Foreign trophy hunters are not prepared to pay US$ 28 000 to hunt an elephant cow. If the permit is issued for a bull, the conservancy stands to get N$ 60 000 and a lot of meat for the community. The professional hunter pockets more than N$ 200 000. While the Government also get something for the permit (N$ 25) Between September 2006 and September 2007, 12 bull elephants have been shot in the region as so called �problem animals�. These permits are justified in terms of a policy of �sustainable utilization� of Namibian wildlife. The Director of Wildlife and Parks, Mr Ben Betyell claims there are 17 000 elephants in the whole of Namibia. If 6 elephant bulls are therefore shot in the Kunene Region, it is considered to be merely a proverbial drop in the bucket. The Director does not distinguish between elephants. An elephant is an elephant, he claims. If some of the elephants have adapted to the harsh desert conditions, it does not necessarily make them special. They should therefore be utilized like other game. �Sustainability� refers to the maintenance of a balance between wildlife figures and the environment. Climatic changes determine whether there is sufficient food for the wildlife, but their survival could also be affected by human intervention, like the expansion of farming activities, fencing and the provision of water. The Directorate of wildlife management can only view the killing of elephants as sustainable if they do an accurate count of their number and know their reproduction rate. As a result of the vast distances these elephants must cover to survive, assessing their numbers is extremely difficult, also considering that a conservation office such as the one in Khorixas only has a budget for four patrol days per month to tend to all their duties. It stands to reason that game counts by those who can gain from large quotas would inflate elephant numbers. There are NGO�s that provide the Ministry with more accurate numbers, but these seem to get ignored. Fewer calves are born in desert regions, and their survival rate is lower than in the forested North-East. One NGO conducting research in the Southern Kunene region has recorded that up to 80% of calves born in the area has died within two weeks of birth. Nobody knows why. Could it well be possible that the genetic seed of the desert elephant is already sown too thinly for survival? There are less than 40 adult elephant cows between the Ugab and Huab rivers, and only 3 large bulls. (Last year there where 5.) In total, there are less than 20 trophy size elephant bulls in the whole Kunene region. The researcher, Dr. Keith Legett in the north, and the organization Elephant-Human Relations Aid in the south have less than 400 elephants on their books, but even here, double counting could inflate numbers. If six desert elephant bulls are shot - and three of them under the Ana trees in the Ugab and Huab valleys � there will likely be only 14 large bulls left, and none amongst the few scattered herds of the Ugab. The circumstances in which these elephants have to survive should be taken into account. In the desert north of the Brandberg, elephants have learned to look better after their environment, almost never are they seen pushing over trees, whilst covering great distances in search of enough food and water. They live of the foliage of the Ana trees, camel-thorn pods, and wetland reeds, digging in the dry river sand for water. In good years they wander far away from the ephemeral riverbeds in search of mopanie and grass. As the cows in the dry areas have fewer calves, and few survive, the herds are small, just 5 or 6 cows with 2 or 3 calves in tow. It is their struggle for survival that makes them so special. No wonder that the local NGO�s, international conservation community, tourists and trophy hunters view them as unique. The sure way to ensure sustainability is to stop killing these desert elephants. That stands to reason. If all three Ugab bulls are shot, others will take their place eventually to inseminate these cows. But for a very long time there would be none, and no more calves would be born. These small herds of cows will eventually dwindle and disappear. In fact, there are now fewer cows than at their arrival ten years ago, led by the big old bull Voortrekker, into the sanctuary of the river. What then to do with the official desire to ensure that elephants are utilized as a resource, if none are to be shot and killed? Tourism is a non-consumptive form of utilization that not only ensures the long term sustainability of the species, but brings much more desperately needed foreign exchange into circulation in the country. The tourism industry annually injects around N$ 6 bn into the Namibian economy. Hopefully, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism had done a proper cost-benefit analysis to know what the possible results of these hunting permits being issued will be. It is after all the only way in which such far reaching government decisions could be economically justified. These six bulls at current prices will earn the professional hunter/outfitter about US$17mn. In total, the conservancies will earn about US$50 000, and government has already received their US $ 21 for the six permits. Another advantage is that �problem animals� could be gotten rid of through hunting. That is to say that the individual is actually causing real problems for the inhabitants of the area. Normally however, it works the other way around � humans cause much more problems for elephants. In this manner an elephant cow was shot by a farmer in �self defense� last year. This was after the elephant chased his dog. A young elephant bull was found dead in the Ugab River with bullet wounds after a German farmer close to Vingerklip shot blindly at some elephants in his garden the previous night. (Professional hunters estimate that between 20 and 40 elephants are killed as so called problem animals every year in the North-East of Namibia.) But it is usually young pre-adolescent bulls that cause the trouble, before they had been instructed by the older bulls in the ways of the elephant world. As trophy hunters are not really interested in shooting these young bulls, any large bull found in the area can then be declared a �problem animal�. Quotas for trophy elephants - and for so called problem animals � often seems to be allocated as a result of political pressure. It does not yet fit into a cohesive set of good conservation practices. It is good practice that communities suffering as a result of co-existence with elephants should benefit from their presence. It should also be made easier for communities to live in good neighbourship with elephants, by for example protecting their water points. And obviously it is important that people are being made aware of the advantages of eco-tourism by sharing in the profits. Hunting elephants is not the only way in which such an extremely valuable resource should be utilized; it could only be the last resort. If the hunting of a few trophy elephant bulls in the desert cause the tourism industry in Namibia any harm, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism will hardly be able to justify their actions. These permits could still result in heads rolling within this Ministry. Dr. P.J.Haasbroek

Desert-dwelling elephants under threat
Posted on: Tuesday 12th Aug @ 01:51 (-0700)
By Kanina Foss The large, slow-moving shadows in the north-western Namibia Desert belong to desert-dwelling elephants. The smaller, fast-moving shadows belong to the vehicles of the humans hunting them. Six trophy permits have been issued for the desert-dwelling elephants - an endangered species - by Namibia's Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). Some time in the next few days, when the smaller shadows catch up with the larger shadows, phone calls will be made to countries like the US, Germany or Spain. Foreigners will board overnight planes with their rifles tucked under their arms. A few hours later, they will return home carrying fibre-glass moulds of elephant heads, to be mounted on walls and admired by dinner guests. The population of desert-dwelling elephants in the Kunene region in north-western Namibia is one of only two in the world (the other is in Mali). In the 1980s, large-scale hunting and poaching almost wiped them out. The MET website says they are of a high national and international conservation priority, and have been designated as top priority for protection by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Last year, the same ministry issued trophy permits for six of the elephants. According to the operations director of Elephant-Human Relations Aid, Johannes Haasbroek, there are at best 400 individuals left in the region, with a maximum of 20 breeding bulls, the individuals targeted by trophy hunters. The average mating ratio is one bull to 20 cows. So a population of about 400 requires at least 20 bulls. After six breeding bulls have been shot, there will be 14 left. In the south of the Kunene region, where Haasbroek conducts his research, there are three breeding bulls. In the same area, three trophy permits have been issued. Haasbroek said the decision to grant the trophy permits had been based on inflated estimates of elephant numbers and that the loss of the bulls would affect the entire desert-dwelling population in many serious ways. During the past five years, in the south of the Kunene, there has been a calf mortality rate of 80 percent. Haasbroek recorded pelvic defects in a number of the calves, which indicates that a lack of genetic stock could have been responsible for the deaths. Furthermore, mature bulls are needed to teach the younger bulls how to behave and to survive in the desert. The desert-dwelling elephants travel massive distances seasonally and have developed physiological and behavioural adaptations that enable them to survive in their harsh environment. They are smaller than other African elephants, and have larger feet. They sometimes move in small groups of two to three individuals, to reduce the strain on food and water resources. The bulls join the herds only for mating and they have to cover massive distances to reach the herds. According to Haasbroek, they communicate about these vast distances using seismic signals that they pick up with their feet. Conservation scientist Dr Betsy Fox agrees that the population in the Kunene can't sustain the loss of six trophy bulls. "I think MET officials who approved these quotas are not thinking in terms of the best conservation measures for the keystone species in the Kunene region, but are succumbing to pressure from conservancies to earn quick bucks," she wrote in a letter to the MET. The Star's attempts to get comment from the MET were unsuccessful. For the foreigners that will fly to Namibia to collect their trophies, the elephant hunt will not be a physically challenging procedure. According to Haasbroek, it's possible to approach within 3m of a bull. It seems there's little chance of stopping the imminent trophy deaths. The hunters are already on the ground, and the distance between the shadows is shortening.

Related Links

Latest News Headlines

Sign up to the Newsletter!

enter your email address below

Our Friends

All links open in new windows