Culling-conservationists need paradigm shift

Dear Editor,

I am of the opinion that in an island reserve such as Pilansberg or Madikwe, if you cannot translocate the excess elephant, there is no other alternative but to cull in order to maintain the ecological integrity of the reserve. However, this is not the case with the Kruger National Park.

I, after spending many years living in Timbavati side by side with elephants and interacting with them on a daily basis, have formed a different view. National parks and reserves should be audited to ascertain whether the reserve in question could sustain an elephant population crash and if so elephant populations should be allowed to climb and crash as the natural cycles dictate.

The Kruger National Park has recently become a Transfrontier Park. An additional million hectares has now been fenced in with the KNP, which is now three million hectare in extent. This reserve could possibly sustain elephant populations indefinitely as occurs with wildebeest populations in the Serengeti.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in the thinking of conservationists who support culling and consider it the only the alternative.

Nature has looked after itself for millions of years; conservation is a new science and has only been practiced as "educated guesses" for about 80 years or so. We need to comprehend that culling is only one option of many and each situation is unique. To cull at this time while the park is expanding is premature. The elephants and other wildlife are stimulus-response organisms and will respond to any stimulus in their environment.

Culling will lead to more prolific breeding. Overpopulation will lead to some elephants moving into new areas without having to be forced. Allow them to do their thing and I am sure we will learn a thing or two and be pleasantly surprised. My vote goes to applying a flexible, accountable approach to the situation.

Marco Schiess
Umlani Bushcamp
Timbavati