Saturday March 1, 2008, 1:53 pm
Yesterday Ingrid told of the ground swell of pressure developing amoung citizens of South Africa to protect and not exploit our natural resources especially as pertained to the elephant. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear from South African citizens toward SansPark and the govertment about due process and how valuable these creatures are to our country. Thanks to 100's & 1000's of people like Ingrid SANP is now onboard to reexaminescientific data and look for alternative solutions. Way to go to all the "Ingrids" of South Africa

Saturday March 1, 2008, 2:17 pm
"I am very glad they have done this but we believe they should have done it long ago. We have consistently called for wider consultation and a deeper examination of the issues," Michelle Pickover, of animal rights group Xwe African Wildlife Investigation and Research Centre, said.

"Since the culling moratorium a wealth of complex information has been compiled and this must be properly understood."

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ifaw), which represents more than 2,5 million supporters worldwide, said the decision was to be applauded.

"Ifaw welcomes SANP's decision not to hurry through a management plan for Kruger's elephants and is particularly pleased that independent scientific advice has been sought in planning for the future," Jason Bell, the director of Ifaw in southern Africa, said.

There is considerable and often acrimonious debate on the issue of elephant management and the need to control populations. Some argue that limited or no intervention is necessary, while others say culling is the only cost-effective and practical method of limiting the effect large numbers of elephants have on vegetation.

The pro-culling lobby argue that the elephants consume vast quantities of food, knocking down trees and shrubs in the process, and alter habitats to such a degree that other species suffer.

They point out that game reserves exist to protect a wide range of animals, birds and plants, not only elephants. But many scientists and managers dispute the extent to which elephants adversely affect other species.

South Africa has an elephant population of approximately 16 500 on state and privately owned land.

The KNP and the complex of private reserves on its western boundary have an elephant population of about 13 500.
***************************************************************************
Excellent news Michael:)
Elephants are so intelligent, killing them would just show man's ignorance.

Saturday March 1, 2008, 3:52 pm
He and his colleagues are working on the concept of the formation of large conservation areas - "megaparks" - which treat the elephant populations in southern Africa as a whole and not as separate entities.
He believes the parks should eventually be linked, which will allow natural limitations of elephant populations, for instance by drought.

Glad to see they are now onboard :)

Saturday March 1, 2008, 5:20 pm
I'm glad that they are not going to do the culling, for these Elephants are beautiful. As they said they can open up to another part so it would balance out. For the Elephants sake all goes well. Thanks Michael W. noted

Saturday March 1, 2008, 5:32 pm
Noted/forwarding thanx Michael W.

Saturday March 1, 2008, 6:04 pm
Thank god. I hope they work out a way that is healthy for the elephants.

Saturday March 1, 2008, 7:51 pm
noted

Saturday March 1, 2008, 7:57 pm
Noted, thanks Michael.

Sunday March 2, 2008, 12:16 am
Thats great news thanks lynda h

Sunday March 2, 2008, 12:47 am
I lived in South Africa for 27 years and visited the Kruger National Park wher e these magnificent animals were. I am so thankful for learning that compassion and a sensible approach is being approached. We can learn valuable lessons from God's creatures about how to interact peaceably with each other as well as have a greater sense of loyalty in our families.

Sunday March 2, 2008, 4:23 am
NOTED AND SENT IT ON! THANK YOU.

Sunday March 2, 2008, 12:48 pm
Noted with thanks Michael.

Sunday March 2, 2008, 4:29 pm
Thank you Michael, noted & forwarded.

Sunday March 2, 2008, 11:15 pm
This is an article from 2005, it has since been re-examined and the science has been interogated, hence the final deicision last week.

Monday March 3, 2008, 12:38 am
Michael- The norms for culling were published last week. It is a policy document, SA is not going out on a wholesale slaughter. it is an option (that is one option), a last resort when all else fails, but norms and standards are required by legislation so that when it happens it is controlled and done properly. There has not been a reversal of the decision, the article you refer to above is from 2005, when the debates first started up again, when SA came to realise the immense problems our parks are under from the high population numbers of elephants. The norms and standards released last week, have been worked on over the last 3 or four years, so its not a rash decision or anything. please respect south africa's conservation authorities on this.
see WWF's response: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=nw20080227141301695C156971

Monday March 3, 2008, 1:04 am
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=nw20080228133934877C344903
"Are elephants a problem? February 28 2008 at 03:52PM The scientific advisory board of the Earth Organisation said it had evidence that there was no factual general habitat carrying capacity for elephants, damage to flora was inflicted chiefly by lone bulls outside the herd and that many trees in fact needed to be jostled for regeneration.The position adopted by government was that the profits to be gained from culling, as quantified by the SAN Parks scientists, were preferable to all the cruelty, trauma and losses to the country's image culling would cause, the organisation said. - Sapa" You are corrrect on time date re tis story.
The scientific evidence IS being questioned and that was the reason the original culling date was moved back to 1 May. I would agree with you thats its SA's decision. That doesn't change the ideology of culling.

Monday March 3, 2008, 1:37 am
Krueger Park announced today this is the format they will follow. At that culling nor the movement of herds into position for such willing take place until after ministerial review. You may want this to be SA's problem but it is a world affair as your groups are finding out with the large letter writing campaign he larger number of petitions and a not so light amount of potical pressure. This story was originally posted for the purpose it has just accomplished not to deceive anyone into believing that there will be no culling. That is STILL there I posted several other stories at the sametime whose dates were current with regard to decisions. An attempt to not review a decision might be what some alphabet organizations might want but it flies in the face of international opinion and so far no international case has been made for culling except "the we're overstocked" one.The longer the debate rages the safer the herds are even for 1 day. So far 2 months have been bought. A quick exam of the number of notes a feel good story like this brought and how quickly it happened should give everybody on the culling as last resort side an indication of how personal this can become and how fast. Petitions and letters are flowing in to SA from around the world the minute this story broke as a "New" story ARA and IFAW were back in the fight to stop the culling until that point they were at least ready to accept the culling as last resort paradigm, now they're committed to the fight on the elephants side. We both know culling is a last resort only in the claim that for 2 years other methedology has been explored and there for its time to cull.
Thanks for the info. and luck in the attempt to cull, but I don't think that will sit well with the rest of the world and since 2010 is World Cup I think a much closer look at alternatives originally raised, re relocation, an increase in the rate to bring new parks on line and the expansion of the herd size in the Marakele, an increase in pressure to establish a nutral migratory corrider through the NW Province and large regional parks est. Whatever it costs the elephants should win this battle. Not organizations interested in culling so Ivory hords can be swollen allowing a new negotiation aay from Japan who was high bidder to Chna who would love the extra stockpile

Monday March 3, 2008, 1:56 am
I wonder where Ingid's Comments went and why they were pulled from this story?

Monday March 3, 2008, 2:28 am
Sarah??? nobody deeply involved hasn't read the report and listened to the speeches if you would like a copy I will be willing forward. The point is the Krueger has at least 6000 to many elephant or so they claim and is beyond the carrying capacity of the park. With the life expetency of an elephant and SANP's claim there is nowhere to relocate these elephants to, what is going to be the first solution? As they've indicated it will "probaly" incude culling and reinstitution of hunting, The programme is mapped out in detail including minimum calibre of weapon .375H+H. The resulting stockpile of Ivory will be immense and who benefits from that.Those who have it to sell. I think unless other articles can be made available who show a different side and explain or PROMISE/STRONGER COMMITTMENT is made to the international community that culling is only a last resort and will be under taken only after examination by an indepent panel; should the pressure be relaxed, I for 1 applaud ARA and IFAW news comittment to a better non-lethal method of control

Monday March 3, 2008, 3:03 am
Sarah just for informative purposes the profile you display thats been extremely inactive to this point has no listing of at least a region of ZA or what groups you might be interested in here at Care2. There are several that your input would be extremly welcome in. Are you sure you wouldn't like to become more involed?

Monday March 3, 2008, 10:08 am
Hi Michael
I'm not sure if this is right, but I think the only way a comment can be erased is if somebody flags it. I read Ingrids comment and why some bonehead would flag this lovely woman is beyond me.

Monday March 3, 2008, 11:01 am
These comments were posted from a fellow ZA and inview of the concern for the stories date should not be lost:

Ingrid Blank (0)
Friday February 29, 2008, 8:00 pm
Given the fact that the intelligence of elephants is on the same level of that of chimpanzees and dolphins and thus considerable superior to the IQ of some of our ministers, aka gravy train riders, who were only elevated to their respective positions by virtue of their affiliation to the politically correct party without having any qualifications whatsoever (minister of energy has a certificate in primary school teaching and the majority of the bunch had been "trained" in communist East Germany or Russia), elephants as the only intelligent life force in SA must be sustained at all costs! The reasons given by van Schalkwyk justifying culling have no scientific validity at all. I already posted my comments on http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/502818212 and will send them as an "open letter to van Schalkwyk" to various SA newspapers. One more thing, all these decisions require public participation in our alleged democracy, so let's call for a referendum.
Ingrid Blank/South Africa
Here my comments:
Mr. van Schalkwyk, as a fellow South African I am deeply ashamed at your lack of backbone! There is no science-based justification whatsoever for the brutal killing of these highly intelligent SENTIENT beings, who feel pain and sorrow at the loss of their family members. Yes, elephants do have family units. You caved in to pressure from SANParks whose true motivation is a harvesting program based on economic and political ambitions devoid of any scientific validity.SanParks has failed miserably in the management of elephants and now without adhering to the precautionary principle want to experiment with the population growth of animals by murdering them in cold blood. Where are your ethics, Mr. van Schalwyk. May I remind you that South Africa is allegedly a democracy, governed BY and FOR the people. Well, did you ask the people (yes, that me and millions of other South Africans who are just as horrified as I am) before making your unilateral decision without the people's knowledge and consent? Our elephants belong to the people of this nation and neither you nor SANParks have the right to kill these magnificent animals. Would by any chance CITES' approval of a second one-time trade in ivory have anything to do with your unethical decision, which allows South Africa to trade 30 tons of ivory? Please read the statement of TRUE elephant experts: http://old.elephanttrust.org/2006/AERPCullingStatement1-06.pdf

Wednesday March 5, 2008, 1:21 am
Noted and read. Thank you Michael and Kathy for the link. I think that what Ingrid Blank said in her letter to Mr. Van Schalkwyk was the honest truth about the Ivory deal and that is probably why it was deleted. If people have something to hide they will most likely do whatever it takes to remove the information leading to their involvement. Kinda of like what Bush did with having those attorneys fired. Guilty is as guilty does.

Saturday March 15, 2008, 3:45 am
Thank you, Kathy, for your kind words and Michael for reposting my previous comments.I always find it highly amusing and take it as a compliment when some nitwit tries to silence me. Usually, these people are the typical products of our parrot-learning generation, never developed independent thinking skills and thus have the brain capacity of an amoeba.They also live under the arrogant misconception that by throwing the word "science" and titles of some pseudo-scientists into the debate, the allegedly "dumb" masses will be at awe and more inclined to believe in the elephant dung (we in SA call it KAK) spewed out by corporate yarn spinners and obfuscators.While it is true that there are still about 5 million illiterate people in SA, which by no means renders them stupid, and that there are indeed dumb masses (thanks to our appalling education system) indoctrined by left-wing Umshini Wami croakers (Zuma's signature anthem "Bring me my machine gun", which bodes very well in a country with the highest crime rate in the world), there is still plenty of intelligent life in SA and above all ethical scientists capable of debunking allegedly "evidence-based" junk science.The remark that we should "respect South Africa's conservation authorities'" decision is almost hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic since it displays once again the typical Kindergarten-mentality and "Ja Baas" syndrome, namely to obey and never question the decisions made by self-anointed little tin gods in "authority".
Ethical scientists and elephant experts refute the claim that elephants threaten habitats and biodiversity and maintain that ethically and scientifically correct policies are not being adopted because the proponents of culling (or shall we rather say NAZI-style final solution) are allied with the gaming, hunting and ivory industry and that the latter is driving this policy change. Likewise, their scientifically illiterate arguments that contraceptives would not work flies in the face of the 100% success rate achieved by the Humane Society International with the use of immunocontraception without any behavioral or any other side effects. For example, in 2000 the HSUS/HSI conducted a long-term field trial with an immunocontraceptive vaccine in a herd of 66 elephants in the Makalali Private Conversancy near the Kruger National Park. After eight years the vaccine has been extraordinary effective. The HSUS/HSI has also established a laboratory to manufacture the vaccine in South Africa. A number of private and provincial game parks are using the vaccine, but SANParks has not as yet permitted the use of the vaccine in its parks. WHY?!?! Would Minister van Schalkwyk and SANParks please provide us with a SANE explanation for their refusal to do so? It cannot be cost related at R800 to 1000 per dose (about $100 (cheaper than Merck’s Gardasil)!

A while back SABC viewers were subjected to the sob story of a person lamenting the fact that the naughty elephants had trampled through his milie (corn) fields and he could not feed his 14 (i.w. FOURTEEN) children as a result. Now, while it is nay impossible to condomize an elephant, this particular specimen of the human race does not have such excuse! The fact that elephants do not mate until they are about 15 years old and only give birth every four years is further proof that their IQ is definitely superior to that of some humans!
Ingrid Blank/South Africa

Saturday March 15, 2008, 3:50 am
Thank you, Kathy, for your kind words and Michael for reposting my previous comments.I always find it highly amusing and take it as a compliment when some nitwit tries to silence me. Usually, these people are the typical products of our parrot-learning generation, never developed independent thinking skills and thus have the brain capacity of an amoeba.They also live under the arrogant misconception that by throwing the word "science" and titles of some pseudo-scientists into the debate, the allegedly "dumb" masses will be at awe and more inclined to believe in the elephant dung (we in SA call it KAK) spewed out by corporate yarn spinners and obfuscators.While it is true that there are still about 5 million illiterate people in SA, which by no means renders them stupid, and that there are indeed dumb masses (thanks to our appalling education system) indoctrined by left-wing Umshini Wami croakers (Zuma's signature anthem "Bring me my machine gun", which bodes very well in a country with the highest crime rate in the world), there is still plenty of intelligent life in SA anf above all ethical scientists capable of debunking allegedly "evidence-based" junk science.The remark that we should "respect South Africa's conservation authorities'" decision is almost hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic since it displays once again the typical Kindergarten-mentality and "Ja Baas" syndrome, namely to obey and never question the decisions made by self-anointed little tin gods in "authority".
Ethical scientists and elephant experts refute the claim that elephants threaten habitats and biodiversity and maintain that ethically and scientifically correct policies are not being adopted because the proponents of culling (or shall we rather say NAZI-style final solution) are allied with the gaming, hunting and ivory industry and that the latter is driving this policy change. Likewise, their scientifically illiterate arguments that contraceptives would not work flies in the face of the 100% success rate achieved by the Humane Society International with the use of immunocontraception without any behavioral or any other side effects. For example, in 2000 the HSUS/HSI conducted a long-term field trial with an immunocontraceptive vaccine in a herd of 66 elephants in the Makalali Private Conversancy near the Kruger National Park. After eight years the vaccine has been extraordinary effective. The HSUS/HSI has also established a laboratory to manufacture the vaccine in South Africa. A number of private and provincial game parks are using the vaccine, but SANParks has not as yet permitted the use of the vaccine in its parks. WHY?!?! Would Minister van Schalkwyk and SANParks please provide us with a SANE explanation for their refusal to do so? It cannot be cost related at R800 to 1000 per dose (about $100 (cheaper than Merck’s Gardasil)!

A while back SABC viewers were subjected to the sob story of a person lamenting the fact that the naughty elephants had trampled through his milie (corn) fields and he could not feed his 14 (i.w. FOURTEEN) children as a result. Now, while it is nay impossible to condomize an elephant, this particular specimen of the human race does not have such excuse! The fact that elephants do not mate until they are about 15 years old and only give birth every four years is further proof that their IQ is definitely superior to that of some humans!

Wednesday October 22, 2008, 9:17 pm
Here is the latest press release from ANIMAL RIGHTS AFRICA:

SILENCES AND SPINDOCTORING: TRYING TO ACCESS GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ON ELEPHANTS IN SOUTH AFRICA

22 OCTOBER 2008


The implementation of the controversial Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) legislative policy on elephants (the National Norms and Standards on the Management of Elephants in South Africa) which was promulgated eight months ago, has been put to the test by Animal Rights Africa (ARA), who have just completed a two-month investigative report.



ARA attempted to establish from DEAT and provincial conservation officials exactly how available and accessible comprehensive information relating to the use of elephants and their management actually is. These include the use of “culling”, the exact quantity of the elephant ivory stockpile held in the country, elephant hunting, the killing of so-called “damage causing animals”, the number of elephants held in captivity and the execution of some of the administrative processes called for by the Norms and Standards. The progress of drafting a “Minimum Standards” document in relation to the welfare of elephants in captivity (zoos, circuses and elephant back safaris) was also explored.



Many stakeholders involved in the debate leading up to the publishing of the NN&S are very interested in monitoring their implementation and in order to assess progress need access to a variety of information, information this report shows that is difficult, at times extremely so, to a obtain. Access to this information is therefore crucial to these entities that are playing a watchdog role, holding government to account and representing the elephants’ interests.



The findings of the ARA Report, entitled “Silences and Spin Doctoring: Access to Information on Elephants in South Africa”, reveals alarming trends which appear to fly in the face of open and transparent governance.



Information and statistics in relation to culling, hunting and ivory stockpiles is inaccessible, incomplete, contradictory and, not independently verifiable. Obtaining information, particularly from some provinces is extremely time consuming and a frustrating undertaking. There are unfair and unjustifiable delays in the processing of legitimate public interest requests for government information to which civil society has a right in our democracy.



The legislation authorises culling but states that this must be considered after all other options have been exhausted, i.e. as the last resort. ARA research shows that currently it is impossible to track where and if culling is taking place and therefore the concept of “culling as last resort” cannot be publicly and independently monitored as conservation authorities are not making their intentions regarding culling known widely.



ARA is concerned that because while the Norms and Standards stipulate that the elephant management plans have to be submitted for all land and properties with elephants, provincial or private, in most instances officials say that these documents and permits cannot be disclosed because in doing so they might infringe third party confidentiality. This makes it difficult any independent body or member of the public to subject the implementation of this legislation to proper scrutiny.



Despite NGO opposition, DEAT shed its responsibility for managing captive elephants by passing welfare issues on to the Department of Agriculture (DOA). ARA has now learnt that the DOA is negotiating in bad faith and privileging the elephant exploitation industry to the detriment of the animal protection groups because it has been solely ‘consulting’ with individuals and groups within the captive elephant industry. This is despite public statements by Minister van Schalkwyk that consultation on these welfare issues would be compiled with input from ALL interested stakeholders.



DEAT does not have a current figure for South Africa’s total ivory stockpile despite being granted permission by CITES (the Convention on Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna) to sell 51 tons of ivory to China and Japan in November this year. DEAT also does not have national statistics on the numbers of elephants hunted, killed as so-called “damage causing animals” or in terms of “ecological management.” Nor does DEAT currently have an accurate figure for the number of elephants kept in captivity and keeps no record of worker fatalities, even though at least five handlers/workers have been killed by captive elephants in the past seven years.



Said ARA spokesperson Michele Pickover, “the consequence of ARA’s findings is that the exploitation and oppression of elephants is continuing unabated in South Africa and it appears that our Minister and his department are good at spin doctoring but little else.”



The full Report can be downloaded from:
http://www.animalrightsafrica.org/Archive/Elephants/Silences_and_Spin_Doctoring_an_ARA_Report_Oct_2008_final.pdf




Ends.



Contact Details:

Steve Smit 082 659 4711

Michele Pickover 082 253 2124

info@animalrightsafrica.org

www.animalrightsafrica.org