Elephant – abundant and endangered species.

Elephant discussions are emotive. These iconic beasts of the earth are never far from controversy. In this blog, I’ll have a look at some of the facts as I see them and then ask some of the pressing questions surrounding elephant ‘management’ – if such a term can be used at all.

How many are there?

At the turn of the 19^th century there were probably around 4 million elephant on the African continent – this number includes both the large savannah variety and their smaller forest cousins (there is still no clear consensus as to the taxonomic difference). This number plummeted in the wake of a poaching onslaught that only abated in 1989 with the international trade ban on ivory.

Right now there are approximately 400 000 savannah elephants. They are classified as vulnerable by the IUCN and it is around these animals that the debates rage.

Are they endangered?

Yes and no…In the areas that elephant are protected like the parks of southern and eastern Africa, they are not endangered. Poaching is relatively infrequent and populations are increasing. However in west and central Africa, it’s a bit of a free-for-all. The WWF says that elephants in these areas are counted in individuals and tens rather than in thousands. The areas they inhabit are often not protected and if they are, the level of policing is low, underfunded and prone to attack from a plethora of hungry militias looking for food and ivory.

What’s the debate?

In southern Africa, the question is whether there are too many elephants or not – and if there are too many, what to do about it.

The problem with the notion of ‘too many elephants’ is that it implies there is some sort of optimal number or a ‘carrying capacity’. A carrying capacity in turn implies that an area should house an ideal suite of species which will maintain it in a ‘climax state’, or equilibrium.

This is not logical. All biological systems are dynamic – they are constantly changing and thus no one can ever decide the ideal number of elephants for an area because such a number is a human construct. Sometimes it is based on science, sometimes emotion and sometimes a mix.

If you are going ‘manage’ elephant numbers, then there must be a clear set of objectives – a good reason for tampering with population numbers.

The scientists…

A large contingent of this bunch reckons that there are too many elephants (e.g. the Kruger National Park in South Africa and Chobe in Botswana). In general, they are worried that elephants are destroying vegetation and in so doing affecting other speices. Essentially they are worried about elephant effects on biodiversity.

There are also no conclusive scientific studies to say that beyond a certain density of elephants, biodiversity will decrease permanently. In fact, biological systems are so complex, that to understand all the variables at play is currently well beyond our capabilities.

That elephants modify habitats is without question. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Is it a bad thing if the total biodiversity of an area fluctuates?

An elephant population, left to grow on its own in Botswana, may well destroy most of the vegetation and in so doing kill other species and eventually itself. After a while, the area would recover and a new cycle would begin. The area may never look as it once did but the total biodiversity, barring some climatic catastrophe, would eventually reach the same levels it did before. Problem is, this would take much longer than the average human lifetime and we’re not so good at looking beyond the end of our own lives. It is distasteful for us to think of our children visiting Chobe and finding a moonscape. It’s worse to think of valuable tourists visiting the area and seeing rotting elephant carcasses everywhere.

Quite possibly, the elephants would start dying off before they killed everything else. The niches that they emptied would quickly be filled. So our experimental area may look different but its total biodiversity might well be similar.

The long-term strength of the biodiversity argument is tenuous.

So if the scientists can’t tell us what the objective is, who can?

The top of the food chain

Human beings are the ultimate predators. This means we call the shots (regardless of our moral obligations). We decide whether elephants survive or don’t. In order to do this, we must have objectives. The scientists, as I’ve outlined, can’t give us anything conclusive.

Thought experiment

Let’s say I own a piece of land – a really big piece. I have an elephant herd and its numbers keep increasing. Let’s also say that I run an  operation on that land and that people come from all over the world to see my elephants. At the same time, I really like big trees. If my herd grows beyond a certain number, then I start to lose big trees faster than they grow. But I want as many elephants as possible so that I can maximise my tourism business. With these objectives in mind, I can define an optimal number of elephants. The objectives are very clear, they are not based on scientists’ opinions or the public’s emotions. They are simply what I want.  As the predator on top of the hierarchy, I am allowed to decide I want big trees and elephants. Is my choice more valid than the scientists’? It may well be, given the inability of science to give me a clear answer on biodiversity. My choice is doubly valid given that my business is the reason my piece of land is not being mined or farmed.

What are your thoughts on the matter – what is the human role, if we have one? If we decide there are too many elephants, what should we do about it?

Photos: Michael Poliza, Dana Allen, Mike Myers