Dear Sir

The purpose of this letter is to urge you to resume elephant culling in Kruger National Park. In my opinion Kruger is carrying three times too many elephants and the longer culling is delayed the more will the park’s biological diversity be depleted. Every responsible-thinking South African understands that Kruger National Park was created to maintain ALL the endemic wild plant and wild animal life forms that the natural ecosystems can support. It was never supposed to be a zoo for the uncontrolled proliferation of elephants.

To help you understand the validity of the pro-culling reasoning, and to help you recognise the irrationality of the anti-culling arguments, I now relate an historical sequence of events, and a few ecological principles, to put this controversy in better perspective.

• In 1980 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published its mission statement which it called The World Conservation Strategy (WCS). This important protocol formed the basis of the many National Conservation Strategies (NCSs), the world over, that followed in the 1980s. This included the National Conservation Strategy of South Africa.

• The WCS is the ONLY blue print in existence that spells out the fact that man and nature MUST work in synergy if both are to survive. This impels man, inter alia, to establish a symbiotic relationship with the natural world – each gaining survival benefits from their interaction with the other.

• One of the cornerstone recommendations of the WCS is that man must “use” the renewable natural resources of the world – both those that are domesticated/cultivated and those that are wild – for his own benefit, in a sustainable manner.

• Since the 1960s a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) movement was established which has been called The “Green” Movement. This comprises three elements: (1). TRUE environmentalists – who wish to ensure that man’s actions on earth maintains the planet in a habitable condition for both man and nature to live in; (2). TRUE animal welfarists who wish to make sure that man’s “use” of animals, when they are alive, is humane – and who wish to make sure that there is no cruelty involved in their killing, when the killing of animals is deemed necessary; and (3). animal rightists – who believe that man has NO RIGHT AT ALL to “use” or to “kill” animals (any animals) for his own benefit, or for any other purpose.

• TRUE environmentalism is something that society should support – because to do otherwise is suicidal. TRUE animal welfarism is also something that society should support – because it strives to ensures that man behaves in a civilised manner when he “uses” animals.

• Animal Rights-ism, on the other hand, should be rejected by responsible societies (AND BY ALL GOVERNMENTS). This should happen because it’s purpose in life is to negate the achievement of the objectives of the WCS, and because it works towards negating the achievement of the objectives of the NCSs of every sovereign state in the world, too. It’s ideology, therefore, works against what is best for the natural world and what is best for mankind.