|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
- They say everybody “has a price” – at
which he will sell his soul!
- As a consequence, my attitude towards the
sanctity of science has changed. I now look at the anti-culling ‘scientific’
input in this debate with jaundiced eyes. The message the anti-culling
scientists are projecting is nothing more than animal rights propaganda. And
I say to myself: “Which scientific opinion can I now believe and trust,
and which should I not trust?” I believe, Sir, under these
circumstances, you should be asking yourself the same kind of questions!
Certainly the scientific integrity and objectivity of any scientist
who is heavily sponsored by an animal rights NGO must be considered suspect.
- Many honest scientists are embarrassed. They
believe this whole salmagundi is besmirching the good name of science. One
of them even declared (to me) that one of his animal-rights-sponsored
colleagues was “a prostitute”. What worries me the most is WHAT these
animal-rights-orientated ‘scientists’ are teaching their students –
who are South Africa’s wildlife ecologists of tomorrow!
- You must also beware, Sir, of the
anti-culling sentiments of the tourism people – who are NOT ecological
experts. Theirs is a VERY subjective opinion that is concerned ONLY with the
short-term effects they imagine elephant culling will have on their
industry. They believe that smaller numbers of elephants, after culling,
will reduce the tourist attraction and so adversely affect their own private
businesses – which has NOT been my experience. Ten years ago, when Kruger
carried half the number of elephants it does today, those lesser numbers did
not then adversely affect tourism!
- Many tourist operators believe that
uninformed public opinion will cause international tourists to shy away from
a country that practices elephant culling – which distortion, of course,
is blatant animal rights propaganda. THIS will not happen. Most people are
not THAT gullible. What tourists, and tourist operators, believe or do not
believe, depends upon the manner in which they are educated to the realities
of wildlife management. So your ministry MUST educate society –
appropriately and properly. No responsible South African WANTS to lose the
nation’s wildlife heritage in Kruger. They must, therefore, be led into a
proper understanding about why elephant culling is essential. But I
don’t see any moves being made by your Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism in this direction! You must NOT, Sir, let animal rights
propaganda have such free reign.
- But THIS controversy has nothing to do with
tourism. It is about whether or not the South African government has the
intestinal fortitude to do what is right – in the face of some formidable international
animal rights opposition. It is about the need to apply an essential
wildlife management practice in Kruger National Park. Giving permission for
such an action will tell the nation that the South African government is
serious about wanting to maintain the vital biological diversity of its most
treasured wildlife sanctuary. And responsible South Africans are looking to
you, Sir, to make the right decision on this important matter.
- The objective pro-culling argument is not
difficult to understand. It is based on logic, on common sense and on an
understanding of the most simple of ecological principles.
- Our “Conservation Priorities”
dictate that the protection of the soil MUST BE our FIRST wildlife
management priority – for without soil no plants can grow. Our SECOND
priority MUST BE for the healthy maintenance of vegetation - because
vegetation protects the soil from erosion and it provides food and habitats
for the whole spectrum of animal species in Kruger. Our THIRD - AND LAST -
priority is for the animals – which cannot thrive UNLESS they are living
in a healthy environment where the soil, the habitats and the animals are in
balance with each other. Currently, in Kruger, these elements of nature are
“out of balance”. There are too many elephants. The elephants are
destroying the essential habitats for many “sensitive” animal species
that will soon be rendered extinct in the national park – IF elephant
culling is NOT resumed quickly. And many plants are facing imminent local
extinction, too.
- Tourism only features in this equation WHEN
the required ecological balance has been established. Furthermore, whatever
the nature of that balance will determine the kind and the volume of the
tourism that can be imposed upon it. You cannot use tourism as a priority
consideration in ANY argument that is concerned about how many elephants
Kruger National Park should be carrying!
|
|
|
|
|
Back
