THE WILDLIFE WARS
Animal Rights Africa on the Poaching, Hunting and Slaughter of the majestic African Elephants. Interview by Claudette Vaughan

Animal Rights Africa (AFA) recognises that humans do not currently include non-human animals within their sphere of legal, political or moral rights-holders, and they also recognise that most humans do not generally respect animals for their inherent value. We spoke to Michele Pickover from ARA recently to find out what’s going on in South Africa regarding Africa’s elephants.

Abolitionist: How many free roaming Elephants currently reside in SA?

Michele Pickover: While the process of the dramatic decline in elephants did not play out in the same way throughout Africa, as far as southern Africa is concerned it was accelerated in the 19th century with a growing market for ivory and with significant habitat transformation. By the early 20th century the once large elephant population in the region had virtually been exterminated except for small isolated populations in remote localities.

It is estimated that the current free-roaming elephant population in South Africa is about 17,500.

How much hunting, poaching, culling and slaughtering is going on in South Africa regarding the elephants?

Local animal rights groups campaigned hard in 1994 and 1995 against’ culling’. As a direct result a moratorium on the so-called ‘culling’ of elephants was put in place in South Africa. Since 2004 there has been a huge push by government and the “sustainable use” lobby in South Africa and within the region (with support from pro-culling NGOs abroad) to lift the moratorium. The practice of’ culling’ and the ivory trade are inextricably linked. ARA has been fighting hard to stop them from doing this. If they succeed it will mean that 1000s upon 1000s of elephants will be killed every year in the southern African region – it will open a floodgate of killing – a literal “final solution” that will, in effect, be impossible to stop.

We have been trying to get a picture about the extent of poaching and hunting of elephants in South Africa – but there are no accurate figures, and frankly a lot of covering up by provincial governments. Hunting of elephants is very much allowed and endorsed – this is all part of our government’s crass “sustainable use” policy. We have a very powerful and vociferous hunting lobby here and they have the ear of government.

In the submission ‘The National Norms and Standards Schedule for the Management of Elephants in SA’ ARA made it perfectly clear that the Draft Norms and Standards are unimaginative, weak, unclear, vague and a poorly and defectively crafted and conceptualized document. Outline why for us here please?

In many ways it seems that the South African government is merely going through the motions of consultation so that at the end of the day they can claim to have consulted and get a mandate to kill elephants endlessly. Moreover, the input by those opposing culling, trade, hunting and the elephant back safari industry is generally ignored. It is economics and profit that drives everything. Plus the people tasked with draft the N&S document operate within the framework of use and resources and will always reflect that mindset. There is therefore a strong, but nevertheless illegitimate, historical tradition that literally sees elephants as ‘enemy’ and therefore war-like tactics such as culling are employed against elephants. Moreover, when economic interests are added into the mix – which it always inevitably is – exploitation is amplified.

If it is true that elephants are considered to be the quintessential symbol of the African Continent how important then is the non-lethal and non-consumptive approach to eco-tourism in Animal Rights Africa’s mind?

Obviously within the utilitarian mindset of elephants “having to pay their way”, I guess it is preferential to take the eco-tourism/non-consumptive approach. Although, having said that, eco-tourism and commercialisation can also traumatise elephants.

What are your views on negative and loaded language such as 'too many elephants', 'controlling elephant populations', 'negative impacts of elephants on biodiversity', 'negative impacts on human livelihoods'.

This is all part of the deliberate deceptive ruse and spin by the pro-sustainable use lobby. The consistent entrenchment of this kind of misperceptions, such as there is an overpopulation of elephants in the Kruger National Park and that the “carrying capacity” of the park should be maintained at around 7,500, is then pushed onto the public. These constantly repeated fallacies distort the debate about culling and the perceived impact elephants have on biodiversity. As a result many people out there incorrectly believe that culling, though distasteful, is a necessary evil! And the mainstream media very often only serves to reinforce this.

Why does Government support weigh heavily on the side of the hunters and the killing?

The South African conservation system was conceived during colonialism and apartheid and reflects the authoritarian norms of that era. These were landscapes that produced both human and other animals as victims. So the practice of culling is grounded in these medians of control and in the anthropocentric resource mindset. Today, conservation management remains under the control of long-entrenched bureaucrats. Mostly white, Afrikaans-speaking men, these functionaries come from the same tight-knit community as many of those involved in captive breeding and canned hunting. Many are hunters themselves. And if this is not the case the new government has merely adopted the old practices of the previous regime. So, what has informed decisions to kill elephants (via culling and other means) was colonial, apartheid and farming type mindsets, the ivory trade, the strong hunting fraternity’s control over the ‘conservation’ sector (hunters and elephant traders always push the culling agenda) and more recently the concept of “sustainable use” (which now has been given a developmental spin).

Animal Rights Africa has said that “workable, doable and practical alternatives exist to enable the protection and long time viability of Africa’s and Asia’s remaining elephants." What are they?

In South Africa, given our colonial and apartheid past, we have deeply engrained culture of violence and of pulling out a gun as the first option. The truth is that there are “too many elephants” so even speaking about alternatives is incorrect because this means you may be buying into the notion of “too many”. Culling is primarily a farming practice which is targeted to suit economic targets and has no scientific basis. It is ironic that those currently in favour of reinstating culling are the same people who criticised the rationale for the 1995 moratorium by calling for a more scientific approach but are now downplaying the role of science in the debate. This is a deliberate sleight of hand, where those in favour of culling expediently and dishonestly used creationist science as a reason to kill elephants, but when, in the post-apartheid period, this argument was scrutinised and criticised the goal posts were moved and the defence then became about sustainable use ‘values’.

How is an elephant culled and slaughtered? How long does the slaughter take?

Over the decades more than 16,000 elephants were cruelly killed in the Kruger National Park alone. Using the lethal tranquillizing drug succinylcholine chloride (better known as Scoline), elephants were herded together by helicopter and then darted. The drug literally brought elephants to their knees, leaving them to suffocate to death while remaining fully conscious and unable to move - a process that took several minutes. The KNP persisted in the use of Scoline despite much evidence that it subjected the animals to undue mental cruelty.

What happens to the innumerable orphaned calves left after their mother is shot?

The new government policy is to kill entire ‘families’. However, on private land baby elephants are literally being kidnapped from their mothers and sold to the elephant back safari industry. Previously they were left alive, often tied by ropes to their dead mothers, and then sold off to private reserves or overseas circuses and zoos. ARA rescued 9 elephants last year – they were all ‘cull; survivors from the Kruger National Park.

These elephants were originally brought to the now disbanded Thukela Biosphere Reserve in KZN in 1993. In 2006 a decision was taken to kill the elephants and a group of professional hunters was called in to carry out this grizzly task. Even as the hunters were making final preparations for the cull,ARA got wind of the elephants’ plight and negotiated a reprieve for the elephants. ARA moved them to a reserve – Sanwild - where they can roam freely and never be harassed and hunted by humans.

Where is there any scientific evidence that elephants pose a threat to biodiversity as the African Government maintains it does?

The South African government wants to include culling in their management ‘tool box’ for political reasons as there is no sound scientific reason for it being there. Given the major implications and sensitivities in relation to culling this is tremendously problematic, almost outrageous. Much of the ‘science’ which supports culling is anecdotal. Because of its burdensome and risky consequences, culling cannot be included as an option merely because some people think there may be a reason to cull “one day” or because some managers are so immersed in a culling mindset that they see this as a so-called solution to a perceived problem.

No scientific or ecological justification exists to cull or hunt elephants. Simply put, the supposed scientific and ecological reasons put forward by some managers for culling are flimsy, weak, untested and do not stand up to interrogation. These managers are propagating a policy which has been part of a mindset from which they are unable to escape – a tradition in unethical thinking! Also, it is not known what the short and long term effects of culling are. There is therefore a huge risk. Consider the following:

• Killing elephants using the “too many”/population argument is ecologically meaningless. It has been irrefutably shown that using numbers and population size as a means on which to base decision-making is fallacious. This is true for large and small reserves.
• Optimal densities. There is disagreement on optimal densities and the short and long term effects of different densities.

Finally, what are the objectives of Animal Rights Africa?

1. To promote the philosophy of animal rights and ethical conservation in order to show that animals, plants and other natural phenomena such as wilderness areas, etc. have an inherent value, which is independent of any value which humans attach to them.

2. To show that animals exist in their own right and are not, individually or collectively, whether wild or domesticated, a means to human ends.

3. To campaign for animals to be treated with the respect to which, as individuals, they are entitled by virtue of possessing inherent value.

4. To campaign for abolition of the “property status” of animals, and the acknowledgement by individuals, corporations, institutions and the state that animals cannot be “owned”.

5. Recognising further that animals are suffering physically and emotionally as a result of the abuse and exploitation to which they are subjected, the Organisation, in terms of its secondary objectives, undertakes to do all in its power to end this suffering by means of the following:

• Informing the public with regard to the specific and related consequences of institutionalised abuse and exploitation of animals by conducting education and training programmes, and by promoting exhibits, seminars, workshops and relevant publications.
• Promoting the broader objectives of ARA by conducting outreach and advocacy programmes
• Rescuing animals from exploitative and abusive situations whenever this is possible, and placing such animals with human individuals or organisations most capable of taking the best care of such animals, which necessitates direct involvement in rescue, sanctuary, rehabilitation projects as well as providing support for in situ ethical conservation and animal care projects.
• Maintaining a campaign encouraging humans to adopt a vegan (cruelty-free) lifestyle by raising public awareness and encouraging consumer action.
• Initiating projects and campaigns that will highlight specific types of animal abuse, exploitation and neglect and implement measures to end these.
• Lobbying and working to influence processes of policy decision-making at all levels of government.
• Undertaking investigations and research in support of the ARA objectives.