samburu

We as a family have decided to put our holiday to South Africa on hold until the outcome is announced, we will not travel if the powers to be play god and murder innocent wildlife for whatever excuse they give. It is a moral stance as we feel unable to patronise somewhere that would slaughter the one thing that keeps visitors coming to Africa. Nature always finds it's own balance we as humans have interferred and upset everything and the animals suffer for it.
Conservationists and scientists are not god they have no right to decide what lives or dies, I always thought the Hippo and Buffalo were the most dangerous animals in Africa but we all know it is in fact MAN, vile greedy creatures I am ashamed to be a part of the human race.

Steve_Roberts

Have read all the messages in this thread. IMO the staff of the SA National Parks will have considered all possible solutions long and hard on the elephant numbers issue. Again IMO they'll largely get it absolutely right.
They are proud people and will fiercely protect their heritage and wildlife.
Those of you who choose to boycott the country & stay at home will miss out I'm afraid.
I'm quite happy and satisfied that there'll still be a largely unchanged Kruger Park for my grandchildren (and their children) to appreciate in the future, as much as we do today.
The South Africans will do it with or without our dollars and/or euros. They've done it before and they'll do it again.

napamatt

So there will be less money in the economy from tourism, meaning smaller government revenues, less money for national parks and less money for any alternatives. I would love it if conditions in Afreica could go back a hundred years, but there is something getting in the way of that - us. Maybe we should stop helping to increase the human population?

divewop

Napamatt-
You hit the nail on the head. Human overpopulation is the number one reason the earth is in dire straights. We are pushing wildlife out of their habitats and sometimes to the brink of extinction by having to "cull" or "sterilize" herds and groups to make more room for human habitat.
However, the topic of human overpopulation seems to be taboo in most governments. Everyone is afraid to address it for fear of opening a can of worms on what should be done about it.
In the meantime, we'll just keep playing god and control wildlife growth with whatever means we can.

I cannot justify what we do to animals by stating it's for their benefit because we all know, long and short of it is, it's really for "our", (the human beings) benefit.

For those interested, go to

www.overpopulation.org

and then go to the sustainability and overconsumption heading on the left. Watch the numbers click away. It's frightening.

I know the world isn't fair, but why do the animals and their habitats always seem to be at the top of the losing list?

I guess my point of all this is I hate to see these countries suffer potential loss of tourism and animals because of what humans are doing to "control" the wildlife population.

napamatt

Western countries where birth rates are declining need growth to sustain their social programs, because the people who have already paid dont want to take a cut in their benefits. This is a major issue in most of Western Europe. Maybe we can move a bunch of people from Africa to make room for more elephants, a pragmatic solution that may not find too many takers.

llbwolf

Just a quick update and the Makalali study:

You can participate in the study (I mean go there and colllect data) by visiting www.enkosiniecoexperience.com and choosing Makalali. They offer exceptional programs at unbelievable rates. As of last year, the trial was still in effect. I'd doubt it has ceased. Subsequent studies are testing contrceptives with a longer life span (I believe it's 5 v. 3 years). Still, there are practical problems with translating the efficacy on a small-ish reserve to a park the size of Kruger. Anyway, if you're interested or concerned, consider participating; you won't regret it.