OPERATION JUMBO JOURNEY NEWS

Let's not rush to make decisions we might regret

Ian McCallum
May 07, 2006 Edition 1

What is the common ground between those who advocate culling elephants and those who do not? I suggest that it is a respect for, or even a love for, the animal and that even those who are directly involved in the decision-making and in the act, do so as a last resort. In other words, you can kill an animal you intrinsically respect, if it is necessary.

I understand this stance and I will support it - when necessary. But who decides when something is "necessary"? Surely it is when the protest from all sides has been adequately heard, understood and intelligently synthesised. This is where the different schools of thought often define their limitations. They do not understand, and sometimes they do not wish to understand, the protest of the other.

Protest, not only because it is the voice of opposition, but because it can be the wake-up call for the right action, must be properly examined before being dismissed as emotional, uninformed or biased. Keep going back to the common ground. Use this as the platform to explore the hidden meanings and agendas of protest.

Regarding the so-called "elephant problem", the usual approach is to put protesters into one of two camps - those who view the problem from an objective (empirical) position and those who view it from a subjective (emotional) one. The implication is that it is impossible to embrace both.

I believe that this is not only unfounded, but that it is impossible not to be influenced by both. We say "yes" and we say "no". And unless we are utterly brainwashed, we also change our minds. To be aware of the standpoint of the other, we need to understand that animals mean different things to different people. We therefore need to understand the place of animals in the human psyche.

Animals, in this case elephants, can be seen from at least three different positions. First, the animal is perceived for what it is - its size and shape, its behaviour, its evolution and its interactions with other species; the objective position. Second, the animal is perceived for what it provides, either directly or indirectly - companionship, food, warmth, income and protection; the instrumental position. Third, it is perceived, consciously and unconsciously, for what it represents; the subjective position.

Tied into the human animal's deep need for meaning is the tendency to view other animals as an extension of itself. Often negatively labelled as "anthropomorphism", the animal "other" becomes a living mirror of one's history and of one's fate. There may well be survival reasons for this tendency. In other words, because of its biological significance, it would appear that we can't help it. Putting oneself "into the skin" of the other, predicting its intentions and feelings, is a survival strategy.

Every mammal, from mice to elephants, has more than 90 percent of the human genome and not only that, but the common bloodline of all mammals dates back just 100 million years.

We are brothers and sisters, say the poets, we are linked in psyche and in substance. In other words, to cull an elephant is to cull a part of "me". And when an animal dies unnecessarily, something in me dies also. The admonition "do unto others" implies an appreciation of the plight of the non-human animal as well.

To me, this imagery, because of its powerful subjective component, is never far from the heart of protest. I think we need to understand that, for it will not go away. We are an objective species, anxious to measure our world, but we are symbolic and subjective as well.

This means that our psychological health and well-being depends on this remarkable capacity to give multiple meanings to our world. A tree, for instance, is never just a tree; it is also a refuge, a hiding place, a philosophy, a witness, a mirror. And so it is with elephants.

Elephants are not a part of one's view. They are a part of one's life. We say that elephants never forget. Perhaps it is because we never forget our encounters with them.

We learn a lot about ourselves from these grey mirrors of the wild; they remind us of how we like to see ourselves. They are highly protective of their young. They are powerful, yet gentle, and they remember the dead. They are known to cover with branches the carcasses of other wild animals. I can vouch for that. Mostly through infrasound communication, members of matriarchal herds remain in constant communication with each other. They can convey alarm and danger to other elephants over significant distances.


Unofficial, yet repeated reports from game rangers in Zimbabwe's Hwange National Park described the restless gatherings of elephants on one side of the park while a culling operation was under way in another, distant section. Is this how elephants protest?

When the tsunami hammered into Yala National Park on the east coast of Sri Lanka on December 26 2004, not one of the park's 200 resident elephants perished. They and other animals had moved to higher ground before the tsunami struck. Did they know of the impending danger? It would appear so.

It is well known that pachyderms can pick up long-distance vibrations through their feet. They probably heard it coming. They have an intelligence that does not belong to us, for they probably need our intelligence as much as we need their trunks! And yet they were able to deal with that tsunami in a way that we couldn't. For all our wonderful technology, we forgot to watch and listen to the animals.

Elephants are a keystone species of the wild. Their tracks become paths for other animals, including humans (the first roads into the highlands of Kenya were once elephant tracks). Those same paths become fire breaks. Elephants' largely undigested droppings are a food source for birds and baboons. The moisture they contain is the sole source of water for countless butterflies, moths and other insects. What does it take to cull an animal like this?

They are destroying the trees. But is this not a human interpretation? Should we not be using words such as "impact" rather than "destruction"? After all, woodlands - perhaps as a result of climate change together with animal impacts - have given way to grasslands. In time, forests may grow again. Of course, these so-called cycles extend beyond human lifespans, one reason for our impatience and our wont to interfere. With the best intentions (sometimes without), we have created artificial waterholes, artificial boundaries, artificial fire policies and ultimately artificial situations in which the once-working equation of sustainability, biodiversity and the forces of nature has become paralysed.

Prevention of these scenarios is one thing; managing them once established is another. This, as any conservationist will tell you, is at the heart of the culling problem - the objective view.

Shortage of additional land, political boundaries and the complex economics of animal relocations means that the perceived culprits - the elephants - because of their impact on flora, are the ones who have to pay the price. It is a "numbers game" - x elephants for y area of land.

If it were this simple, the problem would not only have been understood by all the parties involved in the decision-making, but also resolved. We would have done what was necessary.

Clearly, it is not that straightforward at all. Many objective questions remain unanswered. Are elephants the only culprits? It would appear not. Are we sure of the numbers of elephants in reserves? Again, no, we are not.

What is the relationship between elephants and specific trees - knob-thorns, marulas and mopane? Linked to this, how knowledgeable are we about the dietary and seasonal preferences of these animals? If culling were to proceed without answers to these questions, wouldn't it be worth a protest?

Let us not be in a hurry to make decisions which we may regret. "We cannot wait for the research," should never be the excuse to proceed with a perceived need to cull.

Finally, even when the facts are to hand, may we never lose touch with or ignore the profound emotional significance of animals in our lives. To do this is to ignore what it means to be the human animal.

Back