A personal question, first, if you don't mind. Have you been a visitor to one of the nature reserves, either in eastern Africa or south Africa?

If there is one example how to treat environment and wildlife, we should take example of southerly Africa where nature reserves are not only generating massive tourist economy but have also set a strict policy how to run a nature reserve or Game Farm. Not to mention that it single-handedly saved several species from the brink of extinction (eg. the white and black rhinoceros).

But it is also understood that nature reserves in themselves are managing productions which need constant regulation because the natural balance is gone, gone, gone. Don't be fooled that nature reserves are the last patches of sublime, unspoilt nature of the world, they're not. The moment a fence was put in place, humans have a responsibility.

Elephants within nature reserves have done tremendously well. From the threat of extinction they've swung to be a complete nuisance in many nature reserves. In the most famous example, consider the best known nature reserves of the world, Kruger National Park. The elephant population there has reached the insane number of over 14.000, while the park can hold some 7.000 elephants max. The result? Overgrazing, destruction of habitat and in the end: deforestation. Since what does an elephant do best: it knocks over trees. In fact, it kills trees, by the dozen in one week. It rips off branches, it knocks them over completely. Not to mention that elephant bulls and cows in large population tend to become downright aggressive, which is not good for other animals (or human tourists). That arch-typical African bushveld in South Africa? It didn't exist before the elephant showed up.

In the end, if unchecked, the elephants within Kruger will kill themselves off by starvation, not to mention that many other animals need trees to feed, for protection, or procreation. The web of life as it is known will crumble without trees. Do we want to preserve that, or do we choose for the preservation of a more marginalised, less diverse, more sparsely populated environment to protect? If we want the latter, we let the elephant roam. If we want the optimum as it was intended, the elephant needs to go.

What to do?

One, create a larger habitat. Done that. The Greater Kruger Area is nearly a fact. Fences are taken down between Zimbabwe and Mozambique (where elephants and other animals get blown up or wounded by mines still remaining from the civil war).

Two, neuter the elephant. Costly, if not downright impossible. None of the elephants are registered and elephants cover wide stretches of ground within days. How to ever keep the neutered and non-neutered apart? And how to neuter 5.000 elephants? And is that, morally, the wisest thing to do?

Three, transplant the elephant. Done that, too. But the problem of overpopulation is surfacing in other parks as well and getting rid of an elephant surplus of over 6000 is a bit of a problem.

Four, shoot the excess elephant. As a bonus, generate money from those white people who actually want to shoot elephants once in their life.

But western "elephant huggers" cry foul and spit outrage that such a thing should happen... Note that elephant huggers generally tend to see nature reserves as sublime, unspoilt patches of nature. Under political pressure of western countries, culling is delayed, only enlarging the problem.

Links:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1105_041105_elephants.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1790035,00.html

Elephant Huggers:
http://www.africanconservation.org/dcforum/DCForumID22/94.html
http://www.savewildelephants.com/saelephants.asp
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=155903