• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Botswana threatens to send 20,000 elephants to Germany

PitPat

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
13,527
Location
Seattle
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68715164

At first I thought it was an Onion headline, but it's true. Make your own joke here.

Just even imagining having to get them there, with their GDP, would probably drain it. And then, what is Germany going to do with 20K elephants?
 
Yes, the proposed action is headline-grabbing (and deliberately so) but it's supposed to grab attention.

Botswana has no intention of sending 20,000 live elephants to Germany but there are apparently too many elephants in Botswana (though I'm sure that there are others who wold claim that there are too many people) and Germany are one of the countries leading calls for a ban on the export of hunting trophies.

It's yet another case of Western countries pursuing one agenda (in this case animal conservation) running into a developing country's desire to develop their economy.
 
Yes, the proposed action is headline-grabbing (and deliberately so) but it's supposed to grab attention.

Botswana has no intention of sending 20,000 live elephants to Germany but there are apparently too many elephants in Botswana (though I'm sure that there are others who wold claim that there are too many people) and Germany are one of the countries leading calls for a ban on the export of hunting trophies.

It's yet another case of Western countries pursuing one agenda (in this case animal conservation) running into a developing country's desire to develop their economy.

By selling ivory?

Botswana faces fierce resistance from west Africa over ivory trade proposal

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...a/botswana-ivory-trade-proposal-b2227185.html

Not really a big fan of that myself.
 
By selling ivory?

Botswana faces fierce resistance from west Africa over ivory trade proposal

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...a/botswana-ivory-trade-proposal-b2227185.html

Not really a big fan of that myself.

It's one way to dispose of "excess" elephants and generate an income from it.

It won't necessarily form a major part of the economy (Botswana has considerable mineral wealth) but it may reduce pressure on poor farmers who have elephants destroying their crops.

Of course Western countries could compensate Botswana if they're that fussed about elephants.
 
It's one way to dispose of "excess" elephants and generate an income from it.

It won't necessarily form a major part of the economy (Botswana has considerable mineral wealth) but it may reduce pressure on poor farmers who have elephants destroying their crops.

Of course Western countries could compensate Botswana if they're that fussed about elephants.

Presumably by paying to have the farmers leave the land to the elephants, to move to the towns, where they have nothing to do. And then there's the food which won't be grown and which would need to be bought from elsewhere.

I don't think there are any good answers, but leaving africans to sort out african problems seems most sensible.
 
It's one way to dispose of "excess" elephants and generate an income from it.

It won't necessarily form a major part of the economy (Botswana has considerable mineral wealth) but it may reduce pressure on poor farmers who have elephants destroying their crops.

Of course Western countries could compensate Botswana if they're that fussed about elephants.

Well, they already do that with rich people tourism big-game hunting safaris. Maybe I'm just a little too sensitive after reading Orwell's Shooting an Elephant.

If you feel like reading it (short story): https://www.orwellfoundation.com/th.../essays-and-other-works/shooting-an-elephant/
 
Last edited:
Yes, the proposed action is headline-grabbing (and deliberately so) but it's supposed to grab attention.

Botswana has no intention of sending 20,000 live elephants to Germany but there are apparently too many elephants in Botswana (though I'm sure that there are others who wold claim that there are too many people) and Germany are one of the countries leading calls for a ban on the export of hunting trophies.

It's yet another case of Western countries pursuing one agenda (in this case animal conservation) running into a developing country's desire to develop their economy.

The current president of Botswana is pro-Elephant hunting, probably because somebody is paying him to be.

There is actually very little support in the country for the relegalisation of the practise.
 
Hannibal had some ideas for utilizing elephants. Perhaps Russia could buy some, they seem to be in constant need of military hardware for that successful conquest of theirs.
 
Presumably by paying to have the farmers leave the land to the elephants, to move to the towns, where they have nothing to do. And then there's the food which won't be grown and which would need to be bought from elsewhere.

I don't think there are any good answers, but leaving africans to sort out african problems seems most sensible.

The problems aren't just African ones on the grounds that one "solution", allowing rich Western psychopaths to kill elephants for gits and shiggles in exchange for large sums of money offends our delicate sensibilities.

IMO if we're going to tell countries to have an elephant surplus, then it's also up to us to help them manage that surplus. We're quite happy to cull excessive and inconvenient wild herbivores at home.
 
There are better solutions than culling them or sending 20,000 of them to Germany.

What that solution is, don't know. And not sure an elephant surplus looks like. They make it sound like they're stampeding over everybody and their crops. Haven't seen any independent reporting on that.
 
There are better solutions than culling them or sending 20,000 of them to Germany.

What that solution is, don't know. And not sure an elephant surplus looks like. They make it sound like they're stampeding over everybody and their crops. Haven't seen any independent reporting on that.

The suggestion to send the to Germany is not a serious one, the President of Botswana has in the past threatened to send 10,000 to London.

It is however a clear request that Western countries that implement laws take some kind of responsibility for the consequences of those laws.

I expect that an elephant surplus results in too many footprints in the butter (reference to a very old joke).

Seriously though, the consequences of an elephant surplus would be similar to a deer surplus, common in many countries. Damage to crops and hence to farmers' livelihoods. Different groups have different assessments as to the seriousness of the problem I expect. Farmers seem happy to exterminate any and all wild animals whilst animal rights campaigners would have a very different view
 
The suggestion to send the to Germany is not a serious one, the President of Botswana has in the past threatened to send 10,000 to London.
It is however a clear request that Western countries that implement laws take some kind of responsibility for the consequences of those laws.
I expect that an elephant surplus results in too many footprints in the butter (reference to a very old joke).

Seriously though, the consequences of an elephant surplus would be similar to a deer surplus, common in many countries. Damage to crops and hence to farmers' livelihoods. Different groups have different assessments as to the seriousness of the problem I expect. Farmers seem happy to exterminate any and all wild animals whilst animal rights campaigners would have a very different view

Why? I don't see the Germans stating that Botswana can't shoot elephants, or do whatever else they like with them. Failing to shoot Botswana's elephants is not something that Germany should pay reparations for. Am I going to have to pay Botswana because I have no wish to shoot their elephants?
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68715164

At first I thought it was an Onion headline, but it's true. Make your own joke here.

Just even imagining having to get them there, with their GDP, would probably drain it. And then, what is Germany going to do with 20K elephants?

You're missing the point completely. The Botswanans aren't stupid. The headline does not tell the real story. You're pointing and laughing at people with a serious problem.
 
Gophers are a real problem too. But I'm not in favor of killing them or sending 20,000 of them to Germany.
 
It's yet another case of Western countries pursuing one agenda (in this case animal conservation) running into a developing country's desire to develop their economy.


Licensed hunting is a form of animal conservation. Charge fees, then use those fees to manage wildlife. It is literally the primary revenue source for every single state wildlife agency in the United States. Botswana is proposing to manage their wildlife the same way we Americans do.

Not surprising - back in the 1990's they had a bunch of students going through the wildlife and natural resource programs at Colorado State University. CSU has one of the best (or maybe the very best, depending upon the source) wildlife programs in the world.

There are better solutions than culling them or sending 20,000 of them to Germany.

What that solution is, don't know. And not sure an elephant surplus looks like. They make it sound like they're stampeding over everybody and their crops. Haven't seen any independent reporting on that.


When I was in the Peace Corps at a wildlife reserve in southern Nepal (late 1990's) we had elephants causing problems. They would leave the reserve and raid crops a few weeks before the rice harvest was to come in. The average farm there was only about four acres, even a single elephant could cause significant crop loss to a farmer. A herd could destroy his entire livelihood for the year - utterly devastating in a poor country living hand to mouth.

They would also pull at the roof thatching, which would bring down entire houses. Pull up fence lines and spook the cattle such that it could take days to find them all again.

These were Indian elephants, smaller and less violent than their African cousins. The big African elephants are much more likely to kill people.

For years there has been discussion of some form of birth control for wild animals (not just elephants). Can't really neuter the males because that disrupts hormones - that's fine for our domestic dogs and animals but maybe not so good with wild animals. Plus it only takes one intact male to impregnate a whole bunch of females.

Injectable birth control for females of this or that wildlife species has been in discussion since I was a wildlife student (with those Botswana men at Colorado State in the mid-1990's). Sometimes they suggest a slow-dissolvable tablet lodges just below the skin, delivered via pellet gun. Back then the suggestion was to treat Bison at Yellowstone as a means of preventing the necessity of doing the annual cull there (which still happens). There was discussion of doing it to elk at Rocky Mountain National Park a decade later to prevent the need to cull that park's elk herd (the cull happened anyway, and might still be happening I have not kept up on the issue since I stopped working there).

The birth control thing generally never happens. On one side people worry about some genetic impacts from disrupting the normal reproductive patterns, can't have survival of the fittest if we're artificially preventing the fittest from breeding. At the other end there are the politicians and others who blow a gasket at the idea of spending good money on birth control for animals.
 
Last edited:
Licensed hunting is a form of animal conservation. Charge fees, then use those fees to manage wildlife. It is literally the primary revenue source for every single state wildlife agency in the United States. Botswana is proposing to manage their wildlife the same way we Americans do.

Not surprising - back in the 1990's they had a bunch of students going through the wildlife and natural resource programs at Colorado State University. CSU has one of the best (or maybe the very best, depending upon the source) wildlife programs in the world.




When I was in the Peace Corps at a wildlife reserve in southern Nepal (late 1990's) we had elephants causing problems. They would leave the reserve and raid crops a few weeks before the rice harvest was to come in. The average farm there was only about four acres, even a single elephant could cause significant crop loss to a farmer. A herd could destroy his entire livelihood for the year - utterly devastating in a poor country living hand to mouth.

They would also pull at the roof thatching, which would bring down entire houses. Pull up fence lines and spook the cattle such that it could take days to find them all again.

These were Indian elephants, smaller and less violent than their African cousins. The big African elephants are much more likely to kill people.

For years there has been discussion of some form of birth control for wild animals (not just elephants). Can't really neuter the males because that disrupts hormones - that's fine for our domestic dogs and animals but maybe not so good with wild animals. Plus it only takes one intact male to impregnate a whole bunch of females.

Injectable birth control for females of this or that wildlife species has been in discussion since I was a wildlife student (with those Botswana men at Colorado State in the mid-1990's). Sometimes they suggest a slow-dissolvable tablet lodges just below the skin, delivered via pellet gun. Back then the suggestion was to treat Bison at Yellowstone as a means of preventing the necessity of doing the annual cull there (which still happens). There was discussion of doing it to elk at Rocky Mountain National Park a decade later to prevent the need to cull that park's elk herd (the cull happened anyway, and might still be happening I have not kept up on the issue since I stopped working there).

The birth control thing generally never happens. On one side people worry about some genetic impacts from disrupting the normal reproductive patterns, can't have survival of the fittest if we're artificially preventing the fittest from breeding. At the other end there are the politicians and others who blow a gasket at the idea of spending good money on birth control for animals.

Thank you for that response, it was quite insightful. I'm still going with not killing elephants if you don't really have to.
 
I'll pass, sorry.

Just send 20,000 elephants to Germany. Dead or alive.
 
Your roo problem is of no concern to the Western world. Germany has enough problems with 44 jerseys.
 
Hannibal had some ideas for utilizing elephants. Perhaps Russia could buy some, they seem to be in constant need of military hardware for that successful conquest of theirs.

Actually Pryhhus used elephants in Italy before Hannibal did.
They were a standrad weapon of war a long time before Hannible.
 
Actually Pryhhus used elephants in Italy before Hannibal did.
They were a standrad weapon of war a long time before Hannible.

Well, yeah. If memory serves (of history class, not the event itself, I'm not that old) Hannibal's dad did the elephant thing, too. I'm sure lots of people who didn't get mentioned in history did it earlier. I'd hazard a guess that someone in a region more heavily elephanted did it first. Possibly with mammoths. But the point is that however elephants have been used in war, Russia would find a way to lose them faster than anybody else.

Probably the best use of elephants in war is as soup to feed the troops but for some reason people are supposed to be sentimental about the damn things. I wouldn't let one in my house, that's for sure. They smell bad.
 
There are better solutions than culling them or sending 20,000 of them to Germany.

What that solution is, don't know. And not sure an elephant surplus looks like. They make it sound like they're stampeding over everybody and their crops. Haven't seen any independent reporting on that.

It's called birth control.
 
How would you plan on making birth control for 20,000+ elephants work?
 
Elephants are an endangered species but I guess they aren't too endangered in Botswana.

In America we allow hunters to shoot deer (although only during hunting season and only one or two per hunter) for the same reasons: to keep the population in check. Deer kill more people than any other animal in the US (mostly due to vehicle collisions).

Approximately 120 deer-vehicle collisions happen every day in the United States. In the United States, there are about 200 deaths per year as a result of deer-related accidents.

I'd say that the president makes some fair points. But Elephants are endangered whereas deer are not. I've sometimes wondered if there might be ways to use ivory that are responsible. For example, elephants do die of natural causes eventually. Can their ivory not be used in that case? The real problem is poaching, not ivory itself. Of course, it is complicated I suppose, since if you allow it at all, there is always a possibility that poached ivory is sold as legitimate ivory by criminals, since the ivory itself is the same thing.
 
The driving force behind the Botswanan president's hyperbole seem to be, from the referenced BBC article:

"Earlier this year, Germany's environment ministry suggested there should be stricter limits on importing trophies from hunting animals."

Germany, at this time, has done absolutely nothing that affects Botswana's elephant population in any way. The imports appear to be currently unrestricted. The elephant "problem" appears to have existed prior to any statement by any German politician. If Botswana want to reduce their already existing internal elephant population by having them killed they should do so themselves and not rely on any other country to do this work for them.

Wondering if these elephants recognize Botswana's borders and do not overpopulate in any adjacent countries? If that is the case the problem can be resolved by issuing the elephants passports and encouraging them to emigrate to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, or Namibia.
 
The driving force behind the Botswanan president's hyperbole seem to be, from the referenced BBC article:

"Earlier this year, Germany's environment ministry suggested there should be stricter limits on importing trophies from hunting animals."

Germany, at this time, has done absolutely nothing that affects Botswana's elephant population in any way. The imports appear to be currently unrestricted. The elephant "problem" appears to have existed prior to any statement by any German politician. If Botswana want to reduce their already existing internal elephant population by having them killed they should do so themselves and not rely on any other country to do this work for them.

Botswana has limited funds. Right now, wealthy foreigners will pay Botswana for the privilege of helping to cull their elephant population. The proposed new German restrictions on elephant trophies would make things more difficult for Botswana. I don't think anybody wants that. Not even PitPat.

I think the German environment ministry was talking out its ass, ignorantly without due consideration for the needs of the other parties involved.

And I think Botswana's retort was entirely appropriate to the quality of ass-talk coming out of Germany: "If you love elephant overpopulation so much, how about you take these elephants?"

It's obviously rhetorical hyperbole, but that's the point. Germany's environmental ministry should STFU about stuff it doesn't understand.
 
Botswana has limited funds. Right now, wealthy foreigners will pay Botswana for the privilege of helping to cull their elephant population. The proposed new German restrictions on elephant trophies would make things more difficult for Botswana. I don't think anybody wants that. Not even PitPat.

I think the German environment ministry was talking out its ass, ignorantly without due consideration for the needs of the other parties involved.

And I think Botswana's retort was entirely appropriate to the quality of ass-talk coming out of Germany: "If you love elephant overpopulation so much, how about you take these elephants?"

It's obviously rhetorical hyperbole, but that's the point. Germany's environmental ministry should STFU about stuff it doesn't understand.


I suspect that there are adequate "wealthy foreigners" from countries other than Germany who think that killing animals is fun that would be more than willing to kill some of Botswana's elephants for them. Botswana might find it profitable to concentrate on positively promoting their cause in those countries rather than snidely interfering in the internal affairs (that they don't understand ;)) of countries they don't agree with. Note that Germany has not proposed to stop Germans from killing the elephants, or any other animals, just from bringing their body parts into Germany. Perhaps German hunters could take some satisfaction from having their photo taken posing beside a large dead animal and posting a blow-up of the photo on the wall of their home. Or even on facebook for the world to admire. If Botswana's economy is so tied to specifically German hunters that losing some would seriously impact that economy then they have much more dire issues to deal with than the mere killing of a few elephants. Anyway, I doubt that Botswana's economy is so limited that they cannot afford to shoot a few elephants themselves, if overpopulation is really the problem that they seem to want the world to think it is. It actually appears that they are content to live with the overpopulation in order to attract foreign hunters.

As an aside, you will note from the words I use above that I find trophy hunting quite distasteful. Hunting for game animals where the bulk of the animal is put to use, and culling where the primary purpose is to resolve a problem for the local human population is fine with me. Killing an animal purely for the pleasure of showing off that you did it is sick.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that there are adequate "wealthy foreigners" from countries other than Germany who think that killing animals is fun that would be more than willing to kill some of Botswana's elephants for them.
Not if Germany starts a trend of stricter regulation in other countries as well.
 
In Bob Barker mode (for US people), aren't there some limitations for spaying and neutering elephants, and that many. Far as I know, it takes more than a shot. But I'm not versed in such things. You'll probably need to tranquilize them first before the procedure. And it's probably not something with which most veterinarians have experience. Could be wrong, as usual.
 
Some places have a shortage of elephants. I don't think however, it's simply a matter of shipping the excess to where they are needed.

Laos has seen massive decline in numbers caused by the usual problems if I understand correctly: logging, poaching, trafficking being the main factors.

But transporting a large quantity of African variety pachyderms probably wouldn't do the native species a lot of good.
 

Back
Top Bottom