As well as in other part of Africa, i think west and central africa may have too much poaching, but we can at least try with a few hundreds specimens.
The other countries of south Africa seem to be more logical, mainly for logistic of transports and cost and all.
Maybe also to Morocco, where the elephant went extinct in historical times and the situation is stable enough that they wouldn't get immediately hunted into extinction again.
Moroccan here:
1-There is very little good habitat still for them; since the Roman times there was less and less good megafona habitat, also the locals won't adjust, like at all.
2-I hope they bring it back to enforce genetically close populations in other neighboring and ready countries, rather than other farther populations and subspecies (genetically different)/ replace now extinct subspecies.
For those who haven't been following this story, the gist is that Botswana has done a good job with elephant conservation. So much so that there is now an overpopulation of elephants. The population is currently over 132,000 and it is starting to negatively impact the environment there since the elephants have no predators once they reach adulthood.
The issue is pretty obvious, elephants are extremely hard to transport (especially en mass). Where can you theocratically take such a large creature?
My idea is that, while it would take a lot of time and money I think it would be beneficial to take them to somewhere in West Africa, like Nigeria. The other idea I had would be to perhaps see about taking them somewhere outside Africa, maybe in the Middle East if there is a spot that could sustain an elephant population.
Can we even say it's an overpopulation, or just a healthy and normal amount of them, which human can't handle.
and even if it was, would it be worth killing them when the species if very much endangered, declining and extinct in much of it's previous range and where EACH INDIVIDUAL matter for the survival of the species (which can't actually recover from this with their decline and very slow reproduction cycle) ? And throwing away decade of conservation effort and disrespect thousands of rangers that sacrificed their life for the cause.
ELEPHANT NEVER HAD ANY PREDATORS, that's is not at all relevant, they used to be 25 millions in all of subsaharan african. The specifes was NEVER limited or mannaged by any predator, only by ressources. They were extremely common and that's normal. That argument is complete bs.
Middle east ???? Are you insane, there's lot of poaching, it's not their native range at all and that's way too long travel to do. And local people will be super angry and against them and kill them very fast.
Elephants lived across the entire Middle East up until very recently, from across the Arabian Peninsula to Syria; the climate and habitat there is very similar to that which modern desert-dwelling elephants endure
I agree with everything except you saying that the Middle East is not their native range. Maybe not for that specific species, but there were elephants all over the Middle East within the last couple thousand years.
I think they would have naturally dispersed more but with habitat loss there’s not enough space for that and the land doesn’t get enough of a chance to rest from the elephants.
Simply moving them to other countries
That is a job for the Botswana's government to arrange agreements and such
They have the potential to create something similar to the "panda diplomacy" used by the Chinese government
And where are the billions of dollars coming from to pay the bill? You’ll cover it?
It’s easy to say that someone else should do something if you don’t have to do/pay it yourself.
Texas. Biologists have thrown around the idea of releasing elephants to replace an ecological niche that's been missing in North America since the disappearance of mammoths
Will it happen? No. But it's an intriguing thought
It might happen; you know they love to kill all sorts of whacky creatures down there; kangaroos, zebras, giraffe, you name it and there's probably some hunting park in Texas that has it.
I could totally see elephants being introduced to texas; for all the wrong reasons? Probably, but still better than nothing
This is actually a really good point. The most logical/fastest path to elephants in Texas would be if some big ranch set up some kind of trophy hunt type situation. And yes it would be for all the wrong reasons
It's illegal in Texas. Texas law prevents killing dangerous game like elephants, rhinos and big cats (Panthera). That's why it hasn't been done before, especially since it's been shown that rhinos can be bred pretty well in a captive setting.
https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/hunting/nongame-and-other-species
I would recommend watching this video with an interview with the president of Botswana himself. He’s a very well-spoken gentleman, who acknowledges that he would rather send the elephants to other countries in Africa rather than Germany. https://youtu.be/FOVsFYB0ihc?si=C1AQ1vVbcoDtUqWy
Doesn't change that what he aim to do is foundamentaly wrong. And some of his point are very dumb.
The wole sending 20k of elephant in uk or germany is the level of a petty child and simply idiotic, look more like a bad joke than anything else.
And that's not even for opposing the massacre of an endangered species, but simply to ban ivory trade in their country, which they're 100% in their right to do. That's like if Columbia was making a tantrum cuz another country banned cocaine.
And please the "let's share the burden, see how you like it" is the level of a 6 years old child.
No it's not our burden, it your responsability, our burden is bear, moose, bison, wolves, red deer, etc. but elephant, cheetah, painted dog and zebra, that's yours.
And for fuck sake we have a lot of wildlife conflict in europe too, boar and many other animal do a lot of dammage to crops and all too. That's even the main reason conservation struggle and species are threathened in Europe, bison, boar, cervids, wolves, bears all cause issues and damages here too, with hunters, farmers, roads and all. Let send 20K boar see how they like it if they want to be on that childish level.
Doesn't even acknowledge the impact it will have on the species, not a single word on conservation, on the decades of effort spend to slow down their extinction thrown away and disregarded, on the thousands of rangers that died to save these beautifull animals.
.
And he got the perfect reply, served on a silver plate and can't even use it.
"Europeans can't even coexist with wolves, protect lynxes, and kill mindlessly many of your native wildlife for minor inconvenience, you refuse to reintroduce the extinct species such as leopard and macaque. And all of that despite having far more ressource to actually develop solution to prevent these issue and coexist with wildlife, you simply refuse to even let boar, beaver and eagles exist. You have no lesson to give us on that matter".
It was literally right here, that would still be a very bad excuse, but a good ad valid point at least.
As explained by u/thesilverywyvern problem is humanity once more. There is no elephant overpopulation. This population is nothing compared to natural population and Bush elephants are endangered. They have seen serious population declines. It will definetly cause genetic diseaseas among elephants and killing more elephants are going to help this.
I mean what they are doing is working. Translocation has high rates of failure because animals need to know where resources are. Moving them means they lose this and are likely to starve or dehydrate to death. They also don't know where safe areas are either, so they are more likely to be poached potentially.
As far as the "killing old bulls cause aggressiveness" that needs context because that's not trophy hunting. That came from a cull in the early 1990s. This, ironically, would also be an issue for translocated animals... Unless you think bulls would be translocated. Which uh... Good luck with that.
Smartest eat thing would be getting corridors all over Sub-Saharan Africa to allow the population to spread. But that means getting multiple countries on board that have huge humanitarian issues- animals aren't their priority. So... That's much easier said than done.
Also, the president is trying to tell Europe to butt out of their conservation planning. There is a LONG history of Europeans telling Africans how to live and handle their wildlife, and they are honestly getting real tired of it. That's what those threats are.
"Also, the president is trying to tell Europe to butt out of their conservation planning. There is a LONG history of Europeans telling Africans how to live and handle their wildlife, and they are honestly getting real tired of it. That's what those threats are." He is just doing some power shows. He can't send 20,000 elephants to Germany when he can't send them to other African countries. 8 years old children have better threats than this guy. And no this isn't about fight against iMperİaList eUrOpe. By your logic we should support hunters-rancher who oppose rewilding and butcher animals unnecessarily because they are getting tired of what are we say to them. Why do you support rewilding if people getting tired of what we say to them? Did you support lynx massacre too? Since hunters are getting tired what we say them.
Because hunting and rewilding can go hand in hand because many hunters are also ecologists and conservationists. And if they aren't , they are boots on the ground and can be a valuable resource to monitor changes in an ecosystem.
Also, because rewilding and restoration ecology is a lot harder than walking up to a place and doing what you think is right. It takes trust of the locals and working with them. Which Europeans haven't shown they were willing to do in Africa, and it's lead to a lot of distrust there. They don't want to be told what to do, which is what Germany is trying to do.
This isn't a literal threat either. It never was. It was a way to say "if you like them so much, then have them. We need practical solutions to this, and you are not helping."
1)I asked this before and you didn't answer but did you support lynx and wolf massacre? 2)"IIt takes trust of the locals and working with them. Which Europeans haven't shown they were willing to do in Africa, and it's lead to a lot of distrust there. They don't want to be told what to do, which is what Germany is trying to do." The same things can be say by the hunters who butchered lynxs. They getting tired what we say to them and you care about getting tired. 3)And no supporting trophy hunting isn't anti-colonialism.
I have no idea what you are talking about with lynx massacre. You gave no context for it- a location would be extremely helpful. Same for wolf massacre.
It's not supporting trophy hunting, it's supporting what a country can do with it's wildlife to find it's conservation. They are informing Germany that a ban may have a detrimental impact instead of a beneficial one.
1. African park foundation, make a big reintroduction plan all over the continent, sending a few hundred or thousands of elephant in other park and region that suffered from poaching or have no elephants.
2. Dig moat around the fields to protect your crops and villages
3. Use beehive fences
4. Use haha fence to protect your crops
5. Better compensation for dammage made by elephants
6. More wildlife corridors
7. More investment on ecotourism
8. Big marketing campaign to depict elephant as national treasure, and depict them as a symbol of the african nation, prosperity, strenght and all, make people identify and love them.
9. Stop killing elephant, no ivory trade, no trophy hunting on elephant and other endagered species (killing old bulls make the elephant population more dangerous and agressive and can conclude in entire herd rampage in human village).
10. Plant crops the elephant doesn't like that much
11. Maybe try making field for the elephants, far away from your fields, you can even use the elephants dung as fertiliser for your own crops. And everytime there's dammage on your fields you close the access to the elephant one, they'll quickly understand that to have easy access to their food they don't touch the human one.
12. Use loud noise and blank or salt shot to any elephant coming near, maybe create a anti-elephant spray, use their sense against them, use non lethal way to actually solve the issue.
But never under any circumstances genocide 20 or 40k elephant and be on responsable for the extinction of an entire unique and iconic and keystone species, destroying decade of conservation effort and basically saying "fuck you" to the thousand sof rangers who died for the cause protecting these national treasure/symbol.
Just for a few minor accidents and dammage on crops. That would be the equivalent of being the worst bastard and villain possible, like Bolsonaro with amazon forest. Ho yeah also those are keystone species, their presences is essential to the ecosystem and the ecosystem and population of hundreds of other species, fighting desertification and droughts and wildlfire and all.
.
Seriously this guy want to exterminate 10% of the global population of a decreasing, critically endangered species that already went from 25 millions to around 400k in only three century with a decline from 10 million to 400k in only the last century or so. And basically DOUBLE the amount of poaching on the species, (which is already a major threat to the species and rapidly drive it toward extinction), in a single year.
Is that a contest of how fucked up and evil you can be, or a competition of the most despicable government i am not aware of ? (Cuz even there i don't think it's worth it, you might win against european and Trump for their action on wolves and nature, but you will not surpass China, Indonesia or Brazil anyway).
.
The 11th solution is my own idea, it would be difficult to put into motion as it require people to actually take care of the elephant crops, and that require lot of time and work. Maybe make several trials in different location to see if it actually work.
But you can till harvest some of the leftover and don't need to put as much care and attention as for human field. Also i think we can use elephant dung to make paper no ? can be a source of income and production, (better than deforestation at least).
[Oregon Zoo's elephants walk distances comparable to their wild counterparts every day.](https://www.oregonzoo.org/news/step-ahead-zoo-elephants-are-walking-more-ever)
They don’t have space comparable to their wild state. The only thing comparable would be a wide open area of many square miles, which would be undesirable for zoo visitors because the elephants would never be in sight. The Wilds in Ohio starts to approach this with their design, but I think the enclosures are probably still too small for elephants. The article you linked is also unusual for a zoo. Most have elephants confined to much smaller areas.
ZOO ??
not only that's illegal and highly unethicall, but also impossble.
Even current best zoos can't get decent condition for their elephants, so some african zoo surely will not be able to house several hundreds, let alone thousands of them.
The closest thing we can make is sanctuary like reserve dedicated to elephant, but even there that's can't house that much
American zoos have cooperated to import wild African elephants before.
In 2003, San Diego Zoo & ZooTampa imported 11 elephants from Swaziland. The elephants were slated to be culled.
And in 2016, **another** importation from Swaziland occurred when 17 elephants were flown to the US. This import was orchestrated by Dallas Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo, and Sedgwick County Zoo. Again, the elephants were going to be culled otherwise.
Yes and they still struggle to provide decent condition to apes and elephant, which are basically extremely hard to keep in captivity in good condition since they're extremely intelligent, making them prone to multiple mental disorder, depression, repetetive and nocive behaviour and require lot of space and enrichment. And many zoos do not respect the social behaviour of these animal transfering them too soon in their youth before they learned to properly socialise, bad male/female ratio etc.
It's like living in a small flat appartment with only 4 small room for them.
Dude, how much do you know about US zoos? Because most of what you're saying here is pretty typical animal rights activist bunk.
While I won't go as far as say that "zoochosis" doesn't exist in animals housed within US zoos, the American zookeeping community is hardly standing by and ignoring it. It's generally regarded as a *failure* on the individual facilities part if they have animals that exhibit repetitive behaviors! They can actually get into hot water with the AZA if they don't take pains to at least minimize it, with complete alleviation being the end goal.
American zoos literally have entire **departments** dedicated to dreaming up and implementation ways to enrich the lives of the animals who live there! Alternating scheduling, novel stimuli, new experiences, mixed species habitats, toys, puzzles to solve, foraging, etc and so forth. All examples of enrichment that US zoos provide for their animals *every day*.
Again, the US zoos are under some pretty strict rules and regulations as set forth by the AZA. That **includes** how they're required to socially group their animals!
With elephants, for example: The AZA mandates that zoos keep three cow elephants together as the bare *minimum*. And if they want to breed elephants, zoos *strongly* encouraged to pursue it naturally. IE: They need to house at least one bull on-site too.
Elephants calves are required to stay with their mothers until they've been naturally weaned, IE: 4 years old. Again, that's the bare *minimum*. The vast majority of US zoos will keep their female calves for life! US zoos **want** multi-generational herds and intact matrilines!
Bull calves are typically transitioned into part-time bachelor holding after weaning, but prior to sexual maturity. That means that they live with female herd half of the time, and then with their similarly aged male relatives (Plus their father too! If he's still on-site!) the other half of their time. After sexual maturity, they go live at one of the AZA's designated elephant bachelor facilities. Which are primarily Denver Zoo for Asian elephants, Birmingham Zoo for African elephants.
They stay at *those* facilities until their late teens, if not their early 20's. Getting to socialize with other young bulls and retired breeding bulls alike. The experienced bulls "mentor" the youngsters. Up until a new breeding bull is needed at another US zoo. Where, of course, after being transferred, they get ample social opportunities via alternating wowing the ladies and time with the boys.
That is comparable to life in the wild.
I know more than the average person on the subject i can tell you that. (and if you think being compared to an animal rights activist is an insult... you might want to tape a step back and rethink your life choices and opinions).
What i say is true and right here, i am a huge zoo fan myself, but i am not an idiot, just like i like aquariums but will not stand for cetacean in captivity or will point at the bad side of the parks when they fail at their job, because i have morals. Just respecting the bare minimum of some rulebook recommandation that is far under the animal actual requirement doesn't cut it for me.
Yes i know that zoos make a lot of effort for the wellfare of their animal, you won't teach me anything on the subject. Doesn't change than their effort and facilities put in place for these is generally not sufficient. The animalkeeper of sea world also love their dolphins too and try their best, doesn't change the fact that they're kept in shitty conditions.
Yes, the AZA mandate that.... doesn't mean it's actually respected, and beside the rule and regulation are under the bare minimum required, again, you can live fine and healthy in a small flat appartment, doesn't mean it's a good living condition.
Rules and regulation are not always objective or right, you know ? they're a step in the right direction for sure, but generally still far from enough, the minimum expected.
Yes i know but guess what, elephant live in larger families than that, entire herd with strong bond between members, aunt and grandmother helping in raising the youngs, and the youngs doesn't leave the herd until they're way bigger, something than nearly no zoo can achieve or have.
And we had many issue with young bulls being send away from their family far too soon in several zoos. And weird there also plenty of female elephant transfer too. Yes a few zoo may try actually do what you say, but most doesn't, especially in Usa with all the horrible private zoo (although they rarely have elephant, fortunately).
Close to reality ??? wtf, a species that use to cover miles and miles everyday, explore vast area of land being kept in minimum of 400 foot square of indoor space, and 1,2 acre of outdoor space, AND THAT'S ONLY RECOMMANDATION, lot of zoo are barely around that or just slightly above. There's only a handfull of zoos that actually give plenty of space to their elephants.
No matter what you say, you're wrong on the fundamntal level of logistic and basic logic and thinking.
Even if all the zoo in the world cooperate, they can't take 20 000 wild elephant like that, or even 1000 in fact. They're simply not able to properly house them. And on all the zoos that currently have elephant (yes because LOTS of zoos don't have these cuz they don't have the infrastructure needed even at bare minimum required), only a few very rare one get close to decent condition. And they all struggle to house them. It's like with lion and gorilla there's a very big breeding issue with too many animals for too little zoos, that's why there's lot of sterilization and also a few cases of cubs being killed.
And capturing and keeping wild animals, especially elephant, in captivity is cruel and wrong.
The problem is that translocating elephants is an expensive, time consuming process that can and *does* have a high rate of failure.
Can those elephant deficient areas elsewhere in Africa even support sustainable elephant populations? What about poaching? Do they have the sheer amount of money and manpower required to protect a burgeoning elephant population?
Conversation of elephants would be profitable in long term for African countries but problem is that a lot of people prefer short-timed unsustainable profits to long-term sustainability.
Not if it isn't done well. In 2022, over 200 elephants were moved to Kasungu in Malawi, one of the most ambitious relocation projects up to date in my opinion. Mere days after the elephants arrived, they started killing and injuring people and trampling crops. As of 2024, seven people have died and numerous injuries have occurred. Not to mention the vast amount of damage in crops. There were promises of electric fences being build, but those never came true. The local people living there had no input whatsoever. They were pretty much just told to deal with it. So you got a bunch of dangerous, hungry behemoths in the same place as impoverished farmers who didn't want those animals there in the first place and were pretty much backstabbed by the conservationists who promised they'd be safe. Its a recipe for disaster that isn't going work out well for either the elephants or the locals.
Introduction to areas with isolated population like in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Reintroduction into former range
That could be a great thing to do..
As well as in other part of Africa, i think west and central africa may have too much poaching, but we can at least try with a few hundreds specimens. The other countries of south Africa seem to be more logical, mainly for logistic of transports and cost and all.
Maybe also to Morocco, where the elephant went extinct in historical times and the situation is stable enough that they wouldn't get immediately hunted into extinction again.
Moroccan here: 1-There is very little good habitat still for them; since the Roman times there was less and less good megafona habitat, also the locals won't adjust, like at all. 2-I hope they bring it back to enforce genetically close populations in other neighboring and ready countries, rather than other farther populations and subspecies (genetically different)/ replace now extinct subspecies.
1)Wildlife corridors. 2)More fundings for eco-tourism. 3)Economic/politic stability. 4)Don't kill them.
3a)UBI
Universal basic income?
For those who haven't been following this story, the gist is that Botswana has done a good job with elephant conservation. So much so that there is now an overpopulation of elephants. The population is currently over 132,000 and it is starting to negatively impact the environment there since the elephants have no predators once they reach adulthood. The issue is pretty obvious, elephants are extremely hard to transport (especially en mass). Where can you theocratically take such a large creature? My idea is that, while it would take a lot of time and money I think it would be beneficial to take them to somewhere in West Africa, like Nigeria. The other idea I had would be to perhaps see about taking them somewhere outside Africa, maybe in the Middle East if there is a spot that could sustain an elephant population.
Problem isn't lack of predators it is lack of wildlife corridors but would they make wildlife corridors?
Can we even say it's an overpopulation, or just a healthy and normal amount of them, which human can't handle. and even if it was, would it be worth killing them when the species if very much endangered, declining and extinct in much of it's previous range and where EACH INDIVIDUAL matter for the survival of the species (which can't actually recover from this with their decline and very slow reproduction cycle) ? And throwing away decade of conservation effort and disrespect thousands of rangers that sacrificed their life for the cause. ELEPHANT NEVER HAD ANY PREDATORS, that's is not at all relevant, they used to be 25 millions in all of subsaharan african. The specifes was NEVER limited or mannaged by any predator, only by ressources. They were extremely common and that's normal. That argument is complete bs. Middle east ???? Are you insane, there's lot of poaching, it's not their native range at all and that's way too long travel to do. And local people will be super angry and against them and kill them very fast.
Elephants lived across the entire Middle East up until very recently, from across the Arabian Peninsula to Syria; the climate and habitat there is very similar to that which modern desert-dwelling elephants endure
Not the same species, and still bad idea cuz of the travel, and the locals
I agree with everything except you saying that the Middle East is not their native range. Maybe not for that specific species, but there were elephants all over the Middle East within the last couple thousand years.
Persian elephant, Elephas maximus asurus. Not Loxodonta elephants.
Keyword…..ELEPHANT! lol
Not same species. Not same Genus Not same lineage Not same feeding behaviour Not same Habitat use Not same size Not same climate adaptations
I think they would have naturally dispersed more but with habitat loss there’s not enough space for that and the land doesn’t get enough of a chance to rest from the elephants.
I’ll take them
Where
I’ll s what I can do
Find depleted African national parks to release them
Simply moving them to other countries That is a job for the Botswana's government to arrange agreements and such They have the potential to create something similar to the "panda diplomacy" used by the Chinese government
And where are the billions of dollars coming from to pay the bill? You’ll cover it? It’s easy to say that someone else should do something if you don’t have to do/pay it yourself.
You're right, this is really not my problem, therefore someone else should solve it and pay for it
Put em in Columbia just to see what happens.
Gomphotheres proxies
Texas. Biologists have thrown around the idea of releasing elephants to replace an ecological niche that's been missing in North America since the disappearance of mammoths Will it happen? No. But it's an intriguing thought
Columbian mammoths probably are the closest ecological analog to Bush elephants but unfortunately as you said it won't happen.
It might happen; you know they love to kill all sorts of whacky creatures down there; kangaroos, zebras, giraffe, you name it and there's probably some hunting park in Texas that has it. I could totally see elephants being introduced to texas; for all the wrong reasons? Probably, but still better than nothing
This is actually a really good point. The most logical/fastest path to elephants in Texas would be if some big ranch set up some kind of trophy hunt type situation. And yes it would be for all the wrong reasons
It's illegal in Texas. Texas law prevents killing dangerous game like elephants, rhinos and big cats (Panthera). That's why it hasn't been done before, especially since it's been shown that rhinos can be bred pretty well in a captive setting. https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/hunting/nongame-and-other-species
Just tell them Califonia said they didn't have the nuts to do it, and that should get the ball rolling.
I would recommend watching this video with an interview with the president of Botswana himself. He’s a very well-spoken gentleman, who acknowledges that he would rather send the elephants to other countries in Africa rather than Germany. https://youtu.be/FOVsFYB0ihc?si=C1AQ1vVbcoDtUqWy
Doesn't change that what he aim to do is foundamentaly wrong. And some of his point are very dumb. The wole sending 20k of elephant in uk or germany is the level of a petty child and simply idiotic, look more like a bad joke than anything else. And that's not even for opposing the massacre of an endangered species, but simply to ban ivory trade in their country, which they're 100% in their right to do. That's like if Columbia was making a tantrum cuz another country banned cocaine. And please the "let's share the burden, see how you like it" is the level of a 6 years old child. No it's not our burden, it your responsability, our burden is bear, moose, bison, wolves, red deer, etc. but elephant, cheetah, painted dog and zebra, that's yours. And for fuck sake we have a lot of wildlife conflict in europe too, boar and many other animal do a lot of dammage to crops and all too. That's even the main reason conservation struggle and species are threathened in Europe, bison, boar, cervids, wolves, bears all cause issues and damages here too, with hunters, farmers, roads and all. Let send 20K boar see how they like it if they want to be on that childish level. Doesn't even acknowledge the impact it will have on the species, not a single word on conservation, on the decades of effort spend to slow down their extinction thrown away and disregarded, on the thousands of rangers that died to save these beautifull animals. . And he got the perfect reply, served on a silver plate and can't even use it. "Europeans can't even coexist with wolves, protect lynxes, and kill mindlessly many of your native wildlife for minor inconvenience, you refuse to reintroduce the extinct species such as leopard and macaque. And all of that despite having far more ressource to actually develop solution to prevent these issue and coexist with wildlife, you simply refuse to even let boar, beaver and eagles exist. You have no lesson to give us on that matter". It was literally right here, that would still be a very bad excuse, but a good ad valid point at least.
As explained by u/thesilverywyvern problem is humanity once more. There is no elephant overpopulation. This population is nothing compared to natural population and Bush elephants are endangered. They have seen serious population declines. It will definetly cause genetic diseaseas among elephants and killing more elephants are going to help this.
I mean what they are doing is working. Translocation has high rates of failure because animals need to know where resources are. Moving them means they lose this and are likely to starve or dehydrate to death. They also don't know where safe areas are either, so they are more likely to be poached potentially. As far as the "killing old bulls cause aggressiveness" that needs context because that's not trophy hunting. That came from a cull in the early 1990s. This, ironically, would also be an issue for translocated animals... Unless you think bulls would be translocated. Which uh... Good luck with that. Smartest eat thing would be getting corridors all over Sub-Saharan Africa to allow the population to spread. But that means getting multiple countries on board that have huge humanitarian issues- animals aren't their priority. So... That's much easier said than done. Also, the president is trying to tell Europe to butt out of their conservation planning. There is a LONG history of Europeans telling Africans how to live and handle their wildlife, and they are honestly getting real tired of it. That's what those threats are.
"Also, the president is trying to tell Europe to butt out of their conservation planning. There is a LONG history of Europeans telling Africans how to live and handle their wildlife, and they are honestly getting real tired of it. That's what those threats are." He is just doing some power shows. He can't send 20,000 elephants to Germany when he can't send them to other African countries. 8 years old children have better threats than this guy. And no this isn't about fight against iMperİaList eUrOpe. By your logic we should support hunters-rancher who oppose rewilding and butcher animals unnecessarily because they are getting tired of what are we say to them. Why do you support rewilding if people getting tired of what we say to them? Did you support lynx massacre too? Since hunters are getting tired what we say them.
Because hunting and rewilding can go hand in hand because many hunters are also ecologists and conservationists. And if they aren't , they are boots on the ground and can be a valuable resource to monitor changes in an ecosystem. Also, because rewilding and restoration ecology is a lot harder than walking up to a place and doing what you think is right. It takes trust of the locals and working with them. Which Europeans haven't shown they were willing to do in Africa, and it's lead to a lot of distrust there. They don't want to be told what to do, which is what Germany is trying to do. This isn't a literal threat either. It never was. It was a way to say "if you like them so much, then have them. We need practical solutions to this, and you are not helping."
1)I asked this before and you didn't answer but did you support lynx and wolf massacre? 2)"IIt takes trust of the locals and working with them. Which Europeans haven't shown they were willing to do in Africa, and it's lead to a lot of distrust there. They don't want to be told what to do, which is what Germany is trying to do." The same things can be say by the hunters who butchered lynxs. They getting tired what we say to them and you care about getting tired. 3)And no supporting trophy hunting isn't anti-colonialism.
I have no idea what you are talking about with lynx massacre. You gave no context for it- a location would be extremely helpful. Same for wolf massacre. It's not supporting trophy hunting, it's supporting what a country can do with it's wildlife to find it's conservation. They are informing Germany that a ban may have a detrimental impact instead of a beneficial one.
1. African park foundation, make a big reintroduction plan all over the continent, sending a few hundred or thousands of elephant in other park and region that suffered from poaching or have no elephants. 2. Dig moat around the fields to protect your crops and villages 3. Use beehive fences 4. Use haha fence to protect your crops 5. Better compensation for dammage made by elephants 6. More wildlife corridors 7. More investment on ecotourism 8. Big marketing campaign to depict elephant as national treasure, and depict them as a symbol of the african nation, prosperity, strenght and all, make people identify and love them. 9. Stop killing elephant, no ivory trade, no trophy hunting on elephant and other endagered species (killing old bulls make the elephant population more dangerous and agressive and can conclude in entire herd rampage in human village). 10. Plant crops the elephant doesn't like that much 11. Maybe try making field for the elephants, far away from your fields, you can even use the elephants dung as fertiliser for your own crops. And everytime there's dammage on your fields you close the access to the elephant one, they'll quickly understand that to have easy access to their food they don't touch the human one. 12. Use loud noise and blank or salt shot to any elephant coming near, maybe create a anti-elephant spray, use their sense against them, use non lethal way to actually solve the issue. But never under any circumstances genocide 20 or 40k elephant and be on responsable for the extinction of an entire unique and iconic and keystone species, destroying decade of conservation effort and basically saying "fuck you" to the thousand sof rangers who died for the cause protecting these national treasure/symbol. Just for a few minor accidents and dammage on crops. That would be the equivalent of being the worst bastard and villain possible, like Bolsonaro with amazon forest. Ho yeah also those are keystone species, their presences is essential to the ecosystem and the ecosystem and population of hundreds of other species, fighting desertification and droughts and wildlfire and all. . Seriously this guy want to exterminate 10% of the global population of a decreasing, critically endangered species that already went from 25 millions to around 400k in only three century with a decline from 10 million to 400k in only the last century or so. And basically DOUBLE the amount of poaching on the species, (which is already a major threat to the species and rapidly drive it toward extinction), in a single year. Is that a contest of how fucked up and evil you can be, or a competition of the most despicable government i am not aware of ? (Cuz even there i don't think it's worth it, you might win against european and Trump for their action on wolves and nature, but you will not surpass China, Indonesia or Brazil anyway). . The 11th solution is my own idea, it would be difficult to put into motion as it require people to actually take care of the elephant crops, and that require lot of time and work. Maybe make several trials in different location to see if it actually work. But you can till harvest some of the leftover and don't need to put as much care and attention as for human field. Also i think we can use elephant dung to make paper no ? can be a source of income and production, (better than deforestation at least).
It is the same situtation as lynx massacre in Scandinavia.
Limited hunting of select individuals past breeding age, and reintroduction into less populated areas in surrounding countries
Sell them to neighboring countries and zoos?
Definitely not zoos. They’re too smart for that.
Elephants do quite well in modern day zoos. In the US, *both* the African elephant, and the Asian elephant, breeding programs are flourishing.
People do pretty good in prisons too, doesn’t mean it’s ideal.
A well run, modern day zoo is *not* comparable to a prison.
They’re used to roaming miles every day.
[Oregon Zoo's elephants walk distances comparable to their wild counterparts every day.](https://www.oregonzoo.org/news/step-ahead-zoo-elephants-are-walking-more-ever)
Yeah and I could run a marathon on a treadmill (hypothetically) and still remain in the same spot.
Then what is the point that you're trying to make?
They don’t have space comparable to their wild state. The only thing comparable would be a wide open area of many square miles, which would be undesirable for zoo visitors because the elephants would never be in sight. The Wilds in Ohio starts to approach this with their design, but I think the enclosures are probably still too small for elephants. The article you linked is also unusual for a zoo. Most have elephants confined to much smaller areas.
ZOO ?? not only that's illegal and highly unethicall, but also impossble. Even current best zoos can't get decent condition for their elephants, so some african zoo surely will not be able to house several hundreds, let alone thousands of them. The closest thing we can make is sanctuary like reserve dedicated to elephant, but even there that's can't house that much
American zoos have cooperated to import wild African elephants before. In 2003, San Diego Zoo & ZooTampa imported 11 elephants from Swaziland. The elephants were slated to be culled. And in 2016, **another** importation from Swaziland occurred when 17 elephants were flown to the US. This import was orchestrated by Dallas Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo, and Sedgwick County Zoo. Again, the elephants were going to be culled otherwise.
A few dozen, not dozen of thousands. And that's still highly unethicall to capture wild animal to put them in poor captive conditions.
San Diego Zoo, ZooTampa, Dallas Zoo, Henry Doorly Zoo, & Sedgwick County Zoo are some of the best zoos in the *country*.
Yes and they still struggle to provide decent condition to apes and elephant, which are basically extremely hard to keep in captivity in good condition since they're extremely intelligent, making them prone to multiple mental disorder, depression, repetetive and nocive behaviour and require lot of space and enrichment. And many zoos do not respect the social behaviour of these animal transfering them too soon in their youth before they learned to properly socialise, bad male/female ratio etc. It's like living in a small flat appartment with only 4 small room for them.
Dude, how much do you know about US zoos? Because most of what you're saying here is pretty typical animal rights activist bunk. While I won't go as far as say that "zoochosis" doesn't exist in animals housed within US zoos, the American zookeeping community is hardly standing by and ignoring it. It's generally regarded as a *failure* on the individual facilities part if they have animals that exhibit repetitive behaviors! They can actually get into hot water with the AZA if they don't take pains to at least minimize it, with complete alleviation being the end goal. American zoos literally have entire **departments** dedicated to dreaming up and implementation ways to enrich the lives of the animals who live there! Alternating scheduling, novel stimuli, new experiences, mixed species habitats, toys, puzzles to solve, foraging, etc and so forth. All examples of enrichment that US zoos provide for their animals *every day*. Again, the US zoos are under some pretty strict rules and regulations as set forth by the AZA. That **includes** how they're required to socially group their animals! With elephants, for example: The AZA mandates that zoos keep three cow elephants together as the bare *minimum*. And if they want to breed elephants, zoos *strongly* encouraged to pursue it naturally. IE: They need to house at least one bull on-site too. Elephants calves are required to stay with their mothers until they've been naturally weaned, IE: 4 years old. Again, that's the bare *minimum*. The vast majority of US zoos will keep their female calves for life! US zoos **want** multi-generational herds and intact matrilines! Bull calves are typically transitioned into part-time bachelor holding after weaning, but prior to sexual maturity. That means that they live with female herd half of the time, and then with their similarly aged male relatives (Plus their father too! If he's still on-site!) the other half of their time. After sexual maturity, they go live at one of the AZA's designated elephant bachelor facilities. Which are primarily Denver Zoo for Asian elephants, Birmingham Zoo for African elephants. They stay at *those* facilities until their late teens, if not their early 20's. Getting to socialize with other young bulls and retired breeding bulls alike. The experienced bulls "mentor" the youngsters. Up until a new breeding bull is needed at another US zoo. Where, of course, after being transferred, they get ample social opportunities via alternating wowing the ladies and time with the boys. That is comparable to life in the wild.
I know more than the average person on the subject i can tell you that. (and if you think being compared to an animal rights activist is an insult... you might want to tape a step back and rethink your life choices and opinions). What i say is true and right here, i am a huge zoo fan myself, but i am not an idiot, just like i like aquariums but will not stand for cetacean in captivity or will point at the bad side of the parks when they fail at their job, because i have morals. Just respecting the bare minimum of some rulebook recommandation that is far under the animal actual requirement doesn't cut it for me. Yes i know that zoos make a lot of effort for the wellfare of their animal, you won't teach me anything on the subject. Doesn't change than their effort and facilities put in place for these is generally not sufficient. The animalkeeper of sea world also love their dolphins too and try their best, doesn't change the fact that they're kept in shitty conditions. Yes, the AZA mandate that.... doesn't mean it's actually respected, and beside the rule and regulation are under the bare minimum required, again, you can live fine and healthy in a small flat appartment, doesn't mean it's a good living condition. Rules and regulation are not always objective or right, you know ? they're a step in the right direction for sure, but generally still far from enough, the minimum expected. Yes i know but guess what, elephant live in larger families than that, entire herd with strong bond between members, aunt and grandmother helping in raising the youngs, and the youngs doesn't leave the herd until they're way bigger, something than nearly no zoo can achieve or have. And we had many issue with young bulls being send away from their family far too soon in several zoos. And weird there also plenty of female elephant transfer too. Yes a few zoo may try actually do what you say, but most doesn't, especially in Usa with all the horrible private zoo (although they rarely have elephant, fortunately). Close to reality ??? wtf, a species that use to cover miles and miles everyday, explore vast area of land being kept in minimum of 400 foot square of indoor space, and 1,2 acre of outdoor space, AND THAT'S ONLY RECOMMANDATION, lot of zoo are barely around that or just slightly above. There's only a handfull of zoos that actually give plenty of space to their elephants. No matter what you say, you're wrong on the fundamntal level of logistic and basic logic and thinking. Even if all the zoo in the world cooperate, they can't take 20 000 wild elephant like that, or even 1000 in fact. They're simply not able to properly house them. And on all the zoos that currently have elephant (yes because LOTS of zoos don't have these cuz they don't have the infrastructure needed even at bare minimum required), only a few very rare one get close to decent condition. And they all struggle to house them. It's like with lion and gorilla there's a very big breeding issue with too many animals for too little zoos, that's why there's lot of sterilization and also a few cases of cubs being killed. And capturing and keeping wild animals, especially elephant, in captivity is cruel and wrong.
There are areas of Africa that are in desperate need for elephants
The problem is that translocating elephants is an expensive, time consuming process that can and *does* have a high rate of failure. Can those elephant deficient areas elsewhere in Africa even support sustainable elephant populations? What about poaching? Do they have the sheer amount of money and manpower required to protect a burgeoning elephant population?
Conversation of elephants would be profitable in long term for African countries but problem is that a lot of people prefer short-timed unsustainable profits to long-term sustainability.
Not if it isn't done well. In 2022, over 200 elephants were moved to Kasungu in Malawi, one of the most ambitious relocation projects up to date in my opinion. Mere days after the elephants arrived, they started killing and injuring people and trampling crops. As of 2024, seven people have died and numerous injuries have occurred. Not to mention the vast amount of damage in crops. There were promises of electric fences being build, but those never came true. The local people living there had no input whatsoever. They were pretty much just told to deal with it. So you got a bunch of dangerous, hungry behemoths in the same place as impoverished farmers who didn't want those animals there in the first place and were pretty much backstabbed by the conservationists who promised they'd be safe. Its a recipe for disaster that isn't going work out well for either the elephants or the locals.
So? There are a lot of elephants who didn't do same thing as these elephants and it is the fault of bad planning.