Hi birding-aus
I
hesitate to comment here, partly because of my position, and partly because
elephants seems a bit off topic, but if I may be allowed a personal observation
there are some points that need clarification.
Conservation is a far more complicated subject than the few lines in a
newspaper, or sound grab on the news, would lead the public to believe. We, as
zoo curators, cringe every time we hear that a 'captive breeding program' is
going to save such and such a species. To start with, there are different kinds
of breeding program and they have different goals. It's relatively easy to breed
and release, and this is the kind of program we engage in with NPWS, or some
other wildlife agency. The kind of program we are talking about with elephants
is a 'preservation' program, a plan to retain behavioural integrity and genetic
variation for a long period, usually 100 years, in captivity. This kind of
program is complicated, expensive and of uncertain outcome. It assumes there
will be habitat for the species in a hundred years time. It assumes that
humankind will have brought its population under control and that
attitudes will have changed. It assumes that careful and continuous genetic
management will enable the captive population to retain most (our target is 90%)
of the genetic variation in the wild population (at the time of sampling).
It also assumes that humans can focus on one project for 100 years, which in
itself is a long shot. There are few human endeavours that span generations
(since the pyramids anyway).
Nonetheless, we aim to manage any species in our collection that has an
IUCN threat status for retained genetic heterozygocity. Lions, tigers, lemurs,
gibbons etc.. We do this because there is no other way. Many of these
species will not survive this century in the wild. If future generations are to
see a Sumatran Tiger on the slopes of Kerinci, the species will have to be
nursed through this century (and make no mistake, a tiger in captivity, how
ever good the care, is not a substitute for a tiger in the wild).
Because in the end conservation isn't about money and reserves, it's
about people and attitudes. The money keeps a species alive from day to day but
people secure its future. On paper, Indonesia has quite a good reserve system. In
reality the locals see reserves as good places to poach, log, and plant. (And
quite frankly I don't blame them. I am quickly irritated by the rich telling
the poor to stay poor. If we privileged few in Australia, fat and careless
as we are, end up living in a wasted continent, at least it's our fault. Pity
the millions living in the Ganges delta who will be looking for higher ground as
sea levels rise.)
Which is why
elephants coming to Australia isn't just (or even mostly) about captive
breeding. It's really about the 1.2 million visitors who visit Taronga. No
one who has stood in the shadow of an elephant would countenance their
extinction. If a fraction of our visitors left the
zoo with slightly more inclination to vote green, with slightly more inclination
to recycle water (trying to stay topical here), and with a
slightly heightened sense of the impending loss, I'd bring in elephants by
the truck load. The reality is that there is not
much room left for wildlife and that the first victims will be the big stuff. As
an adolescent I didn't much mind what happened to a species once I'd seen it.
Now I recognise we have some obligations to future generations. To do what we can, however
desperate.
Giday birders,
I have been following
the story about the importation of Elephants into Australia with more than a
little interest. I will state that I don't know anything about elephant
conservation other than what I have heard in the media over the last few days,
so I may have the story completely wrong.
Anyway, the federal environment minister has
given approval for 8 - 10 asian elephants to be imported into Australia
for a captive breeding program being planned by several zoos, including
Taronga in Sydney. Apparently they (Taronga) are spending $14 million on a 2.5
Ha enclosure for them. Other zoos are also involved, all saying that this will
be wonderful for conservation of the species, which one report said there were
only 35 000 left in the wild.
My question is this. How is captive breeding
(which apparently hasn't worked very well for elephants in the past) in
Australia really going to help these beasts? I dare say the problems faced by
Asian Elephants are more to do with habitat destruction than lack of breeding
success. But more importantly, how much conservation of Australian wildlife
could be done with $14 million, plus transport costs, plus the amounts spent
by other zoos. Sure elephants are worth conserving, but when conservation
dollars are hard to come by, why not be a little smarter with those
dollars.
How much land in the Capertee valley could be
bought and revegetated for Regent Honeyeater habitat, a bird whose numbers are
significantly lower than 35 000. How about hairy nosed wombats, even easier
than Regent He, as they don't move around so much?
Or is it just me?
Cheers
Graham Turner
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses for the Zoological
Parks
Board of NSW by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning Services -
powered
by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com
_____________________________________________________________________
