This is for sure a very delicate topic with often two very strictly divided parties. The ones who are for and the ones who are against.
It most certainly is a topic I currently do not know enough about to be able to judge what is right or wrong. And I'm hoping to find out a lot more about it when I'm in Africa.
But maybe because I'm not so knowledgeable, I'm the right one to bring up the topic? After all, if I learned one thing from my time as a project manager and team lead for various companies, it is that I can not know everything, but with the input from experts can gather enough information to make good decisions. And it all starts with having a rough idea, presenting that to the experts and ask questions.
So here we go.
Mankind has become so used to culling, that we usually do not even question it anymore. It's typical. We plough into an area we do not know (be it a country, a culture, oceans or space, doesn't matter) with brutal force and without ever considering the consequences. Then, when it is too late, we do not look at how we can mend the cause of the problem. Instead, we start "treating" the symptoms. Typical behaviour of the white man who considers himself the superior species. In case you think that's racist, you're right. But let's face it. The white man with his ridiculous ego is the root cause of most of the problems we are facing. Or how many indigenous people do you know that started raping the land for resources, committed genocide on other humans, were the first to terrorise people with a different religion or developed a weapon strong enough to destroy the entire planet, because that really is what you need when you are being attacked?
But back to the topic.
We come in, we ruin the natural balance of things and we start fighting the symptoms and not the cause.
As a result, here in Europe we simply have to shoot dear and wild boar every year because we drove their natural enemies away. In Australia we have to shoot brumbies (wild horses) because we let horses run wild in a country where they did not belong (and therefore did not have any natural enemies). Not to mention the rabbits. And in numerous other countries we are trapping or killing animals, simply because they "have become a problem".
And we have done it for such a long time and with such a matter of course, that we have all come to accept it as normal.
But is it?
Of course not. Normal would be restoration of the original natural balance of things. But is that possible? Hm. Difficult to answer. And certainly not something you can answer with a one size fits all answer.
Here in Europe, space has become so limited (or rather, population has become so dense) that it could be very hard indeed to do. To oversimplify the problem: we have too many dear for a certain area. So we should let in the wolves to solve the problem. But wolves travel over huge distances and take whatever they can get. So if right outside of the 1,000 hectare of "dear-country" there is a sheep-farm, we're creating a new problem when introducing wolves. We could try to increase "dear-country" to maybe 1,000,000 hectare to keep the wolves inside, but it would mean moving whole populations and industries.
A very un-scientific example, but I think you see where I'm getting at.
It most certainly is a topic I currently do not know enough about to be able to judge what is right or wrong. And I'm hoping to find out a lot more about it when I'm in Africa.
But maybe because I'm not so knowledgeable, I'm the right one to bring up the topic? After all, if I learned one thing from my time as a project manager and team lead for various companies, it is that I can not know everything, but with the input from experts can gather enough information to make good decisions. And it all starts with having a rough idea, presenting that to the experts and ask questions.
So here we go.
Mankind has become so used to culling, that we usually do not even question it anymore. It's typical. We plough into an area we do not know (be it a country, a culture, oceans or space, doesn't matter) with brutal force and without ever considering the consequences. Then, when it is too late, we do not look at how we can mend the cause of the problem. Instead, we start "treating" the symptoms. Typical behaviour of the white man who considers himself the superior species. In case you think that's racist, you're right. But let's face it. The white man with his ridiculous ego is the root cause of most of the problems we are facing. Or how many indigenous people do you know that started raping the land for resources, committed genocide on other humans, were the first to terrorise people with a different religion or developed a weapon strong enough to destroy the entire planet, because that really is what you need when you are being attacked?
But back to the topic.
We come in, we ruin the natural balance of things and we start fighting the symptoms and not the cause.
As a result, here in Europe we simply have to shoot dear and wild boar every year because we drove their natural enemies away. In Australia we have to shoot brumbies (wild horses) because we let horses run wild in a country where they did not belong (and therefore did not have any natural enemies). Not to mention the rabbits. And in numerous other countries we are trapping or killing animals, simply because they "have become a problem".
And we have done it for such a long time and with such a matter of course, that we have all come to accept it as normal.
But is it?
Of course not. Normal would be restoration of the original natural balance of things. But is that possible? Hm. Difficult to answer. And certainly not something you can answer with a one size fits all answer.
Here in Europe, space has become so limited (or rather, population has become so dense) that it could be very hard indeed to do. To oversimplify the problem: we have too many dear for a certain area. So we should let in the wolves to solve the problem. But wolves travel over huge distances and take whatever they can get. So if right outside of the 1,000 hectare of "dear-country" there is a sheep-farm, we're creating a new problem when introducing wolves. We could try to increase "dear-country" to maybe 1,000,000 hectare to keep the wolves inside, but it would mean moving whole populations and industries.
A very un-scientific example, but I think you see where I'm getting at.
But what is it like in countries such as in Africa? Isn't it a lot simpler there?
Elephants can be pretty destructive. Those bellies need to be filled, and like the animal, the bellies are huge. And once a herd of hungry elephants went over a patch of bush veld, no bulldozer could have done a more thorough job. And the area is usually changed forever, will turn from bush veld into grasslands, taking away the biotope of many animal species.
Kruger National Park thinks about culling elephants for exactly this reason, hoping to protect some of that bush veld and the biodiversity the park is known for. Fortunately, contrary to dear and wild boar here in Europe, culling of elephants is not something we are used to, so there is a lot of consideration before a decision is taken.
But what are the alternatives? Shouldn't Kruger be large enough to give the elephants the space they need to live in harmony with the rest of creation without destroying so much nature that the park's biodiversity is endangered? Shouldn't the situation on site be such, that a possible over-population of elephants is stopped in a natural way? And if the answer is no, then what exactly is the cause? Are we overlooking something elementary in the behaviour of elephants or in their relationship with their environment? Can climate change (partly caused, by the way, by the killing of wildlife) be the cause of the problem? Are we maybe looking at a way too short timeframe (the average lifespan of a human being is less than nothing in the cause of evolution, after all) and should we accept elephants destroying habitats because it has it's purpose in the natural development of things over the next couple of centuries?
There's hundreds, if not thousands of questions we should answer, in my opinion, before we decide to do something as drastic as culling.
And to be honest, I don't know the answer to any of them. But I'm hoping to find out. And when I have more information, I will certainly get back on this topic here.
All I do know is that Creation was never designed to depend on one species going about killing other species simply because "there are too many" of that other species. When we get to the point where we believe this is necessary, it means we have gone too far. From there on, I think we only have two options. Either we change ourselves and our behaviour in such a way that things can go their natural way again. Or we take that one step further, fight the symptoms and start killing and in the end destroy ourselves in the process. Because no matter how you turn it, killing another species as a "solution" means killing another piece of nature. And although nature can do very well without human beings, human beings can not do without nature.
From my current point of view, it is clear which step we should take. And it's not culling. No matter how hard it may be to change the real cause of problems, rather than just the symptoms, if we want our children and grandchildren to have a liveable planet, we must go that way.
There is a doctor in Germany, who also happens to be a comedian, who made it very clear in an interview. He said that "the ongoing loss of species on earth is the dementia of our planet. The wisdom,. the genius, the whole trial-and-error of evolution of the planet is being held in every living thing, every animal, every plant. And with every species that dies, a part of this is irrevocably lost."
If you have ideas about this topic, any know-how or any opinion, please comment or send me an email. I'll be happy to hear from you.