News

I was very disappointed in the way you set up the elephant debate on Sunday night. Controversial yes, informative no! Your panel was woeful and the questions asked of them did not permit the real issues to come to the fore at all.

First you have Ron Thomson whose ideas, as well intentioned as they are, come from the dark ages. He has no sense at all of modern debate or ecological understanding of the biodiversity management problem. Rudi van Aarde has some of the modern thinking but he confuses his personal value system with a particular and personal scientific view. Together the panel gave a very distorted view to the public.

I had the privilege of facilitating, at the behest of SANParks, a meeting of fifty of Southern Africa’s top scientists to debate the scientific issues of the elephant debate. That group engaged, in a completely open agenda, the full range of modern thinking. Rudi was part of that group and his thinking was one small part of the outcome.

Indeed I can safely say that SANParks has been provided with the best thinking and advice that the scientific fraternity has to offer. They have not disregarded any of that advice in any way. That group of scientists recognised that scientific advice provides only part of the information that SANParks must use in socially responsible decision making. SANParks, unlike any of the other proponents in this debate, is exploring the full range of social, economic, ecological and political information needed to make decisions. Their mandate to do what is currently seen as best for society and biodiversity is exceptionally difficult and unenviable and I know of no other conservation group in the world that has approached such a difficult topic with such professionalism.

Your panel discussion did not allow the public to grasp that professionalism in any way at all. You needed a third rational, or at least personal value nuetral, perspective that could provide some rationality to the debate.

Our legislation in general demands that custodians of societies’ resources apply their minds fully and transparently to issues before making decisions. The custodians then bear the responsibility for those decisions. SANParks is doing what it is mandated to do and when the talking is done they must make difficult decisions. Only time will tell how good they are. Individuals such as Rudi and Ron don’t have to take responsibility so they can continue to spouse their personal views with impunity.

Setting the debate up as a cull/no cull issue is completely misrepresenting things to the public and it was sad for me to see poor journalism being applied to a debate of such international importance. You really do need to do your homework before claiming to be a public broadcaster who informs the public. I would be happy to help you do that homework if you wish but it can’t be done in one e-mail.

Sincerely,
Prof Kevin H Rogers
School of Animal Plant and Environmental Sciences
University of the Witwatersrand
P/Bag 3
Wits 2050
South Africa
http:/www.wits.ac.za/cwe
Ph: + 27 11 717 6424
Fax: + 27 11 717 6499