Elephant Census - Ploy to capture young tuskers?

By Sarasi Paranamanna

Historic reports claim that one Major Rogers hunted over 1,500 elephants back when elephant hunting was a sport during the British colonial period. This ardent hunter had hunted these regal creatures marking the death of almost one elephant per day.

Ironically, Major Rogers was struck by lightening while he was in the Haputale rest house and it is said that his tombstone was also struck by lightening. Superstitious as it may sound, the death of Major Rogers seems like a warning by nature itself.
Even though in other countries elephants are just another tool to attract tourists or wildlife enthusiasts, in Sri Lanka these creatures share a close affiliation with our culture and religion.
However, recent statements issued by the Wild life minister makes us think twice about whether Sri Lanka is moving again towards a period where it is pleasurable or even a profitable venture to capture the elephants. Last week new reports claimed that the wildlife minister S. M Chandrasena had commented about capturing 300 wild elephants following the census to be given out to temples. His statement created uproar among wildlife enthusiasts as they vehemently opposed to the idea of capturing elephants. Ultimately as a sign of protest 12 wildlife organisations which include about 150-200 personnel who are experts in wildlife and elephant observation boycotted the census.


While environmentalists oppose to the census the minister claimed that the 300 elephants are to be given to the temples for the cultural and religious purposes as the elephant population trained for peraharas are dying out.

Zoologist Pubudu Weeraratne claimed that the Minster’s statement finally made ‘the cat jump out from the bag’ as they see the census or the so-called survey of elephants as a ploy to capture young elephants. Rukshan Jayawardene, chairman of Wildlife Conservation Forum and wildlife enthusiast speaking at a press conference, held to explain the reasons behind boycotting the census expressed the same sentiments. “It is actually a smokescreen to take the elephants from their natural environment for domestication. We were going support this census and as we had even plans to provide jeeps but when this statement was reported we no longer believed that the census is done with genuine intentions,” he said.


On the verge of extinction?

The elephant population in Sri Lanka has been decreasing rapidly due to various reasons. The human elephant conflict, illegal capturing of elephants, rails accidents are only some of the threats these jumbos are facing today. Statistics show that in the period of 2000-2010 the rate of elephant deaths have increased up to 200 elephant deaths per year. In a herd of hundred elephants only seven are tuskers.

In such a situation, the question arises as to whether the authorities are doing more harm than good by removing 300 animals from their natural environment.


The tuskers are already in the threshold of the danger of being extinct and when 300 young elephants are removed their chances of breeding tuskers go down rapidly. Domesticated animals do not have a breeding plan but the minister have stated that 300 young elephants will be given to temples. When the tusker population is already dying out, some even due to authorities’ negligence as was seen in the case of Siyabalgamuwa Tusker’s death, the domesticated young do not get the chance to breed which is virtually a step towards wiping out tusker population.


Ironically enough the Wildlife Department has given handouts to the personnel who are participating in the census which further proves the minister’s statement. The handout contains information about types and characteristics of tusks. The participants in the census are supposed to enter the location if they see a specific type of a tusker. This season during the drought, herds of elephants come out in search of water holes and when data is gathered about their exact locations they become easy prey for those who want the tuskers for commercial purposes.

Rukshan Jayawardene quiet aptly pointed out that this kind of subjective data is not necessary for a census. “Information like the gender, age group is required to a census but characteristics about the tusks of the elephants are purely subjective and that shows that the survey is not actually intended to generate the number of elephants in the island for development purposes or for the well being of the elephants”.


Zoologist Pubudu Weeraratne explained that since domesticated elephants don’t breed the tusker’s gene pool will die out. “The elephants mating rituals are much disciplined maybe than the humans and it takes a long time for a male and female to get to know each other and breed. Their pregnancy period is about 22 months and after that for about a year the female stays with the calf. So due to these reasons the domesticated ones do not breed because they are used for industrial labour when not in pereharas. Breeding means more expenses and less income for the owner of the elephants. So when the remaining elephants are also domesticated the gene pool of tuskers will die,” he said.


Methodology of the survey

Apart from taking the 300 elephants from their natural environment, the Wildlife Department has employed another imprudent strategy to carry out the census. The civil defense force has been recruited to count elephants and to enter data observing the elephants. “To determine whether the animal is a male or a female from a distance it requires expert knowledge. It is not possible for a layman to identify the gender and the age. This will lead to inaccuracy of data,” said Rukshan Jayawardene.

The group of environmentalists highlighted the fact that nothing has been said about the steps the Wildlife Department is going to take after they generate the number of elephants in the islands. “What are they going to do if the number is lower than the estimated amount? Are they going to increase the population by encouraging the elephants to breed? Or if the amount is higher are they going to prune down the population?” they questioned.


While vehemently opposing to the minister’s statement Rukshan Jaywardene noted that data generated from the census will be distorted as expert knowledge is not employed. “While laymen do not have the knowledge to determine whether the elephant is an adult, sub adult or a juvenile from the distance the department may might as well fill the data they need to generate at their office in Colombo because anyway the accurate data will not be generated with such methods,” he alleged.


Legal stance 

Under the Flora and Fauna Protection Ordinance, it is a punishable offence to remove an elephant from its natural environment. Sentence 13 of the ordinance gives power only to the Wildlife Department to remove the elephant if it is a threat to humans.

Jagath Gunawardena, environmental lawyer noted that in case of a pregnancy of a domesticated elephant the owner has to inform the Wildlife Department. Also one has to register the animal and obtain a license while renewing it along the lifetime of the animal if one is rearing an elephant. He went on to say that even for cultural purposes if an elephant is removed from his natural environment, the offender can be arrested without a warrant. 

Further the legal framework shows that the minister’s statement, if put into action, is in contrary with the supreme law in Sri Lanka which is the Constitution. From the 27 and 28 sentences of the constitution it is said that natural resources are the property of populace of the country and that the minister in charge of the subject is just a temporary custodian. Thus if the minister acts upon his statement it will be a violation of the most supreme law governing the country.


Culture and nature seems to in conflict in this matter. However as Sri Lanka is considered a Buddhist nation, is it really ethical religiously or considering the humanitarian aspect to remove these creatures from their natural homes just to take them in processions? 

Elephants have become a cultural symbol of Sri Lanka but are we to make them a cultural symbol at the expense of their extinction. These questions were simply answered when Pinnawala elephant orphanage was ready to train elephants for the peraheras a few years ago but groups which benefit from domesticating elephants and using them industrial labour opposed to it as the elephants cannot be utilized for their commercial benefits after the perahera when they are taken from Pinnawela. 

Hence it is for the authorities to decide whether to protect these regal creatures to use them for their benefit though they identify them as ‘cultural purposes’. 

Can any culture survive at the expense of violating nature? That is a question which should be answered by all parties who are determined to harm the elephant population of Sri Lanka.


http://www.nation.lk/2011/08/14/eyefea1.htm