Introduction
In the past, humans practiced hunting and gathering as a way of finding food. They would hunt down animals for food and feed the different communities. Over time, as the human population grew. The growth in human population meant that there was an increased demand in food, thus leading to an increased number of animals to hunt down. It became impossible for the humans to solely depend on animals for food. Another result with the increased human population was increased demand for land. The humans turned to cutting down or burning vegetation. In the process, some animals were burnt down. There was also an increased demand for vegetation for the animals and it was more of the “survival for the fittest”.
With time, certain animal species reduced in number and some became extinct. It was not only experienced with the animals, but also with some plants. In the recent day, there has been increased awareness on the negative effects of certain human action to plants and animals. People have to obtain licenses to hunt, and even then, there are certain rules and guidelines they have to follow. The action has been taken to prevent the extinction of certain animals. There are certain individuals, however, who aren’t concerned with the animals. They poach the animals for different personal and material gains. It is a threat to the world’s wildlife. The paper focuses on the Loxodonta africana elephant species in Africa. The Loxodonta africana is the Savanna Elephant (Comstock, 2492).
Research
Between 2003 and 2014, elephants have been killed greatly especially in Central Africa, thus becoming difficult to sustain the elephant population and demand of the tasks. Between 2007 and 2009 and 2011 and 2014, West Africa also killed so many elephants and it is hard to keep up with the killing. Botswana is one country that has faced high rates of elephant poaching. They have, however, invested in the protection of their elephants in the past years. They have managed by relocating the elephants to safer areas and also translocation of the elephants from the areas they are more prone to being poached. In South Africa, the poaching was frequent but reduced significantly and there was no poaching 2000 and 2003. The graph below shows the poaching trend in the Kruger National Park in South Africa. It is predicted that by the end of next year, about 45 elephants will have been killed (Walsh, 1197).
In Kenya, an annual report was given in 2012 showed that there were thirty eight thousand elephants. In 2013, the report that shows that three hundred and two elephants were poached that year. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), however, realized that the elephant’s population had grown in the same year by one thousand and forty elephants in the areas they monitored. In 2014, the number of the elephants poached reduced to one hundred and thirty seven elephants.
Results
Different human actions have led to the decline in the number of elephants. Most elephants die as a result of human action rather than natural causes or old age. People hunt down the elephants for their ivory. The ivory is used to produce ornaments. The ornaments are mainly high-end and fetch high profits to the manufacturers. There is therefore, an increased demand in the ivory for the production of more ornaments. Other human actions that have led to the decrease in the number of animals is feeding on them, which is less common for elephants and overexploitation of land leading to reduced vegetation for the animals to feed on, which leads to an overall effect on the food chain (Fay, 28).
The situation has become very serious in the recent days. Some people and organizations have decided to start up animal orphanages for rescuing the animals. Most of the young elephants there have been rescued after their mothers were found killed and their ivories taken away. Before the orphanages, such calves died after their mothers died since it was difficult for them to adapt to the environment without their mothers, and some would even starve to death after their mother were killed. Others are the animals rescued, some having been injured by humans after leaving the forests in such of food. The orphanages help treat the wounds till the elephants fully recover and are then returned to the forests. Sometimes people attack the elephants even when they mean no harm to the human life.
Analysis
For the Loxodonta Africana, they are mostly in family groups of between one elephant and seven elephants. There are many single adult female families, which is a result of most of the male being poached or dying of natural causes. Some elephants also don’t have kins, which is uncommon among the elephants since they have much value for the family unit. When it comes to attacks from poachers, they mainly target the single adult female families. This is because there is less resistance from the elephants. With a male-dominated family, the head of the family tries to attack the intruder. It gives other elephants the morale to fight back. It therefore reduces the chances of poacher success (Brugiere, 442). Some families are thus more vulnerable than others. The weights of the elephants also affect their chances of poached. The table below shows the group compositions and their weights. The table below shows the elephant group sizes and their frequencies as compared to the Amboseli elephants.
When people feed on the elephants, it becomes impossible to keep up with the demand. An illustration is that if one elephant feeds a particular community for three weeks, the community will have to hunt down an elephant monthly. That community alone will feed on a minimum of twelve elephants annually. On the other hand, the gestation period of an elephant is two years. It is clear that the rate of supply is inversely proportional to the supply of the elephants.
Another thing is the overexploitation of land as a result of the increased human population. With increased population, more land is required for both settlement and cultivation. People cut down trees so that they can acquire more land. Sometimes they burn down the vegetation. Other times people burn charcoal in the forests, which sometimes lead to huge fires that go on even for days. While fires are used, it is possible that some animals die in the fires. Other than the fires, the reduced vegetation leads to the elephants searching for greener pastures. As a result, they leave the forests. They sometimes destroy farmers’ crops. Other times they may attack and kill people. Angry mobs then fight and kill the elephants before the responsible parties and associations are able to rescue them (Caughley, 160).
Discussion
One reason for protecting the animals is for the future generations. The reason we found and are lucky to have seen the elephants is because the generations before protected the animals. It is only fair for the future generations to have a chance to see the elephants rather than just reading about them. It will also give future generations enough reasons to conserve the environment and also protect the animals. If the current generation doesn’t, the future generations will use the failure as an excuse for not protecting what they finding or for failing to conserve the environment.
Africa has greatly depended on wildlife revenue over the years. Wildlife fetches the countries revenue, with some countries like Kenya having wildlife as their main source of revenue. If the animals aren’t protected and become extinct, the visitors and tourists to Africa will reduce significantly. Looking at the recent security threats that Africa has faced, they complained of reduced income. A country like Kenya, for example, suffered greatly from the terror attacks that had some of the tourists return to their homes, some before the dates they had planned to leave and others after their mother countries advised them to return to their home countries. During the time, different rates such as the hotel rates reduced greatly to attract tourists. Assuming that the animals are extinct, there would be a reduced number of tourists visiting thus reduced economic growth in Africa.
While still focusing on Africa’s economic position, the current poaching doesn’t add economic value to the continent (Burton, 104). When the tasks are sold and exported, it’s all done illegally. Therefore, the involved parties don’t pay tax since it is an illegal business. The money obtained from the business helps only a few number of people. The money is used to pay bribes to manage to poach and even transport the elephants’ tasks. Other than the few beneficiaries, it doesn’t add economic value to the continent.
Africa isn’t the only continent that would suffer as a result of the animals becoming extinct. The businesses that use ivory as a raw material in their production would suffer huge losses leading to closure of the business. The taxes they have been paying to their governments will reduce significantly. However, it would be better if they stopped the illegal trade and invest the finances they use for giving bribes to start up legal businesses, which will even help reduce their worries on whether they will get caught in the process of the production or transportation.
Other than the future generations and the economies of individuals, businesses, countries and continents, the food chains are also being affected by the poaching. An increase in poaching and extinction of the elephants would greatly affect the food chain. The first thing is to analyze the past, present so as to help predict the future. In the past, before the humans tried to interrupt the future, the elephants fed on the grass, the carnivores then fed on the elephants and other herbivores. There are then the animals at the tertiary level that feed on those on the secondary levels, then the quaternary level that feed on the animals in the tertiary level. An animal can sometimes appear on different levels from the secondary to the quaternary level. Before human interruption, the food chain was balanced (Jachmann, 238).
In the present with human interruption, there are many changes in the food chain. With the overexploitation of land, there is reduced vegetation, which is the producer level in the food chain. With the reduced vegetation, it became more of “survival for the fittest” among the animals. The weaker animals would sometimes not get something to eat and sometimes die of starvation. With reduced vegetation and many animals dying, it reduces the reproduction of the animals. Animals secondary, tertiary and quaternary levels fight for the few primary level animals. It also leads to the death of other animals at other reduce due to reduction of production at lower levels. Animals that eat carcasses have much to feed on, they then increase due to over production.
If the people continue poaching the elephants till they become extinct, there will be more vegetation for other primary level consumers. It will lead to increased population of the primary level consumers, leading to an increased growth in the overall food chain, including more people. The people will then need more land, thus increased deforestation. It will lead to reduced producers, leading to death of some of the primary level consumers. The same happens to the animals at other levels, leading to reduced number of animals, and in some cases, it leads to a reduced food production for the people. Some of them will starve to death, thus reducing the overall population, as well as a reduced population growth rate. It is clear that one human action greatly affects the ecosystem. A positive input leads to a positive output, and a negative output leads to a negative output. Humans should therefore, strive to make more positive things for a benefit of the overall ecosystem (Stiles, 319).
Recommendations
One recommendation, not for a specific species but for all, would involve huge fines and punishments for suspects found guilty of poaching. In some countries in Africa, Kenya for example, an individual involved in poaching can face up to a lifetime imprisonment. The life imprisonment instills fear in some poachers, thus reducing the number of elephants being poached. When a number of poachers face such justice, it will instill fear in other poachers and they will most probably turn away from poaching. Another way is also destruction of the ivory. When the ivory is destroyed and does not reach to the client, it causes bad blood between the client and the supplier. It reduces the chances of the two doing business again in the future, and reduces the trust levels of the two parties.
Another thing is the destruction of ornaments and things made from ivory. Most of the ivory obtained from the elephant is not used in Africa, but is used in other countries for the production of ornaments. Countries in other continents should come up with ways of punishing people who illegally acquire ivory for their businesses. An example is a destruction of all ornaments made from the ivory. That way, the person will make huge losses after having invested in buying ivory but having no products to sell. Apart from the destruction of the end product, people should face legal charges and should face huge fines or imprisonments. The two methods will instill fear in the people using ivory for production. The demand of the ivory would reduce significantly, thus reducing the demand of the ivory in Africa, which means that fewer or no animals are poached.
With the transportation of the ivory, most of the people involved are people who hold high ranks. For example, those who are supposed to ensure that poachers are hunted down and face legal charges, they sometimes work with the poachers and help them smuggle the ivory out of the different countries. Sometimes these people may even be politicians. To reduce such cases and scenarios, people who are involved in different corrupt acts to aid in the poaching or the transportation of the ivory, should face punishments similar to those of the poachers. It reduces the number of people risking to transport the ivory. Without transport, the poachers quite their poaching since they don’t have a way to get the products to their clients.
Embracing and encouraging elephant protection and relocation programs. In Kenya, after their wildlife service took charge of some areas, they poaching went down significantly and the number of elephants increased by about two thousand in a year. It is an indication that when the parks are protected from physical harm by the guards, it reduces the poaching chances significantly. It should be embraced by all means since it has showed its fruitfulness.
Another program is about relocating the animals. When the elephants feed at the same area for quite some time, they end up feeding on almost all the vegetation. It is then that they try to leave the park in search of pasture. Some of them are only injured or killed after leaving the park. Some of the elephants should be moved to a different part of the country. That way, the feeding competition will reduce thus reducing the chances of the elephants leaving. Another thing is that when the many elephants are grazing in one place, a poacher may find it easier to kill and think that they can easily get away with it. When there are fewer animals, the poacher isn’t sure about whether there is somebody watching. It instills fear in them and reduces the poaching chances.
Conclusion
Human action greatly affects the ecosystem. Other than just affecting the food chain, it can also lead to the extinction of different animals such as the elephants. People have been poaching the elephants and for the species that are less common as the Loxodonta africana, there is a probability of extinction. The finances from the illegal business also only benefit a few people and businesses and do not benefit the nations or the continents. It is a selfish act. Once people stop poaching, they realize there are actually more benefits, such as future generations seeing the elephants, economic benefits to the nations and different continents, and also a balance in the eco system. Human action has great effect on the animals and ecosystem. People should be very careful on what they do to the environment as it affects them later and the future generations (Moss, 2498).
Works Cited
Brugiere, David et al. “On the road to the extinction? The status of elephant Loxodonta Africana in Guinea Bissau and Western Guinea, West Africa.” Oryx 40.4 (2006) : 442-446. Print
Burton, Michael. "An assessment of alternative methods of estimating the effect of the ivory trade ban on poaching effort." Ecological Economics 30.1 (1999): 93-106.
Caughley, Graeme, Holly Dublin, and Ian Parker. “Projected decline of the African elephant.” Biological Conservation 54.2 (1990) : 157-164. Print.
Comstock, Kenine E. et al. “Patterns of molecular genetic variation among African elephant populations.” Molecular Ecology 11.12 (2002) : 2489-2498. Print.
Fay, J. Michael. "An elephant (Loxodonta africana) survey using dung counts in the forests of the Central African Republic." Journal of Tropical Ecology 7.01 (2003): 25-36.
Jachmann, Hugo, and M. Billiouw. "Elephant poaching and law enforcement in the central Luangwa Valley, Zambia." Journal of Applied Ecology (2007): 233-244.
Laursen, Larry, and Marc Bekoff. “Loxodonta africana.” Mammalian Species 1978 : 1-8. Print.
Moss, C J. “The demography of an African elephant (Loxodonta africana) population in Amboseli Kenya.” Journal of Zoology 255 11.12 (2002) : 2489-2498. Print.
Stiles, Daniel. “The Ivory Trade and Elephant Conversation.” Environmental Conversation 31.4 (2004) : 309-321. Print
Walsh, Peter D., and Lee JT White. "What it will take to monitor forest elephant populations." Conservation Biology 13.5 (2014): 1194-1202.
