Of Semantics and Mathmatics (...extinction? extirpation? and some verbal constipation?)
A while ago, in some old magazine, there was a picture of me, of the type beloved by public relations folks and mothers (and bandied unashamedly around by myself if the truth be known), the caption read 'John Roberts, Director of Elephants, is concerned by the declining number of Thai elephants', on seeing it I wrote to complain and had it blamed on a sub-editor but with a question mark - who wouldn't be concerned about the declining number of domestic Thai elephants?
Well, me, for starters. When there are baby elephants on the streets, when there is not enough work or money in the system to keep the elephants we have in the style to which they should be accustomed, when there is not enough forest to let them all go, why worry about the decline? Better, surely, to manage the population scientifically, ensuring (as far as possible) a varied gene pool and hope we can come up with an answer to the question that torments us all - whither the domestic elephant?
It is a phrase so often repeated that it has become received wisdom and doesn't appear to be questioned anywhere that the 'Asian elephant is destined for extinction' unless we (the Thai elephant community) do something urgently.
While this may be true (what with global warming and the shrinking universe, aren't we all?) I'm afraid it makes my blood boil - as it does so often in my old age.
Firstly, just to make sure, I looked up 'extinct' in the dictionary and the definition came up as "no longer in existence; that has ended or died out", so, for the sub-species we are dealing with, elephas maximus indicus, to be extinct there would have to be no more elephants in Thailand, India, China, Burma, Cambodia and the Malaysian peninsular (and perhaps Vietnam and Laos but they are going for a separate sub-species all to themselves, though, as they are not a discrete population cut off for a thousand years by a body of water, a Himalayan sized mountain range or human settlement it is difficult to see that they'll achieve this - though I can see why they'd try). That is a total of around 50,000 wild animals (i.e. excluding domestics) of which Thailand is responsible for between 2,500 and 3,200.
Alright, the IUCN red list has elephas maximus listed as endangered in the wild due to their declining numbers and habitat threats, so yes, in looking after a small but significant subset of a species (about 7% - without factoring in domestic elephants in any other country) and maintaining their genetic diversity we are doing our little bit to stave off potential extinction it is true - but the graph often quoted that Thailand had 100,000 domestic elephants in 1900, 50,000 in 1950, 2,000 in 2,000 followed by a big red word EXTINCTION (crossing this line sometime in the next ten years and ignoring the fact that the graph seems to have been rising since 2003) does not apply.
So the word we're looking for is "extirpated" which means, in conservation terms, no longer present in an area they once were.
Semantics, Roberts, semantics, don't you come here with your dictionary and your internet links and your scientists - what we mean is that elephants will no longer exist in Thailand and that would be a huge shame, we must do something immediately to prevent this.
Well, I agree, but is the situation that bad? Are we going to run out of Thai domestic elephants? Well, I look around at our little camp and take off my socks so I can count to higher than ten.
For argument's sake, we'll ignore our adult elephants though they are, of course, more likely to produce young - we don't have a dedicated breeding programme with them but accidents happen.
We have fifteen elephants under the age of ten, two males (if and when we start a breeding programme we'll bring Phu Khi in to mix up the gene pool but I'll leave him out of the maths) so, even if no breeding takes place the chances of the elephants being extirpated from the Golden Triangle - if I get to keep my job after all this polemic - in the next fifty years is very low - Nong Am, with love, luck and care, we hope, would live until at least 2058.
Now, being a proud and protective father, let's wait until the babies are twenty before we think about breeding with them and stop breeding them at forty, with a possible baby every five years (2 years gestation, 3 nursing) that is a maximum of 13 x 20/5 = 52. OK, OK, let's give them a rest, never did get on with this barefoot and pregnant thing anyway, one baby every seven years ought to be enough = 37 elephants.
OK, OK, breeding isn't that easy, only a few parks in Thailand have had real success with their breeding programmes but with their brains (also the brains of our Surin based mahouts who seem to be able to pluck pregnant eles out of the air) and some friends we have at other successful (though controversial) international, artificial, breeding programmes - given that we're talking about instigating this in the face of a global population crash we'd like to think all scientific knowledge would be made available to those trying to avert this.
So let's say only 50% of our females turn out to both like boys and be fertile = 19 elephants.
With these, to me very conservative, figures by the time our self imposed breeding cycle would be over for the elephants we currently have in camp and under the Foundation, we would have increased our breeding numbers for the next cycle by 30% by the time Nong Am turns 40 in 2048.
This seems achievable as an average for Thailand, some camps would have less luck breeding than others but some are very good at it and, with the help of some scientific input, basic farming techniques may become viable scientific breeding programmes.
The questions arise what all these elephants will be doing in 2048? How they will be fed? How their owners will make enough money to feed/keep them? If there will be enough regenerated forest to have let them all go? How much freedom will they have? Will they still have to come into Bangkok to make a living? Whither the domestic elephant?
But these are questions for another day, today's question is, will the elephas maximus indicus become extinct in the near future if we don't do something urgently, if 'we' is the global population of conservationists then the answer is 'possibly' but I feel the guys that are saving the species from extinction are those working to protect the much larger wild populations throughout the range, building wildlife corridors to keep the gene pool wide, slowing down trains, preventing illegal development.
With the Thai elephant community's managed 7% we may be maintaining a life raft should all else fail - this is good work and we should certainly see this as our duty whilst ensuring our work does nothing to threaten existing viable wild populations, questions of management of wild and domestic populations where they are contiguous - i.e. almost everywhere throughout the Asian range - are interlinked and indistinguishable.
Let's move the goal posts a little, let's ask "is the domestic elephas maximus indicus endangered in Thailand?"
Taking the IUCN's apparent definition of endangered (if I read correctly) a greater than 50% reduction in numbers over the previous three generations I would say yes, however, I would argue that the drop in domestic elephant numbers was due to their lack of economic viability - and given the rapid decline must have contributed to a rise of some sort in the wild population as non-viable elephants were let go - just as the population rise over the last few years has been due to a rise in this economic viability (and drop in neighbouring wild populations?) - whether it be from tourism camps, taking babies begging on the streets or pandering to well meaning rescue groups who buy elephants.
Despite the expense involved in keeping elephants properly and the apparent lack of work an elephant of any sex and age is worth more on the market than a similar elephant three years ago and I maintain that the majority of breeding in Thailand is economically driven. In short, domestic elephants are an already managed population.
If it is decided that we must maintain domestic population (and a public debate about the reasons for maintaining a domestic population would be an interesting one - another question for another day) it is surely our job to prove that it is economically viable to maintain that population in a way that is comfortable and ethically sound for the elephants and (if it is decided that the traditions of those that have looked after elephants since time immemorial are worth saving - yet another question for yet another day) their mahouts in such a way that the market is controlled to eliminate the temptation to smuggle in wild-caught elephants and thereby threaten any viable wild population.
This will be a balancing act requiring input from the mahouts themselves, a diverse range of local and international bodies as well as a fair amount of good old organic luck - if it can be pulled off it will be something to write home about, take a bow before the world's media and perhaps get together, pat each other on the back and clink glasses, everyone involved will have saved the way of life of a (much maligned) group of people - the mahouts - and helped to continue the Thai tradition of elephant domestication...
...but we should not kid ourselves (or our donors) that, should we fail, the disappearance of Thailand's domestic elephants equals the extinction of a species.
Well, me, for starters. When there are baby elephants on the streets, when there is not enough work or money in the system to keep the elephants we have in the style to which they should be accustomed, when there is not enough forest to let them all go, why worry about the decline? Better, surely, to manage the population scientifically, ensuring (as far as possible) a varied gene pool and hope we can come up with an answer to the question that torments us all - whither the domestic elephant?
It is a phrase so often repeated that it has become received wisdom and doesn't appear to be questioned anywhere that the 'Asian elephant is destined for extinction' unless we (the Thai elephant community) do something urgently.
While this may be true (what with global warming and the shrinking universe, aren't we all?) I'm afraid it makes my blood boil - as it does so often in my old age.
Firstly, just to make sure, I looked up 'extinct' in the dictionary and the definition came up as "no longer in existence; that has ended or died out", so, for the sub-species we are dealing with, elephas maximus indicus, to be extinct there would have to be no more elephants in Thailand, India, China, Burma, Cambodia and the Malaysian peninsular (and perhaps Vietnam and Laos but they are going for a separate sub-species all to themselves, though, as they are not a discrete population cut off for a thousand years by a body of water, a Himalayan sized mountain range or human settlement it is difficult to see that they'll achieve this - though I can see why they'd try). That is a total of around 50,000 wild animals (i.e. excluding domestics) of which Thailand is responsible for between 2,500 and 3,200.
Alright, the IUCN red list has elephas maximus listed as endangered in the wild due to their declining numbers and habitat threats, so yes, in looking after a small but significant subset of a species (about 7% - without factoring in domestic elephants in any other country) and maintaining their genetic diversity we are doing our little bit to stave off potential extinction it is true - but the graph often quoted that Thailand had 100,000 domestic elephants in 1900, 50,000 in 1950, 2,000 in 2,000 followed by a big red word EXTINCTION (crossing this line sometime in the next ten years and ignoring the fact that the graph seems to have been rising since 2003) does not apply.
So the word we're looking for is "extirpated" which means, in conservation terms, no longer present in an area they once were.
Semantics, Roberts, semantics, don't you come here with your dictionary and your internet links and your scientists - what we mean is that elephants will no longer exist in Thailand and that would be a huge shame, we must do something immediately to prevent this.
Well, I agree, but is the situation that bad? Are we going to run out of Thai domestic elephants? Well, I look around at our little camp and take off my socks so I can count to higher than ten.
For argument's sake, we'll ignore our adult elephants though they are, of course, more likely to produce young - we don't have a dedicated breeding programme with them but accidents happen.
We have fifteen elephants under the age of ten, two males (if and when we start a breeding programme we'll bring Phu Khi in to mix up the gene pool but I'll leave him out of the maths) so, even if no breeding takes place the chances of the elephants being extirpated from the Golden Triangle - if I get to keep my job after all this polemic - in the next fifty years is very low - Nong Am, with love, luck and care, we hope, would live until at least 2058.
Now, being a proud and protective father, let's wait until the babies are twenty before we think about breeding with them and stop breeding them at forty, with a possible baby every five years (2 years gestation, 3 nursing) that is a maximum of 13 x 20/5 = 52. OK, OK, let's give them a rest, never did get on with this barefoot and pregnant thing anyway, one baby every seven years ought to be enough = 37 elephants.
OK, OK, breeding isn't that easy, only a few parks in Thailand have had real success with their breeding programmes but with their brains (also the brains of our Surin based mahouts who seem to be able to pluck pregnant eles out of the air) and some friends we have at other successful (though controversial) international, artificial, breeding programmes - given that we're talking about instigating this in the face of a global population crash we'd like to think all scientific knowledge would be made available to those trying to avert this.
So let's say only 50% of our females turn out to both like boys and be fertile = 19 elephants.
With these, to me very conservative, figures by the time our self imposed breeding cycle would be over for the elephants we currently have in camp and under the Foundation, we would have increased our breeding numbers for the next cycle by 30% by the time Nong Am turns 40 in 2048.
This seems achievable as an average for Thailand, some camps would have less luck breeding than others but some are very good at it and, with the help of some scientific input, basic farming techniques may become viable scientific breeding programmes.
The questions arise what all these elephants will be doing in 2048? How they will be fed? How their owners will make enough money to feed/keep them? If there will be enough regenerated forest to have let them all go? How much freedom will they have? Will they still have to come into Bangkok to make a living? Whither the domestic elephant?
But these are questions for another day, today's question is, will the elephas maximus indicus become extinct in the near future if we don't do something urgently, if 'we' is the global population of conservationists then the answer is 'possibly' but I feel the guys that are saving the species from extinction are those working to protect the much larger wild populations throughout the range, building wildlife corridors to keep the gene pool wide, slowing down trains, preventing illegal development.
With the Thai elephant community's managed 7% we may be maintaining a life raft should all else fail - this is good work and we should certainly see this as our duty whilst ensuring our work does nothing to threaten existing viable wild populations, questions of management of wild and domestic populations where they are contiguous - i.e. almost everywhere throughout the Asian range - are interlinked and indistinguishable.
Let's move the goal posts a little, let's ask "is the domestic elephas maximus indicus endangered in Thailand?"
Taking the IUCN's apparent definition of endangered (if I read correctly) a greater than 50% reduction in numbers over the previous three generations I would say yes, however, I would argue that the drop in domestic elephant numbers was due to their lack of economic viability - and given the rapid decline must have contributed to a rise of some sort in the wild population as non-viable elephants were let go - just as the population rise over the last few years has been due to a rise in this economic viability (and drop in neighbouring wild populations?) - whether it be from tourism camps, taking babies begging on the streets or pandering to well meaning rescue groups who buy elephants.
Despite the expense involved in keeping elephants properly and the apparent lack of work an elephant of any sex and age is worth more on the market than a similar elephant three years ago and I maintain that the majority of breeding in Thailand is economically driven. In short, domestic elephants are an already managed population.
If it is decided that we must maintain domestic population (and a public debate about the reasons for maintaining a domestic population would be an interesting one - another question for another day) it is surely our job to prove that it is economically viable to maintain that population in a way that is comfortable and ethically sound for the elephants and (if it is decided that the traditions of those that have looked after elephants since time immemorial are worth saving - yet another question for yet another day) their mahouts in such a way that the market is controlled to eliminate the temptation to smuggle in wild-caught elephants and thereby threaten any viable wild population.
This will be a balancing act requiring input from the mahouts themselves, a diverse range of local and international bodies as well as a fair amount of good old organic luck - if it can be pulled off it will be something to write home about, take a bow before the world's media and perhaps get together, pat each other on the back and clink glasses, everyone involved will have saved the way of life of a (much maligned) group of people - the mahouts - and helped to continue the Thai tradition of elephant domestication...
...but we should not kid ourselves (or our donors) that, should we fail, the disappearance of Thailand's domestic elephants equals the extinction of a species.
Posted by John Roberts at Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:58:00 GMT 
Categories: Thailand Elephants
Tags: scientific argument versus emotional response extinct is forever extirpation is not
Categories: Thailand Elephants
Tags: scientific argument versus emotional response extinct is forever extirpation is not
Hi John
I recently visited Anantara with the TAT sponsored tour of journalists. I've written a piece on my elephant adventure but have some follow up questions. Could I get an email address for you?
Thanks
Kylie Davis, Sun-Herald, Sydney
Reply to this
Certainly - an e-mail should be in your inbox.
Reply to this