No recent issue related to nature and environment has generated such an avalanche of news, views, controversies, and information, as the wild elephant census conducted by the Department of Wild Life Conservation ( DWLC) of Sri Lanka.
In spite of an unanimous view by the majority of the world renowned scientists and elephant researchers, both local and foreign, that the methodology used for the DWLC census was seriously flawed, the programme went ahead. In a short space of two weeks detailed findings have been released.
I delved into this issue at the very outset, (Sunday Times Plus March 20) and followed up with several other articles. The ‘deed is now done’ but there are questions the DWLC needs to answer-
1. Was this project a ‘census’ or a ‘population estimate’? There appears to be some confusion about the very focus and objective of the programme. Some officials at the DWLC have conceded to me (off the record) that this was only ‘a rough estimation of the population’ while some of the experts involved in the project say this is was to study the population structure, and that the count was actually a by- product. If the overall objective of any project is ambiguous, then all the strategy, plans and methodology that follow, will also be flawed.
2. Given that the methodology applied was exclusively ‘water-hole based’ how accurate was the count (if it was a count)? In utilizing a ‘quick and dirty’ method such as a water-hole study, that too, over a short period of 72 hours, what is the accuracy of the estimate arrived at? Surely anyone knows that using a quick and easy method for evaluating something, will yield approximate results only. I am not in any way debating the methodology at this late stage. There are times we all have to use an approximation to arrive at some result. But we must know what the error margins are! How can we say that there are today 5,879 elephants, down to the last integer, when a very broadbased approximate method was utilized for the ‘census? I would have been happier with ‘approximately 5500-6000 elephants’ perhaps.
3. How were the 987 males identified? Anyone who understands elephants in the wild will agree that distinguishing between males and females is the one of the most difficult things to do. Even seasoned experts sometimes make mistakes, because unlike in most other animals, the elephant’s external genital differences are not at all prevalent and obvious. So how did some 3,000- odd, hurriedly trained ‘farmers, service personnel, and villagers’ undertake this feat in a short time span of 72 hours? I have very serious doubts about the accuracy of this information.
4. How many water-holes were covered?A cursory glance at an irrigation/waterways map of Sri Lanka will reveal that the island, especially the north, north east, north western and eastern areas are pock-marked with an array of small waterways and tanks. This is to be expected, since Sri Lanka once boasted of some of the most advanced and complex irrigation networks in the world at that period of time. And it is a well-known fact that these areas are the main wild elephant habitat. We also know from reliable scientific study that some 60-70% of all wild elephants live outside national parks, in these very same areas. So I am at a loss to comprehend how all these tanks and waterways could have been ‘covered’ in just 3 days. I believe that there would have been a very large error margin, on the negative side ( i. e. undercounting )
 |
| Officers involved in the recent count keep an eye out for
the elephants at the Minneriya National Park |
5. Can you confidently say that there was no double counting? Elephants are known to travel great distances in a short space of time, if and when they decide to do so.
A single animal could travel up to 50-60 km in a day while herds may move some 30 km or so. So there is a very real possibility that some elephants who were counted at one water-hole, could be seen in another water-hole in the vicinity, a day or two later. Unless there is some distinguishing feature of a single animal (like a broken tusk, or deformity) it is very difficult to identify individuals, to the untrained eye. I am of the opinion that there could be a large error margin, this time on the positive side (i.e. over counting) .
6. How can you say that the population is healthy? The state of the heath of an elephant population or herd is judged, not by the number of calves alone. (In this case supposedly some 1,100 calves have been recorded, which is about 18% of the total of 5,879 iscounted. A healthy elephant population should have a good balanced ratio of adult bull elephants and mature cows, a reasonable amount of sub-adults, as well as adolescents, in addition to calves. A preponderance of calves only, may actually indicate a more serious situation, where although reproduction may be taking place, the calves may be dying off before they grow up.
7. If the count in the south of 1,086 elephants includesYala and UdaWalawe National parks, there are some serious errors in this data (there seems to be no other area they can be categorized into in the DWLC analysis- and no clarification could be obtained from the DWLC when writing this. It is interesting to note that according to the information released by the DWLC, the south records 1,086 elephants where there are two national parks well known for elephants.
At UdaWalawe National Park (UWNP) there is currently today, one of the longest on –going research programmes, which is studying the population dynamics, social behaviour and vocal communication of elephants. In this study, led by Dr. Shermin de Silva of the University of Pennsylvania, with the affiliation of elephant expert Dr. Devaka Weerakoon, it has been revealed that the UWNP alone is carrying between 800-1160 elephants, both transient and resident.
This is the data based on a laborious 5 year long study, by some world renowned scientists at UWNP (http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes/2011/05/26/how_many_elephants/). It is also pertinent to note, that after 5 years of studying the elephants, day -in and day- out, in a confined space of approximately 350 sq km(the area of the UWNP) these scientistsare still cautious of giving exact numbers, and quote “ 800-1160”. The DWLC study on the other hand, covered 65,000 sq km(the total area of Sri Lanka) in 3 days, utilizing farmers, service personnel and a few experienced DWLC field officers and rangers, and came up with a figure of exactly 5,879 elephants in Sri Lanka.
8. How were the 2 elephants said to be in the Sinhraja region counted?There definitely are a few elephants left in the Sinharaja region, and I myself have seen two of them, in the buffer zone on the Deniyaya side. But there are no ‘water holes’ in this area! I actually have no issues with this count of 2, but the point I am trying to make is that there is a serious confusion and ambiguity in this whole process. My reading is that this estimate of 2 elephants in the Singharaja area was based on hearsay and ‘guestimates’ and were actually not sighted or counted.
Srilal Miththapala,
Via email
Official documents should be in dominant language of the area
Reader Anne Abayasekera wrote to this column to say she was shocked that Court documents were not available in all three languages.
In the Jaffna area, public documents should be available in Tamil only, and any person who does not read or write Tamil should be entitled to documents in Sinhala,
Likewise, in Sinhala-speaking areas, official documents should be in Sinhala, and a Tamil- or English speaking person should be able to get copies of official documents in Tamil or English.
This is the most practical thing to do.
It is totally unworkable to provide documents in all three languages in every Courthouse, Police Station, Grama Niladhari Office, Divisional Secretarial and the other several Government offices in the country.
Cross-bred Boorucrat
The ugly war of
words must stop
The kind of things we are hearing from big shots in politics and their acolytes is downright sickening. Their vile and vicious attacks on fellow politicians have created an atmosphere of raging winds and turbulent waves.
Allegations and counter-allegations are rife. Those who govern and those who are governed are hurling abuse at each other in a grossly indecent manner.
This is altogether pathetic. There is no self-respect or respect for others.
The need of the hour is decency and moderation in our speech and actions. “Eschew extremism and embrace moderation" should be our guiding philosophy, in keeping with the Middle Path preached by the Buddha and other religious teachers. Mud slinging and character assassination is unacceptable.
Hostile words create war. Gentle words restore peace.
R. M. A. B. Dassanayake,
Matale
|
E-mail
