Monday, 31 December 2007
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Elephant-back Safaris “Simply Accidents Waiting to Happen” Warns Top Tourism Insurer
As thousands of travel industry heavyweights from across the globe gather at the annual tourism Indaba in Durban this weekend, a new report released by IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare – www.ifaw.org) shows a marked upswing in the number of elephant back safari operations – and highlights the concerns of the major insurer of “high risk activities”.
In the report An Overview of the Commercial Use of Elephants in Captivity in South Africa the chairman and founder of the “high risk activities” insurer says the lack of formalised norms and standards or protocols within the industry is of considerable concern,
“My experience is that many in the industry in South Africa seem to be happy to go it on their own and believe they know everything there is to know about elephant training. Some operating practices are simply accidents waiting to happen. There have been a number of incidents in the past and they will happen again,” he said.
As the only specialist risk managers in the tourism and wildlife industry in South Africa, the insurer has eight branch offices in other African countries and has extensive expertise and knowledge on risks associated with “high risk” activities. The company first insured captive elephants more than 15 years ago. Their risks are covered through Lloyds of London.
IFAW’s newest report on the status of the elephant tourism industry shows an industry markedly on the increase. Since its first investigation in 2005, the numbers of elephants kept in captivity for commercial use has grown by 25 per cent – from 89 to 112.
At least three handlers have been killed by elephants in the past two years, and there have been a number of incidents in which people have been injured – most recently two British tourists suffered serious injury and were admitted to hospital when they fell off an elephant in April 2007.
“IFAW has long been calling for better legislation to manage the elephant safari industry which is nothing more than an awful blight on South Africa’s tourism landscape,” said Southern Africa Director of IFAW, Jason Bell-Leask.
“Our investigation has shown that most of the new elephants that have entered the safari industry are animals forcibly removed from their live wild herds, only to be subjected to training that is wrong, cruel and exploitative.
“Ideally this industry should be banned altogether in the interests of elephant welfare, but also from a human safety point of view. If that cannot be then IFAW would welcome regulations to prevent any further growth of elephant safari tourism,” said Bell-Leask.
The insurance industry views many tourism activities including horse riding, scuba diving, bungi jumping and interacting with captive elephants as “high risk activities.” All, with the exception of the elephant back industry (including elephant walks and other human elephant interaction), have carefully drawn up protocols and norms and standards.
In the report the insurer said proper norms and standards were also necessary to ensure that captive elephants were properly treated. He added that their underwriters, Lloyds are also “desperately concerned that any activity they underwrite does not have the slight hint of inhumane of cruel treatment of animals.”
In the report An Overview of the Commercial Use of Elephants in Captivity in South Africa the chairman and founder of the “high risk activities” insurer says the lack of formalised norms and standards or protocols within the industry is of considerable concern,
“My experience is that many in the industry in South Africa seem to be happy to go it on their own and believe they know everything there is to know about elephant training. Some operating practices are simply accidents waiting to happen. There have been a number of incidents in the past and they will happen again,” he said.
As the only specialist risk managers in the tourism and wildlife industry in South Africa, the insurer has eight branch offices in other African countries and has extensive expertise and knowledge on risks associated with “high risk” activities. The company first insured captive elephants more than 15 years ago. Their risks are covered through Lloyds of London.
IFAW’s newest report on the status of the elephant tourism industry shows an industry markedly on the increase. Since its first investigation in 2005, the numbers of elephants kept in captivity for commercial use has grown by 25 per cent – from 89 to 112.
At least three handlers have been killed by elephants in the past two years, and there have been a number of incidents in which people have been injured – most recently two British tourists suffered serious injury and were admitted to hospital when they fell off an elephant in April 2007.
“IFAW has long been calling for better legislation to manage the elephant safari industry which is nothing more than an awful blight on South Africa’s tourism landscape,” said Southern Africa Director of IFAW, Jason Bell-Leask.
“Our investigation has shown that most of the new elephants that have entered the safari industry are animals forcibly removed from their live wild herds, only to be subjected to training that is wrong, cruel and exploitative.
“Ideally this industry should be banned altogether in the interests of elephant welfare, but also from a human safety point of view. If that cannot be then IFAW would welcome regulations to prevent any further growth of elephant safari tourism,” said Bell-Leask.
The insurance industry views many tourism activities including horse riding, scuba diving, bungi jumping and interacting with captive elephants as “high risk activities.” All, with the exception of the elephant back industry (including elephant walks and other human elephant interaction), have carefully drawn up protocols and norms and standards.
In the report the insurer said proper norms and standards were also necessary to ensure that captive elephants were properly treated. He added that their underwriters, Lloyds are also “desperately concerned that any activity they underwrite does not have the slight hint of inhumane of cruel treatment of animals.”
Friday, 20 April 2007
SPCA battles Shearwater over elephants
The Zimbabwe National SPCA is continuing its efforts to gain access to nine
elephants being 'trained' by the travel company Shearwater Adventures. The
nine are the survivors of a group of 12 captured from herds in the Hwange
National Park in November 2006.
In a January 2007 press release, Shearwater insisted that the ZNSPCA's
claims that the elephants were being mistreated were untrue, claiming that
their training methods were 'willing relationship[s] based on mutual trust
and respect'. The ZNSPCA has consistently demanded that the company allow
them access to the elephants to test this claim. After legal wrangling, the
ZNSPCA were granted a court order for the inspection, which has yet to take
place after Shearwater refused access to their premises on the grounds that
the ZNSPCA had not obtained the assistance of vets named in the court order
at the company's insistence. The ZNSPCA point out that they have written to
these vets on more than one occasion but have not yet received any reply.
Shearwater has been operating in Zimbabwe since 1982, and offers a range of
activities in the Victoria Falls region, including jet-boating, helicopter
rides and whitewater rafting in addition to 'Elephant-Back Safaris'. The
company's website claims to be the 'leading adventure activities company in
Africa', as well as being 'ecologically sound' and 'in full compliance with
respective National Parks regulations.' Their January press release argued
that safaris were an excellent way to 'learn more about the elephant and as
a result take a greater interest in the conservation issues surrounding
them.' The company has strenuously denied the claims by the ZNSPCA that the
elephants captured in 2006 have been left in unhygienic and dangerous
conditions, pointing to three inspections by Government vets which gave
positive accounts of the elephants' condition.
The competing press releases by the ZNSPCA and Shearwater Adventures are not
helpful in establishing the condition of the elephants. The company has not
responded on its website to the claim by the ZNSPCA that another elephant
has died, nor explained why it has allowed three inspections by Government
vets but obstructed the ZNSPCA's inspection. - Jaime Ashworth
Source: SPCA battles Shearwater over elephants, The Zimbabwean (19/04/07) original article deleted.
Further Reading: Captive Animal encounters: are they ethical?
More from this blog: elephant-back safaris
elephants being 'trained' by the travel company Shearwater Adventures. The
nine are the survivors of a group of 12 captured from herds in the Hwange
National Park in November 2006.
In a January 2007 press release, Shearwater insisted that the ZNSPCA's
claims that the elephants were being mistreated were untrue, claiming that
their training methods were 'willing relationship[s] based on mutual trust
and respect'. The ZNSPCA has consistently demanded that the company allow
them access to the elephants to test this claim. After legal wrangling, the
ZNSPCA were granted a court order for the inspection, which has yet to take
place after Shearwater refused access to their premises on the grounds that
the ZNSPCA had not obtained the assistance of vets named in the court order
at the company's insistence. The ZNSPCA point out that they have written to
these vets on more than one occasion but have not yet received any reply.
Shearwater has been operating in Zimbabwe since 1982, and offers a range of
activities in the Victoria Falls region, including jet-boating, helicopter
rides and whitewater rafting in addition to 'Elephant-Back Safaris'. The
company's website claims to be the 'leading adventure activities company in
Africa', as well as being 'ecologically sound' and 'in full compliance with
respective National Parks regulations.' Their January press release argued
that safaris were an excellent way to 'learn more about the elephant and as
a result take a greater interest in the conservation issues surrounding
them.' The company has strenuously denied the claims by the ZNSPCA that the
elephants captured in 2006 have been left in unhygienic and dangerous
conditions, pointing to three inspections by Government vets which gave
positive accounts of the elephants' condition.
The competing press releases by the ZNSPCA and Shearwater Adventures are not
helpful in establishing the condition of the elephants. The company has not
responded on its website to the claim by the ZNSPCA that another elephant
has died, nor explained why it has allowed three inspections by Government
vets but obstructed the ZNSPCA's inspection. - Jaime Ashworth
Source: SPCA battles Shearwater over elephants, The Zimbabwean (19/04/07) original article deleted.
Statement on the wild elephant capture by Shearwater (24/01/2007)
Shearwater statement on Hwange elephant capture (24/11/2006)
Outcry over capture of wild elephants (12/11/06)
More from this blog: elephant-back safaris
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Statement on the wild elephant capture by Shearwater
Zimbabwe National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ZNSPCA)
As our only concern is the welfare of animals and the enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, ZNSPCA has patiently remained silent in the midst of a barrage of defamatory press releases, whilst at the same time having received letters from Atherstone & Cook, on instruction from Shearwater, threatening to bring charges of malicious prosecution against the Society.
In response to reports of possible cruelty taking place during the capture of 12 wild elephants in Hwange Game Reserve, which was witnessed by visitors to the park, ZNSPCA initiated an investigation.
On 11 January 2007 on a follow-up visit to Victoria Falls to check on the reported improved conditions for the elephants, the ZNSPCA Inspectors were denied access to the elephants. A charge of obstruction has been laid against Shearwater.
In order to be fair and reasonable and in order to give Shearwater time to improve conditions and the opportunity to allow ZNSPCA Inspectors to check on the alleged improved condition of the elephant, although Inspectors are not required to have such permission, we have waited 7 days in order for permission to be granted and have withheld making any statements to the press in this regard at the behest of Shearwater. It is therefore most regrettable that permission has not been granted.
We have heard that there have been apparent improvements in the condition of the elephant and the boma, but our Inspectors are unable to ascertain if this is true.
This is the first instance where our Inspectors have ever been denied access to premises housing wildlife in captivity. It is the duty of SPCA Inspectors to ensure the welfare of any wild animal in captivity.
In addition, Shearwater refers to a report by two veterinarians that was CONFIDENTIAL and not for release to the media. Regrettably Shearwater has breached that confidence and has been selective in quoting from the report.
Many remarks contained in that report clearly indicate that in our opinion cruelty was taking place at the time of report.
Our Inspectors will continue to conduct their duties in this regard without fear or favour, in spite of being subjected to verbal abuse and insults, having their every move monitored and all other efforts to discredit their motives which have been appearing in the media.
Source: Statement on the wild elephant capture by Shearwater (24/01/2007)
More:
Further Reading: Captive Animal encounters: are they ethical?
More from this blog: elephant-back safaris
More:
Shearwater statement on Hwange elephant capture (24/11/2006)
Outcry over capture of wild elephants (12/11/06)
More from this blog: elephant-back safaris
Monday, 8 January 2007
Victoria Falls 'at risk', UN warns
Victoria Falls, one of the world's greatest natural wonders, may cease to be a World Heritage Site as a result of the chaos in Zimbabwe.
Known locally as Mosi oa Tunya, or "the smoke that thunders", the falls are more than a mile wide and 420ft high. They have been a tourist hotspot since 1905, but Unesco is now considering listing the site as "endangered" because of mismanagement that has allowed the once prosperous resort to deteriorate.
Furthermore, over-zealous Zambian developers are proposing to build 500 chalets in a national park overlooking the falls, prompting warnings that the plan could lead Unesco to remove the site'sWorld Heritage status immediately.
Control of the Victoria Falls, named by the explorer David Livingstone in 1855, is at the centre of a turf war between two government bodies - the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management - both fighting over rights to manage one of the country's last remaining sources of valuable tourist revenue as hyperinflation touches 1,100 per cent.
The Zambezi river, which plunges over the falls, forms the border between Zimbabwe and Zambia. Most Western tourists used to stay on the Zimbabwean side, attracted by top-class facilities such as the Victoria Falls and Elephant Hills hotels, but the surrounding decay, and safety fears after the often violent land seizures initiated by President Robert Mugabe, have seen tourist revenues plunge by more than 70 per cent to $98m (£51m) last year from $340m in 1999, before land reforms started.
Unesco is also alarmed by Zambia's efforts to benefit from Zimbabwe's disarray. In a reversal of the traditional position, most foreign visitors now approach the falls from the Zambian side, even though the view is less spectacular. The tourism industry in Zambia is booming, with the number of overseas arrivals doubling between 2003 and 2005, bringing the country much-needed income, and new hotels are springing up near the Zambian town of Livingstone.
Source: Victoria Falls 'at risk', UN warns (07/01/07)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)