Namibia is planning to kill more than 700 wild animals, including elephants, zebras, and hippos, and distribute the meat to the people struggling with food insecurity as the country grapples with its worst drought in 100 years.
The animals set to be culled include 83 elephants, 30 hippos, 60 buffalo, 50 impala, 100 blue wildebeest, and 300 zebras, the country’s Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism announced Monday 26 August 2024.
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
Awareness
My son has a collection of National Geographic Kids books, each dedicated to a single species – something his grandmother so kindly gifted him. He loves them and he will flick through them and keep himself entertained for ages. This particular day, he was reading the book on elephants. He came up to me and proudly recited facts: where they live, how many sub-species exist, and that they weigh like 300 times more than him! His enthusiasm was contagious.
He then showed me the endangered scale that was highlighted orange, indicating that they are endangered (red is critically endangered), and went on to explain that people destroy their homes and also kill them for their tusks.
My heart sank. He is five years old.
On one hand, I was so proud – yes, he and I have watched wildlife documentaries and he has seen many of these African species in person. His awareness and understanding were so perceptive, clearly showing concern for other living species – more than most people, let alone his age mates. On the other hand, the bigger picture comes into play and it is on days like this where optimism fades away.
It was only a couple of hours after I had read the aforementioned article. The timing was jarring.
Bigger Picture
This article saddens me quite deeply.
The devastating drought in Namibia is not an isolated event; it is part of a larger global pattern of environmental crises exacerbated primarily by human actions – bigger-picture thinking. While this move may seem like a practical solution in a dire situation, it raises profound ethical questions about the relationship between humanity and the natural world. I should note that this article is also not an isolated event; it reflects a culmination of thoughts and emotions that have built up over time, with this particular piece igniting something within me.
Overpopulation, unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation, overfishing, industrial pollution, illegal wildlife trade, plastic consumption, waste mismanagement, and rising sea levels – just a few I have come up with in 30 seconds. These have all in some way contributed to the disruption of natural cycles and the depletion of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. While the immediate cause of Namibia’s drought may be climatic, the underlying drivers are deeply rooted in the ways humans have altered the planet.
Fact. Not opinion, not fake news, not misinformation – fact.
The Namibian government’s decision to cull these animals is supported by international organizations, including the United Nations, under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which permits bushmeat consumption from sustainable sources. However, those familiar with Africa’s wildlife management know that this is a grey and murky area. Much like the justification of professional hunting, which claims to target only the old, weak, and diseased animals, the rationale for culling often fails to hold up under scrutiny. In reality, these practices can lead to further imbalances in ecosystems and the unnecessary suffering of animals.
Again – fact.
When such credible and influential organizations show even the slightest support, it normalizes these types of strategies and diminishes the long-term impacts. As the saying goes, “Give a finger and they’ll take the whole hand”. Another argument justifying the cull is that it could reduce human-wildlife conflict and prevent the animals from suffering due to the drought – my mind explodes when I read this. Yet, wildlife is inherently resilient, far more so than humans. Given time and space, these animals can adapt to changing conditions. The notion that we must intervene to “save” them from suffering is rooted in a misunderstanding of nature’s processes.
Burden
I am not saying I have a solution to the drought crisis, nor do I condone human suffering (obviously). I am also talking from a privileged position, dare I admit. In all honestly, I am venting. I am empathetic towards those suffering, as I am to other similar events in other parts of the world – I have seen and witnessed this growing up in Zambia. But accountability falls to us, this is OUR responsibility; the governments, NGO’s, private and international aid, those who volunteer and help – NOT wildlife. We have this idea that humans are the priority over everything and every other living species.
My concern is the injustice and unfairness to wildlife – as that is exactly what this is. Are we to believe that all other potential solutions have been exhausted? Are we really solving the root problem here? What about foreign aid? Is the situation so dire that the only recourse is to make wildlife pay the price for a crisis that we, as humans, have contributed to? Do we realize how short-sighted this is? Would we make a similar sacrifice if the roles were reversed? Most definitely not (and I am not suggesting we do!).
The fact that we turn to culling animals—beings that had no hand in creating this crisis—suggests a failure to fully explore and implement alternative measures. It’s a harsh reminder that the burden of human-induced crises often falls on the innocent, including the wildlife that plays a crucial role in our planet’s ecosystems.
I was having a conversation with several stakeholders in the conservation space about this. I’ll paraphrase one, that sums up this situation:
What is done to the animals inevitably will impact the people, as it’s these same animals and their habitat that contribute significantly to ecotourism in the country. The governments must search for solutions that benefit all. In the end we will either succeed or fail, but it will be in unison. —Stacy James (Dazzle Africa).
Philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, “Animals are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.”
About the author: Amish Chhagan is an award-winning wildlife and conservation photographer. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can find more of Chhagan’s work on his website, Instagram, and X. This article was also published here.
Image credits: Photographs by Amish Chhagan
