This birth control plan is the best alternative to culling elephant herds by hunters, which we never want. Instead, we offer a painless, harmless method of keeping the elephant population growing at a reasonable birth rate.
Executive Briefing
As many wildlife conservationists are aware, we have lost a staggering 850,000 African elephants since 1980. Now there are approximately only 350,000 African elephants left and their existential threat looms near.
The Republic of Botswana was home to approximately 30,000 African elephants in 1998. However, the population has presently increased to an estimated 130,000 elephants. This is attributed to Botswana’s strict wildlife conservation policies, birth rates and elephant migration from surrounding nations where they have been threatened by poaching and hunting.
Therefore, with a human population of slightly over 2.2 million, Botswana hosts one elephant for every seventeen citizens. This 17 / 1 ratio presents a problematic encroachment issue affecting public safety, especially farmers with crop bearing fields. For these reasons and more, the government of Botswana and its leaders face several dilemmas regarding its elephant population:
• What number is considered elephant overpopulation?
• How many elephants will need to be killed to correct overpopulation?
• Only 5% of the current population equals 6,500; will the repeated, annual slaughter of this many elephants be acceptable to the people of Botswana?
• Will it be acceptable to the people of the world?
• Will the 6.5 million members of PETA lead boycotts of Botswana?
• Will Botswana’s positive public image beyond its borders be damaged?
• Will revenue streams generated by tourists (12% of GDP) decrease?
• Can hunting ever contribute to the GDP?
• Will Botswana relinquish its world leadership of wildlife conservation?
• What are the threats to local economies posed by hunting?
• Once a hunting program is begun, how challenging will it be to stop?
• Will a hunting program ensure the safety of the constituency?
• Will it fairly represent the constituency?
• What are the political risks assumed by lifting the hunting ban?
• What threats of regional ecological collapse will occur?
• Who will assume the moral responsibility for the mass slaughter of herbivores who have lived peaceably upon the African continent since prehistory?
With these notions in mind, in this preliminary plan, I intend to demonstrate the weaknesses and threats of hunting in contrast to the strengths and opportunities of a PZP birth control plan to manage Botswana’s elephant herds.
Effects of Hunting Elephants in Botswana
Even in conditions such as Botswana where populations were growing, culling has become an antiquated method of population control, which deprives the rest of world of one of it’s most regal creations. Jon Herskovitz discusses a much more intelligent approach. In his Huffington Post article, “Elephant birth control: South Africa plans campaign to avoid population explosion” he says this:
“Kwa Zulu-Natal province, in the southeast [of South Africa], is looking to expand a project running for more than a decade [since 2002] where elephants populations have been controlled by injecting cows with a [PZP] vaccine that triggers an immune system response to block sperm reception. Testing of the vaccine, administered by dart and requiring an annual booster, has been conducted at small reserves. Studies have shown it is reversible, nearly 100 percent effective and has no adverse impact on elephant health or behavior.”
By contrasts, hunting posses an ecological conundrum. The Wildlife Conservation Society reports, “Scientists from the Universities of Stirling, Oxford, Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society warn that current hunting trends in Central African forests could result in complete ecological collapse. The authors maintain that the current rate of unsustainable hunting of forest elephants, gorillas and other seed-dispersing species threatens the ability of forest ecosystems to regenerate, and that landscape-wide hunting management plans are needed to avoid an environmental catastrophe.”
Nevertheless, without considering this ecological impact, hunters argue that an elephant’s body can feed a village. And so, about one million metric tons of bushmeat are eaten each year, the equivalent of 9 billion MacDonald’s quarter pounders. Much of this is elephant meat supplied by hunters. The affinity for elephant meat has been generational in many cases. Thus, Africa’s natural heritage is being slaughtered and eaten.
This cavalier attitude is illustrated by a recent article in The Atlantic, in which it is reported that a Zimbabwean game farm owner “has pledged two elephants, two buffalo, two sable antelopes and five impalas for a giant barbeque at [President of Zimbabwean] Robert Mugabe’s birthday party this weekend [February 15, 2015] …” Once again, we have another head of state flagrantly eating elephant bushmeat, implicitly giving many others license to do the same.
Hunting and killing an elephant is easier than maintaining a cattle herd. Yet, this leads to a cycle of hunger, malnutrition, disease, and desperation. In many cases no refrigeration exists and, therefore, much of the meat rots before it can be safely eaten. Even after consuming the meat that remains edible, villagers are still deprived of essential vitamin and minerals.
To break this cycle, hungry villagers must learn to plant crops to satisfy their nourishment. Crops could also be traded or sold at market for other needs. Should hunters truly wish to help such villagers, they could invest a fraction of what they spend on hunting to provide agrarian lessens for them.
Another common argument of hunters is that hunting spurs the economy. This is debatable. For in the long term, the absence of elephants brings fewer tourists, which sends local economies in a downward spiral from which it is difficult to recover. Then locals are tempted from desperation to poach. So, it is by far, more economically beneficial to never hunt elephants for this imperils the livelihood of locals.
This may seem irrelevant in Botswana where there exists an overpopulation of elephants. Yet, if enough elephants are killed to create an equal death to birth ratio, then approximately 6,500 elephants must be killed each year. This might possibly cause some herds to vanish from local villagers that depend upon tourism for their economy. Simply stated: killing elephants kills the economy. Whereas, photo tours, sightseeing tours and other types of touring boosts the economy in the short and long term.
Yet, John Jackson, III says his hunting organization, Conservation Force, “funnels benefits to local people in programs in which they participate as decision-makers. In those cases, the tourist safari hunters donate sums to Conservation Force and we put it to work for the community.” Jackson claims to have built 58 schools and 12 medical facilities in Tanzania.
However, Peter LaFontaine of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) disagrees. “We found that only about three percent of the hunting revenue actually goes to local community development,” says LaFontaine. And “almost none of the money spent on expeditions accrues to local communities. Instead, it remains with the (mostly foreign) tour outfitters and travel companies, in urban centers, central government agencies and, often, bribes for officials.”
LaFontaine argues that ecotourism, like photographic wildlife safaris, is more practical—and lucrative—than sports hunting. In Botswana, for example, “ecotourism is 12 percent of GDP. It’s astonishing.
“Nowhere does sports hunting account for a significant amount of GDP, and only a very small fraction of total tourism revenues.”
Hunters continue the debate by referring to crops or villages destroyed by elephants. In many cases, locals have taken over a herd’s grazing land so it is only natural that herd members wish to continue roaming and eating where they have done so for many generations. Should elephants be blamed for such human intrusions? Yet many are killed for this reason.
Rather than killing them, villagers and farmers can repel elephants by spraying them with cayenne pepper, a harmless, natural repellent. Many other simple remedies are available, as well, such as planting flowering shrubs that attract bees. Elephants are particularly sensitive to bee stings and flee from areas where they nest. So, bee-friendly shrubs planted along a farm’s border may serve as a natural repellent to elephants.
SWOT Analysis of Hunting to Control Botswana’s Elephant Populations
Strengths
1. Lifting the hunting ban would satisfy some constituents.
2. This would provide some political capital for a few government leaders.
3. It would eliminate a number of elephants quickly.
4. It would generate short-term revenue for the government from hunters.
Weaknesses
1. Hunting would anger other constituents.
2. This would cause the loss of some political capital for the government as a whole.
3. It begs the question of how many elephants must be killed.
4. For example, if 5% of the current populations were killed, based upon 130,000 elephants, this would equal 6,500 or almost18 elephants each day for one year.
5. This would lead to an international outcry.
6. Wildlife conservationists would assuredly compare the present administration to the former administration with negative results.
7. It would insignificantly effect encroachment issues.
8. Tourism represents 12% of Botswana GDP. Hunting could harm this revenue stream.
9. Such a culling campaign might destroy local village economies since elephant herds attract tourism to outlaying ranges.
10. It may also negatively affect long-range revenue streams.
11. It some cases, it may permanently eliminate this source of local funding.
12. Hunting threatens the collapse of ecological systems; for elephants, being the largest of the megafauna, are also the largest seed dispenser and, consequently, integral for organic reforestation, upon which they and all other local species utterly depend.
13. Is an antiquated method of population control in the exceptionally few isolated areas where births exceed deaths. Rather than culling by hunters, we can implement systemic birth control plans, which have been proven effective over many years of experience.
14. Hunting is an inadequate means of protecting private property. Spraying elephants with cayenne pepper, for example, causes them to disperse and planting flowering shrubs that attract bees is also a natural repellent.
15. Hunting increases the risk of irreversible population loss and ultimately to extinction. To be sure, in some areas, more elephants are killed by hunters than poachers.
16. Lifting the ban on hunting would send a welcome signal to traffickers and poachers.
17. Managing hunters, which would involve licensing, permits and exportation processes, would necessitate much careful planning and organization, as well as costs that may offset profits.
18. When does the Republic of Botswana decide that enough elephants have been killed? Is this a known factor?
19. Lifting the ban on hunting may be done as a temporary solution and, yet, become a permanent policy.
20. If this proves to be the case, it seems unlikely that it would be a positive change for the republic.
21. The demand for ivory is still quite strong in Southeast Asia, particularly China and the allowance of hunting in Botswana will undoubtedly intensify this demand.
Opportunities
1. Hunting may provide some bushmeat for locals. This, albeit, could be very limited since refrigeration of the meat may not be readily available.
2. Lifting the hunting ban will bring hunters to Botswana who may not otherwise come.
3. This will inject short-range capital into certain economic sectors of the country.
Threats
1. The allowance of hunting could lead to a political crisis.
2. Although there may be a political consensus for hunting presently, lifting the ban may create too negative of an image, or other political fallout. Then those praising the leadership now may later use such missteps against them.
3. This could make reelection challenging for some members of the government.
4. Some powerful foreign nations that have vested interest in Botswana may feel that they can use hunting as a leveraging tool, perpetuating it indefinitely in exchange for more investment.
5. Lifting the ban could cause the loss of the moral compass that other nations and leaders ascribe to Botswana.
6. Should the hunting ban be lifted, the 6,500,000 members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) would probably organize protests that may involve boycotts.
7. This may jeopardize the tourism revenue that accounts for 12% of Botswana’s GDP.
8. If the hunting ban is lifted, it may very likely result in nothing more than many dead elephants since 6,500 would need to be killed to create a zero population growth for one year. This would be a political dead end. For such a culling campaign would be fruitless and unsustainable. In other words, it is a non-solution in which everyone loses.
Birth Rate Analysis
For this plan, we will use the figure of 5% population growth rate, which seems to be the most widely accepted percentage based upon the following research.
Studies of elephant populations at different population densities and habitat conditions have shown that the elephant populations appear to have a built-in birth control system. There are significant differences in reproductive parameters between elephant populations, and these differences can lead to profound differences in population growth rates.
During low food supply or grazer competition from high populations, the age of sexual maturity for females can be delayed. Also, the average interval between the births of calves can be lengthened.
In times of plentiful food supply with low population density and competition, the population could reduce the age of sexual maturity for females and shorten the calving interval to achieve a higher growth rate (See Age to Maturity and Birth Rate and Population Growth above.). (Croze et al. 1981, Moss 1988, Moss 1992)
Studies in Addo Elephant National Park (South Africa) from 1954 to 1998 showed that the overall sex ratio of newborn calves did not differ significantly from 1:1 (1954 to 1998 births: 157 males, 163 females) (Whitehouse & Kerley 2002). Studies in Amboseli (Kenya) between 1978 to 1980 also showed a sex ratio very close to 1:1 among newborns, with a total of 50 males and 49 females being born (Moss 1988).
About half of all elephants die before they reach the age of 15 (Stuart & Stuart 1996). Between 2.5 to 5% of the females of all ages in an elephant population die each year (Whyte et al. 1998).
Man is the only predator that causes mortality, which has a limiting effect on elephant populations. Other predators, including lions, wild dogs, hyenas, and crocodiles, usually prey only on isolated calves less than 2 years old. (Laursen & Bekoff 1978)
Cumulative mortality during the first 3 years is about 27 to 38%, dropping to about 3 to 3.5% annually for the ages from 3 to 45 years and rising again to about 10 to 20% after that. (Laursen & Bekoff 1978, Wu & Botkin 1980)
Births may occur at any time of year, but there is a calving peak just before the height of the rainy season in the case of the savanna elephant. This provides the young elephants with a cool environment and an abundance of good cover. Savanna cows cease to ovulate during the dry season when food is not as abundant, nor of such high nutritional value, thus ensuring that the calf is born in the wet season. In the case of forest elephants, where food abundance and quality are less variable, breeding seasons are not as clearly defined. (Stuart & Stuart 1996, Nowak 1999)
Females produce calves at intervals of 2.5 to 9 years (usually about 5 years). There is normally a single young, but twins occur in 1 to 2 % of births (Nowak 1999). In a study in Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa, of the total number of sexually mature cows under the age of 49 (n = 75), 95 % were observed to be breeding (pregnant or lactating). (Whitehouse & Hall-Martin 2000)
The peak in fertility among female elephants has been found to occur at different ages in different populations. For example, this peak occurred in 18 to 19-year-old females in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia; 25 to 29-year-old females in Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa; and 31 to 35-year-old females in Northern Bunyoro, Uganda. (Whitehouse & Hall-Martin 2000)
Females may average four calves during their lifetime (range 1 to 9), the number dependent on habitat conditions and elephant density (Laursen & Bekoff 1978). The generation time for African elephants, calculated as the average age of reproductive females, is 25 years (IUCN 2004).
An African elephant population can increase at an annual rate of 4 to 5% under favorable conditions, the maximum being 7 %. A maximum growth rate of 6 to 7 % can be achieved if, for example, no elephant dies until it reaches old age, females start conceiving at 9 or 10 years of age, and they give birth to a calf every 3 years. (Moss 1992. Nowak 1999)
Please note that hormonal birth control vaccines are not recommended. These have caused serious side effects and health problems, including the permanent infertility of cows, during field trials. By contrast, as we shall see in this section, the PZP vaccine causes temporary immunity to sperm cells and is, therefore, termed an immunocontraceptive.
In addition to reading research papers about PZP, I discussed its use for elephant birth control with Teresa Teleky, Ph.D., who is the Director of Wildlife at Humane Society International. She is well acquainted with the vaccine. I am also in correspondence with Henk Bertschinger, Ph.D. who heads the PZP laboratory responsible for the PZP contraceptive vaccine in South Africa.
Their recommendations, along with the testimonies of several scientists and wildlife conservationists, assures me that PZP is clearly the vaccine of first choice for elephant birth control.
Here are some of the benefits of PZP:
• Contraceptive efficacy of at least 90%
• Remote delivery of the vaccine which means that no handling of animals (thereby reducing stress) is required and substantially reduces the costs of treatments
• Reversibility of contraceptive effects
• No harmful effects in pregnant elephants
• The absence of either short or long-term significant health effects
• No effects on social behaviors in either short or long-term
• Target specificity i.e. the contraceptive agent does not pass through the food chain
(See Kirkpatrick and Turner 1996, Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012)
In the PZP process, a non-cellar capsule known as the zona pellucida (ZP) surrounds all mammalian eggs. The ZP consists of several glycoproteins (proteins with some carbohydrates attached), some of which are thought to be the primary component of the sperm receptor (the molecule that permits attachment of the sperm to the egg during fertilization). In nature, a sperm must attach to the ZP protein before it can penetrate the egg. When the porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine (derived from pigs’ eggs) is injected into the muscle of the target female animal, it stimulates her immune system to produce antibodies against the proteins in the vaccine. These ant-bodies attach to the sperm receptors on the ZP of her eggs and thereby block fertilization.
The specificity of the antibodies for the sperm receptor is absolute, and there is no cross activity with any other organs, tissues or molecules in the mammalian body. Because the cow does not fall pregnant she will continue to show an oestrous cycle that is 15 to 17 weeks long. This means that she may come on heat up to 2 to 3 times a year.
(See Paterson an Aitken 1990, Barber and Fayrer-Hosken 2000, Kirkpatrick 2010, Ablers, et al, 2012, Kirpatrick 2012)
And we see that, “In southern Africa . . . where contraception is warranted to reduce fecundity [fertility], a different female immunocontraceptive is already widely applied and highly successful. The PZP vaccine prevents fertilization of oocytes, while estrous cyclicity remains.” (Delsink et al., 2002; 2006)
General Implementation of Birth Control Plan
Current elephant population in Botswana: 130,000
Birth rate: 5%
Estimated total births: 6,500
Birth control inoculations needed to reduce the overall birth rate by 50%: 3,250
{3,250 ÷ 250 (working days per year 1) = 13 (inoculations per day)}
To achieve an average of 13 inoculations each working day, how many men would be required for elephant range work? This can only be estimated based upon such factors as (1) herd disbursement, (2) herd migration and (3) accessibility to cows, which is further complicated by musth, a period of heightened testosterone in adult bulls. These three points and others will require further analysis.
For now, however, let’s assume that a team of 2 men can dart an average of 2.2 cows per working day. Based upon this assumption, 6 teams of 2 men working 250 days could inoculate 3,250 cows.
{(6 teams) x (2.2 inoculations per day) x (250 working days)} = 3,300 cows inoculated annually
It has been suggested that the Anti-Poaching Unit of the Botswana Defense Force should be considered for this task. With the assumption that its members are in the elephant ranges on a permanent basis, some people feel that inoculation might be a by-product of their ongoing duties of protecting wildlife from poachers.
This is not recommended. Indeed, assigning the Anti-Poaching Unit to this task would place them in additional danger. For, an elephant’s size belies its potential agility and speed. Although they may begin a charge at only 8 km/h, it has been reported that they can reach speeds of up to 40 km/h (25 mph). Other estimates state
that they are able to only reach 25 km/h (15.53 mph). Yet, should we use the slower speed, we see that elephants can run faster than most humans. This fact must always be taken into consideration when tracking an elephant for inoculation.
It should also be understood that hunters, photographers, and others have been quietly stalked by elephants, quickly ambushed then kick and trampled to death. While such occurrences are rare, thoughtful precautions must be taken when approaching a herd. A herd must be observed from afar and a plan of approach planned before attempting a darting.
Furthermore, during periods of musth, it is unsafe to attempt inoculation. Musth is a period of heightened testosterone, which is painful in adult bulls. Inebriated by testosterone and pain, along with mating competition in which bulls often engage in combat, this phenomenon may cause a relatively relaxed bull to exert the full measure of his extraordinary strength.
In one case of a musth attack, two people “had been pursuing and filming the elephant at a waterhole near Pretoriuskop [Kruger National Park, South Africa] when it suddenly turned and attacked their vehicle, rolling it three times, and flinging it 40m (131.23 feet).” (Bega, 2014)
It is, therefore, mandatory that members of an inoculation team know the signs of an elephant in musth. “The first thing to be aware of is to look for temporal gland swelling just behind the eye, which exudes a fluid. For a bull in full musth, this can swell to the size of a soccer ball. The bull also dribbles urine. They have a way of walking, a stand-tall display.
“When you see a bull swaggering down the road with urine gushing, it’s a telltale sign he is in full musth. You can’t approach it as you would another elephant because 10 to one it will not get off the road. You have to give way…” (Henley, 2014)
Consequently, I feel it is best for safety reasons, as well as for logistical and economics reasons, to contract professional wildlife management specialists who are adept at inoculating elephants from a helicopter.
Cost
(Inclusive costs of vaccine, helicopter time, darts, professional fees to vaccinate on elephant) = 902 BWP
(3,250 cows annually to reduce the population growth by 2.5%) x (902 BWP) = 2,931,500 BWP / 3.900,000 ZAR / 276,250 USD
Of course, it is recommended to begin implementing the plan on a smaller scale. Perhaps, the Tuli Block would be the appropriate place to start because of its accessability and overpopulation.
After the plan has been successfully implemented, the reach of the plan can be extended to cover more and more herds until Botswana’s population growth is reduced to approximately 2.5%.
For example, it might be wise to vaccinate 150 cows with an expansion of 150 cows each month. In this case, the cost would look something like this:
(150 cows monthly) x (902 BWP) = 135,300 BWP / 180,000 ZAR / 12,750 USD
At this pace, in a purely linear progress in which no interfering factors are considered, in approximately 22 months such a campaign could cover the estimated Botswana herd of 130,000 elephants. At which point, the cost would equal about 2,931,500 BWP consistently each year.
I feel that this money can be raised in the United States through fundraising events and through the charitable gifts of prominent donors.
And so, without costs to the taxpayer, the president and his leaders can:
• Protect the elephant herds, one of the country’s most lucrative resources
• Maintain the revenue stream from tourism, which represents 12% GDP
• Increase their political capital
• And, avoid the risk of political backlash from home and abroad.
In South Africa, the vaccine is not commercially available and is provided at approximately 25 – 30% of production costs.
The vaccine is ordered from:
Professor H. J. Bertschinger
Department of Production Animal Studies
Faculty of Veterinary Science
University of Pretoria
PO Box X04, Onderstepoort, 0110
Tel: + 27 (0) 12 804 3312 Fax: + 27 (0) 12 804 3312 Cell: + 27 (0) 82 407 2396 Email: henkbert@tiscali.co.za
Conclusion
If hunting is allowed, how many elephants must be killed for the program to be successful? For instance, if hunters killed between 3,250 to 6,500 elephants the first year of this program, it would only reduce the population 2.5% to 5%, respectively. In other words, the population would decline from 130,000 to 125,000 elephants in the most ambitious case of this example. Yet, overall the elephant to human encroachment challenge would be essentially unaffected.
If hunting is started, when does it end? Some powerful foreign nations which have a vested interest in Botswana may feel that they can use hunting as a leveraging tool, perpetuating it indefinitely in exchange for more investment.
Would lifting the ban require an unnecessary political risk that may jeopardize the administration of H.E. President Masisi? Could this make reelection challenging for the president and other members of the government? It seems that a number of constituents and politicians would be appalled by lifting the hunting ban. It may also intensify any rivalry between the current and former administration, giving the later an emotional point of leverage among the constituency and politicians. In such a case, wildlife conservationists in Botswana might compare the present administration to the former administration with negative conclusions.
On a wider scale, the allowance of hunting would create international outrage among many wildlife conservationists, causing the loss of the moral compass that other nations and leaders ascribe to Botswana. The combined voices of these wildlife activists would quite possibly become protests. Among many others, I am quite sure that the 6.5 million members of PETA would have a loud and global voice. PETA may very well organize tourism boycotts. This could negatively impact the flow of tourist dollars, shrinking that portion of the GDP below its present 12% figure. This would, in turn, create political havoc among those constituents whose livelihood derives from this industry.
Indeed, hunting does not help the economy. Peter LaFontaine of the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) says, “almost none of the money spent on [hunting] expeditions accrues to local communities. Instead, it remains with the (mostly foreign) tour outfitters and travel companies, in urban centers, central government agencies and, often, bribes for officials.” LaFontaine argues that ecotourism, like photographic wildlife safaris, is more practical—and lucrative—than sports hunting. In Botswana, for example, “ecotourism is 12 percent of GDP. It’s astonishing.
“Nowhere does sports hunting account for a significant amount of GDP, and only a very small fraction of total tourism revenues.”
Hunters continue the debate for hunting by referring to crops or villages destroyed by elephants. In many cases, locals have taken over a herd’s grazing land so it is only natural that herd members wish to continue roaming and eating where they have done so for many generations. Should elephants be blamed for such human intrusions? Yet many are killed for this reason. Rather than killing them, villagers and farmers can repel elephants by spraying them with cayenne pepper, a harmless, natural repellent. Many other simple remedies are available, as well, such as planting flowering shrubs that attract bees. Elephants are particularly sensitive to bee stings and flee from areas where they nest. So, bee-friendly shrubs planted along a farm’s border may serve as a natural repellent to them.
Perhaps, the Masisi Administration might gain political capital by issuing hand-held cayenne pepper spray canisters to those who are more likely to encounter elephants. This might be accompanied with training, especially in classrooms, to use the canisters and how to identify musth, for instance. And, farmers and others who may experience intrusion by elephants could possibly receive a subsidy from the government to plant flowering shrubs that attract bees, which, as we have seen, is a natural repellent to elephants. With the appropriate timing and political positioning of these elephant deterrent programs, they may, perhaps, send the message that the administration is thinking of the constituent’s safety.
Now, by sharp contrast to hunting, a PZP birth control plan will allow the Masisi Administration to safely retain its political capital without jeopardizing it by lifting the hunting ban. This plan may also help coalesce the energies of the former administration under the Masisi umbrella, which I feel would cause a favorable attitude toward H.E. the President. And, the PZP plan will allow the administration to openly demonstrate to its citizenry that it is implementing well thought out programs to protect and represent them.
Tourism will continue to thrive, uninterrupted by potential protests and boycotts instigated by PETA and others. Botswana will maintain its moral compass among wildlife conservationists around the world. Indeed, the PZP birth control plan could be used as a global public relations coup d’état for the president and his administration. What is more, the PZP plan may possibly be financed completely by donations from the United States, a point that might be appreciated by the constituency of H.E. President Masisi.
