The Zimbabwean government has sparked controversy by planning to cull at least 50 elephants, with the intention of distributing the meat to the population. The move has been met with criticism from conservation groups, who argue that the country’s elephants are not a “surplus biomass” to be disposed of for convenience. The Conservation and Nature Resources Group (CNRG) has condemned the planned culling, stating that it is not a sustainable or humane solution to the country’s food security challenges.
According to reports, the Zimbabwean government has issued permits for the culling of elephants, with the meat to be distributed to the population. The move is seen as an attempt to address the country’s severe food shortages, which have left many people struggling to access basic necessities. However, conservation groups argue that culling elephants is not a viable solution to the problem, and that it will have long-term negative consequences for the country’s ecosystem.
The Times of India reports that Zimbabwe is turning to elephant meat as a way to feed its hungry population, with the government arguing that the meat is a valuable source of protein. However, the Economic Times notes that this is not the first time that Zimbabwe has resorted to culling elephants, and that the practice has been widely criticized by conservation groups.
CNBC TV18 reports that Zimbabwe has issued permits for the cull of at least 50 elephants, with the meat to be distributed to the population. Inshorts notes that the move has sparked widespread controversy, with many people opposing the culling of elephants. The CNRG has argued that Zimbabwe’s elephants are an important part of the country’s ecosystem, and that culling them will have negative consequences for the environment.
Overall, the planned culling of elephants in Zimbabwe has sparked a heated debate about the country’s approach to food security and conservation. While the government argues that the move is necessary to address the country’s severe food shortages, conservation groups argue that it is a short-sighted and unsustainable solution that will have long-term negative consequences for the environment. As the controversy continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the situation will be resolved.