Update on Jackal Massacre by SANPARKS﻿

Update on Jackal Massacre by SANPARKS

9/4/2016

Update on the investigation into the mass slaughter of over 600 jackals in South African National Parks

To recap: Between 2010 and 2013 over 600 jackals were slaughtered in 3 South African National parks by SANPARKS for highly questionable ethical and scientific reasons. See blog post below.

SANPARKS and NMMU (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth) scientists A. Gaylard, G. Kerley and L. Minnie then published a worthless paper with the Journal of Applied Ecology in London, in which they were untruthful on the massacres.

Concerns from other scientists with respect to the ethics and scientific justifications for the slaughter were shunted aside by the University until finally, one Professor Parker was called in to mediate. The Parker report found that:

The authors from NMMU and SANPARKS were probably deliberately untruthful in non-disclosure of important information on the jackal massacres to the publishing Journal of Applied Ecology London. In a nutshell they lied.
That the University authors did not have an ethics approval from the University ethics committee to participate in the investigation of the carcasses of the jackals at the time they were massacred (2010-2013).

(This would be contrary to protocol in most Universities and a “highly unethical practice”, and perhaps explains why questions by other researchers on this issue had been side-stepped by the NMMU for no less than 5 years.)

It is a primary requirement for all wildlife research that an ethics approval certificate is in place before any research is undertaken.

To date NMMU / SANPARKS authors still arrogantly refuse to provide proof of data relating to other highly questionable findings on these jackal massacres in what has become another side-stepping of accountability and truthfulness of these scientists at the expense of wildlife and the tax payer.

3 Comments

Jeremy Watson

9/4/2016 07:56:20 am

I don't have the background to the perceived need to reduce the jackal population in this drastic way. Culling is a managed process to restablise imbalanced ecosystems. There are no perfectly natural environments anyway. But a proliferation, if this is what was perceived, of scavengers such as jackals hints at a very unstable environment generally and therefore poorly managed. Any study should precede the remedial action and not follow except as a follow up on its effectiveness and possible other actions. The need for an investigation after the act in these circumstances appears very very suspect. While I did not study in that field the NMMU was my university (as UPE) and I am ashamed of the way all this was handled.

Elisa

9/4/2016 12:02:20 pm

Ethics approval - even by a university ethics committee- does not necessarily mean that the research was ethical. Animal ethics committees are typically dominated by animal researchers and scientists w vested interests and the bar for animal research is extremely low. If no ethics approval was given though, this would constitute fraud, as the journal would certainly require it. Contact the journal editors and ask them to follow up. They will withdraw a publication if it was published under false pretences.

lindsay McKenna

9/4/2016 10:58:11 pm

I have read extensive email exchanges regarding this flawed and dishonest publication, “Compensatory life responses of a mesopredator may undermine carnivore management efforts” Liaan Minnie, Angela Gaylard and Graham I. H. Kerley.
I believe the extent of the issue and its consequences for future management of carnivores is even greater than this superb blog outlines. The authors demonstrate a total lack of professionalism and integrity which includes using another person’s data without permission and trying to pass off as their own, deliberately withholding vital information from their paper which would have changed the conclusions reached. They did not have ethics approval at the time of the culls which is highly unethical and unprofessional a fact they have been at pains to avoid disclosure of.
The Journal of Applied Ecology London, where this paper is published, notes on its website, “Researchers must have proper regard for conservation ethics and animal welfare. Any possible adverse consequences of the work for ecosystems, populations, individual organisms or local human communities must be weighed against the possible gains in knowledge and its practical applications.” The paper in question has extensively culled before obtaining ethics approval, but risks future harm, not least actively misinforming its readers to the extent that knowledge and insight is lost not gained.

The integrity of science, the journals people look to for evidence, insight and progressive thinking is being placed at risk with this case.

The possible harmful impact of this paper’s conclusion on conservation policies, practices and insights cannot be underestimated. This paper could set back understanding and progress, result in calls for culls and other field based actions, based not on scientific evidence and fact, but on nothing more than deceit. At best this paper could serve to confuse the thinking in this area for many decades to come.

The Journal (editor Erika Newton) , the authors and the universities involved have all played a part in something which has not only already seen the wilful destruction of many animals but could steer future practices and culls which are equally unnecessary and misinformed,
Someone please have the integrity and welfare of wild life at heart to bring these people and institutions to account and count me in.
Lindsay McKenna