African Wildlife Conservation

Ted Reilly was familiar to me long before I actually met him; as one of the legendary figures of wildlife conservation in Southern Africa; spoken of with respect and reverence alongside other greats like Ted Davison, Ian Player, John Hanks and Clive Stockil.

Just as Ian Player is credited with almost single-handedly saving South Africa’s white rhino population, so Ted Reilly is regarded as the father and icon of conservation in Eswatini (formerly Swaziland). Ted has worked for decades to conserve existing animals and reintroduce those which had gone locally extinct – thanks to his efforts, 22 species of mammals have been reintroduced to Swaziland, from the blue duiker to the elephant.

His efforts have enabled generations of Swazis to enjoy their country’s wild areas and wildlife.

To visit Eswatini’s Mlilwane Wildlife Sanctuary, one of Ted’s creations, is a revelation. During the week, busloads of local Swazi school children are brought in to enjoy this wild space; at weekends Swazi families and young couples come for a day out; to cycle, walk and picnic. By comparison, the number of foreign visitors is small.

This is in stark contrast to most other wildlife reserves in Africa. One of the most depressing things about visiting wildlife reserves in most African countries is that so few of the visitors are from the local population. Whether it is the cost of entry or just indifference, this does not bode well for the future of Africa’s wildlife.

I do not doubt the commitment of those working to protect and conserve it, but if those living alongside Africa’s wildlife see themselves as being excluded from a portion of their own country because it has been designated as an area for photo-tourism, and the cost of entry is beyond their means, they are unlikely to embrace conservation.

The only other African country where I have seen domestic visitors to wildlife reserves outnumber the foreigners, is South Africa. Yet, rather than being hailed as a country that has managed to engage its population in the conservation effort, it is lambasted by many as ‘not the real Africa’.

If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny; foreigners – all wildlife experts of course – from Europe and the USA telling Africans that their country is ‘not the real Africa’.

It seems that for them, countries that are forging their own path and taking control of their own destiny are not the ‘real Africa’. To them the ‘real Africa’ is not a thriving democracy, confident to make its own way, it is rather an Africa they can bend to their will, dependent on foreign aid and willing to be told how to manage their own country and its wildlife.

Haven’t we learned anything from centuries of western exploitation of and interference in Africa?

Surely we are long past the time when this kind of patronising approach to Africa is acceptable.

‘Real Africa’ or not, the success of wildlife conservation in Southern Africa is very real.

Southern Africa operates under a model where wildlife has been endowed with private ownership and its commercialization has been legalized. The result in South Africa is that the numbers of wild animals have increased 20 fold in the last 50 years, while natural conserved habitats designated to conservation have increased 3 times.

There are today more wild animals on private land than there are in National and Provincial Parks collectively. By contrast Kenya, Africa’s perceived iconic wildlife Mecca has lost 80% of her wildlife estate over the same period of time after banning commercialization and consumptive use of wildlife.

Anyway, I digress. Back to Ted Reilly.

The opportunity to meet Ted Reilly and hear him speak came when I was invited to attend the launch of a campaign by Eswatini to persuade those attending the next CITES conference, scheduled for May 2019 in Colombo, Sri Lanka, to lift a 41-year ban on the trade in rhino horn.

In a packed marquee that brought together members of the Eswatini government, foreign ambassadors, local businessmen and rangers from the country’s wildlife department it was abundantly clear that there was one man who commanded the respect of everyone present.

Ted’s presentation was eloquent and forceful; there could be no doubting his passion and commitment to see an injustice put right.

This campaign is not Ted’s alone, he enjoys the wholehearted support of Eswatini’s Head of State, His Majesty King Mswati III, Ngwenyama of the Kingdom of Eswatini.

It is this level of support that has enabled Eswatini to achieve the finest anti-poaching rhino conservation record in Africa and Ted is quick to acknowledge that the single most essential ingredient necessary to contain poaching is political will at Head of State level.

So what is this campaign about?

The debate on legalising the trade in rhino horn has raged for years, with passionate advocates on both sides, yet the facts are inescapable:

In 1960 there are said to have been 100 000 black rhinos in Africa.   The CITES ban was imposed in 1977 and now, 41 years later, despite the CITES trade ban – which was put in place to protect them – there are now 5 000 black rhinos left in Africa.  Currently, more than 1 000 rhinos are being killed annually by horn poachers. So the ban is clearly not working and the illegal trade continues. So does the slaughter of rhinos that feeds it.

The enormous decline of Africa’s rhinos has occurred in spite of the billions of US dollars donated by generous donors to NGOs which have been set up to save endangered species.

As Dr. George Hughes (zoologist and former head of Natal Parks Board) said recently –

“We have lost over 100 000 rhino in Africa since that ban, so you have to be out of your mind to think it has been a success.”

Another inescapable fact is that conservation is an expensive business, very expensive indeed.

As Dr John Hanks (former director of the Africa program for WWF) observed,

“There is not a single conservation agency in Africa which is not cash strapped and short of funds.”

Protecting rhinos is prohibitively expensive and is becoming too costly and risky for many custodians to continue doing. Yet some conservation agencies are sitting on the most valuable self-renewing resource on earth which they are prevented from utilizing by CITES. This resource is rhino horn.

Rhino horn can be harvested sustainably on an ongoing basis without killing a rhino because the horn keeps growing even after harvesting and its removal from the rhino is painless.

Rhino horn is worth around 60,000 US Dollars per kilogram on the black market, where to obtain it, the rhino will die. But it has no legal commercial value at all because legal trade in horn is banned.

This is both tragic and entirely avoidable.

A rhino does not have to die for its horn to be removed legally, and repeatedly.

The average horn weighs approximately 4kg giving it an illegal value of 240,000 US Dollars. This makes a dead rhino far more valuable than a live rhino and gives criminal organisations a monopoly on trade. That is how nonsensical the ban on horn trade is.

As things stand, criminals take all the revenues from rhino horn – and the rhinos have to die, while custodians pay all the costs of protection, with no prospect of earning revenue to offset their costs.

This has resulted in some 300,000 hectares of habitat formerly available to rhinos being withdrawn from rhino conservation because the cost of keeping and protecting them has become too risky and too costly.

It is fashionable now, in trendy conservation cliques, to dismiss these great men as yesterday’s heroes, effective in their day but out of step with modern conservation.

The debt that Southern Africa’s wildlife owes these men cannot be dismissed so lightly, no matter how much it would suit some of those who would rather fire up your emotions with rhetoric and propaganda than work with proven facts.

These people, who argue that a legal trade in rhino horn; one that would ensure that Africa’s remaining rhinos are worth more alive than dead, would encourage the illegal trade; who argue that to legalise rhino horn as a commodity would reduce rhinos to the status of a farmed animal; who argue that conservation should not be monetised in such a way; these are the very people who urge us to donate our own cash to their cause; in effect to pay their wages.

How are they anything other than mercenaries? And how can they, who take their own salaries from your donations before a single penny goes to the cause they are espousing, be so dismissive of people who have worked their entire lives to save Africa’s wildlife and who have strived to do it in a way that is sustainable.

These people regard the ‘sustainable’ as a dirty word, yet it is the only reliable long term option. If it is to survive, Africa’s conservation efforts must ultimately be sustainable (self-funding) rather than being dependent on the philanthropy of others in faraway lands; Philanthropy that can be stopped on a whim.

Another argument that is regularly trotted out is that “until we eliminate corruption”, legalizing the trade would be dangerous and open the way for contraband to enter the legal trade. Of course, it will – to the extent that it is allowed to happen – but to suggest that we don’t try a legal trade in rhino horn to compete with the rampant illegal trade already in place until we have eliminated corruption is naïve in the extreme.

Realistically we will never eliminate corruption. Police forces have been in place since societies began but we still live with corruption and crime.  We all have to live with corruption because it is plainly and very simply a fact of life.

Can you think of any other instance where we have said that we should not engage in legal trade until we have eliminated the illegal trade? I cannot.

There are many commodities or products that are stolen and sold illegally – cars, cigarettes, designer clothing, alcohol, jewelry, TV’s, the list is endless. Money itself is stolen and laundered  We don’t ban the sale of any of these products nor do we ban the use of money. Instead, we develop ways of countering its illegal use; surely we can do the same with horn.

If we accept corruption as being a valid reason for not trying legal trade – we might as well all give up and go home because corruption and crime are here to stay and there will always be criminals.

It would be one hell of an indictment on all of us if we allow rhinos to go extinct without having tried everything possible to save them, including a legal trade in rhino horn.

Behind this debate about the trade in rhino horn lies another, equally important, issue; self-determination.

How long will it be before African countries are allowed to manage their own wildlife areas, as they wish, without interference and pressure from NGOs and foreign governments?

How long will it be before countries that have all but wiped out their own wildlife cease thinking they have a right to tell Africans how to manage theirs?

About 140 years ago, in the USA, native bison had all but been wiped out by buffalo hunters. Now, brought back from the brink of extinction, bison are farmed for their meat. How then, can the USA claim the moral high ground and argue against a similar measure to prevent one of Africa’s iconic species going extinct?

It makes no sense at all.

Going forward; unless we are content to let conservation – and by extension, the enjoyment of wildlife in its natural habitat – evolve into the preserve of a wealthy elite a way must be found for the conservation of wildlife to be sustainable, and by sustainable I mean self-financing.

It can be done. The vast majority of animals are not targeted by poachers for their meat or body parts and will happily exist in national parks or wildlife reserves that very closely resemble their natural habitat. I say ‘very closely resemble’ simply because the boundaries around national parks and wildlife reserves restrict the habitat in a way that is not natural.

The vast majority of animals are not the problem; the problem lies with a few iconic species that are targeted by ruthless people – the poachers are just the tip of the iceberg; the visible part of a much larger organisation.

Vast amounts of money are expended to try and protect these species across the continent of Africa, yet in only a very few cases can we say that the battle is being won.

Some of this money comes from governments, some come from philanthropy – large donations from wealthy individuals or an accumulation of small donations from concerned members of the public.

It is not a secure source of finance and could easily be shut off on a whim.

So why, when a way presents itself for the conservation of one of these iconic species to be sustainable – self-funding – is it so readily shouted down?

Why, instead of celebrating the fact that, if properly managed and controlled,  rhinos could be worth more alive than dead, are so many people and organisations that claim to be committed to saving this iconic Africa species fighting so hard to prevent it being allowed?

The fact that rhino horn can be collected without the need to kill the animal should mean that ensuring their survival is a no-brainer.
Can we really be so petty as to let Africa’s rhinos become extinct simply because we objected to the fact that someone might make money from selling the horns? As things stand, when those horns are poached and sold the money goes to greedy businessmen and the rhino is dead.

Isn’t any solution that allows the rhino to live preferable to that?

If the right to choose our government is the one leg that keeps our democracy upright and stable, the other leg is the right we all have to participate when the government makes laws.

We all know how important the right to vote is, right? We will all most probably reply if asked, that the right to vote in free and fair elections is what makes our country a democracy. However, I wonder how many South Africans realise that they would only be half right and that our democracy rests on two legs rather than just one? I suspect not that many.

The Constitutional Court describes this really well in Doctors for Life case. The key passage is in paragraph 115 of the judgment but in short, ongoing public participation strengthens democracy, builds trust in government and restores human dignity.

We get to exercise this important right to participate because the government must publish draft legislation and regulation for comment before it is made law. This is in addition to workshopping the law with stakeholders before and after the law is published for comment.

Basically, the government must notify the public of the proposed new law by publishing the notice in the Government Gazette and at least one national newspaper. The notice must also contain sufficient information in order to enable the public to comment meaningfully thereon. The public then has a period of time, normally 30 days, within which to respond. Provision must be made to take representations orally if the proposed law affects people whose writing skills are limited.

Pretty straightforward you would think. You would be wrong. Environmental authorities routinely publish notice that only set out the law. No additional information or context is supplied. Thus the public does not know for example why a particular species is to be declared invasive or why a species must be listed as protected or even how it was that an activity came to be listed as having a significant environmental impact. To make matters worse they often do so despite complaints from the public that insufficient information has been provided.

Sometimes, I suspect quite a lot of the time, the notice is also not published in a newspaper.

No big deal you might think. After all, we are used to government riding roughshod over us. At least the government went to the trouble of engaging with stakeholders. Government has also published the draft for comment. It used to be a lot worse, so be grateful for what you have.

Environmental authorities would agree with you. They point to the fact that proposed laws are “science-based” and often follow a process of extensive stakeholder engagement before they are published for comment. The government argues that this is good enough and that if there has been any transgression, it was inadvertent or immaterial.

Our courts do not agree. According to our courts when you mess with these rules, you are messing with something that is as important as the right to vote. So it should not be surprising that court after court all the way up to the Constitutional Court is throwing laws out because the government did not obey these simple rules. The Rhino Horn Moratorium was declared invalid for this reason. It was also why the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act, which purported to reopen the lands claim process, was declared invalid.

Who knows how many other environmental laws are similarly affected? I think that it is a lot. In fact, I think we have a bit of a crisis on our hands.

I also think, that while might have been possible to deal with this crisis systemically, this is no longer the case today. I think the crisis has gone beyond its tipping point. If I am right and if our environmental authorities do nothing to address the issue, then I think we are going to see:

1. Rapidly declining trust in the integrity of our environmental authorities accompanied by a decline in their effectiveness as environmental managers.
2. Increasing levels of bad behavior by people emboldened by the idea that they can get away with it.
3. A rise in the practice of one-off deal-making rather than systematic and principled environmental management.

None of this augers well for our environment or the long term health and wellbeing of South Africans.

Securing wildlife populations and their habitat can help reverse land degradation. The sustainable use of stable game populations can help improve the livelihood options of local communities.

A Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) is defined as a component of a large ecological region that straddles the boundaries of two or more countries encompassing one or more protected areas as well as multiple resource use areas. The Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA lies in the Kavango and Zambezi river basins where Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe converge and covers some 519 000 sq. kilometers. It was formalized in December 2006 when a memorandum of understanding was signed by the respective governments.

The goal of the KAZA TFCA is “To sustainably manage the Kavango Zambezi ecosystem, its heritage and cultural resources based on best conservation and tourism models for the socio-economic wellbeing of the communities and other stakeholders in and around the eco-region through harmonization of policies, strategies and practices.” Safari hunting is an integral part of the economic model.

The Zimbabwe component of KAZA TFCA comprises 14% of the total area and includes Hwange National Park, Zambezi National Park, Victoria Falls National Park, Kazuma Pan National Park, Chizarira National Park, Matusadona National Park, Matetsi, Deka, Chete, Chirisa and Charara Safari Areas, including, Bembesi, Fuller, Gwayi, Kazuma, Mzola, Ngamo, Panda Masuwe, Sijarira and Sikumi Forests incorporating Hwange, Tsholotsho, Bulilima, Binga, Gokwe, Nyaminyami and Hurungwe Communal Lands, as well as privately held State Land and conservancies extending eastwards to Lake Kariba Recreational Park and Kariba Town.

Within this area is the Hwange-Sanyati Biodiversity Corridor (HSBC) project, 14 million acres in extent. The $6.4 million project is being funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and is running from 2014-2019. The World Bank is the implementing agency for the project, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) is the activities implementing entity and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Management is the coordinating authority. Key project partners are: Parks and Wildlife Management Authority; CAMPFIRE Association; Environmental Management Agency; and the Forestry Commission.

The overall objective of the project is to provide tools for the sustainable management of the corridor and to address challenges including:

• Inadequate water supplies for wildlife;
• Destructive wildfires;
• Poaching of wildlife and timber;
• Human-wildlife conflicts;
• Land degradation;
• Limited livelihood options;
• Food insecurity; and
• Inadequate institutional capacities to address environmental and livelihood challenges.

Securing wildlife populations and their habitat can help reverse land degradation. The sustainable use of stable game populations can help improve the livelihood options of local communities.

The Hwange Communal Area is a part of the country’s CAMPFIRE project and includes the Sidinda area which borders the Zambezi River. The hunting safari outfitter operating in this region is Mbalabala Safaris, owned and run by Lindon Stanton and Tinie Kok.

When they took over the hunting area in 2014 they realized that certain key species would have to be re-introduced in order to improve the viability of the area. A fenced, protected core area would have to be established before wildlife could be brought in. Once wildlife populations stabilized the next phase of the project would involve erecting a second, lower cattle fence encompassing 100 000 acres into which the game could move.

The idea was presented to the Hwange Rural Council who were very supportive as was Charles Jonga, head of CAMPFIRE Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority was contacted, and an ecologist was sent to undertake an ecological assessment of the area.

The results showed that 100 buffalo, 30 sable, 30 zebra, 30 eland and 30 waterbuck could be sustained within the proposed 9 000 acre enclosed area. The success of the plan would hinge on the local people realizing tangible benefits from the project. This would come in the form of cash from trophy fees and meat from the hunted animals. The rural council undertook a PR exercise across the region to inform the various communities about the proposed scheme.

With financial support from their hunting clients Lindon and Tinie hired 40 people from the local community and began erecting the fence. The terrain in the area is formidable and It took two years of hard work before the 14-kilometer-long fence was completed. Two strands of solar-powered electrified wire were attached to the fence. The first 3-foot high strand was placed on the inside of the fence to keep buffalo from breaking out. The second strand was set at 5 feet on the outside to deter elephant from breaking down the fence.

Whilst the fence was being erected Lin and Tinie located a potential source of buffalo. A fenced area of the Victoria Falls National Park had an over-population of buffalo and at least 100 needed to be removed as grazing had become a problem. A deal was made between CAMPFIRE, Hwange Rural Council and the National Parks authorities to move 100 buffalo from the park to Sidinda.

The African Wildlife Management and Conservation capture unit under Nicholas (NJ) La Grange was commissioned to capture and translocate the buffalo. The operation took a couple of days and the buffalo were released into an enclosed boma within the core area so as to acclimatize them. Supplementary food was brought in and fresh water pumped into troughs.

After a month in the boma the buffalo were released into the core area. Under favorable conditions buffalo numbers build up very quickly and the hope is that within a couple of years they can be pushed out into the larger area. The next stage of the project is to re-introduce the other proposed wildlife species into the core area.

One of the problems associated with hunting concession leases in many parts of Africa is the length of tenure. Safari operators are reluctant to invest time and money into an area only to lose it to another operator after a few years. Lindon and Tinie approached the Hwange Rural Council with a plan to increase the length of their lease from 5 years to 15 or 20 years with a progress review every 5 years.

The council agreed and Lindon and Tinie are confident that their plan to rehabilitate the area will succeed. The Sidinda rehabilitation project is a refreshing one amidst the general doom and gloom surrounding the state of Africa’s wildlife and wilderness.

Dr. Salomon Joubert is the ex-director of the Kruger National Park in South Africa and spent 40 years in the service.

Since the mid-1960’s when elephant censuses were initiated the recorded calf percentages have remained remarkably stable. The only exceptions were 1967 and 1995 when they were 11.3% and 10.1% respectively. In both cases this could most likely be attributed to observer bias as the classification of calves under a year of age remains a rather subjective judgement and largely depends on the experience of the observer(s). In all other cases the percentages are of a very similar order, in spite of some fluctuations.

From the recorded percentages there do not appear to be any indications that the reproductive performance of the elephant population has been affected by fluctuations in the medium-term rainfall cycles, termination of culling or any other influences on the population. On what basis the ‘spike’ in reproduction is founded is unclear and suspect at best.

Based on the results of recent census data the claim was made that there are “early signals” that the elephant population growth curve is reaching its peak. This supposedly implies that the population is reaching a stable level at which it will be in harmony with the other components of the ecosystems. It should, however, be pointed out that “early signals” are not established fact and therefore not scientifically accountable.

It is accepted that the opening of new rangelands adjoining the Park for occupation by elephants will relieve the Park of some of its elephant pressure and should be reflected in the census figures. It is known that a large number of elephants emigrated to the ‘vacuum’ created by the Sabi Sand Wildtuin (SSW) with the dismantling of the western boundary fence (in contrast to this, a similar emigration to the Associate Private Nature Reserves, where there had already been an established population, did not take place).

A similar situation to that of the SSW could be expected in the opening of the transfrontier park, which includes much of the erstwhile traditional range of at least some of the elephant clans in the northern reaches of the Park. The elephant population trend should, therefore, also take this into consideration.

The notion that elephant populations could reach some state of stable population level is also highly debatable. The universal phenomenon of all-natural processes taking place in the form of rhythmical cycles has already been alluded to.

The elephant population is no exception and it can be expected to build up to densities where it could have severe impacts on the environment and all that is associated with it, collapse and then slowly build up again. And even if it is kept at a stable level the problem of the cumulative impacts of elephant over time will exceed those of relatively short-term exposure to high impact followed by the advantage of several phases in the rainfall cycles for the regeneration and rehabilitation of the environment.

The question remains whether the elephant population can be allowed to reach the stage where it will collapse due to the exhaustion of one or both of its vital resources (food and water)

To create greater possibilities to meet the spatial and temporal requirements of elephants is a laudable approach and the range extensions on both the western and eastern boundaries of the Park will go a long way in achieving this (for elephants and a host of other species). However, it will remain a closed system and is bound to be colonized in due course, even if the Ghonarezhou National Park is also added as it already has a substantial elephant population.

I seem to sense that the new approach towards the management of the elephant population is essentially an attempt to avoid population control by means of culling. Other than culling, it is highly unlikely that population control will be possible by any alternative means, such as translocations. If population control cannot be exerted I regard the new approach as extremely high risk. This is based on the following:

• It is quite apparent that the Park does not have the research capacity to properly evaluate and priorities areas that would qualify for ‘event-driven’ intervention.
• It is not clear what ‘intervention’ implies. If it does not entail the reduction of the elephant population where are the elephants of the impacted area supposed to go?
• Justifying the unchecked increase of the elephant population on the basis of an “early signal”, supposedly signifying the reduced increase and leveling off of the population, is scientifically unfounded.
• Any suggestion that the elephant population would eventually level off and continue at a stable level in harmony with other ecosystem components does not take into account elephant population cycles and is therefore equally unfounded on a factual/scientific level.

After nearly 30 years of culling the elephant population has shown no discernable ill-effects and has been kept at a stable level. This, in itself, is not without problems as indicated elsewhere in this submission. However, it was possible to maintain the population within manageable levels and offered the opportunity of adjusting to identified and/or perceived problems.

To let the population, go on the grounds of unproven and wishful assumptions (however popular this may be in terms of public sentiment) can very well lead to an irreversible situation that offers very little opportunity to manage the population or effect rehabilitation of disturbed areas if and when the “early signal” assumption may, in fact, prove to be false. This would be akin to signing a contract without an escape clause!

If one has to err, err on the conservative side and retain the opportunity of redeeming mistakes, even if they are – as accepted – made with the best possible intentions.

In music circles the 3rd of February 1959 will always be remembered as “The Day the Music Died” with the tragic death in an aircraft crash of Buddy Holly (That’ll be the Day), Ritchie Valens (La Bamba), “The Big Bopper” Richardson (Chantilly Lace) and their pilot Roger Peterson.

In conservation circles what date will we remember as “The Day Logic Died”.

Towards the end of the 19th Century the Southern White Rhino was considered extinct. This extinction was caused not only through uncontrolled sport hunting but also from hunting for tsetse fly eradication. In 1894 Sir Henry McCullum shot two Black Rhino near the confluence of the Black and White Umfolozi Rivers.

These two Black Rhino were in fact not Black Rhino but the “extinct” Southern White Rhino. The estimated size of this small population varied from as low as 20 Rhino to around about 100 Rhino. Regardless of the size of the population we were given a second chance. The discovery of this small population led to the founding of the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve in 1895, the oldest game reserves in Africa.

In 1953, by means of aerial counts the late Dr. Ian Player estimated that there were 437 Rhino in the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve. As this population was increasing it became evident that the Rhino had exceeded their carrying capacity. Dr. Player together with the then Natal Parks Board initiated the first legal Rhino trade with a project called “Operation Rhino”.

Operation Rhino was to translocate the then Critically Endangered White Rhino to other reserves, first within the then province of Natal and then into the rest of South Africa. Soon South Africa’s reserves had all been restocked and the Southern White Rhino were made available to other reserves within Africa as well as sold to zoos and wildlife parks throughout the world to establish breeding populations outside the country.

As the population was still growing the Natal Parks Board considered culling the excess Rhino. Dr. Player disagreed with this wildlife management practice as he felt there was still a market for White Rhino. He made the proposal, which was accepted by the Board, to make these excess White Rhinos available to trophy hunters.

Through Operation Rhino the critically endangered White Rhino clawed its way back from extinction to a healthy sustainable population. These are just some of the people that made Operation Rhino such a success and we will always be indebted to them – Ian Player, Toni Harthoorn, George Hughes, David Cook, Magquebu Ntombela, Colonel Vincent, Paul Dutton, John Clark, Nick Steel, Kenrow Sharr and Jim Feely.

Operation Rhino and the legal trade which Dr. Player had initiated was such a success that both Dr. Ian Player and the then Natal Parks Board were praised for their vision, foresight and their conservation effort. Southern White Rhino numbers increased from a floundering 437 Rhino in 1953 to over 20 000 White Rhino today. The IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group in 2016 estimated that there are between 19,682 – 21,077 White Rhinos.

In 1977 CITES banned the international trade in Rhino horn. This ban did not seem to have much effect on the world-wide Rhino population as their numbers were still on the decline except for Southern African countries and South Africa in particular where their numbers were still on the increase with a very small amount of rhino being poached. South Africa success was due to the local legal trade in horn, trophy hunting and a live trade in Rhino as initiated by Dr. Player and the Natal Parks Board.

A few years ago, poaching of Rhino in South Africa was unheard of. UNTIL 2009/2010. Before long poaching was a daily news item with at least one rhino poached per day. Before long this had increased to three rhino being poached daily. This surge in poaching became big business with anti-poaching teams being trained, kitted out and employed, as well as all sorts of other mitigating measures were being employed to protect rhino and the inevitable birth of a new cause – “Save the Rhino”. Millions of US $ have and are being donated worldwide to old established “conservation organizations”, every animal rights movement on the planet cashing in and unashamedly exploiting the Rhinos fate as well as a mushrooming of new “conservation organizations” jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect the Billions that have been raised to save this iconic charismatic megafauna could have gone a long way to buying a very large chunk of Africa – sadly this hasn’t been the case, though I’m sure salary packages, luxury car manufacturers, airlines, luxury hotels and conference venues and a whole host of other non-Rhino related industry has benefited from the cash going around.

A few months ago, I ask myself what brought about this sudden explosion of poaching in South Africa. I went back year by year looking at the numbers. I was surprised to find graph after graph on Rhino numbers all leading back to a spike in poaching which started in late 2008 early 2009. In 2007/2008 (possibly prior to this) certain “conservation” organizations were concerned about South Africa’s legal trade in sustainable Rhino horn as they felt this could potentially lead to an increase in poaching. They started applying pressure on the South African wildlife scientists employed by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) to ban the local trade in Rhino horn.

In 2008 a draft policy banning the local trade was published for public comment by DEA. With the cat out the bag and the pending ban on the horizon there was an immediate escalation in poaching from 13 rhino poached in 2007 to 83 rhino poached in 2008, an increase of 538 %. And it’s only going to get worse. The ban came into effect February 2009.

In the past decade (2008 – 2017) South Africa has had 7130 Rhino murdered for their horn. In the decade prior to this (1998 – 2007) a total of 131 Rhino were poached. Since the introduction of the local ban this has been an increase of 7000%. Pre-ban we had an average of 13.1 Rhino poached per year – just over one Rhino per month. After the ban that average has skyrocketed by 5443% to an average of 713 Rhino poached per year – just short of 2 A DAY.

In a recorded video interview a few months prior to his death, possibly the greatest champion of Rhinos, the late Dr. Ian Player when asked on the role sustainable utilization, trade and hunting played in the conservation of Rhino answered:

“Anything that imperils that (trade), really is going against conservation. Hunting we have proved has led to the increase from that 437 Rhino in 1953 to a figure that has been estimated anything from 12 000 to 20 000. For the loss of a few of them the majority increased. But regrettably this is a form of logic that a lot of people don’t understand.”

Towards the end of the 1950’s a small group of cattle ranchers, who were also committed wildlife conservationists, pioneered the game ranching industry in Zimbabwe. The idea developed from the theory that a spectrum of wild animals is ecologically more efficient at producing meat and by-products than a single domestic species. The theory was untested and considerable business risks were taken and many frustrations endured before game ranching was proved to be a viable land use alternative.

The country’s Wild Life Conservation Act, 1960, paved the way for the introduction of game ranching in Zimbabwe. The Parks and Wild Life Act of 1975 consolidated the process into a workable legal framework. This act was revolutionary in that the ownership of wildlife was transferred from the state to the appropriate authority of the land with the exception of specially protected species. Critics of the act predicted the end of game outside of national parks but in fact wildlife flourished.

The country’s Department of National Parks and wildlife management supported the fledgling game ranching industry through the capture and translocation of thousands of animals from park’s estate onto private land. This enabled the ranchers to stock their land cheaply.

Buffalo Range ranch, situated in the south east of the country, was one of the first cattle ranches to embrace game ranching. The region had always had good game populations but wild animals were considered competitors with cattle for grazing as well as a reservoir for diseases. Attempts to eliminate game were made through relentless hunting, fencing and denying the wild animals access to water.

Cattle ranching in Zimbabwe’s semi-arid regions is marginal and many owners over the years have had to overstock to remain economically viable.

Ignoring long-term damage to the environment, the natural productivity of the systems became overburdened. Research in 1973 into the comparison between the ecological advantages of cattle and game found that the degraded vegetation in the game section of Buffalo Range ranch was being less stressed than the better vegetation in the cattle section. 13 years later after the drought of 1982-1984 it was observed that the vegetation in the game section had continued to improve and was in better condition than that in the cattle section, which had continued to deteriorate.

The vegetation had become more productive under game and less so under cattle. This happened on a ranch where overstocking of cattle was much less severe than in many arid and semi-arid areas in Africa.

The results of the research showed that conventional beef production is not an ecologically and economically sustainable option in semi-arid regions. A notable fact to emerge was that the differences between the amount of meat produced by cattle and wildlife was insignificant, although the relative impact of cattle on the natural vegetation was considerable.

Games yields, initially impeded by the degraded state of the game section, were improving and at the same time allowing the vegetation to recover. Over the fence cattle yields, which had been high on good range, were declining because of overgrazing and consequent habitat deterioration.

The early emphasis of game ranching was on cropping. It was imperative to produce good-quality meat, as it had to compete with beef. Most outlets were a considerable distance from the game ranches. The meat had to be on the market within 36 hours of slaughter, which created the need for well-equipped butcheries with meat freezing facilities.

By the mid 1960s game ranchers looked towards recreational sport hunting as a source of revenue. Most hunters were local or South African, as Zimbabwe could not compete for overseas clientele with other well established safari destinations in Africa. With sport hunting, the profitability of game ranching improved. Financially, cropping became of secondary significance.

The overall attitude of cattle ranchers towards wildlife began to change. There was an increase in the number and spread of game with its growing financial importance. The level of poaching declined with the employment of more game guards as ranchers came to appreciate the value of “their” wildlife.

With this, range management was greatly improved and wildlife interests became an integral part of ranching programs. It was from this that the wildlife conservancy model evolved. Across the country game ranches were amalgamated to create larger nature sanctuaries.

Game ranching preserves biological diversity and natural landscapes outside of formally protected government controlled areas, while also enhancing rural production. It is also an initiative in which Africa has a comparative economic advantage over the rest of the world, because of the continent’s spectacular wildlife.

By rejecting a protectionist, non-consumptive philosophy and recognizing the financial value of game animals, economic forces have been stimulated to conserve wildlife.