The facts on wildlife conservation — from an experienced practitioner

I’ve been moved to write this due to all the articles and memes circulating recently on wildlife conservation, hunting, ecotourism, endangered species conservation and wildlife estate management.

During my 40 years in conservation, I have worked in and managed wildlife entities across the spectrum from 230,000ha national parks to 6ha municipal nature reserves. I’ve managed flagship national parks, tourist lodges, game farms, hunting concessions, ecotourism venues, multiple-use biosphere reserves, community conservation areas – pretty much every type of estate which has wildlife or wild places as its drawcard.

Personally, I’m not a hunter and derive no pleasure from trophy or biltong hunting. I don’t need the status or the meat. Paradoxically, in my work I have shot many animals during activities such as culling, cropping, ration shooting and euthanasia, and take pride in having done it as professionally and as humanely as possible. I’ve also been involved in the capture and translocation of hundreds of wild animals of various species.

I think I’m fairly well qualified to offer an opinion about how wildlife/conservation areas are best managed. It’s a hugely complex subject on a scientific level, let alone when emotions play their part, but I’ll try to be brief and succinct.

The overwhelming majority of wildlife estates have neither exceptional wildlife nor outstanding aesthetic value, nor accessibility to local, national or international ecotourism clientele.

They are, to a large extent, marginal/historically downgraded lands which can’t viably support domestic stock or agriculture.

They are subject to a number of expensive management requirements, such as poaching, boundary integrity, water provision, access, infrastructure, equipment, veterinary costs and so on.

Very few of them can cover these costs through sustainable ecotourism for the above-mentioned reasons, and rely on external funding and/or hunting in its various forms to continue to manage sustainably.

When there are economic pressures, the externally funded reserves invariably withdraw funding from reserve management and concentrate on tourism income streams, to the long-term detriment of the veld and general biodiversity, in favour of short-term gains.

High populations of viewable animals are preferred despite the impact of exceeding the carrying capacity of the property.

Communities, especially in southern Africa, have inherited or developed wildlife estates during the land restitution exercise. These need to be managed responsibly and sustainably if the community at large is to see benefits that exceed the less environmentally favourable option of domestic stock grazing or subsistence agriculture.

These areas require an income flow to cover management costs and provide the community with additional incomes to develop essential communal facilities such as water wells and impoundments, schools, clinics, fences and access roads.

Partnerships with professional hunting outfitters and ecotourism developers/operators (where viable) assist with this. They also provide jobs.

Other communities on the fringes of national, provincial and private reserves, and those living with wildlife in remote areas, inevitably suffer from human/wildlife conflict.

As a result, wildlife can be seen as dangerous and damaging to their lives and livelihoods. Poaching proliferates, which benefits only the few, to the detriment of the many, and to the wildlife.

Partnerships with professional hunting outfitters and photographic safari operators provide employment, security, income, protection, infrastructure and facility development and operations, meat protein and crafts.

It’s a win/win situation, and there are many successful initiatives such as the Zimbabwean CAMPFIRE Association (Communal Areas Management Programme For Indigenous Resources).

Successful wildlife management in all cases arrives at a watershed moment: what do you do with the animals that breed with no natural predation, especially within an area which has finite, fenced boundaries?

At some stage, you have to remove animals before their sheer numbers cause issues within their own populations and have a major impact on other species, biodiversity and veld condition.

Yes, you can capture and sell, but invariably, and distressingly for those that favour this policy, the purchasers are hunting farms that then make money from hunting them.

It’s the nature of the industry. And it works. Otherwise, there would never be such extensive wildlife habitat as is evident in southern Africa, which is my term of reference. DM

Nick Tredger is a wildlife conservationist and author.