Conservation by choice or by chance: Understanding human-nature interactions in SA

Recent commentary in Daily Maverick has questioned South Africa’s proposed hunting quotas for elephants, leopards and black rhinos.

These are important conversations. Decisions about wildlife management should always be open to scrutiny, especially when they involve species that hold deep emotional and symbolic value for many people. But productive discussions also benefit from stepping back and reflecting more broadly on how people actually interact with nature and how conservation outcomes often arise.

Why people go into the bush

Let’s start with an honest observation. Almost nobody goes hunting for conservation. People hunt because it is exciting, challenging and, for some, a deeply meaningful experience. But the same is true for wildlife tourism.

Most people do not go on a game drive primarily for conservation either. People climb into safari vehicles because seeing a leopard cross the road or watching elephants gather at a waterhole is thrilling. For some, it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. For others, time in nature offers peace of mind and a break from the noise of everyday life.

In both cases, conservation is rarely the primary motivation — yet conservation can still be one of the outcomes.

The conservation we did not plan

Safari lodges and hunting outfitters may offer different experiences, but they share a fundamental reality: both depend on healthy wildlife populations and functioning ecosystems. A safari lodge sells the experience of seeing wildlife, while a hunting outfitter sells the challenge of pursuing it. But neither experience is possible without abundant animals and landscapes that function ecologically.

Exceptional animals, whether seen through a camera lens or pursued by a hunter, require healthy populations. Large populations require large landscapes. And those landscapes must have working ecological processes such as water availability, habitat diversity and functioning food webs.

In this sense, conservation outcomes often arise not from the activity itself, but from the ecological conditions needed to sustain that activity. It is a form of what one might call “unintended conservation”: maintaining the natural systems that make those experiences possible.

Every benefit carries a cost

There is another aspect of how people benefit from nature that is often overlooked. Every form of enjoying or using biodiversity comes with hidden costs. Tourists travel across the world, often by plane, producing carbon emissions. They consume water, food and energy during their visits. Hunters do the same. Anyone enjoying nature is also drawing on resources somewhere along the line.

The scale of those impacts differs. Tourism involves many more people than hunting, so its overall footprint can be larger. But the important point is not to decide which activity is morally superior. The important point is that every way we use biodiversity involves trade-offs between benefits and costs.

Nature provides many kinds of values: food, recreation, cultural traditions, tourism income, spiritual renewal and even mental wellbeing. Each enriches human lives in different ways, but none of these benefits is without impact. Problems arise when people forget this balance, when respect for the resource fades and gratitude for what nature provides disappears. Without that sense of responsibility, any use, consumptive or non-consumptive, can become unsustainable.

When conservation debates become about taste

Public debates about wildlife management sometimes shift from questions of sustainability to questions of personal preference and morality. Some people dislike hunting. Others dislike fishing. Some are uncomfortable with zoos, while others worry about the effects of mass tourism.

These views are understandable and often deeply held. But conservation policy cannot realistically be built around personal likes and dislikes. In a diverse society, people’s preferences will always differ.

Decisions about wildlife management, therefore, need to rest on something more stable: transparent governance, scientific evidence and careful evaluation of ecological sustainability.

What biology tells us about sustainable use

From a biological perspective, there is a logical way to think about responsible use of wildlife. First, value arises when populations are healthy and resilient. When species recover and populations are stable or growing, society gains opportunities to benefit from them in many ways, through tourism, cultural traditions, education, ecosystem services and regulated harvesting. The key principle is that these uses must not undermine the long-term persistence of the species.

Second, individuals within populations are not all equal in their ecological roles. Age, sex, reproductive status and social position influence how animals contribute to population dynamics. In many species, certain individuals are more important for reproduction or social stability than others. Responsible management, therefore, considers which animals are affected, not only how many.

Third, population processes matter more than simple numbers. Birth rates, survival, dispersal and habitat quality all shape whether a population grows or declines. Scientists study these demographic processes to understand how populations respond to pressures and what levels of use remain sustainable.

Finally, wildlife populations exist within landscapes, not isolated patches. Movement patterns, habitat quality and ecological connectivity all influence how populations function. Good management, therefore, considers spatial dynamics and ecological context, recognising that ecosystems are complex systems rather than simple numbers on a spreadsheet.

How South Africa sets hunting quotas

These biological principles are reflected in how South Africa determines hunting quotas for conservation-dependent species such as elephant, leopard and black rhino.

First, the legal framework is extremely strict. All three species fall under the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. These regulations control hunting, trade, transport and ownership.

Provincial conservation ordinances and acts add further oversight, meaning landowners cannot simply decide to hunt these species. Multiple permits are required, and the final decisions rest with provincial conservation authorities.

In addition, the management of individual elephant populations in South Africa is informed by the National Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants in South Africa (Elephant Norms and Standards), which were published for implementation in 2008 (Government Gazette No. 30833). These norms require each reserve with elephants to have an approved Elephant Management Plan, aligned with the reserve objectives, which govern how elephants are managed and used on that reserve.

Before any hunt can take place, a reserve must include hunting as a management option in its approved Elephant Management Plan and apply to the provincial authority with detailed demographic data. Only then can a permit be considered.

The system also operates under the international framework of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which regulates global trade in wildlife products.

Because trophy hunting involves exporting trophies, quotas must be supported by scientific evidence that such use does not threaten the species or its role in the ecosystem. This assessment is called a Non-Detriment Finding (NDF). South Africa has completed NDFs for elephant, leopard and black rhino, concluding that under current management conditions, regulated hunting is not detrimental to the survival of these populations in the wild.

Where the numbers come from

A quota can be defined as a quantitative limit on the number of individuals of a particular species that can be harvested from a population within a specified period with the goal of maintaining population viability and ecological balance.

Setting quotas begins with understanding population size and trends. In South Africa, this information does not rely on rough guesses. Population data are compiled through national monitoring systems coordinated by the South African National Biodiversity Institute.

Properties that hold elephants or black rhinos must submit annual reports detailing births, deaths, translocations, poaching incidents and management removals. These reports feed into national databases that track both population numbers and all forms of offtake.

Leopard monitoring works differently because the species moves freely across landscapes. Since 2016, South Africa has run a national camera-trap monitoring project, the National Leopard Monitoring Project, that estimates leopard densities and trends across multiple provinces. These surveys provide the scientific basis for assessing whether any harvest can occur sustainably.

From population data to national quotas

Once population trends are understood, national quotas can be calculated. These quotas represent the maximum number of trophies that could potentially be exported in a year. They are not targets to be filled, and in practice, actual hunting numbers are often much lower than the quotas.

Elephant quotas, for example, consider population size and demographic structure, especially the number of older bulls. Leopard quotas rely on density estimates from camera-trap surveys. Black rhino quotas apply only to a tiny percentage (0.5%) of the national population on a subspecies level and are limited to specific adult males.

Even after a national quota is set, individual hunts cannot proceed automatically. Each proposed hunt must still be approved by provincial conservation authorities, who review detailed information about local populations, management objectives and the specific animal proposed for hunting.

Strict controls for iconic species

For black rhinos, hunting is among the most tightly regulated wildlife uses in the world. South Africa holds a CITES export quota of 0.5% adult male black rhinos (equally applied to all three subspecies) per year. These hunts target older males that are no longer breeding and may even suppress younger bulls. Each hunt must be approved by authorities and monitored by conservation officials.

Elephant hunting in areas adjoining Kruger National Park also operates under a strict protocol. This protocol includes strict safeguards. It prohibits the hunting of females and collared elephants. It also sets minimum age thresholds and tusk-weight restrictions to protect large-tusked genetics. Every hunt must be accompanied by a trained reserve representative to ensure the correct animal is selected and that ethical standards are followed.

Leopard hunting operates through a science-based zoning system. Habitat quality is classified and combined with density estimates to calculate population size within catchment areas. Catchments capable of supporting sustainable harvest are grouped into Leopard Hunting Zones.

Within these zones, hunting is allowed only if population trends have been stable or increasing for at least three years. If monitoring shows decline, hunting is suspended. Even in eligible zones, restrictions remain strict. Only one male leopard may be hunted in a zone. The male must be at least seven years old. Hunting permits are allocated through a national online lottery system among eligible properties.

This approach spreads opportunity while limiting total offtake and clumping of hunts. In addition, the submission of hunt return forms is mandatory. Information obtained from the hunt return forms is further used to better understand the impacts of trophy hunting on the population.

Monitoring, feedback and adaptation

An important feature of the quota system is that it is not static. Population monitoring and reporting occur every year. Scientists and authorities review births, deaths, poaching incidents and removals to determine whether populations are changing.

If populations decline, quotas and permits can be reduced or suspended. If they remain stable, the system continues. This feedback loop allows the system to function as adaptive management rather than fixed policy.

Scrutiny should apply to all uses of nature

South Africa’s wildlife model is unusual because a large share of wildlife occurs on private land. Economic incentives, including tourism, wildlife sales and regulated hunting, have helped incidentally expand habitat and support conservation in ways that state funding alone could not achieve.

Some people will always disagree with hunting on ethical grounds. That debate will continue. But if the aim is to ensure biodiversity benefits society as a whole, then it may be useful to examine all forms of wildlife use with equal curiosity.

For example, how many tourists should visit a protected area before ecosystems begin to degrade? How many safari vehicles should gather at a wildlife sighting before animal behaviour changes?

How much development, such as lodges, camps, roads and so on, should be allowed to ensure ecosystem integrity and sense of place?

Kruger National Park already limits day visitors partly to avoid congestion. Many private reserves limit the number of vehicles at sightings to protect both animals and visitor experience.

Yet these discussions rarely receive the same attention.

Respecting the systems that sustain us

Nature sustains people in many ways through food, livelihoods, inspiration, cultural practices, recreation and spiritual renewal. The challenge is not deciding whether people should benefit from biodiversity. Humans always have and always will benefit from biodiversity.

The real challenge is ensuring those benefits are taken responsibly.

That means respecting ecological limits, understanding trade-offs and recognising that conservation often emerges from complex relationships between people, wildlife and landscapes.

Sometimes conservation happens because people deliberately set out to protect nature. At other times, it happens because people value nature enough to maintain the systems that allow it to persist.

In the end, what matters most is not which use we personally prefer, but whether the living systems that sustain those uses remain healthy for generations to come. DM

Dr Jeanetta Selier is a senior scientist at the South African National Biodiversity Institute, specialising in large mammal ecology, sustainable use and wildlife trade, with a strong focus on the science-policy interface. Professor Sam Ferreira is a conservation ecologist with South African National Parks, whose work on large mammals, particularly elephants, supports evidence-based management across African protected areas.