How mule deer benefit from sage grouse conservation.

Mule deer in many parts of Wyoming migrate from summer range in the high country to lower-elevation winter range on sagebrush flats, where they are often displaced by development.

The next time you hunt a big mule deer buck in Wyoming, you might want to thank a sage grouse.

That’s because a major initiative to conserve sage grouse populations in the West is having beneficial impacts on other game as well—especially mule deer. The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) is a federal initiative designed to conserve fast-declining populations of sage grouse and, hopefully, keep the birds off the Endangered Species List. The work that is being done to improve and save sage grouse habitat is directly benefiting big game around the West, particularly in the state of Wyoming.

“Sage grouse need big and intact native rangelands,” said University of Montana biologist David Naugle, one of the nation’s leading sage grouse experts. “When you preserve these, you also benefit mule deer and pronghorn.”

The Sage Grouse Initiative, which is administered by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and funded by the Farm Bill, takes a “core-area” approach. Because three-quarters of the West’s remaining sage grouse live in about 50 million acres across eleven states, SGI targets the majority of its efforts on these lands (the “core areas”) in order to get the most bang for the program’s bucks. SGI uses voluntary incentives and agreements with landowners to engage in grouse-friendly practices such as rotational cattle grazing, and to steer energy and residential development to less sensitive areas.

Wyoming’s core area policy influences 9.5 million acres of sagebrush habitat, according to Naugle. Studies have shown that while habitat work and protection of these core areas do not completely eliminate impacts to deer (or grouse), they seem to be having a beneficial effect.

A good example of how the sage grouse efforts are helping deer involves the crucial winter-range habitat of the Mesa and Ryegrass mule deer herds in oil- and gas-rich western Wyoming. The deer move from high-elevation Forest Service lands in spring and summer to low-elevation winter range out on the sagebrush steppe occupied by sage grouse. Even a small amount of disturbance from oil and gas development can disrupt the ability of deer to survive on or get to their winter range. Recent studies of collared mule deer show, for example, that just a 3 percent surface disturbance from natural gas development on the Mesa winter range is associated with a 42 percent reduction in mule deer abundance.

But, thanks to the Sage Grouse Initiative, some 90 percent of the winter range of the Ryegrass herd has been saved from energy development, while 52 percent of the winter range has been preserved for the Mesa herd—all of this as a direct result of the actions taken to conserve sage grouse. It’s a win-win situation for bird hunters and big-game hunters alike.

Leave a Comment

Challenges for the International Community

Presentation to the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, Nuremberg, Germany, 8 March 2007

© Diana Rupp, Editor in chief, Sports Afield

Did you know that without hunters, African animals like the black wildebeest and the white rhino probably would not exist today? Hunting plays an important role in conserving large areas of wildlife habitat in Africa and providing income to people in impoverished areas of the continent. And those of us who don’t even live in Africa will have a major effect in deciding what happens to its wildlife.

Africa has changed more over the past hundred years than any continent in the world, and we can expect it to continue to change dramatically in the course of the next hundred. While we look with concern to the future of this troubled continent and its rich wildlife resource, we can also take heart that Africa today remains the undisputed mecca for the big-game hunter. The question is, will that still be true twenty-five years from now?

The first thing to understand about hunting in general, and particularly African hunting, is that it is more than a recreational activity. Smartly crafted hunting programs serve and save wildlife around the world. Safari hunting is a little different than resident hunting in America and Europe in terms of economics—it brings in huge amounts of money and, where it is well managed, results in relatively few animals taken. Those two things combine to create economic incentives for wildlife conservation over wide areas.

Safari hunting is a significant industry in about a dozen countries in Africa. A 2006 study estimated that trophy hunting generates gross revenues of just over 152 million Euro per year in Africa from some 18,500 visiting safari hunters.

Safari hunting as an industry is growing in southern and eastern Africa and is static or declining in central and western Africa. Five countries—South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Botswana, attract the most clients, with South Africa in the lead. It hosts some 8,500 clients each year, about 57 percent of them from the USA, and generates 76 million Euro and more than 6,000 jobs. Namibia is second with almost 5,400 hunters per year, with about 43 percent of them coming from Germany and Austria. If you look at hunting revenue as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product, safari hunting is most significant in Botswana and Tanzania where it represented just over 1/10 of a percent of GDP last year.

There are essentially three types of hunting areas in Africa. On government concessions, such as the one I hunted buffalo on last year in Tanzania, the government leases the hunting rights to an outfitter and receives the money as well as the trophy fees from animals shot. On communal lands, local communities lease their hunting rights to an outfitter and the people and villages receive the proceeds.

Private land hunting is the third type and it is a huge business in southern Africa, where a large scale conversion of livestock ranches to game ranches in the 1970s kicked off a major resurgence in wildlife numbers. In Namibia, the shift to game ranching resulted in an 80 percent increase in wildlife populations during 1972-1992. Today, South Africa has about 9,000 game ranches that are home to almost 2 million wild animals.

It was safari hunting that stimulated that shift to game ranching and the resulting increase in wildlife populations. Common species like kudu and springbok benefited, but so did formerly rare species like the white rhino, the bontebok, and the black wildebeest. In fact, South African game ranchers are credited with being almost singlehandedly responsible for bringing back the white rhino from the brink of extinction. It’s important to note that a well-designed, ethically run game ranch on a property that is large enough to allow animals to escape from predators is not a “canned” hunt. These areas can provide challenging hunting and are a more affordable alternative to traditional wilderness safaris.

Hunting in Africa is a major industry that makes important economic contributions. And it is an important factor in the long-term health of wildlife populations on the continent. But African hunting faces serious challenges in the 21st century—challenges that we in the international community need to address to ensure that hunting continues on this continent for generations to come.

First, We must be sure that local communities have a stake in their wildlife and its management.

Second, We must work with international treaty organizations and with governments in North America and Europe to ease restrictions on the imports of hunting trophies.

Third, We need to educate governments and people in countries that do not currently allow hunting, or where the hunting industry is struggling, and give them the tools and aid to develop hunting programs.

First we’ll address the idea of giving communities a stake in their wildlife.

It won’t surprise anyone who knows even a little bit about Africa that one of the main threats to its wildlife, and by extension to the continuance of legal safari hunting, is poaching. I’d like to share with you an interesting fact: Countries in Africa that allow hunting tend to have good, stable wildlife populations. The countries that don’t allow hunting, such as Kenya, have declining wildlife populations. Wildlife in Kenya’s national parks is doing OK, but these are just small islands of protected land. Since Kenya closed hunting in 1977, wildlife populations outside of the parks have declined between 60 and 70 percent as a result of a huge surge in poaching for bush meat.

One reason this is true is because the modern professional hunter, or safari guide, in wild Africa acts as a manager of wildlife. When he is there, there is somebody who has a vested interest in what happens to the wildlife. Simply speaking, the presence of safari operators keeps poachers out. Whether you’re talking about a villager who is shooting duikers to sell as bush meat in the local village or whether it’s a high-level international poaching ring out for the big money in ivory, having a legal presence out there in the bush—an organized presence with vehicles and rifles and radios–is a major deterrent.

But safari hunting can also be a crucial part of a far more permanent way to deter poaching. And that is to get the community involved and invested with the wildlife that surrounds it. This is one of the most important trends in African hunting right now– the alignment of safari hunting with community conservation and development policies, which are supported by a number of international donor agencies. This happened first in Zimbabwe with the program known as CAMPFIRE.

Under CAMPFIRE, members of local tribal communities living on communal land manage the hunting on their own land. With assistance from the national parks and the World Wide Fund for Nature, the community sets its own hunting quotas and leases the hunting to one or more safari operators. Fees paid by the hunting operator and trophy fees paid by the client are plowed directly back into the community, providing money for schools, clinics, and other necessities so badly needed in most of rural Africa.

Similar programs are going on in other countries as well—Namibia, Zambia, Mozambique, CAR, and Cameroon.

No one is more aware of the need for community involvement than safari operators themselves, and some of them have set up their own programs. The flagship is called the Cullman and Hurt community project, started by Tanzania safari outfitter Robin Hurt and the late Joseph Cullman of New York. For every animal that is hunted, the project gives an additional 20 percent over and above the normal government trophy fee directly to the local village.

Robin Hurt told me recently that he believes the biggest threat to hunting in Africa today is human encroachment—loss of habitat for wildlife. Over the last forty years, on average, human populations in Africa have increased between six and eight fold. That’s why these community programs are so crucial. With this kind of population growth, wildlife must have a tangible benefit to the local community or it will be destroyed.

Hunting in Africa is vulnerable to political developments in the USA and Europe. Pressure from antihunting lobbyists and adverse international conservation policies has the potential to severely restrict the growth and survival of Africa’s sport hunting industry.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, is the treaty that sets quotas and other restrictions on the import and export of wildlife parts. CITES has of course been extremely important in helping to control illegal trade in wildlife. And, this treaty recognizes the special role of recreational hunting by making exceptions for the export of hunting trophies from countries where hunting is well managed and is doing good things for wildlife.

It’s important that the role of sustainable use continue to be kept at the forefront of CITES discussions. Quotas should be thoughtfully and scientifically based to help countries and species that need help. For example, one of the issues likely to come up at the CITES meeting in the Netherlands this year is the management of the African lion. At the last meeting in 2004, a proposal to list the lion on Appendix 1 of CITES, which could have severely restricted lion hunting, was defeated, and since then hunting groups have been working to spread the word that controlled hunting is one of the most important facets of lion conservation.

The other aspect of this is that individual governments—in North America, Europe, Australia, etc.–may set their own restrictions on the import of hunting trophies, even those on a CITES quota. This can be a major limiting factor on the success of hunting programs in Africa. An example involves Mozambique, where elephant populations are increasing dramatically in some areas, and CITES has decided that elephant hunting is appropriate there and has established a quota of elephant that the country may export. BUT an American hunter who legally takes an elephant in Mozambique is not allowed to bring its tusks home because the USA restricts the import of elephant trophies from Mozambique. Until such restrictions are lifted, Mozambique won’t be able to become a premier safari destination and will therefore struggle to fund its wildlife programs. The fact is, safari hunting in Africa depends on hunters from the United States and Europe traveling to Africa and hunting there. And if they can’t take their trophies home, they won’t go.

This issue is not limited to the USA–I understand there has been some talk within the European Parliament to ban the import of some CITES-listed hunting trophies into the EU. It’s crucial that as hunters we keep on top of these developments.

It’s encouraging to note that several countries, including Angola, Guinea, and Uganda, are making at least tentative moves to open their doors to hunting. We need to support this trend.

These are countries struggling with political instability, which is so often an issue in Africa. Obviously, a hunting program is not going to work until a certain level of stability has been achieved. But hunters are more adventurous than other tourists. For example, with the onset of Robert Mugabe’s land re-distribution program that caused upheavals in Zimbabwe starting in 2000, regular tourist occupancy fell by 75 percent, but safari hunting revenues only dropped by 12 percent. As an aside, the fact that hunters are still going to Zimbabwe is probably a major reason it still has any wildlife at all.

At any rate, hunting is one of the first industries that can be restored in a country that is recovering from unrest; we saw it happen in Mozambique, where hunting outfitters moved in once the civil war ended in 1992.

Take the example of Angola. Its wildlife has been severely depleted as a result of its long civil war. However, as professional hunters have pointed out to me many times, wildlife has a remarkable ability to recover. Provided the habitat has not been lost, those game populations will grow back. An organized hunting program helps with this by providing legal protection and money for recovery. Most people I’ve talked to believe that hunting will re-start in Angola, and in fact, the Hunting Report newsletter just had a report on preliminary work done by an outfitter who hopes to start hunting commercially in Angola in about two years.

Kenya is once again talking about re-opening hunting, but that country faces tremendous resistance from anti-hunting groups.

Something that would help these struggling countries with their efforts is more independent scientific research into how hunting helps African countries economically and ecologically. Science is on our side; in fact I just read an interview with a scientist from the University of California who used to be anti-hunting but had totally changed his position as a result of his extensive research into biodiversity in Tanzania. That shows the facts speak for themselves.

In conclusion, there are many healthy trends in African hunting. The affordable private-land hunts in southern Africa are drawing more American and European hunters to Africa than ever before. In more remote areas, programs that help local communities co-exist with wildlife and benefit from safari hunting means that both African wildlife and African people have a fighting chance to improve their lot. And the support of the international community can help to ensure the future of African hunting is a long and bright one.

The more safari hunters who travel to Africa, and the more Africans who derive a tangible benefit from their presence, the better. Together, they represent a powerful coalition of conservationists who care about African hunting and who will be our allies in the fight to support the sustainable use of wildlife on the entire continent.

Leave a Comment

Phototourism has its place, but in terms of benefit to wildlife, there’s no substitute for going afield with a rifle.

The rifle is the primary tool of the hunter. A few hunters consider their rifles just that—tools—and nothing more. Most of us, though, also enjoy rifles for their own sake: the fine lines, craftsmanship, that peculiar combination of wood (or synthetics) and metal that turns a simple, powerful tool into a valued possession, a cherished heirloom, an old friend.

People who don’t hunt sometimes ask me why I can’t “just take a camera” into the field, instead of a rifle. I try to explain that carrying the rifle changes my experience in nature from one of an observer to one of a participant, intimately involved in the cycle of life in the natural world. As much as I enjoy observing nature, participating in it is, to me, far more rewarding.

The question of rifle vs. camera comes up in many discussions of conservation, and as it turns out, there is far more to it than personal enjoyment. That’s particularly true in Africa, where the recently announced closure of hunting in Botswana has brought the ecotourism vs. hunting debate into sharp focus. In the press release announcing the closure, the Botswana government was clear about its intention: “… in keeping with international trends, the moratorium on hunting will further facilitate the sustainable growth of the tourism sector, as hunting zones are converted into photographic areas.”

Botswana is likely to find out, as Kenya has, that phototourism, laudable as it may be, is not a substitute for hunting when it comes to wildlife conservation.
In his excellent new book, Save Me From the Lion’s Mouth, South African conservationist James Clarke examines this phenomenon in detail. Since the advent of its no-hunting policy in 1977, Kenya has lost two-thirds of its wildlife despite a thriving phototourism industry. Tanzania also tried banning hunting in favor of ecotourism for a time, but brought hunting back, with positive results.

“Banning hunting,” Clarke concludes, “does not bring about an increase in wildlife; it increases only one thing: rural poverty.”

Part of this is because photo safaris are limited to a few scenic, easy-to-get-to areas with large concentrations of wildlife for easy viewing, while hunters are willing to go much farther afield, even into dangerous areas, for a chance at a single trophy.

Mike Norton-Griffiths, a land-use economics researcher, noted in a 2007 scientific paper that Kenya’s “tourist wildlife viewing is restricted to a mere 8,800 square miles—5 percent of the rangeland where wildlife is found.”

Hunters also spend a lot more money, in general, than phototourists do. “In Zimbabwe and Tanzania, revenues generated by hunting clients are respectively 30 and 14 times greater than those generated by photographic clients,” Clarke says. And a single hunter disturbs the ecosystem far less than a dozen camera-toting tourists.

The benefits of the rifle over the camera hold true in North America, too, of course. Every time you buy a rifle, a bow, or a box of ammo, you’re sending money to your state wildlife agency via Pittman-Robertson funds. Not so with cameras and binoculars.

The pen (or its modern equivalent) may be mightier than the sword, but when it comes to wildlife conservation, a tourist with a camera is still no substitute for a good rifle in the hands of an informed, enthusiastic hunter.

Leave a Comment

An excerpt from the new book Ask the Namibian Guides.

In the new book Ask the Namibian Guides, author Diana Rupp interviews thirteen highly regarded professional hunters from all over Namibia in an effort to bring the most up-to-date information to the aspiring safari hunter. The professionals answer questions about why this country is such a popular safari destination, what hunters can expect when they go there, what to bring, how to prepare, what game to pursue, and what a typical Namibia hunt is like. In this excerpt, the PHs share their insights on how to practice and prepare for a successful safari.

How do you recommend hunters prepare for a safari? Any tips for shooting practice, etc.?

Janneman Brand: Make sure you are fit for walking, and wear well-broken-in boots. Most hunts are done on foot. Make sure you are comfortable with your rifle and are familiar with its performance.

Dirk de Bod: Shoot your gun often from shooting sticks and from field positions to get good with it and learn the ballistics.

Kai-Uwe Denker: Three months before the onset of the safari, a client should begin practicing by walking at least ten miles twice a week and do short runs of 100 yards and a few push-ups. He should practice offhand shots at 100 yards once a week.

Peter Kibble: You should be completely familiar with your rifle and practice shooting with shooting sticks if you can, as this is the way most shots are taken on safari. If you are not familiar with the technique for shooting off shooting sticks, we can show you how to do it when you arrive.

Johan Kotzé: Familiarize yourself with the various species of African animals through books and videos. Do a lot of shooting so you can get to know your rifle. It’s better to spend a little extra money on bullets for practicing at home, than on wounded game in Africa (most safari outfitters have a policy that you pay for any game that is wounded).

Corne Kruger: Hunting is like any other sport: The more you practice, the luckier you get! Most hunters do not take this seriously, and then they pay the price when they are on safari. So most important: Practice. I always recommend that hunters do most of their shooting practice with small calibers, because firing thirty shots from a bench with a .375 or another big gun will do nothing but teach you bad habits. Take a .22- or .17-caliber rifle and practice in different situations and from different shooting positions. Shooting from sticks is very important. I suggest buying three long sticks from a hardware store and tying them together about three inches from the top. These make great shooting sticks for practicing.

Joof Lamprecht: Shoot three-shot groups at a paper target at 100 yards on a regular basis. Date each target and see if you notice any improvement after a while. You can do some limited shooting off shooting sticks, but don’t do too much as you won’t like your grouping much. It makes no sense to go to the range once and shoot hundreds of rounds at cans and bottles.

Willem Mans: Get as fit as possible for long hikes. Make sure your rifle will shoot a 2-inch group and is sighted-in around 2 inches high at 100 yards.

Diethelm Metzger: One should be mentally prepared for going to a different country, a different continent, filled with different people, different cultures, and different food. Make sure that your mindset is right to cope with this situation. Be prepared to have fun.

Also, go to the shooting range as often a possible to prepare well. Develop some physical fitness by walking every day. And make sure to get all paperwork in order well before the safari; i.e., passport or visas if necessary.

Peter Thormahlen: Make sure your boots are well-worn and broken-in. Shoot your gun a lot, over a period of time. If possible, practice from shooting sticks, which you are going to use to hunt from in Africa. Then pack according to our approved safari packing list.

Jamy Traut: Read as much as you can about the country, the species you are hunting, and the outfitter. Talk to hunters who have been on similar safaris in other places and at your destination. Look at worst-case scenarios, and mentally prepare yourself for those as well. Shoot often, from different positions, and not only from comfortable ones. Practice offhand at 20 to 50 yards and use shooting sticks as well, as all PHs use them. Make sure your rifle feeds well, consistently.

Gerrit Utz: At least a month before your safari, start making a daily habit of walking a mile, just to improve your physical condition a bit. Take your spouse with you and make it an outing. It makes a big difference once you are on safari.
Go to the shooting range as much as possible and practice with your chosen rifle. Also, practice shooting with a set of shooting sticks. Get to the point where you are comfortable with them and you know the right height to set the sticks so you can fire a good shot.

John Wamback: Practice your shooting from as many positions as possible, not just from the bench. Shoot from shooting sticks, prone, sitting, and on one knee. Another drill I recommend is to run a hundred yards, and then shoot from each of these positions.

Ask the Namibian Guides is available from Safari Press: 800/451-4788; www.safaripress.com.

Leave a Comment

Elephant overpopulation has caused an environmental crisis, and safari hunting is taking the blame.

I’m concerned about recent developments here in southern Africa. I write this because the pending closure (at the end of 2013) of all sport hunting on public land and Controlled Hunting Areas in Botswana is seriously bad news. What makes this situation so ridiculous is the reason behind this draconian governmental decision. To quote from a press statement issued by the Botswana Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism dated November 29, 2012, “The decision to impose this moratorium on hunting was made in the context of a growing concern about a sharp decline in the populations of most of the wildlife species that have been subject to licensed hunting.”

In a nutshell, sport hunting is being blamed as the root cause of the dramatic decline in numbers of both predators and the various and diverse antelope species that occur naturally in northern Botswana and the Okavango Delta. This is ridiculous.

Many theories are being bandied about as to the reason for the alarming decline in Botswana’s antelope numbers (and consequently the predators that prey upon them), with prolonged drought and a reduction in water flow into the swamps being the most prominent. Yet to all of us who love Africa and its wildlife, the real cause is blatantly obvious despite the fact that everyone seems to be pussyfooting around it. Nobody seems to have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what really needs to be said —so I will. The truth is simply this: Botswana has too many elephants. Way too many, in fact, and it is their influence on the environment that is impacting all the other species.

Available on the internet is a fascinating article by David Cumming and Brian Jones of the WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature). The article is entitled “Elephants in Southern Africa: management issues and options.” (http://www.fitzpatrick.uct.ac.za/publications/Cumming_Jones_2005.pdf) Published in 2005, it is now somewhat dated; nonetheless, it makes for fascinating reading. The elephant population figures it provides are eye-openers. According to the article, southern Africa’s elephant populations had collapsed by the 1880s, primarily due to overhunting. Thanks to dedicated conservation efforts since that time, begun in the colonial era and then continued in a fashion by the game departments of the various newly independent southern African countries (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa), elephant numbers have increased dramatically. From only a few thousand in the late 1800s, southern Africa’s combined elephant population has increased to somewhere in the region of 300,000 today.

Botswana currently has the largest elephant population. In the early 1960s there were less than 10,000 pachyderms in this landlocked and generally dry country. Since that time their numbers have increased steadily by about 5 to 6 percent annually. By 1990 there were 50,000 elephants in the wetter, northern parts of the country and in the following year the Botswana Department of Wildlife Conservation and National Parks drew up a draft elephant management policy. In that year (1991), it was established that the then-current elephant population of 55,000 was the maximum the country could sustain without the eventual loss of habitat so essential for species biodiversity. Unfortunately, the policy was never adopted or implemented even though it made the recommendation that management of elephant numbers was necessary because of their impact on habitat. Instead, Botswana’s elephant numbers continued to increase steadily and exponentially. By 1995 the population had increased to 80,000. By 2002 some estimates said it was 120,000; by 2005, 140,000; and heaven only knows what it is today. There is much speculation.

When one realizes that 55,000 was the maximum figure that would ensure environmental preservation, it should be blatantly obvious where the problem so conveniently blamed on sport hunting actually lies.

I find the “prolonged drought” excuse a poor one. Drought is nonselective. It affects all herbivores, including elephants. During the so-called drought period, (the 1990s and early 2000s) elephant numbers increased steadily by about 6 percent annually while in the Moremi Game Reserve (which borders the Okavango swamps and where no hunting takes place) giraffe numbers over the same period decreased by 8 percent annually. Kudu numbers also decreased by 11 percent annually, as did lechwe by 7 percent, tsessebe by 13 percent and wildebeest by 18 percent! (Source: Elephants Without Borders paper entitled “Dry Season Fixed-Wing Aerial Survey Of Elephants & Wildlife in Northern Botswana, Sept.-Nov. 2010.”)

Zimbabwe, too, has seen a dramatic increase in elephant numbers. From only a couple of thousand in the early 1900s, their numbers have increased to approximately 100,000 today. Until the mid-1980s, Zimbabwe’s elephant population was maintained at 45,000 by well-organized, professionally conducted, government-regulated culling regimes. Even though I was living in the country at the time, I never got to witness an elephant cull, but I became acquainted with three Department of National Parks and Wildlife officers who had each shot more than 6,000 elephants in the course of their duties.

Zimbabwean independence and subsequent changes in the wildlife department eventually resulted in the loss of the experienced culling teams, and by the late 1980s, all elephant culling came to an end in Zimbabwe. Since that time the country’s elephant population has doubled.

Having spent more than two decades in Zimbabwe, much of it in the Zambezi Valley, I’ve witnessed firsthand what an ever-increasing elephant population can do to the environment. My passion was the sporting pursuit of old dagga-boy buffaloes, and my favorite hunting grounds were the Zambezi Valley’s Nyakasanga and Sapi safari areas. I also hunted in the Makuti and Charara as well as the Rifa Safari Areas. During the early 1990s, bushbuck were a popular add-on species on these buffalo hunts, but as elephant numbers increased, many of the Zambezi Valley’s dense riverine vegetation areas started to open up due to increasing elephant feeding pressure. These were the areas favored by these secretive, highly territorial antelope. Eventually the bushbuck lost much of their habitat and when this happened they simply disappeared. By the early 2000s it wasn’t worth purchasing a bushbuck license, so uncommon had they become.

A similar scenario has evolved in South Africa’s well-known Kruger National Park. Up until 1995 the park’s elephant population was kept below 8,000 by a regular, carefully managed, scientifically evaluated culling program. International pressure put an end to the culling, and since that time the park’s elephant population has doubled. The result of this has been an 80 percent reduction in top canopy trees, very evident habitat change, and considerable public alarm and condemnation at the pending loss of the park’s biodiversity. The park’s rarer antelope species like sable, roan, and nyala have just about disappeared, which is most unfortunate.

To me the solution to the Botswana problem is obvious—get the elephant numbers back to where they should be. Unfortunately this is something easier said than done because it is already too late for a massive culling program. Human sentiment, heated emotions, politics, and the greenies have long since entered the picture and the situation has become confusing, illogical, and directionless.

To me it seems that southern Africa’s elephants have attained almost ambassadorial status. Culling to keep their numbers in check and to preserve the environment is now simply taboo, with threats of boycotts and even economic sanctions being leveled at countries when the mere suggestion of any form of a culling program has been raised.

In my opinion, a life is a life. Is the life of an elephant more important or sacred than that of a giraffe, for example, or a kudu, which disappears because it no longer has trees to feed on? Everything in nature needs to be in balance, and when the balance tips too far in favor of the mega-herbivores, everything else falls apart.

The sad situation is that everyone seems so paranoid about the elephants and their preservation at all costs that they appear to have forgotten about the other (and, in my opinion, equally important) African wildlife species. I can’t help but wonder: Where are the greenies championing the cause of the giraffe, kudu, or bushbuck, or that of the many bird species which have lost their nesting sites due to all the trees being destroyed? Sadly, none of these species seem to stir the emotions strongly enough to rake in the gullible public’s donation dollars. This, of course, elephants do very well, and this is the root cause of the problem.

The worrying aspect is finding a logical solution to the problem and then implementing it. Banning sport hunting is not going to make all these problems disappear—that is for sure. You and I both know this. In fact, it is only going to make things worse. Subsistence poaching is going to escalate as rural communities lose the funds sport hunting once generated. When this happens, even more pressure is going to be placed upon the dwindling antelope numbers. When wildlife loses its economic value, it is replaced with something that is valuable. Look at what has happened in Kenya, for example. This once wonderfully rich wildlife country has, since the banning of sport hunting, lost 80 percent of its wildlife. Only time will tell if Botswana walks the same path.

Unfortunately, I have no solution to the elephant problem. At their current rate of population growth it is predicted that there will be in excess of 500,000 of them in southern Africa by 2020. Is this likely to happen? I doubt it. Nature is smarter than all of us. Something is going to crash, and when it does I’m sure it will not be pleasant. Unfortunately it’s going to be the other wildlife species that will be affected most. Massive environmental degradation and the loss of Botswana’s biodiversity is a disaster just waiting to happen. Sport hunting could have been part of the solution. Instead it is being used as an excuse for poor environmental management and now it is about to be banned. Where is the logic in this?–Dr. Kevin Robertson

Leave a Comment