Content uploaded by Jonathan P Sadler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonathan P Sadler
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2008 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Cousins, J. A., J. P. Sadler, and J. Evans. 2008. Exploring the role of private wildlife ranching as a
conservation tool in South Africa: stakeholder perspectives. Ecology and Society 13(2): 43. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
Research
Exploring the Role of Private Wildlife Ranching as a Conservation Tool in
South Africa: Stakeholder Perspectives
Jenny A. Cousins 1, Jon P. Sadler 2, and James Evans 1
ABSTRACT. Rich in biological diversity, South Africa’s natural habitats are internationally recognized
as a conservation priority. Biodiversity loss continues, however, and limited scope to enlarge the state-
protected areas, combined with funding shortages for public parks, means that conservationists are
increasingly turning to private landowners for solutions. The recent boom in privately owned wildlife
ranches in South Africa has the potential to contribute to conservation in South Africa. This paper explores
the benefits, limitations, and challenges of private wildlife ranching as a tool for conservation in South
Africa through interviews with key stakeholders working within conservation and wildlife ranching, and
through case studies of threatened species programs. Respondents suggested that wildlife ranches contribute
to conservation positively by maintaining natural areas of habitat and by providing resources to support
reintroduction programs for threatened species. However, they reported a number of limitations centered
on three themes that generally arise due to the commercial nature of wildlife ranching: (1) tourist preferences
drive the industry, (2) predators are persecuted to protect valuable game, and (3) inadequate resources are
made available for professional conservation management and planning on ranches. In addition to
challenges of combining economic gain with conservation objectives, ranchers face a number of challenges
that arise because of the small, enclosed character of many ranches in South Africa, including the need to
intensively manage wildlife populations. In order to enhance the role of wildlife ranching within
conservation, clear guidance and support for ranchers is likely to be required to boost endorsement and
minimize economic loss to ranchers.
Key Words: conservation; private wildlife ranches; qualitative research; South Africa; stakeholder views
INTRODUCTION
South Africa is internationally acknowledged as a
country rich in biological diversity. Covering only
2% of the global land area, it contains approximately
10% of the global total of plant species, 6% of
mammal species, 7% of bird species, 5% of reptile
species, and 6% of insect species (Scholes and Biggs
2004, Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT) 2005). South Africa is home to
over 18 000 species of vascular plants, 80% of which
are endemic, and the country contains three of the
world’s 34 biodiversity hotspots (Myers 2003);
areas classified as such because of their high plant
endemism and extensive habitat loss.
Since South Africa’s ratification of the Convention
on Biological Diversity in 1995, there have been
considerable achievements in conservation including
the development of a national policy on biodiversity
and the expansion of area under conservation
protection (Wynberg 2002). Despite this policy and
legal framework, biodiversity is still being lost in
South Africa (DEAT 2005). Out of the 19 southern
African countries, South Africa holds the second
highest number of threatened species (those listed
as either critically endangered, endangered, or
vulnerable), including 45 plants, 42 mammals, 28
birds, 19 reptiles, 9 amphibian, 29 fishes, 10
mollusks, and 102 other invertebrates, totalling 284
species (IUCN 2002). At a regional scale (i.e,
southern Africa), an estimated 41 endemic plants
and 12 endemic vertebrates have become extinct
over the last two centuries (Golding 2002, IUCN
2002). The primary causes of species and habitat
loss are conversion to cultivated land, followed by
urban sprawl, alien plant invasion, and plantation
forestry (Scholes and Biggs 2004).
1University of Manchester, 2University of Birmingham
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
Financing conservation has become a major issue
as state budgets and support for park management
are diminishing in many provinces (Scriven and
Eloff 2003, Botha 2001, Krug 2001, Leader
Williams et al. 2005). The traditional approach of
purchasing land for conservation, utilized globally,
is not popular or even viable in the post-apartheid
reform climate of South Africa, where 30% of land
is targeted for redistribution to historically
disadvantaged South Africans by 2015 (Conservation
International 2007). The total land area covered by
statutory protected areas, standing at around 5%
(Goodman et al. 2002), is not only too small to
protect biodiversity in the long term (Krug 2001)
but does not adequately represent all habitat types.
With little scope to enlarge the network of public
protected areas (Botha 2001) and with more than
80% of the land in South Africa in private hands
(Patterson and Khosa 2005), including much rare
habitat (Botha 2001), there have been calls for
conservation to look outside of protected areas and
involve private landowners (Krug 2001, Botha
2001, Scriven and Eloff 2003).
The recent expansion of privately owned wildlife
ranches in South Africa is thought to have great
potential to contribute to conservation in South
Africa, and it is this form of private land use that
this paper is concerned with. There are an estimated
9000 wildlife ranches in South Africa covering
approximately 20.5 million ha (approximately
16.8% of the total land in South Africa) (National
Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC) 2006)
and another 15 000 landowners who are involved
in both domestic livestock and wildlife ranching
(Patterson and Khosa 2005). Large-scale
conversion of livestock ranches to wildlife ranches
(as a result of legislative change and the provision
of excess animals from protected areas to private
owners) led to numerous species being reintroduced
to former domestic livestock farms. In recent years,
a combination of forces, such as the decreasing
profitability of cattle farming, increased stock theft,
and the re-emergence of South Africa into the world
community, has resulted in a sector shift to wildlife
ranching.
The benefits provided to conservation from wildlife
ranching seem to be well accepted by many working
within the industry (including the Professional
Hunters Association of South Africa (PHASA)
2007, African Indaba 2007, South African Hunters
and Game Conservation Association 2007,
KwaZulu-Natal Hunting and Conservation Association
2007, Helicon Services 2007, Thaba Manzi Wildlife
Services 2007). However, there is surprisingly little
literature regarding the role that private wildlife
ranching plays in conservation. The information
available often focuses on economic or business
issues surrounding wildlife ranches (Amalgamated
Banks of South Africa (ABSA) Group Economic
Research 2003, Cloete et al. 2007, van der Merwe
and Saayman 2003, van der Merwe et al. 2004) or
their nature and distribution (Reilly et al. 2003) (and
not their contribution to conservation). The same
few examples of conservation successes are
highlighted repeatedly, the most widely cited being
the case of the Southern white rhinoceros
(Ceratotherium simum simum) (see Lindsey et al.
2007, Hamman et al. 2005, Scriven and Eloff 2003).
The other species listed as being saved from possible
extinction by private landowners (including wildlife
ranchers) include bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas),
black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou), Cape
mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) (Flack 2003),
and the geometric tortoise (Psammobates
geometricus) (Hamman et al. 2005). Langholz and
Kerley (2006) note the rich diversity of vegetation
types that are being protected by ecotourism-based
private wildlife reserves in the Eastern Cape,
whereas Lindberg et al. (2003) highlight their
contribution to increasing landscape connectivity in
the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) region of the country
(Fig. 1). Goodman et al. (2002) note that two
endemic plant communities, which are not present
in the formal network of protected areas in KZN,
are being supported by wildlife ranching.
Two main forms of wildlife production systems are
recognized: extensive and intensive. This paper
largely deals with the extensive system, which can
be defined as the managed extensive production of
free-living animals on large fenced or unfenced
private or communal land, usually for the purposes
of live sales, trophy hunting, wildlife meat, or
tourism (Bothma 2002), although it should be noted
that most wildlife ranches in South Africa are
fenced. Live animals are usually sold through game
capture teams or auctions (Ebedes 1994). The
private commercial wildlife ventures dealt with in
this paper include farms, ranches, reserves, and
conservancies—names that often appear to be
interchangeable and used according to the owner’s
preference. This paper is largely concerned with in
situ conservation, which for the purpose of this
paper can be defined as “the conservation of
ecosystems and natural habitats and the
maintenance and recovery of viable populations of
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
species in their natural surroundings and, in the case
of domesticated or cultivated species, in the
surroundings where they have developed their
distinctive properties” (The Convention on
Biological Diversity 1993, article 2).
This paper explores the benefits, limitations, and
challenges of private wildlife ranching as a tool for
conservation in South Africa, through interviews
with stakeholders working within conservation and
wildlife ranching, and case studies of threatened
species programs. These research topics are
explored in turn in the main three sections of this
paper.
METHOD
In recent literature, a number of conservationists
have voiced their interest in incorporating the more
contextual analyses drawn from the social sciences
into conservation biology (see Meine et al. 2006,
Robinson 2006). This paper approaches the topic
from a social science perspective. We used a
qualitative approach to the research, drawing upon
the following sources of evidence: semi-structured
interviews with stakeholders involved in (1)
national and provincial government, (2) conservation
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and (3)
the wildlife ranching industry. In a second stage to
the research design, we drew upon case studies of
threatened species programs. The views of those
involved in wildlife ranching and conservation are
critical to understanding the role of private wildlife
ranching as a conservation tool. The use of semi-
structured interviews also allowed the views of
different stakeholder groups to be put into play
against each other, staging an indirect dialogue that
produced more nuanced conversations. In addition,
this study offers an insight into the workings of
private wildlife ranches in South Africa and the
challenges of conservation within a private
economic setting. Research was carried out between
October 2006 and August 2007, including a total of
4.5 months in South Africa. Of that period, 4.5
months included time spent with ecologists, wildlife
experts, rangers, hunters, and management
personnel on private hunting ranches, private
wildlife viewing ranches, a number of national parks
and 1 month with a game capture team.
Respondents were selected on the basis of their
experience related to the research topic and were
targeted within the groups previously stated.
Respondents were further selected using snowball
sampling (Clifford and Valentine 2005). Stakeholders
include representatives from within the national
government (including the Biodiversity and
Conservation Branch of the DEAT, from within the
provincial departments dealing with nature
conservation (including Nature Conservation),
NGOs (including large South African conservation
organizations and smaller organizations offering
ecological monitoring services to ranches), and
representatives of the wildlife ranching industry
(including Wildlife Ranching South Africa, wildlife
managers on private wildlife reserves, professional
hunters, and game capture teams). Twenty-five
informants supplied formal information for this
paper through prearranged interviews. Of these,
eight were from within the government, 14 from
conservation NGOs, and three from within the
wildlife ranching industry. In addition, site visits
were undertaken to a number of private wildlife
ranches where numerous discussions were engaged
in and observations were made as the opportunity
arose, including discussions with those working
within the ranching industry (largely game capture,
hunting, veterinary, and management) in which
detailed notes were taken, amounting to 15 further
interviews. It should be noted that a number of
persons within the provincial government
departments did not wish to participate. This was
largely due to their feelings of not knowing enough
about private ranching and conservation.
Notwithstanding, the sample captures a representative
reflection of opinions from those involved in
conservation and wildlife ranching in South Africa
today. Anonymity of the participants has been
respected.
Semi-structured interviews were used to investigate
stakeholder opinions. Interviewing “is one of the
most common and powerful ways in which we try
to understand our fellow humans” (Fontana and
Frey 2005: 697–698) and enable the researcher to
get large amounts of data quickly (Marshall and
Rossman 1995). Semi-structured interviews
ensured a consistent range of topics were covered,
allowed a flexible approach to questioning, and
gathered opinions and behaviors in the informants’
own words (Dunn 2005, Longhurst 2003). The
interviews centered on a number of broad
predetermined themes (including contributions to
conservation, detrimental effects on or limitations
to conservation, challenges to conservation on
private wildlife ranches) although questions were
designed in view of the respondent’s area of
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
expertise. Semi-structured interviews were largely
conducted face to face, but on a number of occasions
by telephone and email. All interview data were
transcribed and coded to identify key reoccurring
themes relating to the research area (Strauss and
Corbin 1990, Cope 2005).
The case-study approach is useful when
investigating a phenomenon within its real-life
context (Yin 1994), and provides depth and quality
of data. Case studies of threatened species programs
provided further depth of information regarding
species conservation on private wildlife ranches.
Case-study species were selected based on their
threatened status within South Africa and having a
current conservation program, and include the blue
swallow (Hirundo atrocaerulea), riverine rabbit
(Bunolagus monticularis), southern ground hornbill
(Bucorvus leadbeateri), and black rhinoceros
(Diceros bicornis).
WILDLIFE RANCHING AND
CONSERVATION BENEFITS
Most respondents report that the greatest role
wildlife ranches play in contributing to conservation
is in maintaining natural areas. With limited
government funding available for conservation,
many respondents feel that the role of private
ranches is essential, for example, a representative
of the government department in Gauteng stated:
Official nature conservation institutions
don’t have the necessary budgets to
maintain all the natural landscapes and,
therefore, many private landowners have
contributed to keeping these landscapes
untransformed. (Provincial Government
official, Gauteng Nature Conservation, 2007.)
According to a conservation coordinator for a large
conservation NGO, wildlife ranches “are
maintaining habitat that another land use such as
agriculture or development would not be doing”
(NGO/Conservation Coordinator 2007). Maintaining
natural areas is obviously advantageous and protects
habitat from radical transformation. For example,
in Limpopo Province (formally Northern Province),
Selati Game Reserve (30 500 ha) protects a large
number of endemic cycad plants (Cycas spp.), and
in the North West Province “several of the private
wildlife ranches are located in areas where there are
ecologically significant habitat types” (Provincial
Government, North West Province, Biodiversity
Scientific Support 2007). According to a
representative from the DEAT, many more
vegetation types are covered by private wildlife
ranches than by formally protected areas.
By maintaining habitat, ranches are also providing
additional space for a variety of species, both
introduced by the rancher and non-introduced (Bojö
1996). This additional space, according to one
interviewee, supports formal conservation as
ranchers become “custodians of components of
meta-populations” (Representative of the Game
Rangers Association and African liaison and
representative to IUCN 2007). Mixed ranches of
livestock and game can also provide benefits to
wildlife. For example, in the central and
southwestern Karoo region, Machange et al. (2005)
found that the density of Martial Eagle (Polemaetus
bellicosus) pairs was significantly higher in game
or mixed farming areas than in areas with domestic
stock only.
Some species may already be present before
conversion to a wildlife ranch occurs, whereas
others may colonize the property at a later date. For
example, on Nambiti Conservancy (a 10 000-ha
ecotourism ranch) in KwaZulu-Natal, four blue
cranes (Anthropoides paradisea) (the national bird
of South Africa) have naturally colonized the
property since its conversion to a wildlife ranch.
This former cattle ranch now provides secure habitat
for a vast variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and
small mammals. The critically endangered blue
swallow and riverine rabbit (Evans and Barnes
2000, Friedmann and Daly 2004) are also benefiting
from private wildlife ranches in South Africa
according to our case-study data. A representative
involved in the riverine rabbit’s conservation at
Sanbona Wildlife Reserve (a large private ranch of
54 000 ha) thinks that the ranch could become an
important player in the rabbit’s conservation as it
already functions as a refuge for the species from
agricultural activities, hunting, and poaching. A
field survey in September 2006 sighted five riverine
rabbits on the reserve and the reserve’s management
team plan to cooperate closely with Cape Nature
and the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Riverine
Rabbit Working Group to monitor and manage the
rabbits. In addition to this, the riverine rabbit is a
focus species for the reserve’s marketing:
At this stage, we are focusing on making
people aware of the status of this species.
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
The reserve has also started to use the rabbit
as a marketing tool to market the
conservation efforts of the reserve—this is
a challenging project because most of the
time people look at the bigger species
tourism wise, but at this stage it’s working
well. (NGO, Sanbona Wildlife Reserve,
Wildlife Division, 2007.)
It appears that the work on Sanbona will not only
help conserve the rabbit, but also create a greater
interest in the species and raise awareness of its
plight.
The blue swallow is present on two private ranches
in KwaZulu-Natal. Highover Sanctuary (3000 ha in
the Hella-Hella area) is an important site that has
had five active nest sites in the past. According to a
fieldworker for the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN)
Biodiversity Program the outlook for Highover is
uncertain, however, as it is under land claim and its
future depends on the new owner’s intentions. The
Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Blue Swallow
Working group is currently working with the
owners and the community (including possible
future owners), and hopes to establish a mutually
beneficial partnership:
The management of this site is very good—
the birds and nests are monitored
throughout the breeding season and visitors
are not allowed to disturb the nesting sites.
In terms of ecotourism, it is in the interests
of the reserve to conserve the blue swallow
amongst other things as a good selling
point. (NGO, KZN Biodiversity Program,
2007.)
The other property in KwaZulu-Natal plays a less
active role in the bird’s conservation, although the
presence of the ranch is seen as beneficial in keeping
the land use stable:
The majority of visitors to this property are
trophy hunters and are not always keen
birders. The fact that this is a blue swallow
site is more by chance/coincidence. This
said, it contributes in the sense that this
farming method is unlikely to change the
land use. (NGO, KZN Biodiversity
Program, 2007.)
Reintroduction programs have been used primarily
to increase species populations on wildlife ranches
where they were have become locally extinct or
declined significantly (Hall-Martin and Castley
2003, Scriven and Eloff 2003, Steenkamp et al.
2005). Interviewees suggest that the reintroduction
of lions (Panthera leo) has been highly successful,
with success stories in KwaZulu-Natal and
Limpopo. One interviewee, an ecologist who
monitors a reintroduced pride of lions, suggests that
predator reintroductions are important because they
“reinstate processes such as predation and
competition” (NGO, Ecological Services, Manager
2006). Hayward et al. (2007) note that in the Eastern
Cape, 11 conservation areas have reintroduced large
predators since 1996, and there is an extant
population of 56 lions. According to a representative
of a wildlife monitoring organization on private
wildlife ranches, cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and
leopard (Panthera pardus) are heavily persecuted
outside of protected areas and “problem”
individuals are often relocated through organizations
such as De Wildt Cheetah and Wildlife Trust to the
safety of private wildlife viewing ranches.
Increasingly, wildlife ranchers are working with
conservation groups and are providing considerable
resources in order to re-establish rare species onto
their properties, as revealed in our case-study data.
For example, the southern ground hornbill,
currently classed as vulnerable (Kemp 2000), has
been reintroduced at the 10 000-ha Mabula Private
Game Reserve in Limpopo as part of a project to
return these large, savannah-dwelling, carnivorous
birds to areas where they were previously present.
According to a representative of the Mabula Ground
Hornbill Conservation Project, second-hatched
chicks (which otherwise die of starvation) are
harvested from state land, including Kruger
National Park (2 million ha), and are then hand
reared at Mabula for eventual release outside of
officially protected areas. The interviewee
describes the eagerness and commitment of the
ranch owners:
We are invited all the time now to do site
inspections on private game farms, to see if
they are suitable, which entails considerable
commitment on the part of the landowners,
with a shepherd full time following,
protecting, and feeding them for at least 2
to 3 years. (NGO, Mabula Ground Hornbill
Conservation Project, 2007.)
Birds have been released onto a number of private
ranches specializing in wildlife viewing as part of
this program, including Madikwe East (15 000 ha),
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
Shamwari (20 000 ha), and most recently, a new 40
000-ha conservancy next to Mabula. The
partnership appears to be of benefit to both parties:
We were approached by them a year ago.
They want the birds I suppose as they are
very dramatic in the veld and are in need of
conservation. Huge help from these people,
they are very keen to get the birds breeding.
They are doing everything we ask for, money
for transmitters and telemetry, fuel, and the
use of their workers. (NGO, Mabula
Ground Hornbill Conservation Project, 2007.)
Like the hornbill, the recovery of the black rhino on
private land has been supported by state-protected
areas and it is only in the last 10–15 years that the
private sector has become involved in black rhino
conservation in South Africa (Leader-Williams et
al. 2005). According to a representative of the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife
Black Rhino Range Expansion Project, private
wildlife ranches are extremely important for black
rhino conservation:
State-owned conservation areas are
probably close to the ecological carrying
capacity, and without partnerships with the
private or community landowners, no other
land could be set aside for black rhino
conservation and other species’ conservation.
Talking of KwaZulu-Natal Province only,
15% of black rhino are now on private land
through our project—that’s 397 on state
land and 62 on private land. (NGO, WWF
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Black Rhino
Range Expansion Project, 2007.)
This project aims to increase numbers of the
critically endangered black rhino by increasing the
land available for their conservation, thus reducing
pressure on existing reserves and providing new
territory in which they can breed quickly. It does
this by facilitating partnerships between neighboring
landowners in order to create large areas of land
with good black rhino habitat. Similarly, this
partnership also requires much dedication from the
landowners:
In order to qualify to receive black rhino,
game ranches need to meet certain criteria
in terms of security, size, monitoring of the
rhinos, and benefits to neighboring
communities. The private landowners need
to be prepared to contribute meaningfully
in cash or kind to the protection of the black
rhino. The deal is that the founders remain
the property of the state and the offspring
are shared equally between the landowners
and the state. (NGO, WWF Ezemvelo KZN
Black Rhino Range Expansion Project, 2007.)
The project has introduced three new populations
onto private land. All three ranches (Munyawana
Game Reserve (20 000 ha), Zululand Rhino Reserve
(20 000 ha), and Pongola Game Reserve (13 000
ha)) are commercial wildlife viewing ventures that
were created by landowners combining their land
in order to receive black rhino. According to the
project leader, a future challenge for the project will
be the further distribution of rhino from private
ranch to private ranch, and their genetic
management.
In addition to creating space for wildlife,
respondents from the hunting and wildlife capture
industry highlight the role of ranches in breeding
rare species. For example, a professional hunter in
the Free State stated:
There wouldn’t be any animals around if we
didn’t breed them for hunting. So without
us breeding animals up, many would have
gone extinct already. (Wildlife Ranching
Industry, Professional Hunter, 2007.)
This view is widely held among those involved in
the hunting and game capture industry, but some
dispute the role of breeding programs. For example,
one interviewee from a well-known conservation
organization stated:
How many recommendations are for
breeding? And how does this address the
threats? Is this not for ecotourism/hunting/
sales? It is not to say this is a problem, but
in order to be cited as a conservation
project, it needs to be addressing the threats
and following recommendations, and in
very few cases, is breeding the problem and
the solution. Black rhino need habitat not
farms. (NGO, Conservationist, 2007.)
This interviewee highlights a distinction between
simply ranching wildlife and ranching wildlife
following conservation recommendations.
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
CONSERVATION LIMITATIONS
Despite the benefits that wildlife ranching provides,
there are a number of limiting factors that restrict
this contribution. The limitations described by the
informants generally arise due to the commercial
nature of wildlife ranching, and center on these three
themes: (1) hunter and wildlife viewing tourist
preferences drive the industry, (2) predators are
persecuted to protect valuable game, and (3)
inadequate resources are made available for
professional conservation management and
planning on ranches. The following sections expand
on these shortcomings, consecutively.
Demand-Driven Wildlife Ranching
A number of provincial government department
interviewees voiced their concerns regarding the
unstable nature of private wildlife ranching.
Ranching is largely profit driven, and if demand for
wildlife lessens, the concern is that ranches may be
converted to a more economically viable land use,
for example:
Private ownership of private nature
reserves can be very unstable and often
doesn’t have a guarantee for ecosystem
maintenance or protection over the long
term. Reasons being that competition for
more profitable land uses can easily change
the current land use to more profitable land
uses, like subdivision for smaller
agricultural units, mining of non-renewable
resources, township developments, or agro-
industries. (Provincial Government, Gauteng
Nature Conservation, Ecological Services,
2007.)
In addition to the changing demands of land use, it
was suggested by a number of interviewees
(working for conservation NGOs) that within
wildlife ranching, demand for specific wildlife
species has led to an uneven representation of
biomes and species under wildlife ranch
management. According to a representative of the
Endangered Wildlife Trust Blue Swallow Working
Group (2007), wildlife ranches in South Africa
largely only conserve savannah habitats:
The distribution of game farms in South
Africa has largely been determined by the
distribution of the so-called big five, the
distribution of which is largely in the
savannah biome. For this reason, a
disproportionate number of game farms are
in the eastern and northern parts of South
Africa within the savannah biome, and not
within other biomes such as grassland. This
is also why the savannah biome is
considered to be one of the most protected
of all the biomes in South Africa, and the
grassland biome is considered to be the
least protected. (NGO, Blue Swallow
Working Group, 2007.)
This suggested bias toward savannah biomes seems
to indicate that some species benefit more from
wildlife ranches than others. As previously stated,
species such as the riverine rabbit and blue swallow
do benefit from private wildlife ranches, however,
according to a number of interviewees, this
contribution is very limited. Drawing from our case-
study data, it becomes apparent that none of the key
blue swallow locations (a grassland species) are on
private wildlife ranches, and perhaps ironically,
most nest sites are on private commercial
agricultural fields:
Game farms do not play a significant role
in the conservation of the blue swallow
purely because there are not many game
farms in the distribution range of these
birds. (NGO, KZN Biodiversity Program,
2007.)
In fact, of the 55 known active blue swallow nest
sites in South Africa, 43 occur in KZN, and only
two of these are on private wildlife ranches. The
other blue swallow nest sites are in the provinces of
Limpopo and Mpumalanga—neither of which have
nests within private wildlife ranches. In Limpopo,
most of the wildlife ranches are in bushveld areas
“which are unsuitable for blue swallows” (NGO,
Blue Swallow Working Group, Limpopo
Representative, 2007). Similarly, the riverine rabbit
was said to occur mainly outside of private wildlife
ranches in South Africa:
The rabbit occurs mostly in the central
Karoo, which is a hotspot in terms of
commercial sheep farming in South Africa.
Most of the game farms fall outside the
riverine rabbit habitat distribution in the
Western Cape Province and the majority of
them have no riverine rabbit occurrence,
except two—Sanbona and Thornhill.
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
(NGO, Riverine Rabbit Working Group,
Conservation Services, 2007.)
Further to this seemingly uneven representation of
habitats and species, a number of respondents
working within NGOs, and the provincial and
national governments suggested that the stocking
and breeding of various species on private wildlife
ranches is generally demand driven, and often not
undertaken for any clear conservation goals. One
interviewee (who works within the Eastern Cape)
does acknowledge that benefits can arise from
ranching, but also notes how they are largely
coincidental and depend on the general public’s
preferences:
While in some cases, a public demand to
see (in the case of ecotourism) or shoot (in
the case of hunting) a particular species
might have positive spin-offs for conservation
as it results in concerted effort, time, and
resources being put into the habitat
protection and breeding of that species, this
is not always the case. The general public
do not necessarily know what they should
be seeing and what they should not be
seeing, and the landowner may or may not
have a conservation ethic. (NGO,
Conservation Coordinator, 2007.)
Another interviewee similarly notes that wildlife
ranch owners are “often profit driven vs.
conservation driven—if it pays they will have it”
(NGO, Game Rangers Association, African liaison
and representative to IUCN, 2007). This can mean
that species such as the endangered wild dog
(Lycaon pictus), which according to one interviewee
(who has first-hand experience of monitoring wild
dogs on private ranches), are costly to maintain, are
therefore less in demand by ranchers:
They are not quite as in demand as other
predators......everyone has got images of
wild dogs as dustbins—they devour
everything. They are very expensive
animals to maintain because they eat so
much; a pack like these four we had, they
would probably kill everyday. You really do
need something like a massive impala
population or a massive blesbok population
to sustain wild dog packs. (NGO, Research
and Monitoring Services, Operations
Director, 2006.)
Typically, it is the number of game farms, tourists,
and trophy hunters that is significant in determining
the demand and price of specific game (van der
Merwe et al. 2004) and certain species of wildlife
go in and out of fashion, impacting on their salability
and price. A manager of a game capture team (whose
job it is to buy, sell, and translocate animals between
ranches) describes the trends he has noticed:
It is getting more difficult to sell black
wildebeest now, and roan is taking a big dip
at the moment. And this red impala.....this
rare species.....it was funny for everybody
3 years ago when they just discovered it, but
now.......what do people do with it?
(Wildlife Ranching Industry, Game
Capture Company, Director, 2007.)
Novel species, which are often initially in high
demand, can become less popular with time and are
difficult to sell. It would be reasonable to suggest,
therefore, that the breeding programs of these
uncommon species may not always be managed in
the long-term interests of the species involved. One
interviewee working as a provincial government
ecologist describes their concerns over the genetic
fitness of species bred in demand-driven breeding
programs:
Breeding of a wild rare species often has a
market force behind it, and this interest rate
simply wants more numbers, so multiplying
becomes the only norm, and not the genetic
fitness of the species. The overall nature of
this practice is having a domestication
effect on the species, changing it into a
commodity like a farm animal, and thereby
ignoring its behavioral ecology responsible
for its genetic fitness. (Provincial
Government, Gauteng Nature Conservation,
Ecological Services, 2007.)
Another interviewee notes how public preferences
can drive the stocking of exotic and extralimital
species, which can be damaging not only for the
species being introduced, but also for the species
already present:
The stocking of exotic and extralimital
species may increase the species diversity
on a ranch, but it does nothing to benefit
conservation and can have negative
impacts on the natural habitat, indigenous
species, and the introduced species
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
themselves. (In the Eastern Cape) giraffe
are often seen on private game reserves,
brought in because the game reserves claim
their visitors demand to see them—it’s
unclear whether giraffe were ever in these
areas, but a number of scientists believe that
they were not. There are cases of giraffe
dying because they are not adapted to the
habitat, and are simply being replaced with
more and more. Nyala and waterbuck are
being introduced onto game reserves where
they never occurred naturally and they are
out-competing the natural species. (NGO,
Conservation Coordinator, 2007.)
Similarly, Smith and Wilson (2002) note that the
foreign ecotourist and the hunting market have been
strong driving forces behind the introduction of
extralimital species. A number of authors (see Green
and Rothstein 1998, Castley et al. 2001, Hamman
et al. 2005) have described the negative long-term
consequences of introducing alien or extralimital
species to a ranch, potentially causing (1)
hybridization, inbreeding, and competition with
local taxa, (2) the introduction of foreign pathogens
and parasites, and (3) habitat destruction. Numerous
introductions of species outside of their natural
range were witnessed by one author while in South
Africa (JC), who also witnessed black and blue
wildebeest being reintroduced onto the same farm
in Gauteng, resulting in a potential hybridization
risk.
Many respondents spoke of the appreciation of only
a small proportion of species diversity by tourists,
largely the “big five” (buffalo (Syncerus caffer),
elephant (Loxodonta africana), leopard, lion, and
rhinoceros), leading to the stocking of high numbers
of these species. This is in accord with reports in the
literature (see Langholz and Kerley 2006). Species
such as lion and elephant are extremely popular
species, especially within wildlife-viewing operations,
and a number of interviewees whose job it is to
monitor wildlife on ranches spoke of overpopulation
problems arising with both species. In order to
maximize tourism revenue on a small ranch, it was
suggested that ranchers sometimes stock a small
quantity of a wide variety of species. However, there
is little value in having single animals, such as a
black rhino, or populations with only two or three
animals (Hall-Martin and Castley 2003).
Predator Persecution
Ranches that specialize in antelope breeding and
hunting, especially those of high commercial value,
often exclude predators. One interviewee (who has
worked within the ranching industry for the past 15
years) explains how the trapping of caracal (Caracal
caracal) and the hunting of black-backed jackal
(Canis mesomelas) on ranches such as this is fairly
common:
Farmers don’t like them as they kill and eat
young antelope. They may be moved to
another farm or sometimes they are shot.
But jackals won’t go into traps, they are too
cunning, so you have to hunt them with dogs
or go shooting. Whereas cats, all you have
to do is put a mirror or something or tie
cans together (in the trap).......you don’t
even need meat because they are so curious.
(Wildlife Ranching Industry, Game
Capture Company, Director, 2007.)
One of us (JC) witnessed traps laid out for the
purpose of catching small predators, such as caracal,
on an antelope hunting farm in the Eastern Cape
Province. One interviewee noted that “free-roaming
predators are often killed without a permit”
(Provincial Government, North West Province,
Scientist, 2007) agreeing with recent literature,
which comments on the eradication of transitory
predators from wildlife ranches (Bothma 2004,
Lindsey et al. 2005, 2006).
Inadequate Management for Conservation
A number of respondents from conservation NGOs
and provincial government report that ranches are
largely managed for profit rather than the
biodiversity of the ranch, for example:
Most game farms are managed to
accommodate certain species, and not for
their ecosystem health and biodiversity.
Veld management is often to accommodate
hunting, walking, and driving, and not the
biodiversity of the farm. (NGO, Conservation
Ecologist, 2007.)
Similarly:
They do not appoint appropriately trained
staff to manage their biodiversity; all the
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
attention and resources go for the
appointment of public relations staff,
marketing staff, and hospitality management
staff. (Provincial Government, Gauteng
Nature Conservation, Ecological Services,
2007.)
Likewise:
All landowners by law must clear alien
invasive species brought in historically,
however, this is time consuming and costly,
and their removal is not always managed
effectively. (NGO, Conservation Coordinator,
2007.)
This bias toward business objectives over
conservation, and an inadequate knowledge of
conservation ecology are seen by some respondents
as the most fundamental limitation. A representative
from Cape Nature Conservation voiced their
concerns regarding the lack of ecological
management plans on most ranches. Ranches
according to this interviewee are “usually managed
by trial and error” (Provincial Government, Cape
Nature Conservation, Scientific Investigations and
Authorisations, 2007). Bigalke (2000) notes that
there is evidence of poor performance on at least
some private properties in the Mpumalanga
Province, including overstocking, overgrazing, and
a lack of understanding of the necessary ecological
principles to ensure sound management (Zunckel
and de Wet 1994). Many respondents would like to
see a greater level of ecological monitoring on
ranches, leading to more informed management
decisions. An interviewee from a wildlife
monitoring organization on private wildlife ranches
noted that many introductions involving large game
receive insufficient preparation and post-release
monitoring, sometimes leading to unnecessary
deaths and/or the escape of rare and endangered
species such as cheetah. Furthermore, one
interviewee noted that game-proof fences, erected
to keep costly game within the ranch, “cause havoc
and kill many smaller species” (NGO,
Conservationist, 2007). Boone and Hobbs (2004)
describe the damage that fences can cause to
wildlife, including prevention of access to key
resources, disruption to migratory routes, injury,
and death.
CHALLENGES FACED
The practicality of ranching wildlife for
conservation is challenging. The small size of many
ranches in South Africa exacerbates these
challenges because they need more intensive
management. Small enclosed ranches prevent
natural dispersion, emigration, and dispersal of
juveniles, and the immigration of new individuals
that create diversity in local gene pools (Hunter et
al. 2007, Lehmann et al. 2008). Furthermore, Boone
and Hobbs (2004) show how fencing parcels of land
may reduce the carrying capacity of a landscape,
thus reducing the number of game that can be
supported. Therefore, it becomes the rancher’s role
to regulate the number of specific species on the
ranch, manage their gene pool, and also regulate the
predator:prey ratio for those ranches with predators.
One interviewee, who works for a non-profit
conservation organization specializing in research
and wildlife management on small enclosed
ecosystems, spoke about how problems of
overpopulation (of species such as lion and
elephant) have been a sudden realization for some
ranchers who are now faced with deciding how to
regulate them. A lack of forethought and the
unknown consequences of fences has led, according
to a number of respondents, to species such as lion
and elephant becoming overabundant on many
enclosed ranches since reintroduction, impacting on
habitat and other species present. One respondent
described how fences have caused changes in
elephant behavior:
Small reserves especially are breaking a lot
of rules.........elephant calving intervals for
instance are between 4 and 9 years between
each calf, yet on Karongwe, we were
popping them out every 2 years and 2
months. Your population sizes are doubling
in 2 years because every cow in the
population is having another calf every 2
years. A lot of people didn’t realize the
extent of the impact of fences. Fences have
affected their behavior so much—their
breeding rates and their feeding patterns—
and only now, in the last 10 years, people
are starting to realize. The decisions that
were made were not long term.......so it’s all
gone horribly pear shaped for some people.
(NGO, Research and Monitoring Services,
Operations Director, 2006.)
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
Elephants were repeatedly reported by the
interviewees as an extremely big problem in South
Africa, causing huge damage to the veld.
Respondents also reported detrimental consequences
of having high numbers (or even just the presence)
of lions on ranches. For example, in 2006–2007, one
adult cheetah, five cheetah cubs of various ages, and
one adult spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) (all
introduced) have died on a ranch in KwaZulu-Natal,
and according to the director of a wildlife
monitoring organization on the ranch, the deaths are
directly and indirectly (in the case of the female
adult cheetah) attributed to a high lion load on a
small area. There are currently four adult lions on
this ranch, with the likelihood of cubs being born in
the coming year. The damage that lions can cause
to other predators is well documented. Hayward et
al. (2007) found that reintroductions of cheetah have
been less successful where lions are the dominant
predator, although there is a paucity of information
on the impact of large predators on smaller predators
such as serval (Leptailurus serval) and caracal on
private ranches.
The management of these large mammals is a
challenge and a number of management solutions
are currently in use to control elephant and lion
numbers. However, the “correct” way in which to
control numbers is a topic of much discussion and
disagreement in South Africa. Within National
Parks and very large ranches, culling has been
employed as one option to reduce elephant numbers.
Elephant calves may sometimes be sold to elephant-
back safari companies. On smaller reserves, it is
common for both elephants and lions to be injected
with contraceptives to restrict breeding. On Nambiti
Conservancy, for example, both female lions were
given a contraceptive injection (effective for 1 year)
before they were released onto the ranch. Each year,
the decision must be made whether to administer
contraceptives or allow one or both lionesses to
reproduce. Male lions are sometimes vasectomized
to prevent overpopulation and also inbreeding. An
alternative option that is sometimes employed in
order to prevent inbreeding is “swapping a small
number of lions between two ranches with different
bloodlines for mutual benefit” (NGO, Manager,
2006). According to a number of interviewees
working on private hunting and ecotourism ranches,
it is standard practice to remove the cubs of lions
and cheetahs on enclosed reserves to prevent
inbreeding (unless it’s an exceptionally large
reserve). Cubs are sold usually by the age of 1.5
years to other ranches. In KwaZulu-Natal and
Limpopo provinces, it can, however, be difficult,
sometimes impossible to relocate them:
There are still prices for cats. I mean you
want to make sure that it goes to a good
home, I mean Paul [sic] was always very
adamant about not selling to hunting farms.
In the end, you kind of get to a point where
you have no other option, and he eventually
had to shoot two of the male lions. They got
to the age of three and a half, and they still
couldn’t find a home for them and they were
trying to mate with their aunt. In the whole
scheme of things, it was better for the
reserve (name removed for anonymity) to
have them hunted because it provides the
reserve with more money to conserve the
rest. (NGO, Research and Monitoring
Services, Operations Director, 2006.)
A similar situation was reported for elephants:
(In KwaZulu-Natal) it’s getting to
saturation point—there is no price for
elephants, you can’t give them away. (NGO,
Research and Monitoring Services,
Researcher, 2006.)
Despite these reported difficulties, predators may
still be allowed to breed. According to one
interviewee, allowing predators to breed is good for
tourism and also good for the well being of the
animals.
Careful management is required for those ranches
with predators to prevent the depletion of prey
populations. On Nambiti Conservancy, for
example, the monitoring of prey populations has
shown that the predator:prey balance has yet to be
met, and more blesbok (Damaliscus dorcas phillpsi)
and impala (Aepyceros melampus) will need to be
brought in as this popular prey species has been
depleted. Bothma (2004) notes how lion
reintroductions usually lead to rapid prey population
declines, irrespective of initial population size, and
Druce et al. (2004) state the need for both predator
and prey populations within these small areas to be
constantly monitored and managed. Preferred prey
populations need to be kept large enough to sustain
predator populations, but also to prevent inbreeding
among the prey species. According to a number of
interviewees, depleted populations can lead to
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
inbreeding, and further reintroductions need careful
management to ensure that enough rams are
reintroduced.
There is widespread use of large numbers of “buffer
animals” (species such as impala and warthog
(Phacochoerus africanus), which are relatively
cheap and common) with the aim of reducing
predation on more expensive and rare species. There
is growing evidence, however, that the use of buffer
animals is ineffective (e.g, Lehmann et al. 2008). In
some cases, predators may be removed with the aim
of splitting up specific coalitions in order to reduce
prey mortality, particularly in cases where
charismatic or expensive species are being targeted,
for example:
At Kapama (the reserve), it was decided that
they would remove one (lion) from the
coalition because they were pulling down
up to four giraffe a week, which is wasteful
for lions, they cannot even eat one giraffe
in a week. (NGO, Research and Monitoring
Services, Operations Director, 2006.)
A number of respondents suggested that the removal
of fences and the aggregation of ranches would
lessen the impact of ranching on wildlife and reduce
the need for intensive management. Indeed, an
increasing number of conservancies (a group of
adjoining private commercial farms operating under
a cooperative management agreement (ABSA
Group Economic Research 2003)) already exist in
some regions of South Africa such as Limpopo. The
removal of fences, however, poses challenges in
itself when economics are involved, as this
interviewee notes:
More farms should drop fences and not be
so concerned with private ownership of
animals as they currently are, but when
animals have financial value this poses a
challenge. (NGO, Conservationist, 2007.)
Further challenges of keeping large animals, such
as lions and elephants, on small ranches include
problems associated with over-habituation, which
can occur when animals are viewed daily,
particularly for example if there is only one pride
of lions on the ranch. The director of an ecological
monitoring organization described the need for
habituated animals on tourism ranches, but also
noted the problems that this can cause. Animals that
become over-habituated and a danger to humans
may be destroyed. Another balance that needs to be
found according to the manager of an ecological
services company in Limpopo is the use of scientific
language in reports produced for the ranching
industry. Those with scientific credentials want to
incorporate more science into ranching, and our
respondents felt that the science required translation
into a more user-friendly form. Those interviewees
working in the ranching industry without a science
background generally felt that they had more
practical experience than scientists, and that
academic work was irrelevant to them. Integrating
science into management will be challenging.
CONCLUSION
This paper has explored the benefits, limitations,
and challenges of private wildlife ranching as a tool
for conservation in South Africa as seen through the
perception of key stakeholders working within
conservation and private wildlife ranching. All
respondents believed that private wildlife ranches
have a role to play in conservation in South Africa.
This role is thought to be especially essential due to
the limited government funding available for
conservation. Wildlife ranches are seen to
contribute to conservation largely by maintaining
natural areas of habitat and by providing resources
to support reintroduction programs for threatened
species. It was suggested by a number of ranchers
and professional hunters that ranching benefits
conservation through breeding programs. This role
was, however, disputed by a number of respondents
working for conservation organizations. Other
possible roles, which were not identified by our
respondents, include the role of wildlife ranches as
corridors in periods of climatic shift or as
repositories for speciation from isolated populations
under slightly different environments.
A number of limitations to the role of wildlife
ranching were reported, including tourist-driven
ranching (leading to a bias toward certain biomes
and species), predator persecution, and inadequate
professional conservation management and
planning on ranches. The consequences of these
limitations include the introduction of extralimital
and exotic species on ranches, hybridization of
species, and inadequate ecological management of
ranches. These limitations largely arise due to the
commercial nature of ranches, which are essentially
businesses first and foremost, with differing
objectives to state parks. In addition to the
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
challenges of combining economic gain with
conservation objectives, ranchers face a number of
challenges arising because of the small enclosed
character of many ranches in South Africa,
including the need to intensively manage wildlife
populations, in particular population numbers and
predator:prey ratios.
In order to enhance the role of wildlife ranching
within conservation, clear guidance and support for
ranchers (from the government, NGOs, and
academics) are needed in order to boost
endorsement and minimize economic losses to
ranchers. Furthermore, education directed toward
tourists may reduce the demands placed on ranchers
to provide specific species to view or hunt. The
recent moves to further regulate the wildlife
ranching industry, and new initiatives aimed at
supporting wildlife ranchers, are the focus of on-
going research by the authors.
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/responses/
Acknowledgments:
The research for this paper was funded by a PhD
scholarship in GEES at the University of
Birmingham and an NERC/ESRC grant. The
authors wish to thank all those who gave their time
to be interviewed and two anonymous referees for
their constructive comments. In addition, we would
like to thank Dr Toby Gamlen for providing his
Photoshop skills on Fig. 1.
LITERATURE CITED
Amalgamated Banks of South Africa (ABSA)
Group Economic Research. 2003. Game Ranch
Profitability in Southern Africa. The SA Financial
Sector Forum, Rivonia, South Africa.
African Indaba. 2007. African Indaba. [online]
URL: http://www.africanindaba.co.za. [Accessed
24 June 2008.]
Bigalke, R. C. 2000. Functional relationships
between protected and agricultural areas in South
Africa and Namibia. Pages 169–201 in H. H. T.
Prins, J. G. Grootenhuis, and T. T. Dolan, editors.
Wildlife conservation by sustainable use. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA.
Bojö, J. 1996. The economics of wildlife: case
studies from Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, and
Zimbabwe. AFTES working paper 19, Environmental
Policy and Planning, Environmentally Sustainable
Development Division, Technical Department,
African Region, The World Bank.
Boone, R. B., and N. T. Hobbs. 2004. Lines around
fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores.
African Journal of Range and Forage Science 21
(3):147–158.
Botha, M. A. 2001. Incentives for conservation on
private land: options and opportunities. Cape
Conservation Unit Report 02/2001, Botanical
Society of South Africa.
Bothma, J. du P. 2002. Game ranch management.
Fourth edition. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Bothma, J. du P. 2004. The role and impact of
larger predators on enclosed wildlife areas. Agri-
tourism Workshop, Boscia Forum, 19–20 August
2004, George, South Africa.
Castley, J. G., A. F. Boshoff, and G. I. H. Kerley.
2001. Compromising South Africa’s natural
biodiversity—inappropriate herbivore introductions.
South African Journal of Science 97:344–348.
Clifford, N. J., and G. Valentine, editors. 2005.
Key methods in geography. Sage Publications,
London, UK.
Cloete, P. C., P. R. Taljaard, and B. Grové. 2007.
A comparative economic case study of switching
from cattle farming to game ranching in the
Northern Cape Province. South African Journal of
Wildlife Research 37(1):71–78.
Conservation International. 2007. Action with a
positive reaction. Newsletter April 2007, issue 3,
page 2.
Cope, M. 2005. Coding transcripts and diaries.
Pages 445–459 in N. Clifford and G. Valentine,
editors. Key methods in geography. Sage
Pubications, London, UK.
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism (DEAT). 2005. South Africa country
study: situational assessment undertaken to inform
South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP). DEAT, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Druce, D., H. Genis, J. Braak, S. Greatwood, A.
Delsink, R. Kettles, L. Hunter, and R. Slotow.
2004. Prey selection by a reintroduced lion
population in the Greater Makalali Conservancy,
South Africa. African Zoology 39(2):273–284.
Dunn, K. 2005. Interviewing. Pages 79–105 in I.
Hay, editor. Qualitative research methods in human
geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Ebedes, H. 1994. Going, going, gone: an appraisal
of game auctions. Pages 74–80 in W. van Hoven,
H. Ebedes, and A. Conroy, editors. Game ranching:
a celebration of diversity: proceedings of the Third
International Game Ranching Symposium. Promedia,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Evans, S. W., and K. N. Barnes. 2000. Blue
swallow Hirundo atrocaerulea. In K. N. Barnes,
editor. The Eskom Red Data Book of Birds of South
Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. BirdLife,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
Flack, P. H. 2003. Consumptive tourism—a useful
conservation tool. Pages 155–157 in D. Butchart,
editor. Vision business ecotourism and the
environment. Endangered Wildlife Trust, Parkview,
South Africa.
Fontana, A., and J. H. Frey. 2005. The interview:
from neutral stance to political involvement. Third
Edition. Pages 695–727 in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S.
Lincoln, editors. The Sage handbook of qualitative
research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, California, USA.
Friedmann, Y., and B. Daly, editors. 2004. Red
data book of the mammals of south africa: a
conservation assessment. Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group (CBSG), Southern Africa (SS/
IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust, Parkview,
South Africa.
Golding, J. S., editor. 2002. Southern African plant
red data lists. South Afican Botanical Diversity
Network (SABONET), Report 14, Pretoria, South
Africa.
Goodman, P. S., B. James, and L. Carlisle. 2002.
Wildlife utilization: its role in fostering biodiversity
in KwaZulu-Natal. Pages 21–32 in S. M. Pierce, R.
M. Cowling, T. Sandwich, and K. MacKinnon,
editors. Mainstreaming biodiversity in development:
case studies from South Africa. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C, USA.
Green, W. C. H., and A. Rothstein. 1998.
Translocation, hybridization and the endangered
black-faced impala. Conservation Biology 12
(2):475–480.
Hall-Martin, A. J., and J. G. Castley. 2003. The
status of the black and white rhinoceros on private
land in South Africa. Pachyderm 34:24–32.
Hamman, K. C. D., P. H. Lloyd, and J. C. Stadler.
2005. Hunting as an acceptable management tool
for conservation. Submission to the Panel of
Experts, Department of Environmental Affairs,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Hayward, M. W., J. Adendorff, J. O’Brien, A.
Sholto-Douglas, C. Bissett, L. C. Moolman, P.
Bean, A. Fogarty, D. Howarth, R. Slater, and G.
I. H. Kerley. 2007. The reintroduction of large
carnivores to the Eastern Cape, South Africa: an
assessment. Oryx 41(2):205–214.
Helicon Services. 2007. Company Policy. [online]
URL:
http://www.mjvn.co.za/helicon/company_policy.
htm. [Accessed 24 June 2008.]
Hunter, L. T. B., K. Pretorius, L. C. Carlisle, M.
Rickelton, C. Walker, R. Slotow, and J. D.
Skinner. 2007. Restoring lions Panthera leo to
northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: short-term
biological and technical success but equivocal long-
term conservation. Oryx 41:196–204.
IUCN. 2002. 2002 IUCN red list of threatened
species. World Conservation Union, Gland,
Switzerland.
Kemp, A. C. 2000. Southern ground hornbill. Pages
117–119 in K. N. Barnes, editor. The Eskom red
data book of birds of South Africa, Lesotho and
Swaziland. BirdLife, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Krug, W. 2001. Private supply of protected land in
Southern Africa: a review of markets, approaches,
barriers and issues. Report to Environment
Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
KwaZulu-Natal Hunting and Conservation
Association. 2007. Code of ethics.
[online] URL:
http://www.kznhunters.co.za/site/awdep.
asp?dealer=6643&depnum=22811. [Accessed 24
June 2008.]
Langholz, J. A., and G. I. H. Kerley. 2006.
Combining conservation and development on
private lands: an assessment of ecotourism-based
private game reserves in the Eastern Cape. Centre
for African Conservation Ecology, Report 56,
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port
Elizabeth, South Africa.
Leader Williams, N., S. Milledge, K. Adcock, M.
Brooks, A. Conway, M. Knight, S. Mainka, E. B.
Martin, and T. Teferi. 2005. Trophy hunting of
black rhino Diceros bicornis: proposals to ensure
its future sustainability. Journal of International
Wildlife Law and Policy 8:1–11.
Lehmann, M.B., P. J. Funston, C. R. Owen, and
R. Slotow. 2008. Feeding behaviour of lions
(Panthera leo) on a small reserve. South African
Journal of Wildlife Research 38(1): in press.
Lindberg, K., B. James, and P. Goodman. 2003.
Tourism’s contribution to conservation in Zululand:
an ecological survey of private reserves and public.
Pages 203–244 in B. Aylward, and E. Lutz, editors.
Nature tourism, conservation and development in
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. World Bank,
Washington, D.C., USA.
Lindsey, P. A., J. T. du Toit, and M. G. L. Mills.
2005. Attitudes of ranches towards African wild
dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications on
private land. Biological Conservation 125:113–
121.
Lindsey, P. A., L. G. Frank, R. Alexander, A.
Mathieson, and S. S. Romañach. 2006. Trophy
hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and
one potential solution. Conservation Biology 21
(3):880–883.
Lindsey P. A., P. A. Roulet, and S. S. Romanach.
2007. Economic and conservation significance of
the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa.
Biological Conservation 134:455–469.
Longhurst, R. 2003. Semi-structured interviews
and focus groups. Pages 117–132 in N. Clifford and
G. Valentine, editors. Key methods in geography.
Sage Publications, London, UK.
Machange, R. W., A. R. Jenkins, and R. A.
Navarro. 2005. Eagles as indicators of ecosystem
health: is the distribution of Martial Eagle nests in
the Karoo, South Africa, influenced by variations
in land-use and rangeland quality? Journal of Arid
Environments 63:223–243.
Marshall, C., and G. B. Rossman. 1995.
Designing qualitative research. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Meine, C., M. Soulé, and R. Noss. 2006. “A
mission-driven discipline”: the growth of
conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20
(3):631–651.
Myers, N. 2003. Biodiversity hotspots revisited.
BioScience 53:916–917.
National Agricultural Marketing Council
(NAMC). 2006. Report on the investigation to
identify problems for sustainable growth and
development in South African wildlife ranching.
Report 2006-03. NAMC, Pretoria, South Africa.
Patterson, C., and P. Khosa. 2005. A status quo
study on the professional and recreational hunting
industry in South Africa. Report to the Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Panel of
Experts on Professional and Recreational Hunting
in South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Professional Hunters Association of South Africa
(PHASA). 2007. About Us. [online] URL:
http://w
ww.phasa.co.za/index.php?pid=2. [Accessed 24
June 2008.]
Reilly, B. K., E. A. Sutherland, and V. Harley.
2003. The nature and extent of wildlife ranching in
Gauteng Province, South Africa. South African
Journal of Wildlife Research 33(2):141–144.
Robinson, J. G. 2006. Conservation biology and
real-world conservation. Conservation Biology 20
(3):658–669.
Scholes, R. J., and R. Biggs, editors. 2004.
Ecosystem services in Southern Africa: a regional
assessment. Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
Scriven, L., and T. Eloff. 2003. Markets derived
Ecology and Society 13(2): 43
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/
from nature tourism in South Africa and KwaZulu-
Natal; a survey of the sale of live game. Pages 245–
286 in B. Aylward and E. Lutz, editors. Nature
tourism, conservation and development in Kwa-
Zulu Natal, South Africa. World Bank, Washington,
D.C., USA.
Smith, N., and S. L. Wilson. 2002. Changing Land
Use Trends in the Thicket Biome: pastoralism to
game farming. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit
Report No. 38, University of Port Elizabeth, Port
Elizabeth, South Africa.
South African Hunters and Game Conservation
Association. 2007. Constitution of the South
African Hunters and Game Conservation
Association. [online] URL:
http://www.sahunt.co.za/
uploads/constitution_NOV06.pdf. [Accessed 24
June 2008.]
Steenkamp, C., D. Marnewick, and K.
Marnewick. 2005. A status quo of the conservation
impacts from the professional and recreational
hunting industry. Report to Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Panel of
Experts on Professional and Recreational Hunting
in South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of
qualitative research: grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage Publications, London, UK.
Thaba Manzi Wildlife Services. 2007. Mission
Statement. [online] URL:
http://www.thabamanzi.co.
uk. [Accessed 24 June 2008.]
The Convention on Biological Diversity. 1993.
Article 2. Use of Terms. [online] URL:
http://www.
cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-02. [Acc-
essed 24 June 2008.]
van der Merwe, P., and M. Saayman. 2003.
Determining the economic value of game farm
tourism. Koedoe 46(2):103–112.
van der Merwe, P, M. Saayman, and W. Krugell.
2004. Factors that determine the price of game.
Koedoe 47(2):105–113.
Wynberg, R. 2002. A decade of biodiversity
conservation and use in South Africa: tracking
progress from Rio Earth Summit to the
Johannesburg World Summit on sustainable
development. South African Journal of Science
98:233–243.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: design and
methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California, USA.
Zunckel K., and S. F. de Wet. 1994. Veld
conditions assessment of some game farms and
nature reserves in the eastern Transvaal Lowveld
during the 1991/92 drought. In W. van Hoven, H.
Ebedes, and A. Conroy, editors. Wildlife ranching:
a celebration of diversity. Promedia, Pretoria, South
Africa.
