Content uploaded by Raul Valdez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raul Valdez on Mar 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Wildlife Conservation on the Rangelands of Eastern and Southern Africa:
Past, Present, and Future☆
Jerry Holechek
a,
⁎, Raul Valdez
b
a
Professor, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
b
Professor Emeritus, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Ecology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 12 May 2017
Received in revised form 19 October 2017
Accepted 30 October 2017
Key Words:
Africa
big five animals
ecotourism
hunting
localization
range management
ungulates
wildlife management
Our objective was to assess the status of the large native rangeland mammals in the eastern and southern African
countriesfocusing on conservation strategies that will benefit the animals, their rangeland habitats, and the peo-
ple who live in this region. Eastern and southern African rangelands are renowned for supporting a globally
unique diversity and abundance of large mammals.This wildlife legacy is threatenedby changing demographics,
increased poaching, habitat fragmentation, and global warming, but there are reasons for optimism. After sharp
declinesfrom 1970 to 1990 across Africa,wildlife populations in some countries have subsequently increased due
to incentives involving sport hunting and ecotourism. National parks and protected areas, which have been crit-
ically important in maintaining African wildlife populations, are being increased and better protected. Over the
past 50 years, the number of parks has been doubled and the areas of several parks have been expanded. The
major problem is that no more than 20% of the national parks and reserves set aside for wildlife are adequately
protectedfrom poaching. Thesouthern African countries wherewildlife has recently thrived have robust hunting
and ecotourism programs, which economically benefit private landowners. Considerable research shows rural
communities dependent on rangelands can be incentivized to participate in large mammal conservation pro-
grams if they can economically benefit from wildlife tourism, sport hunting, and the legal sale of animal by-
products. Community-based wildlife conservation programs can be economically and ecologically effective in
sustaining and enhancing Africanwildlife biodiversity, including rhinos,elephants, and lions. Low-input ranching
wild ungulates for meat and hunting may be an economically viable alternative to traditional rangelivestock pro-
duction systems in some areas. However, in many situations, common-use grazing of livestock and wildlife will
give the most efficient use of rangeland forages and landscapes while diversifying income and lowering risk.
© 2017 The Society for Range Management. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The countries of eastern and southern Africa are renowned for their
diversity and abundance of wildlife, especially hoofed mammals, and
large carnivores. Over the past 50 years, major changes have occurred
in the status of wildlife populations in this region. The eastern (Kenya,
Tanzania, Uganda) and southern African countries included here (Re-
public of South Africa—hereafter referred to as RSA, Botswana, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique) are especially famous for the “big
five”game animals (elephant [Loxodonta africana]; two species of rhi-
noceros, black [Diceros bicornis]andwhite[Ceratotherium simum]; leop-
ard [Panthera pardus], lion [Panthera leo], and Cape buffalo [Syncerus
caffer]). Several studies have recently become available on the status
and conservation of wildlife, as well as the intricate relationships of peo-
ple, wildlife, and rangelands in the eastern and southern African coun-
tries. However, articles reviewing this information are lacking. Our
primary objectives are to assess the status of eastern and southern
African wildlife populations and their rangeland habitats, focusing on
the large mammals (especially the big five); discuss the importance of
game parks and reserves; examine the roles of ecotourism and sport
hunting in African wildlife conservation; and discuss management pol-
icies and strategies that can be implemented to conserve eastern and
southern Africa’s wildlife legacy and rangelands while also benefitting
local ethnic communities. Our secondary objective is to identify impor-
tant literature regarding wildlife conservation on rangelands in eastern
and southern Africa.
Historical Perspective
For hundreds of years before the 1800s, the peoples of eastern and
southern Africa were primarily pastoralists who herded cattle in
Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
☆This paper was funded by the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. Partial
supportwas provided by the US Dept of Agriculture,National Instituteof Food and Agricul-
ture, Hatch Project 1011785.
⁎Correspondence: Jerry L. Holechek, Dept of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA. Tel.:+1-575-646-1649.
E-mail address: holechek@nmsu.edu (J. Holechek).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.10.005
1550-7424/© 2017 The Society for Range Management. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Rangeland Ecology & Management
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rama
coexistence with wildlife. A somewhat harmonious balance existed, but
it was disrupted when Europeans began to settle in the region in the
early 1800s (Pearce, 2010). The key event changing this balance was
rinderpest, a deadly cattle virus brought to the Horn of Africa in 1887
by an Italian expeditionary force with infected cattle from Asia. Rinder-
pest spread quickly from Eritrea to Ethiopia and then to other parts of
Africa, killing cattle and hoofed wild animals in immense numbers
(Normile, 2008; Pearce, 2010). Indirectly, it also devastated human pop-
ulations because their livelihoods heavily depended on meat and milk
from their cattle, which were also used as draft animals (Phoofolo,
1993; Pearce, 2010). Roughly between one third and two thirds of the
people in eastern Africa died from a combination of rinderpest and
drought inthe early 1890s (Phoofolo, 1993;Pearce, 2010). Wildlife pop-
ulations recovered much more quickly than human populations in the
period following the rinderpest epidemic. The high wildlife abundance,
but low humanpopulation that occurred in eastern and southern Africa
in the early 1900s, was a historical aberration caused by rinderpest. The
rinderpest epidemic was an important factor in the rapidcolonization of
eastern and southern Africa, as well as in the limited resistance from
most ethnic societies. The tsetse fly, which carries a virus (trypanosomi-
asis) causing sleeping sickness amongcattle and humans, was positively
impacted by habitat changes that occurred in response to the decima-
tion of livestock herds by rinderpest (Pearce, 2010). This further delayed
recovery of human populations and livestock numbers after the rinder-
pest epidemic subsided, but wild animals benefitted because they have
some immunity to trypanosomiasis. During the latter half of the 20th
century, rinderpest across Africa was gradually brought under control
through cattle vaccination programs with the last major African out-
break in the 1982−1984 period (Spinage, 2003; United Nations,
2015). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization declared
rinderpest formally eradicated worldwide in 2011 (McNeil, 2011). We
refer readers to Sinclair and Arcese (1995),du Toit (2003),Collins and
Burns (2007),Carruthers (2008),Reid (2012),andSinclair et al.
(2015) for detailed discussions of the history of human and wildlife in-
teractions in the eastern and southern African region. Rinderpest, tsetse
flies, and other disease impacts on African wildlife, livestock, and
human populations are discussed by Osofsky (2005),Matthiessen and
Douthwaite (2009),andPearce (2010).
Colonial Settlement Period
Ivory, precious metals, gems, and slaves were the initial motivations
for European countries (especially Great Britain) to explore and then
colonize the eastern and southern Africa regions. The development of
the steamship in the early 1800s greatly facilitated travel, trade, explo-
ration, andcolonization in the region. The early colonial era began in the
1830s, with initial settlements on coastal areas, followed by interior set-
tlements after exploration, mostly by British explorers such as David
Livingstone (1813 −1873) (Jeal, 2001). Rapid settlement of interior
eastern Africa began in 1903 with the construction of a railroad from
the Kenya coast at Mombasa with termination at Kisumu on Lake
Victoria in Uganda (Mwaruvie, 2006).
African Big Game Hunting Era
The abundance and diversity of wildlife was an important factor in
attracting European settlers into the eastern and southern Africa region
in the late 1800s. Several fortunes from ivory were made by European
elephant hunters in the 1880−1915 period (Hunter, 1954; MacKenzie,
1988; Adams, 2004). Around 1910, abundant game animals in combina-
tion with more efficient sea and rail transportation initiated the colorful
and romantic era of the African hunting safari led by a “white hunter”
most associated with Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda (Hunter, 1954;
Herne, 1999; Balfour and Balfour, 2001; Adams, 2004). The famous
East African hunting trip of Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 created a safari
craze amongwealthy sportsmenin Europe and the United States. In that
era, African big game huntingwas viewed as a highly fashionable aristo-
cratic activity involving courage, stamina, skill with firearms, and
sportsmanship (Hunter, 1954; Bonner, 1993; Herne, 1999). After
World War I, thepopularity of the eastern African hunting safari escalat-
ed due to the financial boom in the 1920s, improvements in transporta-
tion (the automobile), and communication infrastructure. The British
government strongly supported safari hunting because it reduced the
high populations of large dangerous animals that were an impediment
to agricultural development and generated income through the sale of
hunting licenses (Hunter, 1954). Safari hunting in Kenya reached its
peak around 1963 when Kenya gained independence from Great Brit-
ain. In the early 1960s,Kenya still had abundant wildlife populations, in-
frastructure development had made prime hunting areas easily
accessible, international airplane transportation facilitated travel, the
United States had a booming economy, movies hadromanticized the sa-
fari, and hunting was a favorite sport of some legendary American
movie actors. Safari hunting suffered a setback in 1973 when Kenya
banned elephant hunting followed with a ban on all big game hunting
in 1977. However, it has continued into the present in several African
countries, although it is no longer possible to take all the big five on a
single hunt (Lindsey et al. 2007). We note the 1977 big game hunting
ban in Kenya was primarily in response to rampant elephant and
rhino poaching, coupled with pressure on Kenya from international an-
imal welfare organizations rather than excessive legal sport hunting
(Herne, 1999; Pack et al. 2013). As an example, in 1972 Kenya issued
only 19−34 rhino hunting permits, but over 1 000 rhino horns were
imported into Hong Kong from Kenya (Herne, 1999).
Wildlife Decline and Partial Recovery
Starting in the late 1960s, a combination of factors caused rapid de-
clines in wildlife populations in several eastern and southern Africa
countries. These factors involved, most importantly, escalated poaching
but also a rapid human populationincrease, habitat loss and fragmenta-
tion, poorly regulated hunting, lack of wildlife protection in national
parks, and civil wars in countries such as Mozambique and Uganda
(Herne, 1999; Adams, 2004; Lindsey et al. 2007; Carruthers, 2008;
Pack et al. 2013). Across Africa since 1970, a roughly 60% decline has oc-
curred in large mammal populations on protected areas based on a
study by Craigie et al. (2010). However, wildlife population trends var-
ied greatly by region and country. On the basis of various estimates dur-
ing the 1970s and 1980s, large high-value animals such as elephants,
lions, andrhinos in Kenya decreased by 70% or more outside of national
parks and declines near 40−70% occurred inside national parks
(Norton-Griffiths, 2007; Nelson et al. 2009; Western et al. 2009;
Ogutu et al. 2011; Martin, 2012, 2014). We have focused on Kenya be-
cause of its high popularity for safaris and the lack of quantitative data
on wildlife trends in the 1970s and 1980s for other countries. However,
we note Tanzania also experienced major wildlife population declines
due to poaching in the 1970s and suspended hunting for some animals
for a brief period (Pack et al. 2013).
Although excessive sport hunting and habitat loss are commonly
blamed as major causes for the sharp declines in African wildlife popu-
lations in the 1980s and 1990s, the major problem was actually
poaching (Herne, 1999; Pack et al. 2013). The number of animals legally
taken by sport hunting in this period appears to be well under 10% of
those taken by poachers and was generally at sustainable levels
(Herne, 1999; Coogan, 2012; Pack et al. 2013). The amount of habitat
that potentially could be occupied by the big five across Africa was
still high through the 1980s. However, rapidly expanding globalization,
government corruption, lack of funds for wildlife law enforcement, and
inadequate international laws governing the rhino horn and ivory trade
led to a severe poaching crisis (Herne, 1999; Coogan, 2012; Pack et al.
2013). Elephant population declines in Kenya actually accelerated in
the 1974 −1976 period (45% loss) following the 1973 sport hunting
ban (Coogan, 2012; Pack et al. 2013). The hunting ban appears to have
246 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
increased elephant poaching as hunting operators had previously pro-
vided protection on lands in their concessions (Coogan, 2012; Pack
et al. 2013). Tanzania, which quickly reinstated its hunting program
after a brief ban, has much better maintained its wildlife populations
than Kenya (Pack et al. 2013), which we will discuss in more detail
later. We refer the reader to Coogan, (2012) for a detailed discussion
of how political corruption and international pressure from animal wel-
fare groups resulted in Kenya’s decision to ban hunting in 1977.
Beginning in the early 1990s, a remarkable turnaround in wildlife
populations began in some southern African countries, and it remains
in progress (Bond et al. 2004; Lindsey et al. 2007; IUCN, 2016). Howev-
er, the degree of increasing abundance varies considerably by country
and animal species (Lindsey et al. 2007; Child, 2009). Important factors
in the turnaround include increased protection for animals and their
habitat;creation of private game reserves; strengthening of internation-
al agreements that restrict trade in endangered species and animal by-
products (especially ivory and rhino horn); increase in number of na-
tional parks and bioreserves; expansion of several existing national
parks; increased role of the United Nations Economic, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in providing international protection
to unique wildlife areas such as the Serengeti; the rise of ecotourism;
and the development of game ranching for sport hunting and meat
(Adams, 2004; Bond et al. 2004; Lindsey et al. 2007; Carruthers, 2008;
Pack et al. 2013). As examples of the success of these measures, savanna
and forest (L. cyclotis) elephants combined increased from about 400
000 to 700 000, white rhinos increased from about 8 000 to 17 000,
and black rhinos increased from 2 400 to nearly 3 000 by 2005
(Lindsey et al. 2007). Populations of several African ungulates, other
mammals, and bird species also increased significantly (Lindsey et al.
2007). The primary current conservation challenges involve rhino, ele-
phant, and lion populations, which we will discuss later.
Wildlife Habitat Protection in African Countries
Large Areas Set Aside for African Wildlife
We do not view lack of habitat as a primary short-term threat to
eastern and southern African wildlife, although in the long term this
could change, due to human population increase and associated habitat
fragmentation. Since 1980, a major positive step in world wildlife con-
servation has been the greatly expanded protection of endangered ani-
mals and their habitats. This has occurred through strengthened
international wildlife laws and the establishment of large nature re-
serves and parks, especially in African countries. Wildlife-protected
areas have been expanded more than fourfold in area over the past
40 yr and now cover approximately 15% of the world’slandsurface
(Chape et al. 2008; Craigie et al. 2010; World Bank, 2014). Currently,
nearly every African country has large areas set aside as national
parks, nature reserves, conservancies, and other forms of protected
areas (over 400 across Africa), to sustain and enhance wildlife biodiver-
sity (World Bank, 2014; Wikipedia, 2017a). We refer the reader to
Wikipedia, (2017a) for detailed descriptions of the various African wild-
life protected areas and to the World Bank (2014) for the percentage of
protected areas for different countries in the world. Although virtually
every country has multiple protected areas, much more land is
protected in the southern half of Africa than the northern half (World
Bank, 2014). Namibia and Zambia lead in percentage of area protected
(38%), with Tanzania (32%) in third, Botswana (29%) in fourth, and
Zimbabwe (26.6%) in fifth places (World Bank, 2014). However, RSA
(8.8%), Kenya (12.4%), Mozambique (17.2%), and Uganda (16%) all
have large amounts of their land area under protection (World Bank,
2014). Kenya is a leader in number of national parks with 23, followed
by RSA with 21, Zambia with 20, and Tanzania with 18. These four coun-
tries also have several large national reserves and other types of
protected areas. People in local communities can inhabit reserves, but
they are excluded from national parks. Over the past 20 yr, several
African national parks have been expanded and new ones have been
created. Even countries like Sudan, Ethiopia, and Angola that are not
noted for wildlife tourism have large areas in national parks. A listing
of the major national parks in eastern and southern African countries,
based on land area and tourism importance, is provided in Table 1.
UNESCO and African Wildlife Protection
It is our observation that few people know that many of the world’s
unique natural and historic man-made wonders are protected under in-
ternational law through UNESCO. This includes the most important of
the African parks from a biodiversity/ecological uniqueness standpoint.
UNESCO was formed in 1945 with the goals of designating and
protecting world landmarks, historical sites, natural wonders, and
man-made wonders (UNESCO, 2009). These wonders, referred to as
“World Heritage Sites”by UNESCO, are protected by international law
(1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage) (UNESCO, 2009; Wikipedia, 2017b). Therefore vi-
olators, includingpolitical leaders, militarycommanders, and other gov-
ernment officials, who directly or indirectly damage world heritage
sites, are considered international criminals. They are subject to severe
punishment if found guilty when brought before the International
Court of Law at The Haguein The Netherlands. UNESCO has strong sup-
port from nearly all countries of the world. Only five countries (Somalia,
Nauru, Liechtenstein, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu) do not belong to UNESCO. At
present, atotal of 1 052 World Heritage sites have been established and
listed (UNESCO, 2017). Several of the African national parks including
the globally famous Serengeti (Fig. 1) are world heritage sites.
Funding African Wildlife Protection and Conservation
Poaching Is Primary Threat to African Wildlife
The primary short-term threat for African wildlife is much more a
problem of poaching than a lack of habitat, so we highlight the impor-
tance of increasing protection through law enforcement. Due to inade-
quate funds, roughly 20% of the land area in national parks and
reserves receives active protection to prevent poaching (Mansourian
Table 1
Primaryprotected wildlifeareas in eastern and southern Africadenoting country,size, and
world heritage status.
Wildlife-protected areas
1
Country Size
2
(ha) World
heritage sites
Chobe N. P. Botswana 1 169 583 No
Moremi Game Preserve Botswana 492 115 No
Amboseli N. P. Kenya 39 206 No
Lake Nakuru N. P. Kenya 18 908 No
Samburu N. P. Kenya 16 501 No
Nairobi N. P. Kenya 11 721 No
Tsavo East and West N. P. Kenya 2 281 342 No
Masai Mara R. Kenya 151 002 No
Gorongosa N. P. Mozambique 3 770 000 No
Etosha N. P. Namibia 2 227 469 No
Kgalagadi Transfrontier P. R.S.A./Botswana 3 885 120 No
Kruger N. P. R. S. A. 1 948 630 Yes
Selous Game Reserve Tanzania 4 478 815 Yes
Lake Manyara N. P. Tanzania 33 671 No
Tarangire N. P. Tanzania 258 008 No
Kilimanjaro N. P. Tanzania 168 873 Yes
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Tanzania 809 481 Yes
Serengeti N. P. Tanzania 1 476 346 Yes
Ruaha N. P. Tanzania 2 026 333 No
Bwindi Impenetrable N. P. Uganda 33 153 No
Kafue N. P. Zambia 864 439 No
Hwange N. P. Zimbabwe 1 464 609 No
Victoria Falls N. P. Zimbabwe 12 331 No
1
Subunits include Kalahari National Park in Republic of South Africa and Gemsbok
National Park in Botswana.
2
Area size is from Wikipedia, 2017a, b.
247J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
and Dudley, 2008; Lindsey et al. 2016). Consequently, due to inadequate
law enforcement, most wildlife-protected areas in Africa are not func-
tioning effectively (Craigie et al., 2010; Lindsey et al. 2014). Between
1970 and 2005, a 59% decline occurred in large animal populations
across African protected areas (Craigie et al. 2010). The largest declines
occurred in western African countries, with intermediate declines in
eastern Africa. However, the southern African countries generally main-
tained or increased their populations. Although the findings from this
study were disappointing, it was concluded that many species owe
their existence to protected areas, so they are vital for wildlife
conservation.
Law enforcement is focused on those areas where ecotourism and
sport hunting are significant, which are primarily the national parks/re-
serves listed in Table 1. Outside of these protected areas, the welfare of
wildlife depends heavily on the attitudes of indigenouspeople and how
their livelihoods are impacted by wildlife (Norton-Griffiths, 2007;
Conniff, 2009; Western et al. 2009; Ogutu et al. 2011; Lindsey et al.
2014). We share the view of several experts that the key to sustaining
wildlife across Africa is to focus on making wildlife an important eco-
nomic asset to ethnic communities. Ecotourism, sport hunting,
bushmeat consumption, and the sale of animal by-products are the
basic ways that rural African communities can benefit from wildlife con-
servation, which we discuss later.
Funding Sources for African Wildlife Conservation
Various African wildlife experts emphasize that inadequate funding
is the major obstacle in establishing viable African wildlife protection
and conservation programs (Lindsey et al. 2007, 2014, 2016; Cousins
et al. 2008; Craigie et al. 2010; Pack et al. 2013). African governments
in general do not financially support conservation programs outside of
national parks and reserves. Therefore, alternative sources of conserva-
tion funding are necessary. An example of a successful funding source in
the United States is the Pittman-Robertson Act, which levies a tax on
sporting arms and ammunition (later expanded to other products)
(Anderson, 2001; Bolen and Robinson, 2003; Pack et al. 2013). These
funds are collected by the federal government and reapportioned to
the states for use in wildlife conservation programs. A similar tax pro-
gram could be developed in some African countries. Because of corrup-
tion, taxes to promote wildlife conservation in African countries would
require strict supervision to ensure that these funds are assigned to
specified wildlife conservation projectssuch as law enforcement, popu-
lation monitoring, habitat improvement, species restoration, and
community-based conservation projects. These programs should be de-
veloped with strict accountability rules and should be monitored by
outside nongovernmental organizations. For a detailed discussion of
how different countries finance wildlife conservation programs, a com-
parison of their relative effectiveness, and recommendations on how to
enhance funding in African countries, we refer the reader to Pack et al.
(2013). Law enforcement practices proven to be effective in different
situations on African protected areas are discussed in detail by D’udine
et al. (2016).
Another innovative approach is to allow landholders, community
groups, and investors outside protected areas to lease and sell game ani-
mals to private operations involved in ecotourism and hunting (Wilson
et al. 2016). In effect, this would establish a policy of devolving user rights,
or ownership of wildlife, to landholders. This market-based incentive,
principally through the lucrative big game hunting and ecotourism indus-
tries, would promote conservation actions including captive breeding of
endangered species, restoration of wildlife species with restricted distri-
butions, and increasing wildlife abundance. The policy of privatizing wild-
life is firmly established in RSA but needs to be implemented throughout
the region. We view ending the hegemony of some governments over
wildlife resources to be critically important in developing sustainable con-
servation programs at the community level.
Payments for Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem system services are basic processes (e.g., climatic stabili-
ty, biodiversity, water purification, nutrient cycling, air purification) es-
sential for human life performed by natural or near natural landscapes
(West, 1993). Direct payments by tourist companies to community
landholders for provision of ecosystem services can be an effective
tool to maintain wildlife habitat and conserve biodiversity (Norton-
Griffiths, 2007; Nelson et al. 2009). Under this approach, communities
are paid to voluntarily restrict activities harmful to wildlife such as per-
manent settlement, agricultural land conversion, and tree felling for
charcoal production (Nelson et al. 2016). As an example, a consortium
of tourist operators made direct monthly payments to a village located
in a key wildlife dispersal area adjacent to Tarangire National Park in
Tanzania (Nelson et al. 2009). As part of this arrangement, salaries and
equipment were provided for four village scouts to participate in wild-
life monitoring. Although settlement was restricted, seasonal cattle
grazing could be continued because it did not conflict with wildlife con-
servation and was economically important to the community. We refer
readers to Di Minin et al. (2016), and Pack et al. (2013) for additional
discussion of funding approaches for wildlife conservation in Africa.
Importance of Ecotourism in Conserving African Wildlife
During the past 30 yr, wildlife ecotourism in the eastern and south-
ern Africa region has become increasingly important economically, as
well as in providing incentives for wildlife conservation. Wildlife eco-
tourism is defined as environmentally responsible travel involving
viewing and photographing wild animals in their natural habitat
(Newsome et al. 2005; Honey, 2008; International Ecotourism Society,
2017). It commonly involves an adventure travel tour package with a
safari involving stays in eco-lodges or tent camps. Most wildlife tourists
are from the United States followed by Western Europe, Canada, and
Australia, although its popularity is growing in China and Japan. It has
become one of the most prestigious forms of recreation in today’sglob-
alized world. Important features typical of wildlife ecotourism are visits
to areas in high ecological condition, conservation education, contribu-
tion of funds for conservation, and minimization of deleterious effects
on natural landscapes (Newsome et al. 2005; International Ecotourism
Society, 2017).
The potential growth of ecotourism and wildlife ranching is best ex-
emplified by RSA. This country is at the forefront in ecotourism because
of its high-quality national parks and private wildlife reserves, excellent
Figure 1. Serengeti white-bearded wildebeest (Connochaetes mearnsi) and plains zebra
(Equus quagga) on the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. The Serenget i, one of the
world’s top 10 natural wonders, is renowned for its wildlife and grassland landscapes.
(Photo by Jerry Holechek.)
248 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
quality and variety of tourist accommodations, stable government, and
diversity of outdoor activities.In RSA, over half of ecotourism and 80% of
nature conservation occurs on private lands (van der Merwe and
Saayman, 2003).
Positives and Negatives of Ecotourism
Ecotourism has played an important role in sustaining and in some
situations increasing wildlife in eastern and southern Africa. It has
given economic value to many endangered animals and therefore pro-
vided critical incentives for conservation of wildlife and their habitat
(Akama et al. 2011; INTOSAI, 2013; UNWTO, 2014; Schaul, 2014). Com-
monly recognized benefits of wildlife ecotourism include provision of in-
come to local communities, generation of funds for wildlife conservation,
provision of funds for African governments through tourist visas and na-
tional park user fees, generation of employment at various levels ranging
from tour guides to staff needed for hotels/lodges, and generation of funds
for antipoaching enforcement (INTOSAI, 2013, UNWTO, 2014).
Although the benefits are many, there are important criticisms of
how wildlife ecotourism is typically conducted. Infrastructure such as
roads, airports, and hotels/lodges needed for large-scale ecotourism
have some adverse impacts on protected wildlife habitats (INTOSAI,
2013). Wildlife behavior modifications sometimes occur from increased
disturbance and human interactions. An important criticism is that little
of the money paid by wildlife tourists benefits local communities in
terms of improving schools, sanitation, domestic water availability,
and food production and as direct-income payments (Groom and Har-
ris, 2008; Akama et al. 2011; INTOSAI, 2013; Somerville, 2015). Howev-
er, the magnitude of this concern varies by country, by area within
country, by community, and by tourist company (Groom and Harris,
2008; Rushby, 2011; Somerville, 2015). From a wildlife conservation
standpoint, a Kenya study indicated that the spread was more impor-
tant than the quantity of money derived from wildlife tourism
(Groom and Harris, 2008). It was recommended that at least one mem-
ber of every extended family receive some benefit from wildlife. An es-
sential responsibility of the ecotourism companies is to make sure that
ethnic land users/landholders actually receive significant monetary
and nonmonetary benefits for wildlife conservation (Rushby, 2011;
Somerville, 2015). When this does not occur, wildlife is often jeopar-
dized regardless of legal protection (Hazzah et al. 2014; Quammen,
2014; Somerville, 2015). Conversely, the effectiveness of monetary
and other incentives provided to pastoral communities by tourist com-
panies to implement wildlife conservation practices has been well doc-
umented (Nelson et al. 2009; Rushby, 2011; Hazzah et al. 2014).
Wildlife tourists can make an important contribution to wildlife conser-
vation by selecting only ecotourism companies that validate they are
providing a meaningful part of their profits to the ethnic landholders/
landusers of the lands visited in their tours. Later, we discuss policy
changes that will allow African communities to derive greater benefits
from wildlife conservation and associated wildlife tourism. We refer
readers to van der Merwe and Saayman (2003, 2005) for detailed eco-
nomic assessments of the value of ecotourism on game farms in RSA.
Role of Sport Hunting in African Wildlife Conservation
How Sport Hunting Has Helped Wildlife Recovery
Sport hunting has played a major role in recovery and conservation
of wildlife populations in some African countries. After considering
wildlife conservation models used by different countries of the world,
Pack et al. (2013) concluded those models involving controlled hunting
were more effective in sustaining wildlife populations and their habitat
than those in which hunting was banned. This poses the question of
how hunting could contribute to wildlife conservation. The simple ex-
planation is that hunting, when well managed, creates financial incen-
tives for landholders to sustain game species and their habitat
(Lindsey et al. 2006, 2007, 2012; Norton-Griffiths, 2007; Pack et al.
2013). Very importantly, it generates income that governments can
use for wildlife conservation and protection (Pack et al. 2013). As a
point of interest, we note that during the early 1900s, hunters played
a key role in the establishment of wildlife-protected areas in various
African countries (Fitter and Scott, 1978; Adams, 2004).
Status of African Sport Hunting
Sport hunting is allowed in 23 sub-Saharan African countries and is
popular,widely practiced,and economicallyimportant. Abundant hunt-
ing opportunities are available for several wild ungulates but limited
and expensive for the big five (Lindsey et al. 2007; Pack et al. 2013;
IUCN, 2016). White rhinos are hunted on a limited basis in RSA (IUCN,
2016). In addition, a few conservation black rhino hunts, so named be-
cause most of the funds are channeled into rhino conservation projects,
are auctioned by Namibia and RSA (Knight and Emslie, 2015; IUCN,
2016). Wealthy hunters can legally take Cape buffalo and leopard in
several African countries (Lindsey et al. 2007; IUCN, 2016). Elephant
and lion hunting are allowed in the southern African countries and
Tanzania, although both are restricted and very costly ($35,000 to
$75,000) (Lindsey et al. 2007; Pack et al. 2013).
Conservation Benefits of Sport Hunting
Sport (trophy) hunting for recreation is an important wildlife con-
servation tool because it gives wildlife value while leaving a relatively
small footprint. However, it has staunch opponents that typically
argue the killing of game animals for recreation is inhumane and moral-
ly wrong. We will focus on sport hunting as conservation and income
tools. We refer the reader to Rinella (2014),Mathiesen (2015),Lindsey
et al. (2016),Rivera (2016),Muposhi et al. (2016),andNelson et al.
(2016) for recent discussions on the controversies and ethics of
African sport hunting. Some benefits of African sport hunting discussed
by Lindsey et al. (2007) include generation of income in areas where al-
ternatives such as ecotourism are not available, reduction of illegal
hunting (poaching), provision of a tool for problem animal control,
and high revenue yield per client with minimal environmental impact.
Another benefit is that concessionaires holdinghunting privileges in re-
mote areas help prevent poaching (Pack et al. 2013). Sport hunting is
compatible with other land uses such as livestock production, firewood
extraction, and ecotourism when properly managed (Lindsey et al.
2007). Although sport hunting is regulated in countries of eastern and
southern Africa where it is legal, there have been problems of overhar-
vest of certain species (e.g., lion) and corruption in implementation in
some countries (Lindsey et al. 2007; Leader-Williams et al. 2009;
IUCN, 2016; Nelson et al. 2016). Kenya in 1977 and, most recently,
Botswana in 2014 (on public lands) have banned sport hunting
(Clotuche, 2014; Maruping-Mzileni, 2015; Saayman, 2015).
Modern sport hunting typically involves controls over various as-
pects of wildlife harvest, so populations are maintained or increased.
These controls involve species that can be killed, numbers of animals
that can be taken, locations where hunting is permitted, timing and
length of hunting seasons, and permissible weapons (Anderson, 2001;
Bolen and Robinson, 2003; Lindsey et al. 2007; IUCN, 2016).
Numerous examples from Eurasian, North American, and southern
African countries indicate that sport hunting can play a critical role in
wildlife conservation, including species considered rare and endan-
gered. Sport hunting can generate funds for wildlife law enforcement
and management, and it can create monetary incentives to sustain
and improve wildlife habitat (Anderson, 2001; Bolen and Robinson,
2003; Lindsey et al. 2007, 2016; Norton-Griffiths, 2007; Pack et al.
2013; Adams, 2015; IUCN, 2016). Excessive harvest has contributed to
the decline of certain wildlife species such as lion (Lindsey et al. 2012,
2013a, 2013b; Brink et al. 2016; Stein et al. 2016). However, wildlife
population declines can also result when hunting is banned as
249J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
incentives and funds for conservation are diminished (Norton-Griffiths
2007; Lindsey et al. 2007, 2016; Conniff 2009; Pack et al. 2013; Adams
2015). We recognize that when animals become rare and endangered,
complete protection is sometimes warranted. Wildlife, especially large
predators, and grazing animals that compete with livestock for forage
are typically viewed as liabilities to be eliminated unless landowners
can generate income through the sale of hunting opportunities, animal
by-products, and/or meat (Norton-Griffiths, 2007; Conniff, 2009, Kay,
2009; Nelson et al. 2013; Pack et al. 2013; Saayman, 2015; Christy, 2016).
Effects of Hunting on African Wildlife Populations
There is compelling evidence that complete bans of sport hunting
can have adverse effects on wildlife populations. As an example,
Kenya, which has banned hunting for 40 years, has a steep declining
trend in wildlife populations (60 −70% decline in large grazing and
predatory animals outside protected areas) compared with upward
trends in RSA, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, which have actively developed
sport hunting over thepast 3 decades (The Economist, 2007; Kay, 2009;
Lansing, 2010; Nelson et al. 2013; Pack et al. 2013; Maruping-Mzileni,
2015). It has been well documented that many ethnic landuser/land-
holder groups in Kenya view wildlife as liability and lack incentives for
wildlife conservation (Groom andHarris, 2008; Pack et al. 2013; Hazzah
et al. 2014; Somerville, 2015). Large-scale poisoning by indignant
landusers/landholders is emerging as a much more serious threat to
African wildlife than any form of hunting (Barley, 2009; Torchia, 2017).
On the other hand, because of financial incentives involving hunting,
wild herbivore populations on private lands in RSA increased from a half
million in the 1960s to 6 million presently (Carruthers, 2008; Taylor
et al. 2016). In Namibia, wildlife populations on private land doubled
between 1970 and 2000 (Van Schalkwyk et al., 2010). This is because
private landowners were granted legal ownership of game, which in-
centivized them to develop fee hunting programs in RSA and Namibia
(Bond et al. 2004; Lindsey et al. 2007; Carruthers, 2008; Kay, 2009;
Nelson et al. 2013; van der Merwe and Saayman, 2014). Wealthy
sport hunters, primarily from the United States, have made game
ranching a profitable enterprise that is economically competitive and
compatible with livestock production (Bond et al. 2004; Lindsey et al.
2007; Cousins et al. 2008; Dry, 2011; Saayman et al. 2011; van der
Merwe and Saayman, 2014; IUCN, 2016). In RSA, it has been well docu-
mented that wildlife ranches are making important contributions to the
economy through taxes, employment, and demand for tourist services
(hotels, restaurants, airlines) while sustainably providing game animals
for trophy hunters (Bond et al. 2004; Patterson and Khosa, 2005;
Saayman et al. 2011; vander Merwe and Saayman, 2014; SouthwickAs-
sociates,2015; IUCN, 2016). Legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in
RSA has motivated private landowners to raise rhinos on their lands
(Pack et al. 2013). This has been a major factor in white rhino numbers
increasing from b100 in 1900 to around 20,000 today (Bond et al. 2004;
Pack et al. 2013; IUCN 2016). We refer readers to Pack et al. (2013) for
additional discussion of the effectiveness of hunting versus no-hunting
models for wildlife conservation.
Big Five Conservation and Sport Hunting
The big five African game animals present a special management
challenge because they are dangerous to humans but have the high
values from sport hunting and wildlife tourism standpoints. Of the big
five, leopard and Cape buffalo populations are holding up well in most
parts of eastern and southern Africa (Lindsey et al. 2007; IUCN, 2016).
However, there is major concern about the future of lion, elephant,
and rhino populations, which we discuss later.
The existence of the big five outside of national parks and reserves
depends heavily on sport hunting. Income from sport hunting has
been a major incentive for certain countries (Tanzania, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Namibia, RSA) to retain vast
landscapes in native plant communities with minimal infrastructure
(Bond et al. 2004; Leader-Williams et al. 2005; Lindsey et al. 2007;
Nelson et al. 2013; Pack et al. 2013; IUCN 2016). Otherwise, these land-
scapes would be converted to more intensive agricultural uses that
would drastically reduce or eliminate many species, especially the big
five animals, along with cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), common hippo
(Hippopotamus amphibius), and Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). In
RSA, 6 million wild herbivores now occur on roughly 9 000 game
ranches (Taylor et al. 2016). In Zimbabwe, expansion of controlled
sport hunting has quadrupled wildlife populations (Bond et al. 2004)
and doubled the amount of area available to large dangerous wildlife
species, which would otherwise be restricted to national parks
(Leader-Williams et al. 2005). Namibia, which has actively developed
sport hunting, has had major increases in black and white rhinos, lion,
elephant, mountain zebra (Equus zebra), and several other wildlife spe-
cies over the past 30 yr (Leader-Williams et al. 2005; Lindsey et al.
2007). Large blocks of wildlife habitat have also been set aside for eco-
tourism (Lindsey et al. 2007). However, many rangeland areas are poor-
ly suited for ecotourism due to their remoteness, lack of infrastructure,
and low wildlife diversity and density that can provide high-quality
sport hunting (Lindsey et al. 2007). Without sport hunting, these
lands for themost part would be converted to human-dominated land-
scapes (settlement, farming, intensive livestock production) that are in-
compatible with wildlife. Even in the most popular African tourism
countries, the amountof land devoted to ecotourism is only a small por-
tion (5%) of total wildlife habitat (Norton-Griffiths, 2007; Winterbach
et al. 2015). We note that in RSA about 14% of the land area supports
wildlife-based enterprises,compared with 6.3% declared as formal con-
servation areas (Kreuter et al. 2010).
Sport hunting provides an important mechanism to make large, dan-
gerous animals such as elephant, Cape buffalo, hippo, lion, rhino, leop-
ard, and crocodile an asset to indigenous people who have options of
either eliminating or coexisting with these animals (Lindsey et al.
2007; Nelson et al. 2013). Further, sport hunting also provides an
income-generating mechanism from the sale of animals that must be
removed because they exceed rangeland carrying capacity and/or jeop-
ardize human life (Lindsey et al. 2007). In most of eastern and southern
Africa outside of national parks, ecotourism reserves, and game ranches,
wildlife law enforcement is weak to nonexistent (Lindsey et al. 2007,
2014, 2016; Craigie et al. 2010). The attitudes and cooperation of indig-
enous people play a critical role in whether wild animals thrive or perish
regardless of hunting bans and other laws directed toward protection
(Lindsey et al. 2007, 2014; Norton-Griffiths 2007; Nelson et al. 2013).
Lion Conservation Issues
Local ethnic communities have a strong motivation to eliminate
lions because they prey on both livestock and people. Keep in mind
that Americans were quick to eliminate wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos), and mountain lions (Puma concolor) from farming
and ranching areas for these same reasons.
Roughly, a 50% decline has occurred in African lion populations since
1993 (Bauer et al. 2015, 2016). This is attributed to human conflicts,
habitat loss, and illegal or poorly controlled hunting (Nelson et al.
2013; Packer 2015a; Bauer et al. 2015, 2016). Current estimates of
African lion populations range from 23 000 to 39 000 (IUCN 2012). Al-
though lions live on unprotected and protected lands, they are increas-
ingly being restricted to large, fenced, protected areas due to human
conflicts (Fig. 2)(Pack et al. 2013; Packer 2015b). There is strong
doubt lion populations can be sustained outside of national parks with
or without hunting bans, unless major economic incentives are provid-
ed to local landholders (Lindsey et al. 2012, 2013a, 2016; Nelson et al.
2013; Pack et al. 2013). These incentives involve monetary payments
and other benefits to local communities to sustain lions, compensation
for livestock losses from lion depredation, and opportunities for income
from sport hunting. All three strategies can be effective in lion
250 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
conservation but depend on vibrant ecotourism and sport hunting in-
dustries (Rushby, 2011; Lindsey et al. 2012, 2013a; Nelson et al. 2013;
Hazzah et al. 2014).
Performance payment programs that reward tribal groups such as
the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania for having lions and other wildlife
on their lands may be preferable to compensation programs for depre-
dation losses (Wadhams, 2010; Hazzah et al. 2014). A detailed study
on Maasai lands in Kenya over 8 yr found both types of interventions
drastically reduced (N80%) the number of lions killed. However, the au-
thors commented that direct performance payment programs appear
more cost effective, easier to administer, and less likely to create the
moral hazard of poor livestock care than programs providing compen-
sation for livestock losses. It was concluded that lion conservation de-
pends heavily on involvement of local people and should not rely on a
single incentive. The incentives should be tailored to the specific values
and culture of the relevant communities.
Sport hunting gives lions monetary value and provides a practical
mechanism to remove problem lions preying on livestock and people.
Kenya, which prohibits lion hunting, has experienced a drastic lion pop-
ulation decline (60−70%) since the 1970s (Western et al. 2009; Nelson
et al. 2013; Bauer et al. 2015; Martin,2015). Kenya currently has about 2
000 remaining lions, which were declining at around 100 animals per
year (Barley, 2009). In Kenya, the ban on hunting has been ineffective
in stopping the killing of lions on unprotected and protected lands (na-
tional parks and reserves) by local communities (Gathura, 2009; Hazzah
et al. 2009; Somerville, 2015). Tanzania, which has more lions than any
other country (about 16 800, 40% of African lions), has had smaller de-
clines in lion populations than most other African countries including
Kenya (Nelson et al. 2013; Bauer et al. 2015). Tanzania attributes its ca-
pability in sustaining high lion populations, in part, to legally regulated
sport hunting, which gives them monetary value. RSA and Namibia have
increasing lion populations because of relocation and reestablishment,
along with associated fencing for sport hunting (Lindsey et al. 2013a;
Nelson et al. 2013, Bauer et al. 2015).
An important question currently being studied by wildlife scientists
is what level of lion harvest optimizes sustainable lion populations,
maintains prey species, and minimizes human wildlife conflicts
(Cousins et al. 2008; Lindsey et al. 2012; Loveridge et al. 2016). A
major issue relating to lion harvest is that too many lions can adversely
impact other wild animal populations (Cousins et al. 2008). However,
currently overharvest of lions is considered to be a bigger problem
than underharvest on many areas where sport hunting is permitted.
On the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, a detailed long-term
study found reducing the level of lion trophy hunting resulted in a
62% increase in the number of lions (Loveridge et al. 2016). This study
provided evidence that poorly regulated trophy hunting can adversely
impact lion populations and their behavior. However, the authors did
state that well-regulated quotas on lion harvest may be compatible
with their conservation. It was noted that lion populations can quickly
recover when overharvest is curtailed due to their high fecundity rate.
Several papers point out that while overharvest by sport hunting has
contributed to lion declines in some situations, it has also been an im-
portant factor in giving them value that encourages their conservation
(Lindsey et al. 2012, 2013a, 2016; Nelson et al. 2013; Pack et al. 2013;
Brink et al. 2016). This was why the US Fish and Wildlife Service in Oc-
tober 2016 resumed legal lion trophy imports from RSA, which has suc-
cessfully implemented an approved lion conservation plan. Lion harvest
strategies that can be used to avoid overhunting are discussed in detail
by Lindsey et al. (2012, 2013a),Nelson et al. (2013),andBrink et al.
(2016). We refer the reader to Packer (2015b) for a comprehensive per-
spective on African lion status and conservation approaches.
Elephant Conservation Issues
Management of elephant populations is one of the major and most
contentious wildlife conservation challenges in eastern and southern
Africa. Although elephant populations have generally been declining
in northern Africa, the opposite situation exists in much of southern
Africa, where numbers are high, stable, or increasing (Blanc, 2008;
Chase et al. 2016). Botswana leads in savanna elephant numbers with
an estimated 130 000, followed by Zimbabwe with 82 000, RSA with
17 000, and Mozambique with 10 000 (Chase et al. 2016). Our recent
observations are consistent with Duffy (2010),Barrett (2012),Moseley
(2013),Jammot (2015),andConstable (2016) that some national parks
and reserves, as well as community lands in Africa, are overstocked with
elephants. Although high elephant populations may seem desirable,
there is concern that in certain areas they are causing rangeland degra-
dation, reducing habitat quality for other wildlife, damaging crops
grown by villagers, reducing forage for livestock, and endangering
human lives (Fig. 3)(Cousins et al. 2008; Duffy, 2010; Moseley, 2013;
Jammot, 2015). Poisoning of waterholes to kill elephants and other an-
imals by disgruntled pastoral community members and poachers is a
serious emerging threat to Africa’swildlife(Torchia, 2017). This prob-
lem could rapidly escalate like the poisoning problem with lions if mea-
sures are not soon taken to make elephants an asset rather than a
liability to local communities.
Figure2. Female lion in AmboseliNational Park at thebase of Mount Kilimanjaroin Kenya.
Over the past 20 yr, large declines haveoccurred in lion populations in most of Africa due
to habitat loss, conflicts with humans, and poaching. Both ecotourism and sport hunting
give lions value that help in their conservation. (Photo by Jerry Holechek.)
Figure 3. This exclosure on the Amboseli National Park in Kenya, take n in June 2008,
shows the potential effects of elephants on vegetation. (Photo by Jerry Holechek.)
251J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
Elephant Conservation Strategies
The most practical solution to problems caused by excessive ele-
phant populations is to reduce numbers to carrying capacity by culling
or translocation, although the latter option will not be economically fea-
sible in many situations. Sport hunting, sale of ivory, and consumptive
use can make elephants a major economic asset rather than a liability
to pastoral/subsistence agricultural communities (Bonner, 1993;
Duffy, 2010; Jammot, 2015). However, there is considerable opposition
to sport hunting of elephants from environmental groups, mostly in the
United States and Europe (Russo 2014; Jammot, 2015). Nevertheless,
sport hunting of elephants does legally occur in certain eastern and
southern African countries such as RSA, Namibia, Mozambique,
Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Although the Conference on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) bans the sale of ivory,considerable
illegal ivory trade occurs, aided by corruptofficials (Duffy, 2010; Christy,
2016). There is growing support for changing the laws and policies so
that pastoral communities can economically benefit from elephants
through sport hunting, consumptive use, and sale of ivory. The oppo-
nents’concern is that elephants will be excessively harvested, leading
to declining populations as occurred before the CITES ban on ivory trad-
ing in 1989. Before 1989, when ivory sales were legal, the income went
almost entirely to a few privileged people outside pastoral communities
(Adams and McShane, 1992; Bonner, 1993; Duffy, 2010). Therefore, vil-
lagers had no incentive to sustain elephant populations and had justifi-
able reasons to resent them. We refer readers to Pack et al. (2013) and
Christy (2016) for more detailed discussions of African elephant conser-
vation issues with a focus on poaching problems, the ivory trade, and
the role of CITES in elephant protection.
Rhino Conservation Issues
The decimation of global rhino populations is one of the greatest
tragedies involving wildlife over the past 50 yr. Since 1970, the global
rhino population has dropped by more than 90% due primarily to
poaching for its horn (Emslie et al. 2012). Between 1960 and 1995,
poachers reduced the black rhino population in Africa by 98%, with
only 2 500 animals remaining (Emslie et al. 2012). For the past 20 yr,
major recovery programs have been under way for rhinos in both
Africa and Asia, but since 2007 they have been jeopardized by a resur-
gence in poaching (Pack et al. 2013; Christy, 2016).
The high-profile rhino poaching problem in large part is due to the
exclusion of local communities from the economic benefits of rhino
conservation and harvest. In terms of monetary value, rhinos are argu-
ably the world’s most valuable land animal because of the high value
of their horn, high status as trophies with sport hunters, and importance
as a cornerstone animal on African ecotourism areas (Harris and
Freeman, 2013; Pack et al. 2013; Christy, 2016; t’Sas-Rolfes, 2016). Ma-
ture white and black rhinos have a value of about $350 000 for their
horn alone, which can be sustainably removed without harming the an-
imal (Christy, 2016). Sport hunters are willing to pay more than $200
000 to legally hunt a wild black rhino in its natural habitat (Knight
and Emslie, 2015). Alternatively, green hunts are available in which
the rhino is shot with a tranquilizer dart gun rather than killed. Thus,
African rhinos are potentially a major source of income for communities
deriving their livelihoods from rangelands (Harris and Freeman, 2013;
Christy, 2016; t’Sas-Rolfes, 2016). However, because of laws governing
land and wildlife ownership, along with restrictions on international
trade in rhino horn by CITES, rhinos are viewed more as a liability
than an asset by many African communities. This is because they can
be a dangerous animal, a potential competitor with livestock for forage,
and can put ranchers and law enforcement officers in jeopardy from
poaching syndicates. Resentment over the loss of tribal lands for parks
and reserves without compensation is a primary reason local people
are commonly willing accomplices to rhino poaching operations
(Duffy, 2010). The actual poachers are typically impoverished local peo-
ple who receive a minor payment ($100 to $5 000) for killing a rhino
and selling its horn to criminal syndicates that market it in Asian coun-
tries such as China, Taiwan, Vietnam, or Thailand (Duffy, 2010; Christy,
2016; t’Sas-Rolfes, 2016). Even though poachers can be shot on sight by
game wardens in several African countries and penalties for convicted
offenders can be severe, this has not been an effective deterrent to
rhino poaching. Local communities tend to be sympathetic to poachers
and may depend on poaching for income. To reverse this situation, a fair
percentage of profits generated from rhino conservation programs must
be apportioned to local communities so that they are incentivized to
protect rhinos and discourage community members from poaching
(Harris and Freeman, 2013; Christy, 2016; t’Sas-Rolfes, 2016).
Rhino Farming as a Conservation Tool
Horns can be easily removed from rhinos without harmful effects,
just as wool can be removed from sheep. Rhino horn is quickly regrown.
It is argued by some conservationists that if the CITES trade ban on rhino
horn was modified to allow its commercial production, there would be a
major incentive to increase rhino populations (Duffy, 2010; Child,2012;
Biggs et al. 2013; Christy, 2016; Mahoney, 2017a and 2017b). Concur-
rently, poaching would be reduced due to an increased rhinohorn sup-
ply, making poaching less profitable. Rhino owners would have more
funds to protect rhinos from poaching and would be incentivized to
raise more of them. Stiff trade sanctions on countries involved in illegal-
ly selling rhino horn have been proposed, but this may be less practical
and effective than allowing commercial rhino horn production.
On the basis of experiences with crocodiles in Africa and vicuña
(Vicugna vicugna) in South America, commercial farming of rhinos
could be effective in reducing poaching and facilitating population re-
covery. In the 1950s, crocodiles in southern Africa were decimated by
poaching because of the high value of their hides for leather (Cott and
Pooley, 1971). However, the development of commercial crocodile
farming in the 1960s minimized the poaching problem (Revol, 1995).
Crocodiles are now abundant on many eastern and southern Africa
game parks and reserves, and they are common in several rivers,
lakes, and marshlands that are not under protection. In the United
States, crocodile and alligator farming has been important in population
recovery since the 1960s (Moyle, 2013.) The vicuña in South America
provides another example of how legalization of farming (wool) could
facilitate rhino recovery, although this approach has critics (Nowak,
2015). An economic model of rhino farming impacts on poaching by
Bulte and Damania, (2005) gave an uncertain outcome regarding
Figure 4.Greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), likemany other African antelopes, occur
in scrublands and woodlands where browse is the principal forage. (Photo by Jerry
Holechek.)
252 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
whether it would decrease or increase poaching. Rhino farming appears
to be a last resort option if other measures such as development of syn-
thetic rhino horn, improved law enforcement, possible trade sanctions,
and campaigns to change Asian consumer behavior fail. Child (2012)
and Biggs et al. (2013) make compelling arguments that allowing a reg-
ulated legal trade in rhino horn, legalizing rhino horn farming, and de-
volving the ownership of rhinos to private, communal, and state
landholders would alleviate the poaching problemand allow rhino pop-
ulation recovery.
If poaching was brought under control, rhino populations in many
areas of Africa could rapidly be restored if restocking occurred because
extensive habitat remains (Pack et al. 2013). There are now black and
white rhino captive breeding programs on privately owned Texas
rangelands to provide a reserve of animals for restocking native lands
in Africa (Forsyth, 2015). A similar program is underway in Australia
(Verhagen, 2016). However, the rhino poaching problem must be re-
solved before restocking is feasible. We refer the reader to Pack et al.
(2013) for a more detailed discussion of potential strategies involving
both hunting and no-hunting models for recovery of African rhino
populations.
Importance of Community ownership and Management in African
Wildlife Conservation
A major problem confronting southern African wildlife is that wild-
life ownership is generally at the state rather than local community
level. We do recognize RSA and Namibia as exceptions where land-
owners are major owners of wildlife. Protection of wild animals and
their habitat heavily depends on the commitment of people at the
local level to wildlife conservation (Lindsey et al. 2007, 2014; Duffy,
2010; Nelson et al. 2013; Pack et al.2013). Much of Africa consists of di-
verse ethnic communities with their own cultures, customs, and lan-
guages. These ethnic groups in many cases lack formalized legal
ownership of their historic tribal lands and associated water, minerals,
wood, and wildlife resources, on which they depend for their liveli-
hoods (Lindsey et al. 2007; Pica-Ciamarra et al. 2007; Rass, 2012;
Holechek et al. 2017). Pastoralism and small-scale farming typically
play key roles in providing livelihoods for these ethnic groups (Pica-
Ciamarra et al. 2007; Rass 2012). However, ecotourism and sport hunt-
ing in many cases could also become major sources of income if legal
rights to land and wildlife ownerships were established (Lindsey et al.
2007; Pack et al. 2013; Holechek et al. 2017). We consider pastoralism
to be highly compatible with wildlife conservation when it is practiced
using scientific range management principles in multispecies grazing
programs. However, the political/economic system must facilitate pas-
toralism in generating income from wildlife, as well as livestock. In
most cases, African pastoral communities have limited or no potential
to generate income from wildlife due to the political frameworks in
the various countries (Lindsey et al. 2007, 2014; Norton-Griffiths,
2007; Duffy, 2010; Nelson et al. 2013).
There are several cases in which African parks and wildlife reserves
established over the past 40 yr for ecotourism resulted in displacement
and relocation of long-established ethnic communities (Duffy, 2010).
These actions compromised or ended their subsistence lifestyles by de-
priving them of historical grazing and hunting lands. Promised benefits
such as education and health services, along with income from ecotour-
ism and sport hunting, never materialized (Duffy, 2010). African gov-
ernments have typically relegated hunting and ecotourism
concessions on community lands to extraneous operators and foreign
investors, causing resentment among villagers and pastoralists (Duffy,
2010).
Community-Based Natural Resource Management
We believe Community-Based Natural Resource Management
(CBNRM) has much potential to sustain and enhance wildlife
populations and biodiversity on southern Africa rangelands that are
not part of national parks and reserves. It involves integrating conserva-
tion and economic benefits for pastoral/subsistence farming communi-
ties that derive their livelihoods from livestock grazing and/or rain-fed
crop production (Tsing et al. 1999, Twyman, 2000, Child et al. 2010). A
specific ethnic group typically controls these lands such as the Maasai
in Kenya or the Zulu in South Africa. The primary concepts in CBNRM
are that communities should be allowed to manage the wildlife on
their lands and benefitfinancially from doing so (Tsing et al. 1999;
Twyman, 2000). Key premises are that people will conserve a resource
only if the benefits exceed the costs of conservation and that people
will conserve a resource linked directly to their quality of life. The prob-
lems in actual application of CBNRM involve conflicts of interest,
avoiding exclusion of less influential community members, and the ero-
sion of involved local institutions (Twyman, 2000; Campbell et al.
2001). Optimizing objectives of socioeconomic development, biodiver-
sity protection, and sustainable use of natural resources can be a formi-
dable, contentious task, especially among people with limited literacy.
Although they have imperfections, the United Nations, World Bank,
World Wildlife Fund, and various nongovernmental conservation orga-
nizations are all supportive of CBNRM, because of its potential to simul-
taneously enhance wildlife conservation and alleviate poverty. Under
CBNRM, sport hunting, distribution of meat from culled animals to com-
munity members, selling of wildlife by-products, and wildlife tourism
can be used to enhance household income, as well as generate funds
for schools, wells, solar heat and electricity, and sanitation facilities. Ex-
cept for RSA, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, strong government support for
CBNRM in Africa has been lacking. CITES restrictions on the sale of
ivory and rhino horn are another impediment to CBNRM. Federal gov-
ernments control sport hunting across eastern and southern Africa,
with various communities generally excluded from sharing the revenue
from the sale of licenses/tags (Lindsey et al. 2007, 2014). Outsiders are
commonly given the hunting concessions on community lands. Never-
theless, CBNRM has given several communities incentives to conserve
wildlife (Barnes et al. 2002; Kreuter et al. 2010). Meat from surplus or
culled animals and employment in local ecotourism and sport hunting
operations or as rangers and tour guides for national parks and reserves
have been the primary realized benefits. We refer the reader to Child
et al. (2010) for a detailed review of the evolution of CBNRM in southern
Africa and future strategy recommendations.
The Savé Story
In RSA, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, several wildlife conservancies have
been effective in achieving goals of both wildlife conservation and im-
proving human living conditions. Kreuter et al. (2010) provide three
case studies of wildlife conservation under CBNRM in southern Africa.
We have chosen the Savé Wildlife Conservancy in Zimbabwe as an ex-
ample because it has been widely publicized, its history has been well
documented, it has received several awards, it is the world’s largest na-
ture conservancy (350 000 ha), and it integrates both communal and
private land (Alessi and Alessi, 1999; Lindsey et al. 2007; Kreuter et al.
2010; CIC 2016). We refer the reader to Kreuter et al. (2010) for a de-
tailed critique of the history, success, and problems of the Savé Conser-
vancy. The Savé area wasconverted to a nature conservancy devoted to
the restoration of rangeland habitats and wildlife populations in 1992.
Previously it was a large livestock ranch with degraded rangeland and
depleted wildlife. A long-term plan was developed to foster ecotourism
through sustainable wildlife use that involved removal of livestock and
fences. A critical foresight was that of sharing economic benefits with
surrounding communities, which were densely populated and
impoverished. It was recognized by the founders that local community
support would be needed for the project to be successful. The conser-
vancy presently plays a major role in managing critically endangered
species, such as rhinos and lion. Conservation and research programs
have been implemented for several species, including leopard and
253J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
Cape hunting (painted) dog (Lycaon pictus). The conservancy supports
diverse, thriving wildlife populationscomposed of more than 4 000 buf-
faloes, 1 600 elephants, and more than 160 black and white rhinos.
Poaching is under control due to the highly trained antipoaching unit
and its close ties to local communities, which cooperate in reporting
poaching. Culturaltourism and the sale of artisanalproducts are alsoim-
portant sources of employment to communities within the conservan-
cy. The Savé has well established and respected ecotourism and big
game hunting programs.
Despite its conservation successes, the future of the Savé is in doubt.
Human encroachment has occurred on 25% of the area in the southern
half of the Savé due to Zimbabwe political policies involving land na-
tionalization and population resettlement (Kreuter et al. 2010). Break-
down of local institutions is an important CBNRM problem in
Zimbabwe (Campbell et al. 2001). The success of wildlife conservancies
in RSA and Namibia is considered higher than in Zimbabwe because
property rights are more secure (Barnes et al. 2002; Kreuter et al.,
2010). In Namibia, Barnes et al. (2002) documented that conservancies
applying CBNRM have been economically effective at local levels, have
helped conserve wildlife, and have contributed positively to national
development. A detailed review of the economic, social, and conserva-
tion value of nature conservancies in RSA and Namibia is provided by
Taylor et al. (2016).
Combining CBNRM and Localized Development
In our experience, CBNRM has the most potential for success when
combined with localized development projects as discussed by
Holechek et al. (2017). The goals of these projects are to improve living
conditions, education, healthcare, and incomes of communities, while
concurrently enhancing conservation of wildlife, soil, and water re-
sources. Family planning assistance, equal education for both genders,
empowerment of women,food self-sufficiency, development of renew-
able energy, improved sanitation, and development of hand crafts are
important components of these projects (Heinberg and Fridley 2016;
Holecheket al. 2017). Empowerment and education of women is an es-
pecially important part of localized development (Coppock et al. 2011;
Coppock and Desta, 2013). In pastoral African cultures, women are
often the leaders of collective action groups involved in conservation,
education, healthcare, and family planning programs. When significant
improvement occurs in their education and quality of life, people have
more capability to conserve andimprove, rather thanunsustainably ex-
ploit natural resources on which they depend.
African Rangelands, Wildlife, and Food Security
Food security is a major concern across Africa because of its rapidly
increasing human populations, coupled with lagging food production
in several countries (Cribb, 2010; Brown, 2012). Sub-Saharan Africa
has the highest number and percentage of undernourished people in
the world (Cribb, 2010; Brown, 2012; World Hunger Education Service,
2013). Since the 1990s, serious consideration has been given to using
African wildlife as a primary source of meat (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1997).
Wild meat or “bushmeat”(meat from wild terrestrial vertebrates de-
rived from subsistence or commercial hunting) has been a human
source of “free”meat for millennia.Historically, it has been readily avail-
able in local markets and is now globally in demand. Presently,
bushmeat is mostly illegal and there is concern that unsustainable har-
vest (overhunting) will result in regional wildlife extirpations (Lindsey
et al. 2013b; Ripple et al. 2016). Increasing or even sustaining livestock
production in many regions of Africa may not be economically or envi-
ronmentally viable because of land degradation, global warming, poor
soils, and erratic rainfall. Africa’s rapidly increasing human population
compounds problems relating to bushmeat and livestock production.
Meat affordability, as well as availability, is a growing problem for
many African communities, which is discussed in some detail by
Holechek et al. (2017).
Growing human populations, increasing middle class wealth, im-
proved hunting technologies, and improved transportation in develop-
ing nations, in combination with rising global demand for food and
other products from wild animals, is jeopardizing the future of many
wildlife species (Heubach, 2016; Ripple et al. 2016). Conservation ac-
tions to provide sustainability of African wild mammals used as
bushmeat are discussed by Pack et al. (2013),Heubach, (2016),and
Ripple et al. (2016). These include more legalprotection of wildanimals,
development of funding, incentives and programs for wildlife manage-
ment, provision of alternative foods to communities relying on
bushmeat, education and family planning, developmentof international
policies that discourage demand for threatened wildlife as a source of
food and other products, and increased wildlife law enforcement. Criti-
cal strategies advocated by Ripple et al. (2016) for sustainable bushmeat
production in large part follow our discussion of community-based nat-
ural resource management and localized development. Approaches that
benefit both local people and wildlife will be necessary to avoid a future
of hungry, desperate people inhabiting “empty landscapes”(Ripple
et al. 2016).
African Game Animals as a Meat Source
Many species of African wildlife, when properly managed, have
shown potential as a higher-quantity, lower-input source of meat com-
pared with traditional livestock ranching (Dasman and Mossman, 1961;
Hopcraft, 1986, 2000; Grootenhuis and Prins, 2000; Eves and Ruggiero,
2002). In most arid and semiarid parts of Africa, native ungulates in
many ways are better adapted to range conditions than livestock.
Bushmeat has long been a key component of food security for poor,
marginalized African communities. This is especially the case in sub-
Saharan Africa, where more than 500 species (primarily wild ungulates
and rodents) are consumed (Redmond et al. 2006). For example, pasto-
ral, impoverished ethnic groups in the Serengeti area of Tanzania still
hunt large- and small-sized wild mammals for nutritional and income
purposes (Mfunda and Røskaft, 2010). There is a growing market for
bushmeat in African urban middle- and upper-class communities as a
luxury and/or health food, with purported medicinal properties.
Hence, because it has commodity value, bushmeat can be a major
source of cash revenue. Where it is a primary source of protein,
bushmeat can be a critical safety net during food shortages caused by
drought, economic downturns, and political instability. We refer the
reader to for a detailed comparison of the nutritional values of several
African species used as meat sources.
In summary, it is probable some African rangelands can be more pro-
ductive in terms of human protein needs, if bushmeat is emphasized
over domestic livestock production. Therefore, it has potential as anoth-
er form of game ranching and wildlife cropping. Common-use grazing
involving stocking with combinations of wild and domestic animals,
based on rangeland research studies, may maximize meat production
and financial returns in other situations. An example of a successful
common-use wildlife/livestock grazing program under community-
based natural resource management in the Rift Valley of Kenya is pro-
vided by Tyrrell et al. (2017).
Economics of African Wildlife Ranching
Studies on the economic effectiveness of African wildlife ranching
indicate many variables determine how its profitability will compare
with conventional livestock operations. Economic research on semiarid
savanna rangeland in Zimbabwe by Kreuter and Workman (1994,
1996) didnotsupportclaimsthatwildliferanchingwasmoreprofitable
than cattle ranching on areas with sparse wildlife populations, under
the price/cost and government regulatory conditions of the early
1990s. However, in areas with abundant wildlife populations, mixed
254 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
cattle/wildlife operations were at least as profitable as cattle-only oper-
ations. It was concluded that mixed cattle/wildlife operations were fi-
nancially, economically, and ecologically optimal where wildlife was
abundant. This was because these operations involved lower stocking
rates and spread ranchingrisks. In this study, the authors acknowledged
that government policy, the mix of wild animal species, and the
ranching cost/price structure influenced results. High-hunting-value
animals such as buffalo, elephant, and lion were not present on either
low or high wildlife abundance areas, which lowered wildlife profitabil-
ity. A key conclusion wasthat many factors are involved in determining
whether livestock-only, wildlife-only, or mixed operations will be most
profitable on semiarid southern African rangelands. Therefore, broad
generalizations in many cases will not apply. Each situation must be
assessed independently in terms of government policies, the cost/
price structure, the mix of wildlife species available, the abundance of
wildlife species, land ownership, and the culture of local communities.
Community outreach programs oriented toward socioeconomic de-
velopment that link biodiversity conservation inside and outside of
protected areas should receive more evaluation and emphasis (Wells
and McShane, 2004). Low-input wildlife production systems are an al-
ternative to traditional domestic livestock ranching, and they have po-
tential to elevate rangeland productivity, enhance conservation of
biodiversity, and alleviate poverty and hunger. However, more studies
such as those of Kreuter and Workman (1994, 1996) are needed to eval-
uate the socioeconomic effectiveness of these approaches. We refer the
reader to Taylor et al. (2016) for a detailed review of the economic, so-
cial, and conservation value of wildlife ranching in RSA, including rec-
ommendations for the future.
Woody Plant Encroachment and Wild Ungulates
Woody plant encroachment and dominance is becoming a major
problem in many African arid and semiarid ecosystems. One of the
major African challenges is increasing livestock production on
rangelands where woody species are replacing grasses (Estell et al.
2012). The common management response has been to increase do-
mestic ungulate numbers, especially goats. This often further damages
rangelands along with causing extreme wildlife declines (Ogutu et al.
2016). Managing for the wide diversity of African wildlife, especially an-
telopes that consume a broad range of shrubs, is an alternative manage-
ment approach to increasing goat numbers thatneeds to be evaluatedin
terms of meat offtake, management inputs, rangeland productivity, and
environmental sustainability (Fig. 4). Developing breeds of goats, sheep,
and cattle through genetic selection that are efficient shrub consumers
will be a slow, uncertainprocess. Selectingnative ungulates for semido-
mestication for efficient use of arid shrublands may be more effective
and quicker than developing better adapted livestock (Mysterud,
2010). However, in our opinion, both strategies should be pursued.
We refer the reader to Smit (2004) for a detailed review of woody
plant encroachment problems and restoration approaches using tree
thinning in southern Africa.
Conclusion
We view the future for southern Africa wildlife as one of both peril
and hope. The primary long-term peril is that at the present growth
rate (near 2.2% per yr), the human population across Africa will likely
double in the next 35 −40 yr. There is growing alarm over the rapid
human population increase occurring in Africa (Conniff, 2014; Rieff,
2015; Ban,2016; Holechek et al. 2017). Resources to support the drastic
population increases in African countries are generally meager (Cribb,
2010; Brown, 2012; Rieff, 2015; United Nations, 2015). At present,
about 40% of the people in eastern and southern Africa are
impoverished and exist on $1.25 or less per day (Simmons, 2015).
Most of the land is semiarid to arid with few rivers that can be dammed
for irrigated agriculture and hydropower. Only 10—15% of the land can
be sustainably farmed (CIA, 2017). Large-scale industrial development
has so far not occurred in most of the eastern and southern African re-
gions due to political instability and corruption that discourages foreign
investment, lack of infrastructure, lack of education and workforce
skills, cultural resistance to modernization, and oversupply of basic
goods from eastern Asian countries (Alpert, 2013; Rieff, 2015; Holechek
et al. 2017). If human living conditions sharply deteriorate, some coun-
tries in eastern and southern Africa could devolve into failed states, such
as Somalia and South Sudan (Brown, 2011; Rieff, 2015; Ahmed, 2017).
Poorly regulated hunting and poaching to meet basic human survival
needs could quickly decimate wildlife populations if a major food and/
or energy shock jolted the world economy or sustained drought oc-
curred. Reduced numbers of wild animals and political instability in
Africa, coupled with declining income in Western countries from a
new financial crisis, would adversely impact ecotourism and sport hunt-
ing. Without vibrant ecotourism and sport hunting, we consider the fu-
ture of eastern and southern African wildlife to be precarious.
The positives for eastern and southern African wildlife are that the
animals are both culturally and economically of great importance to
many rural communities. Livestock and wildlife production from
rangelands can be complementary with sound range management. To-
gether, they can increase food and income to many rural communities
across eastern and southern Africa. Income from wildlife ecotourism
and sport hunting is presently critical in providing foreign exchange
currency to most eastern and southern African countries. Large areas
of lands have been set aside for wildlife throughout this region. There
are many innovative options related to ecotourism, sport hunting, and
sale of animal by-products that can make wildlife a major source of in-
come to rural communities. If legalized and carefully regulated, the sale
of both ivory and rhino horn could potentially play an important role in
elephant and rhino conservation. However, it is critical that the income
generated is apportioned primarily to pastoral communities that inhabit
the lands outside of national parks and reserves. These nonprotected
lands can provide additional habitat for rhino, elephants, and several
other endangered wildlife species.
At present, no more than 20% of the protected area in eastern and
southern Africa receives adequate law enforcement (Lindsey et al.
2014, 2016). Roughly $300 to $500 million is annually spent, but $2 to
$3 billion is needed for adequate law enforcement and management
of protected areas. Most of the funding for protection comes from eco-
tourism and sport hunting, rather than African governments. A major
challenge is to find additional sources of funds from the world commu-
nity for adequate law enforcement and management in African national
parks and reserves. Secondly, it is essential these funds arrive where
they are intended and not siphoned off along the way. We refer the
reader to Lindsey et al. (2014, 2016) and Pack et al. (2013) for a detailed
discussion of the funding problem and possible ways to improve
funding and performance of African protected areas.
The rapid human population growth and static to declining living
conditions for most rural African communities is causing alarm, espe-
cially after the epic 2015 migrant crisis in Europe (Brown, 2011, 2012;
Conniff, 2014; Rieff, 2015; Allen, 2016; Ban, 2016; Ahmed, 2017;
Holechek et al. 2017). Several development experts warn of a major hu-
manitarian crisis if there are no major policy directives and commit-
ments by the developed countries to slow human population growth
and improve living/environmental conditions across Africa (Cribb,
2010; Brown, 2011, 2012; Rieff, 2015; Ban, 2016; Ahmed, 2017;
Holechek et al. 2017). We believe that CBNRM combined with sustain-
able localized development programs can be an effective approach in
accomplishing goals of slowing population growth, improving living
conditions, improving soil and water resources, conserving rangelands,
and conserving wildlife in eastern and southern African countries. How-
ever, both funding and expertise for these projects will have to be drasti-
cally expanded for them to make a meaningful difference. African and
international governments, as well as nongovernmental international
aid organizations, must cooperate in funding, coordinating, and
255J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
establishing already proven successful natural resource management pro-
grams at the community level.
Formalized community ownership of land and wildlife does not
occur throughout most of the region (Lindsey et al. 2007; Pica-
Ciamarra et al. 2007; Brown, 2011, 2012; Shen and Sun, 2012; Jenet
et al. 2016; Holechek et al. 2017). This is the primary cause of many dis-
putes among various ethnic groups and between ethnic groups and
their governments. In our view, providing communities legal rights to
their historical grazing/farming lands is an essential step in setting the
stage for rangeland and wildlife conservation through CBNRM and lo-
calized sustainable development.
The tremendous diversity and abundance of wildlife in eastern and
southern African countries is one of the world’s most spectacular natu-
ral wonders. It will be an epic tragedy for future generationsif this world
heritage is destroyed through forces of overpopulation, political insta-
bility, greed exacerbated by corruption, unsound natural resource use,
and ethnicconflict over natural resources. The affluent, developed coun-
tries of the world can do muchto help sustain Africa’s wildlife legacy by
providing funds, expertise, and other incentives for wildlife conserva-
tion, rangeland management, CBNRM, and local development projects.
Very importantly, they can block African development projects that
have large-scale adverse impacts on wildlife habitat and other natural
resources, displace native peoples from their lands, and negatively im-
pact ecosystem services. In our opinion, education, family planning,
and wildlife protection from poaching should receive heavy emphasis
in sub-Saharan African development programs funded by various gov-
ernment and non-governmental international aid organizations. We
are encouraged by the actions taken so far by UNESCO, the United
States, the European Union, and the regional countries themselves.
However, much more will have to be done in the future to secure east-
ern and southern Africa’s wildlife and rangeland legacy. We believe ed-
ucating people across the globe on the status and needs of African
wildlife and rangelands is a critical part of conservation. Much can be
done to improve living conditions for people and wildlife in African
countries if judicious incentives, policies, education, and financial assis-
tance programs are provided. In closing, we consider it essential that
local communities receive monetary and other benefits from wildlife
conservation on the lands they use for their livelihoods.
References
Adams, W.M., 2004. Against extinction, the story of conservation. Earthscan, London, En-
gland, p. 311.
Adams, J.S., 2015. Killing in the name ofconservation: can trophy hunting help save Africa
wild?. Available at:. thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/biodiversity/killing-in-
the-name-of-conservation. Accessed 1 June 2015
Adams, J.S., McShane, T.O., 1992. The myth of wild Africa. W. W. Norton and Company,
New York, NY, USA, p. 278.
Ahmed, N.M., 2017. Failing states, collapsing systems: biophysical triggers of political vi-
olence. Springer, New York, NY, USA, p. 110.
Akama, J.S., Maingi, S.W., Camongo, B.A., 2011. Wildlife conservation, safari tourism, and
the role of tourism in Kenya: a postcolonial critique. Tourism Recreational Research
36, 281–291.
Alessi, M., Alessi, D., 1999. Private conservation and black rhinos in Zimbabwe: the Savé
Valley and Babiana conservancies. Competitive En terprise Institute, Washington,
D.C., USA, p. 12.
Allen, K.L.,2016. The population problem: not as bad as you might think. Resilience Avail-
able at: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-11-01/the-population-problem-not-
as-bad-as-youmight-think/. Accessed 1 November 2016, p. 280.
Alpert, D., 2013. The age of oversupply. Portfolio/Penguin, New York, NY, USA, p. 280.
Anderson,S.H., 2001. Managing ourwildlife resources. 4th ed. Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, p. 540.
Balfour, D., Balfour, S., 2001. Simply safari. Abbeville Press, New York, NY, USA, p. 192.
Ban, Z., 2016. Malthusian catastrophe unfolding across ME-Africa region, with Egypt a s a c ase s tudy .
Available at: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4024083-malthusian-catastrophe-
unfolding-across-africa-region-egypt-case-study. Accessed 16 November 2016.
Barley, S., 2009. Kenya’s lions could vanish within 10 years. The New Scientist Available
at: https://newscientist.com. Accessed 16 October 2017.
Barnes, J.I., MacGregor, J., Weaver, L.C., 2002. Economic efficiency and ince ntives for
change within Namibia’s commu nity wildlife initiatives. World Development 29,
589–600.
Barrett, P., 2012. The elephant in the room (well one of them). Available at: https://
2paragraphs.com/2012/08/africa-the-elephant-in-the-room-well-one-of -them/.
Accessed 29 May 2012.
Bauer, H., Chapron, G., Nowell, K., Henschel, P., Funston, P., Hunter, L., MacDonald, D.W.,
2015. Lion (Panthera leo) populations decline rapidly across Africa except in inten-
sively managed ar eas. Proceedings of the National Academy Science 112,
14895–14899.
Bauer, H., Packer, C., Funston, P.F., Henschel, P., Nowell, K., 2016. Panthera leo. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species 2016, e.T15951A107265605 https://doi.org/10.2305/
IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T15951A107265605.en Available at: Accesed 10 March 2017.
Biggs, D., Courchamp, F., Martin, R., Possingham, H.P., 2013. Legal trade of Africa’srhino
horns. Science 339, 1038–1039.
Blanc, J., 2008. Loxodonta africana. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
e.T12392A3339343 https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T12392A3339343.en
Available at: Accessed 10 March 2016.
Bolen, E.G.,Robinson, W.L., 2003. Wildlife ecologyand management. 4th ed.Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, p. 605.
Bond, L., Child, B., de la Harpe, B., Jones, B., Barnes, J.,Anderson, H., 2004. Private land con-
tribution to conservation in South Africa. In: Child, B. (Ed.), Parks in transition.
Earthscan, London, England, pp. 29–61.
Bonner, R., 1993. At the hand of man: peril and hope for Africa’s wildlife. Alfred A. Knopf,
New York, NY, USA, p. 320.
Brink, H., Smith, R.J., Skinner, K., Leader-Williams, N., 2016. Sustainability and long-term
tenure: lion trophy hunting in Tanzania. PLoS ONE 11 (9), e162610.
Brown, L.R., 2011. World on the edge. W. W. Norton and Company, New York, NY, USA,
p. 240.
Brown, L.R., 2012. Fu ll planet, empty plates. W. W, Norton and Company, New York,
p. 144.
Bulte, E.H., Damania, R., 2005. An economic assessment of wildlife farming and conserva-
tion. Conservation Biology 19, 1222–1233.
Campbell,B.,Mandondo,A.,Nemarundwe,N.,Sithole,B.,deJong,G.W.,Luckart,M.,Matose,
F., 2001. Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: despairing
voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development 29, 589–600.
Carruthers, J., 2008. Wilding the farm or farming the wild? The evolution of scientific
game ranching in South Africa from the 1860’s to the present. Transactions of the
Royal Society of South Africa 63, 160–181.
Chape, S., Spalding, M., Jenkins, M., 2008. The world’s protected areas: status, values, and
prospects in the twenty-first century. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA,
p. 376.
Chase, M.J., Schlossberg, S., Griffin, C.R., Bouche, P., Djiene, S.W., Elkan, P.W., Ferriera, S.,
Kohi, E., Landen, K., Omondi, P., Selier, J., Sutcliffe, R., 2016. Continent-wide survey re-
veals massive decline in African savanna elephants. Peer J 4, e2354.
Child, B., Suich, H., Child, B., Spenceley, A., 2009. Grame ranching in Zimbabwe. Evolution
and innovation in wildlife conservation. Earthscan, London, England, pp. 127–146.
Child, B., 2012. The sustainable use approach could save South Africa’s rhinos. South
African Journal of Science 108, 1–4.
Child, B., Barnes , G., Weingast, B.R., 2010. The conceptual evolution and practice of
community-based natural resource management in southern Africa. Past, present
and future. Environmental Conservation 37, 283–295.
Christy, B., 2016. Deadly trade. National Geographic Magazine 230, 56–81.
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), 2017. Land use. CIA world fact book. Available at:
http://www.cia.gov. Accessed 13 February 2017.
CIC (International Union for Game and Wildlife Conservation), 2016. Savé Valley Conser-
vancy praised for its conservation of wildlife, receives Markhor Award. Available at:.
http://www.cic-wildlife.org. Accesse d 16 December 2016.
Clotuche, P., 2014. Botswana’s hunting ban: bushmen starve, trophy hunters carry on.
Survival International Available at: https://www.survivalinternational.org/n ews/
10112.Accessed16September2016.
Collins, R.O., Burns, J.M., 2007. A history of Sub-Saharan Africa. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY, USA, p. 406.
Conniff, R., 2009. The growing specter of Africawithout wildlife. Environment 360. Avail-
able at: http://e360.yale.edu/features/the_growing_specter_of_africa_without_wild-
life.Accessed27August2009.
Conniff, R., 2014. Africa’s hidden population explosion is bad news for humans and wildlife.
Take Part. Available at: http://www.takepart.com/feature/2014/09/17/africas-hidden-
population-explosion-bad-news-humans-and-wildlife. Accessed 17 September 2014.
Constable, H., 2016. The country with too many elephants. BBC News. Available at: http://
www.bbc.com/e arth/story/20160908-the-country-with-too -many-elephants.
Accessed 12 September 2016.
Coogan, J., 2012. Kenya’s 35-year hunting ban: for what? African Hunting Gazette. 17:2.
Available at: http://www.africanhuntinggazette.com.
Coppock, D.L., Desta, S., 2013. Collective action, innovation,and wealth generation among set-
tledpastoralwomeninnorthernKenya.RangelandEcology&Management66,95–105.
Coppock, D.L., Desta, S., Tezera, S., Gebru, G., 2011. Capacity building helps pastoral
women transform impoverished communities in Ethiopia. Science 334, 1394–1398.
Cott, H.B., Pooley, A.C., 1971. Crocodiles: the status of crocodiles in Africa. Proceedings of
the first working meeting of crocodile specialists vol. 2. International Union for Con-
servation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Cousins, J.A., Sadler,J.P., Evans, J., 2008. Exploring the role of private wildlife ranchingas a
conservation tool in South Africa: Stakeholder perspectives. Ecological Society 13, 43.
Craigie, I.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C.,Collen, B., Green, R.E.,Hutton, J., 2010.
Large mammal populat ion decli nes in Africa’s protected areas. Biolog y Conservat ion
143, 2221–2228.
Cribb, J., 2010. The coming famine. University of California Press, London, p. 248.
Dasman, R.F., Mossman, A.S., 1961. Commercial utilization of game animals on a Rhode-
sian ranch. Wild Life 3, 7–14.
Di Minin, E., Leader-Williams, N., Bradshaw, C.J., 2016. Banning trophy hunting will exac-
erbate biodiversity loss. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31, 99–102.
256 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
Dry, G., 2011. Wildlife ranching in perspective. Wildlife Ranching 2011, 24–27.
D’udine, F., Henson, D.W., Malpas, R.C., 2016. Wildlife law enforcement in sub-Saharan
protected areas. Monographic Series no. 10. International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Gland, Switzerland, p. 98.
Duffy, R., 2010. Nature crime: how we’re getting conservation wrong. Yale University
Press, London, England, p. 288.
du Toit, J., 2003. The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heteroge-
neity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Emslie, R., Milliken, T., Bibhab, T., 2012. African and Asian rhinoceroses-status, conserva-
tion and trade. CITES CoP16 Doc. 54 Annex 2.
Estell, R.E., Havstad, K.M., Cibils, A.F., Hendrickson, E.L., Anderson, D.M., Schrader, T.S.,
James, D.K., 2012. Increasing shrub useby livestock in a world with less grass. Range-
land Ecology & Management 65, 553–562.
Eves, H.E.,Ruggiero, R.G., 2002. Antelopesin Africa: Bushmeat, gamemeat and wild meat:
a question of sustainability. In: Mainka, S., Travedi, M. (Eds.), Links between biodiver-
sity, conservation, livelihoods and food security: the sustainable use of wild species
for meat. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, pp. 73–84.
Fitter, R.S., Scott, P.M., 1978. The penitent butchers: the fauna preservation society 1903-
1978. Collins, London, England, p. 48.
Forsyth, J., 2015. Out of Africa: Texans offer sanctuary to endangered rhinos. Reuters.
Available at: out -of-africa-texans-offer-san ctuary-to-end angered-rhinos-
idUSKBN0O418P20150519. Accessed 19 May 2015.
Gathura, G., 2009. Why Maasai’s prefer killing lions to compensation. Standard Media.
Available at: https:/standardmedia.co.ke. Accessed 10 October 2017.
Groom, R.J., Harris, S., 2008. Conservation on community lands: the importance of equita-
ble revenue sharing. Environmental Conservation 35, 242–251.
Grootenhuis, J.G., Prins, H.H.T.,2000. Wildlife utilization: a justified option for sustainable
land use in African savannas. In: Prins, H.T., Grootenhuis, J.G., Dolan, T.D. (Eds.), Wild-
life conservation by sustainable use. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordre cht, The
Netherlands, pp. 470–483.
Harris, J., Freeman, R.E., 2013. A business model to save the rhino. The Washington Post.
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/a-business-model-to-save-
the-black-rhino/2013/03/14/983f3194-8b4d- 11e2-9f54f3fdd70acad2_story.html?
utm_term=.209ceec560b1. Accessed 15 March 2015.
Hazzah, L., Dolremy, S., Naughton, L., Edwards, C., Mwebi, O., Kearney, F., Frank, L., 2014.
Efficacy of two lion conservationsprograms in Maasailand, Kenya. Conservation Biol-
ogy 28, 851–860.
Hazzah, L., Mulder, B.M., Frank, L., 2009. Lions and warriors: Social factors underlying de-
clining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based management in
Kenya. Biology Conservation 142, 2428–2437.
Heinberg, R., Fridley, D., 2016. Our renewable future. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA,
p. 226.
Herne, B., 1999. White hunters: thegolden age of the African safaris. Henry Holtand Com-
pany, New York, NY, USA.
Heubach, K., 201 6. Sustainable use of biodiversity : the case of bushme at hunting.
Network-Forum fo r Biodiversity Research Germany (Nefo), Berlin Available at:.
http://www.biodiversity.de/sites/default/files/products/factsheets/nefo_fact_sheet_
sbstta20_6_sub.pdf. Accessed April 2016.
Holechek, J.L., Cibils, A.F., Bengaly, K., Kinyamario, J.L., 2017. Human population growth,
African pastoralism,and rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management70, 273–280.
Honey, M., 2008. Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise?. 2nd ed.
Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, p. 568
Hopcraft, D., 1986. Wildlife land-use: a realistic alternative. In: MacMillan, S. (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the wildlife/livestock interface on rangeland. Inter-African Bureau of An-
imal Resources, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 93–101.
Hopcraft, D., 200 0. Wildlife land use a nd the great experim ent. In: Prins, H.T.,
Grootenhuis, J.G., Dolan, T.D. (Eds.), Wildlife conservation by sustainable use. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 267–275.
Hunter, J.A., 1954. Hunter. Hamish Hamilton. p, London, England, p. 242.
International Ecotourism Society, 2017. What is ecotourism? International Ecotourism
Society. Available at: http://www.ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism. Accessed 14
February 2017.
INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions), 2013. Impactof tour-
ism on Wildlife Conservation. Avai lable at:. http://www.environmental-
auditing.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ecrH%2bPLw7Cc%3d&tabid=128&mid=568.
Accessed 14 February 2017.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 2012. Red list of threatened spe-
cies. Version 20 12.2. International Union for Conservation of Natu re, Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 2016. Informing decisions on tro-
phy hunting.Briefing paper (April 2016). International Union forConservation of Na-
ture, Gland, Switzerland.
Jammot, J., 2015. Elephant rampage: unintended consequence of Botswana hunting ban.
Biznews. Available at: https://www.biznews.com/undictated/2015/05/04/elephant-ram-
page-unintended-consequence-of-botswana-hunting-ban/. Accessed 5 April 2015.
Jeal, D., 2001. Livingstone. Yale University Press, London, England, p. 456.
Jenet, A., Buono, N., DiLello, S., Gomarasca, M., Heine, C., Mason, S., Nori, M., Saavedra, R.,
VanTroos, K., 2016. The path to greener pastures: pastoralism, the backbone of the
world’s dryland. VSF International. Available at: http://vsf-international.org/the-
path-to-the-greener-pastures-pastoralism-the-backbone-of-the-worlds-dry-lands.
Accessed 2 February 17.
Kay, C.E., 2009. Kenya’s wildlife debacle: the true cost of banning hunting. Mule Deer
Foundation Magazine 27, 22–27.
Knight, M., Emslie, R., 2015. Black rhino hunt: why killing one bullis worth it for conser-
vation. CNN news. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/opinions/rhino-
hunt-is-conservation/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2015.
Kreuter, U., Peel, M., Warner, E., 2010. Wildlife conservation and community-based natu-
ral resource management in southern Africa’s private nature reserves. Society for
Natural Resources 23, 507–524.
Kreuter, U.P., Wo rkman, J.P., 1994 . Government policy effects on cattl e and wildlife
ranching in Zimbabwe. Journal of Range Management 47, 264–269.
Kreuter, U.R., Workman, J.P., 1996. Cattle and wildlife ranching in Zimbabwe. Rangelands
18, 44–48.
Lansing, D., 2010. Should hunting be allowed in Kenya? David Lansing. Available at:
http://davidlansing.com/should-hunting-be-allowed-in-kenya/.Accessed16
September.
Leader-Williams, N., Baldus, R.D., Smith, R.J., 2009. The influence of corruption on the conduct
of recreational hunting. In: Dickson, B., Hudson, J., Adams, J. (Eds.), Recreational hunting,
conservation and rural livelihoods. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, England, pp. 296–316.
Leader-Williams, N., Milledge, S., Adcock, K., Brooks, M., Conway, A., Knight, M., Mainka,
S., Martin, E., Teferi, T., 2005. Trophy hunting of black rhino (Diceros bicornis):pro-
posals to ensure its future sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8, 1–11.
Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R., Frank, L.G., Mathieson, A., Romanach, S.S., 2006. Potential of
trophy hunting to create incentivesfor wildlife conservation in Africawhere alterna-
tive based land uses may not be viable. Animal Conservation 9, 283–298.
Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Booth, V., Midlane, N., 2012. The significance of African lionsfor
the financial viability of trophy huntingand the maintenanceof wild land. PLoS One 7
(1), e29332.
Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Funston, P. J. Henschel. P. H., and Hunter, L., 2016. Life after
Cecil: channeling global outrage into funding for conservation in Africa. Conservation
Letters 9, 296–301.
Lindsey,P.A., Balme, G.A., Funston, P., Henschel, P.,Hunter, L., Madzikanda, H., Midlane, N.,
Nyirenda, V., 2013a. The trophy hunting of African lions: scale, current management
practices, and factors undermining sustainability. PLoS One 8 (9), e73808.
Lindsey, P.A., Balme, G.A., Becker, M., Begg, C., Bento, C., Bocchino, C., Dickman, A., Diggle,
R.W., Eves, H., Henschel, P., Lewis, D., Marnewick , K., Mattheus, J., Mc Nutt, J.W.,
McRobb, R., Midlane, N., Milanzi, J., Monley, R., Murphee, M., Opgene, V., Phadima,
J., Purchase, G., Rentsch, D., Roche, C., Shaw, J., van der Westhuizen, H., Van Vliet,
N., Zisadz-Gandiwa, P., 2013b. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: impacts,
drivers, and possible solutions. Biology Conservation 160, 80–96.
Lindsey, P.A., Nyirenda, V.R., Barnes, J.L., Becker, M.S., McRobb, R., Tambling, C.J., Taylor,
W.A., Watson, F.G., t’Sas-Rolfes, M., 2014. Underperformance of African protected
area networks and the case for new conservation models: insights from Zambia.
PLoS One 9 (2), e94109.
Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A., Romanach, S.S., 2007. Economic and conservation significance
of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biology Conservation 13 4,
455–469.
Loveridge, A.J., Valeix, M., Chapron, G., Davidson, Z., Mtare, G., MacDonald, D.W.,
2016. Conservation of large predator populations: demographic and spatial re-
sponses of African lions to the intensity of trophy hunti ng. Biology Conservation
204, 247–254.
MacKenzie, J.M., 1988. The empire of nature: hunting, conservation and British imperial-
ism. Manchester University Press, Manchester, England, p. 340.
Mahoney, S., 2017a. Trade them to save them? Sports Afield 240, 40–42.
Mahoney, S., 2017b. Shane Mahoney discusses if devaluing rhino horn will save the spe-
cies. Conservation Matters. Available at: http://conservationvision.com.Accessed16
February 2017.
Mansourian, S., Dudley, N., 2008. Public funds to protected wildlife areas. World Wildlife
Fund, Gland, Switzerland.
Martin, G., 2012. Game changer: animal rights and the fate of Africa’s wildlife. University
of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, p. 249.
Martin, G., 2014. Kenya: wildlife loved to death. African Indaba 12, 1–3.
Martin, G., 2015. Lionizing Cecil makes us feel good, but a trophy hunting ban will accel-
erate slaughter. California Magazine: p. 3, Available at: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/
california-magazine/just-in/2015-10-08/lionizing-cecil-makes-us-feel-good-trophy-
hunting-ban-will. Accessed 10 December 2015.
Maruping-Mzileni, N., 2015. Hunting in Africa: to ban or not to ban is the question. The
conversation: p. 3, Available at: https://theconversation.com/hunting-in-africa-to-
ban-or-not-to-ban-is-the-question-44269. Accessed 16 September 2016.
Mathiesen, K., 2015. The idea that hunting saves African wildlife doesn’t withstand scru-
tiny. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/
may/20/the-idea-that hunting-saves-african-wildlife-doesnt-withstand-scrutiny.
Accessed 20 May 2015.
Matthiessen, P. , Douthwaite, B., 2009. The impact of tsetse fly control ca mpaigns on
African wildlife. Oryx 19, 202–209.
McNeil, D., 2011. Rinderpest, scourge of cattle, isvanquished. New York Times. Available
at:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/health/28rinderpest.html.Accessed18Sep-
tember 2017.
Mfunda, E.M., Røskaft, E., 2010. Bushmeat hunting in Serengeti, Tanzania: an important
economic activity to local people. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation
2, 263–272.
Moseley, W.G., 201 3. Too many elephants in African parks? Aljazeera. Available at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/2013416113911163191.html.
Accessed 20 April 2013
Moyle, B., 2013. Conservation that’s more than skin-deep: alligator farming. Biodiversity
Conservation 22, 1662–1667.
Muposhi, V.K., Gandiwa, E., Bartels, P., Makuza, S.M., 2016. Trophy hunting, conservation,
and rural development in Zimbabwe: issues, options, and implications. International
Journal of Biodiversity 2016 (2016), 16 8763980.
Mwaruvie, J.M., 2 006. Kenya’s forgo tten engineer and colonial proconsul: Sir Percy
Girouardand departmental railing construction in Kenya. CanadianJournal of History
41, 1–22.
257J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
Mysterud, A., 2010. Still walking on the wild side? Management actions as steps
toward‘semi-domestication’of hunted ungulates. Journal of Applied Ec ology 47,
920–925.
Nelson, M.P., Bruskotter, J.T., Vucetich, J.A., Chapron, G., 2016. Emoti ons and ethics
ofconsequence in conservation decisions: lessons from Cecil the lion. Conservation
Letters 9, 302–306.
Nelson, F., Foley, C., Foley, L.S., Leposo, A., Loure, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, M., Peterson, T.,
Sachedna, H., Williams, A., 2009. Payments for ecosystem services as a framework for
community-based conservation in northern Tanzania. Conservation Biology 24, 78–85.
Nelson, F.,Lindsey, P., Balme,G.A., 2013. Trophyhunting and lion conservation:a question
of governance? Cambridge Core 47, 1–20.
Newsome, D.R., Dowling, K., Moore,S., 2005. Wildlife tourism. ChannelView Publications,
Toronto.
Normile, D., 2008. Driven to extinction. Science 319, 1606–1609.
Norton-Griffiths, M., 2007. How many wi ldebeest do you need ? World Economy 8,
11–64.
Nowak, K., 2015. Legalizing rhino horn trade won’t save the species, ecologist says. Na-
tional Geographic. Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2 015/
01/150106-rhino-poaching-south-africa-animals-conservation/#close. Accessed 6
August 2015.
Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y., 1997. Wildlife and food security in Africa. FAO conservation guide 33.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Ogutu, J.O., Owen-Smith, N., Piepho, H.P., Said, M.Y., 2011. Continuing wildlife population
declines and range contraction in the Mara region of Kenya during 1977-2009. Jour-
nal of Zoology 285, 99–109.
Ogutu, J.O., Peipho, H.-P., Said, M.Y.,Ojwang, G.O., Njino, L.W., Kifugo, S.C., Wargute,P.W.,
2016. Extreme wildlife decli nes and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in
Kenya: what are the causes? PLoS One 11 (9), e0163249.
Osofsky, S.A. (Ed.), 2005. Conservation and development interventions at the wildlife/
livestock interface. Paper No. 30. International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
Gland, Switzerland.
Pack, S., Golden, R., Walker, A., 2013. Comparison of national wildlife management strategies:
what works where, and why? Wildlife Consulting Associates, Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Packer,C., 2015a. Lion populations are declining rapidly across Africa, exceptinintensively
managed areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 112, 14894–14899.
Packer, C., 2015b. Lions in the balance: maneaters, manes and men with guns. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
Patterson, C., Khosa, P., 2005. A status quo study on the professional and recreational
hunting industry in South Africa. Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Touris m,
Pretoria, South Africa.
Pearce, F., 2010. Why Africa’s national parks are failingto save wildlife. Environment 360.
Available at: http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_africas_national_parks_are_failing_
to_save_wildlife. Acc essed 19 J uly 2010.
Phoofolo, P., 1993. Epidemics and revolution: The rinderpest epidemic in late nineteenth
century southern Africa. Past and Present 138, 112–143.
Pica-Ciamarra, U., Otte, J., Chilonda, J., 2007. Livestock prices, land and rural conflict in
sub-Saharan Africa. Land Reform, Land Settlement, and Cooperatives 18–33.
Quammen, D., 2014. Can good come from Maasai lion killings in the Serengeti? National
Geographic. Available at: htt p://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/201 4/04/
140428-serengeti-ngorongoro-conservation-area-tanzania-lions-maasai-craig-pack-
er-lion-guardians-world/. Accessed 10 October 2017
Rass, N., 2012. Policies and strategies to address the vulnerability of pastoralists in sub-
Sahara Africa. Pro-poor livestock policy initiative paper No. 37. United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Redmond, I., Aldred, T., Jedamzik, K., Westood, M., 2006. Recipes for survival: Controlling
the bushmeat trade. Ape Alliance and World Society for the Protection of Animals,
Cambridge, England.
Reid, R.S., 2012. Savannas of our birth: people, wildlife and change in East Africa. Univer-
sity of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Revol, B., 1995. Crocodile farming and conservation, the example of Zimbabwe. Biodiver-
sity Conservation 4, 299–305.
Rieff, D., 2015. The reproach of hunger. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, p. 402.
Rinella, S., 2014. Addressing the African big game hunting controversy. Meateater. Avail-
able at: http://www.themeateater.com/2014/addressing-african-big-game-hunting-
controversy/.Accessed22July2014.
Ripple, W.J., Abernethy, K., Betts, M.G., Chapron, G., Dirzo, R., Galetti, M., Levi, T., Lindsey,
P.A., Macdonald, D.W., Machovina, B., Newsome, T.M., Peres, C.A., Wallach, A.D., Wolf,
C., Young, H., 2016. Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world’smammals.
Royal Society of Open Science 3, 160498.
Rivera, M., 2016 . Is hunting ever defensible? About.com. Available at: http://
www.about.com. Accessed 7 July 2016.
Rushby, K., 2011. Bright new start: how the Masai are finally profiting from tourism. The
Guardian: p. 6, Available at: https ://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/jan/2 9/
kenya-masai-mara-safari-conservation. Accessed 10 October 2011.
Russo, C., 2014. Controversy swirls around the recent U.S. suspension of sport-hunted el-
ephant trophie s. A voice for elephants. National Geogra phic: p. 5, Available at:
https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/2014/05/06/controversy-swirls-around-the-
recent-u-s-suspension-of-sport-hunted-elephant-trophies/. Accessed 5 June 2014.
Saayman, M.,2015. Why a ban on hunting in Botswana isn’t the answer to challenges fac-
ing the country. The Conversation: p. 4, Available at: https://theconversation.com/
why-a-ban-on-hunting-in-bo tswana-isnt-th e-answer-to-challenges-facing-the-
country-44793. Accessed 7 August 2015.
Saayman,M., van der Merwe, P., Rossouw, R., 2011.The impact of hunting forbiltong pur-
poses on the SA economy. Acta Commercii 11, 1–12.
Schaul, J.C., 2014. Conserving wildlife through responsible tourism: an interview with Dr Michael
Hutchins. National Geographic Voices. Available at: https://voices.nationalgeographic.org/
2014/07/01/conserving-wildlife-through-responsible-tourism-an-interview-with-dr-mi-
chael-hutchins/. Accessed 5 August 2015.
Shen, X., Sun, X. (Eds.), 2012. Untying the land knot: making equitable, efficient and sustain-
able use of industrial and commercial land. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Simmons, K., 2015. Sub-Saharan Africa makes progress against poverty but has a long way to
go. Pew Research Center Factbook. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, USA, p. 3.
Sinclair, A.R.E., Arcese, P. (Eds.), 1995. Serengeti II: Dynamics, management, and conser-
vation of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sinclair, A.R.E., Metzger, K., Mduma, S., Fryxell, J.M. (Eds.), 2015. Serengeti IV: sustaining
biodiversity in a coupled human-natural system. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL, USA.
Smit, G.N., 2004. An approach to tree thinning to structure South Africa savannas for long
term restoration from bush encroachment. Journal of Environmental Management
71, 179–191.
Somerville, K., 2015. Livelihoods vs. lions: How can wildlife be made to pay? African Ar-
guments. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/africanarguments. Accessed 10
October 2017.
Southwick Associates, 2015. Economic contributions of hunting-related tourism in east-
ern and southern Africa. Southwick Associates, Fernandina Beach, FL, USA, p. 60.
Spinage, C.A., 2003. Cattle plagues: a history. Springer, New York, NY, USA, p. 765.
Stein, A.B., Athreya, V., Gerngross, P., Balme, G., Henschel, P., Karanth, U., Miquelle, D.,
Rostro-Garcia , S., Kamler, J.F., La guardia, A., Khor ozyan, I., Ghoddo usi, A., 2016.
Panthera pardus. (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016, e.T15954A102421779 Accessed 10 March 2017.
Taylor, A., Lindsey, P.A., Davies-Mostert, H., 2016. An assessment of the economic, social,
and conservation value of the wildlife ranching industry and its potential to support
the green economy of South Africa. The Endangered Wildlife Trust, Johannesburg,
South Africa.
The Economist, 20 07. Bring back hunting? The Economist News paper. Available at:
http://www.economist.com/node/9199799. Accessed 17 May 2007
Torchia, C., 2017. Poachers target African lions, vultures with poison. Associated Press.
Available at: http://kls.com. Accessed 16 October 2017.
t’Sas-Rolfes, M., 2016. Rhino poaching: what is the solution? The Solutions Journal 7, 38–45.
Tsing, A.L., Brosius, J.P., Zerner, C., 1999. Assessing community based natural resource
management. Ambio 28, 197–198.
Twyman, V., 2000. Participatory conservation? Community based natural resource man-
agement in Botswana. The Geographic Journal 166, 323–335.
Tyrrell,P., Russell, S., Western, D., 2017. Seasonal movements of wildlifeand livestock in a
heterogenous pastoral landscape: implications for coexistence and community based
conservation. Global Ecology Conservation 12, 59–72.
UNESCO (United Na tions Educatio nal, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), 2009.
UNESCO: building peace in the minds of men and women—history. Available at:.
https://www.unesco.org. Accessed 14 January 2017.
UNESCO (United Na tions Educatio nal, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), 2017.
Worldheritage list. UNESCO World Heritage Center, Paris. Available at: https://
www.unesco.org. Accessed 22 January 2017.
United Nations, 2015. World population prospects. United Nation Population Division.
United Nations, New York, NY, USA.
UNWTO (United Nations World Tourism Organization), 2014. UNWTO annual report,
2014. Available at: http://www.unwto.org. Accessed 28 January 2017.
van der Merwe, P., Saayman, M., 2003. Determining the economic value of game farm
tourism. Koedoe 46, 103–112.
van der Merwe, P., Saayman, M., 2005. Game farms as sustainable ecotourist attractions.
Koedoe 48, 1–10.
van der Merwe, P., Saayman, M., 2014. The economic impact of hunting: a regional ap-
proach. South African Journal of Economy Management Science 17, 379–395.
Van Schalkwyk, D.L., McMillin, K.W., Witthuhn, R.C., Hoffman, L.C., 2010. Thecontribution
of wildlife to sustainable natural resource utilization in Namibia. Sustainability 2,
3479–3499.
Verhagen, S., 2016. 80 rhinos headed for Australia in bold move to save species. Australian
Geographic. Available at: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/04/80-
rhinos-headed-for-australia-in-bold-move-to-save-species. Accessed 7 April 2016.
Wadhams, N., 2010. Farmers vs. lions: a battle to the death in Kenya. Time. Available at:
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1989669,00.html. Accessed 10
October 2017.
Wells, M.P., McShane, T.O., 2004. Integrating protecte d area management with local
needs and aspirations. AMBIO 33, 513–519.
West, N.E., 1993. Biodiversity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management 46, 2–14.
Western, D., Russell,S., Cuthill, I., 2009.The status of wildlife in protected areas compared
to non-protected areas in Kenya. PloS ONE 4 (7), e6140.
Wikipedia, 201 7a. List of national parks in Africa. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_in_Africa.Accessed 21 February
2017.
Wikipedia, 2017b. World heritage sites. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site. Accessed 15 January 2017.
Wilson, G.R., Hayward, M.W.,Wilson, C., 2016. Market-based incentives and private own-
ership of wildlife to remedy shortfalls in government funding for conservation. Con-
servation Letters.https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12313.
Winterbach, C.W., Carolyn, W., Michael, J.S., 2015. Wildlife abundance and biodiversity as
indicators of tourism potential in northern Botswana. PloS ONE 10 (8), e135595.
World Bank, 2014. Terrestrial protected areas by country (% of total land area). World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
World Hunger Education Service, 2013. 2013 World hunger and poverty facts and statis-
tics. Available at: https://www.mvschools.org/cms/lib03/CA01001212/Centricity/Do-
main/135/World%20Hunger%20and%20Poverty%20Facts%20and%20Statistics%20by%
20World%20Hunger%20Education%20Service.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2017.
258 J. Holechek, R. Valdez / Rangeland Ecology & Management 71 (2018) 245–258
