Our Viewpoint | Hunting quotas

South Africa’s conservation model has long been intertwined with the economics of hunting. Revenue from regulated hunts has funded anti-poaching units, supported habitat management and, in some cases, helped drive the recovery of species once on the brink. Conservation in a developing country requires money, and hunting has, for decades, been one of the revenue streams that channel private capital into land that might otherwise be lost to agriculture or development.

Yet the latest decision to reintroduce export quotas for elephant, leopard and, most controversially, black rhino trophies has reopened deep fault lines about science, governance and ethics. That a change in political leadership brought a “sudden return to trophy export quotas” for these species, has prompted sharp criticism and renewed scrutiny of how such decisions are made and on what evidence. There is a crucial distinction between a model that uses sustainable use to fund conservation and one that risks undermining it.

Even proponents of regulated hunting acknowledge that credibility depends on transparent data, clear population baselines and public trust in the decision-making process. Where governance is questioned, the conservation case weakens. The inclusion of critically endangered black rhino and vulnerable leopard on the quota list is what has triggered the strongest public outrage.

[paywall]

These are not species whose survival is secure. Their populations remain under pressure from poaching, habitat loss and illegal trade. Listing them for trophy exports, even in small numbers, sends a signal that many South Africans find difficult to reconcile with the country’s global conservation leadership.

Former minister Dion George warned that such moves risk eroding confidence in the science that should guide wildlife policy, highlighting concerns about whether quotas are evidence-based and transparently determined. Conservation funding is essential, and the role that hunting revenue has played in restoring wildlife numbers cannot be dismissed. But funding models must evolve alongside public expectations, scientific scrutiny and ethical standards.

SA’s wildlife is a national and global asset. Decisions about endangered species must meet the highest bar of scientific integrity and governance. Without that, the economic argument for hunting risks losing the very legitimacy on which conservation success depends.

[/paywall]