Kalahari Trackers vs. Aircraft – The Ultimate Wildlife Counting Challenge

A team of Kalahari trackers (© Julia Burger), and an aerial survey team (© Christiaan Winterbach).

It doesn’t seem like a fair match. A couple of illiterate guys sitting on the front of a vehicle as it churns its way through Kalahari sand vs. a qualified team of experienced wildlife counters flying overhead in a fixed-wing aircraft. Whilst the first team spend hours staring fixedly at the ground whilst bumping along sandy tracks, the other team count animals directly just by looking out the window from their aerial vantage point. The challenge: who can count wildlife with the greatest precision and efficiency?

This challenge sounds a little like the incredibly uneven match-up between Russia and Spain in the recent Soccer World Cup – whoever bet on Russia taking that one? Yet one conservation researcher was crazy enough to both create the challenge between Kalahari trackers and aerial survey observers, and bet on the trackers winning the contest. Derek Keeping has good reason for his faith in the tracking team, because he knows their secret weapon. Although the guys balancing on the front of his vehicle may be illiterate when it comes to lines of ink on paper, they are among the best in world when it comes to reading animal tracks in the sand.

Let me digress. Why is the challenge of counting wildlife in the Kalahari important in the first place? The location for this particular challenge is not even inside a National Park or Game Reserve. Instead, it is a Wildlife Management Area outside the northern border of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, and people still live there in a small village called Zutshwa. Whilst this area might not seem all that important to those driving through to get to one of Botswana’s renowned protected areas, conservation researchers acquainted with the region know that it is part of the Kalahari Schwelle – a critical part of the overall ecosystem (as mentioned in a previous post).

Map of the Kalahari Scwhelle and the study area chosen for the wildlife counting challenge. Situated between the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, this region is a critical part of the Kalahari ecosystem. Map provided by Derek Keeping.

Knowing how many animals live in an area is a crucial first step in conservation, especially if some of the resident species are endangered or threatened by manmade causes. Underestimating the number and diversity of animals living in non-protected areas could lead to land-use planners deciding that an area currently designated for wildlife-related uses (including tourism) could be used for livestock instead. The scene of our wildlife-counting challenge is a Wildlife Management Area that is the traditional territory of families now settled in Zutshwa. Until recently, jobs, meat and cash for the community were generated from this Area by allowing guests to hunt some animals.

Since the nationwide ban on hunting in all forms (subsistence and commercial) on government land, the Zutshwa community have encountered some hard times. Besides no longer being able to hunt for their own meat, those who were employed as trackers in hunting safari operations are now out of a job. It is against this background that Keeping set about finding ways to employ trackers that would benefit both them and the wildlife they live with.

As Keeping points out, “Most people in Zutshwa, and other Kalahari settlements in the region, are now destitute. Being so close to the past as they are, they have remarkably positive attitudes towards wildlife and conservation compared with most rural areas of Botswana, and many of them want jobs in wildlife and tourism rather than ranching and agriculture. Unfortunately, current development policies in these remote areas favour a future of livestock husbandry.”

Wildlife counting in Botswana has relied on aerial surveys for over three decades, and the method has become the standard way to estimate wildlife numbers and trends over time. However, the cost of an aerial survey is substantial, leading the government to reduce the frequency of these surveys and focus on the northern parts of the country, where wildlife are more abundant.

Wildebeest and zebra being counted from the air. Is this the best method for monitoring wildlife populations long-term? © Christiaan Winterbach.

When asked why he thought that using trackers to count animal tracks on the ground would be preferable to observers counting animals from airplanes, Keeping explains: “There is a vast discrepancy between the numbers of observations accumulated by observers in an airplane compared to trackers on the ground. Aerial observers fatigue quickly bumping along at 170 kph in an uncomfortable airplane seat, especially when there’s not much to see in a monotonous semi-arid savanna landscape with naturally low numbers of large wildlife. By contrast, the sheer numbers of tracks that appear after a single night of animal movement in the Kalahari is astonishing. It was this observation that convinced me that an apples-to-apples comparison of aerial counts and track counts was a worthwhile pursuit.” 

From his seat at the front of the vehicle, the tracker scans the ground for spoor. All the information is then relayed to a recorder in the vehicle. © Julia Burger 2018.

The notion of using an ancient skill to conduct modern research is a romantic one, but will it produce the same quality of information as more sophisticated, expensive methods? If using trackers to count animals is merely a quaint idea that doesn’t produce reliable results, then one cannot justify such a method. So Keeping set up the ecological research version of a penalty shoot out, if you will. 

The tracking vs. aerial survey challenge was set up during the late dry season (Oct-Nov) in 2015. Both teams traversed the 6,425 sq. km area using the same straight line routes across it, covering a total of 648 km. To ensure that one method of counting animals was not influencing the other (e.g. animals being scared off by the airplane and/or the vehicle), they avoided counting the same route twice in one day wherever possible.

In the track survey, the trackers counted the tracks of anything larger than a steenbok for herbivores, and all the large carnivores (i.e. hyenas, big cats, and wild dogs). Ironically, the tracking team was actually given a handicap for this contest by limiting the tracks they recorded to the bigger animals. Trackers can easily count the tracks of animals as small as pangolins, mongoose, and African wildcat, but the aerial survey team would have no chance of seeing these species. Although good trackers can differentiate the tracks of individual animals, the statistical method used in this study simply requires them to count an animal track every time it crosses the road they are driving on.

Lions and other carnivores are almost impossible to count from the air, as illustrated by this one relaxing under a bush during the heat of the day (© Julia Burger 2018). Their tracks, however, are easily counted during a tracking survey (© Gail Potgieter).

To judge the ‘winner’ of the wildlife counting contest, Keeping and his research colleagues used a few criteria: 1) the precision of the population estimates calculated from each method; 2) the ability of each method to determine where the animals occur in the area (i.e. their distribution); and 3) the efficiency of each method in terms of the time and money spent to collect enough data for accurate population assessments.

For the population estimate test, counting by air or tracking by vehicle produced very similar results for six large grazing herbivores – gemsbok, hartebeest, wildebeest, eland, springbok and ostrich. However, the tracking team estimated more kudu than the aerial survey team. Aerial surveys in other areas of Africa consistently under-count kudu, because these browsers spend most of their time bushy habitat, which makes seeing them during aerial surveys rather difficult. Finally, only the tracking team could count enough large carnivores to make population estimates. Carnivores are rarely counted during flights, as most of them are sleeping off the night’s activities under bushes or in dens when the aerial survey team is flying overhead. The beauty of using tracks is that the sand records nocturnal animals’ activities, which are easily read by trackers the next morning.

The second test – determining animal distribution – was convincingly won by the tracking team. Where the aerial surveys showed patchy animal distributions for several herbivore species in the survey areas, the tracking survey revealed more uniform distributions. The latter result makes more sense ecologically, as animals are unlikely to occur only in certain blocks of land, when the whole area provides good habitat for them. The tracking team thus provided a more accurate picture of animal distribution for this Wildlife Management Area than the aerial survey team.

A herd of eland and a lone gemsbok are among the diverse animal species that inhabit the Kalahari Schwelle. © Julia Burger 2018.

The final test, relating to time and money, showed that whilst aerial surveys take less time (1.5 days compared to 15 days of effort for multiple tracking teams), they are more expensive. The aerial survey cost US$ 7,793.79 in total (or $12.02 per km), whereas the tracking survey cost only US$ 4,652.17 ($7.17 per km).

Keeping points out: “Vehicles are by far the most expensive component of the ground track survey, but most Kalahari trackers are also expert horsemen, and with a little logistical creativity I see no practical reason why motor vehicles would be necessary for future track surveys. Even better than horses would be camels; these desert-adapted animals have an advantage over horses, as they need less water and food, and are less likely to be attacked by lions.”

If the trackers did this survey on horses or camels, without vehicles or drivers, then the cost of the survey would be further reduced to US$ 1,399.54, or $2.16 per km. Animal-back surveys have the additional benefit of reducing the pace of the survey, allowing the trackers to record smaller, yet extremely important, species such as pangolins and black-footed cats. Pangolins are threatened by wildlife trafficking, whilst the black-footed cat is endemic to the Kalahari region, yet receives little scientific attention.

If this wildlife counting challenge were a soccer match, the score line would read 3-1 to the tracking team! Although the aerial survey produced reasonable population estimates for large, grazing herbivores (their solitary ‘goal’), the tracking survey did that and much more, at a lower cost. But the benefits of using trackers to conduct wildlife surveys do not end there. This task could be funded, and even generate income for the community, by inviting tourists to join the trackers on wildlife monitoring animal-back safaris.

This would be a unique tourism offering for wildlife-loving, adventure-seeking safari goers, whilst simultaneously helping local people realise the benefits of their own traditional tracking culture and their wildlife. With a bit of technical support from Keeping, the data collected from these surveys will be used to inform population estimates and distribution data, which can be used to highlight the importance of this part of the Kalahari ecosystem. At first it could compliment, but may eventually even replace, the increasingly cost-prohibitive aerial surveys, especially if track surveys are funded through community tourism rather than limited government budgets.

Trackers discuss some of the signs they can read in the bush.  © Julia Burger 2018.

According to Keeping, “Facilitating a new track-based wildlife monitoring programme throughout Botswana’s Kalahari that is led by expert citizen trackers would firstly yield volumes of new data and insights far in excess of what is currently attainable through the aerial survey, secondly create numerous meaningful and well-paying jobs in one of the country’s most poverty-stricken regions, and thirdly be an incentive to keep exceptional track interpretation skills – our shared intangible cultural heritage – alive in the future. Two of these three outcomes are top goals on Botswana’s national agenda, and all would enhance conservation in the long-term. I can hardly think of another single intervention that would check so many priority boxes, and do so much good.”

This tantalising idea could be a triple-win scenario, combining an authentic and unique eco- and cultural tourism experience, local sustainable development in a way that maintains traditional skillsets, and long-term wildlife monitoring and conservation. For a conservationist, the result of this wildlife counting ‘competition’ is more exciting than the Soccer World Cup!


By Gail C. Potgieter

If you are interested in making this idea a reality, please write to Derek Keeping (dkeeping@ualberta.ca) and consider a donation to the Comanis Foundation, which is a sister organisation to Tanate Wilderness that works with the community of Zutshwa to develop viable ecotourism within their Wildlife Management Area. Together they are committed to moving the vision of track-based wildlife monitoring forward in collaboration with Botswana's Department of Wildlife and National Parks, first initiating a pilot program in Zutshwa which can then be propagated to other remote communities throughout the Kalahari Schwelle.

Reference:
Keeping et al. (2018). Can trackers count free-ranging wildlife as effectively and efficiently as conventional aerial survey and distance sampling? Implications for citizen science in the Kalahari, Botswana. Biological Conservation 223:156-169.

The Precarious Life of Blue Wildebeest in the Kalahari

Blue wildebeest in the Kalahari © Moses Selebatso

For blue wildebeest in the Kalahari, life is tough. As a water-dependent grazer, survival is all about finding enough grass and access to water during drier years, whilst avoiding predation. Before the 1970’s, this species of antelope survived in the harsh semi-desert Kalahari environs by doing what wildebeest do best – migrating to find water and greener pastures. Today, migration to permanent water sources north of the Kalahari is no longer possible, and wildebeest have had to adapt quickly to modern conditions to survive.

Despite the impressive size of protected areas in Botswana, wildebeest in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) today are all but cut-off from their historical migratory routes. Extensive fences meant to reduce disease transmission from wildlife to livestock, and to control livestock movement were erected since the late 50's, with dire consequences for wildebeest. The wildebeest population in the Kalahari ecosystem (extending West and South of the CKGR, see map) crashed from over 250,000 in the late 70’s to just over 20,000 in 2015 (figures from reports for and by the government of Botswana in 1980 and 2015, respectively). Conserving the remaining Kalahari wildebeest, and allowing their numbers to recover, requires in-depth understanding of their current situation.

The greater Kalahari ecosystem includes the Central Kalahari and Khutse Game Reserves (CKGR and KGR), the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP), and the wildlife management areas (WMAs) between them. The area known as the Schwelle (shown in cross-hatchings) covers several WMAs and is a critical resource for Kalahari Wildebeest. © Moses Selebatso

To develop this understanding, Kalahari Research and Conservation conducted an in-depth wildebeest research project in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Dr. Moses Selebatso, the project leader, tracked wildebeest movement in the CKGR using satellite collars on females from several different herds. The movement patterns were examined in conjunction with grassland studies to find out more about where these survivors go and what they eat. This work produced three scientific journal articles, and practical recommendations for conserving Botswana’s remaining wildebeest, both in the CKGR and throughout the greater Kalahari ecosystem.

Dr. Selebatso and his colleagues discovered that most of the wildebeest in the CKGR now stay around artificially pumped waterholes, ‘hanging tough’ during the long dry season as the grass around them slowly disappears. The permanent waterholes were created in 1984, in response to the mass die-off of wildebeest and other water-dependent animals due to the then newly erected fences. As the CKGR has no natural water sources that last throughout the dry season, the artificially pumped pans are a lifeline for wildebeest. However, his studies found that this human intervention can be a double-edged sword for wildebeest.

Dr. Selebatso (standing) and a research assistant track the collared wildebeest using radio telemetry equipment. © Niti B. Mishra

Waterholes in the CKGR are located in pans and valleys, and the soil around these pans is mineral rich, which means that the grass growing here is highly nutritious. As an added bonus, these grasslands have few trees and shrubs, which means that herbivores can spot predators coming from a good distance. The combination of water, high-quality food, and limited predation risk makes these pans highly attractive for wildebeest.

However, during the dry season (when the pans would have dried up, historically), the wildebeest have little choice but to stay close to the pans, as water is pumped into them from boreholes. As the grass around the pans dries up, the amount of food available for the wildebeest dwindles. In the late dry season, daytime temperatures soar to over 40 degrees Celsius, making it too hot for wildebeest to graze in the middle of the day.

The research team wanted to know what these herds would do in the face of declining food, and they predicted that they would start to feed at night during the hottest, driest time of the year. This would make them extremely vulnerable to nocturnal predators, but it could be their only option. Contrary to predictions, wildebeest chose rather to hunker down near their favoured water points day and night. They moved much less in the hot dry season than they did at other times of the year, most likely a strategy to conserve energy while they wait for the first rains.

Blue wildebeest are a water-dependent species, and waterholes such as this one in the CKGR are kept full year-round by pumping water from underground. © Moses Selebatso

The researchers found yet another reason to worry about the effect of pumped waterholes on wildebeest and other wildlife in the Kalahari. They tested the water quality in 12 waterholes throughout the CKGR and Khutse GR. Coming from deep ground water, rather than rainfall, eight of these water points failed the overall water quality test developed for livestock (similar standards for wildlife are unavailable). Even more disconcerting, three of the water points had toxic levels of lead, and four had toxic levels of arsenic. To what extent the wildebeest herds that rely on these waterholes are affected by the poor water quality remains unknown, but it is likely to hamper their ability to survive and reproduce.

Interestingly, one herd of wildebeest monitored during this study behaved entirely differently to the others. At the onset of the dry season they started to move south, away from the pans in the north. Southern CKGR has no pumped waterholes, yet this herd spent the early (cold) dry season in this area. Towards the latter part of the dry season, as temperatures increased, with associated increases in heat and water stress levels, the wildebeest headed even further south, entering the Khutse Game Reserve and neighbouring Wildlife Management Areas. The herd did not visit any known source of water, and the researchers explained this herd’s survival by showing that they eat water bearing plants such as tsamma melons and gemsbok cucumber. These plants are well known as a source of moisture for a host of other desert-dwelling animals (e.g. gemsbok), and this study further confirms the value of these plants to wildebeest in the Kalahari. 

Some wildebeest in the Kalahari use water-bearing plants like gemsbok cucumber (inset) to survive the dry season, rather than staying around pumped waterholes. © Moses Selebatso

This fascinating finding poses a number of questions about artificially maintaining water points. Does the provision of water through the dry season discourage wildebeest migration, to their detriment? Are the migrating wildebeest maintaining better body condition by migrating, even though they are not conserving their energy? Are the sedentary wildebeest damaging the grasslands they rely on by grazing them throughout the year, rather than migrating? Are the wildebeest that do not use waterholes in the dry season healthier than the others, which may be affected by poor water quality? What is the future of wildebeest in this continually changing landscape, with its associated human interventions? Dr. Selebatso and his team will no doubt seek answers to these questions through further research.

One potentially critical problem with artificial water points was clearly demonstrated during their 2011-2014 study. “Four of the water pumps broke down in different times during our study period, causing the water in these pans to dry up,” explains Dr. Selebatso, “this led to seven of our ten study animals walking long distances to find water, five of which died in the process.” Meanwhile, the wildebeest herd that adapted by migrating were not affected by water pump failures. This is an important lesson for managing protected areas: once humans have intervened, animals adapt to the new conditions, and any changes in those interventions could have negative repercussions. Maintaining artificial water points has now become essential for wildebeest that have lost their ability to migrate.

Lead researcher Dr. Moses Selebatso inspects the carcass of a blue wildebeest; his research shows that water holes drying up in the Kalahari can lead to increased mortalities of this species. © Thandi David

Taking a step back from the CKGR, the researchers considered how wildebeest survive in other parts of the Kalahari. Considering the importance of natural pans and the nutrient-rich grasses surrounding these pans, another region has been earmarked as vitally important for wildebeest. This area, known as the Kalahari Schwelle, is located just to the north of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Dr. Selebatso explains: “The mineral-rich grasslands are extremely important for wildebeest, especially lactating or pregnant females, yet this area lies outside the Park. We know from game counts that more wildebeest occur here than anywhere else in the drylands of the Kalahari. Keeping this particular region free of fencing, and limiting livestock numbers is therefore critical for the wildebeest in this area.”

The land-use management strategies of the past were implemented without knowing the full negative repercussions they would have on wildebeest and other water-dependent herbivores. Furthermore, livestock-based land uses were more lucrative than wildlife-based uses at that time. Today, with the rise of high-end ecotourism ventures, Botswana’s wildlife-based tourism sector brings more money into the economy than the livestock sector. Furthermore, according to Dr. Selebatso, “Wildlife conservation is comparatively cheaper than livestock management in these fragile ecosystems.”

The future of the Kalahari ecosystem can be positive, both in terms of economic return and biodiversity conservation, if land use plans make full use of the knowledge gained from important studies such as these done by Dr. Selebatso and his colleagues. Wildebeest, like many other Kalahari residents, are tough and adaptable, yet still vulnerable to human decision-making. Their future is in our hands.


By Gail Potgieter

To find out more about Kalahari Research and Conservation, click here. Dr. Moses Selebatso provided valuable input for this article. This important study was funded by Denver Zoo Foundation, SAVE Wildlife Conservation Fund, Comanis Foundation, Kanabo Conservation Link, Wilderness Wildlife Trust, and Office of Research and Development (University of Botswana).

Money, Money, Money, Isn’t Funny, in a Conservationist’s World

The current global state of biodiversity has been described as a crisis, with some scientists going as far as declaring that the sixth mass extinction is already happening. What is also well documented is that in order to reach our global conservation goals, we need more money. The public, particularly in the Western world, has become more aware of conservation needs in recent times, and are thus more willing to donate to the cause than ever before. For example, the global outcry over Cecil the lion’s death led to massive public donations to organisations involved in lion conservation. However, one of the key take-home messages from the resultant Cecil Summit on lion conservation was that we need more money to secure the future of lions.

Members of the public wishing to donate to the conservation cause face a bewildering array of organisations that are asking for money, many of them concerned with the same species. The discerning donor also wants to know how well their hard-earned money is spent, in terms of conserving wild animals and their habitats. Donors are advised to do their homework on the cause and organisation of their choice before committing to them. However, having done your homework, how do you separate the good from the bad? Here, I will provide some pointers on how to do just that.

This article is not yet another call for more money or a definitive guide for which organisations are best, but rather a closer look at how the issue of funding affects conservation outcomes. I will take you on an insider’s tour of fundraising mechanisms used by conservation organisations, and reveal that how and where an organisation obtains its funds can influence its effectiveness. Additionally, I will highlight some critical, yet frequently overlooked, money-related issues that are hindering conservation. Having ‘taken the tour’, I trust you will have a greater understanding about how conservation works (or doesn’t work), which should allow you to make more informed decisions about supporting conservation efforts in future.

The importance of people

First off, let’s talk about people. Every human endeavour on earth is, by definition, driven by people, and conservation is no different. Humans are the ultimate driving force behind the destruction of the environment, and humans are the key to resolving this problem. These points may seem obvious, and yet it frequently seems that the world of conservation finance is unaware of them. One of the most common complaints about conservation organisations (particularly large ones) is how much money is spent on staff salaries. This sentiment is echoed by many donor organisations that do not provide funds for salaries or administration costs.

Conservation is nowhere without dedicated conservationists

Objections to paying people are somewhat understandable, as conservation donors like to know that their money is going ‘to the animals’. Additionally, paying for equipment that is perceived to provide the resolution to conservation problems appears to give you more ‘bang for your buck’ than paying for someone’s salary, or office space. However, in my experience, the actual effectiveness of any conservation-related project or organisation is determined almost entirely by the quality and dedication of the people working there. One could sponsor a hundred anti-poaching drones, or the materials to build a similar number of predator-proof kraals, but without the right people involved, all that money could go to waste.

People are not just an important part of conservation; they are critical. Directors and principal investigators (in the case of conservation research) are key to ensuring that an organisation fulfils its mission. Besides organisation leaders, the people on the ground – e.g. park rangers; post-graduate students; employees from local communities – are the little cogs that make the whole machine work. Particularly for employees drawn out of local communities, salaries and general staff treatment can make or break a locally based project, as this example from India demonstrates.

Funding the un-fundable

Besides salaries, administration and overhead costs are vital to making a non-profit organisation of any kind work, yet they are frequently not covered or severely restricted by donor agencies. The people employed may be dedicated and passionate, but they soon become disheartened when vital equipment (e.g. vehicles) do not work, or there is no budget for basic office equipment like computers. As an example, I once looked for money to build much-needed predator-proof kraals in a remote rural area. All the potential donors I looked at that provided the modest amounts of funding I required (US$1,000-5,000) excluded vehicle expenses. Consequently, had I received funds from these organisations, the budget would have covered the costs for building several large kraals, but not for transporting these materials to target communities!

Using funding from one grant, I was able to buy, transport, and pay to build predator-proof kraals for remote rural communities. This project was discontinued, as funding for transport and overheads is not available from many grantors.

With the emphasis on funding equipment directly related to project activities (vehicles, computers etc. are categorised as ‘indirect’) and tangible, measurable outcomes, donors rarely support projects that rely on building relationships to find sustainable solutions. Projects that are aimed at local communities especially require time and patience, with measurable outcomes few and far between. Time and patience obviously requires the salary and indirect costs associated with getting the right kind of person into the right places, thus making the critical early phases of community projects virtually un-fundable. Some of the greatest conservation success stories were created through such unattractive processes as listening to and truly engaging with local people (e.g. establishing communal conservancies in Namibia), yet these successes are rarely repeatable due to donor reluctance to fund this kind of work.

A recent grant proposal I helped write was aimed at reducing conflict between humans and lions. The timescale provided was two years, in which we had to produce such measurable outcomes as ‘the number of lions saved’, and ‘the proportion of lion range in Africa conserved’ as a direct result of our project. Anyone who has worked with local communities would realise that things are never that simple. You need to develop relationships and build trust, listen to what communities really want, and then present your ideas on potential solutions, respectfully allowing them to support or reject those ideas.

In some areas, the idea of coexisting with lions is so nonsensical to local people that a measurable outcome such as ‘number of lions saved’ could take a generation to accomplish. Changing deeply held beliefs and perceptions simply does not happen on a two-year timescale. However, not spending the time needed to do this, and favouring instead projects that have donor-satisfying short timescales, frequently results in local communities realising that the NGO dedicated to ‘helping them’ actually has other priorities. The consequences of this breakdown in trust for long-term, ultimate conservation goals (like ‘saving lions’) are dire.

The less attractive face of conservation. This cow was killed by lions. Changing local perceptions of dangerous wildlife takes time and patience, which are difficult to fund.

A lack of funding to employ and keep the best people can render a conservation organisation useless, or worse. Dynamic leaders are forced to spend their time fundraising, rather than furthering their conservation goals. Underpaid anti-poaching rangers could be tempted by bribes from well-funded poaching groups. Young, promising scientists could leave the field of conservation and apply their skills in another scientific field that holds better career prospects. I have not made these examples up; I have witnessed them time and again in different countries and organisations.

Anyone working in Human Resources in any other industry will attest to the fact that the treatment of staff is key to the success of any organisation, and non-profit organisations are no different. What happens to an industry when all of the organisations therein underpay their staff and consequently underperform? The entire industry suffers, potential investors look elsewhere, and very little innovation or achievement is accomplished. Considering the consistent undervaluation of people in conservation, is it any wonder that our conservation goals are rarely achieved, and that donors are fatigued by constant requests for funds by a seemingly inefficient industry?

But what about the overpaid CEOs of large, bureaucratic organisations that employ a legion of staff, yet don’t seem to get anything done? Or what about those organisations that drum up more than enough money through clever fundraising campaigns to fund bloated budgets? Sadly, unscrupulous organisations do exist in the otherwise noble field of conservation. Besides the outright fraudsters (such as cub-petting operations), there are an untold number of organisations that started off well, yet have been derailed by the conservation financing system. This leads me to the next critical issue: accountability.

Do donors know what conservationists are doing with their money?

Much of conservation funding these days comes directly from the public, as well-marketed conservation can generate popular support. Many organisations are becoming adept at fundraising from the public, and are looking at ways of marketing their cause as broadly as possible. Indeed, a recent study showed that increased marketing to the general public is a key factor for conserving less attractive animals. Whilst it is wonderful that more people are becoming aware of conservation needs and are willing to contribute to meeting them, this situation allows scope for abuse.

Window dressing and exaggeration are common aspects of the fundraising campaigns of more conservation organisations than you want to know about. In the race for the public’s attention, each organisation tries to outdo the other by describing their cause in the most emotive way possible, knowing that tugging heart strings often loosens purse strings. Additionally, the success of each conservation project is talked up, and some projects are sustained simply because it looks good to the layman. Finally, few individual donors are interested in the financial nitty-gritty of their chosen recipient, so fund wastage and mismanagement can go entirely unchecked.

The abuse of funding can be minimized by donor organisations that give grants to conservationists based on detailed project proposals and budgets. Having received a grant, the conservation organisation needs to provide regular update reports and financial statements that prove that the money is being used properly. However, from a conservationist’s point of view, fundraising from the public and writing grant proposals share one key drawback: time.

Time is money – unless you work in conservation

The extreme competition for limited funding (from all sources) leads conservation organisations to devote increasing amounts of time to fundraising. In smaller organisations, the director or CEO is forced to spend most of their time either touring the Western world, or writing endless grants just to keep their projects going. Costs incurred by either of these activities are rarely covered by the funds received, and the general public have negative perceptions of organisations that, ironically, spend money to raise funds from the public. Larger organisations employ people to write grants and lead fundraising or marketing campaigns, thus freeing up time for their directors to focus on actual conservation work. Yet employing a fundraiser is one more administration cost criticised by potential donors as ‘unnecessary’.

This situation is not helped by the fact that every donor organisation has different demands for how they want their grant proposals formatted or worded. Each proposal must be different from the last one, because donors have such a wide variety of demands and interests. A human-wildlife conflict project, for example, must be framed as conserving animals for one donor, and then re-framed as assisting local people for the next. Even donors with relatively similar interests request proposals in completely different formats, thus making it time-consuming to write several proposals for the same project.

As for public fundraising, in-person tours generate more attention than online campaigns, which leads to the fundraiser racking up the air miles in a bid to reach as wide an audience as possible. A globetrotting director is vulnerable to becoming out of touch with local project staff, which can cause internal staff-related problems that hamper their organisation’s efficiency.

At the end of another glorious day in the African bush, one pauses to reflect on how the day's time has been spent. For many conservationists, the answer is "trying to raise money".

Money can be an obstacle to conservation

Sources of funding have an inordinate impact on conservation outcomes. In general, donor communities are either from developed countries, or urbanised subsets of developing countries. For African conservation NGOs, the people who are likely to be affected by their work are rural people in developing countries. The needs and desires of the donor and target communities are frequently at odds with one another, and it takes a brave balancing act to reconcile the two. Sadly, if they are not reconciled, then the wishes of the donor community are likely to outweigh those of the target community – money talks. This issue is certainly not limited to conservation NGOs, as all foreign-based or funded organisations in Africa walk the tightrope of helping communities and keeping donors satisfied.

Here a just a few examples of how money can become an obstacle to conservation. NGOs that receive money through volunteers focus on projects that are attractive and allow a ‘hands-on’ approach for foreigners, even if such projects have dubious conservation value. Those supported by universities may focus on research questions that lead to publishing scientific journal articles, rather than producing practical guidelines for conservation managers (the world of scientific publishing is itself manipulated by money). Public-funded organisations may avoid controversial topics and choose not to lobby for legislation changes they know to be necessary, in case their followers do not agree with or understand their stance. Projects funded by short-term grants may show promise, only to be terminated when the funding runs out. Conservation NGOs run the risk of turning local communities against them by focusing on outcomes that tick donor’s boxes, rather than undertaking true community engagement.

The above examples are just a small selection of the pitfalls conservation NGOs can fall into due to the source of their funding. Considering this list (which is by no means comprehensive) may leave you cynical about conservation in general – are there any organisations that do what they say they do? Are there any that use their funds in the best possible way? Should I spend my hard-earned money on conservation efforts, or will it just be wasted? How can we fix a system that seems so broken, before time runs out for global wildlife?

What can we do about it? Solutions lie on both sides of the equation

As a conservationist observing the industry from the inside, it is easy to become despondent and think about giving up the whole effort. However, our wildlife deserve better than that. Furthermore, it is not all gloom and doom, as there are several organisations that have set out to do things a little differently from the rest. I will refrain from naming names here, just as I have for some of the dubious ones I referred to previously, as I do not have complete information on every organisation, and my opinions on any of them are entirely subjective. Nonetheless, I will outline some of the positive funding strategies I have seen that help conservation NGOs become more effective.

A few of the larger conservation NGOs get around the problem of paying reasonable salaries, whilst remaining attractive for public donations, by funding their operating costs through endowment funds or conservation-minded philanthropists. This system is based on understanding how important people are in the conservation effort, and how difficult it is to raise public funds to pay them what they are worth. The salary-paying philanthropist then also has the right to know how the organisation is operated, and is more likely to hold them accountable for their use of time and money than the general public.

Philanthropists and large endowment funds are rather scarce, and very little could be done worldwide if we needed one of these for every conservation attempt. However, the salary issue can also be addressed by businesses supporting conservation. Some companies have established Trusts that do conservation work, with the conservationists’ salaries covered by the business side of the operation. Specifically, wildlife-based tourism operators can play a greater role in conserving wildlife by adopting this model. As not all tour operators are big enough to support a Trust on their own, they could club together and support one Trust that does conservation work on their behalf.

If you are interested in donating to a cause, don’t be put off by organisations that need funding for salaries and overheads, as not every worthy organisation has a philanthropist or business supporting it. Rather, donors should focus on finding out how an organisation is run, and how it proposes to meet its objectives. If possible, talk to a neutral party in the industry who can tell the difference between window dressing and real conservation. Paying the salary of someone who takes the time to engage with communities, or has the skills required for managing large wilderness areas, or the diplomatic tact needed to engage with governments at the highest level, is certainly not a waste of money.

High profile award funds (e.g. the Tusk Awards) have been established to provide publicity and funding for hardworking, sometimes relatively unknown conservationists. Besides giving individual conservation projects a financial boost, the public recognition of the work done by these individuals will certainly help to keep their projects going in future. These awards also demonstrate that without dedicated conservationists, there would be no conservation, thus improving public perceptions of spending conservation money on people.

Zoos with Trusts that act as donor organisations are talking about standardising their requirements for grant proposals, such that one proposal may be sent to several Trusts without needing extensive changes. This is a very positive development, and more grantors with similar interests should come together to standardise their proposal requirements. This would lift a great burden off the shoulders of small conservation NGOs that cannot afford fulltime grant writers.

I recently found a new conservation group that promised to post all their financial records on Facebook, thus ensuring that their donors knew how their money was spent. This is an enormous step forwards in transparency and accountability, and I think many other public-funded organisations would do well to emulate this example. Donors should have easy access to such information, rather than having to do extensive research to find out where their money is spent. On the other side of the coin, donors need to understand that salaries and overheads (or indirect costs) are essential to the functioning of most NGOs. They should not discontinue their support just because their chosen NGO honestly includes these items in financial reports.

Finally, some conservation NGOs that understand the importance of research for guiding conservation action have teamed up with universities. The conservationists on the ground play a major role in determining the research agenda, and the university supplies students to find answers to relevant research questions. In this way, research funding from international universities can support conservation action. This system serves to prevent research from becoming too detached from conservation realities, and helps increase continuity between research projects. The local conservation NGO thus becomes a hub of research and an overarching body under which post-graduate students can operate.

This field trip to monitor carnivore populations in an under-studied area of Botswana was funded by the University of Wisconsin (Steven's Point). Their students accompany us into the field and help collect data.

As many and as difficult as the funding challenges appear to be, I believe that there are workable solutions. However, conservationists need to see the potential pitfalls of their particular funding strategy, and be willing to find ways to avoid them. As I have shown above, the source of funding can influence conservation work negatively, but it can also have a positive influence by increasing accountability and effectiveness. To this end, educating the donors about conservation funding issues is paramount. I would encourage all conservation organisations to take an honest look at how their funding sources influence their work. If this self-appraisal is negative, then look to engage with donors to find a way of making money work for conservation.

By Gail C. Potgieter

Trading Endangered Species – Necessary Evil or Selling our Souls? Part 2

This baby rhino is in danger, as poachers might kill its mother for her horn. How do we stop the rhino poaching scourge, and secure this baby's future? Photo by Rob Thomson.

The policies of South Africa with regards to wildlife conservation have implications for other countries in the region, including Botswana. Although Botswana has very different policies, the close proximity of South Africa, and the many land borders between the two countries mean that their respective policies are likely to influence each other’s conservation efforts.

In Part 1 of this series, we considered the recent South African proposal to export 800 lion skeletons from the captive lion breeding industry. This article delves into the even more complex topic of trading rhino horn, on the back of news that South Africa has allowed domestic trade, even though international trade is still banned. As mentioned in Part 1, there are four main differences between trading lion bones and rhino horn, listed below to refresh your memory.

1. The lions that are earmarked for trade should all come from captive lion breeding farms, whereas the rhinos are currently kept under mostly natural conditions on large game ranching properties, where they remain part of working ecosystems. 
2. The groups lobbying for trade in lion bones are almost exclusively the lion breeders themselves, whereas the rhino horn pro-trade group comprises both rhino owners and rhino conservationists. 
3. In order to trade lion bones, lions must be killed, whereas a rhino’s horn can be removed non-lethally, and it will regrow in time.
4. The conservation threats to rhinos and lions in the wild are very different, so any idea that purports to help conserve these species should be viewed within that context.

These differences indicate that there is a stronger argument, based solely on conservation efforts, for rhino horn trade than there is for lion bone trade. In particular, the support for legalising horn trade among noted conservationists cannot be ignored. Reading through all of the pro- and anti-trade opinion pieces, one realises that this topic really is a minefield, with many facts portrayed differently depending on who is telling the story. The purpose of this article is less about giving an opinion one way or another, and more about helping you navigate this minefield to form your own opinion on the subject. Consequently, I describe three of the crucial sticking points in the debate, and look at what is perhaps the key to moving forward for rhino conservation, rather than setting forth another one-sided opinion piece. The three issues (these are by no means the only ones) I will focus on are: the historical context of the rhino horn trade and conservation efforts, whether or not a free market trade could work for rhinos, and if reducing demand for horn will save the rhino.

Historical Context
To address the current poaching crisis, some suggest that we consider the historical context of the problem. What do we learn from this history? To answer this question, let’s start with Operation Rhino. The incredible recovery of the white rhino population from a handful of individuals in the 1950s to nearly 20,000 rhinos in South Africa today was started by a far-sighted project called Operation Rhino. A key figure in this Operation, the late Ian Player, attributed much of the success of his work to the notion of private ownership and sustainable use of rhinos in South Africa. This project sparked what today is a thriving wildlife ranching industry, which hosts more wildlife on more land than the protected areas in the country.

The success of Operation Rhino, and the importance of wildlife conservation on private land in South Africa are agreed by the majority of conservationists, irrespective of their stance on trade. Where opinions diverge is over the question: can a similar strategy, based specifically on rhino horn trade, stop the current poaching crisis, or would it fuel still more poaching? Similarly, does banning trade in endangered species achieve its stated goal of reducing poaching, or does it actually serve to increase poaching? To try and answer these questions, groups on both sides of the debate turn to the history books.

Although one would think that studying the history of rhino horn trade, and the banning thereof, might lead to clear conclusions that are either for or against the trade, this is not the case. Historical analyses by those favouring trade suggest that trade bans, particularly the 2009 ban in South Africa, actually precipitated the current rhino poaching crisis. According to their analyses, small quantities of legally obtained rhino horn from South Africa during the 2000’s obviated the need for traders to employ poachers to obtain their supplies. The fact that other African countries had banned hunting of their rhinos was the reason why poachers had decimated those populations long before they targeted South Africa. Poaching is a risky and expensive business, so surely if there were a less expensive way of getting horn (i.e. legally), then profit-oriented traders would choose that route instead.

Among the anti-trade lobby, the same historical data is used to support trade bans and suggest that rhino hunting in South Africa was the real cause for increasing demand in Asian countries. During the 1980’s, rhino poaching in Africa was recognised as a major threat to the species, and CITES successfully lobbied several Asian countries to ban the domestic trade in rhino horn. During the 1990’s, China removed rhino horn from the official list of ingredients used in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and encouraged practitioners to use legal substitutes for horn.

Anti-traders suggest that these measures led to the relative lull in poaching during the late 90’s and early 00’s, until Vietnam became a new consumer country. On the back of a rapidly growing economy, some Vietnamese wanted to show off their newly acquired wealth by using expensive products such as rhino horn for a variety of reasons (including treating hangovers). Around the same time that Vietnamese suddenly grew a taste for rhino horn, rather strange legal rhino hunts were happening in South Africa. Instead of the usual hunting customers – American or European males – hunts were being sold to young Vietnamese women, who could not actually hunt. It soon came to light that these women were actually employed by horn traders who would sell the horn from the trophy on the black market once the ‘huntresses’ returned home.

The discovery of Vietnamese ‘pseudo-hunts’ that were used to supply rhino horn on the black market led to the moratorium on all rhino horn trade within South Africa in 2009. The pro-trade lobby suggests that by cutting off the legal channels for obtaining rhino horn under a regulated trophy hunting system the moratorium forced traders to find another way of obtaining the horn – poaching. Anti-traders hold that the pseudo-hunts that were allowed due to South Africa’s hunting industry actually stimulated the demand for rhino horn in Vietnam, without which there would have been no poaching crisis. As you can see, this is a chicken-and-egg argument, with both sides quoting the same basic facts, yet disagreeing on cause and effect. Did rhino hunting delay the poaching crisis or create it?

These white rhinos are moving through the thick bush of Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Game Park, the home of Operation Rhino. Photo by Gail Potgieter.

Trade Bans vs. Market-Driven Sustainable Use
Whether trade bans help or hinder conservation objectives is one of the key issues in this debate. The anti-trade side almost invariably points to CITES briefly lifting elephant ivory bans to allow African countries to sell stockpiles of ivory to consumer countries as Exhibit A for the importance of trade bans. Following the once-off ivory auctions, demand for ivory in the consumer countries spiked, as a once scarce commodity suddenly became available to more people. This drove increased elephant poaching, as traders found that illegally obtained ivory could now be ‘laundered’ and sold as though it came from the previous once-off auctions.

This story holds an important lesson for all conservationists thinking about the trade in endangered species. The question is: what exactly did we learn? For the anti-trade group, the answer is obvious – trading endangered species’ parts is a dangerous business, as it may cause unexpected market reactions, and provide a way for illegally obtained parts to enter the market, further incentivising poaching. For the pro-trade group, the answer is also obvious – once-off sales don’t work, and serve only to drive demand and increase the price of the ‘commodity’. However, they argue that sustainable, long-term supplies could satisfy the market for horn and outcompete illegal poaching.

One key point that must be borne in mind here is that elephants must be killed for their ivory, yet rhinos can be dehorned non-lethally. The pro-traders therefore suggest that trade could be started with current stockpiles of rhino horn and continued sustainably by non-lethally dehorning privately owned rhinos on an annual basis. The idea of commercial ranchers using rhinos as a ‘cash-cow’ by dehorning them regularly is morally repulsive to most of those in the anti-trade group. Rhinos are wild animals that use their horns for many reasons, some of which we may not even understand – how can we reduce this magnificent animal to a semi-domesticated state, deprived of its iconic horn? There are a few counter-arguments from the pro-trade lobby to this ethical issue (barring those that simply dismiss moral arguments as ‘bunny-hugging’):

1. Only privately owned rhinos will be dehorned, thus allowing rhinos in protected areas to keep their horns, and also be less threatened by poachers. 
2. What is worse, a living rhino without its horn that is occasionally subjected to stress and sedation, or a dead rhino with its horn hacked off in the most inhumane manner imaginable? 
3. In the current poaching crisis, many private rhino owners and even governments are already dehorning rhinos, as a means of protecting them against poachers – not much will change with the suggested trade anyway.

To sum up this point, how you view markets and private wildlife owners is key to which side of the trade debate you are likely to choose. For anti-traders, markets are Pandora’s Box – opening them may lead to such rapid species decline that it may be too late before we decide to close them again. Furthermore, people who own rhinos are clearly in it for their own interests, and are not to be trusted with conserving these precious animals. For pro-traders, markets are an integral part of sustainable use, which has been a pillar of wildlife conservation in South Africa for decades; they are useful, not scary. Similarly, rhino owners were a key part of Operation Rhino, which is the reason there are any white rhinos in South Africa today; rhino owners are thus absolutely essential to future conservation efforts.

This black rhino in the remote desert of Namibia is also affected by the poaching crisis - the government recently launched an intensive programme to dehorn all of the rhinos in this region in an effort to deter poachers. Photo by Gail Potgieter.

Reducing Demand
Among those who do not see legal trade as an option, a key strategy to alleviate rhino poaching is to reduce demand for horn amongst consumers. Despite China’s official stance on rhino horn, some Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners still prescribe rhino horn as an essential ingredient for serious illnesses, mainly fevers (not as an aphrodisiac, or a cure for cancer). The Vietnamese market is rather different, as rhino horn is seen as a status symbol by the nouveau riche, and their use for it has no basis in traditional medicine. Some of these end users have no idea that rhinos are highly threatened, or that their demand for horn fuels a veritable war in Africa that has cost many lives, both human and rhino.

Reducing demand requires an array of strategies including education, awareness building, and on-going engagement with potential user communities. If we could convince Chinese traditional healers to use horn from domestic water buffalo in Asia as a substitute for rhino horn (they have been shown to exhibit similar properties), then they would stop buying expensive horn from illegal dealers. If we convince people who use traditional medicines in Asia that rhino horn is made of keratin, and is actually just like human fingernails, then maybe they won’t place their trust in horn to cure fevers. Finally, if the nouveau riche of Vietnam realised the destruction their luxury tastes actually cause, perhaps using rhino horn would become a social taboo, much like campaigns against fur worked in Western countries.

Such demand reduction strategies take time, money, and sustained effort, not to mention government willpower amongst countries that are notorious for turning a blind eye to animal abuse. Pro-traders that do not have a financial stake in rhino horn trade agree that eliminating demand for horn would be the gold medal for rhino conservation. However, they ask: how long is it going to take to realise this lofty goal? Can demand be reduced quickly enough to save the rhino from extinction? The traditional medicine market has used horn for millennia, and people who use it have long-held, deeply ingrained beliefs. Is it realistic to expect these beliefs to evaporate following media campaigns led by Western NGOs that tell them that their medicine is as effective as chewing your fingernails?

To these searching questions, anti-trade conservation groups reply with some good counter-arguments: 1) If demand elimination truly is the gold medal for rhino conservation, then that is where we should focus our limited resources, rather than fighting each other over legalising trade. 2) Yes, reducing demand does take time and effort, which we are willing to spend, but legalising the trade in the meantime will send out mixed-messages to consumers and undo all our hard work. 3) We believe that demand can be reduced (if not eliminated) to the extent that rhino poaching at least declines, provided that we use the right strategies to target the right consumer groups. Further research and funding is urgently needed to properly address the demand problem, rather than committing to the relatively unknown route of trade legalisation.

The Way Forward – Addressing Mistrust
I am sure that some pro-traders reading this article would have snorted in disgust at the last sentence of the previous section. “Further research and funding” is a typical call from anti-trade organisations, and the ‘typical’ disgusted pro-trader response to it, exemplifies the key problem with this debate. The goal for both sides of the debate is the same – to conserve rhinos. You would think that this provides enough common ground for the two parties to engage with each other in meaningful ways that would lead to an eventual resolution of the debate. The truth is, it is far more complicated than that. Conservationists who back either side of this debate are generally very different kinds of people with very different life experiences and perspectives. Consequently, they harbour deep feelings of mistrust for one another, and more often than not portray the other group with well-worn stereotypes.

Just like this beautiful black rhino, we need to keep moving forwards for conservation. Photo by Gail Potgieter.

Pro-traders are frequently those who have experienced the plus side of sustainable use first-hand. Wildlife ranchers and game wardens that are involved with live wildlife auctions extol the value of the wildlife ranching industry and quote the success this has had in terms of boosting wildlife numbers. They have many years of field experience, and have lived ‘in the bush’ for much of their lives; they are outdoorsman and many enjoy activities such as fishing and hunting for meat. They are also frequently on the frontlines of the poaching crisis: they have seen mutilated rhinos first-hand, tracked poachers through the bush for kilometres, perhaps even watched their friends and employees die at the hands of poachers. They are hardened bush people who have an intimate understanding of the environment, even if they lack university qualifications.

Anti-traders usually come from an entirely different background. Many work for or have established conservation NGOs that emphasise such lofty goals as evidence-based conservation, and saving species through education and community outreach. A good number of them are not from Africa, but have fallen in love with the continent. By and large, they have degrees in biology-related fields and have studied various aspects of conservation in depth. They love wildlife and working in the field, but are more often than not stuck behind a computer writing funding proposals or analysing the data from their latest research. The best of the NGOs strive to use academic research to drive on-the-ground conservation efforts and closely monitor their results. They have a real passion for their work, even though they have never had poachers’ bullets whiz past their ears, or watched a friend die for protecting wildlife.

This is not to say that the kinds of people who match the description in the first group are always pro-trade, or those in the latter group are always anti, but these are the stereotypes. As I have described them, one can see virtue in both groups, and I would argue that the conservation world needs them equally. Without boots-on-the-ground, dedicated people at the frontline of the poaching war, we would have lost all our rhinos already. However, without NGOs that continue to do research and outreach activities, conservation efforts will be rudderless and go largely unnoticed by the rest of the world.

Sadly, there is a deep level of mistrust between the most passionate and outspoken of those in each group. This is manifest when pro-traders dismiss all anti-trade arguments as ‘sentimentalist’ or ‘animal rightist’, implying that these supposed keyboard warriors cannot possibly understand the urgency for a radically new way of approaching conservation (i.e. legalising trade). It is also manifest by anti-traders, who cast the pro-trade argument as ‘uncaring’ or even ‘self-serving’, implying that pro-traders view individual wild animals merely as a means to an end, without considering their welfare.

The snide comments are particularly jarring when it comes to how the two sides fund their conservation efforts. Anti-traders cast wildlife ranchers as wealthy farmers who care only about the financial bottom line, and view their animals as inanimate assets. Pro-traders cast conservation NGOs as money-grabbing organisations who actually want to keep species endangered to ensure that they have a sustainable source of income from their gullible international donors. It seems that it is not enough to merely disagree about how to solve the current poaching crisis, but we must destroy each other’s reputations and denigrate each other’s contributions to conservation at the same time.

The two sides nonetheless agree on a few essentials: we are in a crisis, and something must be done about it; we are facing highly organised criminal syndicates; the current situation is leading to the extinction of the rhino – it simply cannot carry on as it is now. Yet how are we ever going to fix this problem if the very best of the conservation world – bush warriors on the frontlines, and charismatic NGO leaders with international support – cannot even sit around the same table and discuss these things without resorting to personal attacks? Although I have cast the two groups as polar opposites for the sake of revealing stereotypes, I believe that there are many in each group that are closer to the middle ground, and do not resort to attacking those who do not agree with them. Those towards the middle need to talk to others in their ‘group’ that are on the extreme edges, and create a true middle ground where conservationists from across the spectrum can come to a real agreement on the way forward. Perhaps the ‘keyboard warriors’ need to experience the frontline of the poaching war themselves, and the ‘bush warriors’ need to take a step back and listen to those who have researched the issue on an international scale.

To counter our highly organised, ruthless, common enemy, we need a unified strategy that everyone agrees on and works towards. If we achieve such a goal, then we can present a united front to the rest of the world and a strong proposal to CITES and local governments (in either direction) that shows that we have a concrete plan to combat the scourge of rhino poaching. The current situation where domestic trade is allowed in South Africa, with enough loopholes to stimulate uncontrolled illegal international trade, is a direct result of the conflict between the two groups, and is highly unlikely to improve the rhino’s plight. Can we set aside our differences, for the rhino’s sake?

By Gail C. Potgieter