The elephant's best friend.

THE ELEPHANT'S BEST FRIEND

IN MAY 1985 I was in Botswana, flying north from the small bush community of Maun. The view from the Cessna 182 was of stark, Saharaesque scrub and sand with little sign of life. Soon a sharp, dark green line took shape on the horizon. What I was seeing was the effect of the livestock fence separating the Okavango area from the intensively grazed cattle lands of the south. I was viewing what has to be one of the most graphic illustrations of different sorts of habitat management anywhere: on one side, exploitation of the land for a type of livestock unsuited to it; on the other, flourishing native bush with a biota probably unsurpassed since Eden. That fence was held in place by the economic factor of sport hunting.

This illustrates a conservation concept which, though it has been applied very successfully, has scarcely been heard of in the outside world. The problem is that it was devised in Rhodesia and South Africa. Rhodesia is no more, and the idea that any good could come out of South Africa is only beginning to become speakable in polite society. The concept is the large-scale privatization of wildlife.

Privatization is based on a two-part premise: that native wildlife species do better than introduced exotics such as cattle and sheep; and that wildlife is a commodity. Accepting the latter premise requires some adjustment for the North American mind. Our collective conscience is still troubled with visions of the bison, hunted to near extinction. Yet in the South African program is the salvation of Africa's threatened wildlife.

The net effect of privatization, known commonly as game ranching, has been a sharp increase in the number of wild animals and a visible transformation of the countryside. Game ranching has three components: trophy sport hunting, the red meat or biltong trade, and tourism. Despite the tremendous draw of world-class National Parks such as Kruger, the private potential is still greater. It is estimated that the visiting hunter will spend at least 14 times the money the wildlife observer spends - according to recent data, an average daily expenditure of $52 by wildlife observers, who stay about three days, compared to the $725 to $1,500 per day spent by hunters, who stay an average of 11 days. Yes, the hunters generally do kill something, but how many observers must be run through the same piece of habitat to equal the hunters' revenue, and what do they demand in the way of amenities? The hunter generally prefers a more natural appearance, which means less impact on the habitat.

This has created a powerful incentive for optimum wildlife management. It has resulted in the annual transformation of tens of thousands of acres of agricultural holdings back into native wildlife habitat. Species which will never be hunted, for sport or for meat, are enjoying a tremendous piggyback benefit. Habitats that are optimal for a trophy bull kudu also support the badger-like ratel, the baboon, the Cape turtle dove, and numerous other species. Herein lies hope for the rest of the world.

Prospering Rhinos

IN APRIL 1989 I traveled the length and breadth of the Republic of South Africa visiting with game ranchers, wildlife biologists, and environmental groups. Without exception I found enthusiasm for the privatized wildlife system. As University of Cape Town wildlife researcher Rob Little put it: "Let the species become of value rather than drawing [subsidized] funds out of society. In that way wildlife will automatically prosper." In South Africa the individual rancher owns and manages the animals. The white rhinoceros is well and thriving in South Africa, while only tenuously holding on in the rest of the continent. The reason is value. Upward of $15,000 per head is a powerful incentive to raise rhino.

An interesting alliance occurs in South Africa between what would be opposing forces in the United States. The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is "dedicated to preserving the diversity of life on the planet earth," a statement of faith which would probably be endorsed by any of the preservationist-oriented "greens" in North America. In the South African context, however, this group works closely with the private sector rather than agitating for restrictive legislation against it. Among its major credits is a benchmark project with the University of Pretoria to establish the status of the cheetah. In the words of EWT director John Ledger: "We support the concept of trophy hunting as a legitimate form of wildlife utilization. The wildlife resources of the African continent are the heritage of the people who live here, their key to progress and prosperity. The only way that this wildlife resource can yield the maximum return . . . is to allow it to be traded as a commodity."

South Africa's National Parks, including the massive Kruger, are operated on a quasi-privatized basis. Whereas the elephant is in serious trouble in most of Africa, herds have been growing by about 5 per cent a year in South Africa. The problem is that elephants require a phenomenal amount of forage. Overstocking can quickly turn prime habitats into something like the aftermath of B-52 saturation bombing. A certain number of elephants are therefore "culled": the occasionally controversial, but biologically necessary, removal of excess animals. Culling is not merely a negative solution, however. By killing selected older animals and utilizing their meat and ivory, the park earns money to fund its programs. Young animals, meanwhile, can be sent to other parks in the country that are short of elephants.

Kruger's Chief Ranger Bruce Bryden explained that the original intention was to sell young animals to the vast private holdings once the parks were fully stocked. But this plan may be blocked by the ivory sanctions imposed by CITES (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species), which have drastically reduced the elephants' market value. Unless a way is found around the U.S.-endorsed CITES ban, the South African herd will probably stay near its current numbers, primarily in Kruger Park, instead of expanding extensively into the private sector as the rest of South Africa's indigenous species have already done.

Well intentioned but ignorant bans on the use of wildlife help no one but black-marketeers. Nor is this the problem solely of indigent Africa. The U.S. is top-heavy with nineteenth-century legislation designed to rescue an endangered wildlife resource of that time. Such laws as the Lacy Act, which prohibits interstate trade in wildlife, would need to be overhauled to stimulate game ranching in the U.S. - a formidable legislative task. In a series of articles under the title of "A Price on Their Heads" a couple of years ago, the Albuquerque Tribune loudly decried the accelerating black market in wildlife parts and products in the United States. Then it editorially called for additional state controls over fee-hunting on private lands, an expansion of federal wilderness areas, and additional wildlife revenues to be raised through new taxes. This is a cure guaranteed to kill.

I see no conflict between American conservation ethics and the South African model. If, as in South Africa, it results in increased wildlife habitat and increased wildlife numbers and diversity, and at the same time removes the perceived need for statist interventions, then what is there left for the "greens" to rail against?