Search

Reversing biodiversity loss is a global imperative that requires setting aside sufficient space for species. In South Africa, an estimated area of 20 million ha is under wildlife ranching, a form of private land enterprise that adopts wildlife-based land uses for commercial gain. This land has potential to contribute towards biodiversity conservation, but the extent to which this occurs has not been evaluated. Using structured questionnaires of 226 wildlife ranchers, we assessed how the sector contributes towards the conservation of ungulates and elephants (hereafter herbivores). Overall, 40 herbivore species were present across the sample, where individual ranches had a mean of 15.0 (± 4.8) species, 1.9 (± 1.5) threatened species, and 3.6 (± 3.1) extralimital species per property. In comparison to 54 state PAs, wildlife ranches had significantly higher species richness, more threatened species but more extralimital species when property/reserve size was controlled for. Ranches conducting trophy hunting had similar species richness and numbers of extralimital species per ha, but fewer threatened species when compared to ranches conducting ecotourism. We estimate that 4.66–7.25 million herbivores occur on ranches nationally, representing one of the few examples on earth where indigenous mammal populations are thriving and demonstrating how sustainable use can lead to rewilding. We discuss the potential negative impacts of widespread game fencing on landscape fragmentation and gene flow, as well as how the widespread occurrence of extralimital species may lead to hybridisation, biotic homogenisation, and changes to vegetation dynamics. Despite these challenges, commercial wildlife ranching offers a viable option for conserving large mammalian herbivore biodiversity.

Given the scale of the current biodiversity loss, setting conservation priorities is essential to direct scarce resources to where they will be most effective. Many prioritization schemes have been described by using a wide range of criteria that vary across taxonomic groups, spatial scales, and ecological, socio-economic, and governance contexts. Currently, there is no single prioritization process applicable to all situations, nor is there a list of agreed metrics. The IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group and the Small Mammal Specialist Group recently performed species prioritization exercises based on a similar approach. The variables used included biological, socio-political, and feasibility criteria. The two exercises contained both common and some unique variables, arranged in a matrix for the target species (29 threatened antelopes and 19 critically endangered Mexican small mammals, respectively). The ASG framework provided a global summary of the antelope priorities, which can be updated and adapted to the national level. The SMSG matrix was applied in a regional workshop to select species for which the likelihood of implementing conservation actions was high and led to conservation action plans being developed for six species. The framework we jointly developed in theory can be applied to other taxa, certainly all mammals and perhaps most vertebrates.

Efficient and systematic survey methods are essential for wildlife researchers and conservationists to collect accurate ecological data that can be used to make informed conservation decisions. For endangered and elusive species, that are not easily detected by conventional methods, reliable, time- and cost-efficient methodologies become increasingly important. Across a growing spectrum of conservation research projects, survey outcomes are benefitting from scent detection dogs that assist with locating elusive species. This paper describes the training methodology used to investigate the ability of a scent detection dog to locate live riverine rabbits (Bunolagus monticularis) in their natural habitat, and to determine how species-specific the dog was towards the target scent in a controlled environment. The dog was trained using operant conditioning and a non-visual methodology, with only limited scent from roadkill specimens available. The dog achieved a 98% specificity rate towards the target scent, indicating that the dog was able to distinguish the scent of riverine rabbits from the scent of other lagomorph species. The dog has already been able to locate ten of these elusive individuals in the wild. The training method proved successful in the detection of this critically endangered species, where scent for training was only available from deceased specimens.

The private wildlife sector in South Africa must demonstrate value in the face of political pressures for economic growth, job creation and food security. Through structured survey questionnaires of landowners and managers from 276 private wildlife ranches, we describe patterns of wildlife-based land uses (WBLUs), estimate their financial and social contributions and compare these with livestock farming. We show that 46% of surveyed properties combined wildlife with livestock, 86% conducted two or more WBLUs and 80% conducted consumptive use activities. Intensive breeding was conducted on 46% of properties and covered 5.1% of their total land area. Revenues were higher on wildlife only properties than livestock farms, but we were unable to compare the profitability of wildlife and livestock due to data gaps for livestock. Profits from WBLUs were highly variable, while mean return on investment (ROI) was 0.068. Wildlife properties employed more people per unit area than livestock farms, properties conducting ecotourism employed more than twice as many people as non-ecotourism properties, and biltong hunting properties employed 50% fewer people than non-biltong hunting properties. Mean game meat production on wildlife only properties was 4.07 kg/ha, while the top producers harvested game meat at a level comparable with some extensive livestock farms. We suggest that the financial and social benefits of wildlife ranching on marginal land make this a viable land use, but that the contributions towards biodiversity conservation need to be quantified. The South African model could be a suitable option for other African countries seeking sustainable land use alternatives.