Crisis in Madikwe: Too many elephants or just an excuse to hunt them?
Elephants face a grim future in the Madikwe Game Reserve amid claims that there are too many. The North West Parks and Tourism Board has proposed the imminent culling of 500 elephants and up to 1,200 out of a population of about 1,600 elephants over the next decade.
However, this is a plan that is opaque, onerous and lacking scientific basis.
The 'crisis' erupted in late 2024 when there published claims of ecological collapse in Madikwe, alleging starvation among elephants and unsustainable degradation of habitat. Madikwe experienced a spike in elephant mortalities due to a drought. A total of 75 elephants died during a dry spell, primarily juveniles and older animals.
Killing paradox
And this is where the paradox lies. Despite the deaths of 75 elephants, the tourism board's solution is to kill more of them… a lot more. At a recent Parliamentary Committee hearing the board claimed that the population is growing at an average rate of 7.8% per year. The current density is estimated at 2.7 elephants/km², the highest in enclosed areas in South Africa, they say. Overpopulation threatens biodiversity and leads to habitat degradation.
And yet, there is no published scientific data on whether that translates as 'too many' or whether there is indeed a negative impact on Madikwe's biodiversity. In February 2025, the EMS Foundation, sent a Promotion of Access to Information Act request to the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism, which oversees the North West Parks and Tourism Board, to provide all scientific and census data for the elephant population in Madikwe, as well as a detailed elephant management plan and which elephant experts they consulted for it. The department never responded.
My own on-site investigation in early 2025 found no evidence of ecological degradation or any lasting impact on other herbivore populations. During the Parliamentary Committee session on Wednesday last week, tourism board officials were unable to answer whether other herbivore populations were also affected by last year's drought. The rains have since arrived and my observations showed healthy populations of all herbivores, including elephants, white and black rhino, zebras, wildebeest and other ungulates. Predator populations also looked healthy.
There was an abundance of cheetahs, lions and wild dogs. My guide was adamant that the elephants had a minimal impact on Madikwe's landscape. The tourism board's Acting Chief Executive, Jonathan Denga, admitted as such, stating: 'The situation improved with the onset of rainfall,' but then hastened to add that 'the need for sustainable management remains critical'.
Non-lethal solutions long ignored
Let's assume there are, in fact, too many elephants. Then why has the North West Parks and Tourism Board not explored other, non-lethal, options for managing the population?
'This is not a sudden crisis,' said Doug Wolhuter, manager of the Wildlife Protection Unit at the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) at the Parliamentary Committee. 'It is the result of decades of inaction. The elephant population did not explode overnight — these animals breed slowly. Every warning sign was ignored.'
Parliamentarians questioned why long-term preventive measures like contraception were denied by the North West Parks and Tourism Board even though they were offered repeatedly for free by Humane World for Animals — in 1998, 2020 and 2023.
Also, a decades-old vision for a regional conservation corridor — connecting Madikwe to Pilanesberg National Park — was mooted but remains stalled due to mining and bureaucratic delays, dashing hopes of restoring ancient elephant migratory routes.
Dr Marion Garai of the IUCN Elephant Specialist Advisory Group, has said that the only way to go for smaller reserves like Madikwe is to open corridors that follow ancient elephant migratory routes.
'Corridors have huge benefits because wildlife can move to different vegetation areas. They can open summer/winter areas and relieve overgrazed vegetation and allow it to recover. It's the most natural pattern for elephants.'
The heart of the matter
This then begs the question, is the tourism board genuinely trying to manage elephant numbers or is there something else at stake?
The tourism board regularly sells hunting packages in at least five nature reserves (Molopo, Bloemhof Dam, SA Lombard, Boskop Dam and Botsalano nature reserves) and also sells culling lots, which can be purchased by professional culling operators. In 2024, the board auctioned the hunting of 873 animals (747 biltong/recreational hunts and 126 trophy hunts) and the culling of a further 2,550 animals. For Madikwe, which does not normally conduct hunts or culls, a tender was issued in May 2025 by the tourism board that proposes the trophy hunting of 25 elephants, two black rhinos and 10 buffalo.
In January this year, a delegation from North West province, led by Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism MEC Bitsa Lenkopane, attended the annual Dallas Safari Club Convention in Atlanta, Georgia. Lenkopane participated in discussions with counterparts from Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Namibia 'addressing shared challenges such as the management of burgeoning elephant populations in the region'. She also emphasised that 'the primary objective of attending the Dallas Safari Club Convention is to attract foreign investment in order to revitalise North West province's protected areas network and enhance contribution to South Africa's biodiversity economy'.
This is the heart of the matter. The North West provincial government is looking to boost its revenue from overseas hunters. It is also in line with the national outlook. In South Africa, the scale of hunting operations and the volume of meat and live animals supplied from provincial reserves is significant. Thousands of animals are hunted annually in provincial reserves, or the large quantities of meat derived from culling. Additionally, some provinces are actively selling live game from these reserves to private wildlife farms.
Notably, recent policy documents — the Draft National Biodiversity Strategy (2024) and the Game Meat Strategy (2023) — underline the national government's intent to expand hunting and wild animal use on state land.
Tourism sidelined
The next question is: how does the proposed cull affect photographic tourism? It's unlikely that tourists from the two dozen or so lodges in Madikwe will be thrilled that elephants and other game will be shot right under their noses. Hunting activities are not publicly advertised alongside tourism; instead, they're marketed through specialised hunting platforms. The hidden nature of hunting in publicly funded reserves is likely to undermine trust and could damage South Africa's conservation and ecotourism brand.
Madikwe Game Reserve is one of South Africa's most successful conservation and community-development models. Established in the early 1990s, it transformed degraded farmland into a thriving ecosystem unique in its tripartite model — combining government oversight, private tourism investment, and community partnership. Madikwe promotes high-end, low-impact tourism that directly supports local development. Madikwe stands out for its emphasis on community ownership and inclusion. Several lodges are community run, and the reserve has served as a benchmark for land restitution, job creation and biodiversity recovery.
During the hunting season (in those reserves that offer hunting) the entire reserve gets closed to tourists for obvious reasons. Imagine the revenue loss to those lodges and the communities in and around Madikwe if the reserve is closed for four or five months? It is well known that photographic tourism (photo safaris) generates vastly more revenue than trophy hunting across Africa. In South Africa alone, tourism revenue was $9.5-billion with trophy hunting contributing just $112- million — about 1.2%. It would be a misguided policy if hunting took precedence over photographic tourism.
The situation unfolding in Madikwe is not simply a matter of elephant numbers — it is a test of South Africa's commitment to ethical conservation, scientific integrity, and inclusive governance. As the debate continues, the reserve stands at a crossroads: either deepen its legacy as a model of progressive conservation or allow commercial interests and opaque policy to erode its foundations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Harvard legal scholars join battle to free elephants from Johannesburg Zoo
At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. A landmark legal bid to free three elephants from captivity in the Johannesburg Zoo has gained international traction, with heavyweight legal scholars from Harvard Law School stepping forward in support of the case. The application – brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Fritz – is currently before the High Court in Pretoria. Professor Kristen Stilt, the faculty director of the Brooks McCormick Jr Animal Law and Policy Program, and Dr Macarena Montes Franceschini, a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute, have formally applied to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court), offering their expertise in animal law and public policy. Their participation is intended to help the court understand the broader societal and ethical implications of the case, especially given the elephants' complex cognitive and emotional capacities. Constitutional rights The applicants argue that the three elephants – Lammie, Mopane and Ramadiba – are confined in conditions that compromise their mental, emotional and physical well being, amounting to a state of significant distress. Elephant experts argue that confinement in any urban zoo fails to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of these highly intelligent and social creatures. At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. Section 24 states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures. The measures prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. In addition, the organisations and Fritz said animals in captivity constitute biodiversity for the purposes of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. 'The applicants (Animal Law Reform SA, EMS Foundation and Fritz) contend that, on proper interpretation of section 24 of the Constitution, and the legislation enacted to give effect to section 24, the right enjoyed by everyone to have the environment protected requires that the welfare and wellbeing of individual animals be considered and promoted.' Pushback The Johannesburg Zoo, however, has pushed back, asserting that the elephants receive adequate care and attention. The zoo claims that the groups behind the legal effort are driven by ideology rather than concern for the animals' actual welfare. However, public sentiment appears to be turning against the zoo's legal resistance. South Africans have voiced their anger on social media, particularly given the City of Johannesburg's broader financial and infrastructural crises. The Auditor-General recently reported more than R1-billion in wasteful expenditure, raising concerns about the cost of the ongoing litigation. Critics have pointed to Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo's own Integrated Annual Report (2023/24), which emphasises avoiding prolonged legal battles in favour of settlements that save public funds. Despite this, the City continues to defend the elephants' captivity in court, a move seen by many as both fiscally irresponsible and ethically indefensible. The case of Charlie the elephant Still, pressure continues to build, especially following the recent relocation of Charlie – the last elephant at the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria – to a sanctuary. That move is being hailed as a progressive step in aligning elephant care with contemporary animal welfare standards. That historic event was the result of years of negotiation between the zoo, the EMS Foundation and the Pro Elephant Network. Charlie had witnessed three of his friends die prematurely. He also lost his daughter when she was less than a month old. He was captured in Hwange, Zimbabwe, 44 years ago and was trained in the Boswell Wilkie Circus. When it closed down he was transferred to the Natal Lion Park and then, in 2001, to the Pretoria Zoo where he languished before his eventual release in 2024. As they did with Charlie (now named Duma), the EMS Foundation has offered the same alternative: relocating the three elephants to the secure, protected sanctuary at Shambala Game Reserve in the Waterberg where they can gradually reintegrate into a natural habitat. The plan, as it has with Charlie, includes a comprehensive rehabilitation process under the guidance of wildlife veterinarians, welfare experts and logistical teams. The Johannesburg case is being watched closely, since it feeds into a larger and ongoing debate: should elephants be kept in captivity at all, especially in urban zoos? The involvement of respected legal scholars from Harvard is a significant development. Their support underscores the global relevance of the case and the shifting legal and moral paradigm around the rights of non-human animals. Deputy Judge President Ledwaba will hear arguments on the amicus application on 2 September. His decision could shape the outcome of one of the most significant animal rights cases this country has seen. DM
Daily Maverick
12-06-2025
- Daily Maverick
Crisis in Madikwe: Too many elephants or just an excuse to hunt them?
Elephants face a grim future in the Madikwe Game Reserve amid claims that there are too many. The North West Parks and Tourism Board has proposed the imminent culling of 500 elephants and up to 1,200 out of a population of about 1,600 elephants over the next decade. However, this is a plan that is opaque, onerous and lacking scientific basis. The 'crisis' erupted in late 2024 when there published claims of ecological collapse in Madikwe, alleging starvation among elephants and unsustainable degradation of habitat. Madikwe experienced a spike in elephant mortalities due to a drought. A total of 75 elephants died during a dry spell, primarily juveniles and older animals. Killing paradox And this is where the paradox lies. Despite the deaths of 75 elephants, the tourism board's solution is to kill more of them… a lot more. At a recent Parliamentary Committee hearing the board claimed that the population is growing at an average rate of 7.8% per year. The current density is estimated at 2.7 elephants/km², the highest in enclosed areas in South Africa, they say. Overpopulation threatens biodiversity and leads to habitat degradation. And yet, there is no published scientific data on whether that translates as 'too many' or whether there is indeed a negative impact on Madikwe's biodiversity. In February 2025, the EMS Foundation, sent a Promotion of Access to Information Act request to the North West Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism, which oversees the North West Parks and Tourism Board, to provide all scientific and census data for the elephant population in Madikwe, as well as a detailed elephant management plan and which elephant experts they consulted for it. The department never responded. My own on-site investigation in early 2025 found no evidence of ecological degradation or any lasting impact on other herbivore populations. During the Parliamentary Committee session on Wednesday last week, tourism board officials were unable to answer whether other herbivore populations were also affected by last year's drought. The rains have since arrived and my observations showed healthy populations of all herbivores, including elephants, white and black rhino, zebras, wildebeest and other ungulates. Predator populations also looked healthy. There was an abundance of cheetahs, lions and wild dogs. My guide was adamant that the elephants had a minimal impact on Madikwe's landscape. The tourism board's Acting Chief Executive, Jonathan Denga, admitted as such, stating: 'The situation improved with the onset of rainfall,' but then hastened to add that 'the need for sustainable management remains critical'. Non-lethal solutions long ignored Let's assume there are, in fact, too many elephants. Then why has the North West Parks and Tourism Board not explored other, non-lethal, options for managing the population? 'This is not a sudden crisis,' said Doug Wolhuter, manager of the Wildlife Protection Unit at the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) at the Parliamentary Committee. 'It is the result of decades of inaction. The elephant population did not explode overnight — these animals breed slowly. Every warning sign was ignored.' Parliamentarians questioned why long-term preventive measures like contraception were denied by the North West Parks and Tourism Board even though they were offered repeatedly for free by Humane World for Animals — in 1998, 2020 and 2023. Also, a decades-old vision for a regional conservation corridor — connecting Madikwe to Pilanesberg National Park — was mooted but remains stalled due to mining and bureaucratic delays, dashing hopes of restoring ancient elephant migratory routes. Dr Marion Garai of the IUCN Elephant Specialist Advisory Group, has said that the only way to go for smaller reserves like Madikwe is to open corridors that follow ancient elephant migratory routes. 'Corridors have huge benefits because wildlife can move to different vegetation areas. They can open summer/winter areas and relieve overgrazed vegetation and allow it to recover. It's the most natural pattern for elephants.' The heart of the matter This then begs the question, is the tourism board genuinely trying to manage elephant numbers or is there something else at stake? The tourism board regularly sells hunting packages in at least five nature reserves (Molopo, Bloemhof Dam, SA Lombard, Boskop Dam and Botsalano nature reserves) and also sells culling lots, which can be purchased by professional culling operators. In 2024, the board auctioned the hunting of 873 animals (747 biltong/recreational hunts and 126 trophy hunts) and the culling of a further 2,550 animals. For Madikwe, which does not normally conduct hunts or culls, a tender was issued in May 2025 by the tourism board that proposes the trophy hunting of 25 elephants, two black rhinos and 10 buffalo. In January this year, a delegation from North West province, led by Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism MEC Bitsa Lenkopane, attended the annual Dallas Safari Club Convention in Atlanta, Georgia. Lenkopane participated in discussions with counterparts from Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Namibia 'addressing shared challenges such as the management of burgeoning elephant populations in the region'. She also emphasised that 'the primary objective of attending the Dallas Safari Club Convention is to attract foreign investment in order to revitalise North West province's protected areas network and enhance contribution to South Africa's biodiversity economy'. This is the heart of the matter. The North West provincial government is looking to boost its revenue from overseas hunters. It is also in line with the national outlook. In South Africa, the scale of hunting operations and the volume of meat and live animals supplied from provincial reserves is significant. Thousands of animals are hunted annually in provincial reserves, or the large quantities of meat derived from culling. Additionally, some provinces are actively selling live game from these reserves to private wildlife farms. Notably, recent policy documents — the Draft National Biodiversity Strategy (2024) and the Game Meat Strategy (2023) — underline the national government's intent to expand hunting and wild animal use on state land. Tourism sidelined The next question is: how does the proposed cull affect photographic tourism? It's unlikely that tourists from the two dozen or so lodges in Madikwe will be thrilled that elephants and other game will be shot right under their noses. Hunting activities are not publicly advertised alongside tourism; instead, they're marketed through specialised hunting platforms. The hidden nature of hunting in publicly funded reserves is likely to undermine trust and could damage South Africa's conservation and ecotourism brand. Madikwe Game Reserve is one of South Africa's most successful conservation and community-development models. Established in the early 1990s, it transformed degraded farmland into a thriving ecosystem unique in its tripartite model — combining government oversight, private tourism investment, and community partnership. Madikwe promotes high-end, low-impact tourism that directly supports local development. Madikwe stands out for its emphasis on community ownership and inclusion. Several lodges are community run, and the reserve has served as a benchmark for land restitution, job creation and biodiversity recovery. During the hunting season (in those reserves that offer hunting) the entire reserve gets closed to tourists for obvious reasons. Imagine the revenue loss to those lodges and the communities in and around Madikwe if the reserve is closed for four or five months? It is well known that photographic tourism (photo safaris) generates vastly more revenue than trophy hunting across Africa. In South Africa alone, tourism revenue was $9.5-billion with trophy hunting contributing just $112- million — about 1.2%. It would be a misguided policy if hunting took precedence over photographic tourism. The situation unfolding in Madikwe is not simply a matter of elephant numbers — it is a test of South Africa's commitment to ethical conservation, scientific integrity, and inclusive governance. As the debate continues, the reserve stands at a crossroads: either deepen its legacy as a model of progressive conservation or allow commercial interests and opaque policy to erode its foundations.
TimesLIVE
11-06-2025
- TimesLIVE
Higher education minister keeps up stonewalling on 'SETA panel'
Higher education and training minister Nobuhle Nkabane continues to dig in her heels over the submission to parliament of the names of the 'independent selection panel' she relied on to make controversial appointments to SETA boards last month. Nkabane had until the close of business on Wednesday to submit records and minutes of the meeting of the 'independent panel' that she says advised on the appointments of the chairpersons of Sector Education and Training Authorities that she was last month ordered to reverse by the presidency. But at the eleventh-hour on Wednesday, it emerged that Nkabane wrote a letter dated June 10 to Tebego Letsie, an ANC MP who chairs the portfolio committee on higher education, asking that the June 10 deadline be extended by a further 20 days, to June 20. The higher education committee had given her the deadline of June 11 last week after she refused to disclose the names and full details of her 'independent panel' at a heated meeting, with Nkabane citing the Protection of Personal Information Act. Nkabane landed in hot water several weeks ago after it emerged that she had appointed controversial and politically connected people to chair the boards of the SETAs. Among them were Buyambo Mantashe, the son of minerals minister Gwede Mantashe who was once deputised by Nkabane in that portfolio. Also on the controversial list were former KZN premier Nomusa Ncube-Dube, former KZN MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu and Johannesburg MMC Loyiso Masuku. The move has pitted Nkabane against President Cyril Ramaphosa, who first ordered her to withdraw the names and most recently also asked her to submit a report to him on the matter. Sources in the higher echelons are adamant that Nkabane's stonewalling on this issue is slowly catching up with her and she will soon run out of options, with some casting doubt on the existence of the 'independent selection panel'. In her letter to Letsie, which has since been shared with all members of the higher education committee, she placed on 'record and confirm my full intention to comply with the portfolio committee's request'. Again citing the POPIA and the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Nkabane said she needed more time to ensure that the information she was preparing to send to parliament would be disclosed in a lawful manner. She told her oversight committee that she had been 'assured that I am legally permitted to disclosed the panellists' details in a lawful manner'. 'For these reasons and in acknowledgment of the panellists' rights to privacy, I have written to each of the members of the selection and evaluation panel and advised them of my intention to comply with the portfolio committee's request. 'However, it remains unlikely that my engagements with them will be completed by the 11 June 2025 deadline. In the circumstances, and to allow the panel members an opportunity to respond to my letter or exercise whatever right they may have, I request an extension of the deadline to 30 June 2025.' The higher education committee was expected to discuss its response to Nkabane's deadline request in the coming days.
