Does game cropping serve conservation? A reexamination of the African data

Abstract

Commercial culling of wildlife species in natural habitats (game cropping) or in fenced areas (game farming) has been suggested as a means of conserving such species in North America. An alternative hypothesis proposes that such exploitation may have an adverse impact on these species and other species associated with them. Commercial exploitation uses the precedent of African cropping projects originally set up for conservation. This review examines the biological and economic evidence from Africa in the light of these two hypotheses. The biological evidence is now seen to suggest that domestic ungulates are more productive than wild species in medium-rainfall natural habitats of Africa. Game farming, which provides luxury products (meat), and services (tourism, hunting) to foreigners, is more productive than game cropping which tries to provide cheap meat to low-income native peoples. The economic evidence in favour of cropping is drawn from culling programs for management in national parks, and from private ranches in southern Africa. However, these park culling schemes subsidized costs and were not intended for profit, whereas private ranches sold to luxury markets and were subsidized by tourism and sport hunting. Although many private game farms are a commercial success, their value for conservation is limited. There may also be some negative effects on conservation.