Owning wildlife in Namibia: how tall is your fence?

The Bee Gees released a song in 1977 called, "How Deep is Your Love?" It's one of the first popular songs I remember from my 4th grade year, right next to Kenny Rogers' "The Gambler." I have promised to post a bit of information about 'ownership' of wildlife in Namibia, and it turns out the Bee Gees' question would be appropriate to ask--if you change it to "How Tall is Your Fence?" In the past week, I had a chance to ask some questions to a biologist who works in law enforcement and game farm inspections for the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in Namibia. I think I finally have a better understanding of the complexities of wildlife ownership in Namibia.

In the U.S., a landowner does NOT own the game animals (or non-game for that matter) on his/her property. The State owns them, which means all people in the State, collectively, own the wildlife. The state wildlife agency manages the wildlife for the 'public trust'. This system is based on a Supreme Court case, and you can find out more about the Public Trust Doctrine by googling the term.

In Namibia, it is possible to own wildlife. In fact, a landowner can purchase wildlife at a game auction, and a landowner can also sell wildlife (live or for meat). The decision to give ownership of wildlife to landowners in Namibia derives, at least partially, from that fact that when Namibia gained its independence, wildlife numbers were down because of (1) overuse, such as poaching, and (2) large expanses of domestic cattle farming--where wildlife were viewed as competitors (or predators, depending on the arrangement of their teeth...). So, Namibia decided to give ownership of wildlife to landowners to essentially give value to wildlife. Interestingly, the US decided to do the opposite--because our system developed in reaction to low wildlife numbers during the period following extensive market hunting in the US. This reaction against economic value has stayed in the US place today--during a period where some might argue that it might be good to give value to white-tailed deer so that they could be culled at higher rates by hunters who could profit from selling their take in grocery stores!

There are certainly benefits that derive from Namibia's drive to give value to game animals. It is the basis of the ecotourism that has been successful in Namibia--attracting large amounts of foreign money. See my earlier post on a potential, long-term downside to ecotourism for Namibians and wildlife, however.

Now, when I came to Namibia, I knew all of the above, but had been confused on the role of the government in management. If landowners own the wildlife, then what management decisions are left to the government? It turns out the answer depends on that old fence.

There are three kinds of fences in Namibia. We can start with your normal cattle/sheep/goat fence. Jumping game (kudus, eland) can jump over it, and crawling game (oryx, springbok, warthogs) can go under it. This is the fence in the photo at top of this post. Then, you have your cattle fence that is reinforced with woven wire at the bottom--called a 'jackal proof' fence. It keeps jackals out (supposedly) and keep crawling game from leaving your farm. Last, you have your tall game-proof fences (about 3m) that keep kudu and other jumping game animals from jumping out, usually. As a side-note, game fences dot the landscape in Namibia (or slice it up, rather) and there are large genetic implications to reductions in gene flow across the landscape--which is why many game farms must routinely stock and re-stock game animals...for the same reasons that my father used to add a new boar to our hog farm every couple of years.

But, fences also impact wildlife ownership in Namibia. If you have a normal cattle/goat/sheep fence, you do not own any of the wildlife on your farm. Sorry. If you have a 'jackal proof' short fence, the Ministry considers that you own all of the 'crawling' animals on your farm. And, if you have a tall game fence (and also jackal proof at the bottom) you own all of the jumping animals and the crawling animals. If your tall fence is not jackal proof, you own only the jumping animals.

Now, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with those animals. Let's say you want to hunt (or have someone else hunt) some game on your farm in the coming year. You apply to the Ministry for a permit, and they send a person (like the young man I talked to this week) out to your farm for a 2-3 day road survey of your wildlife. Admittedly, the survey is not complete, but it gives a general feel for how many of each species you have. If you have the appropriate game fences, it is mostly a formality--but they still keep records on the game you have and how many you will be removing. Theoretically, a game farm owner with the best fence (tall and jackal proof) can shoot all of the game animals on his/her farm if he/she wants. Wouldn't be too economically viable, but you could do it, theoretically.

If you only have the low cattle fence, you don't own any of the wildlife, but you can get a permit to shoot up to 10% of the animals that are estimated to be on your land. This is an interesting number--10%. The general idea is that because you have a short fence that can be jumped over and crawled under--you can't keep shooting animals, as you will eventually be affecting your neighbor's animals. But, why 10%? Well, first of all, it's easy to calculate. Beyond that, if we assume the game animals on your farm are at their ecological carrying capacity in a given year, the Maximum Sustained Yield would suggest you should lower the population to 50% of carrying capacity. Fifty percent of carrying capacity is the level that populations increase the fastest and produce the most kg's of meat in a given year--not constrained by competition with their fellow kudus. That's the theory, but MSY has been shown to have disasterous consequences when it results in annual quotas, which are politically hard to change. Just ask tuna in the south Atlantic, if you can find any.

My guess is that 10% is seen as more in line with Optimal Sustained Yield, which allows for off-take from a population, but at a level that allows ecological functions to remain in place. In Namibia, having browsing and grazing animals on the veld is important--plants have evolved with these grazers/browsers, and the plants depend on being grazed/browsed. If you reduce to population to 50% of the land's carrying capacity, there will not be enough animals on the veld to keep the veld in good condition. Ironically, carrying capacity of the veld depends on keeping animals near carrying capacity! So, just like Kenny Rogers sang, "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em!" Periodic droughts and rainy years keep managers in Namibia on their toes.

So, there you are. It all depends on the fence. How tall is yours?!

Student shooting excursion: right on target

I spent the last part of this week at Polytechnic's "shooting excursion" for 3rd-year students in Nature Conservation. As with all excursions, students and lecturers camped in the veld, which is always fun. We were 70 km's west of Windhoek on a private farm that has a shooting range. Mr. Willie Adank is the instructor for Techniques III, and it was his class that was being 'marked' during the excursion.

The purpose of the excursion was to introduce students to firearms and shooting. Earlier in the semester, the students had been lectured and tested on theory of firearms (covering safety and all the parts of different firearms, etc.). Now, it was time to actually hold a .303 rifle, and for most students, this was the first time they held a gun. See my earlier blog "Can Namibians Hunt in Namibia?" to learn why most Namibians have never had a reason to hold a gun. Many of the Polytechnics' Nature Conservation students will be using firearms on the job, or just because they will be around people who are using firearms, so it's a very important part of their education.

Back home in the States, I participate as an instructor for the Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow (CLfT) program. The goal of CLfT is to introduce students to topics related to hunting, provide gun safety, and offer a chance to participate in a pheasant hunt after several hours of instruction/training on shotgun handling and shooting. Essentially, CLfT is a program where students and faculty think about hunting and wildlife management together. Because more and more of our wildlife students in the States come from urban areas, fewer and fewer current students have had experience with hunting or firearms. So, again--an essential program if wildlife professionals are to be safe and competent on the job.

Now, at the University of Nebraska, we do not teach 'shooting' in classes. One of our courses, Wildlife Damage Management (taught by soon-to-be-fellow safarier, Dr. Scott Hygnstrom), does take students to a shooting range for the afternoon. But, Polytechnic takes it to another level by requiring a week-long excursion. And, the students are graded on their marksmanship. On the last day, students shot at targets with the .303's from prone and standing positions--they "shot their marks". Five shots at the target. Bulls-eye is worth 10 points. Total possible 50 marks from 5 shots. They also shoot a series of 'falling plates' (metal armor plate) where they just have to hit a 35-cm square piece of metal to make it fall over--each one is worth 10 points. Hit it, you've got the points. Miss it, you've got 0 points. And the 'falling plates' are timed--15 seconds for 3 shots, starting with an empty chamber with the gun in your right hand resting by your foot. It's hard--I tried it. Two for three.

A couple other related notes. First, Mr. Adank (at right, giving a student some pointers on pistol handling as a fun exercise after the final test on rifles) is the only lecturer at Polytechnic that can teach the shooting, which is why he was fairly happy that I joined him for 3 days. Not only is there a shortage of shooting expertise in the students, but also in the faculty. They have arguments about how important shooting really is--is it worth giving up a week of other classes to teach them shooting. Our program in Nebraska is done over 3.5-day weekend, and faculty take leave to participate with faculty and professionals from Kansas. Students voluntarily sign up. We've talked about whether it should be a part of our curriculum at Nebraska--interesting that Polytechnic may be going the opposite direction.

Second, Namibia is currently going through a tightening of their gun ownership laws. The current (new) regulation is that a person can own only 4 guns. Polytechnic is presently caught up in a bit of a conflict about this, as the police consider Polytechnic to be the same as a private citizen, so Polytechnic can only own 4 guns. It is hard to run a gun-safety-training course with only 4 guns...!

Last, it's always interesting to compare how these types of things are funded. Our CLfT in the States has one main sponsor, and some smaller sponsors that work to Keep CLfT a free program for students. Polytechnic currently pays for their excursion (no sponsors), and students pay a bit of a fee. But, it's an expensive proposition--each of the 22 students probably shot up US$80 in ammunition (remember to triple that to 'feel' what it would cost for a Namibian). One way to reduce costs is to re-use targets. So, every time the shooting stopped, and the range was declared "SAFE", the Glue Brigade would come out--pasting little scraps of paper over the holes, so the next student could use the target. It worked well.

Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the Polytechnic students failed the exercise--based on their marks. It's not easy to shoot over 50% of the total marks possible. But, I'm guessing the benefits they receive from the experience will more than make up for the failing grade.

POSTSCRIPT: not directly related to the story, but I was pleasantly surprised to see a student wearing a pale green NEBRASKA t-shirt during the shooting. No idea whe

re he got it. Of course, this student was the best shot, so it made sense for him to be somehow affiliated with Nebraska!

UNL students arrive in Windhoek!

Today was a fun day, with the arrival of Dr. Mark Pegg and 8 fellow travelers from University of Nebraska-Lincoln. They are in-country for a 2-week African Ecology field course.

Mark is the person mostly responsible for our year in Namibia, having made contacts with Polytechnic of Namibia previously on several trips. UNL students have been to Namibia in 2007 with Mark, and this year's group looks like they'll have some fun.

We accompanied them to a local carnivore's delight--Joe's Beerhouse, which serves up about every kind of game animal you can shake a stick at. Tomorrow they head out for parts unknown on their study tour. For more info on Mark's course (maybe you want to be a Fisheries and Wildlife major at UNL and come back with Mark in a couple years?!), you can go here.

Access to natural resources: can a Namibian hunt in Namibia?

Most readers of NTN are from North America, where you enjoy unparalleled access to natural resources. The 'North American Model' of natural resource management provides that states manage wildlife in the 'public trust.' Essentially, that means that all Nebraskans (and residents of other states, in turn), collectively, own the wildlife in Nebraska (or whatever state you live in). As such, Nebraskans have a right to access the wildlife that they own. As managers of the wildlife (for the public trust, or good), the state wildlife agencies make management decisions. And, the agencies also set apart public land areas. State Parks, State Recreation Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, State Preserves, and such. These areas are usually accessed for free, or at a very low cost (park entrance fees in Nebraska are US$14/year).

Namibia has a different model--wildlife can be purchased and sold. Game farms can build fences around their property. Wildlife has been given value, which can be good for conservation. And, it can also lead to some interesting side-effects. Public access is one of those interesting side-effects. I'll blog more later about Namibia's model of wildlife ownership.

Namibia is fighting several battles as it struggles to manage its natural resources. I've commented earlier than on HUGE factor is a limited pool of people with appropriate skills and training to make informed management decisions. Namibia ranks 122 out of 125 countries in the world in availability of scientists. That problem is spelled out in this speech by the Minister of Ag, Water, and Rural Development in 2004.

Another problem for Namibia, I believe, is that the common citizen does not have access to natural resources. The speech above outlines the problems with land access by the native citizens, which is a controversial topic at the moment in many southern African countries--as governments try to sort out land access, which has been affected by 100-200 years of colonialism. Of course, the current white occupants of most of the prime land did not directly take land from the native people, but it's a very hard topic to sort out.

What I am interested in is hunting access. I'm interested in it, because it is the most ironic comparison a person can make in Namibia. Namibia is known for its sport hunting opportunities. Just google "Namibia hunting" and you will find page after page of opportunities to fly to Namibia and try your hand at hunting. Hunting is a windfall for selected people in the country, as ecotourism is one of the top industries (although upwards of 40% of Namibia's GNP comes from diamonds--hard to compete with that). So, there is hunting in Namibia. But, only if you are fairly rich or if you know a game farm owner.

The fact is that Joe Namibian cannot wake up on a Saturday during hunting season and take his daughter out hunting on a public wildlife management area. Because there are no public hunting areas. There are National Parks, but they do not allow hunting. The only hunting access in Namibia is on private farms. Surely, I'm thinking, this has to impact how the average Namibian thinks about conservation.

My belief is that if the public does not benefit from natural resources, they won't care about them. Which means they may not vote to support tax dollars for conservation, or they may not feel like poaching or other illegal uses of natural resources are bad ideas. Now, if you own a game farm, or if you live on a communal conservancy, you can potentially benefit from ecotourism dollars. If you are a professional hunter or a taxidermy shop owner, you can also benefit. But, the average Namibian is not a game farm owner or a professional hunter.

A quick comparison may help illuminate the situation. It always helps me to take something I'm very familiar with, so let's make a comparison of Nebraskan and Namibian professors of natural resources. We'll start with 'average starting salaries' in each location: University of Nebraska normally hires new professors around the US$60,000 level, while Namibian starting salaries for their faculty are about N$200,000 (equates to about US$24,000 at current exchange rates). So, before we even start with other factors, prices in Namibia are about 3 times more expensive for Namibians than for a person from the US in Namibia. It's something the Powell's often think about when we are in the grocery store.

So, now let's assume that neither professor in our example knows someone who owns a game farm, and they want to go hunting. We'll plan a 5-day hunting trip. Prices vary, but it would not be unrealistic to assume US$2,500 for a 5-day hunting trip, which would include lodging, meals, and the fees for a professional hunter to help you find and kill a kudu and a warthog. For the Nebraskan, that is about 4% of his/her annual salary. Even if you double it to include the price of the airplane ticket, it's 8% of their salary, which is still less than 10% that the Namibia pays of their salary.

Now, the Namibian had to pay 10% of their salary to hunt two animals in their own country. What if the Nebraskan decided to stay home and shoot two white-tailed deer--and we'll pretend that he/she decides to hunt locally (no motel needed). Total cost of permits needed: US$44. That's all that is needed to go hunting (besides a gun, ammo, and petrol). That's only 0.07% of the Nebraska professor's salary.

So, you say you aren't interested in hunting. You want to compare trips to a National Park. OK, both professors stay in their home country and take a trip to the premier National Park. The Nebraskan heads to Yellowstone National Park, where they pay US$25 per vehicle to enter and US$300 to stay in a cabin inside the park for 3 days: 0.5% of their annual salary. The Namibian heads to Etosha National Park, where they pay US$2 (the Nebraskan would have to pay US$16) to enter the park and US$300 for 3 nights in a lodge (Namibians do get a 25% reduction off the normal price): 1.3% of their annual salary. Again, it is almost triple the price for the Namibian to enjoy a trip to a National Park, and a significant part of their income.

Ecotourism in Namibia has been good for some people, and one can argue that Namibia's ecotourism emphasis has single-handedly helped many populations of wildlife species. But, ecotourism has also mis-directed (I would argue) the objectives of the Ministries responsible (and there are 4-5 of them...) for management. Namibia's constitution (Article 95) actually spells out who its natural resources are intended for. As you might expect, it is for Namibians, not Europeans and Americans:

"The State shall actively promote and maintain the welfare of the people by adopting, inter alia, policies aimed at...maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and biological diversity of Namibia and utilization of living natural resources on a sustainable basis for the benefit of all Namibians, both present and future."

But, the fact is that Namibia's natural resources are more available for Europeans and Americans than for Namibians. And, I would argue they are currently being managed for Europeans and Americans--Namibians certainly are not a high proportion of the hunters in Namibia. And, they are not a high proportion of the guest at the wonderful lodges that dot the country...a night at Grootberg Lodge in Damaraland for 3 people: US$230. 0.4% of the Nebraskan's annual salary; and almost 1% of the Namibian professor's annual salary. It is no wonder that I've heard many Namibians complain about ecotourism's effects on their natural resources. Public hunting areas do not exist, and tourist-type trips have become more expensive for Namibians, because lodges price their beds and activities for the Europeans and Americans who can afford to pay more. So, Namibians have access, but it'll cost them.

I am concerned about the long-term sustainability of this trend. In February, I attended a speech about a new National Park opening in Namibia: Sperrgebeit National Park, a 2.6 million hectare public area along the southwest coast. It used to be a diamond mining area (Sperrgebeit means "prohibited place," which it was when diamonds were laying on the surface of the ground). This park will open next year, but it will be restricted (ironic that it's opened, but still restricted...) to tours led by guides. The purpose of the guides is to make sure visitors do not destroy rare desert plants and cultural artifacts still located in the park. So, visitors will have to pay guide fees, which will be high because of European and American influence on ecotourism. As I left the meeting, with two Namibian professors in Nature Conservation, they commented that the prices for guides mean that "Namibians are still shut out" of that area. And, remember that Namibian professors are relatively well-off, compared to other Namibians.

Namibia will have to grapple with this issue...if Namibians cannot enjoy their natural resources, they will not support conservation in the future. It is also critical that Nebraskans (and you other states can play along, too) realize what public access means to conservation. It is something that I won't take for granted when I return!

The constant gardener

It has been a long time since the Powell family had a garden of any substance. Probably would have to go back to graduate school days at University of Georgia to find something in our yard that qualified as a produce-producing plot. So, when we arrived in Namibia in January--in the middle of summer--it seemed like a good idea to plant a garden. We had a side yard with lots of dirt (photo at right). We had a bit more time than normal, and we now lived in a country with a very long growing season.

So, we planted some maize (sweet corn), carrots, and squash from seed. We also bought some tomato plants and green peppers at a local farmers market, and we bought some herbs and strawberries at the local garden store.

It's been about 3 months, and the garden is starting to mature and produce. Tristan ate his first strawberry the other day--the strawberries are his project. Kelly has been harvesting basil and coriander from the herb garden. And, we got our first green peppers. The carrots are coming on, and the maize tasseled last week. The squash--not sure what will happen to them, but they are blooming.

The key to a good garden, it appears, in Namibia is to have it partially shaded during the day. The sun is brutal, and now that the rains have stopped for the next 3-4 months, we're doing quite a bit of watering. We used the grass clippings from the yard as mulch, which has helped quite a bit with water retention.

Our garden has been helped along by our 'constant gardener', Israel. Israel comes once a week, when his malaria doesn't kick back in, and tends our yard. He keeps area around the garden nice and neat, and we weed the garden. Israel really keeps the yard looking great. As he weeded our side yard (it's completely dirt, and had grown up with weeds during the rainy season, as we can't get the mower to that part of the yard), he found several volunteer tomato plants--maybe the Conroy's boys (last year's Fulbrighter at Polytechnic) had a tomato fight in our back yard last year? So, we've ended up with many more tomatoes than we can probably handle.

Israel works all day for about 1/4 what he would earn in the US, considering the minimum wage in the US is US$6.55/hour. There is no minimum wage in Namibia, and the going rate for a gardener is about N$100/day (about US$12 at current exchange rates). We pay him a bit more, but he also gets a tasty lunch from Kelly, and he may not know it yet--but, he has some tasty vegetables coming his way soon. Israel has a wife and 3 little kids.

Our yard also has some fruit trees, which are starting to produce. Here's some photos of the garden and associated fruit trees.

The main garden plot. Maize (planted in 6 hills), tomatoes (left and right side), green peppers (front, middle) and carrots (to the right of the corn, behind tomatoes).

One of the two hills of pumpkins. Will probably be white. Some volunteer tomatoes in the background.

Orange tree (left) and lemon tree (right).

Guava tree (left) and guava fruit (right).

Local boy fights to save ship and rescue crew

Readers of NTN know that Kelly and I think the world of Tristan.

On our recent trip to the west coast of Namibia (we spent a 4-day weekend--Namibia sure knows how to plan and arrange holidays to maximize 4-day weekends--in Henties Bay, north of Swapokmund), Tristan showed his bravery by attempting to save a ship from beaching on the Skeleton Coast. Alas, Tristan's efforts were in vain, but his bravery was undaunted.

When Tristan wasn't trying out for the Coast Guard, we had a great time exploring this odd coast line--mostly uninhabited and almost completely deserted (and desert-ed...). Kelly remarked that no other coast line, that we know of, has escaped the onslaught of coastal houses and traffic. Here, the absence of drinking water keeps the coast isolated from human development. Just a few small towns dot the coast. Besides groups of South African men who were on holiday fishing along the coast, we had it to ourselves. We are fairly certain we were the only people staying in the De Duine motel in Henties Bay.

The Skeleton Coast is named for the large number of ship wrecks which have occurred here over the years. As we found, there are also a large number of cape fur seal skeletons littering the coast--mortalities from a 200,000-strong colony at Cape Cross.

We'll post photos on Picasa momentarily (archived here), with a description of the trip.