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?!