Killing without proof — the hidden motives behind Madikwe’s elephant cull plans

Elephants in fenced reserves, like Madikwe in North West, have become a lightning rod in South Africa. Pro-hunting organisations often backed by government agencies claim “overpopulation” and “ecosystem collapse” as justification for lethal measures, yet the scientific evidence provided to the public is frequently vague, unpublished or altogether absent. When the fate of hundreds of elephants is at stake, the burden of proof by the state should be high. It is incumbent on government authorities to meet that standard. 

In fact, when it comes to Madikwe, it seems government authorities under the auspices of a hastily put together Provincial Elephant Task Team (PETT) are set to bulldoze ahead with plans to “cull” and trophy hunt up to 1,000 of Madikwe’s elephants. 

In an upcoming presentation by PETT to the National Portfolio Committee on Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Jonathan Denga, the acting CEO of the North West Parks and Tourism Board (NWPTB), will likely state that elephant numbers – not just in Madikwe but across the country – are increasing excessively and “threatening biodiversity”.

The problem with ‘overpopulation’ claims

Yet, the word “overpopulation” is used too freely in official statements, usually accompanied by alarming numbers and projections, as Denga frequently does. But ecological science does not recognise a single, fixed threshold that can be applied. At a recent stakeholder meeting on Madikwe’s elephants in Pretoria, SANParks big mammal specialist, Dr Sam Ferreira, said he did not think Madikwe had reached an overpopulation crisis. Ferreira maintained that the outdated agricultural notion of “carrying capacity” is not a fixed number but a fluid concept: it depends on rainfall, vegetation type, management objectives and acceptable levels of habitat change. And that Madikwe’s population is likely to decrease naturally. 

Direct observations after seasonal rains in Madikwe paint a different picture than the one presented by officials and the hunting and sustainable use industry. The reserve shows healthy populations of herbivores and predators, and vegetation regenerates robustly during wetter years. Localised tree use by elephants is visible, as it always will be, but widespread ecosystem collapse is not evident. 

This disconnect between official claims of ecological disaster and on-the-ground observations strongly suggests that the situation may be less dire than presented. Drought mortalities, for instance, are part of natural population regulation, not automatically proof of chronic overpopulation. Indeed, elephants and other megaherbivores have always experienced mortality spikes during severe dry spells. In the absence of migration corridors, die-offs will inevitably look dramatic, but they do not necessarily mean the system has exceeded its so-called carrying capacity. 

Non-lethal options: proven but neglected

If there is indeed a genuine need to slow elephant population growth in fenced reserves, non-lethal options exist and have been tested successfully:

• Immunocontraception has been shown to reduce birth rates significantly when applied systematically. It is humane, reversible and logistically feasible with modern darting techniques. Its impact is not instantaneous, but over a decade it can stabilise or even reduce growth without killing a single animal;
• Translocation is expensive and limited by available destinations, but it remains viable for small family groups, particularly calves and subadults. While not a silver bullet, it can complement contraception; and
• Habitat expansion and corridors represent the most ecologically sound long-term solution. Elephants are migratory by nature; allowing them to move reduces artificial density pressures. Creating and maintaining wildlife corridors is complex but far more consistent with ecological principles than periodic mass killings.

Despite these tools, lethal measures have been firmly placed first on the agenda. This is in fact illegal. The National Elephant Norms and Standards clearly states that lethal means, such as culling, may only be deployed as an absolute last resort when all non-lethal options have been exhausted. This has not been the case. Contraception trials have been ignored. In fact, a memorandum of understanding was signed and paid for by an NGO to roll out a contraception programme, but that has been flatly disregarded. Translocation opportunities have been underexplored and corridor discussions sidelined. This sequencing betrays a lack of political will to embrace non-lethal ethical and science-based management. Why, then, has contraception not been implemented despite an existing memorandum of understanding? Why were translocation and corridor strategies sidelined?

The spectre of hunting and financial motives

An uncomfortable truth shadows these debates: the NWPTB is intricately entangled with the hunting industry. For example, earlier this year, the North West MEC for economic development, environment, conservation and tourism, Bitsa Lenkopane, advocated for trophy hunting in the province’s reserves. Trophy hunting packages have been marketed by the department as sources of revenue, and their proposals to hunt “surplus” elephants often sit uneasily alongside attempts to revive hunting concessions. Why did senior officials travel to international hunting conventions to promote trophy hunting while simultaneously declaring an ecological crisis? How can financial motives be separated from science-driven conservation?

Importantly, trophy hunting packages will make little difference to the overall population of Madikwe’s and the country’s elephant population numbers since, unlike culling, they are never conducted at scale. However, trophy hunting does have severe negative impacts on population dynamics since the biggest and best are targeted. Unlike natural die-offs, like during a drought when the young, weak and old succumb, trophy hunting removes those best equipped to survive harsh natural conditions and improve the genetic strength of the elephant community.

Denga has countered that such practices will generate much-needed revenue for his department. But, when lethal reductions align with opportunities for revenue, questions of motive inevitably arise. Are decisions being made for ecological reasons, or for financial ones? 

Lack of transparency 

Why does the task team exclude the very communities, NGOs and tourism operators most affected by these decisions? Who benefits from this secrecy?

There also seems to be a distinct lack of transparency in the process. Why does the task team only consist of government entities and not the broader stakeholder community? No public, tourist, community, NGO and animal welfare groups have been invited to participate in the task team. Tourist entities and community-run concessions in Madikwe have the most to lose if the government forges ahead to cull and hunt elephants. The reserve would need to be closed – for obvious reasons – losing millions of rands in revenue during the process. 

More transparency would help, but without accessible scientific data and open stakeholder processes, suspicions have grown. Public opposition from welfare organisations, community representatives, tourism and conservation NGOs is not simply ideological; it reflects that financial imperatives may be driving policy more than ecological science.

Ethical dimensions and public trust

Modern conservation cannot be divorced from ethics. Elephants are sentient, socially complex animals. Again, decisions to kill them at scale will resonate far beyond reserve boundaries, sparking outrage nationally and internationally. This will undermine both conservation credibility and tourism revenue, since visitors increasingly demand humane, scientifically justified practices.

The failure to provide data or to pilot non-lethal approaches at scale reflects not scientific or ethical necessity but institutional convenience. PETT and government agencies in South Africa are entrusted with stewardship of elephants; that trust is eroded when secrecy, hunting interests and lethal shortcuts dominate.

Conclusion and key questions for authorities

Fenced reserves, like Madikwe, present undeniable challenges. Elephant populations can rise quickly, droughts can cause distressing mortalities, and habitats are altered by browsing. But none of this justifies opaque decision-making or the reflexive return to lethal control. The tools for ethical and science-based management exist; what is lacking is the political will to prioritise them.

Killing elephants in the absence of transparent evidence and while neglecting viable alternatives is not conservation. It is a failure of governance. True conservation would recognise elephants as the ecological engineers they are, embrace non-lethal management strategies and open decision-making to scrutiny. Until that happens, claims of “overpopulation” will sound less like science and more like a cover for old practices dressed in ecological rhetoric. Key questions must be addressed: What independent scientific review justifies killing elephants in Madikwe? Why has stakeholder participation been restricted to government and hunting-linked interests? When will non-lethal solutions receive serious consideration and implementation? DM

Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.