The draft quotas, gazetted on February 6, 2026, under Minister Willie Aucamp (following a reversal of a 2025 pause by former Minister Dion George amid legal challenges), would allow annual exports of trophies from:150 elephants (equating to 300 tusks),
12 black rhinos (allocated across subspecies: e.g., 3 D.b. bicornis, 8 D.b. minor, 1 D.b. michaeli),
11 leopards (restricted to 11 designated zones in KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and North West, with only animals aged 7+ years eligible).
This marks a resumption of regulated trophy hunting exports after a freeze since around 2021 (due to court interdicts and non-detriment finding issues). The proposals remain open for public comment until March 6, 2026, with submissions directed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Carr of WAPFSA emphasized that the government depends on conservation organizations for population data, yet no comprehensive, up-to-date scientific study on leopard numbers has been conducted since 2015.
She argued there is no conclusive evidence of sufficient abundance or sustainable off-take for these species, questioning claims of economic benefits to communities: "We keep being told that hunting benefits many people, but we have yet to see a thriving community living alongside wildlife that can demonstrate those benefits."For black rhinos (IUCN Critically Endangered, with global populations under 6,500–6,700 and South Africa holding about 2,000), critics highlight risks from habitat loss, poaching, and potential confusion/cover for illegal activities.
The proposed 12-trophy quota exceeds CITES guidelines (typically 0.5% of population, suggesting ~10), with no clear justification for the increase.Opposition from groups like Born Free Foundation, Humane Society International, EMS Foundation, and others focuses on ethical concerns, lack of robust non-detriment findings (NDFs), inadequate links between hunting revenue and conservation outcomes (e.g., anti-poaching), and risks of over-concentrated pressure on vulnerable private/reserve populations. They argue quotas prioritize limited economic gains for a few over long-term biodiversity protection.Proponents (including hunting industry voices) maintain quotas are sustainable, target surplus/old males, incentivize habitat protection, and generate revenue — but conservationists counter that evidence for broad community benefits and population viability remains insufficient or outdated. The debate revives long-standing tensions over science, governance, and ethics in South Africa's wildlife management.
New wildlife quotas reopen fault lines over hunting, science and governance
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral illness affecting cloven-hoofed (split-hoofed) animals, including livestock like cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, as well as certain wildlife species. In South Africa, FMD remains a major challenge for agriculture and wildlife management, particularly due to its endemic presence in wildlife.The primary wildlife reservoir for FMD in South Africa is the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), especially in areas like Kruger National Park (KNP) and surrounding game reserves in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces.
Buffalo act as natural, persistent carriers of the South African Territories (SAT 1, 2, and 3) strains of the virus. Infections in buffalo are typically asymptomatic (no obvious signs of illness), but they can carry and shed the virus for years — sometimes lifelong — without severe impact. This makes them a long-term source of potential spillover to domestic livestock.Other cloven-hoofed wildlife, such as impala, kudu, nyala, warthog, and some antelope species, can become infected when in contact with infected buffalo or contaminated environments. However, clinical disease in these species is rarer and less severe compared to livestock, and they are not considered primary reservoirs.
Impala, in particular, serve as useful sentinel species in the KNP ecosystem because they are highly sensitive and show visible signs if exposed.The wildlife-livestock interface poses the biggest risk: Outbreaks in domestic animals often trace back to contact with infected buffalo, especially when game fences are damaged (e.g., by floods, elephants, or poor maintenance), allowing buffalo to escape control zones and mingle with cattle. Historical examples include SAT 1 and SAT 2 outbreaks in the early 2000s linked to fence breaches around KNP. Recent surges (ongoing since 2019–2021, with massive spread in 2025–2026 affecting eight of nine provinces) have been fueled by similar dynamics, plus factors like animal movement, poor biosecurity, and possibly vaccine issues.South Africa's current FMD crisis (declared a national disaster in February 2026) is the worst in decades, with thousands of outbreaks, mass vaccinations (nearly 2 million animals targeted), export bans from countries like China and neighbors, and billions in economic losses.
While the focus is on livestock devastation (reduced yields, lameness, mortality in young animals, trade restrictions), wildlife — especially buffalo in protected areas — sustains the virus endemically, complicating eradication efforts. Control strategies include vaccination campaigns, movement restrictions, fencing maintenance, and surveillance at the wildlife-livestock boundary to prevent spillover.FMD does not affect humans and is not zoonotic, but its impact on South Africa's livestock industry and wildlife conservation remains severe due to this persistent wildlife reservoir.
A new international poll commissioned by World Animal Protection in partnership with Blood Lions, conducted by Savanta in March 2026 (surveying 2,528 respondents across South Africa, the UK, US, Netherlands, and Germany), shows overwhelming opposition to any reversal of South Africa's 2021 commitment to phase out the commercial captive lion breeding industry.Key findings:
- 77% of respondents support the government's original decision to end captive lion exploitation.
- Among tourists from four major source markets (UK, US, Germany, Netherlands):
- 70% would delay or avoid visiting South Africa if it allows lions to be bred and kept in captivity for profit.
- 69% say reversing the phase-out would damage the country's reputation as an ethical tourism destination.
- 77% prioritize wildlife-friendly tourism over commercial captive breeding.
- 65% would choose alternative destinations if the industry persists.
- In South Africa specifically:
- 72% reject promoting exploitative wildlife industries over ethical alternatives.
- 66% view commercial captive breeding as unethical.
- 66% consider risking tourism demand unacceptable.
- 63% believe reversal would undermine trust in evidence-based governance.
- 57% think banning it would make South Africa more attractive and boost the economy.
Lion welfare was the top reason for supporting the phase-out (cited by nearly half of supporters). The industry — linked to canned hunting, cub petting, walking tours, and lion bone/skeleton exports — has faced long-standing global criticism for cruelty, lack of conservation value, zoonotic disease risks, and reputational harm.Economic stakes are high: Tourism contributes nearly 9% to GDP and supports ~1.8 million jobs. In 2025, South Africa welcomed ~10.5 million international tourists, with the four polled markets accounting for over 1.2 million arrivals. A 70% deterrence rate could mean losing ~860,000 visitors and risking ~66,000 jobs (based on one job per 13 arrivals).
By contrast, the captive lion sector supports only 1,568–2,069 jobs.Progress on the 2021 phase-out (via a High-Level Panel recommendation) has been slow, with recent ministerial changes (e.g., Willem Aucamp appointed in late 2025 after Dion George) raising fears of rollback. Advocates like Edith Kabesiime (World Animal Protection Africa) and Dr. Louise de Waal (Blood Lions) urge the government to prioritize ethical tourism, implement a time-bound phase-out, and avoid undermining wildlife protection and economic resilience. The poll reinforces that ending the industry aligns with public sentiment, ethical standards, and long-term tourism benefits.
