Skip to main content

South Africa’s private wildlife ranches protect globally significant populations of wild ungulates


Reversing biodiversity loss is a global imperative that requires setting aside sufficient space for species. In South Africa, an estimated area of 20 million ha is under wildlife ranching, a form of private land enterprise that adopts wildlife-based land uses for commercial gain. This land has potential to contribute towards biodiversity conservation, but the extent to which this occurs has not been evaluated. Using structured questionnaires of 226 wildlife ranchers, we assessed how the sector contributes towards the conservation of ungulates and elephants (hereafter herbivores). Overall, 40 herbivore species were present across the sample, where individual ranches had a mean of 15.0 (± 4.8) species, 1.9 (± 1.5) threatened species, and 3.6 (± 3.1) extralimital species per property. In comparison to 54 state PAs, wildlife ranches had significantly higher species richness, more threatened species but more extralimital species when property/reserve size was controlled for. Ranches conducting trophy hunting had similar species richness and numbers of extralimital species per ha, but fewer threatened species when compared to ranches conducting ecotourism. We estimate that 4.66–7.25 million herbivores occur on ranches nationally, representing one of the few examples on earth where indigenous mammal populations are thriving and demonstrating how sustainable use can lead to rewilding. We discuss the potential negative impacts of widespread game fencing on landscape fragmentation and gene flow, as well as how the widespread occurrence of extralimital species may lead to hybridisation, biotic homogenisation, and changes to vegetation dynamics. Despite these challenges, commercial wildlife ranching offers a viable option for conserving large mammalian herbivore biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study (except for landowner personal information) are included in this published article and its Supplementary Online Information Files.

Code availability

Not applicable.


  • Barnes JI, De Jager JLV (1995) Economic and financial incentives for wildlife use on private land in Namibia and the implications for policy. Research Discussion Paper, 8:23. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia

  • Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R (2018) The biomass distribution on earth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:6506–6511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birss C, Rushworth I, Collins NB et al (2015) Inferred natural distribution ranges of large mammals in South Africa, Version 1. Unpublished GIS coverage

  • Blackmore A (2020) Climate change and the ownership of game: a concern for fenced wildlife areas. KOEDOE Afr Prot Area Conserv Sci.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond I, Child BA, de la Harpe D et al (2004) Private land contribution to conservation in South Africa. In: Parks in transition. Biodiversity, rural development and the bottom line, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 29–61

  • Boone RB, Hobbs NT (2004) Lines around fragments: effects of fencing on large herbivores. Afr J Range Forage Sci 21:147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bothma J du P (2010) Counting wild animals. In: Game ranch management, 5th edn. Van Schaik, Pretoria, pp 458–481

  • Castley JG, Boshoff AF, Kerley GIH (2001) Compromising South Africa’s natural biodiversity—inappropriate herbivore introductions: commentary. S Afr J Sci 97:344

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114(30):E6089–E6096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Child BA (2009) Private conservation in Southern Africa: practice and emerging principles. In: Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation. Routledge, London, pp 103–111

  • Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E et al (eds) (2016) The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust

  • Child MF, Selier SAJ, Radloff FGT et al (2019) A framework to measure the wildness of managed large vertebrate populations. Conserv Biol 33:1106–1119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiyangwa T (2018) Financial implications of converting from livestock to game farming in the Karoo region, South Africa. PhD, Stellenbosch University

  • Clements HS, Baum J, Cumming GS (2016) Money and motives: an organizational ecology perspective on private land conservation. Biol Conserv 197:108–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements HS, Kerley GIH, Cumming GS et al (2018) Privately protected areas provide key opportunities for the regional persistence of large- and medium-sized mammals. J Appl Ecol 56:537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements HS, Knight M, Jones P, Balfour D (2020) Private rhino conservation: diverse strategies adopted in response to the poaching crisis. Conserv Lett.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloete PC, Van der Merwe P, Saayman M (2015) Game ranch profitability in South Africa, 2nd edn. Caxton, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy AM, Gaigher IG (1982) Venison, aquaculture and ostrich meat production: action 2003. S Afr J Anim Sci 12:219–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A et al (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol Conserv 143:2221–2228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton DL, Zimmermann D, Mnisi C et al (2017) Hiding in plain sight: evidence of hybridization between Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) and plains zebra (Equus quagga burchelli). Afr J Wildl Res 47:59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jager D, Harper CK, Bloomer P (2020) Genetic diversity, relatedness and inbreeding of ranched and fragmented Cape buffalo populations in southern Africa. PLoS ONE 15:e0236717.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Vos A, Clements HS, Biggs D, Cumming GS (2019) The dynamics of proclaimed privately protected areas in South Africa over 83 years. Conserv Lett.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon F, Parker D (2016) A conservation assessment of Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT (eds) The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, p 9

  • Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2016) 2016 Grazing capacity map of South Africa

  • Department of Environmental Affairs (2019) South Africa Protected Areas Database (SAPAD_OR_2019_Q1)

  • du Toit JG (2007) Role of the private sector in the wildlife industry. Wildlife Ranching South Africa

  • du Toit JG (2010) Preventative disease management and epidemiology. In: Game ranch management, 5th edn. Van Schaik, Pretoria, pp 432–437

  • Du Toit JT, Cumming DHM (1999) Functional significance of ungulate diversity in African savannas and the ecological implications of the spread of pastoralism. Biodivers Conserv 8:1643–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn ME, Ruppert K, Glikman JA et al (2021) Investigating the international and Pan-african trade in giraffe parts and derivatives. Conserv Sci Pract.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers Smith YC, Ehlers Smith DA, Ramesh T, Downs CT (2020) Co-occurrence modelling highlights conservation implications for two competing spiral-horned antelope: co-occurrence implications for sympatric browsers. Austral Ecol 45:305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • February E, Shadwell E, Viljoen S, Hattas D (2017) Feeding choices and impacts of extralimital giraffe on two keystone tree species in the Kgalagadi National Park. KOEDOE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fynn RWS, Augustine DJ, Fuhlendorf SD (2019) Managing browsing and grazing ungulates. In: Gordon IJ, Prins HHT (eds) The ecology of browsing and grazing II. Springer, Cham, pp 321–338

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo JA, Pasquini L, Reyers B, Cowling RM (2009) The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 142:446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannon P, Dubois G, Dudley N et al (2019) Editorial Essay: an update on progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. Parks.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss JR, Cumming GS (2013) Networks of wildlife translocations in developing countries: an emerging conservation issue? Front Ecol Environ 11:243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobler JP, Rushworth I, Brink JS et al (2011) Management of hybridization in an endemic species: decision making in the face of imperfect information in the case of the black wildebeest—Connochaetes gnou. Eur J Wildl Res 57:997–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobler JP, van Wyk AM, Dalton DL et al (2018) Assessing introgressive hybridization between blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou) from South Africa. Conserv Genet 19:981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MW, Kerley GIH (2009) Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biol Conserv 142:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempson GP, Archibald S, Bond WJ (2017) The consequences of replacing wildlife with livestock in Africa. Sci Rep 7:17196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hrabar H, Birss C, Peinke D et al (2016) A conservation assessment of Equus zebra zebra. In: Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E et al (eds) The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust

  • IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2016) Giraffa camelopardalis: Muller, Z., Bercovitch, F., Brand, R., Brown, D., Brown, M., Bolger, D., Carter, K., Deacon, F., Doherty, J.B., Fennessy, J., Fennessy, S., Hussein, A.A., Lee, D., Marais, A., Strauss, M., Tutchings, A. & Wube, T.: the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018: e.T9194A136266699

  • IUCN (2020a) Diceros bicornis: Emslie, R.: the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T6557A152728945

  • IUCN (2020b) Ceratotherium simum: Emslie, R.: the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T4185A45813880

  • Kerley GIH, Landman M (2010) Measuring the impact of indigenous herbivores: putting Hoffman et al. (2009) into a broader perspective. Afr J Range Forage Sci 27:179–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight M (2020) African Rhino Specialist Group Chair report. Rapport du Groupe de Spécialistes du Rhinocéros d’Afrique 20

  • La Grange M, van Rooyen J, Ebedes H (2010) Capturing wild animals. In: Game ranch management, 5th edn. Van Schaik, Pretoria, pp 507–580

  • Lindsey PA, Barnes JI, Nyirenda VR et al (2013a) The Zambian wildlife ranching industry: scale, associated benefits, and limitations affecting its development. PLoS ONE 8(12):e81761

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey PA, Havemann CP, Lines RM et al (2013b) Benefits of wildlife-based land uses on private lands in Namibia and limitations affecting their development. Oryx 47:41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey PA, Petracca LS, Funston PJ et al (2017) The performance of African protected areas for lions and their prey. Biol Conserv 209:137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey PA, Miller JRB, Petracca LS et al (2018) More than $1 billion needed annually to secure Africa’s protected areas with lions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E10788–E10796.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejewski K, Kerley GIH (2014) Understanding tourists’ preference for mammal species in private protected areas: is there a case for extralimital species for ecotourism? PLoS ONE 9:e88192.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell SL, Cazalis V, Dudley N et al (2020) Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586:217–227.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2005) Species introduced from nearby sources have a more homogenizing effect than species from distant sources: evidence from plants and fishes in the USA. Divers Distrib 11:367–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir A, Skowno A, Kerley G (2011) Combining conservation and socio-economic development. Center for African Conservation Ecology, Port Elizabeth

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller DWH, Codron D, Meloro C, Munn A, Schwarm A, Hummel J, Clauss M (2013) Assessing the Jarman–Bell principle: scaling of intake, digestibility, retention time and gut fill with body mass in mammalian herbivores. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A 164:129–140

  • Musengezi J (2010) Wildlife utilization on private land: understanding the economics of game ranching in South Africa. University of Florida

  • NACSO (2016) The state of community conservation in Namibia—a review of communal conservancies, community forests and other CBNRM initiatives (2016 Annual Report). NACSO, Windhoek

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Griffiths M (2000) Wildlife losses in Kenya: an analysis of conservation policy. Nat Resour Model 13:13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton-Griffiths M (2007) How many wildebeest do you need? World Econ Henley Thames 8:41

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogutu JO, Piepho H-P, Said MY et al (2016) Extreme wildlife declines and concurrent increase in livestock numbers in Kenya: what are the causes? PLoS ONE 11:e0163249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD, LeRoy PN, Douglas MR et al (2004) Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends Ecol Evol 19:18–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peel MJS, Bothma J du P (1995) Comparison of the accuracy of four methods commonly used to count impala. S Afr J Wildl Res 25:41–43

  • Peel MJS, Biggs H, Zacharias PJK (1999) The evolving use of stocking rate indices currently based on animal number and type in semi-arid heterogeneous landscapes and complex land-use systems. Afr J Range Forage Sci 15:117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirie TJ, Thomas RL, Fellowes MDE (2017) Game fence presence and permeability influences the local movement and distribution of South African mammals. Afr Zool 52:217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitman RT, Fattebert J, Williams ST et al (2017) The conservation costs of game ranching. Conserv Lett 10:403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radloff FGT, Birss C, Cowell C et al (2016) A conservation assessment of Damaliscus pygargus pygargus. In: Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E et al (eds) The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust

  • Redfern JV, Viljoen PC, Kruger JM, Getz WM (2002) Biases in estimating population size from an aerial census: a case study in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. S Afr J Sci 98(7):7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Newsome TM, Wolf C et al (2015) Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci Adv 1:e1400103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ripple WJ, Newsome TM, Kerley GIH (2016) Does trophy hunting support biodiversity? A response to Di Minin et al. Trends Ecol Evol 31:495–496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saayman M, Van der Merwe P, Saayman A (2018) The economic impact of trophy hunting in the South African wildlife industry. Glob Ecol Conserv 16:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (ed) (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4: a mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

  • Shumba T, De Vos A, Biggs R et al (2020) Effectiveness of private land conservation areas in maintaining natural land cover and biodiversity intactness. Glob Ecol Conserv 22:e00935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006) In: Mucina L, Rutherford MC, Powrie LW (eds) The vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Version 2012*.

  • South African National Parks (2012) Annual Report 2011/2012

  • Spear D, Chown SL (2008) Taxonomic homogenization in ungulates: patterns and mechanisms at local and global scales. J Biogeogr 35:1962–1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear D, Chown SL (2009a) The extent and impacts of ungulate translocations: South Africa in a global context. Biol Conserv 142:353–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear D, Chown SL (2009b) Non-indigenous ungulates as a threat to biodiversity. J Zool 279:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor WA, Avenant N, Schulze E et al (2016) A conservation assessment of Redunca fulvorufula fulvorufula. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT (eds) The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust

  • Taylor WA, Lindsey PA, Nicholson SK et al (2020) Jobs, game meat and profits: the benefits of wildlife ranching on marginal lands in South Africa. Biol Conserv 245:108561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Merwe P, Geldenhuys L, Scholtz M, Saayman M (2014) National profile and economic impacts of biltong hunters in South Africa, 2013. Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society

  • van Wyk AM, Kotzé A, Randi E, Dalton DL (2013) A hybrid dilemma: a molecular investigation of South African bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) and blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi). Conserv Genet 14:589–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wyk AM, Dalton DL, Hoban S et al (2016) Quantitative evaluation of hybridization and the impact on biodiversity conservation. Ecol Evol 7:320–330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R, Hedges S, Durant S (2014) To fence of not to fence. Science 344:46–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The study was funded by the Green Fund/Development Bank of South Africa. Thanks to Arnaud le Roux, Megan Murison, Vincent van der Merwe, Stephen Moseley, Viv Thomé, and the late Johan Manson, for conducting the survey questionnaires; to the late Jonathan Barnes for helping with survey design; to John Power (North West Parks), and Brian Reeves (ECPTA) for providing species occurrence data in PAs. WRSA facilitated contacting some of the participants. We are very grateful to 226 landowners and managers for taking time to answer survey questionnaires.


The study was funded by the Green Fund/Development Bank of South Africa. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



WAT: Conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing-original draft; MFC: Conceptualisation, writing-review and editing; PAL: Conceptualisation, methodology, writing-review and editing; SKN: Investigation, writing-review and editing; CR: Investigation, writing-review and editing; HTD-M: Conceptualisation, methodology, writing-review and editing, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Andrew Taylor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Ethical approval

University of Pretoria Ethics Approval No. V025-14.

Informed consent

Participants were contacted via telephone to request participation. They were provided with a verbal explanation of the purpose of the study and were told that their contributions would be confidential and anonymous. All data were aggregated for analysis and no personal information is divulged.

Additional information

Communicated by Karen E. Hodges.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, W.A., Child, M.F., Lindsey, P.A. et al. South Africa’s private wildlife ranches protect globally significant populations of wild ungulates. Biodivers Conserv 30, 4111–4135 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Wildlife ranches
  • Ungulates
  • Species richness
  • Metabolic biomass
  • Extralimital species
  • Fences