Numerous articles have recently been published on different online news platforms regarding the reopening of big game hunting in Botswana. Most of these articles try to put hunting in a bad light, or try to show that hunting does not contribute that much to the local economy of the country or region.

Prof Peet van der Merwe from the North-West University’s (NWU’s) research unit TREES (Tourism Research in Economics, Environs and Society) at the School of Tourism Management believes this approach is very detrimental to the country’s tourism cause.   

Researchers at TREES have conducted numerous economic impact studies on hunting. Among these is one study that was conducted in three of the most preferred hunting regions/provinces of South Africa, and which was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It proved that the direct economic impact of spending by the two types of hunters (trophy and biltong) in the regions (in the order of R1,5 billion for Limpopo, R696 million for the Northern Cape and R655 million for the Free State), produced an additional R1,1 billion (Limpopo), R78 million (Northern Cape) and R705 million (Free State) of indirect and induced impact.

The total impact for the regions was in excess of R2,6 billion in Limpopo, R774,3 million  in the Northern Cape and R1 360,7 million in the Free State. The research found that 31 436 jobs in these three regions may depend on hunting.

The second study, also published in a peer-reviewed journal, focused just on the trophy hunting industry of South Africa. This research revealed that the total impact of trophy hunting  in South Africa amounted to R5,4 billion, or US$341 million. The study further proved that trophy hunting supported 17 685 job opportunities in South Africa.

However, the positive impact of hunting extends beyond only economic issues, as a recent study conducted by a master’s-degree student at TREES, titled “A comparison of the perceived environmental impacts of consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife tourism”, showed.

This study was conducted at a 30 000+ ha game reserve, hosting both ecotourism (non-consumptive wildlife tourism) and hunting tourism (consumptive wildlife tourism). The main aim of this research was to compare the perceived environmental impacts of consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife tourism.  

The results firstly revealed that the total number of ecotourists who visited the game reserve over a one-year period was considerably higher (+/- 14 000) than the number of hunters (+/- 50) – more people, more waste that is generated in this sensitive environment. Forty to fifty per cent of the consumptive wildlife tourists (hunters) were return visitors, compared to the non-consumptive wildlife tourists, of whom fewer than 10% were return visitors.

More interesting was the fact that hunters (consumptive wildlife tourists) paid significantly more per night (US$450 per person per night) than non-consumptive wildlife tourists did (US$99 per person per night). This excluded the game that was hunted. If this was added, the income for the game reserve from the 50+ hunters was not far from the income generated from the +/- 14 000 ecotourists. Consumptive tourists therefore involved fewer people but resulted in a higher income, which is one of the fundamental principles of sustainable tourism and ecotourism.

Secondly, the study found that non-consumptive tourists used significantly more water and generated more waste in general (food waste and other waste such as plastics, tins, etc.). The fact is that the more tourists there are in an area, the greater is the impact on the area. The study also showed that the average stay of non-consumptive tourists was considerably shorter than that of consumptive wildlife tourists. One of the results of a longer stay would be that towels and linen need to be washed more frequently, impacting water use.  

Thirdly, looking at the attitudes and behaviour of the two groups in general, the study concluded that consumptive wildlife tourists (hunters) tended to support conservation more and had more knowledge of wildlife and the environment. They educated others about nature and wildlife, whereas non-consumptive wildlife tourists (ecotourists) tended not to be as concerned about wildlife, but more about their own needs. For example, they felt that they paid to stay at the lodge and therefore had the right to use too much water.

According to Prof Van der Merwe, one must give Botswana and other countries the chance to continue with big game hunting, especially during these difficult times. As was seen in the study mentioned above, hunting does have a lesser impact on the environment than ecotourism does, and contributes to the local economy of the areas/countries where big game hunters operate.

“It is evident that hunting has a critical role to play in Africa,” he says.

Prof Peet van der Merwe.