On February 6, South Africa’s new minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Willie Aucamp, through a legal notice in the government gazette, announced provisional trophy hunting export quotas for elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard for 2026 and 2027.
The notice signalled the possible resumption of the sport hunting of these three members of the Big Five of the wildlife family after a five-year break caused by a protracted court case in which animal protection organisation Humane Society International/ Africa (HIS/Africa) has opposed the issuing of these permits on the grounds that due process was not being followed.
Aucamp’s notice indicated that his ministry plans to issue trophy hunting export permits for 150 elephants, 12 black rhinos and 11 leopards this year and the same figures for next year, signalling South Africa’s return to the controversial trophy hunting business.
However, the legal notice is subject to a 30-day period in which those opposed to the issuance of the permits should lodge their objections. This consultation process is drawing responses from scientists, conservation organisations, hunting bodies and the public as there is possibly no other matter that divides both South Africans and the global wildlife conservation community than trophy hunting.
Although allowed in South African and many other countries, trophy hunting is slammed by animal rights groups, which argue it is cruel and unnecessary, causing psychological distress to animals. Defenders of the practice say it is necessary to maintain conservation and supports habitat protection and anti-poaching efforts.
Under international law meant to protest wildlife under the global CITES framework, in the absence of trophy hunting export permits from the countries of origin, global hunters cannot legally take their trophies with them back to their home countries.
In the case of South Africa, when the country suspended the issuance of these export permits, these hunters moved to neighbouring countries, causing the country’s $3 billion industry to suffer massive losses in potential revenue. Until the ban, South Africa was the world’s second largest exporter of hunting trophies, after neighbouring Namibia.
Immediately after Aucamp’s quotas were announced, both the pro-hunting and anti-hunting lobbies of the conservation tussle started mobilising their constituencies for battle.
Although trophy hunting has always been a contentious matter is South African conservation circles, in the aftermath of findings of a High Level Panel created to review South Africa’s policies, legislation and practices regarding elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros that recommended an end to the practice of captive breeding and hunting of lions, HIS/Africa challenged the legality of the environment ministry’s hunting quotas on the basis that they were not done through wide consultation as required by the law. The court granted its application, which caused the indefinite freezing of the export permits starting in 2022. So started a legal seesaw between the pro-hunting and anti-hunting sides which has been playing out in the courts for the past five years.
On October 30 last year, a local High Court made a landmark ruling ordering the environment minister to issue export permits in respect of “ethically harvested” rhino horns from privately owned breeding facilities. The ruling, which experts said could has a bearing on CITES’ nearly five-decade global ban on the global trade in the controversial commodity, was made in favour of Hendrick ‘Wicus’ Diedericks, a South African registered conservation rhino breeder.
Rhino horn trade for local consumption is legal in South Africa, and this ruling — which ordered the government to issue export permits to verifiable conservation breeders — was made in Diedericks’ favour after he pleaded with the court that he was desperate to sell rhino horn stubs sustainably harvested from his rhino herd for the animals’ own upkeep.
The court concurred with Diedericks that Article VII of CITES makes provision for ‘exemptions’ in animals or specimens bred in captivity for non-commercial purposes such as conservation. “If the animal is bred in captivity one of these exemptions will, depending upon the question as to whether the animal was bred for commercial or conservation purposes, be triggered,” said the court ruling.
“Applicant wants to offset the cost of maintaining and protecting these animals from poaching by harvesting and then selling the horn of living animals, who were born in captivity, in a sustainable manner which is not harmful to any such living animal,” added the ruling, which described these costs to be ‘inordinate’.
Then environment minister Dion George, who maintained a strict no-trade stance, immediately appealed the court’s ruling.
“South Africa will not support any move to reopen the ivory or rhino horn trade,” George said in a statement. “Our duty is to protect our wildlife, not to profit from their destruction.”
Shortly after this, President Cyril Ramaphosa — whose own links to the trophy hunting industry have been repeatedly exposed — fired George for alleged “poor performance” and replaced him with Aucamp, a politician well-known for his strong links with the trophy hunting industry, an appointment that triggered the ire of the anti-hunting lobby.
Several petitions were started both against George’s dismissal and Aucamp’s appointment while counter-petitions were also made in support of Aucamp’s appointment.
Amid allegations of State Capture, anti-hunting groups have led a campaign against Aucamp’s appointment on the grounds of his links with businesses with ties to hunting animals for profit and his open support of an organisation accused of representing the interests of the captive lion industry which breeds lions for exploitative purposes including trophy hunting and bone trading — a controversial practice being phased out in South Africa.
“Mr Aucamp’s documented associations with wildlife ranching, safari operations, and industries connected to trophy hunting create a clear perception of conflict of interest,” reads a petition against Aucamps’ controversial appointment.
“Whether legal or not, these connections raise an unavoidable question: How can a minister objectively regulate and protect biodiversity, wildlife, and nature resources while maintaining links to industries that profit directly from their commercial use? South Africa deserves an Environment Minister whose independence is unquestionable. Our wildlife deserves protection free from portfolio exploitation.”
Through its lawyers, the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) demanded an explanation from John Steenhuisen, the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second largest party that makes the governing coalition with Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC), on how he recommended George’s replacement by Aucamp to the president. Both George and Aucamp are from the DA side of the coalition government.
In the letter, NSPCA demanded from Steenhuisen, among other things, that he shares the conflict‑of‑interest assessment conducted regarding Aucamp’s reported links with wildlife‑breeding or captive‑wildlife industry actors, and the remedial steps proposed, given the substantial public concern expressed by civil‑society groupings.
The Elizabeth Margaret Steyn (EMS) Foundation, an influential animal lobby also weighed in, saying Aucamp’s appointment smacked of the growing influence of wildlife-breeding and trophy-hunting lobbies inside government.
“When George took over he moved to shut down the captive-lion industry, confirmed South Africa would not back any attempt to reopen international trade in rhino horn or ivory trade and refused to issue trophy-hunting quotas for elephant, black rhino and leopard,” the Foundation said in a statement. “And that made George dangerous — not to the public, not to conservation, but to powerful private interests who have long treated wildlife as inventory. George’s removal was not simply a cabinet reshuffle. It was a political execution. And South Africa’s wildlife will pay the price.”
Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) also protested Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen’s decision to appoint Aucamp to be environment minister.
“Willie Aucamp, is proudly, explicitly and publicly aligned with South Africa’s hunting and wildlife breeding, including genetically modifying species, specifically for trophy hunting, his family have interests in the hunting and breeding of wild animals for profit,” it said in its complaint. “His clear alignment with this specific sector makes him an entirely inappropriate candidate for Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment as it stands in stark conflict with South Africa’s environmental legislation and policies as well as international Treaties to which South Africa is a Party.”
The fears of these organisations were vindicated when Aucamp — barely three months into the job — gazetted the hunting quotas despite on-going court cases, angering the no-hunting lobby.
Pro-hunting groups such as Wildlife Ranching South Africa, Private Rhino Owners’ Association and professional hunters’ groups among many with vested interests in this billion-dollar industry, insist that their activities are not only sustainable, but also beneficial to the country’s economy. However anti-hunting groups insist that these billions are not about conservation, but private profit. They point out that under the guise of conservation, wildlife is raised in captive to feed the lucrative trophy hunting industry, hence the fight to keep the money flowing.
As Aucamp’s draft quotas are now open for public consultation, the numbers themselves — and the circumstances under which they were arrived at — have already drawn serious scrutiny from scientists and conservation organisations, and prompted sharp criticism from George, who argues that the decision raises unresolved legal, ecological and governance questions.
George, who insists he was removed from a politically sensitive ministry because he tried to tighten regulation around controversial wildlife industries, has since established Conservation Trust, an NGO which says aims to “educate policymakers and build coalitions” to combat the illegal wildlife trade through policy toolkits, training and cross-border coordination aimed at closing loopholes and strengthening enforcement. In his own account, the key issue is that the scientific and legal context around trophy hunting in South Africa remains unchanged even after his dismissal.
“The environment didn’t change. The data didn’t change. The court processes didn’t change,” he told the media. “The only thing that changed was the minister.”
At the end of the 30-day period, whichever side emerges “victorious” would have to start preparing to defend itself in the courts since no side is just ready to give up the tight, there appears no end sight to this brutal tug-of-war.