I have seen some responses to postings about put and take hunting which show that the typical AR user does not really know how big a fenced area is big enough on which to hunt ethically. In the interest of hunting in South Africa I think it is a good idea to offer some of my own opinions on how to decide when a fenced area is big enough to undertake ethical fair chase hunting there.

Everything that follows is only my opinion, and you can consider it, or ignore it. The fact that you may have quite a different opinion does not make mine wrong! We can argue about it, we can argue about the figures and assumptions used. And we can argue about the principles used to make the decision. But I do not want to let such arguments miss the point of this posting: How to decide if a fenced area is big enough to hunt a specific species in an ethical manner. For this argument I call ethical hunting any hunting in which the hunted animal has a good chance of evading a poor/inexperienced or unlucky hunter for a long time. I do hope to at least assist some individuals to help them form their own opinion about the subject, and so decide for themselves when their own hunting is/was ethical in their own opinion, as this all that really counts!

As point of departure I will use the example of a hunter who wishes to hunt an impala. Similar considerations can be applied for most [but not all] other game species. He/she (for ease of writing only reference to a male hunter will be used hereafter) has done the required homework and has chosen an honest hunting outfitter to arrange his hunt. He had communicated to his outfitter that he wants a really worthwhile representative impala, and the outfitter in response suggested that the hunting be undertaken at Leeuwdoorns, a concession near Dwaalboom in the Limpopo Province. Dwaalboom is a small village situated in the western bushveldt area, a habitat type that is known for the good quality impala trophies regularly taken there. A hunt in early May, i.e. near the peak rutting time was suggested. The outfitter also confirmed that the Leeuwdoorns concession area in which he will hunt is indeed fenced by high (impala proof) fences and is about 5000 acres in extent. The veldt type was given as of the typical bushveldt with some, but not excessive, thorn bush infestation. Our AR member hunter now has to decide if the fenced area of 5000 acres is big enough to have a real ethical fair chase hunt for a trophy impala on. How does he go about it making this decision in some logical manner? Posting the question on the AR forum will certainly get varied response, some of which may be motivated by ulterior motives! Here a quasi-scientific framework is proposed to assist in making the decision.

As a basic point of departure I propose that, in deciding if a fenced area is big enough to ethically hunt impala, the area should be considered in terms of the number of typical impala home ranges or territories. [Anyone who does not understand the concept of a territory and how impala behavior is affected by it is free to contact me for more information] Now reference to information contained in Andrew McLaren Safaris� home page has indicated that the typical size of impala territories range between 12 and 20 acres. As the whole of the western Limpopo province, and specifically Dwaalboom, and even more specifically the Leeuwdoorns concession, is very good impala habitat, the lower figure of 12 acres per territory will be used in evaluating the size of this hunting area required for fair chase hunting of impala. One should note that the male impala territory size is not the same as the minimum size of grazing area needed to get enough food, but in general in good habitat where a large number of impala can be kept on a small area, the territory size will also be relatively smaller.

Now, to put the whole argument in a proper perspective I suggest that you imagine that the hunter was Fredric C. Selouse in his younger days, i.e. at a time, when there were no fences anywhere and he was hunting the same area as our modern hunter would be brought to many years later. Imagine that Fredric spotted a nice specimen ram, just as the ram started running away, after it had seen or heard or smelled the hunter first. As there were no fences of any kind then, that ram was free to run all the way to the Indian Ocean in the east, or the Atlantic Ocean in the west, or all the way to Gibraltar/Kairo in the north, or to Cape Town/Agallus in the south. The ram could certainly quite easily have run to the Marico River, something like 10 miles to the west or to the Limpopo River some 45 miles to the east. Long story, but an important point: The ram was free to run as far as he wished to! But how far was the ram likely to actually run in an attempt to escape from the young Fredric?

The fully understand the answer to this question you have to know a bit about the breeding and territorial behavior of the impala. A very brief description of the territorial behavior of impala can be found at http://www.mclarensafaris.com/new/newsletters/No.5
And a basic knowledge of the behavior is assumed here. Just to make the required arithmetic easy, let us assume that the territories of all impala in this example are all hexagonal shaped and that all are12 acres in size. We can also assume that, at the start of his dash away from the hunter, the impala was in the middle of his territory. After running a bit more than 125 yards in any direction he is going to cross the territorial boundary and enter into the territory of his territorial neighbor. You must realize that the territorial neighbor will protect his own from any other impala ram intruding thereon, even if it means getting physical and fight to drive off the intruder. At a time when the impala feels threatened by the approaching hunter he will not want to risk getting into a physical confrontation with his territorial neighbor. So the ram is likely to run away from the hunter for less than 100 yards to a dense bushy area within his own territory to stand and watch the possible approach of danger, now in the form of FC Selous, from there. Even of the ram was busy patrolling his territorial perimeter at the start of the encounter, he is likely to run away for less than 250 yards in any one direction before entering another ram�s territory. And remember that during the rut a ram getting into another rams� territory is really looking for trouble. Because if he does, he will definitely be severely attacked, not necessarily but possibly violently, and even possibly killed by the ram into whose territory he had ventured!. If Frederic followed the spoor and came close to the ram, he would run away again. But where to would he run this time? Chances are that he would run away around the danger to somewhere near the opposite side of his own territory, and there stand again. Continued hunting by Fredric would cause the ram to keep on running in circles, but mostly within his own territory. Only under extreme pressure would the ram run away through a neighboring territory, and then he is likely to be chased right back as soon as the neighbor becomes aware of the intruder. The point of the story is that a territorial impala will always first try to avoid a perusing hunter by running away while staying within his own territory.

Now, fortunately for my little story Fredric kept on hunting for this nice specimen, but ran out of daylight and had to return to his wagons before he could bag this particular ram, which lived to sire many offspring. We have now established that in the good old days before fences a territorial impala ram will hardly run away for more than 100 to 200 or so yards before standing again.

Now imagine our modern hunter with a high powered and telescoped rifle and assisted by a smartass young bushgigilo PH [complete with .375 H&H, Rayban sunglasses and wearing an elephant tail hair bangle which he bought at a curio shop] hunting in the same area. As expected they are likely to being seen by a many generations later descendent of the ram that eluded Fredric Courtnay Selouse way back before there were fences. Now this poor beast cannot run away all the way to the ocean in any direction any more. He cannot even run to the river, as his movement is limited by the curse [or savior, depending on your viewpoint] of all of South Africa�s game: A 9 foot high fence with 22 strands of well fastened and strained high tension wire, over which he cannot jump and through which he can only escape with possible severe injury. Assuming that this ram was in the middle of his hexagonal shaped territory, and that his territory was in the middle of a hexagonal shaped fenced hunting concession area of x acres, how far do you think this modern ram will run away?[He can only run about z yards in any one direction, where z=Sqrt(x*4840*2.598) until he gets to the fence] But how far will this modern fenced in ram actually run? The answer is that he will still run away, but still at all costs try to stay on his own territory. Not only is he relatively safe from attack by other rams here, this is also the area that he knows best: He knows exactly where to stand in which thicket to see best in any direction without being easy to be seen himself. He knows the game paths in his territory well enough to be able to run along them at full speed on a dark night. He knows the likely wind direction at each time of the day, and the wind eddy current behavior in this area very well. This is the only place where he feels relatively safe! He is still only going to run away at most into the periphery of the neighboring territory! If he happens to be a little less dominant/strong he may have a peripheral territory next to the fence, then his options are a bit limited on with direction to run away in, but he can still mostly elude a hunter for days on end without ever getting to the dreaded fence. The point is that the erection of fences does restrict the movement or migration of animals, keeps some out and some in and has played a major role in the development of a viable game industry. But fences have not changed the basic behavior of the impala, or any other species, in any manner significant to a single hunter hunting by walk and stalk method for a single trophy animal.

Let us by way of illustration say that if there are 20 territorial rams to choose from, a good specimen can be selected. If you now tell me that you cannot hunt an impala ethically on a fenced area that comprises at least about 20 typical territories, or around 240 acres of prime impala habitat, please motivate your objection. Obviously the 240 acres is not some magic number, and the example used above is only an example with perfectly hexagonal territories, but it does help me with rationalizing my evaluation of the possibility of fair chase hunting being undertaken in a fenced area of given size. Where the habitat for the species is less than optimal a larger area is required for each territory, and hence a larger area is required for ethical hunting. Why the number of 20 territories? Well, this is just about the number hexagonal territories required to make sure that the middle one is at least two territories removed from the fence. If you want to play it safer, use 40, or about three territories before the middle one gets to the fence. In marginal impala habitat 40 territories can be contained in 800 acres, which is still far less than the typical Limpopo Province game ranch size of 2500 acres.

It is now suggested that a walk and stalk hunter can ethically hunt an impala on the average western Limpopo bushveldt high fenced hunting concession that comprises of some 800 acres of good impala habitat.

It is further suggested that very similar arguments can be applied to determine the minimum size of a fenced area in which an ethical hunt for kudu, blue wildebeest and a number of other species can be used.

I welcome any constructive suggestions.

Verewaaier.

By the time I got to the end of your scenario, I was exhausted, and no longer care to hunt. I've sold my guns, and taken up golf.



George

P.S. Suggestion: make your scenarios more brief.

P.P.S. Everyone who hunts RSA knows what to expect; almost all properties are fenced. The question is, does the animal have a reasonable chance to escape the hunter? Is there natural cover? Are there terrain features usable to elude hunters? Or is it, like some farms in the (Orange) Free State, flat as a billiard table with no trees of kopjes?

Very informative and well written piece. Entertaining as well. Point taken...taking down the fence, would not, in the short term, make any difference at all for territorial species.

In my opinion, it's the perceived sense of virgin Africa (or lack thereof) that most hunters are talking about when they bring up the issue of farm size. They don't want to travel all that way to hunt in someone's back yard. They want Africa, miles and miles of it, all to themselves to roam at will, never hunting the same area twice.

Unfortunately, the economics of game farming make that ideal extremely expensive. The farmer's biggest cost is the imputed cost of his land (which is only partially reflected in his cash cost, ie the interest on any loan he has to repay). If that is 50% of his cost, then mathematically, twice the property size requires a 33% increase in day rates. (Unless another hunting party is present, but that is not part of the fantasy).

Land features and vegetation are another factor. If the land has lots of nooks and crannies, it feels bigger.

Finally, carrying capacity is a factor. Limpopo Province can carry 1 unit per 12 ha. Zululand, 1 per 3 ha. In other words, 1000 acres in Zululand hunts like 4000 acres in Limpopo.

Five thousand acres with good cover......hell yes, that's big enough. You could even keep a few elephants in that with the proper electrofied fence.

I guess my only suggestion would be to go still hunt 5000 acres of South Texas brush country, then decide how you did before you make a decision. I can put you on a great whitetail 1000 acre property here in Idaho which will leave you exhausted and gameless in a day. There are many variables, but it boils down to your expectations and sensibilities. My hunting partner has made 2 trips to RSA and only one ranch out of 8-10 was unacceptable. 6000 acres, not a tree, and fences in sight when they wanted you to shoot. He took some video, and then ordered them to leave at once. My upcoming hunt in Namibia is on a high fenced ranch, but it is about 250 square miles! My good friend (who has been a PH in TNZ) has hunted this ranch for 3 years and has never been on about a third of it. I'm looking forward to the "African" experience here.

Point taken!

Please read "not very good" instead of "poor". As you guessed, it has nothing to do with money at all, but with the ability to hunt!
Verewaaier.

IMO, a case cannot be made for ethics of High fence hunting on area of the property. What is listed as 5000 acres by outside measurement, may be 10,000 acres of actual surface area,if hilly, and could be exactly 5000 acres if flat. Add in the vegitation and rocks, bluffs, and creek bottoms, the both areas can be quite adiquate.

IMO, if the land affords the game escape routs, many watering areas, and food sources, and a hunter hunts on his feet, then the fence has nothing to do with anything, other than the land owners ability to protect his property!

Good post. I think the aversion most hunters have is to the game farm concept i.e. Pheasant "farms" where shooting pen raised birds is kind of like going out in the barnyard and shooting one of grandma's Rhode Island Reds. The game I hunted in RSA was not pen raised and the fences served more to keep predators out than game in.

I have only hunted in Africa twice and both times were at the same place in South Africa (in 2000 and 2002). So, while I can not relate to other locations and therefore offer a comparison, I can provide some photos of the farm/ranch where I hunted in the Limpopo Province. It's approximately 14,000 acres. High game fence on the perimeter but no internal fences. For first timers that may be having trouble visualizing what a place like this would look like, then here are some photos. Lots of vegetation which provides cover for the game. I prefer this over the more open areas in the Cape (or is it the Orange Free State?) that I have seen photos of (but never been to). Also, there were 9 White Rhino (bulls, cows and a couple of calves) on the property. We saw three the first day and never saw any Rhino for the remainder of the hunt. They had room enough to hide from us. Of course, we weren't actively looking for them, either.



-Bob F.



































http://www.mabelingwane.com/

Don't know for sure.

I'll have to check the plot plan of my back yard and interview the squirrels and crows.

Once you look at the horizon in every direction and don't see a fence, you realise what these huge numbers people throw around actually mean...
That was a very informative piece, but I will add that the amount of land covered in a day must be taken into account. The essence of hunting is to see new areas etc, so few hutners are willing to spend a week combing the same block of bush relying on the fact that impala have 200 meters to run. For there to be a sustainable number of species to create a successful safari, you need to be able to see several specimens of several different species that like different types of habitat. The zebra, kudu and blesbok might not be found in the same areas, this must be taken into account when determining how much land is needed. In one particular game farm, there was only one open area of any importance, so all the zebra were congregated there, if you went there every day you could shoot a couple more. In that situation, it would have been a zebra shoot rather than a hunt.
May I ask you what causes 'bush encroachment'? I have hunted in Limpopo province in areas that were not burned and had no cattle making it impossible to hunt effectively as the visibility was 30-40 meters...is this what is meant by encroachment, or is it a particular species of plant taking over?

Russ,

Yes you are one of those who sees the point. If you are hunting on a fenced concession big enough to have some magic figure of, for which I suggested 20, territorial males, the chances are that on foot you can hunt ethically.

I too lament the fact that we here in South Africa can hardly experience the �miles and miles� of virgin Africa. The part of ��never hunting the same area twice�� many visiting hunters have only themselves to blame. They allow the PH (who may only be interested in getting his quota filled as soon as possible) to dictate the method of hunting: Driving around in a specially equipped vehicle in search of game to then shoot from the vehicle!!!! Or the PH may let you stalk closer for an �ethical� shot???? Driving, of course, covers much more ground than walking, and very quickly the visitor realizes that he/she have been here before, seen this tree before and then get the feeling of hunting in someone�s� back yard. On a relatively small concession area of 5000 acres a hunter can probably still hunt by walk-in-search-of-game and then stalk to shoot methods for quite a number of days without hunting the same area twice. By still hunting you can only cover so much area in a day!

Blank,

�It boils down to your expectations and sensibilities� You are quite right, it does! The posting was made in an attempt to help some getting to grips with their sensibilities. I hope that it at least partly succeeded?

I always try to communicate with my prospective clients a lot, in order for them to have realistic expectations. I will say how big the area hunted on is, how much bush encroachment to expect, typical shot distance, trophy expectations etc. Then I try to exceed those realistic expectations! This is IMHO a sure recipe for a happy client!

MacD37,

You are quite right, it should be made in terms of some magical number (for which I suggested 20 in my post) of male territories, irrespective of how big or small these may be individually and combined by outside measurement. The size of a males territory has precious little to do with availability of food or carrying capacity, but maybe more about the �defend ability� due to level ground of hills and creek bottoms etc.


BFaucett,

Thanks for posting the pictures. Looks very much like at Leeuwdoorns and home for me.

Boghossian,

Yes, in the end if you have been hunting on foot for an hour or so, are totally disorientated and can not see a fence no matter which way you look, then you are hunting on a large enough area!

You ask what causes bush encroachment?

Really wish I knew better or more about this subject, particularly how to reverse the process. With very limited knowledge of pasture management I will nevertheless attempt to reply.

The Limpopo should be mostly savanna � a veldt type with something like a maximum 240 trees per acre. Of these 240 trees most are big and mature trees, and there are only a few surviving small trees of any species. There will be lots of viable tree seeds scattered in the area and if good rains follows after a dry period many of these seeds will germinate and then there may be a few thousand small trees per acre at some time. Now in the natural order of things, after good rains � which cause the good germination of the seeds, there is also lots of grass. The inevitable natural veldt fires would be fueled by lots of grass, and thus generate enough heat to kill all but the really big specimens of the savanna trees.

But man and his cattle interfered with this natural situation. A specific range management practice is to make firebreaks to ensure that naturally and artificial fires do not burn down the grass, which is food for the cattle. Due to a combination of overgrazing by cattle (grass eaters) so that even if there is a veldt fire there is not enough grass to get a really hot fire to kill the small trees, and the fire prevention by farmers the number of trees per acre has risen dramatically in large areas of our country. These trees are mostly natural indigenous trees, but of the types in which the young small trees cannot withstand fire very well, but at the same time the big mature trees can withstand normal veldt fires.

Once a dense stand of these trees have been established, there is more competition for water and sunlight for the grass, which does not grow so well in competition with these trees. Once the grass is less, and the farmer keeps the same amount of cattle, they are going to graze down the grasses even more, and the overgrazed grass can really not compete with the trees, which are not damaged at all by the grazers. Trees flourish, grass suffers. By the time there is another veldt fire, the small trees are big enough to withstand the low heat generated by the low mass of combustible grass, and viola! You have bush encroachment. Species such as the magic lantern tree (Dichrostachys cinerea) and blue thorn (Acacia erubescens) are the two major, with umbrella thorn (Acacia tortilis) another significant one, bush encroachment species in my area of Limpopo. In some areas quite different species will be the major ones involved in bush encroachment, but they are all typically thorn trees of low general nutritional value to browsers, except the seedpods, which is scattered in the browsers� dung, and then, having passed through the digestive tract have been �conditioned� to germinate well after rains. Most of the bush encroachment species are of almost no to absolutely no value at all to grazers.

Reversing a dense stand of bush encroachment to revert back to typical savanna is very, very expensive and time consuming. Needless to say there are many experts, each with an own idea of how best to do this. It is a really complex management problem: The type that if you talk and argue about the how to of it, and you do not get thoroughly confused, it shows that you were not thinking clearly!

Incidentally the photos of the hunting concession posted by BFaucett show significant, but not yet severe, bush encroachment. See your own remark about �not burned�!

Enjoy the planning and anticipation of your next or first South African hunt. It is, afdter all part of the hunt!

Verewaaier.