Climate change and the ownership of game: A concern for fenced wildlife areas

Climate change is increasingly being cited as one of the major challenges facing the conservation of biodiversity (Bellard et al. 2012), and with this realisation a greater emphasis is being placed on protected areas and other conserved natural areas (i.e. game farms and ranches) as refugia as well as ‘island habitats’ for wildlife. Although this argument may hold in open systems within which protected areas occur and where, at least, wildlife may freely move beyond the boundary of the conserved area, it may not hold for areas that are fenced, as is predominantly the case in South Africa, in a manner that limits the movement of species responding to climate change. In such circumstances, the recommendation is to physically relocate climate change-displaced species to areas of more suitable habitat, or establish biodiversity or wildlife corridors that are abundant in the scientific literature (Davidson et al. 2012; Di Minin et al. 2013; Groves et al. 2012; Hartter, Goldman & Southworth 2011; Lister et al. 2015; Madden 2008; McDowell 2013; Minteer & Collins 2010; Pittiglio et al. 2014; Sax, Smith & Thompson 2009; Schwartz et al. 2012; Songhurst et al. 2016; Syombua 2013; Treves 2009; Wilke & Rannow 2014). Although this argument is sound from many perspectives, there are a number of social, economic, conservation, legal and practical challenges that may need to be overcome before a species can be either extracted and re-introduced elsewhere, or stable and effective corridors can be established.