Zimbabwe has a history of culling its wildlife populations. In 2024, the country killed 200 elephants for meat as a supposed drought response. It justified the action by claiming the animals were likely to die from drought and that its parks were over capacity. At the time, we feared this would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to future culls.

Sadly, that concern has been realised. This latest cull is being carried out as part of what ZimParks describes as a “management exercise.” A spokesperson for Savé Valley Conservancy — the private reserve where the cull will take place — told ABC News that this “first phase,” happening this year, “will be to understand the ecological, logistical, and financial constraints involved in carrying out elephant management exercises, which may have to be an ongoing feature in the future.”

As with the last cull, the slain elephants will be distributed as food to local communities. While governments often justify culling as a response to hunger, this is an ineffective band-aid for a much larger crisis — and it sets a dangerous precedent. The consumption of bushmeat [wild animals] is a public health risk. Sanctioning the killing of elephants for human consumption exposes citizens to potential disease and may encourage greater demand for bushmeat.

Nature has long maintained balance among wildlife populations. When species begin to edge toward overpopulation, drought leads to natural die-offs. The old and weak succumb, while the strong survive — a process that restores balance without threatening the species as a whole. We saw this in Tsavo in the 1970s, again in 2017, most recently between 2020 and 2022, and we will no doubt see it again. A cull, by contrast, kills indiscriminately, disrupting nature’s finely tuned balance.

However, it is an undeniable reality that human activity has transformed wild spaces across Africa. Kenya still retains large, contiguous wilderness areas, but in many other African nations, wildlife are now confined to isolated ‘islands’ of protected land. In these fragmented habitats, population management may require human intervention — and in such instances, government-sanctioned translocation remains the most viable and humane solution.

By contrast, culling is a form of hunting. Unlike Kenya, Zimbabwe permits trophy hunting. Beyond the public health risks, culling damages elephant societies that have evolved over generations. These are highly intelligent, social animals, and the removal of individuals — particularly matriarchs and older bulls — has deep and lasting effects. A cull of this scale will have long-term consequences for an already endangered species.

As a Kenya-based organisation, we have no role in Zimbabwe’s decision-making. Though we share the same continent, we are distinct nations, separated by nearly 3,000 kilometres. Southern African countries have traditionally taken a more consumptive approach to conservation. In Kenya, we are fortunate to have a government that values and protects its wildlife.

As with the previous cull, we are watching this latest development with deep concern. We continue to hope Zimbabwe will reconsider its approach — but so far, that does not seem likely.

The Sheldrick Wildlife Trust has devoted the better part of a century to protecting African elephants. We know how vital these animals are to ecosystems, to communities, and to the future of our natural world. As stewards of the African elephant — a species our entire continent, and indeed the world, must rally to protect — we feel compelled to speak out. In the face of climate change and habitat loss, every decision matters. The progress made in recent decades to secure a future for elephants should not be undone. Zimbabwe’s decision to proceed with another cull marks a profound step backwards.