The debate surrounding 951 elephant deaths in the Kruger National Park has largely become a discussion about conservation science. It should instead be a discussion about public accountability, the ethical limits of state authority over wildlife, and why every deliberate killing of a wild elephant demands individual justification.

Howard Hendricks and Sam Ferreira are undoubtedly correct in observing that elephant management is among the most demanding responsibilities confronting conservation authorities. Few people with any familiarity with African protected areas would deny that managers are frequently required to navigate extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which ecological integrity, human safety, biodiversity conservation and animal welfare do not always point towards the same outcome. Conservation, particularly in a landscape as vast and socially complex as the Kruger National Park, is rarely an exercise in certainty or simple moral choices.

Yet complexity, important though it is, cannot become a substitute for accountability.

My previous article did not question whether conservation managers occasionally encounter situations in which the destruction of an elephant may be unavoidable. Nor did it suggest that every one of the 207 elephants recorded in SANParks' mortality database as "Management" deaths was necessarily killed without justification. Such a conclusion would itself be irresponsible because the evidence required to make that judgement has not been placed in the public domain.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

That, however, is precisely the point.

Read more The 951 dead elephants in the Kruger Park and a question everyone should be asking July 8, 2026 The question...