The 951 elephant deaths in Kruger â why the numbers demand perspective, not outrage

This story has significance for readers across Africa and beyond.

Elephants hold a special place in many peopleâs hearts. So, when itâs reported that 951 elephants died in Kruger National Park over six years, it is understandable that some people may feel shocked and concerned. But conservation cannot be judged by emotion alone. We also need to look at the facts, understand how nature works, follow the law and ask what the scientific evidence tells us.

The first fact, often overlooked, is that not all the 951 deaths were caused by conservation management interventions. More than half, 535 elephants, died from natural causes. Another 179 were killed illegally, mostly by poachers through accidental snaring that were set for other smaller animals. Elephants step in these snares, break them off, and the snares then cut through the leg muscles, resulting in the elephant needing to be put down humanely by management.

The remaining 207 deaths resulted from conservation management actions. In other words, the figure of 951 represents the total number of elephant deaths from multiple causes over six years. It is not the number of elephants deliberately killed by the conservation authority.

The second fact is scale â the size of Krugerâs elephant population. During those six years, the park was home to between 28,000 and 39,000 elephants. All recorded elephant deaths together amounted to about 0.4% of the population each year, while management-related deaths accounted for less than 0.1% of the population annually. These figures do not describe a population under threat from conservation management. Instead, they show that lethal intervention remained a limited management tool and was used sparingly within one of Africaâs largest and most dynamic elephant populations.

The reason for those 207 management-related deaths is equally important. They were not part of a plan to reduce elephant numbers across Kruger. They were targeted responses to specific conflict situations at local hotspots where elephants repeatedly left the park and damaged fences, crops and other property in neighbouring communities.

Between 2020 and 2025, Kruger recorded more than 1,500 incidents of elephants damaging fences, crops or property outside the park. Yet fewer than 6% of those incidents resulted in lethal intervention. In almost every case, managers first tried a range of non-lethal measures. They used helicopters to drive elephants back into the park, tracked problem animals with GPS collars, deployed rapid-response teams, repaired fences, worked with neighbouring communities and tested other ways to prevent repeat incidents.

Lethal intervention was considered only when these measures proved ineffective to stop the damage or reduce the risk to people. It was the last option, not the first.

This difference matters because conservation exists at the intersection of ecological integrity and human wellbeing. Communities living next to national parks often pay a real price and suffer direct costs for sharing their land with large wildlife. Crops are damaged, fences are broken and, sometimes, lives are put at risk. Conservation cannot succeed if it ignores these realities, as the KNP needs the support from its neighbours to succeed. But it also cannot succeed if every difficult decision is seen by certain sectors as a sign of failure or cruelty.

Part of nature

Responsible conservation means weighing difficult choices, balancing the needs of people and wildlife, and always trying to prevent harm or, when that is not possible, keeping it to a minimum.

The bigger lesson from the 951 deaths is that death is a normal part of nature. Every wild population experience death from old age, disease, drought, predators and accidents. Death helps shape ecosystems, recycles nutrients and keeps populations changing over time.

The relevant question is therefore not whether elephants die, but why they die. When people are involved, we should ask whether the management decision was necessary, lawful and carried out as humanely as possible. That is also the approach taken by South African conservation law. It does not try to prevent every animal from dying. Instead, it requires decisions to be reasonable, justified and focused on preventing unnecessary suffering rather than eliminating death.

People should continue to ask questions about conservation decisions. Public oversight helps keep conservation open, accountable and effective. Managers should explain what they do and why they do it.

But those discussions should be grounded in evidence, not isolated statistics taken out of context. When we look at the figure of 951 elephant deaths in context, it tells a much more complicated story than the headlines suggest. It is a story about a very healthy elephant population, natural deaths, poaching, conflict between people and elephants, and the difficult decisions faced by those responsible for protecting both wildlife and the communities that live alongside it.

The uncomfortable truth is that conservation is rarely about choosing between right and wrong options, if such even exists, as the question then becomes: Right or wrong for whom? More often, it is about choosing the option that causes the least harm in situations where every available decision carries consequences.

The Kruger elephant figures remind us that the real test of conservation is not whether difficult decisions are avoided. It is whether they are made for the right reasons, guided by evidence, kept to the minimum needed to ensure system integrity, carried out as humanely as possible and transparent to the public. This is not an easy standard to meet, but it is the one that both people and wildlife deserve. DM

Dr Howard Hendricks is the managing executive of SANParksâ Conservation Services. Professor Sam Ferreira is SANParksâ large mammal ecologist.

Reporting originally appeared via Daily Maverick. Read the full source for additional context.