In the world of conservation, few animals carry the burden of celebrity quite like the rhino. The rhino is a walking target: its horn is falsely believed by a distant market to cure cancer and other ailments, and is also considered a status symbol in these markets. And despite decades of boots on the ground, drones in the sky, and millions of dollars spent on anti-poaching, the grim scoreboard of poaching keeps ticking up. But what if the best way to save a rhino is to cut off its horns? Is a chainsaw the most effective tool in saving rhinos? A new study on rhino dehorning suggests so
A team of scientists and conservationists from southern Africa has just delivered a jarring research report on rhino protection. By pooling expertise and data across multiple reserves, the report aimed to provide a clearer picture of how dehorning influences rhino behaviour, ecology, and conservation outcomes.
Their study, published in Science, lays it out in stark terms: Dehorning rhinos by surgically removing their horns – a painless procedure – was the only intervention that consistently reduced poaching across 11 major reserves in the Greater Kruger ecosystem (a stronghold that protects 27% of all of Africa’s rhinos). And the strategy proved dramatically effective.
The numbers game: guns, dogs, and dollars
Over a seven-year period (2017–2023), 1,985 rhinos were killed in the very areas that are supposed to be the last bastions of safety. That’s around 6.5% of the population annually – a slow bleed in the life expectancy of a species. This, according to the Kuiper et al study spearheaded by the Greater Kruger Environmental Protection Foundation (GKEPF). To better understand the long-term impacts of dehorning on rhinos, GKEPF established a collaborative research project involving reserve managers, field rangers, and scientists from the University of Cape Town, Nelson Mandela University, Stellenbosch University, and the University of Oxford. This multi-institutional effort was further supported by key conservation bodies, including South African National Parks (SANParks), WWF South Africa, and the Rhino Recovery Fund.
The project was initially conceived by those working on the frontlines of rhino conservation and was driven by Sharon Haussmann, CEO of GKEPF, who tragically died less than a week before the study results were published (leaving the researchers to dedicate this project to her).
Recognising the need to assess the effectiveness of their significant investments in anti-poaching tools, such as tracking dogs and AI-enabled surveillance, GKEPF set out to evaluate whether these interventions were truly making an impact.
To combat rhino poaching, reserves poured roughly US$74 million into traditional antipoaching tactics: ranger teams, canine units, fences, infrared cameras, and even polygraph tests (5,562 of them). This resulted in over 700 poacher arrests. Unfortunately, this high-tech, high-cost effort showed no clear statistical effect on reducing poaching (although one could argue that, without these interventions, numbers could’ve soared even more).
Teams on the ground are up against a giant: organised criminal syndicates move faster than the justice system. Arrested poachers walk free. And insiders often leak information, for example, through the advance notice of patrol movements. High-risk poaching remains prevalent, driven by “horn demand, wealth inequality, embedded criminal syndicates, and corruption,” says the study. In this world of wildlife crime, enforcement is a leaky bucket. So, what actually worked?
The rhino in the room
Enter rhino dehorning: a blunt, counterintuitive solution. By removing the primary motivation for the kill – the horn – experts are dramatically reducing the reward for the crime.
Across the eight reserves that implemented rhino dehorning (dehorning 2,284 rhinos in total), poaching plummeted by an average of 78%. The data showed it wasn’t just a correlation; it was a causal, abrupt change. Rhino killings didn’t slowly decline: they dropped off immediately after the horns were removed. No other intervention came close.
Even at the level of individual rhinos, the difference was staggering: horned individuals had a 13% chance of being poached annually, compared to just 0.6% for their dehorned counterparts. On average, dehorning all rhinos on a reserve reduced poaching by ~75% from pre-dehorning levels.
Significantly, the cost of this intervention weighed in at a low US$570 per rhino operation to conduct the dehorning, less than 2% of the total antipoaching budget. In a world of limited conservation funding, lower-cost solutions are imperative.
The fine print on rhino dehorning: not a silver bullet
Of course, rhino dehorning is not without caveats. Rhino horns regrow, meaning dehorning must be repeated every 18 months. In some areas – particularly Kruger National Park – even dehorned rhinos were still poached. In total, 111 dehorned rhinos were still poached during the study period (107 of these were poached in Kruger NP between 2022–2023). This is because up to 15cm of horn remains after the procedure, as veterinarians must leave a protective layer to avoid damaging the sensitive growth plate at the base of the horn. Even a stub of horn holds black-market value, and Kruger National Park’s porous border with Mozambique offers easy syndicate access. Furthermore, only between 50–55% of rhinos in Kruger National Park are dehorned.
Moreover, there’s the philosophical and ecological question: What does it mean to keep a rhino hornless? So far, research suggests little negative impact on survival, but the long-term consequences, particularly behavioural ones, are still murky. One study suggested that dehorning black rhinos significantly reduces their home range size and weakens social interactions, especially between males. These behavioural changes could have long-term hidden impacts on reproduction, territory use, and population dynamics.
Another consideration is that, as evidence suggests, dehorning rhinos in one area may simply shift poaching pressure to regions where rhinos remain horned, as seen in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park in 2022, South Africa’s second-largest rhino stronghold. However, in 2024, Hluhluwe-iMfolozi embarked on a major dehorning operation which also saw a reduction in rhino poaching.
Rethinking the war on rhino poaching
While this study suggests more effective impacts from rhino dehorning, it doesn’t argue against traditional interventions, but rather calls for a multi-pronged approach. Ranger patrols, tracking dogs, community support, and aerial surveillance still matter, particularly as a backup plan. But if the goal is to stop poaching before the bullet is fired, then removing horns might work better than pursuing transgressors.
And perhaps that’s the real takeaway: conservation is messy. It’s not always romantic. Sometimes, it involves a chainsaw. But if the trade-off is between a hornless rhino and no rhino at all, then the choice becomes heartbreakingly simple.
Want to go on a rhino-seeking safari? Browse our top safaris showcasing the Big 5. Or longing to visit Kruger? Check out our ready-made safaris to Greater Kruger. Alternatively, we’ll help you plan your tailor-made rhino safari.
Reference
- Timothy Kuiper et al. (2025). “Dehorning reduces rhino poaching“. Science 388, Issue 6751, 1075-1081. DOI:10.1126/science.ado7490.
Further reading
- Dehorning rhinos is a vital anti-poaching strategy, but one study suggests that dehorning can negatively impact black rhino social behaviours
- How effective are Greater Kruger’s interventions in keeping rhinos safe? Read about the science of keeping Greater Kruger’s rhinos safe
To comment on this story: Login (or sign up) to our app here - it's a troll-free safe place 🙂.
