Hunting as a tool of wildlife conservation in Southern Africa

Volltext

(1) .

(2)

(3)

(4) angefertigt an der. Hochschule Neubrandenburg - University of Applied Sciences Fachbereich Landschaftsarchitektur, Geoinformatik, Geodäsie und Bauingenieurwesen Studiengang Naturschutz und Landnutzungsplanung (B.Sc.) URN: urn:nbn:de:gbv:519-thesis2014-0049-7 vorgelegt von:. angefertigt bei:. Stefan Klingenberg. Erstbetreuer: Dr.-Ing. Jens Hoffmann Zweitbetreuer: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Mathias Grünwald. Eingereicht am: 14.10.20. 1.

(5) $%#% Hunting wild animals to aid conservation efforts has proved successful in many parts of Europe and North America but continues to be a hotly debated subject in Southern Africa, with some countries even banning the practice. This thesis argues that hunting in Southern Africa, in a controlled manner, can benefit both the environment and local communities. Countries such as Botswana and Zambia have banned hunting and are thus removing incentives for conserving wildlife - and per se: opening them up to illegal poaching. As human populations grow, competition for space and resources become fiercer. Endangered species are eradicated and natural habitats are lost to socio-economic development. This thesis offers solutions to how people and wildlife can coexist on the longterm. This thesis explores and finds the solution to how, with limited financial resources, humans living alongside wildlife can provide the key to preserving and nurturing a co-existence. The question as to why people should conserve the environment and endangered species as well as giving them the much-needed incentives to do so, is studied in depth. Local communities must benefit from all recreational activities related to tourism in order to learn that sustainability is the key for survival. Compromising is pivotal, but benefits are long-term. Various forms of lethal and non-lethal wildlife protection are discussed, and case studies in this paper illustrate how the lucrative trophy-hunting industry can fund much-needed conservation, which African governments alone are in no position to finance. This thesis draws on personal experiences acquired throughout Southern Africa in tandem with well known literature studying the pro’s and con’s of hunting worldwide and which illustrate methods in which hunting can indeed support conservation.. 2.

(6) $%#%0 %$ 1 Die Jagd hat sich bereits in sämtlichen Europäischen wie auch Nordamerikanischen Ländern als gutes Werkzeug des Naturschutzes erwiesen, ist aber im Südlichen Afrika weiterhin ein heiß debattiertes Thema, und ist in einigen afrikanischen Staaten sogar verboten. Diese Arbeit argumentiert, dass die einheimische Bevölkerung sowie die Umwelt von der kontrollierte Jagd profitieren kann. Staaten wie Botsuana und Sambia haben die Jagd auf kommunalem Gebiet rechtlich verboten, und haben somit gleichzeitig die Motivationen der Menschen zum aktiven Naturschutz verloren und so gesehen, für Wilderei geworben. Mit dem Wachstum der Bevölkerung, wächst zunehmend auch der Wettbewerb um ökonomisch wie auch Naturschutz - nutzbare Flächen. Gefährdete Arten werden ausgemerzt und natürliche Lebensräume zerstört. Diese Arbeit liefert Lösungen, wie Mensch und Natur langzeitig koexistieren können. Die sich stellende Frage warum Mensch die Natur und gefährdete Tierwelt schonen wie auch schützen sollte wird hier erläutert. Auch werden die nötigen Motivationen dazu genannt. Lokale Bevölkerungen müssen von allen Arten der angebotenen mit Tourismus-verbundenen Erholungsarten profitieren können und zeitgleich lernen, dass die Nachhaltigkeit der Schlüssel zum gemeinsamen Überleben sind. Dabei sind Kompromisse zentral. Verschiedene Arten der letalen wie auch der nicht-letalen Kontrolle von Tieren zum Schutz der Umwelt werden in dieser Arbeit erläutert, wobei Fallbeispiele aufzeigen, wie die Jagdindustrie die nötigen Finanzen herbeiführen kann, welche vom Staat unmöglich bezahlbar sind. Die Arbeit entzieht sich aus umfassender Literatur, aber auch aus persönlichen Erfahrungen aus sämtlichen Gebieten Südlichen Afrikas welche dem Argument dienen dass die Jagd dem Naturschutz dienen kann.. 3.

(7) ! % %$ $%#%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2 ! % %$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4 #! *$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,6 1, %#!&%! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7 1,1 !&$!%$$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8 1,2 %! $,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,10 4.5.4 "............................................................................................................................................................43 4.5.5 !!$#'&*($#...........................................................................................................................43 4.5.6 )#(#.......................................................................................................................................................44 4.5.7 ($#!& '#"'&*'1)!#&*(2.....................................................44 4.5.8 $"")#!!##)&1 )!(/'2$#'..........................................................................45 4.5.9 $#*#($# $# #(&#($#! & # ##& %' $ ! )# # !$&1 2...........................................................................................................................................................46 4.5.: &$!"#"!$#(&$!12........................................................................................................47 2,$%!#*!& % +% '!#*#+#$%! $#'%! !#%$+ ! ,,,,,,,,,,,15 2,1 )"!%%! !# ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15 2,2 #$%! $#'%! !#%$ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,16 2,3 ! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18 5.6.4 $(*($#'$&( !!!"$*!$+!!.........................................................................4< 5.6.5 )''

(8) #($!!%&($#......................................................................................4< 3, % ! - %! %#!.! %#!

(9) %/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20 3,1 & %!#$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22 6.4.4 #!#$#$"(#&$$)#(&,...........................................................................55 6.4.5 $%$&%!($&'.........................................................................................................................55 6.4.6 ((($&'........................................................................................................................................55 6.4.7 !(* "%$&(#$&#*$&0&($&$#'&*($#($

(10) $!$(,................55 6.4.8 %%!!(,-(*#''#%(!(,...........................................................................56 3,2 ! - %! %#!

(11) %!$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25 6.5.4 ($4/%&#......................................................................................................................59 6.5.5 ($5/!*##

(12) "#.....................................................................................................5: 6.5.6 ($6/

(13) *'($ )&##"!'1

(14) 2.........................................................................5: 6.5.7 ($7/,'$!$! ($'..................................................................................................5; 6.5.8 ($8/&#'/0/!$($#.........................................................................................................5< 4.

(15) 6.5.9 ($9/$!!&'..................................................................................................................................63 6.5.: ($:/%!!#('...........................................................................................................................64 6.5.; ($;/#'..................................................................................................................................65 3,3 %! %#!

(16) %!$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33 6.6.4 ($4/&($#"%#'.................................................................................................68 6.6.5 ($5/)!!#&$&""'......................................................................................................69 6.6.6 ($6/&$!"#"!$#(&$!12.................................................................................6; 3,3 %'$, ! -%

(17) %!$-% $,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,39 4,$%&$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,40 4,1 !+( %! #"#"#*+(,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,40 7.4.4 "$/((................................................................................................................................73 7.4.5 &$!"/"$!!.....................................................................................................................75 7.4.6 )&&#(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!.......................................................................................75 7.4.7 )'(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!...................................................................................76 4,2 $ +! %! #!##+!%$( ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,44 7.5.4 '#/((................................................................................................................................77 7.5.5 &$!"/ '#...................................................................................................................................78 7.5.6 )&&#(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!.......................................................................................78 7.5.7 )'(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!...................................................................................79 4, $$$$ % ! &$! ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,47 # $,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,49. 5.

(18) #! )$ CHASA. Confederation of Hunters Associations of South Africa. CITES. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. FMD. Foot-and-Mouth Disease. FWS. Fish and Wildlife Services. LGA. Livestock Guarding Animal. LGD. Livestock Guarding Dog. PAC. Problem Animal Control. 6.

(19) 6- %#!&%! “The problems start when an area has too many elephants that can’t go anywhere. And elephants started running into real obstacles when Africa began the transition from a series of tribal homelands to nation-states that supported greater numbers of people with accompanying infrastructure - more and larger farms, cities, roadways. Elephants had evolved to need a continent, and then the continent was denied them.” (Martin, 2012, 6) Due to various reasons such as poaching, loss of space and habitat or climate changes, animal numbers but especially the Mega fauna populations in Southern Africa are declining consistently. Elephants are poached for ivory, rhinos are killed for their horns and buffalos, lions, cheetah, leopards, baboons, and many more wild animals are regarded as agricultural pests, posing a threat to humans and their livelihoods. However, not only humans and their belongings are at risk, but also entire ecosystems are irreversibly destroyed when one species is extirpated and another dominates. Humans, along with infrastructure, the growing amounts of biomass and the need for resources have split the entire African continent and its eco-systems into many self-made biomes, which, without continuous strategic control are unsustainable. What used to be many ecosystems managing themselves by wildlife’s “supply and demand” are now comparably small biospheres needing human observation and control in order to survive. The key for today’s conservation of endangered and threatened species inhabiting and defining entire ecosystems throughout Southern Africa, is finding the optimum balance of needs between animals and humans without stimulating existing or generating further conflicts. The coexistence of people and wildlife raises the core question of resource allocation and the need to find methods and the necessary finance for local populations to profit from wildlife conservation. Incentives and motivations are vital in building a peaceful yet symbiotic relationship between humans and wildlife. In most cases, through trophy hunting and also ecotourism these incentives come in monetary form and together with education this can often prove enough to persuade people to coexist with wildlife. Arriving at this point, however, has cost entire African wildlife populations uncountable setbacks in years and numbers. 7.

(20) 4/4 $)'$('' This thesis is aimed at highlighting the role of game hunting, (also known as trophy hunting) as a tool of wildlife conservation in Southern Africa. There is sufficient evidence to show that in particular regions of Southern Africa, the uncontrolled hunting or removal of wildlife (poaching) poses a real threat to many threatened species habituated to those specific regions, but that controlled and organized hunting can act as a sustainable tool for wildlife population management and furthermore to incentivise local populations to assist in preserving wildlife and ecosystems for future generations. For that reason this thesis gives a brief history regarding the outbreaks of wildlife depredations, International conflicts such as the on-going Ivory War, and further unregulated exploitations of nature. History shows that the killing of animals is not the only option to solve conflicts between wildlife and humans, and thus it is vital to address the topic of non-lethal control of wildlife in so-called “buffer zones” (multi-use zones) where humans share living space with wild animals. Hunting in many cases however, represents a viable option and opportunity to preserve, and even to protect wildlife on communal land, in National parks and public/private game reserves - but this is best seen when local communities see the benefits of the money paid by commercial hunters. (Lindsey et al., 2006) The idea of killing in order to conserve might seem contradictory, and indeed the concept is central to heated political and ethical debates between environmentalists, hunters, and animal right activists. This thesis focuses on pinpointing the beneficial aspects of lethal control and the results of controlled hunting in a bid to conserve wildlife and the environment. However, wildlife control entails not only hunting, but also many other methods of controlling wildlife populations, which are to be discussed at a later stage. The question to be answered within this thesis is to whether and how controlled hunting can conserve wildlife in specific regions of Southern Africa. The thesis focuses on Southern Africa, but experiences from Eastern Africa, which are easily adaptable to similar regions, further south, may be used to illustrate the conflicts between people and wildlife, followed by possible solutions. In order to discuss the subject of hunting as well as wildlife control thoroughly, this document too contains statistics and examples from various different regions throughout Southern Africa, different areas and habitats as well as the effects of lethal control regarding 8.

(21) herbivores as well as large carnivores and other large predators situated in their respective environments and habitats. Some of the thesis is founded on my own observations and experiences gathered in numerous wildlife areas of Southern Africa. It should be noted that this thesis exclusively addresses the subject of hunting and control of fauna restricted to land, thus excluding the entire marine world including fish, farmed fish, and all other waterbound wildlife.. 9.

(22) 4/5 #($#' 4/5/4 " The term ‘game’ applies to all wild animals hunted for their trophies such as their skins, pelts, antlers, and tusks or for their meat. This means these animals are hunted for sport. Often different species are allocated different classes of ‘game’ depending on their status of protection. Various African birds, for example dik-dik (Madoqua guentheri) are under special protection and are therefore illegal to hunt. Game usually refers to ‘large’ and ‘small’ game animals such as the African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) or various kinds of antelope including duikers. Explaining the term ‘Big Five’ gives a good explanation of game animals. Many game reserves or parks advertise the possibility of viewing all of the ‘Big Five’, these include the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), White/Black rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), lion (Panthera leo) and leopard (Panthera pardus). It is not size, beauty or protection status which singles out the “Big 5” but rather their elusiveness: the difficulty of tracking and hunting them. It goes without saying that the leopard is the most elusive and best camouflaged and thus the least-sighted of the Big Five, making it “a hard game” for tourists, trackers and hunters. Today the term ‘game’ refers to all wild animals of the African bush, whether protected and conserved by rangers and ecologists or legally hunted for sport, meat, and/or trophies.. 4/5/5 !!$#'&*($# In this particular thesis, Wildlife Conservation refers to methods of protecting and conserving all endangered but especially threatened wild animal species along with their respective habitats. The primary goal of all wildlife conservation efforts is to ensure that remaining wildlife populations are protected and fostered in order for them to be sustained for future generations. The focus lies on perpetuating wildlife while socially including humans in the area and reducing all existing threats, conflicts, and penalties for both groups. All states within Southern Africa have private or governmental agencies, working on programmes and projects dedicated to wildlife conservation. To name a few: CAMPFIRE (Zimbabwe), ADMADE (Zambia) or the Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (Botswana).. 10.

(23) 4/5/6 )#(# ‘To chase or search for (game or other wild animals) for the purpose of catching or killing.’1 Hunting in general can be defined as killing wild animals for food or sport, however for the sake of wildlife conservation, as is the core argument of this paper, the aim of controlled hunting is to ensure specifically selected game is hunted for monetary gain in the interests of inter Alia: protecting local farmers and populations living among the wildlife an/or paid trophyhunting to provide an income source for local populations to ensure that these people are convinced through monetary gain to cooperate in all necessary local conservation initiatives. (Baker, 1997, 306-321; Lewis, 2005, 239-251) Also known as tourist, trophy, or game hunting, the aim of hunting can be to prevent any conflicts between wildlife and people on the assumption that conflicts decline when problem animals are removed. (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005, 90). Different methods of hunting are used depending on different factors such as landscape, surface topography, climate, or weather. These may include: hunting on foot, by vehicle, luring, live trapping, tracking with dogs or road sweeping (the surface is swept clear so that footprints can easily be detected, these lead to the hunted individual). Trophy hunting is carried out in 22 African countries, and some estimates show that in the year 2000 alone Namibia US$ 11-million through trophy hunts that year - and this figure does not include money paid for “lesser species” such as kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), gemsbok (Oryx gazella), springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), and warthog (Phacochoerus africanus). (TRAFFIC - an organisation working with the WWF, IUCN, and CITES to track international wildlife trade, 2014). 4/5/7 ($#!& '#"'&*'2)!#&*(3 Game reserves as well as National parks are territories and areas designated for conservation purposes. Most game reserves are found in Southern and West Africa and provide social, ecological, and economical services (tourism). In the 22 countries within Africa which allow hunting, the private hunting operations cover 1,4 million square kilometres - over 22% more than the National Parks.2 These parks and reserves are areas set-aside for tourism, offering a range of services: Lodges, Safaris, Hunting, etc, but they also. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hunt. 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html. 11.

(24) Offer vast opportunities for wildlife, habitats, and entire ecosystems to thrive. Many parks and reserves consist of more than one ecosystem, ranging from bushveld, savannah grassland, fynbos, sand forest to riverine forest and acacia woodland, just to name a few. The more systems and habitats an area has to offer, the more species of fauna and flora can be habituated and therefore conserved, and the more the owners (whether the State or Private) can earn from their visitors. National parks are owned by the state and are areas focussed on the conservation of wildlife and they are often as a symbol of national pride. For example, the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park (former Game Reserve) in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, boasts large numbers of endangered White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum). Furthermore it was South Africa’s first Game Reserve and is maintained by the government proudly as the oldest nature reserve in Africa. By contrast, game reserves are often privately owned. These reserves either allow or forbid all kinds of hunting but either way generally provide lucrative sightseeing safaris to tourists, as this is a sustainable form of income for the owners. For this reason numerous agricultural and livestock farmers have switched from farming to creating game and hunting reserves as these generate a more lucrative and stable revenue (Bothma, 2010). Fact is, that wildlife revenues exceed livestock revenues by 50 %, due to a wider diversity of marketable products. (Bothma, 2010) Such products can include Biltong (delicacy made of dried game meat), live animal sales, trophy hunting, guided game walks, horseback safaris, boat cruises, game drives amongst others.. 4/5/8 $"")#!!##)&2 )!(1'3$#' These areas border directly onto the National Parks and Game Reserves. The land is usually governed by the state or by local communities and is used both by wildlife as extensions of their natural habitat and by humans for livestock and agricultural cultivation (crops). National parks often don’t have clearly set boundaries like fences or trenches other than buffalo wires or field markers indicating borders, hence, these areas are most prone to conflicts between local communities and wildlife. In this thesis all surrounding areas of National parks and game reserves are defined as multiple-use zones, as these are landscapes where carnivores and wild prey co-exist with humans and their livestock. They are used for a variety of agricultural activities, hunting and. 12.

(25) recreation but mortality rates of livestock and humans are highest in these areas. (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005, 67) These communally used areas are of great importance for the survival of many endangered species, because few protected areas are large enough to host viable populations of large carnivore and predator species. (Woodroffe R. Ginsberg J., 1998) The abundance of carnivore populations in buffer zones however depends on the availability of wild prey and the accessibility of livestock, which in combination define the ecological carrying capacity, and the tolerance humans have towards the roaming predators, also referred to as the social carrying capacity. (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005, 68) In most cases the ecological carrying capacities compared to the inside of National parks and reserves in regard to wild prey are low, combined with livestock however, they can be unusually high. The social carrying capacity on the other hand has always been relatively low, as humans generally do not tolerate high densities of predators. (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005, 69) Because of growing human population rates, the need for grazing and arable land is rising consistently, so it is no surprise that most direct conflicts between humans and wildlife occur within buffer zones. In countries such as Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Namibia these areas often offer the only space for recreational hunting, which is why they are often guarded by anti-poaching units as well as by the local residents who profit from such hunts. How residing local communities and wildlife can benefit from game hunting is discussed later in this thesis. This occurred in countries, which banned trophy hunting (eg. Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia) and experienced a faster loss of wildlife during the bans due to the removal of incentives for conservation.. 4/5/9 $#*#($#$# #(&#($#!&###&%'$! )##!$&2 3 The CITES treaty, signed 1973, restricts the trade of wildlife goods through controlled hunting or capturing of wildlife for trophies or similar uses only where this does not harm or threaten population numbers.. 13.

(26) 4/5/: &$!"#"!$#(&$!23 Problem animal control (PAC) entails the removal of specifically selected game animals, which are suspected of causing damage or endangering human lives and livelihoods. PAC is a sustainable method of lethal wildlife control and is discussed later in this thesis.. 14.

(27) 7- $%!#) ! & % + % '!#) #+ #$% ! $#'%! !#%$+ ! 5/4. ,%!$(($#$&#!!. With the start of Africa’s colonisation by the Europeans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and the search for profitable investments as well as the demand for sources of raw materials, the discovery of ivory, skins and bush meat turned the continent into a hunters’ paradise. Elephants were killed as demand for the “white gold” (ivory) rose steadily. Ivory became an essential commodity and the trade of it was legal and booming. For many hundreds of year’s ivory has been a very valuable asset which Africa has been able to supply in abundance. With the introduction of European arms however, the trade in ivory and as of late in rhino horn, had led to mass killings in eastern, western, southern, and northern Africa. In fact, all elephants in northern Africa have been exterminated. (Somerville, 2013) As the trade of ivory and other trophies was legal, porters or forced slaves carried the ivory to the harbours in Dar es Salaam or Mombasa to be shipped to and sold in Europe. It was therefore not only lucrative for hunters but also for middlemen. Between 1970 and 1990 almost half of all elephants in Africa had been killed, legally. An estimated 700,000 individuals were hunted down adding up to 800-1.000 tons of ivory annually, meeting the demands of wealthy customers worldwide. (Milner-Gulland, 1993, 16) Towards the late twentieth century most African states won independence from their European colonisers. The protection of African wildlife since the beginning of colonisation and the joining of the CITES treaty barely had any significance however, as the primary target of both the former colonialists and later the new African leaders, was to stimulate industrial growth and develop economies. Recreational activities related to wildlife and the environment played hardly any real economic role, thus the topic regarding wildlife population management was hardly known. Apart from the fact that Africa had lost thousands of animals and even entire species during early economic development, people only realised the importance of conservation as an economic stimulant was only realised when it was almost too late, and significant amounts of various species had already been eradicated in. 15.

(28) many African countries, and some including the quagga (Equus quagga quagga) made extinct. Parallel to the poaching of wildlife, many tribal, cultural, and religious wars are being fought on African soil, adding to the upset and depredation of wildlife. As the value of ivory and rhino horn rises in tandem with export and hunting bans, the selling of it is a more than considerable means of funding militia, rebel groups, corrupt armies and their on-going wars. The links between poaching, militant groups and rebels as well as corrupt politicians and armed forces are growing with the amounts of conflicts, thus defining the “Ivory War.” Economic growth based on tourism and sustainable hunting had gained significance as people realised that human - wildlife conflicts could prove advantageous and even provide a profit to communities. Money earned from hunters, for example, played a major role in the recovery of the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) in South Africa which numbered about 50 animals 100 years ago and now numbers over 11,000 (Leader-Williams. N., 2005, 140-161), and money from rich trophy hunters also incentivised game-farmers to re-introduce the cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) and black wildebeest (Connochaetes gnou) in South Africa. It is also helping to rehabilitate areas of Mozambique. (Lindsey P., 2005). 5/5. &'($#'&*($#$&('# . The 1973 signing of the CITES treaty (also known as the Washington Convention) and its implementation in 1975 at first didn’t have any effects on the declining wildlife populations, as many African nations signed the treaty only in 1989. Trade in ivory was banned, and illegal traders were severely penalised. For example the smuggling of ivory out of National parks in Zimbabwe today can result in a 5 - 15 year prison sentence or a fine of up to US$ 250.000 even if the animal died of natural causes. All wildlife in many Southern African countries is state-owned, so illegal removal is regarded as theft. As of February 2014 America’s US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) banned the importation of sport-hunted elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Tanzania because it believed that hunting was reducing elephant populations, which had already been drastically reduced by poaching.3. 3. http://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban-questions-and-answers.html 16.

(29) Africa - but especially sub-Saharan Africa - has lost thousands of elephants and other endangered species to hunters and in recent times to poachers, in 1989 conservationists succeeded in banning the trade of ivory and other wildlife-goods. Wildlife populations recovered tremendously which resulted in their protection status being dropped. This was a major victory in wildlife and nature protection, however, to the demise of conservation efforts, the African elephants status was too changed from being endangered to vulnerable. This resulted in the sporadic legalisation of hunts and therefore the loss of control over registered ivory harvests. Control departments were no longer able to differentiate between legal and illegal ivory and thus the illegal hunting had found a new niche.. 17.

(30) 5/6. $#. Poaching entails the illegal hunting, acquirement, or collecting of wildlife. Various methods are used today of which snaring, poisoning, and shooting are most common. Often animals not meant for consumption are killed in the process, which may be regarded as collateral damage. Presently, the most poached and simultaneously protected species are elephants and rhinos as these carry the valuable ivory and rhino horn which in Asian but primarily Chinese culture demonstrate wealth and are believed to have curing as well as potency stimulating effects. Fact is that rhino horn consists of keratin, also known as hair or finger nails, and has no medicinal effect whatsoever. Other favoured species or wildlife “items” are most large carnivores and antelope, killed for their skins, antlers and meat. Today, for the most part, China has a growing demand for ivory, rhino horns, and other wildlife products, which is why it is also the epicentre of demand (Hormat, R., 2013). Simultaneously, and heightening Africa’s dilemma, China has become the largest investor in Africa’s economy and African governments are reticent about disrupting relationships with China as this could have negative effects. As China or Asia as a whole may be accused of exploiting the African continent, corrupting officials and funding illegal killings, the far East is Africa’s primary “sponsor”, stimulating economical and therefore socio-economical growth, yet without concern for nature and wildlife. China’s primary goal is the assurance of future resources for it’s own growing population, with hardly any regard towards Africa’s local residents. This is certainly one of the biggest concerns of conservationists fighting to protect wildlife and to heighten international awareness regarding the illegal killing of animals. Government officials, police officers, and park rangers simply turn a blind eye on poaching activities in order to receive a share of the profits. For this reason it is almost certain that the act of poaching will always be around. The poaching of wildlife has once again increased and to this day, in most cases, remains a lucrative option for poachers and middlemen. With the core demand shifting from Europe to Asia and more decisive factors and motivations for poaching being added, the downward spiral has started over. With financial gain being the core motivation for poaching there are other causes, which must be considered when analysing as well as solving human - wildlife conflicts.. 18.

(31) 5/6/4 $(*($#'$&( !!!"$*!$+!! •. Money and wealth (i.e.: 1 kg Ivory = ca. US$ 3.000; at ca. 75 kg per pair of tusks). •. Traditional medicine and stimulants. 5/6/5 )''

(32) #($!!%&($# •. New land needed for mining. •. Acts of retaliation for livestock or crop loss. •. Need of food (bush meat). •. Need of space for agricultural and livestock cultivation. 19.

(33) 8- % ! / %! %#!0! %#!

(34) %1 Considering Africa’s history and many of its countries’ struggles for independence as well as economical growth, it is difficult to condemn legal hunting because it has been a cashgenerator for centuries. The people’s ignorance about protecting endangered species, before the CITES agreement took place, might have been sheer lack of knowledge similar to the near-extinction regarding the American bison (Bison bison) in North America in the late nineteenth century. Contemplating not only money, wealth, corruption, and economical development as causes for wildlife extermination, many moral factors also come into play, especially when looking at rural African communities and villages. Sometimes entire villages and communities co-exist with wildlife in the most remote areas and buffer zones on the borders of National Parks or game reserves. In most cases the people’s livelihoods depend on their agriculture and livestock, namely domestic goats (Capra aegagrus hircus), donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), cattle (Bos taurus), and chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus). Thus, people and wildlife come into frequent contact with each other, most often generating conflicts with resulting penalties and losses on either side. In the past, conflicts were solved by use of lethal control, also known as retaliatory killing. In of recent years however, acceptance of non-lethal control as well as controlled hunting for the sake of wildlife population control are widely accepted by locals, as they receive compensation for their losses and are thus incentivised to see the benefits of protecting wildlife. As history shows, areas available to large mammal species in Africa have been reduced as the human population has increased dramatically over recent decades. Consequently, large mammals have become confined to either state-protected areas and/or adjoining multi-use zones where restricted hunting is legal. The unfenced boundaries of these zones allow movement of wild animals in and out of these areas to depredate livestock or raid crops, and also allow humans to enter wild areas to gather plants or hunt. Local people were especially allowed and able to hunt crop pests as a form of compensation. (Naughton-Treves, 1997) Lethal control opposed to non-lethal control methods in the management of human - wildlife conflicts is in most cases the cheapest and most practical approach in giving domesticated livestock animals the edge over wild animals, especially over large vertebrates as these caused the most damage. Simultaneously large species are the easiest to eliminate as these have a slow reproduction rate. Before CITES and the importance of nature and wildlife was realised the government responded to peoples concerns and needs without interest towards 20.

(35) wildlife’s survival. The original goal was to eliminate all wildlife species, which could potentially threaten human safety and economical development. (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005) Today it is illegal, yet farmers who lose crops or livestock often feel that they should have rights to hunt in protected areas as compensation for the damage caused by wild animals. Wildlife authorities however are generally financially and logistically badly equipped and unable to keep people and wildlife apart and are therefore often blamed for losses to crops and livelihoods. (V. Osborn & M. Hill, 2005, 73) Authorities must therefore react to: 1. Part of public (not affected) - demand wildlife be protected from people 2. Part of public (affected agriculturists, rural communities, livestock producers) - demand people be protected from wildlife Key is to find the optimum balance and making compromises. In dietary terms, large vertebrates such as elephants and primates compete with people directly for their food plants, and indirectly by using the same resources as livestock. Today, the response by modern, well equipped, wildlife management authorities to crop raiding animals and livestock depredation is to send professional personnel to the location to assess the extent of the damage and then attempt to kill one or more from the problem group. This is known as Problem Animal Control (PAC). Before implementing either lethal or non-lethal control for the sake of wildlife population management and successfully solving human - wildlife conflicts and essentially preserving wildlife many factors, criteria as well as the actual situation at hand must be considered.. 21.

(36) 6/4. #!)##($&'. 6/4/4 #!#$#$"(#&$$)#(&- In Southern Africa most often the deciding factor before implementing lethal or non-lethal control is money. The economic standard along with the available technical measures and infrastructure usually endorse lethal control as killing is inexpensive and the affected people immediately see the benefits, including compensations paid by the government or hunter. Though sophisticated technical or physiological methods of non-lethal control have been developed and tested, sometimes intended to change the individual predator’s behaviour, they have very limited significance for the conservation of threatened taxa or populations, especially in developing countries (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, & al., 2005, 71).. 6/4/5 $%$&%!($&' In regions and areas for example with little thick bush and more open plains such as the outskirts of the Northern Kruger National Park in South Africa, bordering Zimbabwe, it would be easy to build fences or create boundaries, as there are fewer obstacles when compared for example with the peripheries of the Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Game Reserve in South Africa, Kwazulu-Natal, where many different habitats collide creating barriers such as trees, rivers, or slopes. In such regions other methods of non-lethal control such as herding, shepherding or penning may be more cost effective and applicable.. 6/4/6 ((($&' Large areas and zones used by both wildlife and people frequently comprise different habitats and biomes. These could be African Sand Forest bordering Temperate Grass- or Shrub land. In such an area for example, many rural communities cultivate crops such as maize or sugarcane. These crops are regularly raided by baboons (Simia hamadryas) and bush pigs (Potamochoerus larvatus), yet it makes little sense to raise fences as the bush pig dig underneath and baboons climb over. In this instance shepherds with dogs would be more effective. The habitat thus defines the means of preventing depredation.. 6/4/7 !(* "%$&(# $ &#*$&0&($& $#'&*($# ($

(37) $! $(- With exception of a few extremely remote areas situated among the outskirts and peripheries of National Parks, Game Reserves, and Game Farms, different types of tourists frequently visit the areas and multi-use zones habituating endangered species of wildlife either for recreational activities such as photographic safaris, hunting and other activities. In either 22.

(38) event it may be in the local communities or society’s interest to protect and conserve animals as these generate a respectively higher income to the people than cultivating crops or farming livestock. Tourists pay a levy, entry, or tax to enjoy nature and wildlife, which in turn is given to the people. In barely developed regions, societies rely on hunting, agricultural and livestock farming and thus have little incentive towards protecting carnivores, as the government’s compensation for losses may be too low. In the event of livestock being readily available and wild prey meagre, predators inevitably prey on livestock. In many of Southern Africa’s regions wild prey has declined severely due to poaching, over hunting, and over grazing by livestock. The carnivore populations have suffered considerable losses from retaliatory killing but implementation of preventive measures would cut off the predators from their crucial food supply, therefore still resulting in a decrease of the endangered species population. In this situation non-lethal techniques are not a real alternative to lethal control. (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, & al., 2005, 67). Possibly the best solution in this scenario with limited penalties to wildlife and humans may be to arrange a professional hunter, namely a tourist-hunter, who is willing to pay to kill the problem animal(s). In essence, rural cultures have adopted a combination of non-lethal control, lethal control, and acceptance of losses. (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, & al., 2005, 69). 6/4/8 %%!!(-.(*#''#%(!(- In addition to the above other factors such as ethics, traditions, acceptance, applicability, and cost-effectiveness influence the decision between lethal or non-lethal control. In all regions across Southern Africa, but especially in remote areas control methods have to be cost effective and applicable on a large scale, especially when applying modern nonlethal control methods such as electric fences, as seen South of the Victoria Falls around Lodges situated on the Cliffs of the Zambezi River in Zimbabwe. (Imvelo Safari Lodges; Gorges Lodge, 2013) Ethical questions appear when endangered species for example lions, leopards, cheetah, buffalo, or elephants are to be killed as a reaction to loss of livelihoods. Such predators often even rely on livestock or crop cultivation as a source of food. For conservationists not affected by the problem, lethal control often appears exaggerated and other preventive measures should be considered. When assessing the situation from the affected community’s point of view however, retaliatory killing seems fair, especially if such 23.

(39) communities do not receive compensations for losses. The key is finding the balance between needs of people and wildlife and thus mitigating depredations. Another decisive factor for implementation of non-lethal or lethal control methods are the peoples and tribes traditions and therefore their acceptance. Many rural African communities such as the San People also known as Bushmen have been living off wildlife and nature for decades not disturbing or endangering the balance of species within habitats. Over time such communities have declined constantly due to implementation of relative ineffective wildlife population control methods. Fences were raised and animals confined to parks and reserves, thus protecting wildlife but cutting off the San People’s “supplies.” In this regard, today, all factors, needs, and livelihoods must be considered.. 24.

(40) 6/5. $#1

(41) (!$#(&$! ($'. Prior to listing all methods of non-lethal control applicable in Southern Africa it goes without saying that the use of non-lethal control is a matter of technology, workforce, maintenance, financial situation, and cost-benefit considerations. Methods applied in Southern Africa are differentiated between Modern and Traditional, whereby many communities and people affected by crop raiding or killing of livestock are forced to resort to traditional methods, as financial resources are limited. All methods however have their advantages and disadvantages and assessment of the situation beforehand is key to its effectiveness. Each method is assessed and rated according to sustainability: Key: Positive. =. +. Economic Sustainability. =. A. Neutral. =. 0. Ecological Sustainability. =. B. Negative. =. -. Social Sustainability. =. C. The rating might differ when applied in other regions of Africa; this thesis however, is applied to two similar areas and problems, namely Ngamo, Zimbabwe and Kasane, Botswana.. 25.

(42) 6/5/4 ($41%&# •. • • •. Pro Allows avoidance of hotspots - Carnivores • usually kill livestock in specific areas (steep/rocky areas, forest land, tall grass, shrubs) • Quick and flexible responses to attacks Rapid detection of sickness and disposal of • attracting carcasses • Penning stock at night possible •. Contra High risk of over grazing by livestock resulting in wildlife’s loss of habitat and food Consistent control and presence of shepherd required Risk of direct human - predator encounter Risk of encountering diseases i.e. FMD Penning stock at night requires higher health care, pens must be predator proof, otherwise risk of excessive killing (Andelt, 1996, 55-62) Sustainability. A. +. B. -. C. -. Due to effectiveness, livestock depredation is minimized with little penalties on either side. Because of overgrazing, rehabilitation of habitats is necessary, causing longer travel distances of shepherds and livestock to new feeding areas. Habitat loss due to high risk of overgrazing. Bomas and enclosures usually built of natural materials collected from surrounding environment i.e. teak wood (Tectona grandis). Livestock risk encountering disease or transmitting sickness to wildlife species. High involvement of local people. Risk of direct contact/conflict with predators.. 6,"#+"#(% '$%!&#!0 1/#%! (Angst, Breitenmoser; Landry, et. al.: 2005, 56) The most common non-lethal method of protecting livestock from predation and attacks in Southern Africa is herding and shepherding. Shepherds, being men, women, and children may spend days at a time with the herd in search of safe feeding grounds, thus avoiding hotspots (areas with high risks of attacks). In the case of an attack, the shepherd often in company of a dog can quickly respond and protect the herd. The shepherd however, especially during night time, if the herd is not penned, risks direct contact with possibly dangerous predators or large mammals himself. Shepherding in combination with one or many LGD lowers attack rates by predators because dogs assist in detecting sick or injured livestock. The latter are often attractions to predators but once removed from the herd this problem is solved. In addition, dogs effectively scare off predators. If not trained well the dog might however also scare off or harm other harmless game species. The herd may be penned at night; the pen however must be completely predator proof otherwise the risk of excessive killing is high. (Andelt, 1996). 26.

(43) •. 6/5/5 ($51!*##

(44) "# Pro New-born livestock highly vulnerable to attacks and predation can be extracted and penned. Contra • High mortality risk due to false nurturing • Penning enhances need of higher health care • Separate enclosure required Sustainability. A. 0. Due to risk of false nurturing, risk of sickness, and predation within enclosure the economic sustainability is compromised with less risk of attacks on main herd.. B. +. Newly born livestock less likely to spread sickness to wildlife. Less risk of overgrazing as shepherds are not forced to avoid hotspots.. C. 0. Increased amount of time needed raising calves and lambs reduces social sustainability as population usually works many jobs at once.. 7,' /#%! (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry,et. al., 2005, 57) Because newly born livestock is highly vulnerable to attacks from all carnivores they can be excluded from the main herd and nurtured by humans in pens or enclosures. Hand feeding livestock however bears the risk of non-acceptance by the herd at a later time or mortality due to false nurturing. This method is commonly used for goats, sheep, and cattle.. • • •. 6/5/6 ($61

(45) *'($ )&##"!'2

(46) 3 Pro Contra Dogs and donkeys commonly used to alert • Dogs scare off other game species i.e. antelope, rodents, birds people of danger • Livestock must be held in semi enclosure No presence of herdsmen or shepherd at night required • Donkeys good against small predators but Efficient against all predators, work best in combination with shepherds not against packs or large carnivores Sustainability. A. +. B. 0. C. -. As shepherd’s constant presence is not required he may be able to work elsewhere simultaneously. LGA may roam and hunt wildlife. Premature death of LGA. Training (Socialization) with livestock herd very time-consuming. (Scott & Fuller, 1965) Many LGDs do not bond with herd. Best efficiency in age of 2-3 years. (Wick, 1995, 367). 8, '$%!&# $0 1/#%! (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry,et al., 2005) Livestock guarding animals (LGAs) are able to detect approaching predators and interrupt the attack. (Smith, 2000, 279-290). They live with the herd constantly and alert the shepherd of danger. In Southern Africa smaller dogs are used as these do not attempt to fight approaching predators but rather bark intensely alerting the shepherd/community. This either requires the shepherd to be nearby or the livestock not to be far from the community. This method is most common in secluded remote areas with little infrastructure.. 27.

(47) . 6/5/7 ($71-'$!$! ($' Pro Contra Effective tool in controlling the reproduction • Very expensive as professional hunters and equipment are required rate of elephants and other large game species within enclosures and multi-use • Sterilized individuals are in effect dead zones regarding population viability Immunocontraception similar to Sterilization, • Very complex process yet individuals are only temporarily infertile • Regular control required Infertile, older animals less likely to attack livestock or raid crops Sustainability. •. • •. A. -. B. -. C. 0. Methods not viable in most buffer zones bordering National Parks as migrating wildlife difficult to control. Useful within enclosed game reserves i.e. private reserves, to control reproductive rates of large vertebrates. Sterilized or infertile individual is in effect dead from the point of view of population viability and requires space that a reproductive individual could occupy. (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005, 65) Requirement of shepherd, LGA, fencing stays same although animals do not reproduce.. 9,)$!!

(48) %!$0%#*%! 2 & !! %#"%! 1/ $&# (Balser, 1964, 352-358) The use of immunocontraception and sterilization is most commonly used within enclosed smaller game reserves, where the reproductive rate of large vertebrates i.e. elephants must be controlled strictly because over-population by one species can quickly destroy entire ecosystems. This method requires professional hunters to inject the animals, often from helicopters. It is not viable in remote areas, especially where communities lie within the buffer zone bordering National Parks, as movement of wildlife cannot be controlled by sterilization.. 28.

(49) • • •. 6/5/8 ($81&#'101!$($# Pro Re-introduction of regionally eradicated animals possible No killing involved Commonly used to protect white rhinos from poaching in specific areas i.e. Kruger National Park, South Africa. Contra • Thorough prior research and assessment required • Very expensive and high risk of failure • Little effect against crop raiding elephants due to homing behaviour • Risk of non-acceptance by population thus reduced survival after relocation Sustainability. A. -. B. 0. C. 0. Low to no effect. Homing behaviour. (Linnell et. al., 1997, 1245) Most individuals continue depredation. Reduced survival or reproduction after translocation. (Funston, 2001) Very expensive. Due to the risk of non-acceptance by the population to which it is introduced and the stress caused to the animal during the process this method is not a viable solution in mitigating depredation. As the individual is removed from its herd it is in essence lost from the population. However, the animal is not killed and may be accepted in other areas. This method is commonly used to protect rhinos from being killed illegally. Individuals are moved to betterprotected areas, also known as safe havens. This method has no significant influence on the social aspect of sustainability, yet problem animals are removed from areas, reducing depredation.. :,# $/./!%! /

(50) !# (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, & al., 2005) Trans-/re-locating individual animals is an effective method to protect critically endangered species. However, it is no real solution towards reducing depredation as the animals most often show homing behaviours. Animals, especially young individuals removed from mothering herds often pose even greater threats to peoples’ livelihoods as they have no guidance, and act the same as they did before removal. This is especially true of elephants and the cat species. (Anthony, 2009) Prior to removal, animals are anaesthetized and optimally not harmed in the process. The new environment must be chosen carefully, as the risk of rejection is high.. 29.

(51) . 6/5/9 ($91$!!&' Pro Little to no harm to livestock and predator Simple application Low cost. Contra • Extensive controls required • Exclusively used as protection from Jackal (Canis adustus, Canis mesomelas) and caracal (Caracal caracal) • Little tests done in field conditions Sustainability. • • •. A. +. In terms of economics, this method may perform well when applied to goats and sheep, and only where jackals are the main predators, i.e. on farms bordering reserves without lion, cheetah, or leopard. For livestock in contact with “Big 5” game as well as wild dog, or cheetah 4 it is not useful. (Polyethylene) protection-collars i.e. King Collar , used currently in South Africa are priced at $1 per collar.. B. +. Protection collars do not harm livestock or the attacking predators, and electric collars emit harmless shocks, which frighten off but do not injure the predator.. C. 0. Extensive knowledge and controls are required during application. This method does however not require presence of shepherd. Only useable on sheep or goats .. ;,!#$0#!%%! 2%#1/

(52) !# (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005) The use of electric as well as synthetic collars as a means of protection against predation has proven useful against jackal1 and caracal2 as these primarily kill their prey by bites to the neck and carotid artery. The collar is applied directly onto the sheep or goat’s neck protecting the artery. 5. 4, 1, 2. http://blog.conservation.org/2013/03/humane-predator-control-methods-double-income-. for- south-african-farmers/ 5. http://www.kora.unibe.ch/en/proj/cdpnews/cdpnews007.html. 30.

(53) . 6/5/: ($:1%!!#('. Type. Contra. Pro. Visual. • • • •. Acoustic. •. • Conditioned • Taste • Aversion (CTA). Simple application No harm to predators or crop raiding animals Easily combinable with acoustic repellents Easily installed on posts or over pens/lapas Bells on fences/posts/corrals inexpensive and easily installed Electronic motion detector sirens effective against most predators Easy application No harm or influence on livestock. • • •. • •. High costs and maintenance Training and “know-how” required by people Problem animals may adapt to repellents, thus loss of effect. Problem animals adapt to repellents, thus loss of effect Electric devices expensive and high maintenance. No positive effects under field conditions Prevents consumption of livestock but not attacking or killing • High cost Sustainability • •. A. -. No infrastructure, logistics needed therefore economically viable but no sustainable reduction of depredation as problem animals get used to repellent and attempt predation anyhow.. B. 0. C. 0. No physical harm done to livestock or predator. Animals may panic as reaction to strobe lights or sirens (Andelt, 1996) Applicable on large scale, creating employment. Livestock must be corralled at night, which requires shepherding during daytime. Acoustic repellents may disturb people at night causing sleep disruption.. <," %$0!&$%+$&2! %! $%'#$! 1/

(54) !# .#%! (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005). Acoustic as well as visual repellents (electric or in form of bells) are installed on posts, fences, or animal enclosures. As predators attempt to breach these, either motion detectors (modern) or movement of barriers (traditional) switch on sirens or bells ring and the intruders are scared off. Repellents may also be placed above pens, corrals or bomas. Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA) too is a type of repellent. Animals are sprayed or bathed in non-harmful chemicals, usually Lithium chloride (LiCl) (Burns, 1980), which repels predators. This method has also had little effects on coyotes in North America and no effect on predators in Southern Africa as predators still attacked and killed the livestock, however did not consume it. (Conolly, 1995). 31.

(55) 6/5/; ($;1#' Type Natural. • • •. Electric. • • •. Conventional • Netting. A. +. B. 0. C. +. Contra. Pro Low cost Easy installation High efficiency against lion and hyena (Ogada, 2003) High efficiency for game in enclosures Economic for night pens (Bangs, 2001) Adjustable to certain animals i.e. caracal, leopard, jackal etc.. • •. Need of regular maintenance Trees and other fauna needed for materials, thus habitat destruction. High cost for construction and maintenance (keep vegetation low) (Linnell, 1996) • Need of regular maintenance as elephants often break through • Fence depends on power supply • Unsuitable in Africa due to theft of materials and improper maintenance • Obstruction of wildlife • Less effective than natural fencing May be combined with (Ogada, 2003, Chapter 18) Electric fences i.e. separate strands of electric wire • Most animals able to dig underneath or climb over • Inefficient for cats and elephants (Ogada, 2003) Sustainability •. All types of fences very cost-effective with long life-spans. Electric fences can use solar power in remote areas making them economic (Knickerbocker, Waithaka 1995, Chapter 14) Natural fences, especially bomas (thorn brush corral) require acacia (Acacia nilotica) branches, thus loss of habitat. Improper installation of electrical fences may obstruct, hurt, or kill wildlife. Vegetation must be kept low for all fences Natural and netting fences require little attention and are especially efficient for night-time pens.. =, $0 %&#+%#2! ' %! %% 1 (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005, 55; Charudutt, 1997. 338-343) Depending on the situation fencing can be used to 1: protect livestock in small pens overnight, 2: provide predator-proof grazing areas, or 3: exclude carnivores from entire regions. The type of fence varies according to the goals and materials available (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005, 60). Next to shepherding, the use of fences in form of bomas or as barriers enclosing entire grazing areas, is the most common method of non-lethal wildlife management control in Southern Africa. Bomas are barriers built up of loose thorny bushes, shrubs, branches, and tree stumps. Especially in remote areas fences are highly efficient against most predators but regular maintenance is required, because harsh weather conditions cause much wear and tear.. 32.

(56) 6/6.

(57) (!$#(&$! ($'. Before implementing Lethal control certain criteria similar to the influencing factors of nonlethal control must be considered: 1. Effectiveness in reducing future threats to people’s lives and livelihoods. 2. Impact on the viability of (endangered) wildlife populations. 3. Public acceptance, applicability, and participation. Meeting all criteria and successfully mitigating human - wildlife conflicts goes hand in hand with selecting the most feasible method and is crucial to the conserving wildlife as well as sustainably protecting people’s livelihoods. For example, the removal of one predator species may be effective in the short term, but in the long term could have the opposite effect from that intended if another predator takes it’s place due to a gap in the ecosystem. (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 91) One example of this is found in Uganda, where the widespread removal of lions and leopards led to increased crop-raiding incidents by bushpig and baboons. (Naughton-Treves L. R., 1999) In the past, generally, all lethal control methods were based on the assumption that conflicts decline when wild animals are removed. Today, however, authorities and conservationists must take into account the consequences for prey populations, conflict rates, and services the ecosystems provide to humans, namely economic and ecological. Thus the chosen method of lethal control has to benefit the affected society as well as wildlife populations because once implemented it is irreversible. Lethal control can also include human activities that incidentally impact wildlife populations negatively such as habitat conversion (forest ⇒ maize field), pollution, or the introduction of invasive species. (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 86) Translocation is also listed as a means of lethal control. It may be considered more humane, but the selected animal is lost to its original herd and environment. The effectiveness of culling, public hunts, and selective removal is less clear because statistical analysis of pre- and post- actions do not exist. This is particularly the case for large vertebrates such as elephants because of the vast spatial scales required for meaningful comparisons between different control methods. (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 91). 33.

(58) Nonetheless hunting as a tool of wildlife conservation is considered both economically but especially ecologically sustainable as it provides one of the strongest incentives for conserving wildlife in Southern Africa. Trophy hunting was banned in Kenya in 1977, in Tanzania during 1973-1978, and in Zambia from 2000 through 2003 (Leader-Williams & Hutton 2005; Lindsey 2005, 3). Each of these bans resulted in an accelerated loss of wildlife due to the removal of incentives for conservation (Baker 1997; Lewis & Jackson 2005,). Avoiding future bans is thus vital for conservation. The key and best motivation for wildlife conservation today is money. The hunting industry is able to generate much higher market values for wildlife resources than without it (Lewis, 2005, 239). South Africa’s hunting industry alone for example generates US$ 50-million per year. (Lewis, 2005, 239) therefore banning legal hunting may have severe negative impacts on animal numbers and economy development.. 34.

(59) 6/6/4 ($41&($#"%#' • •. Pro Contra Invasive species can be removed successfully • High risk of complete population loss Possibilities of trade-offs and compromises to • High risk of poaching agricultural/economic development Sustainability. A. 0. B. -. C. -. Loss of tourism/employment. Other forms of land-utilization possible. Complete loss of existing fauna and flora.. Loss of employment and recreational activities. 5>,#%! " $(Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005). Eradication campaigns opposed to culling programmes aim at eliminating problem wildlife from entire regions by all means available. Depending on the targeted species resilience as well as the intensity of efforts, eradication campaigns may cause local, regional, or even global extinctions. (Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 88). Eradication campaigns are generally undertaken in order to win commercially viable land. As mentioned earlier, history shows that vigorous motivations, such as value of skins and ivory may influence people to eradicate wildlife, especially when undertaken in the name of ‘protecting people’ or ‘opening agricultural land’ for the sake of economic development. (Beard, 1963; Naughton-Treves, 1999; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 88) As eradication campaigns are not sustainable due to the high risk of incidental poaching, there are only few deliberate campaigns - worldwide. Existing eradication campaigns are in essence changed to culling programmes as these are more localized and merely target specific groups of animals and do not threaten species’ survival.. 35.

(60) 6/6/5 ($51)!!#&$&""' Type Culling. • •. •. Public Hunts. • •. •. • Translocation • •. A. +. B. +. C. +. Contra. Pro. High risk of traumatic experiences followed by loss of cognitive abilities and social functioning of elephants in long term4 Enhanced risk of improper implementation and animals experiencing high stress, leading to unusual behaviour i.e. hyper-aggression, persistent fear, calf abandonment65 • Risk of illegal over-hunting and poaching of other (endangered) species • Enhanced risk of false (cruel) hunting techniques. • Cost-efficient Programmes can be directly applied to calculations regarding regions’ carrying capacities • Culling programmes protect environment by optimizing carrying capacities Cost-efficient Local communities involved, creating employment No need for stateassistance, private citizens pay or volunteer to remove wildlife without reference to conflicts (Sagor, 1997,91-95) Support unpopular species by assigning values as game, trophies Translocation is (humane) type of culling Individual animals may be sold. Highly cost-intensive Requires good logistics and infrastructure • Enhanced risk of stress, pain, and suffering by animals • Risk of non-acceptance by local population Sustainability • •. Meat and assets are sold, thus no waste. Selected individuals may be sold to other parks or reserves, generating income for further conservation. Habitat is preserved for future generations of fauna and flora.. Local communities benefit from (game) meat and employment. 65,& #!#$(Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005). Culling programmes aim to reduce subpopulations of problem wildlife around sites of anticipated conflict (Blackwell et al., 2000, 300; Hoare, 1999, 633; Cope et al., 2003, 113) under the assumption that reducing wildlife populations will reduce conflicts. Culling may include the extermination of wildlife in a specifically selected area (not its entire extent), in advance or without specific protests about wildlife. Usually there are prescribed factors, which at all times must be met. These may entail: method of killing, actors, timing, and locations of culling. Besides livestock depredation, crop raiding, or endangering peoples lives, there are 4,5. http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/karen-mccomb-and-graeme-shannon-on-the-long-. term-effects-of-culling-on-african-elephant-societies/ 36.

(61) also other reasons for culling. These may include: too many of one particular species in one area causing imbalance and destruction of ecosystems i.e. smaller, enclosed private game reserves; removal of predators prior to releasing economically significant livestock (Wagner (Wagner, 1999, 600-612); or removal of specific species to mitigate transmission of disease to economically significant livestock (Woodroffe R. B., 2002). Culling programmes are most often government sponsored, as they are usually conducted in National Parks or reserves containing too many of one particular species. Trained, professional agents are either hired to kill wildlife or translocate entire groups to other regions. Public hunts on the other hand are conducted by volunteers or private citizens paying to kill, thus promoting economic benefits. In addition, public hunts may promote unpopular species e.g. jackal by assigning value as game, food, skin or other. (Hamilton, 1981, 1) All wildlife in Southern Africa is confined to certain restricted areas. Given this, these areas must be managed optimally and carrying capacities carefully monitored and controlled. As culling programmes may seem immoral, they are a sustainable means of wildlife conservation, as they ensure species survival by preventing self-destruction.. 37.

(62) 6/6/6 ($61&$!"#"!$#(&$!23 •. • •. Pro Contra Removal of problem-animals and • Logistics make quick reaction difficult. simultaneously earning money from trophy- • CITES bans export of several trophy hunters. items (e.g. rhino horn, ivory, antlers) Success rate of kill is high due to professionalism of hunter. Strict control through local guide surveillance. Sustainability. A. +. B. +. Communities are compensated for losses by money generated from trophy-hunters. (Butcher, 2013) Government no longer finances PAC so funds are made available for other conservation projects. Very high rate of removing specific problem animal/s. Learning process among young animals often prevents them from repeating adult’s behaviour.. Communities are compensated financially and in form of game meat. Communities accept loss of livestock or crops and stop retaliatory killing because compensation from trophy-hunters is more than adequate. 66,#! ! %#!01(Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005, 90). C. 0. Problem Animal Control (PAC), like all other techniques of controlled lethal control is based on the assumption that the removal of wildlife will reduce the risk of future threats to human lives and livelihoods. PAC however is aimed specifically at the individuals suspected to have damaged property; hence the location, method, and target are exactly specified. The crucial difference to culling is that PAC targets isolated numbers of individuals so no animals are killed unless damage has occurred: this practice is thus reactive rather than pre-emptive. (Treves & NaughtonTreves, 2005, 90). Today, PAC is most often conducted by trained professionals hired to kill or capture rare or endangered problem animals. Instead of costing money, however, communities can now take advantage of increasing interest in hunting of large game species for example buffalos, lions, or elephants, and earn large sums of money by selling permits to these trophy hunters to kill selected problem-animals!. 38.

(63) 6/6

(64) (!*'/$#1!(! ($'1(#' ! /%

(65) %!. &$% %) AEconomic. BEcological. CSocial. 1. Shepherding 2. Calving and Lambing 3. Livestock Guarding Animals 4. Physiological Methods 5. Trans-/Re-location 6. Collars 7. Repellents 8. Fences. %

(66) %! 1. Eradication Campaigns 2. Culling Programmes 3. Problem Animal Control. 67, % '$- ! /%