Download Bachelorarbeit Hunting as a tool of wildlife conservation in Southern

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
$%#%
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
$%#%0 %$ 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
! % %$
$%#%,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,2
! % %$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,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 )''#($!!%&($#......................................................................................4<
3,% ! -%! %#!.! %#! %/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,20
3,1 & %!#$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,22
6.4.4 #!#$#$"(#&$$)#(&,...........................................................................55
6.4.5 $%$&%!($&'.........................................................................................................................55
6.4.6 ((($&'........................................................................................................................................55
6.4.7 !(*
"%$&(#$&#*$&0&($&$#'&*($#($$!$(,................55
6.4.8 %%!!(,-(*#''#%(!(,...........................................................................56
3,2 ! -%! %#!%!$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,25
6.5.4 ($4/%&#......................................................................................................................59
6.5.5 ($5/!*##"#.....................................................................................................5:
6.5.6 ($6/*'($ )&##"!'12.........................................................................5:
6.5.7 ($7/,'$!$!($'..................................................................................................5;
6.5.8 ($8/&#'/0/!$($#.........................................................................................................5<
4
6.5.9 ($9/$!!&'..................................................................................................................................63
6.5.: ($:/%!!#('...........................................................................................................................64
6.5.; ($;/#'..................................................................................................................................65
3,3 %! %#!%!$,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,33
6.6.4 ($4/&($#"%#'.................................................................................................68
6.6.5 ($5/)!!#&$&""'......................................................................................................69
6.6.6 ($6/&$!"#"!$#(&$!12.................................................................................6;
3,3 %'$,! -%%!$-% $,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,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
#! )$
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 )''#($!!%&($#
•
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
8-% ! /%! %#!0! %#! %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
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
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 !(* "%$&(# $ &#*$&0&($& $#'&*($# ($ $!
$(-
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
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
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
6/5
$#1(!$#(&$!($'
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
6/5/4 ($41%&#
•
•
•
•
Pro
Allows avoidance of hotspots - Carnivores •
usually kill livestock in specific areas
(steep/rocky areas, forest land, tall grass,
shrubs)
•
Quick and flexible responses to attacks
Rapid detection of sickness and disposal of •
attracting carcasses
•
Penning stock at night possible
•
Contra
High risk of over grazing by livestock
resulting in wildlife’s loss of habitat and
food
Consistent control and presence of
shepherd required
Risk of direct human - predator encounter
Risk of encountering diseases i.e. FMD
Penning stock at night requires higher
health care, pens must be predator proof,
otherwise risk of excessive killing (Andelt,
1996, 55-62)
Sustainability
A
+
B
-
C
-
Due to effectiveness, livestock depredation is minimized with little penalties on either side.
Because of overgrazing, rehabilitation of habitats is necessary, causing longer travel distances
of shepherds and livestock to new feeding areas.
Habitat loss due to high risk of overgrazing. Bomas and enclosures usually built of natural
materials collected from surrounding environment i.e. teak wood (Tectona grandis). Livestock
risk encountering disease or transmitting sickness to wildlife species.
High involvement of local people. Risk of direct contact/conflict with predators.
6,"#+"#(%'$%!&#!01/#%! (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
•
6/5/5 ($51!*##"#
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 ($61*'($ )&##"!'23
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,'$%!&# $01/#%! (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
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,)$!!%!$0%#*%! 2& !! %#"%! 1/$&#
(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
•
•
•
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.
:,# $/./!%! /!# (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
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 .
;,!#$0#!%%! 2%#1/!# (Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005)
The use of electric as well as synthetic collars as a means of protection against predation
has proven useful against jackal1 and caracal2 as these primarily kill their prey by bites to the
neck and carotid artery. The collar is applied directly onto the sheep or goat’s neck protecting
the artery. 5
4, 1, 2
http://blog.conservation.org/2013/03/humane-predator-control-methods-double-income-
for- south-african-farmers/
5
http://www.kora.unibe.ch/en/proj/cdpnews/cdpnews007.html
30
6/5/: ($: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/
!# .#%! (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
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.
=, $0%&#+%#2! ' %! %% 1
(Angst, Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005, 55; Charudutt, 1997. 338-343)
Depending on the situation fencing can be used to 1: protect livestock in small pens
overnight, 2: provide predator-proof grazing areas, or 3: exclude carnivores from entire
regions. The type of fence varies according to the goals and materials available (Angst,
Breitenmoser, Landry, et al., 2005, 60).
Next to shepherding, the use of fences in form of bomas or as barriers enclosing entire
grazing areas, is the most common method of non-lethal wildlife management control in
Southern Africa. Bomas are barriers built up of loose thorny bushes, shrubs, branches, and
tree stumps. Especially in remote areas fences are highly efficient against most predators but
regular maintenance is required, because harsh weather conditions cause much wear and
tear.
32
6/6
(!$#(&$!($'
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
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
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
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
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
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
6/6 (!*'/$#1!(!($'1(#'
! /%%!
&$% %)
AEconomic
BEcological
CSocial
1. Shepherding
2. Calving and Lambing
3. Livestock Guarding Animals
4. Physiological Methods
5. Trans-/Re-location
6. Collars
7. Repellents
8. Fences
%%!
1. Eradication Campaigns
2. Culling Programmes
3. Problem Animal Control
67, % '$- ! /% %!$ &$% %)
% $
Key:
Green = Positive
Yellow = Neutral
This table clearly shows the sustainability of lethal wildlife
Red = Negative
control methods compared to non-lethal methods. Before
rating a method however, it is crucial to consider and assess all influencing factors as well as
the current economic situation. The sustainability of each method must be considered before
application, bearing in mind the pro’s and con’s applied to the situation at hand.
This table and its respective ratings are applied to problems involving human - wildlife
conflicts is two similar cases in Southern Africa, namely Ngamo, Zimbabwe and Kasane,
Botswana.
39
9-$%&$
7/4
"$.+#($#!& %&%&-."+
7/4/4 "$1((
Location:
Est.: 200 km
Northwest of
Bulawayo
Within Ngamo
(Public) Forest
Area
Southeast of
Hwange National
Park
Nearest biggest
city: Bulawayo
Population:
Unknown (Est.:
200)
Livelihoods:
• Crops: Maize
(Zea mays)
• Livestock: Cattle,
Chicken, Goats
68,!%%
Ngamo:
Ngamo Village is located within the Ngamo Forest Area on the South-eastern Border of the
Hwange National Park. The boundary between the park and public forest area (buffer zone)
is marked either with a simple buffalo fence or railway tracks. The buffalo fence also known
as veterinary fence or cordon was built to primarily stop buffalos from entering communal
areas and spreading Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) to adjacent populations of domestic
livestock. As buffalo are unable to jump higher than 1.8 m, the barrier is usually made up of 3
- 5 single strands of steel cable, maximum 1.8 m high allowing other game species to either
climb through, walk over, or crawl underneath.
40
The Village consists of a primary as well as a semi-secondary school, which is much
dependant on donations. There are two grocery shops, selling basic foods and necessities.
The village is accessible by foot or 4x4 vehicle as the terrain is extremely sandy. During the
rain season roads are flooded making it impossible for commercial 2x4 vehicles to access
the area. The habitat is made up of savannah, temperate grassland, temporary flooded
grassland, shrubland and woodland. Many drought resistant shrubs, grasses, and trees (e.g.
acacia, teak, mopane (Colophospermum mopane)) define the Hwange National Park and it’s
South-eastern buffer zones.
The people of Ngamo cultivate maize and breed cattle as main source of income and food.
Almost half of the villages’ men are employed full time or on semi-regular basis by nearby
lodges and safari operators, however dependence on crops and livestock is high as the
country’s economic situation is precarious and unemployment and poverty is extremely high.
Hwange National Park:
On Zimbabwe’s North-Eastern border lays the Hwange National Park. It is Zimbabwe’s
largest National Park covering roughly 14,650 km2. Starting off as the Ndebele-King’s
hunting grounds in the early 19th century, the National Park was founded by its first wildlife
manager, Ted Davison, in 1928.7
Today the Park is home to over 100 mammal and 400 bird species, with the elephant
population rising from 4,000 in 1930 to more than 20,000 today. 8 The park also habituates
one of the largest populations of African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), also known as painted
dog, remaining worldwide.
Hwange National Park’s absence of permanent surface water presents the main
conservation problem for wildlife in the park. Most markedly, elephant, rhinos, buffalo and
other large game animals have become particularly dependent on man-made waterholes
during the long dry season. After the heavy rainfalls in January, February, March, the
waterholes quickly dry up and all wildlife is drawn to artificial waterholes filled with the help of
borehole pumps and diesel generators. These pumps run for months on end and are
regularly maintained and financed by friends of the park, who are situated in the buffer zones
on the parks borders. (Butcher, M., Ellement, M. Imvelo Safari Lodges, 2013)9
7
http://www.hwangecons.org.uk
8
http://www.thehide.com/hwange.html
9
http://www.imvelosafarilodges.com/conservation-projects.html
41
While the Parks main focus has been on supplying water to animals it has also spent much
on PAC and Anti-Poaching efforts. Anti-poaching tactics now include the use of arms,
workshops, (Educational Awareness), patrols, and arrests. Additionally: “No person shall
hunt any animal on any land, except in terms of a permit issued.” (Section 59, Subsection 2A of
the Parks and Wildlife Act Chapter 20:14)10
7/4/5 &$!"1"$!!
Elephants regularly raid the villages’ maize fields and predators (e.g. lions and leopards) kill
livestock. This generally occurs during the dry season between April and November as water
is scarce and wild preys as well as natural food sources are sparse. Self-made fences of
natural materials raised around maize fields give semi-protection and shepherds with dogs
almost constantly guard cattle. Children and women often guard the livestock, as the men
are responsible for the family’s monetary income. This may also mean the shepherds must
spend several isolated with their livestock in the bush.
The Hwange National Park is less than 2,000 metres from Ngamo and after the rainfalls, the
buffer zone is made up of temporary marshlands, holding vast amounts of water. This draws
many animals towards the village, causing conflicts.
Personal experience acquired within the buffer zones of Hwange National Park, close to
Ngamo, bear evidence to the fact that poachers often use strands of steel wire stolen from
the veterinary fence as snares for capturing wildlife. This leaves gaps in the fence allowing
wildlife, but especially buffalos to enter communal land and thus making contact with cattle,
and possibly spreading FMD. Official park rangers quickly respond to such incidents by
issuing hunting permits. However, tracking these buffalos may take several days, possibly
allowing sickness to spread further. Professional hunters are also not always available on
short notice because of communication or logistical problems, thus delaying the animal’s
removal.
7/4/6 )&&#(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!
In recent years, a number of privately-owned safari operators and lodges have been
established within concession areas either within the Hwange National Park or in the buffer
zones outside. Because Ngamo lies within a private concession, in a buffer zone, Southeast
of the park, its people have the opportunity to benefit from hunting and other means of
wildlife management. As hunting in Zimbabwe is legal within these buffer zones, state hired
hunters, are killing problem animals, with no monetary gain for the local population.
10
http://www.zimparks.org/index.php/conservation/management-services
42
Because of Zimbabwe’s severe lack of infrastructure, logistics, and the corrupt government,
government-compensations for losses of livestock and/or crops are almost non-existent.
Especially regarding remote communities like Ngamo. Thus, the population of Ngamo
receives little to no benefits (except for meat) from killed problem animals and therefore has
less incentive for protecting (problem) animals.
For the most part however, the community of Ngamo is playing an active role in conservation
as they have realised the value of wildlife - especially of endangered species as an asset,
drawing tourists to the area, which in turn spend money on permits, local goods, levies, etc.
Additionally, the people are playing an important role in anti-poaching efforts, supplying
information to rangers and official anti-poaching units.
7/4/7 )'(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!
Considering the sustainability of wildlife control methods as well as Ngamo’s location,
accessibility, infrastructure, and all influencing factors of controlled wildlife management,
trophy hunting as a means of PAC, ordinary PAC, as well as culling are the suggested
techniques of wildlife control.
As PAC is conducted only after damage has occurred, willing trophy hunters must be
available on short notice or already present (It may just be coincidental, that during a trophyhunters’ visit to the area, a troublesome animal is suspected of raiding crops or killing
livestock and needs to be removed). A hunting permit is issued or bought from the local
authorities (found at National Park entries) and the hunter can legally remove the problem
animal while at the same time compensating the people’s loss in the from of money and/or
meat.
As Ngamo is part of a private concession, home to safari operators, lodges, and external
safari clubs such as the Houston Safari Club11 based in Houston, Texas, the people can be
involved in all activities regarding economic growth and development; this much includes
trophy hunting as a means of PAC.
All recreational activities, especially trophy hunting can be beneficial to the people of Ngamo
in the sense that tourist-hunters pay to kill problem animals. Not only do the people receive
compensations for losses, but they are also incentivised to protecting wildlife (also problem
animals) from retaliatory killing or poaching.
11
http://www.houstonsafariclub.org
43
7/5
'#.$($#!& $&&.$('+#
7/5/4 '#1((
Location:
Northern tip of
Botswana
Meeting point of
Botswana,
Namibia,
Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Bordering Chobe
National Park
and on Chobe
River
Population:
Est.: 9.100
(2011) *2
Livelihoods:
• Crops: Maize,
Groundnuts
(Arachis
hypogaea),
Sorghum
(Sorghum
bicolor)
• Livestock: Cattle,
Chicken, Goats,
Donkeys
69,
$ %%
Kasane:
The town of Kasane forms the meeting point of Botswana (South), Namibia (West), Zambia
(North), and Zimbabwe (East). The town lies on the banks of the Chobe River, which flows
into the Zambezi and into the Indian Ocean. At the same time, Kasane lies directly on the
North-western border of the Chobe National Park.
Kasane and its immediate surroundings have a good infrastructure, and no problems with
logistics. As Kasane presents a viable stopover for tourists visiting the Chobe National Park
or other reserves and attractions close by, it also has all means available for wildlife control,
except for lethal control, which was banned on 31 March 2014.
44
Chobe National Park:
The Chobe National Park encompasses 11,000 km 2, and boasts various ecosystems
including riverine forest, flood plains, savannah, temporary marshlands, and others.
Simultaneously representing the major conflict and matter of concern regarding wildlife
conservation, the Chobe National Park also has the largest concentration of elephants
confined to one area in the World.12 Compared to the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe,
which has no permanent surface water, the Chobe National Park is permanently supplied by
the Chobe River. During the rain season all wildlife is scattered throughout the park causing
fewer conflicts with humans, specifically in Kasane, in the dry season however, the Chobe
River is a place of refuge and thus the contact point.
7/5/5 &$!"1'#
The main conflict in Kasane is elephants and other large animals coming into direct contact
with residents and visitors. In search of fresh water, these animals migrate between
countries, territories, reserves, and areas of the park and because Kasane lies at the
meeting point of water, food and refuge contact with humans is inevitable.
As fences or other barriers can rarely stop elephants and buffalos, they are no real solution
in reducing crop raids or conflicts, especially as groundnuts (peanuts) and maize belong to
elephant’s favourite foods. Hunting in Botswana has been banned with exception of trophy
hunting in registered private game reserves, so problem animals cannot be removed by
hunters.
With poaching and professional hunting being illegal, the last viable methods are
shepherding, repellents, LGA’s or translocation.
7/5/6 )&&#(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!
Today no sustainable solutions have been found, with exception of shepherding and LGA’s
in the case of few livestock depredation occasions within Kasane. As elephants and buffalo
usually travel through urban areas at night and the early hours of the morning, crop-raiding
incidents are usually noticed afterwards, but direct contacts have been unpreventable.
People walking to work in the morning have been surprised on open roads, and often injured,
as a result.13
12
http://www.afrizim.com/places/Botswana/Parks/Chobe.asp
13
http://victoriafalls24.com/blog/2013/04/24/chobe-elephant-human-and-wildlife-conflict/
45
Research is underway regarding the concept of wildlife corridors, which allow wildlife to move
freely between areas and across important roadways. These corridors seem to be the most
viable solutions in reducing human-wildlife conflicts in Botswana, but are yet to be installed
permanently and on large scales throughout the country.14
7/5/7 )'(%%!($#$!!$#(&$!
This example clearly shows the importance of targeted lethal control as a tool of wildlife
conservation and management in reducing conflicts between wildlife and humans.
There is no doubt that most people living in Kasane are dependent on tourism. The steadily
growing population however, requires more space, thus again competing with wildlife and
contributing to habitat loss. Simultaneously conservation strategies are implemented by
banning hunting, blaming legal hunting as the main cause for declining numbers of wildlife in
the past (Fitt, 2014), but not giving other incentives for protection. The lawful banning of
hunting, without compensating communities for damages or losses of livelihoods, will once
again result in retaliatory killing and poaching.
Although wildlife corridors may be a viable option in preventing contact between humans and
wildlife, hunting, especially trophy hunting as a means of PAC is a key factor to giving local
communities incentives to conserve wildlife and protect endangered species from poaching.
14
http://www.elephantswithoutborders.org/living_with_elephants.php
46
9- $$$$ % ! &$! This thesis has attempted to tackle the hotly debated topic: is hunting a viable method to
promote conservation in Southern Africa?
The terms “hunting” and “conservation” for many, are contradictory and at first glance, do not
appear to have any chance of collaborating to provide a positive outcome for all parties
involved, namely the wildlife, the environment, local communities and for the world’s
population as a whole.
However, when one studies the facts:
1. That Africa, through its rapid development, has been split into well-defined
ecosystems and wildlife has been robbed of its ability to freely migrate in order to
ensure its survival.
2. That the continent is home to the largest number of endangered species because of
bad conservation management, poaching, wars, and other factors.
3. That Africa is predominantly a poor continent with governments stretched to provide
humans with basic amenities like food, shelter, and water, and thus does not have the
necessary resources to invest in care and maintenance of the natural environment.
Then one realises that it is essential to allow controlled hunting in order to ensure a
harmonious living environment for both wildlife and human populations – and to realistically
provide a sustainable, long-term solution for conservation of the natural environment.
In
Chapter
2
the
exploitation
of
African
wildlife
and
efforts
to
protect
it
is
discussed. However, even with laws, treaties and regulations, the aggressive poaching for
valuable products like rhino horn and ivory continues and is a multi-million dollar business for
black-market dealers worldwide with little or no positive outcomes for Africa’s population, and
with no positive inputs into conservation efforts: in fact the contrary holds true.
In Chapters 3 and 4, different forms of wildlife control are discussed in detail, outlining both
lethal and non-lethal control methods. Evaluating these through their economic, social and
environmental pro’s and con’s, it is clear that certain methods can be utilised effectively, but
many of the best are either too expensive, too maintenance-intensive or too cruel for the
wildlife involved.
In the case studies of Ngamo Village in Zimbabwe and the Kasane in Botswana, the thesis
shows that local populations can benefit and indeed perform a key role in conservation
47
efforts if they are economically rewarded for their efforts. If selected “problem animals” are
removed by paying, professional trophy hunters and this money is shared among local
communities to reimburse them for damages caused by these problem animals, then they
will protect wildlife instead of killing it, keep poachers at bay, and thus conserve the fauna
and flora within their regions for generations to come.
The challenge for African governments is to now put necessary checks and controls into
place to ensure that hunting can be carried out in a controlled and managed manner to
ensure that all parties will benefit from this practice, and that the environment will be
conserved in the best possible way.
48
# $
Book
Andelt, W. F. (1996). Effectiveness of livestock guardian dogs for reducing predation on
domestic sheep. Denver, Colorado, USA: Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Angst, C., Breitenmoser, U., Landry, J.-M., & al., e. (2005). People and Wildlife; Conflict or
Coexistance? (T. Z. London, Hrsg.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Anthony, L. (2009). The Elephant Whisperer. Kwazulu Natal, South Africa: St. Martin's Press.
Baker, J. (1997). Trophy hunting as a sustainable use of wildlife resources in Southern and
Eastern Africa. (J. o. Tourism, Hrsg.)
Balser, D. S. (1964). Management of predator populations with antifertility agents.
Cambridge: Journal of Wildlife Management.
Bangs, E. S. (2001). Managing wolf conflict with livestock in the Northwestern United States.
Beard, P. (1963). The End of the Game. San Francisco, California, USA: Chronicle Books.
Blackwell, B. D. (2000). Lethal Control of piscivorous birds at aquaculture facilities in the
northeast United States: effects on populations. USA: North American
Journal of Aquaculture.
Bothma, J. d. (2010). Game Ranch Management. South Africa: Van Schalk Publishers.
Burns, R. (1980). Evaluation of conditioned aversion for controlling predation. Journal of
Wildlife Management.
Charudutt, M. (1997). Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian TransHimalaya: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects.
49
Conolly, G. (1995). Animal damage control research contributions to coyote management.
Cope, D. P. (2003). Integrating farming and wildlife conservation: The Barnacle Goose
management scheme.
Funston, P. (2001). Kalahari transfrontier lion project: Population-ecology and long term
monitoring of a free-ranging population in an arid environment.
Hamilton, P. (1981). The leopard Panthera pardus and the cheetah Acinonyx jubatus in
Kenya. Report for the US fish and Wildlife Service, the African Wildlife Leadership
Foundation and the Government of Kenya. USA.
Hoare, R. d. (1999). Coexistance between people and elephants in African savannah.
Conservation Biology.
Knickerbocker, W. J. (1995). Report on Crop and Property Losses in Shimba Hills National
Reserve. Nairobi, Kenya.
Leader-Williams. N., H. J. (2005). Does extractive use provide opportunities to reduce
conflicts between people and wildlife? in Woodroffe, R.; Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A.People
and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistance? . Cambridge, UK.
Lewis, D. J. (2005). Safari Hunting and Conservation on Communal Land in Southern Africa.
(R. T. In Woodroffe, Hrsg.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsey, P. (2005). A review of the economic contribution of the trophy-hunting industry in
Africa. (S. C. International, Hrsg.) Washington D.C., USA.
Lindsey, P. A. (2006). Trophy Hunting and Conservation in Africa: Problems and One
Potential Solution. Zimbabwe: Society for Conservation Biology.
Linnell Linnell, J. S. (1996). Strategies for the reduction of carnivore-livestock conflicts: a
review. Norway.
Linnell, J., & al., e. (1997). Translocation of carnivores as a method of managing problem
animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation (Bd. 6).
50
Martin, G. (2012). Game Changer; Animal Rights and the Fate of Africa's Wildlife. (T. R.
California, Hrsg.) Berkely and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, Ltd.
Milner-Gulland, E. B. (1993). The exploitation of elephants for the ivory trade: an historical
perspective. Oxford, UK.
Naughton-Treves, L. (2009). Best Practice for the Prevention and Mitigation of Conflict
between Humans and Great Apes. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Naughton-Treves, L. R. (1999). The Social Dimensions of Human-Elephant Conflict in Africa:
A Literature Review and Case Studies from Uganda and Cameroon. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN.
Ogada, M. W. (2003). Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock
husbandry.
Sagor, J. S. (1997). Compatibility of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in
Norway. Norway.
Scott, J., & Fuller, J. (1965). Genetics and the Social Behaviour of the Dog. Chicago, Illinois,
USA: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, M. L. (2000). Methods for reducing livestock losses to predators. Monatna: University
of Monatna Press.
Treves, A., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2005). People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistance? (T.
Z. London, Hrsg.) Cambridge, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
V. Osborn, F., & M. Hill, C. (2005). People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistance. (T. Z.
London, Hrsg.) Cambridge, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, K. C. (1999). Effect of preventive coyote hunting on sheep losses to coyote
predation.
Wick, P. (1995). Minimizing bear-sheep conflicts through herding techniques. Blois, France:
ARTUS.
51
Woodroffe, R. B. (2002). Towards a sustainable policy to control TB in cattle. In Conservation
and Conflict: Mammals and Farming in Britain. London, UK.
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). People and Wildlife; Conflict or
Coexistance? (T. Z. London, Hrsg.) Cambridge, USA: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Online Dictionary and Encyclopedia
“hunt”, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hunt, Web. 28. September 2014
Other
Butcher, M., Butcher, E. (2013). Imvelo Safari Lodges, Gorges Lodge; Bomani Tented Camp,
Camelthorn Lodge; http://www.imvelosafarilodges.com/conservation-projects.html
Report
International Affairs, U.S. Fish & Widlife Services, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041, www.fws.gov/international;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html: Abgerufen
am 14. Oktober 2014
Fitt, N. P.-M. (2014). Hunting Ban in Botswana - Message from Permanent Secretary of
Botswana. The Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism (MEWT). Gaborone: MEWT Press Release.
Web Site
Afrizim: http://www.afrizim.com/places/Botswana/Parks/Chobe.asp, Abgerufen am 14.
Oktober 2014
Elephants without Borders,
http://www.elephantswithoutborders.org/living_with_elephants.php, Abgerufen am 10.
Oktober 2014
Hwange Conservation Society: http://www.hwangecons.org.uk, Abgerufen am 14. Oktober
2014
Malinda Gardiner (2014), Humane Predator Control Methods Double Income for South
African Farmers; http://blog.conservation.org/2013/03/humane-predator-control-methodsdouble-income-for-south-african-farmers: Abgerufen am 14.Oktober 2014
52
McComb, K. (03. 12 2013). BioMed Central. Abgerufen am 12. 10 2014 von
http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/karen-mccomb-and-graeme-shannon-on-the-longterm-effects-of-culling-on-african-elephant-societies/
Pickrell, J. (15. March 2007) National Geographic News Abgerufen am 11.10.2014 von
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070315-hunting-africa.html
Somerville, K. (09. April 2013). E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Abgerufen am 17.
September 2014 von E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: http://www.eir.info/2013/04/09/african-wars-and-the-politics-of-ivory/
The Hide Safar Lodge: http://www.thehide.com/hwange.html, Abgerufen am 12. Oktober
2014
The Houston Safari Club, http://www.houstonsafariclub.org, Abgerufen am 14. Oktober 2014
VictoriaFalls24, (24 April 2013) http://victoriafalls24.com/blog/2013/04/24/chobe-elephanthuman-and-wildlife-conflict/, Abgerufen am 11. Oktober 2014
The Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Authority,
http://www.zimparks.org/index.php/conservation/management-services; Abgerufen am 14.
Oktober 2014
Woodroffe, R. G. (26. June 1998). www.sciencemag.org. Abgerufen am 16. September 2014
von www.sciencemag.org:
http://noss.cos.ucf.edu/papers/Woodroffe%20and%20Ginsberg%201998.pdf
53
STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge, it
contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to
a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any
educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis.
Place, Date
Signature
54