The Risk of Captive Carnivores

I would like to share with you a very interesting article written by the The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) about the risk of keeping carnivores in captivity and the bussiness behind. Many so-called NGO`S, Charities, etc which argue to work for carnivore conservation are part of one of the most unethical bussiness. Not only they keep wild animals in captivity as pets but also translocated what they call “problem animals” to new areas without monitoring the translocation, without a scientific protocol and viability study and sometimes (most of the times) without even a permit.. Please read and share the article, it would help you to identify who are this so called NGO´s and Charities:

captive cheetah

Picture above: Captive adult cheetah male showing submissive behavior

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is growing increasingly concerned about the proliferation of captive facilities holding a range of carnivores in South Africa for the sole purpose of tourism and financial gain. We urge the public to consider a few facts when visiting any of a number of these facilities that hold lions, Cheetah, Leopards, Wild Dogs, hyena and even some exotic (non-native to South Africa) species such as tigers and panthers.

* No captive carnivore facility is breeding carnivores for release into the wild, despite what they may claim. Captive carnivores do not contribute to the conservation of free roaming populations; they are not releasable and they do not form part of any registered conservation or management plan for any carnivore in Africa.

* In many carnivore facilities, petting and bottle feeding of cubs is offered, for a fee. These cubs are often taken away from their mothers to stimulate faster reproduction and provide aconstant supply of petting carnivores. Visitors pay to pet the animal and have their photograph taken with it, as well as with their slightly older tame carnivore siblings.

* These carnivores become human imprinted, they do not grow up in a natural social group, and this makes it impossible to release them into a natural habitat for the long-term. This, coupled with the disease risk posed by captive bred animals, as well as their potentially dubious genetic lineage renders them a risk for release to not only themselves, but to other free roaming carnivores.

* Frequently the situation of a ‘paying volunteer’ is exploited for further financial gain, with volunteers being told that the carnivore mothers are not able to care for their offspring and that once they are old enough, hand-raised carnivores will be returned to the wild.

* “There are approximately 6 000 captive lions in South Africa bred for a variety of economic purposes”, as opposed to approximately 2 300 free roaming in reserves and parks. [Draft Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) for Lions, 2015]. In fact the BMP defines Captive Lions as being “lions [that] are bred exclusively to generate money. Managers actively manipulate all vital rates and demographics.”

_MG_5576

Picture above: Captive adult cheetah male showing both aggressive and defensive behavior

The EWT’s concern relates to the public’s understanding of the role and the purpose of captive carnivores and these facilities in carnivore conservation and we urge the public to better understand the role of these facilities as well as the risk that these animals may pose to the public:

* Captive bred carnivores are always more dangerous than their wild counterparts. They lose their fear of humans and tend to associate humans with food providers. Their social structures are heavily interfered with and their natural cycles are often manipulated. A wild carnivore will usually steer away from humans but a captive bred carnivore may not feel the need for such caution.

*  A facility breeding carnivores will usually have to sell their offspring; it stands to reason that they cannot always have cubs and youngsters if they do not sell ‘excess’ animals.

* The captive bred lion hunting industry in South Africa has increased rapidly in recent years and South Africa is increasingly supplying captive bred lion bones for export to Asian markets.

* The Department of Environmental Affairs released figures in December 2013 that stated that “South Africa officially issued permits for the export of nearly (if not more than) 1 300 dead lions from South Africa to China, Lao PDR and Viet Nam from 2011 to 2012 inclusive.” BMP, 2015.

* “The so-called ‘canned hunting’ industry for lions has also increased in recent years and the total value generated from hunting captive lions amounted to about R98 million in 2006/2007.” Lion BMP, 2015.

* This raises the question: where do all these lions come from or go to? In South Africa, a thriving canned hunting industry can, in many cases, be linked to an equally thriving industry based on cub petting and commercial captive breeding centres.

Some may argue that there is educational value in allowing people to handle wild animals. Howeverthis kind of education provides the incorrect message that wild animals exist for human entertainment, that they can be petted like domestic animals. They also do not learn much about the natural behaviour, social structure or role of free roaming carnivores.
It is important to note that captive breeding is not a conservation recommendation for any carnivore species in South Africa. Carnivores in fact breed extremely well in the right conditions and for almostall our threatened carnivore species, the conservation priorities include reducing human-wildlife conflict, securing suitable habitat, reducing illegal offtake and maintaining balanced, functioning ecosystems. Without these in place, captive breeding leads to an over-supply of non-releasable animals which often end up as trophies. We also question that any funding generated from captive carnivore breeding goes to support the conservation of free roaming carnivores.

The EWT does not allege that any specific facility is breeding carnivores for the lion bone trade or forthe practice of ‘canned hunting’ but we do urge the public that visit these facilities to ask at the very least these critical questions:
· What is the plan for the long-term future of the animals in this facility?
· Where are the cubs’ mothers?
· Why are cubs not being raised by their mothers?
· What happens to the facility’s cubs when they grow up?
· If they are released into larger wildlife areas, where are these and can the facility provide documentation to prove a viable, ethical and successful release process?
· If the facility is breeding, do they have a management plan that determines responsible husbandry and management of all stock?
· Do any of the ‘stock’ have the opportunity to live out their natural lives, or are they hunted or bred with again?
· What happens to the facility’s surplus animals?
· Can the public inspect the record books of the facility and follow the life cycle of an individual animal?
· If these animals become part of another breeding programme, for what purpose?

The EWT calls for a more active participation from the public in questioning the role of all captive carnivore facilities and the management of the animals in their care. We also call on the tourism sector to recognise the role that they may be playing in supporting some facilities that cannot account for the conservation claims that they make. Find a pdf of the article HERE

Contact: Kelly Marnewick
Carnivore Conservation Programme Manager
The Endangered Wildlife Trust
Tel: +27 11 372 3600
kellym@ewt.org.za

Yolan Friedmann
CEO
The Endangered Wildlife Trust
Tel: +27 11 372 3600
yolanf@ewt.org.za
Lillian Mlambo
Communications Manager
The Endangered Wildlife Trust
Tel: +27 11 372 3600
lillianm@ewt.org.za

To this words, I would like to add a few links:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6957/full/425473a.html

Click to access Jule_et_al_2008_Effect_of_captive_experience_on_reintroduction_success_of_carnivores.pdf

Large carnivores’ tough life: Lion and Buffalo fight to death

I usually hear people saying that herbivores are prey and are vulnerable to be killed at any moment. They have fear, and while grazing/browsing are vigilant and ready to run if anything similar to a predator has been spotted or smelled in the surroundings. They are seen as the weakest against the powerful predators armed with sharped claws and muscled jaws that hold an army of threatening canines.

From my point of view, the truth is slightly different. Predators do not have an easy life neither. They have to compete with other powerful and armed carnivores of their same and other species for food, space, access to reproduction, survival, etc. They also have to cope with diseases, human persecution (their biggest challenge in life!) and always have to be in good shape. They must be successful hunters which required skills and techniques that need to be constantly improved throughout their life.

Quite a difficult task too… who is afraid now?

Next pictures were published in the Daily Mail two weeks ago. They were taken by Matt Armstrong-Ford, who works as a safari guide in the South Luangwa National Park, Zambia.

I thought interesting to share them as they well illustrate the predators’ tough life.

56eaafd4-a981-4148-8da9-a98b59ca71f4

67f660a1-0fb4-4607-aba0-0843d5fae764 lion-buffalo-557112

25807DF000000578-0-image-a-19_1423485910119

2580759B00000578-0-image-a-15_1423485149282

Desesperate six-year-old male lion suffering from mange was waiting nearby a waterhole for a meal when the lone female buffalo appeared in the scene.

96b786cb-fd99-4da6-9053-d90f5b3cd395

25807E1400000578-0-image-a-21_1423485923424

25807AA800000578-0-image-a-22_1423485954461

2580769A00000578-0-image-a-25_1423485963338

25807A9500000578-0-image-a-42_1423486999258

The feline is tossed around in the air as he attempts to mount his adversary.

258075F100000578-0-image-a-26_1423485986201

2cd92c1e-df8a-4a94-88b0-ddf796b0d28c

2580779400000578-0-image-a-29_1423485997483

The amateur photographer said that the fight lasted up to an hour. The buffalo managed to shake the lion itself off several times but instead of trying to escape just stood there. Both animals stared at each other both too exhausted to move. After a few minutes of rest the lion then went for the buffalo and another ten-minute battle ensued.

2580779900000578-0-image-a-30_1423486005941

25807D2C00000578-0-image-a-35_1423486029300

As it looked like fortune was favouring the exhausted but ravenous lion a member of the buffalo’s herd came to its aid and delivered a deadly blow.

25807E2500000578-0-image-a-16_1423485167490

After this the lion managed to drag himself under a bush to lick his wounds. Both animals were covered in blood by the end. Two days later the lion succumbed to his injuries, while the buffalo’s carcass was found two weeks later having failed to fight off infection

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2945904/Battle-death-Buffalo-lion-endure-epic-hour-long-fight-leaves-animals-fatal-injuries.html

Movements of African White-backed Vultures

This Google image reveals the movements to date of 9 tracked African White-backed Vultures of varying age that were captured and fitted with GSM tracking in the north of the Kruger National Park during 2014. The tracking of their movements are part of a study to assess the role these birds play as vectors of disease in the region and is done in partnership with the State Veterinary Department and the University of Pretoria. No doubt that they must rank as one of the most mobile resident species of birds out there!

Copyright: Andre Botha

Other links:

http://projectvulture.org.za/

https://www.facebook.com/projectvulture 

How the zebra got its stripes?

A very interesting paper has been published by Brenda Larison and her colleagues in the Royal Society Open Science Journal to answer common and frequent questions:
Why Zebras has got stripes? Why are their role?

Many explanations have been suggested, including social cohesion, thermoregulation, predation evasion and avoidance of biting flies. Identifying the associations between phenotypic and environmental factors is essential for testing these hypotheses and substantiating existing experimental evidence.

In contrast to recent findings, we found no evidence that striping may have evolved to escape predators or avoid biting flies. Instead, we found that temperature successfully predicts a substantial amount of the stripe pattern variation observed in plains zebra.

Figure 2. Predicted levels of hind leg stripe thickness (left) and torso stripe definition (right), from a random forest model based on 16 populations. Hind legstripethickness is best predicted by BIO3 and BIO11. Torsostripe definition is best predicted by BIO3, BIO11 and BIO13.

The full article is available to download HERE.

The Guardians

Across Africa today wildlife is disappearing, and its story is grim. Yet there is one powerfully bright spot, Namibia, where its people have made the commitment to live with and protect their wildlife. “The Guardians” tells the story of Jantjie Rhyn, a farmer from one of Namibia’s vibrant communal conservancies. Despite the dangers of living with lions and other free-roaming wildlife, Jantjie and his community are committed to their protection because responsible tourism and national pride make his wildlife worth more alive than dead. He represents one in five Namibians that today are directly involved in conservation, making him a true guardian of Africa’s natural legacy. Namibians like Jantjie are showing the world how to improve wildlife and a community’s lives all at once.

Coexisting with Carnivores—Why It’s Not a Zero-Sum Game

It was late in the summer, and the two young lions had been on a camel killing spree. Over a period of three months, they had entered the villages of the Samburu people at night and killed ten prized camels.

It wasn’t long before they paid the price. One hot, hazy day in early September, when the male lions were napping under a scraggly acacia tree, a group of five young men came upon them. The men fired their AK-47s. Lguret, whose name means “cowardly,” ran off. Loirish, who was the more aggressive of the pair, may have stood his ground. He may even have tried to fight back, but he was no match for the rifles.

Letoiye with Lorish head

Samburu warrior Letoiye mourns the loss of Loirish, a lion he had been tracking.

Then the men butchered Loirish. They used their knives, adorned in colorful plastic as all Samburu warrior knives are, to cut off the lion’s head and feet. Then they took Loirish’s head and burned it in a small fire, an unusual act that was probably meant to destroy the GPS tracking collar we had placed on him to track his movements so we could warn herders. By the time we got to the grisly site, Liorish’s feet were missing. The men had taken them, perhaps to be sold on the growing black market for traditional Chinese medicine.

Letoiye, a member of the Samburu tribe and a part of our field team which had been tracking Loirish up to that day, stared at the blackened head in the pit and asked no one in particular, “Why did they kill my lion?”

Warrior Watch

Liorish unfortunately shares his fate with a growing number of large carnivores around the world who have clashed with humans and didn’t survive. Of the 31 large carnivores species like him—including lions, tigers, cougars, wolves, and snow leopards—most live not in some pristine wilderness, as we’d like to believe, but in landscapes dominated by humans and their activities. As a result, these animals are caught in a struggle between two sides of humanity—the one that wants large carnivores preserved and the other that would like to see them eliminated.

Letoiye is a Samburu moran, or warrior, a group that has traditionally been neglected in conservation. He never went to school and instead roamed the countryside tending to his family’s livestock while keeping a watchful eye on the land around the village. Despite their lack of formal education, Letoiye and his fellow moran possess skills that are the envy of many biologists and wildlife authorities. Because their job is to ensure their community’s security—which in rural East Africa often involves watching for predators—the moran know an impressive amount about lions and other predators.

Lioness-Buffalo-Springs

A lioness gazes over the plain at Buffalo Springs National Reserve in Kenya.

Warriors like Letioye inspired us to set up Warrior Watch four years ago. They offer an intimate knowledge of the landscape and how lions and other wildlife move throughout it. In return, we teach Letioye and his peers how to identify each lion’s unique whisker spot pattern and how to discuss carnivore issues with fellow Samburu. We also offer weekly lessons on reading and writing in English and Kiswahili.

Before Warrior Watch, it wasn’t uncommon for moran to hunt and kill lions without question from their peers. But now, this program and others in Kenya are proving that attitudes towards lions and other large carnivores can change. A recent study of the program showed that participating warriors and their communities had a higher tolerance of lions and better understanding of their value.

The situation in the United States is not much different from the Samburu in Kenya. In California in 2013, for example, the state’s Department of Fish and Game issued 148 permits to eliminate cougars that had killed livestock and pets. As the suburbs expand out into once-wild areas, cougars are becoming more common in people’s backyards, where they occasionally kill goats and pets. While our livelihoods don’t always depend on our animals in the same way that the Samburus’ rely on their livestock, cougar-human clashes in California illustrate a broader point. The U.S. and Kenya share a bond that is at the heart of human-carnivore conflict: we both kill carnivores when we perceive them as threats to things we value.

Population at Risk

The reality is, of course, that we are a far greater threat to carnivores than they are to us. The cougar, for example, was all but eliminated from the eastern half of the United States during the 20th century. And in Africa, in the last half a century, the number of lions roaming in the wild has declined from 200,000 to fewer than 35,000. That’s mostly due to habitat destruction by humans. Lions used to roam most of the continent. Today, they occupy just 20% of their original territory, scattered across the continent and separated by cities, highways, villages, and farm fields. Some live on reserves, but that protected area isn’t enough to cover lions’ still expansive home ranges.

Reria bioculars

moran scouts the savannah

A large number of conservationists favor creating more protected areas like national parks and reserves. After all, the largest intact populations of lions live in Selous and Ruaha National Parks, giant expanses of land under protection in Tanzania. These parks not only protect lions, they also support the entire ecosystem, fostering healthy savannahs that nurture gazelles and other prey species that keep lions sated. They also generate income through tourism, a not unimportant fact in many impoverished regions.

But protected areas haven’t been a panacea for large carnivores. As in the U.S., most African parks do not offer complete protection. Poachers have infiltrated many parks specifically to go after lions, while herders grazing their livestock inside park boundaries inadvertently take resources away from lion prey like gazelles and wildebeest.

Which is why some conservation biologists are suggesting that the only way to truly protect lions is to fully enclose reserves in fences. Yes, this would trap lions inside the parks, but it would also create a physical barrier between them and us. Such a move certainly has the potential to reduce poaching and limit human-animal conflict, but it could also reduce the viability of individual lion populations inside. Large carnivores like lions require expansive ranges to meet their daily needs. Plus, they can suffer from a phenomenon known as bottlenecking when overcrowded, which can lead to higher incidence of genetic disease and inbreeding. Fencing in lions to creating carnivore islands is one tool that might be effective in some cases, but given the potential for problems, it is not a “one size fits all” solution.

Building Tolerance

A better solution is to raise the tolerance of the land—and the people—living around protected areas. Lions, cougars, and other large carnivores will be able to live with people if they have safe refuge and as long as we keep ourselves and our property at a safe distance. Yet carnivores don’t belong in every human landscape, so we also need to carefully manage the areas where they can be supported.

That’s why we’re working hard in northern Kenya to create these landscape mosaics where local people can tolerate carnivores. We use a combination of high-tech research activities combined with low-cost community-sourced education programs like Warrior Watch. This year, we are fitting GPS-enabled tracking collars on ten young adult male lions. By mapping lion movements through the landscape, we can identify key corridors and refuges that might be prioritized for lions. The tracks also let us know which communities are in the lions’ territories so we can reach out to them with programs like Warrior Watch.

Collared lion

One of the lions collared and tracked as a part of the Warrior Watch program

At the same time, we’re also using the GPS collars to tell herders where the predator hot zones are. That way they can keep their livestock clear, avoiding unnecessary confrontations and losses. We can also track lions like Loirish that are known for killing livestock. When we locate one, our warriors go in to tell the villagers to be especially vigilant.

We can apply these lessons here in the U.S., too. As cougar and other carnivore populations make a comeback, a mixed approach is key. Protected areas are certainly important, since they provide carnivores and their prey with crucial strongholds. But we also need people to develop a tolerance to carnivores if we are to sustain that coexistence.

It’s starting to happen in places like the Santa Cruz mountains where conservation groups, state agencies, academic institutions, and landowners are working together to improve tolerance of cougars. Homeowners are learning how to properly fence their goats to keep them safe from cougar attacks, which can reduce the need to kill cougars in retaliation. And local governments are installing culverts under roadways to let cougars cross highways without risking dangerous collisions with vehicles. There are other innovative measures, too, like the protection of a forest behind a cement plant that cougars took a liking to. Portions of the plant grounds are open for recreational hiking while the important cougar habitat is being left intact. There’s something for everyone.

Additionally, we need programs that educate hikers and pet owners as well as ones to work with groups, like the Samburu warriors, that haven’t been a part of traditional outreach programs.

Finally, the most important thing to remember is that everyone’s point of view needs to be included in the process. It’s useful to keep in mind that the Samburu don’t need to be told how to live with lions—they’ve been doing that for tens of thousands of years—or that Americans don’t like being pandered to. Together, we can figure out how humans, livestock, pets, and wild carnivores can live together in increasingly crowded landscapes.

Not Alone

Back in Kenya, Letoiye remains troubled by the killing of Loirish. In some respects, his new way of thinking clashes with the old ways that many of his people still follow. He no longer sees lions as a threat, but as a unique part of his identity. He feels a responsibility to protect them, and he works everyday to convey a message of coexistence. But not everyone wants to listen. Loirish’s death is perhaps the most vivid reminder of that.

Fortunately, Letoiye’s not alone. Another warrior on our team, Jeneria, once said something that gives me hope: “Lions are in my blood now.” Losing lions is something Letoiye, Jeneria, and their fellow warriors are no longer willing to accept.

Collapse of the Sahara’s megafauna

By Dr. Sarah Durant, Zoological Society of London, Wildlife Conservation Society, and National Geographic’s Big Cats Initiative

There are few landscapes more evocative and beautiful than the sweeping sands and majestic mountains of the Sahara desert. This land used to be widely populated by large animals uniquely adapted to the harsh and unpredictable desert environment. Their ability to roam freely across a vast landscape following sparse rainfall and forage is key to their survival in an unforgiving habitat.

However, over recent times, there has been a catastrophic decline in wildlife in the Sahara. In a new article  that documents the status of large animal species in the region, we show that, out of 14 species historically found in the Sahara, most have been eradicated from 90% or more of their historical range.

addax_termit_niger_0512 copyright Thomas Rabeil and Sahara Conservation Fund_150

Species such as the Addax used to roam widely across the Sahara, but now number only a couple of hundred individuals – the recently established Termit and Tin-Toumma National Nature Reserve in Niger is one of their last strongholds. Photograph by Thomas Rabeil/Sahara Conservation Fund.

Several species have disappeared entirely. The last known photograph of the iconic Scimitar horned oryx was taken in 1982 by John Newby (photo below), and the species was declared extinct in the wild in 1999 (it only survives now in captivity).

oryx_newby

This photo, taken by John Newby from the Sahara Conservation Fund in 1982, is thought to be the last of scimitar-hornedoryx in the wild. Photograph by John Newby/Sahara Conservation Fund.

Less information survives on the precise time of disappearance of another three species that have been eradicated from the region: the lion; bubal hartebeest;  and the African wild dog. Critically endangered addax, dama gazelle and Saharan cheetah cling on in tiny fragmented populations, while endangered populations of slender-horned and Cuvier’s gazelles are not faring much better.

You might think that such a catastrophic collapse of an entire megafauna would be making headlines, and that something would be done to stop it, but it has gone ahead largely unnoticed and unreported.

Deserts have become almost invisible on the conservation agenda. World attention has, understandably, focused on the rich biodiversity found in hotspots, which are often in tropical forests. However, deserts actually harbour surprisingly high levels of biodiversity, able to thrive in a harsh and highly variable environment.  This biodiversity hides a wealth of adaptations that enable species to tolerate water stress and extreme temperatures; information that may prove critical as we are forced to adapt to a changing climate.

Unsustainable hunting and past and ongoing insecurity have undoubtedly played a key role in the loss of Saharan wildlife, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that more attention might have helped prevent some of the declines. Rare antelope and Saharan cheetah can still be found in remote and inaccessible corners of the Sahara, in vast landscapes possessing a silent peace and unforgettable beauty.

There are also some good news stories—Niger has just established a massive 97,000km2reserve—Termit and Tin Toumma National Nature Reserve, which harbours most of the world’s 200 or so remaining wild addax and one of a handful of surviving populations of dama gazelle and Saharan cheetah. While there is hope that we may yet see scimitar horned oryx back in the wild in the Ouadi Rimé-Ouadi Achim Game Reserve, with the support of the Chadian government.

2014 is the halfway point in the United Nations Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification and the fourth year of the United Nations Decade for Biodiversity. It is an opportune time for the world to focus on securing the sustainable management of desert ecosystems, to the benefit of people and wildlife. The world will be a poorer place if the unique biodiversity of the Sahara and other deserts is allowed to disappear.

IMG_8016

Saharan landscapes, such as found in the Ahaggar Cultural Park photographed here, are stunningly beautiful. Photograph by Sarah Durant/Zoological Society of London.

Source: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/03/117914/

Access to the scientific paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.12157/abstract

More about it:

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/11354/20131204/catastrophic-decline-in-sahara-s-wildlife-population-study-cautions.htm

 

Fences divide lion conservationists

Lion numbers have fallen sharply in recent decades, in large part because of killing by humans.

ROY TOFT/NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC/GETTY IMAGES

Times are grim for the king of the beasts. Roughly 35,000 African lions roam the savannahs1, down from more than 100,000 half a century ago, thanks to habitat loss, declining numbers of prey animals and killing by humans. One study estimated that fewer than 50 lions (Panthera leo) live in Nigeria and reported no sign of the animal in the Republic of the Congo, Ghana or Côte d’Ivoire2.

Now a king-sized controversy is brewing over a proposal to shore up lion populations before it is too late. A prominent lion researcher has called for limiting conflict between humans and lions by erecting fences around reserves containing wild lions. The idea has split scientists, with those opposed to the idea arguing that fences could do more harm than good. The ensuing debate has also laid bare fundamental differences of opinion about how to preserve lions and other species, and raised concerns that a key challenge to lion conservation — lack of funds — is being ignored while scientists trade jabs about fences.

When he began the research that kicked off the furore, Craig Packer of the University of Minnesota in St Paul, who studies lions at Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park, intended to determine only the cost of conserving lions. But something more provocative emerged from his data. In work reported earlier this year in Ecology Letters3, he and 57 co-authors calculated lion densities at 42 African reserves and found, Packer says, that the only variables that matter for density are “dollars and fence — nothing else”. He adds that “the fence has a very profound, powerful effect”, because it prevents lions from preying on livestock and people, meaning fewer lions are killed in retaliation. Packer would like to see fences around even some of the largest protected areas such as Tanzania’s 47,000-square-kilometre Selous Game Reserve.

But the paper triggered heated discussion, both online and at meetings, leading four months later to the publication of a response signed by 55 researchers4. They argue that Packer’s analysis is wrong to use lion population density as its sole yardstick. By that measurement, they say, a dense population of several dozen lions in a small reserve is a success, whereas a large reserve containing 600 lions is a failure. When the authors4 restricted their study to lion populations whose density did not exceed the land’s capacity to support them and controlled for a reserve’s management budget, they found no relationship between fencing and density.

SOURCE: J. RIGGIO ET AL. BIODIVERS. CONSERV. 22, 17–35 (2013)

That study’s first author, Scott Creel of Montana State University in Bozeman, says that although fencing is beneficial at small, well-funded reserves, most of Africa’s wild lions live in large reserves with modest funding. “If you build a fence and spend a lot of money, you can maintain a lot of lions within it,” Creel says. “The problem is, we don’t know very much about how fencing works in enormous ecosystems that have smaller budgets.”

Packer’s side responded with its own reanalysis5. Rather than eliminating the super-saturated lion populations from the equation, the researchers assigned them a density of 100%. Once again, they found the presence of fencing to be the strongest predictor of lion density, Packer says. Creel counters that the reanalysis shows no impact of fencing on population size, so it is still unclear whether fences would have a protective effect for large, natural ecosystems.

Other researchers are split over which argument is more convincing. Matt Hayward of Bangor University, UK, who co-authored a book about conservation fencing, says that both sides score points, and, in any case, the disagreement goes beyond statistics to “a very passionate philosophical debate”. He adds that “some people are saying, ‘Look, we don’t want any fences in the landscape. We want to keep wildlife moving wherever it wants to.’”

And rightfully so, many say: ill-conceived fences could hinder animals’ search for food during tough times, as well as leading to losses of wide-ranging species, such as cheetahs and wild dogs, that need big expanses of land. “Is saving lions above everything else?” asks Creel’s co-author Nathalie Pettorelli of London’s Institute of Zoology. “You cannot manage a landscape by looking at just one species.”

Bush-meat snares made with wire stripped from fences pose another risk. These often catch and may kill lions, elephants and other species, and have been a serious problem in places such as Zambia. But Packer says that a properly built fence, although costly, would not support snaring. And he argues that the opposition’s goal of maintaining open landscapes is deeply impractical in the face of Africa’s burgeoning human population.

He has already tried to drum up support for fencing with African officials, and he also hopes donors with an interest in conservation projects, such as the World Bank, might fund a fence around a large reserve. Meanwhile, many of those who oppose the idea would rather see money poured into proven approaches such as law enforcement.

But the two camps also share plenty of common ground. Creel’s co-authors say that fences can be effective, and Packer’s allies agree fences are inappropriate for many areas.

While scientists wrangle over the issue, “lions are disappearing faster than ever”, says Philipp Henschel, a lion specialist for the conservation group Panthera, who signed Creel’s paper (see ‘Grounds for concern’). The community should “concentrate on the one thing that both sides agree on: that effective lion conservation will require substantially more funding than is currently made available”.

References:

Nature 503, 322–323 (21 November 2013) doi:10.1038/503322a
  1. Riggio, J. et al. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 17–35 (2013).
  2. Henschel, P. et al. CATnews 52, 34–39 (2010).
  3. Packer, C. et al. Ecol. Lett. 16, 635–641 (2013).
  4. Creel, S. et al. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1413–e3 (2013).
  5. Packer, C. et al. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1414–e4 (2013).

Source: http://www.nature.com/news/fences-divide-lion-conservationists-1.14207m

Wildebeest fights off leopard

The Mara North Conservancy is well known for its big cats, but even regular observers were surprised by the series of events that unfolded last week near Kicheche Mara Camp.

A large and hungry male leopard stalked and successfully caught a large wildebeest calf. However things took an unusual turn when the calf’s mother took umbrage to her offspring being killed and eaten, so she turned on the leopard, hoisting it into the air before chasing him off.

Mother and calf then trotted off across the plains to live happily ever after, or until next time anyway. I believe the leopard’s pride was badly hurt, but nothing else seems to have suffered.

Conserving large populations of lions – the argument for fences has holes

by Jeremy Hance 

Fences are not the answer to the decline in Africa’s lions, according to a new paper inEcology Letters. The new research directly counters anearlier controversial studythat argued keeping lions fenced-in would be cheaper and more effective in saving the big cats. African lion (Panthera leo) populations across the continent have fallen dramatically: it’s estimated that the current population is around 15,000-35,000 lions, down from 100,000 just 50 years ago. The animal kings are suffering from booming human populations, habitat loss and fragmentation, prey decline, trophy hunting, and human-lion conflict.

“Fenced populations certainly play a role in lion conservation, but they are typically small in comparison to unfenced reserves, and they are managed intensively, with much larger operating budgets than unfenced reserves,” says lead author Scott Creel of Montana State University.

Creel’s study argues that the previous research looked only at lion densities ignoring the importance of total populations in protected areas. Most fenced lion areas contain high densities of lions—sometimes well-above carrying capacity—but small populations overall, while larger unfenced areas are home to the bulk of the world’s lions even if at lower densities.

“Clearly, a low-density population of 2000 individuals has more conservation value than a high-density population of 20. Consideration of this issue of scale alone weakens the argument for fencing,” the scientists write. They note that many of the fenced-in populations were intensively controlled with lions being moved in and out.

While Creel and co-authors admit that fenced reserves prevent lion-human conflict, a major problem in many parts of Africa, they add that fences come with massive environmental costs, including increased habitat fragmentation, severing migration routes, and genetic isolation. In addition, standing fences can often be used to make snares, one of the largest threats to lions and other large African mammals.

“Fences can prevent access to water and grazing for migratory and nomadic wildlife, while wide ranging carnivore species such as cheetah and wild dogs depend on large tracts of habitat both inside and outside protected area systems for their survival,” adds co-author Sarah Durant, with the Wildlife Conservation Society and Zoological Society of London. “As ecosystems become ever more fragmented we need to increasingly emphasize connectivity and landscape level management, not fragment things further.”

Male lion in Namibia. Photo by: Kevin Pluck.
Male lion in Namibia. Photo by: Kevin Pluck/Creative Commons 3.0.

In the end the dilemma may come down to what kind of Africa does the world want? A continent with still-sprawling wild lands for big mammals like lions, or fenced-in reserves that look more like walled parks than ecosystems. Either way, both sides agree that what is really needed is more funding on-the-ground.

“Recent studies show that larger budgets for patrolling and better-regulated hunting will have strong benefits for lions,” says Creel, who notes that funds spent on wildlife rangers would be of better use than fences.

The reserves holding Africa’s largest remaining lion populations are woefully under-funded,” adds another co-author Matt Becker with the Zambian Carnivore Programme. “However, that funding shouldn’t need to come with a fence around it.”

Bad news for lions has been piling up recently: a study last year found that lion habitat had dropped by 75 percent since 1960 and some populations have vanished altogether. The West African lion (Panthera leo senegalensis)—which recent research has shown is more closely related to Asiatic lions than their African cousins—is down to less than 2,000 individuals. But still many field conservationists see fences as a false solution.

“Most scientists and managers are not ready to throw in the towel on human-wildlife coexistence outside of reserves and on improving law enforcement and management within them. This work has just been drastically under-funded,” says co-author Amy Dickman with Oxford University. Dickman heads the Ruaha Carnivore project in Tanzania; the little-known Ruaha landscape is home to an estimated 10 percent of the world’s lions.

Packer et al. reported that fenced lion populations attain densities closer to carrying capacity than unfenced populations. However, fenced populations are often maintained above carrying capacity, and most are small. Many more lions are conserved per dollar invested in unfenced ecosystems, which avoid the ecological and economic costs of fencing.
CITATIONS: Creel, S., Becker, M.S., Durant, S.M., M’Soka, J., Matandiko, W., Dickman, A.J., Christianson, D., Dröge, E., Mweetwa, T., Pettorelli, N., Rosenblatt, E., Schuette, P., Woodroffe, R., Bashir, S., Beudels-Jamar, R.C., Blake, S., Borner, M., Breitenmoser, C., Cozzi, G., Davenport, T.R.B., Deutsch, J., Dollar, L., Dolrenry, S., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Foley, C., Hazzah, L., Henschel, P., Hilborn, R., Hopcraft, G., Ikanda, D., Jacobson, A., Joubert, B., Joubert, D., Kelly, M.S., Lichtenfeld, L., Mace, G.M., Milanzi, J., Mitchell, N., Msuha, M., Nyahongo, J., Pimm, S., Purchase, G., Schenck, C., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Sinclair, Songorwa, A., A.R.E., Stanley-Price, M., Tehou, J., A., Trout, C., Wall, J., Wittemeyer, G., Zimmermann, A. Conserving large populations of lions – the argument for fences has holes. Ecology Letters. 2013. doi: 10.1111/ele.12145

Packer, C. et al. 2013. Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and fence. Ecology Letters DOI: 10.1111/ele.12091

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0715-hance-lions-fences.html