the carnivore conservation programme€¦ · the carnivore conservation programme a programme of...

The Carnivore Conservation Programme A Programme of the Endangered Wildlife Trust

Kruger Western Boundary Project

Investigating status, distribution and threats to

Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park

By Jessica Watermeyer1,2, Grant Beverley1 and Kelly Marnewick1*

1 Endangered Wildlife Trust, Carnivore Conservation Programme

2 Rhodes University, Department of Zoology & Entomology

*Corresponding author: Kelly Marnewick Manager, Carnivore Conservation Programme Endangered Wildlife Trust www.ewt.org.za [email protected]

Vaughan de la Harpe

Climb for Kruger Wild Dogs Expedition

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to all our partners who supported this project financially: Jaguar-Land Rover South Africa, Vaughan de la Harpe and his Climb for Kruger Wild Dogs Expedition, Richard Bosman and GCCL2 Management Services. We are also grateful to our partners, South African National Parks (SANParks) and Rhodes University. Academic guidance by Dr D. Parker and Dr H.T. Davies-Mostert is greatly appreciated. We would like to thank all the reserves, lodges and private landowners who took the time to meet with us, fill in our survey and provide us with photographic data. With your contribution we have been able to develop important base line data for a five year monitoring programme that the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), in collaboration with SANParks, is heading. Consequently, the research outputs of our work have been fundamental in guiding a more comprehensive and long term study aimed at gaining a greater understanding of Wild Dog and Cheetah dynamics in the most important conservation area in South Africa. It is believed that this study will aid the conservation efforts and benefit Wild Dog and Cheetah research in southern Africa. Firstly, by contributing to the development of management strategies that aim to improve human tolerance, appreciation and understanding of both species, and secondly, by ensuring that land use practices which encourage the protection of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs are promoted. Further, it is hoped that those involved will acquire the knowledge to educate others in similar land use practices about the threatened status of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs and the importance of their conservation. We realise that wide-ranging predators, such as Wild Dogs and Cheetahs, are always going to be species of contention, especially on private lands where game and breeding animals are seen as economically valuable commodities. However, we would sincerely like to thank all that provided us with the opportunity to discuss the options for conserving our predators in an area of mixed land use types. As long as the rapidly growing human population continues to infringe on protected lands and fragment landscapes, the conservation of large carnivores in likely to fall on individual landowners rather than large protected areas.

Photo: Charl Senekal www.cmswildlifephotography.com

NOTE This research forms the basis of an MSc at Rhodes University. All data presented here belong jointly to the Endangered Wildlife Trust and Rhodes University and may not be utilized for academic or publication purposes without written permission Suggested Citation: Watermeyer, J., Beverley, G. & Marnewick, K. 2011. Kruger Western Boundary Project. Investigating status, distribution and threats to Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park. Unpublished report to the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Study Area ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Threats to Wild Dogs and Cheetahs ..................................................................................................... 11

Distribution and Dispersal Habits ......................................................................................................... 14

Discussion and General Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 17

Some brief recommendations to minimize human-induced mortalities in Cheetahs and Wild Dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park ............................................................................................... 19

WILD DOG 90 - WHAT A LEGEND! .................................................................................................................... 20

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Photo: Charl Senekal www.cmswildlifephotography.com

Carnivore Conservation Programme, Endangered Wildlife Trust

4 | P a g e Kruger Western Boundary Project: Final Report. December 2011

Introduction The African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus is Africa’s second most endangered carnivore after the Ethiopian wolf Canis simensis (Creel & Creel 2002), and the Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus is listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as vulnerable. Habitat fragmentation, interspecific competition and human persecution continue to threaten both species, and both species are declining (Creel & Creel 2002). Having been removed from 25 of the 39 countries where they previously occurred, Wild Dogs occupy only a fraction of their former home range (southern edge of the Sahara to South Africa), and today are largely confined to protected or remote areas (Sheldon 1992). In the last 30 years Wild Dog numbers have drastically declined across Africa and it is speculated that there are only 3 000–5 000 Wild Dogs left on the continent, and less than 500 in South Africa (Woodroffe & Ginsberg 1998; Swarner 2004). Further, the total global wild Cheetah population numbers 7500 (Bauer et al. 2008). There has been a 30% decline in the Cheetah population in the last two decades, largely due to conflict with humans and persecution for the fur trade (Bauer et al. 2008). In South Africa, the greater Kruger National Park (KNP) has the only viable contiguous population of Wild Dogs (Lindsey et al. 2004; Gusset et al. 2010), and has the largest protected population of Cheetahs. The KNP is widely considered to be one of the strongholds for Wild Dog conservation in Africa and there are currently no protected areas of sufficient size to sustain another viable population in the country (Lindsey et al. 2004; Graf et al. 2006). However, census results from the KNP reveal declining Wild Dog numbers from 434 in 1995 to 166-191 in 2009, and that Cheetah numbers remain low (369-545 in 2009) (Marnewick et al. 2011, unpublished data). The decline in Wild Dog numbers is of conservation concern, and one of the many possible explanations for this decline could be edge effects along the boundary on KNP. Both Wild Dogs and Cheetahs display wide-ranging behaviour, and long-distance north-south dispersals have been recorded within the KNP for Wild Dogs (Fuller et al. 1992; Woodroffe & Ginsberg 1998). Wild Dogs and Cheetahs leaving the western boundary on the KNP could be encountering various anthropogenic risks. The impact of these factors could be having an influence on the Wild Dog numbers inside the KNP. Initial removal of the KNP’s western boundary fence occurred in 1993, and in subsequent years more sections were removed. Today, part of the western boundary north of the Olifants River remains fenced, but it is suspected that there is movement beyond the fence. Thus, it is possible that both species frequently use unprotected areas adjacent to the KNP. However, very little is known about Wild Dog and Cheetah movement beyond the borders of KNP, and whether or not adjacent landowners are tolerant of the species. Previous focal studies on Wild Dogs and Cheetah have been conducted within the borders of the KNP, focusing on the southern section of the Park (Mills 1995; Mills & Gorman 1997; Broomhall 2001). The aim of this research project was to investigate the factors influencing the spatial ecology, population dynamics and dispersal habits of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs occurring beyond the western and south western boundaries of the KNP. Further, to gather information on human tolerance and perceptions of both species, and any threats the animals may be facing. The information collected was used to gain a greater understanding of the factors driving Wild Dog and Cheetah dynamics in the greater KNP area.



Study Area The research was conducted in the eastern lowveld focusing on the south and south western boundaries of the KNP (Fig. 1). For the purposes of conducting a preliminary assessment of Wild Dog and Cheetah distribution and threats outside the boundaries of KNP, it was decided to limit the study area to private properties within a 35 km buffer zone along the south and south western boundary of the KNP (reaching as far north as Phalaborwa). This distance was chosen to encompass the maximum home range size for a Wild Dog pack in the KNP system (930 km2, Mills & Gorman 1997). This buffer was chosen using the range for Wild Dogs as they appear to have larger home ranges than Cheetahs (Mills & Gorman 1997; Broomhall 2001). Private lands included all adjoining private nature reserves (APNRs), wildlife ranches, wildlife estates and lodges and crop farms. The study area covered approximately 6 200 km2.

Figure 1. Study area in light green 35 km from the west and south west borders of the Kruger National Park. Community areas

were not included in the survey.

Initially plans were made to survey not only private lands south and south west of the KNP but communal lands too. The decision to limit the current study to private lands was made following consultation with SAEON and SANParks. There are over 150 different communities within a 20 km radius of the boundary of the KNP and an estimated population of two million people. Each community is varying distances from the boundaries of the KNP and each presents unique challenges with regards to topography, economic conditions, local context and culture. Consequently, each community will have been exposed to, and perceive, ‘damage causing’ animals in a different manner. Further, given the variety of cultures and languages, it would be necessary to have a translator to assist with all interviews and surveys; preferably a local member from each community. A second survey would need to be constructed to ensure that the unique contexts, interests and perceptions of predators would be captured for each community. Given the time frame of the research it was deemed logistically impossible to include communal lands in



this leg of the research. Results from this preliminary assessment enabled identification of potential conflict hotspots within community areas, and facilitated the development of a more detailed project proposal for community work.

Methods To accomplish the aforementioned research objectives a twofold approach was adopted:

1. Questionnaire and Constructed Interviews

A survey (Appendix 1) examining land use practices (e.g. wildlife ranching vs. ecotourism), as well as geographic (e.g. fences) and anthropogenic (e.g. attitudes, snares) obstacles south and west of the KNP, enabled us to determine the distribution of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs where management practices, landowner attitudes and threats may differ. Respondents were asked to comment on the structural elements of their land (fencing, size of the property), as well as the prey species present and the presence and frequency of occurrence of other predators. Information on the prevalence of disease (rabies) and the threat of snares was also collected. Finally, respondents were asked a series of questions geared at assessing their knowledge of, and attitudes towards, Wild Dogs and Cheetahs.

2. Photographs and Sightings Data

Photographs and sightings data from the last 10 years were collected from respondents. Sightings data included; date, time, location (GPS coordinates preferable), number of animals reported, pups/cubs present and whether any of the animals were visibly injured. The information collected was then compared to an extensive individual identification database developed by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) for the KNP photographic surveys. Wild Dogs and Cheetahs have individually distinct mottled and spotted coat patterns. The fact that both species can be individually accounted for provides the opportunity, from photographs alone, to assemble information on population sizes and densities, pack/coalition formations and longevity, and dispersal patterns.

Analysis of Wild Dog sightings data

Sightings information was sorted into an excel spreadsheet where information such as the date and time of the sighting, the location of the sighting, the number of dogs seen, whether there were any pups present, whether any of the dogs were injured and the contact details of the respondent (name, cell phone number and email address) were captured. Individual Wild Dogs from the photos were cropped into a table and compared against the profiles of individuals, and packs, identified from the 2009 Kruger Wild Dog and Cheetah Census (Fig. 2). Once the photos from the sighting had been analysed, the identified dogs and the pack to which they belong were included in the data spreadsheet. This enabled us to identify new dogs and packs and add them to the database; it also allowed us to assemble information on pack formations and dispersal patterns. Data were collected from 8 458 photographs and 441 sightings. Further, up to 10 years’ worth of sightings data were collected from Mala Mala Private Game Reserve, Ingwelala and Ntsiri in the Umbabat and Chapungu in Thornybush Private Nature Reserve.



Figure 2. Matching of photographed individual WD86 from the KNP database using unique coat patterns.

Analysis of Cheetah sightings data

Cheetahs are a little more difficult to identify than Wild Dogs as their markings are not as distinct and spots often distort at different angles. The best angel for identification is a full body side shot where the legs, body and the face can be seen. The legs and body are primarily used for identification but facial markings as well as scars do also prove useful (Fig. 3, Fig. 4). Cheetahs were separated into distinct groups for each reserve they were sighted on. Once this had been done individuals in each photograph were identified and placed into a separate identification folder. If possible, a left and right hand side shot was extracted for each individual for identification purposes. Once the individual Cheetahs from each reserve were identified they were compared and potential cross-border movements analysed. These individuals were further compared to the Cheetahs found inside the KNP. Data were collected from over 5 000 photos and 500 sightings.

Figure 3. Matching of a photographed Cheetah using unique spot patterns on the body.



Figure 4. Matching of sighted Cheetah using unique spot patterns on the face.

Results The western and southern boundaries of the KNP are populated by a matrix of land use types, including private and communal lands and human settlement. Data were collected over a one year period (March 2010 - March 2011) and a total of 200 surveys were completed. However, to ensure equal representation of all land use types, surveys collected from stock farmers (n=5) and properties classified as ‘other’ (n=9) were excluded. The final 186 surveys consisted of 72 crop farmers, 35 wildlife ranchers (breeding, live game sales and biltong and/or trophy hunting) and 79 respondents involved in ecotourism ventures (wildlife estates, lodges and private reserves). Ninety-seven percent of surveys were completed via face-to-face interviews, with 5 and 1 surveys being completed via email and over the phone, respectively. Overall, ecotourism ventures constituted the largest proportion of respondents surveyed, followed by wildlife ranchers and crop farmers respectively (Fig. 5). While the western boundary is typically dominated by ecotourism (60%) and wildlife ranching (27%) incentives, more than half (59%) of the southern boundary is populated by crop farmers.

Figure 5. Proportions of land use types as reported by 186 respondents on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park.

42%

19%

39%

Ecotourism Wildlife ranching Crop farming



Knowledge and Attitude Indices

Most of the respondents surveyed were male, had received tertiary education and were between 30-50 years of age. Attitude and knowledge indices were developed using a three-point Likert scale where individual responses were assigned a numeric values (negative = -1; neutral = 0; positive = +1). Open-ended questions were included allowing respondents to indicate why they made the choices they did. Generally respondents showed a sound knowledge of Wild Dog and Cheetah behaviour and biology. Ninety-nine percent of respondents could identify both species from a selection of local predators, and a considerable proportion correctly stated that Wild Dogs and Cheetahs are not dangerous to humans, Wild Dogs are social animals and that Cheetahs do not kill more than necessary. Interestingly, while almost all landowners had an appreciation of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs as threatened species and believed they should be protected, and that they formed an important part of the environment, there was a considerable decrease in the percentage of positive responses when landowners were asked questions regarding their tolerance of both species when encountered on their personal properties. Less than half of respondents believed they were more tolerant of Wild Dogs (48%) and Cheetahs (49%) than their neighbours, 47% of landowners said they would tolerate a pack of Wild Dogs denning on their property, and 63% and 67%, respectively, said they would be happy to have Wild Dogs and Cheetahs on their properties. Negative responses towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs were typically due to concerns regarding the safety of laborers and residents in wildlife estates and from respondents breeding rare game species. Particular concern was shared by those who had limited game and stock numbers on relatively smaller fenced farms. Some respondents, however, simply believed that Wild Dog and Cheetahs had no place outside of protected areas.

Property Characteristics

The attitude and knowledge responses described above were tallied to create a single attitude and knowledge index for each respondent and were considered against certain ‘property characteristics’. Respondents involved in ecotourism ventures were expectedly the most keen to have both species on their properties and were significantly more positive towards Wild Dogs (F (2, 174) = 3.82, p < 0.05) and Cheetahs (F (2, 174) = 6.73, p < 0.01) than those involved in either crop framing or wildlife ranching (Fig. 6). There was no significant difference between the attitudes of respondents involved in crop farming and wildlife ranching; however, it is interesting that wildlife ranchers had a slightly higher mean attitude towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs than crop farmers given the nature of their business. This could be because crop farmers reported rarely seeing the predators and thus had neutral/don’t know responses for many of the questions asked. Further, it appears that, regardless of land use type, landowners have a more positive attitude towards Wild Dogs than Cheetahs (Fig. 6). Given that the positive responses of respondents were almost always associated with their appreciation of, and willingness to see the predators, one could conclude that respondents generally find Wild Dogs more ‘captivating’ than Cheetahs. Wild Dogs by nature are highly social and very rarely inactive (Creel & Creel 2002). The lower number of Wild Dogs and their endangered status could also contribute to respondents having more appreciation for the species.



Figure 6. Attitude indices for land use types on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park. Data are presented as means

and +95% confidence intervals.

Respondents belonging to a conservancy were shown to have a significantly greater knowledge of Wild Dog and Cheetah behaviour and biology (F (1, 174) = 4.56, p < 0.05; Fig. 7), and were significantly more positive towards Wild Dogs than those not part of a conservancy (F (1, 174) = 4.09, p < 0.05; Fig. 8). However, landowners belonging to conservancies were not significantly more positive towards Cheetahs (F (1, 174) = 2.44, p > 0.05).

Figure 7. Knowledge indices on Cheetahs and Wild Dogs for landowners on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park. Data are presented as means and +95% confidence intervals.

There was a strong relationship between the knowledge of a respondent and his/her attitude towards both species, with landowners with a higher knowledge being significantly more positive towards Wild Dogs (F (1, 178) = 30.0, p < 0.0001) and Cheetahs (F (1, 184) = 20.23, p < 0.0001). Given the strong relationship between the knowledge of a respondent and his/her attitude toward both species, and that landowners who are part of conservancies tend to have a higher mean knowledge and be more positive towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs; the formation of conservancies should be encouraged (Lindsey et al. 2005). Further, ecotourism ventures have been shown to be the

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Ecotourism Crop farming Wildlife ranching

Mea

n A

ttit

ud

e

Land use

Cheetah

Wild dog

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Wild dog Cheetah

Mea

n K

no

wle

dge

Species

Conservancy

Not conservancy



most positive towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs and strategies that incentivise this form of land use may have positive benefits for both species in the long term.

Threats to Wild Dogs and Cheetahs

Direct killing due to conflict

The attitudes of private landowners will play an important role in conserving Wild Dogs and Cheetahs occurring beyond the borders of protected areas. Direct human persecution in the form of shooting, poisoning and cage trapping appear to be the main threats to Wild Dogs and Cheetahs, particularly when moving through private game farms and community lands (Fig. 9; Fig.10).

Road traffic accidents

Further, tar public roads between private reserves and wildlife estates appear to be hot spots for road deaths. The speed limit on national roads is higher than within reserves compounding the chances of an animal being hit. Numerous carnivores, including Cheetahs and Wild Dogs, have been killed on public roads. On the 18 October 2010 we received a report of an adult Wild Dog that had been hit and killed on the R40 out of Hoedspruit (Fig. 11). The Wild Dog is believed to have been one of the resident adults on the Blue Canyon Conservancy and later Raptor’s Wildlife Estate. Unfortunately photographic evidence was inconclusive. In addition, the original alpha female from Balule Nature Reserve was found dead on the Raptors Wildlife Estate after serious injuries to her face and skull. The cause of her death is still unknown.

Figure 9. Causes of death to Wild Dogs on the western

boundary of the Kruger National Park. Figure 10. Causes of death to Cheetahs on the western

boundary of the Kruger National Park.



Figure 11. Adult Wild Dog killed by a car on the R40 out of

Hoedspruit.

Figure 12: Cheetah euthanized due to serious snare wound on leg

Snaring

Information gathered on the number of snares cleared per month revealed that snaring has the potential to present a considerable threat to Wild Dogs and Cheetahs in the study area (Fig. 13). During our study period six Wild Dogs were snared and one Cheetah (Fig. 9; 10, 11, 12). These are believed to be accidental snaring incidents with the targets being ungulate species for bush meat. Numerous other animals, including Spotted Hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum, were reported to have been snared. Seventy-five percent of properties surveyed believed snaring to be of ‘little consequence’ on their properties clearing less than 20 snares a month (Fig. 14). Results suggest that the level of snaring has decreased in some reserves from high snaring incidences in the past. Properties within the Guernsey area report a decrease in poaching incidences since the control gate has been put in place. The same is true for properties that have employed the services of an anti-poaching agency. Landowners and properties near/bordering communities generally report higher levels of snaring and state that members from the local communities are invariably the culprits. The problem is said to escalate during school holidays. Snaring incidences tend to peak at specific times of the year, for example, when contractors or other external labor forces are operating on the properties and reserves. A wide variety of scrap wire is used for snares.



Figure 13. Snaring ‘hotspots’ (>40 snares cleared/month) on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park.

Figure.14. Proportion of properties and number of snares cleared per month.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

< 20 21-40 41-60 > 60Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

rop

erti

es s

urv

eyed

No. of snares cleared/month



Disease

Wild Dogs are highly susceptible to rabies, anthrax and canine distemper (Creel & Creel 2002). There are cases where entire packs have been extirpated by these diseases. Community members throughout the study area reportedly use domestic dogs for hunting, bringing with them the threat of rabies. In Sabi Sand Wildtuin there have been over 31 confirmed cases of domestic dogs that tested positive for the virus within the reserve from January- December 2010. A further nine domestic dogs were shot on Manyeleti Private Nature Reserve and a Wild Dog suspected of having rabies was shot on Timbavati Private Game Reserve in early 2010. However, it is not confirmed that disease is in fact a threat to Wild Dogs in the study area.

Distribution and Dispersal Habits

Wild Dogs

The photos collected proved valuable in terms of updating the Wild Dog databases from within the KNP. From the data collected we have been able to identify 163 new dogs not previously included in the KNP population estimates. However, the status of these individuals (alive, dead or missing) still needs to be confirmed. Many of these are pups from the previous few denning seasons that would not have been alive in the last KNP survey. Additionally, Wild Dogs have a high population turn-over rate and this does not mean that there are 163 more Wild Dogs in the KNP that thought. Further, we have been able to accurately match the right hand sides of 51 dogs and have developed full identification profiles for these individuals. This information is vital if we are to accurately estimate population numbers and gain a greater understanding of the movements of the animals west of the KNP. Preliminary analysis of data revealed four packs which regularly cross the KNP boundaries and one pack which operated solely outside the boundaries of the KNP.

1. Balule Nature Reserve – Blue Canyon Pack In 2005 a pack of Wild Dogs was introduced into Balule Nature Reserve (five males from Madikwe Nature Reserve and two females from Marakele National Park) as part of the national managed Wild Dog meta-population plan and have traversed large areas since. These Wild Dogs denned on Balule in 2005 and had five pups. A couple of years later the pack dispersed off the property and made their way to the Blue Canyon Conservancy (the conservancy) in Hoedspruit where they have been resident since 2008. The manager of the conservancy, reported roughly 19 dogs at the time the pack was first sighted on the property in September 2008, and in March 2009 reports of only 15 dogs were received from landowners and residents of the conservancy. The pack denned on the conservancy in 2009 and had 10 pups. This pack was reported to have split up just before the 2010 denning season, with some of the individuals dispersing from the property. Two males thought to have come from the conservancy were seen on Madrid property, dogs were reported on Vienna (a property north west of the conservancy) and an additional four dogs on Raptors Wildlife Estate (Hoedspruit). The four dogs, thought to be dispersing males from Blue Canyon Conservancy, moved through Thornybush and Timbavati Nature Reserves and Royal Malewane towards the end of July and beginning of August 2010. Three of the four dogs have been identified as dogs from Pack 17 within the KNP. The identity of the fourth dog is still unknown. Pack 17 consists of 17 dogs generally located around Orpen area and identified in the 2009 Kruger Wild Dog and Cheetah Census; Pack 17 denned on the western boundary of Klaserie in 2009 and since then seems to be moving large distances. The pack has been sighted in Klaserie Nature Reserve and on Olifants River Nature Reserve within Balule (Fig. 15).

2. Sabi Sand Wildtuin A pack of nine Wild Dogs, frequently seen on Sabi Sand Wildtuin was identified as Pack 24 from the 2009 KNP census. Since 2008 individuals from Pack 2 in the KNP and Pack 24 have been sighted together both in Sabi Sand and the KNP.



Three dogs from Pack 2 and one dog from Pack 24 were sighted amongst the pack that denned on Singita in Sabi Sand in 2010. The dogs had seven pups, but shortly after they were born Lion Panthera leo tracks were found around the den and subsequently two dead pups. The conservation manager of Sabi Sand, reported that the only surviving pup from the 2010 denning season was killed as a sub adult by Lions early in 2011. Pack 24 has also been sighted in Mala Mala on the eastern boundary of the Sabi Sand. In addition, Pack 14 from Tshokwane within the KNP has been seen in Mala Mala and Sabi Sand, and Pack 22 from Talamati within the KNP has been seen in Manyeleti and Timbavati Nature Reserves (Fig. 15).

Figure 15. Movement of selected packs of Wild Dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park.

Minimum Convex Polygons were used to estimate home range use.

Cheetahs

Cheetahs do not appear to be as wide-ranging as Wild Dogs and repeated sightings of the same individuals are not as common as with Wild Dogs. There have, however, been long distance movements of a particular male through Sabi Sand Wildtuin and Manyeleti and Timbavati Nature Reserves (Figure 16). There have been regular movements of Cheetahs between some of the APNR reserves. Home ranges of 126 km² for a three-male Cheetah coalition, 195 km² for a solitary male and 150 km² and 171 km² for two female Cheetahs have been recorded in KNP (Broomhall 2001). Group home ranges as large as 1 848 km² have been recorded by Bowland (1994) using photographic surveys. However, the home ranges recorded by Bowland (1994) were calculated from small sample sizes and are possibly not comparable with collar data. These large home ranges are consistent with the areas Cheetahs are covering in our research. Cheetah movement outside protected areas has been recorded in the Kampersrus area and Gravelotte, with reports of Cheetahs being removed or relocated off farm lands south of Kampersrus (Fig. 16).



Surveys were conducted to the south of KNP along the Crocodile River. There appears to have been little movement of Cheetahs across the river according to respondents in this area that is largely dominated by sugar cane farms. The southern boundary fence is still erected with a few bordering properties being fenced into KNP. Two male Cheetahs had been reported in Marloth Park and were seen moving through the fence between Marloth Park and a neighboring property. A single male Cheetah has been seen moving through a number of private properties including Marloth Park, Inkuba Game lodge, Lowhills Safari, Kwa Madwala and Leeuispruit Safaris. Unfortunately this male cheetah that had become habituated to humans was shot. Two Cheetahs were removed outside the southern boundary of KNP by SANParks officials and taken back deeper into KNP.

Figure 16. Movement of selected Cheetahs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park.

Minimum Convex Polygons were used to estimate home range use.

Both Wild Dogs and Cheetahs naturally occur at low densities, even in optimal conditions (Woodroffe & Ginsberg 1998; Swarner 2004). There are fewer than 400 Wild Dogs in the 22 000 km2 of the KNP and densities of 0.88 Cheetahs/100 km² have been recorded (Broomhall 2001). Wild Dog and Cheetah numbers in the area may be low as a result of interspecific competition. In the presence of high Lion and Spotted Hyaena numbers Wild Dogs and Cheetahs are often the victims of kleptoparisitism and their home ranges and habitat utilization is reduced (Swarner 2004; Lindsey et al. 2004). Lions reduce Wild Dog and Cheetah densities, especially in small reserves or protected areas, both directly, through mortality (especially pups/cubs), and indirectly by reducing the species’ access to optimal habitats (Lindsey et al. 2004). In this study, respondents reported to see Wild Dogs and Cheetahs significantly less frequently where Lion, Spotted Hyaena and Leopard Panthera pardus were sighted more often (H (4, 930) = 125. 48,



p < 0.0001) (Fig. 17). However, this could also be a result of the fact that Wild Dog and Cheetah occur at lower densities in the area and thus are simply sighted less often.

Figure 17. Mean frequency of occurrence of Wild Dogs and Cheetahs relative to Lions, Leopards and Spotted Hyaenas. Data are

presented as medians and ranges.

Discussion and General Conclusions

Distribution of Cheetahs and Wild Dogs

Wild Dogs and Cheetahs from the KNP do use areas outside of the KNP making management of these areas important in securing the future viability of both species in the region (Lindsey et al. 2004; Lindsey et al. 2005). Our data show that both species more readily disperse to the west of the KNP than the south. This can be explained by the fact that the dominant land uses are wildlife related to the west. Space and prey factors are the major drivers of habitat selection in wide-ranging carnivores like Cheetahs and Wild Dogs (Lindsey et al. 2005). These would both be more abundant in the wildlife dominated western areas resulting in more suitable habitat for Cheetahs and Wild Dogs. On the southern boundary of KNP crop farming in the dominant land use resulting in less suitable prey and space for Cheetahs and Wild Dogs. Additionally, the southern boundary fence has recently been reconstructed following the 2000 floods, and landowners south of the KNP report a considerable decrease in the movement of most animals through their properties.

Attitudes of landowners towards Cheetahs and Wild Dogs

Threats to both species appear to be greater beyond the boundaries of the KNP and APNRs, and the attitudes of private landowners will play an important role in conserving Wild Dogs and Cheetahs occurring beyond the boundaries of the KNP. While all landowners had an appreciation of Wild Dog and Cheetah as threatened species, believed they should be protected and that they formed an important part of the environment, there was a considerable decrease in the percentage of positive responses when landowners were asked questions regarding their tolerance of both species

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Lion Leopard Cheetah Wild dog Spottedhyaena

Caracal Jackal

Freq

uen

cy o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

Species



when encountered on their personal properties. However, ecotourism ventures, which made up the largest proportion of respondents surveyed, were the most positive towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs. These conservation and tourism oriented areas benefit from the presence of both species and many of the reserves have recently dropped fences to increase available habitat and promote the conservation of wide ranging animals such as Cheetahs and Wild Dogs. Further, there has been a reduction in the amount of hunting in the area with ecotourism forming the primary income for most properties. Given that ecotourism ventures have been shown to be the most positive towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs, these changes may have positive benefits for Wild Dog and Cheetah conservation in the long run. A few landowners that still have negative attitudes towards Cheetahs and Wild Dogs may only constitute a small proportion of the total area surveyed, but given the low numbers of both Cheetahs and Wild Dogs in the area, negative attitudes and potential direct persecution may in the long run have a profound effect on the populations of both species operating within greater Kruger. One of the common reasons for respondents’ negative responses towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs were typically due to concerns regarding the safety of labourers and residents in wildlife estates, and, understandably, from respondents breeding rare game species. Cheetahs and Wild Dogs are often incorrectly accused of killing too often and eating more than they require. The killing method of Wild Dogs (disemboweling) is often a reason for the poor perception of the species and respondents often used phrases such as ‘destructive’, ‘wasteful’, ‘cruel’ and ‘high impact’ to describe the presence of Wild Dogs on their properties. Negative attitudes towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs are based upon the economic costs associated with the presence of such predators on their properties. This was particularly evident with respondents managing smaller reserves and farms. Some respondents, however, simply believed that Wild Dog and Cheetahs had no place outside of protected areas.



Land use to alleviate conflict

Appropriate land management can assist in alleviating conflict with Cheetahs and Wild Dogs by minimizing damage to prey species. The following were observed during this study:

The erection of predator-proof game breeding camps with an electrified trip wire or buried mesh prevents carnivores predating on expensive game species. Properties with securely constructed predator-proof camps rarely reported conflict with predators.

The promotion of ecotourism in conjunction with breeding of rare game. Collaboration and/or the expansion of farms, or the formation of conservancies, has proven to be beneficial

for the conservation of biodiversity (Lindsey et al. 2005). The results of this study support the development of conservancies for Cheetah and Wild Dog conservation. For example, Balule Nature Reserve formed as a result of contributions from individual landowners and has subsequently grown in size to 400 km2. For Wild Dog in particular it has been suggested that a protected area as large as 10,000 km² is required to maintain a population (Lindsey et al. 2005). The formation of conservancies and/or the collaboration of neighbouring farms reduces the burden on individual landowners and provides more space and prey availability for these wide-ranging carnivores.

Some brief recommendations to minimize human-induced mortalities in Cheetahs and Wild Dogs on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park Road kills

Speed limitations and speed control devices on roads where Wild Dogs cross. Warning signs on roads where road kills are common. Further analysis will be required to identify key areas for action.

Snaring

Snaring is a very complex problem and preventing it is difficult. Research is required on the drivers of snaring in the study area before this can be adequately addressed.

Direct killing / removal

Landowners need to have a contact person who specializes in conflict resolution. Proactive mitigation needs to take place e.g. holding workshops and visiting landowners with up to date

information. Laws protecting Cheetahs and Wild Dogs need to be enforced.

Live trade

Effective conflict mitigation can solve some of this problem. Informing the general public and landowners that captive breeding is not a requirement for Cheetah or Wild

Dog conservation in South Africa. Laws regulating this need to be enforced. More effective legislation around captive breeding and holding of carnivores needs to be developed e.g.

compulsory genetic certificates for all captive animals.

WILD DOG 90 - WHAT A LEGEND! A threat to many species is snares set by poachers for meat. The snares are randomly set along game paths by poachers and are non-selective in terms of the species caught. On the 25th of July 2010 a report came in about a Wild Dog with a red collar on just west of Orpen camp. At the time this seemed strange because there had been no record of any dogs collared in the area. Unfortunately, after receiving the photo it was clear to us that it was not a collar, but rather a snare that had created a thick wound. We identified her as WD90 and she was separated from her pack and alone. Contact was made with section ranger Richard Sowry in the KNP to inform him about the Wild Dog with the snare. He was however already aware of the snare and had initiated plans to dart and remove it when she returned back to the den site. Unfortunately, after a few days she had not returned to the den site and there was concern that she had died from the injuries sustained. Approximately two weeks after WD90 was last seen in the KNP a call came through about a Wild Dog with a bad snare in Umbabat Private Nature Reserve. To our astonishment it was WD90, alone but still alive. She was not seen on the property the next day and it was thought that, once again, we had not been able to remove the snare in time and WD90 had not made it. On the 24th of August 2010 a Wild Dog with a collar was reported on Olifants River Game Reserve within Balule. It was thought that the individual was the collared female from Blue Canyon Conservancy. Wild Dogs introduced on Balule in 2005 found their way to the Blue Canyon Conservancy where they have been for the last two years. Tim Parker of the conservancy reported that the dogs have since split and dispersed off the property. Photos were obtained from landowners within the Olifants and to our astonishment it was WD90. What a legend! Moving large distances alone and still with the snare around her neck. WD90 was in relatively good condition and was seen at a water hole showing keen interest in a crocodile. Attempts were made to locate and dart her the next day, but legendary WD90 eluded us again. Unfortunately we never saw her again, and have not since received any reports of a snared female. We hope that we eventually get reports of her - alive and well.

Wild Dog 90 with the snare around her neck

References BOWLAND, A.E. 1994. The 1990/1991 Kruger National Park Cheetah photographic survey. Report to SANParks. BROOMHALL, L.S. 2001. Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus Ecology in the Kruger National Park: a comparison with the other

studies across the Grassland-Woodland gradient in African savannas. MSc thesis; University of Pretoria. BAUER, H., BELBACHIR, F., DURANT, S., HUNTER, L., MARKER, L., PACKER, K. & PURCHASE, N.2008. The IUCN Redlist of

Threatened Species Acinonyx jubatus. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/219. CREEL, S & CREEL, N.M. 2002. The African Wild Dog: Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation. Princeton University Press,

Princeton and Oxford. pp. 1-341. FULLER, T.K., MILLS, M.G.L., BORNER, M., LAURENSON, M.K. & KAT, P.W. 1992. Long distance dispersal by African

Wild Dogs in East and South Africa. Journal of African Zoology. 106: 535-537.

GRAF, J.A., GUSSET, M., REID, C., VAN RENSBURG, S.J., SLOTOW, R. & SOMERS, M.J. 2006. Evolutionary ecology meets wildlife management: artificial group augmentation in the re-introduction of endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Animal Conservation. 9: 398-403.

GUSSET, M., STEWART, G.B., BOWLER, D.E. & PULLIN, A.S. 2010. Wild dog reintroductions in South Africa: a systematic review and cross-validation of an endangered species recovery programme. Journal for Nature Conservation. 18: 230-234.

LINDSEY, P. A., DU TOIT, J. T. & MILLS, M. G. L. 2004. Area and prey requirements of African Wild Dogs under varying habitat conditions: implications for reintroductions. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 34: 77-86.

LINDSEY, P. A., DU TOIT, J. T. & MILLS, M. G. L. 2005. Attitudes of ranchers towards African Wild Dogs Lycaon pictus:

Conservation implications on private land. Biological Conservation. 125: 113-121. MILLS, M.G.L & GORMAN, M.L. 1997. Factors affecting the density and distribution of Wild Dogs in the Kruger

National Park. Conservation Biology. 11: 1397-1406. MILLS, M.G.L. 1995. Notes on the Wild Dog Lycaon pictus and lion Panthera leo population trends during a drought in

the Kruger National Park. Koedoe. 38: 95-99. SHELDON, J.W. 1992. Wild Dogs: the natural history of the nondomestic Canidae. Academic Press, California. pp. 97-

106. SWARNER, M. 2004. Human-carnivore conflict over livestock: the African Wild Dog in central Botswana. UC Berkley:

Centre for African Studies. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nd6w7st. WOODROFFE, R. & GINSBERG, J.R. 1998. Conserving the African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus: diagnosing and treating

causes of decline. Oryx. 33: 132-142.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6nd6w7st



Appendix 1 Questionnaire used for interviewing landowners on the western boundary of the Kruger National Park KRUGER WESTERN BOUNDARY PROJECT 1) Date: 5) Property/farm name and #: 2) Time: 6) Position (landowner, manager etc.) 3) Location of interview: 7) Interviewer: 4) GPS coordinates of area/property: Property characteristics and livestock/game information 8) Land tenure:

State protected area Provincial area Private area Communal area

9) Land use:

Stock ranching Crop farming Wildlife ranching

Small stock Live game sales

Trophy hunting

Cattle ranching Biltong hunting

Photographic tourism

10) Please circle the activity most important to you. 11) Size of the property (hectares)? _______________________________ 12) Does this property form part of a conservancy? Yes______ No______ Don’t know______ 13) Is this property perimeter fenced? Yes______ No______ Don’t know______ 14) If yes, please specify:

Cattle fencing

Game fencing (18-22 strand) Electrified with trip wire inside / outside / both Bonnox Meshed with buried apron Other

15) Have you had Wild Dogs and Cheetahs moving in or out of your property?

In Out Don't know

Wild Dog

Cheetah

16) Please specify what kinds of livestock and/or game are on this area and how many? If numbers are unknown than just tick.

Stock Cattle Sheep Goats Pigs Poultry Donkeys Horses Other Don’t know None



Quantity

Game Impala Kudu Nyala Bushbuck Ostrich Warthog Wildebeest Other Don’t know None

Quantity

17) Please indicate how frequently the following predators are seen on this area. Please tick the appropriate box (es).

Never < Once/year Every few months Once/month > Once/month Don’t know

Lion

Leopard

Cheetah

Wild Dog

Spotted hyaena

Caracal

Jackal

18) Have you had Wild Dogs denning on your property? Yes_____ No_____ Don’t know_____ If yes, when was the last year? ____________________________________________________ What did you do? _______________________________________________________________ Wild Dog and Cheetah distribution 19) If you have any GPS/photo data and/or details of any sightings of Wild Dogs and/or Cheetahs on this reserve/property/communal land please fill out the sightings record attached or, if possible, provide data and photographs on a CD or memory stick. Attitudes towards Wild Dogs and Cheetahs 20) How do you feel about the presence of the following predators on your property? (tick applicable)

Positive Neutral Negative Not applicable

Lion

Leopard

Cheetah

Wild Dog

Spotted hyaena

Caracal

Jackal

21) What is the general feeling towards the following predators in the district? (tick applicable)

Positive Neutral Negative Not applicable

Lion

Leopard

Cheetah

Wild Dog

Spotted hyaena

Caracal

Jackal



22) Do you know if any of your neighbours have ever successfully removed predators from their property? If yes, please specify the preferred method of removal.

Yes No Don’t know

Method of removal (select from the list below; if other please specify)

Lion

Leopard

Cheetah

Wild Dog

Spotted hyaena

Caracal

Jackal

23) Please indicate your disagreement/agreement with each of the following statements.

Wild Dogs Cheetahs

24) You are more tolerant of Wild Dogs/Cheetahs than your neighbours Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

25) Wild Dogs/Cheetahs negatively impact your business/livelihood/profit Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

26) Wild Dogs/Cheetahs form an important part of the environment Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

27) You would be happier if Wild Dogs/Cheetahs were completely absent from your reserve/property/communal land

Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

28) Please explain your responses to question 27 above:

29) Wild Dogs /Cheetahs should be protected Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

30) You would tolerate a pack of Wild Dogs denning on your reserve/property/communal land

Yes No Unsure

31) Wild Dogs/Cheetahs could produce tourism benefits for you/your business/your community

Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

32) You would like to see Wild Dogs/Cheetahs in the bush Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

33) Wild Dogs/Cheetahs are culturally important to you Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

34) You would like to learn more about Wild Dogs/Cheetahs Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure

Personal information about respondent 35) Name: ________________________________________________________________ 36) Age (tick applicable)

< 21 21-30 31-40 41-50 > 50

37) Gender: _______________________________________________________________ 38) Contact number: ________________________________________________________

Firearm Snare Poison Spear Dogs Gin traps Cage traps Other



39) Level of education (tick applicable)

None Primary school level

Junior school level

School leavers certificate

Senior leavers certificate/Matric certificate

Tertiary education (Please specify) Not applicable

40) First language: __________________________________________________________ Knowledge of both species 41) Respondent could correctly identify Wild Dog and Cheetah? Yes_____ No_____ 42) Wild Dogs and Cheetahs are dangerous to humans? Yes_____ No_____ 43) Are Cheetahs and Wild Dogs more common than lions? Yes_____ No_____ 44) Cheetahs kill more than they require? Yes_____ No_____ 45) Wild Dogs are social animals? Yes_____ No_____ Snaring on the property 46) Please state whether snaring and/or poaching with dogs is a problem on the property or not? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 47) Please indicate the number of snares cleared monthly: ______________________________________________________________________________ Sightings record

Species Date* General location GPS coordinates

# seen Pups /cubs present

Time of day seen

# of photos submitted

Additional Information

* Insert 1/2/3 etc. as coded below, but if specifics are known please state.

(1) < 6 months ago; (2) 6 months - < 1 year; (3) 1 year - < 2 years; (4) 2 years- 5 years; (5) > 5 years

the carnivore conservation programme€¦ · the carnivore conservation programme a programme of...

Documents