Persecution Pushing Wild Dogs to Extinction - by Staff Reporter

From The New Era
August 5, 2009


WINDHOEK – Results from a seven-year study by Namibia Nature Foundation’s Wild Dog Project show that persecution of African wild dogs is largely the result of poor range management, poor livestock husbandry, misunderstanding of wild dog behaviour and inherited prejudice.

These bear very little relationship to the cost of African wild dogs on people’s livelihoods.

Farming communities often complain that African wild dogs are a huge threat to their livestock, but data from the eastern communal lands where most of the remaining dogs range show that 98 percent of the dog’s diet is wild prey, and that for every livestock killed by the dogs, 30 are stolen, 17 die of ingestion of poison plants, 16 of disease or illness and 14 die of birthing complications.

Drought and starvation also kill 10 times more livestock than the African wild dog.

Where wild prey such as kudu, steenbok and duiker remain at reasonable densities, and basic livestock husbandry, such as herding, kraaling, birthing camps is practised, losses to African wild dogs are almost unknown. In five years of data collection in Nyae Nyae Conservancy in the Tsumkwe area, there was only one incident of African wild dog predation on livestock in over 500 kills.

“If farmers are genuinely committed to improving production and profitability of their stock operations, it’s irrational to spend time and money hunting down a tiny threat to your operation when improved livestock husbandry and rangeland management will make a huge difference to your bottom line,” according to project director Robin Lines.

“Another key issue is maintenance of wild prey populations, which act as a buffer between African wild dogs and livestock,” he said, adding:

“Randomly persecuting packs that happen to be moving through an area actually make the likelihood of livestock predation much higher, because the farmer has undermined the pack’s ability to hunt wild prey successfully.”

He said unsustainable, uncontrolled and often illegal reduction of wild prey numbers just exasperates problems with predators.

“It’s very common (and convenient) for poorly paid farm workers to poach livestock and blame predators for the losses.”

Human persecution has reduced Namibia’s African wild dog population by 98 percent since pre-agricultural levels to an all time low of less than 300 adults and yearlings – and declining at 10 percent per annum. The situation is getting critical and only 5 percent of the remaining population is protected.

“Urgent reintroductions to large protected areas really are becoming the only available management option, but luckily this would also be a boom to the tourism industry and excellent positive PR for Namibia.”

What a load. The damn things are all over Zim.

Will's last post is a sad indication of so many "hunters'" appreciation of African wildlie as a whole. His comment re wild dog shows not only ignorance, but tells me , as a native African conservationist, that if he "can't kill it, bugger it."

The wild dog is one of the last symbols of "wild Africa."

last time i checked, Namibia and Zimbabwe were 2 different countries and wildlife numbers in one did not necessarily apply to the other. overall wild dog numbers in southern Africa are seriously declining.

What's the status of jackals/ Are they suffering too? When I hunted near Karibib, Namibia a couple of years ago I saw a few jackals but no wild dogs or hyenas. May be outside their range?

Will may be joking. Or may be senile. I vote for joking.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
Will may be joking. Or may be senile. I vote for joking.

Well, there are a lot of wild dogs in Zim. The problem I see with all the alarmists is that they probably don't know how many wild dogs are in Namibia, and yelling "the sky is falling" is always good for donations.

It is like the "researchers" in Zim telling all the PH's that were reporting wild dog sightings of 50 and more dogs in a pack that wild dogs do exist in packs of more than a 10 or 12, as I recall. Being an old researcher myself, these guys give research a bad name.

Wild dogs are like the wolves in Yellowstone. You want big game animals or you want wild dogs?

Will

I want fewer people and more of all animals. Is that too much to ask?

I want the greenies to stop using anthropomorphic terms such as "persecution" when applied to animals.
"Persecution" connotes harassment based on religion, race, or belief.
Wild dogs were thick in Botswana's Okavango when I was there, and I am sure they still are.
They are not sport hunted.
Yes, they are the equivalent of timber wolves in Yellowstone.
They do not belong in agricultural lands.
Yes, let them subsist in wilderness or game preserve areas.
That is all.
The rest is "Walt Disney."

From top to bottom, no shortage of wild dogs in the Zambezi Valley, Zim side.

I wondered how long it would take someone to reference wolves and wild dogs of Africa. Frankly I like seeing them both. Funny how people get all dewy-eyed when it comes to wild cats, but can't stomach a wild canine.

I have no problem with wild predators of any flavor. More power to them.

I can't comment on the politics, only to say that I've only seen wild dogs once, and not in the Zambezi Valley when I was there last year. They are absolutely beautiful. These were near Gokwe. We'd found a kudu calf kill the night before and the PH had declared it to be the work of wild dogs. The next morning, almost before light (hence the quality of the pictures) we ran acoss this pack. Not too many of them hung around for any pictures, but the ones that did were stunning!

Bwanna,

Thanks for posting the photos. We have been to Zim six times since 1994 and unfortunately saw wild dogs only once, (our 2005 trip to the Lemco Conservancy). After only seeing wild dogs on various nature shows, it was a great priviledge to see them up close and obtain video and photos of a hunting pack.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
Bwanna,

Thanks for posting the photos. We have been to Zim six times since 1994 and unfortunately saw wild dogs only once, (our 2005 trip to the Lemco Conservancy). After only seeing wild dogs on various nature shows, it was a great priviledge to see them up close and obtain video and photos of a hunting pack.

that's impossible. Will says they are all over Zim.

here is a pack near our camp in the Selous

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
Bwanna,

Thanks for posting the photos. We have been to Zim six times since 1994 and unfortunately saw wild dogs only once, (our 2005 trip to the Lemco Conservancy). After only seeing wild dogs on various nature shows, it was a great priviledge to see them up close and obtain video and photos of a hunting pack.

that's impossible. Will says they are all over Zim.

Luckily she saw them once, otherwise it would have proven there are no wild dogs at all in Zim!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Luckily she saw them once, otherwise it would have proven there are no wild dogs at all in Zim!

Mate, one could argue that equally luckily, as you've seen them a few times over the years, that proves they're all over Zim at least and probably means they're abundant all over Africa.

Whether we like it or not, repeated scientific studies all over Africa have all proved the species is in decline.

I just consider myself lucky to have seen them as often as I have over the years.

Take your pick:

http://www.awdczambia.org/

http://www.save-the-african-wi...rust-southafrica.asp

http://www.animalinfo.org/spec...arnivor/lycapict.htm

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Cons...Wild_Dog/default.cfm

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7316.html

shakari, i think Will still doesn't get it. just because he has seen wild dogs in several areas of Zim., he assumes they are plentiful all over Africa, including Namibia. sorry, just doesn't work that way.if you think i am wrong, go back and read the first post and Will's response.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
shakari, i think Will still doesn't get it. just because he has seen wild dogs in several areas of Zim., he assumes they are plentiful all over Africa, including Namibia. sorry, just doesn't work that way.if you think i am wrong, go back and read the first post and Will's response.

I don't think you're wrong. There's absolutely no doubt that wild dog populations have been dropping dramatically all over Africa for many years, which is why I published all those links.

3 trips to Zim - saw wild dogs once (a big pack in the zambezi valley) and it was awsome, something I would not like to see vanish.

HOWEVER, I disliked the story for many reasons: some urban environmentalists frequently come with these "back of the envelpe" calculations... that dogs, jaguars, lions, etc, etc, kill far less than disease or mismanagement from the livestock owners.

Thus they believe that these peasants, farmers, etc should allow those kills. And this is nonsense for many reasons:
- first problem is that the MEAN (averages) means nothing! Those who have livestock close to the wild dogs areas may loose half of their wealth to them, and will CERTAINLY kill the animals. Period. The figures comparisons made in the article are completely pointeless.

- secondly these calculations do not take into account that an extremely poor farmer may have 2 or 3 animails from his 5 or 6 killed. Thus they may loose half of their wealth... nobody (even the most ardent 50 year old female cat loving PETA suporter) would tolerate it. If we fail to accept/understand it we don´t have a chance of solving the wild dogs problems.

Being a third generation farmer/rancher as well as after a lifetime of reasearch in this area (I am bsc, MS, phd, postdoc, university professor and reaserch leader in livestock husbandry and wild ruminant ecology) I can see that these environmentalists fail miserably in understading the many other economical, antrhophological and cultural ramifications that are the reasons for the demise of the wild dogs.

These simplifications (such as the article quoted above) really makes me sad, and not only wont solve the problem, but wil actualy hurt our efforts. And that is because it suggests that these animals are disapearing because people are inherently evil and greedy, and this is not the truth, things are much more complicated.

Some are miserably poor people. Even an american in Montana will not tolerte a wolf because despite having incomparable more wealth.

Despite the fact that the wild dog do kill realatively few animals (to which I agree), what I don´t agree is that the typical african farmer can accept it.

In short: environmentalist calculations such as that in the report are not science, they are something at best a "half-truth" all the way to a joke.

.....and then there is the question of who is encroaching on who? In India you will read about man-eating leopards killing poor defenseless villagers. Pinpointing the attacks you find they are occuring inside National Game Reserves where 20,000 squatters have poured across the reserve boundary and are devastating the land....for the leopard. To me, any domestic animals, small children and old people killed by these leopards should be reported as a non-event, as the humans and their animals are there illegally.

So who is encroaching on who in Zimbabwe? Have the wild dogs moved into the cities, attacking people and their domestic animals?

Given enough weird science and mathematical disjunction, we can justify killing anything and everything on earth.

Unfortunately humans expand outwardly instead of up. We'll cover every inch of earth with asphalt at some point. Instead we should have cities built 10,000' in the air, only allowed to expand upward, and the Hell with the guys trying to breathe on the top floor.

I can understand Will's point. I've been to Zim twice now. Both times (and in all three camps) I have seen Wild Dogs. I think they are pretty and I agree loosing them would be horrible. I also must say that the only places I saw them were no where near regular human habitation or farming.

However, the PH's in camp with me had nothing good to say about them. The second trip I looked for the issues that they complained about and did see them. The more reasoned take was a pack of 3-9 of them was not a problem, but if you got more, they rapidly depleted the game.

Where you have Wild Dogs there are no Bushbuck nearby. They also tend to kill a disporportionate number of plains game newborns, such as Kudu or Wildebeeste. They also tend to kill off the herd ram Impala. They are remarkably efficient predators and are able to get rid of a lot of game, much like wolves.

I think that like Wolves in North America, if they are overprotected they end up being detrimental to game.

Everyone likes to talk about "If it pays, it stays" with regards to wildlife. With the highly protected predators, where is the pay? They kill the prey species that the hunters want, and they kill the domestic stock that the local people need. Reminds one of Lion in Kenya, for example?

You don't hear about anyone trying to limit pack size on wolves here, and you sure don't hear (at least officially) about anyone getting rid of a Wild Dog there. Obviously though, it is happening.

Articles like this really don't help solve the problem, do they?

The solution for the dogs is the same for rhinos. Put a value on them. Even if only 2 are legally taken a year by extremely wealthy hunters, word will get around that wild dogs are worth having around if the locals get a cut. Which would only be fair to pay for what they take. If they have no value, they will be treated as vermin. I thought this was understood. It always scares me to hear someone say he values animals over people. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see oneself in the way according to someone else.

I was operating in an area in Botswana with a thriving wild dog population and nary a shortage of bushbuck or any other species.

Trying to compare them with wolves in the Yellowstone ecosystem is crap. They do not denude the area of indigenous prey species and the cry of "let's shoot one or two legally!" will not alter any effect that they have on the infrastructure of a wilderness area.

Jesus, people, learn a little about them and realise what a magic symbol of true Africa they are.

Please stop the persecution of those African wild dogs!
They cannot help the instinctual "belief system" they were born with,
nor the nature worship religion they have come by so naturally yet are forced to practice with no alternative,
and they surely cannot change their race!
Sheesh! Persecuting those colorful, short-haired, fat-eared wolves of the the Dark Continent is just so cruel!
They deserve better!

I think you'll find that the various studies have proven that major factors in their decline is their susceptibility to rabies and TB etc and also once a pack declines in numbers it quickly reaches a point where lack of numbers reduces the pack viability because if they don't have sufficient numbers, they can't hunt anywhere near as successfully and nor can they leave pack members behind to look after the young which in turn get predated upon.

Add that to encroaching human populations, which in turn introduces more diseases that can affect their numbers and you have most if not all of the reasons for their decline.

As to persecution by locals etc....... well, I'm sure that is an element but I'd have thought not a particularly significant one. I'd guess that for every one killed by a snare, a spear or a bullet considerably more are killed by the various diseases.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
I think you'll find that the various studies have proven that major factors in their decline is their susceptibility to rabies and TB etc and also once a pack declines in numbers it quickly reaches a point where lack of numbers reduces the pack viability because if they don't have sufficient numbers, they can't hunt anywhere near as successfully and nor can they leave pack members behind to look after the young which in turn get predated upon.

Add that to encroaching human populations, which in turn introduces more diseases that can affect their numbers and you have most if not all of the reasons for their decline.

As to persecution by locals etc....... well, I'm sure that is an element but I'd have thought not a particularly significant one. I'd guess that for every one killed by a snare, a spear or a bullet considerably more are killed by the various diseases.

Steve:

What you say is true, especially for open areas where human presence/interference plays an insignificant role in keeping
their population at bay, though I have not heard of any dogs being hit by disease anywhere in Tanzania.
Regrettably the ever increasing numbers of large packs (20-40 per pack) particularly in the Selous, are beginning to take
the toll on some of the wildlife.
I have witnessed the decline and in some places the obliteration of species such as Reedbuck and Bushbuck - Impala and Kudu
numbers have also been greatly reduced in areas once known for their abundance.
Sadly, even though I share your fondness for these canny canines, their uncontrolled increase is now approaching intolerable levels
and it would be high time for those concerned with their welfare to get involved in arranging for the "deportation" of our excess
numbers to those countries crying out for replenishment of dwindling stocks.

Kibokolambogo,

Like you, I've never seen a shortage of them in the Selous (to say the least), and we should be grateful that a few such areas still exist

I'm not really sure what the answer is. Sadly, the encroachment and disease situation in most of the areas where populations are dwindling means that even if some packs were relocated, they probably wouldn't last in the longer term..........

Too many humans and too much rabies and TB etc (although they might be able to develop a resistance to TB as many Lion & Buffalo seem to have done) is always gonna be a problem for them.