Livestock predation by endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in northern Kenya

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.028Get rights and content

Abstract

Most large mammalian carnivores are in global decline, principally due to conflict with livestock farmers. Because endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) range widely, often beyond the boundaries of protected areas, they may be particularly exposed to lethal control by farmers, even where nominally protected by reserves. Hence, effectively conserving wild dogs demands resolution of their conflicts with farmers. We investigated livestock depredation by African wild dogs living outside protected areas in northern Kenya. Scat analysis confirmed the distribution of depredation events reported by local farmers, indicating that farmer reports – collated by local Community Liaison Officers – gave a reasonably good index of the true pattern of depredation. Although livestock were abundant throughout the study area, depredation was exceedingly uncommon (approximately one attack per 1000 km2 per year) and the costs of tolerating wild dogs were very low (US $3.40/wilddog/year) where wild prey remained, even at low densities. However, where wild prey were seriously depleted, wild dogs killed livestock repeatedly, and the cost of sustaining them rose to US $389/wilddog/year. Hence, although wild dogs had a negligible economic impact in the region, their impact was locally severe. Conservation activities for wild dogs are most likely to be successful if targeted at areas where wild prey remain, and where traditional herding practices have been retained.

Introduction

Virtually all of the world’s large carnivore species have experienced major declines and range contractions in the last hundred years (Linnell et al., 2001, Woodroffe, 2001), such that many are now considered globally or regionally endangered (IUCN, 2002). Conflict with farmers over livestock depredation has been a major cause of these declines (Treves and Karanth, 2003). Indeed, killing of animals considered predators of livestock has driven the extinction of several species, including the Falkland Island wolf (Dusicyon australis, in 1876; Macdonald and Sillero-Zubiri, 2004), the Guadelupe caracara (Polyborus lutosus, in 1900; Fuller, 2000) and the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus, in 1930; Paddle, 2000).

The population consequences of predator control can extend deep into protected areas. Livestock predation usually occurs outside reserves, in human dominated landscapes; however, because most large carnivore species range widely, animals killed outside reserves may in fact have spent most of their time inside reserves (Stander, 1990, Forbes and Theberge, 1996). This results in a powerful edge effect, strong enough to cause the extinction of wide-ranging carnivores in all but the largest protected areas (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998, Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 2000). Hence, effective protection of large carnivores is likely to demand resolution of conflicts with farmers, even when reserves are the mainstay of local conservation efforts.

African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are one of the world’s most endangered large carnivore species, extirpated from 25 of the 39 countries where they formerly occurred (Fanshawe et al., 1997). The world population is estimated at fewer than 6000, and is still declining (Woodroffe et al., 2004). Conflict with people has been a major cause of this decline (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1999), and is an ongoing problem: shooting and poisoning together accounted for the deaths of 26% of 196 adult wild dogs that died while under study in protected areas (Woodroffe et al., 2004). Deliberate killing of animals that range beyond reserve borders may help to explain why wild dogs have disappeared from all but the largest unfenced reserves – wild dog populations require reserves in excess of 3500 km2 to have even a 50% chance of persistence, an area far larger than that required by other African carnivores (Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). Hence, effective conservation of wild dogs, both inside and outside protected areas, demands resolution of conflicts with farmers.

Wild dogs’ true impact on local people’s livelihoods has only rarely been assessed. Ranchers interviewed in South Africa and Zimbabwe ranked wild dogs as the least popular predator species, disliked even more than spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta), jackals (Canis mesomelas), lions (Panthera leo) and leopards (Panthera pardus; Lindsey, 2003). Livestock farmers’ principal complaint was that wild dogs affected their income by killing livestock (Lindsey, 2003). However, some field studies have suggested that such negative attitudes might not reflect wild dogs’ true impact. An investigation of wild dog predation on livestock in Zimbabwe suggested that farm workers’ claims were exaggerated, with wild dogs truly responsible for fewer than half of reported attacks (Rasmussen, 1999). Both in Zimbabwe and southern Kenya, wild dogs appeared to ignore livestock where wild prey were available (Rasmussen, 1999, Fuller and Kat, 1990). Based on these observations, Woodroffe and Ginsberg (1997) speculated that wild dogs might prey on livestock only where wild prey were depleted.

Resolving conflicts between farmers and wild dogs is likely to involve a combination of wildlife management, livestock husbandry, and education (Woodroffe et al., 1997, Rasmussen, 1999, Ogada et al., 2003). To provide the information needed to underpin such conservation activities, the World Conservation Union’s Canid Specialist Group called for research on conflicts between people and wild dogs to be carried out “as a matter of urgency” (Ginsberg and Woodroffe, 1997). Here, we present preliminary findings of a study established to meet this need. We evaluate the true extent of wild dog depredation on livestock, and compare patterns of depredation with the availability of wild prey.

Section snippets

Study area and methods

This study was carried out in northern Kenya, in Laikipia District (37°2′ E, 0°6′ N), and parts of neighbouring Samburu, Isiolo and Baringo Districts, covering ≈5700 km2 (Fig. 1). The area is mainly semi-arid bush land and savanna, used for subsistence pastoralism and commercial ranching, as well as for tourism and small-scale agriculture. Within the study area, some properties are owned by private individuals, while others (group ranches) are communally owned. None of the area is formally

Results

All attacks involved free-ranging livestock; wild dogs did not attack livestock held inside bomas (night-time corrals). The majority of the confirmed attacks on livestock (50 of 56) involved sheep or goats, with only 6 attacks on cattle. On average, wild dogs killed 3.2 (SD 2.4, range 1–13) sheep or goats per confirmed attack. The mean number of cattle killed on confirmed attacks was 1.3 (SD 0.5, range 1–2). All cases of multiple killing of cattle involved calves rather than adult animals.

Discussion

Our results show that, across most of the study area, wild dog predation was extremely uncommon, with approximately one attack reported per 1000 km2 of occupied wild dog habitat per year. Given this very low level of depredation, it is important to stress that none of the area is formally protected, and livestock were available to wild dogs throughout the region. Aerial censuses show that the area supports ≈15 cattle and 45 sheep or goats per km2, with livestock greatly outnumbering wild

Acknowledgements

For help with data collection, we would like to thank Benson Minyarit and Jackson Lorkitama of Kijabe Community Trust, Leonard Chenguli and Peter Mengich of the Kaptuya Conservancy, Daniel Lomoe, David Masere, Joseph Musiany, Nteere Gitonga and Symon Ntunyoi of the Laikipia Wildlife Forum, and Sinyati Lesowapir, Julius Leturuka, Lkekui Lelesit, John Katarin Lenanyankera and Tom Letiwa of the Namunyak Wildlife Conservation Trust. GIS coverages were provided by the Laikipia Research Programme and

References (48)

  • G.S.A. Rasmussen

    Livestock predation by the painted hunting dog Lycaon pictus in a cattle ranching region of Zimbabwe: a case study

    Biological Conservation

    (1999)
  • S. Creel et al.

    The African wild dog: behavior, ecology and conservation

    (2002)
  • J.H. Fanshawe et al.

    The status and distribution of remaining wild dog populations

  • Frank, L.G., 1998. Living with lions: carnivore conservation and livestock in Laikipia District, Kenya. Unpublished...
  • Frank, L.G., Woodroffe, R., Ogada, M.O., in press. People and predators in Laikipia District, Kenya. In: Woodroffe, R.,...
  • G.J. Forbes et al.

    Cross-boundary management of Algonquin Park wolves

    Conservation Biology

    (1996)
  • E. Fuller

    Extinct birds

    (2000)
  • T.K. Fuller et al.

    Movements, activity, and prey relationships of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) near Aitong, south-western Kenya

    African Journal of Ecology

    (1990)
  • Georgiadis, N., Olwero, N., Ojwang’, G., 2003. Numbers and distributions of large herbivores in Laikipia District,...
  • J.R. Ginsberg et al.

    Research and monitoring: information for wild dog conservation

  • IUCN, 2002. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Available from:...
  • H. Joffe

    Risk: from perception to social representation

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (2003)
  • H.J. Keogh

    A photographic reference system of the microstructure of the hair of southern African bovids

    South African Journal of Wildlife Research

    (1983)
  • W.M. Khaemba et al.

    Empirically simulated study to compare and validate sampling methods used in aerial surveys of wildlife populations

    African Journal of Ecology

    (2001)
  • Kock, R., Wambua, J., Mwanzia, J., Fitzjohn, T., Manyibe, T., Kambe, S., Lergoi, D., 1999. African hunting dog...
  • W.D. Kuhme

    Communal food distribution and division of labour in African hunting dogs

    Nature

    (1965)
  • Lindsey, P.A., 2003. Conserving wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) outside state protected areas in South Africa: ecological,...
  • J.D.C. Linnell et al.

    Large carnivores that kill livestock: do “problem individuals” really exist?

    Wildlife Society Bulletin

    (1999)
  • J.D.C. Linnell et al.

    Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable

    Animal Conservation

    (2001)
  • D.W. Macdonald et al.

    Biology and conservation of wild canids

    (2004)
  • L.D. Mech

    Estimated costs of maintaining a recovered wolf population in agricultural regions of Minnesota

    Wildlife Society Bulletin

    (1998)
  • L.D. Mech et al.

    Relationship between winter severity and wolf depredations on domestic animals in Minnesota

    Wildlife Society Bulletin

    (1988)
  • A. Meriggi et al.

    A review of wolf predation in southern Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock?

    Journal of Applied Ecology

    (1996)
  • M.G.L. Mills

    Methodological advances in capture, census, and food habits studies of large African carnivores

  • Cited by (0)

    1

    Present address: Department of Natural Resource Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.

    View full text