Tomas Holmern

Local law enforcement and illegal bushmeat hunting outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

Law enforcement is crucial to curb unsustainable and illegal exploitation of plant and animal populations. This paper investigates the temporal pattern of illegal hunting activity and factors that influence the probability of Village Game Scouts (VGSs) arresting illegal hunters outside the Serengeti National Park (Tanzania). A total of 201 patrols were conducted during nine months between December 1998 and August 1999, and 96 illegal hunters were arrested. All illegal hunters originated from local villages within 41 km from the closest protected area border. During the dry season more illegal hunters were observed and more snares found during patrols, the increase coinciding with the annual arrival of the migratory herbivores. Logistic regression models indicated that the probability of being arrested varied seasonally and large groups of illegal hunters had a lower probability of being arrested by VGSs. This study shows that routine data collection by VGSs may provide useful baseline values from which illegal hunting activities in partially protected areas can be evaluated. Moreover, VGSs should be integrated into the existing law enforcement structure and given more resources, to ensure optimal efficiency.

Uneconomical game cropping in a community-based conservation project outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

Uneconomical game cropping in a community-based conservation project outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania

Intraspecific prey choice of bushmeat hunters outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania: a preliminary analysis

ABSTRACT In this study we investigated intraspecific prey choice of illegal bushmeat hunters outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. During the study 151 animals belonging to 12 species were reported killed. The majority, 76%, of prey species were migratory herbivores. Night hunting with dogs was the most common hunting method for medium-sized prey (biomass ≤40 kg), while the majority of the large herbivores were killed by snares. When actively stalking, hunters killed more males of most of the species recorded, as well as more immatures than adults. Passive hunting also generally had a male-bias. This suggests that the male-bias in kills probably is more a result of behavioural factors among the animals, combined with poor hunting technology, than deliberate choice of the hunters.

Spatial and temporal variation in meat and fish consumption among people in the western Serengeti, Tanzania: the importance of migratory herbivores

Human-wildlife interactions play an important role in shaping perceptions and conservation paradigms and the livelihoods in villages neighbouring protected areas. These interactions also determine the future survival of the wildlife in the face of increasing pressure due to high human population increase characterising most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Most rural people in sub-Saharan Africa are agropastoral, combining small scale farming with animal husbandry, or they are purely agropastoralists or farming who relies on natural resources for sustenance.The negative impacts from wildlife to humans may include crop damage, attacking and killing livestock and humans, competing for game species or acting as diseases reservoirs. Humans may affect wildlife through a wide range of lethal methods such as shooting, poisoning, trapping or snaring, habitat modification, encroachment or diseases exchange between wildlife and livestock.Illegal hunting using traditional weapons is wide spread in communities surrounding areas rich of wildlife where in some countries in Africa (i.e. Liberia) up to 75% meat protein is derived from wildlife. The main factors attributing to high consumption of bushmeat is local availability, easy catch-ability (wire snares, pitfall traps), affordability and the consequent household savings.This thesis evaluates the conflicts between human and wildlife in the human-wildlife interface using the western Serengeti as a case study. The first part of the thesis focuses on the conflict related to utilization of natural resources and livestock depredation whereas the second part focuses on the dietary contribution of bushmeat to local people, bushmeat experience and utilization. Local people living close to protected areas are rational when it comes to the illegal utilization of natural resources because they consider the benefits and costimplications. The bushmeat hunters, especially, know in advance which areas in the protected areas are profitable at the same time consider the cost of being arrested and the distance they need to walk to the profitable areas. While illegal hunting can take place far in the park, livestock keepers avoid grazing inside the park because they know the consequences (penalties and fines) of utilizing the pasture inside the protected areas illegally.The local people living close to protected areas consume more meat meals during the period when the wildebeest are in the village proximities than when the herds are far in the southern plains. This further proves the rationality of illegal bushmeat hunters when planning for hunting trips (the benefits versus cost). In contrast, the fish meals in the villages located close to protected areas but far from Lake Victoria decrease with influx of migratory herbivores, which suggest that fish and meat complement each other when the distance from the sources fluctuates. This was proved true when test-persons from villages close, intermediate and distant from the nearest national park boundary were given pieces of meat in a combination of wild ungulates and beef to rank the meat and species recognition according to the perceived taste. While the test-persons from distant villages preferred beef to all, the test-person from villages close to national park boundary prefer topi and those in the intermediate villages prefer impala. This suggests long term experience with beef to distant test-persons as no other source of meat is locally available in the area other than livestock meat and fish.Wild carnivores are considered to be responsible for livestock losses in the villages surrounding the protected areas. The results from the current study in the villages surrounding the western Serengeti show that among the wild carnivores reported to kill livestock, 97.7% of all reported claims was spotted hyena, being responsible for 98.2%.Spotted hyenas are nocturnal animals capable of commuting up to 80 km from their territory areas and are the most numerous large carnivore species in the Serengeti ecosystem, mainly targeting goats and sheep. To evaluate the level of conflicts between carnivores and human on livestock depredation, enumeration of livestock loss causes was conducted for subsequent comparison. In all villages, diseases were responsible for major loss of livestock.Based on the findings the current study recommends better education on wildlife conservation, livestock husbandry practices and extension. A change in wildlife policy in favour of compensation would reduce the retaliatory killing of carnivores in the villages. Livestock keepers should improve the night holding enclosures to reduce livestock depredation by nocturnal predators. The findings recommend further study on the alternative sources of meat protein to local communities living close to protected areas. Last but not least, I recommend a special conservation attention to resident herbivore population close to village proximities.

Generic ecological impact assessments of alien species in Norway: a semi-quantitative set of criteria

The ecological impact assessment scheme that has been developed to classify alien species in Norway is presented. The underlying set of criteria enables a generic and semi-quantitative impact assessment of alien species. The criteria produce a classification of alien species that is testable, transparent and easily adjustable to novel evidence or environmental change. This gives a high scientific and political legitimacy to the end product and enables an effective prioritization of management efforts, while at the same time paying attention to the precautionary principle. The criteria chosen are applicable to all species regardless of taxonomic position. This makes the assessment scheme comparable to the Red List criteria used to classify threatened species. The impact of alien species is expressed along two independent axes, one measuring invasion potential, the other ecological effects. Using this two-dimensional approach, the categorization captures the ecological impact of alien species, which is the product rather than the sum of spread and effect. Invasion potential is assessed using three criteria, including expected population lifetime and expansion rate. Ecological effects are evaluated using six criteria, including interactions with native species, changes in landscape types, and the potential to transmit genes or parasites. Effects on threatened species or landscape types receive greater weightings.

Does illegal hunting skew Serengeti wildlife sex ratios

Abstract In this article we show that the population of Serengeti Masai giraffes Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi is extremely female biased, particularly among newborns. Our results suggest that this might be a response to heavy illegal hunting and the continuous disturbance such activities cause on giraffes, as sex ratios were more female skewed in all age groups in areas with high risk of illegal hunting. Giraffes were also more vigilant and fled at longer distances in such areas. Such female skewed sex ratios have also been found in other Serengeti species such as the ostrich Struthio camelus, the impala Aepycerus melampus and the wildebeest Connochaetus taurinus. In all studies, the sex ratio was more female skewed in areas in which illegal hunting is common. We found that sex ratio in giraffe calves, particularly in areas with high risk of illegal hunting, were more female skewed than in subadults or adults, indicating a female biased sex ratio at birth. If wildlife species react to a constant human disturbance by conceiving female offspring, this might cause serious conservation challenges. Conservation managers must anyway take this into account when developing future hunting regimes, not only for giraffes but also for other ungulate species under constant stress. We discuss various hypotheses aiming at explaining the female biased sex ratio in giraffes. However, further studies are needed to disentangle the causes of the skewed sex ratio observed in our study.

Wildlife Research in Tanzania: Capacity Building Is Feasible

In a recent special section in Conservation Biology (volume 21, no. 3), several distinguished contributors address major themes in conservation biology by providing insightful examples from long-term studies in Serengeti and Katavi National Parks. Most of these scientists have become famous because of their work in Tanzania. They have published their results and theories in highly distinguished journals and in books. Their work has been made possible because Tanzania has shown them hospitality and kindness. Nevertheless, as Thirgood et al. (2007) recognize, there is a glaring absence of Tanzanian lead authors in the articles published in the special section. This contradiction is explained by the apparent historical lack of investment in conservation science in Tanzania compared with countries, for example, in Latin America, where scientists have a better track record of publishing as lead authors. In the same volume Durant et al. (2007) highlight that, according to the terms of Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI), long-term research projects (longer than 3 years) must “include . . . a provision for postgraduate training of at least one Tanzanian/or a local counterpart in the respective field of wildlife science” (TAWIRI 2001). In a country with a burgeoning human population that is increasingly threatening the country’s amazing biodiversity, anyone can appreciate that capacity building for Tanzanians is crucial to meeting the country’s future conservation challenges. Despite the existence of the TAWIRI guideline for over 5 years, there are still few projects (if any) that have implemented it fully. High entrance fees to some universities make the guideline (Durant et al. 2007) and capacity building difficult to realize. Many of the projects written about in the special section have been underway in Tanzania for over 30 years and have undoubtedly provided profound new understanding of wildlife ecology. But Tanzania has not gained much from these projects in terms of academic capacity building. Is this because of a lack of interest in one of the poorest countries in the world to train scientists in conservation biology, or is it because of a lack of interest from the scientists to include capacity building of Tanzanians as a component of their research? Many western (European and American) students have been trained through these projects, whereas very few Tanzanians have had such an opportunity. In our mind it is therefore too easy to blame Tanzania for a lack of interest when all these researchers have benefited from the hospitality and the excellent research opportunities that this country has provided. We agree that establishing channels for discussion are vital for conservation research, but such “friendships” or forums, along with research by a handful of expatriates, hardly enable Tanzanians to address the conservation crises in their country. For them to do so, the national capacity has to be boosted within TAWIRI itself (which currently has only three Ph.D. holders) and within the education and management structure at large. In addition, research institutions must have funding with which to conduct independent research, something that is sorely lacking in Tanzania. For management to implement research recommendations in a proper way and to meet local conservation challenges, managers need to have an understanding of wildlife conservation beyond that of the holder of a bachelor’s degree. We believe that capacity building within Tanzania is not as complicated as it may seem from reading the articles presented in this special section, as long as effort, willingness, and commitment are shown. Over the past 10 years, a joint Tanzanian–Norwegian and South African wildlife conservation project has strengthened the academic and technical capacity in both the research and educational sector in Tanzania. The collaborating institutions include TAWIRI; Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Tanzania; Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA); Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU); and the Mammal Research Institute (MRI) at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. The project has focused on human–wildlife interactions in the western Serengeti and has managed to provide much-needed field experience to Tanzanian researchers, and