by Kenneth Buk *
Data from questionnaires and reports of sightings
suggest that wild dog populations in Zambia are fragmented and
vulnerable to increasing human pressure.
[Ed. - we plan to post the figures on-line soon!]
The aim of the Zambia Wild Dog Project is to formulate recommendations for the conservation of Zambian wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) and their habitats (Buk, 1994a). The first project initiative is a survey of the species' conservation status. Below is a short update on the preliminary findings summarising Buk (1994b).
In September 1993 and March 1994 a total of 640 mail questionnaires with prepaid postage were distributed to field officers working for the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) both in and outside protected areas. Sighting sheets and information pamphlets on wild dog ecology and conservation were also distributed to this group. Some wild dog habitats were inspected during September 1993 - August 1994. On these occasions NPWS field officers, tour operators, villagers and others were interviewed and given sighting sheets and information pamphlets. In addition, literature and files were studied.
The wide distribution of wild dogs in the recent past is reflected in local tales, in traditional use of wild dog "products" and in memories of sightings among many middle-aged Zambians with a rural past. However, colonial wild dog vermin control units operated from the 1930s to the 1950s, killing 4,955 wild dogs in Zambia between 1945-1959 (Banage, 1979). A bounty system also existed. Despite this persecution, there was still a newspaper report in 1967 concerning a wild dog pack attacking cattle in one of the major agricultural areas and its subsequent eradication by the authorities. In the 1970s Zambians could still obtain a licence to shoot wild dogs free of charge. Ansell's 1978 ·The Mammals of Zambiaº reported a wide distribution for the wild dog, although concentrated around protected areas. NPWS hunters report controlling (i.e. shooting) wild dog packs outside protected areas during the 1980s. Since 1991 the species has been on the NPWS list of Protected Animals for which a special licence to shoot may only be issued by the Minister of Tourism. The price for a wild dog licence is listed at about US$100 for Zambians, but few, if any, licences are issued.
The data analysed consist of 76 questionnaires and 156 sightings between January 1993 - August 1994. Seven (8%) of the returned questionnaires were judged unreliable and were excluded from analysis. About 15 closely repeated sightings were regarded as duplicates and were also excluded.
There are first-hand reports of wild dog sightings from 13 game management areas and 10 national parks, which cover >130,000 square kilometres (Fig.1). There are only two sightings from outside these protected areas, both close to national parks in Western Zambia. Zambian wild dog habitats have been categorised according to sighting frequency among NPWS field officers derived from questionnaires and interviews (Figure 1). Reported pack sizes range from 1-27 with a mean size of 8.3±sd 5.1.
Game management areas (G.M.A.) are, in practice, multiple use areas, which differ from unprotected areas only in having more rigorous regulations on hunting and better antipoaching measures. There are no legal restrictions on settling or land use, so all G.M.A.s have local residents. Some chiefs discourage settling in uninhabited parts to safeguard safari hunting as a source of income shared between NPWS, the tourist board and the chiefµs community through the ADMADE project. In national parks (N.P.) residents and any extractive utilization are generally prohibited. Some of the N.P.s do have residents, however, and all the protected areas are subject to some level of illegal extractive utilization.
Nineteen NPWS field officers report that they have sighted wild dogs within the past 12 months in areas where settlements are allowed (i.e. in G.M.A.s or outside protected areas) and where livestock is not limited by tsetse. Eleven (58%) of these nineteen officers report that they also know of losses of domestic animals within the same 12 months. Reported losses range from 1-7 incidents per year, and suggest that kills are most frequently calves, goats and pigs, but also include adult cows. Reported wild prey includes medium sized antelopes: 4 impalas (Aepycerus melampus), 3 pukus (Kobus kob, 2 reedbucks (Redunca arundinum), 2 warthogs (Phacochoerus aethiopicus), 1 common duiker (Silvicapra grimmia), 1 sable calf (Hippotragus niger); but also larger prey: 3 wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and 1 hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus). Villagers report a recent attack by a rabid wild dog on a woman. Rabid wild dogs are often a concern among residents in wild dog habitats.
Nine respondents reported 32 different dead wild dogs (Fig.2). Reporters of wild dog population decline or extinction believed the main reasons to be intentional killing of wild dogs (7), decline in prey (7), diseases (4), snaring (1), flooding of dens (1), moving elsewhere (1).
When NPWS receives complaints of wild dogs killing livestock, they send out one NPWS hunter if available. Although the primary policy is ?shoot to scareµ, dogs have been killed on a number of occasions due to pressure from residents. NPWS does not have the means to translocate problem animals or packs, which can in any case be very difficult (English et al.,1993).
Sumbu protected area complex (game management areas: 7,274 sq.km, national parks: 2,900 sq.km.) is reported to support wild dogs in several areas, but there are only first hand reports of sightings from Sumbu N.P. (2,020 sq.km.). Only two out of six responding NPWS field officers have sighted wild dogs in 1993-August 1994. With a mean of 3.3 dogs, the four sighted packs are smaller than those of other sightings (p=0.018, Mann-Whitney). There are reports of recent losses of livestock to wild dogs, persecution of wild dogs and poaching of prey.
Bangweulu protected area complex (G.M.A.: 28,960 sq.km., N.P.: 1,890 sq.km) contained wild dogs in the 1980s, but no sightings were reported to this study. Several respondents, including a WWF biologist, think that wild dogs as well as lions (Panthera leo) and hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) have become extinct because of persecution and poaching of prey.
Luangwa protected area complex (G.M.A.: 31,520 sq.km., N.P.: 16,660 sq.km) probably holds the second largest wild dog population in Zambia. Mean reported pack size is 8.8 (n=24). Tsetse has limited cattle numbers and thus persecution of wild dogs, but tsetse are declining and goats increasing. In South Luangwa N.P. the wild dog population is beginning to recover from a precipitous decline after anthrax was documented in wild dogs in 1987 (Turnbull et al., 1991). The population has been oscillating for decades, according to a resident tour operator.
The Lower Zambezi protected area complex (G.M.A.:>16,460 sq.km., N.P.: 4,140 sq.km.) has a low reported pack size (p=0.008, Mann-Whitney) with a mean of 5.5 (n=16). There are reports of livestock losses, and elephant poaching is evident.
The Kafue protected area complex (G.M.A.:>45,000 sq.km., N.P.: 23,260 sq.km) probably holds the largest Zambian wild dog population. Kafue N.P. (22,400 sq.km.) is the stronghold, while from the Central Eastern appendix to the complex there are no reports of recent sightings. Mean reported pack size is 8.3 (n=83). Livestock losses are reported, as are wild dog losses due to poisoning (10), snares (2), rabies (2), traffic (1). The area suffers considerable poaching.
From West Lunga N.P. (1,684 sq.km) two respondents report sighting wild dogs, but the species is rare and declining. Heavy poaching occurs, and all predators are persecuted.
Liuwa N.P. (3,660 sq.km) boasts frequent sightings of larger than average packs (p=0.002, Mann-Whitney) with a mean of 11.8 (n=21). Much poaching and strong antagonism towards NPWS are reported. Livestock losses occur, and all predators are vigorously persecuted.
Sioma-Ngwezi N.P. (5,276 sq.km) has some sightings, with a mean reported pack size of 6.6 (n=8). We received reports of heavy poaching.
Zambia has one of the largest areas occupied by wild dogs, and additional data may even extend the area currently supporting the species. However, the preliminary data do not warrant estimates of population densities. Studies in protected woodlands in and around Selous Game Reserve (G.R.) (Southern Tanzania), Hwange N.P. (Northwestern Zimbabwe), Moremi G.R. (Northwestern Botswana) and Kruger N.P. (Northeastern South Africa) have found densities of 1 wild dog per 56-66 sq. km (Creel & Creel,1994; Fuller et al.,1991, Ginsberg,1993; Maddock & Mills, 1994) These studies focused on optimal areas; many Zambian habitats probably have lower densities.
Surveys based on reported sightings tend to underestimate the size of each pack; a pack may have split or individuals may be obscured by vegetation (Reich, 1984). Sighting surveys may also under-represent small packs (Ginsberg, 1993). These tendencies may place two opposing biases on the reported mean pack from this sighting survey, and the resulting bias has not be quantified. Intensive field studies found mean pack size was 8.2 in and around Hwange N.P., 8.4 in Moremi G.R. (Ginsberg, 1993) and 13.7 ± sd 7.1 in and around Kruger N.P. (Maddock & Mills, 1994).
Zambiaµs wild dog population appears to have been fragmented into seven or eight populations. The Bangweulu population may be extinct and the Sumbu and W. Lunga populations are on the brink of extinction. The Liuwa and Sioma populations appear to be more or less restricted to the National Parks. Although the size of minimal viable populations are widely discussed (e.g. Mace et al., in prep.; Olney et al., 1994; Soulé, 1987) it is inevitable that small, isolated populations, such as wild dogs in Liuwa and Sioma, are extinction-prone. The Lower Zambezi population could achieve long-term survival if interchange of individuals with the populations in Luangwa and Zimbabwe can occur. The Kafue and Luangwa populations should enjoy long-term survival if the present habitat can be maintained. Thus, much depends on the future of the G.M.A.s as natural habitats and dispersal corridors.
The human population density of Zambia is about 10/sq.km., which will probably double in 20 years. Peasants living at subsistence level cannot afford to share livestock and crops with large, wild mammals. Therefore, if at least parts of the G.M.A.s are to remain natural habitats with large mammals, these parts must be kept free of human settlement, but should continue be subject to sustainable wildlife utilization. Conflicts on the perimeters of conservation areas must be addressed seriously and realistically to encourage a positive attitude from the outside and thus ensure the integrity
of the inside of the areas. Perhaps wild dog conflicts could be alleviated through locally acceptable methods of particularly protective husbandry, especially for small livestock. Successful implementation of this and other wild dog conservation measures requires more data from field research, which in turn requires more funding.
I thank the Beckett Fund, the Chicago Zoological Society, Protecting African Wildlife, the Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, the Kjebi Fund, IUCN and the Platinum Foundation for contributing to ZWDP. I am grateful for constructive support from Dr.J.Ginsberg, Dr.D.Macdonald, Mr.H.Mwima, M.Zeko, Dr.B.Muus, Dr.H.Baagoe, NPWS and my family.
For further information regarding this survey. please contact:
Kenneth G.Buk
Zambia Wild Dog Project or The Zoological Museum
P.O.Box 60086 University of Copenhagen
Livingstone Universitetsparken 15
Zambia 2100 Copenhagen
Fax +260 3 32 00 68 Denmark
Fax +260 3 32 00 68 Denmark
Fax +45 35 32 10 10
* Kenneth Buk, a Danish graduate student, is committed not only to finding out more about African wild dogs, but also to quantifying their impact on local people in Zambia. He initiated the Zambia Wild Dog Project in August 1993.
© 1995 International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Return to Canid News Table of Contents or CSG Home Page