Wildlife Fencing: An assessment of fencing as a tool for conservation and veterinary purposes in South Africa

L. David Cohen and Dr. Vicky MeretskyIndiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Figure 2: The transmission of disease between wildlife and livestock is influenced by the complex interaction of multiple factors (Dion et al. 2011).

Figure  3:  African  buffalo  (Syncerus  caffer).  

In South Africa (SA), wildlife conservation has unceasingly come into conflict with livestock grazing and with sustenance living. Fences have often been employed to address these conflicts, but generally to the detriment of wildlife. In a failed attempt to protect their vulnerable, non-native cattle from disease and predation, European settlers eliminated large populations of wildlife but failed to prevent disease. Then, to ensure long-term protection of cattle and humans, fences were erected, sometimes continuing for hundreds of miles, cutting wildlife off from their traditional migratory paths and the food and water they once accessed by migration. This containment of wildlife caused major additional losses of plants and animals. Biodiversity loss results in ecological harm, while further alienating locals from their historical and sociocultural ties with plants and wildlife. Carefully considered policies and planning are needed to place fences to minimize harm to wildlife. Careful monitoring can help to managers adapt fencing practices to respond to wildlife needs in the face of climate change and changing land use. High biodiversity, along with the growing threat of wildlife extinction by anthropogenic actions, is one reason why SA mandates fencing around conservation areas. This thesis discusses positive and negative impacts of fencing as a conservational tool in SA, the associated policies, and the changes needed to most effectively protect livestock, wildlife, and humans.

Abstract  

Figure  4:  A  collec4on  of  snares  at  Hlane  Na4onal  Park,  Swaziland.  

Figure 1: FISS incidents per species (elephant, lion, hyena) per month between Nov. 2008 and July 2009 (Hayward and Kerley 2009).

Fence  Incident  Surveillance  System  (FISS)  Incidents  in  KNP    

Figure  6:  African  lion  (Panthera  leo).  Figure  5:  Fence  damaged  by  elephants  in  KNP  (Ferguson,  Adam,  and  Jori  2012).  

•  Disease control (foot-and-mouth disease: FMD) •  Control required for SA’s livestock industry •  Few outbreaks of FMD since initial construction of veterinary cordon fence

along western boundary of KNP in early 1960s •  Human-wildlife conflict •  Protects farms from damage by large ungulates •  Protects humans and livestock from predator depredation

•  Anti-poaching •  Concrete-reinforced fencing is best option to deter illegal entry •  Expensive and reduces visibility

•  Allows wildlife managers to control high-traffic entry points •  Eco-tourism •  Establishment of protected natural areas •  Revenue for conservation and anti-poaching efforts •  Provides local employment opportunities •  Creates hunting opportunities •  Added revenue •  Population control

Successful  Applica4ons  of  Fencing  

Dion, Elise, Louis VanSchalkwyk, and Eric F. Lambin. “The Landscape Epidemiology of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in South Africa: A Spatially Explicit Multi-Agent Simulation.” Ecological Modelling 222.13 (2011): 2059–2072.

ISI Web of Knowledge. Web. Ferguson, K. & Hanks, J. eds., 2010. Fencing Impacts: A review of the environmental, social and economic impacts of game and veterinary fencing in Africa with particular reference to the Great Limpopo and Kavango-Zambezi

Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Pretoria: Mammal Research Institute. Ferguson, Ken, Laura Adam, and Ferran Jori. An Adaptive Monitoring Programme for Studying Impacts Along the Western Boundary Fence of Kruger National Park, South Africa. Ed. M. J. Somers and M. W. Hayward. New York:

Springer, 2012. Print. Hayward, Matt W., and Graham I. H. Kerley. “Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?” Biological Conservation 142.1 (2009): 1–13. ISI Web of Knowledge. Web. Jori, F. et al. “A Questionnaire-Based Evaluation of the Veterinary Cordon Fence Separating Wildlife and Livestock along the Boundary of the Kruger National Park, South Africa.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 100.3–4 (2011):

210–220. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 Apr. 2015. Kalwa, Ralph. "Managing in Kruger National Park." SPEA in South Africa. Limpopo Province, Melelane. 4 June 2014. Lecture. Lindsey, Peter A. et al. “Ecological, Social and Financial Issues Related to Fencing as a Conservation Tool in Africa.” Fencing for Conservation. Ed. Michael J. Somers and Matthew Seidler, Renee G. et al. “Identifying Impediments to Long-Distance Mammal Migrations.” Conservation biology  : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 29.1 (2015): 99–109. ISI Web of Knowledge. Web. Trimble, Morgan J., and Rudi J. Van Aarde. “Fences Are More than an Issue of Aesthetics.” BioScience 60.7 (2010): 485–486. bioone.org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu (Atypon). Web. 24 Dec. 2014.

Cita4ons  

•  Disease control (African trypanosomiasis) •  Fences can’t protect cattle from tsetse fly vector •  Limited value in containment of non-contagious illnesses

•  Human-wildlife conflict •  Elephants incur most damage to fences (Figure 1) •  Most cases result in the loss of life and/or crops

•  Use of snares for poaching (Figure 4) •  Cost from both lost wildlife and fencing repairs

•  Negative community perceptions •  Exclusive nature of protected areas requiring admission fees •  Inability to repair fencing before animals escape

•  Impediment on ecological processes •  Annual/seasonal migration

•  Climate change •  Increase in amount and severity of fence-damaging weather events allows

for more wildlife to escape •  Fencing prevents dispersal to areas with appropriate climate

•  Fence-line mortality •  Entanglement in wires

•  Disruption of predator-prey equilibrium •  Predators learn to use fence to their advantage in hunting

•  Habitat isolation and fragmentation •  Increases risk of inbreeding

Ini4al  Losses  

•  Buffer zones •  Allow fence patrols to detect the signs of poachers •  Acts as communal land for both wildlife and surrounding communities

•  Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) •  Removal of fences within the TFCA to connect protected areas •  Allows wildlife to develop dispersal routes •  Allows boundaries to follow ecosystem divisions rather than political

divisions •  Increased community involvement •  Promotes local appreciation of native wildlife •  Provides training and employment of farmers to detect damaged fences •  Additional income for households •  Reduce livestock depredation and crop damage

•  Assists wildlife managers in guarding large protected areas or areas of high poaching traffic

Further  Improvement