Report on African Wild Dog Capture, Translocation & Reintroduction

AFRICAN WILD DOG INTRODUCTIONS

INTO SMALLER FENCED RESERVES.

A METAPOPULATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.

SYNOPSIS OF LITERATURE COMPILED BY

Robin Lines

WILD DOG PROJECT, NAMIBIA

NAMIBIAN NATURE FOUNDATION

CONTENTS …………… ……PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY3

1.0Introduction4

2.0Metapopulation Management from Theory to Practice6

3.0Previous Attempts at Reintroduction7

4.0Lessons from Previous Canid Introduction Programmes9

4.1Socio-political factors can make or break canid reintroduction programs9

4.2The taxonomy of historical and potential source populations may

determine the feasibility and magnitude of reintroduction programs9

4.3Soft-releases and translocations are effective reintroduction techniques 9

4.4Released canids can adapt quickly to local conditions11

4.5Disease can hamper reintroduction attempts11

4.6Canid restoration can have profound ecosystem effects11

5.0Recommended Reintroduction Techniques13

5.1 Suitable Area for Reintroduction13

5.1.1Size13

5.1.2Risk Factors in and around the Reintroduction Area13

5.1.3Carry Capacity14

5.2Sources of founder animals 14

5.2.1Captive verses Wild Caught Animals14

5.2.2Genetics14

5.2.3Sex / Age Ratio and Numbers15

5.3Introduction technique 15

5.3.1Captive Breeding of AWD15

5.3.2Release Facilities15

5.3.3Introduction of the AWD into the Release Boma15

5.3.4Feeding16

5.3.5Vaccination Protocols16

5.3.5.1Pre-Release17

5.3.5.1Post-Release 17

5.3.6Release18

5.3.7Post Release Monitoring18

6.0Summary of Recommendations for AWD Reintroduction 20

7.0Future Challenges and Opportunities 21

References 22

Appendix 1

Principles and Guidelines for the Management of the South African Wild Dog Metapopulation. 27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………………… ……

Experience of African wild dog (AWD) introductions has been unsuccessful in most cases, of partial or unquantified success in a few cases and successful in even fewer. The reintroduction of AWD is possible if the right technique is used. If a entire wild caught pack is not available, which is the likely scenario given the difficulty in capture and the threat to the wild population of removing breeding units, a combination of captive and wild caught animals is the recommended method to reintroduce AWD especially if they are to be released into an environment where they will have to compete with other large predators. Adequate protection from persecution and disease is also essential for a successful reintroduction. Post release monitoring is important to determine the post release success or failure and information gathered can be used to improve on reintroduction technique (Hofmeyr, 1997).

1.0 INTRODUCTION………….……………………………………………………………

The AWD reflects many critical problems to carnivores in general. Their decline has been well documented over the past 30 years (Woodroffe, 1999a). Formerly distributed throughout 39 sub-Saharan countries, today between 3000-5000 animals remain in perhaps 14 countries, only 6-7 of which contain populations >100 individuals. The isolated northeast of Namibia is estimated to contain between 313 and 1166 individuals (Stander, 2003) but only 5% of their range is within protected areas. This suggests that the long-term survival of the species depends on the maintenance of viable and connected populations both within and outside protected areas.

AWDs decline reflects the expansion of human population and the associated fragmentation of habitat available to wildlife. Because AWDs live at low densities and have large home ranges, even ‘fragments’ covering thousands of km2 will not support viable populations (Woodroffe et al, 1997). Packs often range beyond the borders of parks into land taken over for livestock farming. Thus even normally protected populations are subject to road kills, disease contracted from domestic dogs and depletion of wild prey. Like other large predators, they kill livestock under some circumstances, and have been shot, snared and poisoned in most livestock areas irrespective of legal protection

In 2002, the IUCN/SSC reintroduction specialist group held a Strategic Planning Workshop where reintroductions were shown to be growing in conservation significance because they:

Are increasing in number;
Attract public attention;
Are regionally important and;
Can use flagship species to facilitate habitat conservation.

Certainly canids are generally charismatic, ecologically significant, and often sufficiently wide-ranging to be adequate umbrella species for habitat preservation, but the restoration of many species can still be ecologically or politically problematic.

Successful reintroductions require that a number of species-specific, environmental, and bio-political criteria be met (Kleiman & Beck 1994). There should be a need to augment the wild population, sufficient founder stock should be available, and extant wild populations should not be jeopardized by the reintroduction (Kleiman & Beck 1994, Woodford & Rossiter 1994). The species’ biology should be well understood, appropriate reintroduction techniques should be known, and sufficient resources should be available for the program. The original causes for the species’ extirpation should be removed and sufficient unsaturated, protected habitat should be available. Reintroductions should conform to legal requirements, be supported by both government and non-government agencies, and have minimal negative impacts on local people (Kleiman & Beck 1994).

Compared to smaller, less wide-ranging species, many canids could be ill-suited for reintroduction because:

1)Their large home range requirements can only be satisfied in extensive protected areas which might not be available (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998);

2)Local people frequently oppose the reintroduction of species that prey on domestic livestock or threaten humans (Phillips 1995, Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1999) and;

3)The extensive planning and implementation required for reintroductions (Fritts et al. 1997) is prohibitively expensive.

The present surviving population of AWD is extremely fragmented and is highly unlikely that areas where dogs have become extinct will be re-colonised by natural migration. The only alternative is to re-establish dogs to their former ranges (Hofmeyr, 1997).

In order to improve this situation, a managed metapopulation comprising a number of local populations of introduced AWD in several medium sized reserves, in South Africa, has been proposed (Mills, Ellis, Woodroffe, Maddock, Stander, Pole, Rasmussen, Fletcher, Bruford, Wildt, Macdonald & Seal 1998). A metapopulation suggests a population of local populations, with colonization and extinction of local populations in a metapopulation likened to births and deaths of individuals in a local population. A similar approach executed with strong management support is a viable option in Namibia.

Reintroducing wild dogs into optimal habitats where they no longer occur, or into existing, small populations to increase population size, is therefore considered an important tool for saving wild dogs in Africa (Mills et al. 1998).

Here we examine the successes or failures of canid reintroductions and aim to identify lessons from these programs which might aid future reintroduction attempts.

2.0 METAPOPULATION MANAGEMENT FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE…..…

(From: Moehrenschlager & Somers, In press.)

A metapopulation is a set of spatially isolated groups of individuals that share individuals among them (Wells & Richmond 1995). Numerous canid species are threatened by habitat loss or habitat degradation. One of the main consequences of this is increased fragmentation (Saunders et al. 1991) which increases the likelihood of extinctions (Gilpin & Hanski 1991). When habitat is limited, extant and reintroduced canid populations must be managed as a metapopulation to ensure their long-term persistence.

When individuals are moved from one location to another and released to re-establish populations or metapopulations, the scope of such activities may differ depending on program goals, release techniques, and geographic aspects. We adopt the definition of a reintroduction as an attempt to establish a species in an area which was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct (IUCN 1998). We include wild or captive animals, or a combination of these in our definition. A translocation is a deliberate and mediated movement of wild individuals or populations from one part of their range to another with existing conspecifics. Supplementation is the addition of individuals to an existing population of conspecifics. Softreleases are those releases where the animals are housed in an enclosure at the place of release for sometime before release. Hardreleases are those where the animals are released directly from vehicles or crates without any acclimatization phase at the place on reintroduction.

Species respond differently to fragmentation and therefore an autecological approach has been suggested to the maintenance of metapopulations (Laurance 1991). Differential responses can be due to the landscape pattern, levels of habitat loss (Harrison & Fahrig 1995), life-history and ecological traits such as diet or vulnerability to predators and competitors (Laurance 1991). The persistence of patchy distributions is related to a number of factors, including rates of local extinction within habitat patches, as well as the frequency of immigration and recolonisation (Lindenmayer & Lacy 1995). It has been shown that seemingly low levels of dispersal can be sufficient to create a stable metapopulation structure (e.g. Simberloff & Cox 1987) which may also allow the viability of canid populations despite relatively small exchange rates between isolated subpopulations.

Four metapopulation parameters have been identified (Hanski 1999) that would characterize canid metapopulation dynamics:

(i)Habitat patches can support locally breeding populations;

(ii)All patches are at risk of extinction;

(iii)Recolonisation must be able to occur and;

(iv)The dynamics between patches are asynchronous.

The successful management of sub-populations depends on the minimum viable metapopulation size (Hanski et al. 1996). This is the minimum number of interacting local populations necessary for the long-term persistence of a metapopulation in a balance between local extinctions and recolonisations (Hanski et al. 1996). Genetic and demographic management of canid subpopulations is essential. Demographic management should aim to control possible negative detrimental factors (e.g. sex ratio variation) as well as declines in population size due to stochastic demographic processes (Foose & Ballou 1988). Genetic management aims to reduce the effects of inbreeding and genetic drift to allow for genetic population viability over time. (Lande 1988, Lacy 1997). While metapopulations are governed by extinction and recolonisation rates, reintroduction practitioners have the luxury of artificially choosing immigration sites and numbers through sound metapopulation planning.

3.0 PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT REINTRODUCTION………………………………….

(From: Moehrenschlager & Somers, In press.)

The first successful wild dog reintroduction was into Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park (HUP) from 1980-1981 (Maddock 1999). A mixture of 24 wild-caught and hand-reared wild dogs were released, which persisted with a mean annual density of 19.9 wild dogs in the 960km2 reserve. In 1986, 4 semi-tame wild dogs were released into HUP, which left the park (Maddock 1999). As numbers declined after 1993, another 3 wild caught males and 1 female were introduced in 1997. The pack produced 12 pups in 1998 but it split up in 1999 after the alpha female died. The 2 adult males left the park and roamed widely in other reserves and game ranching areas before one was found dead and the other disappeared (Somers 2001). Of the 1997 reintroduction, only one male (brought in as a yearling of the alpha female) still survived in 2003. In 2000 two females were introduced which bonded with two existing males from the original pack. As of March 2003 there were two packs, both of which have had pups in 2001 and 2002. A third pack, consisting of two males and two females from the Northern Province, is currently awaiting release with an unrelated adult female and three juvenile males. This introduction will be the first where unrelated animals of the same sex have been combined and released.

There were three attempts to reintroduce wild dogs into Etosha National Park, Namibia from 1978 to 1990 (Scheepers & Venzke 1995). In 1978, six hand-reared yearlings were released which died within four months, mainly due to starvation (Scheepers & Venzke 1995). In 1989, five adult captive bred wild dogs were released, but all died of unknown causes within three months. After the success of the reintroduction of wild dogs into Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park, it was decided to try again in 1990. Five captive-bred males (including three adults) and eight females (three adults) were to be released. One adult male and female escaped while being transported to Etosha. The female was shot a week later on a farm. The male formed a pack with two domestic dogs which hunted together until the wild dog was trapped in a reserve 350 km away three weeks after escape. He was returned to the released wild dog pack, which subsequently killed him with bites on the spine and neck. The remaining animals struggled to hunt and lost body condition. Four died of rabies, six were killed by lions and one disappeared.

Six wild dogs were reintroduced into Tsavo West National Park, Kenya, in 1997. They disappeared after 8 days, 4 were then resighted after 2 months, but eventually all animals were killed (Kock et al. 1999).

In 1986 nine captive raised wild dogs were released into the Matetsi Safari Area in Zimbabwe and then shot by a local farmer. In Zimbabwe wild dogs have been captured and released successfully in safer areas (Greg Rasmussen pers. comm.).

In 1975, 3 males and 2 females were reintroduced into South Africa’s Kalahari National Park which soon split up and disappeared (Frame and Fanshawe 1990, cited in Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1999).

In 1992 7 male and 7 female wild dogs were reintroduced by a soft release to Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve, South Africa. They bred that year but later left the reserve and some were found poisoned on farmland (van Heerden 1992, Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1999). In January 2002 nine wild dogs were reintroduced, which have subsequently bred.

In 1995, three wild-caught and three captive-bred individuals were reintroduced via soft release into Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa. They produced two litters of pups; however, 18 of 21 wild dogs died of rabies in 1997. In January 1998 three captive-bred females and two wild caught juvenile males were reintroduced and in July 1998 two captive bred and two wild caught males were added to the wild population. In 2000 new males were added and have since disappeared. In February 2000 another rabies outbreak killed eight of 11 unvaccinated pups but none of the vaccinated adults. There are now three successfully breeding packs in Madikwe and some individuals have been removed to supplement other release areas, including Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park.
Nine wild dogs were reintroduced by soft release into Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa in 1999 (van Dyk and Slotow 2003). This release again showed that a combination of wild caught and captive-bred wild dogs could successfully be used for wild dog reintroductions. In 2002 another two females were bonded with two present males and two packs now exist in the park. These packs have bred on numerous occasions.

In 2001, two wild caught males and three captive bred females were reintroduced by soft release into Karongwe Nature Reserve, South Africa. One female died soon after release and the two were diagnosed as not being able to digest meat, a result of been reared on domestic dog food. The two males were then put with two other females, but one male did not bond with them. The three were released into Karongwe and successfully bred in 2002.

Wild dogs are presently in an enclosure awaiting reintroduction into Marakele National Park and reintroductions are being planned for other areas such has Addo Elephant National Park and Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Africa.

It is obvious from the above examples that reintroduction’s of larger predators are not easy with many factors limiting the success of such operations. Due to the high failure rate of wild dog introductions the IUCN/SSP Canid Specialist Group does not consider the reintroduction of wild dog as a priority project for the survival of the species. They place emphasis on the protection of the remaining viable populations.

As stated earlier it is highly unlikely that wild dogs will naturally re-colonise areas from which they disappeared due to the fragmented distribution, which the dogs survive in. It is therefore imperative that wild dog will have to be introduced to areas where they formally occurred if they are to be re-established in those areas.

4.0 LESSONS FROM CANID REINTRODUCTION PROGRAMS…………………

(From: Moehrenschlager & Somers, In press.)

4.1Socio-political factors can make or break canid reintroduction programs:

Several authors have pointed out that valuational and organisational aspects are at least as critical for carnivores as biological parameters (Breitenmoser et al. 2001, Beck et al. 1994, Reading & Miller 1995, Miller et al. 1996, Reading & Clark 1996). Since many canids require large home ranges in protected habitats and many prey on livestock or commercially hunted species, numerous stakeholders such as landowners, hunters, the resource-extraction industry, aboriginal groups, regional and federal governments, and conservation organizations may have special interests surrounding the protection of canids. Recovery planning that is inclusive, interdisciplinary, and effective is difficult to achieve, but critical to the protection of canids (Boitani et al. in press).

One of the most crucial aspects determining the success of canid reintroductions is the support of affected landowners, or mitigation measures to placate those that resist such efforts. Support for a possible reintroduction of wolves to New Brunswick, Canada, was lowest for sampled individuals that were hunters, feared wolves, or had low levels of formal education. The primary reason why reintroductions would be opposed was that deer availability for hunting would decline (Lohr et al. 1996). Opponents to a possible reintroduction of wolves into Colorado, USA, worried about wolf attacks on livestock, financial losses to ranchers, wolves threatening residential areas, and large losses of deer or elk. Proponents believed wolf reintroduction would control deer, elk and rodent populations, restore the environment, and help educate the public about wilderness (Pate et al. 1996).

Strong opposition from some factions stalled the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho for two decades, until a proposal to reintroduce wolves was accepted as long as it was deemed ‘non-essential-experimental’ under the United States Endangered Species Act (Fritts et al. 1997). Nevertheless a group comprised mostly of farmers and ranchers filed a law suit to stop this reintroduction. Similarly, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court of New Mexico to stop the reintroduction of Mexican wolves (Parsons 1999).

Careful management of released red wolves and the emerging population involved close public consultation, which has led many landowners to allow wolves on their properties (Phillips et al. 1995). ‘Defenders of Wildlife’, a non-government organization, has compensated ranchers for livestock losses caused by reintroduced Mexican wolves and grey wolves in Yellowstone. In assessing the future of the Mexican wolf, Paquet et al. (2001) concluded that human attitude is the primary factor that will determine the viability of this species.