Trophy Hunting Versus Ecotourism as a Conservation Model? Assessing the Impacts on Ungulate Behaviour and Demographics in the Ruaha-Rungwa Ecosystem, Central Tanzania

Abstract

Trophy hunting may influence wildlife populations in many ways, but these effects have received little consideration in many of Africa’s protected areas. We assessed the effects of trophy hunting on group size, behaviour, flight initiation distance, sex ratio and calf recruitment rate in two model species, impala (Aepyceros melampus) and greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), in Rungwa Game Reserve (RGR), Tanzania. The adjoining Ruaha National Park (RNP) served as a control site, since only ecotourism is permitted. Road transects were driven and data recorded immediately upon sighting animals. Both impala and greater kudu had higher flight initiation distances, smaller group size, lower calf recruitment rates and higher levels of vigilance behaviour in RGR compared to those in RNP. Sex ratios did not differ between the two areas. The observed differences are ascribed to the direct and indirect effects of trophy hunting in RGR. Low calf recruitment rates in RGR are of concern, as this may directly compromise population growth rates. Long-term studies may therefore be required to assess how hunted populations are affected by different hunting intensities and at what point this may threaten population persistence.

Efficacy of spotlights and thermal cameras to detect lions Panthera leo and spotted hyenas Crocuta crocuta depends on species and management regime

“…Spotlights were effective in enumerating lions in SNP and are commonly used to detect large carnivores and other wildlife species (Midlane et al 2015, Belant et al 2016), but were less effective for detecting spotted hyenas in MGR. One reason for the lower number of detections may be hyena's avoidance behavior due to hunting in MGR; wildlife species are often more wary of humans in hunted areas (Little et al 2014, Stillfried et al 2015, Hariohay et al 2018). However, we conducted the survey in MGR before the hunting season and therefore, fewer hyena detections could be a consequence of other human activities, including poaching and livestock incursion.…”

Human–elephant coexistence challenges in Myanmar: An analysis of fatal elephant attacks on humans and elephant mortality

“…However, most wildlife habitats in developing countries are still outside protected area networks, and this is where conflicts between humans and wildlife often occur (Barua, Bhagwat, & Jadhav, 2013;Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005). Wildlife in unprotected areas suffers more stress due to higher anthropogenic disturbances, resulting in a reduction in animal fitness (Hariohay, Jackson, Fyumagwa, & Røskaft, 2018;Hunninck et al, 2017). Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) negatively impacts the structure and function of ecosystems and causes human fatalities and injuries, crop and property damage, livestock depredation and extinction threats to wildlife (Thant, May, & Røskaft, 2021a;Woodroffe et al, 2005).…”

Ungulate and human risk perception in shared environments

“…The seven studies using this sampling method associated specific disturbances with the resulting (temporally proximate) behavior of the animal, whether that be continuation of maintenance behaviors or initiation of antipredator behaviors. Disturbance stimuli included tourists moving by , Borkowski et al 2006, Tianyi et al 2013, the approach of the researchers themselves (Caro 1999, Bonnot et al 2017, Hariohay et al 2018, and helicopter overflight (Tracey and Fleming 2007).…”

“…The most common method was to categorize the response of the animal with three options: flight, vigilance, or no response , Bonnot et al 2017, Tianyi et al 2013. Two sources also included multiple non-responsive behaviors, such as continuing to feed or remaining resting (Caro 1999, Hariohay et al 2018.…”

“…Several sources included the cessation of other behaviors (usually feeding) as a behavioral marker of vigilance , Borkowski et al 2006, Tracey and Fleming 2007, Brown et al 2010, Reimers et al 2011, Reimers et al 2012, Podgórski et al 2016, Hariohay et al 2018. Two sources posited that animals cannot be chewing/masticating to be considered vigilant (Cleveland 2010, O'Neill 2016.…”