Can legalised-hunting help conservation?

[Matias]

Habitat use of and threats to African large carnivores in a mixed-use landscape

Quote:Large carnivore site use

Full large carnivore detection and site use model rankings are in Appendix S4.

At the home range scale, across all PAs, lions were best predicted by low illegal human activity (β = 0.63 [SE 0.28]) (Figure 2 & Table 1), regular law enforcement (β = 0.59 [0.26]), and high buffalo site use (β = 0.52 [0.25]) (Figure 2), which all had a significant effect. Lion site use exhibited a nonsignificant positive association with actively managed hunting areas, Acacia-Commiphora habitat, and proximity to a ranger post. The overarching management strategy (i.e., photographic vs. hunting tourism) had no meaningful association with lion occurrence. Within hunting areas, lions exhibited a significant association only with actively managed hunting areas (β = 1.16 [0.44]). At the scale of short-term use within their home range, lions were significantly associated with areas of high buffalo site use (β = 0.25 [0.07]) and proximity to riparian habitat (β = 0.18 [0.07] (Table 1) and nonsignificantly associated with areas of high impala and greater kudu availability.

At the home range scale, across all PAs, leopard site use did not exhibit significant relationships with any of the covariates. The species nevertheless exhibited nonsignificant positive associations with regular law enforcement, actively managed hunting areas, and greater availability of riparian habitat. Neither overarching management strategy (photographic or hunting tourism) nor illegal human activity affected leopard occurrence at this scale. No significant effects were observed when also restricting the analysis to hunting areas, although active block management was the covariate with the greatest summed model weight (Table 1). For both analyses, the large covariate β coefficients suggested that the species’ high naïve occupancy was likely confounding results to an extent. Within their home range, leopard site use was best predicted by increasing distance to PA boundary (β = 0.14 [SE 0.05]) and more cover (β = 0.10 [0.05]), both of which had a significant effect. Leopards were also nonsignificantly positively associated with areas of the home range with higher greater kudu and mean ungulate prey availability.


At both scales, there was little evidence of any covariate having a strong impact on cheetahs; the null model received strong support. It was not possible to model cheetah site use within hunting areas due to the low number of detections (5) and resulting low naïve occupancy (0.06).


At the home range scale, across all PAs, wild dog site use was best predicted by high availability of prey (β = 1.76 [SE 0.69]) (Table 1) and greater distance to large rivers (β = 1.00 [0.43]) (Figure 2). Similar effects were observed within hunting areas, alongside a nonsignificant positive association with miombo woodlands. Whether an area was used for photographic or hunting tourism appeared to not affect wild dog occurrence. Short-term wild dog site use was significantly positively associated with greater kudu (β = 0.51 [0.21]) and impala (β = 0.49 [0.22]) site use and with relatively greater distance to PA boundary (β = 0.55 [0.25]) and cover (β = 0.59 [0.25]).

Because spotted hyaenas were detected at all sampled sites at the home range scale, it was not possible to model habitat use at this scale. This suggests that, at this spatial scale, spotted hyaenas were using virtually all areas within PAs in the landscape. At the short-term use scale, spotted hyaena exhibited a significant positive relationship with buffalo site use (β = 0.29 [SE 0.04]) (Table 1) and a significant negative association with roan and sable site use (β = 0.13 [0.04]). Spotted hyaenas were also nonsignificantly positively associated with areas of the home range close to riparian habitat.


Competing management strategies and the growing threat of hunting area abandonment


Whether an area was designated for hunting or photographic tourism did not affect large carnivore occurrence. This result mirrors Mills et al.’s (2020) finding of comparable occurrence of lions in hunting concessions and NPs in West Africa. Nonetheless, we recommend further research into whether hunting offtake is eliciting finer-scale effects on the study populations. For example, while hunting did not affect leopard site use in Zimbabwe, it negatively affected abundance (Searle et al., 2020), and similar effects have been noted for lions (Creel et al., 2016). Our results nevertheless suggest that large carnivores can persist in hunting areas if these are effectively managed, and that management and protection levels are a better determinant of persistence than whether the area is used for photographic or hunting tourism (as also noted by Bauer et al. [2015]).


Further evidence of this was provided by our finding that large carnivores were faring better in areas with evidence of regular and sustained law enforcement activities than areas without (WMAs, GCA, OA, sections of the NP and GR), and in actively managed hunting areas compared with those left vacant by operators (Figure 3). In both cases, we believe this is primarily a result of differences in management resources. In Tanzania, NPs and GRs generally receive greater conservation investment than WMAs, GCAs, and OAs (Stoner et al., 2007; this study), and the higher illegal human activity and lower wildlife occurrence observed in the latter confirm patterns noted elsewhere (Oberosler et al., 2019; Stoner et al., 2007). Similarly, hunting operators in Tanzania are required to support regular protection activities within their blocks (MNRT, 2018). When blocks are vacated, management is returned to the Tanzania Wildlife Management Authority (TAWA), which often lacks the resources to effectively protect such vast areas, particularly without the income generated from hunting activities (EU, 2017; MNRT, 2016; TAWA, personal communication). Our findings thus suggest that increased protection associated with the presence of hunting operators can improve the management of wildlife habitats in the absence of other sources of conservation funding. Nevertheless, we were unable to determine whether poor management by hunting operators played a role in blocks becoming degraded before they were abandoned. This possibility should not be excluded, given past evidence of overharvesting (Brink et al., 2016; Packer et al., 2011). Ensuring sustainable practices, and that operators implement regular protection activities, should be a priority for PA managers.

Regardless of underlying drivers, block vacancy was the best predictor of lion and leopard absence within hunting areas, indicating that the high level of human disturbance in vacant hunting blocks is a key conservation threat in the study landscape. From 2014 to 2018, approximately half of Tanzania's hunting areas, covering almost 150,000 km2, were vacated by hunting operators (FZS, 2018). Thus, if the situation in Ruaha-Rungwa is indicative of vacant blocks elsewhere in the country, the dereliction of protective management associated with hunting block vacancy may present a novel and important threat to Tanzania's biodiversity. This is likely to be the case especially where human population density around PA boundaries is high, as in parts of the study area. We, therefore, encourage further research into this emerging threat, both in Tanzania and in other countries experiencing similar trends of hunting area abandonment (Zambia and Mozambique; FZS, 2018).

In light of these findings, we also caution against attempts to phase out trophy hunting (or, more specifically, protection activities associated with it) without appropriate alternatives being in place (Dickman et al., 2019; Lindsey et al., 2007). Given the ongoing conservation funding shortage (Lindsey et al., 2018) and the size of the areas of concern, both consumptive and nonconsumptive strategies are likely to be required to preserve Africa's vast network of wildlife areas (Dickman et al., 2019; Lindsey et al., 2007). These will likely have to involve mechanisms that are both established (photographic and hunting tourism) and innovative (e.g., debt for nature swaps, carbon payments, conservation basic incomes, private philanthropy, joint ventures with the private or nongovernmental organization sectors, and sustainable livestock-wildlife systems [Buscher & Fletcher, 2020; Lindsey et al., 2014]). We, therefore, urgently recommend investments to identify and implement solutions to what appears to be a novel and potentially severe threat to the region's wildlife and its habitats.

I posted in this thread because of the message of the Article and the endorsement of its consecrated postulants: Phillipp Henschel, Amy Dickman, David Macdonald and newcomer Paolo Strampelli.

In the discussions I participated in, I always defended that trophy hunting is a conservation tool that, when well managed, maintains the landscape and all the wildlife that lives in it. It conserves populations, not individuals. The biggest problem is leaving the land vacant (deprived of any kind of conservation action that prevents the traditional use of the land). More important than our personal preferences is the understanding that replacing the regulated hunting industry in Africa requires a tried and tested model that can maintain and develop this land for people to use in conjunction with the full enjoyment of wildlife. This model does not yet exist, and anyone who calls for the cancellation of regulated hunting is, as a result, making millions of hectares lost to conservation – What happens when concessionaires of hunting areas return their concessions to the local government? So far, no African government has made them new national parks. People occupy and kill all wildlife for consumption and trade. When a good hunting block no longer has “a concessionaire/tenant”, people run out of time to get everything they can before the government grants a new authorization to another concessionaire. However, if the return is due to commercial unfeasibility caused by the loss/absence of customers, all this land will be lost forever. It is necessary to look responsibly when seeking a goal, the side effects can prove to be disastrous for the animals you want to conserve. There is nothing more pragmatic than keeping land free from traditional human use.

It is also an effective way to understand how important the wildlife management areas (WMA and GMA) are for the conservation of the Greater Ruaha landscape. Reply