Login

Acinonyx sp. · 03-29-2021, 08:52 PM

Cat fight! Two cheetahs go hell for leather in dramatic photos taken in South African national park

Two animals caught on camera fighting each other in Kruger National Park, South Africa
Cheetahs had a fierce battle and one of them ended up with serious injuries
The fight between the two angry cheetahs took place near Tshokwane

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...-park.html

Acinonyx sp. · 03-30-2021, 06:09 AM

No cheeting please: The extraordinary moment a fight erupts between two cheetahs where one is spotted leaping FOUR FEET into the air

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002033/No-cheeting-The-extraordinary-moment-fight-erupts-male-cheetahs-caught-leaping-FOUR-FEET-air.html#ixzz2C2aTPNs

Acinonyx sp. · 04-04-2021, 04:07 AM

Longevity of Mammals in Captivity; from the Living Collections of the World mentions One wild born male cheetah was about 20.5 years old when he died in captivity

Acinonyx sp. · 04-04-2021, 04:17 AM

Cheetah with wildebeest kill

*This image is copyright of its original author

Another cheetah killing wildebeest

*This image is copyright of its original author

Acinonyx sp. · 04-05-2021, 01:23 AM

People weighing cheetah cubs

https://ru-ru.facebook.com/Wildlife.Safa...890385908/

Acinonyx sp. · 04-05-2021, 01:28 AM

NASHULA – NEW CHEETAH FEMALE IN THE MARA

The absence of a physical boundary between Mara and Serengeti allows cheetahs, like other species move freely throughout the ecosystem. Some Mara-born cheetahs migrate to Tanzania, and some Tanzanian-born ones come to the Mara. Approximately every 3-4 months we meet new cheetahs. The appearance of new females with offspring is very special. In early January, a female with three half-year-old cubs appeared in the Sopa area of the Reserve. She was recently named Nashula (means “Mix” in Maa) for spending time in both Tanzania and Kenya. It is noteworthy that each time in the Mara, she explores new territories: in mid-February, Nashula was seen leaving for the Serengeti at the Sand river area, and by early March, she had already mastered the Siana conservancy. In January, the cubs were extremely shy, but now they are used to the presence of vehicles, giving us the opportunity to observe them. Such long-distance journeys are crucial for the future resettlement of the offspring. When the mother leaves the cubs and they start living on their own, it will be easier for them to establish their territories/home ranges, since they will be familiar with large areas.

*This image is copyright of its original author

From Mara Meru Cheetah project.

Acinonyx sp. · 04-05-2021, 04:49 AM

CHAPTER 9: DEMOGRAPHY OF THE NAMIBIAN CHEETAH
ABSTRACT
Namibian cheetahs have suffered, and continue to suffer, high levels of removal due to conflict with local farmers, and it is important to understand the demography of this population in order to determine its likely persistence. Examination of cheetahs reported live-trapped or killed by local farmers, combined with subsequent information from radio-telemetry, allowed demographic parameters such as sex ratios, age and social structure, litter size, interbirth intervals and survivorship to be estimated for cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Cub mortality was relatively low, but adult mortality was high, particularly for males, and peaked at 5-6 years of age. Neither marking nor relocating cheetahs seemed to affect survivorship, and there was no difference in survivorship between the sexes. Time spent in captivity did not appear to affect survival after release. These findings will be useful in formulating recommendations regarding the conservation and sustainable utilization of cheetah populations outside protected areas.

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Determining vital rates and demographic parameters is fundamentally important to the accurate understanding of any population (Eberhardt 1985, Lebreton et al. 1992, Lebreton et al. 1993). When a population is subject to high offtake, it is essential to establish whether the level of removal threatens its long-term viability. Large mammals are particularly sensitive in light of their long gestation and interbirth intervals, extended parental care and long maturation. Their life history parameters effectively lower the potential rate of population increase (Eisenberg 1981, Harvey et al. 1989), creating a higher extinction risk. Adult survival is a particularly important parameter, documented to exert a substantial impact on population viability for large, long-lived species (Crooks et al. 1998, Doak et al. 1994, Eberhardt 1985, Taylor et al. 1987). The Namibian cheetah is an example of a threatened population which has been subject to a high level of removal, and whose vital rates require more accurate determination in order to assess and manage the impact of such removals. Vital rates of cheetahs have been reported in the Serengeti (Caro 1994, Kelly and Durant 2000, Kelly et al. 1998, Laurenson 1995, Laurenson et al. 1992), but the population in Namibia is subject to strikingly different pressures (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). The intense conflict with humans results in a high number of adults being removed, which could have a more severe effect on long-term population viability (Crooks et al. 1998) than the lion-perpetrated high cub mortality reported in the Serengeti ecosystem (Laurenson 1995).In order to ascertain the impact of such mortality, this paper reports and examines the vital rates and life history parameters of cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Assessment of these reproduction and survivorship estimates provides insight into the vulnerability and likely persistence of the cheetah population in Namibia. In 1996, a Population and Habitat Viability Assessment was conducted, and called for, as a priority, more data on demographic parameters such as annual female mortality and reproductive information (Berry et al. 1996). Here, we provide these data.

9.2 METHODS
Demographic parameters were estimated using data from cheetahs captured opportunistically by farmers between 1991 and 2000. Some of these cheetahs were subsequently radio-collared and released, which provided information regarding reproduction and survivorship in the wild. Our interpretations take note of a potential bias in the sample population arising from the high proportion of cheetahs captured at ‘playtrees’, which are used more by adult males than by adult females (Marker-Kraus and Kraus 1995).

9.2.1 Trapping, immobilising and marking cheetahs
During the course of the study, we examined cheetahs that had been trapped on Namibian farms, using the capture and immobilisation protocols described in Chapter 3. Each live cheetah that we examined during the study was marked with a uniquely numbered implantable transponder (Trovan Electronic Identification Systems, Model-ID 100) placed at the base of its tail, and/or an aluminium ear-tag with a unique ID number in the individual’s ear. On designated animals (those released in the core study area), a neoprene radio-telemetry collar with external antenna was also fitted (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Minnesota). The radio-collars were 3.8 cm wide with an adjustable strap from 30-45 cm long, with a 30 cm antenna extending about 18 cm from the collar. The collars were fitted with a "C" cell lithium battery with a life expectancy of over 36 months. Radio-collars weighed 280g and were equivalent to 0.56% of body mass for a 50kg male and 0.76% for a 37kg female, well below the limit suggested by Amlaner and Macdonald in 1980. In line with Caro (1994), we could detect no impact of these collars on cheetah survival.

9.2.2 Age classification
Age classification was based both on experience with captive cheetahs and on information from previous studies (Burney 1980, Caro 1994), and followed the protocol described in Chapter 3.

9.2.3 Determining social structure
Cheetahs are relatively social felids and often occur in groups: in many cases, farmers left adjoining traps open after catching a cheetah, to ensure that all members of any social group were captured at the same time. In other instances, capture was more random and it was likely that other cheetahs in the same social group remained free. Parameters such as coalition size, litter size and age-specific cub mortality were therefore determined using data from cases where determined attempts had been made to capture the entire group of cheetahs. Cheetahs were classified as to the social group of which they were a part when they were captured, using the following categories. Males over 18 months old were classed either as single males or as members of male coalitions, while females over 18 months old were classed as either being single females or as mothers trapped with cubs. The remaining classes were cubs (18 months old or younger) trapped without a dam, and mixed-sex groups of young independent cheetahs (19-30 months old), which were presumed to be littermate groups.

9.2.4 Estimating reproductive parameters
Age at parturition was estimated by examining females trapped with cubs, and by observing new litters of cubs produced by radio-collared females of known age. Long-term monitoring of six radio-collared females that had multiple litters provided information regarding interbirth intervals. Information regarding the distribution of births through the year was gathered from the examination and ageing of cubs trapped, and from observations made of females and cubs during radio-telemetry. Litter size was determined from groups trapped where determined efforts had been made to capture the entire family unit, and from observations of radio-collared females with cubs during aerial tracking. Although we have no data regarding litter size at birth, observations of litters of different ages allowed some estimation of agespecific cub mortality.

9.2.5 Estimating mortality and survivorship
Most cheetahs were released at site of capture, but when this was not possible, the cheetahs were relocated. Relocation was classified as being 100km or more away, as this should be well beyond the diameter of a normal home range (Marker 2000). The majority of cheetahs released within the core study area were radiocollared in order to gain information regarding post-release movements and home ranges. In addition, the tracking of cheetahs enabled information to be gathered regarding survivorship. Wild cheetah deaths reported to CCF included cheetahs that had been radio-collared, some that were tagged, and some that had not been marked at all. The deaths of marked cheetahs, whether radio-collared or simply ear-tagged, were often reported and enabled comparisons to be made about the approximate age of death of handled cheetahs versus those of cheetahs that had never been handled. Mortality rates and life expectancy data were calculated following Downing (1980). The age of a cheetah at death was taken to be the midpoint of the age category in which it was recorded at the time of death. By using this midpoint, the formulae used should underestimate and overestimate the age at death for equal numbers of cheetahs and thereby give an approximation that is close to the actual distribution of ages at death. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 10.0 software (SPSS Inc. Chicago, USA). Means significance testing was carried out using the parametric independent samples t-test, using Levene’s test to determine equality of variances, while departures from expected ratios were analysed using a chi-squared test. The non-parametric Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to determine the significance of relationships between variables measured on nominal scales, while Pearson’s correlation coefficient was determined for interval data. Tests performed included one-way analysis of variance, and log rank for the equality of survival distributions following a Kaplan Meier analysis. All tests were two-tailed unless otherwise stated.

Table 9.1 Annual demographic breakdown into social groups of the cheetahs captured and examined (SM = single males; C = coalition, CM = coalition males, CS = coalition size, SF = single females, LS = litter size, LM = littermate).

*This image is copyright of its original author

One hundred and seventy adult males were reported trapped, of which at least 97 (51.2%) were in coalitions. Coalition size (Figure 9.1) ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 2.3 throughout the study (n = 42), and showed no significant change through the course of the study (F = 1.11, p = 0.389).

Figure 9.1 Coalition sizes for cheetahs captured throughout the study (n = 42 coalitions)

*This image is copyright of its original author

9.3.2 Age and sex structure of sample population
A summary of the age structure of captured cheetahs through the study is shown in Figure 9.2. There was a highly significant variation in overall capture frequency for each age cohort (F = 2.02, p = 0.030). Assuming that captures reflect trends in the wild population, the age structure of the population was not stable.

Figure 9.2 Breakdown into age groups of cheetahs captured throughout the study period.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Overall, the combined increase in the proportion of young animals and decline in the proportion of older animals meant that there was a significant relationship between age groups captured and year of the study (F = 2.02, p = 0.030), with more young animals being captured as time went on (rs = -0.12, p = 0.016). This overall result arises from a combination of trends, although these were not in themselves statistically significant. Thus, the proportion of young cubs captured increased through time, although the trend was not statistically significant (rs = 0.15, p = 0.667), and the same positive trends were seen for both large cubs (rs = 0.22, p = 0.519) and adolescents (rs = 0.55, p = 0.079). By contrast, the proportion of newly independent cheetahs captured showed some decline through time (rs = -0.47, p = 0.145), as did the proportions of young adults (rs = -0.19, p = 0.574) and prime adults (rs = -0.53, p = 0.096). The proportion of old and very old adults (age groups 7 and 8 combined) captured stayed virtually constant through time (rs = 0.003, p = 0.989).

There was a strong bias towards capturing adult males, with 2.9 adult males captured for every adult female. This proved to be a significant deviation from a 1:1 sex ratio with regard to the adult cheetahs trapped (Ȥ 2 = 47.1, p = 0.000). Amongst the adult cheetahs captured, the fraction of males trapped declined through the study, but the trend was not statistically significant (rs = -0.53, p = 0.097).

9.3.3 Reproductive parameters
Age of breeding females ranged from 19 months to 12 years old (n = 43, mean = 5.3 years) (Figure 9.3). The percentage of adult females that were trapped with cubs each year ranged from 22.2% to 70.0%, with an overall mean of 44.5% (n = 60).

Figure 9.3 Estimation of age of dam at parturition, for the litters of cubs examined during the study.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Litters were produced throughout the year, but varied significantly between months (Ȥ 2 = 18.3, p = 0.05), indicating some degree of seasonality. Birth peaks were evident in March and July, with 40% of litters born in these two months, while only 5% of litters were born from October-December (Figure 9.4)

Figure 9.4 Distribution of cheetah cub births throughout the year, using estimated month of birth from examination of cubs captured.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Litter size obtained through trapping ranged from 1-6 with a mode of 3 (mean = 3.1, n = 27 litters), with no statistically significant variation between years (F = 0.56, p = 0.812). Litters observed during radio-telemetry alone ranged in size from 2 to 5 with equal modes of 3 and 4 cubs (mean = 3.4, n = 13 litters), and also did not vary significantly between years (F = 1.51, p = 0.131). There was no significant difference in mean litter size observed between the two techniques (t = -0.93, p = 0.357). Overall, therefore, the mean litter size observed, using data gathered from both methods, was 3.2 post-emergence (n = 40 litters, Figure 9.5).

Figure 9.5 Litter sizes of cheetahs captured and examined throughout the study.

*This image is copyright of its original author

A regression on litter size and cub age for all the observed litters, including those seen multiple times at different ages (n = 65 observations) implies an estimated litter size at age 0 (birth) as 3.5 (Figure 9.6).

Figure 9.6 Regression of litter size with estimated cub age for cheetahs captured and examined during the study.

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is very likely, however, that field observation data underestimate mean litter size at birth, as there is likely to be pre-emergence mortality in the den (Laurenson et al., 1992). There was no significant deviation from an expected 1:1 sex ratio regarding cubs aged 12 months old or below (Ȥ 2 = 0.62, p = 0.432). While females were captured with as many as six dependent cubs, average litter size for newly independent littermates ranged from one to three with a mode of 2 and a mean of 2.4 (n = 9 litters). This may be an underestimate, however, if newly independent animals are less likely to stay with a trapped littermate and are therefore less likely to be captured and recorded. Reproductive information was gathered on 19 litters from 10 radio-collared dams (Table 9.2). Interbirth intervals following litters that were raised to independence (n = 6) ranged from 21 to 28 months, with a mean of 24 months.

Table 9.2 Information gathered from radio-collared dams (n = 10) regarding observed reproductive rates, interbirth intervals, litter sizes and cub mortality.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Although cheetahs have been known to survive for up to 21 years in captivity (Marker-Kraus, 1997) the maximum age recorded here for an animal that was still reproductively active was 12 years, so this can be regarded as the figure for effective longevity.

9.3.4 MORTALITY AND SURVIVORSHIP
Mortality rates were calculated from all recorded wild deaths (n = 67), including 45 marked cheetahs and 22 that had never been handled, and these are shown in Table 9.3. These data show that the age specific mortality ranged from 20% to 28% for the first three years of life and then dropped to virtually zero between three and five. There was then a large peak of mortality at age 5-6, but of the few cheetahs that reached six years of age (n = 4), all survived for a further four years.

Table 9.3 Life table showing mortality rates for wild cheetahs throughout the study period.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Survivorship following release could be calculated for the 45 wild marked cheetahs, and ranged from 0.6 months to 48.5 months for males (n = 35) and 0.6 months to 65.4 months for females (n = 10). Survivorship of male and female marked cheetahs is shown in Figure 9.7.

Figure 9.7 Survivorship of marked male and female cheetahs released during the study period.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Of the cheetahs shown in Figure 9.7, 71.1% (n = 32) were adults at the time of release, of which 46.9% (n = 15) were of prime breeding age. Mean survival time for tagged and released males was 14.4 months (n = 35), while for females it was 18.5 months (n = 10). Although females lived for slightly longer, the difference in survivorship was not statistically significant (log rank = 0.71, p = 0.401). When analysis was restricted to adult animals, to remove any effect of cub mortality following the death of a female, the mean survival time was 16.2 months for males (n = 23) and 20.3 months for females (n = 9), a difference that again was not significant (log rank = 0.58, p = 0.447). There was no significant difference in estimated age at release between the sexes (t = 0.24, p = 0.812). Cumulative annual survival was calculated for radio-collared male and female cheetahs and is presented in Figures 9.8a and b.

Figures 9.8a and 9.8b Annual cumulative survivorship for (a) female and (b) male cheetahs. Error bars represent standard errors.

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was a significant difference between cumulative yearly survival rates between males (mean = 9.4 months) and females (mean = 10.2 months) (t = 2.07, p = 0.009). There was also a significant difference between the frequency of natural mortality and human caused mortality for both males (t = -7.37, p = 0.000) and females (t = - 7.08, p = 0.000), with the majority of deaths attributable to human causes. Marked cheetahs were slightly older at death than unmarked cheetahs, but the difference was not statistically significant (t = -1.94, p = 0.057). Amongst marked cheetahs, survivorship of radio-collared animals was compared to those that were just ear-tagged and released. As only fully-grown (>18 months), healthy cheetahs were radio-collared, whereas the tagged population included subadults, the analysis was restricted to cheetahs that were released at age group 4 or above. Mean post-release survival time for radio-collared cheetahs was 20.2 months (n = 24), whereas cheetahs wearing only a tag survived on average for 9.8 months after release (n = 8): see Figure 9.9. Radio-collared cheetahs survived longer following release than tagged cats, and differed significantly in their survival distribution (log rank = 3.92, p = 0.048). This was not an effect of differing ages at release between the two groups (t = -1.23, p = 0.230).

Figure 9.9 Kaplan-Meier survival curves for radio-collared versus marked cheetahs.

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is possible that since all cheetahs radio-collared were in our core research area, more people were aware of the presence of marked cheetahs which was a deterrent to killing cheetahs, whereas ear-tagging of cheetahs took place throughout the country, including places where many people were unaware of our research. There were 21 reported cases of human-caused mortality amongst the marked animals, and if the radio-collar acted as a deterrent then the expectation would be for there to be relatively few collared cheetahs within this sample. In fact, 14 of the 21 cheetahs reported killed by humans were radio-collared, which was not a significant deviation from an equal ratio of collared to tagged cats (Ȥ 2 = 2.33, p = 0.127). However, 36.8% of the released adult cheetahs were radio-collared, while 63.2% were only tagged. Using these proportions as the expected ratios, radio-collared cheetahs comprise a significantly greater percentage of human-caused mortality than would be expected (Ȥ 2 = 8.05, p = 0.005). Often cheetahs with health problems spent longer time in captivity before release than healthy cheetahs. To investigate whether time spent in captivity was detrimental in terms of subsequent survival in the wild, survivorship following release for adult animals was correlated with total days spent captive prior to release. There was a slight negative correlation between the two variables, but it was not significant (r = -0.52, p = 0.778). Cheetahs were either released at sight of capture or distances varying between 50km to 600 km away from the capture location. There was no significant difference in mean survivorship for adult cheetahs released at the site of capture (mean = 18.0 months, n = 19, s = 13.6), those released within 100km of the capture site (mean = 15.4 months, n = 7, s = 9.1) and those relocated over 100 km away (mean = 28.4 months, n = 8, s = 27.3) (F = 1.34, p = 0.275).

9.4 DISCUSSION
9.4.1 Social structure
The most common age groups trapped were young adults and prime adults; removal of these age classes is likely to have a particularly detrimental effect on the population (Crooks et al. 1998). If this sample is representative of the nationwide picture, then this finding is of particular concern. Males are often caught at the time of dispersal when they are trying to establish a territory, travelling long distances across many farms, presumably increasing their chances of being trapped. This bias towards young adult and prime adult males is likely to be a sampling bias rather than a true indication of population structure in the wild, due to the aforementioned ‘playtree’ bias. The disproportionate removal of males has been seen in many mammalian species and, although probably less damaging to the viability of the population than a skew towards removing females, can nevertheless have serious impacts in terms of social structure and behaviour (Tuyttens and Macdonald 2000). In areas of fragmented populations and low density where removed males cannot easily be replaced by immigrants, continued removal of adult males could have a severe effect and lead to lower reproductive rates and an accelerated decline (Tuyttens and Macdonald 2000). This scenario is likely to become of greater importance if cheetah populations become more fragmented in the future. The removal of dominant, territorial males can also be counter-productive to farmers insofar as it may lead to the increased survival of subadult and transient animals that would not normally settle in the area (Young and Ruff, 1982, cited in Tuyttens and Macdonald, 2000) and which may be more likely to become ‘problem’ animals (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996).

9.4.2 Reproductive parameters
The live capture of females with cubs presented the opportunity to monitor the sex structure of cubs and to estimate reproductive parameters. Litters could not be studied before emergence from the den, and therefore provide no direct information regarding either sex structure or litter size at birth, as infant mortality can be substantial before emergence (Laurenson 1994). The litter size of 3.5 at birth extrapolated from the data in this study is slightly higher than the 3.1 found in previous studies in Namibia (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996), while information from captive studies give a mean litter size of 3.3 (Marker-Kraus 1997), and data compiled by Gittleman (1986) indicated an average of 3.8 cubs per litter. These data are difficult to compare directly as the litter size at various ages is not given, but the litter size at independence of 2.4 found in this study is similar to the 2.1 reported from the Serengeti (Kelly et al. 1998). Although females are capable of breeding at an earlier age (Marker-Kraus 1997, Wildt et al. 1993), reproduction on the Namibian farmlands usually does not occur before 1.5 to 3 years of age (Morsbach 1987). Similarly, whereas males are physiologically capable of breeding at less than 2 years of age (Marker-Kraus 1997, Wildt et al. 1993), social constraints may limit breeding of Namibian male cheetahs to older, territorial animals in the prime age category.

9.4.3 Mortality and survivorship
The mortality and life expectancy data reveal that for both male and female cheetahs in our sampled population, the highest peak of deaths is between five and six years of age. This is to be expected given that the trapping and removal methods tend to select prime breeding age adults, as discussed above. The mortality figure found here for the first year of life (25%) should be interpreted with caution as it cannot include mortality before emergence from the den, which has been found to be a period of high mortality in other studies (Laurenson 1994). However, it appears that in Namibia, the level of cub mortality is indeed far lower than in game reserves with a high density of intra-guild competitors. Despite this, even without intra-guild competition, fewer than 50% of the cubs reach independence. Data from the Serengeti show that female cheetahs surviving to independence had a good chance of reaching old age (Kelly et al. 1998). This was not the case here: in this study, female cheetahs that reached independence still had an 86% chance of dying before six years of age. This reflects the differing pressures on the two populations: in the Serengeti, the greatest threat to survival is predation by larger carnivores, particularly lions, on dependent cubs (Laurenson 1994). This threat recedes once a cheetah reaches adulthood, whereas the greatest threat to cheetahs in Namibia appears to be humancaused and focuses on cheetahs of prime breeding age. In this study the threshold seemed to be six years of age; the few cheetahs monitored that lived that long managed to survive until old age. The removal of adult cheetahs has been shown to have a far more significant impact on the overall population than the removal of cubs (Crooks et al. 1998). The selection by trapping adult cheetahs is therefore of major concern regarding the ability of the Namibian cheetah population to persist long-term. The majority of these removals are in reaction to a perceived threat to livestock and/or game by commercial farmers (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). As a result, conservation efforts should be concentrated on educating farmers in alternative game and livestock management techniques to reduce losses and lessen conflict. Much of the information gathered through this study was only possible by directly handling cheetahs, including fitting radio-collars prior to release. However, the invasive handling and monitoring of wildlife, particularly when it involves an endangered species, has been the focus of much debate (Bateson 1991, Burrows et al. 1994, Creel et al. 1997, Cuthill 1991, Driscoll and Bateson 1986, Smith and Boyd 1991). The handling of wild animals is likely to involve some degree of stress (Laurenson and Caro 1994), and it has been argued that this stress may hamper the eventual survival of the animals (Cuthill 1991, Martin and Bateson 1986). This may be particularly important with cheetahs, a species potentially more vulnerable due to its inherent genetic uniformity (Laurenson and Caro 1994, Smith and Boyd 1991). However, this study showed that the survivorship of the wild cheetahs we handled and marked was no lower than that of wild cheetahs that had never been handled. In addition, there was no evidence that putting a radio-collar on a wild cheetah had a negative impact on survival following release, and the radio-collared cheetahs studied here lived longer post-release than their tagged counterparts. Collaring of cheetahs was conducted in a relatively concentrated area, where farmers were well aware of the research being conducted. Therefore, public awareness may have contributed to the longevity of radio-collared cheetahs that are not causing problems with farmers. Marking of cheetahs in other parts of the country, where public awareness was not as extensive, may have caused the differences between the post-release longevity. It could not be ascertained whether the collars acted as a deterrent to farmers who would otherwise kill the cats, instead prompting them to contact CCF or another authority to deal with problem or trapped cheetahs. The higher than expected incidence of radio-collared cheetahs amongst those killed by humans may indicate that people are more likely to report a death if they see a radio-collar on the cheetah concerned. Cheetahs that were relocated far from their capture site provided important survival information. The relocated cheetahs did not have significantly different survival rates from those released in close proximity to their capture site, which suggests that relocating cheetahs into suitable habitat can be an effective conservation strategy without negatively impacting the survivorship of the individual cheetah. Of importance in our monitoring was the possible effect of keeping cheetahs in captivity prior to release. There is a chance that holding an animal in captivity could have a detrimental effect on survivorship after release, either through a reduction in physical fitness and hunting ability, or by animals losing their territories and being forced into marginal areas. Analysis of cheetahs we handled, however, showed that there was no relationship between the length of time spent in captivity and subsequent survivorship following release, despite the fact that some of the cheetahs were held in captivity due to being in poorer physical condition. From this 10-year study we have identified certain areas of concern, e.g. the continued removal of prime adults from the population, the skewed sex ratio resulting from capture methodology and the apparently unstable age distribution. In addition, we have been able to establish parameters that can be used in future modelling efforts. Such modelling exercises will provide a basis for long-term conservation strategies for cheetahs on Namibian farmlands.

Page 186-208
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

Acinonyx sp. · 04-07-2021, 01:51 AM

10.1 INTRODUCTION
Extensive information regarding the feeding ecology of cheetahs has been collected from the Serengeti (Caro 1994, Frame 1986, Kruuk and Turner 1967, Schaller 1968), where 21 prey species were recorded, ranging in size from mole rats (Cryptomys spp.) to wildebeest, with a strong bias towards Thomson’s gazelles. Other studies in East Africa (Burney 1980, Eaton 1974, Graham 1966, McLaughlin 1970) have also revealed preferences for gazelles (Gazella spp.) and impala, amongst a diverse prey base. In northern Kenya, cheetahs were observed taking kudu, gerenuk and dik-dik (Hamilton 1986) while kob and oribi have been noted as prey in west Africa (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Data from Kafue National Park, Zambia showed puku to be the favoured prey species (Mitchell et al. 1965), while cheetahs in the Lowveld Region of South Africa (Hirst 1969, Pienaar 1969) took a preponderance of impala amongst 15 species taken. In the Southern Kalahari, (Mills 1984) found that cheetahs killed prey ranging from bateared foxes (Otocyon megalotis) to wildebeest, with springbok as the favoured species. The summary to date, then, is that cheetahs predominantly kill medium-sized (10 – 35 kg) antelope, but will opportunistically take other prey if available. Against this background, the diet of cheetahs on Namibian farmlands is interesting for two reasons. First, the cheetahs in this habitat exist in a highly managed ecosystem, where kleptoparasites such as spotted hyaenas and lions have been eliminated, whereas previous studies of cheetah diet have been conducted in areas where they are sympatric with other larger carnivores, by which they are potentially disadvantaged by intra-guild competition. It is interesting to investigate how their dietary preferences change in the absence of such competition. Secondly, this population is threatened by farmers who kill them because of he perception that cheetahs kill substantial numbers of domestic stock and ranched game, particularly expensive and exotic game. Cheetahs are known to kill smallstock and calves up to six months old (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996), but it is important to investigate whether the level of predation corroborates the perception of them being a serious problem.

Picture 10.1 Calf injured by suspected cheetah attack – such incidents can cause significant economic losses to farmers.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Through surveys conducted with Namibian farmers, the cheetah was reported to prey upon a wide range of species on the farmlands, including livestock as well as both indigenous and exotic game species (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). This paper aims to identify the relative importance of the different species in the diet of cheetahs on Namibian farmlands, so that problems and potential solutions can be identified in order to develop suitable cheetah conservation strategies.

Diet estimation of carnivorous mammals can be tackled by various methods, each subject to different biases (Mills 1984, Reynolds and Aebischer 1991). Opportunistic and direct observation of kills, while the predominant method for large carnivores in East and South Africa, is impractical in the dense bushveld of Namibian farmland. The traditional solution involves quantification of undigested prey remains in scats (e.g. Emmons 1987, Geffen et al. 1992, Lanszki et al. 1999, Previtali et al. 1998). However, it has long been obvious that extrapolation from volumetric analysis of undigested prey remains in faeces is an unsafe basis for quantifying carnivore diet unless corrected for differential digestibility of different prey sizes and species (Ackerman et al. 1984, Floyd et al. 1978, Lockie 1959, Scott 1941). Such uncorrected extrapolation risks, for small prey, the overestimation of biomass and under-estimation of numbers consumed. Therefore, as one step in our diet analysis we calculated digestibility indices for captive cheetahs following the protocol established by (Floyd et al. 1978) for grey wolves (Canis lupus), and used these indices to estimate rates of livestock depredation caused by cheetahs on the farmlands. We also compared estimates of cheetah diet derived by contrasting methodologies (e.g. faecal analysis versus aerial surveys of kills) to evaluate the biases inherent in each.

10.2 METHODS
10.2.1 Feeding trials
Following (Floyd et al. 1978), nine trials were conducted in two 256m2 captive holding pens at the Cheetah Conservation Fund’s research farm near Otjiwarongo, Namibia. Before each trial, the cheetahs were fasted until no fresh scats were being produced, a process which took 40-96 hours. This was similar to fasting periods experienced in the wild: Caro (1994) reported fasting times of 30-36 hours, McLaughlin (1970) reported fasts of 48-72 hours, and Broomhall (2001) described fasting periods ranging from 84 to 168 hours. Carcasses were weighed and then fed intact to the cheetahs. Five carcasses were fed to two wild-born, two-year old females. Four carcasses were fed to three wild-born, three-year-old males. Four species were used with prey weights <30kg (hare, lamb, goat and steenbok); while two species were heavier, namely kudu and oryx. Since a high percentage of cheetah kills are either abandoned after gorging or are stolen by a competing predator (Caro 1994), the carcasses were removed when all feeding cheetahs remained lying down for more than 10 minutes without returning to feed (33-125 minutes). After feeding, the carcass was removed and weighed to the nearest 0.5 kg. Scats were collected twice daily, in order to minimise both trampling and desiccation. Scat consistency varied from liquid or semi-liquid scats that would be unlikely to be found and collected during a field study, which were categorised as noncollectable scats (NC), to firmer scats that were likely to be found and collected in the field (field-collectable, FC). Field-collectable scats were counted and weighed immediately after collection. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 10.05 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to investigate normality, and non-parametric procedures were used where there was significant deviation from normality. Analysis followed (Floyd et al. 1978) and (Weaver 1993), using a least squares regression plot, which yielded a regression equation, where y is the kg of prey consumed per collectable scat and x is the average weight of an individual of a given prey species. By multiplying y by the frequency of occurrence (n) of each prey species in the sample, it was possible to obtain a total weight consumed of each species and calculate the ratios of biomass consumed between prey species. The total weight of each species consumed was then divided by the average estimated weight in order to compute the number of individuals consumed, and ratios were computed relative to a kudu calf weighing 16kg. Masses of subadult animals were used for eland, oryx, kudu and red hartebeest, as cheetahs most commonly prey upon the calves of these large species rather than hunting adult animals (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996).

10.2.2 Scat analysis
Scats were collected from wild cheetahs that were live-trapped by farmers (as described in Chapter 3), both from the traps themselves and during examination, and were also collected in the field, particularly from ‘playtrees’, which are certain trees used by cheetahs for scent-marking with urine and faeces (Marker-Kraus and Kraus 1995). Once collected, scats were individually placed in nylon stockings and washed through two complete regular cycles in a conventional washing machine. No bleach or detergents were used. The washing process left in the stocking only hair, bones, teeth and hooves, and the stockings and their contents were then hung out to dry. The dried remains were spread evenly into a dissecting pan with a grid base of six 67.5cm2 squares, and one hair was randomly sampled from each square, carefully examined, and cuticle scale imprints were made. Hairs were sandwiched between two glass slides on a plastic cover slip, held together by four small (no. 20) binder clips, and heated for five minutes in a toaster oven at 108°C, removed, and left to air cool. The hair was then gently removed from the cover slip using forceps or fingernail, and the hair’s scale characteristics were used to determine which species it was from. Macroscopic distinctions narrowed the options and cuticle imprints finalized the identification. Kudu and eland hairs were often difficult to distinguish, so were categorized together in some instances. In compiling our reference collection, we were mindful of Koegh’s (1983) result that hair from fresh carcasses and preserved skins is identical (Buys and Koegh 1984, Koegh 1983). Our collection involved hairs and imprints from neck, back, belly, and hindquarter regions of each possible prey species in the study area.10.2.3 Information on kills from radio-tracking flights and from farmers Between 1993 and 1999, radio-collared cheetahs were tracked on a weekly basis from a fixed-wing Cessna 172, as described in Chapter 11. During these flights, cheetahs were occasionally sighted on identifiable kills. Although they may do so exceptionally (Caro 1982, Pienaar 1969, Stander 1990), cheetahs do not generally scavenge from other predators (Caro 1994, Wrogemann 1975) and we therefore assumed that the cheetah had killed the animal being eaten. We also recorded whether the cheetah was sighted within 500m of livestock or game. Interpretation of the scat analysis data was also made in the context of farmers’ answers during a questionnaire survey conducted between 1991 and 1999 regarding their observations and perceptions of cheetah predation (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996), as detailed in Chapter 12. The results of the feeding trials and corrected scat analysis were used to estimate rates of livestock depredation by cheetahs in the study area.

10.3 RESULTS
10.3.1. Feeding trials S
cats containing the presented prey item were produced from 48 to 111 hours after feeding, and the feeding trial results are shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1 Results of feeding trials performed on captive Namibian cheetahs. Scats were classified as either field-collectable (FC) or non-collectable (NC).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Of the four smaller prey species, the mean percentage consumed was 69.7%, but for the two species of large antelope this dropped to 16.8%. There was a strong correlation both between prey mass presented and prey mass consumed (rs = 0.86, p = 0.007, n = 8), and between prey mass presented and fresh collectable scat weight (rs = 0.74, p = 0.038, n = 8). However, the smaller prey items consumed gave a proportionally greater fresh weight of field-collectable scats in relation to the prey mass presented, with the mass of field-collectable scats averaging 8.1% of the prey mass presented for the four smaller species, but only 1.2% for the kudu and oryx. The number of field-collectable scats per kg of food consumed diminished with increased prey weight – on average, the four small species gave 2.4 field-collectable scats per kg of prey eaten, while kudu and oryx gave a mean of 0.8 scats/kg. Data summarised in Table 10.2 revealed a strong correlation (r = 0.89, p = 0.017, n = 6) between the weight of prey consumed per collectable scat and average weight of the prey species presented.

Table 10.2 Summary of results from the feeding trials for each prey species presented.

*This image is copyright of its original author

A regression on these variables generated the following equation: y = 0.0098x + 0.3425, which can be used to provide valuable information on the relative contribution of different prey species reported as part of the cheetah’s diet (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). This information is shown in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 Ratios of prey animals consumed, using the corrected scat analysis, for 100 scats containing prey species.

*This image is copyright of its original author

10.3.2 Scat analysis
Ninety-eight cheetah scats were analysed, of which 79.6% (n = 78) were from cheetahs held for 4 days or less, and 20.4% (n = 20) were from cheetahs held captive for over 4 days. From the feeding trial results, only cheetahs that had been captive for 4 days or less were considered to be indicative of diet in the wild, as any scats produced after this time would not reflect diet before capture. Of the 78 scats from wild cheetahs, 33.3% (n = 26) were from game farms (either from captured cheetahs or collected from playtrees), 48.7% (n = 38) were from livestock farms, and 17.9% (n = 14) from unknown locations. Table 10.4 presents the total number of scats collected from wild cheetahs, location of collection and the prey species identified in them. In the majority of cases, the cheetahs appeared to be predating upon indigenous game species, while in 6.4% of cases the prey species identified were domestic stock.

Table 10.4 Contents of wild cheetah scats collected from various locations on the Namibian farmlands.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Applying corrections for differential digestibility (Table 10.5), the prey selection can be more accurately determined. Only the scats where kudu and eland hairs could be distinguished were used for these two species.

Table 10.5 Ratios of prey animals consumed, calculated using the corrected scat analysis.

*This image is copyright of its original author

This table highlights the importance of applying correction factors to scat analysis to avoid under-representing the consumption of smaller prey animals. For instance, although hare remains were found in only 3 scats and accounted for only one fifth of the biomass that kudu did, we deduced that nearly twice as many hares as kudu were preyed upon. Conversely, a similar biomass of eland and kudu appeared to have been consumed, but use of the correction factor indicated that fewer than half the number of eland would have been killed compared to kudu. Forty-six scats were analysed from wild cheetahs of known sex (37 from males and 9 from females), and identifiable prey remains were found in 27 cases, from 23 male and 4 female cheetahs. A higher percentage of scats from male cheetahs contained the remains of large antelope species (kudu, eland, red hartebeest and oryx), while those from females more frequently contained evidence of smaller antelope such as steenbok (Figure 10.1). The remains of domestic stock were found only in scats collected from male cheetahs, but the sample size of scats from female cheetahs was too low to draw any substantial conclusions from this.

Figure 10.1 The percentage of scats from male and female cheetahs that contained remains of large and small species of antelope, other species such as hares and birds, and domestic stock.

*This image is copyright of its original author

10.3.3 Additional information regarding kills
Between 1993 and 1999, 325 visual observations of radio-collared cheetahs were made. From these observations, 21 cases were recorded of cheetahs on identifiable kills, and the prey consumption determined using this method was compared to that from the corrected scat analysis (Figure 10.2).

*This image is copyright of its original author

Figure 10.2 Estimates of the relative contributions of different prey species to the diet of Namibian cheetahs, using data from observed kills during radio-tracking flights, and from corrected scat analysis.

Even when limited to the prey species identified through both techniques, the composition of the diet indicated by visual observations and corrected scat analysis differed significantly (Ȥ 2 = 33.1, df = 4, p = 0.000). Aerial sightings led to higher representation of kudu, red hartebeest and oryx than estimated through the scat analysis, with the other species less represented. In the instances where cheetahs were located near potential prey (n = 1088 locations), they were within 500m of game species 77.6% of the time and to livestock 22.4% of the time. From the farm survey conducted, 58.6% (n = 81) of the farmers believed that kudu calves were the primary prey of the cheetah. Springbok, where regionally available, was also reported as a main component of the diet, as were warthog and steenbok. Oryx and hartebeest calves were considered to be common prey, followed by a variety of other animals including duiker, eland, ostrich, small game birds, guinea fowl (Numida meleagris), kori bustards (Ardeotis kori), and hares

10.3.4 Estimating rate of livestock depredation caused by cheetahs The maximum rate of food consumption for wild cheetahs has been estimated as 5.5kg/cheetah/day (Eaton 1974), which equates to 1958 kg of prey consumed/cheetah/year. Our feeding trials revealed that 1.87 field collectable scats were likely to be produced per kilogram of prey consumed, leading to an estimated production of 3661 field-collectable scats/cheetah/year. The scat analysis showed that on the Namibian farmlands, 4.3% of scats collected contained evidence of domestic calf consumption, while 2.1% contained sheep remains. Using the correction factor, we calculated a consumption of 0.018 calves for each scat containing calf remains, while the figure was 0.016 individuals for sheep. Therefore, out of 3661 scats, 157 would be likely to contain calf remains and 77 would contain sheep remains, indicating the consumption of 2.8 calves and 1.2 sheep per cheetah per year. However, Schaller (1972) calculated that cheetahs killed 35% more prey than they consumed, leading to estimated kill rates of 3.8 calves and 1.6 sheep per cheetah per year. Assuming a minimum density of 2.5 cheetahs per 1000km2 on the farmlands and an average farm size of 8000ha (80km2 ) (see Chapter 11), the minimum rate of livestock depredation due to cheetahs can be calculated as 0.01 calves and 0.004 sheep per km2 , or 0.76 calves and 0.32 sheep annually on an averagely-sized farm. The accuracy of these calculations obviously depends on the density of cheetahs living in the study area, estimates of which vary widely (Stander 2001). Using the highest reported estimates of cheetah density on the Namibian farmlands (34 cheetahs/1000km2 : Stander 2001), the approximate rates of livestock depredation due to cheetahs would be 10.3 calves and 4.4 sheep per farm per year. 10.4 DISCUSSION The feeding trials supported the conclusions of Lockie (1959) and Floyd et al. (1978), that, if analysis is based on uncorrected volumetric measures of undigested remains in scats, then smaller prey items are over-represented in biomass consumed but under-represented in numbers if uncorrected scat analysis is performed. The cheetah is an opportunistic predator whose prey varies in size from rodents to adult ungulates (Burney 1980, Caro 1994, Frame 1986, Marker-Kraus et al. 1996, Schaller 1968), and this great variation in prey size makes accurate interpretation of scat analysis more complicated. Consumption of smaller prey gave a higher number of field-collectable scats relative to the mass consumed, because they are composed of relatively more indigestible matter. Feeding on meat alone, rather than bone and hide, tends to result in the production of more liquid scats, and these would probably not be collected during field studies (Ackerman et al. 1984, Floyd et al. 1978). This is likely to be of particular importance regarding cheetah dietary habits due to their method of prey consumption. Although cheetahs are known to consume some bone (Phillips 1993), they consume more pure muscle (rather than skin or bone) than do other large carnivores (van Valkenburgh 1996, Wrogemann 1975), and this is likely to be even more pronounced when eating from a large carcass. Use of correction factors is therefore very important for accurately estimating cheetah diets.Accurate analysis of wild cheetah diet relies upon the collection of enough scats from which prey remains can be identified. Using the equations in Reynolds and Aebischer (1991), 9600 scats containing identifiable prey remains would be required to establish that these estimated prey proportions are accurate. Given that only 76.9% of the wild cheetah scats analysed contained identifiable prey remains, it would necessitate 12 500 scats to achieve the aforementioned statistical power, which is unrealistic. Our experience has shown that collecting cheetah scats is very difficult due to several factors, including the large home ranges cheetahs occupy (Marker 2000) and the rapid desiccation of scats in arid environments. Additionally, scats are hard to collect from cheetahs trapped by farmers, as the cats have often gone without food for several days and any scats in the traps are frequently trampled. The available data, therefore, based on a much smaller sample size, can only give a basic insight into the dietary habits of cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Collecting scats from playtrees and trapped cheetahs biases the data towards males, as the majority of cheetahs visiting playtrees and being trapped are male (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). Male cheetahs are likely to take larger prey than do females (Mills 1992), so the prey selection determined during this study may not be entirely representative of female cheetahs. Additionally, the interpretation of the scat analysis in terms of numbers of prey animals consumed assumes that the prey animals taken weighed approximately the average masses shown. However, despite these limitations, and especially given the lack of other information available, these data can contribute usefully to understanding the diet of wild Namibian cheetahs on farmlands. The radio-tracking data reveal that cheetahs are sighted near livestock relatively frequently, and this is exacerbated by the species’ diurnal nature and consequently greater visibility than other predators. Such sightings by farmers who are experiencing stock loss potentially leads to the assumption that cheetahs are the cause, and creates the perception of them as being frequent stock-killers. The corrected scat analysis indicates, however, that cheetahs preferentially take wild game species over domestic ones. Although 38 scats were collected on livestock farms (over half from cheetahs that had been trapped as a supposed threat to livestock), only 2 of those contained any evidence of domestic stock consumption. The fact that domestic stock was evident in 6.4% of the scats does verify that cheetahs prey upon livestock, but as two-thirds of the available prey base is livestock (Marker-Kraus et al., 1996), cheetahs appear to show selection towards game species. It is difficult to estimate rates of livestock depredation due to cheetahs from this information, as estimated figures for cheetah density in the study area vary greatly (Stander 2001). In a recent survey (see Chapter 12) farmers in the region reported losing an average of 0.9 calves and 1.3 smallstock annually to cheetahs, which was slightly higher than estimated using the minimum density figures, but far less than would be expected if cheetahs exist at maximum density. Conducting further research into gaining a more accurate estimate of cheetah density will be vital for independently examining the level of stock loss that cheetahs are likely to be responsible for. Relying therefore on reports by farmers (see Chapter 12), the level of livestock depredation attributed to cheetahs was substantially less than that caused by other predators, and indicate that livestock depredation due to cheetahs is unlikely to be a major financial burden for Namibia’s commercial farmers. However, the predominance of game species in the diet does mean that the cheetah is likely to be perceived as a threat on game farms. Many game farmers stock exotic game species on their land for trophy hunters, which are more valuable economically than indigenous game but can be more liable to predation than the better adapted indigenous species (Marker and Schumann 1998, Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). Although these results suggest that cheetahs are preying mainly upon indigenous game species rather than the more expensive exotic game, losses to large carnivores remain a potential problem for game farmers.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Picture 10.2 Introducing game species into areas where they would not naturally occur can have serious consequences in terms of losses. Species such as springbok, which are adapted for short-grass plains, are highly susceptible to predation in the thickly bushed farmland habitat, and often suffer high levels of depredation, reducing game farmers’ tolerance for predators.

In line with comparable studies of other carnivores, (e.g. Karanth and Sunquist 1995, Mills 1992) the diet estimated from sighted kills contained a greater proportion of large prey than did that estimated from faeces. The only exception in this study was for eland, where fewer kills were seen than would be expected from the scat analysis. This may be due to the fact that eland are nomadic (Smithers 1983) and for much of the time would not be on the relatively small area of farmland where radio-tracked cheetahs were being followed. The wild prey base available to the cheetah is critical in the issue of predator conflict. According to many Namibian farmers, maintaining a higher ratio of wildlife to cattle is the most important feature in reducing livestock predation in the survey area (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996), as a plentiful wildlife population provides an abundance of prey, which in turn reduces the farmers’ conflict with predators. Overall, these data indicate that cheetahs show selection for indigenous game species rather than for domestic stock. However, even a relatively low level of predation upon expensive, introduced game, or upon livestock, can have a serious economic impact on farmers (Oli et al. 1994). In order to conserve cheetahs successfully on farmlands and reduce the level of removal, strategies must be found that mitigate the economic loss caused by them. Fenced sections of farms containing expensive game animals can be protected through effective maintenance of perimeter fences, or, more sustainably, by the removal of game fencing and the development instead of cooperative game management areas in the form of conservancies.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Picture 10.3 Forming conservancies, where game is managed collectively rather than being split into small, game-fenced areas, provides several advantages such as allowing the natural movement of game populations across the farmlands, and reducing the impact of losses due to predators for individual farmers.

There are also several livestock management practices, such as the use of guarding animals, calving corrals and synchronized breeding seasons, that have been shown to be effective in reducing stock losses both to cheetahs and other predators (Marker-Kraus et al. 1996). Additionally, the development of ecotourism and sustainable trophy hunting both have the potential to turn predators into an economic asset rather than a detriment to the farmers on whose lands they survive.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf Page:214-233

Acinonyx sp. · 04-08-2021, 05:16 PM

Iconic cheetah, Chewbaaka, dies

*This image is copyright of its original author

Dr. Laurie Marker with Chewbaaka. Photo by: Frans Lanting.

The symbol of the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF), a male cheetah named Chewbaaka has passed away. At the age of 16, Chewbaaka outlived most cheetahs in the wild, but was killed from wounds suffered after a rabid kudu leapt into his enclosure.

Chewbaaka was brought into the CCF when he was only 10 days old and near death. After recovering from illness the cheetah became a conservation ambassador and loyal friend to CCF founder, Dr. Laurie Marker.

“As a team, he and I demonstrated to tens of thousands of Namibian children and adults that we could live together peacefully. He made Namibians proud of their natural heritage. He convinced men who had killed cheetahs all their lives to put down their guns and work to protect this fascinating animal. People all over the globe knew him or knew of him,” writes Marker in a memorial message.
CCF works to save cheetahs from extinction.
https://news.mongabay.com/2011/04/iconic...aaka-dies/

Acinonyx sp. · 04-09-2021, 08:36 PM

Cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus Schreber, 1776

Other names
Guepard (French); Gepard (German); guepardo, chita (Spanish); jagluiperd (Afrikaans: South Africa); abo shamani (Amharic: Ethiopia); fahd (Arabic); bogolo bogolo (Bournouan); marukopta (Burkina Faso); siho (Fufulde: Cameroon); rabbi (Hausa); /uayb (Hei//kum Bushman: Namibia); !a’o (Ju/hoan Bushman: Botswana, Namibia); kisakasaka (Kasanga: Zaire); duma, msongo (KiSwahili); lengau, letlotse (Setswana: Botswana); dindingwe, ihlosi (Shona: Zimbabwe); haramacad, daharab, horkob (Somalia); ngulule (Zulu: South Africa).

Description and Behavior (Plate 2)
The cheetah is built for speed, with a deep chest, wasp waist, and proportionately longer limbs than the other big cats (Gonyea 1976). Average adult weight is 43 kg for males and 38 kg for females in the Serengeti (n=l7: Caro et al. 1987). Flexion of the elongated spine has been measured as increasing the cheetah’s stride length by 11% at speeds of 56 kph (Hildebrand 1959, 1961). The canines are small relative to other felids: a reduction in the size of roots of the upper canines allows a larger nasal aperture for increased air intake, which is critical for allowing the cheetah to recover from its sprint while it suffocates its prey by throttling it (P. Leyhausen in Ewer 1973, Kingdon 1977). Its claws remain exposed, lacking the skin sheaths found in most other felids, and thus provide additional traction like a sprinter’s cleats. The foot shows several other modifications: the digital pads and also the metacarpal pad are extremely hard and pointed at the front, possibly as an adaption to sudden braking, and the palmar pads bear a pair of longitudinal ridges instead of the more usual slight depressions-the functional equivalent of tire treads, serving as anti-skid devices (Pocock 1916, Ewer 1973). The prominent dew claws are used as hooks to trip up fast-running prey. The long tail helps the cheetah’s balance as it swerves during a chase. Finally, the cheetah has enlarged bronchi, lungs, heart, and adrenals (Eaton 1974). According to K. Sevrin (pers. comm. in Eaton 1974: 24), a captive cheetah was accurately clocked at 112 kph over a short distance. In the wild, out of 78 chases measured and timed by G. Frame (Frame and Frame 1981: 181), the top speed was 87 kph. Antelopes, the main prey of cheetah, reach top speeds of 80-97 kph (Garland 1983), so peak speeds reached at some portion of a cheetah’s sprint probably do exceed the oft-quoted, but seldom documented, 110 kph. Cheetah sprints rarely last longer than 200-300 m, while most antelope can run much further. Heat builds up rapidly during a sprint, and cheetahs have not evolved the evaporative heat release mechanisms of gazelles and goats, even though their energetic cost of running is equivalent (Taylor and Rowntree 1973, Taylor et al. 1974). Despite its refinements, the cheetah, like the other cats, is a sprinter rather than a courser. Cheetahs are pale yellow with white underbellies, covered all over with small round black spots. They are readily distinguished from their spotted relatives by their “tear lines”-heavy black lines extending from the inner corner of each eye to the outer corner of the mouth. Both melanistic and albino cheetah specimens have been reported (Guggisberg 1975), and remarkably pale animals have been reported from desert regions (Dragesco-Joffe 1993, P. Gros in Zitt. 1993). A more notorious single-locus genetic mutation (Van Aarde and Van Dyk 1986) produces the blotched tabby pattern of the so-called king cheetah (Plate 2), which was once classified as a separate species (Pocock 1927), and was the subject of a major investigative expedition (Bottriell 1987). This mutation has historically been recorded only from a restricted area in southern Africa centered on Zimbabwe (Hills and Smithers 1980), but there is a recent report of a single skin recovered in Burkina Faso, west Africa (Frame 1992). A greater degree of sociality has been observed among cheetahs than for most felids, with the exception of the lion. Male and female litter-mates tend to stay together for about six months after independence (Caro 1994). Nearly two decades of intensive research in the Serengeti Plains have shown that, while females split off upon reaching sexual maturity, male litter-mates remain together in coalitions, and sometimes defend territories (Frame and Frame 1984, Caro and Collins 1986). These coalitions, particularly trios, may include unrelated males, with the frequency of this type of grouping estimated at 15% in the Serengeti (Car0 and Collins 1986). Males in coalitions are more likely than solitary males to gain and maintain territories; non-territorial males live a nomadic existence and wander widely (Caro and Collins 1986, 1987a). Territorial males were found to be in better physiological condition and appear to have better access to females during periods of gazelle concentration (Car0 and Collins 1987b, Caro et al. 1989). Large groups of up to 14- 19 animals (including cubs) have been reported occasionally from parts of east and southern Africa where other large predators have been eradicated (Kenya: Graham 1966, P. Gros in Zitt. 1993; Botswana: Gros 1990; Namibia: McVittie 1979, MarkerKraus and Kraus 199 1). The advantages of grouping under such conditions are not clear (S. Durant in Zitt. 1993). In east Africa, the cheetah’s main prey is the Thomson’s gazelle on the plains (Serengeti: Schaller 1968), and impala in the woodlands (Eaton 1974). In the arid bushland of northern Kenya, G. Adamson (in Hamilton 1986a) identified lesser kudu, gerenuk, and dikdik as major prey. In southern Africa, major prey consists of springbok (northeast Botswana: Smithers 1971; Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, South Africa: Mills 1990a; Etosha NP, Namibia: unpubl. data); greater kudu calves and warthog (Namibian ranchland: Morsbach 1987, L. Marker-Kraus, pers. comm.); impala (Kruger National Park, South Africa: de Pienaar 1969, Mills and Biggs 1993); and puku (Zambia: Mitchell et al. 1965). Data are scarce for central and west Africa, but cheetahs have been observed to take red hartebeest, oribi, and kob in ManovoGounda-St. Floris National Park in the Central African Republic (Ruggiero 1991). Cheetahs are also known to take smaller prey, particularly hares (Frame 1977, Labuschagne 1979, 1981), and male coalitions often take much larger prey, such as wildebeest (Dorst and Dandelot 1969, Eaton 1974, McVittie 1979, Caro and Laurenson 1990, Skinner and Smithers 1990). Seasonally, a large proportion of cheetah prey captures consist of immature animals (McLaughlin 1970, Burney 1980). When hunting group-living prey animals; such as Thomson’s gazelles, they tend to select less vigilant solitary individuals (FitzGibbon 1990). Certain aspects of cheetah behavior can be explained as adaptations to compete with other sympatric large predators, particularly lions and hyaenas. Cheetahs are predominantly diurnal, probably because competing predators are nocturnal. It has been suggested that the cheetah’s large litter size may be a strategy to offset high juvenile mortality caused by predators (Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Laurenson 1992, Caro 1994). Cheetahs often lose their kills to lions and hyaenas, and have only rarely been observed to scavenge, or return to a previously abandoned kill (Graham 1966, de Pienaar 1969, Burney 1980, Caro 1982, Stander 1990a). There is preliminary evidence that cheetahs will remain near large kills, rather than abandon them after satiation, on Namibian ranchlands where lions and hyaenas have been eliminated (L. Marker-Kraus, pers. corm-n. 1994).

Biology
Reproductive season: (W) year-round, although birth peaks have been reported during the rainy season in the Serengeti (November-May: Frame 1977, Laurenson et al. 1992). Gestation: © 90-98 days (Marker-Kraus 1992). Litter size: (W) 4.2 (age l-3 months) on Namibian ranchland (McVittie 1979); 3.5 (age 6-35 days; Laurenson et al. 1992) - 2.6 (age three months; Frame 1977) in the Serengeti; © 3.7 (Marker and O’Brien 1989), range l-8 (Green 1991). Interbirth interval: (W) 15- 19 months (McLaughlin 1970, Schaller 1972). Females readily go into estrus and conceive after losing a litter. Laurenson et al. (1992) found that the interval between the death of the previous litter and the next successful conception was longer for young (86.3 days, n=3) than adult females (17.8 days, n=9). Age at independence: (W) mean 18 months (Laurenson et al. 1992), range 13-20 months (Frame 1984) (sub-adults leave mother); 17-27 months (females leave sibling groups: Frame 1980, Laurenson et al. 1992). Age atjirst reproduction: (W) females 24 (n=2: Schaller 1972) - 36 months (n=4: Laurenson et al. 1992); males 30-36 months (Car0 1991). © females 2-3 years (n=lO); males l-2 years (n=8) (McKeown 1992). Age at last reproduction: © females 10 years; males up to 14 years (McKeown 1992). Sex ratio: (W) cubs: 1 male:0.95 female (n=ll7); adults and independent sub-adults: 1 male: 1.9 females (n= 169). This suggests differential male dispersal and mortality (Frame and Frame 1984), although males can be shyer than females and more difficult to observe (Caro and Collins 1986). Juvenile mortality: (W) Other large carnivores, as well as baboons (L. Marker-Kraus in Zitt. 1993), are known to kill cheetah cubs. In the Serengeti, the number of lions on the grassy plains which constitute the Serengeti Cheetah Project’s study area have increased tenfold since the 1960s following an increase in wildebeest after rinderpest control measures. Under such circumstances, cheetah cub mortality is very high: Laurenson (in press, pers.comm. 1993) found that 73% of cub deaths were due to predation (mainly lion), and that a total of 95% of 125 cubs failed to survive to independence. Longevity: (W) 12-14 years (Frame and Frame 1980). However, Laurenson (in press) estimates the mean life expectancy of females reaching three years of age in the Serengeti at only an additional 3.9 years. Territorial males probably live longer, on average, than single males (Car0 and Collins 1986, Caro et al. 1989). © average 10.5 and up to 21 years (L. Marker-Kraus in Zitt. 1993).

Principal Threats

Genetic homogeneity: Genetic research has demonstrated that both captive and free-ranging cheetahs exhibit a very high level of homogeneity in coding DNA, on a par with inbred strains of laboratory mice (O’Brien et al. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987a). The cheetah appears to have suffered (Menotti-Raymond and O’Brien 1993). The factors which a series of severe population bottlenecks in its history, with would have led to these ancient population bottlenecks the first and most significant occurring possibly during are not clear, but both their causes and consequences could the late Pleistocene extinctions, around 10,000 years ago be of significance to cheetah conservation today. der the cheetah an exceptionally vulnerable species (O’Brien et al. 1983). Genetic variation is thought to be essential to the long-term adaptability and persistence of populations by providing sufficient genetic options on which natural selection can operate in response to environmental change. The evidence for cheetahs being compromised by their genes arises mainly from captivity, where epidemics of infectious disease have occurred with high mortality (O’Brien et al. 1985, Evermann et al. 1988). Increased susceptibility to disease has been linked to genetic monomorphism (O’Brien and Evermann 1988). Zoos have had great difficulty in breeding cheetahs. Captive female cheetahs conceive infrequently, and when they do, cub mortality is relatively high (28-36%) (Marker and O’Brien 1989; Marker-Kraus and Grisham 1993), although these rates are similar to those of other felid and carnivore species kept in captivity (Loudon 1985). Finally, both wild and captive male cheetahs have high levels of abnormal sperm (71-76%: Wildt et al. 1987a), and success with in vitro fertilization using cheetah sperm is relatively low compared to other felid species (Donoghue et al. 1992). However, there is no evidence that reproduction is compromised in the wild (Caro and Laurenson 1994). To a large extent, the cheetah’s poor reproductive performance in captivity is linked to institutional management practices. First, some zoos have had high success in breeding cheetahs (Van Dyk 199 1, Lindburg et al. 1993). Factors which appear to facilitate breeding include large enclosures with long views, constant separation and reintroduction of males and females, and provision of secluded nest boxes for mothers with young (Lee 1992, Laurenson 1993). Second, vulnerability to disease increases in captive situations, and ulations, no epidemics have been reported from wild popalthough cheetahs in some parks h .ave been reported to suffer a relatively high incidence of mange (Caro et al. 1987, Bowland 1993, R. Kock in litt. 1993). Finally, some captive males are very fertile and others essentially infertile, despite having similar levels of poor quality sperm (Donoghue et al. 1992, Lindburg et al. 1993, Wildt et al. 1993a). The cheetah’s genetic monomorphism is a fascinating aspect of it's biology and potentially of importance to it's conservation, but implications for management of wild populations are not yet evident.

Vulnerability in Protected Areas: Many observers have commented on the cheetah’s vulnerability to interspecific competition with other large carnivores, and this is now the primary focus of the long-term cheetah study in the Serengeti (S. Durant, pers. comm.1993). The chief mechanism by which more powerful carnivores-lions, leopards, and hyaenas-limit cheetah abundance is by killing cheetah cubs (Laurenson in press), but these species, as well as (sometimes) jackals, baboons, and vultures, also drive adult cheetahs off their kills. The cheetah’s relatively large litter size may be a strategy to offset high juvenile mortality (Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Laurenson 1992, Caro 1994). Where other large carnivores have largely been eliminated, such as ranchland in Namibia, farmland and pastoral land in Kenya, and in parts of Somalia, cheetahs appear to flourish at higher densities (McVittie 1979, Burney 1980, Hamilton 1986a, Morsbach 1987, A. Simonetta in Zitt. 1993). A strategy of relying solely upon the limited system of protected areas within the cheetah’s range may not be sufficient to ensure the conservation of viable sub-populations.

Livestock Predation: The survival of the cheetah outside protected areas is affected by conflicts with people over predation on livestock. Cheetahs are reported to prey on young camels and goats in the Air and Termit regions of Niger (T. Anada in Zitt. 1993). In Namibia, the cheetah is viewed as the most important predator of livestock on both commercial and communal farms: annual losses for these farms have been reported at lo- 15% for small stock (sheep and goats) and 3-5% for cattle calves up to eight months of age (Morsbach 1984-1986). Inevitably, stock losses to predators are greater where the natural prey base has been eliminated or reduced: on a 200 km2 ranch in Kenya, where about 9,500 head of livestock graze alongside a still largely intact wild ungulate assemblage, depredation by cheetahs is minimal, accounting for only 11 sheep a year (Mizutani 1993). Although farmers’ estimates of stock losses to cheetah may be inflated, either intentionally or otherwise, the fact remains that the species is widely considered a threat to people’s livelihood, and governments have little hope of preventing the destruction of cheetah on private lands if that is what the owners wish to do. Hamilton (1986a) points out that the cheetah may be more resilient to eradication on ranchland than other large carnivores-which will, for example, take poisoned bait-but the cheetah’s decline on Namibian ranchland during the 1980s is certainly attributable to persecution (Morsbach 1987). Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe are now pursuing a strategy of permitting trophy hunting of cheetahs on private land, with the goal of encouraging landowners to accept and profit from cheetahs on their land. In addition, the Cheetah Conservation Fund of Namibia is working to educate farmers about appropriate management steps that can be taken to minimize stock losses

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/l...96-008.pdf

Acinonyx sp. · 04-12-2021, 01:53 AM

Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus feeding ecology in the Kruger National Park and a comparison across African savanna habitats: is the cheetah only a successful hunter on open grassland plains?

[b]Abstract

The literature on cheetah Acinonyx jubatus ecology is dominated by studies on the Serengeti Plains (SNP) in East Africa. Because of this and the cheetah's hunting strategy it is generally considered to be a predator that prefers open grassland plains. However, cheetahs also inhabit a range of bush, scrub and woodland habitats. A field study using direct observations of radio-collared individuals in the woodland savanna habitat of the Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa, and a literature review of studies across savanna habitats examined cheetah predation, hunting behaviour and habitat use in relation to prey composition, cover availability and kleptoparasitism. The cheetah's main prey is medium-sized herbivores, with a bias towards male prey. The group size and sex of the hunting cheetah may influence the results of prey selection studies as male coalitions tend to take larger prey than females. Cheetahs initiated more hunts and had a higher success rate in the open woodland savanna of the KNP compared to other available habitats with thicker bush, and in other wooded savanna areas they also prefer more open habitat for hunting. Although they appear to have shorter chase distances in more wooded habitats, hunting success appears to be slightly higher in open grassland habitat. Woody vegetation appears to obstruct the cheetah's high-speed hunting strategy, thereby lowering hunting success. However, cheetahs use cover for stalking prey and open habitats with bordering woodlands, or patches of cover are considered preferred cheetah habitats. In these habitats, cheetahs can stalk closer to their prey using available cover, but also successfully pursue their prey into available open spaces. Across African savanna ecosystems, cheetahs appear to be kleptoparasitised less in more wooded habitats. Therefore they may also prefer these habitats because they provide greater concealment from kleptoparasites. Our study suggests that the cheetah is more adaptable to habitat variability than is often thought and is not only a successful hunter on open grassland plains.
[/b]
e cheetah Acinonyx jubatus can easily reach a speed of 100 km per hour when hunting (Nowell & Jackson 1996). Such high-speed chases require good visibility and freedom from obstruction (Bertram 1979). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that cheetahs require open habitats for successful hunting. The literature on cheetah ecology, which is dominated by studies conducted on the open grassland Serengeti Plains (SNP) in East Africa (Schaller 1972, Frame & Frame 1980, Caro 1986, Caro & Collins 1986, 1987, Durant, Caro, Collins, Alawi & Fitzgibbon 1988, Fitzgibbon & Fanshawe 1989, Fitzgibbon 1990, Laurenson, Caro, & Borner 1992, Caro 1994, Laurenson 1994, 1995a,b, Laurenson, Weilbnowlski & Caro 1995, Durant 1998), supports this assumption.
However, cheetahs also inhabit a wide range of bush, scrub and woodland habitats (Myers 1975, Marker-Kraus, Kraus, Barnett & Hurlbut 1996, Nowell & Jackson 1996, Purchase & du Toit 2000), although relatively little is known about their ecology and behaviour in these habitats. Woodland savannas, with a greater availability of cover than open plains, might inhibit cheetahs from attaining high speeds, but may confer other advantages not provided by grassland habitats. Cover is considered advantageous to cheetahs for stalking prey (Caro 1994, Purchase & du Toit 2000), because it enables them to get closer to the quarry before the chase, thereby reducing chase distance and improving hunting success (Eaton 1970, Fitzgibbon 1990, Caro 1994). Furthermore, cheetahs suffer from competition with the other large carnivores and are easily robbed of their prey (Schaller 1972, Bertram 1979, Mills 1990, Caro 1994, Nowell & Jackson 1996), so cover may also provide increased concealment to cheetahs after the hunt thereby reducing kleptoparasitism (Myers 1975, Zank 1995, Purchase & du Toit 2000).
As most cheetah studies have focused on grassland savannas, the comparative benefits of open spaces and cover in woodland savannas have not been fully explored. Additionally, no quantitative analysis has been done on variations in the use of prey by cheetahs across ecosystems. In this paper we aim to address these imbalances by: 1) adding to the existing knowledge on cheetah ecology and behaviour in woodland savannas by analysing data on cheetah predation, hunting behaviour and habitat use for hunting in the Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa; 2) synthesising available information on cheetah predation in relation to prey com position, cover availability and kleptoparasitism from other studies (see Table 1); and 3) comparing this information across different African savanna ecosystems. Our hypothesis is that cheetah hunting behaviour varies as a function of habitat, and that the species is not exclusively a hunter on open plains. It is able to hunt adequately in savanna woodland habitats, which may even provide benefits not found on open plains. Testable predictions of this hypothesis are: (i) chase distances vary with habitat and are shorter in woodlands; (ii) hunting success rates (kills/hunting attempts) are comparable across habitats, but will be higher in more open habitats; and (iii) cheetah kills are kleptoparasitised less in wooded habitats than in open habitats.

https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-bio...rticleLink

Acinonyx sp. · 04-12-2021, 03:45 AM

Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) three year old male brothers feeding on male Puku (Kobus vardonii) kill, Kafue National Park, Zambia

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.naturepl.com/stock-photo-acinonyx-jubatus-nature-image00577753.html
Three Cheetahs killing an Impala hunting in Botswana (Cheetah)

Three Cheetahs killing an Impala hunting in Botswana (Cheetah)

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.stevebloom.com/index.php?page=single&id=507281-BS1

Cheetahs Killing Impala

MOREMI GAME RESERVE, OKAVANGO DELTA, BOTSWANA 1995

*This image is copyright of its original author

The impala appears to be dead, but the one cheetah still has not let go of the throat.

https://www.steveshamesphotos.com/photo/cheetahs-killing-impala/

Acinonyx sp. · 04-12-2021, 03:53 AM

Cheetah at sunset. Okavango Delta, Botswana, early 2021.

*This image is copyright of its original author

https://www.reddit.com/r/wildlifephotography/comments/mhs1qf/cheetah_at_sunset_okavango_delta_botswana_early/

Acinonyx sp. · 04-12-2021, 08:17 PM

Smithsonian Scientists Identify Early Indicators of Pregnancy in Cheetahs

New Study Positioned To Help Solve Ongoing Cheetah Reproduction Mysteries

*This image is copyright of its original author

A new study from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) is helping make headway in an area of animal management that has historically proven challenging: the breeding of cheetahs under human care. The study, which was published Dec. 13 in the journal PLOS ONE, has identified a specific protein, immunoglobulin J (IGJ), that is more abundant in the feces of pregnant cheetahs during the first month of gestation compared to those that are not pregnant. This finding could not only lead to the first-ever early cheetah pregnancy test but could also help zoos and other cheetah facilities address long-standing reproductive issues.

Until now, animal managers have not been able to determine whether a female cheetah is pregnant until at least 55 days into the pregnancy, in part because cheetahs frequently experience pseudopregnancies, exhibiting behavioral, physical and hormonal signs of pregnancy after mating even if they are not pregnant.

“If you spend weeks or even months breeding a pair and then you have to wait two more months to find out if the female is actually pregnant, it puts a hold on your breeding operation until you know,” said Adrienne Crosier, SCBI cheetah biologist, co-author of the paper and coordinator of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Cheetah Species Survival Plan (SSP), which matches cheetahs across the population for breeding. “This has made it really difficult to make timely decisions about preparing for the birth of cubs and repairing female cheetahs with new mates. With an early pregnancy detection method—and one that is non-invasive—we will be able to make management decisions sooner and more effectively across the SSP.”

The paper also provides the first step to understanding pseudopregnancies, which have been recorded in up to 60 percent of female cheetahs that have mated in North American zoos. Researchers aim to use these findings to determine whether cheetahs experiencing pseudopregnancies are getting pregnant at some point and then losing the pregnancy, or if they are not getting pregnant at all.

"Since such a small portion of the population of cheetahs under human care actually successfully breeds, it is really important that we understand pseudopregnancy to resolve these reproductive issues,” said Diana Koester, formerly a JoGayle Howard Postdoctoral Fellow, current curator of research at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and lead author on the study. “As the planet’s last remaining wild cheetahs continue to face mounting threats, a self-sustaining population under human care is vital to the species’ survival. So we need to ensure that we understand why females that have the potential to breed may not be doing so and to figure out how to give them every chance to do so.”

The study tested the feces of 26 cheetahs from seven institutions, many of which are part of the Breeding Centers Coalition, a group of organizations, including SCBI, brought together to address cheetah reproductive challenges after a meeting of the Conservation Centers for Species Survival consortium in 2012. The paper is the first to report on the full profile of proteins found in cheetah feces, which could also eventually be used as indicators of disease and other medical conditions in cheetahs.
“One of the things that has made this project so successful is our incredible collaborative network,” Crosier said. “Led by SCBI, the collaboration among the facilities in the Breeding Centers Coalition and the broader SSP is helping make this kind of critical research happen. Together we’re ensuring a future for this species.”

https://nationalzoo.si.edu/news/smithsonian-scientists-identify-early-indicators-pregnancy-cheetahs

Acinonyx sp. · 04-13-2021, 01:47 AM

Appendix I: Current Status of the Cheetah

By: Laurie Marker, Director, Cheetah Conservation Fund,

August 1998

ABSTRACT

The status of the cheetah, (Acinonyx jubatus), varies widely in the 32 countries listed in this report. All populations are classified as vulnerable or endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and are regulated by the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as Appendix I. There are 13 countries listed in this report where the cheetah has become extinct during the past forty years. The wild cheetah is nearly extinct in Asia, with approximately 100 cheetahs surviving in small pocketed areas through Iran. Free-ranging cheetah inhabit a broad section of Africa including areas of North Africa, Sahel, eastern, and southern Africa. The two strongholds remain in Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa and Namibia and Botswana in southern Africa. Although there has not been a comprehensive survey of African cheetahs since 1975, there is a consensus that the cheetah population is declining throughout Africa. Since 1991, and up-dated regularly, Cheetah Conservation Fund has made contact with researchers in cheetah range countries and has tried to keep communication open about cheetah populations in those countries. From the information gathered, it is approximated that less than 15,000 cheetahs are found throughout their range, with a low estimate of 9,000 animals and an optimistic estimate of 12,000 animals. Perhaps for the cheetah, though, individual numbers of animals may not be the important point, but the numbers of viable populations still existing. Viable populations may be found in only half or less of the countries where cheetahs still exist. The cheetah has suffered a devastating decline of available habitat and prey, both necessary for its survival. In addition, the species does not do well in protected game reserves due to competition with other large predators, and the captive population is not self-sustaining but is maintained through imports of cheetahs from the wild population.

NORTH AFRICA AND ASIA:
Acinonyx jubatus venaticus (Griffith, 1821): Algeria, Djibouti, Egypt, Mali (northern), Mauritania (northern), Morocco, Niger (northern), Tunisia, Western Sahara. On the Asian continent: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. WEST AFRICA Acinonyx jubatus hecki (Hilzheimer, 1913): Benin (northern), Bukina Faso, Ghana, Mali (southern), Mauritania (southern) , Niger, and Senegal.

CENTRAL AFRICA
Acinonyx jubatus soemmeringii (Fitzinger, 1855): Cameroon (northern), Chad, Central African Republic (northern), Ethiopia, Nigeria (northern), Niger (southern), and Sudan . EAST AFRICA Acinonyx jubatus raineyii: (Heller, 1913) Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania (northern), and Uganda. SOUTHERN AFRICA Acinonyx jubatus jubatus: (Schreber, 1976): Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo (southern), Mocambique, Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania (southern), Zambia, Zimbabwe,

HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION
The cheetah was widely distributed throughout Africa and Asia. Cheetahs were originally found in all suitable habitats from the Cape of Good Hope to the Mediterranean, throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and the Middle East, from Israel to India and Pakistan, and through the southern provinces of the Russia and the former Commonwealth of Independent States. Cheetahs have become extinct in at least 13 countries over the past 50 years. These countries and the year of extinction are as follows:
1. Djibouti: Believed to be extinct (not a party to CITES). Although in 1990 private people could still buy cheetah skins and live cheetah cubs in the market place. These skins and live cheetahs are thought to be coming from Somalia and possibly eastern Ethiopia. Skins are still available in large numbers.
2. Ghana: Believed to be extinct. The Mole National Park had a small population in the reserve as of 1975.
3. India: Extinct in 1952. Last known cheetah found in Hyderabad in 1951 and Chitoor in 1952. Indians were importing cheetahs from Africa to be used as hunting leopards in 1929 due to the rarity of local cheetahs. There has been talk of reintroducing cheetah back to India, but availability of prey species and unsuitable habitat are limiting factors. A captive breeding effort may be launched.
4. Iraq: Extinct (not a party to CITES). Last sighting in 1950.
5. Israel: Extinct. Last report of cheetah was in 1956. There have been thoughts of reintroduction of cheetahs into the Biblical Wildlife Reserve of the Negev Desert
6. Jordan: Extinct. In 1935 many skins were still sold in Be'er Sheva'. May still have been found in Negev Desert, the Palestine Mountains, Sinai Desert, and Trans Jordan until the late 1940's
7. Morocco: Extinct. Were still found up to 40 years ago in the mountainous regions of the country bordering the Sahara.
8. Nigeria: Extinct. Skins are found for sale in the public market in Lagos which are probably coming from the countries north of Nigeria87. 9. Oman: Extinct (not a party to CITES). Last sighting in 196893, probably lived on until the early 1970’s on the Jiddat al Harasis Plateau, Dhofar province.
9. Oman: Extinct (not a party to CITES). Last sighting in 1968, probably lived on until the early 1970’s on the Jiddat al Harasis Plateau, Dhofar province.
10. Russia and the former Commonwealth of Independent States: Considered extinct as of 1989. No confirmed sightings in the past few years, a small expedition looked for cheetahs during the summer of 1989 but no animals or tracks were seen. Cheetahs existed in many areas until the 1940's and 1950's when their prey, the goitered gazelle, was reduced drastically from over-hunting. Some cheetahs were believed to have moved down into Afghanistan when the goitered gazelles conducted a permanent move southward. In the 1960's and 1970's the last cheetahs existed in parts of Turkmenia and Uzbekistan (east and west of Murgab, east of the Caspian sea, and in the Badkhyz Preserve). In these areas they lived mostly on remnant populations of goitered gazelle and arkhar sheep, saiga antelope, kopet-dag sheep and hares. In 1972 it was suggested that the cheetah be listed as a living monument and very strict international laws be proposed to save the last of the Asian cheetahs. The Commonwealth would like to reintroduce cheetahs into areas with sufficient prey populations such as the Ustyurt Plateau of Uzbekistan. We have suggested that before they introduce African cheetahs they wait until the genetics have been run on the Asian cheetahs in Iran.

11. Saudi Arabia: Extinct (not a party to CITES ). Four cheetahs shot in 1950 near Saudi, Jordan, Iraq border intersection, last cheetah in the country probably lived on until the 1970’s in the remote parts of Rubrquote Al-Khali desert.
12. Syria: Extinct (not a party to CITES ). Oil pipeline worker killed one of the last cheetahs in the Syrian Desert in 1950 , the last cheetahs lived on until the 1960’s in the eastern temperate Syrian steppe (Badiyat ash-sham) near Khabur river.
13. Tunisia: Believed to be extinct. Formerly found in the region of Chott el Djerid and the desert south of Tatahoume. Last cheetah sighted and killed was in 1968 near Bordj Bowrgiba in the extreme south, 1990. Last Tunisian cheetahs lived until the 1970’s in the Alfalfa-endash Acacia steppes at the North of the Hamada El Homra, near the Libyan border. Re-introduction of cheetahs back into Tunisia may occur in the next few years in Bou Hedma National Park, which has good prey diversity.

CURRENT DISTRIBUTION
Reports on the status of cheetahs in the following countries are included in this document. In Africa, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Bukina Faso, Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Western Sahara, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. On the Asian continent, Iran and possibly Pakistan.

POPULATION CENSUS
Censusing such an elusive species as the cheetah is very difficult, particularly since it is largely diurnal and widely roaming. Current information about the status of the cheetah in many countries, especially countries that have been engaged in long civil wars, is lacking. The following material is taken from recent literature, and where noted, from recent communications originating from researchers in the field. From the information gathered, it is estimated that there are less than 15,000 cheetahs throughout their range, with a low estimate of 9,000 animals and an optimistic estimate of 12,000 animals. Perhaps for the cheetah, though, individual numbers of animals may not be the important point, but the numbers of viable populations still existing. Viable populations may be found in only half or less of the countries where cheetahs still exist.

ASIA
The wild cheetah is nearly extinct in Asia. Once widely distributed throughout Asia, the cheetah has suffered a devastating decline of available habitat and prey. A small number of Asian cheetahs still survive in small pocketed areas through Iran, and possibly in the boarding areas of Pakistan.

AFRICA
Free-ranging cheetahs inhabit a broad section of Africa including areas of North Africa, Sahel, eastern, and southern Africa. The two remaining strong-holds are Kenya and Tanzania in East Africa, and Namibia and Botswana in southern Africa. There has not been a comprehensive survey of African cheetahs since 1975, when Norman Myers calculated the African population of cheetahs to be between 7,000 and 23,000 animals in 25 countries. The population of cheetahs in Africa had decreased by half since the 1960's62. On the basis of his research, he estimated that there would be less than 10,000 cheetahs by 1980. No new information is available to validate or refute this prediction, although there is a consensus that the cheetah population is declining throughout Africa. Since 1991, and up-dated regularly, Cheetah Conservation Fund has made contact with researchers in range countries and has tried to keep communication open about cheetah populations in those countries. Until more recently, the cheetah has been generally considered to be an animal of open country and grasslands. This impression is probably due to the ease of sighting the cheetah in the shorter grass, and the long-term studies conducted on cheetahs in East Africa. However, cheetahs use a wider variety of habitats and are often found in dense vegetation, ie. the Kora Reserve in Kenya, Botswana’s Okavango Delta, and the Namibian farmlands. As reported throughout Africa, cheetahs are not doing well in protected wildlife reserves due to increased competition from other, larger predators such as lion and hyenas. Therefore, a large percentage of the remaining, free-ranging cheetah populations are outside of protected reserves or conservation areas. There has been limited information from North or West Africa in the form of personal correspondence with field researchers and the cheetah’s future in these areas is questionable. Cheetahs continue to survive in small, pocketed groups in isolated areas throughout the Sahel. Most of these populations though can not be considered viable for long-term survival. Controlling factors are small populations, restricted habitats with a limited prey base, conflict with nomadic herders and wars that have supplied guns and ammunition to the populace, which then poach all forms of wildlife for food and profit. A few regional studies do exist: David Burney reported on cheetahs in Kenya in 1980; P.H. Hamilton did a survey on the cheetah in Kenya in 1981; Norman Myers reported on the status of cheetahs in Africa, 1981; Dieter Morsbach reported on the cheetah in Namibia, 1986; Marker-Kraus et al, followed up on the Namibian cheetah in 1996; Vivian Wilson on the status of cheetah in Zimbabwe, 1985; and Christopher Stuart and Vivian Wilson on the status of cheetahs in southern Africa, 1988, and Paula Gross conducted surveys in several African countries from 1989-1996. In East Africa both Burney and Hamilton found the cheetah adapting in the agriculture land in the Masai Mara region outside the national parks and were co-existing with the Narok Masai, whose stock they left alone. In Southern Africa, it has been reported that cheetahs are killed regularly in farming areas due to their raiding of livestock and the attitudes of the farmers. Hamilton predicted that cheetah prospects in Kenya in the 1981-2000 period looked reasonable in the vast arid and semi-arid rangelands (primarily in the north) which would be the last areas to be developed. Hamilton's premise seems to be that the cheetah is a "remarkably successful predator...supremely adapted to surviving at low densities over large expanses of often waterless arid and semi-arid lands. Elsewhere the spread of commercial and group ranching is likely to bring the cheetah into greater conflicts with man. The spread of illegal and legal firearms is also likely to pose a threat so long as the cheetah's skin has any value. Myers believes the cheetah is less adaptable. He says, "if its ecological circumstances start to experience persistent perturbation, the specialized nature of the species ecology and behavior, and its genetic make-up, could leave it little able to adapt to the disruptive conditions imposed by human communities in emergent Africa. In fact, the ability of the cheetah to adapt to a changing ecological system brought about principally by conversion of its preferred habitat to farmland is perhaps the critical question in estimating the population's survivability in Africa. In several studies over the last decade, the cheetah was reported to suffer declining numbers as land was developed and suitable habitat converted to farmland. In Namibia, the population of cheetahs was halved by farmers from 1975- 198761, and conflict with the farming community continues. In 1996, the Cheetah Conservation Fund hosted a Population and Habitat Viability Analysis Workshop (PHVA), for Namibian cheetahs, in cooperation with the IUCN’s Conservation and Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) and local Namibia farmers. A working strategy was developed and formed the basis for MET’s conservation strategy for cheetahs. In 1997, a working group of MET and Namibian NGO’s formed the Large Carnivore Management Forum. In 1998, a country-wide census for cheetahs will commence. Wild cheetahs in Africa need help. Suitable prey is becoming scarce and habitat is disappearing. They are suffering from the consequences of human encroachment, from competition with other large predators in game reserves, and not least, from the complication of a limited genetic make-up. The wild population continues to sustain the captive population.

HISTORY OF THE CAPTIVE CHEETAH
The similar experiences of the world's zoos have reaffirmed the traditional difficulties of breeding cheetahs in captivity. Despite the capturing, rearing and public display of cheetahs for thousands of years, one litter was reported in the 16th century by the son of Akbar the Great, an Indian mogul. The next documented captive reproduction did not occur until 195655. The history of the captive population of cheetahs as of 1955, when it became one of the major animals exhibited throughout the world, is presented in Table A1.1. From 1955 to 1994, the number of world zoos holding cheetahs increased from 29 to 211, and the number of animals during this 40-year period increased from 33 to 1218. Since 1955, 1440 cheetahs have been imported from the wild and there have been 2517 births and 3436 deaths.

Table A1.1 History of the captive cheetah population

*This image is copyright of its original author

The captive population as of 31 December 1996, was 1217 (608 males, 602 females, 7 unknown) animals in 240 facilities in 50 countries. Of the 1217 animals, 27% were wild-caught and 73% captive born. The captive population is currently maintained by a combination of imports and captive breeding. The breeding programmes of our world's zoos, though, are not self-sustaining. Data indicates that a high proportion of cheetah propagation has occurred in a handful of the zoos with a majority of these facilities having only limited success; and half of the successful breeding facilities have had only a single breeding pair, or a single male or female. The captive population has had a low effective breeding size (Ne), 17% in 199455. The fecundity of wild-caught versus captive-born animals is higher than captive-born animals and both are low, 17% and 9% respectively.

STATUS OF THE CAPTIVE SOUTH AFRICAN CHEETAH POPULATION
As of 31 December 1996, the southern African cheetah population represented 30% of the captive world population. South Africa has the only recognized breeding facilities in Africa. The progress achieved in acquisitions and breeding, as well as the incidence of mortality and sales for the South African captive cheetah population from 1970 to 1996 are presented in Table A1.2.

Table A1.2 History of the South African captive cheetah population

*This image is copyright of its original author

The number of facilities holding cheetahs has varied between 4 in 1970 to 11 in 1996. A summary of the numbers of imports and captive births from 1970 to 1996 is presented in Table A1.2. In total, 244 animals have been imported from the wild into South Africa, 29% have come from South Africa and 71% have come from Namibia. There have been 772 captive births in 254 litters, 497 deaths occurred and 277 animals were exported out of the country’s recognized South African population. Within South Africa, 95 animals were transferred, primarily due to the creation of the new Hoedspruit cheetah breeding facility. Examination of Table A1.2 shows that the majority of the increase in the captive population prior to 1985, when the population reached 204 animals, can be attributed to captive births. Prior to 1985, deaths and exports remained relatively low in comparison to births. From 1986 to 1996 deaths and exports increased to off set the population growth from births during those same years. Therefore, from 1986 to 1996 the captive population increased primarily due to imports, as during this time 65% of the total wild-caught animals (primarily from Namibia) were imported into South African facilities. As of 31 December 1996, the population was 262 (124.138) animals in 12 facilities, of which 30% were wild caught and 70% were captive born.

REGIONAL BREEDING PROGRAMMES AND GLOBAL CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Regional breeding success is important to monitor as the need for cooperation increases in order to facilitate movement of animals within the regions. The success of the individual regions is important in relation to the number of animals actually living in the population. In 1996, 30% of the world’s captive population was in southern Africa, of which 41% were wild-caught animals49. By comparison, 26% percent of the 1996 population was in North America and 2% of these were wild-caught animals. A larger percentage of the North American facilities were reproductively successful in part due to the American Zoo Association’s (AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) cooperative management programme which was developed in 1984. Internationally, fourteen facilities (15%) have had continuous breeding success and have produced 63% of all cubs born in captivity. Thus, a relatively small number of cheetahs have made a disproportionately large contribution to the captive population gene pool, for example 8 males have sired 21% of all cubs born and 12 females have produced 24% of all cubs born. Several of these breeding animals are from breeding facilities in South Africa and they have produced 28% of the captive births in the world. There is a substantial need to continue enhancing captive management to ensure optimal captive breeding. The implementation of management programmes such as the African Preservation Programme (APP) within the Pan African Association of Zoos, Aquariums, and Botanical Gardens (PAAZAB) are designed to facilitate cooperative management to the benefit of the population as a whole. As free-ranging populations of cheetahs continue to decline, and a large amount of genetic diversity of the wild population is lost, the captive and wild populations should be managed in cooperation. In the future, in the absence of further imports from the wild, the size of the world’s captive population could be expected to decline, unless there is continued improvement in captive breeding efficiency. This trend, coupled with the continuing decline of the wild population, leaves the species extremely vulnerable.

CONSERVATION
No one knows what constitutes a minimum viable population for wild cheetahs. Unquestionably, the larger the population and the more broadly it is dispersed, the better placed it will be to avoid genetic failings and to endure localized epidemic mortality or widespread episodic catastrophe. An important factor that must be taken into account, when considering the long-term conservation of the cheetah, is its lack of genetic variation. In 1981 an extensive genetic and CONSERVATION No one knows what constitutes a minimum viable population for wild cheetahs. Unquestionably, the larger the population and the more broadly it is dispersed, the better placed it will be to avoid genetic failings and to endure localized epidemic mortality or widespread episodic catastrophe. An important factor that must be taken into account, when considering the long-term conservation of the cheetah, is its lack of genetic variation. In 1981 an extensive genetic and physiological analysis of captive and free-ranging cheetahs revealed that the cheetah appears to be unique among felids and other mammals in having an extreme paucity of genetic variation. The combined genetic, reproductive, and morphological data places the cheetah in a status similar to deliberately inbred mice or livestock, and prompted the hypothesis, that in its recent natural history (perhaps dating back 10,000 years), the species had probably suffered a demographic contraction or population bottleneck necessarily followed by inbreeding. The consequences of this lack of genetic variation include reproductive abnormalities, high infant mortality, morphological abnormalities, and a weakened immune system making the species more susceptible to ecological and environmental changes.

Although the species tolerates a broad range of habitat types, its essential requirements for long term survival is for suitable prey and the reduction of conflict with humans and other large predators. These components are essential to its conservation.

CURRENT STATUS, COUNTRY BY COUNTRY
1. Afghanistan: Population. No information at this time. Possibly still a few animals in the south-west above Baluchistan, Pakistan and the Iranian border region. There is no protection for cheetahs.
2. Algeria: Population. Still to be found in a few areas of south-east Algeria, between 3 1/2 E to the Libyan border and between 27 1/2 N to 20 1/2 N, with possible concentrations in Tassili N'Ajjer Range, Tassili Attoggar, and Tassili Teffedest. Females with two cubs are seen regularly by tribesman complaining that cheetahs attack their camels. Rainfall was good from 1987-1990 in these areas, and there were increasing populations of Dorcas gazelle and Barbary sheep for cheetahs to prey upon. It is thought that the majority of the remaining Algerian cheetahs are living in Tassili nr’Azger, because this plateau is far more rich in water and vegetation. It is difficult to see the last Algerian cheetahs, native people know their presence only through their traces. This country could be a very important area for saving the North African cheetah. Principal Threats. Restricted habitat, effects of drought on prey, and conflict with nomadic herders.
3. Angola (Not a party to CITES): Population. No recent information due to the long-standing civil war. Estimate of 500 with a range of 200- 1000 animals. Range was confined to the drier, arid areas in the central and southern parts of the country. In 1975 cheetahs were reported in the following parks and protected areas: Iona National Park (14,500 Km2), Bicuar National Park (7,900 Km2), Cameia National Park (14,450km2), Luando National Park (8,280 km2), Quicama National Park. The cheetah was declared protected game in 1957, but legislation is difficult to enforce, and the military community is exempt from these provisions of the law. Principal Threats. Large scale poaching which has helped support the long, civil war, cultivation and over grazing of cattle in the arid areas will contribute to the elimination of cheetah habitat.

4. Benin: Population. Thought to be extinct outside of the tri-country national park in the north of Benin, the Park Nationale du W, which adjoins Niger, Burkina Faso and Benin. In this park, a very small population of 2 or 3 pairs may exist, 23. A few cheetahs exist in and around the Pendjari complex of protected areas in northwestern Benin23. Principal Threat. Insufficient numbers of cheetahs to sustain a viable population and lack of habitat.

5. Botswana: Population. Estimates vary between 1,000 and 1,500. Cheetahs have a wide distribution throughout Botswana, but are absent from areas of dense human settlement in the extreme south. In the northern districts of Ngami West, Ngami East, and Tutume areas, the cheetah is found throughout and is often in conflict with communal farmers who graze livestock and the commercial farmers of the Botswana Livestock Development Corporation. Freehold lands make up a small percentage of the overall land base in Botswana, but appear to harbour relatively large cheetah populations. This is especially true in the commercial farming areas of Ghanzi district and the Tuli Block and communal livestock areas in the south central Ghanzi district. Cheetahs have been reported in the following protected parks and reserves: Chobe National Park (11,000 km2), Moremi Wildlife Reserve (3,880 km2), Nxai Pan National Park (2,100 km2), Makgadikgadi Pans Game Reserve (3,900 km2), Kalahari Game Reserve (24,800 km2). Cheetahs have been protected game since 1968 but can be shot for livestock defense even before any damage has been noted. Recent quotas set by CITES in 1992 allows for 5 animals for export. Principal Threats. Livestock farming and poaching.

6. Burkina Faso: Population. Extremely low. Estimated at 10062. Perhaps only found, now, in the complex of national parks and protected areas and the tri-country national park in the eastern point of the country that borders Niger and Benin where 2 or 3 pairs exist. A few cheetahs exist in the Singou Fauna Reserve and the adjacent proposed Arlin National Park23. Cheetahs may now be extinct in the vicinity of Kabore Tambi National Park and the Natinga Game Ranch in southern Burkina Faso23. The cheetah is totally protected but enforcement is likely to be inadequate. Principal Threats. The country is under growing invasion by large numbers of nomads from the north, which has increased the pressure on the cheetah's range. Loss of habitat, poaching and insufficient numbers of cheetahs to sustain a viable population.

7. Cameroon: Population.
Population very small. In 1975, small populations of cheetahs were still found in Benoue National Park. Between 1974 and 1976, a census was carried out in Bouba Nr’dijida National Park, which resulted in finding no cheetahs. Principal Threats. Decline of prey species, poaching and environmental degradation.

8. Central African Republic: Population. Still found in the south-eastern area of the country, bordering Sudan and in the southern middle of the country, bordering Democratic Republic of Congo, 71. A small population still existed in Saint Floris National Park boarding Chad and the hunting domains in the north. Principal Threats. Extensive poaching and limited prey species. Taxonomy. North Central African Republic listed as A.j. soemmeringii, there is no listing for southern Central African Republic.

9. Chad: Population. Possibly a small population still exists in the Tibesti Highlands where prey species still are abundant, and there may also be a small population in Ennedi mountains. As of 1975, there was a small population of cheetahs in the Zakouma National Park. Principal Threats. Changing climate conditions have reduced the carrying capacity of the land and have over-burdened the sensitive environment. Currently, the many years of war have armed the general population, which puts all wildlife in danger of poaching for food and profit.

10. Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire): Population. No current information. Estimated at 300 and could decline below 100 by 1980. Small populations found in parts of Shaba, Kasai and Kwango Provinces in the southern and southeastern part of country. Kundelungu National Park (7,600 km2) and Upemba National Park (10,000 km2) did contain a few cheetahs. Principal Threats. Agricultural development, poaching and loss of habitat. Taxonomy. There is no listing for the Northern Congo population.

11. Egypt: Population. Cheetah tracks have been seen and at least 5 animals were seen around the Sitra water source in the Qattara Depression in the western and northwest parts of the country, and north of Qara Oasis. It is believed there is still a small population that remains there24, 3, 78. In 1994, tourism was banned in Marsa Matruh Province (where the Qattara depression is situated) for five years to protect wildlife from poaching 71. A proposed cheetah-gazelle sanctuary in northwest Qattara has been prepared. The cheetah is totally protected, although enforcement is likely to be inadequate. Principal Threats. Restricted habitat, possible conflict with nomadic herdsmen, and insufficient numbers of cheetahs to sustain a population.

12. Ethiopia: Population. In 1975 the population was estimated to be 1000 animals and it was believed that the populations could decline to 300 animals by 1980. The cheetah was widely distributed from Addes to Djibouti in eastern Ethiopia. Also widely distributed through the southern parts of the country, between 200-1500m elevation, absent from the low lands of the Ogaden in the east, and no sightings in the north since 1937. A small population was known to be in the Danakil Reserve. In 1995, cheetahs were sited near Dolo. Two cheetahs were seen in the dry desert scrub, 100 km from Dolo, by American oil company employees. The cheetahs were seen on a rocky plateau. This area has a fairly large antelope prey population. Other cheetah sightings have recently been in the Afder Zone, in and around the CherriHi/El Kere area, and in the Dolo region skins and live cheetahs are offered for sale. One cheetah from the Dolo region is in captivity at the Royal Palace as of 1996. Cheetahs are protected against hunting and capture although legislation is difficult to enforce. Principal Threats. Civil war, habitat loss, extensive poaching, decline of prey, and fur trade.

hunting and capture although legislation is difficult to enforce. Principal Threats. Civil war, habitat loss, extensive poaching, decline of prey, and fur trade.

13. Gambia: Population. Reported that cheetahs may wander into Gambia from Senegal .
14. Iran: Population. Estimates of 100-20039 and less than 1007 . Under the rein of the Shah of Iran the population was estimated at 400-450. As of 1998 cheetahs are still to be found in very small groups in a variety of areas of this large country. A recent survey has been conducted by Hormoz Asadi showing 6 areas in the country where cheetahs still exist.
1.Evidence indicates definite dispersal of cheetahs from the Koshe-Yeilagh and Miandasht protected areas towards the southern Khorasan. The survey indicates that there are at least 15 to 20 cheetahs in southern Khorasan and groups of 5-8 cheetahs have been reported to be hunting wild sheep.
2. Cheetahs are surviving in the unprotected areas in Bafgh region of Yazd province. Much of this region consists of arid mountains and population estimates are still 10 to 15 animals including the Kalmand protected area.
3. A population is in the unprotected area of eastern Isfahan where the terrain consists of vast expanses of desert, unpopulated except for herdsmen grazing goats and camels. Here livestock numbers have increased and the past gazelle population has decreased, but this region may still support 5-10 cheetahs that are widely scattered.
4. A population is found in Kavir National Park and reports are frequent in this vast desert with arid mountains. The population corresponds with a gazelle population and there may still be 10 to 15 cheetahs here.
5. A population exists in the Garmsar, Damghan and Semnan unprotected areas in the northern part of the plateau. Here, 5 to 10 cheetahs are in conflict with growing agriculture and human populations. 6. A population is found in the Khar Touran National Park and protected area, which may possess the highest cheetah density in Iran. Cheetah reports are frequent in this vast expanse of desert where there may be 15 to 20 cheetahs still alive . Principal Threats. Loss of habitat, poaching, limited numbers of prey species. Direct persecution by humans, either shepherds or local hunters. They are easy targets for people in four-wheel drive vehicles and motorbike riders who chase cheetahs if they see them, causing them to die of exhaustion or leave the area.

the plateau. Here, 5 to 10 cheetahs are in conflict with growing agriculture and human populations. 6. A population is found in the Khar Touran National Park and protected area, which may possess the highest cheetah density in Iran. Cheetah reports are frequent in this vast expanse of desert where there may be 15 to 20 cheetahs still alive
. Principal Threats. Loss of habitat, poaching, limited numbers of prey species. Direct persecution by humans, either shepherds or local hunters. They are easy targets for people in four-wheel drive vehicles and motorbike riders who chase cheetahs if they see them, causing them to die of exhaustion or leave the area.

15. Kenya: Population. Estimation of 1,200 animals. Species still occurs throughout the country, except in forests, montane moorland, swamps, and areas of dense human settlement and cultivation. Cheetahs are absent in western Kenya, the more densely populated parts of Central Province, and most parts of the coastal strip. Its distribution coincides with the distribution of Thompson's gazelle, Grant's gazelle, and gerenuk. Cheetahs occur throughout most of the arid northern and north eastern parts of Kenya. Although this area is vast and mostly unpatrolled and poaching is on the increase. Populations of cheetahs are found in the following national parks and reserves; Nairobi National Park (114 km2), Tsavo National Park (20,821 km2), Amboseli National Park (329 km2), Meru National Park (870 km2), Samburu-Isiolo Reserve (504 km2), Kora Reserve (1500 km2), Masai Mara Reserve (1510 km2), Marsabit Reserve (2088 km2), Tana River Reserve (165 km2). All hunting of cheetahs is completely banned. Exports of live cheetahs stopped in the 1960's. Principal Threats. Poaching, habitat loss, competition with agriculture and farming development.

16. Libya (Not a party to CITES): Population. Cheetahs may still live around Fezzan oasis, SE of the country. Little information is available. Formerly found across the south of the country, but last seen in 1980, possibly still exist in the south west corner where the country borders Algeria, in the Tassili National Park. Until 1969 still found sparsely throughout the country except for the south and southeast. Principal Threats. Unknown, lack of information, presumed lack of prey species and habitat loss.

17. Mali (Not a party to CITES): Population. Estimated to be 200 to 50062, believed to be much less than this currently. Probably a small population still exists in the north west of the country bordering Mauritania and in the south part of Adghagh nrquote Ifoga chain, where cheetahs have been reported in late 1970’s71. In 1990 skins were found for sale in Tibuta, north Mali. There were a few cheetahs in Gurma National Park in the 1970’s71. Principal Threats. Decline of prey, poaching, environmental desiccation and reduction of habitat due to drought conditions.

18. Malawi: Population. Estimated at 5062. Absent in southern part of the country. A small population still exists in the western parks and a few individuals around Chiperi area south of Kasurgu Park. Animals seen to be coming and going from Zambia into parks with very few resident individuals in Malawi parks. There have been sightings of individual cheetah in Nyika National Park (3134 km2), Vwaza Marsh Game Reserve (986 km2), and Kasunga National Park (2316 km2)27. Principal Threats. Human population growth, loss of habitat and poaching.

19. Mauritania (not a party to CITES): Population. Estimated at 100 to 500. Possible small population and isolated individuals still exists in Aouker Plateau, Mauritania Adghagh, at the NE of Banc drquote Arguim National Park, in the northwest of the country (thought to be extinct due to the disappearance of their main prey, the Mhorr gazelle and decrease of dorcus gazelle) and Tidjika. No cheetahs exist in conservation areas. Principal Threats. Decline of prey, poaching, environmental desiccation and reduction of habitat. Taxonomy. Northern Mauritania are A.j. venaticus and in the south, A.j. hecki.

20. Mozambique: Population. Estimated at 100. Once widely distributed, now relic populations perhaps survive in parts of Gaza and Inhambane Provinces and south of the Zambezi River, and in the southern regions of Tete Province. The Tete Region is believed to be absent of cheetahs now. The Gorongoza National Park (3,770 km2) had a small population of cheetahs. Principal Threats. Poaching due to civil war situation, lack of enforced protection.

21. Namibia: Population. Estimated at 2,000-3,000 animals. Still widely spread throughout the country, although only small populations are found in the southern part of the country due to small stock farming, jackal proof fences and eradication of predators. Ninety-five percent of the population is on commercial farmlands to the north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Apart from farmlands, very small numbers of animals still occur in communal farming areas of Damaraland, Hereroland, Bushmanland, and Kaokaland. Individual animals are seen in Kavango and Caprivi. Only two conservation areas have populations of cheetahs Etosha and the Namib/Naukluft, but only 1.4 to 4% of the population lives in proclaimed conservation areas. Possibly less than 100 animals live in the 2 conservation areas, Etosha National Park (22,270 km2) because high predator competition, and Namib/Naukluft National Park (49,768 km2), because of low prey density. Although protected game, cheetahs can be killed if livestock is threatened. In January 1992, at the CITES meeting a quota of 150 animals was given to Namibia for live export and trophy hunting. Principal Threats. Live capture and shooting by livestock farmers and game farmers. Cheetahs are easily trapped, in large numbers, on farms that have "cheetah play trees". The trapping is indiscriminate. These animals are then shot as there is little export market for live animals. The majority of the current world's captive population of cheetahs has originated from Namibia.

22.Niger: Population. Estimated at 50 to 4062 . Still found in the Niger Sahel running from Mali to Chad with concentrations of 10 to 15 pairs in the L'Air Tenere Reserve in the northwest central park of the country. A few remain in the Termit Area. In Niger’s Park W (the entire tri-country park is over 11,000 km2 of which Nigerrquote s protion is about 2,200 km2) in the extreme south west of the country bordering Benin and Burkina Faso there are still cheetahs. In a study between 1993 and 1995, cheetahs were seen in this park in eight sightings with an estimation of at least nine cheetahs living in the park. Small populations of cheetahs have been recorded in Reserve Naturelle Nationale de L'Air et du Tenere (20 or 30 animals) (77,360 Km2). Principal Threats . Poaching, lack of prey species, conflict with livestock. Taxonomy. A.j. venaticus in northern Niger and A.j. hecki in southern Niger.

23. Pakistan (Possibly Extinct): Population. Information collected suggests that there are no more cheetahs in northern Baluchistan from Quetta westward. This was thought to be the last area claiming cheetahs in Pakistan . Possibly some still exist in southwest Baluchistan on the Iranian border. It is very difficult for Pakistan officials to get information from these semi-autonomous areas. Specimens of hides were collected in the early 1970's. There is a current proposal to conduct a survey in Baluchistan and the Nushki desert region close to Iran for the potential occurrence of the cheetah. Principal Threats. Loss of habitat, competition with livestock and poaching.

24. Senegal:
Population. No current information. Possibly still a few animals in Parc National Du Niokolo-Koba (8,000km2). Principal Threats. Lack of habitat.

25. Somalia: Population. Only proof of existence is from cubs being sold by locals in the Kismajo area. The situation for cheetahs in the country is at a critical point. They have been on the decline since the 1970’s, in the north the records are old and not current and in the south of the country the civil war has caused an impact on the species . Estimated at 30062. A traveler reported seeing eight animals in one days travel in the south of the country along the main road from Kenya, suggesting some numbers still occur in this region. Formerly found throughout the entire country, reduced by half to two thirds as of 197562. Previously found along the Ethiopian border in the north west and central areas of Somalia. Live cheetahs and skins for sale in Djibouti market place and thought to come from Somalia. Principal Threats. Civil war, agriculture expansion caused reduction of prey, and poaching for skins and live trade. Due to Shifta bandits and civil war, enforcement is inadequate.

26. South Africa: Population. Estimated at 500-800. Individuals occur sporadically in the northern parts of the Cape Province. In the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park there is a small population of approximately 50 animals. A small population is found on the extensive commercial farmlands in the north western, northern and eastern Transvaal, to the southern border of the Kruger National Park and along the Zimbabwe and Botswana borders. They were exterminated in Natal by the 1930's. Since 1965, 64 animals from Namibia were reintroduced to Hluhluwe/Umflozi, 33 into Mkuzi Game Reserves, 18 into Eastern Shores, 13 into Itala, and 14 into Ndumu and over 10 into Phinda. Other reserves contain isolated groups too small to be considered as viable populations. The population in the Kruger National Park is approximately 250 animals. Many cheetahs are imported to South Africa from Namibia for zoos, parks and private facilities, as well as for trophy hunting in small camps. South Africa does have several successful captive breeding facilities. Only two parks hold large enough populations: Kruger National Park (19,485 km2) and the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (9,591 km2). The cheetah was taken off the South African endangered species list in 1989. Permits are issued to control problem animals through shooting and live capture. Trophy hunting is allowed, but there is no legal export of the trophy. Principal Threats. Livestock farming, small populations in unconnected conservation areas, and the believed success of captive breeding programmes in South Africa, which has eliminated the need to put much effort into the conservation of the remaining wild populations.

27. Sudan: Population. Recent reports indicate that cheetahs are mainly distributed in southern Sudan. Estimates of 1,200 animals, which could have declined by half by 1980. Recent information in the north indicates that cheetah skins are used to make slippers and these are in great demand by rich Sudanese. Populations may still be present where adequate prey and livestock exist in semi-arid areas below the true desert in the central middle of the country. Widely distributed throughout the south, as of 198235. Recent information is lacking from the south of the country due to the long civil war. The population there could be greatly affected by the eight years of war. All wildlife has been severely affected by the availability of guns and ammunition. Were very rare or non-existent in all parks and reserves. Sightings of 10 animals in the southern reserve,*Southern National Park (23,000 km2), sightings also seen in *Boma National Park (22,800 km2), *Boro Game Reserve (1,500 km2), *Meshra Game Reserve (4,500 km2), *Badingile Game Reserve (8,400 km2), Ashana Game Reserve (900 km2), Chelkou Game Reserve (5,500 km2), Kidepo Game Reserve (1,400km2), Numatina Game Reserve (2,100 km2), and Shambe Game Reserve (620 km2) (Hillman,1982). The cheetah has been a protected species since 1972. Effective 1 January 1989 Wildlife Conservation and National Park forces of Sudan issued a 3-year notice banning the hunting and capture of mammals, birds and reptiles in the Republic of Sudan. Principal Threats. Poaching, loss of prey, indirect affects of the long civil war in the south of the country. *Proposed not yet gazetted (1988).

28. Tanzania: Population. Estimated at 1000, with a range of 500-150062. Found in the grasslands of Masailand and a few localized areas of woodlands. Populations do exist in the Serengeti/ Ngorongoro Conservation Area (25,000 km2), possibly as many as 50044, 14, however, the population suffers due to competition with lions and hyenas. There have been sightings in Mikumi National Park (3,230 km2), Tarangire National Park (2,600 km2), Katavi National Park (2,250 km2), and Ruaha National Park (10,200 km2)15, 27. Principal Threats. Poaching, predation and competition with other large predators.

29. Uganda: Population. Estimated less than 20062. No current information available. Small numbers are thought to be found in the north east sector of the country and a few may still found in Kidepo National Park (1,400 km2)93. Principal Threats. Poaching and loss of habitat. 30. Western Sahara (Possibly Extinct) (Not a party to CITES): Population. Presumed extinct. Last individual caught in 1976 and given to the zoo of Beni Abbes Scientific Research Center. A possible population may still live in the upper lands of East Tiris (south east of the country), a region of abundant vegetation.

31. Zambia:
Population. Although cheetah records are very scant, the species distribution in the last three decades is encouraging. The species is uncommon in many areas, however, as of 1969 cheetahs were still widely distributed in various parts of the country, but in low densities . Populations were concentrated in the flood plains and along dry riverbeds. It was thought that the majority of the suitable habitats would disappear by the 1980's62, 5. Recently cheetahs occur in relatively low numbers in Kufe National Park (22,400 km2), South Luangwa National Park and Sioma Ngwezi National Park. In Lower Zambezi National Park, one or two have been sighted by tour operators at Jeki plain since 1990. Experimental re-introduction of three male cheetahs into the Lower Zambezi took place in 199475. Principal Threats. Poaching, loss of habitat, and expanding human population.

32. Zimbabwe: Population. Estimated at 500-1000. A 1991 Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (DNPWLM) report estimated cheetah numbers using a computer model. This model predicted there were over 600 cheetahs within the Parks and Wildlife Estates, nearly 200 in communal lands, 400 on alienated land and nearly 200 on other state land, resulting in a total of 1,391 cheetahs throughout Zimbabwe. These estimates should however, be treated with caution as they are not based on actual data. Farmers on private and commercial land in southern Zimbabwe have indicated an increase in the cheetah population and are concerned over the loss of valuable game and livestock to cheetahs. According to a 1997 report from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism DNPWLM, the amount of commercial ranchland with permanently resident cheetah populations has more than doubled in the last decade, with an estimate of 5,000 animals. Cheetahs are largely absent from the northeast part of the country. Two main populations are found in the southern commercial farming areas and in the northwest conservation areas. These two areas account for about 400 animals. The remainder of about 100 animals is distributed over the middle
Zambezi Valley, the Midlands and Gonarezhou. Over 50% of the population occur on privately owned farmland. Less than 200 animals are thought to be in the conservation areas including Hwange National Park (14,650 km2), Matetsi Safari Area (2,920 km2), Kazuma National Park (313 km2) and Zambezi National Park (564 km2). Occasional sightings are reported in Matobo National Park (432 km2) and 10-20 animals are in the National Park and Safari area around Lake Kariba Valley. Small numbers occur in the Mana Pools National Park (2,196 km2) and the lower Zambezi area, unknown number in the Gonarezhou National Park (5,053 km2)91. Cheetahs are on the sixth schedule of the Parks and Wildlife Act and are also specially protected, which means that it is illegal to kill a cheetah under any circumstance without a Section 37 permit. This includes trophy hunting a cheetah, killing one as a problem animal or live capture. The Government opened trophy hunting on the cheetah in 1990, which is monitored by "hunting returns". Quota's set at the January 1992 CITES meeting allows for the export of 50 animals. Principal Threats. Conflict with farmers and livestock and illegal killing of cheetahs.

CONCLUSION
During the past 25 years, the world’s cheetah population has declined by over 50%, from approximately 30,000 animals, to less than 15,000, whereas the human population has doubled during this time. The majority of the remaining cheetah populations are found outside protected reserves and are increasingly in conflict with humans. This is due to conflict experienced with lions and hyenas, by cheetahs in game reserves. As human populations increase, the reduction of prey species available to cheetahs and the loss of habitat are the biggest threats facing the cheetah today. Another major problem facing the species is its lack of success in captivity, as the captive population is not self-sustaining but maintained by the wild population of cheetahs, which is under increasing pressure. In order for the cheetah to survive into the 21st century, some simple and yet economically hard decisions will have to be made. The survival of the cheetah depends on the ability of range countries discussed in this paper to develop a Global Master Plan for the cheetah in its remaining ranges of Africa. A Global Master Plan will hopefully be developed with the assistance of the IUCN SSC’s Conservation and Breeding Strategy Group (CBSG) during the next year. Having been revered by humans for over 5,000 years, the cheetah is now facing extinction caused by human factors. In order to ensure this species’ survival, we have to look critically at the political, social and economic issues facing wildlife conservation in Africa today. Countries like Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, which have key remaining populations, urgently need to set the example with integrated conservation management programs to ensure the survival of the cheetah.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

Login
Email:
Password: Lost Password?
Remember?