The restricted geographic range and tenuous conservation status of wild dogs in South Africa were the motivating factors behind this study. Wild dogs have been extirpated from most of their historic range in South Africa, and now occur in three limited distributions: a) one viable population in Kruger National Park; b) a protected meta-population, consisting of 1 packs in six sub-populations (four on state owned reserves – Hluhluwe-Umfolozi Park, Madikwe Game Reserve, Marakele National Park, Pilanesberg National Park, and two on privately owned reserves – Karongwe Game Reserve, and Venetia Limpopo Nature Reserve), and c) ` 76 unprotected individuals in 17 packs and dispersing groups occurring outside protected areas, primarily in the game ranching areas of the extreme north and north east. Prior to the establishment of the proposed transfontier parks, the best prospects for range expansion likely exist on private land. My study investigated some of the ecological, sociological and economic issues associated with wild dog conservation on private land under various scenarios. Over the last few years, the focus of conservation efforts and donor funding expenditure (72.6% of funding) has been the establishment of the meta-population. This been effective – the target size (nine packs) of the meta-population has been exceeded in six years, four years less than the targeted schedule (10 years). From here, there are two ways in which donor funding might be used to achieve further range expansion outside state protected areas, through expansion of the meta-population by reintroducing wild dogs onto private nature reserves, and through the conservation of wild dogs in situ on ranchland. For either strategy, an estimated minimum area of 158.5 km2 is required to support the predation requirements of a pack of 12 wild dogs in northern South Africa, 172.8 km2 in eastern South Africa, and 354.2 km2 in north-eastern South Africa. Private reserve owners may not be willing to accept the costs of predation by wild dogs in the absence of compensation. Compensation for predation ($9,563 - $101,762/year) in addition to the high start up costs of wild dog reintroductions ($36,880) would increase annual donor funding requirements by 1.3 – 4 times, and reduce the cost efficiency of this strategy below that of alternative conservation options. However, there is potential to generate substantial revenue from wild dog-based ecotourism ($11,000 - $60,000/pack/year), and given careful reserve selection, tourism benefits can exceed the costs. Consequently, private reserve owners might be encouraged to reintroduce wild dogs at their own cost. In line with this, the Wild dog Advisory Group-SA has received enquiries from several private reserve owners interested in reintroducing wild dogs onto their properties. The expansion of the meta-population should be limited to state-owned reserves and private reserves willing to carry the costs. There are more wild dogs occurring outside protected areas than previously recognised. Potentially important founder populations occur in game ranching areas in eastern (1-3 resident packs and dispersing groups), northern (1-5 resident packs and dispersing groups) and western Limpopo (1-5 resident packs and dispersing groups), and large areas (88,750 km2) of potentially suitable habitat for range expansion are currently available. Persecution by landowners remains a significant problem, however, and until this is controlled, range expansion is unlikely to occur. Negative attitudes (47.7% of ranchers) are typically based upon perceived or real economic costs associated with wild dogs, and the removal of cost burdens from landowners is the most direct way in which attitudes might be improved. Despite the high annual costs associated with predation by wild dogs on ranchland ($11,942 - $115,761), the low logistical costs ($3,572 initially, and then $15,382 annually thereafter) associated with conserving wild dogs in situ on ranchland render this option more cost efficient than the reintroduction of wild dogs onto private reserves (14-27 packs conserve / $100,000 cf. 3-19 packs / $100,000). Furthermore, tourism revenue from wild dogs has the potential to offset the costs of their predation on ranchland under most scenarios, and promoting the conservation of wild dogs in situ on ranchland by assisting ranchers in establishing wild dog-ecotourism operations should be the focus of future conservation efforts. A substantial proportion of ranchers (52.3%) are positive towards wild dogs, and private landowners are potentially important facilitators in the conservation of the species in South Africa. The focus on future conservation efforts involving wild dogs in South Africa should be to establish wild dog populations in the proposed Limpopo/Shashi and Lubombo transfrontier conservation areas as soon as they are established, to encourage private reserve owners to reintroduce wild dogs at their own expense ,and to promote the conservation of naturally occurring wild dogs in situ on ranchland, by encouraging and assisting ranchers to establish wild dog-ecotourism programmes. / Thesis (DPhil (Zoology))--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Zoology and Entomology / unrestricted

African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are the most endangered large carnivore in Southern Africa. There are as little as 5,000 individuals globally and less than 450 African wild dogs in South Africa alone. African wild dogs are listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. Therefore, the time has never been more crucial to conserve the species. With increased human encroachment and inhabitation in and around protected areas, so are increased conflicts between humans and carnivores. Human-wild dog conflict is likely to rise where a common resource is found. Human-carnivore conflicts have often been induced by the uncomfortably close inhabitation of humans in areas predominantly occupied by large carnivores. For this reason, it is becoming vital to establish a harmonious relationship between carnivores and humans. This research investigated the extent and causes of human-carnivore conflict specific to private landowners and the African wild dog in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, Limpopo Province, South Africa between April 2018 and January 2019. The causes of conflict in the Waterberg and levels of tolerance by the farmers for African wild dogs were investigated. The methodology was two-fold, using spatial analyses and an online survey. Three African wild dogs from the same pack were collared using telemetry collars (Tag 2651, Tag 2953 and Tag 3017). These data were used for the spatial analysis part of the research, using Geographic Information System (GIS) to determine the African wild dogs’ home ranges, movement patterns, and proximities to commonalities with humans and preferred land use. The private landowners possibly experiencing human-carnivore conflict were surveyed using an online survey (n = 81), and this information was used to determine the extent of conflict and tolerance of African wild dogs amongst the farmers in the Waterberg. The information gathered will be used by the Endangered Wildlife Trust to develop an early warning system for private landowners affected by the presence of free-roaming African wild dogs in the area. In general, English speaking farmers in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve were more tolerant of African wild dogs compared with Afrikaans speaking farmers. Results also showed that areas near food and water sources are high potential conflict hotspots. The results also showed that African wild dog movement patterns in Waterberg Biosphere Reserve have an influence on conflict hotspot areas during denning season, wet and dry months, different phases of the moon, and overall hunting patterns of African wild dogs. This research facilitated an understanding of aspects of utilisation, persecution, and how to mitigate conflict between humans and African wild dogs within the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve. / Dissertation (MSc (Environment and Society))--University of Pretoria, 2020. / GreenMatter Fellowship Mapula Trust Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) National Research Foundation (NRF) / Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology / MSc (Environment and Society) / Unrestricted

Lorsque des animaux montrent un choix préférentiel pour un habitat à effet puits, on dit alors qu’ils sont capturés par un piège écologique. La sélection de l’habitat est bénéfique dans les systèmes classiques de type source-puits, puisque les animaux vivant dans des habitats de haute qualité (natalité>mortalité), choisissent de migrer vers des habitats de faible qualité (natalité<mortalité), uniquement lorsqu’il n’y a pas suffisamment d’habitat de haute qualité disponible. A l’intérieur d’un habitat de type piège écologique le choix est dangereux, et peut conduire à l’extirpation rapide d’une espèce, puisque les animaux vivant dans des habitats de haute qualité choisissent de migrer vers des habitats de faible qualité, même lorsqu’il y a suffisamment d’habitat de haute qualité disponible. Les pièges écologiques ont lieu lorsque des changements naturels ou induits par l’homme se produisent rapidement et que des déterminants de la sélection de l’habitat qui étaient alors sélectionnés deviennent trompeurs, entraînant des choix d’habitats inadaptés de la part des animaux. Pour distinguer un habitat de type puits d’un piège écologique, des connaissances complémentaires sont nécessaires, sur la relation entre les préférences d’habitat et la qualité de l’habitat. Dans l’écosystème de Hwange, les lycaons semblent baser le choix d’habitat sur les déterminants écologiques améliorant la fitness. Ils ont une meilleure efficacité de chasse dans la zone tampon à l’extérieur du parc national de Hwange, une compétition moindre avec les lions et avec les hyènes, ainsi qu’un meilleur accès à des sites de terrier. En conséquence, à l’extérieur du parc national, les lycaons donnent naissance à des portées de chiots plus grandes. Cependant, la mortalité induite par l’homme, en raison de l’effet lisière, est si grande qu’elle excède la natalité. Néanmoins, du fait qu’ils sont incapables de juger avec justesse de la qualité de l’habitat, en intégrant la mortalité induite par l’homme, les lycaons font un choix d’habitat inadapté, et ils se déplacent vers le puits de mortalité, à l’extérieur de la sécurité de l’aire protégée. En d’autres mots, les lycaons de l’écosystème de Hwange sont capturés par le piège écologique, que constitue la zone tampon située à l’extérieur du parc national de Hwange. / When animals show a preferential choice for sink habitat they are said to have been caught in an ecological trap. Habitat choice behaviour is beneficial in classic source-sink systems, as animals living in high quality habitat (natality>mortality) only choose to migrate into low quality habitat (natality<mortality) when there is not enough high quality habitat available. Within an ecological trap habitat choice is detrimental and can lead to rapid extirpation of a species, as animals living in high quality habitat choose to migrate into low quality habitat even when there is enough high quality habitat available. Ecological traps occur when sudden natural or human induced changes cause formerly reliable settlement cues to be no longer associated with an adaptive outcome, causing animals to make a maladaptive habitat choice. To be able to distinguish a sink from an ecological trap additional knowledge of the relationship between habitat preference and habitat quality is required. Within the Hwange system African wild dogs seem to base their habitat choice on the right fitness enhancing ecological cues. They experience a higher hunting efficiency in the buffer zone outside Hwange National Park, less competition with lions and spotted hyenas and a better access to suitable den sites. As a result African wild dogs outside the National Park give birth to larger litters of pups. However, due to an ‘edge effect’, human induced mortality in the buffer zone is so high it exceeds natality. African wild dogs nevertheless make a maladaptive habitat choice and move into the mortality sink outside the safety of the protected area as they are unable to judge habitat quality accurately by taking this human induced mortality risk into account. In other words, African wild dogs in the Hwange system are caught in an ecological trap in the buffer zone outside Hwange National Park.