Lions to Fence or not to Fence

Mar. 7, 2013 — African lions and villagers would benefit from fences to protect them from each other, according to a new study by University of Minnesota researcher Craig Packer published online by Ecology Letters on March 5.
Reference

Fencing has long been anathema to most conservationists, but Packer said it offers the best hope for saving iconic African wildlife, an undertaking that will require sweeping measures rather than piecemeal efforts. In an interview, he called for an international "Marshall Plan" to erect fences where possible to protect people, lions, elephants and other threatened wildlife species.

Most African governments don't have the resources to protect people and wildlife from each other, but without a massive increase in conservation funding nearly half of unfenced lion populations could decline to near extinction over the next 20-40 years. And in the long run, it would be more cost-effective to maintain lion populations in fenced reserves.

For the study, Packer and 57 colleagues compared population densities and management practices across 42 sites in 11 countries. Fenced reserves maintained lions at 80 percent of their potential population capacity on annual management budgets of about $500 per square kilometer, while unfenced populations required an average of $2,000 per square kilometer each year to remain at just 50 percent of their capacity.

"Even though lion habitat has been reduced by at least 75 percent over the last century, more still remains than can possibly be conserved," said Packer, a professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. "Several of Africa's most famous wildlife areas involve large-scale migrations of wildebeest and zebra that could never be enclosed within a fenced reserve, so the lions' last stand should be thought out carefully in terms of those places that can safely be fenced and those that will be worth the enormous monetary investments because they can't be fenced."

As encroaching civilization has brought people and lions into much closer proximity the incidence of lion attacks on humans and livestock has increased substantially. Not surprisingly, villagers retaliate by killing lions to protect their families and their livestock.

"We must never lose sight of the fact that the costs of lion conservation ultimately derive from the need to protect people from these animals," said Packer. And lions are not alone in causing widespread human misery. "Elephants are in crisis, too, and although they are largely being decimated by ivory poachers, there's little support for elephant conservation in rural villages because of the enormous damage they cause to crops. A fence that is lion-proof is also elephant-proof, so a well-designed policy of fencing would protect more than just lions."

Because the findings from the Ecology Letters paper present such an enormous challenge for African governments and conservationists, the best hope may be to advocate for a "Marshall Plan" for African wildlife conservation, Packer said.

"If we're serious about this, it means establishing fences around very large areas, such as the Selous Game Reserve, which is home to the largest remaining lion population in the world. Fencing the Selous, which covers an area of about 17,000 square miles, would cost something like $30 million. None of the world's conservation agencies could afford that, but perhaps a global funding agency for developing countries would do it because fencing would protect humans as well as lions."

Packer's own research has focused on lions in Serengeti National Park for the past 35 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130308103419.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

WS

Interesting article, thanks WS. I will ask Jonathan what he thinks about that.

Lai

A very interesting article and to my mind a very sensible idea. I know a lot of wildlife experts and conservationists do not like fences and certainly they are not ideal but we have to live in the real world and not an idealistic version of how we would like it to be. Fences have worked around the Kruger (although it has not stopped poaching) and allows wildlife and humans to live in close proximity reasonably satisfactorily. In fact all South Africa's reserves are fenced both national and private and even some of the private Kenya reserves are now also fenced.
Human develop will continue in countries where most of the wildlife is situated and we cannot refuse them the chance to enjoy the same standard of living we have just to to preserve our enjoyment of wildlife. There are no easy solutions but at least this article seems to provide some joined up and rational thinking for a change!!

Safariman

Sadly I have to agree Safariman, as you say it's not ideal or in a perfect world what we would all want. But as I've said a few times on here, it's easy for us to sit in our arm chairs and say these things, we dont have to live alongside the wildlife in Africa, and as you say the human wildlife conflict will only increase as the human race grows. There are two things that worry me, the first is that will the areas designated for wildlife be sacrosacnt, and not be taken over gradualy, and the second is the importance of corridoors between the fenced of areas to allow free movement between animals that need new territory to establish new gene pools of their species
WS

With regard to the two points you raise WS, in SA the number of wildlife reserves has increased as land that was once only good enough for subsistence farming has been returned to wildlife as the nomadic lifestyle of the farmers disappears and particularly their children move to employment in the towns and cities freeing up the unproductive land. I think that this is also happening in Kenya in Laikipia where the locals realise they can earn a better living by utilising their land for wildlife and tourism.
Providing wildlife corridors is always going to be a major problem and one that cannot easily be resolved. However once you start managing wildlife you have to do it totally, you cannot just play at it and only manage the bits you might think relevant at any one time. Man has always been part of nature and hence a part of wildlife and in a way by creating national parks and moving out people we are actually creating an artificial environment for the wildlife and therefore whether we realise it or not managing it.
It's a debate that will continue for a long time.

Safariman

It is a real shame that fencing has to be considered, I am the idealist but even I can see that something has to be done for the sake of preserving the wildlife, the people and the cattle.
I too had the thought about the corridors for the eles etc and I hope if the fences come in to play, I really hope man gets it right. We are part of nature but often when man has interfered he has got it wrong, so hopefully this time they will think it through from start to finish and look at all the consequences, good and bad and plan it all appropriately and take into account the animals natural habits and needs. It has to be good for everyone, man and beast.

littlewid-x-

I quite agree LW, and Safariman. When we start to manage we will have to manage everything, and that does include the wildlife gene pool diversity whether by corridoors, as difficult as that may be or by moving wildlife from one area to another where the areas fenced are not big enough to support it. I have seen quite a few places in different programes that have been returned to wildlife all though at the moment I cant remember the names at the moment, but they have been really successful, and lets hope more areas can be returned as well. It will be interesting to see what Jonathan thinks if you can Lai
WS

I'll be with Jonathan and Angie in Galapagos mid April so will be sure to ask them what they think WS.

Lai

Interesting discussion.

There will always be an increasing tension between human settlements and wildlife conservation.

Even if humans "get it right" it creates problems.

To take the issue beyond the lions - consider one of the most successful wildlife conservation countries in our region - Botswana.

Thanks to their successful conservation efforts and minimal poaching it now has the largest population of African elephants - approximately 150 000.

With this population growing at 6% per annum the elephant is unfortunately now perceived to be a problem animal.

The human beings living on the borders of the elephant ranges are increasingly complaining of crop losses and property damage.

This place the Botswana government under serious pressure from its citizens to do something about this and some are asking for either wide-scale culling or fencing of the conservation areas.

So what do you do?

On the one hand elephants can provide great benefit to the local population through the tourism industry and on the negative side elephants require plenty of space.

This tension will only increase in future.

We all know that habitat loss and the killing of predators due to human-wildlife conflict are the biggest threats to the long-term survival of these large carnivores in Africa.

If fencing can provide an answer to the challenge it will have to be embraced.

Chris

Jonathan Scott has commented on this issue on his blog Chris.

Here is the link and extract.

http://www.jonathanangelascott.com/main/wordpress/2013/04/will-fences-be-the-answer-to-humanwildlife-conflict/

When it comes to National Parks and how best to protect wildlife we have gone from a Fortress Mentality – keep people out and do everything possible to ‘save’ wildlife – to a more ‘people friendly’ approach. By that I mean the trend towards embracing a policy that takes in to account the welfare and development aspirations of local communities living alongside National Parks and Game Reserves – the people who bear the brunt of the negative aspects of living with wildlife – i.e. loss of crops and livestock to marauding elephants or buffaloes or hungry predators. Many people feel that anything less is doomed if we still want to protect a semblance of our wildlife heritage. You can argue strongly for both approaches – and opinion is still divided as to what is best. Perhaps it all depends on individual scenarios with each dealt with on a case by case basis.

Adding to this debate is a ‘solution’ that we hear increasingly talked about – FENCING.This could mean fencing people in to protect the wildlife still roaming freely around human habitation where people are still living within protected areas – apparently this is the case in a wilderness area in Mozambique. Or if as many conservationists now argue it is a fallacy to believe that people and wildlife really can still co-exist alongside each other on our beleaguered planet (particularly when it comes to living with large creatures such as elephants and lions) and that the only long term solution is to fence off the National Parks and Game Reserves to hold back the surge in the human population that threatens to overwhelm the world as we know it. While this might be practical in the case of Nairobi National Park, some will maintain that it is impractical to imagine that large areas of up to 10-20,000 sq km could be enclosed. Just too costly to set up and to maintain. But I have a feeling that more fences and more intense management of wildlife confined in this way is likely to be the ultimate reality.

Meanwhile we are eating wildlife off the planet – and chopping it up for medicine, trinkets, keepsakes and ornaments.

Spending time in wild places fills one with elation – and a sense of great sadness too!

Lai