Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lea Key Doc

Lea Key Doc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16|Likes:
Published by Cliff Lyon

More info:

Published by: Cliff Lyon on Oct 22, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Wildlife come into conflict with people when they damage property;threaten human safety or recreation by feeding(killing,browsing,grazing,digging and browsing)A further reason for conflict is that wildlife are carriers of diseases that can be harmful to people andtheir domestic animals.In response to these;perceived wildlife damage or threat people may retaliate in a manner that may beineffective or biologically unsustainable and political discord may ensue between those whoseemphasis is conservation of biodiversity and/or the sustainable use of resources;and those defendingthe economic interests of affected people.In particular people at the receiving end of wildlife damage tend to oppose conservationagendas;protected areas and conservation practitioners.Hence,the management of wildlife populationsinvolved in conflict raises numerous issues relating to conservation;perceptions of nature animalwelfare and the politics and economics of natural resources.Conservationists face a critical challenge to develop workable measures for reconciling humanactivities and wildlife needs as a deliberate choice(as opposed to earlier views that were polarized between support for either wildlife or people and economic development),and thus minimize theseverity or frequency of conflicts for both animals and people.Review of the patterns of human wildlife conflict and the most commonly used approaches or tentativesolutions showing promise ,to its management.We then focus on the gaps in our understanding that impede progress in mitigating human wildlifeconflicts as well as socio-political barriers to innovation that frustrate biodiversity conservation.For example,we still do not know if wild animals with a tendency to damage property or threaten humanactivities transmit these behaviors to their young;which hampers our analysis and use of negativeconditioning from deterrents to lethal control.Affected people can also befuddle conservationists asexemplified by the common claim that livestock loss to carnivores is more than economic loss becauselivestock producers love the animals they annually take to slaughter.CHARACTERIZING CONFLICTConflicts between wildlife and humans cost many lives,both human and wildlife;threaten the livelihoodof millions worldwide and jeopardize long-term conservation goals such as securing protected areasand building conservancies in support of wildlife(Sukumar 1994;Treves and Newton-treves 2005)Elephants,hippopotami,buffaloes,large carnivores and crocodiles account for most human deaths or injury,the vast majority of attacks befall people harvesting resources from wildlife areas and thosedefending their farms from crop raiders.Historically,and still largely today,solutions that are lethal to wildlife have been sought through bullets,poison or traps.This response is increasingly unpopular or illegal so interest has awakened innon-lethal techniques.
In the past;one or two questions have not been answered about lethal vs non-lethal control.a)What is the magnitude of the problem relative to the proposed solutions? b)How do lethal vs non-lethal alternatives measure up in cost-effectiveness,sustainability or socio- political acceptability?Furthermore,as values especially of nature,are increasing weighed with more than monetarydimensions,these questions,which were technically difficult to answer become intellectually andethically hard too.MITIGATING HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT.Conflict can occur anywhere along a continuum of species abundances.For those species for which the problem is their abundance(e.g livestock predation by carnivores),mitigation will seek to reduce contactor manage damage.In contrast,for rare species threatened species,the emphasis will be protection,shifting towardssustainable management as a population recovers.Traditional pastoral approaches to livestock husbandry has always been considered compatible withand complementary to wildlife.In Kenya,more than half of the wildlife habitat is outside protected areas in communal grazing landsand group ranches,where wildlife,people and livestock all interact and compete for the same naturalresources.As human pop has increased,agriculture has expanded into more marginalized areas and formally opencommunal grazing lands have been transformed into high density rural settlements of small scalefarmers engaged in cultivation and livestock grazing practices have increasingly turned toagriculture(Thompson et al 2000)As the pressure on land becomes more intense,there is considerable potential for conflict betweenwildlife and people over grazing land,predation of domestic livestock and disease transmission.Wildlife populations have been adversely affected by these changes.The situation is serious across E.A and if solutions are not found,wildlife will disappear in the near future.One way that wildlife can be considered in shrinking pastoral areas is if socio-economic benefits fromwildlife can be realized by the pastoral communities e.g eco-tourism.Recent research has indicated that returns from integrated wildlife and livestock production can behigher than returns to either enterprise on its own.In order to maintain or in most cases restore a healthyecosystem,economically attractive solutions must be developed and implemented.There are four(4) major limiting factors that pastoralists perceive:a)grazing competitionb)water competitionc)diseased)predation  NAAKU TAA LOLO!!!!!!!

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->