opkiuo

ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT SUITABILITY, SOCIAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR A
CONSERVATION TRANSLOCATION OF ETHIOPIAN WOLVES
IN GAYSAY GRASSLAND AND WEB VALLEY, BALE
MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, ETHIOPIA

THESIS FOR PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF M.Sc. DEGREE IN RANGE

ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY

SUBMITTED BY: SHIMELIS WONDIMU

SUBMITTED TO;

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE,

DEPARTMENT OF RANGE SCIENCE

MADAWALABU UNIVERSITY

Advisor: Hadis Tadele (PhD)

Co-Advisor: Jorgelina Marino (PhD)
July, 2020
i Bale-Robe, Ethiopia
 MADAWALABU UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCE

MSc. STUDY ON ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT SUITABILITY, SOCIAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR A CONSERVATION

TRANSLOCATION OF ETHIOPIAN WOLVES IN GAYSAY GRASSLAND

AND WEB VALLEY, BALE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS
BY SHIMELIS WONDIMU
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF M.Sc. DEGREE IN RANGE ECOLOGY
AND BIODIVERSITY

Advisor: Hadis Tadele (PhD)

Co-Advisor: Jorgelina Marino (PhD)

July, 2020

Bale-Robe, Ethiopia

i
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

MADAWALABU UNIVERSITY

As thesis research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared under our guidance, by Shimelis Wondimu entitled: Assessment of Habitat
Suitability, Social and Organizational Consideration for a Conservation Translocation of
Ethiopian Wolves in Gaysay Grassland and Web valley, Bale Mountains National Park,
Ethiopia. Hereby, we recommended that it be accepted as fulfilled the Thesis requirement.

Hadis Tadele (PhD) _________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Jorgelina Marino (PhD) _________________ _______________

Co-Advisor Signature Date
As members of the board of examiners of the M.Sc. Thesis-Open Defense Examination, we
certify that we have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Shimelis Wondimu, and examined the
candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as it fulfilled the thesis requirement for
the degree of Master of Science in Range Ecology and Biodiversity.

______________________ _________________ _______________

Chair Person Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy of
the thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the Department Graduate
Committee (DGC) of the candidate‟s major department.

ii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author, Shimelis Wondimu was born in Dinsho Woreda, Bale Zone of Oromia regional state,
in 1985 GC. He began his education at Dinsho Elementary and junior school at Dinsho woreda.
He completed his secondary school in Dinsho and Robe comprehensive secondary and
Preparatory school in 2005 GC and the joined Madawalabu University School of Biodiversity
and Natural resource in 2007 GC and Graduated with Bachelor of Science in Natural Resource
Management in 2011 GC. Then the author was employed in Bale Mountains National Park as
park Junior Ecologist. After serving the park for seven years and promoted to park Senior
Ecologist he joined the school of Graduate studies at Madawalabu University in September 2017
GC to pursue his Masters of Science (MSc) in Range Ecology and Biodiversity.

i
AUTHOR‟S DECLARATION
I declare that the work recorded in this thesis is entirely my own, except where otherwise stated,
and that it is also of my own composition. Much of the material included in this thesis has been
produced in co-authorship with my co-supervisors Jorgelina Marino (PhD), and my personal
contribution on each topic in this Manuscript. Also I further declare that no part of this work has
been submitted as part of any other degree.

Shimelis Wondimu

Madawalabu University

July, 2020

ii
Abstract
Habitat suitability is a critical aspect for the successful establishment and conservation
translocation of species. Past studies have identified multiple factors that contribute to habitat
suitability, such as ecological information assessment, social and organizational consideration.
Considering these, this study intended to study the Habitat suitability, Social and Organizational
Consideration. Standard habitat assessment transect (HAT) used for ecological information
assessment applied for both current wolf optimal habitat (Web valley) and study area (Gaysay
grassland) conducted in March 2019 (Dry Season). And it was resulted that Gaysay grassland
shown lesser suitable in prey availability in comparison to web valley. Also, Gaysay grassland
found in supporting more diverse habitat types than web valley with 31.3% habitats shared to
common and the sampling sites found unlike in its prey dominancy across habitat types.
Socioeconomic data were conducted through a door to door assessment by using a structured
questionnaire-based interview with a combination of open and closed-ended and five-point
Likert scale type questions. A data assessed was result that, communities have willing to see
wolves back and shown impressive feeling to tolerate wolves if they may come back to their
former habitat. But, it is still a challenge that the communities are using the proposed site in
multiple uses that more emphasized consumptive ways that could be taken as threats again for
the habitat. With the same thought, the concerning organizational expertise reached via email,
phone and direct filling questioner designed found remarkably support the ideas of
reintroduction with a decisive suggestions that support the proposed areas to be checked
seriously and carefully. In general Gaysay grassland found faintly lesser in prey availability and
habitat types; it needs further analysis on other related issues over the proposed areas. The
threats identified under this study and other expected concerns were recommended to
management intervention in order to minimum the threats and to make the habitat more suitable
and secured.

Keywords: Habitat, rodent, Ethiopian Wolf, translocation, reintroduction Gaysay grassland,

optimal wolf’s habitat, Bale Mountains National Park

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and for most I would like to thank God, the merciful, and the passionate, for providing me
the opportunity to step in the excellent world of science. God, you are always good when I am
not, you hold me safely and support me to reach here, thanks for your almighty.
I would like to express my great respect and appreciation to my advisors Dr. Hadis Tadele and
Dr. Jorgelina Marino for their unreserved technical support, constructive comments, suggestion,
advice, and encouragement from the beginning to end.
Special thanks to the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP) for giving me a chance
to attend my MSc study and fully covered my expense and tuition fee. Indeed, my study would
not have been possible without the sponsorship of EWCP. With the same sense of thoughts I am
very grateful for REDD+ Project - Farm Africa-Bale branch for it‟s partly funded my thesis
especially during data collection period the fund was really abetted me. I would also like to
extend my thanks to Mr. Eric Biden (EWCP coordinator) and Mustefa Dule (EWCP community
officer) for their provision of extensive fieldwork and coordination.
I would like also to extend my appreciation for the Para ecologist of Bale Mountains National
Parks strong and well-experienced field assistance Yusuf Amano, Yusuf Hule, Awol Hussien,
and Park ecologist Mohammed Kedir.
It is also my pleasure to acknowledge the share of Addis Ababa National herbarium expert Mr.
Melaku Wondafrash for his immense support in plant identification.

iv
Acronyms

AfRSG African Rhino Specialist Group

BMNP Bale Mountains National Plan

BSNP Borana Sayint National Park

CBC Community-based Conservation

CDV Canine Distemper Virus

CSG Canid Specialist Group

EFCCA Environment, Forest and Climate Change Authority

EWCA Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority

EWCP Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme

FZS Frankfurt Zoological Society

GMP General Management Plan

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LCGs Local Conservation Groups

SPP Species

SSC Species Survival Commission

TLU Tropical Livestock Unit

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................................... i
AUTHOR‟S DECLARATION ................................................................................................... ii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. ix
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study ...............................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the problem ..............................................................................................3
1.3. Significance of the study ...............................................................................................4
1.4. Objectives .....................................................................................................................5
1.4.1. General Objective ..................................................................................................5
1.4.2. Specific objectives .................................................................................................5
1.5. Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................6
1.6. Scope of the study .........................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................7
2.1. Ethiopian Wolf and their Distribution ...........................................................................7
2.2. Population and Conservation Status ..............................................................................9
2.3. Habitat Preference ....................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Diet of the Ethiopian wolf ........................................................................................... 11
2.5. Threats of Ethiopian Wolf ........................................................................................... 12
2.6. Social and Organizational Role in Species Conservation ............................................. 14
2.6.1. Role of Communities in Species conservation ...................................................... 14
2.6.2. Organizational Consideration and its Role............................................................ 15
3. Materials and Methods ....................................................................................................... 18
3.1. Materials ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.2. Description of the Study area ...................................................................................... 18
3.2.1. Park Establishment .............................................................................................. 18
3.2.2. Location............................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3. Fauna ................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.4. Flora .................................................................................................................... 20

vi
 Continued……
3.2.5. Climate ................................................................................................................ 21
3.3. Methods ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.1. Sampling design .................................................................................................. 21
3.3.2. Data collection techniques ................................................................................... 24
3.3.3. Data Analysis methods......................................................................................... 26
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 27
4.1. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.1. Rodent-Abundance index ..................................................................................... 27
4.1.2. Habitat Types Characteristics and Dominance...................................................... 28
4.1.3. Habitat Coverage at a Different Level .................................................................. 32
4.1.4. Three level Habitat and Rodent Relative Abundance association .......................... 33
4.1.4. Vegetation at Different Height Level and Rodents Association ............................ 34
4.1.5. Rodent sign and livestock Presence Association ................................................... 35
4.1.6. Large Mammals Consideration ............................................................................ 36
4.1.7. Social Attitude and Perception ............................................................................. 42
4.1.8. Organizational Voice on Wolf Reintroduction...................................................... 47
4.2. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 51
4.2.1. Rodent-Abundance index ..................................................................................... 51
4.2.2. Habitat Types Characteristics and Dominance...................................................... 52
4.2.3. Habitat Coverage at a Different Level .................................................................. 53
4.2.4. Vegetation at Different Height Level and Rodents Association ............................ 53
4.2.5. Rodent sign and livestock Presence Association ................................................... 54
4.2.6. Large Mammals Consideration ............................................................................ 55
4.2.7. Social Attitude and Perception ............................................................................. 56
4.2.8. Organizational Voice on Wolf Reintroduction...................................................... 58
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 60
5.1. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 60
5.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 62
6. REFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 64
7. APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................... 69

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Proportional allocation of Samples to Kebele............................................................... 24

Table 2: Mean number of Giant Molerats signs and Frequency per 5m2 plot ............................. 27

Table 3: Frequency and percentage of Habitat types in Sampling Sites ...................................... 28

Table 4: Habitat type and its Characteristics .............................................................................. 29

Table 5: Rodent Sign Correlation with Different Habitat Type .................................................. 34

Table 6: Relationship between Rodent Signs and Habitat at Different Level .............................. 35

Table 7: Livestock Estimate Across two Sampling Sites ............................................................ 36

Table 8: Livestock Number and TLU`s Across Gaysay grassland and Web Valley .................... 38

Table 9: Comparison of Habitat types with different Animal sighting in Bothe sampling sites ... 39

Table 10: Wildlife Estimation in DISTANCE............................................................................ 39

Table 11: Habitat and Dependent Wild animals Number and sighting ....................................... 41

Table 12: Wild Animal Sighting and Juveniles Composition ..................................................... 41

Table 13: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ............................................................ 42

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Pictures shown Long term Ethiopian wolf density at Web Valley BMNP (Picture taken

from EWCP 2019 Annual Report) ...........................................................................................8

Figure 2: Pictures shown Long term Ethiopian wolf density at Sanetti Plateau BMNP (Picture

taken from EWCP 2019 Annual Report .......................................................................................9

Figure 3: Map of Study Area .................................................................................................... 19

Figure 4: Shrub Level vegetation Habitat Comparison for both Sampling Sites ........................ 33

Figure 5: Livestock estimation across both Gaysay grassland and Web Valley ......................... 37

Figure 6: Wild animal estimation both in Gaysay Grassland and Web Valley ........................... 40

ix
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Unprecedented rates of species extinctions characterize the Anthropocene, as habitats for wildlife
are being lost across the planet (Ceballos et al., 2017). Global changes in land use and climate is
largely responsible for these trends. As a result, animals that once roamed widely become
restricted to small fragmented areas, as is the case of the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), a
proficient rodent hunter that evolved in Ethiopia‟s Afroalpine ecosystem where rodents are the
dominant herbivores, now trapped in mountain tops like in islands in a sea of agriculture
(Marino, 2003; Marino et al., 2011).

Conservation of many endangered wild populations adapts to these challenges by actively

managing Metapopulations, with the assisted movement of animals to boost numbers, establish
new populations, and/or ensure genetic viability (Akçakaya et al., 2007; IUCN SSC Re-
Introduction Specialist Group, 2013). In Africa, there are notorious examples of active Meta
populations‟ management of lions (Panthera Leo) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) (Miller
et al 2015; Davies-Mostert et al., 2015). As an initial model for our context also, the
conservation of the Ethiopian wolf is being undertaken by managing the Metapopulation in many
fragmented areas of Ethiopia, especially the population in Afroalpine habitats of Bale Mountains
National Park (BMNP). The remaining populations of Ethiopian wolves (<500 individuals) are
found in five small populations, no longer connected by natural dispersal (Gottelli et al., 2014,
2013). Formerly, it was widely distributed in many local populations, but due to so many
pressuring factors the population has disseminated either disappeared locally from some areas
like Gosh Meda (North Shoa) and Mount Guna very recently and from Mount Choke for several
decades (Marino, 2003; EWCP, 2014). Though, the Ethiopian wolf provides a valuable
opportunity for such an approach such as moving populations to formerly known distribution
areas which can be a good model to address emerging conservation challenges of the species.

Also, a growing need for geographically coordinated priorities is reflected in the National Action
Plan (EWCA, 2017b) in order to prioritizing population restoration and reintroductions into areas
formerly occupied by wolves. With no captive populations either in-country or abroad,

1
conservation translocations provide opportunities to rescue small wolf populations (e.g.,
following disease outbreaks) and to create new ones. Also it is valuable conservation strategy in
ultimately increasing the species‟ global range and population thus, where this research was
required to test Gaysay grassland of Bale Mountains National Park, the former wolf habitat
whether the habitat is suitable and surrounding society accept the plan.

2
 1.2. Statement of the problem

Ethiopian wolf has been rare since it was first described in 1835 and as early as 1945 it was
listed as requiring protection. It is most likely the rarest Canid in the world and is listed by the
IUCN as Critically Endangered species (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997). The population of
the species is currently surviving in a handful of mountain pockets; where the largest population
is found in the BMNP, and the remaining populations in Arsi mountains, Menz, North Wollo
(Dalenta and Abuneyosefe Mountains) and south Wollo (Borena saint National Park) and Siemen
Mountains National Park (SMNP). However, it had been known in other parts of Ethiopia like
Gosh Meda (North Shoa), Mount Guna, and Mount Choke but extinct from these areas due to
many human-related factors (Hook, 2015).

Subsequently, the remaining population today is still rather small and found in very fragmented
habitats which make the population intrinsically vulnerable to little changes in their habitat. The
cause of recently observed threats to Ethiopian wolf are all human-induced such as agricultural
expansion which leads to habitat fragmentation, livestock grazing, and domestic dog presence in
wolf‟s habitat causing disease transmission to wolves as well as hybridization problems with
domestic dogs (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2004). This fact necessitates consolidating efforts both at the
international and national levels that Ethiopian and international scientists should devote a huge
effort to chronicling the life of Ethiopian wolves, helping to understand the processes that
threaten their current and future survival (Marino, 2003).

Now a day‟s conservation of many endangered wild populations adapts to these complicated
challenges by actively managing Metapopulations (Akçakaya et al., 2007; IUCN SSC Re-
Introduction Specialist Group, 2013). In Africa, there are disreputable examples of active Meta
populations‟ management of lions (Panthera Leo) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) (Miller
et al 2015; Davies-Mostert et al., 2015) as also Ethiopian wolves current metapopulation
management practice on their actual habitat can bring a valuable opportunity for our context of
future wildlife conservation.

The Ethiopian wolf conservation program (EWCP) together with Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority (EWCA), proposes the “Phase I” of a program to rescue Ethiopian
wolves through conservation translocations, with two main objectives: a) Crafting a long-term

3
vision for Ethiopian wolf population management, and b) Developing detailed plans for
translocations to two specific sites i.e. Gosh Meda and Mount Guna, through feasibility
assessments. These objectives are high priorities in the National Action Plan for the conservation
of the Ethiopian wolf (EWCA, 2017b), which proposes conservation translocations to ensure the
long-term viability of the species, by rescuing small populations and those decimated by disease,
and wherever possible, restoring wolves to suitable habitats within their historical range.

Also, communities in and around a release area should have legitimate interests in any
translocation. However, these interests will be varied, and community attitudes can be extreme
and internally contradictory, thus translocation planning should accommodate the socioeconomic
circumstances, community attitudes and values, motivations and expectations, behaviors, and
behavioral change. Understanding these is the basis for developing public relations activities to
orient the public in favor of a translocation (IUCN/SSC, 2013).

Also according to IUCN (2012), since risks of the translocation to species are multiple and
affecting in many ways to a focal species and their associated communities. Any proposed
translocation should have a comprehensive risk assessment with the level of effort appropriate to
the situation.

Therefore, this particular study was conducted to fulfill the information gab for translocation
such as assessing habitat suitability (i.e. ecological information of the habitat) and surrounding
community acceptance and tolerance of Ethiopian wolf conservation translocation which is very
essential before the reintroduction of the species into the area. Having those above crucial
information will create an opportunity for proper planning and implementation of Ethiopian wolf
relocation and conservation programs in the study area in particular and in other similar areas
where there were past wolf distributions throughout Ethiopia.

1.3. Significance of the study

Reintroduction is the intentional movement and release of an organism to its indigenous range
from which it has disappeared (IUCN SSC Re-Introduction Specialist Group 2013). According
to IUCN (2012), criteria for a reintroduction of a species to its indigenous range, a
comprehensive risk assessment should be considered at the site in advance.

4
Therefore, this research finding will come up with decisive information or baseline data of the
study area whether the habitat (Gaysay area) is suitable to sustain wolves‟ population before
reintroduction takes place for National Action Plan. Also, crucial information on local
communities‟ acceptance and tolerance towards the re-introduction program will be obtained and
social and ecological risks to the people and other wildlife also investigated. Also, this research
will be used as a breakthrough for other studies to be undertaken in other areas where the
Ethiopian wolf had been there and extinct.

In general, national and global demand of Ethiopian wolf conservation translocation plan and
dismissal in case of Gaysay grassland can be approved based on a finding of this research.

1.4. Objectives

1.4.1. General Objective

The general objective of this study was;

 To assess the habitat suitability, social and organizational consideration for a

conservation translocation of Ethiopian wolves in Gaysay grassland and Web Valley
of Bale Mountains National Park, Oromia region, Southeastern Ethiopia

1.4.2. Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this study were;

 To determine the prey availability for Ethiopian wolf in Gaysay grassland in
alignment to Web Valley
 To determine a vegetation cover and characterize habitat dominancy in Gaysay
Grassland in comparison to Web Valley
 To assess and evaluate the perception and acceptance of local people towards
translocation of Ethiopian wolf to Gaysay Grassland
 To assess organizational acceptance and their recommendation towards translocation
of Ethiopian wolf to Gaysay grassland

5
 1.5. Hypothesis

 The Gaysay grassland habitat is still suitable enough for conservation translocation of
Ethiopian wolves
 The local community residing around Gaysay grassland and concerning governmental
organizations are willing or supportive of the conservation translocation of Ethiopian
wolves to Gaysay grassland.

1.6. Scope of the study

This research project focused on the montane grassland ecosystems of Gaysay grassland in the
northern part of Bale Mountains National Park. This area covers approximately 15 km2 which is
situated between two mountains (Boditi and Addele covered with Juniperus Procera and
Hagenia abyssinica) ranges as a central broad flat valley between altitudes of 3000 to 3150 m asl
(Hillman, 1986; Kinahan, 2013).

This research project has two targets. The primary objective was investigating ecological
suitability assessment of the study area. The ecological data was collected from the proposed
release site and other current wolf supporting Afroalpine habitat for the need of comparison, to
see how habitats are close to each other and determine the potentiality of study site to sustain
Ethiopian wolves. Prey availability assessments are considered as the highly required data which
has a determinant effect on the survival of the Ethiopian wolves. Other prey density and Wolves
density predictor variables were also investigated. The data has been collected during the dry
season (February and early March).

And the second is local communities‟ willingness to tolerate the reintroduction of the wolf that
will be expected to come with clue required for the conservation translocation action plan to be
undertaken by EWCA together with EWCP in Phase I (EWCA, 2017b).

6
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Ethiopian Wolf and their Distribution

Ethiopian wolf which is one of four Canid species in Africa is classified under order Carnivora,
Infra order Canoidea, and Family Canidae (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1997). It is categorized as
animals that live in packs with a discrete social unit that communally shares and defends an
exclusive territory. In 1868, they were classified under separate genus simenia (Gray and Allen,
1939). But, the later phylogenetic investigation conducted using mitochondrial DNA sequence
confirmed that Ethiopian wolf is a distinct species, similar to the Grey wolf (Canis lupus) and
Coyote (Canis latrans) in size and build (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1997; Marino, 2003). They are
notable by their long legs, long and narrow skull. Also, their fur is a bright tawny red color, with
whitish to ginger underfur, the underparts, chin, chest and the inside of the pointed ears are
white, and the bushy tail is black (Marino, 2003; Hook, 2015).

Scientists argue that Ethiopian wolves probably originated from a Eurasian grey wolf-like
ancestor, which entered North East Africa through land bridges, during the colder periods of the
Pleistocene in which the Afroalpine ecosystem was geographically extensive and the ancient
wolf population might have spread into then widespread rodent-rich habitats (Marino, 2003). An
Afroalpine of Ethiopia has a much more extensive area of uplands and contains the largest extent
of Afroalpine habitat in the African continent (Hook, 2015). Ethiopia‟s unique environment for
its region, including its isolation, was a potent stimulus for rapid speciation. The demands posed
by an extreme climate and terrain influenced speciation, particularly for smaller organisms such
as rodents. The adaptation for feeding upon Afroalpine rodents is the main factors that have
constrained Ethiopian wolves to be rare and restrict the population on a very fragmented habitat
(Kingdon 1990; Marino, 2003).

In the past distribution of Ethiopian wolf history, specimens were collected at 2,500 m above sea
level from Gojjam and north-western Shoa at the beginning of the century. In the Simien
Mountains since the species was first described in 1835, but distributed and irregular sightings
suggest numbers have been decreasing. There were reports on the Gojjam plateau till the early
1900s. By side of South Rift Valley, wolves have been stated in the Arsi Mountains since the
1920s, and more recently (1959), in the Bale Mountains (Marino J. & Sillero-Zubiri, C., 2013).

7
Till 2013, the report revealed that Ethiopian wolves are known to be distributed at seven isolated
mountain ranges of the Ethiopian highlands, at Altitudes of 3,000 - 4,500 m asl (Marino, 2003;
Marino, and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013). However, currently, Ethiopian wolves exist only in five
distinct geographic areas; namely: Siemen Mountains, North Wollo and South Wollo highlands,
Guassa-Menz, Arsi Mountains and the Bale Mountains (Marino, 2003; Marino and Sillero-
Zubiri, 2011), where they have been locally extinct from Gosh Meda (North Shoa) and Mount
Guna very recently and from Mount Choke for several decades (Marino, 2003; EWCP, 2014).

The Bale Mountains contain the largest population of the species with approximately half of the
estimated population size in the country (Marino, 2003; Marino and Sillero-Zubiri, 2011). The
Sanetti Plateau (between 3,800 and 4,000m) and the broad valley bottom of the upper Web
Valley (at 3,450–3,550 m) are the characteristic Afroalpine plain or meadowland subjugated by
short alpine grasses and herbs, with Artemesia sagebrush, bushes of Helichrysum everlasting
flowers, and giant lobelias (Lobelia rhyncopetalum) disseminated across the open uplands. These
two sites are where Ethiopian wolves have been studied in detail in the including Tulu dimtu as
third main areas within the Afrolapine belt: whereas WebValley and Sanetti Plateau represent the
typically open and short Afroalpine vegetation and sustain the highest density of wolves (1.2
wolf/km²) (Marino, 2003).

Figure 1; Pictures shown Long term Ethiopian wolf density at Web Valley BMNP (Picture taken from
EWCP 2019 Annual Report)

8
Figure 2: Pictures shown Long term Ethiopian wolf density at Sanetti Plateau BMNP (Picture taken
from EWCP 2019 Annual Report

Also in Bale there are trends and shreds of evidence where Ethiopian wolves are locally extinct
from Gaysay grassland to which this research project prior focused (Addisu Asefa, 2008).

2.2. Population and Conservation Status

In furthermost works of literature, the main source of information on population demography and
dynamics is the long-term monitoring of wolves in the Bale Mountains with a prior focus of two
optimal habitats, Sannete Plateau and Web Valley. An indirect estimate derived from counts of
wolves has been used to detect trends in local abundances of wolves and threats. The long-term
studies of wolves in Bale have important implications for the protection and management of
Ethiopian wolf populations (Marino et al., 2006).

Ethiopian wolves are currently distributed at the slimmest restraint in the isolated few massif
mountain pockets of Ethiopian highlands within an altitude > 3000 m above sea level with less
than 500 global population (Sillero-Zubiri et al, 1997; Marino, 2003).

It has been known as a rare species since it was recorded by science, and was listed under
animals requiring global protection in 1938. However, later the species was considered under the

9
IUCN Red List of threatened animals as endangered species due to its small and declining
population size (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997). Then, after the revision of IUCN red list
categories in 1994 and new classification criteria provided, the IUCN Canid Specialist Group
(CSG) classified the species as critically endangered in advance of its extremely high risk of
extinction in wild in 1996. But, since 2004 up to last IUCN assessment, 2013 wolves are under
endangered IUCN red list categories (Marino and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013).

As a result, the IUCN Canine specialist group proposed and recommended the following
management programs for the future conservation of Ethiopian wolf (IUCN/SSC, 1997)

 “Establishment of a captive breeding facility in Ethiopia, preferable in or close to wolf

habitat.
 “Captive breeding in international captive breeding facilities with experienced curatorial
and veterinary staff;”
 “Protect Afroalpine habitat and wolves and progress towards Metapopulation
management.”

Captive breeding approach, both ex-situ, and in-situ conservation are recommended due to its
different advantage and are mutually support each other (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997).

2.3. Habitat Preference

The Ethiopian wolves are ultimately restricted to the Ethiopian highlands of North and South of
the Great Rift Valley. Suitable habitats extend from the above tree line at about 3,200 - 4,500 m
asl with some wolves present in montane grasslands at 3,000 m above sea level (Sillero-Zubiri
and Macdonald 1997; Marino, 2003). They prefer all Afroalpine habitats; nonetheless favor open
areas with short herbaceous and grassland communities where rodents are most abundant, along
with flat or gently sloping areas with deep soils and poor drainage in parts (Marino, and Sillero-
Zubiri, 2013).

In the Bale Mountains, the most preferred habitats are characterized by short herbs (Alchemilla
spp.) and grasses with low vegetation cover, a community maintained in continuous success as a
result of Giant molerat (Tachyoryctes macrocephalus) burrowing activity. Other good habitats
include tussock grasslands (Festuca spp. and Agrostis spp.), high-altitude scrubs dominated by

10
Helichrysum spp. and short grasslands in shallow soils. Also, there were trends of wolf survives
in a Gaysay grassland area at 3,000 m asl where it was sympatric with golden jackals (Canis
aureus) in Bale Mountains National Park (Marino 2013; Marino, and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013).

In northern parts of the country and at high altitudes plant communities characterized by a matrix
of 'guassa' tussock grasses (Festuca spp.), 'cherenfi' bushes (Euryops pinifolius) and giant
lobelias (Lobelia rhynchopetalum) which sustain high rodent abundance and are preferred by
wolves (Zelealem Tefera, 2004; Marino 2013; Marino, and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013)

In General, the Afroalpine areas experience regular night frosts, diurnal temperature fluctuations
that far exceed seasonal ones, and intense irradiation (Marino, 2003). Across this range, rainfall
varies between 1,000 and 2,000 mm/year, and the high altitude undergoes one pronounced dry
period annually from December to March (Marino 2003; EWCP 2013; Marino, and Sillero-
Zubiri 2013).

2.4. Diet of the Ethiopian wolf

When the Ethiopian wolf was first recorded in the Simien Mountains in 1835 by Eduard Rüppell,
it was described as they were hunting in packs and killing sheep and small games (Sillero-Zubiri
C. and Gottelli D. 1995b). However, through time detailed investigation much of their diet is
made up of rodents that dominate the Afroalpine plateau where they live in. As research finds
implies rodent diet accounts for 96% of all prey occurrences in droppings and 97% by volume of
undigested feces material (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1995a; Marino 2003).

On top of that, Most scat analysis in general shows that, Wolf prey include six rodent species,
Starck's hare (Lepus starcki), cattle lamb, birds, insects and undigested sedge leaves (Carex
monostachya) and occasionally goslings and eggs, rock hyrax (procavia capensis), and Mountain
Nyala calf (Tragelaphus buxtoni). There are also research findings that confirm wolves feeding
upon Arvicanthis abyssinicus in Simein Mountain (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1995a; Sillero-Zubiri and
Macdonald 1997; Marino 2003).

Giant molerat is the main component in the overall diet (36%) of total prey occurrences) and was
present in 69% of all fecal samples, whereas diurnal rats Arvicanthis blicki, Lophuromys
melanonyx and Otomys typus together accounted for 59% of occurrences and appeared in 78% of
the samples. Small rats replaced by double in their diet, in a habitat where the giant molerats are
11
absent. As many research findings imply, there is no seasonal difference in the frequency of prey
items between the wet and dry seasons (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997; Marino 2003;
Zelealem Tefera, 2004).

2.5. Threats of Ethiopian Wolf

Nonstop loss of habitat due to high-altitude subsistence agriculture represents the major threat to
the species. Sixty percent of all land above 3,200 m asl has been converted into farmland, and all
populations below 3,700 m asl are particularly vulnerable to further habitat loss, especially if the
areas are small and of relatively flat relief (Marino, 2003). Habitat loss is exacerbated by
overgrazing of highland pastures by domestic livestock, and in some areas, habitat is threatened
by the proposed development of commercial sheep farms and roads. Human persecution
triggered by political instability in the past is currently less severe and associated with conflicts
over livestock losses. Nowadays, also to the above threats population decline in Bale has been
mostly due to disease epizootics, and also unintentionally road kills as the tendency resulted in
death for wolves in the study area or Gaysay Grassland (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997;
Addisu, 2008).

Rabies is a potential threat to all populations, with canine distemper also a concern in Bale.
Rabies was highly suspected form domestic dog in and around wolf‟s habitat usually comes with
livestock herders that cause death to Ethiopian wolves. Rabies has been widely reported in
domestic dogs in Bale before incidence has been seen in Ethiopian wolves. Domestic dogs also
affect the wolves through food competition, aggression, and hybridization or genetic
introgression (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1996).

In the beginning, the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme used to monitor 47 packs
containing 250–300 wolves, in seven areas of the Bale Mountains (Randall, et al., 2004). For
instance, in five months period, between October 1991 and February 1992, 41 adult and sub-
adult Ethiopian Wolves were disappeared or died out of 53 wolves formerly known to these age
class (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1996). Again there was a report on a rabies outbreak in a
subpopulation of endangered Ethiopian wolves in the Bale Mountains, in 2003 and 2004. Until
August 2003, one of these core areas, the Web Valley, harbored an estimated 95 wolves
(Randall, et al., 2004). Unfortunately, in 6 weeks from mid-August to the end of September

12
2004, the carcasses of four wolves were found in the Web Valley and exceed to 15 more dead
wolves were found in the first half of October 2004. Through January 2004, a total of 38 wolf
carcasses were found in this core monitoring area. Also, 36 wolves disappeared from the Web
Valley with additional 2 dead wolves in Morobawa during this period. Thus would normally
have expected approximately 12 of 95 animals in the Web Valley subpopulation to die during 6
months, rather than the 74 that died or disappeared (Randall, et al., 2004).

Canine distemper virus (CDV) represents another serious threat to Ethiopian wolves as does
rabies (EWCP, 2012). CDV previously reported among these wolves in the Bale Mountains
during 2005–2006 and 2010. Thus led death rates ranged from 43% to 68% in affected
subpopulations and were higher for sub-adult than adult wolves (83%–87% vs. 34%–39%). The
2010 CDV outbreak started 20 months after a rabies outbreak before the population had fully
recovered, and led to the eradication of several focal packs in BMNP‟s Web Valley. The
combined effect of rabies and CDV increases the chance of pack extinction, exacerbating the
typically slow recovery of wolf populations, and represents a key extinction threat to populations
of this highly endangered carnivore (Gordon, et al., 2015). During 2016, the most shocking
outbreaks of CDV among Ethiopian wolves happened in Bale. Thus thirty-four wolf carcasses
were found between September 2015 and March 2015, and another 31 adult wolves were
unaccounted for in 17 focal packs in the Web Valley, Sannetti Plateau, and East Morobawa. On
average these populations declined in size by 52%, concerning the previous year. In a positive
spin, at least 28 pups outlived the outbreak bringing hopes for population recovery (EWCP,
2016).
To the most, no need for justification of that Ethiopian wolf‟s diet could be affected by the
presence of humans and livestock in Afroalpine areas. According to (Vial, 2010) a strong
association between livestock use and rodent biomass in Morebawa and Eastern Sanetti,
suggesting that livestock grazing poses a threat to Ethiopian wolves‟ persistence in marginal
habitats in which rodent availability is already limited. Also where the density of rodents is
relatively low and human interference is severe (Girma Eshete et al. 2018). Most of these threats
are aggravated by the wolves' specialization to life in the Afroalpine ecosystem (Marino, 2003).

13
 2.6. Social and Organizational Role in Species Conservation

2.6.1. Role of Communities in Species conservation

The promotion of community-based conservation (CBC) embraced as a tool for development

since the past three decades. The fundamental idea behind CBC has been to empower
community members and their respective institutions to protect the wildlife that overflows in
private and communal lands (Noe, C. and Kangalawe R., 2015).

In light of the significant symbolic, theoretical and intellectual resources available to advocates
of community, it is somewhat surprising that claims on behalf of community-based conservation
often retain a rather simple quality. One form such claims assume, schematically stated, and are
as follows: Communities have a long-term need for the renewable resources near which they
live. They have greater knowledge about these resources than do other potential actors. They are,
therefore, the best managers of local resources (Laycock, 1991). However, the human being
impacts are the reason for the growing level of species extinction and the destruction of habitats.
But, it is also still, the solution in reverse; conservation is not done by biology alone, there are
needs of people. When people are needed, communication is also needed (Pukka. 2018). As the
opinion of some, if communities were not involved in conservation, they would use resources
destructively. Other writings include the notion of interests, in addition to that of needs. It is in
the interests of a community to protect its resources (Sponsel et al., 1996; McKean, et al., 1992).

According to IUCN/SSC (2013), any conservation translocation proposal should be developed

within national and regional conservation infrastructure, recognizing the mandate of existing
agencies, legal and policy frameworks, national biodiversity action plans, or existing species
recovery plans.

For instance, the secret behind the success of many species conservation engagement in Africa is
the involvement of communities, as the reintroduction of black rhinoceros in the Sera
Community Rhino Sanctuary, Kenya. According to IUCN (2018), global reintroduction
prospective case study report, the reintroduction taken after several community engagements and
necessary feasibility assessments were resulted, a successful translocation of 20 individuals to
Sera as per IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) guidelines, an annual growth rate of

14
5% or above resulted, income abled to generated from tourism activities concerning the Sera
rhino sanctuary, security on rhinos to stop poaching and illegal trade on its product through
community policing were improved, the first community-owned black rhino sanctuary were
established in Kenya by 2016 (Soorae, 2018).

In the Ethiopian context also there is the beginning of some inspiring examples of community-
based Conservation as Menz Guassa Community Conservation Area that was legally recognized
in 2008. The Guassa-Menz community conserved area has revived the Quero system, an
indigenous communal management system, to sustainably manage the area‟s valuable festuca
grasses, which cover the central highlands in Amhara National Regional State (Tesfaye Tolla &
Cath Traynor, 2015). According to Zelalem Ashenafi & Leader-Williams 2005, the ancient
common property resource management system prevailing in the Guassa area is one of the oldest
natural resource management systems in Africa. This system, unique in Ethiopia has allowed the
survival of the Afroalpine area with its endemic and rare species of plants and animals.

2.6.2. Organizational Consideration and its Role

Collaboration is the keyword between multi-stakeholder environments. When organizations are

facing new stakeholder engagement practices, the role of communication and communication
professionals becomes more and more important (Aakhus & Bzdak, 2015).

Conservation organizations also need to recognize the three main values the stakeholders can
bring to the development process: knowledge, credibility, and creative persistence. Knowledge
of sensitive areas – for species habitat, species conservation status, behavior, local communities'
cultural and other resources – is the core skills should be considered from conservation
organizations and their stakeholders. Credibility with a wide range of community organizations
is another key value. As a long-term player in the local community, conservation organizations
and stakeholders are often a trusted recommender for new conservation projects whether they
meet desired criteria. Creative persistence in achieving conservation goals has also been a
hallmark of other conservation community (Gentry, 2011).

Communication that is customized to the beliefs of the target audience is more likely to be
effective than communication that is based on managers‟ intuition or guesswork. When

15
organizations show commitment to their publics, share power, and build trust, they are more
likely to maintain the relationship (Singh and Rahman, 2012)

Also, to have successful conservation programs, it is important to understand how to engage with
audiences and effectively communicate conservation goals. Especially to conserve endangered
species properly, it is required to have understanding, support, and participation from user groups
and other stakeholders (Pukka, 2018).

According to Birdlife International (2008), the most common benefit of forming alliances is the
combining of complementary skills. For example, BANCA (BirdLife in Myanmar) allied with a
development NGO (CARE in Myanmar) and a development agency (UNDP). BANCA
recognized that CARE and UNDP were better placed and qualified to spearhead the
livelihood/food security components of the project since they had relevant expertise and
experience and were already working at Natmataung National Park. Although informal, the
alliance has been successfully linking development with conservation, with BANCA bringing
conservation expertise. As BANCA lacked capacity and experience in rural development, the
partnership was necessary to implement the overall project strategy.

Also in Zimbabwe, a partnership has helped BirdLife Zimbabwe staff and government
agriculture and environmental management departments to share experiences and learn from
each other. Officers from the Agricultural Research and Extension Services provided invaluable
baseline information on poverty and the environment to BirdLife as well as training and capacity
building to IBA Local Conservation Groups (LCGs). In return, BirdLife Zimbabwe, through
project resources and the technical expertise of its staff, has enabled these agencies to fulfill their
mandate on sustainable natural resource utilization, environmental awareness, and enforcement
of environmental laws (BirdLife International, 2008).

As a good trend in reintroduction history, a goodwill and support by the Kenyan government
through the Kenya Wildlife Service in supporting the government (public), private, community
partnership resulted the successful translocation of 20 individuals to Sera Community Rhino
Sanctuary, Kenya as per IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) guidelines with an
annual growth rate of 5% or above (Soorae, P. S. (ed.) 2018). In the same thoughts
Reintroduction based recovery of tiger population in Panna Tiger Reserve, Central India could

16
achieve high successful rank was due to streamlining of communication mechanism that brings
all the stakeholders including political leadership and media are kept updated of the progress of
the project that led absence of miscommunication to all concerned sectors (Soorae, P. S. (ed.)
2018).

17
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Materials

Materials which were used to undertake during the study period were: GPS, Rope or meter tape
measure, Field Guide Books, Digital Camera, Map, Compass, Binoculars, Rangefinder, Sleeping
bags, Tent, etc.

3.2. Description of the Study area

3.2.1. Park Establishment

BMNP was first proposed in the late 1960s to protect Afroalpine habitat and populations of the
rare and endemic species of the Mountain Nyala and the Ethiopian wolf. It was established as a
National Park by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization in 1971 with the primary
objective of conserving the wildlife and other valuable natural resources in the area. The
importance of the hydrological services that the area provides to south-eastern Ethiopia and parts
of Somalia and Kenya have gradually been recognized over subsequent years and their
conservation is now the primary purpose of the Park. It was finally formally gazetted by
proclamation in 2014 under the Council of Ministers Regulation 338/2014 (GMP, 2017).

3.2.2. Location

Bale Mountains National Park is located in the southeast part of the Ethiopian highlands, within
Oromia regional state, about 400 km far from the capital Addis Ababa. It has 2,150 km2 area
coverage and lies between 6° 29‟–7° 10‟ N and 39° 28‟–39° 57‟ (Bale Mountains National Park
Gazettement, 2015) (fig.3). It is found between two Oromia Zones which are Bale and West Arsi.
The park is bordered with a total of five Woredas, four (Dinsho, Goba, Delomena, and Harena
bulk) from Bale and one (Adaba) from West Arsi. It covers an altitude ranging from 1,500 -
4,377 m asl at Tullu dimtu which is the highest in southeastern Ethiopia and the second highest
in Ethiopia. And it is also the largest Afroalpine area in mainland Africa (Hillman, 1986;
EWNHS, 1996). This particular study area is locally bordered by four discrete village/kebeles
namely, Horosoba, Gofingira, Gojera and Dinsho 01 with very small perimeters, whereas, the
social survey focused on Horosoba, Gofingira and Gojera communities surrounding the study
area with large segment and has direct interaction in resource use directly.

18
Figure 3: Map of Study Area

3.2.3. Fauna

In BMNP there are about 80 mammals; among which 20 are endemic to our country. For
instance Mountain Nyala, Ethiopian wolf, Menelik‟s bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus meneliki),
Bale monkey (Cercopithecus djamdjamensis), Starck‟s hare and Giant Molerat are some of the
endemic mammals whereas Bale monkey and Giant Molerat are only restricted to the park.
Also, park is a home for the highest world population for a flagship and umbrella species,
Ethiopian wolves and Mountain Nyala respectively. The park endowed with more than 310 bird
species among which 6 of them i.e. Blue-winged goose (Cyanochen cyanoptera) Spot-breasted
lapwing/plover (Vanellus melanochepalus), Yellow-fronted parrot (Poicephalus flavifrons),
Abyssinian longclaw (Macronyx flavicollis), Abyssinian catbird (Parophasma galinieri), (Black-
headed siskin (Serinus nigriceps) are endemic to Ethiopia. Also, the park is rich in supporting
various reptiles, amphibians, and fish species (OARDB, 2007). Among 64 amphibians species
currently recorded in Ethiopia, 26 of them are endemic with a large proportion of this diversity

19
found restricted to highland regions of the country. The Ethiopian Highlands are of particular
importance as several endemic amphibian species with narrow distributions can be found in this
region. The Bale Mountains, part of the Ethiopian Highlands on the eastern side of the Rift
Valley, contains remarkable diversity of species, many with highly restricted distributions. Two
remarkable monotypic genera of amphibians (Balebreviceps, and Ericabatrachus) are found only
in Bale (EWNHS, 2011).

Gaysay grassland or study area is located on the northern parts of the park which is also known
by its potential wolf habitat with up to 13 individuals organized under one pack in 1996/97 dry
season, that was suffering decline to unfortunate by which the report by June 1997 that shows
only four animals to survive and now there are no recorded individuals of the Ethiopian wolf.

3.2.4. Flora

The Park is also rich in flora and center of diversity and endemism with several threatened
Ethiopian endemics (EWNHS, 2011). About 1660 plant species; 160 are endemic to Ethiopia and
31 are strictly endemic to Bale Mountains National Park are found in the destination (EWCA,
2017a).

The Park is classified into five vegetation zones: the northern montane grasslands, the northern
dry Afromontane woodland, ericaceous forest, the Afro-alpine moorland and grassland, and the
southern Harenna forest (Hillman, 1986; Addisu Asefa, 2011). This study primarily emphasizes
in the northern montane grasslands of the park, which is known as Gaysay valley. This area
situated between easily evident two mountains (Boditi and Addele covered with junipers and
Hagenia trees) ranges as a central broad flat valley between altitudes of 3000 to 3150 m asl
(Hillman, 1986). The vegetation of the Gaysay valley or study area is dominated by herb species
of Artemisia afra and Helichrysum splendidum at relatively elevated areas, while another species
like Ferule spp. and Kniphofia spp. are frequently seen in mixture with other (OARDB, 2007;
EWCA, 2017a).

20
 3.2.5. Climate

I. Rainfall

There is a huge variation in climate over the area of the BMNP, primarily as a consequence of
the great variation in altitude and by the bulk of the massif, which attracts orographic rainfall.
The lower altitude receives 600 – 1,000 mm rainfall annually, whereas the higher altitude
receives up to 1,200 mm (OARDB, 2007; EWCA, 2017a). The BMNP area experiences two
rainy seasons: heavy rain and small rain. The heavy rain is from July to October, with the highest
peak in August and the small rain from March to June, with the highest peak in April (OARDB,
2007; EWCA, 2017a).

In general Bale Mountain area is characterized by eight months (March-October) of the rainy
season and four months (November to February) of the dry season and annual rainfall varies
from 800 to 1,150m (Hillman, 1986; Marino, 2003).

II. Temperature

In BMNP, there was a period highest temperature recorded as 18.4oC in February and the lowest
is 1.4oC in January (Hillman, 1986). The temperature is extremely low particularly in areas of the
highest altitudes during the dry season. Also, there was a trend of the data record for 2001–2011
showed that the temperature of the Park ranges between 1.4°C and 19°C. As to be expected, the
temperature falls with increasing altitudes. The lowest temperature that has been recorded in the
mountains is -15°C at night and the highest recorded temperature is 26 °C within a 24-hour
period (OARDB, 2007; EWCA, 2017a).

3.3. Methods
3.3.1. Sampling design

I. Rodent or Prey and Other Ecological Information Assessment

Ethiopian wolf distribution in the Afroalpine habitat is directly related to the density of rodents
(Marino, 2003). In addition to rodents, other variables like land terrain or slope, livestock
presence, vegetation cover, and types are the main predictor of Ethiopian wolves‟ presence and
density and determine habitat suitability (Sillero-Zubiri et al, 1995a; Sillero and Macdonald
1997; Marino 2003). Therefore, these predictors of Ethiopian wolf density were assessed by

21
using Standard Habitat Assessments Transect (HATs). A systematic sampling approach has been
used due to the small size and homogeneity of the study area which can be accessed and do not
afford randomization (Alvi, 2016). Regularly distributed circle – quadrant/plot with 5 m radius
was placed on every 200 m interval placed along parallel drawn-out transects 500 m apart
extended from East to West over the proposed study site (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1995; Marino
2003; Anteneh Tesfaye, 2017). With this regard, a total of 165 quadrants distributed along 11
different transects covering 33km was assessed to complete the overall study site.

For the need of relative Habitat Suitability comparison, an optimal wolf`s habitat contain two
wolf packs (with maximum and minimum wolves population) territories from the Afroalpine
region of the Bale Mountains (Web valley) were selected using purposive sampling methods
from the Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme up to date database. However, there is no
current wolf supporting habitat similar to Gaysay grassland, two packs have been considered
based on the number of population of wolves they have. This provides the relative abundance of
rodents about the wolf population which would help for comparison of the same finding with the
case in the study area (Gaysay grassland) which was once inhabited by one pack of Ethiopian
wolf before 1995/97, but extinct locally later on.

II. Assessment of other wild and domestic animals in the study area

Other larger animals i.e. both domesticated and wild animals which have a positive and negative
correlation with Ethiopian wolves were assessed using distance sampling. First, the line transect
has been randomly placed in the proposed study site (both protected and unprotected) for
comparison. A total of six transects, three (3) within the protected area and three (3) within an
unprotected area that were randomly distributed as it satisfies 500 m transect interval was used.
Each transect has been visited twice to satisfy the standard distance sampling requirement and
the survey was conducted for the dry season only (February) (Marques et al., 2011; Kinahan,
2013).

22
 III. Sample size determination for social survey

There are different ways of estimating the population variance for sample size determination.
These are taking the variance from the pilot survey, previous research work and by guesswork
(Cochran, 1977; Mohammad Rafiqul Islam, 2018).

By using the previous research work's sample size for a proportion of households which p = 0.5
was used for this study (Mohammad Rafiqul Islam, 2018). The total number of households in the
three discrete Kebeles surrounding the study areas namely; Horosoba, Gofingira, and Gojera are
N= 1,510, significance level α = 0.05, the margin of error d = 0.07 or 7%.

Then the sample size computed as:

̃ ,

Where: - n is the total sample size for cluster

̃ is the sample size for a simple random sample and defined as

Where: - no =

Where: - = Value at a specified level of confidence or desired degree of precision (1.96)

P = proportion utilizing HEP which is taken from previous research and q= 1-p.

d = margin of error (7%) for this case

no = = 196

So that the sample size ̃ considered to this particular study was defined as;

Where: - N = total population size

23
 ̃

Then, the overall sample size of 173 HH/households which will be allocated to each Kebeles by
using proportion to size allocation as in the following Table 1.

nh= sample size for “h” group

n= total sample size

Nh= total population for “h” group

N= grand population size

Table 1: Proportional allocation of Samples to Kebele

Sampled Kebeles Target HH size Sampled HH per Kebeles

Horosoba 831 95

Gofingira 379 44

Gojera 300 34
HH total = 1,510 Sample HH total = 173

3.3.2. Data collection techniques

I. Rodent/Prey and other Ecological Information Assessment

The predictor of Ethiopian wolf subsistence information was collected from a 5m radius circular
quadrant regularly distributed following Habitat Assessment Transect (HATs). The number of
rodent holes and animal signs, all detected large wild animals and livestock droppings found in
the circle was recorded. Counts excluded old unused rat holes, distinguished by plant growth
around the entrance. Also, at each quadrant, Variables describing the vegetation condition like,
percentage of vegetation at Ground-level (GL), herb-level (HL) and shrub-level (ShL),

24
percentage of bare ground, percentage of stone was measured using; (1= <5%; 2= 5-25%; 3= 25-
50%; 4= 50-75%; 5= >75%) scale. The categories or characteristic of habitat types used for this
research work has taken from EWCP monitoring Protocols and related research works (Marino
2013; Marino, and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013) and some were upgraded based on visual consideration
during this research data collection. Three categories of slope: flat, moderate, and steep; has
been considered in data collection (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1995C; Sillero and Macdonald, 1997;
Marino, 2003; Anteneh Tesfaye, 2017). The same procedure was used to survey the current wolf
supporting optimal wolfs habitats for comparison (Appendix 1a).

II. Other Large Mammals (Both Wild and Domestic) In Study Area

Transects were walked only during the dry season (March, 2019) and each transect was walked
twice to fulfill the distance procedure. All detected target animals might have a positive or
negative correlation with Ethiopian wolves and considered as additional access prey for wolves
found at perpendicular distances or angle to the detected animals were recorded. Here, the
numbers of animals both wild and domestic were counted and recorded.

Two transects were walked per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Once a
complete set of transects were walked at a time, then they were repeated once more times. In a
total 12 transects were walked in the study area (Appendix: 1b).

III. Socio-economic Survey

A structured questionnaire-based interview with a combination of open and closed-ended and

five-point Likert scale type questions was conducted among proportionally considered household
heads from three kebeles those bordering and those who use resources from Gaysay grassland.
The households were chosen to form randomly laid grid and every third house was selected from
the house in the first point of the grid and the second grid started as the first grid got an end.

The interview began with questions of personal information and socio-economic data, including
respondents‟ age, sex, residence, family size, marital status, and other information.

Then after questions related to psychological perspectives of surrounding households

summarized under five sections: 1) knowledge on Ethiopian wolf, 2) Ethiopian wolf relation to

25
their livestock 3) attitudes toward Ethiopian wolf, 4) Tolerance and acceptance of wolf
reintroduction were asked and recorded accordingly (Jacobs, 2012) (Appendix 2a).

IV. Organizational data Collection

The key informant interview method was used to reach the key informants since the location of
proposed organizations was far apart and difficult to reach once. The questioners have been
designed based on two considerations: First; Web-based questioner was announced through
Email for experts working in EWCA and other considered governmental and non-governmental
organization as Dinsho Woreda Environment, Forest, and Climate Change Authority (EFCCA),
BMNP, EWCP, Frankfurt Zoological Society-Bale Mountains Conservation Project
(FZS_BMCP).

Second, for considered expertise and do not reach, interviews were undertaken through phone
calls and recorded on questioner form developed to fulfill the objectives. (Appendix: 2b).

3.3.3. Data Analysis methods

All statistical analyses were carried out after the raw data was collected and organized in an
excel sheet. Also, data normality was checked using a Shapiro-Wilk‟s test, because it is highly
recommended by researchers as well as its higher power of the measure of the value of test
normality (Ghasemi and Zahediasl, 2012). Following this, those data which satisfied the
standard normal distribution criteria has subjected to parametric tests such as, Independent
Sample t-test, and Pearson Correlation. However, for those data which didn‟t satisfy normal
distribution, a non-parametric statistical test such as Independent Sample Mann-Whitney U test,
and Spearman‟s correlation was employed. Two-tailed significance and differences were
considered for statistically significant with 95% confidence intervals. Qualitative data‟s were
analyzed using descriptive statistics such frequency table. Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) Version 20 was used to compute all statistical analysis.

26
 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. RESULTS

4.1.1. Rodent-Abundance index

The result showed that there was significant variation in the mean rank number of Murinae rat
holes between Gaysay grassland and Web Valley (U = 3893.500, df =1, p = 0.00), where Web
Valley had recorded higher mean rank ( # =151.09) than in Gaysay grassland (# = 106.60). An
average of 5.49 and 7.48 Murinae rats‟ holes per 5m-radius quadrat were recorded from a total of
165 and 75 sample plots for Gaysay grassland and Web valley respectively.
An average 3.07 and 0.8 common Molerats soil mounds were counted for both Gaysay grassland
and Web Valley respectively as, homogeneity assumption was failed for both groups of sampling
sites and Gaysay grassland shown higher mean rank (# = 129.12) than Web Valley (# = 101.53)
at (U = 4765.00, df =1, P = 0.00).
Giant Molerat signs were observed only in Web valley with zero records in Gaysay Grassland
during this assessment took place. The mean number of giant molerats signs such as open holes,
fresh plugs, and old plugs in Sodota or the optimal wolf habitat was 0.33, 0.51, and 1.68 per 5m
radius circular plots, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2: Mean number of Giant Molerats signs and Frequency per 5m radius circular plot

Number of Giant Number of giant Molerat Number of giant Molerat

Molerats Open holes fresh Plugs Old plugs

Value Percent (%) Value Percent (%) Value Percent (%)

Mean 0.33 17.3 0.51 13.3 1.68 21.3

Min 0 0 0

Max 4 6 15

The altitude range for the two sample sites had shown a difference with altitudinal mean value
3056m asl with minimum 3024m and maximum 3108m asl for Gaysay grassland since, Web
valley characterized by 3505m asl mean value with minimum 3486m and maximum 3548m asl,
thus the Mann-Whitney test result Gaysay grassland with the lesser mean rank of altitudinal
Variation in comparison to web valley (U= 0.00, df = 1, P = 0.00).

27
Taking the slope as a variable, both Gaysay and Web Valley were characterized by flat slope
attractiveness covering 87% and 83% respectively. Whereas, the moderate slope features of
Gaysay grassland and optimal wolf supporting habitat cover was 11% and 13% as well as, steep
slope habitats cover 2% and 4% respectively for Gaysay grassland and Web valley.

4.1.2. Habitat Types Characteristics and Dominance

In general, in the study area (both in Gaysay and Web Valley) sixteen (16) habitat types with
different characteristics were identified under the different frequency of occurrences and
dominancy in the Gaysay grassland and Web valley. According to the frequency, table derived,
around 31.3% habitat type was shared by both sites since web valley has only (1) 6.25 % habitat
type that doesn‟t presences in Gaysay grassland. However, in Gaysay grassland (9) 62.5% of
habitat types were recorded (Table 3)

Table 3: Frequency and percentage of Habitat types in Sampling Sites

Description Frequency Percent (%)

Habitats shared to both 5 31.3

Habitats only found in Web Valley 1 6.25

Habitats only found in Gaysay grassland 10 62.5

Total 16 100

Habitat types Shared by the two sampling sites were, Alpine Grassland Meadow, Alchemilla
Meadow, Artemisia grassland, Artemisia heath, Alchemilla Fishery-herb mixed whereas, Erica
moorland habitat type was the only habitat recorded for Web Valley and not observed for
Gaysay grassland.

The result also showed that, Gaysay grassland was found with more diverse habitat types as
compared to Web valley (Megittiy and Alandu pack) as it has Helichysum Meadow, High
Altitudinal Swamp, Open Grassland, Knophophia grassland, Alchemilla Haumani, Helichysum
herb-grassland Mixed, Artimasia Mixed helichrysum, Artimasia mixed herb, Artemesia shrub
mixed, Alchemilla Fishery grassland which was not recorded in Megitty and Alandu the area
known to its current optimal habitat supporting a good population of Ethiopian wolf (Table 4).

28
Table 4: Habitat type and its Characteristics

SN Habitat type Recorded in Characteristics of Habitat

1 Alchemilla grass-mixed Gaysay Habitat type prior dominated with Alchemilla

species as Alchemilla fishery, abyssinica and
Trifolium spp. Mixed with Carex grass spp.

2 Alchemilla Meadows Web valley Habitat type almost covered by Alchemilla

& Gaysay Spp. as Alchemilla abyssinica, Alchemilla
fishery mixed with Trifolium Spp. and
Satureja Spp.

3 Alchemilla haumannii Gaysay Habitat commonly and highly dominated

with Alchemilla haumannii Rothm. Spciecs
mixed with Cyanotis barbata D. Don and
lythrum rotundifolium A.rich and Swertia
spp. rarely

4 Alchemilla- herb mixed Web valley Habitat type almost covered by Alchemilla
& Gaysay Spp. like Alchemilla abyssinica, Alchemilla
fishery mixed with herb species as Salvia
merjamie Forssk, Plectanthrus barbatus,
Ferula communis, and rare case mixed with
Geranium arabicum Forsk, Kniphofia foliosa,
Cynoglossum coeruleum and Dichrocephala
spp etc.
5 Alpine-grassland Meadow Web valley Habitat type characterized by short and soft
Gaysay grass from Poaceae family slightly mixed
with Trifolium spp. Oldenialandia
monanthos, Haplosciadium abyssinicum
Hochst. Haplocarpa spp., Swertia spp.

6 Artemesia mixed Gaysay Habitat dominated by Artimesia afra mixed

29
 Helichrysum with Helichrysum splendidium asymemetrical
with Trifolium Spp. and satureja Spp

7 Artemesia-grassland Web valley Habitat type prior dominated with Artemesia

& Gaysay afra and mixed with Poaceae family grass as
Andropogon abyssinicus, with Trifolium
Spp. and satureja Spp
8 Artemesia heath Web valley Habitat type covered by Artimasia afra tall to
& Gaysay the shrub level very dispersedly mixed with
Poaceae family grass as Andropogon
abyssinicus, Cerastium afromontanum,
Galium simensis Fresen. and etc.

9 Artimesia Mixed herb Gaysay Habitat prior dominated by Artimasia afra

mixed with different types of herb plant
species like Ferula communis, Salvia
merjamie Forssk, Kniphofia foliosa and in
rare case Dichrocephala spp., Galium
simensis Fresen and other.

10 Artimesia shrub -mixed Gaysay Habitat types dominated by Artimasia afra

mixed with the shrub of Euphorbia dumalis,
and Hypericum revolutum ssp. rarely at the
edge of mountains and evenly distributed
herbs as Salvia merjamie Forssk,
Plectanthrus barbatus, Ferula communis and
some others Galium simensis Cerastium spp.

11 Erica Moorland Web valley Habitat prior dominated with consistently

distributed Erica arborea routed with
Poaceae family short grass, Alchemela spp.
Trifolium spp., and usually stureja spp.

30
12 Helichrysum herb Gaysay Habitat prior dominated by helicricy
grassland mixed Helichrysum splendidium mixed with herb
plant species like Ferula communis, Salvia
merjamie Forssk, Kniphofia foliosa and in
rare case Dichrocephala spp., Galium
simensis Fresen and other.

13 Helichrysum Meadows Gaysay Habitat type dominated with evenly

distributed Helichrysum splendidum
dominated with Poaceae family short grass,
Alchemilla spp. Trifolium spp., and usually
Satureja spp.

14 High altitude Swamp Gaysay Habitat types dominated with Carex

monostachya A. Rich., on swampy area
known to its water holding characteristics
mixed with rarely distributed Alchemilla
spp., Cyanotis barbata D. Don and lythrum
rotundifolium A.rich.

15 Kniphofia dominated Gaysay Habitat dominated with Kniphofia foliosa

habitat routed with Poaceae family short grass,
Alchemilla spp. Trifolium spp., and usually
Satureja spp.

16 Open grassland Gaysay Habitat characterized with complex mixtures

of different short plants and grass like, Cotula
abyssinica Sch. Ranunculus spp. Juncus
dregeamus ssp. Alchemilla spp. Trifolium
spp., Swertia spp. Haplosciadium
abyssinicum Hochst., Haplocarpa spp., etc.

31
The two independent sample test showed that, the variation in vegetation cover between study
sites or Gaysay Grassland (# = 131.18) and Current wolf supporting Optimal habitat (# =97.01)
(U= 4426.000, df = 1, P = 0.00).

Gaysay grassland prior dominated (covered) by Open Grassland habitat was (26.1%) and
Artemisia Grassland (25.5%), followed by a High altitudinal swamp (12.1%) and Alpine-grass
meadow (9.7%). Also, the area covered with other habitat types was Alchemilla Species mixed
with grass was (5.5%), Artemisia heath (4.2%), Kniphofia Grassland (3.6%), Helichrysum
Meadows (3%) and Alchemilla Humani (2.4%). The rest habitat types were Alchemilla Meadows
(0.6%), Helichrysum herb-grassland mixed (0.6%), Artemisia Mixed herb (0.6%), Artemisia
shrub-Mixed (0.6%) and Alchemilla-herb mixed (0.6%) which had the least percentage cover.
On top of that cover, the water bodies were measured with 0.6% in Gaysay grassland, whereas
the road coverage that can be considered as one of threat known to Ethiopian wolves was
covered by 1.8% and 1.2% for Asphalt road and Rough road respectively from total quadrant
sampled in Gaysay grassland.

In Web valley, the cover of Alpine-grass Meadow was (34.7%), whereas the percentage of cover
of Alchemilla Meadows was (25.3%) and Alchemilla-herb mixed (20%) which were the three
most dominant habitat types covering 80% of the sampled quadrant measured. However,
Artemisia grassland (14.7%) is another type of habitat characterized by Web valley, whereas
Erica Moorland (2.7%), Water body (1.3%), Artemisia heath (1.3%) were the additional type of
habitat irregularly occurred.

4.1.3. Habitat Coverage at a Different Level

Vegetation, soil, and rock cover are habitat types which highly determine the density of rodents
across the Afro-alpine as different rodent species have an either positive or negative correlation.
The homogeneity assumption have been made for both study sites as Vegetation (VC) and Rock
cover (RC) at (F (1,238) = 2.799, P = 0.096) and (F (1,238) = 0.295, P = 0.588) in Gaysay grassland
and Web Valley respectively. Whereas, it showed statistical significance with Soil cover (SC)
between two sampling sites at (F (1,238) = 22.662, P = 0.00). A Mann-Whitney marked web valley
(optimal habitat) as higher mean rank (# = 102.73) in soil coverage than Gaysay grassland (# =
159.59) (U = 3255.500, df= 1, P = 0.00).

32
The independent comparison for habitat type coverage at different level manifested that, Herb
level coverage (HLC) and Shrub level coverage (SLC) showed statistically significant variation
at (F (1, 238) = 53.823, P = 0.00) and (F (1,238) = 20.462, P = 0.00), respectively. However, Ground
level coverage (GLC) shown non statistical significant in both independent sample site (F (1, 238)

= 2.941, P = 0.088).
Levene`s test has evident with that ground level habitat type (GLH) and Shrub level habitat type
(SLH) statistically significant at F (1,238) = 34.764, P = 0.00 and F (1,238) = 34.764, P = 0.00
respectively. A Mann-Whitney tests compute better variation for Gaysay Grassland in both
Ground level (# = 127.42) and Shrub level (# =105.27) habitat type at (U =5045.000, df=1, P =
0.018 and (U =5045.000, df =1, P = 0.036) respectively. However, the two sampling sites found
the same in variation of Herb level habitat (HLH) type at F (1,238) = 3.034, P = 0.083.
There is statistically significant in mean height of shrub level vegetation for both independent
Sampling site (F (1,238) = 65.904, df= 1, P = 0.00), with a higher mean rank of Gaysay grassland
as Mann-Whitney independent samples test manifest in the Figure: 4 below.

Gaysay Grassland Web Valley

4.1.4. Three level Habitat and Rodent Relative Abundance association

Figure 4: Shrub Level vegetation Habitat Comparison for both Sampling Sites

Results of Pearson Correlation showed that, in Gaysay grassland there was strong relationship
for counts of signs of Murinae rats holes (RAT) with Vegetation cover (r = 0.149, P = 0.056)
than soil cover (r = -0.153, P = 0.050) and rock cover (r = 0.016, P = 0.838). On the other hand,
the number of Common mole rat sign (CMR) had also shown better correlation with soil cover (r

33
= 0.105, P = 0.178) than vegetation cover (r = -0.046, P = 0.559) and rock cover (r = -0.153, P =
0.499), whereas the Giant mole rat open holes (GMRo) and sign were not seen in Gaysay
grassland.

However, the Murinae rat‟s holes count in optimal Wolf consisting habitat (Web Valley) shown
better association with vegetation covered habitat types (r = 0.096, P = 0.412) than soil coverage
(r = 0.047, P = 0.687) and rock coverage (r = -0.167, P = 0.153) habitat types. The number of
Common Molerat soil mounds signs also shown a better relationship with vegetation cover
habitat type followed by rock cover habitat type for the case of web valley. Although, Giant
Molerats signs were shown better associated with soil covered habitat types and followed by
habitat covered by vegetation (Table 5).

Table 5: Rodent Sign Correlation with Different Habitat Type

Gaysay Grassland Optimal Wolf Habitat

( Study area) (Web Valley)
Correlation
RAT CMR GMRo RAT CMR GMRo

Vegetation Pearson Correlation .149 -.046 .b .096 .135 -.427

Cover Sig. (2-tailed) .056 .559 . .412 .247 .000
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
Soil cover Pearson Correlation -.153 .105 .b .047 -.070 .513
Sig. (2-tailed) .050 .178 . .687 .550 .000
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
Rock cover Pearson Correlation .016 -.053 .b -.167 -.124 -.114
Sig. (2-tailed) .838 .499 . .153 .287 .331
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
RAT- Murinae Rat holes, CMR – Common Mole rats sign, GMRo –Giant molerats Open hole

4.1.4. Vegetation at Different Height Level and Rodents Association

There was a good positive statistical correlation observed between shrub level habitat type (SL)
and Murinae rat holes than the rest of vegetation at different level in case of Gaysay grassland at
r = 0.605, P = 0.00. Whereas, Herb level habitat type and Ground-level habitat type showed
negative correlation at r = -0.094, P = 0.222 and r =-0.116, P = 0.19, respectively.

34
In the case of the current optimal Ethiopian wolf habitat, Murinae rats have been shown a
positive association with Ground level habitat type than the rest (r = 0.126, P = 0.866).
Common molerats soil mound has shown quite negative correlation with shrub level habitat type
in both Gaysay grassland and Web Valley at r = -0.144, P = 0.144 and r = -0.088, P = 0.452
respectively. Whereas, a better positive relationship shown with herb level habitat types than the
rest of habitats at different levels in Web Valley at r = 0.699, P = 0.112.
Giant molerats open holes revealed that slighter positive and negative relationship with Herb
level and Shrub level in optimal wolf habitat at r = 0.163, P = 0.163 and r = -0.160, P = 0.171
respectively (Table 6).
Table 6: Relationship between Rodent Signs and Habitat at Different Level

Gaysay Grassland Optimal Wolf Habitat

Correlation ( Study area) (Web Valley)
RAT CMR GMRo RAT CMR GMRo

GL Habitat Pearson Correlation -.116 .013 .b .126 .112 .045

type Sig. (2-tailed) .139 .866 . .283 .338 .700
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
b
HL Habitat Pearson Correlation -.094 .085 . .027 .045 .163
type Sig. (2-tailed) .227 .280 . .820 .699 .163
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
b
SL Habitat Pearson Correlation 0.605 -.114 . -.118 -.088 -.160
Type Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .144 . .313 .452 .171
N 165 165 165 75 75 75
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
GL - Ground level, HL - Herb level, SL- Shrub Level
RAT- Murinae Rat holes, CMR – Common Mole rats sign, GMRo –Giant molerats Open hole

4.1.5. Rodent sign and livestock Presence Association

The number of Murinae rat holes were almost shown approximately uniform negative correlation
with the presence of cattle, transport animals and shoats dropping at (r = -0.196, P = 0.011), (r =
-0.169, P = 0.030) and (r = -0.188, P = 0.016) respectively in Gaysay grassland. In case of Web
Valley, it was observed that there was positive correlation with cattle dropping (r = 0.044, P =
0.707) and negative correlation with transport animals dropping (r = -0.181, P = 0.120) and with
shoats availability (r = -0.048, P = 0.685).

35
The presence of Molerats soil mounds revealed that there was negative association with cattle
dropping and transport animals dropping at (r = -0.079, P = 0.313) and (r = -0.110, P = 0.158)
respectively whereas, it shown positive association with shoats (r = 0.110, P = 0.160) in Gaysay
grassland. In Web valley Molerat Soil mounds shown positive correlation with cattle dropping
and transport animals droppings (r = 0.223, P = 0.054 and r = 0.029, P = 0.807) whereas,
negative association resulted for Shoats dropping presence (r = -0.020, P = 0.864). The number
of Giant molerats open holes resulted with negative association with cattle dropping (r = -0.036,
P = 0.761) and positive correlation with Transport animals and Shoats dropping at r = 0.177, P =
0.129 and r = 0.029, P = 0.802 respectively.
4.1.6. Large Mammals Consideration

I. Livestock

The number of Mammals computed by a DISTANCE shows that a total 4,447 and 183,650 head
of livestock estimation across the study area (Gaysay Grassland) and Web valley, respectively at
less than 25% coefficient variation (CV) and also the detection function met assumption that
pooled to assume it to be a reasonable estimate at 95% confidence interval (Table 7).

Table 7: Livestock Estimate Across two Sampling Sites

Livestock Estimate Cluster Size N %CV NLCI NUCI

Gaysay Grassland 19 4,447 16.0 3,212 6,159

Web Valley 28 183,650 25.0 11,6210 290,250

N = Total Population, NLCI= Population at Lower class interval, NUCI= Population at Upper
Class Interval

The livestock estimation found divergence in Gaysay grassland and web valley since, web valley
regarded as with a very larger area than Gaysay. The three types of livestock i.e. Cattle, Equine,
and shoats estimation were shown high difference across the three different stratum of Gaysay
grassland (North East, Central), & West. Cattle densities were the leading number in both
Gaysay grassland and Web valley. Unprotected area of west Gaysay grassland resulted more
than five folds of Cattle density than the others two stratums of Gaysay grassland. The protected

36
area or central stratum were showed the least cattle density whereas, Northeast was the second
stratum where high numbers of cattle were recorded.

Shoats were estimated as the second-highest number of livestock both across Gaysay grassland
and Web Valley. It also shown a still larger number of valuation in the west unprotected area
followed by northeast of Gaysay grassland. The number Equines also have shown the same trend
as cattle and shoats both in Gaysay grassland and Web valley and across all stratum of Gaysay
grassland (Figure 5).

The population size of livestock (N)

Figure 5: Livestock estimation across both Gaysay grassland and Web Valley

Gaysay Grassland showed a higher livestock estimate per hectare (1.65 Tropical Livestock Unit
(TLUs)) than Web valley with a total of 1.30 TLUs. The highest livestock pressure has seen on
Western Part of Gaysay grassland with total TLUs of 12.8 than central (0.12 TLUs) and Eastern
(5.15 TLUs). The number of cattle across the study area has shown a higher number of
compositions in comparison to the other two livestock types in all stratum and TLUs beyond
carrying capacity coefficient in unprotected western Stratum. Cattles incorporate 77% and79%
of all livestock type with a maximum of 10.60 and 4.5 TLUs per hectare in a west unprotected
area and northeast unprotected area of Gaysay grassland respectively. Also, cattle were found
leading livestock type in Web valley with greater 1.10 TLUs and 62% composition as compared

37
to other livestock types. The other livestock type has shown lesser TLUs than recommended
sustainable coefficient across the three stratum of Gaysay grassland.

Shoats were the second-highest livestock type frequently and abundantly seen in both Gaysay
grassland and Web valley. Protected Gaysay grassland had shown the least TLUs in all livestock
types than the other two unprotected areas in Gaysay (Table 8).
Table 8: Livestock Number and TLU`s Across Gaysay grassland and Web Valley

N (Estimates from DISTANCE) TLU's per ha % COMPOSITION

CT ST EQ Total CT ST EQ Total CT ST EQ
Gaysay grassland

Unprotected Western Part of Gaysay grassland

Livestock 3,119 546 403 4,068 10.60 0.27 1.96 12.82 77 13 10
Central or Protected Area of Gaysay Grassland
Livestock 213 11 15 239 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.12 89 5 6
Unprotected Easter Part of Gaysay grassland

Livestock 584 87 67 738 4.31 0.10 0.74 5.15 79 12 9

Web Valley

Livestock

122,976
76,740

37.989

1.10 0.08 0.13 1.30 62 31 7

8,247

CT – Cattle, St- Shoats (sheep and Goats), EQ – Equine (horse, donkey and Mule)

TLUs Coefficient adopted from FAO. (2011). Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews.

II. Habitat and Livestock Association

Open grassland habitat type has shown potential for sustaining of livestock‟s around Gaysay
grassland. High Altitude Swamp has observed as the second habitat type used by livestock
followed by Artemisia grassland characterized by Artemisia afra and grass mixed. The least
Habitat type used by livestock was Helichrysum herb-grassland mixed habitat combined by
Helichrysum splendidum mixed with grass.

In Web Valley, Artemisia heath found as habitat type where livestock frequently sited followed
by Erica shrub and High altitude swampy habitat types. Open grassland, high altitudinal Swamp,

38
and Artemisia afra heath were the habitat types that were found in both sampling sites with its
higher potential of livestock provisions (Table 9).

Table 9: Comparison of Habitat types with different Animal sighting in Bothe sampling sites

Number Livestock observed Number of sightings

Habitat Type Gaysay Web Valley Gaysay Web Valley
Open Grassland 2024 1483 96 26
High altitudinal Swamp 90 2273 5 70
Artemisia grassland 71 0 5 0
Artemisia heath 60 2889 5 99
Artimasia Mixed herb 41 0 3 0
Kniphofia foliosa Grassland 28 0 3 0
Artemisia mixed Helichrysum 23 1583 2 26
Alpine-grass Meadow 2 934 1 37
Helichrysum herb-grassland Mixed 1 0 1 0
Helichrysum Meadow 0 2040 0 56
Erica Shrub 0 2331 0 68
III. Wild Animals

The number of wildlife estimated through DISTANCE shows that a total of 2,255 and 4,262 of
different Wild animal‟s estimation across the study area (Gaysay grassland) and Web Valley
respectively, at less than 20% coefficient variation (CV) and also the detection function met
assumption evident to assume it to be a reasonable estimate (Table 10).

Table 10: Wildlife Estimation in DISTANCE

Wildlife Estimate Cluster Size N %CV NLCI NUCI

Gaysay Grassland 4 2,255 16 1,620 3,138

Web Valley 2 4,2 62 16 2,079 8,738

N = Total Population, NLCI= Population at Lower class interval, NUCI= Population at Upper Class Interval

Antelopes were the leading animal population frequently seen in both study areas. Reedbuck
(Redunca redunca) has shown the highest number of occurrences (428) than all animals detected

39
during this entire survey followed by Olive baboon (Papio Anubis) (36), Grey Duiker (Silvicapra
grimmia) (13) and Mountain Nyala (98) in Gaysay Grassland. Stracks Hare (Lepus starcki) (9)
and Mountain Nyala (7) found as the most frequently spotted animals in Web Valley. Common
Warthogs (Potamochoerus africanus) (116), were other herbivores detected in Gaysay grassland,
while Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta) (2) and Serval cat (Felis serval) (1) were the wild
animals seen from Carnivores group. Ethiopian wolves (11) were the key animal spotted in Web
valley thus not sighted in Gaysay grassland (Figure 4).

Wild Animals Population Estimate (N)

2000
1800
1600
1400
Gaysay GL
1200
1000
Web Valley
800
600
400
200
0
MN RB GD KS WH OB HA EW SC Hy

Figure 6:Wild animal estimation both in Gaysay Grassland and Web Valley

KEY:- MN= Mountain Nyala RB= Reedbuck GD=Grey duiker, KS=kilpspringer WH= Common
Warthog OB=Olive Baboon, HA=Stracks Hare, EW=Ethiopian Wolves, SC=Serval Cat, HY=Hyena
High altitude swamps were found as a potential habitat to see more wild animals in Gaysay
grassland followed by Artemisia afra Grassland and open grassland, whereas Helichrysum
meadows habitat type showed the least wild animal sighting. In the case of Web Valley,
Helichrysum meadows seen as the least habitat in sustaining wild animals found the potential
habitat. Also, Artemisia mixed Helichrysum and Artemisia heath habitats were found as higher
Wild animals supporting habitat types in both study areas (Table 11).

40
Table 11: Habitat and Dependent Wild animals Number and sighting
Number of animals Observed Number of sighting
Habitat Gaysay GL Web Valley Gaysay GL Web Valley
High altitudinal Swamp 367 8 63 5
Artemisia grassland 112 0 30 0
Artemisia mixed Helichrysum 67 58 14 17
Helichrysum herb-grassland
Mixed 45 0 11 0
Open Grassland 35 31 17 13
Artemisia heath 33 45 15 28
Kniphofia foliosa Grassland 12 0 2 0
Artemisia Mixed herb 10 0 4 0
Alpine-grass Meadow 4 0 3 0
Helichrysum Meadows 2 64 2 31

As the DISTANCE result shows that Reedbuck was found as a frequently observed and scored a
larger number with 6% of Juvenile's age composition in the study area during the survey in
Gaysay. Common warthog and Mountain Nyala were the second and third wild animals seen
with a high score of sighting with 9% and 4% Juveniles arrangement respectively. Serval cat was
found as the least frequently seen a wild animal in the study area (Table 12)

Table 12: Wild Animal Sighting and Juveniles Composition

Number of Animal Number of Juvenile
Species Seen Sightings Number percentage
Reedbuck 428 70 26 6%
Warthog 116 55 10 9%
Mountain Nyala 98 21 4 4%
Olive Baboon 36 3 2 6%
Grey Duiker 13 9 - -
Hyena 2 1 - -
Serval Cat 1 1 - -

41
 4.1.7. Social Attitude and Perception
I. Demographic Characteristics of respondents

Out of total 173 households considered for interview only 168 respondents` response were
examined since 5 respondents interview were rejected due incomplete data and have no sense.
The result shows that most respondents (48.8 %) and (33.9%) were between the age of 31- 45
and 18-30, respectively. And the rest 16.1% of respondents were with an age of 46 – 60
whereas, a remaining 1.2 % of respondents were 60 and above years (Table 12). The average age
of the respondents was (38.13 ± 0.94) (SE) years (range 20 - 68). Among overall respondents,
most of them were married (98.2%) and the rest were and widowed.

The overall level of the educational background of respondents around the study area was
assessed and found with the majority of them (63.7) attained a primary level, while 23.8 of the
respondents never went to school or were illiterate. The remaining 7.1% of respondents were
conquered secondary level while the rest (4.8%) attended a higher education levels. From the
whole respondents, there was only one respondent who complete the university who is a degree
holder.

Results revealed that 85.7% of the respondents were dependent both on growing crops or crop
farming and cattle herding, but the rest were students (1.2%), housewife (10.1%), NGO workers
(0.6%) as well as business peoples (2.4%). This means, most of the respondents were more or
less dependent on the natural resource around the park either for agricultural activities or
livestock herding (Table 13).
Table 13: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

a) Age of Respondents
Age category Frequency Percent (%)

18 -30 57 33.9

31 - 45 82 48.8
46 -60 27 16.1
> 60 2 1.2
100
168

42
 b) Religion of Households
Religion Frequency Percent (%)
Muslim 163 97
Orthodox 5 3
Total 168 100
c) Marital Status of Respondents
Marriage status Frequency Percent (%)
Married 165 98.2
Unmarried 0 0
Divorced 0 0
Widowed 3 1.8
Total 168 100%
d) Education Status of Respondents
Education level Frequency Percent (%)
Illiterate 40 23.8
Primary 107 63.7
Secondary 12 7.1
Higher education 8 4.8
Degree 1 0.6
Total 168 100%
e) Occupation of Respondents
Occupation Frequency Percent (%)
Farmer 144 85.7
Housewife 17 10.1
Business Man 4 2.4
Student 2 1.2
NGO worker 1 0.6
Total 168 100

43
II. Community Knowledge about Ethiopian wolf

The year respondents lived around the study area (Gaysay grassland) varies from a minimum of
three (3) months to a maximum of seventy-seven (77) year. A majority (98%) of them known
and easily identified Ethiopian wolf from five species they were shown on colored pictures
designed for the interview purpose. And also it is fascinating that they all have seen Ethiopian
wolves‟ before by their neck eye. Also, 89% of respondents were a living witness for the pre-
existence of wolfs in the Gaysay grassland that, they saw them in different year‟s period.

An average year of Ethiopian Wolf sighting by the local community in Gaysay grassland found
as seven (7) years with a minimum of one (1) year and a maximum of thirty-four years (34). The
most frequent (18%) observation year of the wolf in Gaysay was before one (1) followed by
sighting before five (5) years (13%).

Among the habitats, designed to rank form the most preferred to the least preferred by Ethiopian
Wolves (by looking a photo) to weigh the knowledge of the community towards wolf habitat,
Grassland Meadows habitat was prioritized as the most preferred habitat with 55% vote
followed by Artemisia shrub with 22% as of priority one. As a second priority, Artemisia shrub
was shown the higher (42%) of a chance to be chosen, while 32% of respondents have no idea
about wolf habitat preference including 12% were not able to rank habitat preference of
Ethiopian wolf (Table 14).
Table 14: Ethiopian wolf Habitat Ranks by Community

Habitat 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority 4th Priority

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Erica moorland 7 4 15 9 12 7 3 2
Meadows 92 55 26 16 6 4 1 0.6
Artemisia shrubs 37 22 70 42 13 8 2 1
Swamp 8 5 2 1 13 8 1 0.6
Forest 3 2 2 1 3 2 0 0
No idea of it 21 12 53 32 121 72 161 95.8
Total 168 100 168 100 168 100 168 100

44
A majority (80%) of respondents were able to rank Rodents as the most preferred food of
Ethiopian wolves‟ among six (6), type of animals (Hare, Common Warthog, Reedbuck,
Rodents, birds, sheep) they are shown on picture prepared to weigh the knowledge of community
towards the food type of wolves. Also, 51% of respondents were unable to rank or had no idea
apart what they mentioned under the first priority class. However, Starck‟s Hare and shoats
(sheep and Goats) take equal (14%) chance to be chosen a second feed rank. About 79% and
94% of respondents were not rank habitats they might expect as the third and fourth level of
ranks respectively.

III. Respondents View and Perception to Ethiopian Wolf

It was interesting that the majority (98%) of respondents agree with idea that Ethiopian wolf
needs protection, with 39% of respondents who strongly agree with the idea of protection. Also,
71% of respondents interviewed believe that Ethiopian wolves are not dangerous animals,
whereas 21% of households agree with the view that wolves are dangerous especially for their
livestock because of depredation.
Most households reached for this entire interview shown interesting feeling on the beauty of
Ethiopian wolves among animals they know, thus 32% and 61% of respondents agree and
strongly agree respectively, with idea that Ethiopian Wolves are beautiful animals. Also, 61% of
the household‟s part of the interview agrees that Ethiopian wolves are in danger of disappearing
or extinction, whereas 26% of them neither agree nor disagree.

The majority of respondents (43%) had no idea about the cause of mortality for Ethiopian wolves
and their disappearance from the area. However, a sign of them (29%) signaled disease
especially Rabies as the reason behind wolves' death. On the other hand, other aspects such as
shortage of food (7%), habitat losses (4%) were mentioned as other courses beading for
Ethiopian wolf extinction from the local area. Besides, 80 % and 8% of respondents respectively
agreed and strongly agreed with thought that Ethiopian wolves and people can be live together
whereas 14% of households did not agree with the idea of coexistence.

Almost half (50%) of respondents interviewed neither agree nor disagree or were not believed
with the idea that Ethiopian wolves kill other wildlife whereas, 26% of respondents did not agree
with the idea. There were also 21% of respondents who agree with the idea that Ethiopian

45
wolves can kill other wildlife as they all mentioned Juveniles of Antelopes like Mountain Nyala,
Reed back, and Grey duiker.

IV. Respondents Value of Conservation Ethiopian Wolf

The majority of 73% of interrogated respondents believed that they get to benefit from Gaysay
grassland of BMNP while 27% of them feel they do not get benefits. Out of the total respondents
benefiting from Gaysay grassland, 58% responded that they benefit by grazing their livestock
while 5% get benefit by harvesting grass for roof cover and 4% used it as recreation advantage.

A significant proportion of respondents (95%) believed that the BMNP is beneficial for the local
community especially through direct uses as a more or less consumptive way than non-
consumptive utilization. Most of the respondents (30%) responded that they use BMNP for
grazing their livestock on the grassland of the Park. The other utilization type mentioned by the
respondents was like ecosystem service (nice environment to breath, water, etc.) and grazing
(18%), benefit from Eco-tourism service and grazing (11%), for grazing and firewood collection
(6%), for grazing and recreation (4%) and use as grazing land and the benefit that the Park has in
the reduction of unemployment which encompasses about 2%. There were also respondents
(1%) who mentioned that the park has a benefit exclusively for the government without
benefiting the community around the Park. Around 2% of respondents raise, the Park has
benefited in the reduction of employment separately and a firm with benefits people getting from
eco-tourism service.

About the respondent‟s reaction to any future reintroduction, there was only 0.6% unhappy
respondents with the reintroduction of Ethiopian wolves to Gaysay grassland, because of their
fear as the habitat might not be safe and believed that the area would be under high pressure.
However, remarkably the majorities (87%) of households were very happy and 10% of them
were happy if the wolves could be returning back to Gaysay grassland. Here also there were
households about 2.4% those neither happy nor unhappy about the reintroduction of this
endangered species.

Around 82 % of respondents had hoped that the people will protect Ethiopian wolves if they will
be returned to Gaysay grassland. However, about 43% of respondents worried about whether the
Ethiopian wolf will not have enough prey after the relocation. Although there were comparable

46
numbers of respondents (41%) who believe that wolves will get enough pray if they will be
returned, whereas 16% of respondents did not have any idea regarding prey status in the area.

The majority (64%) of the respondents were confident that the domestic dog will not chase the
Ethiopian wolf away from the area if the wolves return to Gaysay. The rest 22% agreed with idea
that dogs will chase them away and while 14% of households do not have an idea about it.

About 49% of respondents believed that the community should take a higher position in taking
responsibility to protect them when wolves returned to Gaysay. There were also respondents
(38%) confidentially remark that community and Park (Government) should take responsibility
in collaboration to protect the wolf after the relocation. Although 8% of respondents said that
the Park should take the whole responsibility in protecting them, whereas 3% of total
respondents give responsibility for Park and Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme (EWCP)
to take overall responsibility in collaboration.

4.1.8. Organizational Voice on Wolf Reintroduction

I. General Knowledge

Information for this part was collected from three distinct organizations Professionals i.e.
BMNP or EWCA, EWCP, FZS-BMCP, and Dinsho woreda Environment, Forest And Climate
Change Authority (EFCCA) were considered, whereas, the majority (58%) of respondents were
partners, 29,4% were BMNP staff and 11.8% of key respondents were stakeholders working on
the conservation of natural resource and BMNP. Among respondents at different levels of
knowledge and position, 59.9% of them were very confident about knowledge of Ethiopian
wolves whereas, 47.1% were somewhat confident. Thus 64.7% of respondents agree and 29.4%
very agreed with the re-introducing of Ethiopian wolves into Gaysay (historical range) is a good
idea since only 5.9% disagreed due to fear of external threats pressure to the proposed area by
the surrounding community.

II. Reason for Supporting Ethiopian Wolf Reintroduction Programme

Around 94.1% of respondents admirably supported the re-introduction of Ethiopian wolves to

their historical range or Gaysay grassland whereas, 5.9% of respondents did not support the
reintroduction.

47
Most (50.1%) of respondents suggest that an idea of having Ethiopian wolf metapopulation in
different geographic locations as much secured concern as somewhat important whereas, 31.3%
of professionals considered as very important points for reintroduction motive. Around 18.8 %
of respondents did not consider this idea as a factor for their decision. Also, thoughts of
Ethiopian wolves have the right to live in their historic native range, and reintroducing Ethiopian
wolves that may increase biodiversity in Gaysay grassland was equally chosen as a very
important concept by about 75% of professionals since 25% considered the ideas as it was
somewhat important.

The majority (81.3%) of respondents considered the reintroduction plan as a very important
initiative because Ethiopian wolves are endangered conservation status species and declining
population left whereas, 18.8% were taken the above two concepts as somewhat important.
Admirably all respondents (100%) from those supports the reintroduction program was reasoned
out that reintroduction is very important because of the species endemics and the economic
benefits to communities near the release sites. Also, 75% of respondents consider reintroduction
program as very important for the sake of increasing opportunities for outdoor recreation in
Gaysay grassland whereas 25% of respondents considered the concept a somewhat important
concept.

Eventually, few professionals (18.8%) from different considered organization supports the
reintroduction plan leave a different suggestion that encourages the plan to proceed as having
Ethiopian Wolves in Gaysay grassland more secured than current wolf supporting habitat since
the area has a core and well-protected area. Also, the Gaysay area is easily accessible nearby
Park head office that will bring a chance for frequent monitoring and follow up tasks. Some
other professionals also have thoughts that having Ethiopian wolves to Gaysay grassland implies
inspiring economic, social, and political importance to the area.

Around 6.3% of respondents do not support the reintroduction of Ethiopian wolves to its
historical range (Gaysay grassland) where the proposed reintroduction should come after the
threats in the sites are reduced to a level where it cannot Couse harm to the population.

48
III. Believes

Around 18% and 31.3% of considered respondents were respectively believed and strongly
believed that Ethiopian wolves could be because of human-wildlife conflict to released or study
site. Also, respondents encompass 43.8% have faith in that ideas is neither positive nor negative
whereas, 6.3% of them believe that Ethiopian wolfs could not be cause for conflict to human.

According to considerable respondent's thoughts, there is no subsection of Ethiopian wolves that

could kill communities‟ livestock as 56.3% of respondents neither agree nor disagree with the
idea and 43.8% of professionals confidentially criticize ideas that Ethiopian wolves could kill
communities‟ animals.

Besides, around 31.3% of respondents confidentially believe that the reintroduction of wolves
will contribute to increasing in Gaysays` biodiversity whereas 43.8 also accept ideas positively
with 25% respondents considered the ides as neither positively nor negatively. Also, 93.7
respondents from considered organizations believed that the reintroduction of wolves will
contribute to the maintenance of Gaysays` ecosystem were 6.3% of respondents have accepted
the ideas negatively. Around 87.5% of respondents have not faith in the idea that reintroduction
of wolves might result in a reduction in the size of other wild animals due to competition for
forage whereas only 12.4% believe in an idea. Respondents encompass 62.6% were not suspect
in negative impacts of wolves on other wildlife through habitat alteration whereas, 12.5% of
respondents were suspected impact of Ethiopian wolves on other wildlife and 25% of
respondents quiet to suggested on ideas.

68% of respondents have confidentially believed that reintroduction of wolves will be increased
the recreational opportunities in release areas whereas 6.3% have no faith in it and 25% did not
say anything regarding idea.

IV. Thoughts on Disease Transmission

Respondents encompass 25% were suspected that would be a disease transmission from wolf to
livestock and other domestic animals surrounding Gaysay whereas, 50% of respondents do not
believe in the idea and 25% have no suggestion. Although professionals encountered 62.6% be
convinced in the occurrence of disease transmission from livestock and other domestic Animals
to Ethiopian Wolf since 12.5 % do not accept the idea and 25% believe in the probability of

49
disease transmission. About half percent (50%) of respondents suspected a disease transmission
from infected Ethiopian wolf to other wild animals in released areas since 18.8% do not suspect
the transmission confidentially and 31% of professionals have no suggestion on the idea. And
also 50% of the professionals do not believe in occurrence disease transmission from other
wildlife to Ethiopian wolves since 25% have an expectation of disease transmission and the other
25% of respondents have put a probability suggestion.

50
 4.2. DISCUSSION

4.2.1. Rodent-Abundance index

As rodent density determines the distribution of Ethiopian wolves (Sillero-Zubiri et al, 1995a;
Sillero and Macdonald 1997; Marino, 2003) rodent signs were considered through HAT to
estimate rodent relative density in the study site (Gaysay grassland) and current wolf supporting
optimal habitat (Web valley). The result found was a bit tricky as it shows the difference among
different rodent type.

The number of Murinae rat holes count shown a lack of association between sampling sites
(Gaysay grassland and Web Valley) based on mean. Web valley or current optimal wolf habitat
of Bale BMNP found with a higher mean rank of Murinae rats holes count than Gaysay
grassland i.e. study area found lesser in rodent density in comparison with Web valley (Megitty
and Alandu wolves Pack). However, Gaysay grassland found lesser (5.49) than Web Valley
(7.48) in average Murinae rat holes count; it can be seen as suitable habitat in coincide to
Anteneh Tesfaye (2017) study conducted in BSNP come up with average Murinae rat holes
count range between maximum 3.9 to minimum 0.5 across different habitat management types.

The two types of Rhizomyinae molerats signs count shown sophisticated variation in both
sampling sites, as Common Molerats wolf‟s diet, can substitute the absence of Giant Molerats
(Sillero and Macdonald 1997; Marino 2003). This study result shows higher average Common
Molerats soil mounds (3.07) in Gaysay grassland than Web Valley (0.8) by three and more folds.
This was also much better count in alignment of Anteneh Tesfaye (2017) study result which was
counted average Common Molerats soil mounds range between minimum 0 to maximum 2.5
across land under different management practice in BSNP currently supporting certain
population of Ethiopian Wolfs. According to Zelalem Tefera et al., 2005 study conducted on
wolves‟ fecal analysis in Guassa, the fossorial common Molerat was present in 30.6% of samples
and accounted for 16.6% by volume since this could be considered as Gaysay grassland has
potential in wolves‟ diet in terms common Molerats presence. A giant Molerats signs certainly
not found in Gaysay grassland. The optimal current wolf supporting habitat, the mean number
for giant Molerat old plugs found higher (1.68) than the mean number of fresh plugs (0.51), and
mean number open holes (0.33).

51
Gaysay grassland characterized by a lesser average altitudinal range in comparison to optimal
wolf habitat, which was it has still fallen under the altitudinal range where Ethiopian wolves can
survive in the case of BMNP (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997; Marino, 2003). Average slope
futures relatively measured revealed the higher flattens slope status both in Gaysay grassland
(87%) and Web valley (83%) in comparison to other optimal wolves‟ habitats known to
Ethiopian wolves across the country (Marino, 2003). This shows that in terms of slope Gaysay
grassland seems suitable whereas, an index of wolves‟ abundance has a positive, linear
relationship with slope constant across habitats (Marino, 2003).

4.2.2. Habitat Types Characteristics and Dominance

The common and dominantly found habitat types in Gaysay grassland were open grassland
(26.1%) and Artemisia grassland (25.5%). This could be indicating an opportunity for Ethiopian
wolves since they prefer or favor open areas with short herbaceous and grassland communities
where rodents are most abundant (Marino and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013). However, open grassland
habitat type similar to Gaysay could not be considered in Web valley that it could represent by
Alpine-grass Meadow whereas, Artemisia grassland cover 14.7%, it has still met a common
suitable wolf habitat types (Marino 2003; Zelealem Tefera, 2004). The three top dominant
habitat types i.e. Alpine-grass Meadow (34.7%), Alchemilla Meadows (25.3%), and Alchemilla-
herb mixed (20%) measured in Web valley shown lesser dominancy in Gaysay grassland with a
total of 9.7%, 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively. However, this could not be a deal since Ethiopian
wolves prefer all Afroalpine habitats (Marino, and Sillero-Zubiri, 2013). According to this
assessment, around 31.3% habitat types were shared by both sampling sites since web valley has
only (1) 6.25 % habitat type that doesn‟t presences in Gaysay grassland. However, in Gaysay
grassland (9) 62.5% of habitat types were recorded which is not recorded for Web Valley.

However, the habitat types listed for two study sites shown dissimilarity and similarity for some,
all habitat types characterize the Afroalpine ecosystem which recognized as the habitat preferred
by Ethiopian wolves in different geographical locations where wolves were used to survive
(Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997; Marino 2003; Zelealem Tefera, 2004).

52
 4.2.3. Habitat Coverage at a Different Level

Vegetation and rock cover habitat types were examined as homogenous in both sampling areas
that could be taken as guardian for rodent availability. However, similarity assumption failed for
Soil cover comparison with Web valley grater mean rank record, thus does not impact the
suitability of habitat in case of Gaysay Grassland since Giant Molerats do not present as it has a
positive correlation with soil coverage in Web valley.

Ground-level vegetation coverage met homogeneity assumption for both sampling sites whereas,
it failed to Herb level vegetation coverage and shrub level vegetation coverage. This is one of the
most preferred habitat types by Ethiopian wolves (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997; Marino,
2003). The comparison of shrub level vegetation height is shown variation for two sampling sites
with a greater mean rank in Gaysay grassland. However, vegetation height or heath has usually
known by sustaining higher rodent densities, it may influence wolf foraging success (Sillero-
Zubiri and Macdonald 1997).

4.2.4. Vegetation at Different Height Level and Rodents Association

Murinae rat‟s holes found strongly associated with vegetative habitat coverage than soil and
rocky habitat coverage in both Gaysay grassland and optimal wolf habitat of web valley. The
presence of common Molerats signs shown a greater correlation with soil covered habitat type
than vegetation and rocky habitat type in Gaysay grassland whereas, the better association
recorded in vegetation cover habitat type followed, and next in rocky habitat type in Web valley.
This can be taken as opportunities for Gaysay grassland since the area has prior dominated by
vegetation cover that has a strong correlation with the density of rodents except vegetation height
may have an influence on wolf foraging mechanism. So that rodent densities are one of prior
condition that determines the presence of wolves since the abundance of rodent determined
wolves‟ occurrence to a specific area (Marino, 2003).

The giant Molerats signs only counted in Web valley whereas, no sign sighted in Gaysay
grassland during this survey. In web Valley giant Mole rat‟s signs shown association within all
habitats types with greater in Soil and followed by vegetative habitat type. Even if, there was no
record of giant mole rat‟s signs in Gaysay, it doesn`t indicate that Gaysay is not suitable for
reintroduction since Ethiopian wolves present in another part of a highland block of Ethiopia

53
where giant Molerats doesn‟t` present (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997; Marino, 2003;
Zelealem Tefera et.al, 2005)

In Gaysay grassland common Molerats holes abundance showed better association with habitat
at herb level than the rest. But, it also showed better association with Ground level habitat type in
web valley, which seen as the second preferred habitat for the case of Gaysay grassland. The
common Molerats signs were shown a negative association with shrub level habitat in Gaysay
grassland. Although, herb level habitat types found as better preferred habitat for common
Molerats. In Web valley Also Herb level and Shrub Level habitats were found best-preferred
habitat types by giant mole rat‟s sign. However, the habitat preference of Rhizomyinae rodents in
Gaysay grassland and Web Valley was showed a quiet difference, Gaysay grassland found a
more suitable habitat type in presence of common Molerats for Ethiopian wolves as it preferred
herb level and ground-level habitat types (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997; Marino, 2003).

4.2.5. Rodent sign and livestock Presence Association

The number of rat holes was negatively correlated with Cattle, Equine, and Shoats dropping
across Gaysay grassland, whereas it has shown a positive association with cattle in Web Valley.
The common Molerat`s soil mounds revealed a negative association with cattle and transport
animals dropping and positive association with shoats dropping. Where common Molerats soil
mounds has a positive correlation with Cattle and Transport animals dropping whereas, negative
association resulted in Shoats dropping presence. As some studies imply overgrazing by cattle
may have an unfavorable impact on rodent densities. However, in the area of BMNP moderate
grazing may not influence rodent population as west BMNP of web valley meadows maintained
by grazing since it has carried similar biomass of rodent in comparison to a protected area
(Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald 1997). So that in Gaysays grassland particularly unprotected areas
seems overgrazed to the extent influence the rodent population used to occur for the area.

54
 4.2.6. Large Mammals Consideration

I. Livestock Population

In the study area, a total of 4,447 head of livestock was estimated across Gaysay grassland with a
principal number of Cattle estimation for the season of this survey. The unprotected western part
of the study area showed five folds of livestock estimate than the protected area of BMNP and
unprotected Northeast part study area. A total free remain habitat has an area of 15km2 of which
~ 12 km2 is included in the Park (hereafter referred to as Protected area and illegal livestock
grazing takes place seldom. The remaining 3km2 area that falls outside the park is being used as
a communal livestock grazing land by the surrounding local community (hereafter referred to as
the unprotected area) (OABRD, 2007). As trend before on the average, (mean ± S.D.) 1528 ± 86
heads of livestock (cattle and horses) are reported to use the grazed site, respectively, every day
(Yosef Mamo et al., 2014), thus shown three times higher in five years. This could not be good
for reintroduction plan as Livestock grazing, through its impact on herbivorous rodents,
evidenced to negatively affect the critically endangered Ethiopian wolf, a rodent specialist (Vial,
2010).

II. Habitat and Livestock Association

Open grassland was perceived as the habitat type where livestock was frequently sighted
followed by high altitudinal Swamp in the study area. Also, Artemisia afra mixed-grass were
other types of habitat where livestock was typically sighted whereas, Helichrysum splendidum
mixed herb observed as the least habitat type to sustain Livestock. Open grassland found with a
higher percentage of occurrences especially in the unprotected areas shown a negative
correlation with rodent abundance for this particular study. And also there were reports that
shrublands used to occur on unprotected area completely destroyed by grazing pressure and at
present occur only in protected areas (Yosef Mamo et al., 2014). So that, the above idea has an
implication of that Open grassland Widely (26.1%) occur to study area could not be considered
as suitable wolves‟ habitat whereas, the rest can be taken as remain suitable habitat characterized
with lesser livestock pressure and have a positive correlation with rodent densities during this
study.

55
 III. Wild Animals

Across the study area, a total of 2,255 heads of wild animals were estimated where Antelopes
were most frequently sighted and dominated to the area. R.redunca was the highest wild animals
appraised from the area with 6% of juveniles population composition followed by P. africanus
with higher 9% juveniles‟ population composition. T. buxtoni with 4% Juveniles‟ population
composition, P. anubis with 6%, juveniles population composition, S. grimmia were other wild
animals frequently observed with the descending sequence. C. crocuta and Felis serval were
animals seen from the Carnivora group. This can be considered as one of the translocation
influential opportunities since most antelope`s calf used to be prey alternatives for wolves in case
if translocation takes place (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 1995a; Marino 2003).

4.2.7. Social Attitude and Perception

I. Community Knowledge about Ethiopian wolf

Out of the total 168 respondents, 98% of them know Ethiopian wolf and could easily identify
and 89% of them have seen wolves in Gaysay grassland before their extinction. Grassland
Meadow was the prioritized habitat type for wolves as indicated by the majority of respondents
and with the second preferred Artemisia shrubs habitat by rank. Rodents were prioritized as the
main forage of Ethiopian wolf by 80% of respondents, whereas L. starcki and shoats were the
second listed animals as main forage of wolves with equal 14% second rank next to 51%
respondent where they had no idea apart from rodents as their preferred food. The general
knowledge of respondents regarding Ethiopian wolves was found very impressive. This can be
considered as opportunities for wolf conservation translocation since; public knowledge of
wildlife has other ramifications for species conservation. When communities‟ knowledge are
limited, they prioritize or give concern for common species than endangered and key species
need more attention (Wilson, et.al, 2005).

II. Respondents View and Perception to Ethiopian Wolf

The majority of respondents 98% agree with idea that Ethiopian Wolf needs protection since
71% of respondents to believe that they are not dangerous animals and 93% of respondents
positively feel that wolves are beautiful animals whereas, only 21% of them suspect that wolves
could be dangerous for their livestock. The majority of them (43%) respondents were no idea on

56
the cause of wolves mortality since 29% of households signaled disease especially rabies as
cause wolves death. In general, the perception and attitude of communities regarding wolves
were very positive. This is very important to know since creating sustainable and collaborative
resource management systems is to understand local attitudes toward wildlife and conservation
(Berkes, 2004).

III. Respondents Value of Conservation Ethiopian Wolf

The majority of respondents (95%) believe that BMNP is beneficial for the local community.
However, the way respondents considered the benefit of Park was predominated in a
consumptive manner rather than a non-consumptive benefit of resources. With this regard, 30%
of respondents were those directly used parks for grazing their livestock since the rest utilizing
the parks through multiple uses as ecosystem service and benefit from Eco-tourism service
incorporation with Grazing their livestock especially during the dry season. Understanding
relationships between local people and natural resources is critical in designing and sustaining
effective conservation strategies. Such relationships have particular relevance to the management
of protected areas (PAs), where long-standing tensions over land tenure, local use of natural
resources, and human-wildlife conflicts may limit local acceptance of conservation goals
(Whitesell et al. 2002; Balint 2006).

Remarkably, 97% of respondents were happy (87% very happy and 10 % happy) if wolves return
to Gaysay grassland since 89% of peoples agree with idea that peoples and Ethiopian wolf can
leave together. About 49% of households were suggested and believed that local communities
themselves should take responsibility alone to protect the wolves if returns back to Gaysay
grassland, while 38% of respondents believed, communities and Government or parks should be
Mandatory to protect them. This shows that there would be a community if any translocation of
species is proposed due to the overall positive reaction from the community (IUCN, 2018). Here
it needs to be secured with forage availability for wolves as the respondents about 43% did not
agree with that enough prey will be available for wolves, since 41% of them were confident with
availability rodents/prey for wolves.

The willingness shown by most respondents to see wolves back in Gaysay admirably promotes
the translocation program. And also as most of the respondents believe, communities should take

57
responsibilities in the conservation of wolves alone and some were keen to take responsibilities
in collaboration with government that can be considered as one of the positive opportunities that
the indorse conservation translocation program held in the national action plan (EWCA, 2017b).

In general the willingness and hope seen among local communities surrounding study area was
found very promising and shown hope for conservation translocation of wolves program to be
held in the action plan as it recognized by global environmental conservation community has
come to appreciate that their initiatives must engage with local people to succeed in recent
decades (Otto et al. 2013).

4.2.8. Organizational Voice on Wolf Reintroduction

I. General Knowledge

Around 94 % of respondents for interviews from concerned organizations are found keen in
supporting the conservation translocation of Ethiopian wolves to Gaysay grassland and their
historical range whereas, 6% do not support the program due to the fear of threat to the wolves in
the area.

II. Reason for Supporting Ethiopian Wolf Reintroduction Programme

According to the key informants, The Ethiopian wolf being endemic bring the opportunity of
economic return to the community around the area, and their declining population across the
distribution areas was the reason behind the value and importance of the reintroduction. This
shows that there will be promising support from concerned organizations for reintroduction due
to having a positive awareness and strong willingness In addition to the respondents; they believe
that reintroducing Ethiopian wolf would increase the biodiversity of the area and opportunities
for outdoor recreation that will be expected to benefit the community. So People who perceive
economic benefits and enjoy unrestricted access to natural resources are expected to be
supportive of ecosystem conservation efforts (Bruner et al., 2001; Wang and Macdonald, 2006).
These are also found to be satisfying the criteria kept and accepted by IUCN and canid specialist
group recommend for captive breeding of the rare and endangered species in their historical
range (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997)

58
A considerable number of respondents from different sectors had a fear that Ethiopian wolves
may bring human-wildlife conflict as 56.3% of respondents have faith in that Ethiopian wolves
can kill the community‟s livestock. Here, fears of professionals were positive since different
researchers approved the ideas in different works of literature. Most scat analysis in general
shows that, Wolf prey cattle lamb, sheep, and goats in addition to rodents were found as prey of
Ethiopian wolf (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997; Marino, 2003; Zelealem Tefera, 2004).
However, the issue helps for the conservation translocation of Ethiopian wolves to get attention
and consideration. The condition should need to be improved if communities are aware and keep
watching to their livestock as they all have livestock keepers due to the area is core and protected
that prohibited to enter the area with their livestock.

III. Believes

According to considered professional‟s belief, there is suspicion on disease transmission from

wolves to domestic animals, wild animals, and also from domestic and to Ethiopian wolves in
the proposed release site. The above idea convinced to accept positive since the transmission of
disease like rabies and CDV by effected domestic dogs to Ethiopian wolves and in the rare cases
from effected wolves to their wild relative‟s animals (Sillero-Zubiri and Macdonald, 1997;
Deborah A. Randall, et al., 2004). These scenarios are continuing across Ethiopian Wolves
habitat, thus bring extensive management intervention being carrying out by EWCA and EWCP
in collaboration (EWCA, 2017b). The same and widen conditional management intervention
concurrently required within the reintroduction plan and tasks.

59
 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion

The presence of Murinae rats in Gaysay grassland found faintly lesser in comparison with
formerly recognized optimal wolves habitat in web valley. One of the common and other diets
of Ethiopian wolves i.e. Common Molerats could be served as the main diet by replacing Giant
molerats where it is not found, shown a higher proportion in Gaysay grassland than Web valley.
However, the Giant Molerats were not recorded in Gaysay grassland; it is a judiciously suitable
habitat for Ethiopian wolves in case of prey availability since Ethiopian wolves could be survives
in absence of giant Molerat in the other part of the country.

The spatial altitudinal range of Gaysay grassland resulted in lesser than web valley. However, it
is still between ranges of wolves habitat where wolves used to survive in the case of BMNP and
the area prior regarded as flattening slope coverage thus considered as habitat preferred by
Ethiopian wolves.

The two sampling sites share 31.3% similar habitat, whereas the Gaysay grassland shown more
diversity in habitat types than web valley. Gaysay grassland was dominated with higher
dominancy of open grassland and Artemisia grassland habitat types whereas, Web valley
dominated with Alpine-grass Meadow, Alchemilla Meadows and Artemisia grassland habitat
type. According to different literatures all habitats types are preferred and used by Ethiopian
wolves conditionally across afro-alpine where they used to survive.

A habitat similarity was found in its mean average percentage of vegetation cover and rock cover
whereas, only Web valley has seen with higher soil coverage. Here, vegetation coverage found
suitable habitat, since it has a positive correlation with the relative abundance of Murinae rats in
both sampling sites. Also, soil coverage found suitable habitat in the case of Web valley since; it
has a positive correlation with the presence of Rhizomyinae rats‟ species especially as web
valley characterized by the occurrence of giant Molerats.

Livestock pressure could be considered a threat for reducing the suitability of the habitat in
Gaysay grassland; as the livestock number estimated in Gaysay grassland found with bigger
TLUs i.e. beyond recommended carrying capacity and statistic verified that it has a relatively

60
negative correlation between the presence of both Murinae and Rhizomyinae rats in both
sampling areas.

Gaysay grassland found rich in wild animals with higher number Antelopes encompass 4 to 6%
(percent) calves‟ composition that can be considered as other alternative feed of Ethiopian
wolves and that can determine the suitability of habitat.

The communities living around study areas are a witness for the presence of Ethiopian wolves in
the study area many years back. And a general knowledge‟s respondents have regarding
Ethiopian wolves been found very impressive. This can be considered as opportunities for wolf
conservation translocation since; communities‟ knowledge of wildlife has other ramifications for
species conservation

The communities have shown a fabulous view on Ethiopian wolves‟ that most of them (71%)
believe that the animal is not dangerous and they (98%) agree on the protection of the species
since about 61% of respondents believe that it is in danger to extinction.

Indeed, most of the communities understanding about the benefit of BMNP were found as the
consumptive way like grazing and collecting resource from the park which can be taken as main
threats of area for current as well as further. However, a remarkable 97% of respondents were
found happy if wolves return to Gaysay that can be taken as respectable chance in case if wolves
translocate with the improvement of threats pressure seen surrounding the area.

61
5.2. Recommendations

Gaysay grassland found less suitable than Web Valley which is one of the optimal suitable
habitat remains for Ethiopian wolves. However, it still needs another feasibility assessment
on rodent species types (Diurnal or Nocturnal) identification that could not be covered under
this research thus quite important since wolves biomass index are more correlated positively
with the biomass index of diurnal rodent species.

The livestock pressure recorded with higher TLU coefficient at study area should get
attention through park management intervention to make the habitat more suitable as; the
livestock pressure recorded higher in unprotected Gaysay grassland with the leading number
of Cattles as it has also observed in Web valley as livestock grazing, through its impact on
herbivorous rodents, is expected to negatively affect the critically endangered Ethiopian
wolf.

The relationships and impact of Wolves with other carnivores in the study area should take
under consideration if there is a probability of translocation to take place, since Serval cat
and spotted hyena were observed during this survey and also there are pieces of evidence of
the presence of Common Jackal over the area which was not seen during this entire survey

Communities‟ knowledge, attitudes, perception and also acceptance of the Ethiopian Wolf
conservation translocation plan were really found impressive and hope to give for further
species conservation. However still the situation requires strategic plan and programme thus
enable to approve communities‟ awareness, bring good negotiation and intensive livelihood
improvement tasks, since communities still using the area in consumptive way rather than
non-consumptive which will bring higher habitat degradation for further.

Organizational voice found very nice and supportive to conservation translocation Ethiopian
wolves to their historical range with higher recommendation of threats pressure seen
surrounding the study areas need improvement simultaneously with translocation
programme.

After completion of data collection Rangers, park Monitoring team and EWCP staff observed
Ethiopian wolf on three incidents, and checked once and heard its sound. These shows there

62
are still some individuals in the area. But no one is sure whether they are permanent or not.
So, routine follow up from monitoring team and Rangers needed.

63
 6. REFERENCE
Addisu Asefa (2008). Mountain Nyala and Ethiopian wolf Mortalities in the Northern side of
Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. SINET, Ethiop. J. Biol. Sci 7(2):179-184.
Addisu Asefa (2011). Mammals of the Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia: A Compiled and
Annotated Checklist. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335106684
Akçakaya HR, Mills G, Doncaster CP. (2007). The role of metapopulations in conservation.
Pages 64-84 in: Key Topics in Conservation Biology, edited by Macdonald DW, Service
K. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anteneh Tesfaye (2017). Implementation and Effectiveness of Different Management Systems
upon Afroalpine Natural Resources: Case Study in Borena Sayint National Park and the
Surrounding Afroalpine Areas, South Wollo, Ethiopia.
Berkes, F. (2004). Re-thinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biol. 18(3): 621–
630.
BirdLife International (2008). Building Partnerships: Working together for conservation and
development. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass
extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704949114
Davies-Mostert H, Mills GL, Macdonald DW. (2015). The demography and dynamics of an
expanding, managed African wild dog metapopulation. African Journal of Wildlife
Research 45:258-273
Deborah A. Randall, Stuart D. Williams, Ivan V. Kuzmin, Charles E. Rupprecht Lucy A. Tallents,
Zelealem Tefera, Kifle Argaw, Fekadu Shiferaw, Darryn L. Knobel, Claudio Sillero-
Zubiri, and M. Karen Laurenson (2004). Rabies in Endangered Ethiopian Wolves
EWCA (2007a). Bale Mountains National Park General Management Plan. Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority (EWCA), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ethiopia.
EWCA (2007b). National Action Plan for Conservation of the Ethiopian Wolf. Ethiopian
Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,
Ethiopia. Revised version
EWNHS (1996). Important Bird Areas of Ethiopia: A First Inventory. Ethiopian Wildlife and
Natural History Society, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

64
EWNHS (2011). Walia-Special Edition on Bale Mountains: JOURNAL OF the Ethiopian
Wildlife and Natural History Society, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FAO (2011). Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews. Animal Production and
Health Guidelines. No. 5. Rome.
Gentry, B. S., Ray, E. F. and Schrader, G. (2011). How Can Conservation Organizations Help
Development Go Where It “Should”? Report of the 2011 Berkley Workshop Held at the
Island Wood Center, Bainbridge Island, Washington.
Girma Eshete, Sillero-Zubiri C. Cieraad E., Musters C., De Snoo G., Iongh H., and Jorgelina
Marino J. (2018). Does livestock predation reflect in negative local perceptions of
Ethiopian wolves in South Wollo?. Tropical Ecology 59(1): 11–19.
Hillman, J. C. (1986). Bale Mountains National Park Management Plan. Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Organization, Addis Ababa.
Hook, A. S. (2015). Genetic Variation and Parentage in the Ethiopian Wolf (Canis simensis).
Master‟s Thesis, University of Salford.
IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations.
Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Kinahan, A. (2013). Afro-Alpine and Erica Livestock and Large Mammal Monitoring Protocol:
Bale Mountains National Park. Bale, Ethiopia.
Kinahan, A. and Randall, D. (2013). Mountain Nyala population Monitoring Protocol: Bale
Mountains National Park, Priority #3., Bale, Ethiopia.
Laycock, W. A. (1991). Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American
rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 44: 427-433
M. H. Alvi (2016). A Manual for Selecting Sampling Techniques in Research: University of
Karachi, Iqra University;
Marino J. (2003). Threatened Ethiopian wolves persist in small isolated Afroalpine enclaves.
Oryx 37(1): 62–71.
Marino J. and Sillero-Zubiri C. (2013). Canis simensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2013: e.T3748A10051312. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2011-
1.RLTS.T3748A10051312.en
Marino J., Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Macdonald, DW. (2006). Trends, dynamics and resilience of an
Ethiopian wolf population. Animal Conservation 9: 49-58.

65
Marino J., Tefera, Z., Laurenson, K., Gottelli, D., Hood, A., Macdonald, D., Wildt, D., and Ellis,
S. (1999). Ethiopian wolf Conservation Strategy Workshop. Dinsho Lodge, Bale
Mountains National Park.
Marques, T. A., Buckland, S. T., Borchers, D. L., Rexstad and Thomas. L. (2011). Distance
sampling. International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
DOI of article: 10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_214.
Miller SM, Harper CK, Bloomer P, Hofmeyr J, Funston PJ. (2015). Fenced and fragmented:
Conservation value of managed metapopulations. PLOS ONE 10(12): e0144605.
Mohammad Rafiqul Islam (2018). Sample Size and Its Role in Central Limit Theorem (CLT).
Computational and Applied Mathematics Journal. Vol. 4, No. 1, 2018, pp. 1-7.
Noe, C. and Kangalawe Richard (2015). Wildlife protection, community participation in
conservation, and (Dis) empowerment in Southern Tanzania. Conservation and Society
13(3): 244-253.
OARDB (2007). Bale Mountains National Park General Management Plan. Oromia Agriculture
and Rural Development Bureau (OARDB), Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia.
Otto J., C. Zerner, J. Robinson, R. Donovan, M. Lavelle, R.Villarreal, N. Salafsky, J. Alcorn, F.
Seymour, C. Kleyneyer, and M. Pearl. (2013). Natural connections: perspectives in
community based conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Pukka L. (2018). „The role of communication in protecting endangered species: a study in
Finland. Master‟s thesis,‟ Jyvaskyla University, Finland,
Sefi Mekonen, Chinasho, A., Kassegn Berhanu and Sewnet Tesfaye. (2017). Threats and
conservation challenges of wildlife in Harenna Forest, Harenna Buluk District, South
East Ethiopia: International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation; Vol. 9(7), pp.
246-255
Sillero-Zubiri C. and Gottelli D. (1995b). Diet and Feeding Behavior of Ethiopian Wolves
(Canis simensis). Journal of Mammalogy 76: 531-541
Sillero-Zubiri, C. and Macdonald, D. W. (1997). The Ethiopian wolf: status survey and
conservation action plan. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK: IUCN/SSC Canid
Specialist Group.

66
Sillero-Zubiri, C., Marino, J., Gottelli, D. and Macdonald, D. W. (2004). Afroalpine ecology,
solitary foraging and intense sociality amongst Ethiopian wolves. In The biology and
conservation of canids: 311– 323.
Sillero-Zubiri. C, Francoise, H., Tattersall and David, W., (1995a). Bale Mountains rodent
communities and their relevance to the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis). Afr. J. Ecol. 33:
301-320.
Singh, H. R., and Rahman, S. A. (2012). An Approach for environmental education by non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) in biodiversity conservation. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 42:144–152.
Soorae, P. S. (ed.) (2018). Global Reintroduction Perspectives: 2018. Case studies from around
the globe. IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and
Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE., Xiv + 286pp., 6th Edition
Sponsel, L. E., Headland, T. N., and Bailey, R. C. (1996). Tropical Deforestation: The Human
Dimension. Columbia University Press, New York.
Tesfaye Tolla & Cath Traynor (2015). Country report on Ethiopia Community Conservation
Resilience Initiative (CCRI)., Global Forest Coalition, C.C. 13241, CP 1749.,
MELCAEthiopia.
Vial Flavie (2010) Conservation science for common ground: developing the necessary tools to
manage livestock grazing pressure in Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia. PhD
thesis.
Wang S.W. & Macdonald, D.W. (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye
Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 129, 558-565.
Whitesell, S., R. J. Lilieholm, and T. L. Sharik (2002). A global survey of tropical biological field
stations. BioScience 52(1):55–64.
Williams, S., (2002). Bale Mountains: A Guide Book. Ethiopian Wolf Conservation Programme.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clement (2005). What Role Does Knowledge of Wildlife Play in
Providing Support for Species Conservation. Journal of Social Sciences. 1. 47-51.
10.3844jssp.2005.47.51.
Zelalem Ashenafi & N. Leader-Williams (2005). Indigenous Common Property Resource
Management in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, Human Ecology: 33:539-563

67
Zelalem Tefera, Coulson, T., Sillero-Zubiri and Williams, N. (2004). Behaviour and ecology of
the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis) in a human-dominated landscape outside protected
areas. Animal Conservation 8: 113–121.

68
 7. APPENDIXES
Appendix-1-a: Data sheet for Habitat Assessment Transect (HAT)

Date: _________________ Location: _________________ Observers: _________ Weather: ____________

Bearing _______________ Transect ID: _______________
Time Start: ____________ Hab: __________ UTM X Start: _______________ UTM Y Start: ______________

S# UTM X UTM Y Landscape Cover Vegetation Levels Cover Rodent Burrows or Sign Droppings
1 V S Alt CV CS CR GL SpGL HL SpHL SL SpSL Hsh RAT CMR GMRo GMRfp GMRop CT TP ST other
2
3
4
5
6
Additional note

Time End: _____________ Hab: __________ UTM X End: _______________ UTM Y End: ______________

Note: Refer Appendix; 1-c for Abbreviation

69
Appendix -1-b. Data Sheet for Large Animals Survey (Distance Sampling)

Date: _________________ Location: _________________ Observers: _________ Weather: ____________

Bearing _______________ Transect ID: _______________
Time Start: ____________ Hab: __________ UTM X Start: _______________ UTM Y Start: ______________
Time End: _____________ Hab: __________ UTM X End: _______________UTM Y End: ______________

Time Trans Sight Dist

Sight UTM X UTM Y Bearing Bearing (m) Hab Sp. Total AM AF AUK SM SF SUK JUV

Additional Notes

Note: Refer Appendix; 1-c for Abbreviation

70
Appendix-1-c. Codes for Ecological Data and Large Mammals Survey

V (VEGETATION) OR HABITATS SPECIES ML Mixed Lstock(cows and

CODE Habitat CODES Species shoats)

1 Afroalpine AV Aardvark MN Mountain Nyala
2 Agriculture BB Menelik's Bushbuck MU Mule
3 Alchemilla meadow
CB Colobus monkey OB Olive baboon
4 Artimasia Heath
CJ Common jackal RB Bohor Reedbuck
5 Bare ground
6 Erica Forest CL Caracal SC Serval cat
7 Erica Shrub CT Cattle ST Sheep & goats
8 Open Grassland DC Domestic cat WH Warthog
9 Grassland-Shrub mixed
DD Domestic dog WM White-tailed mongoose
10 Grassland -Herb Mixed
11 Grazing land DK Donkey
H Vegetation height
12 Grassland-Helicrisum herb EM Egyptian mongoose
1 0-10 cm
Mixed EW Ethiopian wolf
13 Montane Forest 2 11-30 cm
GD Grey Duiker 3 31-50 cm
14 Open woodland
GJ Golden Jackal 4 >50 cm
15 Pasture
16 Shrub HA Stark's Hare S SLOPE
17 Swamp HB Honey badger 1 Flat
18 Wetland 2 Moderate
HO Horse
3 Steep
HY Spotted Hyaena

71
 RODENTS
COVER DROPPINGS
RAT Number of rat holes
CT Cattle
1 <5% CMR Number of Molerat Soil
TP Transport (horse, Mule, Donkey)
2 6-25% Mounds
ST Sheep & Goats
3 26-50% GMRo Number of giant molerat
4 51-75% open holes
5 76-100% GMRfp Number of giant molerat
fresh plugs
GMRop Number of giant molerat old
CV cover of vegetation
plugs
CS cover of soil
CR cover of rock Note: The rodent Holes and Sign will
be identified by the help of Ethiopian
wolf Conservation programme field
Manuals and experienced monitoring
Expert.

72
Appendix-2a Social Survey Data Sheet

Date ___________________

1. Personal Information:
Orienteer ID: _______________________Kebele ___________________ Woreda
________________
Sex: M___ F ___ Marital Status: _____________________ Family size
_________________

Age: _______ Education Status: None ____Primary ___ Secondary ___ Higher education
______
Occupation: ________________ Length of residency in the study area (in years) _____

2. Respondent Knowledge about Ethiopian Wolf

2.1.Have you ever seen Ethiopian wolf? Yes No
2.2.When did you saw them?
1. <1 year 2. 2-5 years 3. 5 – 10 years 4. > 10 years
2.3.Where did you saw them?
1. Gaysay Area 2. Web valley 3. On picture/ poster 4. Through
television
5. Somewhere else apart Bale; _________
2.4.What was the main Ethiopian wolf habitat or home?
1. Grassland 2. Forest 3. Bush 4. Grassland-Bush mixed 5. Swampy area
2.5. Why do you think Ethiopian wolf abended this area?
1, Disease 2. Habitat loss 3. Accident 4. Starvation 5. Killed by people

6. Other (specify): __________________

2.6.What do you think the main food of Ethiopian wolf?
1. Rodents 2. Starks hare 3. Cattles 4. Sheep and goats 5.
Antelopes
and their calf 6. Other; ____________________
2.7.Do you agree that Ethiopian wolf are threatened Animals?
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree
2.8.What do you think of main threats for the Ethiopian wolf?

73
 1, Disease 2. Habitat Loss 3. Grazing 4. Poaching (killed by people)
5. Poisonous 6: Other: _________________________________

3. Community Perception on Ethiopian wolf, and wolf- Livestock relationship

3.1. Do you agree that Wolves and livestock have Positive relationship?
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree

3.2. Do you agree that Wolves threaten livestock?

1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree

3.3. Do you believe that Wolves and domestic dog have positive relationship?
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree

4. Respondent Attitudes toward Ethiopian wolf

4.1.Do you think the Ethiopian wolf Conservation is important?
1.Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree
4.2.Do you agree that Ethiopian wolves are dangerous?
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree
4.3.Do you agree that Ethiopian wolves are pleasant Animals?
1.Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree
5. Tolerance to Re-introduction
5.1.Do you think Ethiopian wolves should be protected?
1.Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. I don`t think 4. agree 5. very
agree
5.2.Why do you think wolf protection is important?
1. Because of it is endemic
2. Because of tourism value
3. Because of it is beautiful
4. Because of its good luck

74
 5. Other_____________________
5.3.What do you feel if re-introduction of Ethiopian wolfs will be undertaken in
Gaysay?
1. Very sad 2. Sad 3. Nothing 4. happy 5. Very happy
5.4.What are your worries if wolves are relocated to Gaysay?
1. Predating on livestock
2. Rodent /prey shortage
3. Habitat fragmentation
4. Disease transmission
5.5.Who should take responsibility for conservation of Ethiopian wolves?
1. Bale Mountains National Park.
2. The communities
3. NGOs
4. Local governments
5. We all together

75
Appendix-2b Organization Survey

This questionnaire is designed to assess the beliefs, opinions, and concerns of conservation
organization, partners and stakeholders about conservation translocation of Ethiopian Wolves
in Gaysay grassland of Bale Mountains National Park
The Information you will provide is helpful to formulate recommendations on whether or not
Ethiopian wolf‟s re-introduction should undertake and, if so, to identify special
considerations that need to be addressed.
Therefore, your response is important to this study, and we would greatly appreciate your
input. There is space at the end of the survey for you to make comments and address issues
that are not covered by the questionnaire. All responses will be kept confidential.

For the purposes of this survey, please note that a biological assessment will be also
conducted, to identify whether the habitats is suitable, and that reintroduction of wolves
will be determined by Ecological feasibility. As you read and answer the questions that
follow, please limit your consideration only to issues relating to the conservation
desirability and programme sustainability of Ethiopian wolf’s restoration in their
historical range.
Thank you!

76
Please check the appropriate box for each question under
General Knowledge
1 Under which categories do you consider 1. Partner
your Organization in affiliation it has with 2. Stakeholder
Ethiopian wild life conservation Authority 3. Staff
or Bale Mountains National Park?
2 How confident do you feel about your 1. Very Confident
knowledge of Ethiopian wolves and your 2. Somewhat Confident
ability to make judgment on the benefits of 3. Somewhat Uncertain
reintroducing Ethiopian wolves in Gaysay 4. Very Uncertain
grassland of Bale Mountains National Park
(BMNP) in behalf of your Organization,
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Neither Agree nor
3 Do you think re-introducing of Ethiopian Disagree
wolves into Gaysay (historical range) is a 4. Disagree
good idea? 5. Strongly Disagree
6. Don`t know

Support
Based on what you know about the Ethiopian wolf, if given the opportunity to decide up on
the relocation of Ethiopian wolf with mentioned area, will you ………
(Check the most appropriate box)
SUPPORT the Ethiopian wolf re- NOT SUPPORT the Ethiopian wolf re-
introduction in their historical range introduction in their historical range

4
(proceed with question number 5 up to (proceed with question number 15 up to 35)
14 and then skip to question 25 up to
35.)

77
 Questioner For those who Support the re-introduction Programme

SN Please indicate in space provided Not a Factor

how important each factor listed Very Somewhat Not Very in my
below are in your decision Important Important Important Decision
Having Ethiopian wolf meta
5 population in different geographic
location are much secured
Ethiopian wolves have a right to
6 live in their historic native range.
Reintroducing of Ethiopian
7 wolves may increase biodiversity
in Gaysay grassland . . ..
Because of they are endangered
8 Species
Because of less population left
9
Ethiopian wolves are Ethiopian
10 Endemic Species
Ethiopian wolves may increase
11 opportunities for outdoor
recreation in Gaysay
12 Ethiopian wolves may bring
economic benefits to communities
near the release sites
13 Re-introducing Ethiopian wolves
can bring economic benefits to
communities near release site. .
Please list any other reasons you may have for SUPPORTING Ethiopian wolf
reintroduction in Gaysay Grassland. (Then skip to Question 25 up to 35)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
14 _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
____________________________

78
 Questioner For those who not Support the re-introduction Programme

SN Please indicate below how Not a Factor

important each factor listed here Very Somewhat Not Very in my
under is in your decision Important Important Important Decision
The proposed habitat may have
15 changed too much to support an
Ethiopian wolf
Reintroducing Wolf in historic
16 habitat may be unsuccessful
Ethiopian wolf may have negative
17 impact on other wildlife by
altering existing ecosystems and
habitats
may competition for forage will
18 be high with other wild animals
and harm wolf population
Threats like disease and habitat
19 loss may be high
Wolf may transmit diseases to
20 surrounding Community`s
livestock.
Wolf may transmit diseases to
21 other wildlife in area.
The local communities in the area
22 may not support the re-
introduction
23 The government may not support
the re-introduction
Please list any other reasons you may have for NOT SUPPORTING Ethiopian wolf
reintroduction in Gaysay Grassland. (Then continue with Question 25 up to 35)
24 _______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
____________________________

79
Believes
Niether
Very Positive positive Negetive Very Don`t
SN As a direct result of re- Posit Nor Negetive know
introducing Ethiopian ive negetive
Wolves to Gaysay, there
can be...
25 ……an increase in human
wildlife conflict.
26 …..an increase in loss of
livestock...
27 ……an increase in Gaysay‟s
biodiversity.
……well maintained
28 ecosystem.
...a reduction in the size of
29 other wild animals due to
competition for forage.
……negative impacts on
30 other wildlife through
habitat alteration caused by
Ethiopian wolf. . . . . . . . . . .
...an increase in recreational
31 opportunities associated
with Ethiopian wolf...
...disease transmission from
32 wolf to livestock and other
domestic Animas
surrounding Gaysay,,
…….disease transmission
33 from livestock and other
domestic Animals to
Ethiopian Wolf,
...disease transmission from
34 Ethiopian wolves to other
wildlife in the habitat
...disease transmission from
35 other wildlife to Ethiopian
wolves.

80
Appendix: 3a: Pictures Used To Differentiate Ethiopian Wolf from Other Wild Animals
by key informant

A B

D
C

81
Appendix 3b: Picture Used for Prioritization of Ethiopian wolf Prey by key Informant

A
B

C D

F
E

82
Appendix: 3c. Pictures used for Ethiopian wolfs` Habitat Identification and Prioritization

A B

C D

E F

83