non-detriment finding assessment for the trophy hunting of leopards

Final Report to SANBI

NON‐DETRIMENT FINDING ASSESSMENT

FOR THE TROPHY HUNTING OF LEOPARDS IN SOUTH AFRICA WORKSHOP HELD 7 – 8 DECEMBER 2010

© Charl Senekal www.cmswildlifephotography.com

Editors: Lindsey, P.A., Marnewick, K., Balme, G. & Swanepoel, L. 2 February 2011

Project funded by:

Brenda Potter, The Meredith Bequest (in memory of Courtney & Margaret Meredith and Tony Harris), Menzo Cards, Scovill Zoo, Columbus Zoo and Aquarium and Bob Boden

Venue provided by Johannesburg Zoological Gardens

Leopard: NDF Workshop Report 1


Table of contents Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 3 The Endangered Wildlife Trust Leopard and Cheetah Trade Project ........................................ 4 CITES non‐detriment finding process ........................................................................................ 4 Preliminary non‐detriment finding assessment ........................................................................ 4 Background information: What different types of harvest of Leopards are there? ................. 6 a. Control of damage‐causing Leopards ............................................................................. 7 b. Trophy hunting .............................................................................................................. 10 c. Illegal hunting................................................................................................................ 15 d. Capture of free‐ranging Leopards for the captive trade .............................................. 16

Modelling of the impacts of human‐induced mortality of Leopards ...................................... 17 The non‐detriment finding assessment ................................................................................... 18 1. Biological characteristics ............................................................................................... 19 1.1. Life history ............................................................................................................. 19 1.2. Ecological adaptability .......................................................................................... 20 1.3. Dispersal efficiency ................................................................................................ 21 1.4. Interaction with humans ....................................................................................... 21

2. National status .............................................................................................................. 22 2.1. National distribution .............................................................................................. 22 2.2. National abundance .............................................................................................. 23 2.3. National population trend ..................................................................................... 23 2.4. Quality of information............................................................................................... 24 2.5. What are the major threats affecting the species? .................................................. 24

3. Harvest management ................................................................................................... 25 3.1. Illegal harvest or trade .......................................................................................... 25 3.2. Management history ............................................................................................. 25 3.3. Management plan or equivalent ........................................................................... 25 3.4. Aim of harvest regime in management planning .................................................. 26 3.5. Quotas ................................................................................................................... 26

4. Control of harvest ......................................................................................................... 26 4.1. Harvesting in protected areas ............................................................................... 26 4.2. Harvesting in areas with strong resource tenure or ownership ............................ 26 4.3. Harvesting in areas with open access .................................................................... 27 4.4. Confidence in harvest management ...................................................................... 27

5. Monitoring of harvest ................................................................................................... 27 5.1. Methods used to monitor the harvest ................................................................... 27 5.2. Confidence in the harvest monitoring ................................................................... 27

6. Incentives and benefits from harvesting ...................................................................... 28 6.1. Utilization compared to other threats ................................................................... 28 6.2. Incentives for species conservation ....................................................................... 28 6.3. Incentives for habitat conservation ....................................................................... 29

7. Protection from harvest ................................................................................................ 29 7.1. Proportion strictly protected ................................................................................. 29 7.2. Effectiveness of strict protection measures ........................................................... 29 7.3. Regulation of harvest effort .................................................................................. 30

Non‐detriment finding assessment outcome .......................................................................... 30 Recommendations for key required interventions ................................................................. 31 References ............................................................................................................................... 36



Executive summary

• In 2004, the South African trophy quota for Leopards was increased from 75 to 150, despite lack of information on the population status and trends of Leopards, and in the absence of a non‐detriment finding (NDF) assessment.

• To rectify this situation, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), in conjunction with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) resolved to collect the necessary data required for an NDF assessment for Leopards.

• During April 2010, a preliminary Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) non‐detriment finding (NDF) assessment for Leopards was conducted.

• That assessment highlighted that insufficient data were available to state that the current hunting trophy quota for Leopards is not detrimental.

• The preliminary NDF assessment highlighted key informational gaps, and guided a data collection phase aimed at providing the basis for a formal NDF assessment.

• Data on the utilization and trade of Leopards were collected from provincial and national governments during April‐November 2010.

• A formal NDF assessment was then held at Johannesburg zoo in December 2010, involving 30 people from a variety of stakeholder groups, including inter alia: national and provincial government, NGOs, universities, Wildlife Ranching South Africa, the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa, the Pan African Association of Zoos and Aquaria.

• The outcome of the NDF assessment was: conditional acceptance of the quota of 150 for a period of five years, contingent on monitoring programmes being implemented and efforts being implemented to prevent clumping of off‐takes.

• Effective monitoring of trophy hunting must be implemented urgently to prevent spatial clumping of off‐takes and to allow adaptive management in response to trends in trophy sizes and/or hunting success.

• Monitoring of Leopard populations is also required, to provide greater insights into densities and abundance, and most importantly, trends in populations.

• Research is urgently required to better document levels of illegal harvest of Leopards, most notably of illegal damage‐causing animal (DCA) control and illegal hunting for the skin trade.

• There is a need for a national management plan for Leopards to provide for standardized management of trophy hunting, DCAs and holding of the species in captivity.

• There is a need for improved and standardized data capture relating to Leopard harvest issues and presentation by provinces.

• The provision of adequate data related to trophy hunting and other forms of Leopard harvest by provincial departments to the Department of Environmental Affairs should be a pre‐requisite for provinces to qualify for hunting quotas.

• There is a need for improved relations between stakeholders involved in Leopard management, including national and provincial government, landowners, commodity‐based organisations, non‐government organisation (NGOs) and researchers, to allow for more coordination of effort.



The Endangered Wildlife Trust Leopard and Cheetah Trade Project During 2010, the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) in conjunction with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) undertook a project to assess the scale and impacts of consumptive utilization and trade of Leopards and Cheetahs. Both species are significantly impacted by consumptive utilization (some of which is legal and some illegal), and both are subject to trade (of both live animals and body parts). Leopards are an important species for the trophy hunting industry. In 2004, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) quota for Leopards was increased from 75 to 150 animals despite a lack of adequate information on the size and trends of the national population. Cheetahs may not be hunted as trophies in South Africa, though there are growing calls from some sectors (namely the wildlife‐ranching and trophy hunting industries) for that to change. The EWT trade project was thus timely. A key objective of this study was to improve understanding of the scale and impacts of various forms of harvest of Leopards and Cheetahs, to provide baseline data from which to conduct a CITES non‐detriment finding (NDF) assessment. Information was gathered on a variety of issues for Cheetahs and Leopards, including:

a) Levels of legal harvest (including trophy hunting, damage‐causing animal [DCA] control, etc)

b) Levels of illegal harvest (e.g. illegal trophy hunting, illegal DCA control, snaring, hunting for skins, road kills, etc)

c) National and provincial legislation d) National and provincial protocols for managing utilization and trade e) The way in which legislation is applied in practise, and the quality of law

enforcement relating to the two species f) The way in which data are captured and stored g) The way in which cross‐border trade in Cheetah and Leopard products is controlled h) An overall assessment of the quality of the management of harvest and trade of

Cheetahs and Leopards

CITES non‐detriment finding process The CITES NDF assessment process is typically used to determine whether quotas of species affected by trade are justified. The system is most often used to determine whether a CITES II listing is justified, or whether a species should have a CITES I listing. In the case of Leopards, which are on CITES Appendix I and have a CITES quota allocation, the NDF exercise was conducted to assess the sustainability of the current trophy export quota. The NDF assessment process involves scoring of issues relating to the harvest of a species, the impacts of the harvest and the monitoring and regulation of the harvest. Preliminary non‐detriment finding assessment A workshop was held at the Johannesburg Zoo on April 6th 2010, attended by 17 experts, including scientific experts and government representatives (Appendix 1). During the workshop, a preliminary NDF assessment was conducted in which participants were requested to allocate scores to a series of questions relating to the biology of the species, harvest of the species and management of the harvest. Low scores were indicative of



resilience of the species, effective management or low impact of harvest, whereas high scores denoted the opposite (or lack of data and uncertainty). The scores granted for each question were used to generate a radar plot, which provides the basis for making the NDF assessment (Figure 1). According to the guidelines for assisting parties in making NDF decisions “If the harvest is likely to be non‐detrimental, most of the answers will be depicted near the centre of the circle”. “Outlying points may indicate a low confidence in the probability that the harvest is sustainable and should prompt the Scientific Authority to look in more detail at the responses. It may be that further investigation is needed or that insufficient information exists with which to make a non‐detriment finding”. This process highlighted that major informational gaps prevented a satisfactory NDF assessment. Several scores on the radar chart were depicted near the outside of the circle (Figure 1). Consequently, with the information at hand, it would have been questionable to have concluded that the trophy quota for Leopards was not detrimental to the persistence of the species in South Africa. The informational shortcomings highlighted during the preliminary workshop guided a data collection phase, conducted during May‐November 2010, during which time an attempt was made to fill some of the gaps. A formal NDF assessment was then conducted on 7‐8 December 2010, attended by a much wider array of stakeholders.

Figure 1. Preliminary radar chart to assist in decision‐making with the non‐detriment finding for Leopards in South Africa



Background information: What different types of harvest of Leopards are there? During May‐November 2010, data were collected from national government and the provinces on various forms of utilization of Leopards. These data are presented in detail in a separate EWT report (Lindsey 2011). Selected data are presented here as a background to the NDF assessment. The quality and quantity of data available from the provincial nature conservation departments was highly variable, and the project highlighted key shortcomings among some provinces both in terms of the protocols (or lack thereof) for guiding utilization of Leopards, and in the way in which data are captured and stored (discussed in detail by Lindsey [2011]). Summaries of known legal and illegal harvest data are provided in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1: Annual average legal killing/removals of Leopards (individuals/year) in South Africa (data were available for a variable number of years among provinces, ranging from 1‐10 during 2000‐2010). NB these data (obtained from provincial nature conservation departments) represent underestimates due to flaws in the provincial data capture and recording systems which prevent all incidents from being recorded.

Trophy hunting

Legal lethal DCA control

Translocation *

Destruction in self defence Total

Gauteng 0.6 0 0.1 0 0.7 North West 8.6 0.7 0 0.5 9.8 Mpumalanga 6.0 0 0.4 0.2 6.6 Northern Cape 0 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.2 Western Cape 0 0.3 0 0 0.3 Eastern Cape 0 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.6 Free State 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 KZN 2.6 1.3 0.3 0.3 4.5 Limpopo 31.5 3.9 3.7 0.5 39.6 Total 49.4 7.3 6.6 2.2 65.5

*Not including cases where Leopards were caught and re‐released in the same area



Table 2: Annual average illegal killing/removals of Leopards (individuals/year) in South Africa (data were available for a variable number of years among provinces, ranging from 1‐10 during 2000‐2010). (NB these data (obtained from provincial nature conservation offices) represent gross underestimates due to the lack of reliable data on illegal off‐takes and the inherent difficulty associated with obtaining such data)

Skin trade Poaching

Road kills

Illegal lethal DCA control

Illegal trophy hunting Total

Gauteng 2.5 0.1 0.1 0 0 2.7 North West 1 0 0.3 0.3 0 1.6 Mpumalanga 0.6 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.3 4.4 Northern Cape 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.6 Western Cape 0.6 0 0.2 0.7 0 1.5 Eastern Cape 0.3 0 0 10.2 0 10.5 Free State 0 0 0 0 0 0 KZN 19.8 2 0.1 21.9 Limpopo 0 0.2 0.6 0 1.6 2.4 Total 24.8 2.8 3.8 12.3 1.9 45.6

a. Control of damage‐causing Leopards Under the national Threatened and Protected Species regulations (ToPs), provincial nature conservation authorities are required to issue permits to hunt, catch, sell, import, convey, kill or export any Leopards (Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2008). However, the bases with which permits for problem Leopard control are issued varies between (and some cases within) provinces, as does the degree of effective regulation of off‐take. Mpumalanga, KZN, Northern, Eastern and Western Cape have official guidelines on how to manage damage‐causing predators, whereas the other provinces (including Limpopo and North West, which are key areas for Leopards) do not, preventing effective management of the issue. Data collected from provinces suggest that 0‐3.9 damage‐causing Leopards are removed legally through lethal means annually, depending on the province (Figure 2). Estimates of illegal lethal removals of damage‐causing Leopards from the provinces range from 0‐10.2 individuals per year. However, these estimates are likely to be major underestimates: in some provincial, even legal off‐takes are poorly documented, and in all provinces, only a small (and unknown) fraction of illegal removals are documented. In some provinces, progress has been made in reducing the number of Leopards killed as DCAs. For example, in the Cederberg area of the Western Cape, the recorded removals of problem Leopards have declined significantly in recent years, from 7‐8.6 per year during 1950 – 2003, to 0.8 per year from 2004‐2006 (Martins & Martins 2006). Similarly, the numbers of problem Leopards killed in northern KZN declined significantly after 2005 (Balme et al. 2009). In the case of the Western Cape, reduced off‐take appears to have been due to educational efforts by Leopard researchers and the development of alternative livestock protection techniques (Martins & Martins 2006), whereas that in northern KZN was probably due to the implementation of a revised protocol for issuing problem Leopard permits (Balme et al. 2009).



However, in other parts of KZN and in other provinces, illegal killing of alleged DCAs is believed to be a major conservation threat for Leopards. Unfortunately though, for most provinces, few recorded incidents of illegal harvest have been recorded, despite suspicions that such events are common (Figure 3). In Eastern Cape, an amnesty was granted to farmers in exchange for information on illegal killing of alleged damage‐causing Leopards, suggesting such harvest is significant. From discussion with nature conservation officials, similar (or perhaps even worse) patterns are likely to exist in some other provinces (and notably Limpopo and North West).

Figure 2. Recorded annual legal lethal control of damage‐causing animals (data recorded for various lengths of time [1‐10 years] going back from 2010, depending on the provinces). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Figure 3. Recorded annual incidents of illegal control of damage‐causing Leopards (data recorded for various lengths of time going back from 2010). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



Alternatives to lethal control Translocation is practised as a means of controlling damage‐causing Leopards in most provinces, and is most commonly applied in Limpopo, Northern Cape and Eastern Cape (Figure 4). Translocation is generally not practised in Gauteng, Western Cape or KZN.

Figure 4. Annual translocations of alleged damage‐causing Leopards (information presented for various lengths of time during 2000‐2010 depending on data availability in each province). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Indications in the literature are that translocation is not an effective tool for managing problem Leopards because of weak release‐site fidelity and a tendency for translocated stock‐killers to resume their old habits in their new surrounds (Hamilton 1981; Linnell et al. 1997; Athreya 2006; Weilenmann et al. 2010). Of eight problem Leopards that were collared and translocated in Kenya, all left the national park into which they were released and some began killing livestock (Linnell et al. 1997). In one case in Botswana, a translocated Leopard moved 1,249 km from the release site (Weilenmann et al. 2010). Due to the questionable effectiveness of translocation, KZN and Western Cape do not permit translocation of damage‐causing Leopards. North West and Western Cape have a policy of capturing (sometimes radio‐collaring) and re‐releasing damage‐causing Leopards at the capture site in the belief that the stress associated with such an event will alter their behaviour (Figure 5).



Figure 5. Recorded annual frequency of capture and re‐release incidents (data recorded for various lengths of time going back from 2010). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

b. Trophy hunting Trophy hunting off‐takes In 2004, the national CITES quota allocation for Leopard trophies increased from 75 to 150 (Daly 2005). During 1996 to 2004, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) allocated 74‐75 CITES permits to the provinces each year, increasing to 77‐95during 2004‐2010 (Figure 6). During 2000‐2006, a total of 27‐72 Leopards were recorded as being hunted as trophies in South Africa (Figure 6). By contrast, 78‐139 Leopard trophies were recorded as being exported by DEA (from records of CITES export permits – excluding trophies that were imported into South Africa from other African countries and re‐exported) (Figure 7). The mismatch may be due in part to the fact that trophies are not always exported in the same year that they are hunted. In addition, in some cases ‘trophies’ of animals that died natural deaths may be recorded as hunting trophies. However, some of the discrepancy is also likely to be explained by poor record‐keeping by the provinces relating to trophy off‐take. Limpopo, where the large majority of Leopards are hunted has a poor system of record keeping and there is a lack of clarity for many of the hunting tags issued as to whether a Leopard was actually killed or not. Clearly, this situation needs to be rectified forthwith. Evidence of a satisfactory data capture, storage and reporting system should be a pre‐requisite for provinces to qualify for hunting quotas.



Figure 6. Numbers of Leopard hunting permits allocated by DEA and by provincial nature conservation authorities (data available since 2004) and the number of Leopards hunted (data available since 2004). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

DEA permits

Provincial permits

Total shot

After Limpopo, the majority of Leopards are hunted in North West, KZN and Mpumalanga (Figure 8). The average hunting success rates (successful hunts as a proportion of tags allocated by the provinces) for the country as a whole have increased consistently over the last four years, mirroring increases in the success rates in Limpopo where most Leopards are hunted (Figure 9). Hunting industry representatives felt that increasing success was due to an increasing population of Leopards resulting from the increasing prey base associated with the development of game ranching. However, scientists present cautioned that increased success rates could simply be due to increased effort on the part of hunters, or the use of more effective techniques. In Limpopo, where most Leopards are hunted and where record‐keeping is particularly poor, changing ‘success rates’ may also reflect variable efficacy of data capture on the outcome of hunts (i.e. in some years, successful hunts simply may not have been recorded). In Mpumalanga and North West, by contrast, recorded hunting success rates involving Leopards have declined during recent years (Figure 9). Understanding (and reacting to) the causes of changes in the success rates of trophy hunting of Leopards is required.



Figure 7. Comparison between provincial records of Leopards hunted and data on CITES exports of Leopard trophies (compiled by DEA)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

CITES export data

Provincial records

Figure 8. Proportions of the total number of Leopards hunted in South Africa during 2004‐2009. Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.



Figure 9. Success rates of Leopard trophy hunts in South Africa (Leopards hunted as a proportion of the permits allocated by the provinces). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

MP

NW

Limpopo

Gauteng

KZN

Overall

Management of the quota Hunting quotas are allocated by DEA to the provinces following a review of requests by the provincial departments and submission of a motivation as to why they believe their request to be reasonable. KZN and Mpumalanga are the only provinces with official guidelines for managing the trophy hunting of Leopards, and KZN is the only province with guidelines on the sex (male) and age (>4 years) of Leopards that may be hunted. However, even in KZN, the guidelines are not enforced with penalties if hunters harvest young or female Leopards (G. Balme, Panthera, pers. comm.). Records of the sex of Leopards hunted were available from KZN – n=25, Mpumalanga – n=50 and Limpopo – n=47). The overall sex‐ratio of Leopards hunted from these provinces was 66.6%. In Limpopo, 68.1% of Leopards hunted were male. In KZN, prior to the new Leopard hunting protocol (which prohibits the hunting of females), 54% of Leopards hunted were male, whereas 78% were male after the new rules were introduced (G. Balme, Panthera, pers. comm.). In Mpumalanga (the only other province with data on the sex of Leopards hunted), 67.3% of Leopards hunted were male. In Limpopo, for 44 of the Leopards hunted during 2000‐2010, a note was made as to whether the animal shot was an adult (93.2%) or sub adult (6.8%). In Mpumalanga, age estimates were available for 30 of the Leopards shot during 2000‐2010, suggesting that the average age of hunted animals was 5.5 ± 0.33 years. In Mpumalanga and Limpopo, trophy tags are allocated to hunting operators, whereas in KZN they are allocated to land owners. In North West, trophy tags are allocated to both operators and landowners. Within some provinces, and notably North West and formerly KZN, there is a problem with clumped trophy off‐takes, which may increase impacts of the quota. For example, within KZN, 79% of permits were allocated to private land occurring adjacent to Phinda Resource Reserve / Mkhuze Game Reserve (one of the provinces key Leopard populations) (Balme et



al. 2009). Clumping of off‐take of trophy Leopards has been resolved in KZN with the development of a protocol for allocating tags which results in an even spread across Leopard hunting zones. The impact of trophy hunting of Leopards was modelled during a Population and Habitat Viability Analysis workshop, held in 2005. A summary of the findings are presented in Box 1. Box 1: Summary of the PHVA of the impacts of trophy hunting off‐takes of Leopards in South Africa (taken from Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer [2008]) At the 2004 CITES Conference of Parties meeting the South African annual quota for Leopard hunting trophies was increased from 75 to 150 individuals. The potential impact of this increase was assessed by the PHVA participants. Several model scenarios were run to assess the impact of increasing the CITES quota ‐ levels tested were 0, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135 and 150 individuals. The number of Leopards harvested through trophy hunting in the range tested (0 to 150 annually) had no effect on the persistence of Leopards in Kruger, Limpopo, Kalahari and the Western Cape and the risk of extinction over 100 years remains zero for these populations. Orange River, Eastern Cape Valley and the Wild Coast populations remain relatively unaffected, as no Leopards are removed via trophy hunting from these populations. However, the Eastern Cape Mountain population shows a sharp increase in risk of extinction with all levels of trophy hunting due to the constant removal of four Leopards per year under all quota levels. Allocation of just four trophy permits per year to this area increases the risk of extinction in 100 years from 28% to over 60%. Clearly, this population cannot sustain even this minimal level of removal in combination with other threats. The remaining two populations, Waterberg / Mpumalanga and KwaZulu‐Natal are subject to trophy hunting and become smaller and more susceptible to extinction as hunting quotas increase. The probability of extinction for the Waterberg population increases from 16% to 25% with the increase in quota from 75 to 150 Leopards. Of more concern, is the significant decline in mean population size with increased hunting: from over 1000 Leopards with no trophy hunting, to 464 with a quota of 75, to 6 Leopards with the quota of 150. With the annual removal of 42 Leopards from the Waterberg, the mean population size drops below 100, suggesting that increased removal puts this population at a high risk. Increased trophy hunting has the greatest impact on the KwaZulu‐Natal population with the risk of extinction rising from 11% with no hunting to 62% under the 150 quota scenario (with 10 animals being hunted in KwaZulu‐Natal) and mean population size dropping from 393 to 217. Despite the relatively large population size and estimated carrying capacity, the removal of 2‐3 additional Leopards annually puts this population at much greater risk. Increasing the CITES quota from 75 to 150 does not increase the risk of extinction of Leopards throughout South Africa over the next 100 years, but does decrease the overall metapopulation size from a projected 4,631 with no trophy hunting, to 3,844 with a quota of 75 to 3,196 with the 150 quota, representing a decline from 93% to 64% of the carrying capacity. These results suggest that the effects of increased quotas depend on the areas from which Leopards are taken and may lead to local extinctions and reduced population size. These results suggest that the effects of increased quotas will depend in part on the areas from which Leopards are taken and can lead to local extinctions and reduced population size.



c. Illegal hunting Illegal hunting takes various forms, from shooting DCAs without a permit, shooting animals as trophies under the guise of problem animal control, and the hunting of animals for skins or body parts for traditional ceremonies or traditional medicines (Table 2). CITES quotas effectively limit the number of animals that can be sold as high value trophies to hunters wishing to export the trophies. However, some illegal trophy hunting has been recorded in Limpopo and Mpumalanga (Table 2), including one incident where trophies were smuggled to Zimbabwe and re‐exported from there to the U.S. Given that Zimbabwe has an export quota of 500 (compared to South Africa’s 150), the smuggling of Leopard skins across the border provides a clear potential loophole for circumventing CITES restrictions on trophy exports in South Africa. The killing of Leopards in snares either accidentally as a by‐catch of illegal hunting for ungulates, or specifically during targeted hunting for skins is an issue in some areas, and notably in KZN (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Recorded annual losses to snaring (data recorded for various lengths of time going back from 2010). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Killing of Leopards for skins and/or body parts for national and international trade appears to be a major problem in some areas (Figure 11). During 2002‐ mid 2010, 11 incidents were recorded of people caught in illegal possession of Leopard skins in KZN, including one case where the person involved had 92 skins, one case involving 58 skins and one where ‘many’ skins were involved. In Gauteng, several incidences of illegal exports of Leopard skins have been detected at OR Tambo International Airport. In addition, in 2009, a Leopard skin was confiscated from a person selling traditional medicine at Mai‐Mai in Johannesburg. Many more skins are believed to be for sale. However, Gauteng Nature Conservation are not



prosecuting after the court told the department that they need to do extensive education to the sellers who did not know that they needed a permit to sell animal products. The extent and scale of trade in Leopard skins and body parts for cultural and traditional medicine uses is poorly understood but is potentially severe. Understanding the scale and impacts of the Leopard skin trade, and working towards identifying potential solutions represents an urgent research priority.

Figure 11. Recorded annual incidents involving illegal possession/smuggling of Cheetah or Leopard skins (data recorded for various lengths of time going back from 2010) (excluding one case in KZN where a traditional healer was found in possession with ‘many’ skins). Data obtained from provincial nature conservation department records.

0

5

10

15

20

25

d. Capture of free‐ranging Leopards for the captive trade The capture of wild animals to supply the trade in captive animals is a problem for some predators, and notably Cheetahs in South Africa (Marnewick et al. 2007). The extent to which this issue is a problem for Leopards in South Africa is not clear. There are at least 35 facilities with captive Leopards in South Africa, only nine of which are known to breed, suggesting that sourcing from the wild may be an issue. In addition, there is a risk that the genetics of captive Leopards may be compromised through mismanagement of captive populations. Breeding Leopards for reintroduction has little conservation value, and there are more captive facilities holding Leopards than can be justified on educational grounds. Given the potential risk of wild Leopards being used to source such facilities, and the risk of genetic mismanagement, consideration should be given to restricting the holding of Leopards in captivity to a much smaller number of reputable, educational facilities.




Modelling of the impacts of human‐induced mortality of Leopards F. Dalerum a, L. Swanepoel a & P. Lindsey b, c

a Centre for Wildlife Management University of Pretoria b Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria c Endangered Wildlife Trust A brief summary of a modelling exercise conducted by Dalerum et al. (in prep) is outlined here. A detailed overview of the methods, assumptions made, and results are provided in Lindsey et al. (2011). A temporally discrete stochastic population model with a simple sex and age structure was (Dalerum et al., 2008) was used to assess the likely impact of trophy hunting (and other forms of human‐induced mortality) on Leopard populations. Estimates of legal and illegal off‐takes were derived from data collected from provincial nature conservation authorities, and multiple scenarios were considered, including those whereby off‐takes were markedly higher than those recorded by the provinces. Population estimates for Leopards were based on those generated during the PHVA exercise (Daly et al. 2005). For a variety of simulation scenarios, we estimated probabilities of population decline and extinction using generalised linear models, where we used binomial probabilities of decline or extinction as dependent variables and population size and off‐take as predictors. Our simulations indicated that leopards can sustain a total annual mortality of approximately 30%, above which population declines are predicted. In simulations where non‐human caused mortality was set to average values from empirical studies from South Africa, additive human off‐takes of up to 10% did not result in any substantial rise in probabilities of population decline. Therefore, current trophy off‐takes do not appear threaten the population in South Africa as a whole. However, some smaller populations may be more vulnerable depending on the accuracy of population estimates and the extent of illegal off‐takes. These findings are in keeping with the PHVA conducted in 2005 (summarized in Box 1), but contradict some recent models containing a much finer resolution in the demographic processes included in the simulations (Caro et al. 2009; Packer et al. 2010). However, since there is not enough demographic data to parameterize such models for a South African scenario, we do not regard it to be germane to run simulations at this fine resolution for the South African region. While both the modelling presented here and that conducted during the PHVA are coarse exercises, they both point to two key findings: firstly, that the quota of 150 is unlikely to threaten the South African Leopard population as a whole; and, secondly, that care is required when issuing quotas to areas with smaller and more fragmented Leopard populations. In such areas (which include KZN and provinces which do not currently have a quota and notably Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, and Free State), the allocation of hunting quotas should be conducted with care. In those areas, care should be taken to ensure that the quota is spread evenly across the Leopard distribution and monitoring must be done to allow detection of changes in the underlying population and adaptive management in response. Such monitoring should include measures of trophy quality, hunting effort, and success rates and consistent changes in any may indicate a population increase or decline, providing insights in to whether the quotas should be cut or even increased.


It is important to explicitly acknowledge the shortcomings of the data used to construct the model. Population estimates were based largely on the best estimates of experts at the PHVA meeting in 2005 and little or no information is available on population structure or the degree of connectivity between populations. Furthermore, Leopard harvest data collected by Lindsey et al. (2011) are likely to have underestimated illegal off‐takes. For modelling to accurately predict the likely impact of trophy hunting on populations, there is a clear need for additional data, including: estimates of population sizes in each province; knowledge of population structure and the degree of connectivity (dispersal) between different populations; and, an improved understanding of the extent and nature of illegal off‐takes of Leopards in each province. Key methods that should be employed to improve understanding of Leopard populations include spoor counts and camera trapping (involving capture/recapture models). In areas where the presence of Leopards is not certain, sniffer dogs can be used to detect whether scats are present. Research is urgently required into the scale and impacts of illegal off‐takes of Leopards, and particularly that resulting from the skin‐trade and from illegal damage‐causing animal control. Consideration should be given by the provinces to undergoing a process similar to that done by Eastern Cape, whereby amnesty to prosecution is offered in exchange for information on illegal killing of Leopards. Such data would provide a basis for more accurate modelling.

The non‐detriment finding assessment A formal NDF assessment was conducted at Johannesburg Zoo on the 7th and 8th of December, 2010. The assessment was conducted by 30 experts, including inter alia stakeholders from national and provincial government, universities, NGOs, representatives on the wildlife ranching industry, the hunting industry, and the zoological gardens (Appendix II). At the meeting, participants were broken up into two groups, each of which then conducted a separate NDF assessment. The findings of the two groups were then presented and discussed. In cases where they provided different scores during their respective NDF assessments a debate was held until consensus was reached. A summary of these assessments is provided in Table 3 and is discussed below.



1. Biological characteristics 1.1. Life history

NDF assessment scoring: 3 ‐ Low reproductive rate, long lived Background information ‐ Leopards become sexually mature at 2.5 to 4 years of age (Skinner & Smithers 1990). Cubs are weaned at four months and start making their own kills at eight months (Skinner & Smithers 1990). The interval between successive litters from the same female is 16‐17 months in South Africa (Bothma & Walker 1999). The average mortality of cubs prior to independence is estimated at 50% (Hes 1991). Annual mortality among sub adults (1.5‐3.5 years old) in Kruger National Park is estimated to be 32%, compared to 19% for adults (Bailey 1993; Nowell & Jackson 1996). The reproductive lifespan of captive animals is 8.5 years on average, with a maximum of 19 years (Nowell & Jackson 1996). Estimates of the longevity of wild Leopards range from 10 to 15 years (Turnbull & Kemp 1967; Nowell & Jackson 1996). At the Leopard PHVA workshop in 2005, the annual deterministic growth rate was estimated for Leopards to be 10% based on available published information and expert opinion (Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2008). The deterministic growth rate was assumed to be the potential growth in the absence of demographic and environmental variation, inbreeding depression, migration, and harvest (both legal and illegal), with a generation time of about 7 years (7.2 for males, 6.7 for females), and an adult sex ratio of 1.6 females per adult male (Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2008). Table 3: Summary of the scores granted to various categories during the preliminary NDF assessment for Leopards in South Africa (where more than one score was given, this denotes disagreement between the two groups of Leopard experts) Factors affecting management of the harvesting regime Category Characteristic of species/management Scores* ConsensusBiological characteristics Life history Low reproductive rate, long lived 3 3 Ecological adaptability Generalist 2 2 Dispersal efficiency Good 2 2 Interaction with humans Tolerant 3 & 4 3 National status National distribution Widespread, fragmented 2 2 National abundance Uncommon 3 3 National population trend Uncertain 5 5 Quality of information Anecdotal 3 & 4 4 Major threats Uncertain 2 & 5 5 Harvest management Illegal harvest or trade Uncertain 5 5 Management history Ongoing but informal 2 2 Management plan or equivalent No approved plan, informal 2 & 5 4 Aim of harvest regime in management planning

Maximize economic yield 3 3

Quotas Ongoing quotas: cautious national or local

2 2

Category Characteristic of species/management Scores* Consensus



Control of harvest Harvesting in protected areas Low 3 3 Harvesting in areas with strong resource tenure or ownership

High 1 1

Harvesting in areas with open access Low 1 & 2 2 Confidence in harvest management Low confidence 3 3 Monitoring of harvest Methods used to monitor the harvest

National monitoring of exports 4 4

Confidence in harvest monitoring Low confidence 3 3 Incentives and benefits from harvesting

Utilization compared to other threats

Beneficial 1 & 5 1

Incentives for species conservation Medium 2 2 Incentives for habitat conservation Low 3 & 4 4 Protection from harvest Proportion strictly protected 5‐15% 2 2 Effectiveness of strict protection measures

Low confidence 3 & 3 3

Regulation of harvest effort Ineffective 3 3 *Scores provided by the two groups – a range is provided when they differed

1.2. Ecological adaptability (To what extent is the species adaptable [e.g. in its habitat, diet, environmental tolerance, etc]) NDF assessment scoring: 2 ‐ Generalist Background information ‐ Leopards have the widest distribution of any felid (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). Unsurprisingly, therefore, the species has a wide habitat tolerance. The following summary of habitat preferences of Leopards is extracted / adapted from Daly et al. (2005): Leopards are found in all habitats with annual rainfall above 50 mm, and can penetrate drier areas along river courses. For example, Leopards are found along the Orange River in the Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, which lies at the southernmost extension of the Namib Desert (Nowell & Jackson 1996). Leopards are tolerant of a wide range of habitats and climatic conditions, including mountains, bushveld, woodlands, desert and semi‐desert, forest, from sea‐level to 2000 m above sea‐level, in areas receiving <50 ml of rain to areas receiving >1200 ml. Leopards reach their highest densities in woodland savannahs. The wide habitat tolerance of Leopards is partly due to the breadth of their diet, which also explains their ability to persist close to urban areas (Hayward et al. 2006). Prey items range from beetles to ungulates the size of eland Tragelaphus oryx. Habitat can vary from a few scattered shrubs and trees to dense tropical evergreen forests. Furthermore, Leopards are not particularly water‐dependent: in the Kalahari, Leopards have been known to drink only once in ten days (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002).



1.3. Dispersal efficiency (How efficient is the species’ dispersal mechanism at key life stages?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 ‐ Good Background information ‐ Several of the 10 identified core Leopard populations may be connected and Leopards may also move between populations in South Africa and those occurring in Botswana and Zimbabwe (Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2008) (though it is not clear what evidence is available to document such movements) (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Ten Leopard populations in South Africa that were identified at the 2005 PHVA workshop, and used in the Vortex model. Arrows indicate dispersal pathways incorporated in the baseline model (yellow=dispersal within South Africa; green=movement across international boundaries) (taken from Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2008)

1.4. Interaction with humans (Is the species tolerant of human activity other than harvest?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 ‐ Tolerant Background information ‐ Leopards are very successful at adapting to altered natural habitat and settled environments (Nowell and Jackson 1996). Points of contention – One group considered Leopards to be tolerant, while the other felt that they were sensitive. Following an open discussion, consensus was reached that Leopards are tolerant relative to most large mammal species and are more able to persist in human‐modified environments than most species, and certainly more than most predators.



2. National status 2.1. National distribution

(How is the species distributed nationally?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 – Widespread, fragmented Background information ‐ The following has been extracted/adapted from Daly et al. (2005): The distribution of Leopards in South Africa has been substantially reduced through agricultural development, persecution and human population encroachment, and today they are found only in the remote mountainous regions of the Western Cape, parts of the North West Province, Limpopo Province, Mpumalanga, KZN, and the semi‐desert areas of the Northern Cape bordering on Botswana (Figure 13). Healthy populations exist in both the Magaliesberg and Waterberg. In the former they were largely maintained by the large population of hyrax Procavia capensis, a favoured prey species. There are possibly still small, isolated populations of Leopard in the KZN Drakensberg mountain range and in the forest biome of the Eastern Cape (Mills & Hes 1997). Small populations occur within the full extent of the Cape Folded Mountains, from the Cederberg Mountains of the Western Cape, to the far eastern reaches of the mountains in the southern Cape. Isolated occurrences of Leopards are even recorded along the West Coast as far as Lamberts Bay. Friedmann & Daly (2004) describe the area of occupancy as being >2,001 km2 and the extent of occurrence as being >20,000 km2.

Figure 13. Leopard distribution in South Africa (Friedmann & Daly 2004)



2.2. National abundance (What is the species’ abundance nationally?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 ‐ Uncommon Background information ‐ Using population models and regressions to predict Leopard densities based on rainfall, Martin & De Meulenaer (1988) estimated that South Africa hosts >23,400 Leopards. However, that estimate is considered to exaggerate numbers significantly (Daly et al. 2005; Balme et al. 2009), and so attendees at the Leopard PHVA meeting in 2005 conducted a population estimation exercise based on knowledge of local population densities and distribution (Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer 2005). This process resulted in an estimate of 2,185 to 6,780 Leopards in South Africa, with a best guess estimate of 4,250 Leopards (Table 4). Leopard populations are smaller and more fragmented than previously appreciated (Daly 2005). Table 4. Minimum, most likely and maximum population estimates for Leopards in South Africa (based on participants’ opinions at the 2005 PHVA meeting, Friedmann & Traylor‐Holzer [2008])

Minimum Likely Maximum Greater Kruger 750 1200 1500 Northern Limpopo 500 1250 2000 Waterberg & Mpumalanga 400 850 1600 Northern KZN 200 400 600 Kalahari 30 50 70 Orange River 20 30 60 Western Cape 200 350 600 Eastern Cape Mountains 35 40 80 Eastern Cape Valley 30 50 150 Wild Coast 20 30 120 Total 2,185 4,250 6,780

In the Kruger National Park, Bailey (1993) estimated average Leopard density at 3.5 adults per 100 km2, with much higher densities of up to 30.3 per 100 km2 in the riparian forest zones. Leopard densities are lowest in arid environments (Martin & De Meulenaer 1988). For example Leopards occur at densities of 1.25 adults per 100 km2 in the South African portion of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (Martin & De Meulenaer 1988).

2.3. National population trend (What is the recent population trend?) NDF assessment scoring: 5 ‐ Uncertain Point of contention‐ Two attendees from the wildlife ranching and hunting industry in Limpopo felt strongly that Leopard populations were increasing due to the spread of wildlife‐based land uses on private land and the resultant increase in prey availability. The Wildlife Ranching South



Africa representative pointed out that Leopards are now being seen in areas in the Eastern Cape from which they have been absent for decades, and the hunting industry representative from Limpopo suggested that increasing hunting success rates in the province are indicative of increased populations. However, other attendees stressed that there are no reliable scientific data on Leopard population trends. Background information ‐ Friedmann & Daly (2004) suggest that the population of Leopards in South Africa has increased in recent years. The population in protected areas is probably stable, and that occurring in the Western Cape appears to be increasing (Friedmann & Daly 2004). Pure game ranchers are more tolerant of Leopards than livestock farmers (Lindsey et al. 2005) and with the increasing shift towards wildlife ranching on private land, conditions for conserving Leopards outside of protected areas have probably improved in recent years. Hunter & Balme suggested that game ranchers are more negative towards Leopards than livestock farmers. However, the game farmers in their study area were typically mixed livestock/game farmers who are generally among the most negative of ranchers towards predators, because under such conditions everything that Leopards eat may be perceived by the landowner to impose costs (Lindsey et al. 2005). The shift to game ranching may thus impart mixed impacts on Leopards. Where practised purely (i.e. without livestock), increased rancher tolerance and elevated prey availability may provide improved conditions for Leopard survival. 2.4. Quality of information (What type of information is available to describe the abundance and trend in the national population?) NDF assessment scoring: 4 – Anecdotal information Point of contention‐ One group felt that there are outdated quantitative data available, whereas the other group felt that the information available was largely anecdotal. Consensus was that the data available are largely anecdotal, because detailed information on abundance and trends are available for a small fraction of the species’ range. Background information ‐ Understanding of the distribution of Leopards is probably reasonably good. However, information on population sizes and of population trends is poor and generally lacking. 2.5. What are the major threats affecting the species? (What major threat is the species facing and how severe is it? – overuse / habitat loss / invasive species / other) NDF assessment scoring: 5 ‐ Uncertain



Point of contention‐ One group felt that the major threats were limited/reversible, whereas the other group felt that both the identity of the major threat and the severity of that threat are uncertain. Consensus was with the latter group: research conducted in the lead‐up to this meeting suggested that illegal hunting of alleged DCAs and illegal hunting for skins may be significant, but due to the lack of reliable data there is no certainty on the impact of these threats on populations. Background information ‐ Key threats to Leopard populations include: excessive off‐takes of DCAs; poorly managed trophy hunting; illegal hunting of animals for skins and body parts for traditional ceremonies and medicines; and habitat loss. Habitat loss is also an increasing problem due to the development of urban areas, mines and agriculture. In the Western Cape, the loss of wilderness areas is resulting in reduced habitat for Leopard prey species such as hyrax and small antelopes, increasing the likelihood of Leopards relying on livestock as prey items (Martins & Martins 2006). At this stage, the relative severity of threats is unknown, due to lack of reliable data on illegal harvests of Leopards.

3. Harvest management 3.1. Illegal harvest or trade

(How significant is the national problem of illegal or unmanaged harvest or trade?) NDF assessment scoring: 5 ‐ Uncertain

Background information – Little is known about the extent of illegal harvest and trade in South Africa.

3.2. Management history (What is the history of harvest?)

NDF assessment scoring: 2 – Managed harvest: ongoing but informal Background information – Trophy hunting and legal DCA control is formally managed, but several other forms of harvest are not (e.g. illegal DCA control, illegal hunting for skins, snaring, road kills).

3.3. Management plan or equivalent (Is there a management plan related to the harvest of the species?) NDF assessment scoring: 4 – No approved management plan: informal, unplanned management Point of contention ‐ One group felt that there is/are approved national/provincial plan(s) whereas the other group felt that the status of management plans was uncertain.



Background information‐ Some provinces have management plans which address aspects of the management of the species (e.g. trophy hunting, or DCAs) but not the species as a whole. There was consensus among attendees at the meeting that there is a need for a national management plan which provides standardized guidelines to provinces for the management of the species.

3.4. Aim of harvest regime in management planning (What is harvest aiming to achieve?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 – Maximise economic yield Point of contention ‐ Trophy hunting is practised to maximize economic returns, and DCA‐control is practised with the objective of minimising economic losses.

3.5. Quotas (Is the harvest based on a system of quotas?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 – Ongoing quotas: ‘cautious’ national or local Background information‐ Quotas are somewhat arbitrarily established, based on population estimates. However, quotas are generally conservative.

4. Control of harvest 4.1. Harvesting in protected areas

(What percentage of legal national harvest occurs in state‐protected areas?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 ‐ Low

Background information ‐ Leopards are trophy hunted in a minority of protected areas. Some Leopards residing primarily in protected areas are killed when they leave the sanctuary of parks and reserves (Balme et al. 2010a).

4.2. Harvesting in areas with strong resource tenure or ownership (What percentage of the legal national harvest occurs outside protected areas in areas with strong local control over resource use?)

NDF assessment scoring: 1 ‐ High

Background information ‐ The large majority of Leopard trophy hunting occurs on private land.



4.3. Harvesting in areas with open access (What percentage of the legal national harvest occurs in areas where there is no strong local control giving de facto or actual open‐access?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 ‐ Low Point of contention ‐ There was debate concerning the extent to which harvesting occurs in areas with no local control. One group felt that no such off‐takes occur, whereas the other group felt that occasional off‐take may occur in communal lands lacking effective local control over resources. Subsequent discussions with hunting operators indicated that some hunting of predators does occur in communal lands.

4.4. Confidence in harvest management (Do budgetary and other factors allow effective implementation of management plan(s) and harvest controls?)

NDF assessment scoring: 3 – Low confidence

Background info‐ Some provinces have the resources to implement management plans and effective controls over harvest: other provinces less so.

5. Monitoring of harvest

5.1. Methods used to monitor the harvest (What is the principal method used to monitor the effects of the harvest?) NDF assessment scoring: 4 – National monitoring of exports Background information ‐

The DEA records CITES export permits allocated, and the numbers of Leopard hunting trophies exported from each province.

5.2. Confidence in the harvest monitoring

(Do budgetary and other factors allow effective harvest monitoring?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 – Low confidence Background information ‐

The degree of monitoring varies among the provinces, reflecting variation in available resources and the effectiveness of management structures. Generally, there is little or no monitoring of harvest during the actual trophy hunts. Overall, confidence in the monitoring of trophy hunting is low. Monitoring of other forms of harvest (e.g. DCA‐control) is even less effective.



6. Incentives and benefits from harvesting 6.1. Utilization compared to other threats

(What is the effect of the harvest when taken together with the major threat that has been identified for this species?)

NDF assessment scoring: 1 – Beneficial Background information ‐

The relationship between harvesting and other threats (such as illegal DCA control) is not clear. On the one hand, the potential for generating financial incentives from trophy hunting means that attitudes of landowners towards Leopards are better than for other predator species where such potential does not exist (Lindsey et al. 2005). Furthermore, the attitude of game ranchers who practise consumptive use of wildlife are more positive towards all predators than livestock farmers, except for Cheetahs and Wild Dogs, which are species that are not legally hunted in South Africa (Lindsey et al. 2005). However, the influence of legal hunting quotas on predator tolerance is not always clear (Tereves 2009). In northern KZN, the landowners who hunted the most Leopards also has the highest illegal off‐take of alleged DCA animals (G. Balme pers comm.). However, it must be noted that the farmers in Balme’s study area were largely mixed livestock and game farmers, which is the land use most likely to induce conflict between predators and humans (Lindsey et al. 2005). Under conditions of pure wildlife ranching (and even potentially on pure livestock farms), gains in tolerance through the allocation of hunting quotas would intuitively be expected to be greater. Clearly, more research is required to understand the complex relationship between trophy hunting and tolerance of land owners towards predators. Poorly managed trophy hunting can impart negative impacts on Leopard populations. Excessive quotas, spatial clumping of hunts or removals of adult females would be expected to compound the impacts of other threats such as illegal DCA‐control. In northern KZN for example, trophy hunting was detrimental to the Leopard population prior to the revision of the Leopard hunting protocol (Balme et al. 2009). However, in general, the consensus at the workshop was that trophy hunting can be beneficial through the creation of incentives for conservation of the species which may offset illegal harvest of alleged DCAs.

6.2. Incentives for species conservation (At the national level, how much conservation benefit is derived from harvesting?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 – Medium

Background information ‐ The attitudes of ranchers towards Leopards are more positive than towards other large predator species, due in part to the fact that they are perceived to have value through trophy hunting (Lindsey et al. 2005). Consequently, harvest through trophy hunting can create incentives for their conservation. Balme et al. (2010a) showed evidence to the contrary – that landowners who hunt the highest number of Leopards also remove the highest number illegally suggesting that trophy hunting does not have a positive impact on



rancher attitudes. However, most of the farms in Balme’s (2010a) study area were mixed livestock/wildlife ranchers, the land use on which attitudes towards predators are typically most negative (because virtually anything that predators eat creates conflict with the landowner) (Lindsey et al. 2005). Positive impacts of allowing trophy hunting of Leopards are likely to be higher on pure wildlife ranches, or on livestock farms where other wildlife is not generally utilized, where the degree of conflict with Leopards is typically lower (Lindsey et al. 2005).

6.3. Incentives for habitat conservation (At the national level, how much habitat conservation benefit is derived from harvesting?)

NDF assessment scoring: 4 ‐ None

Point of contention ‐ There was disagreement between the two groups – one felt that trophy hunting of Leopards yielded incentives for land to be used for wildlife production, whereas the other felt that Leopards contributed little overall to the decision of landowners to ranch with livestock or wildlife. Consensus was that Leopards are likely to have little or no influence in isolation on the land use decisions of landowners.

7. Protection from harvest 7.1. Proportion strictly protected

(What percentage of the species’ natural range or population is legally excluded from harvest?) NDF assessment scoring: 2 – 5‐15%

Background information ‐ The exact size of the geographic distribution of Leopards in South Africa is not known. However, due to the fact that the majority of the species distribution occurs outside protected areas, and also due to the fact that populations occurring in protected areas incur edge‐effects due to mortality of animals moving into adjacent unprotected areas, a relatively small proportion of the species range is likely to be excluded from harvesting. For example, in Phinda Resource Reserve in KZN, the density of Leopards declined from 11.1/100 km2 in the centre of the protected area, to 7.2/100 km2 at the periphery due to harvesting of Leopards in the areas adjacent to the reserve (Balme et al. 2010a). However, the cores of larger protected areas such Kruger National Park and Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park are likely to be relatively free of harvesting.

7.2. Effectiveness of strict protection measures (Do budgetary and other factors give confidence in the effectiveness of measures taken to afford strict protection?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 – Low confidence



Background information ‐ The imposition of a CITES quota on the number of trophies that are exported does limit the number of animals that are hunted in South Africa every year, as foreign hunters are generally only willing to pay for hunts of animals that they would be permitted to export the trophy of. However, such restrictions have no impact on the level of DCA‐control, and do not prevent illegal hunting for skins from occurring.

7.3. Regulation of harvest effort (How effective are any restrictions on harvesting [such as age, size, season or equipment] for preventing over‐use?) NDF assessment scoring: 3 ‐ Ineffective Background information ‐ With the exception of KZN which limits hunting to male Leopards of >4 years, there are no restrictions on the age, sex or trophy size of Leopards that may be hunted. Non‐detriment finding assessment outcome The scores granted for each question were used to generate a radar plot, which provides the basis for making the NDF assessment (Figure 14). According to the guidelines for assisting parties in making NDF decisions “If the harvest is likely to be non‐detrimental, most of the answers will be depicted near the centre of the circle”. “Outlying points may indicate a low confidence in the probability that the harvest is sustainable and should prompt the Scientific Authority to look in more detail at the responses. It may be that further investigation is needed or that insufficient information exists with which to make a non‐detriment finding”.

Figure 14. Radar chart to assist in decision‐making with the non‐detriment finding for Leopards in South Africa (summarising results from Table 3)



From Figure 14, it is clear that the majority of answers were depicted near the inside of the circle. In keeping with this, and taking into account modelling conducted at the PHVA meeting and prior to this NDF assessment (Daly 2005; Dalerum et al. in prep.), both groups decided that there was no evidence to suggest that the quota of 150 was problematic and recommended that it be retained cautiously for the next five years. This retention is on the condition that trophy quotas are allocated in a manner likely to prevent clumped off‐takes, that monitoring of trophy harvests and of key Leopard populations be implemented. The quota should be managed adaptively in response to the outcome of this monitoring. Recommendations for key required interventions Recommendations were made for key interventions required to address the points that lay near the outside of the radar chart, to support ongoing retention of a quota of 150 trophy Leopards in South Africa:

1. Improve monitoring of trophy hunting The monitoring of trophy hunting should include the introduction of hunt‐return forms, designed to capture the following information:

• The name of the person that the permit was issued to • Record of whether the permit was issued to a landowner or hunting operator • Whether or not a Leopard was killed or wounded • The name of the farms and land owners of the areas where the hunt was attempted

and successful • The name of the hunting operator • The number of baits and bait sites used (even if the hunt was not successful) • An estimate of the number of Leopards that came in to the baits (regardless of

whether the hunt was successful) • If a Leopard was not killed, an explanation by the permit holder as to why s/he thinks

the hunt failed • The number of days taken to hunt the Leopard from arrival of the client to the

animal being shot • The hunting methods employed (regardless of whether the hunt was successful) • The number of baits used during the hunt • The time and date that the Leopard was hunted • The location (farm name and GPS) where the Leopard was shot • The gender of the Leopard hunted (if female, whether it was pregnant or lactating) • The skull length and width of the Leopard hunted • (NB: The skull should be assessed by an independent body before it is exported e.g.

outfitters must present the skull (and skin) to an agency official prior to receiving their CITES tag).

• The length of the Leopard hunted, from tip of tail to tip of nose • Photographs of the hunted Leopard (with scale references and a time/date stamp),

including: a 90o side‐on photo (with a person directly behind for scale),a portrait shot (front of face showing nose and facial scarring),a photo of the teeth from the front



(pull back lips to expose full dentition), a photo of the teeth from the left (pull back lips to expose full dentition), a photo of the teeth, and a photo from behind clearly showing whether testes are present. These photos will assist with confirming the size, gender and age (from teeth wear, facial scarring and nose pigmentation) of the animal hunted.

• Genetic sample of the Leopard hunted (e.g. skin‐sample) • A pre‐molar extracted for x‐ray aging purposes (the pulp cavity closes at a

predictable rate as Leopards age – such teeth are small and vestigial and their removal has minimal impact on the appearance of the trophy)

• Land use of farm • The name and nationality of the hunter who killed the Leopard

The submission of hunt‐returns should be enforced: if accurate hunt return forms are not submitted (for both successful and unsuccessful hunts), operators should be penalised (e.g. a fine should be issued, the trophy should be confiscated or the professional hunter/operator should face a temporary ban). Data from hunt return forms should be collated and analysed and mapped annually by the provinces and feedback provided to DEA. The provinces should use these reports as a basis from which to decide how many permits to apply for, and by DEA to decide how many tags to allocate to each province. Provinces that fail to provide feedback to DEA should have quotas withheld. The maps produced will help to guide the provinces and help them prevent the allocation of hunting permits in a spatially clumped manner.

2. Improved monitoring of other forms of harvest There is a need for improved monitoring of other forms of harvest, and notably legal and illegal DCA‐ control and illegal hunting for skins. A study is urgently required to assess the scale of the illegal trade in Leopard skins. Similarly, illegal lethal DCA‐control is believed to be a major problem. In the Eastern Cape, some success has been had with offering amnesty to farmers in exchange for information on illegal Leopard killings. Similar initiatives elsewhere may provide key insights into illegal harvests which would improve our understanding of the likely impacts of trophy hunting (and other human‐induced mortality) on Leopard populations in the country. At present, even legal DCA‐control of Leopards is poorly documented in some provinces. Legal DCA permits need to be monitored rigorously, and follow‐ups made to document what happened following the issuance of each permit. For each damage‐causing animal permit issued, the following information should be recorded:

• The date of issuance • The period of validity of the permit • The name and age of the person that the permit was issued to • The position of the person the permit was issued to (i.e. land owner, hunting

operator, nature conservation official, etc) • Farm name (proper registry name, plus ‘popular’ name used to sell farm) • Primary land use of property



• Note of the number of previous permits issued to the same property, with dates • Note of the number of animals of that species removed from the property • Record of interventions made by the farmer to reduce losses to the predator • The reason that the permit was issued (i.e. cause of conflict) • Record of the number of animals allegedly lost to the DCA animal • Whether the site was visited by a nature conservation official to confirm whether the

conflict was genuine, name of officer and his/her comments following the visits • The methods that are covered by the permit (e.g. translocation, capture and re‐

release, shooting, etc) • Whether the animal was trapped, translocated (and if so, where to), killed or other

during the period of validity of the permit • Nature conservation must follow up on last day of valid permit to see if animal was

killed, captured, or what animals (including non‐target animals) were captured (officer who does this must be identified) and this information must be recorded

• How many trapping days, baits etc were used to kill the DCA • Condition of trapped (translocated animal), e.g. breakage of teeth, etc • Release site of translocated animal (GPS points), if translocated, whether the animal

was fitted with collars (collaring should only be permitted by people with projects registered and approved by provincial departments and an effort should be made to remove the collar at the end of the study)

• Records of post‐release movement of translocated and collared animals • Sex, age, weight of the animal that was destroyed or translocated • A record of whether the permit solved the problem a month after the end of the

validity period of the permit • Whether NGOs were contacted by the landowner or by nature conservation to

assist, the identity of the NGO and their role • If available, record of camera‐trap photos to compare the animals involved in

damage‐causing activities and those killed/translocated • Other notes – for example if non‐target animals were captured

These data should be analyzed and mapped annually by the provincial departments to identify spatial patterns in DCA occurrence and in applications for permits, and used as a basis from which to guide protocol relating to DCA management. An annual report on DCA management (including maps and data on DCAs) should be submitted to DEA annually. Analysis of data will identify whether the permitting process is resolving DCA issues, but also identify ‘problem’ farmers who repeatedly apply for DCA permits on spurious grounds. Data on legal and illegal DCA‐control should be considered when allocating trophy hunting permits to provinces.

3. Improved and standardized data capture and reporting There is a need for a standardized data capture and recording system for all forms of utilization of Leopards. This would involve standardized trophy hunt, DCA and captive facility report forms and the creation of standardized databases. Failure to report back information to the provinces should jeopardize the chances of that individual/organisation receiving permits for activities involving Leopards in future. Similarly, if provinces fail to



provide data of sufficient quality to DEA on a timely basis should result in withholding of the trophy quota for the offending province.

4. Implement monitoring of Leopard populations Though not as urgent as monitoring trophy hunting and other forms of human harvest, attendees at the meeting felt that it was important to implement monitoring of Leopard population trends, and particularly in areas perceived to hold key populations. Methods that could be implemented include spoor surveys and camera trapping in conjunction with a mark recapture framework. The key objective would be to select a few representative sites that can be surveyed repetitively (e.g. at two year intervals) to determine whether the coarser indices of population trend (e.g. trophy quality and catch‐per‐unit‐effort) are reliable, and to provide insights into population trends.

5. Develop a national management plan for Leopards A recurrent theme during the meeting was a need for a national management plan for Leopards to guide the utilization, trade and conservation of the species. At present, provinces have widely disparate approaches to managing various aspects of trade and utilization of Leopards, undermining their effectiveness. Such a management plan would include a variety of aspects, including inter alia:

• Standardized processes for allocating quotas to provinces. • Standardized processes for allocating tags within provinces. • Mechanisms for minimizing clumping of trophy off‐takes. • Guidelines on the sex (i.e. males only – see note below) and minimum age of

Leopards that may be hunted. • Minimum trophy sizes (e.g. minimum skull length and breadth, as is required by law

in Tanzania and Zimbabwe). • Guidelines for the submission of hunt‐return data to provinces by operators • Guidelines for the management of DCAs. • Clarity on the circumstances under which a Leopard is identified as a DCA. • Consensus on whether predation on wild prey constitutes grounds for a Leopard

being declared a DCA. • Standardized responses to complaints of damage‐causing Leopards. • Consensus regarding the acceptability of translocation as a management tool for

DCA Leopards. • Standardized methods of dealing with confirmed damage‐causing Leopards • Standardized procedures for permitting relating to the holding of Leopards in

captivity. • Guidelines on the activities that are and are not permitted relating to Leopards in

captivity. • Guidelines for the submission of data on Leopard utilization, trade and holding of

Leopards in captivity from provinces to national government. • Guidelines for the prevention of predation by Leopards and other carnivores (e.g.

possible measures for preventing Leopards killing livestock or expensive wildlife species).



The hunting of female Leopards is inadvisable for three key reasons: female Leopards may have dependent cubs (which may not be seen by the hunter); Leopards are polygynous and so one male can breed with multiple females, suggesting that the removal of males would have a lower impact than the removal of females (so long as male removals are not excessive); and, females are not as good dispersers as males with the effect that hunted females are not replaced as quickly as hunted males (Balme et al. 2010b). It is important to note, however, that excessive off‐takes of males may also create problems due to the phenomenon of infanticide, where the removal of a territorial male results in a replacement male moving in and killing cubs to hasten the onset of oestrus among females (Balme et al. 2010b). A national management plan would provide standardized guidelines for the management, utilization and conservation of Leopards throughout the country, while retaining scope for local, provincial adaptation where necessary.

6. Improving relationships There is a need for an improvement in relations between stakeholders involved in managing and utilizing Leopards. Currently an atmosphere of distrust exists among stakeholders in some areas, which is manifested in varying degrees of: poor information sharing; arbitrary and damaging actions (including hunting without permits; or lethal control of DCAs when alternative options exist, etc); inaction of government due to fear of litigation from NGOs, captive‐breeders or other stakeholders; and, other problems which undermine effective management of the species. Enhanced trust would likely improve information sharing and increase the prospects of implementing management strategies more conducive to sustainable trophy harvests and control of damage‐resulting situations, with a reduced off‐take of Leopards. Responsibilities The organisation Panthera has offered to help establish a monitoring programme for Leopard trophy hunting and for the management of damage‐causing Leopards, starting as soon as buy‐in is obtained from the necessary stakeholders. Panthera are also aiming to establish a standardised cluster system to ensure equitable quota distribution within the provinces. The protocol would be for Panthera or the Endangered Wildlife Trust to write a letter to SANBI explaining the kind of system that is required. SANBI will then recommend to the provinces that they work with Panthera to facilitate the development of such a system. Panthera’s involvement would be to establish the system and get it to function correctly. In the long run, provincial departments and national government should be able to run the system independently of ongoing donor support. The representative from Wildlife Ranching South Africa stressed the importance of involving commodity organisations in the monitoring of DCA‐control and trophy hunting of Leopards. Examples provided of such commodity organisations include the South African National Predator Management Forum, the Eastern Cape Predator Management Forum, AGRISA, farmers unions and associations, Wildlife Ranching South Africa, the Professional Hunters Association of South Africa, etc. Panthera should thus work with these organisations to develop an integrated monitoring programme.



References Athreya, V. 2006. Is Relocation a Viable Management Option for Unwanted Animals? ‐ The

Case of the Leopard in India. Conservation and Society, 4: 419‐23. Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard: ecology and behaviour of a solitary felid. Columbia

University Press, New York. Balme, G., Hunter, L., Goodman, P., Ferguson, H., Craigie, J. & Slotow, R. 2010b. An adaptive

management approach to the trophy hunting of Leopards: a case‐study from Kwa‐Zulu Natal, South Africa. Pages 341‐352 in ‘The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids’, D. Macdonald & A. Loveridge (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York.

Balme, G., Slotow, R. & Hunter, L. 2009. Impact of conservation interventions on the

dynamics and persistence of a persecuted Leopard (Panthera pardus) population. Biological Conservation, 142: 2681‐2690.

Balme, G., Slotow, R. & Hunter, L. 2010a. Edge effects and the impact of non‐protected

areas in carnivore conservation: Leopards in the Phinda–Mkhuze Complex, South Africa. Animal Conservation. Available early online.

Bothma, J du P. & Walker, C. 1999. Larger carnivores of the African savannas. Van Schaik

publishers, Pretoria. Caro, T., Young, C., Cauldwell, A. and Brown, D. 2009. Animal breeding systems and big

game hunting: models and application. Biological Conservation, 142: 909–929. Dalerum, F., Shults, B. & Kunkel, K. 2008. Estimating sustainable harvest in wolverine

populations using logistic regression. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72: 1125‐1132.

Daly, B. 2005. Leopard Population and habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA). Endangered

Wildlife Trust report, 120 pp. Friedmann, Y. & Daly, B. (Eds) 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A

Conservation Assessment. CBSG Southern Africa, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN), Endangered Wildlife Trust. South Africa.

Friedmann, Y. & Traylor‐Holzer, K. 2008. Leopard (Panthera pardus) case study. NDF

Workshop Case Studies, Mexico 2008. Hamilton, P. 1981. The Leopard Panthera pardus and the cheetah Acinonyx jubatus in

Kenya. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. The African Wildlife Leadership Foundation. Government of Kenya.

Hayward, M., Henschel, P., O’Brien, J., Hofmeyr, M., Balme, G. & Kerley, G. 2006. Prey

preferences of the Leopard Panthera pardus. Journal of Zoology, 270: 298‐313.




Hes, L. 1991. The Leopards of Londolozi. Van Struik publishers, Cape Town. Lindsey, P. 2011. A review of the consumptive utilization and trade of Cheetahs and

Leopards in South Africa. Endangered Wildlife Trust report. Lindsey, P., du Toit, J.T. & Mills, M.G.L. 2005. Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild

dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications for wild dogs on private land. Biological Conservation. 125: 113‐121.

Linnell, J., Annes, R., & Swenson, J. 1997. Translocating carnivores as a measure for

managing problem animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation, 6: 1245‐1257. Marnewick, K., Beckhelling, A., Cilliers, D., Lane, E., Mills, M.G.L., Herring, K., Caldwell, P.,

Hall, R. & Meintjes, S. 2007. The status of the Cheetah in South Africa. In: Breitenmoser, C. & Durant, S. (Eds). The Status and Conservation Needs of the Cheetah in Southern Africa. Cat News Special Edition, December 2007.

Martin, R. B. & De Meulenaer, T. 1988. Survey of the status of the Leopard (Panthera pardus)

in sub‐Saharan Africa. Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species Secretariat, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Martins, Q. & Martins, N. 2006. Leopards of the Cape: conservation and conservation

concerns. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63, 579–585. Mills, G. and Hes, L. 1997. The complete book of southern African mammals. Struik, Cape

Town.

Nowell, K. & Jackson, P. 1996. Wild cats status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland.

Packer, C., Brink, H., Kissui, Maliti, H., Kushnir, H. & Caro, T. 2011. Effects of trophy hunting

on lion and leopard populations in Tanzania. Conservation Biology, 25: 142‐153. Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The mammals of the Southern African subregion.

University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Sunquist, M. & Sunquist F. 2002. Wild Cats of the World. The University of Chicago Press,

Ltd., London. Tereves, A. 2009. Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:

1350–1356. Turnbull‐Kemp, P. 1967. The Leopard. Howard Timmins, Cape Town. Weilenmann, M., Gusset, M., Mills, D., Gabanapelo, T. & Schiess‐Meier, M. 2010. Is

translocation of stock‐raiding Leopards into a protected area with resident conspecifics an effective management tool? Wildlife Research, 37(8): 702‐707.


Appendix 1. Attendees of the preliminary non‐detriment finding assessment meeting

Name Affiliation Balme, Guy Panthera Burger, Marion EWT Cilliers, Deon EWT Coetzee, Faan EWT Coetzee, Rynette EWT Daly, Brenda EWT Davies‐Mostert, Harriet EWT Jacobs, Vastie North West Parks Board Jordan, Mike EWT Lindsey, Peter EWT Marnewick, Kelly EWT Martins, Quinton Cape Leopard Trust Newton, David TRAFFIC Pfab, Michele SANBI Physick, Jamie EKZN Wildlife Power, John EWT Swanepoel, Lourens University of Pretoria

NB a variety of other people (and notably several provincial nature conservation and Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism representatives) were invited but were unable to attend



Appendix 2. Attendees of the final non‐detriment finding assessment

Name Affiliation Email Telephone Balme, Guy Panthera [email protected] 0826943083 Barber, Steve LHLF [email protected] 0742122055 Blignaut, Christiaan Limpopo ‐ LEDET [email protected] 0824428877 Boing, Werner Free State – DETEA [email protected] 0827894468 Camacho, Gerrie Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency [email protected] 0823539097 Carroll, Thea Department of Environmental Affairs [email protected] 0716770599 Cilliers, Toby BTH [email protected] 0832864733 Dalerum, Fred University of Pretoria [email protected] 0722267689 De Lange, Riaan Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency [email protected] 0835792461 De Venter, Jaco CapeNature [email protected] 0824555564 Dickerson, Tristan Panthera [email protected] 0824902713 Du Plessis, Johann BKKB [email protected] 0822906626 Funston, Paul Tshwane University of technology [email protected] 0837040215 Jacobs, Vastie North West ‐ DAGERD [email protected] 0837617497 Koen, Julius Department of Environment, Northern Cape [email protected] 0538077481 Lindsey, Peter EWT Carnivore Conservation Programme [email protected] 0823427329 Marnewick, Kelly EWT Carnivore Conservation Programme [email protected] 0824774470 Martins, Quinton Cape Leopard Trust [email protected] 0732414513 Morgan, David PAAZAB [email protected] 0828934199 Newton, David TRAFFIC [email protected] 0824374006 Nkabinde, Erasmus Gauteng – GDARD [email protected] 0113551280 Novellie, Peter SANPARKS [email protected] 0829082858 Paulse, David Department of Environment, Northern Cape [email protected] 0538077481


mailto:[email protected]












Name Affiliation Email Telephone Pfab, Michele SANBI [email protected] 0128435025

Purchase, Netty Zoological Society of London /Wildlife Conservation Society

[email protected] +263773016295

Rudman, Arthur Wildlife Ranching South Africa [email protected] 0832801335 Swanepoel, Lourens University of Pretoria [email protected] 0828174679 Tjiane, Mpho Department of Environmental Affairs [email protected] 0123103221 Van Coller, Dries Professional Hunters Association of South Africa [email protected] 0832514468 Von Wielligh, Deon Limpopo ‐ LEDET [email protected] 0828021242 Apologies Name Affiliation Dumalisile, Lihle Gauteng ‐ GDARD Goodman, Pete Ezemvelo Kwa‐Zulu Natal Wildlife Holzhausen, Reinhardt Wildlife Ranching South Africa Kitshoff, Adri Professional Hunters Association of South Africa Parker, Dan Rhodes University Van Heerden, Carel Predator Breeders Association of South Africa

non-detriment finding assessment for the trophy hunting of leopards

Documents