GEO WILD Consult (Pty) Ltd WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST SCIENTIFIC REPORT 31 May 2016

BONTEBOK Damaliscus pygargus pygargus (Pallas, 1766)

Prepared by:

Deon Furstenburg Wildlife Scientist & Risk Consultant Appointed by WRSA Bontebok Breeders SA, Mr Gerhard Heyneke, 29 February 2016.

1 | P a g e

INDEX

TAXONOMY 1. Taxonomy 4 POPULATION HISTORY 2. Distribution 5 3. History of population numbers 5 TABLE 1: Bontebok numbers in past history 10 TABLE 2: Bontebok numbers (SA Scientific Authority, 2015) 11 FIGURE 1a/b: Introduced bontebok Namibia 12 FIGURE 2: 2008 Natural distribution range of Bontebok and Blesbok (IUCN Red Data) 13 FIGURE 3: Past and present distribution range of Bontebok (Furstenburg, 2012) 13 FIGURE 4: Bontebok distribution Western Cape (SA Scientific Authority, 2015) 14 4. Conservation status 15 INTERNATIONAL 5. United States Department of Fish and Wildlife Service 19 6. United States Humane Society opposing letter 21 GENETICS 7. Histocompatibilitycomplex DRB investigation 31 8. Molecular investigation 34 SPECIES FITNESS 9. Species management 36 10. Scientific Authority of South Africa (2015) 37 FIGURE 5: Bontebok distribution Western Cape RADAR CHART (SA Scientific Authority) 42 BONTEBOK MANAGEMENT PLAN 11. Bontebok regulation 43 TABLE 3: Mean annual Bontebok auction prices 44 12. Habitat dynamics and Bontebok distribution 46 FIGURE 6: Estimated distribution range of the Bontebok 18 000 years ago 48 FIGURE 7: Vegetation: Veldtypes & the distribution range of Bontebok 49 FIGURE 8: Vegetation: Bioregions & the distribution range of Bontebok 50 FIGURE 9: Vegetation: Veldtypes & the distribution range of Bontebok 51 FIGURE 10: Vegetation: Zone & the distribution range of Bontebok 52 FIGURE 11: Rainfall & the distribution of Bontebok 53 FIGURE 12: Climate & the distribution range of Bontebok 54

2 | P a g e

13. Bontebok dynamics & monitoring 55 FIGURE 13: Bontebok distribution and DNA status Eastern Cape 57 FIGURE 14: Bontebok distribution and DNA status Free State 58 FIGURE 15: Frequency size of Game Ranches with Bontebok Free State 59 FIGURE 16: Bontebok population dynamics since 1837 60

14. National Bontebok Protocol 61 CONCLUDING 15. Action plan 61 REFERENCING 16. Annexures hereto attached 63 17. References 64

SHORT CV, Deon Furstenburg 74

3 | P a g e

TAXONOMY

The Bontebok was known and described 100 years prior to its blood cousin the Blesbok and it was the closest to extinction in 1927 with only 121 individuals left. Its popular name was taken from its Dutch name meaning spotted antelope.

1. Taxonomy Kingdom: ANIMALIA Phylum: CORDATA Class: MAMMALIA Supercohort: LAURASIATHERIA Cohort: FERUNGULATA Superorder: CETARTIODACTYLA Order: RUMINANTIA Suborder: PECORA Superfamily: Bovoidea Family: Bovidae Subfamily: Antilopinae Tribe: Alcelaphini Genus: Damaliscus Species: pygargus

The Bontebok belongs to the genus Damaliscus which has two species namely:

1.1. Damaliscus pygargus, formerly known as D. dorcas, with two subspecies 1.1.1. D. pygargus phillipsi the Blesbok 1.1.2. D. pygargus pygargus the Bontebok

1.2. Damaliscus lunatus with the subspecies 1.2.1. D. lunatus lunatus the tsessebe of southern Africa 1.2.2. D. lunatus tiang the tiang of the eastern regions of the Sahel 1.2.3. D. lunatus topi the topi of East Africa 1.2.4. D. lunatus jimela the nyamera of the lakes area of the Rift Valley in eastern Africa 1.2.5. D. lunatus korrigum the korrigum of West Africa.

4 | P a g e

POPULATION HISTORY

2. Distribution

2.1. Both the Bontebok and Blesbok are endemic to South Africa, and they have the ability to interbreed with each other.

2.2. Blesbok/Bontebok-hybrid offspring are fertile which causes a threat to the genetic purity of both species.

2.3. Historically the Blesbok occurred in millions in the area between the Winterhoek Mountains (South), Magaliesberg (North), Tugela River Valley (East) and the Karoo (West). The bontebok was found on the south-western Lowland Renosterveld grassy patches (Lloyd, 2000) between the coastline and the southern slopes of the mountains of the Cape Folded Belt (to an altitude of approximately 200 m above sea level), from Langebaan in the West through to George in the East (Skead, 1980).

2.4. When the Blesbok was discovered long after the Bontebok it created mass confusion. True Blesbok was often noted as Bontebok in early traveller’s journals and many old geographic names such as “Bontebokvlakte” near Cathcart actually refer to the Blesbok (Skead, 1987).

2.5. The natural geographic separation between Bontebok and Blesbok is an arid Karroid semi-desert veld, 250-320 km wide. In historic evolution approximately 1,2 million years ago a south-western group of Blesbok was cut off by a major climatological event and habitat change (Skead 1980, Skinner & Smithers 1990, Van der Walt 2002). They were separated from the rest of the Blesbok population by confined isolation to the south of the Cape Folded Belt (on the historic Outeniqua Basin, FIGURE 6), and thus the genetic DNA drift towards the origin of the later Bontebok. This isolation has allowed morphological differences such as coat colour and body markings to arise in each group (Bigalke 1955).

3. History of population numbers

3.1. With global warming after the summit of the last Ice Age approximately 18 000 years ago the sea-level around the Cape coastline rose by 120 m (See

5 | P a g e

PARAGRAPH 12 hereinafter) and the Bontebok was forced to retreat from the former optimal habitat of their origin on the Outeniqua Basin to the poorly and marginal suitable foothills of the Cape Folded Belt. Since 6 500 years ago (Ramsey, 1996) the former moist climate became arid and the grazing converted from highly nutritious C4 grasses to poor C3 grasses. The Bontebok experienced habitat, feeding and climate stress and entered the start of a genetic bottleneck depletion (PARAGRAPH 7) and a gradual loss of genetic heterozygosity. Progressingly increased human pressure attributed to the further down fall of the already pertaining down trend of the Bontebok subspecies.

3.2. The Bontebok became extinct to the west of the Botrivier by early Koihsan hunting before European settlement in the Cape (Skead, 1980).

3.3. Intensive human encroachment (increased cattle and sheep farming being in direct habitat and grazing niché competition with the Bontebok [Reitz, 2011]), and strong hunting pressure attributed to the near extinction of the endemic South African Bontebok by the early 1800s (Van der Merwe, 1968).

3.4. In 1836 a government penalty of R 75.00 was charged and enforced for the killing of a Bontebok.

3.5. In 1837 Mr van der Byl near Bredasdorp started to conserve 27 Bontebok on the farm Nacht Wacht and later Mr van Breda 20 animals on the farm Zeekoevlei. These populations grew by 9% per annum to 180 animals in 1900 (Skead, 1980).

3.6. Other live Bontebok in 1900 were 120 animals at Zoetendalsvalley and 30 animals at Bushy Park, Bredasdorp (Skead, 1980).

3.7. Parasite infections reduced the total number of live Bontebok to 121 in 1927 with 77 animals left on the three Bredasdorp farms, and 44 on the Swellendam farms. These farms were owned by the families Albertyn, Van der Byl, Myburgh and Ohlsson.

3.8. As a concern of conservation Deneys Reitz was appointed in 1926 by Mr Piet Grobler, Minister of Lands, to investigate the Bontebok which then was nearly extinct (Reitz, 2011). Quoted from his journal: “In former years they roamed the coastal belt of the Cape Province in countless thousands, but they were by now so reduced in number as to be very near vanishing point….This was largely due to indiscriminate hunting, but also to the fact that the bontebok die out if

6 | P a g e

they have to share their grazing with domestic stock, and of late years sheep farmers had increasingly invaded their ancestral haunts. We examined the long strip of country that lies between Cape Aghulhas and Algoa Bay, for in this area alone were a few of them said still to survive. It was hard work over the hills and dales of the south and after careful research we found that, all told, there were less than seventy bontebok left in the Union and therefore in the world. These were running in small groups mostly in the neighborhood of Cape Agulhas and it was clear that if immediate steps were not taken they would soon join the quagga oblivion. In the end I found a suitable tract of land in the district of Bredasdorp. We had it enclosed by an eight-foot fence and enlisting the help of neigbouring farmers, sixteen bontebok were with difficulty shepherded through a V-shaped approach and driven into the sanctuary. When I returned to Parliament I was glad to find the Mr Grobler had introduced a Bill to turn Sabi into a sanctuary game reserve to be called the Kruger National Park. Under his act a Board of Trustees was established and I was appointed one of their number.”

3.9. In 1931 the Bontebok National Park near Bredasdorp was proclaimed with 22 animals being introduced from Nacht Wacht, though at first 17 but later only 16 survived. NB! This 17 animals was not the only and last Bontebok alive at time as claimed to be by the IUCN Red Data List.

3.10. The IUCN assessment recorded the 1931 population to be only the animals in the National Bontebok Park, but neglect the other remaining animals still on the other four private farms.

3.11. The population in the Bontebok National Park grew by 57% per annum to 123 in 1939. The remaining populations on only two private farms left grew by 42% and 23% per annum respectively (not mentioned in the IUCN assessment).

3.12. In the 1940s there were very few Bontebok in the National Parks and the concern arose that should disease hit these herds they could be disseminated. Senator Hochly who was then in parliament suggested some be moved to another area in the Eastern Cape (outside of the historic distribution range) to form a new breeding nucleus. Seven Bontebok were captured at the Bontebok National Park and sent to Thornkloof Ranch, Grahamstown, belonging to Mr. Francis Bowker. Two died on route and two rams and three ewes were successfully introduced (ANNEXTURE 3).

7 | P a g e

3.13. The Bontebok herd at the Bowkers, Thornkloof, Eastern Cape grew to 200 by 1960. Sixteen were translocated back to the Bontebok National Park in 1960, and 12 to Cape Point Nature Reserve (ANNEXTURE 3).

3.14. It was then decided by Cape Nature Conservation to spread the Bontebok further within the Eastern Cape (outside of the historic distribution range) and so Bontebok were introduced by the Department of Nature Conservation to the private game ranches (ANNEXURE 7) of: 3.14.1. Victor Pringle, Huntly Glen, Bedford 3.14.2. George Weinand, The Ruins, Bedford 3.14.3. Lennox Pohl, Teafontein, Grahamstown 3.14.4. Johnny Mullins, Faberskraal, Grahamstown 3.14.5. Tim White, Hilton, Grahamstown 3.14.6. Jannie van Niekerk, The Gem, Somerset East 3.14.7. Geoff Palmer, Strowan, Grahamstown 3.14.8. Norman Pohl, Shenfield, Grahamstown 3.14.9. Thomas Bains Nature Reserve, Grahamstown

3.15. The Bowkers exported Bontebok to the Brennan Zoo, the Catskill Mountain Zoo (New York), the San Diego Zoo (California), to Abudabi (Gulf Coast) and to the Liepzig Zoo (Germany), ANNEXTURE 3.

3.16. The habitat of the Bontebok Park became insufficient, the grazing deteriorated and 93 of the 104 bontebok in the Park died in 1956 from worm infections of conical fluke (Paramphistomum sp.), lung worm (Protostrongylus sp.), wireworm (Haemonchus sp.), brown stomach worm (Ostertogia sp.) and bankruptworm (Tirchostrongulus sp.), as well as copper deficiency (Barnard & Van der Walt, 1961). No more than 12 animals per farm survived on any of the private farms at the time (not mentioned in the IUCN assessment).

3.17. In 1960 the Park were relocated to new land and better habitat near Swellendam. There were 95 Bontebok in the old Park at time; 84 were translocated to the new Park and 11 were left behind for Cape Department of Nature Conservation. Of the translocated animals 23 died within three days and only 61 survided (Barnard & Van der Walt, 1961), ANNEXTURE 21. The total population alive at time was 61 + 11 + approximately 50 on private farms.

3.18. By 1981 the Bontebok population in the Bontebok National Park was 320, it peaked at 400 and thereafter had subsequently ever being managed and maintained at around 250.

8 | P a g e

3.19. Since 1960 Bontebok had been translocated and introduced to many Nature Reserves in Provincial Parks across the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape, the Free State, southern parts of KwaZulu-Natal, as well as Gauteng and Mpumalanga.

3.20. Since 1960 Bontebok had been translocated and introduced to a great many private farms and game ranches across the country, including to Namibia (FIGURE 1a & b).

3.21. By 1978 the total Bontebok numbers (in Protected Parks & Reserves as well as on Private Land) has recovered to approximately 700.

3.22. In 1987 surplus Bontebok rams from the Bontebok National Park were sold to several private game ranches in the Eastern Cape (organized by the Eastern Cape Game Management Association, ECGMA), ANNEXTURE 7: 3.22.1. Robin Halse, Halseton, Sterkstroom 3.22.2. W Noel Ross, Craig Rennie, Bedford 3.22.3. Robin Hockly, Cullendale, Bedford 3.22.4. Frank Bowker, Thornkloof, Grahamstown.

3.23. Unfortunately the vast expansion of the translocated distributions over time has resulted in numerous Bontebok-Blesbok hybridization. At present Bontebok- Blesbok hybrids are also found in Gauteng, Limpopo and North-West Provinces.

3.24. East (1999) estimated there to be at least 235,000-240,000 Blesbok (stable or increasing), of which 97% occur on private farms and 3% in protected areas, and at least 2,300 Bontebok (increasing). Estimated Blesbok numbers were 46,000 in 1962 (Kettlitz, 1967) and 120,000 in 1997 (David 1997).

3.25. 2008 estimates put the numbers of Bontebok at around 3,500; however, based on a 2001 survey, only about 1,500 animals actually occur within the native historical range of the subspecies. The largest population is in the De Hoop Nature Reserve, and adjacent Overberg Test Range with some 700 animals (David and Lloyd, 2008).

3.26. The 2015 population at Bontebok National Park stands at 260, with a further 197 in other national parks (Agulhas, Table Mountain and West Coast National Parks), (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

3.27. Bontebok and Blesbok are kept on private game farms for the purposes of hunting, breeding and for ecotourism (Van der Merwe and Saayman, 2007).

9 | P a g e

TABLE 1: Bontebok numbers in past history

Inside Historic Range Outside Total Year Historic Population Protected Private Range (excluding animals in Parks Land Zoos and in Namibia) 1837 0 87 0 87 1900 0 330 0 330 1927 0 121 0 121 1931 17 50 * 0 67 * 1939 123 100 * 5 228 * 1960 61+11 60 * 200 332 * 1978 250 * 200 * 250 * 700 1982 320 300 * 400 * 1,020 * 1999 500 * 800 * 1,000 * 2,300 2008 600 * 900 * 2,000 3,500 2015 901 1,302 4,959 7,162 2016 900 * 1,400 * 5,029 7,329 *

* Numbers that are extrapolated

10 | P a g e

TABLE 2: Bontebok numbers (South African Scientific Authority, 20 May 2015)

11 | P a g e

FIGURE 1a: Introduced bontebok breeding well at Mokuti Lodge, North Namibia (more than 2 000 km north of its historical distribution range)

FIGURE 1b: Introduced bontebok breeding well at Hartbeesloop Farming, Stampriet, South Namibia (1 300 km north of its historical distribution range)

12 | P a g e

FIGURE 2: 2008 natural distribution range of Bontebok and Blesbok (IUCN Red Data List)

FIGURE 3: Past and present distribution range of Bontebok (Furstenburg, 2012)

13 | P a g e

FIGURE 4: Bontebok distribution in 2015 in the Western Cape, excluding the bontebok of the Free State, Eastern Cape and other regions (South African Scientific Authority, 20 May 2015)

14 | P a g e

4. Conservation status

4.1. The Bontebok (D. p. pygargus) is listed in Appendix II under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

4.2. In 1986, Safari Club International requested the then Directorate of Nature Conservation of the Cape of Good Hope to define criteria for identification of pure Bontebok trophies. This resulted in the publication of results from a research project by Fabricius et al. (1988). The outcome that specific measurements of the borders between visible white and brown parts, and the distance between the white on the haunches and the white on the haunches and the white on the frontal part of the back legs determine if an animal is pure.

4.3. Skead (1980) mentions that, p548, “…when Mr Albertyn took over Potteberg from Mr Ohlsson he added to the herd and also introduced blesbok to interbreed with the bontebok”. This happened in the early 1950s, thus questioning the purity of the Bontebok in the Bontebok National Park.

4.4. However, strict control of trade means that existing trade does not seem to be adversely affecting the bontebok population, which is still exhibiting overall growth (Friedmann and Daly 2004).

4.5. IUCN Status 2015 – Near Threatened (NT) 4.6. IUCN Status 2008 – Near Threatened (NT) 4.7. IUCN Status 2003 – Vulnerable (VU) 4.8. IUCN Status 1996 – Vulnerable (VU) 4.9. IUCN Status 1996 – Vulnerable (VU) 4.10. IUCN Status 1994 – Rare (R) 4.11. IUCN Status 1986 – Vulnerable (V) 4.12. IUCN Status 1965 – Very rare but believed to be stable or increasing

4.13. Bontebok is currently a CITES II animal.

4.14. An export permit from South Africa will only be issued once an import permit by the importing country has been issued. USA Fish and Wildlife Service is still under impression that the Bontebok is critically endangered, resulting in a reluctance to issue import permits. These two facts are detrimental to the further proliferation of the species in South Africa.

15 | P a g e

4.15. As a result of par. 4.14. many Bontebok owners experience an over- abundance of adult rams due to the very small demand from visiting American hunters. This is unfavorable for Bontebok breeding in general, limiting the growth and enhancement of the Bontebok as an endangered species (Le Roux, 2010).

4.16. Most private game ranches will only persist in the breeding of animals that can in some way offer return on investment.

4.17. The inclusion of Bontebok in the list of Threatened or Protected Species (Tops) Regulations, which resulted in an incredible amount of official red tape involved for any action with regard to Bontebok, has further aggravated the potential population growth and long-term sustainability of the Bontebok species (Le Roux, 2010).

4.18. The conservation status of the Bontebok has increased by two levels on the IUCN Red List since 1965 and still improving, as being confirmed by the South African Scientific Authority, 20 May 2015 (ANNEXTURE 22).

4.19. The bontebok population has grown from less than 100 live specimens in 1931 to the current more than 7 162 specimens (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 20015) of which: 4.19.1. 901 are in protected conservation areas, 4.19.2. 1 302 on private game ranches (within the historic distribution range), 4.19.3. 4 959 on private game ranches (outside the historic distribution range).

4.20. The revival of the Bontebok species from almost extinction to the present greater than 7,000 population size, one of the few success stories in conservation, largely due to the effort and far-sightedness of private farmers with a sense of responsibility to conserve for the sake of the species (Le Roux, 2010), need be taken serious note of in the present regulatory issues concerning the species.

4.21. Though not endangered any more, non-detrimental (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 20015), the Bontebok is still listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), {16 U.S.C $ 1538(a)} and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regulations {C.F.R. $ 17.21, 17.22} ANNEXTURE 1 & 11. Once the U.S. Service lists a species as endangered the species is protected from import unless such action will enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species or is for scientific purposes consistent with the conservation purpose of the ESA.

16 | P a g e

4.22. Bontebok was listed Endangered under the ESA nearly 40 years ago on 14 June 1976 (41 Fed. Reg. 24062), ANNEXTURE 1. The ESA listing has never since being re-evaluated and revised in respect of the specie’s current improved ecological status.

4.23. The information and biological facts referred to and used in the letter of the Humane Society of the U.S. (ANNEXTURE 1) is outdated, incorrect and needs revision. A comprehensive discussion of this letter in PARAGRAPH 6. hereinafter.

4.24. South African Minister of Environmental Affairs (DEA) need to address the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in terms of the letter of The Humane Society of the U.S. (ANNEXTURE 1), the Scientific Authority of South Africa’s Non- detrimental Bontebok Report (ANNEXTURE 22), and the facts highlighted in this Geo Wild Consult Report, to re-evaluate and revise the 1976 ESA listing of the Bontebok accordingly.

4.25. The WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association need to approach the S.A. Minister of Environmental Affairs with regards to the U.S. ESA listing of 1976.

4.26. A national management plan for Bontebok in private ownership need be developed, approved by Government, fully implemented on all private land keeping and breeding Bontebok, and most important regulated and administered through a central secretariat Office, in conjunction with a professional appointed Ecologist.

4.27. The WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association applied to the Limpopo Department of Environmental & Tourism Affairs in 2015 for the introduction of Bontebok to private game ranches in the Limpopo (ANNEXTURE 7), without apparent success. This action need be re-evaluated and re-addressed in due time.

4.28. For many decades the applications for permits and introductions to private land had often been rejected on the merits and grounds of outdated legislation. In doing so the State has prevented exponential population growth, genetic provenance and the enhancement of the Bontebok species.

4.29. A call from the Deputy Director: CITES Policy Development and Implementation, Biodiversity and Conservation (Mr Mpho Tjiane), dd 21 January 2016, for information on Bontebok in private ownership, for

17 | P a g e

submission to the U.S.A. need the urgent and serious attention of every bontebok owner (ANNEXTURE 6). Of most importance to this individual information is: 4.29.1. accurate statistics, the number of Bontebok per farm (by name), 4.29.2. DNA certificates of purity of your Bontebok, 4.29.3. minimum sizes of your Bontebok camps or free roaming area, and 4.29.4. the value that your trophy hunts plough back into the breeding of your Bontebok per se.

4.30. The latter information is the only means by which the U.S. ESA listing can be negotiated for revision.

4.31. Since the research by Dr Dalton of the Zoological Gardens of South Africa (Darlton et al., 2011 and Van Wyk et al., 2013), the Northern Cape DEA, in cooperation with the Bontebok Breeders took the leading role in abandoning the phenotype certification method of Fabricius et al. (1989) and accepted the genetic method of certification of Bontebok exclusively (ANNEXTURE 7).

4.32. The genetic method of Bontebok certification (Darlton et al., 2011 and Van Wyk et al., 2013) had now been accepted by the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and the Free State Provinces (Free State Provincial Notice No. 118 of 2012; Northern Cape Regulations & Circular dd 3 December 2012), ANNEXTURE 7.

4.33. Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WSRA) Bontebok Breeders Association [The WRSA Bontebok Advisory Committee] has developed and accepted a Protocol (ANNEXTURE 2) in terms whereof the trade in Bontebok is presently conducted, apart from any Provincial legislative measures to the extent that some may differ from said Protocol.

4.34. The WRSA National Bontebok Protocol (ANNEXTURE 2) is currently under discussion at the South African Work Group 1 level for National approval.

4.35. The Eastern Cape Provincial Government had formally approved the Bontebok Protocol, signed on 16 March 2016 (ANNEXTURE 27).

4.36. The recent success of Bontebok farming on private land in the Eastern Cape and the Free State Provinces have proved enhancement of the species beyond the restricted conservation attempts by State on protected land. This merits an approach to government to negotiate further possible extension of translocations and the distribution range to other Provinces as well.

18 | P a g e

INTERNATIONAL

5. United States Department of Fish And Wildlife Service (USFWS) (ANNEXTURE 10)

5.1. The Office of the USFWS has made an enhancement finding for bontebok in 1997 and has not revisited it since then. The Office admitted that the old enhancement finding for Bontebok must be re-evaluated.

5.1.1 Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have raised concerns to the Office that the finding is no longer accurate.

5.1.2 The Office had relied heavily on the fact that South Africa had an overall national management plan in place for Bontebok through private ownership. 5.1.2.1 South Africa did not have a national management plan for Bontebok in private ownership in place before, thus the Office was under false pretense ever since. 5.1.2.2 A Bontebok Breeders Protocol was developed and approved by Eastern Cape Government only in 2016 (ANNEXTURE 27). 5.1.2.3 It is essential for the Bontebok Protocol to be submitted to the USFWS Office.

5.1.3 In 1999 the Bontebok population numbered 2 300, of which <500 on protected land, approximately 800 on private land in the historical distribution range and approximately 1 000 on land outside the historical distribution range (TABLE 1 and FIGURE 16).

5.1.4 Since 1999 the Bontebok population has enhanced in number to 7 329, of which 900 on protected land, 1 400 on private land in the historical distribution range and approximately 5 029 on land outside the historical distribution range (TABLE 1 and FIGURE 16).

A total enhancement of 219% 60% on protected land, 75% on private land in the historical distribution range, and 403% on private land outside the historical distribution range.

19 | P a g e

5.2. The enhancement of the Bontebok species since 1999 has proved the benefit of private game ranching and specifically translocation to ecological optimal habitats outside the historical distribution range.

5.3. Genetic heterozygosity studies has not yet been done on the Bontebok of the translocated subpopulations, though intensive studies on the translocated Cape Buffalo has proved advanced genetic provenance of all privately farmed subpopulations for the purpose of hunting and trading (Van Hooft et al 2002; Van Hooft, 2015). The enhancement are due mainly to the constant cross-trading and translocating of breeding animals between different habitats and different subpopulations. Also refer to the parameters described in PARAGRAPH 13 & 15 hereinafter.

5.4. Hunters and hunting business make private breeding and farming economically feasible, which result in more animals being bred (greater population numbers), and most important cross translocations of breeding stock between habitats, farms and subpopulations enhancing the genetic heterozygosity of the species, and especially picking up rare and endangered species from genetic bottlenecks. Also see statements from two private Bontebok owners, ANNEXTURE 3 & 6.

5.5. The private game industry in South Africa to date has proved to be the greater contributor to the enhancement of the Bontebok species in comparison to State protective conservation management.

5.4.1 From history it has become evident that positive population growth is feasible only by the promotion of Bontebok farming on private land.

5.4.2 Promotion of Bontebok farming on private land and the subsequent sustainable utilization of the subspecies is only feasible through hunting and live sales trading.

5.4.3 Such promotion is considered the only and ideal approach ensuring the long-term survival of the subspecies in South Africa, as is clearly demonstrated in the lack of Bontebok enhancement on government protected land versus the overwhelming success of Bontebok enhancement on private land, illustrated in the dynamics of different population numbers over history since 1930 (FIGURE 16).

20 | P a g e

5.4.4 The South African Scientific Authority reached the very same conclusion in its non-detriment finding for Bontebok in May 2015 (ANNEXTURE 22).

5.6. The May 2015 non-detriment South African CITES finding of the NGO that live trade and exports of Bontebok trophies poses a moderate risk to the survival of the subspecies, due mostly to a lack of management and monitoring of Bontebok off-take, is a pre-mature finding based on a lack of info from, and a lack of understanding of the Private Game Industry.

5.5.1 This very issue concerning the Bontebok had been addressed in depth by the establishment of the Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) Bontebok Breeders Association (BBA).

5.5.2 The BBA has developed a Provincial Bontebok Breeders Protocol for the Free State and the Eastern Cape, of which the Eastern Cape was approved by Government on 16 March 2016 (ANNEXTURE 27). The Bontebok Breeders Protocol makes provision for proper recordkeeping, monitoring and scientific management of all privately farmed Bontebok subpopulations.

5.5.3 The BBA has appointed an accredited professional Wildlife Scientist for ecological governance of the private Bontebok subpopulations.

5.5.4 A strict genetic Bontebok DNA-profiling and testing programme and registration had been engaged with National Zoological Gardens Genetic Laboratory (Van Wyk et al, 2013; Van der Walt et al, 2013; Van der Walt, 2002; Van Der Walt et al, 2001; Darlton et al, 2011; Kotze & Bartels, 2006; Essop et al, 1991).

6. United States Humane Society (HSUS) opposing letter 23 November 2015 (ANNEXTURE 1)

6.1. Oppose from the Humane Society against the permit application from Christopher Shaw (PRT-78418b) to import Bontebok hunting trophies from South Africa, dd 23 October 2015.

6.2. HSUS statement: “There is simply no evidence to support an enhancement finding for this application…”

21 | P a g e

6.2.1 The non-detrimental finding of the South African Scientific Authority, 20 May 2015 (ANNEXTURE 22) in itself, 7 162 Bontebok compared to 67 in 1930 is overwhelming evidence of enhancement.

6.2.2 A distribution range expansion from a less than 700 ha protected Bontebok National Park area in 1931 (consisting of only one national habitat Bioregion nr. F04 [FIGURE 6 & 8]), to the greater area of three Provinces being the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Free State in 2016 (across no less than 18 national habitat Bioregions nr’s F01, F02, F03, F04, F06, F07, F08, F09, SKv, NKu, NKl, A7, Gh, Gm, Gs, Gd, SVk and SVs [FIGURE 4, 8, 13 & 14]). This expansion has contributed to the growth in numbers of the Bontebok population, and most certainly to the Bontebok species genetic provenance.

6.2.3 Due to the major past genetic bottleneck (PARAGRAPH 7) Bontebok has little resistance against internal parasite infections (PARAGRAPH 3.7, 3.16 and 7.8; Barnard & Van der Walt, 1961). Poor natural immunity are further aggravated by poor marginal fodder as found in the marginal suitable natural habitat of the Bontebok National Park. The animals on the protected government managed parks are mostly free roaming with little to poor handling and veterinary assistance and prone to infections and mortality as seen from the past records to date, and from the population numbers on protected land.

6.2.4 In difference to PARAGRAH 6.2.3. the subpopulations Bontebok privately farmed are well cared for:

A) the major of these farms consist optimal habitat with high nutritious fodder relieving the Bontebok from the nutritional stresses in the protected parks and resulting enhanced immunity, B) habitat and fodder competition with other more genetic-fit (greater heterozygosity) animal species found in all of the protected government parks, are mostly eliminated on private game farms resulting better Bontebok performance and survival (this applies for the greater of all South African game species farmed on private land), C) on private farms all game and the Bontebok are being observed daily for any signs of stress, health, inter-social and mal-adaptation abnormalities and immediate daily management and veterinary actions being taken when noted, D) vegetation analysis and specialist scientific nutrition programs being worked out for supplementary feeding on private game farms for optimal animal condition for different seasons of the year,

22 | P a g e

E) specific parasite control programs being implemented on all private game farms (parasite dung egg-counts being done regularly (2-week to 3-month intervals, depending on the habitat and climate) and veterinary treatment applied when necessary, F) on private game farms Bontebok are being microchipped for identification and animal profiling and detailed computerized animal registries kept for family, production, performance, genetic quality and population history recordings, G) animals are being traded and translocated between farms, habitats and subpopulations according to each animal’s profile registry, thus the optimal enhancement and genetic provenance of the Bontebok species on private game farms and the consequential upliftment of the Bontebok species from its former genetic bottleneck.

The outcome and result of privately managed Bontebok for hunting and trading is reflected in the greater than 400% of survival growth of enhancement of the Bontebok since 1930 on farms outside of the historical distribution range.

6.3 HSUS statement: The Bontebok was listed as endangered by the Service on 14 June 1976 (41 Fed. Reg. 24062). Such species may not be imported to the United States of America unless such action will enhance the survival of the species. “…enhancement authorization may only be issued for activities that positively benefit the species in the wild…”

6.3.1 Trophy hunting and live trading is the economic driving force and incentive of private game farming in South Africa. The private game industry in South Africa has been outperforming the JSE Stock Exchange since 2008 (Cloete et al. 2015).

6.3.2 Bontebok live trading prices has increased from R 1 000 in 1992, to R 6 625 in 2007, to R 9 806 in 2012, to a record of R 170 000 (avg R 122 909) in 2015 (TABLE 3). This growth is the result of genetic provenance and enhancement of the Bontebok as species from private farming for the trophy hunting and trading business. This economic growth of private Bontebok farming is the main incentive for looking after and caring for Bontebok which increased Bontebok numbers from near extinction to close to 8 000 in 2016.

6.3.3 Private farming and the hunting business has enabled the Bontebok species to become uplifted from its former endangered status and climbing by two levels on the CITIES grading since 2003.

23 | P a g e

6.3.4 In the wild – currently 56% of the privately managed subpopulations of Bontebok are on land-unit sizes larger than the original Bontebok National Park (FIGURE 15). The greater majority of these private farms render habitat ecological more suitable and optimal for Bontebok than the marginal habitat of the Bontebok National Park. Keep in mind that the wild habitat of origin of the Bontebok no longer exists, being on the Outeniqua Basin under the current sea-level.

6.3.5 Private game farming became the genetic savior to the Bontebok inbreeding at the Bontebok National Park when animals form different habitat in the Eastern Cape were translocated back to the Park in 1960 (PARAGRAPH 3.13).

6.4 HSUS statement: Before the service can issue a permit it must find that:

A) the permit was “applied for in good faith” {applications for hunted trophy imports from applicants holding legitimate hunting permits from South Africa, are in general of automatic good faith}, B) the permit “will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species” {Trophy hunting per se is to the contrary an enhancement action to the health and survival of the Bontebok species as seen from the entire population growth and quality improvement of which the far greater positive effect reflects on the private farms, FIGURE 16}, C) the proposed action “will be consistent with the purposes and policy” of the ESA (i.e., conservation…”to use all methods and proceedings which are necessary to bring any endangered species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary”) {Trophy hunting remains a major economic incentive for private farming of Bontebok and has already resulted sufficient population growth (FIGURE 16) for the CITES grading to be lifted by two levels}

6.5 HSUS statement: “Mr Shaw fails to meet the substantive requirements for the Service to make an enhancement finding, as required…the applicant’s activities would not enhance the survival of the species…and would act to the detriment of the Bontebok.”

This is an unquantified statement. On the contrary, the success history of private game farming of Bontebok enhancement (population growth shown in FIGURE 16), is a direct result of the economic contribution of past import permits for Bontebok trophies being issued by the USFWS.

24 | P a g e

6.6 HSUS statement: Mr. Shaw’s application “…does not reveal the sample size of animals tested to confirm certification … does not indicate the total herd size (making it unclear what proportion of the herd would be lost if Mr. Shauw shot six individuals). … no evidence that the ranch’s breeding efforts could or would enhance the survival of wild Bonteboks. … benefits can only be realized when the breeding program is scientifically based and conducted in a manner that contributes to the continued survival of the species…”

6.6.1 Managing Bontebok breeding on private land follow a different ecological approach of manipulated enhanced social structure whereby the maximum number of adult females are kept per adult male per herd (in general being 20-40 ewes : 1 ram depending on the population size). In nature this ratio is only 8-12 : 1. The private system produces an average enhanced annual Bontebok subpopulation growth of 25-85% compared to 3-53%, (avg 25%) in nature and protected parks and reserves, depending on the extant habitat conditions (ANNEXTURE 23; Furstenburg, 2006, 2012, 2015a; Furstenburg & Van Rooyen, 2002).

6.6.2 Private breeding as described above result in 25% of the herd becoming non-breeding male animals. This surplus of males need to be harvested (hunted) annually to re-balance and re-correct the social breeding structure 20-40 : 1 to maintain continued optimum breeding and enhancement of the subpopulation.

6.6.3 All private farms in together (each farm being one piece of the complete Bontebok population puzzle built) forms the bigger Bontebok population and the enhancement growth success of the species saving it from extinction as clearly illustrated in FIRURE 16.

6.6.4 Official national statistics on Bontebok trophy-hunt off-take in South Africa (ANNEXTURE 22 highlighted in PARAGRAPH 10.2) are 3,1% of the global Bontebok population per annum. Despite the annual 3,1% hunting off-take the global Bontebok population has grown by 219% since 1999 (PARAGRAPH 5.1.4), giving an annual enhancement growth of 13,7%. Important to note is that the growth of the privately managed subpopulations has grown by 403% over the same period, giving an annual enhancement growth of 25,2%. Trophy hunting as an economic incentive had a major contribution to this enhancement success of the Bontebok.

25 | P a g e

6.6.5 Scientific measurements and monitoring of Bontebok had mostly been neglected in past, therefore the recent establishment of the new Bontebok Breeders Association as a functional Group of Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) and the de elopement of the Provincial and National Bontebok Protocol (ANNEXTURE 8 & 27) and the genetic DNA-testing.

6.7 HSUS statement: “…breeding just to breed, without adequate attention to genetic composition and demographics of the breeding population, may not provide a clear conservation benefit to an endangered species.”

6.7.1 In general a very legitimate statement, though not of relevance to the Bontebok situation. All of the actions and decisions taken in the past to the present has been specifically tailored for the preservation, protection, survival and enhancement of the Bontebok species (PARAGRAPH 3.4-5, 3.8-9, 3.11-15, 3.17, 3.19-20, 3.22, 3.24, 3.27, 4.2-4, 4.18-19, 4.31-35).

6.8 HSUS statement: “…serious concern with hybridization in Bontebok herds maintained on private property. … hybridization was detected in 33% (40 of 121) of the samples (Van Wyk et al., 2013)”

6.8.1 Hybridization has ever been a problem, especially the concern regarding the purity of the subpopulation in the Bontebok National Park since the early 1950’s following the introduction of Blesbok by Mr Albertyn (PARAGRAPH 4.3; Skead, 1980).

6.8.2 The DNA-testing for Bontebok hybridization had been developed (PARAGRAPH 7 & 8) and are now being done by the genetics laboratory of the National Zoo of South Africa where the Bontebok genome coding are being recorded.

6.8.3 The newly approved Bontebok Protocol (ANNEXTURE 8 & 27) has been developed and implemented as to control and regulate genetic purity of Bontebok subpopulations on private farms. A strategy of registers being kept by the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association of all privately managed and farmed Bontebok herds. The Bontebok Protocol also follows strict regulation in accordance with Government of DNA-testing certificates being required for each Bontebok being traded and/or translocated. Also see FIGURE 13 & 14.

6.9 HSUS statement: “Cousins et al. (2010) describe South African game ranches as businesses first…and find that private game ranches in South Africa conflict

26 | P a g e

with conservation principles…selective breeding of animals for trophy hunting and intensive captive breeding programs that can lead to inbreeding.”

6.9.1 Private game ranches by definition are not intensive but are either extensive or semi-extensive breeding systems. Intensive breeding by definition is in Zoo cages where every need of the animal are being provided artificially (Bothma & Du Toit, 2016).

6.9.2 South African economy cannot sustain non-business wildlife conservation. Wildlife has become an economic commodity to be managed as such (Cloete et al., 2015; Furstenburg & Van Rooyen, 2002; Furstenburg, 1989). Without economic business the major of the southern African wildlife would be endangered or extinct as being proven by past South African history of animal exploitation. South Africa has proved wildlife species of added financial value to be less vulnerable and of better enhancement of long-term survival. The history of the Bontebok has proved very much the exact path of enhanced growth predominantly of privately farmed herds for hunting and trading, and outside the historical distribution range, as clearly illustrated in FIGURE 16.

6.9.3 It is a self-explained common sense fact that without economic business the enhanced Bontebok growth on private land will be virtually zero, and considering the illustrated numbers in FIGURE 16, the Bontebok would remain near extinction and most certain go extinct with the extant progressing global climate warming (Greyling et al., 2013; Furstenburg & Stoltz, 2008).

6.9.4 Private semi-extensive breeding are at risk of inbreeding if not professionally managed. Due to economic value adding from hunting and trading, the only incentive making wildlife breeding feasible, the private owner cannot afford his animals herds deteriorating by genetic decline and bottlenecks. Therefore advanced computer technology are used for record keeping and performance monitoring of individual animals. Genetic scientists are being consulted and ranch specific genetic management programs put in place by the owner of the private ranch. Breeding animals are being traded frequently between different owners, ranches and across habitats as to exchange genetic fitness and increase genetic heterozygosity. The Bontebok Breeders Association has only most recently being established and thus formal Bontebok genetics recording has just started and increasing with the government approved Bontebok Protocol. Private Buffalo breeding has already revealed genetic enhancement and

27 | P a g e

provenance of genetic heterozygosity of private herds in advance of the Buffalo in protected parks and reserves (Van Hooft, 2015; Van Hooft et al., 2002).

6.10 HSUS statement: …locations where Mr. Shaw hunted are not in the native range of the Bontebok…which raises the question of whether the breeding by this farm contributes to the introduction of non-native species and facilitates hybridization and displacement of indigenous species.”

6.10.1 The issue of hybridization dealt with in PARAGRAPH 6.8.

6.10.2 The concept native species versus non-native species is drenched with dynamics of constant ongoing change of climate, habitats and species biodiversity as part of the process of evolution (Furstenburg & Stoltz, 2008; Furstenburg, 2005, 2004).

6.11 HSUS statement: Captive hunting is not enhancement

The natural home range of Bontebok varies from 350-600 ha per herd (ANNEXTURE 23; Furstenburg, 2006, 2012, 2015a), therefore hunting on any farm, land-unit or camp that are equal to or larger than 350 ha is natural and cannot be seen as captive.

6.12 HSUS statement: …establishment of “legal markets for valuable wildlife product … provides incentives for poaching”…

6.12.1 The legal hunting of Bontebok has ever been the incentive for private game farmers to manage and breed Bontebok as part of their wildlife operation, which consequentially resulted in the 403% enhancement growth and survival of the species as illustrated in FIGURE 16. To date no problem in particular to Bontebok poaching had been noted nor experienced, and this in spite of the value per animal incline to R 122 909 average price in 2015 and R 170 000 record price (TABLE 3).

6.12.2 Comparing the South African wildlife situation with examples of happenings in the US concerning the wolf and grizzly bear is outrageous, as the wildlife nature and concept is extremely different in context and nature.

6.13 HSUS statement: The Service (USFWS) does not appear to have made an enhancement finding for Bontebok trophy hunting since 1997. This finding is outdated.

28 | P a g e

See PARAGRAPH 5.1 above.

6.14 HSUS statement: May 2015 Scientific Authority non-detrimental finding for Bontebok….”the main threat to the subspecies is the large number of highly fragmented and small subpopulations in the absence of meta-population management….there are no quotas for export of Bontebok hunting trophies and that hunting of the species on private land is not regulated or monitored. … the effects of harvesting on heterozygosity and fitness…are not currently monitored. … no approved national plan that is aimed at managing the genetic integrity of Bontebok.”

6.14.1 Meta-population management is already practiced through the basic general strategy of private game farming which incorporate a well experienced and tested applied approach that was developed in practice across the global wildlife industry in South Africa for all game species. This system had been used across the entire private game industry since the mid-1990s with great success to all game animal species. The basic system being applied in general on all private ranches is: A) continued selective use of better enhanced animal genetics as basis for all breeding herds (live trade auction industry of game), B) frequent exchange of breeding genetics (live trade animals) between owners, ranches, habitats to enhance genetic provenance between subpopulations, C) 2-herd systems per animal species per ranch/farm for annual exchange of progeny between the two herds as to promote genetic heterozygosity, D) Removal of surplus young male animals from breeding herds at age of reaching sexual maturity to stimulate optimal breeding of females with the high quality genetic males.

6.14.2 National as well as Provincial South African Government management of protected parks and reserves had adapted to frequently exchange and import superior genetic quality with and from the private game industry. Studies by Van Hooft (2015) had revealed the genetic heterozygosity of privately farmed Buffalo to be superior to that of all protected parks and reserves subpopulations in South Africa. In due time coarse similar studies on other game species will also be revealed, though preliminary indications suggest the same scenario to be found.

6.14.3 The current Bontebok trophy-hunting export is 3,1% of the entire global Bontebok population per annum, whereas the current annual Bontebok

29 | P a g e

population growth is more than 25%. The Bontebok subspecies are thus outcompeting the annual hunting off-take by 7-fold. There are no need yet for the implementation of any regulatory pre-set Bontebok hunting quotas.

6.14.4 The newly established WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association has started the monitoring of the Bontebok as part of the approved Bontebok Protocol, ANNEXTURE 8 & 27.

6.15 This GEO WILD CONSULT report being the first of its kind amalgamating the scope of the Bontebok situation. This report to be followed up frequently with the monitored Bontebok information as being facilitated and compiled by the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association.

6.16 The private Bontebok farming is still in its birth, it has developed rapidly in short time and has outgrown the rate of the development of science. The time has come to close the gap between, which started with the approval of the Provincial Bontebok Protocol.

6.17 Also of importance is to understand the general attitude of the Humane Society as wrapped up in the following letter of complaint:

September 25, 2015 The Honorable Wayne Williams Colorado Secretary of State 1700 Broadway, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80290 RE: Complaint against the Humane Society of the United States Dear Secretary Williams: We are writing to you on behalf of the millions of sportsmen-conservationists we represent to express our strong support for the recent complaint filed with your office against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Sportsmen and women have long been stewards of the land and our fish and wildlife resources, and continue to be the most ardent conservationists today. Since the early 1900’s, hunters, anglers, target shooters, and associated industries have been the nation’s largest contributors to conservation, providing more than $56.95 billion to conservation efforts. To this day, more than 80% of all funding for state fish and wildlife agencies (the primary managers of our nation’s fish and wildlife resources) stems from sportsmen and women through the American System of Conservation Funding. Sportsmen and women also fuel our economy; Colorado’s 919,000 hunters and anglers spend $1.3 billion annually and support 18,693 jobs. HSUS has assailed

30 | P a g e

sportsmen and women in recent history, working daily to put an end to all hunting and fishing. HSUS is ideologically opposed to hunting. When asked if he would let people hunt for food if they did it responsibly, HSUS president and CEO, Wayne Pacelle, stated, “Well, it’s a good question, I think that I would campaign against it. Yes, I think that I would” (page 254, Bloodties; Nature, Culture, and the Hunt). As sportsmen and women continue to generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year in conservation funding, HSUS in 2013 only made a $40,000 contribution for “conservation” (Schedule I of HSUS’s 2013 Form 990). HSUS has long supported efforts to curtail and ultimately end hunting and fishing, including lobbying, ballot measures, and litigation to: ban the use of traditional ammunition for hunting; ban the use of lead tackle in fishing; ban the use of dogs for hunting; ban the hunting of bears, cougars, doves; support bans on Sunday hunting in multiple states; oppose right to hunt and fish constitutional amendments; support bans on bobcat hunting; and to ban hunting within a fenced area.

GENETICS

7. Histocompatibilitycomplex DRB investigation (ANNEXTURE 20)

7.1. Historically, African bovid migrations were governed by the availability of vegetation and water resources (Estes, 1991). Human encroachment in South Africa has forced Bontebok Damaliscus pygargus (along with numerous mammal species) to exist within islands of protected land without natural migration corridors. Migration of individuals between sympatric populations allows for gene flow and prevents inbreeding between related individuals (Allendorf, 1983). Although Blesbok and Bontebok populations are restricted by fences genetic exchange is promoted by translocation events throughout South Africa. In this regard, translocation of animals between populations furthers gene flow but at the same time, obscures any genetic substructure that may be present within the species (Van der Walt, 2002).

31 | P a g e

7.2. On closer examination using sequence analysis, Van der Walt (2002) found five control region haplotypes within Blesbok samples and only a single Bontebok sequence within Bontebok. The Bontebok sequence was not found within the Blesbok populations examined and differed by an average sequence divergence of 0.044. The sequence divergence among Blesbok haplotypes was low ranging from 0.0039 - 0.0117.

7.3. The extreme lack of genetic diversity at the control region locus in the Bontebok was expected given their recent population collapse. Genetic variation of mtDNA is rapidly lost during population decline through genetic drift and inbreeding. Mitochondrial diversity only represents 0,25 of the Ne since it is inherited maternally as a haploid marker while nuclear genes correspond to the paternal diploid genetic structure of the total Ne. A bottleneck event will greatly reduce haplotypic diversity of mitochondrial makers and strongly alter frequencies through genetic drift.

7.4. Given the endemic status of D. pygargus, it is possible that its population sizes were historically small and would therefore have less variation than other widespread antelope species. The low level of control region variation in blesbok was surprising since their population sizes have remained relatively stable, although declined from over-hunting during the late 1800's. This paucity of genetic diversity could be explained by an ancient population crash of the species (Van der Walt, 2002).

7.5. Evidence of extreme aridity was found within the Free State Province dating back to 40,000 years ago (Clark 1959). The scarcity of food resources could have caused the extinction of blesbok lineages throughout South Africa.

7.6. The fluctuations of climate within glacial and inter-glacial periods resulted in "pulses" in the evolution of some species and extinction for others (Vrba 1995). The pattern of mtDNA variation of D. pygargus suggests that this species was unsuccessful in withstanding temperature changes and as a result, declined. FossiI evidence also suggests that D. pygargus failed to expand their range from south to east and never colonized farther north than Zimbabwe (Vrba 1975).

7.7. Van der Walt et al. (2001) found greater polymorphism in the Blesbok D.p.phillipsi subspecies (n=44; 22 alleles) than in the Bontebok D.p.pygargus subspecies (n=45; 6 alleles) with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II locus DRB investigations using single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis (SSCP). 27 alleles were identified of which 2 alleles are shared by both the Bontebok and the Blesbok. However, the sample size in this study was

32 | P a g e

adequate (178 chromosomes examined) and the populations sampled were representative of the species distribution across South Africa. The partitioning of DRB alleles may represent the phylogeography of the species as Bontebok and Blesbok populations have been separated by the expanse of the Karoo Desert.

7.8. Because the Bontebok subspecies experienced a second bottleneck event that was caused partly by parasitic infection, certain alleles may have been selected in response to presentation of the foreign antigen (Hamilton, 1980).

7.9. Dis-assortative (nonrandom) mating has been proposed to play a role in the selection of alleles whereby animals with dissimilar genotypes mate in order to avoid inbreeding within the population (Potts et al., 1994). Van der Walt et al. (2001) did not find any evidence to describe dis-assortative mating in Bontebok.

7.10. Alleles of each lineage (Bontebok and Blesbok) are characterized by short branch lengths, which indicate small genetic distances and a recent origin and evolution (Van der Walt et al., 2001).

7.11. The genetic differences at this locus can be used to differentiate between Bontebok and Blesbok subspecies as well as identify hybrid animals (Van der Walt et al., 2001).

7.12. Erosion of allelic diversity in Bontebok was most likely and is the result of two severe bottleneck events caused by hunting pressure and parasitic infection. High allelic diversity has been documented in MHC genes in most outbred species (Hedrick, 1994). However, MHC diversity can be lost through demographic crashes, as documented in populations of northern elephant seal (Hoelzel et al., 1999) and cheetah (Yuhki & O’Brien, 1997).

7.13. Although Bontebok populations are indeed viable and show no apparent morphological signs of inbreeding depression, they are still at risk of diseases that may be transmitted by cattle existing in close proximity to the reserves. Given this possible threat of cattle disease transmission and the lack of MHC variation, bontebok may have a smaller chance of mounting immune responses against pathogens in the long term (Van der Walt et al, 2001).

7.14. Van der Walt et al (2001) recommend that the residual genetic variation unique to the bontebok be maintained through managed breeding and translocations between reserves so that DRB alleles are not lost through genetic drift over time.

33 | P a g e

In addition, thee suggest that DRB screening be used to monitor the genetic purity of both Bontebok and Blesbok herds.

7.15. Many of the Bontebok populations found within reserves and farms are offspring from the founding population at Bontebok National Park (BNP). Therefore, it is expected that there will not be significant differentiation between Bontebok populations (Van der Walt, 2002).

7.16. Hybridization can be detected with 100% accuracy if all individuals are tested (Van der Walt, 2002).

8. Molecular investigation (ANNEXTURE 17)

8.1. Where identification based on morphometric measurements are complex, molecular analysis can provide a tool to identify hybrids or introgression in populations. This study provides the first molecular analyses on pure Bontebok and Blesbok as well as putative hybrid populations and samples of unknown purity (Van Wyk et al., 2013).

8.2. Analysis of a panel of 13 microsatellite markers by applying a Bayesian model- based clustering programme provided evidence of clear partitioning between the two subspecies (Van Wyk et al., 2013). Hybridization was detected in 33 % (40 of 121) of the samples with unknown purity.

8.3. Currently, bontebok is listed as protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and is listed as endangered under the United States of America’s Endangered Species Act.

8.4. Van Wyk et al. (2013) found that the microsatellite markers used in the study could accurately identify pure and hybrid animals and can be used as a tool to conserve the genetic integrity of both subspecies.

8.5. Essop et al. (1991) calculated a sequence divergence value of 0.47 % by comparing restriction maps of mitochondrial DNA for both the Bontebok and the Blesbok. The authors indicated that a sequence divergence value of 0.47 % is consistent with subspecies designation.

34 | P a g e

8.6. A major histocompatibility complex (MHC) study also confirmed that Bontebok and Blesbok should be considered separate subspecies (Van der Walt et al., 2001), ANNEXTURE 20.

8.7. Research using the hypervariable region I of the control region in the mitochondrial genome has identified a clear evolutionary partitioning of D. pygargus (Van der Walt 2002).

8.8. The study of Van Wyk et al. (2013) is the first reported use of species specific microsatellite markers for population level genetic studies on Blesbok and Bontebok, and will lead to the evaluation of the current extent of hybridization in South Africa and can be used as a tool to conserve the genetic integrity of both subspecies.

8.9. Measures of genetic diversity in the pure reference Bontebok were found to be lower than that of the pure reference Blesbok populations. The lower level of molecular diversity observed within the pure reference Bontebok is expected given its demographic history. Historical records pertaining to the Bontebok population indicate a bottleneck or population crash in the 1800’s (Van Wyk et al., 2013).

8.10. The level of genetic variation that is retained following a bottleneck is dependent on the number of founders and the rate of the recovery. A slow rate of recovery has been associated with a further decrease in genetic variation via genetic drift, resulting in lowered heterozygosity (De Young and Honeycutt, 2005).

8.11. In the long-term, low genetic variation in combination with population isolation may result in an increase in the risk of extinction (Van Wyk et al., 2013). Although the population size of Bontebok has increased, it has remained relatively low in protected parks and reserves. Slow recovery and growth of the Bontebok populations may be attributed to environmental factors, unstable sex ratios and/or low reproductive success.

8.12. Bayesian clustering analysis revealed the presence of two distinct clusters for the pure reference Bontebok and pure reference Blesbok populations. Hybridization between Bontebok and Blesbok has occurred due to human- mediated mixing of the separate subspecies (East, 1999; Lloyd and David, 2008). However, what is not known is the full extent to which hybridization occurs between the two subspecies (Van Wyk et al., 2013).

35 | P a g e

8.13. Microsatellite variation in pure Bontebok reference populations inferred from hierarchical AMOVA showed substantial differentiation among pure Bontebok sample sites with 23% of the total genetic variation being distributed among populations. These results could be attributed to the animals being protected and isolated in separate National Parks (Van Wyk et al., 2013). Population subdivision theoretically can lead to decreased genetic variation within individual subpopulations due to genetic drift (Lande and Barrowclough, 1987).

SPECIES FITNESS

9. Species management

9.1. Conservation authorities in South Africa do not support the crossbreeding of species, subspecies or ecotypes and genetic integrity at subspecies level based on taxonomic data must be maintained.

9.2. Management plans on game farms must be in place and should include measures to prevent the risk of hybridization between closely related taxa.

9.3. The genetic test described by Van Wyk et al. (2013) is currently being used as a tool by conservation agencies to detect hybrid animals and it is a policy of nature conservation that no hybrids may be translocated alive. However, the fate of hybrid herds and animals is controversial and is currently under debate. Suggestions by Grobler et al. (2011) for the South African blue and black wildebeest may also be pertinent to bontebok and blesbok.

9.4. Van Wyk et al. (2013) suggest that instead of culling animals, pure populations could be certified and contained, where hybrid herds could be isolated on farms that are sufficiently distant and isolated from pure populations, where owners would be encourage to allow hunting or culling.

9.5. The identification of genetic subpopulations raises serious concerns for the management and long-term conservation of Bontebok. The decision to translocate pure Bontebok should therefore not only consider the genetic purity

36 | P a g e

of the subspecies, but also consider the genetic relationships among the subpopulations involved (Van Wyk et al., 2013).

10. Scientific Authority of South Africa (2015)

10.1. Damaliscus pygargus pygargus (Bontebok) is included in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

10.2. Bontebok are currently hunted for trophies in South Africa, with 77% (a total of 2 007 specimens) of international exports between 2002 and 2011 reported as trophies (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015). Bontebok specimens exported is an average of 223 specimens per year (n = 9 years), which is 3,11% per year of the total estimated population of greater than 7 162 bontebok.

10.3. In terms of Article IV of the Convention, an export permit shall only be granted for an Appendix II species when a Scientific Authority of the State of export has advised that such export will not be detrimental to the survival of that species.

10.4. Bontebok is also currently listed as Vulnerable in terms of section 56 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) No. 10 of 2004; as Near Threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species; and as Vulnerable according to the Red Data Book of Mammals of South Africa (SARDB, 2004).

10.5. Of the vegetation types within the Bontebok’s natural and extended natural distribution range, more than 50% are listed as critically endangered, with a further 26% listed as either endangered or vulnerable, in terms of section 52 of NEMBA (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.6. The status and limited availability of habitat for Bontebok within the natural distribution range thus necessitated Cape Nature to adopt a policy that would enable the extension of the bontebok range through translocation (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.7. The keeping of this subspecies by private land owners outside of the natural distribution was therefore allowed by Cape Nature and a buffer population was created from which populations within the natural distribution

37 | P a g e

range could be augmented within a meta-population management approach (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.8. Bontebok has also been translocated extensively outside of its extended natural distribution range to the rest of the Western Cape, as well as to the Free State, North West, Eastern Cape and Northern Cape Provinces.

10.9. The total population is estimated at 7 162 animals of which approximately 2 177 animals currently occur within the natural and extended natural distribution range within the Western Cape. This is a conservative estimate as several private properties keeping bontebok within the provinces are unaccounted for in this analysis (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.10. The minimum number of bontebok outside of its natural distribution range is thus estimated at 4 985 animals (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.11. The population is fragmented with the majority of the populations on private land consisting of less than 20 animals. While populations within protected areas seem to be stable, Bontebok numbers on private properties (accounting for around 80% of the national population) are increasing (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.12. Bontebok have adapted well in areas outside their natural and extended natural distribution range where suitable habitats occur such as in the Free State and the Eastern Cape.

10.13. Concerns relate to the low levels of genetic diversity within Bontebok, a result of the subspecies being hunted to near extinction in the 1930’s, and hybridization of Bontebok with Blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi). The full extent to which hybridization has occurred is unknown (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.14. Hunting of Bontebok, only when international export is required, is monitored through reporting of CITES exports, while translocation is monitored through a permit system on a case by case basis, but the effects of harvesting (on heterozygosity and fitness for example) are not currently monitored (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.15. The national management system for Bontebok is informal as there is no set structure with activities measured against a larger adaptive framework. In some cases local management plans are available but there is no approved national

38 | P a g e

plan that is aimed at managing the genetic integrity of Bontebok (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.16. At present, hunting of Bontebok does not occur in any National Parks nor within some of the provincial protected areas. Approximately 13% of the total bontebok population occurs on protected areas within the natural and extended natural distribution range (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015); that is 7 162 animals x 13% = 931 bontebok in full perseverance protection.

10.17. The conservation value accrued for the subspecies through harvesting is high due to the high economic value of Bontebok at present. Bontebok could however be used as a flagship species for the protection of critically endangered habitats within its natural distribution range (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.18. The Scientific Authority of South Africa (20015) finds the status of the Bontebok to be non-detrimental, and that legal local and international trade in live animals and the export of hunting trophies at present poses only a moderate risk to the survival of this subspecies in South Africa, which can neither be deemed detrimental nor non-detrimental. With the development and effective implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) in terms of section 43 of the NEMBA to improve both management and monitoring, trade of Bontebok will be non-detrimental (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.19. The 2015 population at Bontebok National Park stands at 260, with a further 197 in other national parks (Agulhas, Table Mountain and West Coast National Parks). The populations in protected areas within the Western Cape and Eastern Cape as well as in National Parks are stable (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.20. The combined population for De Hoop Nature Reserve and the Denel Overberg Test Range is estimated at approximately 444 individuals where the population is not considered stable, although inferring a decrease at this stage might be pure speculation: Estimates for Bontebok on the De Hoop Nature Reserve were 450 individuals in 2006, and 242 individuals in 2008 following a presumed crash in large ungulate populations), (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.21. Population sizes on private land, especially extra-liminal populations, however have been increasing (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

39 | P a g e

10.22. Within the natural and extended natural distribution range Bontebok numbers appear to be stable, but nationally the numbers are increasing (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.23. Preliminary genetic analyses show low genetic variation within the natural distribution range population, consistent with the fact that this subspecies was hunted to near extinction in the 1930’s, while biased artificial selection pressures (for coat colour, pattern and horn sizes) exacerbate this situation; and the risk of hybridisation with the closely related Blesbok. The main threat within the natural and extended natural distribution range however is habitat loss, with the other threats stemming from habitat loss. Within the natural distribution range this threat is severe and in some cases irreversible. However suitable habitat exists outside the species’ natural distribution range as evidenced by reportedly healthy and growing populations in the Free State and other provinces (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.24. Nationally the threat to the Bontebok of small fragmented populations in the absence of a meta-population management plan and hybridization with the closely-related Blesbok can be considered as substantial. The effective implementation of a meta-population strategy is urgently required. (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015). Thus the need for well regulatory breeding and gaming Protocols as being put in place by the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association.

10.25. Within the Free State all activities relating to the Bontebok are permitted and well managed (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

10.26. At present there is no formal management plan for Bontebok. SAN Parks currently has no specific management strategy for this subspecies, and management follows the general policy for the management of large mammals in SAN Parks’ National Parks. Bontebok National Park, which was established for the protection of Bontebok antelope has the largest Bontebok population of all SAN Parks properties but can no longer expand in size. The Agulhas National Park has been identified as ideal habitat to establish a new population of Bontebok thereby contributing to the meta-population. None of the Provinces have provincial management plans specifically for Bontebok. SAN Parks and Cape Nature have initiated a process to develop a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) for Bontebok in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. The BMP will be aimed at ensuring the long-term survival of the species in nature (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

40 | P a g e

10.27. The largest portion of the Bontebok population (around 85%) occurs on private land where most of the national harvest in the form of hunting and translocation occurs. Animals from protected areas are sold to private landowners and Bontebok are also traded between private landowners. Some are shot as trophy animals. At present harvesting is being monitored through a permit system and CITES exports (hunting only). For the period 2011-2013, 15% of the permits for game translocations were to export bontebok out of the Western Cape (Scientific Authority of South Africa, 2015).

41 | P a g e

FIGURE 5: Bontebok distribution only in the Western Cape region, 2015 (South African Scientific Authority, 20 May 2015)

42 | P a g e

BONTEBOK MANAGEMENT PLAN

11. Bontebok regulation

11.1. In past history, since the establishment of the New Bontebok National Park in 1960 the South African Nature Conservation Authorities (SANCA) over- regulated the Bontebok, which resulted in major limitations to the potential growth of the specie’s population.

11.2. All Bontebok on farmland and in habitats outside of the historical distribution range (HDR) had been neglected by the SANCA and declared “alien species”. Alien species, by definition of the National Environmental Biodiversity Act of South Africa (NEMBA), need be eradicated and regulated against.

11.3. Take special note that by the early 2000’s more than 50% of the entire Bontebok population inhabited natural land outside of the historical distribution range and was by implication regulated against through the SANCA with negative impact on the overall population growth and enhancement of the species. This doing of the SANCA scientifically and biologically posed the second greatest risk, after the 1930’s population crush to the genetic fitness and long-term survival of the Bontebok.

11.4. Confining the Bontebok to the very few isolated and protected parks and reserves of very limited area size “canned conservation” within the historic distribution range is a highway recipe to the development of a next genetic bottleneck as clearly explained by Van Wyk et al. (2013); Allendorf (1983) and Van der Walt (2002); Vrba (1975 & 1995); Van der Walt et al. (2001); Van Wyk et al. (2013); DeYoung and Honeycutt (2005); Van Wyk et al. (2013) and Lande & Barrowclough (1987) [PARAGRAPH 8.4, 7.1-3, 7.6, 7.9-11, 7.13-14 above].

11.5. In 2006 the Private Sector established the Bontebok Breeders Association (BBA) as a management attempt to develop and implicate a National Bontebok Management Plan as to enhance the Bontebok population and the genetic species fitness as such.

11.6. The BBA soon acquired full cooperation from the Northern Cape Provincial Department as well as the Free State Provincial Department and Bontebok

43 | P a g e

numbers rapidly started increasing and enhancing, primerely because of private breeding on land outside of the HDR, and with an incentive for hunting and financial value adding to the species.

TABLE 3: Mean annual Bontebok auction prices (Furstenburg, 2001 & 2006 updated)

Mean annual South African live sale auction prices for Bontebok Year S.A. Rand per animal 1) 1992 R 1 000 2) 1993 R 0 998 3) 1994 R 2 000 4) 1995 R 2 600 5) 1996 R 2 300 6) 1997 R 2 450 7) 1998 R 2 500 8) 1999 R 2 725 9) 2000 R 3 159 10) 2001 R 3 080 11) 2002 R 6 227 12) 2003 R 8 520 13) 2004 R 9 300 14) 2005 R 9 494 15) 2006 R 6 250 16) 2007 R 6 625 17) 2008 18) 2009 19) 2010 20) 2011 21) 2012 R 9 806 22) 2013 R 29 853 23) 2014 R 37 004 24) 2015 * R 122 909 * Average price of 12 Bontebok females in 2015 was R 170 000

44 | P a g e

11.7. Most important was also a rapid decline in the overall hybridization of Bontebok and Blesbok, as measured only by the visual phenotypical method of Fabricious et al. (1989), as the hunting and life sales value of the Bontebok increased (TABLE 3). The establishment of the BBA was the only legitimate and fruitful Bontebok enhancement management action ever implemented since the Proclamation and establishment of the Bontebok National Park in 1931 and 1960.

11.8. Over-regulation by the SANCA became more lenient as the Bontebok financial value increased, mainly because of private breeding and hunting on land outside of the HBR.

11.9. The success of the cooperation between the BBA and the Northern Cape and the Free State Provincial Departments has led to the development of the first Bontebok Management Protocol.

11.10. The Eastern Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) played a major positive role in the development of the Bontebok Protocol in association with the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association. Especially Mr. Jaap Pienaar (now retired) from the Department had major input in the past enhancement of the Bontebok within the Eastern Cape Province, especially with the application of the photographic Bontebok hybridization testing technique of Fabricious et al. (1989).

11.11. A most important meeting with DEAT-Eastern Cape on March 2015 in Grahamstown was the breakthrough of a unanimous decision that the proposed Bontebok Protocol would render effective Bontebok protection and would benefit the enhancement of Bontebok through private game farming with hunting and trading as incentive.

11.12. In June 2015 the Bontebok Advisory Committee of Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) rolled out the first attempted National Bontebok Protocol management plan (ANNEXTURE 2), currently under evaluation by the South African Work Group 1.

11.13. Final Provincial approval of the Bontebok Protocol was reached on 16 March 2016 (ANNEXTURE 27).

11.14. The Bontebok Protocol addresses all of the most important risk factors influencing the biological enhancement of the species; scientific DNA analysis

45 | P a g e

and genetic purity, monitoring of population enhancement, breeding and camp systems, health and nutrition, and general management of the species.

11.15. DEAT Head Office, Deputy Director Mr. Noluthando Bam, tel: 043 605 7069 e-mail: [email protected]

12 Habitat dynamics and Bontebok distribution

12.1 The split of the Bontebok from the Blesbok occurred some 1,2 million years ago and the Bontebok numbers were numerous in the early Holocene Period some 10,000 years ago and separated by the barrier of the coastal mountain range in combination with a roughly 300 km wide stretch of sub-desert Karoo-type vegetation, which seemingly both the Bontebok and the Blesbok found distasteful.

12.2 The humid grassy conditions (Quick et al, 2015; Hare & Sealy, 2013; Stowe & Sealy, 2015; Holmgren et al, 2003; Chase et al, 2013; Carr et al, 2006) caused by the last glacial approximately 18,000 years ago in the coastal zone (Outeniqua Basin, FIGURE 6) were not the only factor that sparked a surge in Bontebok and associated species’ (Blue antelope Hippotragus leucophaeus) numbers.

12.3 The historic grassy habitat of the lowered southern coastline is further confirmed by the finding of Roan antelope fossils at Byneskranskop near Cape Town (Faith, 2012 and Faith, 2013).

12.4 During this glacial the poles had locked up such a volume of the ocean waters that the shoreline regressed a hundred-odd kilometers to the south, more or less to where the minus 120-m-contour is today, FIGURE 6, (Le Roux, 2010; Dewar & Stewart, 2016). Vast areas of former seabed was exposed with lush growths of sweet grass extending the range of the Bontebok at least four-fold compared to that of recent historic times (Le Roux, 2010).

12.5 Since 18,000 years ago the ice melted and the sea gradually reclaimed the land being the main pre-historic Bontebok habitat. The Bontebok’s range started contracting and with the warming climate, bush, fynbos and forest began to replace the grassland to the south of the coastal mountain range and semi-

46 | P a g e

desert Karoo, natural barrier to Bontebok distributing further north inland (Le Roux, 2010).

12.6 The present high sea-level and declined coastline was reached only 6 500 years ago and ever since varied by as little as plus and minus 4 m (Ramsay, 1996) and the climate being relatively drier with negative influence on grass composition and production. Inferred rainfall was relatively high 1400–1200 calendar years ago, decreased until 950 years ago, and rose notably with pulses centered on 600, 530, 470, 330, 200, 90, and 24 years ago (Stager et al, 2012).

12.7 About 2,000 years ago the numbers of the grazers had dropped further dramatically at the same time that domestic sheep and cattle had first been introduced to the South-western Cape by the indigenous Khoi people, who previously survived entirely by hunting and gathering of wildlife. Veldt degradation by stock and persecution of antelope by the pastoralists (Khoi herders), because there was competition for grazing were therefore big contributing factors to the greatest Bontebok bottle-neck crush (Le Roux, 2010).

12.8 It was not European ancestors causing the extermination of the Blue antelope and the near extinction of the Bontebok, but a combination of global climate change and local Stone Age people.

12.9 Palaeontological evidence indicates the Bontebok historic distribution range (HRD) to have extended to Langebaan in the West where it was exterminated by the Stone Age Khoi before European settlement in the Cape (Le Roux, 2010).

12.10 Most important to note is that the habitat of origin wherein the Bontebok developed no more exist; it is geographically under the bottom of the sea at present. The so called “natural distribution range” referred to in literature is not the Bontebok’s geographic natural origin, but an adopted substitute, being forced in not by choice, but by geographic change and subsequently their movement towards a better environment, hindered and trapped by the Cape folded mountain range and the arid Karoo desert lying beyond. This explains the near extinction bottleneck the species encountered in the 1930s; the ultimate main cause being poor substitute habitat environment. Similar to the Knysna elephant Loxodonta africana, the Bontebok has been forced (no other natural alternative, being cut off from better habitat by the Cape folded mountains preventing the animal’s distribution expansion) to survive in marginal to unsuitable habitat (the recent historic distribution range HDR).

47 | P a g e

FIGURE 6: Estimated distribution range of the Bontebok 18 000 years ago

48 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Regions 20, 22, & 25 (the most important distribution of origin was the -120 m altitude range now below the present sea level to the south of the continent). Present expanded distribution range: Regions 11,16,17 & 18 (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 7: Vegetation: Veldtypes & the Distribution range of the Bontebok (Map, Department of Agricultural, 2003)

49 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Very important to note that the habitat of origin of the Bontebok no longer exists. The coastal grassy veld of origin was the -120 m altitude range now below the present sea level to the south of the continent. The remainder of the habitat has changed from coastal grassveld to mostly lowland renosterveld (Bioregion F02, F04, F07 and F08). Present expanded distribution range: Bioregions AT, SVs, NKu, Gh and Gm (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 8: Vegetation: Bioregions & the Distribution range of the Bontebok

50 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Very important to note that the specific climate at time of origin of the Bontebok are unknown and most properly no longer exists. The region of origin in present time comprises a coastal zone climate of moderate temperature with minimal day/night fluctuation and with both winter rainfall and all year rainfall precipitation). Present expanded distribution range: The extended range now also include summer rainfall precipitation and the warm temperate grassland zone as well as the temperate montane grassland zone (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 9: Vegetation: Veldtypes & the Distribution range of the Bontebok

51 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Bontebok originated in the mixed-veld zone. Present expanded distribution range: The extended range now also include both the sweet-veld (in major) and the sour-veld zones (limited), (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 10: Vegetation: Zone & the Distribution range of the Bontebok

52 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Very important to note that the specific climate at time of origin of the Bontebok are unknown, though indications are of a semi-high annual rainfall of between 600 and 800 mm per annum. The region of origin in present time comprises a rainfall varying from 400 to 1,000 mm per annum. Present expanded distribution range: Rainfall of the extended Bontebok range varies from 250 to 1,000 mm per annum (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 11: Rainfall & the Distribution range of the Bontebok

53 | P a g e

Historic distribution range: Very important to note that the specific climate at time of origin of the Bontebok are unknown, though indications are of a semi-high annual rainfall of between 600 and 800 mm per annum. The region of origin in present time comprises a rainfall varying from 400 to 1,000 mm per annum. Present expanded distribution range: Rainfall of the extended Bontebok range varies from 250 to 1,000 mm per annum (these extended range contributed in major to the survival and saviour of the Bontebok from extinction).

FIGURE 12: Climate & the Distribution range of the Bontebok

54 | P a g e

12.11 The preferred habitat for the survival and sustained lively hood of the Bontebok has ever since the geographic change in the sea level being the mixed and sweet temperate grasslands as presently found in parts of the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and the Free State Provinces. Besides the 245 Bontebok in the Tsolwana Nature Reserve near Queenstown, the major of the Bontebok in these preferred habitats (as needed for the animal’s species enhancement) occur on privately owned Game Ranches where the animals perform very well (as seen in FIGURE 16) in comparison to the trapped animals on Protected land (Nature reserves and parks) within the recent historical distribution range (being the south-western Cape).

13 Bontebok dynamics & Monitoring

13.1 The past collapse of the Bontebok to near extinction was mainly due to the rising of the sea-levels forcing the Bontebok to retreat from the nutritious grasses on conglomerate deposits on the Outeniqua Basin to the foot hills of the poor fynbos vegetation on quarzitic sandstone of the Cape folded mountains, combined with a process of drying of the global climate. The Bontebok entered as a result hereof into feeding and health stress, population isolation and into a genetic bottleneck with loss of genetic heterozygosity. The Giant Sable Hippotragus niger variani of Angola followed a similar pattern of isolation and loss of genetic heterozygosity to near extinction (Pinto et al., 2015).

13.2 In recent years, translocations have increasingly been used as ex situ conservation tools to prevent the loss of threatened species (Seddon et al. 2014) Population restorations aim to reinforce existing populations (population augmentation) or to re-establish species in a habitat where they previously occurred (reintroduction). Managers may move species to a new habitat to perform lost ecological functions (ecological replacement) or to establish insurance populations (conservation introduction). And finally an increasingly common practice, which is not primarily for conservation purposes, is to mitigate detrimental effects to species’ populations from development projects (mitigation translocations, Germano et al., 2015).

13.3 Inbreeding of Bontebok, as was found with the Black Rhino due to a lack of translocation and genetic provenance (Karsten et al., 2011) must be guarded and managed against at all cost. Isolation of sub-populations by conservation authorities in the past did not succeed to enhance the Bontebok as a species.

55 | P a g e

The present population growth with private farming is the first step of success of genetic provenance and enhancement of the Bontebok species (FIGURE 16).

13.4 Important to note that the decision and fire management effort of South African National Parks Board to enhance the extant grass composition in the Bontebok National Park to more suitable grazing for Bontebok has failed the biodiversity of the Cape Flora (a global nature conservation priority) of the Park (Kraaij, 2010). Yet another proof to the need of translocation of Bontebok to habitats and private farms outside of the historic distribution range of the species in order to sustain and for the enhancement of the species.

13.5 Important to note is the trend of progressing decline in the Bontebok population in the Bontebok National Park from 1987 to 2009 (Watson et al., 2011). The decline correlates negatively to introduction and the population growth of Cape Mountain Zebra Equus zebra zebra. The larger zebra compete selectively for the same preferred (higher nutritious C4 grasses, Codron et al., 2009) food needed by the Bontebok. The bottom line is that the management strategy and policy of the National Parks Board to increase biodiversity in the Park has a compound negative effect on the Bontebok species. Management for biodiversity enhancement in the present Western Cape habitats which are at status quo and marginal to less suitable for the Bontebok most certainly has a negative effect on Bontebok survival and performance. The lack of ability of the Bontebok species to adapt to the global climate change and habitat change since it’s inhabiting of the Outeniqua Basin habitat 10 000 years ago can be attributed to the genetic decay of heterozygosity within the Bontebok population.

Trends in population numbers of bontebok and Cape mountain zebra at the Bontebok National Park between 1987 and 2009. Increases in mountain zebra numbers in 1991 and 1994 reflect the introduction of individuals (Watson et al, 2011).

56 | P a g e

FIGURE 13: Bontebok distribution and genetic DNA status in the Eastern Cape, 2016 (ANNEXTURE 24)

57 | P a g e

FIGURE 14: Bontebok distribution and genetic DNA status in the Free State, 2016 (ANNEXTURE 25)

58 | P a g e

FIGURE 15: Frequency of the size of Game Ranches in the Free State inhabiting Bontebok breeding herds (data from the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association, 2016, ANNEXTURE 24)

59 | P a g e

FIGURE 16: Bontebok population dynamics since 1837, emphasizing the difference of success of Bontebok growth inside the Historical Distribution Range (HDR) and outside the HDR, also see TABLE 1 (data from various different sources)

60 | P a g e

14 National Bontebok Protocol (ANNEXURE 27)

CONCLUDING

15 Action plan

15.1 Maintaining genetic diversity for the best survival and enhancement of healthy populations of especially the rarer types of animals it is more appropriate to establish a variety of populations of a given type of animal in more than one locality (Du Toit et al., 2014) e.g. the Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica. The population consisted of only 12 animals in 1965; it had a low genetic heterogeneity (similar to the Bontebok) and a high degree of sperm morphological abnormalities (similar to the cheetah). By strict conservation the population increased to 400 animals in 2013 but still low heterogeneity. The species was only enhanced after a Court order had been issued in 2013 to split the population and translocate some animals to a different habitat.

15.2 Small isolated populations typically have lower levels of genetic diversity and become inbred easily due to lack of translocation (Du Toit et al., 2014). The maintenance of genetic diversity implies sufficient variation (that is genetic variation within a breeding herd/reserve/ranch) on a genetic level to avoid the loss of fertility and general fitness (Du Toit et al., 2014), e.g. the Malawian Sable Hippotragus niger roosevelti has a natural genetic variation of 23% (Prof Betine Jansen van Vuren per com). In small populations that are being kept in isolation for a long time with limited introgression of new males on a regular basis there is always the danger of inbreeding depression (Du Toit et al., 2014), thus the crucial importance to translocate individuals between sub- populations/ranches/regions.

15.3 Private game farming has proved the success of betterment and enhancement of ecological genetic fitness of wild animal species way beyond that of State Conservation Management in protected areas and National Parks. Research and scientific measurement for the Cape Buffalo (Van Hooft, 2015; Van Hooft et al., 2002) revealed average genetic heterozygosity fitness of only 6% for

61 | P a g e

National Parks and Reserves compared to an average of 10,5% for privately farmed populations.

15.4 The most important enhancement parameter for the sustained survival and growth of the Bontebok is the strengthening and breeding of greater genetic provenance or heterozygosity within the species (Miller et al., 2014). Population fragmentation is threatening biodiversity worldwide. Species that once roamed vast areas (Bontebok on the Outeniqua Basin to the south of the African Continent, FIGURE 6) are increasingly being conserved in small, isolated areas. Modern management approaches must adapt (frequent translocations between different habitats and farms) to ensure the continued survival and conservation value of these sub-populations (Miller et al., 2015). In South Africa, a managed metapopulation approach has been adopted for several large carnivore species, all protected in isolated, relatively small, reserves that are fenced (Miller & Tambling, 2015). As far as possible these approaches are based on natural metapopulation structures. To achieve metapopulation structures and genetic provenance Bontebok individuals need be translocated and exchanged between sub-populations between different habitats and between different ranches/farms/parks and reserves on a regular annual basis, as to prevent the development of genetic isolation.

15.5 It is essential for the Bontebok Protocol to be submitted to the USFWS Office.

15.6 The approved Bontebok Protocol to be implemented and followed strictly by regulation and monitoring.

15.7 All Bontebok breeders / ranchers to become members of the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association, and comply to the Bontebok Protocol, utterly important.

15.8 The Bontebok Industry to be formally monitored by scientific standard, a joint venture between WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association, an appointed professional Wildlife Scientist, and Government (DEA). At status quo Deon Furstenburg from GEO WILD CONSULT (Pty) Ltd acts as interim appointed Scientist.

15.9 In order to comply to the Bontebok Protocol it is utterly important for all Bontebok owners to promptly and continuously summit the required information to the Registry Databank to be maintained at the WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association Office.

62 | P a g e

15.10 The USFWS require frequent scientific reporting on the progress and success of Bontebok enhancement in order to approve and pass Bill on legislation on endangered species (the ESA CITES Regulation), and to authorize import Bontebok trophy permits.

15.11 Formal frequent update scientific Bontebok reporting is needed to comply to International Requirements on Endangered Species Protection. In order to do so joint co-operation from all Bontebok owners are essential for the maintenance of the Registry Databank.

15.12 Very important is a scientific research project to be launched to test DNA- heterozygosity provenance with progression of Bontebok subpopulation development; that is ongoing comparing and measurement of animals from different farms, habitats, regions and owners for diversification of the Bontebok genetic genome.

REFERENCING

16 Annextures hereto attached

16.1 ANNEXTURE 1: Letter - The Humane Society of the U.S. 16.2 ANNEXURE 2: WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association Protocol (24 July 2015) 16.3 ANNEXTURE 3: Eastern Cape Bontebok history (February 2016) 16.4 ANNEXTURE 4: Molecular Ecology and Conservation Genetics Services (S.A. National Bontebok DNA Testings Aplications) 16.5 ANNEXTURE 5: Bontebok identification protocol meeting (3 December 2011) 16.6 ANNEXTURE 6: DEAT Call for Bontebok information 16.7 ANNEXTURE 7: Limpopo Provincial Department (DEAT) – Bontebok negotiations 16.8 ANNEXTURE 8: Provincial Gazette Free State Province No. 75 (1 February 2013). 16.9 ANNEXTURE 9: Bontebok (Jokl le Roux, Game &Hunt, 2010). 16.10 ANNEXTURE 10: Letter from United States Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service (23 December 2015). 16.11 ANNEXTURE 11: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (S.Afr. Tydsskr, Natuurnavorsing, 1978, 8(3). 16.12 ANNEXTURE 12: Veterinary aspects of Bontebok (Zumpt and Heine, 1978). 16.13 ANNEXTURE 13: Estimation of genetic distance (Essop et al., 1991). 16.14 ANNEXTURE 14: IUCN Red List Report (Lloyd and David, 2008). 16.15 ANNEXTURE 15: Molecular phylogeny and chromosomal evolution (Steiner et al., 2014).

63 | P a g e

16.16 ANNEXTURE 16: Federal Register, vol 59 issue 148 (3 August, 1994). 16.17 ANNEXTURE 17: A hybrid dilemma (Van Wyk et al., 2013). 16.18 ANNEXTURE 18: State of biodiversity (Lloyd, 2000). 16.19 ANNEXTURE 19: Detection of genetic substructure and diversity, PhD Dissertation (Van der Walt, 2002). 16.20 ANNEXTURE 20: Characterization of major histocompatibility complex DRB diversity (Van der Walt et al. 2001). 16.21 ANNEXTURE 21: Translocation of Bontebok (Barnard & Van der Walt, 1961). 16.22 ANNEXTURE 22: Scientific Authority South Africa, 20 May 2015. 16.23 ANNEXTURE 23: The Game Species Window - E-Book. Amazon USA. ISBN 978-0-620- 65883-6 (Furstenburg, 2015). 16.24 ANNEXTURE 24: Eastern Cape Bontebok Registry, WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association 2016. 16.25 ANNEXTURE 25: Free State Bontebok Registry, WRSA Bontebok Breeders Association 2016. 16.26 ANNEXTURE 26: Bontebok National Park State of Knowledge (Kraaij et al., 2011). 16.27 ANNEXURE 27: BONTEBOK PROTOKOL: Operational Policy Guideline of DEA, BISHO 16.28 ANNEXURE 28: BONTEBOK DNA-TESTING - National Zoological Gardens Genome banking, genetics and pathology programmes… Department of Science & Technology South Africa.

17 References

Adams, WM., Dickson, B., Dublin, HT. and Hutton, J. 2009. Conservation, livelihoods and recreational hunting: issues and strategies. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, pp.363– 371. Allendorf, FWJ. and Hard, JJ., 2009. Human-induced evolution caused by unnatural selection through harvest of wild animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(1), pp.9987–9994. Allendorf, FWJ., Leary, R., Spruell, P. and Wenburg, J., 2001. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16, 613-622. Adendorff, FWJ. 1986. Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo. Biol. 5: 181 - 190. Anderson , JM. 2001. Towards Gondwana alive: Promoting biodiversity & stemming the sixth extinction. Vol 1. National Botanical Institute, South Africa. Baker, RJ. and Bradley, RD. 2006. Speciation in mammals and the genetic species concept. J. Mammal. 87(4): 643 - 662. Baldus, RD. 2008. Wildlife: can it pay its way or must it be subsidized? In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.12–16. Baldus, RD., Damm, GR. and Wollscheid, KU. 2008. Best practices in sustainable hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife

64 | P a g e

Baldus, RD. and Michel, S. 2011. What does CITES mean for an African or Central Asian village? Some experiences from Tanzania and Tajikistan. In: C. Abensperg-Traun, M., Roe, D. and O’Criodain, ed., CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an international symposium on "The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and London, UK: IIED, pp.52–58. Barnard, PJ., Van der Walt, K. 1961. Translocation of Bontebok Damaliscus pygargus from Bredasdorp to Swellendam. Cape Parks and Division of Veterinary Services. 18 Barnard, PJ, Van der Walt K. 1961. Translocation of the bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus) from Bredasdorp to Swellendam. Koedoe. 4:105–109. Bigalke, R. 1955. The bontebok Damaliscus pygargus (Pall) with special reference to its history and preservation. Fauna and Flora. 6:95–116. Bond, I., Child, B., De la Harpe, D., Jones, B., Barnes, J. and Anderson, H. 2004. Private land contributions to conservation in South Africa. In: B. Child, ed., Parks in transition: biodiversity, rural development, and the bottom line. Earth Scan, pp.29–61. Booth, VR. 2010. The contribution of hunting tourism: How significant is this to national economies. In: K.- W. Wollscheid and R. Czudek, eds., Contribution of wildlife to national economies. Budapest: Joint publication of FAO and CIC.

Bothma, J du P. and Du Toit, JG. 2016. Game ranch management. 6th Edition. Van Schaik Publishers. pp 1012

Brainerd, S. 2007. European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. StrasbouEditionrg: Council of Europe and Bern Convention in cooperation with IUCN, CIC and FACE.

Broders, H., Mahoney, S., Montevecchi, W., Davidson, W. 1999. Population genetic structure and the effect of founder events on the genetic variability of moose, Alces alces, in Canada. Molecular Ecology 8:1309- 1315.

Cape Nature. 2013. Bontebok Conservation, Translocation and Utilization Policy (BCTUP)

Carr, AS., Thomas, DSG., Bateman, MD., Meadows, ME. and Chase, B. 2006. Late Quaternary palaeoenvironments of the winter-rainfall zone of southern Africa: Palynological and sedimentological evidence from the Agulhas Plain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 239(1-2):147- 165.

Chase, BM., Boom, A., Carr, AS., Meadows, ME. and Reimer, PJ. 2013. Holocene climate change in southernmost South Africa: rock hyrax middens record shifts in the southern westerlies. Quaternary Science Reviews 82:199-205.

Cloete, PC., Van der Merwe, P. and Saayman, M. 2015. Game ranch profitability in South Africa. (2nd ed). Published by ABSA. 192 pp.

Codron, D., Codron, J., Lee-Thorp, JA., Sponheimer, M., Grant, CC. and Brink, JS. 2009. Stable isotope evidence for nutritional stress, competition, and loss of functional habitat as factors limiting recovery of rare antelope in southern Africa. Journal of Arid Environments (2009):1-9.

Coltman, DW., O’Donoghue, P., Jorgenson, JT., Hogg, JT., Strobeck, C. and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2003. Undesirable evolutionary consequences of trophy hunting. Nature. 426:655–658.

Croes, BM., Funston, PJ., Rasmussen, G., Buij, R., Saleh, A., Tumenta, PN. and de Iongh, HH. 2011. The impact of trophy hunting on lions (Panthera leo) and other large carnivores in the Bénoué Complex, northern Cameroon. Biological Conservation. 144(12):3064–3072.

65 | P a g e

Darlton, DL., Van Wyk, AM. and Kotze A. 2011. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in blesbok Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi. Conservation Genetic Resource 3:677-679.

David, J. 1997. Family Bovidae, blesbok. In: The Complete Book of Southern African Mammals (eds Mills G, Hes L), pp. 257. Struik Publishing, Cape Town.

David, JHM, 1973. The behaviour of the bontebok with special reference to territoriality. Z. Tierpsychol. 33:38-107.

David, J. and Lloyd, P. 2008. Damaliscus pygargus. In: J S. Kingdon and M. Hoffmann (eds), The Mammals of Africa, Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Dewar, G. and Stewart, B. 2016. Paleoenvironments, Sea Levels, and Land Use in Namaqualand, South Africa, During MIS 6-2. In: Jones, SC & Stewart BA (eds), Africa from MIS 6-2: Population dynamics and paleoenvironments, Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017- 7520-5_11

Deyoung, RW., Honeycutt, RL. 2005. The molecular toolbox: genetic techniques in wildlife ecology and management. J Wildl Manage 69:1362–1384.

Du Plessis, SF. 1969. The past and present geographical distribution of the Perrisodactyla and Artiodactyla in Southern Africa. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Pretoria.

Du Toit, JG., Van Marle-Koster, E., Bothma J du P. and Jansen Van Vuuren. 2014. Genetic principles and tools for wildlife management. In: B. Bothma, JduP. (ed), Game ranch management, 6th edition. Van Schaik, Pretoria.

East, R. 1999. African Antelope Database 1999. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Ernest, H.B., Penedo, C.T., May, BP., Syvanen, M. and Boyce, WM. 2000. Molecular tracking of mountain lions in the Yosemite Valley region in California: genetic analysis using microsatellites and faecal DNA. Molec. Ecol. 9:433-441.

ESA. 2015. Ecology/Ecological Monographs/Ecological Applications ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA. Pre-Print.

Essop, MF., Harley, EH., Lloyd, PH. and Van Hensbergen, HJ. 1991. Estimation of the genetic distance between bontebok and blesbok using mitochondrial DNA. South African Journal of Science 87:271-273.

Estes, RD., 1992. The behaviour guide to African Mammals. University of California Press, Ltd. London, England.

European Commission, 2013. EU consultation in view of a potential revision of EU rules governing trade in hunting trophies in species included in Annex B of Regulation 338/97.

Fabricius, C., Van Hensbergen, H J. and Zucchini, W. 1989. A discriminant function for identifying hybrid bontebok x blesbok populations. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 19:61-66.

Faith, JT. 2012. Conservation Implications of Fossil Roan Antelope (Hippotragus equinus) in SouthernAfrica’s Cape Floristic Region. In: J. Louys (ed.), Paleontology in Ecology and Conservation, Springer Earth System Sciences, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-25038-5_12, Springer-Verlag. Berlin Heidelberg

Faith, JT. 2013. Ungulate diversity and precipitation history since the Last Glacial Maximum in the Western Cape, South Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 68:1891-199.

Festa-Bianchet, M., 2012. Rarity, willingness to pay and conservation. Animal Conservation 15:12–13.

66 | P a g e

Friedmann, Y. and Daly, B. 2004. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) and Endangered Wildlife Trust, Parkview, South Africa.

Frisina, MR. and Tareen, SNA., 2009. Exploitation prevents extinction: Case study of endangered Himalayan sheep and goats. In: B. Dickson, J. Hutton and W.M. Adams, eds., Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods: Science and Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.141–156.

Furstenburg, D. 2016. Game camp systems & outlays. Wildlife Breeders Journal (2016):106-115.

Furstenburg, D. 2015a. The Game Species Window - E-Book. Amazon USA. ISBN 978-0-620-65883-6

Furstenburg, D. 2015b. Colour variants an independent perspective. National WRSA Conference, Sun City.

Furstenburg, D. 2015c. Risikobestuur van wild – Deel 6b: Die 6de uitserwing. Game&Hunt 21(10):120- 123.

Furstenburg, D. 2015d. Risikobestuur van wild – Deel 6a: Wereldklimaat & uitsterwing. Game&Hunt 21(9):100-103.

Furstenburg, D. 2012. Focus on the bontebok Damaliscus pygargus pygargus. S A Hunter 05064:46-48.

Furstenburg, D & Stoltz, MM. 2008. Global climatic change and animal production. Proceedings, 10th World Animal Production Congress, Cape Town.

Furstenburg, D. 2006. Bontebok Damaliscus dorcas dorcas. Game&Hunt 12(3):6-9.

Furstenburg, D. 2005. Global warming and natural production. National Botanical Institute & WRSA Conference, Pretoria.

Furstenburg, D. 2004. Global habitat dynamics and game speciation. Game Conference Univ. of the Free State, Bloemfontein.

Furstenburg, D. 2004. Game business, markets, production, distribution, genetics and habitats. National Wildlife Expo Conference, Pretoria.

Furstenburg, D. 2003. Under harvesting of game and over-utilization of veld: the impact. Namibian Professional Hunters Association Congress, Windhoek, Namibia.

Furstenburg, D, Du Toit, PF. 2002. Optimizing game production in a new era: the road to financial success. Grootfontein Agric. 16pp.

Furstenburg, D. 2002. Ecological Bio-audit, aerial game census, update animal population data-base (Mpofu, Tsolwana, Fish River Complex, Oviston, Komandodrift, Karoo, Baviaanskloof, Thomas Baines, Verneukkloof, Mkambati, Hluleka and Port St Johns; 608 000ha), East Cape Tourism Board. 21 pp.

Furstenburg, D. 2001. Game production optimization within a new era: the essence, the principles and the pendulum to financial success. Proceedings, 5th International, Wildlife Ranching Symposium, Pretoria.

Furstenburg, D. 2001. Ecological Bio-audit, aerial game census, update animal population data-base (Mpofu, Tsolwana, Fish River Complex, Oviston, Karoo, Baviaanskloof, Thomas Baines, Mkambati, Hluleka and Port St Johns; 600 000ha), East Cape Tourism Board.

Furstenburg, D. 2001. Bontebok Damaliscus dorcas dorcas. Game&Hunt 7(9):6, 7, 27.

Furstenburg, D. 2000. Ecological Bio-audit, aerial game census, update animal population data-base (Mpofu, Tsolwana and Fish River Complex; 58 000ha), East Cape Tourism Board.

67 | P a g e

Furstenburg, D, Kleynhans, M. 2000. Integrated Kudu, Duiker, Bushbuck and Boergoat Production Systems in Valley Bushveld: Ecological Interactions, Processes & Constrains. Pelea 21st Anniversary Scientific Edition 19:134-141.

Furstenburg, D. 1999. Ecological Bio-audit, aerial game census, compiling animal population data-base, (Mpofu, Tsolwana and Fish River Complex; 58 000ha), East Cape Tourism Board.

Furstenburg, D. 1998. Game Production: Limitations set by land area, breeding and population dynamics. Pelea 17:25-37.

Germano, J M., Field, KJ. Griffiths, RA. Clulow, S. Foster, J. Harding, G. and. Swaisgood, RR. 2015. Mitigation-driven translocations: are we moving wildlife in the right direction? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13:100–105.

Griffith, B., Scott, JM. Carpenter, JW. and Reed, C. 1989. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480.

Grimm, U., 2008. Trophy hunting for endangered species. In: R.D. Baldus, G.R. Damm and K. Wollscheid, eds., Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.17–19.

Greyling, B, Furstenburg, D & Van Hooft, P. 2013. Ranched populations: the implications for conservation management of the African buffalo from a genetics point of view. National Parks Board Symposium, Skukuza.

Grobler, JP., Rushworth, I., Brink, JS., Bloomer, P., Kotze, A., Reilly, B., Vrahimis, S. 2011. Management of hybridization in an endemic species: decision making in the face of imperfect information in the case of the black wildebeest–Connochaetes gnou. Eur J Wildl Res 57:997–1006.

Grubb, P. 2005. Artiodactyla. In: D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds), Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), pp. 637-722. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.

Hamilton WD (1980) Sex versus non-sex parasite. Oikos. 35:282–290.

Hamman, K., Vrahimis, S. and Blom, H. 2003. Can current trends in the game industry be reconciled with nature conservation? African Inaba, 1(5):3–6.

Hare, V. and Sealy, J. 2013. Middle Pleistocene dynamics of southern Africa’s winter rainfall zone from ծ13C and ծ18O values of Hoedjiespunt faunal enamel. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 347:72-80.

Harris, R.B., Cooney, R. and Leader-Williams, N. 2013. Application of the Anthropogenic Allee Effect Model to Trophy Hunting as a Conservation Tool. Conservation biology, 00(0):1–7.

Hedrick, PW. 1994. Evolutionary genetics of the major histocompatibility complex. American Naturalist, 143:945–964.

Henderson, Z.L. 2008. Standards for curation of archaeological material: some thoughts on the issues. South African Archaeological Bulletin 63:79-81

Hoelzel, AR., Stephens, JC., O’Brien, SJ. 1999. Molecular genetic diversity and evolution at the MHC DQB locus in four species of pinnipeds. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16:611–618.

Hofer, D. 2002. The Lion’s Share of the Hunt. Trophy Hunting and Conservation - A review of the legal Eurasian tourist hunting market and trophy trade under CITES. TRAFFIC Europe, p.72.

68 | P a g e

Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, JA., Cooper, GRJ., Lundblad, K., Partridge, TC., Scott, L., Sithaldeen, R., Talma, AS and Tyson, PD. 2003. Persistent millennial-scale climatic variability over past 25,000 years in southern Africa. Quarternary Science Reviews 22:2311-2326.

IEA (Institute of Applied Ecology), 1998. Damaliscus pygargus. In African Mammals Databank - A Databank for the Conservation and Management of the African Mammals Vol 1 & 2. European Commission Directorate, Bruxelles: http://gorilla.bio.uniroma1.it/amd/

IUCN SSC, 2012. IUCN SSC Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. Ver. 1.0. Gland, Switzerland, pp.1–11.

IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2008. Kobus leche. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 01-08-2013.

Johnson, P.J., Kansky, R., Loveridge, A.J. and Macdonald, DW. 2010. Size, rarity and charisma: valuing African wildlife trophies. PloS one, 5(9):12866.

Karsten, M., Jansen van Vuuren, B., Goodman, P. and Barnaud, A. 2010. The history and management of black rhino in KwaZulu-Natal: a population genetic approach to assess the past and guide the future. Zoological Society of London. Animal Conservation 2011:1-8.

Kettlitz, WK. 1967. The blesbok with special reference to the herd in the Percy Fyfe National Park. Fauna and Flora, 18:36–46.

Kingdon, J. 1979. East African Mammals, Vol. IIID, Bovids: An atlas of evolution in Africa. Academic Press, London.

Kliman, R., Sheehy, B. & Schultz, J. 2008. Genetic drift and effective population size. Nature Education 3(6):2442

Kotze, A. & Bartels, P. 2006. Wildlife biomaterial banking in Africa for now and the future. J. Environ. Monit. 8:779-781.

Kraaij, T. 2011. The flora of the Bontebok National Park in regional perspective. S.A. Journal of Botany.

Kraaij, T. Randall, R.M., Novellie, P.A., Russel, I.A. & Kruger, N. 2011. Bontebok National Park State of Knowledge. SANParks Scientific Services Report. SANParks, Pretoria.

Kraaij, T. 2010. Evaluation of Themeda triandra as an indicator for monitoring the effects of grazing and fire in the Bontebok National Park. Koedoe 52(1):1-5.

Lande, R., Barrowclough, GF. 1987. Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management. In: Soule ME (ed) Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 87–123.

Leader-Williams, N., Milledge, S., Adcock, K., Brooks, M., Conway, A., Knight, M., Mainka, S., Martin, E.B. and Teferi, T. 2005. Trophy hunting of black rhino Diceros bicornis: proposals to ensure its future sustainability. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 8:8–11.

Le Roux, J. 2010. Bontebok. Game & Hunt 2010 (June):14-18.

Lewison, R. and Oliver, W. 2008. Hippopotamus amphibius. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. URL: www.iucnredlist.org Accessed 06-08-2013.

Lindsey, P., Roulet, P. and Romanach, S. 2007. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134, pp.455–469.

69 | P a g e

Lindsey, PA., Alexander, R., Frank, LG., Mathieson, A. and Romanach, SS. 2006. Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlifebased land uses may not be viable. Animal Conservation, 9:283–291.

Lindsey, PA. 2008. Trophy hunting in sub Saharan Africa: economic scale and conservation significance. In: Best Practices in Sustainable Hunting - a guide to best practices from around the world. CIC - International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, pp.41–47.

Lindsey, PA., Balme, GA., Booth, VR. and Midlane, N. 2012. The significance of African lions for the financial viability of trophy hunting and the maintenance of wild land. PloS one, 7(1):29332.

Lloyd, PH. 2000. State of biodiversity: Western Cape Province, South Africa Mammals, Scientific Services, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, Stellenbosch.

Lloyd, P. and David, J. 2008. Damaliscus pygargus. The IUCN Red list of Threatend Species,. T30208A9530977. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T30208A9530977.en

Lorenzen, ED., Arctander, P. and Siegismund, HR. 2008. High variation and very low differentiation in wide- ranging plains zebra (Equus quagga): insights from mtDNA and microsatellites. Molec. Ecol. 17:2812- 2824.

Lorenzen, ED. and Siegismund, HR. 2004. No suggestion of hybridization between the vulnerable black- faced impala (Aepyceros melampus petersi) and the common impala (A. m. melampus) in Etosha National Park, Namibia. Molec. Ecol. 13:3007-3019.

Loveridge, AJ., Reynolds, JC. and Milner-Gulland, EJ. 2006. Does sport hunting benefit conservation? In: D.W. Macdonald and K. Service, eds., Key Topics in Conservation Biology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp.224–240.

Louw, AB. & Rebelo, AG. 1996. Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Dept. Environmental Affairs & Tourism, Pretoria.

Luyt, ED. 2005. Models of Bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus, Pallas 1766) habitat preferences in the Bontebok National Park and sustainable stocking rates. Stellenbosch University.

Lynch, CD. 1994. The mammals of Lesotho. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein 10(4):177-241.

McCarthy, T and Rubidge, B. 2005. The story of Earth & Life: A southern African perspective on a 4,6- billion-year journey. Struik Nature Publishing.

Miller, SM., Harper, CK., Bloomer, P., Hofmeyr, J. and Funston, PJ. 2015. Fenced and Fragmented: Conservation Value of Managed Metapopulations. Plos One. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0144605 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288001835

Miller, SM. and Tambling, CJ. 2015 GrowLS: Lion (Panthera leo) Population Growth Simulation forSmall Reserve Management Planning. African Journal of Wildlife Research 45(2):169-177.

Miller, SM., Harper, CK., Bloomer, P., Hofmeyr, J. and Funston, PJ. 2014. Evaluation of Microsatellite Markers for Populations Studies and Forensic Identification of African Lions(Panthera leo). Journal of Heredity Advance Access. www.jhered.oxfordjournals.org.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, MC. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SANBI, Pretoria. pp 807.

Munro, M. 2013. Nuclear DNA versus mitochondrial DNA: different applications in wildlife breeding. Game & Hunt 19(9):97-101.

70 | P a g e

Nefdt, RJC. and Thirgood, SJ. 1997. Lekking, resource defense, and harassment in two subspecies of lechwe antelope. Behavioral Ecology, 8(1):1–9.

Novellie, PA. 1986. Relationship between rainfall, population density and size of the bontebok lamb crop in the Bontebok National Park, S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 16:41-46.

Novellie, P. 1987. Interrelationships between fire, grazing and grass cover at the Bontebok National Park. Koedoe 30:1-17.

Penzhorn, BL. 1971. A summary of the re-introduction of ungulates into South African National Park (to December 1970). Koedoe 14:145-159.

Pinto, PV., Beja, P., Feerand, N. and Godinho, R. 2015. Hybridization following population collapse in a critically endangered antelope. Scientific Reports 5. www.nature.com/scientificreports DOI: 10.1038/srep18788

Pitra, C., Anders, J., Hansen, J., Lieckfeldt, D. and Arctander, P. 2002. An exceptional case of historical outbreeding in African sable antelope populations. Molec. Biol. 11:1197-1208.

Prins, H., Van Vuuren, BJ., De Jongh, H. and Michaux, J. 2013. Pan-African genetic structure in the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer): investigating intraspecific divergence. PLoS ONE 8(2):56235.

Quick, LJ., Carr, AS., Meadows, ME., Boom, A., Bateman, MD., Roberts, DL., Reimer, PJ. and Chase, BM. 2015. A late Pleistocene–Holocene multi-proxy record of palaeoenvironmental change from Still Bay, southern Cape Coast, South Africa. Journal of Quarternary Science 9999:1-16.

Rabie, J.H. 2011. Die herlewing en genetiese herstel van die swartwitpens. Game & Hunt 17(3): 53, 55, 57.

Ramsay, P. 1996. 9000 Years of sea-level change along the southern African coastline. Quaternary International 31:71-75.

Reitz, Deneys. 2011. The Deneys Reitz Trilogy: Adrift on the open veld, The Anglo-Boer War and its aftermath 1899-1943. The quest of the Bontebok. Stormberg Publishers CC.

Robinson, TJ., Bothma, JduP., Fairall, N., Harrison, WR. and Elder, FFB. 1996. Chromosomal conservation in southern African klipspringer antelope (Oreotragus oreotragus): a habitat specialist with disjunct distribution. Z. Säugetierk. 61:49-53.

Rookmaker, LC. 1989. The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Scientific Authority of South Africa. 2015. Non-detriment finding for Damaliscus pygargus pygargus (bontebok). Ref: Dam_pyg_pygMay2015.

Seddon, PJ., Armstrong, DP. and Maloney, RF. 2007. Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conservation Biology 21:303–312.

Seddon, PJ., Moehrenschlager, A. and Ewen, J. 2014. Reintroducing resurrected species: selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29:140–147.

Seddon, JM., Baverstock, PR. 1999. Variation on islands, major histocompatibility complex (MHC) polymorphism in populations of Australian bush rat. Molecular Ecology, 8:2071–2079.

Simonson, BT., Siegismund, HR. and Arctander. P. 1998. Population structure of African buffalo inferred from mtDNA sequences and microsatellites: high variation but low differentiation. Molec. Ecol. 7:225- 237.

71 | P a g e

Skead, CJ. 1980. Historical mammmal incidence in the Cape Province. Vol. 1. The western and northern Cape. CDNEC, Cape Provincial Administration, Cape Town.

Skead, CJ. 1987. Historical mammal incidence in the Cape Province. Vol. 2. The eastern half of the Cape Province, including the Ciskei, Transkei and East Griqualand. CDNEC, Cape Provincial Administration, Cape Town.

Skinner, JD & Chimba CT, 2005. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press.

Smithers, RHN, 1983. The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, 1st edn. University of Pretoria, CTP Book Printers, Cape Town.

Stager, JC., Mayewski, PA., White, J., Chase, BM., Neuman, FH., Meadows, ME.,King, CD. and Dixon, DA. 2012. Precipitation variability in the winter rainfall zone of South Africa during the last 1400 yr linked to the austral westerlies. Climate Past Discussions 8:877-887.

Steiner, CC., Charter, SJ., Houck, ML. and Ryder, OA. 2014. Molecular phylogeny and chromosomal evolution of Alcelaphini (Antilopinae). J. of Heredity doi:10.1093/jhered/esu004.

Stowe, MJ. and Sealy J. 2015 Terminal Pleistocene and Holocene dynamics of southern Africa's winter rainfall zone based on carbon and oxygen isotope analysis of bovid tooth enamel from Elands Bay Cave. Quaternary International (2015) In Press.

Thompson, JC. and Henshilwood, CS. 2014. Nutritional values of tortoises relative to ungulates from Middle Stone Age leves at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for foraging and social behaviour. J. Human Evolution 67:33-47.

Van der Merwe P. and Saayman, M. 2007. Determining the economic value of game farm tourism. Koedoe 46:103–112.

Van der Merwe, NJ. 1968. Die bontebok. Koedoe, 11:161–168.

Van der Walt, JM. 2002. Detection of genetic substructure and diversity in the endemic South African antelope species Damaliscus pygargus. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Pretoria. Pretoria.

Van der Walt, JM., Nel, LH. and Hoelzel, AR. 2001. Characterisation of major histocompatibility complex DRB diversity in the endemic South African antelope Damaliscus pygargus: a comparison in two subspecies with different demographic histories. Molecular Ecology. 10(7):1679–1688.

Van der Walt, JM., Nel, LH. and Hoelzel, AR. 2013. Differentiation of mitochondrial and nuclear loci between the blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi) and bontebok (D. p. pygargus): implications for conservation strategy. Conserv. Gen. 14:243-248.

Van Hooft, WF. 2015. Black gold. Wildlife Ranching 2015(2):238-243.

Van Hooft, WF., Groen, AF. and Prins, HHT. 2002. Phylogeography of the African buffalo based on mitochondrial and Y-chromosome loci: Pleistocene origin and population expansion of the Cape buffalo subspecies. Molecular. Ecology. 11: 267 - 279.

Van Rensburg, APJ. 1975. Die geskiedenis van die Nasionale Bontebokpark, Swellendam. Koedoe 18:165–190.

Van Vuuren, BJ. 2013. Livingstone eland DNA debate. Wildlife Ranching 6(1):44, 45, 47.

Van Vuuren, BJ., Robinson, TJ., VazPinto, P., Estes, R. and Matthee, C. 2010. Western Zambian sable: are they a geographic extension of the giant sable antelope? S. Afr. J. Wild. Res. 40(1):36-42.

72 | P a g e

Van Wyk, AM., Kotze, A., Randi E. & Dalton, DL. 2013. A hybrid dilemma: a molecular investigation of South African Bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) and Blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi). Conserv. Gen. 14:589-599.

Van Zyl, LJ. 1978. Die waterbehoeftes en drinkgewoontes van die Bontebok Damaliscus pygargus pygargus (Pallas, 1766) in die Bontebok Nasionale Park. MSc Thesis, University of Stellenbosch.

Vrba, ES. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis and classification of fossil and recent Alcelaphini Mammalia, Bovidae. Biological Journal of the Linnaen Society, 11:207–228.

Watson, LH., Kraaij, T. and Novellie, P. 2011. Management of rare ungulates in a small park: habitat use of bontebok and Cape mountain zebra in Bontebok National Park assessed by counts of dung groups. African Journal of Wildlife Research 41(2):158-166.

Watson, JP, Skinner, JD, Erasmus, BH & Dott, HM, 1991. Age determination from skull growth in blesbok. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 21(1):6-14.

Weaver, C., Hamunyela, E., Diggle, R., Matongo, G. and Pietersen, T. 2011. The catalytic role and contributions of sustainable wildlife use to the Namibia CBNRM Programme. In: M. Abensperg-Traun, D. Roe and C. Ó Críodáin, eds., CITES and CBNRM. Proceedings of an international syposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries.” Vienna, Austria: IUCN and IIED, pp.59–70.

Whitman, K., Starfield, A.M., Quadling, H.S. and Packer, C., 2004. Sustainable trophy hunting of African lions. Nature, 428(6979):175–178.

Yuhki, N., O’Brien, SJ. 1990. DNA variation of the mammalian major histocompatibility complex reflects genomic diversity and population history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 87, 836–840.

Yuhki, N., O’Brien, SJ. 1997. Nature and origin of polymorphism in feline MHC class II DRA and DRB genes. Journal of Immunology, 158:2822–2833.

Zumpt, IF. and Heine, EWP. 1978. Some veterinary aspects of bontebok in the Cape of Good Hope Nature Reserve. S. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 8:131-134.

Deon Furstenburg (Director Wildlife Science) Geo Wild Consult (Pty) Ltd M .Sc. Wildlife Management, Pta 1991

E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.geowild.co.za

73 | P a g e

Short CV, Deon Furstenburg:

Graduated B.Sc. Pta. 1983; B.Sc. Hons. Wildlife Management Pta. 1984; M.Sc. Wildlife Management Pta. 1991 (Feeding ecology of giraffe in Kruger Park) and awarded the Junior Captain Scott Memorial Medal, from the National Academy of Science, & Technology for the best Zoology Thesis submitted nationally for 1991 & 1992. A 12 year Ph.D. study in the Eastern Cape (The influence of environmental and animal factors in sustaining production in semi-arid vegetation).

Deon was a senior wildlife scientist at the Agricultural Research Council 1990-2014; he achieved the ARC directors award in 1994 & 1997 for science excellence, the ECGMA Plume award in 2001 for wildlife journalism, and in 2008 he was awarded by the World Association of Animal Production for an international presentation titled “Global climate change & animal production”.

Deon has 35 years scientific experience; published 16 chapters in books; 7 peer-reviewed publications; 32 conference proceedings; 179 non-refereed publications; 67 platform presentations; 209 consultancy wildlife reports; 4 years student lecturing at Grootfontein Agricultural College and 12 years lecturing at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University; Deon is the author of the 1st game species e-book ever “Game Species Window” (1 680 pages, available from Amazon Publishers); and also co-author to a new book “Intensive Game Management” to be published early in 2016 by BRIZA Publishers. Currently Deon is the Director of Science and Shareholder of GEO WILD CONSULT.

Furstenburg, D. 2015. The Game Species Window - E-Book. Amazon USA, 1 241 web pp. ISBN 978- 0-620-65883-6

74 | P a g e