HONINGFONTEIN GAME FARM
GUIDELINES FOR THE INTRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS AND EXTRALIMITAL WILDLIFE
PREPARED FOR Mr. Gerhardus Wendt
SEPTEMBER 2019 - updated October 2020
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES – KEN COETZEE 4 CHESTNUT STREET, HEATHER PARK GEORGE, 6529 TEL / FAX: 044 – 8708472 www.conservationmanagementservices.co.za CONTENTS
1. Introduction and objectives ...... 1 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Objectives of the plan …………………………………………………………….. 2
2. Description of the habitat ...... 3
2.1 Vegetation description ...... 3
A. Albertinia sand fynbos ...... 3 B. Canca limestone fynbos ...... 5 C. Eastern Ruens shale renosterveld……… …………………………………….. 6 D. Transformed pasture areas……..………………………………………………..7
2.2 Habitat condition and capability ...... 8 2.3 Conservation status ...... 9
3. Wildlife management ...... 10
3.1 Already introduced species ...... 10 3.2 Naturally occurring species & species introduced in the area…………………. 16 3.3 The additionally required wildlife species…………………………………………..16 3.4 Stocking rates and animal numbers………………………………………………...28 3.5 Maintaining genetic heterozygocity…………………………………………………32 3.6 Passive capture and removals………………………………………………………32 3.7 Wildlife register ...... 37 3.8 Supplementary feeding ...... 37 3.9 External parasite and disease control ...... 38 3.10 Water provision…………………………………………………………………….. 44 3.11 Fencing……………..……………………………………………………………….. 47 3.12 Pasture improvement……………………………………………………………… 48
4. Monitoring and audit ...... 49
4.1 Monitoring habitat condition ...... 49 4.2 Ecological threat analysis ...... 59 4.3 Game farm management evaluation (Audit) ...... 59
5. Additional management recommendations ...... 61
6. References ...... 61
Appendix 1 - Undertaking by property owner …………………………………………………62
1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Ken Coetzee of Conservation Management Services was contracted by Mr Gerhardus Wendt to prepare a game introduction plan for the Honingfontein Game Farm (HGF) south of Riversdale in the Southern Cape. (See Figure 1 for the locality).
The brief for the contract was to prepare a wildlife introduction and management plan in terms of the Game Translocation and Utilization Policy (2014) of Cape Nature. Some of the wildlife that will be introduced are extralimital species, for which such a risk assessment and management strategy must be prepared in terms of the policy. The site was inspected on 12 September 2019 in order to collect the necessary biodiversity and site information. Figure 2 (and Figure 6) shows the layout of the HGF.
Details of the applicant are as follows:
a) Full name : Gerhardus Wendt. b) Identity no : 5608065079084 c) Farm name : Farm 372 Honingfontein, Riverdale d) District : Riversdale. e) Postal address : PO Box 237, Riversdale, 6670. f) Cell phone : 0716796410 / 0729243480 / 0828278789 g) e-mail : [email protected] h) Title deed number: T 32023 / 2018
FIGURE 1: Approximate locality of the HGF ±18 km due South of Riversdale in the Southern Cape.
1. N
FIGURE 2: The layout of the HGF clearly showing the previously cultivated areas in the Northern portion as enclosed in yellow.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this game introduction plan is to address the objectives of the Game Translocation and Utilization Policy (GTUP) (2014) with respect to the introduction of game species extralimital to the Western Cape. These objectives are:
➢ To ensure that risks posed to biodiversity by the introduction of extralimital game species are effectively mitigated; ➢ to ensure sustainable utilization of natural resources; ➢ to ensure the ecological integrity of wildlife species; and ➢ to ensure effective protection, security and compliance.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: The secondary objectives are those set by the landowner for the establishment and management of the property as a private game farm. In the case of HGF, the objectives are as follows:
The management, rehabilitation and conservation of the farm for use as a sustainable and extensive game farming operation. 2.
3.
RUENS SILCRETE RENOSTERVELD
EASTERN RUENS SHALE RENOSTERVELD
CANCA LIMESTONE FYNBOS
ALBERTINIA SAND FYNBOS
FIGURE 3: The vegetation of the Honingfontein Game Farm. (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006)
4.
5.
6.
7.
Goukou
The value of habitat for wildlife grazing lies within the transformed pasture area. These pastures have supported huge numbers of game under the previous ownership and under better management will be able to sustainably support the proposed wildlife species and the numbers recommended.
8.
Goukou
The transformed pasture areas consist mostly of a variety of grasses which will be selected by the grazing herbivores. The remnants of limestone fynbos and sand fynbos that sttill occur in this area will be little affected by the foraging game, particularly if animal numbers are kept within the recommended stocking rate.
Goukou
some browse along the minor drainages and the river.
The remaining limestone fynbos and sand fynbos does contain seasonal grass which will be utilized by the introduced game whenever it is available. It is estimated that the foraging grazers will make very little use of the fynbos plants in these habitats so the sensitive plant biodiversity will be little affected. These areas have experienced fires and the heavy grazing of the post-fire vegetation for a very long time, first with livestock and later by introduced wildlife. With well managed animal numbers, that are within the capacity of the available grazing, there should be no additional negative impact on the sensitive vegetation/habitat component.
Considerable sections of the transformed pasture areas are either classed as no natural (vegetation) or as degraded. These are the areas that have been modified to provide good quality pasture grazing.
The sensitive aquatic wetland areas will not be negatively impacted or otherwise affected by the introduced wildlife, indigenous or extralimital.
9. CRITICAL CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA - BIODIVERSITY CRITICALLY AREA - ENDANGERED ENDANGERED HABITAT & AQUATIC HABITAT CONNECTIVITY
CRITICAL DEGRADED BIODIVERSITY AREA - VULNERABLE HABITAT
NO NATURAL REMAINING
CRITICAL OTHER NATURAL BIODIVERSITY AREA - AQUATIC FEATURES AND CONNECTIVITY
3. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
3.1 ALREADY INTRODUCED SPECIES
Other than the naturally occurring bushbuck, common duiker and grysbok, the following species already occur on the property:
Zebra Equus quagga - 5 Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis -125 Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros - 8. Eland Tragelaphus oryx - 23 Blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus - 65 Bontebok Damaliscus p. pygargus - 28 Gemsbok Oryx gazella - 45 Red hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus - 10 Fallow deer Cervus dama - 14
10.
The game species already introduced are discussed as follows:
3.1.1 PLAINS ZEBRA Equus quagga (extralimital)
Plains zebra have been introduced and the fencing is adequate in terms of Cape Nature fencing specifications (1,4m minimum for all zebras). The boundary fence around the study area is a 2,4m game fence and therefore more than adequate.
The study area falls outside of the African horse sickness controlled area of the Western Cape and zebras can be introduced without any special veterinary permits. It is advised that animals for introduction (for genetic health) be sourced from the nearest possible source in order to increase the chances that the zebras are immune to the local tick-transmitted diseases.
The risk for hybridisation with other zebra species does not exist, as all zebras in the area are the same species. The risk of hybridisation with domestic equids (and other zebras) is not likely due to the adequate enclosure standard of the boundary fence.
The habitat is more than suitable for plains zebra, providing excellent grazing pastures on transformed sites as well as seasonal grazing in the more grassy Renosterveld habitats.
3.1.2 BONTEBOK Damaliscus pygargus pygargus (range extension)
There is currently great concern for the conservation of genetically “pure” bontebok and the conservation authorities try to ensure that bontebok are kept where there is at least some potential for viable population expansion and a reduced chance of hybridization with the closely related blesbok or existing hybrids of the two.
Bontebok have already been introduced and are doing very well on the extensive grass pastures in the transformed areas. This species prefers open grasslands (pans and vleis) and fynbos edge habitat in the southern Cape, but, given the choice, are most often found on transformed short grazed pastures.
The bontebok occurred only in the Bredasdorp and surrounding south Cape area historically (Skead, 2011), but translocation is now permitted into other parts of the south Cape area where habitat conditions are suitable (Range Extension, Western Cape Game Translocation Policy, 2014). Bontebok did not occur historically in the arid interior of the Western Cape (Skead, 2011) as the grazing was unsustainable and unreliable. The Groot Brak/Mossel Bay area falls outside of the natural distribution range of bontebok but within the extended range area.
Cape Nature, however, have new concerns about the future of the endangered bontebok, most of which stem from hybridization with the closely related blesbok. The following is provided as additional motivation in support of the introduction of bontebok:
11. a. Pastures and habitat quality: The grazing on pastures will be more than adequate and consists largely of the type of grazing that is preferred by bontebok, ie, open, short grassy pastures on relatively flat and gently undulating habitat. Most of the habitat in the game camps is particularly suitable for bontebok, which favour short cropped grazing pastures and grassy Renosterveld. b. Conservation value: Bontebok kept on good quality grazing, will produce well and the excess can be used for restocking areas in the natural distribution range. By increasing bontebok numbers, the price can be kept at a reasonable level and this may encourage more landowners in the natural distribution range to stock bontebok for conservation purposes rather than as a “money-spinning” species. Small game farms like the HGF can play an important role in supplying this demand. We all need to promote bontebok more (and we do) within the natural distribution range of the species. c. Bontebok security: These guidelines outline the need for the monitoring of the habitat. It is thus unlikely that any severe disadvantage to bontebok security will occur as a result of habitat deterioration for whatever reason. Perhaps the management plan could be approved provided that the landowner acknowledges that the bontebok is recognised as a species of high conservation value and that it should not be disadvantaged by any other species or landscape management practice.
Game numbers will be monitored, as will the habitat. The bontebok will be kept in a free-range extensive system with good grazing on pastures and It will thus be possible to detect any potentially severe competition between the bontebok and any other of the game species. The landowner has spent vast amounts of money on the property and infrastructure and will still do so on the game - it is thus unlikely that the wellbeing of any species will be permitted to deteriorate as a result of competition from another, particularly on such a small property where it is relatively easy to monitor progress and manage the animals on the pastures.
The 2,4m boundary fence is more than adequate for containing bontebok. (The minimum requirement is 1,4m) and it will also eliminate any possible risk of hybridisation in the possible event of illegally introduced blesbok or hybrids in the area.
d. Genetic conservation: Bontebok may be introduced in terms of the extended range for this species (GTUP, 2014), which includes the HGF area. There are currently no blesbok on this property (or the surrounding properties), which eliminates the possible hybridisation risk.
The introduced bontebok must be DNA-tested and proved to be the pure genetic strain of bontebok. It makes good sense to establish a number of pure populations throughout the extended range and the rest of the Western Cape. Smaller populations can be managed by regular controlled introductions of DNA-tested breeding males from other sources to maintain genetic heterozygosity (genetic health). These small populations can then be used as sources of “pure” bontebok for introductions into more viable areas, or simply to provide “new blood” to other “pure” herds. There is thus no reason why a well-managed small population cannot contribute significantly to the viability of the greater metapopulation.
12.
Bontebok must only be obtained from registered herds in the Western Cape. This is to avoid the introduction of hybrids (even if they do look exactly like bontebok), which are of no value economically or in terms of bontebok conservation, or even aesthetic value.
e. Bontebok behaviour: Experience has shown that bontebok rams can be problematic on smaller areas, particularly after introduction and while settling. The recommended 28 is preliminary and based on 4 family groups plus some additional bachelor rams. Problems related to territoriality and aggression between mature rams will have to be managed selectively.
3.1.3 ELAND Tragelaphus oryx (Indigenous)
The eland is historically indigenous to the Western Cape area, particularly to the well grassed areas near to rivers and wetlands (Skead, 2011). There is thus no need for risk assessment or special motivation for its introduction.
3.1.4 GREATER KUDU Tragelaphus strepsiceros (Indigenous)
Kudu are actually animals of the drier parts of the Western Cape but are historically indigenous in the province and need not be risk assessed (GTUP,2014). Here again, only a small group is needed for the sake of tourist game viewing and occasional hunting. Kudu have been introduced and appear to have settled well. Being browsers, the kudu are likely to utilize the alien Acacias, Searsia, Metalasia, Diospyros, Chrysanthemoides, Euclea, Sideroxylon and some of the grasses.
3.1.5 GEMSBOK Oryx gazella (Indigenous to Western Cape)
The gemsbok is indigenous to the drier parts of the Western Cape and need thus not be specifically motivated for introduction (GTUP, 2014). The habitat available on the HGF is certainly suitable and this species has already been successfully introduced.
3.1.6 BLUE WILDEBEEST Connochaetes taurinus (Extralimital)
Blue wildebeest naturally range more widely than black wildebeest and do not cause localized patch damage to the same extent as the black wildebeest and are therefore a better choice. The HGF does contain suitable habitat for blue wildebeest on the transformed pasture area and the population introduced has been thriving.
The blue wildebeest is generally associated with savannah, grassland and arid grassed habitats in its natural range, which is to the north of the Transvaal and Natal, Botswana and Namibia (Skead, 2011). It is thus extralimital to the Western Cape and the potential ecological risks associated with its introduction need to be carefully assessed. The risks associated with the proposed introduction are identified as follows:
a) Hybridization risk; b) Habitat impact risk; c) Risk that it may out-compete locally indigenous game species. d) Risk of disease introduction. 13. a. Hybridization risk: The blue wildebeest is a member of the Alcelaphini tribe which contains all the wildebeests, blesbok and bontebok, hartebeests and tsessebe antelopes. On the study area, the only other members of the Alcelaphini is the red hartebeest and bontebok. Hybridization between these species is not known to occur in free-range conditions and there should thus be no risk of hybridization between the vaguely related Alcelaphini. b. Habitat impact risk: The blue wildebeest is a concentrate grazer and as such will compete with the other grazers for the grass resource. Blue wildebeest, however, are very adaptable and personal observation is that they are able to utilize any pasture type and even dwarf shrubs if necessary. Eliminating habitat impact risk lies in the wise management of wildebeest numbers. The recommended population size will be no more than 50 animals, so there will be a low habitat impact risk to the grassy pasture areas.
Blue wildebeest tend to use a wider range and are generally less patch-specific than black wildebeest - therefore they have a lower habitat impact at a reasonable stocking rate. The wildebeest will be free ranging and they will find adequate most suitable forage on the productive transformed pasture area. c. Risk that the blue wildebeest may outcompete locally indigenous game species: In terms of the proposed introduction of wildebeest, none of the naturally occurring ungulate species are likely to be negatively impacted. All of them are highly selective browsers which are not likely to be affected by a grazer such as the wildebeest, which will in any case be confined to camps. There will thus be no competition with the locally indigenous small game even if they do access the intensive breeding camp. The grysbok are most sensitive in this regard, but it is unlikely that a large grazer like the blue wildebeest will have any adverse effect on the grysbok populations due to a clear niche and habitat separation. Competition for grazing resources between the large ungulates will be managed by controlling animal numbers. d. Risk of disease introduction: There is the potential that game introduced from areas beyond the Western Cape may carry parasites that could introduce new diseases to the province. This has not been recorded to date, despite all the years of “ill-advised” game movement, but there is still the risk. It is therefore recommended that blue wildebeest be sourced from existing populations in the Western Cape and those sourced from outside of the Western Cape be treated for external parasites at source by means of a pour-on or sprayed- on acaricide before they are translocated.
This treatment for external (and internal) parasites will help to eliminate the disease risk. This is not considered to be a high risk and if animals are sourced from already existing populations in the Western Cape, the risk will be completely eliminated. Occasional new breeding bulls may be sourced from other provinces, but these animals can be treated for parasites by the attending veterinarian.
Snotsiekte, or bovine malignant catarrh, is no longer a controlled disease and a recent court finding was that “wildebeest posed a very low threat to neighbouring livestock” (Oberem & Oberem, 2012). 14.
Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the blue wildebeest introduced are disease free because there is the possibility that they may transmit the disease to the high value buffalo.
It can be generally concluded that there are no specific risks associated with the introduction and maintenance of blue wildebeest on the HGF. The potential risk of grazing overutilization must be avoided through the application of a suitable stocking rate, as is the case with all the other introduced game.
3.1.7 SPRINGBOK Antidorcas marsupialis (Indigenous to W. Cape)
Springbok are indigenous to the drier parts of the Western Cape and thus need not be specifically assessed in terms of risk (GTUP, 2014). The habitat on HGF, particularly the transformed pasture area is certainly suitable and it is likely that predators will keep their numbers low. Springbok have already been introduced and the population appears to be thriving.
3.1.8 ALIEN SPECIES
The fallow deer (Cervus dama) are not indigenous to Africa and as such are not catered for in the GTUP,(2014). No approval is thus required for this species.
3.1.9 NUMBERS OF THE ALREADY INTRODUCED SPECIES
Table 1 gives the current total numbers for all introduced game species.
LAU FEEDER TOTAL SPECIES NUMBER CONVERSION* TYPE LAU Zebra 5 1,52 Bulk grazer 3,3 E. quagga Bontebok 28 4,55 Concentrate 6,2 D. p. pygargus grazer Eland 23 0,98 Mixed feeder 2,0 T.oryx Gemsbok 45 1,79 Mixed feeder 24,0 O. gazella Blue wildebeest 65 2,00 Concentrate 33,0 C. taurinus grazer Red hartebeest 10 2,70 Concentrate 4,00 A. buselaphus grazer Fallow deer 14 4,76 Mixed feeder 1,3 C. dama Springbok 125 6,67 Mixed feeder 3,0 A. marsupialis Kudu 8 2,38 Browser 3,4 T. strepsiceros TOTAL LAU 56,44 (56)
TABLE 1: Current species, numbers and the equivalent in LAU (Agricultural Large Animal Units) * Bothma & Du Toit, 2016 15. 3.2 NATURALLY OCCURRING GAME AND SPECIES INTRODUCED INTO THE SURROUNDING FARMS
The following species have already been introduced into various game reserves and hunting farms in the general South Cape coastal area: Eland - Tragelaphus oryx Gemsbok - Oryx gazella Blue wildebeest - Connochaetes taurinus Plains zebra - Equus quagga Giraffe - Giraffa camelopardalis Buffalo - Syncerus caffer Bontebok - Damaliscus pygarus dorcas Impala - Aepceros melampus Sable - Hippotragus equinus Black wildebeest - Connochaetes gnou Kudu - Tragelaphus strepsiceros Nyala - Tragelaphus angasii
The naturally occurring species in the general study area are as follows. These species should be included in the list of species approved for the property as there is suitable habitat for each in the study area.
Bushbuck - Tragelaphus scriptus Grey rhebok - Pelea capreolus Common duiker - Sylvicapra grimmia Grysbok - Raphicerus melanotis Steenbok - Raphicerus campestris Klipspringer - Oreotragus oreotragus Bushpig - Potamochoerus larvatus.
3.3 ADDITIONALLY REQUIRED WILDLIFE SPECIES
The following species are required for introduction. Each will be discussed in terms of the suitability of the site for an introduction, and in terms of the risks involved and mitigations that may be associated with the introduction. The bontebok is indigenous to the Western Cape province but is a range extension for the South Cape study area and the buffalo is a locally indigenous (but potentially dangerous) species. The Cape mountain zebra is required for the future as the intention of the landowner is to buy a part of the neighbouring property to the west, which will make the property larger than the minimum of 1 500ha for Cape mountain zebra. A motivation to introduce C. mountain zebra can be prepared and added to this plan when the land purchase is confirmed.
3.3.1 Waterbuck - Kobus ellipsiprymnus 3.3.2 Buffalo - Syncerus caffer 3.3.3 Sable antelope - Hippotragus niger niger 3.3.4 Giraffe - Giraffa Camelopardalis 3.3.5 Impala - Aepyceros melampus 3.3.6 Southern reedbuck - Redunca arundinum 3.3.7 Nyala - Tragelaphus angasii 16.
The wildlife species that are still required for introduction are discussed as follows, and in some detail, in terms of the potential risk associated with their introduction:
3.3.1 WATERBUCK Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Extralimital)
The intention is to introduce waterbuck and to establish a small free-ranging population for game viewing and hunting. Waterbuck are extralimital to the area and the potential risks of an introduction are addressed as follows:
a. Hybridization risk: The waterbuck is a member of the Reduncini tribe which contains all the reedbucks, mountain reedbuck, lechwe, puku and grey rhebok antelopes. On the study area, there will be no other species of this group except the Southern reedbuck.
The reedbuck belong to a completely different genus of the Reduncini (Redunca) to the waterbuck (Kobus) and it is highly unlikely that the large waterbuck (±200 - 270 kg) will attempt to mate and hybridize with the small reedbuck (20 kg) or the other way around. The animals will not be confined, will have enough of their own kind to mate with, will have adequate space for normal social behaviour and are very different in their habitat use and behaviour to reedbuck. There is thus very little risk of hybridization occurring.
b. Habitat impact risk: Being a large grazer, waterbuck will most likely spend most of their time in the lower-lying riverine and grassy plains areas where there is grazing and water. They will probably also utilize grazing on the slopes of the low hills where there will be some seasonal grazing. The habitat impact risk will thus be mostly confined to these areas where they will compete with other grazers for grazing. Conservative numbers will limit the risk of severe competition and possible natural habitat degradation.
Melton (1978) placed waterbuck with buffalo and zebra in a favourable category, as they did not over-utilize grazing areas, as was the case with impala and warthog, in the Umfolozi Game Reserve. This is confirmed by personal observation of waterbuck habitat use elsewhere in the Western Cape.
c. Risk that waterbuck may outcompete locally indigenous game species: In terms of the proposed introduction of waterbuck, none of the naturally occurring more sensitive species are likely to be negatively impacted.
All of them are highly selective browsers (excluding the bushpig which is an omnivore), which are not likely to be affected by a grazer such as waterbuck, which will make most use of the tall palatable grasses on the slopes and in the riverbeds and will not compete in any way with the small browsers. Competition for grazing resources between the large ungulates will be managed by means of population control and monitoring.
17. Waterbuck numbers will be maintained at or below 8-10 animals, so there is no risk of an overpopulation of waterbuck simply “swamping” out any of the smaller antelopes or locally indigenous grazers.
d. Risk of disease introduction: There is the potential that game introduced from areas beyond the Western Cape may carry parasites that could introduce new diseases to the province. This has not been recorded to date, despite all the years of “ill-advised” game movement, but there is still the potential risk.
It is therefore recommended that waterbuck should be sourced from either existing populations in the Western Cape or that animals outside of the Western Cape be treated for external parasites at source by means of a pour-on or sprayed-on acaricide. It will be most advisable to introduce waterbuck from one of the nearby game farms to ensure that the animals are already “immune” to local diseases and to eliminate the risk of disease introduction from afar.
This is not considered to be a high risk and if animals are sourced from already existing populations in the Western Cape, (or nearby), the risk will be eliminated.
A small population of only 8-10 animals is required and genetic heterozygocity will be maintained by means of regular introductions of replacement male animals.
Although South Cape coastal habitats are typically not ideal habitat for waterbuck, they do thrive in these areas in small numbers. Competition for the limited grazing resource will occur and buffalo, zebra, gemsbok, blue wildebeest, red hartebeest and even eland will also compete for grazing. There is little risk that the waterbuck population will “explode”, as the available grazing is very seasonal and therefore sub-optimal.
3.3.2 BUFFALO Syncerus caffer (Indigenous - special class species)
Buffalo are required for their high value for breeding and resale as they are extremely hardy, adapt easily and are relatively easy to manage.
Buffalo are historically indigenous in the HGF area (Skead, 2011) and have been introduced onto a number of game ranches in the Southern Cape area with complete success. There is adequate grazing to support a small breeding herd and adequate shade is available. There is also adequate water for their requirements (including wallowing).
The buffalo will be managed as an extensive free-range breeding project. Initially the project will be launched with approximately ±5-10 animals with a preliminary ceiling of 10 animals. The introduction of buffalo is, however, conditional to the state veterinary protocols. (See below). Buffalo are classed as a dangerous species, so the boundary fence of the area will be electrified at three heights above the ground. (See Fencing). A robust boma will probably be required for handling/loading buffalo with respect to future sales or introductions and is highly recommended. It is critical that the social interactions of mature or maturing buffalo bulls are closely monitored. A situation where competing mature bulls can result in break-outs must be avoided. 18.
RISK ASSESSMENT a. Habitat risk: Buffalo survive very well on grassy pasture habitats, particularly if able to utilize both grazing and browse. On the HGF the buffalo will probably be confined to the pasture areas. Negative natural habitat impact can be avoided by applying a sensible stocking rate for the buffalo (and all the other grazers as well). The buffalo, however, are most likely to utilize the well-grassed pastures and avoid the more sensitive fynbos areas which contain very little seasonal grass by comparison. There is thus little chance of habitat degradation by the buffalo, provided that their numbers are maintained below the capacity of the vegetation and management of feed to support them b. Disease risk and veterinary protocols: All of the required veterinary protocols will be adhered to, at the source of the animals, during transporting and once offloaded. All the necessary permits from Cape Nature (George) and also the Department Veterinary Services (George) will be obtained.
The following is a summary of the steps that must be followed and the permits that must be obtained before disease-free buffalo can be acquired and transported:
The Seller:
➢ The seller must contact the local State Veterinarian or private veterinarian to inform him of the planned capture date and to confirm his/her availability on the day of the planned capture. The local state vet is responsible for doing the necessary blood work. ➢ The state veterinarian should contact the lab which will conduct the testing to confirm the availability of Fortutum, which is used in testing for TB. The state veterinarian must order and receive the necessary buffalo test packages from Onderstepoort. ➢ The identified animals must be captured via passive or chemical capture and placed in a temporary holding facility (boma). ➢ The buffalo must then be immobilized, after which the compulsory TB injections, skin measurements and blood work is completed by the state veterinarian. The animals are again immobilized, 72 hours after the initial TB injections and the necessary blood work is completed. This is a good time to tag and microchip the buffalo. ➢ The blood samples must then be delivered to the predetermined testing laboratory within 6 hours after the extraction. Test results are then valid for 60 days after which the buffalo would have to be immobilized and tested again. ➢ The tested buffalos are then kept in quarantine until they are loaded by the buyer. The state veterinarian must be present at the loading and a Red Cross permit must be issued and the transport truck must be sealed by the state veterinarian. ➢ If the animals are sold and moved outside the Western Cape Province, then written permission must be obtained from the Provincial Directorate of Veterinary Services. The seller must also apply for an export permit from Cape Nature Conservation. ➢ If the animals are not transported outside the relevant provincial boundaries, then the seller need only apply for a transport permit from Nature Conservation. This must be acquired well before the planned date of transport.
19. The Buyer:
➢ The first step in obtaining buffalo is to apply for and receive a CAE from the Nature Conservation authorities. ➢ The second step is to register the property with the Provincial Director of Veterinary Services for the keeping of buffalo as prescribed by Regulation 20 A (2) of the Animal Disease Act (Act 35 of 1984). ➢ Once in possession of a valid CAE and buffalo registration certificate, then the buyer can start sourcing and buying animals. ➢ If the desired animals have been purchased, all the necessary tests have been completed and tests have come back negative, then the animals can be transported. The state veterinarian must be present at the off-loading and must be responsible for breaking the seal on the transport crate doors. However, the buyer must first apply for a transport permit and an import permit, if the buffalo are bought from outside the applicable province (province where property is registered). ➢ It is also the prerogative of the buyer to demand a copy of the test results prior to loading the animals. c. Fencing: The external boundary fence will be completely fenced with a 2,4m game fence that fully complies with the standard required for buffalo. Because buffalo are considered to be dangerous, the boundary fence will be electrified on the inside at 500 mm and 1 000 mm above the ground (Cape Nature Fencing Policy, 2015). The electric wires will be held in offsets away from the fence and a standby alternative power source will be installed as required. This will be provided by means of a solar- powered 12-volt battery for each fence energiser used. d. Contingency plan for escapes: In the event of buffalo escaping from the buffalo camps and the HGF, the following procedure is recommended.
• Warn immediate neighbours and Cape Nature of the escape. • Locate the escapees. • Mobilize the vet (Dr. Willem Burger or any other available vet) that usually assists to bring darting equipment and arrange for a helicopter if necessary, otherwise darting can be done from a vehicle. • Repair the breakage in the boundary fence and identify the reason for the escape (eg, disturbance or electric fence failure, flooding, fire etc). • Dart and move the buffalo back into the farm.
Repeat escapees will necessitate the complete removal of the “culprit” animal from the farm.
SUMMARY FOR BUFFALO INTRODUCTION:
The intention is to farm with buffalo on a small scale on an extensive free-range basis. The following points summarise:
A. The buffalo will not be confined to dedicated camps.be
B. The boundary fence be electrified to the required specification of Cape Nature (ie, 2 heights up to 1,0m). 20.
C. Buffalo grazing will most probably be restricted to the already transformed pasture areas, so there will be little or no impact on any of the natural vegetation.
D. All of the veterinary protocols in terms of buffalo disease testing, transporting and confinement will be applied.
E. The buffalo will be managed extensively, provided with good quality supplementary feed when necessary as well as adequate shade and water.
F. Genetic heterozygosity in the buffalo group will be ensured through the regular replacement of the breeding male.
3.3.3 SABLE ANTELOPE Hippotragus niger niger (extralimital)
The intention is to introduce a small, extensively farmed population of sable in order to produce a high value return. Sable are extralimital (alien) to the area and the planned introduction was assessed as follows:
A. Subspecies: Only the subspecies Hippotragus niger niger or Southern African sable may be introduced. Hybrids and sable from Angola, Zambia and Malawi may not be introduced.
B. Hybridisation risk: Sable can potentially hybridise with roan antelope, but as there are no roan in the area, the risk of hybridisation is negligible. The gemsbok is also a member of the Hippotraginae which includes the sable antelope. Hybridization between sable and gemsbok under free range conditions is not known to occur and is also highly unlikely. The more than adequate boundary fence will further help to eliminate any potential hybridisation risk in case an illegal introduction of roan antelope is made in the district.
C. Habitat risk: Sable are primarily grazers, favouring grassy habitats and well grassed pastures. They do not normally utilise Fynbos and Renosterveld habitats, but will most probably make use of good seasonal grazing in both habitats. Long experience with sable on the other farms and reserves in the Southern Cape has shown that sable generally keep to the grassy pasture areas.
The sable will also be given supplementary feed when necessary. This will serve to reduce grazing pressure in the more sensitive habitats of the farm.
D. Management: Sable numbers will be kept well below the threshold for sustainable grazing. This will ensure that there will be no negative impact on any of the sensitive natural habitats. An initial introduction of 10 was recommended with a preliminary ceiling of 10 animals. Monitoring will help to determine maximum population size once the population reaches 15-20 animals.
E. Shelter structures: There is almost no cover or shelter from the weather in the pasture area so the inclusion of shelters should be considered. The provision of shelter for the sable to use during the inclement cold, wet weather typical of the Southern Cape winters is considered to be essential. 21.
There are very few trees in the pastures areas so shelter structures may be required. A number of shelters can be provided in the extensive pasture area.
These structures need to be roomy, so that animals cannot be “bullied” in them by dominant animals. A basic size of about 15m x 10m is the minimum spatial requirement. It should be roofed with corrugated iron or fibre-cement sheets at a height of 2,5 - 3 m to ensure cooling ventilation during summer. The sides of the shelter (split poles or droppers) should be covered with 80% shade-cloth down to the ground so that most of the wind will be checked, but the animals can still see through the barrier. Wing “walls” can be made to provide options for different winds and also so that animals can avoid grumpy individuals and each still find a bit of shelter. The shelter must thus be multi-functional, it must have different options for sheltering and it must easily provide shelter for all the animals, taking “niggly” behaviour into account. The accompanying Figure 5 shows a very basic layout plan for a typical shelter and Plates 9 & 10 show the basic design.
The shelter roof should be tilted to the back edge where runoff rain water must be collected via a gutter and downpipe system and led well away from the shelter in order to avoid the development of wet, muddy conditions during wet weather. Animals can be habituated with the shelter by providing their feed at first outside it and then progressively closer and then finally inside it. It is, however, important that the shelter be already established at the time of introduction.
PLATES 9 & 10: An example of the type of shelter structure described, note that it differs somewhat from the design in Figure 6.
22.
FIGURE 5 : Sable shelter. These shelters can be erected in the grazing/ breeding camps and will thus also be available to all the other game on the property.
3.3.4 GIRAFFE Giraffa camelopardalis (extralimital)
Giraffe are extralimital to the area and were assessed in terms of potential negative habitat impact. The habitat is sub-optimal for giraffe which are required only for aesthetic reasons and can consequently be kept to a low minimum number. A pair with a maximum number of 3 (pair plus calf) is recommended - (this equates 4,8 LAU).
Habitat: The habitats of the study area have already been described. (See Sections 2.1 & 2.2). The habitat available for giraffe will be restricted to the patches of Thicket in drainage valleys as well as areas invaded by alien Acacia sp. (Acacia saligna, A. mearnsii, A. cyclops) all of which are well utilized by giraffe (Cornelius, 2010). The edges of the thickets will provide quality browse forage consisting of the following species:
Buddleja saligna Searsia lucida/laevigata/tomentosa Diospyros dichrophylla Tarchonanthus camphoratus. Euclea undulata Grewia occidentalis Gymnosporia buxifolia Olea europaea - var africana Pterocelastrus triscuspidatus At the Nyaru Game Reserve near Brandwag Cornelius (2010) found that introduced giraffe made most use of Thicket habitat (87,2%), much less use of Renosterveld habitat (10,7) and only 2,1% use of Fynbos habitats.
It was thus estimated that 3 giraffe would find a more than adequate source of sustainable browse forage on the HGF based on a combination of indigenous thicket shrubs along the drainages and the alien Acacia infestations.
It was also estimated that the giraffe will have very little negative impact on the sensitive Wetland habitats and the endangered Renosterveld and Canca limestone fynbos habitats. These habitats do not provide the type of vegetation feed attractive to giraffe and they will consequently spend little time in them. The Thicket areas will probably be utilized along the outer edges of these linear habitats, as well as the isolated bush clumps and alien Acacia stands that are spread throughout the area.
The monitoring of the habitats favoured by giraffe should be instituted with the condition that if the monitoring results find that there is an unacceptable impact on the browse resource, then the giraffe must be removed. This proviso is necessary because the estimated area of “browse” habitat is limited. (See monitoring guidelines provided further in this report.
Giraffe are easy to monitor and to manage and there is thus little permanent risk associated with their introduction.
3.3.5 IMPALA Aepyceros melampus (extralimital)
The introduction of the extralimital impala requires a special risk assessment which can be provided as a separate report. The following is provided as a preliminary management guideline.
Fencing: Impala represent an escape risk. The property is adequately fenced with a 2,4m game fence, constructed to the required specification for impala. A Certificate of Adequate Enclosure will be approved by Cape Nature on inspection of the completed fence. The fence will be patrolled regularly in order to ensure its effectivity as a barrier and the “problem” areas (ie, the “aprons” at drainages) will be inspected more regularly, such as after significant rain events.
Population management: Guidelines are provided for approximate population numbers (see Table 2). Impala are an important component of the business and numbers will be constantly controlled to achieve the stated objectives and avoid veld damage due to overpopulation.
The proposed monitoring programme should focus on the potential impact of all species including impala. The recommended maximum number for impala has been calculated with habitat impact and potential competition with other browsing (and grazing) species in consideration.
Monitoring: The recommended monitoring programme will address the potential impact that impala have on the browse resource. A specific browse monitoring method is included. 24.
Habitat: The impala is a highly adaptable mixed feeder which can switch from browsing to grazing depending on conditions. They are highly selective and will utilize browse shoots when fresh and nutritious and graze whenever grasses are productive. There will thus be more than adequate forage to sustain a small population in the transformed pasture area without risk to the sensitive natural habitats.
Risks: A strategy for the management of the potential for escapes is recommended and consists of the following steps:
• The landowner accepts full responsibility for escapes. His agreement to this is conditional for approval to retain the impala. • If any escapes occur, the landowner has one month to either retrieve or cull the escapees. • If the landowner does not comply (or ask for extension), the escapees may be culled/captured for his account, under the jurisdiction of Cape Nature and with the neighbour’s approval.
3.3.6 SOUTHERN REEDBUCK Redunca arundinum (Extralimital)
The reedbuck occurs in floodplain and drainage line grassland and habitat throughout northern and southern Savanna of Sub-Equatorial Africa. Although once present as far south as Swellendam, today reedbuck no longer occur naturally in the Orange Free State, The Western Cape Province and only remnant populations occur in the Eastern Cape.
Reedbuck are habitat specialists and are able to utilize habitat that few other herbivores can. Dense reedbeds and tall rank grass (2m) habitats close to water is the preferred habitat of the species. These habitats are variable and occur on Savanna plains, as well as in wetlands, pan veld in the Bushveld and grassy foothills with seeps (Furstenburg, 1999).
Reedbuck take refuge in these tall grass/reed areas and are thus not able to tolerate alteration of the habitat through drainage, excessive burning, or heavy competition with other herbivores. The tall grass cover is more important to the reedbuck than the actual food value of the grasses, particularly for newborn young concealment (Howard, 1986). This attachment to a specific habitat type results in a patchy distribution and decreasing habitat availability due to the impacts of human activities. Reedbuck have been shown to avoid open veld (Howard, 1986).
Reedbuck are intermediate to tall grass grazers and are not selective for grass species, utilizing both sour, mixed and sweet grasses. Feeding takes place between 8cm and 120cm with the softer, green parts of most grass species being utilized. Preferred feeding height, however, is at 80cm to 110cm. They are able to utilize grasses of relatively poorer quality which few other herbivores do, which reduces competition. Grasses eaten include Hyparrhenia sp, Trachypogon sp, Panicum maximum, Heteropogon contortis, Andropogon amplectens, Cenchrus ciliaris, Sporobolus sp, Leersia hexantha, Chlrois gayana and Phragmites australis (Furtenburg, 1999).
25. Reedbuck are semi-social animals with no fixed family ties. Animals are either solitary, in pairs or in small breeding herds of between 3 – 6 animals. Breeding pairs are territorial but spaced, often 30 – 80 cm between the male and female with little social contact. A ram of 4 years will aggressively defend his territory against other dominant rams. Territories range between 35 – 60 ha. The vigour with which territories are defended is dependent on the available resources, ie: strictest defense in marginal habitat and reduced defense activity in optimal habitat. The actual home range of each territorial group (which contains the defended territory) is seldom greater than 100 ha (Furstenburg, 1999). An average population density is about 5- 7 animals per km² (Estes, 1997).
Breeding occurs throughout the year, but there is a lambing peak in the summer months. The lamb is hidden in rank vegetation for the first 6-8 weeks during which the ewe feeds the lamb (once or twice a day) and moves it to a new holding place.
It is thus clear that, due to the particular habitat specificity of the southern reedbuck, specific areas of cover habitat must be available. On the HGF these conditions are limited to a few of the drainage valleys, around dams, along the river and possibly in patches of denser bush cover. The area is thus only suitable for a small population.
3.3.7 NYALA Tragelaphus angasii (Extralimital)
The introduction of the extralimital nyala requires a special risk assessment which can be provided as a separate report. The following is provided as a preliminary management guideline.
The nyala is a smallish mixed feeder which makes it the ideal animals for production on smaller game ranches with suitable habitat and where they will not outcompete locally indigenous species.
Nyala have already been introduced into many properties in the Western Cape area and have clearly thrived in the conditions and habitat types available. Nyala are extralimital (indigenous only to the northern parts of the Transvaal and Natal) and must therefore be assessed in terms of the potential risks created by the introduction and maintenance of this species.
a. HYBRIDIZATION RISK: The nyala belongs to the Tragelaphini tribe which includes eland, kudu, bushbuck and sitatunga. In all parts of its natural range, nyala do not naturally hybridize with the other related species. In the case of the HGF property, only eland and bushbuck are present on the property from the same tribe and hybridization with these species is not recorded under free range conditions.
b. HABITAT IMPACT RISK: Nyala are tolerant of a wide range of habitat types as long as they contain adequate some thicket cover. Nyala are mixed feeders, utilizing succulent grasses after rains (up to 70 - 90%) and dicotyledonous shrubs and trees during the dry season. On average, the nyala diet consists of about 70% browse and 30% grass. Grazing will be available on the pasture area all through the year.
As mentioned in the section about habitat, the HGF contains thicket and shrubveld habitat with a variety of palatable browse species, but also a wealth of palatable dwarf shrub species within the renosterveld and fynbos. 26.
With the wide choice of habitat and food available, coupled with the broad feeding tolerances of nyala, it is unlikely that this species will exert any negative pressure on the forage resources available if numbers are kept within the sustainable capacity of the vegetation. There is absolutely no evidence that nyala will cause damage to the habitat simply because they are extralimital. c. RISK THAT THAT NYALA MAY OUTCOMPETE LOCALLY INDIGENOUS WILDLIFE SPECIES: Nyala are much larger than the bushbuck, grysbok, common duiker and grey rhebok, which occur naturally on HGF property. They consequently occupy different habitat and feeding niches and are much less selective than the locally indigenous small browsing antelopes. The nyala is also a mixed feeder whereas most of the small indigenous antelopes are strictly browsers and they are thus not likely to outcompete the smaller browsers if their numbers are kept within the sustainable capacity of the habitat to support them.
The bushbuck is reputed to be outcompeted by the nyala. Scientific evidence for this belief is scanty, but what is known is that nyala can feed at a much higher browse level which bushbuck are not able to reach, so during extreme conditions, when a severe browse-line occurs, the smaller bushbuck are not able to feed at all. This is not a consequence of nyala outcompeting bushbuck, but rather one of poor wildlife and habitat management. Nyala and bushbuck can share an area in a non- competitive way provided that the population of each is maintained within the capacity of the preferred habitat of each. d. RISK OF DISEASE INTRODUCTION: There is the potential that game introduced from areas beyond the Western Cape may carry parasites that could introduce new diseases to the province. This has not been recorded to date despite many years of “ill-advised” game movement, however there is still a potential risk.
It is therefore recommended that the initial introduction and replacement nyala for genetic health reasons should be sourced from other existing populations in the Western Cape and that if animals are sourced from outside of the Western Cape, they be treated for external parasites at source by means of pour-on or spray-on acaricide. It will be most advisable to introduce nyala from one of the nearby Western Cape game farms to ensure that the animals are already “immune” to local diseases and to eliminate the risk of disease introduction from afar.
Disease introduction is not considered to be a high risk and if animals are sourced from existing populations in the Western Cape (or nearby), the risk will be eliminated. e. ESCAPE RISK: Although the extralimital nyala are reported to represent an escape risk, no nyala are known to have escaped from any of the South Cape coastal wildlife reserves to date. There is also no known escaped population that has “infested” any area.
The HGF property is fenced with a standard 2,4 m game fence which is regularly checked for breaks or holes. In the event of a possible escape, the following is recommended as a practical solution to the perceived potential of nyala escaping and invading the district:
27. The recommended strategy for the management of the potential for nyala (and any other wildlife) escapes consists of the following steps:
• The landowner accepts full responsibility for escapes. His agreement to this is conditional for approval to retain the nyala. • If any escapes occur, the landowner has one month to either retrieve or cull the escapees. • If the landowner does not comply (or ask for extension), the escapees may be culled/captured for his account, under the jurisdiction of CapeNature and with the neighbour’s approval.
This strategy should be applicable to all animals on HGF property.
f. STOCKING RATE: As per recommendation for the other wildlife introductions, one would have to take account of what other species have already been introduced, the potential resource utilization requirements, the number of Large Animal Units (LAU) available, numbers of animals required as well as their behaviour. The stocking rate for nyala is preliminarily recommended at 7,8 LAU or 30 nyala (see table 3).
3.4 STOCKING RATES AND ANIMAL NUMBERS
Determining a sustainable stocking rate for game on natural veld or pastures is not a once-off exercise, it is a continuous process involving observation, rainfall and veld condition.
Game numbers should be continuously and timeously manipulated according to pasture and veld conditions.
28.
It is also important to carefully manage the game numbers in the smaller and more intensively managed game camps (see Figure 6 and Table 3 for numbers) in order to avoid the complete loss of plant cover and the possible soil erosion that may develop as a result.
BREEDING GAME CAMP 1 CAMP ±16,1 ha
BREEDING CAMP 2 ±34,7 ha
FIGURE 6: The layout of the individual game camps.
A veld monitoring method is recommended (see Section 4.1) that will help with the evaluation of natural veld condition and to help with the decisions that need to be made about animal numbers. A very rough estimate of a suitable preliminary stocking rate is given per habitat type in Table 2.
HABITAT TYPE AREA STOCKING RATE TOTAL LAU
Pastures (including camps) ±370 ha 3,5 ha/LAU 105,7 LAU Canca limestone fynbos ±420 ha 45 ha/LAU 9,3 LAU Albertinia sand fynbos ±110 ha 40 ha/LAU 2,8 LAU E. Ruens renosterveld & ±100 ha 60 ha/LAU 1,6 LAU Ruens silcrete renosterveld
TOTAL ±1000 ha TOTAL 119,4 (119) LAU
TABLE 2: Estimated sustainable stocking rate for Honingfontein.
29.
In Table 1, it was shown that the current game numbers on HGF represent approximately 56 LAU while the maximum stocking rate is estimated to be 119 LAU (see Table 3). Considering the availability of suitable and sustainable grazing, the browse available and the required species mix, the recommended stocking rate is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Current animal numbers of all species. The small locally indigenous Steenbok, grysbok and bushbuck are not included in the table as they require no management input.
LAU FEEDER TOTAL SPECIES NUMBER CONVERSION* TYPE LAU
Zebra 6 1,52 Bulk grazer 3,9 E. quagga Bontebok 20 4,55 Concentrate 4,4 D. p. pygargus grazer Eland 23 0,98 Mixed feeder 23,5 T.oryx Gemsbok 13 1,79 Mixed feeder 7,3 O. gazella Blue wildebeest 41 2,00 Concentrate 20,5 C. taurinus grazer Red hartebeest 3 2,70 Concentrate 1,1 A. buselaphus grazer Fallow deer 11 4,76 Mixed feeder 2,3 C. dama Springbok 82 6,67 Mixed feeder 12,3 A. marsupialis Kudu 14 2,38 Browser 5,9 T. strepsiceros Buffalo 10 0,90 Bulk grazer 11,1 S.caffer Waterbuck 10 1,82 Bulk grazer 5,5 K.ellipsiprymnus Southern reedbuck 6 4,76 Concentrate 1,3 R. arundinum grazer Sable antelope 9 1,72 Bulk grazer 5,2 H. niger niger Impala 25 5,88 Mixed feeder 4,3 A. melampus Nyala 25 3,85 Browser 6,5 T. angasii Giraffe 3 0,63 Browser 4,8 G. camelopardalis Ostrich 13 4,00 Mixed feeder 3,3 S. camelus TOTAL LAU 123,2 (123)
TABLE 3: Recommended species and numbers for Honingfontein.
BREEDING BREEDING CAMP 1 CAMP 2 30.
The numbers recommended in Table 3 are merely an example of what can be considered, but it is again stressed that animal numbers must be constantly managed according to the prevailing condition of the natural habitats.
The total LAU is 123 which is only 4 LAU more than the recommended 119 (Table 2 in the 2019 report). It is, however, unlikely that all of the desired species will be simultaneously introduced. Care must thus be taken when introducing additional animals for genetic management to maintain the total numbers below or not more than the 119 LAU recommended in Table 3. Prevailing veld conditions must also play a role in working out total numbers.
The smaller blue duiker, grysbok, bushbuck and common duiker are not included in Table 3 because it is problematic to try convert these small browsers into LAU and these species in any case have self- regulating populations that fluctuate with changing habitat conditions.
It must be appreciated that the proposed stocking rates are a very rough estimate of what the vegetation can actually support. The use of agricultural large stock units, and the conversion of these into equivalent game units, should only be seen as a very rough guide to work on initially and by no means as an accurate prescription. Converting a stock unit into equivalent wild herbivore units in terms of biomass does not, for example, take into account the differences in degree of selection between the two herbivore types (Mentis, 1977). The use of LAU is thus nothing more than a practical approach for an initial start to a game management programme. Current consensus regarding the use of agricultural LAU conversions for calculating game stocking rates is that a more conservative approach should be used than the agricultural norms.
This is because domestic livestock systems consist of easily managed animals that can be rotated through multi-camp systems where grazing pressure and intensity can be manipulated and controlled, and resting the veld is possible. This is not easily achieved on an extensive game ranch (Grossman et al, 1999).
Due to concern for the natural fynbos, particularly the Canca limestone fynbos, there is a need to be somewhat conservative in order to ensure that these natural habitats are not overutilized.
The proposed habitat monitoring program will help to plan animal numbers and the required removals..
SUMMARY:
The game number proposals made should be seen as an initial guide, which can later be adjusted with the help of monitoring and a first- hand knowledge of the clearly observable impacts that the wildlife may have on the natural vegetation.
31. 3.5 MAINTAINING GENETIC HETEROZYGOCITY
Because of the relatively small populations of most of the game on the HGF, it will be necessary to supplement the genetic integrity of all populations with additional unrelated individuals of each species from time to time. This is to prevent inbreeding. An introduction of one or two animals is required, and it is recommended that both sexes be introduced each time animals are introduced.
These animals should be sourced from different localities to the original population in an effort to obtain “different” genetic strains. This should take place every 5 - 7 years and at least one mature male animal should be introduced.
3.6 PASSIVE CAPTURE & REMOVALS
In addition to hunting or selective darting, for small numbers of animals, passive capture may be a useful option for capturing and removing excess animals. This can be done by establishing a special passive capture boma or camp (see Figure 7A) to which animals are attracted by providing food in the main part. The animals get used to “going into” the boma and gates are then closed on them when the required animals are inside.
Alternatively, part of a pasture area can be used as a passive capture system. Obviously, the outside fence must be 2,4m high. (See Figure 7B). The principle and workings are the same.
3.6.1 PASSIVE CAPTURE BOMA DESIGN
➢ You can leave out the holding pens to save money, but they are very useful and do make the capture operation easier.
➢ If you do not use holding pens, then you must have a transport truck in position at the loading ramp all the time while capturing, and this may not always be practical.
➢ The “funnel” parts of the passage must be made of solid wood, either poles and droppers or with wooden planking.
➢ The circular capture camp must have a much stronger specification than ordinary game fencing. I suggest that corner strain box design be used at frequent intervals for strength. Also use more droppers - at least one per metre. The circular camp should also be wire/meshed top to bottom. Circular camp walls should be 3m high.
➢ The “curtains” consist of game capture plastic sliding on a 6mm cable (top and bottom) on rings sewn onto the curtain or on “D” shackles. (See Figures 7A & 7B).
➢ Two openings for the game access are recommended, each being 5m wide. (See Figures 7A & 7B). A sliding on-rail gate with an electric closing mechanism will probably work best. 32.
➢ A solar panel with a 12-volt battery works well with gates. The operator, who must be hidden nearby, simply presses a button when the animals to be caught are in the camp.
➢ Figure 7C shows steel gates for the holding pens and passage. Welded steel is best because wooden doors sag with age and become difficult to close.
➢ Half of each pen must be roofed for shade and holding pen height also 3m.
➢ The door hinges work both ways (ie: can open on either side of the door) so that you can use the door to deflect animals to the load ramp or back towards the circular camp. This kind of multi-option is useful when working with game in the boma.
➢ The circular camp size in the diagram (7A) is about 14m in diameter, but you can make it bigger, double if you wish. If the irrigated pasture is used, then size is not important.
➢ It will take a number of months to get the animals used to the boma/camp. I suggest that you feed in the veld near to it, progressively moving the feed closer until it is in the camp.
3.6.2 LIVE CAPTURE / CULLING / HUNTING
Excess game that is not successfully captured passively can be selectively removed by means of darting and culling. Every effort should be made to do so in the least disruptive way possible, so that the game will not become “wild” and run away each time a vehicle approaches. Use should be made of an experienced wildlife veterinarian that has a good track record with chemical immobilization projects or professional culling operations that provide a clean and ethical service.
33.
FIGURE 7A: Passive capture boma and holding pen layout design.
34.
FIGURE 7B: Passive capture camp that could be used within the game camp system.
35.
FIGURE 7C: Details of the steel sliding (passage) doors and holding pen doors.
36.
3.7 WILDLIFE REGISTER
Without accurate records of game population numbers, it will be difficult to manage populations effectively, which may result in ill-advised plans for removals or unwanted population expansion. It is thus proposed that a game register be kept in which the known births, deaths, removals and introductions per species are recorded. This is particularly important immediately after the introduction of animals, and after each breeding season, in order to keep a record of their progress and thereafter to keep track of population growth.
A simple recording form can be used, an example of which is illustrated below. Each time a birth, death, removal or introduction is made, an entry is made on the form and the population total adjusted accordingly. A separate form is used for each species.
HONINGFONTEIN GAME FARM WILDLIFE REGISTER
SPECIES: YEAR:
Number Number Total Date Births Deaths Removed Introduced Adjusted NOTES
TOTALS
A simple register that can be used to keep basic records of game populations.
3.8 SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDING
Free-ranging wild ungulates are generally able to take up all of the nutrients and minerals that they need in their normal grazing, browsing or mixed feeding diets. Concentrate feeders and browsers are more resistant to nutritional deficiencies than bulk grazers, because browse has a consistently higher nutritive value than grass. However, under conditions of confinement, within fenced game farms, animals are restricted and may be unable to range widely enough to find all of their dietary requirements on a sustained basis. 37.
It has also been shown that protein is the most important limiting nutrient during the dry summer months in most areas. This affects the pure grazers and not the browsers who derive sufficient protein from the browse. Urea is the most widely used source of protein supplement fed to animals on protein-deficient veld. Non-ruminants (like zebras), however, derive no benefit from urea supplementation and must be given an alternative protein-rich supplement like lucern hay (Schmidt & Snyman, 2002).
If any deficiencies do occur, they most probably can be related to shortages of copper, cobalt, selenium, manganese, magnesium, phosphorous and zinc (Van Niekerk, 1996), which are typical in the area. If any deficiencies do occur, they most probably can be related to shortages of copper, cobalt, selenium, manganese, magnesium, phosphorous and zinc (Van Niekerk, 1996), which are typical in the area. Copper deficiencies, in particular, have been reported from the Central Karoo area (Graaff-Reinet, Camdeboo National Park, Burdett, pers comm., July, 2004), as well as from the George coastal area.
It is recommended, as a first step, that the nearest office of the Department of Agriculture be approached for assistance with the sampling of soil and the determination of mineral and trace element deficiencies on Honingfontein. Alternatively, the CSIR can be contacted for assistance with soil nutrient evaluation. Failing this, we can arrange for the necessary soil testing to help determine what the deficiencies are, if any. Once it is known what the shortages are, then the animal feed companies can be contacted for assistance.
If nutrient deficiencies are detected, it is suggested that specially formulated licks or blocks be expertly prepared so that the important deficiencies can be effectively corrected in the supplementary licks or blocks provided for the introduced wildlife on HGF. The Voermol game block is a protein, energy, mineral and trace element supplement that also contains urea. Get specific information on this product from the Voermol Information Centre toll-free at: 0800310078 or telephone: 032 – 4395599.
Alternatively, contact Dr Francois van Niekerk, who is an expert on game feed. He will be able to provide you with a feed pellet that is specially formulated according to the deficiencies of your particular soil type. This particular service is highly recommended. His contact details are:
Cell: 082 440 7599 Tel: 042 – 247 1469 (office) Fax: 042 – 247 2033 Email: [email protected].
3.9 EXTERNAL PARASITE AND DISEASE CONTROL
Ticks can be very troublesome to wildlife in a number of ways. They can cause anaemia through their feeding, especially on young animals. By doing so, the ticks reduce the normal physical condition of the animals and reduce their resistance to diseases. Biting ticks can cause infected sores on the skin and even the loss of teats, tail tips and ears. Apart from these trials, ticks also transmit disease like heartwater and corridor disease (Boomker & Horak, 2002),
38.
Browsers and mixed feeding ungulates are generally more exposed and infested with ticks than grazers. This is because bushy habitats are more suitable habitat for ticks (than grassland) and the taller plants provide good “questing” height for ticks. These habitats also support larger populations of small mammals and ground birds which are important intermediate hosts for immature stages of most ticks (Gallivan & Horak, 1997).
Larger ungulates, like eland and zebra generally carry more ticks, because small antelopes (like grysbok, bushbuck and common duiker) groom themselves more frequently and efficiently than larger ungulates (Gallivan & Horak, 1997).
Because of the shrubby and thicket type vegetation on many parts of the reserve, heavier tick loads can be expected than on areas with only grass pastures. Ungulates are also more susceptible to tick infestation when in poor condition or under nutritional stress, such as immediately after capture and translocation during drought or as a result of trace element or mineral deficiencies in their diet.
Eland and nyala are particularly susceptible to tick infestation, as they utilize bush and tall grass habitat which is also good tick habitat. In the Bontebok National Park, bontebok were found to be hosts for 8 different ticks, while grey rhebok were hosts to 6 tick species (Horak et al, 1997).
Animals that are to be introduced into the HGF should be treated to remove parasites before introduction in order to avoid the accidental introduction of parasites and the diseases that they may transmit. Larger animals should be treated to kill ticks, at the point of capture, before they are transported for release into the HGF. The animals can either be sprayed with acaricide in a hand pump or a pour-on dip can be used. It is, however, critical that the directions for acaricide use are very carefully followed. A wildlife veterinarian should be specially appointed to assist with the treatment.
It is recommended that animals for introduction be sourced from as close as possible to the farm. Local animals have a natural immunity to the local ticks and the diseases that they transmit. They get this immunity through natural selection over a period of time (years), because the weak and more susceptible animals in the population die out. Animals introduced from other regions do not have this local immunity and are more susceptible to infection (Van Niekerk, 1998). This is one of the reasons why so many new introductions of game animals into game farms and ranches suffer losses and animals take a long time to settle and breed.
The idea of tick control or eradication is not at all possible, because ticks do not only use larger game animals as hosts, but also make use of small animals like hares, shrews, rodents and birds as intermediate hosts. Tick control can thus aim at a reduction in tick numbers on game hosts, while retaining enough ticks to expose young animals and allow them to build up immunity to tick-transferred diseases.
If it is found that the control of ticks on larger game animals is absolutely necessary, there are three different types of acaricide applicators that are specifically designed for use in areas of intensive wild animal concentration. The details of the hydraulic applicator, the vertical pipe applicator and the roller feed-bin are illustrated in Figures 8A, 8B & 8C.
39. It is suggested that the hydraulic applicator system be positioned within a “branch and bush” enclosure around a well-used waterhole. The enclosure can be made around a waterhole with two openings so that the animals can get used to going into the system. When the animals are well used to the enclosed waterhole, one of the openings can be closed. When the animals are used to the single opening, the hydraulic dispenser can be installed and put into operation whenever required. When not required, the “dispenser opening” can be closed and the other opening can again be used. The dispenser delivers a safe, measured account of acaricide onto the animal when it activates a buried pressure plate. (See Figure 8A). Injury or damage from overdosing is not possible, even if the same animal is repeatedly dosed.
If attracting animals to a particular water point is problematic because of a wide natural water distribution then the same method can either be applied by placing a supplementary feeding station or lick in the enclosure. Alternatively, a well-used game path through bush or gap in a line of bush leading from one pasture area to another can also be used. If the parasite problem requires sustained control, it will make good sense to install a number of hydraulic dispensers at a variety of “restricted” opening or “access” sites for use when required. Entrances to irrigated pastures would be an ideal site for a dispenser. For more details of the Tick-off applicator, contact Tick-off at 012 - 804 4461 or email: [email protected].
Alternatively, the vertical Duncan pipe applicator can be installed wherever game animals congregate to feed or rest. The applicator doses an animal when it is attracted to a lick or food placed within it. The ears and neck of the animal comes into contact with a vertical pipe down which acaricide (pour on type) slowly runs. The excess dip flows into a container at the bottom of the pipe and is then transferred manually into a container at the top of the pipe again for further dosing. (See Figure 8B). For more details of the Duncan vertical applicator, contact directly at email: [email protected].
A self-draining feed box which incorporates an acaricide (tick dip) roller which applies the dip to the neck of the animal when it reaches into the box to feed can also be used. (See Plates 11 & 12). For further information contact Buteo Wildlife Services at 082 493 1441.
40.
PLATES 11 & 12: The feed-bin dip applicator which has rubber rollers all along its edges which smear dip onto the animals as they lean in to feed. Height is fully adjustable.
It is extremely important that an environmentally friendly acaricide be used in these applicators. Pirotroides is recommended by Van Niekerk (1998). It is also recommended that acaricide applicators only be used in spring, summer and autumn if animals are to be hunted during winter for meat. The acaricide has a “waiting” period after application before the meat is fit for human consumption. It is thus best to not use acaricide applications during the peak hunting season (June - August).
In some areas, herds of domestic cattle have been used during periods of intense tick infestation on game and cattle farms. Cattle graze the area during late summer for a few weeks after which they are removed and dipped to kill the ticks picked up every 5 to 14 days (Bester, 2002).
It must, however, be appreciated that the treatment of game animals for parasites, may have the result that the parasites develop resistance to the chemicals used. If at all possible, the animals introduced should be left to develop a natural resistance to the parasites (tick diseases) of the area and treatments should only be used if conditions become critical. The animals introduced should be obtained from sources already suitably adapted or resistant to the particular parasites of the area.
41.
FIGURES 8A & 8B 42.
43. It is also recommended that animals that are obviously sick or diseased should be culled and disposed of to eliminate a possible source of disease or parasite contamination for other animals.
3.10 WATER PROVISION FOR GAME
Water is abundant on the HGF and not much is required in the way of water supply development. Small improvements are possible where water is provided in artificial troughs.
Troughs can be improved to make them more accessible to small wildlife (birds, rodents, reptiles, etc) by simply packing stones, held together with cement inside and outside the trough to form a ramp over the side, for small animals. (See Figure 9A).
Alternatively, the troughs can be replaced with a more aesthetically appealing waterhole as illustrated in Figure 9B. The waterhole is concrete-lined and is also small animal-friendly as it has a shallow part that even a tortoise can access.
A simple solution to providing drinking water for game in the Southern part of the property is to establish a rainwater catchment system as illustrated in Figure 8C. By providing sufficient water storage, eg, 4 x 5 000 liter tanks, the water provision will always be available. This will help to attract more animals across the river into the western area.
FIGURE 9A: Simple ramps of stones can be used in both rectangular and circular stock water troughs to improve access to water for small wildlife like tortoises and rodents.
44.
FIGURE 9B: Artificial waterhole design.
45.
This system is ideal where animals do not occur in large herds, but rather in small family groups. Competition between individuals in small herds can be eliminated by installing a number of water supply drums, all fed by a single central drum with a ball valve.
FIGURE 9C: Efficient water provision for small wildlife.
46.
3.11 FENCING
3.11 FENCING
The two game camps (see Figure 6) camps 1 & 2 are fenced at 2,4m with an overhang (total height closer to 2,7m). The camp fences consist of 33 wire strands as well as Bonnox/Veldspan as high as the fence.
47.
3.12 PASTURE IMPROVEMENT
48.
4. MONITORING AND THREAT ANALYSIS
4.1 MONITORING HABITAT CONDITION
Monitoring can be described as the regular, repeatable measurement of the condition of the veld and climate and the evaluation of these measurements in terms of management objectives. The results of the monitoring programme will thus be useful, if not essential, in making decisions about veld conditions and the wildlife that is dependent on the veld (eg: off-take numbers can be based on veld condition assessments). The real advantage in the use of a fixed, objective monitoring system is that it eliminates subjective, unsubstantiated opinions about veld condition.
Habitat quality should be evaluated at least on an annual basis, because an estimate of a sensible wildlife stocking rate is dependent on a knowledge of the condition of the habitats of the wildlife species. We also need to know whether the management efforts employed for veld improvement (eg: rehabilitation, alien plant clearing) are effective in the long term. Monitoring is especially critical on small properties like Honingfontein where dense concentrations of game animals occur in a confined area.
The monitoring programme suggested here is the basic minimum required for effective veld evaluation on a reserve and could be implemented by persons with little or no scientific training, but with some professional guidance. It is, however, very important that the monitoring programme be applied with accuracy and precision (accuracy = true value and precision = comparable information).
It is alternatively suggested that a practical way in which to implement a monitoring programme is to contract an expert to do it on an annual basis.
This approach will ensure that important monitoring is not “skipped” because of other pressing management or personal issues. This expert will then regularly provide veld and wildlife management recommendations which will be based on the condition of the habitat. The suggested methods are accordingly designed and described.
Monitoring methods for detecting animal impact on vegetation preferably need to be established before introductions are made. It is, however, difficult to predict where animals will spend most of their time foraging. A minimum spread of monitoring sites is initially suggested (see Figure 10A) and further sites can be selected when introduced animals indicate which other areas are favoured for foraging. The following monitoring methods are suggested as the minimum for the assessment and evaluation of veld condition and change on the property and the suggested localities for preliminary monitoring sites are marked in Figure 10A.
Please note that the monitoring of animal impact on the vegetation is essential if the original investment in land, fencing, water provision and game is to be considered worthwhile. A return on the original investment is not likely to be possible if habitat monitoring is neglected.
49. Monitoring is often viewed as a non-essential exercise by many landowners, but it is not – it is critically essential. This is particularly so on small areas with a relatively high diversity of browsers and grazers such as is the case on the HGF. a) FIXED POINT PHOTOGRAPHIC MONITORING:
It is proposed that a system of vegetation monitoring points be established at which a photographic record of the vegetation around that point can be made and at which plant species and their density are regularly recorded (Coetzee, 2016).
The network of photographic monitoring points will provide the landowner / manager with a comparative record, which can be consulted annually for an objective indication of veld condition and trends over time. Four photographs are taken at each site. Fixed site photos can be compared to photos of previous years at the same site. The monitoring technique is simple to implement and is inexpensive to establish. See Figure 10B for a description of the fixed- point photographic monitoring system. The system of 10 short, capped pipes and 1 camera stand costs approximately R2 500 if professionally made. Alternatively, the system can be made up by any competent field handyman.
A record sheet containing information about the type of vegetation cover, species checklist and utilization by herbivores must be completed per photo site, as well as a soil erosion condition record sheet. (Examples of the record sheets follow the figure). This vital information is then used later, together with the photographs to compare condition of the site from one period of monitoring to the next.
50.
FIGURE 9A: Proposed location of fixed- point photo sites browse monitoring sites and grazing exclosures
b) EXCLOSURES:
It is suggested that at least one exclusion plot be established in each of the major habitat types. These plots will need to be fenced at 1,5m height to keep all larger herbivores out. The bottom of the fence must allow for the free movement of small herbivores like hares, tortoises and rodents in and out of the exclosure. The exclosure need be no larger than 15m x 15m. (See Figure 10C). It is preliminarily suggested that the exclosures be established in the general vicinity of water points. Excluding grazing animals will show what the short term utilization impact on the vegetation actually is, as it is something that is not always easy to observe if the entire area is heavily utilized.
51.
FIGURE 10B1: Fixed point installation for photographic monitoring
52.
FIGURE 10B2
53.
FIGURE 10C
54.
c) BROWSE MONITORING PLOTS:
Because of the relative importance of browsers (eland, kudu, giraffe and later, elephant and black rhino) on the area, a rapid and practical method for browse utilization assessment must be established. A combination of a fixed-point photograph of selected bush clumps (photographs can be used to actually measure degree of the utilization of bushes in the bush clump), together with an evaluation of species, degree of utilization and recruitment of bushes is suggested. (See Figure 10D). A number of these browse monitoring sites should be established in areas of known browser concentration. (Preliminarily suggested sites are indicated in Figure 10A).
FIGURE 10D: Photographic fixed-point evaluation of browse utilization.
55. d) COLLECTING AND IDENTIFYING PLANTS:
In order to know and understand the veld, it is necessary to get to know the common plants of the area. Samples of plants can be collected and pressed to dry (see Figure 10E), after which they can be passed on to an expert for identification. Specimens should contain important identification characteristics like leaves, flowers, seeds or fruits. Each specimen should be given a number and two of each specimen should be collected, each numbered.
One specimen is then forwarded for identification while the other is kept for your own reference. The person doing the identifications can thus simply send you a list of names next to the numbers and need not return the specimens.
If you wish to keep the dried specimens, a field herbarium can be built up as illustrated in Figure 10E. It is necessary to do it as illustrated; otherwise insects will destroy the specimens. Alternatively, a good close-up photograph of the plant (with flowers, fruit and leaves) is also suitable for identification and has the advantage that the photos can be safely stored and also sent by e-mail for identification.
Plants can be forwarded to Conservation Management Services for referral to a specialist botanist for identification. Do not try to press succulents, because they will just rot. Just put the succulents in a bag and forward them by post. Unfortunately, there is a cost to having plants identified, but it is not too costly through our contacts.
e) THE FILING AND STORAGE OF MONITORING DATA:
Any monitoring system is only as good as its filing system. Data that is not easily accessible is unlikely to be used, and therefore the major aim of the monitoring programme, that of integrating objective scientific information into decision-making is not fulfilled. One cannot overstress the necessity for an efficient and practical filing system for monitoring data. The following points should be considered:
1) A lever-arch or box filing system is most practical for bulky hard copy monitoring data. 2) A separate file should be used for each monitoring system (eg erosion, fire, wildlife census). 3) Files should be clearly marked with monitoring system and file numbers. 4) Data collected on different aspects of one monitoring system, such as soil erosion, should be filed together to represent a specific year or round of monitoring. 5) Slides collected as part of the monitoring record should be filed in plastic sheets of slide pockets in the same file as their accompanying information. 6) Photographs should be kept in plastic file pockets and should be attached to the accompanying forms or reports. 7) Every individual hard copy slide and photograph must be carefully marked with date, locality, monitoring system, etc. It is not sufficient to give them a number, because confusion can easily arise when they are used or referred to, and there must be no chance of mistakes when they are put back in the file. 8) Digitally filed photographs (images) must be clearly marked with the date taken as well as the relevant file or monitoring system number. 9) The filing system must be uncomplicated and clearly marked so that any interested person can retrieve the required data.
56.
FIGURE10E 57.
4.2 ECOLOGICAL THREAT ANALYSIS
The ecological threats that may emanate from the envisaged game introductions, the game already introduced, as well as from the game ranching operation in general can be listed as follows in Table 4. The applicable mitigation of each is also given.
PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL THREAT BEFORE MITIGATION MITIGATION
Related species may Low - The eland, nyala, kudu and bushbuck cross-breed and create are related. The extent of the area hybrids and the variety of specialised habitats on it will ensure that all three species will be able to socialise normally in habitats more than large enough to avoid “crowding” and the abnormal social behaviour that may lead to interbreeding and hybridization. Game animals may Medium - Extensive alternative grazing is damage or destroy available on planted pastures. sensitive natural - Supplementary feed can be provided. vegetation - Game numbers are conservative. - Monitoring will help detect problems. - The natural fynbos vegetation is not good forage for herbivores. Overbrowsing/overgrazing Medium - Extensive alternative grazing is of the slopes may result in available on flat planted pastures. soil erosion - Supplementary feed can be provided. - Game numbers are conservative. - Monitoring will help detect problems. Expanding game Low - Passive capture is particularly populations may be effective where good grazing is difficult to control, available on pastures. resulting in veld damage - The alternatives of darting and culling as a last resort exists. - Populations are mostly small, easily observed and counted. Seasonal drought may Medium - Grazing pastures are extensive and impact on sustainability of will persist into summer. forage - Supplementary feed can be provided. - Animal numbers are conservative. Introduced animals may Low - All introduced animals must be treated bring parasites and at source for external parasites or, diseases into the area animals must be sourced locally. Impala/nyala may escape Low - Impala and nyala already occur on into the district and most game farms in the surrounding become an “ecological” district. problem. - The 2,4m game-proof boundary fence will be electrified and is very well- made and maintained and has held up very well thus far. TABLE 4: Ecological threat analysis. 58.
4.3 GAME RANCH / FARM MANAGEMENT EVALUATION (AUDIT)
Game ranch/farm Management Evaluation (also known as Game Ranch/Farm Auditing) is a management tool comprising a systematic, objective and periodic evaluation of the management of a particular site.
It is immaterial what the site is managed for, whether it is a nature reserve, game farm, Open Space III zonation or simply undeveloped land, the evaluation can be used to gauge performance and progress with the prescribed management objectives for the site.
The prescribed management objectives are contained in the management plan. The evaluation must thus be based on the assessment of compliance with the objectives and prescriptions outlined in the plan.
The projects or tasks listed in the HGF management plan are summarised as follows:
i. Blue wildebeest: Reduce from 65 to 50 ii. Gemsbok: Reduce from 45 to 40 iii. Introduce sable, waterbuck, buffalo, reedbuck and giraffe using the totals given in Table 3 as a guide. iv. Kudu and zebra: increase numbers using table 3 as a guide. v. Animal numbers: Use the maximum population numbers recommended in Table 3 of the plan for each species. vi. Removals: When numbers increase by ±5-8 per population, reduce back to the recommended number (depending on the species). vii. Passive capture: Establish a passive capture camp/boma system and use the camp/boma for all supplementary feeding (this is not a prescription). viii. Hunting: If passive capture is not used or successful, remove excess animals by hunting in the least disruptive way possible (use silencer and shoot at night). ix. Genetic heterozygocity: Introduce new unrelated male/female individuals into all populations on a 5 - 7 year basis. Source animals from different populations to the original introduction groups, and introduce 1 or 2 individuals at a time. x. Supplementary feeding: Provide specially formulated game cubes and hay/lucern hay for all species during the dry summer drought periods (if necessary). The transformed pasture areas should also be “rejuvenated” when necessary. xi. Monitoring: Implement the recommended veld and game monitoring program as soon as possible. xii. Improve watering troughs by making them more “small” wildlife-friendly, as recommended. xiii. Auditing: Initiate an annual game ranch/farm audit using the management plan as an audit guide. xiv. Initiate a special risk assessment for the introduction of impala and nyala.
The evaluation process, which should be carried out by a suitably qualified and independent game and veld management expert, consists of a field visit during which information is collected and later collated into a standardised game ranch/farm management evaluation report. 59.
The evaluation report is then submitted to the persons responsible for the management of the site and to any other relevant authority that may require the report (such as Cape Nature) as proof of compliance with conditions, prescriptions or objectives that have been established for the site.
A game ranch/farm management evaluation should be carried out at least annually by means of the same standardised procedure. An annual evaluation will be invaluable to the persons responsible for the management of the site, because it pinpoints the particular shortcomings or needs of the site and also emphasizes the priorities for implementation. Similarly, it helps to gauge the effectivity or practicality of the prescriptions.
An example of a simple audit form follows:
GAME RANCH / FARM MANAGEMENT EVALUATION SHEET
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE PROJECT STATUS COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
Needs attention Partly undertaken Significant progress Completed Needs follow-up
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE PROJECT STATUS COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
Needs attention Partly undertaken Significant progress Completed Needs follow-up
60.
5. ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following aspects are not directly related to the introduction or management of game, or the requirements for game introduction approval, but they do require urgent attention. It is suggested that the following aspects should be considered for additional investigation and the provision of management guidelines in the future:
i. Alien plant control guidelines ii. Road maintenance guidelines. iii. Pasture improvement guidelines.
6. REFERENCES
Bothma, J du P & Du Toit, J G. 2016. (Eds). Game Ranch Management, 6th Edition. Van Schaik Publishers, Hatfield, Pretoria
Coetzee, K. 2016. Practical Techniques for Habitat and Wildlife Management. New Voices Publishing, Cape Town.
GTUP. 2014. Game Translocation and Utilization Policy for the Western Cape Province. Unpublished internal policy document, Cape Nature, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, Cape Town.
Mucina, L & Rutherford, M C. 2006. (Eds): The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Oberem, P & Oberem, P. 2012. A guide to animal diseases in South Africa - Game. Briza Publications, Pretoria.
Skead, C J. 2011. Historical incidence of the larger land mammals in the broader Western and Northern Cape. 2nd Edition. (Eds: Boshoff, AF; Kerley, GIH & Lloyd, PH). Port Elizabeth: Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, PE. Bainbridge, W R; 1965. Distribution of seed in elephant dung. Puku No 3: 173 - 175.
.
61.
APPENDIX 1
WRITTEN UNDERTAKING TO IMPLEMENT GAME MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR HONINGFONTEIN GAME FARM:
I, Mr. G. Wendt (ID 5608065079084) owner of Honingfontein Game Farm, Riversdale district hereby confirm to implement the submitted game management plan in its entirety.
I undertake to implement the following additional activities as mentioned in the management plan: i. A fixed - point photographic vegetation monitoring program as described in the approved game management plan. ii. A monitoring program to evaluate the impacts game species have on biodiversity, both fauna and flora, as well as the sensitive vegetation on my property. If the impacts of these species, is deemed detrimental, I undertake to implement management interventions that will reduce the effects caused by these species. Furthermore, if remedial action renders that the impacts to my property and surround sensitive vegetation cannot be mitigated significantly, I confirm that CapeNature reserves the right to instruct the removal of these species at my expense. Such instruction will be dependent on the relevant scientific monitoring data submitted for consideration. iii. That I will maintain a Class 1 (2.4m) game fence to prevent these animals from escaping my property. Furthermore, I understand and confirm the following: i. That this management plan does not exempt me from any other legislation, policies or international conventions applicable to the translocation of game into, from or within the Western Cape Province. ii. That this management plan does not exempt me from any transport permits including the permit requirements from any other organ of state or conservation authority. iii. That I undertake to implement the conditions and terms set out in the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA). These conditions and obligations are applicable to any management actions undertaken on the property. 62.
iv. If approved, I undertake to submit monitoring reports, as prescribed in the management plan, to CapeNature with three (3) months after the expiry of the Certificate of Adequate Enclosure and/or Captivity permit (expiry dates: 29 November 2021). Failure to do so I understand that future permits can be revoked. v. If approved, I undertake that the letter of approval must accompany all translocation applications to and from my property.
Regards,
______Date: G. Wendt Owner: Honingfontein Game Farm.
63.