Management of reintroduced lions in small, fenced reserves in South Africa: an assessment and guidelines S.M. Miller1*, C. Bissett2, A. Burger3, B. Courtenay4, T. Dickerson5, D.J. Druce6,7, S. Ferreira8, P.J. Funston9, D. Hofmeyr10, P.J. Kilian11, W. Matthews12, S. Naylor5, D.M. Parker2, R. Slotow7, M. Toft13 & D. Zimmermann14 1Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa 2Wildlife and Reserve Management Research Group, Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140 South Africa 3Welgevonden Game Reserve, P.O. Box 433, Vaalwater, 0530 South Africa 4Enviro-Africa Tourism Services, P.O. Box 427, Umhlunga Rocks, 4237 South Africa 5Phinda Private Game Reserve, &Beyond, Private Bag 6001, Hluhluwe, 3960 South Africa 6Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, P.O. Box 13053, Cascades, 3202 South Africa 7School of Biological and Conservation Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000 South Africa 8Scientific Services, SANParks, Private Bag X402, Skukuza, 1350 South Africa 9Panthera, P.O. Box 8027, Kongola, Caprivi Region, Namibia 10Madikwe Game Reserve, North West Parks & Tourism Board, P.O. Box 10, Nietverdiend, 2874 South Africa 11Khamab Kalahari Reserve, P.O. Box 2059, Vryburg, 8600 South Africa 12Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa, P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0003 South Africa 13Kifaru Wildlife Veterinary Services, P.O. Box 602, Linkhills, 3652 South Africa 14Veterinary Wildlife Services, P.O. Box 110040, Hadison Park, Kimberley, 8306 South Africa Received 14 January 2013. Accepted 26 June 2013 Managers of African lions (Panthera leo) on reserves where they have been reintroduced increasingly face challenges associated with ecological regulation, genetic degradation and increased susceptibility to catastrophic events. The Lion Management Forum (LiMF) was formed in 2010 to define these challenges and explore possible solutions with the view to developing appropriate management guidelines. LiMF bases its recommendations on the ecologically sound premise that managers should, as far as possible, mimic natural processes that have broken down in reserves, using proactive rather than reactive methods, i.e. management should focus on causal mechanisms as opposed to reacting to symptoms. Specifically, efforts should be made to reduce population growth and thus reduce the number of excess lions in the system; disease threats should be reduced through testing and vacci- nation whenever animals are translocated; and genetic integrity should be monitored. The latter is particularly important, as most of these reserves are relatively small (typically <1000 km2). An adaptive management framework is needed to implement the guidelines developed here on reserves across the country, with regional nodes addressing more local genetic issues, within an overall national plan. Ongoing monitoring and scientific assessment of behavioural, population and systemic responses of lion populations and responsive modification of the guidelines, should improve management of lions on small reserves in South Africa. This approach will provide a template for evidence-based conservation management of other threatened species. Ultimately ‘National Norms and Standards’ must be established and a ‘National Action Plan’ for lions in South Africa developed. Key words: Panthera leo, re-introduction, small reserve management. INTRODUCTION mately 1700 individuals; Ferreira & Funston In South Africa, lions (Panthera leo) were extirpated 2010), Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (TP; approxi- from much of their historical range by the 1900s mately 125 individuals in the South African sec- (Nowell & Jackson 1996). Three historical popula- tion; Castley et al. 2002; Funston 2011) and tions persisted:Kruger National Park (NP;approxi- Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation *To whom correspondence should be addressed. Area (GMTFCA; only a small population of <50 E-mail: [email protected] individuals; Funston 2010). Lions re-populated South African Journal of Wildlife Research 43(2): 138–154 (October 2013) Miller et al.: Management of lions in small, fenced reserves 139 Fig. 1. Location of reserves in South Africa with free-roaming lions and proposed management clusters (shaded areas). The size of the dot represents the number of lions on the reserve as indicated in the legend. Following the proposed management guidelines outlined in this paper we envisage a national network of reserves where translocations between reserves within the clusters occur on a regular basis (as required by each reserve) with less frequent translocations between clusters (indicated by arrows). This should improve the genetic integrity of this population as a whole. Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park (HiP) in 1958 with more regional scale (Slotow & Hunter 2009). This has recent introductions (1999–2001) to improve the prompted calls to move away from intensive overall genetic health of that population (Trinkel management in isolation towards a managed et al. 2008). The HiP currently has ~200 lions metapopulation approach (Funston 2008; Slotow & (Grange et al. 2012). At least 44 other free-ranging Hunter 2009; Hayward & Kerley 2009; Trinkel et al. (i.e. fending for themselves) lion populations can 2010; Ferreira & Hofmeyr 2014) similar to that be found in smaller (<1000 km2) fenced reserves in developed for African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus; South Africa, currently totalling ~500 lions (Fig. 1; Gusset et al. 2008). Where possible Hayward et al. updated from Slotow & Hunter 2009). The (2007b) suggest fences could be removed within Kruger NP, Kgalagadi TP, GMTFCA and HiP geographically contiguous areas to increase the populations were all recognized by the IUCN in size of some areas, presumably reducing the their 2006 report on southern and eastern African management intensity. However, the extent of lions, with Kruger NP and Kgalagadi TP listed as human habitation and infrastructure in South Africa ‘viable’ populations, and the GMTFCA and HiP would only allow a relatively small proportion of the populations listed as ‘potentially viable’ popula- various reserves to connect. tions (IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group 2006). Thus, integrated population management may, All of the reintroduced lion populations are in most instances, be a better option within a currently intensively managed (Hayward et al. meta-population framework (see Olivier et al. 2007a,b; Hunter et al. 2007), largely in isolation 2009), providing potentially important conservation from each other. The net effect of this is that some outcomes. Most lion reintroductions in South Africa believe that these various small and isolated popu- are for eco-tourism purposes rather than purely lations are of minimal conservation value at a ecological reasons (Slotow & Hunter 2009). Any 140 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 43, No. 2, October 2013 management recommendations must, therefore, and actively manage numbers accordingly. As account for both the economic and ecological/con- lions have high reproductive potential and recover servation value of lions and should be guided by rapidly from disturbances (Smuts 1978; Kissui & area-specific land-use objectives (IUCN/SCC Cat Packer 2004), introduction to reserves with abun- Specialist Group 2006). Practical interpretation dant, naive prey, inevitably results in an ‘excess’ and implementation of these diverse requirements number of lions within a short period of time provides conceptual as well as logistical challenges. (Kettles & Slotow 2009; Miller & Funston 2014). We These challenges prompted reserve managers use the term ‘excess’ for lions that exceed the and scientists to convene a workshop in June 2010 number of desired lions for the reserve and are to find innovative solutions for these challenges. thus removed by managers. Initially managers That workshop resolved to promote regional link- mainly used translocation to address overabun- ages, as well as to establish an informal group, dance (Kettles & Slotow 2009; Slotow & Hunter known as the ‘Lion Management Forum’ or LiMF. 2009), but in more recent years a decrease in the The aim of this group is to improve the conserva- establishment of new reserves has resulted in tion value of lion populations in small reserves fewer opportunities for translocation (Hayward through the development of industry norms and et al. 2007b; Kettles & Slotow 2009). Euthanasia, standards for lion management following scientifi- and to a lesser degree contraception, have thus cally-based management approaches (Ferreira & become the methods of choice for population Hofmeyr 2014). The forum also committed itself to control in the last ten years (Kettles & Slotow 2009; promote research into areas where information Slotow & Hunter 2009; Miller & Funston 2014). relevant to management was lacking. At two sub- From information provided by the workshop atten- sequent workshops (one held in Mokala NP in dees it is estimated that about 200 lions were November 2010 and the other at Tshwane Univer- euthanased for this purpose in South Africa from sity of Technology in Pretoria in August 2011) an 2010 to 2012. experiential approach was used to develop man- These are, however, symptomatic approaches agement guidelines and identify areas requiring that are not designed to address the causal mech- further research. The purpose of this paper is to anism underpinning