Human-Wildlife Conflict

[Richprins]

What drama!

I'm sure he doesn't really care...

[Lisbeth]

Why don't people occupy themselves with something that they know about instead of interfering with scientific matters that are obviously not within the reach of their limited knowledge and low IQ?

The reasons for removing him sound rather convincing

Social media..

I still have not understood why they want him back

[Lisbeth]

#BringBackKataza: How the Cape went ape over a single baboon

By Rebecca Davis• 10 September 2020


Kataza sits atop a home in Kommetjie in the deep south of Cape Town. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

Over the past few weeks, the vexed issue of baboon management in Cape Town has flared up again – centred on the treatment of a primate called Kataza. The conflict has seen animal rights activists pitted against scientists in an extraordinarily vicious debate.

To supporters, he is known as Kataza. To the rangers who named him, he is Nkatazo. In official documents, he appears as SK11.

His rap sheet is extensive.

April 2020: SK11 raided five occupied houses in Kommetjie.

May 2020: SK11 broke through security 10 times, and attempted to do so another nine times.

“When he broke the line, he generally solicited other individuals to join him in raiding town,” his report reads.

June 2020: SK11 led a splinter troop into the urban area on eight occasions.

July and August 2020: SK11 led the troop into Kommetjie 15 times.

Nkatazo means “trouble” in isiXhosa – and this young chacma baboon has been living up to his name.

Portrait of the baboon as a young male

“How do you recognise Kataza? He has a scratch mark on his right cheek. You’ll usually see him next to Castro, an old female. And now, of course, they’ve put two great big ear tags on him.”


A #bringkatazaback sign hangs in Kommetjie to highlight and promote the safe return of Kataza the male baboon to his troop in the town. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

Jenni Trethowan, the founder of an activist group called Baboon Matters, speaks of the 42 members of the Slangkop Troop as if they are her close friends. She describes baboons as her “soul food”.

It is largely thanks to the efforts of Trethowan and her supporters that Kataza has been painted as a loveable rogue; a daring baboon revolutionary, constantly outwitting the City of Cape Town-appointed rangers employed to keep him out of urban areas. A guerilla, if you will.

To the scientists responsible for devising Cape Town’s baboon management policies, Kataza is a headache – and his human admirers even more so.


Kataza alone in Silvermine Reserve after being relocated by HWS to Tokai. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

University of Cape Town ecologist Professor Justin O’Riain says that research undertaken by his unit in April 2020 recorded Kataza as a young adult male who was submissive to the alpha male of his troop. He had not yet begun the male baboon behaviour quaintly known as “consorting”: prolonged periods of following and mating with receptive females.

“Kataza has since commenced consorting,” O’Riain says.

“But rather than challenge and defeat the alpha male, he is doubling down on pleasures and taking a small group of females to town where food is abundant, and he is having both his cake and copulations.”


Traffic is stopped on Ou Kaapse Weg in the deep south of Cape Town while activists keep watch of Kataza’s movements from a distance and prepare safe passage should he trek back to Kommetjie from Tokai. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

Kataza’s fondness for entering villages like Kommetjie and foraging for food there is not just contrary to Cape Town’s policy of keeping baboons out of urban areas. It presents a further challenge because it seems that the baboon’s intention is to form his own splinter troop.

“He has his own little splinter group of females, he’s trained them, and they also want to go to town with him,” says Dr Phil Richardson, the project manager of Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS), which holds the City’s contract for baboon management.

“Splinter troops are not natural in the wild. But in an urban edge environment like here, you find a low-ranking male not getting anywhere with mating because he gets beaten up by other males. If he can form a splinter troop, he goes from being nothing to being alpha. And the low-ranking females, who always get the food last, also like it.”

Splinter troops are anathema to Cape Town’s baboon management policy because they drastically raise management costs. Monitoring two troops of 20 baboons each costs twice as much as monitoring one troop of 40.

Kataza had become a big problem. In the eyes of authorities, something had to be done.

But nothing gets past Jenni Trethowan’s eagle-eyed scrutiny of the Slangkop Troop. So when Trethowan realised Kataza had been missing for two consecutive days, she raised the alarm.

Going bananas over baboons

It is almost impossible to overstate how divisive the issue of baboon management has become in recent years in Cape Town’s Deep South: the colloquial term for the southern part of the Cape Peninsula, encompassing villages like Kommetjie, Scarborough, Noordhoek and Simon’s Town.


A juvenile baboon grooms another on Slangkop Mountain above Kommetjie after being injured by a dog. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

Though the topic may seem unbelievably parochial to those further afield, it is a regular pressure point in the City’s relationship with residents, flaring into tension every few years.

Those invested in the issue hold passionate beliefs and appear rarely swayed from them. All the major players mentioned in this article are regular recipients of vitriolic emails, slanderous comments on social media and even death threats. Some journalists refuse to report on the issue because the blowback is so intense.

Over the past few weeks, as the Kataza issue has blown up, social media and local talk radio have been aflame.

The Slangkop baboon troop with Kataza forage and groom on Slangkop Mountain above Kommetjie. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)
“Every time anyone on the radio spoke about it, there was immediate and heated response,” Cape Talk drivetime host John Maytham told Daily Maverick.

At least three main camps exist.

The first is led by Trethowan and other baboon activists, who maintain that the City’s approach to baboon management, as implemented by HWS, is both cruel and unhelpful.

They believe that authorities are too quick to euthanise baboons and separate troop members, but a particular sticking point is the use of pain aversion methods to keep baboons away from urban areas. HWS uses paintball guns to dissuade baboons from breaking through the urban edge.


A mother baboon picks up her baby and kisses it in a seldom seen display of affection and love. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

“I have been opposed to the paintballing for years,” Trethowan says, comparing it to corporal punishment.

“Most people these days are not using pain aversion to train animals. These baboons are getting paintballed from the moment they wake up. What is the point of it? You’re not teaching the baboons anything.”

Trethowan and fellow activists recently received high-profile support from the grand dame of primatology herself, Jane Goodall, who criticised the use of “unnecessarily hostile tactics” in baboon management in the Western Cape.

In the second camp sit the City of Cape Town’s biodiversity management unit, HWS, scientists like Justin O’Riain, and other prominent international primate experts like the University of California’s Dr Shirley Strum.

After Strum visited Cape Town in 2014, she described herself as “scandalised” by the behaviour of local baboon activists and wrote:

“The epitaph of these baboons will read: ‘Met an untimely end because activists could not face reality’.”


A Human Wildlife Services (HWS) ranger fires his paintball gun at members of the Slangkop baboon troop to keep them contained on Slangkop Mountain above Kommetjie in the deep south of Cape Town. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

O’Riain points out that independent studies have repeatedly shown that Cape Town’s baboon management project has resulted in “a growing population with improved welfare and communities with far less damage”.

He says that since HWS took over baboon management, the percentage of baboon deaths linked to humans has dropped from 52% in 2008 to 14%. What proved most effective at keeping baboons out of urban areas and therefore safe: paintball guns.

“This is why the NSPCA [National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] supported the use of new tools which include paintball markers,” O’Riain says.

He asks: “How can it be that the only city on the continent that strives through the hiring of professional service providers to keep baboons safe from urban areas is held up as a heartless pariah, and the best performing service provider to date is labelled as inept and cruel?”

In the third camp of the baboon wars are the residents affected by pillaging baboons. In recent years, there have been some horror stories, including a Scarborough baboon called William who reportedly terrorised a pregnant woman living alone with a toddler to the point of ripping off the sliding doors to her home.

William was euthanised in 2010 as a result of his destructive raiding behaviour. On the Baboon Matters website, Trethowan refers to him as “William the Conqueror”, describing him as a “huge, gorgeous boy” and “one of my all-time favourite males”.


Two baboons groom each other on Slangkop Mountain. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

Kommetjie residents recently complained to News24 of baboon damage including the R500,000 destruction of a greenhouse roof. But they appeared almost equally irate about the behaviour of HWS rangers, who were accused of both failing to keep baboons out of town and of causing damage of their own through cowboy-like paintball tactics.

HWS’ Richardson denies that his rangers are trigger-happy.

“Apart from anything else, it would cost us a fortune [in paintball markers],” he observes wryly.

“The rangers are happiest when baboons are far from town, and they can sit there and hold the line. There’s no pleasure in chasing the baboons. The guys really enjoy the baboons. Sitting and watching them forage and play: that’s the ideal situation.”


Kataza and some of the Slangkop troop warm themselves in the sun on Slangkop Mountain above Kommetjie. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

HWS’ website states: “We pride ourselves on being the only company in the world who have found an effective management strategy to prevent human-baboon conflict”.

When it comes to human-human conflict over baboons, however, it’s a different story.

#BringBackKataza

If you drive through Kommetjie today, you’ll see a hand-painted sign hanging at the entrance to the village.

“#BringBackKataza,” it says: the recent rallying cry of Trethowan and her supporters.

The Kataza saga began on Wednesday 26 August: when, in the dry prose of the City of Cape Town’s Julia Wood, “the male baboon was relocated to the Zwaanswyk-Tokai troop in Tokai”.


A Human Wildlife Services patrol staff member on Slangkop Mountain with a paintball gun. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

This was done because Kataza was “compromising the welfare of the [Slangkop] troop” by leading raids into town.

“It was decided to relocate [Kataza] and see whether the troop was more manageable without him. Thus far, it has proven to be – the troop has entered Kommetjie less since [Kataza] was held and then relocated,” says Wood.

In the language of the baboon activists, this intervention takes on different shades entirely: “kidnapping”, with Kataza painted as ripped away from his home and family and cruelly consigned to an alien area. One caller to talk radio compared the incident to the forced removals which occurred during the apartheid era.

When Trethowan realised Kataza’s absence – which had not been publicised in advance precisely to prevent activist and media interference – she started searching for him immediately. Trethowan spotted the baboon crossing Ou Kaapse Weg, the mountain pass which connects Cape Town’s southern suburbs with the Deep South.

“It was clear to me he wanted to go back [to Kommetjie],” says Trethowan.

As recorded in a now widely viewed video, Trethowan proceeded to attempt to “walk Kataza home”.


The small coastal suburb of Kommetjie as seen from above on Slangkop Mountain in the deep south of Cape Town. (Photo: Alan van Gysen)

It was not successful.

“He did start following me,” she says, but eventually the baboon ran back in the direction to which he had been relocated.

O’Riain says Kataza’s relocation was perfectly justifiable: he was released near a troop with a single older alpha male, which should give him a chance “to meet and hopefully mate with unrelated females”.

He points out: “Leaving home and your family is the norm for male baboons. Males spend days alone as they plot and scheme their way to joining a new troop and climbing the ladder to alpha position.”

As things stand, Kataza is living an itinerant life in Tokai, while the debate over his circumstances rages on. One of the places he has been sleeping of late is atop the roof of Pollsmoor Prison.

“Every morning he goes to Tokai and sits there and looks at females. Then he gets chased off. That’s life for a baboon,” says Richardson.

“There’s no truth to the idea that he’s yearning for his old troop. He’s the age where he wants to breed. Every young male who grows up goes through this stage.”

The scientists accuse the activists of rampant anthropomorphism; the activists accuse the scientists of heartlessness.

Trethowan has further been accused of using the Kataza episode as a publicity tactic for fundraising for her organisation: a charge she laughs off.

“I can’t even begin to tell you how offensive that is,” she says.

“I didn’t move Kataza there, they moved Kataza! I have put out one fundraising request in response to people who asked.”

Though they may be at loggerheads, the scientists and the activists have one thing in common: a deep fascination with the species known in Latin as Papio ursinus.

“Baboons have been my life for 30 years,” says Trethowan.

“They are like a soap opera every day. They are incredibly intelligent, caring, and empathetic.”

O’Riain has a tellingly different description.

“They are absolutely remarkable creatures, though their despotism can be very hard to watch: in particular, lots of very harsh discipline on infants. They have agility, power and sociability. And all that makes them one of the hardest animals in the world to live next to.”

[Richprins]

Those invested in the issue hold passionate beliefs and appear rarely swayed from them. All the major players mentioned in this article are regular recipients of vitriolic emails, slanderous comments on social media and even death threats. Some journalists refuse to report on the issue because the blowback is so intense.



We baboons must be disciplined, otherwise we become too big for our boots!

[Alf]

[Lisbeth]

Wild dogs facing increased persecution in Eastern Namibia

Posted on September 16, 2020 by Team Africa Geographic



Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) staff report that the ongoing persecution of African wild dogs (painted wolves) continues, as evidenced by the puppy carcass found on a road in Eastern Namibia – believed to be a victim of an intentional killing. As reported to the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), the dog’s pack had killed a young breeding cow nearby, and the vehicle strike was in retaliation. Attempts to kill African wild dogs on the road intentionally are commonplace in Babwata National Park as well as South Africa and Zimbabwe. The critically endangered African wild dog belonged to a pack that is believed to consist of five adults and five or six pups of about three months of age. Staff from CCF’s – Carnivore Conflict Field Station in the Eastern Communal areas are monitoring the packs’ movements to help prevent additional problems.

A severe drought during the past couple of years has led to an increase in conflict with livestock and game farmers towards both cheetahs and African wild dogs, particularly in the Eastern Communal area. While cheetah and wild dog are both rare, this area is home to a few remaining packs of wild dogs, a critically endangered species. CCF says that unless more awareness is brought to the situation, this kind of conflict could drive the species into extinction.

“Since the retaliatory action, the pack has moved to a neighbouring rural/communal farm. They were sighted there yesterday. The farmer is helping us track them, as they will likely soon find another resting area. Cooperation from farmers has intensified since CCF deployed a ‘rapid response’ team and developed a communication network between farmers. Sharing conflict information and movement updates with each other serves as an early warning system, and it mobilises community members to take precautionary measures to protect vulnerable livestock calves”, said Nadja le Roux, CCF’s Community Coordinator. “The pack has moved the pups but could go back to the den from time to time. They will stay in tight areas within this zone, which we have been studying for the past few years. This is the most common behaviour”.

CCF has spent years working with MEFT in the communities in and around the Omaheke and Otjizondupa Regions to strengthen their conservancies, including the surrounding farms in the Otjinene and Okakarara communities. The areas border each other and consist of freehold, resettled and communal farms. To encourage coexistence and reduce conflict, CCF has conducted Future Farmers of Africa training courses in the region to teach the best rangeland, livestock and wildlife management techniques, including non-lethal predator control.

In 2017 and 2018, with the support of Nedbank’s Go Green Fund, a camera-trap survey revealed limited wildlife in these communal areas. To CCF, this means increased problems for farmers because this results in a limited wild prey base. African wild dogs prey on small antelope and have large home ranges, and more biodiversity is required to sustain them.

“We remind the public that CCF is here to help farmers manage problems with carnivores that share the landscape in Namibia. CCF’s Future Farmers of Africa trainings teach the best management of livestock, wildlife and grazing lands to help reduce conflict with predators”, said Dr Laurie Marker, CCF’s Founder and Executive Director.



“Other community initiatives, like our One Health project to vaccinate domestic animals against rabies, has helped us reach a lot of the population that experience conflict with African wild dogs, and we can share information about coexistence with wildlife. Increasing the wildlife base in this area will be critical to reducing conflict, a strategy we hope to develop with MEFT.”

Today fewer than 660 packs of African wild dogs remain in Africa, with less than 300 mature adults in Namibia, of which the majority are found outside protected areas. Because of this, CCF believes working directly with the farming community in areas with wild dog packs is critical for species survival. CCF coordinates with regional efforts to support the species, including the Range Wide Conservation Programme for Cheetah and African Wild Dogs, which works across Africa with all countries where these two species exist in the wild.

“The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism is concerned with retaliatory killings of African Wild dogs considering they are a critically endangered species. We understand they are culprits in human-wildlife conflict incidents leading to livestock damages to farmers. However, we want to urge that such incidents must be reported to the Ministry for an amicable solution that should not involve the killing of such species in a cruel manner”, said Romeo Muyunda, spokesperson of the Namibia Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism.


Red dot: where the incident occurred

Because CCF now has a Satellite Camp located in the Eastern Communal area providing consistent support, staff from CCF’s Carnivore Conflict Station monitors pack activity and can respond immediately when problems arise. CCF also operates a 24-hour farmer support hotline to offer advice on conflict issues around cheetah, African wild dog and other carnivores. CCF staff can provide access to a network of partner organisations within the Large Carnivore Management Association (LCMAN) to assist with HWC in different regions of Namibia with a variety of carnivore species. The public is encouraged to use this hotline service.

CCF Farmer Hotline: +264 81 227 5139

Nadja le Roux and Dr Hanlie Winterbach are CCF’s staff members coordinating the programming at CCF’s – Carnivore Conflict Field Station.

Cheetah Conservation Fund

Conservation Fund (CCF) is the global leader in research and conservation of cheetahs and dedicated to saving the cheetah in the wild. Founded in 1990, CCF is an international non-profit organisation headquartered in Namibia. CCF is celebrating its 30th anniversary in 2020, making it the longest-running and most successful cheetah conservation organisation. For more information, please visit www.cheetah.org.

[Lisbeth]

Celebrations as City of Cape Town agrees to take Kataza the baboon home to Slangkop

08.11.2020 | Tred Magill, Correspondent

Click on the title to read the whole story.

[Richprins]

[Lisbeth]

Key Questions for Human-Elephant Conflict Research

Posted on December 28, 2020 by Gail Thomson in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.



By Gail Thomson, originally published in Conservation Namibia

I am indebted to three elephant experts for their input into this article.

Human-elephant conflict: Managing elephants in a landscape that includes rural human communities is a major challenge in countries where elephant populations are increasing as a result of successful conservation measures. Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, in particular, must find ways to help their citizens living in rural areas to coexist with these great grey beasts that can be enchanting or terrifying, depending on your point of view.

In a previous article on the topic of elephants, hunting and coexistence with human communities, I pointed out that research findings on elephants must be balanced with the perspectives and needs of rural communities to make reasonable policies. Although the problems associated with human-elephant conflict were considered, we did not focus on addressing the conflict itself. In this article, we go a bit deeper into the role that research can play in managing human-elephant conflict. Namibia would benefit greatly from targeted research in this area that answers key questions for wildlife managers. If you are a student or researcher thinking about topics that can have real-world conservation outcomes, listen up.

First, let’s establish the difference between hunting elephants in order to reduce conflict with local communities and hunting to generate revenue and meat (the latter is called conservation hunting in Namibia, and trophy or sport hunting elsewhere). The conservation hunting concept is based on the principle that people living with elephants and other wildlife should benefit materially from their presence. Generating revenue and meat from elephants increases tolerance for the species and thus indirectly promotes human-elephant coexistence. Conservancies in Namibia use the income from conservation hunting to employ over 600 community game guards that assist with reporting conflict incidents and wildlife monitoring. At the national and conservancy level, conservation hunting income also contributes to the Human-Wildlife Conflict Self-Reliance Scheme, thus playing an important general role in addressing conflict. Conservation hunting is not, however, the primary topic discussed here.

The main issue I want to address is how hunting directly affects human-elephant relations in the areas where it occurs. Elephant hunting includes what is known in Namibia as problem animal control hunts, whereby specific individuals that frequently cause damages are killed. In terms of elephant behaviour, population numbers and demographics, all forms of hunting are likely to affect human-elephant interactions in some way. Figuring out what that effect might be and how hunting can be managed to improve human-elephant relations in the long term is a promising area of research. It is my hope that some of the questions below may spark the interest of Namibian researchers to delve deeper into these issues.

Human-elephant coexistence may be an unrealistic goal in areas where farm infrastructure was built when no elephants were present and the farmers living there see no direct or indirect benefits from elephant presence. Where coexistence is not possible in the short- or medium-term, options other than the ones presented here may have to be explored – like translocation or, as a last resort, culling. The research questions presented here are specifically for areas where elephant presence generates enough benefits such that reducing the costs associated with them can lead to human-elephant coexistence.



1) What effect does hunting have on long-term elephant damage?

Problem animal hunts, particularly, are meant to reduce human-elephant conflict. Research from Kenya reveals that male elephants cause more conflict (either in groups or as singletons) than females, and that some males can be classed as habitual crop raiders, while others only raid occasionally. Furthermore, habitual raiders may teach younger males their same bad habits. Removing habitual raiders from the population therefore appears to be a sound course of action for reducing conflict, at least in the short term.

With a long-term view, however, removing habitual raiders may just make space for other males to fill their shoes, thus not addressing the problem. Additionally, identifying habitual raiders is difficult, as many incidents happen at night and tracking a conflict-causing animal requires an extremely swift response to reports of damage that is not always possible. The question remains: if all else is equal (i.e. elephant and human density, habitat and agricultural practices), how does removing individual problem-causing elephants affect the long-term trend in human-elephant conflict? Conflict incidents and problem animal hunts are recorded in Event Books and through the hunting permit system, so this information can be used as a starting point for research in Namibia.

2) How does hunting influence elephant behaviour around people?

We already know that the total absence of older males leads to younger males becoming unusually aggressive to humans and other species. It is also possible that elephants that witness a hunt could become aggressive due to increased stress levels, but solid evidence for this is lacking. On the other side of the coin, there is increasing research on using a landscape of fear to reduce conflict with humans by using the animals’ instinctive desire to avoid risk.

An animal’s landscape of fear is based on their life experience and lessons from their parents (or others in their social groups) that tell them which parts of their environment or times of day are more or less risky. This is very similar to the way we decide how to move around our cities based on crime levels that we have experienced or heard about through our social circles. Theoretically, at least, one could manipulate the elephants’ landscape of fear to reduce the number of individuals willing to approach a village or enter a crop field (risky spaces), while encouraging their use of wildlife corridors and protected areas as safe spaces in the landscape.

The research challenge is to figure out how hunting contributes to either exacerbating the problem through increased elephant aggression or reducing the problem by creating a landscape of fear. Detailed records of all elephant hunts (for any purpose), followed by behavioural studies of affected elephant groups and supported by Event Book data would help us to understand the link between hunting and elephant behaviour. This understanding can be used in turn to create hunting guidelines that will limit human-elephant conflict.



3) Can non-lethal methods ultimately replace problem animal control?

The two questions above reveal that there are some uncertainties regarding how hunting can be used to reduce human-elephant conflict in the long term. When these questions are answered, lethal control must be considered alongside the non-lethal options for reducing conflict. Protecting crops and water installations at conflict hotspots should reduce the need for lethal control over time. Non-lethal elephant deterrents (e.g. burning chilli bombs or applying chilli oil to fences) could be used alongside occasional hunts to maintain and reinforce the landscape of fear around villages and crops.

One of the key drawbacks of implementing long-term non-lethal control methods is the cost. Some options can be installed using external funds, while others come at a cost to individual farmers (e.g. paying for diesel to pump water that elephants drink). In some cases, an external party makes the initial investment, but on-going maintenance is left to the farmer. By contrast, the meat of a hunted elephant is distributed among the affected people and the hunting fee may be used to offset losses incurred. Lethal control may therefore be a more attractive option for those who suffer the direct consequences of elephant damage and are expected to implement non-lethal methods (at least partially) at their own cost.

The effectiveness of non-lethal methods should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as lethal methods, particularly to determine its long-term effectiveness, cost and practicality in the field. A method that relies solely on investment of the farmer’s time and money is unlikely to win more support than bringing in a hunter to deal with a problem animal. For any given non-lethal control method introduced into a community, we need to know how well it worked over what period of time and whether or not the farmers feel that they could integrate the method into their day-to-day lives.

Understanding the researcher’s role

Experts in human-wildlife conflict know that this particular field of science is even more influenced by human factors (e.g. relationships) than other areas of science. Coexistence with elephants is like a giant puzzle that involves turning over many important pieces through research and experience. The pieces we focused on here include the direct links between hunting and human-elephant conflict, yet the indirect links can be just as important. These include political willpower, historical context, local culture and benefits derived from elephants. While research can provide some important puzzle pieces, it takes people from a diverse array of stakeholders to solve the puzzle itself.

Solving the puzzle of human-wildlife conflict requires trust, communication and a willingness to listen and learn. If research results are used to try and force people to adopt certain ideas or methods (even if they work), they are almost guaranteed to fail. Alternatively, research can be part of a collaborative learning process whereby everyone is involved in identifying the right questions, developing sound methods to test possible solutions and discussing the results. If you have been inspired by these research questions, remember to include others in your search for answers.

[Klipspringer]

Make sense