Africa Wild

The sale of wildlife from South Africa to Angolan national parks has sparked a row over the spread of species to areas in which they do not occur naturally. It also raises renewed fears about the future of Angola’s critically endangered giant sables

Read here:
SA breeders buck the system

Thanks, Toko!

Those sable are massive, and were indeed pronounced extinct at one stage!

It seems some of the "species" pronounced as alien to Angola should rather be subspecies? Obviously impala and waterbuck have occured there, but perhaps not in those parks? Who knows?

Blesbuck should die pretty quickly there anyway, as it is totally alien to them?

But nyala, for example, can take over quite quickly, as is happening in Central and Southern Kruger, along watercourses...


I don't think having giant sable in SA farms is necessarily a bad thing, the owners won't dilute them, and would rather breed!?

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep2192 ... d-shared=0

Game auction prices are not related to biodiversity contributions of southern African ungulates and large carnivores
Fredrik Dalerum & Maria Miranda
Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 21922 (2016)
doi:10.1038/srep21922
Download Citation
Biodiversity | Environmental sciences
Received:
12 November 2015
Accepted:
02 February 2016
Published online:
25 February 2016
Abstract
There is an urgent need for human societies to become environmentally sustainable. Because public policy is largely driven by economic processes, quantifications of the relationship between market prices and environmental values can provide important information for developing strategies towards sustainability. Wildlife in southern Africa is often privately owned and traded at game auctions to be utilized for commercial purposes mostly related to tourism. This market offers an interesting opportunity to evaluate how market prices relate to biologically meaningful species characteristics. In this market, prices were not correlated with species contributions to either phylogenetic or functional diversity, and species contributions to phylogenetic or functional diversity did not influence the trends in prices over time for the past 20 years. Since this economic market did not seem to appreciate evolutionary or ecologically relevant characteristics, we question if the game tourism market may contribute towards biodiversity conservation in southern Africa. We suggest that market prices in general may have limited values as guides for directing conservation and environmental management. We further suggest that there is a need to evaluate what humans value in biological organisms, and how potentially necessary shifts in such values can be instigated.

Introduction
The rapid increase of the human population and its environmental impacts may drive the global environment toward hostile states for our own and other species1. Promoting societal change to more sustainable structures is therefore urgent2. However, although much of public policy is driven by economic processes, environmental values are still rarely directly included in economic markets3. In terms of achieving sustainability goals, this is an obvious shortcoming4, and there is subsequently a surging interest in enabling economic valuations of environmental assets5. However, the ability of economic markets to contribute to a transition towards sustainability rests on a positive alignment between market forces and long-term environmental goals6, which does not always seem to be the case7,8. Quantifications of the relationship between market forces and environmental values can prove important for our ability to develop strategies to reform human societies towards more sustainable ones9.

Throughout southern Africa, wildlife is an important economic asset used in safari tourism and trophy hunting10,11,12, and to a lesser extent also for meat production13. However, while these activities may contribute to regional and local economies, they may not always create incentives for ecologically meaningful conservation initiatives14. For instance, privately owned game farming may be carried out at ecologically irrelevant scales15,16. In South Africa, the utilization of wildlife populations on private land is exclusively granted to the land owners17. This is an unusual situation since property rights of wildlife are often retained in the public domain18. Subsequently, South African wildlife is frequently traded in game auctions for stocking privately owned game reserves19. The South African game industry therefore offers an opportunity for evaluating how evolutionary and ecologically relevant characteristics are incorporated in a specific economic market driven by regular market forces. Although meat production is becoming increasingly popular19, this market is still driven primarily by revenues from activities related to tourism, including trophy hunting20.

Biodiversity is critical for the Earth’s biota, and the recent decline in biodiversity could have dramatic influences for humanity21. Although biodiversity was initially measured as species richness, it is now widely accepted that biodiversity consists of several components, ranging from genetic to functional diversity22. Genetic diversity reflects the evolutionary history of the organisms within a community, and is often quantified from phylogenetic relationships23. Functional diversity, on the other hand, reflects the phenotypic variation of a community that is directly linked to specific ecosystem functions. It therefore reflects contemporary ecosystem performance24. Since species differ in both genetic and phenotypic characteristics, there has been a growing awareness of the roles of individual species for the overall diversity of biological communities25,26.

Here we evaluate the relationship between game auction prices of large herbivore and carnivore species and their contribution to phylogenetic and functional diversity in southern Africa. We calculated two measures of each species’ contribution to its assemblage phylogenetic diversity, evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) and phylogenetic contribution (PC)26. Analogously, we quantified contributions to functional diversity as the functional distinctiveness (FD) and functional contribution (FC) of each species. These functional contributions were calculated form dendrograms constructed from matrices of traits related to herbivory (ungulates) and predation (carnivores). We stress that any relationships between prices and these derived metrics are most likely not intentional, i.e. we doubt that market prices are directly related to the importance these species have for different aspects of biodiversity. However, a positive relationship would suggest that the characteristics that are valued by this market are indeed positively correlated with evolutionary and ecologically relevant characteristics. Such correlations may be necessary for this market to positively contribute to biodiversity conservation and sustenance in southern Africa. We restricted our analyses to the southern African ungulate and large carnivore assemblages, and only included species naturally occurring within the southern African subregion27. The ungulate assemblage consisted of all terrestrial species within the region belonging to the mammalian order Perissodactyla and the superorder Cetartiodactyla, while the carnivore assemblage contained species over 10 kg in size within the order Carnivora26. These definitions yielded total assemblages of 41 ungulate and 13 carnivore species, of which we had prices for 37 and 6 species, respectively.

[...]

Discussion
Our study failed to find any significant relationships between game auction prices and the evolutionary or ecological significance of southern African ungulates and large carnivores. Hence, our results indicate that these market prices were driven by attributes, most likely aesthetic and cultural28, which are not directly linked to either evolutionary history or ecologically relevant characteristics. Considering that these animals mostly are traded for inclusion in profit driven game reserves, we suggest that the prices in this market at least partially reflect the relative public demand for the different species11. Such an interpretation would suggest a lack of appreciation of the relative evolutionary or ecological importance among these species, which could lead to serious mis-allocations of resources towards the management and protection of biological resources29. However, we point out that this market only reflects a section of society that is interested in game related tourism and also has the financial assets to pay for it. Although this is an obvious limitation of the data, we argue that the results still may have significant ramifications for biodiversity conservation in southern Africa.

Despite an increased attention to environmental degradation and the importance of Earth’s biota2, species importance for either phylogenetic or functional diversity did not influence the temporal trends in game auction prices from 1991 to 2012. Hence, the expansion in public attention to environmental problems does not appear to have influenced the relative market prices of these species. This is an interesting observation, since market prices partially are influenced by consumer preferences. The observed lack of effect of phylogenetic or ecological characteristics on the temporal trend in prices may therefore support previous studies pointing to a discrepancy between peoples’ recognition of environmental problems and their inclination to act according to that knowledge30,31.

Our two assemblages included some of the most recognized flagship species in the world15,32. In addition, our study only included species in a region where conservation action is claimed to successfully have merged with market interests, and where a major proportion of conservation activities occurs outside of formally protected areas20,33. Or results therefore support some previous concerns that market interests may not be useful as foundations for evolutionary and ecologically meaningful preservation and management of biological resources34,35,36,37. We appreciate that the failure of this particular market to recognize the evolutionary and ecological significance of African ungulates and carnivores could partly have been caused by difficulties to directly perceive it. However, if the species attributes that were appreciated in the market were not correlated with evolutionary or ecologically relevant characteristics, it is questionable if such attributes should direct conservation and environmental management.

Since the values in economic markets to some extent reflect human preferences38, we suggest that our results may imply a need for altering tourism preferences for wildlife species to better align with their biological relevance. This may be necessary as a step towards enabling a broad social acceptance of implementations of policies for environmental management that target biologically important organisms and processes6,39. However, an increased public appreciation of the biological significance of individual species could lead to a situation where important species suffer elevated extinction risks due to an increased desirability for them40,41,42,43. Therefore, any efforts to change public opinion must be accompanied by appropriate changes in regulatory and educational structures, to ensure that shift in values permeate all components of society. A lack of awareness could also lead to a discrepancy between the demand for conservation aligned alternatives and their availability, if any shifts in public attitudes are not fully perceived by the producers11.

Endangered Wildlife Trust
Position Statement on the intensive breeding of wildlife species with particular reference to selective breeding for colour variance

The Endangered Wildlife Trust’s (EWT) mission is to conserve threatened species and ecosystems in southern Africa to the benefit of all people.

This position represents the EWT’s view on the intensive breeding of wildlife, with specific reference to breeding colour variants of African wildlife, including antelopes (e.g. golden wildebeest, black impala, white springbok) and large predators (e.g. white lions). We apply the same position to other types of intensive breeding. For instance, the breeding of large predators, either to maximise reproductive capacity and increase production rates, or to promote certain traits such as mane colour and cape size. Intensive breeding reflects other types of interference too, including the selective breeding of wildlife to maximise traits like body size and horn length and the farming of rhinos to harvest their horns.

The practice of breeding colour variants is restricted, largely, to South Africa. It can be defined as the selective breeding of individuals with unique pelage colours or patterns, so as to promote that pelage. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Antelope Specialist Group refers to the practice as involving the ‘…intentional genetic manipulation of antelopes to create modified phenotypes such as novel coat patterns…,’ in small fenced areas where food, water and nutritional supplements are provided, and parasite and predator control is implemented. The practice is not illegal under South African law.

The EWT acknowledges that natural colour variants occur from time to time in free-living wildlife populations, though these variants are rare, and there is little information on the incidence of colour variants amongst wild populations.

Given that intensive wildlife breeding (with reference here to the breeding of colour variants) has no tangible, direct, benefits for wildlife conservation and few for society more generally, and given that the practice is driven almost entirely by a profit motive which may trump the application of sound conservation principles, the EWT does not endorse this practice. The EWT does, in fact, harbour several major concerns about this practice such as:

1. The selective or intensive breeding of wildlife is detrimental to animal health
Breeding colour variants involves the selective inbreeding of wildlife to produce offspring with similar, but unusual, colour variations similar to their parents. This inbreeding results in reduced genetic diversity that negatively impacts individual fitness, health, survival and future adaptability as it allows for the phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes. This may be exacerbated by the absence of selection pressures such as predators, parasites, food and water shortages. Thermoregulatory stresses have also been reported, as have cancers, melanomas and cataracts, especially in white varieties. Selective and intensive breeding is also a step towards the domestication of a species and the proliferation of new names and traits that already differentiate the ‘new’ progeny are proof of this process. In summary, the selective breeding of wildlife for aesthetic purposes does not have any benefit for the survival of either individuals or the species.

2. Intensive breeding for colour variants is far-removed from the conservation of wild animals
The practice involves the intensive breeding of wildlife, normally in small, carefully controlled camps and under controlled conditions. Animals may be heavily managed through treatment with both nutritional supplements and veterinary medications as well as parasiticides – an entirely unnatural process. Ongoing and increased use of external- and internal-parasiticides may lead to resistant parasites and the loss of disease resistance in farmed species. There are potential negative consequences for other wildlife too, for example, the detrimental effects on dung beetles from the use of inappropriate endoparasiticides has been well documented.

3. Persecution of wildlife including threatened predator and scavenger species
Compared to their normal pelage, colour variants are afforded high commercial value in South Africa due to their novelty value – at least while demand for them exceeds supply amongst animal breeders. The high value of colour variants places greatly increased pressure on freeranging predators in the vicinity of their camps, given the risk that they may predate these high commercial value individuals. Wildlife at risk includes free-roaming populations of large, threatened carnivores such as Cheetahs and African Wild Dogs, as well as eagles and other raptors that occasionally predate antelope calves. Vultures too, though they only ever scavenge and never kill their food.

4. Intensive breeding leads to habitat fragmentation and loss
Wildlife ranchers use virtually impenetrable electric fences, and often extravagant security systems, to protect their high-value wildlife investments in small camps. This fragments habitats and reduces natural roaming space, and has also led to the deaths of large numbers of animals from electrocution, such as tortoises, pangolins and pythons. The extent of operations is widespread – we estimate that six per cent (6%) of game ranching areas in South Africa have been converted to this type of activity and that over 18 per cent (18%) of the auction turnover of game in South Africa is now based on colour variants.

5. No conservation value of colour variants
Colour variants are not bred for conservation. These animals will never be allowed to return from their camps to mix with free-roaming wildlife. The Department of Environmental Affairs has also raised concerns on the impacts of intensive and selective breeding of wildlife. The Scientific Authority (SA, 10 Sept 2010) advised government that that ‘the breeding of recessive colour morphs does not further the conservation of South Africa’s wild biodiversity and therefore cannot be supported,’ should be dis-incentivised and carefully monitored. Globally, many organisations have produced statements distancing themselves from this practice due to increasing concerns about the negative conservation impact of the practice.

6. The affordability of wildlife
The demand for colour variants appears to have led to wide fluctuations in the price of wildlife at game auctions. This can push the prices outside margins for other ranchers (including in the sport hunting and ecotourism sectors) and could potentially disadvantage them due to trade in colour variants. This is significant given the area of land under wildlife management (about 14% of South Africa, or two and a half times as much land as under government protection) that contributes directly to conservation. The high prices afforded by colour variants have resulted in more and more land being used for this practice, at the expense of traditional wildlife ranching activities. There is thus increasing concern that the practice may have detrimental consequences for biodiversity and the biodiversity economy. Also, that breeding colour variants may reduce the ability of ecotourism and hunting to contribute sustainably to the economy.

Summary
In the EWT’s opinion, the practices of intensive and selective breeding of wildlife hold no conservation value and the EWT supports global calls for:
 Robust legal frameworks supported by well-resourced implementation and enforcement plans to ensure the best welfare standards for all wildlife in intensive breeding operations and norms and standards for husbandry practices of intensively bred species;
 The prohibition of hybridisation of wildlife species and subspecies;
 Prohibition of the release of intensively bred or genetically manipulated animals into the wild;
 The development of legal frameworks to regulate, monitor and mitigate conservation impacts associated with this practice;
 Adequate capacity for monitoring, education and enforcement; and
 The implementation of certification systems for wildlife operations to ensure transparency so that end users know the origin and extent of manipulation of the animals they are using/buying.



https://www.ewt.org.za/scientific%20pub ... 0FINAL.pdf