La dimensión pedagógica

The described subjects in this study indicate finally an impact of hunting on the leopard population living in the study areas. The results document the differences between the study areas although they were bordering against each other.

The assumed effect of a higher intra-specific competition inside the GMA-A than inside the LNP caused by the offtake quotas of leopards should not be underestimated (8-12 individuals in every year in GMA-A, see Chapter 5). Especially, if we consider a natural survivorship of young cubs as an average of 50% (BAILEY 2005), an unnatural increased infanticide could counteract a sustainable population growth (LOVERIDGE et al. 2007, BALME & HUNTER 2004).

The suggestions about prey choice associated with habitat preferences can be supported by the fact that population densities of large felids are positively correlated to the biomass of their prey (VAN ORSDOL et al.1985,STANDER et al.1997,KARANTH et al.2004b). Prior studies documented that leopards and jaguars will change their prey choice caused by disturbance such as poaching and hunting of their prey species (BODENDORFER et al. 2006, WECKEL et al. 2006). The study of HAYWARD et al. (2007) indicates that the leopard is heavily dependent on prey species of its preferred weight range and a depletion of species within this weight range could invariably lead to a decrease of leopard population density. The results of prey choice analyses indicate that the leopard is possibly in competition with human hunters.

Summarizing all the conclusions above, the different impacts of trophy hunting become more obvious if I consider that 43% of the country wide hunting quotas are provided by the

165

hunting blocks located in the Luangwa Valley. From these, 43% (average) of the harvests are generated by the four GMA’s surround the LNP. In this context GMA-A showed the highest hunting intensity among the four GMA’s. This (0.31 (quota/100 km²)) would comprise 13.6% of 2.3 male leopards per 100 km² in 2008.

The natural annual mortality rate for adult leopards in Kruger National Park in the 1970s (BAILEY 2005) averaged 18.5%, with twice as many adult males dying as adult females. The dominating reasons for death cases were starvation and violent causes, especially in males.

The annual mortality rate for subadult individuals averaged 32% with more subadult females dying than subadult males; for young cubs the annual mortality rate averaged 50%.

If I assume the natural mortality rate in Kruger NP as similar as in my study areas, the anthropogenic caused mortality rate (13.6%) would not be much lower than the natural mortality. This becomes more obvious in up-lighting the fact that only the anthropogenic caused mortality for males is regarded here. Usually females are not hunted since this is not allowed on the hunting licenses. However, it happens that females are killed because of reported mistaken identities with males. SPONG et al. (2000) found in Tanzania that from 77 hunted leopards 28% were females although all the examined skins were tagged as males. In addition to that would the hunting of subadult males also not be desirable and a sign overexploitation (e.g. ALLENDORF & HARD 2009). The high hunting pressure on males for trophies (e.g. in ungulates) can result in harvested populations with lower average ages of males and fewer old males than in unhunted populations (LANGVATN &LOISON 1999, LAURIAN et al. 2000, APOLLONIO et al. 2003).

The natural and anthropogenic caused mortality would therefore comprise 32.1% in total in here which is in fact high, especially in consideration of only 50% survivorship of young cubs.

This implies a high hunting pressure on the leopard which increased until 2010 by a higher number of leopards on quota corresponding with a decrease of lion harvest. The hunting quota in GMA-A with an offtake of 8-12 male leopards per year (in contrast to the other GMA’s with 5-8) from the population appears to be too high in view of the possible wide ranging consequences that could result in a disturbance of a healthy reproduction rate and weaken the stability (TUYTTENS &MACDONALD 2000) of a leopard population.

166

Despite the fact that the LNP is an apparently undisturbed area, it appears consequentially that the leopard population living there is also influenced by the hunting activities outside of the Park. The fact that leopards can move freely across the borders, even for temporarily short excursions, makes it obvious that also males of the LNP population are part of the hunting harvests. In this context the small size of the LNP could be problematic. The smaller the reserve the more species are at risk of extinction, especially large species that become more rapidly extinct than small species (FRANKEL & SOULÉ 1981). WOODROFFE &GINSBERG (1998) showed that in relative small reserves, wide-ranging carnivores are more likely to become extinct than those with smaller home ranges. BAILEY 2005 noted that it could be difficult to conserve viable leopard populations in parks less than 500 km² in terms of genetic sustainability. For these issues larger undisturbed areas are required.

Leopards reared in LNP need space to disperse and have to leave the LNP one time due to its small size (338 km²). A successful dispersion of leopards and exchange among the leopard population living in LNP and GMA-A would be disturbed due to the barrier of the high hunting harvests in the region. Therefore serious conservation strategies are needed to maintain a viable leopard population.

167