SANBI

Rationale

Wild Dogs have disappeared from much of their historic range within the assessment region, however, this decline has mostly been reduced during the last 20 years. The species occupies three distinct population segments in: 1) a protected population in the Kruger National Park (hereafter Kruger); 2) a free-roaming wild population residing and traversing land outside of protected areas, mostly in the northern part of Limpopo, the eastern parts of Northern Cape, northern and northwestern parts of the North West, Mpumalanga, and northern parts of KwaZulu-Natal; and 3) a protected and intensively managed metapopulation in several public and private reserves. The latter was established through a managed metapopulation strategy of active reintroduction and population management implemented by the Wild Dog Advisory Group of South Africa (hereafter WAG-SA) since 1998 (Mills et al. 1998). Although the area of land under metapopulation management has expanded (from three reserves covering 2,082 km2 in March 2000 to 11 reserves covering 4,570 km2 in January 2016), a range contraction has been observed in northern Kruger and the distribution range outside protected areas is poorly understood. Therefore the overall change in extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) is unknown. The number of packs (defined as potential breeding groups containing unrelated adults of each sex) has increased from an estimated 34 in 2000 to an estimated 37 in 2016. The number of mature individuals is estimated at between 90 and 111, depending on the method used to calculate this figure (see Population). This represents a 9â73% increase in the number of mature individuals over the last three generations (15 years). Most of this increase has been recorded in the managed metapopulation, which increased nearly five-fold between 2000 and 2016. Although an overall population increase has been observed in the past decade, primarily due to active management, the population remains dangerously small (< 250 mature individuals) and the Endangered listing remains.

Threats facing Wild Dogs within the assessment region are severe and widespread, and while some are stable (direct persecution and disease), others may be increasing (road mortalities, habitat fragmentation and accidental persecution through snares). These threats, combined with natural fluctuations in pack number and pack size, make the species susceptible to slipping quickly into the Critically Endangered category. Continued work by WAG-SA to reintroduce packs into suitably large areas to create resilient subpopulations should be encouraged, and this species should be regularly reassessed to monitor its extinction risk.

Regional population effects: The speciesâ range is continuous in parts with the rest of its African range and although dispersal can be impeded by fences and habitat fragmentation, infrequent long-distance dispersals from inside and outside the assessment region have been recorded in the past decade (Davies-Mostert et al. 2012). However, no such dispersals have yet been recorded for the Kruger population. While northern parts of the assessment region may potentially be colonised naturally, anthropogenic mortality from direct persecution may preclude any significant rescue affect from outside the region.

Distribution

Wild Dogs were formerly distributed throughout sub-Saharan Africa, from desert to mountain summits (Thesiger 1970), and were probably absent only from lowland rainforest and the driest desert (Schaller 1972). They have disappeared from much of their former range. The largest populations remain in southern Africa (especially northern Botswana) and the southern part of East Africa (especially Tanzania) (Creel & Creel 2002).

Within the assessment region, free-roaming Wild Dog packs reside in northern, western and eastern Limpopo, and in eastern Mpumalanga. There are free-roaming packs in the Waterberg region of Limpopo and occasionally in the north of KwaZulu-Natal. The latter typically originate as dispersers from managed metapopulation reserves. Transient Wild Dogs have been reported in the eastern parts of the Northern Cape, and in western and northern North West. Reports have also indicated that one free-roaming pack is occasionally seen in the area south of Werda in North West, on the Botswana border, and it ranges along the eastern border of the Khamab Kalahari Reserve (Power 2014). Narrative from the 2004 assessment also noted the presence of a free-roaming pack in this area, with several reports of smaller, dispersing groups (Lindsey et al. 2004). Interestingly, there have been few recent reports of these Wild Dogs, despite increased vigilance for Wild Dog sightings by WAG-SA. This may be because they are adept at avoiding human contact.

Although Wild Dogs were extirpated from most of their range within the assessment region over the past few centuries, a managed metapopulation programme coordinated by the WAG-SA since 1998 has actively expanded the area of occupancy for this species, increasing the number of metapopulation reserves from three to 11, and the area of occupancy of managed subpopulations to 4,570 km².

Although Wild Dogs are periodically recorded in the north of Kruger, it is suspected that they have not been resident there for the past three generations (Marnewick et al. 2014).

Habitat View more ecological information

Population trend

Trend

Although Wild Dogs are crepuscular, they are infrequently seen, and it appears that populations have always existed at low densities compared to other large African carnivores (Creel & Creel 1996). Extreme fluctuations in population size and rapid pack fusion and dissolution, mean that the number of mature individuals alone is often not a good indicator of overall population size and trends. Pack number (the number of potential breeding groups) is therefore thought to be a more robust indicator of population viability, which has increased from an estimated 34 in 2000 to 37 in 2016, chiefly through the roll-out of a managed metapopulation plan (Gusset et al. 2008; Davies-Mostert et al. 2009). Although the increase in breeding groups is small, by January 2016 there were an additional 10 non-breeding groups in managed metapopulation reserves. Given the active management to ensure that dispersers find mates and form breeding groups, the population is likely to be more robust than suggested simply by calculating the number of actively breeding animals (see explanation below).

Estimating the number of mature individuals is challenging, because Wild Dogs are near-obligate cooperative breeders; within a pack, the alpha male and female are the parents of the majority of surviving pups (Girman et al. 1997), although see Spiering et al. (2010) for exceptions. In Wild Dogs, a high proportion of individuals are indeed reproductively suppressed (Creel & Creel 2002), but these animals do not quickly become reproductive if an alpha individual dies, because in southern Africa they are locked into a seasonal reproductive cycle (only breeding once a year; Courchamp & Macdonald 2001). Death of an alpha may therefore lead to the disintegration of the pack, with no breeding until new packs are formed (although this depends on how much time is available before the next breeding season, and can sometimes be countered by direct management). In instances where there are enough unrelated adult males and females (not alphas) to assume dominance, following the death of one or both alpha animals, there is a high probability of pack persistence in the next breeding season.

Mature individuals are defined as those animals considered capable of reproduction within the current breeding season. Two methods were used to determine mature individuals, based on the census data of 37 breeding packs and 382 adults and yearlings in January 2016.

Method 1 (following the 2004 national assessment):
This method assumes that there are, on average, 1.5 adult males and 1.5 adult females per breeding pack. This provides an estimate of 111 mature individuals in 37 breeding packs.

Method 2 (following the 2008 global assessment):
This method allows the estimation of numbers of mature individuals (Nm) from the census population of adults and yearlings (Nc), based on demographic data from large unmanaged populations (Table 2). It assumes that the number of mature individuals thus comprises the sum of the number of alpha males (NaM), alpha females (NaF) and subdominant (that is, non-alpha) animals (Nsub) that breed successfully (Woodroffe & Sillero-Zubiri 2012). It assumes an adult sex ratio of 0.56:0.44 males to females (Table 2).
The number of mature individuals is therefore estimated as:

NaM = Nc x 0.56 x PaM
+ NaF = Nc x 0.44 x PaF
+ Nsub = (NaM x 0.10) + (NaF x 0.08)

where PaM and PaF are the proportion of adults and yearlings that are alpha males and females, respectively (from Table 2). This equation was applied to each segment of the population, providing an estimate of 90 mature individuals (Table 3).

The changes observed over the past three generations can largely be attributed to an increase in the number of reserves participating in the Wild Dog managed metapopulation, which have increased from three in 2000 (Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, Madikwe Game Reserve, and Pilanesberg National Park) to 11 in 2016 (Table 4). This increase occurred despite several interim setbacks when Wild Dogs have been removed from some participating reserves. Removals were as a result of perceived impacts on prey populations, and unresolvable conflicts with neighbours due to repeated breakouts (Davies-Mostert et al. 2009). Although the metapopulation network has expanded, and the number of packs and mature individuals has increased slightly, continued work is required to maintain this increase and secure areas large enough to sustain resilient and dynamic packs of Wild Dogs (such as in Kruger).

Populations of Wild Dogs are prone to marked fluctuations at a variety of temporal and geographical scales, which are likely to both increase extinction risks and undermine the precision of population estimates. At the local scale, a combination of high mortality, high fecundity and dispersal by both sexes means that pack size fluctuates substantially over short periods, although fluctuation in numbers of mature individuals would be less dramatic. Because Wild Dogs are seasonal breeders across most of their remaining geographic range, fluctuations may be synchronised across packs. Managed subpopulations in metapopulation reserves are typically small (often only a single pack) and these populations are highly prone to stochastic events, further exacerbating population fluctuations.

The same demographic characteristics â high mortality, high fecundity, and long-distance dispersal â likewise lead to fluctuations at the population scale. This pattern is further exaggerated by the speciesâ susceptibility to infectious diseases which can cause rapid localised die-offs. Massive local declines are not uncommon, and are often both rapid and unanticipated. This is exemplified by the case of Madikwe Game Reserve where, in 1997, a population of 24 animals was reduced to just three individuals following a rabies outbreak in early 1998 (Hofmeyr et al. 2000). During two, more recent incidents, 23 of the 25 Wild Dogs in Khamab Kalahari Reserve (North West) were killed due to a canine distemper virus (CDV) outbreak in 2013, and a rabies outbreak in Madikwe Game Reserve (North West) reduced the population from 30 individuals to just five in December 2015 (WAG-SA minutes).

Similar die-offs have been documented in larger Wild Dog populations. For example, five of 12 study packs in Botswana (Alexander et al. 2010) and three of eight study packs in Kenya (Woodroffe 2011) have been reported as having died within short time periods during disease outbreaks. However, as most Wild Dogs in the metapopulation are regularly vaccinated against rabies and CDV (especially after these catastrophic outbreaks), they are less vulnerable to extinction from disease. Under good conditions, possibly inversely linked to rainfall (see Buettner et al. 2007), or few competing predators (Mills & Gorman 1997), Wild Dog subpopulations are able to grow relatively quickly, and rapid die-offs can be offset naturally by successful reproduction, or by active management, including artificial pack formation and reintroduction.

The Wild Dogâs capacity for very long-range dispersal means that subpopulations sometimes reappear unexpectedly and grow rapidly. Within the assessment region, though, this capacity to seed new subpopulations and grow rapidly is severely compromised by habitat fragmentation, geographic isolation and persecution, which will limit any population recovery. Although Wild Dog populations can exhibit substantial temporal changes, fluctuations in the assessment region have largely been contained by active metapopulation management. Nevertheless, the potential for rapid population fluctuations, combined with severe habitat fragmentation, contribute to their vulnerability to extinction within the region.

Threats

The causes of Wild Dog decline are reasonably well understood and include sensitivity to habitat fragmentation as a consequence of wide-ranging behaviour, direct persecution as a result of conflict with livestock and game farmers, accidental killing through poachersâ snares and road accidents, and infectious disease, especially in small populations (Hofmeyr et al. 2000). All of these causes are associated with human encroachment on Wild Dog habitat and, as such, have not ceased and are unlikely to be reversible across most of the speciesâ historical range. Snares and diseases in the buffer zone on the periphery of protected areas may also serve as an ecological trap for this species where they cannot perceive the threats as traded off against potentially fitness-enhancing resources (van der Meer et al. 2014).

Threats to the following different groups of Wild Dogs within the assessment region are as follows:
Free-roaming packs outside protected areas:
Our understanding of rates and causes of mortality in this segment of the population is severely limited by the fact that none of these packs are closely monitored, resulting in a bias towards anthropogenic causes of mortality (see Woodroffe et al. 2007). However, instances of the following threats have been occasionally documented:

Direct persecution by farmers and communities: minimum estimate in the Waterberg region is 15 Wild Dogs / year (Thorn et al. 2013).
Road mortalities (sometimes this is a form of direct persecution; Davies-Mostert, pers. comm.): minimum estimate is 1â2 Wild Dog(s) / year. Twelve mortalities have been recorded in the free-roaming population since 1999.
Accidental persecution through poachersâ snares: not possible to estimate the extent of this threat as free-roaming animals are not closely monitored and very few individuals have been recorded carrying snares.
Potential disease transmission from domestic dogs: although this has the potential to decimate entire packs, no known occurrences have been documented.
Based on the limited data available, during 1998â2014, 282 Wild Dog mortalities were recorded outside of protected areas, of which the most frequent causes were: capture and removal by farmers or conservation authorities (50%), direct persecution (39.3%) and vehicle collisions (6.3%; EWT unpubl. data). Natural mortality (2.1%) and unknown causes (2.1%) of mortality were rarely recorded.
Habitat fragmentation has reduced the ability of Wild Dogs to survive in suitable areas: the increasing use of impenetrable fencing for wildlife ranching and game breeding activities is likely to negatively impact the small number of free-roaming packs in South Africa (Taylor et al. 2015).

Free-roaming packs inside Kruger National Park:

Road mortalities: likely to be 1â2 Wild Dog(s) / year (EWT unpubl. data).
Accidental persecution through poachersâ snares: several Wild Dogs are observed carrying snares each year, and where possible these snares are removed. In the last five years, 17 Wild Dogs have been recorded carrying snares, and only seven of these have been removed.
The potential for disease transmission from domestic dogs: for example an entire pack of Wild Dogs (N = 16) contracted rabies in the Guernsey area on the Western boundary of Kruger mid-2015, with all individuals dying (EWT unpubl. data).

Managed metapopulation:

Economic sustainability: Wild Dogs are expensive to sustain in small protected areas due to high prey consumption (abetted by their use of fences to hunt; Davies-Mostert et al. 2013). Ecotourism benefits must outweigh the costs at sites where economic benefits are the driver for reintroduction (Lindsey et al. 2005).
Humanâwildlife conflict following escapes: this results in direct mortality through persecution and reduces social capital between communities and reserve managers, therefore reducing the desirability of holding subpopulations. Twelve recorded mortalities over 16 years (EWT unpubl. data).
Accidental persecution through poachersâ snares (both inside and outside metapopulation sites: this is particularly severe in Mkhuze Game Reserve. Estimated 2â3 Wild Dogs / year (EWT unpubl. data), although in some instances multiple simultaneous mortalities have occurred when a pack becomes entangled in a single snare line.
Potential inbreeding as a result of inadequate population management: although genetic evidence suggests that management has performed well to date by ensuring that translocated groups are unrelated to receiving populations (Edwards 2009), continued effort is required to avoid inbreeding in small subpopulations.
Anthropogenic threats may be exacerbated by constraints from interspecific competition, particularly where high Lion (Panthera leo) densities are maintained to support tourism activities. When such competition keeps Wild Dog densities and population sizes lower than necessary to support viable packs, this renders populations unviable. However there is little evidence for such effects within the current managed metapopulation.
Within the metapopulation, most recorded mortalities (44.6%; N = 142) between 1998 and 2014 were due to natural causes, including disease (51.8%), predation by other carnivores (26.8%), death by conspecifics (13.4%) and death from injury (8.5%) (EWT unpubl. data). Anthropogenic mortality made up 15.7% (N = 50) of recorded mortalities and included snaring (76.5%), persecution (23.5%) and vehicle collisions (4.4%). Other mortalities (N = 126) made up 39.6% of mortalities, and included veterinary complications and unknown causes.
Volatility of subpopulation participation due to management/owner perceptions: Continued participation in the managed metapopulation is heavily dependent on the attitude of managers. For example, when reserve management perceives that Wild Dog populations are too high this can result in pressure to remove packs.
Disease: while diseases are not a primary cause of mortality amongst metapopulation reserves as Wild
Dogs are often vaccinated before release, occasional outbreaks have been known to occur. For example: 23 of the 25 Wild Dogs in Khamab Kalahari Reserve were killed due to a CDV outbreak in 2013 and a rabies outbreak in January 2015 killed most of the Madikwe Game Reserve Wild Dogs.
Road mortalities: although Wild Dogs are generally kept to the confines of metapopulation reserves and strict speed limits are enforced within them, road mortalities do occur. Since 2003, 13 Wild Dogs have been killed through vehicle collisions; 12 of those occurring in KwaZulu-Natalâespecially on the corridor road in Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park.

Human-induced Wild Dog mortality has two significant and long-term conservation implications in the assessment region. First, it reduces the likelihood that Wild Dogs may coexist outside protected areas unless land-use plans and other conservation management actions are implemented. Second, although âpredator-proofâ fencing around small reserves to protect intensively managed subpopulations has proved reasonably effective at keeping dogs confined to these reserves, such fencing is not 100% effective (Gusset et al. 2008; Davies-Mostert et al. 2009). Conflict with neighbouring communities is therefore not prevented, and alternative proactive strategies such as keeping neighbours informed about breakouts, developing clear breakout strategies and the use of insurance and/or compensation to reduce costs of conflict are necessary. In addition, the military-style electric fencing has undesirable impacts on other wildlife species, in particular Temminckâs Ground Pangolin (Smutsia temminckii) and tortoises that are regularly electrocuted (Beck 2010).

Even in large, well-protected reserves, or in stable subpopulations remaining largely independent of protected areas (as in northern Botswana), small subpopulations are vulnerable to local extinction. âCatastrophicâ events such as outbreaks of epidemic disease may severely reduce numbers (Hofmeyr et al. 2000) when larger subpopulations have a greater probability of recovery. Problems of small population sizes will be exacerbated through edge effects if subpopulations occur in small reserves or habitat patches. Thus, small subpopulations might be expected to suffer disproportionately high mortality as a result of their contact with humans and human activity, and it is desirable to encourage the establishment of populations in large areas.

Due to the negative attitude of farmers towards this species, there is limited hope for further free-roaming pack establishment. For example, farmers and community members in the Opathe (KwaYanguye) area of KwaZulu-Natal tolerated the presence of a pack of Wild Dogs for a few months during 2014, however such tolerance is unusual and active engagement with landowners and users is only likely to successfully reduce conflict in particular sites.

Uses and trade

Across most of its geographical range, there is minimal human use of this species. There is evidence of localised traditional use in Zimbabwe (Davies & du Toit 2004) and South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal Wild Dog Advisory Group [KZNWAG] minutes), but this is unlikely to threaten the speciesâ persistence. There are also some reports of trade in captive and wild-caught animals from southern Africa, although this is not believed to be significant. Wild Dogs are persecuted as a damage-causing animal (shot, poisoned or captured and removed from the wild) over their entire range within the assessment region. Only two to five packs and dispersing groups persist outside protected areas (Table 4).

Trade is local (traditional medicine), international (zoos and traditional medicine) and commercial. Medicinal uses for Wild Dogs do still exist in some South African traditional cultures (Page et al. 2015). Uses include curing illnesses such as headaches, and smoking the fur is believed to allow one to sleep (Page et al. 2015).

The extent of facilities holding and breeding captive Wild Dogs in South Africa is currently unknown. While an African Regional Studbook is run under the auspices of the Pan-African Association for Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZA), the number of private facilities that do not participate in the studbook is unclear, and could be more than 20. Fewer than ten facilities submit data to the studbook, with only two facilities known to be actively breeding Wild Dogs. These facilities once played an important role in the formation of the metapopulation by providing animals for reintroduction purposes. Indeed, a significant proportion (24%) of founder stock for the managed metapopulation was sourced from captive centres in South Africa and Botswana between 1998 and 2009 (Davies-Mostert & Gusset 2013). However, without a current significant need for release from ex situ institutions, surplus Wild Dogs are often sold to private facilities both locally and internationally. Some ex situ facilities continue to play a small part in the conservation of the Wild Dogs through participation in research projects, as temporary holding facilities for the managed metapopulation and through education and awareness. However, significant improvements must be implemented before captive facilities can be regarded as making a valuable overall contribution to the conservation of this species, such as: 1) a fully functioning self-sustainable breeding programme with clear goals, and which only requires the addition of new founders based on sound population management principles; 2) research programmes that have clear benefits to the in situ population; and 3) a well-developed education programme to be implemented across all ex situ facilities.

Wildlife ranching has generally increased the prey base for Wild Dogs, but they are still heavily persecuted by landowners and can be unfeasibly expensive to sustain on small private nature reserves.

Conservation

Regional conservation strategies have been developed for Wild Dogs throughout their range (IUCN SSC 2008, 2009, 2012), and these have catalysed the development of national action plans in many range states. Key conservation strategies for the species include improving coexistence between people and Wild Dogs, encouraging land-use planning to maintain and expand subpopulations, building capacity for Wild Dog conservation within range states, outreach to improve public perceptions of Wild Dogs at all levels of society, and ensuring a policy framework compatible with Wild Dog conservation.

Within the assessment region, continued investment in the managed metapopulation strategy of WAG-SA, has successfully increased Wild Dog numbers and distribution. Consider that the decline in Wild Dogs in Kruger (from 450 to 250) has not affected the overall numbers in South Africa, due to the managed metapopulation approach. The ecotourism potential of Wild Dogs needs to be exploited, to enhance the sustainability of new tourism ventures that will make Wild Dogs more desirable and ultimately result in increased habitat availability. The role of conservancies and larger conservation areas in Wild Dog conservation needs to be researched, promoted and implemented.

Specifically, the following interventions should be continued or tested:

Promote the formation of conservancies and transfrontier parks large enough to sustain resilient subpopulations of Wild Dogs. Dropping fences may well provide positive economic benefits for landowners by reducing prey costs (allowing Wild Dogs to roam across the landscape), reducing poaching (less wires for snares) and increasing ecotourism value (Lindsey et al. 2009). Potentially reintroducing Wild Dogs to the northern section of Kruger to create a larger and more resilient subpopulation within the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park could provide a useful test case for this intervention.
Ensure that Wild Dog conservation is adequately considered in land-use planning, and especially protected area expansion strategies, in order to drive landscape-level connectivity among subpopulations.
Continued coordinated metapopulation management by WAG-SA to ensure demographic viability and genetic diversity of subpopulations within the assessment region. An important caveat is that reintroductions take place only onto properties that meet the minimum ecological and other requirements to support Wild Dogs, and are properly coordinated through WAG-SA.
Research to understand how to manage the boom and bust in Wild Dog numbers at a reserve level within managed subpopulations.
Reduce persecution of free-roaming packs through appropriate conflict mitigation measures, including but not limited to placement of livestock guarding dogs, compensation/revenue generation schemes and education campaigns. The continued existence of the free-roaming packs in the Waterberg region shows that packs can persist even in fenced landscapes where they are heavily persecuted.
Vaccinating metapopulation packs to guard against disease transmission from feral dogs and other canids. Vaccination of domestic dogs in communities surrounding reserves with Wild Dogs will protect Wild Dogs, be good for community relations and also provide an opportunity to raise awareness among community members.
Raising the public profile of Wild Dogs. Di Minin et al. (2013) illustrate that tourists have nuanced viewing preferences, with first-time tourists more interested in the Big Five and more experienced tourists interested in a wider range of species (including Wild Dogs). Promotional and marketing work should be done to increase tourist willingness to pay for Wild Dog sightings, which would then make private reserves more willing to reintroduce Wild Dog packs to their properties. One mechanism could be to begin referring to Wild Dogs as Painted Dogs. Preliminary research suggests that tourists are more intrigued by, and incentivised to pay, to see Painted Dogs rather than Wild Dogs (Davies 1998).
Communities should be made responsible for the conservation and management of Wild Dog packs with input and advice from WAG-SA. If people are given ownership under practical conditions attitudes towards these packs might change due to pressure from within the communities who have to live with these dogs.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:

Continued work in local communities to mitigate prey loss and raise concern for the Wild Dog.
Reintroduced (small) populations must continue to be managed and monitored closely by WAG-SA, and new reintroduction sites identified and incorporated into the managed metapopulation.
Wild Dog habitat requirements should be incorporated into conservation and land-use planning exercises.
The non-consumptive economic value of Wild Dogs should be promoted through expanding ecotourism ventures.
Vaccination of managed populations, in particular against rabies and CDV.
Indiscriminate captive breeding of Wild Dogs should be discouraged as this does not make a contribution to their conservation, and can negatively impact metapopulation management. Ex situ programmes need to focus on genetically known individuals that can be linked to the metapopulation management plan for reintroduction to the wild and for education, research and export to registered international facilities registered with the World Associations of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). Captive breeding needs to be coordinated, and genetic lineages documented (in a studbook).
Facilitating a process that will result in northern Kruger becoming resident range for Wild Dogs again and keeping track of the population status.

Research priorities:

Understanding the reasons behind the shrinkage of Wild Dog distribution range in the north of Kruger could provide management insights for increasing the subpopulation overall within the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park.
Development of cost-effective methods for surveying Wild Dogs across large geographical scales.
Development of locally-appropriate and effective means to reduce conflict between Wild Dogs and farmers.
Establishing which techniques will be most effective and sustainable for protecting Wild Dogs from disease.
Determining the landscape features which facilitate (or prevent), Wild Dog movement over long distances and hence promote (or block) landscape connectivity. This question has been researched to some degree in KwaZulu-Natal.
Investigating the effectiveness of awareness and education campaigns in reducing persecution outside of protected areas.
Establishing which population management interventions are most effective at maintaining Wild Dogs at acceptable numbers at reintroduction sites.
Investigating the feasibility of Wild Dog-based ecotourism outside of protected areas.

Some current Wild Dog research and conservation projects include:

Conflict mitigation between farmers and predators including Wild Dog: Cheetah Outreach Trust, www.cheetah.co.za
Kruger Wild Dog Photographic Census: Carnivore Conservation Programme, Endangered Wildlife Trust, www.ewt.org.za
Kruger Wild Dog Project: Carnivore Conservation Programme, Endangered Wildlife Trust, www.ewt.org.za
PAAZA Regional studbook for the Wild Dog: Pan-African Association of Zoos and Aquaria, www.zoosafrica.com
PhD study: âEcology of an inverse density dependent canid: a case study of the Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus) metapopulation in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africaâ: Centre for Wildlife Management, University of Pretoria, David Marneweck, www.up.ac.za/centre-for-wildlife-management
Various student projects including those on genetics and prey use.
and prey use.
Waterberg Wild Dog Project: Carnivore Conservation Programme, Endangered Wildlife Trust, www.ewt.org.za
Wild Dog monitoring projects on various reserves: Wildlife ACT, www.wildlifeact.com

Encouraged citizen actions:

Report all Wild Dog sightings to MammalMAP or the EWT; especially those of the free-roaming packs in northern Limpopo, North West and northern parts of KwaZulu-Natal.
Participate in photographic censuses conducted in Kruger and the Waterberg region.
Tourists should actively visit reserves with reintroduced packs belonging to the managed metapopulation.
Motorists should drive slowly and carefully through areas known to contain Wild Dog packs.
Attention should be put on increasing tolerance levels and creating and acknowledging predator friendly areas where Wild Dogs can move freely with minimal persecution.
Landowners should be encouraged to become custodians of the free-roaming packs.
Tourism and conservation publications should actively promote Wild Dog conservation success stories and encourage fact-based tolerance.
Dissemination of accurate information on Wild Dog behaviour, threats and positive conservation stories available to field guide training establishments.
Purchase of commercially available products which contribute percentages to financially support Wild Dog conservation initiatives.
Increased tolerance from landowners in areas occurring within the area of occupancy of Wild Dogs.

References

[@techreport{5228,
 author = {Power, R.J.},
 institution = {Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation & Tourism, North West Provincial Government, Mahikeng},
 title = {The distribution and status of mammals in the North West Province},
 year = {2014}
}
,@techreport{5228,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {Driver, A., Sink, K.J., Nel, J.N., Holness, S., Van Niekerk, L., Daniels, F., Jonas, Z., Majiedt, P.A., Harris, L. and Maze, K.},
 institution = {South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs},
 title = {National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{219,
 author = {Lindsey PA, Romanach SS, Davies-Mostert HT.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {99--105},
 title = {The importance of conservancies for enhancing the value of game ranch land for large mammal conservation in southern Africa.},
 volume = {277},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{219,
 author = {Marnewick K, Ferreira SM, Grange S, Watermeyer J, Maputla N, Davies-Mostert HT.},
 journal = {PloS One},
 pages = {e86265},
 title = {Evaluating the status of and African wild dogs Lycaon pictus and cheetahs <i>Acinonyx jubatus</i> through tourist-based photographic surveys in the Kruger National Park},
 volume = {9},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{3755,
 author = {Leijenaar S-L, Cilliers D, Whitehouse-Tedd K.},
 journal = {Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research},
 pages = {9–15},
 title = {Reduction in livestock losses following placement of livestock guarding dogs and the impact of herd species and dog sex},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{5229,
 author = {Hayward MW, O’Brien J, Hofmeyr M, Kerley GI},
 journal = {Journal of Mammalogy},
 pages = {1122--1131},
 title = {Prey preferences of the African Wild Dog <i>Lycaon pictus</i> (Canidae: Carnivora): ecological requirements for conservation},
 volume = {87},
 year = {2006}
}
,@article{5674,
 author = {Rust NA, Whitehouse-Tedd KM, MacMillan DC.},
 journal = {Wildlife Society Bulletin},
 pages = {690–697},
 title = {Perceived efficacy of livestock-guarding dogs in South Africa: implications for cheetah conservation},
 volume = {37},
 year = {2013}
}
,@inbook{11638,
 address = {Port Elizabeth, South Africa},
 author = {Boshoff  and Kerley  and Lloyd },
 booktitle = {Historical Incidence of the Larger Land Mammals in the broader Eastern Cape},
 editor = {Skead, C.J.},
 publisher = {Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.},
 title = {Historical Incidence of the Larger Land Mammals in the broader Eastern Cape},
 year = {2007}
}
,@book{12436,
 address = {Chicago, IL, USA},
 author = {Schaller, G.B.},
 publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
 title = {The Serengeti Lion},
 year = {1972}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Thesiger, W.},
 journal = {East African Wildlife Journal},
 pages = {202},
 title = {Wild dog at 5,894 m (19,340 ft)},
 volume = {8},
 year = {1970}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Alexander, K. A., McNutt, J. W., Briggs, M. B., Standers, P. E., Funston, P., Hemson, G., Keet, D. & van Vuuren, M.},
 journal = {Comparative Immunology Microbiology and Infectious Diseases },
 pages = {249--265},
 title = {Multi-host pathogens and carnivore management in southern Africa},
 volume = {33},
 year = {2010}
}
,@book{12436,
 address = {Princeton},
 author = {Creel, S. & Creel, N. M. },
 publisher = {Princeton University Press},
 title = {The African wild dog: behavior, ecology and conservation},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Davies, H. & Du Toit, J. T.},
 journal = {Oryx},
 pages = {32--39},
 title = {Anthropogenic factors affecting wild dog Lycaon pictus reintroductions: a case study in Zimbabwe},
 volume = {38},
 year = {2004}
}
,@inbook{12436,
 address = {Oxford},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {A critical assessment of South Africa's managed metapopulation strategy for African wild dogs},
 editor = {Davies-Mostert, H., Mills, M. G. L. & Macdonald, D. W.},
 publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
 title = {Reintroduction of top order predators},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Girman, D., Mills, M. G. L., Geffen, E. & Wayne, R. K. },
 journal = {Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology},
 pages = {187--198},
 title = {A molecular genetic analysis of social structure, dispersal, and interpack relations of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus)},
 volume = {40},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Hofmeyr, M., Bingham, J., Lane, E. P., Ide, A. & Nel, L.},
 journal = {Veterinary Record},
 pages = {50--52},
 title = {Rabies in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa},
 volume = {146},
 year = {2000}
}
,@techreport{12436,
 address = {Gland},
 author = {IUCN SSC},
 institution = {IUCN},
 title = {Regional conservation strategy for the cheetah and wild dog in eastern Africa},
 year = {2008}
}
,@techreport{12436,
 address = {Gland},
 author = {IUCN SSC},
 institution = {IUCN},
 title = {Regional conservation strategy for the cheetah and wild dog in southern Africa},
 year = {2009}
}
,@techreport{12436,
 address = {Gland},
 author = {IUCN SSC},
 institution = {IUCN},
 title = {Regional conservation strategy for the cheetah and wild dog in West, Central and North Africa},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Maddock, A. H. & Mills, M. G. L.},
 journal = {Biological Conservation},
 pages = {57--62},
 title = {Population characteristics of the African wild dogs Lycaon pictus in the eastern Transvaal lowveld, South Africa, as revealed through photographic records},
 volume = {67},
 year = {1994}
}
,@phdthesis{12436,
 author = {Pole, A.},
 school = {University of Aberdeen},
 title = {The behaviour and ecology of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus)  in an environment with reduced competitor density},
 year = {2000}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Woodroffe, R. },
 journal = {Journal of Mammalogy},
 pages = {305--315},
 title = {Demography of a recovering African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) population},
 volume = {92},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Creel, S. and Creel N.M.},
 journal = {Conservation Biology},
 number = {2},
 pages = {526--538},
 title = {Limitation of African wild dogs by competition with larger carnivores},
 volume = {10},
 year = {1996}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Woodroffe, R. and Sillero-Zubiri, C.},
 title = {Lycaon pictus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Thorn, M., Green, M., Scott, D. and Marnewick, K.},
 journal = {Biodiversity Conservation},
 pages = {1715--1730},
 title = {Characteristics and determinants of human-carnivore conflict in South African farmland},
 volume = {22},
 year = {2013}
}
,@techreport{12436,
 address = { Johannesburg, South Africa.},
 author = {Taylor WA, Lindsey PA, Davies-Mostert HT},
 institution = {Green Economy Research Report, Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {An assessment of the economic, social and conservation value of the wildlife ranching industry and its potential to support the green economy in South Africa},
 year = {2015}
}
,@phdthesis{12436,
 author = {Beck A.},
 school = {University of the Witwatersrand},
 title = {Electric fence induced mortality in South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis.},
 year = {2010}
}
,@phdthesis{12436,
 author = {Bissett C.},
 school = {Rhodes University},
 title = {The feeding and spatial ecologies of the large carnivore guild on Kwandwe Private Game Reserve. Ph.D. Thesis.},
 year = {2008}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Buettner UK, Davies-Mostert HT, du Toit JT, Mills MGL.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {10–19},
 title = {Factors affecting juvenile survival in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Kruger National Park, South Africa.},
 volume = {272},
 year = {2007}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Courchamp F, Macdonald DW.},
 journal = {Animal Conservation},
 pages = {169–174},
 title = {Crucial importance of pack size in the African wild dog Lycaon pictus},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2001}
}
,@phdthesis{12436,
 author = {Davies HT.},
 school = {University of Zimbabwe},
 title = {The suitability of Matusadona National Park, Zimbabwe, as a site for wild dog (Lycaon pictus) introduction. M.Sc. Thesis.},
 year = {1998}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Davies-Mostert HT, Kamler JF, Mills MG, Jackson CR, Rasmussen GS, Groom RJ, Macdonald DW.},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {500–506},
 title = {Long-distance transboundary dispersal of African wild dogs among protected areas in southern Africa},
 volume = {50},
 year = {2012}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Davies-Mostert HT, Mills MG, Macdonald DW.},
 journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology},
 pages = {1358–1366},
 title = {Hard boundaries influence African wild dogs’ diet and prey selection.},
 volume = {50},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Davies-Mostert HT, Mills MG, Macdonald DW.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {258–273},
 title = {The demography and dynamics of an expanding, managed African wild dog metapopulation},
 volume = {45},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Di Minin E, Fraser I, Slotow R, MacMillan DC.},
 journal = {Animal Conservation},
 pages = {249–258},
 title = {Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: implications for conservation and management},
 volume = {16},
 year = {2013}
}
,@phdthesis{12436,
 author = {Edwards JM.},
 school = {University of Pretoria},
 title = {Conservation genetics of African wild dogs Lycaon pictus (Temminck, 1820) in South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis.},
 year = {2009}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Frame LH, Malcolm JR, Frame GW, Lawick H.},
 journal = {Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie},
 pages = {225–249},
 title = {Social organization of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) on the Serengeti plains, Tanzania 1967–19781},
 volume = {50},
 year = {1979}
}
,@inbook{12436,
 address = {London, UK.},
 author = {Cullough  and Barrett },
 booktitle = {Population dynamics of African wild dogs},
 editor = {Fuller TK, Kat PW, Bulger JB, Maddock AH, Ginsberg JR, Burrows R, McNutt JW, Mills MGL.},
 pages = {1125–1139},
 publisher = {Elsevier Applied Science},
 title = {Wildlife 2001: Populations},
 year = {1992}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Gusset M, Ryan SJ, Hofmeyr M, van Dyk G, Davies-Mostert HT, Graf JA, Owen C, Szykman M, Macdonald DW, Monfort SL.},
 journal = {Journal of Applied Ecology},
 pages = {100–108},
 title = {Efforts going to the dogs? Evaluating attempts to re-introduce endangered wild dogs in South Africa.},
 volume = {45},
 year = {2008}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Hofmeyr M, Hofmeyr D, Nel L, Bingham J.},
 journal = {Animal Conservation},
 pages = {193–198},
 title = {A second outbreak of rabies in African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in Madikwe Game Reserve, South Africa, demonstrating the efficacy of vaccination against natural rabies challenge},
 volume = {7},
 year = {2004}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Lindsey PA, Alexander RR, du Toit JT, Mills MGL.},
 journal = {Biological Conservation},
 pages = {339–348},
 title = {The potential contribution of ecotourism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South Africa.},
 volume = {123},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Lindsey P, du Toit JT, Mills MGL.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {143–151},
 title = {The distribution and population status of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) outside protected areas in South Africa.},
 volume = {34},
 year = {2004}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Mills MG, Gorman ML.},
 journal = {Conservation Biology},
 pages = {1397–1406},
 title = {Factors affecting the density and distribution of wild dogs in the Kruger National Park},
 volume = {11},
 year = {1997}
}
,@techreport{12436,
 address = {Minnesota, USA},
 author = {Mills MGL et al.},
 institution = {IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group},
 title = {Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) in Southern Africa},
 year = {1998}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Mills MGL.},
 journal = {African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {127–137},
 title = {Living near the edge: a review of ecological relationships between large carnivores in the arid Kalahari},
 volume = {45},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Page SK, Parker DM, Peinke DM, Davies-Mostert HT.},
 journal = {PLoS One},
 title = {Assessing the potential threat landscape of a proposed reintroduction site for carnivores.},
 volume = {10},
 year = {2015}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Rhodes R, Rhodes G.},
 journal = {African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {135–142},
 title = {Prey selection and use of natural and man-made barriers by African wild dogs while hunting.},
 volume = {34},
 year = {2004}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Spiering PA, Somers MJ, Maldonado JE, Wildt DE, Gunther MS.},
 journal = {Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology},
 pages = {583–592},
 title = {Reproductive sharing and proximate factors mediating cooperative breeding in the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus).},
 volume = {64},
 year = {2010}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {van der Meer E, Fritz H, Blinston P, Rasmussen GS.},
 journal = {Oryx},
 title = {Ecological trap in the buffer zone of a protected area: effects of indirect anthropogenic mortality on the African wild dog Lycaon pictus},
 volume = {48:285–293},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Whittington-Jones BM, Parker DM, Bernard RT, Davies-Mostert HT.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {135–147},
 title = {Habitat selection by transient African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: implications for range expansion.},
 volume = {44},
 year = {2011}
}
,@article{12436,
 author = {Woodroffe R et al. },
 journal = {Oryx },
 pages = {215–223},
 title = {Rates and causes of mortality in endangered African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: lessons for management and monitoring},
 volume = {41},
 year = {2007}
}
,]

How to cite this assessment

See the partners page

Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Red List of South African Species