Rhino Capture In Kruger National Park Case Study

1. Courchamp F, Angulo E, Rivalan P, Hal RJ, Signoret L, et al. (2006) Rarity value and species extinction: The Anthropogenic Allee effect. Public Library of Science4: 2405–2410 [PMC free article][PubMed]

2. Wasser SK, Clark B, Laurie C (2009) The ivory trail. Scientific American301: 68–76 [PubMed]

3. Lever C (2004) The impact of traditional Chinese medicine on threatened species. Oryx38: 13–14

4. Emslie RH, Brooks M (1999) African rhino: Status survey and conservation action plan. Gland: IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group.

5. Bennett EL (2011) Another inconvenient truth: the failure of enforcement systems to save charismatic species. Oryx45: 476–479

6. Rosser AM, Manika SA (2002) Overexploitation and species extinctions. Conservation Biology16: 584–586

7. Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A, Carbone C, Collen B, et al. (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation143: 2221–2228

8. Thomas R (2010) Surge in rhinoceros poaching in South Africa. TRAFFIC Bulletin23: 3

9. Anonymous (2011) Rhino horn worth more than diamonds, gold and cocaine. Oryx45: 463–464

10. Gray J (2010) CoP15: Report of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. Traffic Bulletin23: 13–28

11. Fischer C (2004) The complex interactions of markets for endangered species products. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management48: 926–953

12. Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Defining the limits of restoration: The need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology8: 2–9

13. Owen-Smith N, Kerley G, Page B, Slotow R, van Aarde R (2006) A scientific perspective on the management of elephants in the Kruger National Park and elsewhere. South African Journal of Science102: 389–394

14. Loarie SR, van Aarde RJ, Pimm SL (2009) Fences and artificial water affect African savannah elephant movement patterns. Biological Conservation142: 2086–3098

15. Carruthers J (2008) Wilding the farm or farming the wild: The evolution of scientific game ranching in South Africa from the 1960 s to the present. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa63: 160–181

16. Smit IPJ, Grant CC, Devereux BJ (2007) Do artificial waterholes influence the way herbivores use the landscape? Herbivore distribution patterns around rivers and artificial surface water sources in a large African savanna park. Biological Conservation136: 85–99

17. Gertenbach WPD (1980) Rainfall patterns in the Kruger National Park. Koedoe23: 35–43

18. Schutte IC (1986) The general geology of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe29: 13–38

19. Gertenbach WPD (1983) Landscapes of the Kruger National Park. Koedoe26: 9–121

20. Venter FJ (1990) A classification of land for management planning in the Kruger National Park. Ph.D. thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

21. Venter FJ, Naiman RJ, Biggs HC, Pienaar DJ (2008) The evolution of conservation management philosophy: Science, environmental change and social adjustments in Kruger National Park. Ecosystems11: 173–192

22. Hayward MW, Kerley GIH (2009) Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation142: 1–13

23. Young KD, van Aarde RJ (2010) Density as an explanatory variable of movements and calf survival in savanna elephants across southern Africa. Journal of Animal Ecology79: 662–673 [PubMed]

24. Whyte IJ, Grobler DG (1998) Elephant contraception in the Kruger National Park. Pachyderm25: 45–52

25. van Aarde RJ, Whyte IJ, Pimm SL (1999) Culling and the dynamics of the Kruger National Park elephant population. Animal Conservation2: 287–294

26. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems4: 390–405

27. van Aarde RJ, Jackson TP, Ferreira SM (2006) Conservation science and elephant management in southern Africa. South African Journal of Science102: 385–388

28. Caughley G (1977) Analysis of vertebrate populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

29. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. American Naturalist132: 652–661

30. Ueno M, Kaji K, Saitoh T (2010) Culling versus density effects in management of a deer population. Journal of Wildlife Management74: 1472–1483

31. Kruger JM, Reilly BK, Whyte IJ (2008) Application of distance sampling to estimate population densities of large herbivores in Kruger National Park. Wildlife Research35: 371–376

32. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, et al. . (2004) Advanced distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. New York: Oxford University Press.

33. Ferreira SM, Greaver CC, Knight MH (2011) Detecting population performance in the black rhino population of Kruger National Park, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research41: 192–204

34. Hillman-Smith K, Owen-Smith RN, Anderson IL, Hall-Martin AJ, Selaladi JP (1986) Age estimation of the white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum). Journal of Zoology, London210: 355–379

35. Emslie RH, Adcock K, Hansen HB (1995) Fine tuning the rhino management group age class system. Rustenburg: Rhino Management Group.

36. Jolly GM (1969) Sampling methods for aerial censuses of wildlife populations. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal34: 46–49

37. Edwards AWF (1972) Likelihood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38. Sibly RM, Barker D, Denham MC, Hone J, Pagel M (2005) On the regulation of populations of mammals, birds, fish and insects. Science309: 607–610 [PubMed]

39. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution19: 101–108 [PubMed]

40. Caughley G (1974) Bias in aerial survey. Journal of Wildlife Management38: 921–933

41. Seber GAF (1982) The estimation of animal abundance. Caldwell: Backburn Press.

42.

Highlights

  • Tracked poaching in real time
  • Expanded information collected for stronger prosecution of poachers
  • Improved monitoring of animal health

Apps Used

  • Animal fence breaks
  • Arrest data form
  • Crime scene elephant/rhino
  • Field ranger data
  • Rhino carcass report

Background

Sabi Sand Game Reserve is a group of game reserves located adjacent to the Kruger National Park. Named for the Sabie and Sand Rivers that border it, the Sabi Sand Reserve is the home to many wild animals including the Big Five. The Big Five are the five big game animals people travel from around the world to see. They include the African elephant, Cape buffalo, African leopard, and the White/Black rhino.

Photo credit: glasseyes view via photopincc

The game reserve was struggling though with a problem seen throughout South Africa: rhino poaching. Rhino horns have become a symbol of status. Others believe rhino horn can cure cancer and other illnesses.

While these myths have been dispelled, rhino horns remain sought out. A single rhino horn can be sold for $10,000. This demand has given rise to a well organized crime syndicate around poaching rhino horn.  

While rhinos don’t have to be killed to get their horns, they often are. In 2012 668 rhinos were killed and that number rose to over 1,000 in 2013. Unfortunately, the Sabi Sand Game Reserve saw the rise in poaching like the rest of South Africa.

They tried to track the rhino poaching. But with only a clipboard, this process was slow, and difficult to gather. The Sabi Sand Reserve couldn’t keep up with the well-funded crime groups.

Mike Grover, a conservation officer, decided that the reserve needed a solution that was faster to help protect their rhinos.

SOLUTION & RESULTS

In July 2012, Sabi Sand Game Reserve decided to go with GoCanvas, the global leader in mobile apps for business. As part of our Ante Up program, GoCanvas provided our service as well as equipment to get started.

As part of the program, GoCanvas also sent a Senior Mobile App Consultant to South Africa to help the Game Reserve get started with GoCanvas.

Sabi Sand found itself in the same position thousands of GoCanvas customers have; the GoCanvas platform—with 14,000+ customizable mobile apps, the app builder and real-time app management—strengthened their internal processes.

Over the past two years, the Sabi Sand Game Reserve has experience real, measurable benefits from implementing GoCanvas. Some of these include:

Real Time Tracking of Rhino Poaching

Previously, all tracking had been done with pen and paper. With conservation officers all over the reserve, it could be hours or days before a report of a poached rhino returned to the office.

With GoCanvas, all tracking reports are sent immediately to the cloud. Not only is the documentation safe and secure, but also saves the conservation team hundreds of hours. They can respond to rhino poaching more quickly with better safeguards. GoCanvas provides Sabi Sand a streamlined system, saving them hundreds of hours.

With time freed from paper processes, the game reserve can respond quickly and thoroughly to save Rhinos.

Expanded Information Collection

Paper reports limited the Sabi Sand Reserve’s ability to gather information. They could take notes, do an approximate location, but capturing images and other information was cumbersome and time consuming.

Going with a mobile app allowed Sabi Sand to expand their information in important and exciting ways. Now they can take photos of rhinos injured or killed, as well as tracks the poachers left. With GPS, they can capture an accurate location where the poaching occurred as well.

If a poacher is caught, he can be prosecuted for the crime he was caught committing as well as any other crime that has been documented in the past.

Improved Monitoring of Animal Health

Like many GoCanvas customers, the Sabi Sand Game Reserve has found more ways to use GoCanvas as they became comfortable with the technology. Tracking animal health used to have some of the same problems that tracking rhino poaching: slow, cumbersome, and difficult to gather complete information.

Today, Sabi Sand uses GoCanvas to track animal health. When a lioness, for instance, had been in contact with a rabid dog, conservation officers were able to document her health and keep an eye on her pride’s health in real time. GoCanvas mobile apps improves the conservation officers’ ability to protect the animals and respond quickly to health issues.

Flexibility to Meet Evolving Business Needs

As a cloud-based, mobile platform combined with an easy-to-use mobile app builder, GoCanvas provides Sabi Sand the flexibility to quickly add new features and functionality to any of their mobile apps. As needs evolve and change, GoCanvas apps can be updated easily, with no programming required.

For instance, as Sabi Sand found the rabid dogs were affecting animal health, they went into their GoCanvas account and simply created a new tracking app. Within seconds, these changes will be updated for all their users.

Now they can monitor where and when the rabid dogs cross over into the reserve. Then, they can easily find and inoculate these dogs, ensuring that diseases aren’t spread to the big game animals in the reserve.

Other mobile app alternatives make this process cumbersome or costly, weakening the effectiveness of their platforms. With GoCanvas it is a frictionless process at no additional cost.  

With GoCanvas, the Sabi Sand Game Reserve Sabi Sand can easily gather information on animal and human activity on the Game Reserve. With real time information, Sabi Sand can focus their time and energy on protecting rhinos and all the animals in their reserve.   

Do you want to save hundreds of hours this year?

Go with a mobile app and discover the benefit of real time information. Send us your form, and we'll create a custom mobile app for free.

Download a PDF of this case study.

Share

0 Thoughts to “Rhino Capture In Kruger National Park Case Study

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrĂ  pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *