AfriCat FAQ
THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE AFRICAT FOUNDATION:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Before the inception of The AfriCat Foundation, the Hanssen family, being cattle ranchers themselves, had demonstrated that effective livestock farming in prime carnivore country, required specific methods. They found success in keeping young calves (first 3-6 months) out of the wild and protecting small stock, such as sheep and goats, with herdsman and guard-dogs. Effective livestock farming also includes utilizing intelligent cattle breeds such as the Brahman. These cattle are known for their aggressive and protective maternal instincts and their tendency to graze in herds, which enhances their safety against predators.
The crucial principle emphasized was to avoid removing predators from their natural habitats, as doing so would upset the ecological balance, resulting in a significant increase in carnivores in these vacated territories.
AfriCat was initially created to provide a platform for the Hanssen Family to share with farmers what they (The Okonjima Hanssen Family), had learnt about the best way to co-exist with predators and to reduce stock losses.
The initial focus was very much on reducing the number of predators shot due to human-wildlife conflict, with the all-encompassing aim of actively participating in the continuing conservation efforts for Namibia’s wildlife, initially concentrating on leopards and cheetahs and other predators.
AfriCat was founded in 1991 and officially registered as a charity/non-profit organisation in 1993.
(non-profit organisation: Trust number 48/93)
AfriCat means “A-Free-Cat”. The Foundation was so named, because the advice to farmers was to ‘predator-proof-kraal’ their domestic stock at night (calves, foals, goats and sheep), but leave the cats free.
In response to the traditional and outdated global sentiment of low predator tolerance on farmland, akin to the situation in Namibia where many farmers exhibit zero tolerance towards predators, some farmers advocated extreme measures such as, “consolidating all leopards and cheetahs in Namibia onto a single farm”.
During its formative years, The AfriCat Foundation endeavored to persuade Namibian farmers to construct ‘predator-proof’ enclosures near water points or their residences and to kraal their livestock, particularly during the night, as a means of protecting them, while allowing Namibian predators to live free and wild, rather than being locked up, persecuted or killed by humans – as to keep the balance nature thrives on.
The AfriCat Foundation was established to protect ‘cats’ (mainly cheetahs and leopards) from human-wildlife conflict. The objective was soon expanded however to all of Namibia’s wildlife in recognition that ‘cat’ conservation could not be addressed without also protecting wildlife habitats. AfriCat’s strategies to achieve these objectives have changed over time, as AfriCat has learnt what works and what doesn’t and has adapted to the changing context of conservation in Namibia.
Today the Foundation is concentrating on conservation research, with a particular focus on the effectiveness of enclosed (island-bound | non-migratory) protected areas as a conservation strategy.
The Okonjima Nature Reserve was created to provide protected habitat for Namibia’s wildlife and the Foundation is seeking to assess the extent this has been achieved.
“AfriCat’s objective is basically unchanged – it has always been to contribute to the conservation of Namibia’s wildlife, in particular predators. However, AfriCat’s strategies and activities/interventions have changed as AfriCat has learnt what works and has adapted to the changing context of conservation in Namibia.
At its inception, AfriCat was focused on mitigating human-wildlife conflict (HWC) and trying to convince farmers to change their farming practices and to co-exist with predators. There was limited success however; farmers were reluctant to invest in ways to protect their livestock rather than trying to prevent the losses by shooting the predator. Therefore, AfriCat was frequently asked to remove unwanted predators from farmland. Not wanting to shut down contact with the farmer or risk the unwanted predator being shot, AfriCat removed the animals and released them onto farms willing to receive them.
This became known as the AfriCat Rescue and Release Programme.
The Rescue and Release programme undoubtedly gave animals a second chance, but it didn’t solve the fundamental problem. Predators removed were replaced by ‘new-commers’ and the predators released often tried to return to their original home range. The Ministry of Environment Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) therefore started clamping down on rescue and release initiatives and AfriCat decided to end the Rescue and Release programme.
AfriCat’s ‘Carnivore Care Centre’ or Welfare Programme emerged as a result of the ‘Rescue and Release’ Programme. Many of the rescued cheetahs, wild dogs, lions and leopards at AfriCat were very young, often orphaned, because their mothers were shot. Despite the circumstances, farmers chose not to harm the cubs and instead entrusted them to AfriCat for care and rehabilitation.
At AfriCat the rescued carnivores were housed in spacious enclosures ranging from 1 hectares – 5 hectares per large carnivore (enclosures ranged from 5ha-25ha) in a natural and stress-free environment. They received a well-balanced diet with vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent deficiencies. Daily observations monitored the animals’ well-being and condition, allowing for a prompt response and treatment if any illnesses or injuries occurred.
Annual health checks on the carnivores at AfriCat were supervised by veterinarians from Namibia and South Africa. In-depth, health examinations were carried out on all the captive and rehabilitated carnivores. All the carnivores were darted during these health checks and then taken to a well-equipped clinic at AfriCat’s Carnivore Care Centre for evaluations.
All the animals were vaccinated and treated for both external and internal parasites. Each cat and wild dog received a thorough dental examination. All the carnivores were also weighed & measured – a research project headed by Dr. Prof. Adrian Tordiffe, Dr. Gerhard Steenkamp, Dr Mark Jago and Dr Diethardt Rodenwoldt – to be able to accurately determine the body mass index and dental health of a captive and free-roaming carnivore.
Read up on some of our Cheetah Research conducted over the years.
“AfriCat’s objective is basically unchanged – it has always been to contribute to the conservation of Namibia’s wildlife, in particular predators. However, AfriCat’s strategies and activities/interventions have changed as AfriCat has learnt what works and has adapted to the changing context of conservation in Namibia.
At its inception, AfriCat was focused on mitigating human-wildlife conflict (HWC) and trying to convince farmers to change their farming practices and to co-exist with predators. There was limited success however; farmers were reluctant to invest in ways to protect their livestock rather than trying to prevent the losses by shooting the predator. Therefore, AfriCat was frequently asked to remove unwanted predators from farmland. Not wanting to shut down contact with the farmer or risk the unwanted predator being shot, AfriCat removed the animals and released them onto farms willing to receive them.
This became known as the AfriCat Rescue and Release Programme.
The Rescue and Release programme undoubtedly gave animals a second chance, but it didn’t solve the fundamental problem. Predators removed were replaced by ‘new-commers’ and the predators released often tried to return to their original home range. The Ministry of Environment Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) therefore started clamping down on rescue and release initiatives and AfriCat decided to end the Rescue and Release programme.
AfriCat’s ‘Carnivore Care Centre’ or Welfare Programme emerged as a result of the ‘Rescue and Release’ Programme. Many of the rescued cheetahs, wild dogs, lions and leopards at AfriCat were very young, often orphaned, because their mothers were shot. Despite the circumstances, farmers chose not to harm the cubs and instead entrusted them to AfriCat for care and rehabilitation.
At AfriCat the rescued carnivores were housed in spacious enclosures ranging from 1 hectares – 5 hectares per large carnivore (enclosures ranged from 5ha-25ha) in a natural and stress-free environment. They received a well-balanced diet with vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent deficiencies. Daily observations monitored the animals’ well-being and condition, allowing for a prompt response and treatment if any illnesses or injuries occurred.
Annual health checks on the carnivores at AfriCat were supervised by veterinarians from Namibia and South Africa. In-depth, health examinations were carried out on all the captive and rehabilitated carnivores. All the carnivores were darted during these health checks and then taken to a well-equipped clinic at AfriCat’s Carnivore Care Centre for evaluations.
All the animals were vaccinated and treated for both external and internal parasites. Each cat and wild dog received a thorough dental examination. All the carnivores were also weighed & measured – a research project headed by Dr. Prof. Adrian Tordiffe, Dr. Gerhard Steenkamp, Dr Mark Jago and Dr Diethardt Rodenwoldt – to be able to accurately determine the body mass index and dental health of a captive and free-roaming carnivore.
Read up on some of our Cheetah Research conducted over the years.
Some of the animals that had been rescued were not suitable for release, such as those that were injured or orphaned or too old. AfriCat became home to these predators, in particular cheetahs and, following the end of the Rescue and Release programme, turned its attention to trying to rehabilitate the cheetahs it had rescued into the newly formed Okonjima Nature Reserve (ONR).
The Cheetahs Rehabilitation Programme (2000 -2010 released into a 4500ha private reserve) demonstrated that even cheetahs kept in captivity from a young age could learn to successfully hunt, through trial and error. However, their mortality in the ONR was high because of insufficient open areas, unsatisfactory numbers of preferred prey (such as impala, and springbok) and a high density of leopards.
In view of the high density of naturally occurring leopards in the Reserve, it was decided the Okonjima Nature Reserve was not a suitable cheetahs rehabilitation site. By this time (2010-2018), the 20 000ha private reserve had been in existence for almost 10 years and AfriCat was doing a significant amount of wildlife monitoring in the Reserve. It was therefore decided to focus on conservation research in the ONR.
Recognising that the creation of protected areas for wildlife is an important conservation strategy and that often protected areas are or need to be enclosed (non-migratory), AfriCat is conducting conservation research on the ecology of wildlife in the ONR to assess the contribution that enclosed protected areas can make to conservation.
The ONR offers a number of advantages and opportunities for conservation research. Thanks to Okonjima’s consistent support, AfriCat is able to undertake long term and on-going monitoring. For example, in 2023, the leopard research project enrolled a third-generation leopard, whose mother and grandmother are already in the project. Few other research projects have similar longevity. The wildlife in the Reserve are protected from human threats and are comfortable around people enabling AfriCat to study their natural behaviour.
AfriCat also has easy access to the wildlife in the Reserve; most study individuals can be seen at least every week, some twice a day and Okonjima guides participate in the research as AfriCat’s primary data collectors.
Finally, because most of the wildlife has been studied for a number of years, they are known populations, for which AfriCat already has significant amounts of data. In terms of the species that AfriCat is focusing on they are:
(i) carnivores – leopards and brown hyena – because they are most affected by human-wildlife conflict and as the apex predators, impact significantly on the environment, (ii) endangered species such as the pangolin because so little is known about them and conservation strategies are sorely needed, and
(iii) lesser known species, such as ardwolf, aardvark, caracal and African wildcat, for which there is little information, including in some cases, their conservation status.
AfriCat is therefore collecting granular information about wildlife in the ONR – to better understand the species including:
(i) density; home range and movement; (ii) population genetics and parentage; (iii) reproduction and social interactions; (iv) prey preferences and practices; (v) interactions with other species and (vi) impact of and with the environment.
These findings will be compared with other similar and dissimilar areas to add to the body of knowledge about these animals and to understand how the ecology of wildlife in the ONR may have been influenced by being in an enclosed, protected area.
Finally, because some of the species populations in the ONR are known populations, AfriCat will be able to test research methodologies, such as the best ways to assess density. Overall the goals of the research are to improve the understanding of the species studied for conservation and management and to identify differences in the ONR to assess enclosed, protected areas as a conservation strategy and for their management.
AfriCat, the Okonjima Lodges and the Okonjima Nature Reserve are all inextricably linked. AfriCat carries out the conservation work of Okonjima, but Okonjima lodges promote the ethos of conservation to all its staff and guests – and visitors to Okonjima directly contribute to the preservation of habitat for a thriving ecosystem of flora and fauna within the Reserve.
The ONR was created to provide protected habitat for wildlife and guests come to Okonjima to experience the Reserve and to see the work of AfriCat.
AfriCat undertakes the research in the Reserve, but Okonjima guides play a crucial role acting as data collectors for AfriCat while out with guests. Meanwhile the information and data that AfriCat collects on the wildlife in the Reserve is passed on to the guides so that they can share it with their guests and to park management for improved management of the Reserve and will hopefully contribute to national policy development for environmental conservation in Namibia.
Thus, AfriCat and Okonjima are symbiotically linked and provide a vibrant and sustainable example of how tourism can contribute to conservation and vice versa.
The majority of AfriCat funding comes directly and indirectly from Okonjima. 60% of total expenditure is a direct contribution from Okonjima Lodge with the balance provided as donations by Okonjima guests past and present. These donations from loyal Donors across the globe, include donations made to AfriCat for “Behind the Scenes” experiences and by environmental education groups.
Okonjima also covers many of AfriCat’s administration costs such as human resource support, accounting, IT and vehicle maintenance.
The park-levy that is paid per night by each guest that stays at Okonjima, helps us to maintain the Okonjima Nature Reserve. The park-levy covers basic Reserve management such as maintenance of the roads and water points, daily fence checks and salt licks for the animals. It is not sufficient however for bigger costs including maintenance of firebreaks, debushing or beautification of the Reserve; these latter costs are paid from profits of Okonjima Lodges.
The government supports the work of conservation NGOs by establishing the parameters within which we may work. For example, we must be registered and certified in order to keep captive carnivores and we must apply for and maintain a research permit for all of our research. The government has also established working groups to facilitate collaboration and communication between NGOs and the government on wildlife conservation.
However, the government does not provide any funding to conservation NGOs and occasionally asks NGOs for assistance such as the provision of services or resources or to care for wildlife rescued from HWC situations.
The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) is the government Ministry that we are most in contact with. Our work is guided by a number of laws and regulations issued by MEFT and we are required to apply for research permits and facility registrations from MEFT.
MEFT also chairs the Carnivore Working Group and the Pangolin Working Group, both of which AfriCat is a member of. The objective of both these working groups is to further the conservation of the respective species and to ensure coordination and collaboration of all stakeholders. It is through these kinds of structures that AfriCat will share the result of our research to support the development of national conservation strategies and policies.
As AfriCat is no longer working on cheetahs, we do not currently have any specific collaborations with CCF, nor N/a’ankuse. However, we are supportive of each other’s work and communicate and collaborate as the opportunity arises. CCF, N/a’ankuse and AfriCat are members of the Carnivore Working Group chaired by MEFT.
AfriCat is in communication with the majority of wildlife conservation NGOs in Namibia.
AfriCat has significant collaborations with the University of Namibia (UNAM) and the Ongava Research Centre (ORC). AfriCat has a multi-year collaboration with the Dept of Environmental Science, UNAM to assess the impact of different forms of bush control and as a field site for selected data collection for student projects.
We also host the students of the Department of Veterinary Medicine for one of their required wildlife training modules. Further collaboration is under discussion with the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources on ungulate genetics and the Central Veterinary Laboratory on disease in big cats. AfriCat is collaborating with the ORC on three projects – the development of a bio-indicator databank for future research, determining the social relationships and genetic diversity of leopards, brown hyenas and pangolin in the ONR and assessing and comparing the movements of leopards in and out of the ONR and Ongava Game Reserve.
AfriCat also has smaller collaborative projects with other organisations and international universities and is in discussion on several additional projects for future joint ventures.
AfriCat has significant collaborations with the University of Namibia (UNAM) and the Ongava Research Centre (ORC). AfriCat has a multi-year collaboration with the Dept of Environmental Science, UNAM to assess the impact of different forms of bush control and as a field site for selected data collection for student projects.
We also host the students of the Department of Veterinary Medicine for one of their required wildlife training modules. Further collaboration is under discussion with the Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources on ungulate genetics and the Central Veterinary Laboratory on disease in big cats. AfriCat is collaborating with the ORC on three projects – the development of a bio-indicator databank for future research, determining the social relationships and genetic diversity of leopards, brown hyenas and pangolin in the ONR and assessing and comparing the movements of leopards in and out of the ONR and Ongava Game Reserve.
AfriCat also has smaller collaborative projects with other organisations and international universities and is in discussion on several additional projects for future joint ventures.
AFRICAT AND THE STOCK FARMERS:
Some farmers are willing to work with wildlife conservation NGOs. These farmers allow NGOs to conduct research or programme activities on their land. Those farmers are usually willing to cooperate with data collection such as responding to questionnaires about their practices or concerns.
When one of our research leopards left our Reserve in early 2023, neighbouring farmers allowed us to enter their land to search for him and even to put up camera traps. Several also reported possible sightings and maintained box traps on our behalf in order to help us find him.
AfriCat however stopped visiting farmers on a daily routine to collect cheetah and leopard that were no longer wanted when the rescue and release programme stopped in 2011. (see point 5)
Consequently, farmers are reaching out to AfriCat less frequently for assistance in resolving conflicts between carnivores and their livestock.
The loss of habitat and the ongoing conflict between humans and wildlife represent a stark reality that only a few truly comprehend. While in an ideal world, the vision AfriCat conceived 30 years ago, could have offered a solution, the reality is far more intricate than the initial dream of a family in 1992.
Today and in the foreseeable future, the survival of predators hinges on human tolerance. Whether one is a farmer in Namibia, America (North and South), Australia, or Europe, the prevailing sentiment leans toward reluctance to coexist with wildlife, particularly predators and large carnivores.
FUN FACT:
Difference Between Predators and Carnivores
Predators:
Predators are animals that hunt, capture, and consume other animals (prey) for food.
Predatory behavior involves actively seeking out and killing other animals.
Predators can belong to various dietary categories, including carnivores, omnivores, and even some herbivores (e.g., certain species of birds that prey on insects).
Carnivores:
Carnivores are animals that primarily consume meat as their main source of food.
While all carnivores eat other animals, they do not necessarily engage in hunting behavior. Some may scavenge for meat or consume carrion (e.g., vultures).
Carnivores can be further categorized into obligate carnivores, which rely entirely on meat (e.g., cats), and facultative carnivores, which primarily eat meat, but can digest plant matter as well (e.g., dogs).
In summary, predators are defined by their hunting behavior, while carnivores are defined by their meat-based diet. All predators that hunt other animals for food are carnivores, but not all carnivores are active hunters; some may be scavengers. Additionally, some predators may not be strictly carnivorous, as they could also consume plant material or other food sources.
Large Carnivores:
Large Carnivores are typically at the top of the food chain in their ecosystems and require large territories and abundant prey to sustain themselves. (lion hyaena leopard tigers etc)
All large carnivores are predators, not all predators are large carnivores. Large carnivores are distinguished by their size and their role as apex predators in their environments.
For 18 years from AfriCat’s inception until end 2010. We worked with about 100 farmers per year.
The Hanssen family were cattle farmers themselves. When they first moved to Okonjima they were losing almost 15% of their calves to cheetahs and leopards.
Initially they killed or removed the suspected predator just like every other farmer, but they could see it did not reduce the losses. They therefore developed other strategies through trial and error eventually settling on a combination of mobile, electrified, predator-proof kraals for keeping the calves safe at night while the mothers were away grazing, and herdsmen during the day to stay with the calves.
[See The Okonjima Story]
This enabled them to reduce their losses to less than 3%. They also calculated that the cost of the kraal and herdsman were compensated for by the prevention of calves being killed; it was therefore a financially viable strategy as well as being effective. They were excited by their success in solving what, until that time, had been an intractable problem and AfriCat was formed specifically to enable them to spend time with farmers to encourage them to test this solution for the benefit of the farmers, the cattle and the cats. They had little success however.
Farmers were dubious that the strategy would work and reluctant to make the investment in the mobile kraals or to employ additional herdsmen. The Hanssen family believe that despite visits to hundreds of farmers over the years, only a handful may have changed their practices. The achievements of AfriCat’s work with farmers were probably limited therefore.
EVALUATING AFRICAT'S LONG-TERM IMPACT ON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION:
AfriCat did not achieve its initial objective of mitigating human wildlife conflict. It can be argued however that few others have been effective at mitigating this fundamental constraint to wildlife conservation, in particular predator conservation, either in Namibia or globally.
It is also unlikely that the Rescue and Release programme contributed significantly to predator conservation. While it gave the majority of animals a second chance (because they were otherwise going to be shot) it was not a solution to HWC. It was not implemented as a key intervention for predator conservation however, but rather as a ‘by-product’ of the work with farmers in order to maintain communication with them and avoid the predators being killed at the time.
The Cheetah Rehabilitation Programme was successful in the sense that we were able to demonstrate that cheetahs kept in captivity from a young age could learn to hunt and live independently. However, it was not successful in the sense of enabling AfriCat’s formerly-captive cheetahs to the wild, because most were killed in the leopard-dense environment of the ONR within 18-24month of their release. (one coalition of 3 brothers and a female, survived 6 years inside the ONR)
It is hard to quantify what AfriCat’s environmental education programme achieved. While significant numbers of children went through the programme and many saw their first cheetah, wild dog, leopard or lion on Okonjima, there is no way of knowing whether it changed their perception of wildlife and predators and impacted upon the decisions they have made subsequently in ways that could contribute to conservation.
What AfriCat and Okonjima have achieved is to protect habitat for wildlife and to demonstrate the value that wildlife can have. Thousands of people visit Okonjima each year to experience the ONR and to learn about the animals that make it their home; the ONR is best place in Namibia to see some of the county’s most elusive animals.
AfriCat, along with other NGOs, has significantly raised awareness about the challenges faced by free-roaming carnivores in Namibia. This collective effort has led to increased tolerance and awareness among many farmers regarding the struggles these species face to survive on farmland. It’s increasingly recognized that without farmer tolerance, these species may not survive in the long term, and their continued existence may even be at risk of near extinction.
Okonjima also employs more Namibians than it could ever have done as a cattle or game farm. AfriCat and Okonjima are a vibrant example of the symbiosis of tourism and conservation.
The main achievement of AfriCat is the creation of the Okonjima Nature Reserve which was possible because of the collaboration between AfriCat and Okonjima and loyal, devoted Donors. Multiple supporters contributed to the creation of the Okonjima Nature Reserve having been attracted by the conservation principles of AfriCat and the Hanssen family.
Additionally, AfriCat’s monitoring and research has provided invaluable information about the wildlife in the Reserve and the altered ecology of wildlife in an enclosed protected area.
AfriCat, along with other local NGOs, has played a crucial role in raising awareness about the challenges faced by carnivores in Namibia. The organization has contributed to a positive shift in public perception, making people more conscious of the endangered status of these animals.
There has been a minor change in the mindset regarding the routine killing of predators on farmland.
Okonjima, and AfriCat rely on tourism as the primary source of revenue.
In 1993 the Hanssen family elected to switch from cattle farming to tourism as the main source of income, because it enabled them to conserve wildlife rather than remove it and regenerate the land rather than degrade it.
Economically, wildlife has a competitive advantage over livestock in areas of low rainfall such as Namibia and tourism gives a non-consumptive value to wildlife providing resources for its conservation. If tourism stopped, as it did during Covid, the lodges would close and this source of revenue would dry up.
However, the land that makes up the ONR has already been paid for and company savings would be used to maintain the ONR so that it would remain a protected area. Essential wildlife monitoring would also be maintained as much as possible, as it was during Covid. Necessary data collection systems have already been established and the majority of running costs are human resources for the maintenance of camera traps and data processing.
Steps are already underway to reduce a second major cost – ‘batteries for camera traps’; the last camera trap system to be set up works with rechargeable batteries and most of the remaining systems will be switched to solar.
As such, even in the event of a fall in tourism, the majority of current data collection will be able to be maintained.
While AfriCat believes animals have moral worth independent of their utility to humans, in practical terms AfriCat recognises that where animals have an economic value they, and their environments, are more likely to be protected.
Wildlife can have value or be “utilised” in a number of ways; tourism, trophy hunting and for food. All of these are consumptive (meaning the animal is killed) except for tourism.
Of the consumptive uses trophy hunting impacts the smallest number of animals and brings in the largest income. Tophy hunting is thus a significant source of revenue into Namibia. Communities and game and hunting farms preserve habitat for wildlife and protect wildlife because of the income it can bring as a trophy animal. In principal trophy hunting is sustainable, because it is controlled and based on quotas and ethical hunting pits the skill of the hunter against the survival instincts of the animal.
However all consumptive uses of wildlife prioritise the well-being of humans over animals and AfriCat, and Okonjima, prefer to support and contribute to conservation through tourism which gives value to wildlife without killing it.
The opinions of Namibians about AfriCat’s work probably ranges from fully supporting it to fully disagreeing with it. In general however, because AfriCat has stopped working with farmers and having operations outside of the ONR, the majority of Namibians are probably more on the side of being supportive or, at worse indifferent.
It would probably be fair to say that many Namibians support the fact that AfriCat is raising awareness about Namibia’s wildlife, contributing to the positive image of Namibia aboard and Okonjima is a significant contributor to the Namibian economy.
The major threats to wildlife conservation, in particular carnivore conservation, are human wildlife conflict, habitat loss, negative perceptions of predators, the illegal wildlife trade and accidental road mortalities.
AfriCat and Okonjima have almost eliminated all of these threats by creating an enclosed protected area for the carnivores in the ONR.
AfriCat is further contributing to conservation by monitoring and researching the wildlife in the ONR to contribute to national policy making in particular in relation to enclosed, protected areas as a conservation strategy, and to species management and conservation strategies.
Okonjima is contributing to conservation by financially supporting AfriCat and enabling guests to Okonjima to appreciate its wildlife and demonstrate the value of wildlife in the national economy.
AfriCat has 6 full-time staff based in Namibia, with an additional 2 part-time team members who work from Peru and America. The three international staff of AfriCat donate their time to the Foundation.
AfriCat’s adoption programme started at a time when the AfriCat Carnivore Care Centre was home to a significant number of carnivores, in particular cheetahs and leopards, that could not be released as part of the Rescue and Release programme. Donations provided as adoptions were used to feed and care for the animals in our care.
Today, having stopped the Rescue and Release programme and having rehabilitated many cheetahs into the ONR, AfriCat is no longer caring for many captive carnivores. Hence fundraising through adoptions has stopped.
AfriCat is now undertaking research in the ONR and funds are not needed to feed or care for the wild animals in the Reserve. Nevertheless, AfriCat is very appreciative of donations to the research and it is possible for donors to specify donations to the particular research species such as leopard, pangolin or brown hyaena. Such donations are used to expand our research for example to increase our sample size or explore additional questions.
Globally the biggest threat to almost all wildlife is loss of habitat as the human population expands into formerly wild areas. This leads to less ‘space’ for wildlife, land degradation and deforestation, human wildlife conflict, poaching, and road accidents.
The Namibian government’s strategy for conservation is to give ownership of wildlife to the population such that the wildlife has a value in order to encourage investment in wildlife and its habitat.
The three main ways that wildlife is valuable to humans is for food, trophy hunting or tourism; of these, only tourism is non-consumptive, meaning that people can benefit from wildlife without killing it.
Tourism has enabled the Hanssen family to create the Okonjima Nature Reserve; an enclosed, protected area for wildlife. Eco-tourism also creates more jobs than any other land-use and is based on a sustainable, balanced eco-system that is suited to Namibia’s environment.
Eco-tourism also raises awareness about the rights and value of wildlife and about the need for a gentler human footprint on the world’s planet for the benefit of all.
AfriCat’s experience is thus that eco-tourism is the most effective, sustainable and feasible conservation strategy in the modern world.
AFRICAT AND THE SUCCESS OF THE CHEETAH REHABILITATION PROGRAMME IN THE ONR:
Cheetah rehabilitation in Namibia refers to the attempt to return cheetahs to the wild that have formerly been captive, often from a young age, but usually wild born.
It’s important to highlight that it is not possible to rehabilitate cheetahs or any predator that have been captive raised, into areas adjacent to human settlements. Rehabilitating hand-raised, large carnivores that have become tame pets and exhibit no fear of humans, is also not advisable.
Captive raised animals have lost their fear of humans and often associate humans with food. There is thus a risk of rehabilitated cheetahs, and other carnivores, entering human settlements in search of food, which could either be livestock or a lone, roaming child.
As there are very few wild areas remaining where the animals will never come into contact with humans, there are very few areas where rehabilitated carnivores can be released and as such, it is not an effective strategy for cheetah conservation. For the same reason, breeding cheetahs in captivity with the objective of releasing them into the wild, is unlikely to be a strategy for cheetah conservation.
Between 2000 and 2018, 53 formerly captive, but wild caught cheetahs were rehabilitated into the Okonjima Nature Reserve. 96% of all rescued animals were below the age of one year at the time of rescue and spent on average 3.9 ± 1.9 years in captivity. Unfortunately, some remained in captivity longer due to delays in funding for fencing the 20,000-hectare reserve, which extended their confinement beyond our preferred timeframe.
Age upon release varied between 10 months and 8 years (4.6 ± 2.1 years). 87% learned to hunt and became self-sufficient; the remaining 13% were brought back into captivity.
However, 68% of those that remained in the Reserve died within two years of being released, due primarily to predation by leopards (81%), spotted hyena (8%) or the predator could not be determined (11%). 13% died as a result of injuries sustained during hunting and 11% due to disease.
The high mortality as a result of leopards resulted in AfriCat ceasing the rehabilitation of cheetahs into the Okonjima Nature Reserve.
AfriCat’s Cheetah Rehabilitation Project aimed to re-introduce formerly-captive raised cheetahs into the wild. AfriCat rehabilitated cheetahs into the Okonjima Nature Reserve, but also tried to find other wild areas where they could be rehabilitated. The re-introduction into the ONR was successful in the sense that we were able to demonstrate that cheetahs kept in captivity from a young age could learn to hunt, by honing in their skills through trial and error and live independently.
However, it was not successful in the sense of enabling cheetahs to return to a life in the wild outside the ONR, because most were killed in the leopard-dense environment of the ONR within 18 to 24months after release.
AfriCat was also unsuccessful in finding alternative places to release them; all the places that AfriCat considered were unsuitable, because they were adjacent to human settlement with the likelihood of conflict between the cheetahs and the human population or hunting farms.
No, formerly captive leopards cannot be rehabilitated back into the wild. Formerly captive leopards have lost their fear of humans and cannot be released anywhere where they could come into contact with humans, in particular an area such as the ONR where guests are present in open game vehicles and undertake wildlife tracking on foot.
Because of their nature, formerly-captive leopards are significantly more unpredictable than cheetahs.
The last cheetah was released into the ONR in 2018, the year the programme stopped.
[That female was found dead in June 2020 – killed by a leopard.]
During the Cheetah Rehabilitation programme, when there were several rehabilitated cheetahs in the Reserve, one of the activities available for Okonjima guests was to track the cheetahs on foot. This involved driving to the general area where the cheetah was and then walking to the cheetah to get closer to it. This was possible because the cheetahs in the ONR were rehabilitated (formerly captive) and hence didn’t run away. Wild cheetahs, as with most other wild animals, will run away when approached by humans on foot. And as they were successfully hunting and not hand-raised, there was no risk of them approaching the guests or otherwise being interested in them.
It was no longer possible to maintain this activity when the Cheetah Rehabilitation programme stopped however.
In Namibia and across their entire range, the primary threats to cheetah conservation are conflict with livestock and game farmers; inadequately regulated trophy hunting; decline of natural prey; snaring; habitat loss; illegal trade and keeping free-ranging animals in captivity as pets or as a tourist attraction. (i.e. cub petting facilities or volunteer prgms that encourage human-animal contact)
Data indicates that in Namibia, roughly 27% of the total adult cheetah population is being removed from farmland, either through hunting, snaring, or capturing cubs after shooting the mother and subsequently taking the cubs into captivity. This rate of removal is unsustainable when compared to the reproductive capacity of cheetahs living in the wild in most parts of the country.
If someone was to pose the question; “What is the greatest threat to wildlife?” Most of us would probably answer: MAN. In that answer most of us would probably be fairly close to the truth.
But if man is the greatest threat to wildlife, then what does the rural farmer consider as one of his/her greatest threats in trying to carve out a life for him/herself in deepest Africa? WILDLIFE.
Consequently, it’s a conflict zone with each defending his own territory.
The loss of habitat and the constant battle between humans and wildlife is a serious reality today,
Effective strategies include a more tolerant landowner towards carnivores.
Decreasing conflict with humans and their stock, through altered livestock practices, and
establishing large contiguous areas of suitable habitat with adequate prey and ecological corridors for migration.
Another key strategy for decreasing conflicts with humans is to avoid the proximity of livestock to cheetah communication hubs (play-trees), which are characterised by high cheetah densities.
AFRICAT ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION:
Environmental Education (EE) is a process in which individuals gain awareness of their environment and acquire knowledge, skills, values, experiences, and also the determination, which will enable them to act – individually and collectively – to solve present and future environmental problems.
Here at AfriCat our EE programme aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of the local fauna and flora, and promoted the tolerance of large carnivores outside of reserves, as well as finding practical solutions to the Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) situation.
AfriCat operated an EE programme at varying levels of intensity between 1998 and 2020. Students of all ages and teachers from various local and international schools and universities around the world were invited to participate in three- or five-day EE programs, tailored to different age groups, focusing on carnivore conservation and general environmental awareness.
The programme operated out of the AfriCat Environmental Education Centre (sponsored by W.S P.A.) initially and thereafter from the People And Wildlife Solutions (PAWS) campsite, sponsored by TUSK and Okonjima Lodge. In addition to hosting student groups on site, the AfriCat ‘outreach programme’ reached more children in their own schools throughout the country.
The EE programme was stopped in 2020 as a result of Covid.
Between 1998 and 2002, approximately 600 to 800 students annually, nationwide engaged with AfriCat in the Okonjima Nature Reserve.
Between 2010 and 2020, about 7000 students, from national and international schools, attended on-site EE courses.
Many more were reached through the outreach programme.
The building of the AfriCat Environmental Education Centre in 1998 was funded by a donation from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and Okonjima Lodge.
Between 2010 and 2014 the EE programme was funded by TUSK UK with additional support from donors, guests and Okonjima Lodge.
From 2014, following the cessation (ending) of TUSK funding, private local schools and international schools were charged fees and the revenue generated from these fees was used to sponsor rural and government schools.
This approach helped to ensure that a broader range of students had the opportunity to benefit from AfriCat’s EE programme.
The EE programme was stopped in 2020 as a result of Covid. The pandemic brought unpredictable and devastating external factors that disrupted many of AfriCat’s projects on an unprecedented scale. It was not restarted after Covid, because the impact and benefits of the programme were unclear.
Running an environmental education programme is inherently time-consuming, labor-intensive, financially taxing, and above all, a significant responsibility, especially when children are involved. Unlike tourism, which may be more straightforward, managing scholars requires round-the-clock monitoring, tutoring, guidance, and entertainment. Finding educators who are passionate about the land and well-versed in carnivore conservation added an additional layer of complexity to the endeavor.
Students attending the EE programme certainly enjoyed the experience and many saw wildlife, especially cheetah, lion, hyaena and leopard, for the first time in their lives. But there was no way to assess the impact of the programme on future attitudes or behaviours of the students or even their families at the time.
AfriCat also elected to make the most effective use of limited resources and focus on conservation research.
AFRICAT AND THE RESCUE AND RELEASE PROGRAMME:
Between 1993, when AfriCat started, and 2010, when the programme stopped, AfriCat moved wild cheetahs and leopards that had been caught on farms where they were accused of being ‘problem animals’ to farms or other areas where they were welcome.
The cheetahs and leopards were at risk of being shot on the farms where they had been captured and by moving them elsewhere, AfriCat hoped to give them a second chance.
Between 1993 and 2010, AfriCat rescued a total of 1,042 cheetahs and leopards, of which 875 were successfully released back into the wild (84% release rate). Specifically, 676 cheetahs were rescued, with 534 (79%) being released. For the remaining animals, 113 cheetahs (17%) went into captivity, while 29 (4%) died or were euthanized.
366 leopards were rescued and 340 (93%) were released. Only 15 and 10 leopards respectively went into captivity or died / were euthanized because of old age or bad health. Those that went into captivity were usually formerly captive, injured or too young to be released. 42% of the animals captured had been previously captured, sometimes on the same farm and sometimes on other farms, demonstrating that they survived after the initial release and benefited from the ‘second chance’ often for long enough to have at least one litter to add to the Namibian population.
The Rescue and Release programme was discontinued primary because it became clear that it was not contributing to conservation of the cheetahs and leopards and also because it was not helping the farmer.
Research and experience revealed that predators removed from their territory often attempt to return, which subjects them to extreme stress and increases the risk of conflict with resident predators in the release areas or along their journey back. Additionally, if the predators took too long to return, they might find their territory occupied by another individual, leading to further conflicts as they either fight to reclaim their territory or have to seek a new one. During this period, they typically do not hunt regularly, struggle to find consistent water sources, and expend additional energy traveling long distances. This weakened state makes them more vulnerable to competition than they were before being removed from their familiar territory, significantly increasing their risk of not surviving an attack.
Meanwhile, from the farmers perspective, removal of the predator will result in it returning or one or more ‘wanderers/nomads’ coming into take over the now vacant territory.
The Rescue and Release programme was also stopped, because it was unpopular with the farmers who felt AfriCat was ‘circulating’ the problem and because the Ministry of Environment and Tourism started to clamp down on the practice. It was also becoming harder and harder to find suitable release sites; farmers became less willing to take predators, because of complaints by their neighbours.
We explain that removing the predator will not solve the problem as a new ‘roamer/wanderer/floater/nomad’ ((all terms used to describe a predator that does not yet have a territory, either because it is still young or has lost its territory due to a dispute with another predator)), will come in to take its place.
We make recommendations on how to protect livestock from predators. When the Hanssens first moved to Okonjima they were losing about 15% of their calves to cheetahs and leopards. By building mobile, electrified, predator-proof kraals, to protect the calves while the cows were out grazing, and employing herdsmen to guard small stock like goats, they were able to reduce the losses to less than 3%. The cost of the kraals and herdsmen was less than the losses. On the other hand, researched conducted by the family showed, killing or removing the predator did not reduce the losses.
We also remind them that MEFT does not allow NGO’s to collect carnivores and release them elsewhere anymore, unless requested by MEFT for specific occurrences.
No. The Rescue-and-Release programme was stopped in 2011. The few cheetahs that remain in AfriCat’s care are not suitable for release.
Currently the translocation and release of carnivores by NGO’s is prohibited by MEFT.
No, because research shows that it unfortunately does not benefit the predator or the farmer.
AfriCat never planned to implement a Rescue and Release programme. The R&R work started through our interaction with farmers. We were visiting them to try to discuss ways to reduce human wildlife conflict and explain how the Hanssens had reduced livestock losses to predators. But frequently during these visits or after, the farmers would contact us to ask us to remove a cheetahs or a leopard they had caught in a box trap, because they believed it had killed their livestock. In order to maintain communication with the farmer and to avoid the cat being killed, we would rescue the animal and find somewhere to release it. In the long run however, Rescue and Release did not really help either the predator or the farmer. As explained the predator had to find a new territory, sometimes by returning to the farm we had rescued them from, and the farmer continued to suffer the same, or sometimes greater livestock losses, as new predators came in to take over the now vacant territory.
The Rescue and Release programme did give the individual animals rescued, a second chance, and it facilitated our work with farmers, but in the long run it is not a sustainable or effective strategy for predator conservation.
The aim of the Rescue and Release programme was to remove predators from farms where they were not wanted and were probably going to be shot, to farms where they were welcome. However, several of the predators rescued, in particular the cheetahs, were unsuitable for release because they were injured, too young, too old, a pet or were orphaned. These individuals – 113 cheetahs and 15 leopards in total – were brought into the AfriCat Carnivore Care Centre either until they could be released or for the rest of their lives.
Yes, some predators become habitual livestock killers and are thus referred to as ‘problem animals.’ Often, these are young animals, orphaned after their mother has been shot, leaving them with insufficient time to develop proper hunting skills. Consequently, they resort to killing calves, foals or smaller livestock such as sheep and goats, as these are easier targets for inexperienced or aging predators. This behavior can become habitual, leading them to regularly follow herds and prey on livestock.
Instinctively, healthy, wild cheetahs and leopards, avoid humans and prey on wildlife, rather than livestock. It is only when livestock killing becomes a learned behaviour does it become a habit, since most predators seek the path of least resistance in any hunt.
AFRICAT RESEARCH:
Several of the leopard, brown hyena and pangolin in the Okonjima Nature Reserve are collared or tagged. These animals form the core of our research into the ecology of wildlife, in particular predators and threatened species, in the Reserve.
The collars and tags allow us to track their movements and to find them to observe their behaviour and interactions. Data from the collars or from observations that are possible, because we can find them as a result of the collars, provide important information on their movements in the Reserve, interactions with each other and with other species, their prey and reproductive behaviours.
Collar/tag data is supplemented by data from camera traps. For example, cameras in baited trees and at pangolin burrows are often the first time we learn of off-spring of the leopards and pangolin and cameras on the fence line and at road/animal path/river junctions capture all the other animals in the ONR, including brown hyena, the rhino and all the prey animals.
Whenever we collar/tag an animal we take the opportunity to weigh them and take measurements, collect biological samples and undertake a general health assessment or provide any necessary medical treatment. All collars and tags used by AfriCat weigh less than 2% of the animal’s body weight and do not cause discomfort or inconvenience the animal in any way.
Although the collars are quite visible, they are currently the best and most non-invasive way that we can monitor and research the leopards. We are very particular about the collars we use and don’t, for example, use satellite collars as we feel these are too big. We don’t use implants either, as we feel they are too invasive.
A key criteria for us, is the size and weight of all collars and tags we put on the research individuals in the ONR. For example, research guidelines indicate that no collar or tag should be more than 2% of the body weight of the animal; our VHF leopard collars weigh only 225g – that is 0.6% of the average weight of a female leopard and less than 0.4% of the average weight of a male leopard.
The two tags on our research pangolin weigh 132g together which is 1.14% of the average weight of a female pangolin.
We also carefully monitor the animals to ensure the collars or tags are not causing them any discomfort or hindering them in anyway. Although photographers are often upset by the collars on the leopards, it is actually relatively easy get photos in which the collar cannot be seen at all. Here’s a tip; when the leopards look straight at you, the collar cannot be seen at all.
Finally, some feel collars on selected individuals in the Reserve make them look like pets; in reality the situation is completely the reverse – the animals in the ONR are wild and the species we are studying (leopards, pangolin and brown hyena) are by nature secretive and elusive. The collars and tags enable us to find animals that most people never see and as such, offer us, researchers and guests alike, a glimpse into the secret world of these animals.
A final comment with regards to the leopards – if they don’t want to be seen, we won’t see them regardless of their collar.
The ideal would be to use GPS collars/tags on all research animals in the ONR. GPS collars/tags would provide GPS locations on the animals at regular intervals, allowing us to better understand their movements and also interactions with each other (if both animals have a GPS device on at the same time).
GPS devices tend to be bigger and heavier and to have a shorter battery life than VHF-only devices. Why we are not using them, is because we feel the device could cause discomfort for the animal or will require too much interference to maintain, because of the short battery life. We currently have GPS devices on the pangolin and certain brown hyeana, but are still looking for a GPS collar for leopards that we feel is acceptable.
In the meantime, the VHF collars on the leopards enable us to find the leopards at least twice a day, at which time we record the location of where it is. Data from the VHF collars is supplemented by sightings of the leopards from our extensive camera trap system – which also enables us to record a location for each sighting. Therefore, although we currently don’t have GPS collars on most of the research leopards, we are able to get location data.
The research pangolins currently have a VHF tag on one side and a GPS tag on the other side. We have decided that this is preferable to having one tag that does both as the dual-function tags are inevitably bigger and more cumbersome for the pangolin.
The pangolin tags also take quite a beating as the pangolin go in and out of burrows and are frequently damaged or fall off. Having two tags on the pangolin allows us to find them again to re-tag them and avoid significant gaps in the data even if one tag falls off.
The GPS tags currently on most of the pangolin communicate via UHF. However, we experience significant data loss with this system and are shifting to GPS tags that communicate via LoRaWAN. For the pangolin a long lifespan of the tag is not as important as for the leopards as we are able to change the tags without immobilizing the pangolin. We are therefore also exploring rechargeable tags. . .
This is highly variable. Signals are more easily picked up from high points; from such high points, signals from 5km or even 10km may be picked up.
If the receiver is at the same level as the transmitter, and the terrain is thick bush, the signal may only be picked up from 1-2km away. Signal strength varies depending on the manufacturer, transmitter power, size and age of the collar or tag. It also depends on the position of the collar on the animal and on the terrain across which the signal has to travel.
When pangolins are in their burrows, we are often unable to pick up a signal at all. Similarly, if a leopard is in a gully and lying on the transmitter component of its collar, we may not pick up a signal, unless we are very close. If a resting leopard picks up its head the signal may get louder. The signal is also affected by the size of the animal; we can pick up the signals from the leopard collars from further away than we can for the pangolin tags.
Tracking animals by their VHF collars or tags is a skill that improves with experience and practice
Neo is currently the biggest leopard recorded in the Okonjima Nature Reserve. He weighed 73.5kg in May 2023. However, Mawenzi, currently the second biggest leopard in the Reserve, is very close at 72.2kg and in 2019 Mawenzi weighed 82.4kg – the heaviest leopard ever recorded by AfriCat.
Another big male that lived in the ONR between 2014 and 2016 – Madiba – was recorded as weighing 76kg in 2014. The average weight of adult male leopards currently in the ONR is 66kg, while the average weight of female leopards is 37kg.
When AfriCat first started collaring leopards in the ONR, the average weight of adult males was about 55kg. The largest leopard we ever recorded during the R&R programme was, 69kg. Unfortunately, when farmers caught a large leopard, they were and still are, likely to offer it for trophy hunting, rather than call AfriCat or other organisations to rescue, take weights and measurements and re-release it back into its territory.
As such, the weights of leopards collected during the R&R programme are not necessarily representative of the leopard population.
We have recorded a very high density of leopards in the ONR; the highest density recorded in Namibia – about 15 leopards per 100km2. (ONR – northcentral; average rainfall 350-550mm/per year; October-April)
This high density is likely due to the high density of game and the fact that it is a protected area where they are not persecuted. The leopards in the ONR appear to have adapted to the high density by having smaller home ranges and high interspecific tolerance (i.e. tolerance of each other) with limited fatal interactions.
Even with smaller home ranges there is significant overlap of home ranges, but the home ranges are stable and the leopards are surviving longer than is commonly recorded in populations in unprotected areas – Interesting fact: Currently over ½ the adult leopard population is 10 years or older.
We have recorded interesting interactions between males and females, patterns of dispersal of young leopards from their parents, and with brown hyena, the second apex predator of the Reserve, and the primary competitor for prey.
Despite the high, electrified fence, we have recorded leopards moving in and out of the Reserve, with some choosing to stay while others appear to be passing through. Planned analysis will verify parentage and genetic diversity, quantify prey offtake and preferences, assess cub survival and protection strategies, and document leopard and brown hyena interactions.
The pangolin research has been on-going for a much shorter period than the leopard research but is one of a relatively few projects researching wild, free-ranging pangolin rather than those rehabilitated back into the wild after being trafficked. We are thus focused on non-anthropogenic (as a result of human activity) threats, home ranges, burrow use, social interactions between pangolin, and reproductive behaviour and pup dispersal. Home ranges sizes of the pangolin in the ONR vary considerably and there is significant overlap, in particular between the females. Most females in the project have been recorded as giving birth to a single pup per year and there appears to be a definite birthing season. As recorded elsewhere the pups stay with their mother for about a year and then disperse; we have yet to see any particular patterns in dispersal behaviour but future analysis will look at this specifically.
Most pangolin use more than one burrow in a given period and burrow selection changes with the season. Foraging times also vary with the season. The pangolin in the ONR were badly affected by the drought in 2019 and preliminary data suggests honey badgers may be one their biggest threats. “
AfriCat’s research is specifically aimed at assessing the effectiveness of enclosed, protected (island-bound | non-migratory) areas, as a conservation strategy.
As space available for wildlife declines and the human population spreads into the furthest reaches of the globe, the creation of enclosed protected areas for environmental conservation, is likely to become more and more important.
We hope to provide information that supports the expansion and implementation of this conservation strategy while at the same time recognising its limitations.
AfriCat’s research will also contribute to conservation by filling in gaps or improving the information available to inform conservation decisions for several species that are particularly hard to study. Leopard, brown hyaena and pangolin are all normally hard to find and see as they are nocturnal and secretive and, in other areas, rare.
In the ONR however we have high densities and the safety of the Reserve makes them less inclined to run and hide, thus allowing us a unique window into their normally secretive lives. Moreover, we are able to undertake long-term monitoring in order to research questions that cannot be answered by research projects of more common, shorter durations.
AFRICAT VOLUNTEER PROGRAMME:
Between 2002 and the end of 2011, AfriCat ran a volunteer program called the People and Wildlife Solutions (PAWS) programme. During this time, young, fit, and adventurous individuals from around the world volunteered their time with AfriCat.
Their main support was to help with invader bush clearing, the removal of internal fences, and cleaning the enclosures of the captive carnivores.
The volunteer programme was stopped in November 2011, mainly because the government started to require volunteers to have a work permit.
This would have added a lot of red tape and administrative burden to the application process for both the volunteers and AfriCat.
However, we had also come to recognise that many volunteers to AfriCat struggled with Namibia’s challenging environment and extreme climate and the extent of the manual labour required.
Clearing bush and fences is hard work and many volunteers found the work too arduous and not enjoyable; volunteers rather wanted to feed and play with captive animals. However, the majority of work that AfriCat does, cannot be done by volunteers as it either involves working with potentially dangerous animals or data collection which requires continuity, expertise and training.
Maintaining and hosting a volunteer programme requires facilities, supervision, logistics and management and we decided that we would rather spend our limited resources on activities that more directly contribute to conservation.
No, the nature of AfriCat’s work is not suitable for volunteers. While volunteer programmes generate revenue for some organisations, AfriCat chooses to concentrate our limited time and resources on conservation research.
AFRICAT WELFARE:
(Beginning of 2024): 7 cheetahs, 1 leopard and 2 lions currently live at the AfriCat Carnivore Care Centre.
All were rescued from human-wildlife conflict situations and have been in captivity for many years.
Some of the cheetahs were in the rehabilitation programme, but were brought back to the Care Centre, because they did not adapt well to being in the wild.
The last remaining cheetahs and the 2 lion, play an important role as ambassadors of their species and many visitors to Okonjima enjoy meeting them and learning about their story. They help us to raise awareness about human-wildlife conflict and predator conservation in Namibia. AfriCat’s cheetahs are often the first cheetahs our guests have ever seen. The predators in our care have also assisted in a significant amount of research on cheetah nutrition, metabolism and infection and our lions were collared in 2023 to evaluate prototype collars for the Desert Lion Project.
The cheetahs in welfare have maintained some of their natural instinct to hunt, especially the chase. Guineafowl frequently fly into their camp and get caught by the cheetahs. On a number of occasions warthogs have dug under the fence and been chased and sometimes caught by one of the cheetahs.
We make every effort to avoid this happening, however as it is unfair for the prey animal and dangerous for the cheetahs. It is also illegal to feed live animals to captive carnivores.
Captive or hand-raised cheetahs need time to become fitter and learn the most effective hunting techniques. Through trial and error, they refine their skills. Unlike leopards and lions, which rely more on strength, cheetahs depend on technique, making their adaptation process less instantaneous.
AfriCat has never attempted to breed cheetahs. All the cheetahs in AfriCat’s care came to us through the Rescue and Release programme. Hence, they were always intended to be released back into the wild either immediately after their rescue or once they were well/old enough for release.
All cheetahs in our care, i.e. not released straight away, were contracepted to prevent accidental pregnancies and male cheetahs that were not suitable for release were sterilized.
[See research – Dr Hartman]
The carnivores currently in our care will live out their lives here. (2024) Okonjima guests will be able to see them for one or two more years after which they will spend their final years without any visitors. The current Okonjima activity, affectionately known as the AfriCat Carnivore Care Centre (ACCC) activity, in which the captive cats can be seen, was designed to show our guests AfriCat’s work – which at the time, focused on care of the cats in captivity and the Cheetah Rehabilitation programme.
When the ACCC activity ends it will be replaced by another that enables guests to learn first-hand about AfriCat’s current work, which is focused on research of the animals in the Reserve.
[Stay tuned for more details on this new activity!]
In the perfect world; there would not be any fences. Humans and wildlife would co-exist, people would not wish to separate themselves from each other or shut each other out. In reality however, in some circumstances fences are necessary. Okonjima has three fence systems. The largest is the perimeter fence (includes the 20 000ha area) that surrounds the ONR.
Initially, the plan for the Okonjima Nature Reserve (ONR) was to remain unfenced. However, due to the proximity of cattle and hunting farms surrounding the ONR, the installation of a fence became necessary.
The fence serves multiple purposes: it protects the animals within the Reserve, which have grown accustomed to perceiving humans as non-threatening, from straying onto farms where they could be targeted and shot; and it prevents cattle from trespassing into the ONR in search of better grazing opportunities.
Okonjima’s second fence (surrounding the 2000ha area) surrounds the lodge and staff housing. It enables, in particular, families with children to move around the lodge and campsite area, without worrying about the wild animals that live in the Reserve.
The final fence is that which surrounds the captive carnivores in AfriCat’s care. AfriCat’s carnivores have very large camps to give them space to roam. The lions and leopards in particular cannot ever be released into the wild, because they have been captive raised and as such have lost their fear of humans and learnt to associate humans with food.
Thus the majority of these fences are actually to enable the animals to live as freely as possible. In the context of social media however, a single picture with a fence in the background can accidentally convey the wrong impression. For instance, during a drive through our cheetah enclosures, a photo with a fence may not adequately convey that each cheetah has a minimum of 50,000m2 per cheetah and is not confined to a small ‘camp/cage’.
(AfriCat’s coalition of five cheetahs – Savanah, Nip, Tuck, Sam and Scamp actually have a camp of 29 hectares or just under 300,000m2.)
The same concern applies to images of rhinos or leopards near the ONR perimeter fence—misleadingly suggesting ‘confinement’ rather than a natural life in a 20,000 hectare (200km²) Reserve.
AfriCat does not allow touching of the cheetahs under its care for several reasons.
Firstly, cheetahs are wild animals, and even though they may become accustomed to the presence of humans, they still possess natural instincts to maintain their distance. Additionally, cheetahs are capable of causing severe injuries if they feel threatened or startled.
Touching wild animals can be dangerous for humans and stressful for the animals themselves.
Furthermore, allowing touching of newborn, young, or infant wild animals is considered exploitative and inconsiderate of the animal’s well-being.
Therefore, AfriCat does not permit touching or ‘selfies’ of the carnivores in its care, nor does it engage in breeding programs to produce young cubs for the purpose of allowing touching.
Public encounters with wild animals are sometimes presented as “rehabilitation” or “conservation” efforts, which can make the handling of these animals appear more appealing or socially acceptable.
The idea of interacting with an adorable baby lion, for example, may seem enticing, especially when it’s portrayed as being cared for and nursed back to health in a protective environment under the supervision of experts in the field.
However, it’s important to recognize that such encounters do not prioritize the well-being and natural behaviours of the animals involved.
The reality of cub petting is far darker than many realize, especially for lions who are often the victims of this cruel industry. Lion cubs are deliberately bred for petting purposes, but once they outgrow this stage, they are often used for “walking tours,” where tourists can walk alongside the young lions in open areas. However, as these lions mature and become too dangerous for such interactions, they are frequently sold off for canned hunting or the lion-bone trade.
In the canned hunting industry, fully grown lions are kept in harrowing, confined areas, making them easy targets for hunters seeking guaranteed kills.
Sadly, cub-petting plays a role in perpetuating this cycle, as public support for such activities or volunteering at facilities that breed carnivores inadvertently contributes to the demand for lions to be used in canned hunting and the lion-bone export trade, predominantly to countries in the East.
There is no hunting in the ONR, but any animals that are old or suffering due to injury, such as broken legs, deformities, wounds from fighting, are humanely put down and used to feed the carnivores in captivity. Additional requirements are bought from trophy hunting farms or farmers needing to put down cattle, horses and donkeys due to fatal injuries or drought conditions.
The two lions in AfriCat’s care, were born wild on commercial (free-hold) farmland along the southern Etosha border. Their mothers were shot or poisoned in HWC situations, and the cubs were rescued from certain death by AfriCat North (now known as The Namibian Lion Trust).
One male was part of a group of four (2 females and 2 males, approx. six months of age) and the other a solitary cub of approx. 2 months old.
AfriCat North introduced the group of four to the solitary cub and they lived as a man-made pride of five ‘siblings’ for many years. They were not hand-reared, but had to be fed as they could not fend for themselves. In 2013, the farm where AfriCat North was located was sold and the two lions were moved to AfriCat, the other three members of the pride having died in previous years.
Once a large carnivore such as a lion, has lost its instinctive fear of humans, it cannot be released into the wild for fear of attack and as there are few wilderness areas free of humans where such formerly-captive animals could be released, they are destined for a life in captivity.
Thus, the two lions currently in AfriCat’s care will remain with us for as long as they remain healthy and have a good quality of life.