ASSESSMENT OF WILD ANIMALS FARMING
SYSTEM IN THE SUDAN WITH EMPHASIS ON
DORCAS GAZELLE, (Gazella dorcas ,Linnaeus,1758)
IN KHARTOUM STATE.
By
Majango Jambo Gonja Wura
BSc. (Honours) in Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
College of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies
University of Juba
December 1991
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Science (MSc) in Environmental Studies
Institute of Environmental Studies
University of Khartoum
March 2003
1
ABSTRACT
The thesis has assessed wild animal farming system in the Sudan, with
emphasis on dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas, Linnaeus,1758), in Khartoum State. The
assessment includes the policy introduced by Wildlife Conservation General
Administration (WCGA) in the early 1990s with the objective of species restoration
and commercial benefits to the farmers. Emphasis was put on dorcas gazelle farms,
because it was an area in which the majority of the farmers appeared to have shown
much interest. The assessment was important because reports on the progress of the
farms have shown existence of management problems, and no research has been
conducted to evaluate the farms.
This study was done during the period October 2002 and January 2003.
Relevant and available literature and Internet web sites were reviewed, and
documents at the WCGA were consulted. Several field surveys of the farms were
conducted and observations were recorded. Interviews and informal discussions were
held with relevant personnel. The available feasibility studies were also considered.
Methods of comparative and descriptive studies were adopted in the analyses.
Statistical analysis was done to determine the coefficient of variation among the
variables that were measured. The variables included numbers of species raised,
breeding pen sizes, male to female stocking ratio, annual natality number, daily food
ration, daily water requirements, monthly expenditure, collection methods and sites.
The results showed that the major factors that led to the unsustainable
management of the farms included dependence of the farmers on dorcas gazelle as a
single species of animal, small number of parental breeding groups (average of 28
gazelles), limitation of spaces allotted for housing the animals, inadequacy of male to
female stocking ratio, collection of the gazelles from only one site, lack of awareness
and expertise within the management personnel and inadequate number of trained
labourer, lack of comprehensive and technical guidelines on captive management, no
monitoring and advisory body to assist the farmers, poor feasibility studies, no
veterinary supervision, the committees formed to report on the status of the farms
were confined to the officers of the WCGA only, no ownership certificates, and low
economic benefits.
2
Statistical analysis has indicated that the coefficient of variation among the
three gazelle farms currently operating in Khartoum State was higher with regards to
the gazelles pen size( 82.6% ), the pair price( 90.5% ), annual natality number
( 92.5%), daily food ration ( 84.2%), daily water requirements (58.7%) and monthly
expenditures (77.2%). However, the coefficient of variation was lower with regards to
the gazelle herd (30.4%).
This research has provided meaningful information that can be regarded as
basic data for future studies, and could be used in the preparation of relevant
feasibility studies and management plans for captive breeding farms. Unless some
measures are taken to remedy the situation, it will remain rather difficult for the
farmers to meet the aspiration of species restoration and providing financial receipts.
Therefore, it is recommended that farmers should include in their management
programmes other marketable wild species, beside dorcas gazelle, in order to
withstand uncertainties that are related to the demands and supply of wild products on
the world markets. Housing limitation, inadequacy of male to female stocking ratio,
the structure of handling unit-funnel, the number of the parental breeding groups and
the number of labourers should be corrected and applied with regard to other
experience. The feasibility studies and management plans should be prepared by
expertise and made available as technical guides to the farmers. An advisory body has
to be formed to advice the farmers and monitor the implementation physically.
Awareness has to be created among the farmers and expertise has to be involved in
the management activities. Nevertheless, it is recommended that WCGA and
Wildlife Research Centre (WRC) should work to establish demonstrating farms to
which interested persons should refer before attempting to undertake any business
associated with wild animal captive breeding on private farms.
3
‫ﺧـﻼﺻﺔ اﻻﻃـﺮوﺣﺔ‬
‫هــﺬا اﻟﺒﺤـﺚ ﺗﻨـﺎول ﺗﻘﻴﻴـﻢ ﻥﻈـﺎم ﺗﺮﺏﻴــﺔ اﻟﺤﻴـﻮاﻥـﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﻳــﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻤـﺰارع ﻓـﻰ اﻟﺴــﻮدان‬
‫ﺷـﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴـﻢ اﻟﺴـﻴـﺎﺱــﺔ اﻟﺘﻰ ‪.‬ﻡـﻊ اﻟﺘﺮآـﻴﺰ ﻋـﻠﻰ ﻡـﺰارع اﻟﻐـﺰال اﻟﻌـﺎدة ﻓـﻰ وﻻﻳــﺔ اﻟﺨﺮﻃـﻮم‬
‫اﻥﺘﻬﺠﺘﻬـﺎ اﻹدارة اﻟﻌـﺎﻡـﺔ ﻟﺤﻤـﺎﻳـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴـﺎة اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ﻓـﻰ ﻡﻄـﻠﻊ اﻟﺘﺴـﻌﻴﻨـﺎت واﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﻬﺪف إﻟـﻰ ﺡﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫‪.‬اﻷﻥـﻮاع وﺗﺤﻘـﻴـﻖ اﻷرﺏـﺎح ﻷﺻﺤـﺎب اﻟﻤـﺰارع‬
‫أهﺘـﻢ اﻟﺒﺤـﺚ ﺏﻤـﺰارع اﻟﻐـﺰال اﻟﻌــﺎدة ﻷﻥﻬـﺎ اﻟﻤﺠـﺎل اﻟﺬى أﻇﻬـﺮ ﻡﻌﻈـﻢ اﻟﻤﺴـﺘﺜﻤﺮﻳـﻦ اﻟﺮﻏـﺒـﺔ‬
‫‪.‬ﻓﻴـﻪ‬
‫ﺿـﺮورة اﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴـﻢ أﺗﺖ ﻡـﻦ ﺗﻘـﺎرﻳـﺮ أداء ﺗـﻠﻚ اﻟﻤـﺰارع واﻟﺘﻰ ﺗﺸـﻴﺮ إﻟـﻰ وﺝـﻮد ﻡﺸـﺎآﻞ ﻓـﻰ‬
‫‪.‬إدارﺗﻬـﺎ وﻟـﻢ ﻳﺴـﺒـﻖ أن ﺗـ ّﻢ إﺝـﺮاء ﺏﺤـﺚ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴـﻢ أوﺿـﺎع ﺗـﻠﻚ اﻟﻤـﺰارع‬
‫م وﺗﻤـﺖ ‪2003‬م وﻳﻨـﺎﻳـﺮ ‪2002‬اﻟﺪراﺱــﺔ اﻟﺤـﺎﻟﻴـﺔ أﺝـﺮﻳـﺖ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻔـﺘﺮة ﻡـﺎ ﺏﻴـﻦ أآﺘـﻮﺏـﺮ‬
‫ﻡﺮاﺝﻌـﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓـﺮة ﻡـﻦ اﻟﻤﺮاﺝـﻊ وﺷـﺒﻜﺎت اﻷﻥـﺘﺮﻥـﺖ واﻟﻤﺴـﺘﻨـﺪات ﻃـﺮف اﻹدارة اﻟﻌـﺎﻡـﺔ‬
‫‪.‬ﺗـ ّﻢ اﻟﻌـﺪﻳـﺪ ﻡـﻦ اﻟﺰﻳـﺎرات اﻟﻤﻴـﺪاﻥﻴـﺔ ﻟﻠﻤـﺰارع ورﺻـﺪت اﻟﻤﻼﺡﻈـﺎت ‪.‬ﻟﺤﻤـﺎﻳـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴـﺎة اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ‬
‫آﻤـﺎ ﺗـ ّﻢ إﺝـﺮاء ﻡﻘـﺎﺏﻼت ﻡـﻊ أﺷﺨـﺎص ﻡﺨﺘﺼـﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤـﺖ اﻻﺱـﺘﻌﺎﻥـﺔ ﺏﺎﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓـﺮة ﻡـﻦ دراﺱـﺎت‬
‫اﺱـﺘﺨـﺪم ﻡﻨﻬﺠـﻲ اﻟﻮﺻﻔـﻰ واﻟﻤﻘـﺎرﻥـﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﺘﺤـﻠﻴﻞ وﺗـ ّﻢ ﺡﺴـﺎب ﻡﻌﺎﻡـﻞ ‪.‬ﺝـﺪوى اﻗﺘﺼـﺎدﻳـﺔ‬
‫اﻻﺥﺘـﻼف ﺏﻴـﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻐـﻴﺮات ﺏﺎﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴـﻞ اﻻﺡﺼـﺎﺋـﻲ ‪ ،‬وﺿﻤـﺖ هـﺬﻩ اﻟﻤﺘﻐـﻴﺮات ﻋـﺪد اﻷﻥـﻮاع ﻓـﻰ‬
‫اﻟﻤـﺰارع ‪ ،‬أﺡﺠـﺎم اﻟﺰراﺋـﺐ ‪ ،‬ﻥﺴـﺒـﺔ اﻟﺬآـﻮر إﻟـﻰ اﻹﻥـﺎث ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪد اﻟﻤﻮاﻟـﻴـﺪ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﺴـﻨـﺔ ‪ ،‬اﻟﻮﺝـﺒـﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻴﻮﻡـﻴـﺔ ‪ ،‬آﻤـﻴـﺔ ﻡﻴـﺎﻩ اﻟﺸـﺮب ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻴــﻮم ‪ ،‬اﻟﻤﻨﺼـﺮﻓـﺎت اﻟﺸﻬـﺮﻳـﺔ وﻡﻨـﺎﻃـﻖ وآﻴﻔﻴـﺔ ﺗﺠﻤـﻴـﻊ‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﻐـﺰﻻن‬
‫أﻇﻬـﺮت اﻟﻨﺘـﺄﺋـﺞ أن اﻟﻌـﻮاﻡـﻞ اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴـﻴـﺔ اﻟﺘﻰ أدت إﻟـﻰ ﻋـﺪم اﺱـﺘــﺪاﻡـﺔ اﻟﻤـﺰارع ﺗﻀـﻢ اﻋﺘﻤـﺎد‬
‫(اﻟﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ ﻋـﻠﻰ اﻟﻐـﺰال اﻟﻌـﺎدة آﻨـﻮع واﺡـﺪ ﻡـﻦ اﻟﺤﻴـﻮاﻥـﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺻﻐـﺮ ﻋـﺪد اﻷﻡﻬـﺎت‬
‫‪ ،‬ﺿـﻴـﻖ ﻡﺴـﺎﺡـﺎت اﻟﺰراﺋـﺐ ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪم اﻟﺘﻮاﻓـﻖ ﺏﻴـﻦ ﻥﺴـﺒـﺔ اﻟﺬآـﻮر إﻟـﻰ )ﻏـﺰاﻟـﺔ ‪28‬اﻟﻤﺘﻮﺱـﻂ‬
‫اﻹﻥــﺎث ‪ ،‬اﻟﺘﺠﻤـﻴـﻊ ﻡـﻦ ﻡﻮﻗـﻊ واﺡـﺪ ‪ ،‬ﻏﻴـﺎب اﻟﺘﻮﻋـﻴـﺔ واﻟﺨـﺒﺮاء وﺱـﻂ اﻷﻓـﺮاد اﻟﻌـﺎﻡـﻠﺔ ‪،‬‬
‫ﻏـﻴـﺎب اﻟﻤﺮﺷـﺪ اﻟﻔـﻨﻲ اﻟﺸـﺎﻡﻞ ﻋـﻦ اﻟﺘﺮﺏﻴـﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻷﺱـﺮ ﻡـﻊ ﻋـﺪم وﺝـﻮد ﺝﻬـﺔ اﺱـﺘﺸـﺎرﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻤﺴـﺎﻋـﺪة اﻟﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ ‪ ،‬ﺿﻌـﻒ ﻡﺤﺘـﻮﻳـﺎت دراﺱـﺎت ﺝــﺪوى ﻓﻨﻴـﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪم وﺝـﻮد إﺷـﺮاف‬
‫‪.‬ﺏﻴﻄـﺮى ‪ ،‬ﻏﻴـﺎب ﺷﻬـﺎدات ﻡﻠﻜـﻴـﺔ اﻟﻐـﺰﻻن وﺿﻌـﻒ اﻟﻌـﺎﺋـﺪ اﻻﻗﺘﺼــﺎدي‬
‫آﻤـﺎ أن اﻟﻠﺠـﺎن اﻟﺘﻰ آﻮﻥـﺖ ﻟﺪراﺱـﺔ أوﺿـﺎع اﻟﻤﺰارع اﻥﺤﺼـﺮت ﻋﻀـﻮﻳﺘﻬـﺎ ﻋـﻠﻰ ﺿـﺒـﺎط‬
‫‪.‬اﻹدارة اﻟﻌـﺎﻡـﺔ ﻟﺤﻤـﺎﻳـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴـﺎة اﻟﺒﺮﻳــﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴـﻞ اﻹﺡﺼـﺎﺋﻲ أﻇﻬـﺮ أن ﻡﻌﺎﻡـﻞ اﻻﺥﺘـﻼف ﻋﺎﻟـﻲ ﺏـﻴﻦ ﻡـﺰارع اﻟﻐـﺰﻻن اﻟﺜـﻼث اﻟﻌﺎﻡﻠـﺔ‬
‫‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪد )‪ ،(90.5%‬ﺱـﻌﺮ اﻟﺰوج )‪(82.6%‬ﻓـﻰ وﻻﻳـﺔ اﻟﺨﺮﻃﻮم ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺏﺤﺠـﻢ اﻟﺰرﻳﺒـﺔ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪ ،‬آﻤﻴـﺔ ﻡﻴـﺎﻩ اﻟﺸـﺮب ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻴـﻮم )‪ ،(84.2%‬اﻟﻮﺝﺒـﺔ اﻟﻴﻮﻡﻴـﺔ )‪(92.5%‬اﻟﻤﻮاﻟﻴـﺪ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﺴـﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻓـﻰ ﺡـﻴﻦ أن ﻡﻌﺎﻡـﻞ اﻻﺥﺘـﻼف أﻗـﻞ ﻓﻴﻤـﺎ ‪ (77.2%) .‬واﻟﻤﻨﺼـﺮﻓـﺎت اﻟﺸـﻬﺮﻳـﺔ )‪(58.7%‬‬
‫‪(30.4%).‬ﻳﺘﻌﻠـﻖ ﺏﺘﻌـﺪاد اﻟﻐـﺰﻻن‬
‫هـﺬا اﻟﺒﺤـﺚ وﻓـﺮ ﻡﻌﻠﻮﻡـﺎت ﻗﻴﻤـﺔ واﻟﺘﻰ ﻳﻤﻜـﻦ اﻋﺘﺒـﺎرهـﺎ آﻘـﺎﻋـﺪة ﻡﻌﻠﻮﻡﺎﺗﻴـﺔ ﻟﻠﺪراﺱـﺎت‬
‫وﻡـﺎ ﻟـﻢ ﻳﺘـﻢ اﺗﺨـﺎذ ﺏﻌـﺾ اﻟﺘﺪاﺏـﻴﺮ ‪.‬اﻟﻤﺴـﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴـﺔ وإﻋـﺪاد دراﺱـﺎت ﺝـﺪوى وﺥﻄـﻂ إدارﻳـﺔ‬
‫اﻹﺻﻼﺡﻴـﺔ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠـﺔ أوﺿـﺎع اﻟﺮاهﻨـﺔ ﺏﺎﻟﻤـﺰارع ﻓـﺈن اﻻﺗﺠـﺎﻩ ﻥﺤـﻮ ﺗﺤﻘﻴـﻖ أهـﺪاف اﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳـﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴـﻪ ﻓـﺈن هـﺬا اﻟﺒﺤـﺚ ﻳﻮﺻـﻰ ﺏﺄﻥـﻪ ‪.‬واﻟﻔﻮاﺋـﺪ اﻟﺘﺠﺎرﻳـﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ ﺱـﻮف ﻳﺒﻘـﻰ ﺏﻌﻴـﺪ اﻟﻤﻨـﺎل‬
‫ﺏﺎﻹﺿـﺎﻓـﺔ إﻟـﻰ اﻟﻐـﺰال اﻟﻌـﺎدة ﻓـﺈن ﺏﺮاﻡـﺞ اﻟﺘﺮﺏﻴـﺔ ﻳﺠـﺐ أن ﺗﻀـﻢ أﻥـﻮاع أﺥـﺮى ﻡـﻦ اﻟﺤﻴﻮاﻥـﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ﻗﺎﺏﻠـﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺴـﻮﻳﻖ ﺡـﺘﻰ ﺗﺘﻤﻜـﻦ اﻟﻤـﺰارع ﻡـﻦ ﻡﻘـﺎوﻡـﺔ ﻋـﺪم اﻻﺱـﺘﻘـﺮار اﻟﺬي ﻳﺼـﺎﺡـﺐ‬
‫ﺿﻴـﻖ اﻟﻤﺴـﺎﺡـﺎت‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪم اﻟﺘﻮاﻓـﻖ ‪.‬اﻟﻌـﺮض واﻟﻄﻠـﺐ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﺘﺠـﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻷﺱـﻮاق اﻟﺪوﻟﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺷـﻜﻞ وﺡـﺪة ﻗﻤـﻊ‪ ،‬ﻋـﺪد اﻷﻡﻬـﺎت وﻋـﺪد اﻟﻌﻤـﺎل ﻳﺠـﺐ ‪,‬ﺏـﻴﻦ ﻥﺴـﺒﺔ اﻟﺬآـﻮر إﻟـﻰ اﻹﻥـﺎث‬
‫إﻋـﺪاد دراﺱـﺎت ﺝـﺪوى وﺥﻄـﻂ إدارﻳـﺔ ﻳﺠـﺐ أن ‪.‬إﺻﻼﺡﻬـﺎ ﺏﺘﻄﺒﻴـﻖ ﺗﺠـﺎرب اﻟﺪول اﻷﺥـﺮى‬
‫ﻳﺠـﺐ ﺗﻌﻴـﻴﻦ ‪.‬ﻳﺸـﺎرك ﻓﻴـﻪ ﻡﺨﺘﺼـﻮن وﻳﺠـﺐ إﻳﺪاﻋﻬـﺎ آﻤﺮﺷـﺪ ﻓـﻨﻲ ﻓـﻰ ﻡﺘﻨـﺎول اﻟﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺠـﺐ ﺥﻠـﻖ اﻟﻮﻋـﻲ ‪.‬ﺝﻬـﺔ اﺱـﺘﺸـﺎرﻳـﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳـﻢ اﻟﻤﺸـﻮرة ﻟﻠﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ وﻟﻤﺮاﻗﺒـﺔ اﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴـﻖ ﻡﻴﺪاﻥﻴـ ًﺎ‬
‫وﺱـﻂ اﻟﻤﺰارﻋـﻴﻦ ﻡـﻊ إدﺥـﺎل اﻟﺨـﺒﺮاء ﻓـﻰ إدارة اﻟﻤـﺰارع‪ ،‬وﻋﻠـﻰ اﻹدارة اﻟﻌﺎﻡـﺔ ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴـﺎة‬
‫اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ وﻡﺮآـﺰ ﺏﺤـﻮث اﻟﺤﻴـﺎة اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ اﻟﻌﻤـﻞ ﻡﻌـ ًﺎ ﻋﻠـﻰ إﻥﺸـﺎء ﻡـﺰارع ﻥﻤﻮذﺝﻴـﺔ ﻳﺮﺝـﻊ إﻟﻴﻬـﺎ‬
‫اﻷﺷـﺨـﺎص اﻟﺮاﻏﺒـﻴﻦ ﻓـﻰ اﻻﺱـﺘﺜﻤـﺎرات اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄـﺔ ﺏﺘﺮﺏﻴـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴﻮاﻥـﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻤـﺰارع‬
‫‪.‬اﻟﺨﺎﺻـﺔ ﻗﺒـﻞ اﻟﺸـﺮوع ﻓـﻰ أي ﻋﻤـﻞ ﻡﺮﺗﺒـﻂ ﺏﺘﺮﺏﻴـﺔ اﻟﺤﻴﻮاﻥـﺎت اﻟﺒﺮﻳـﺔ ﻓـﻰ اﻟﻤـﺰارع اﻟﺨﺎﺻـﺔ‬
‫‪5‬‬
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am grateful to the Director and other staff of the Institute of Environmental
Studies (IES), University of Khartoum for approving the research topic and
correspondence made with the relevant authorities to facilitate and provide means for
conducting the research.
Special thanks go to Dr. Salwa Mansour Abdelhameed, the Director of
Wildlife Research Center. I am indebted not only for supervision, but also for her
technical assistance and views and advice on how and where to get the required data.
I am also grateful to the owners and other personnel of wild animal farms in
Khartoum State for their generous cooperation in supplying primary data. Few to
mention; Abdalla Idris Sebair and sons, El Sadig Abdulrahman Babekir, El Rasheed
Mohamed Ahmed Hamad, Yassir El Amin Beshir, Abuzeid Abdalla Hassan, Yacoub
El Amin Tebeidi, Mirghani Khandagawi and entire staff of Okapi Enterprise.
Furthermore, I am grateful to my colleagues of various ranks in Wildlife
Conservation General Administration for availing administrative records and
information.
Special thanks to my former lecturer, Dr. Nadir Mohamed Awad, Secretary
General for High Council for Environment and Natural Resources. My thanks also go
to the council’s librarian for giving me access to the available materials. Similar
thanks go to the staff of Wildlife Research Center for opportunities they provided for
me to use their library materials, and for their very high cooperation during my visits
to meet my supervisor.
Many thanks to the library staff at the University of Juba for having allowed
me access to their materials. I am thankful to my colleague Ustaz Anthony Julu
Michael for offering his office facilities for me to use. I am also thankful to Mr.
Herbert John Wesley who did the photographing of the farms.
My thanks also go to other colleagues, relatives, family members, who helped
in various ways during my period of study.
Lastly, but not least, my thanks go to Mr. Lextion May Kenneth who typed the
thesis.
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Distribution range of dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas) in the
world…………………………………………………..……………….…13
Figure 2: Distribution range of dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas)
in the Sudan …..…..…………………………….………………………...14
7
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Wild animals farms’ currently operating in Khartoum State ……….....….32
Table 2: Areas allotted to gazelles, total herds and adult males
to adult females ratio in farms operating in Khartoum State …………..….33
Table 3: Source of dorcas gazelles and administrative systems
in farms currently operating in Khartoum State ……………………….… 34
Table 4: The Health Status and Behaviour of Dorcas gazelle populations
in farms currently operating in Khartoum State …………………………. 35
Table 5: Water and food supply systems in farms currently
operating in Khartoum State ……………………………….…………...…36
Table 6: Numbers of wild mammals hunted during the period 1995-2000 ……..… 38
Table 7: Numbers of live Dorcas gazelles exported during the period
1996-2000 …………………………………………………….……….…. 39
Table 8: Estimate of establishment and total monthly expenditure
of the farms currently operating in Khartoum State ……………...…....…..40
Table 9: The coefficient of variation among the variables measured in the dorcas
gazelle farms currently operating in Khartoum State….……………….… 43
8
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
Appendix 1 : Dorcas gazelle commercial farms in the Sudan 1992- 2000 ……….54
Appendix 2 : The CITES Articles on trade………………………………………..55
Appendix 3 : The WCFPA Articles on Animal Protection and Trade ……….….59
Appendix 4 : Handling unit – funnel ……………………………………….…......62
Appendix 5: Academic Qualifications of Wildlife Officers in the Sudan
Up to the year 2002 ……..……………..……………………………63
Appendix 6 : Farm owner’s questionnaire
……………………………………......64
Appendix 7 : Plates……………………………………………………….………..67
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract …..……………………………………………………………………….….i
Abstract (Arabic) …..……………………………………………………………….iii
Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………………..vi
List of Figures...…………………………………………………………………….vii
List of Tables ….…….………………………………………………………..…. viii
List of Appendices ………………………………………………………………… ix
CHAPTER ONE
1. Introduction…………….………………………………………..……….….….…1
1.1. Commercial values of wildlife
……………………………….…..…………..1
1.2. Game values of wildlife………………………………………………………1
1.3. Ethical values of wildlife ………………………………………….…...….…1
1.4. Scientific and educational values of wildlife ………………………..….……1
1.5. History of wild animals breeding in farms …………………………..….…...2
1.6. History of wild animals breeding in farms in the Sudan .………………...….3
1.7. Problem statement and Justification ….……………………………………...4
1.8. Objectives of the study ……………………………………..…………….….4
1.9. Research hypothesis ………………………………………..………………..5
CHAPTER TWO
2. Literature review …..…….……………………………………………………6
2.1.2.1. Wildlife utilization …………………………………………………….……6
2.1.1. Wild animals as food ……………..….……………………………….6
2.1.2. Wild animals as non-edible products…...…………………………..…7
2.1.3. Wild animals as sport hunting …...………………………….………...8
2.2. Wild animals as opposed to livestock……………..….………….……….…9
2.3. Wild animals as foreign exchange earner.……………..….…….………....10
2.4. Ecology of dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas)……… …..….…….………....11
2.4.1. Taxonomic status of dorcas gazelle, .……...…..….….…..…..……...11
10
2.4.2. Morphological features of dorcas gazelle …………………………12
2.4.3. Geographical range of dorcas gazelle ……………………………..12
2.4.4. Natural history of dorcas gazelle ……………………………….…15
2.4.4.1. Habitats…………………………………………………….15
2.4.4.2. Food habits ….……………………………………………..15
….
2.4.4.3. Behavi…….…………………………………………….16
2.4.4.4. Reproduction….………….………………………………...17
2.4.4.5. Enemies ….………………………………………………...17
2.4.5. Economic importance ……………………………………….…….18
2.4.6. Conservation status …………….…………………………….……18
2.5. Wildlife conservation policy and administration in the Sudan ….….……18
2.5.1. The CITES …………………………………..…………….………18
2.5.2. The Wildlife Conservation and Federal Parks Act 1986 ….………20
2.6. Captive breeding guidelines and objectives …....….……..……….…….…20
2.6.1. Captive breeding under the CITES ……………..………….………22
2.6.2. Captive breeding under the WCFPA 1986 …..…….………….…...25
2.6.3.The Investment Act 1999(amended
2000)………………………...26
2.6.4. Regulation to Organize Wildlife Conservation
and Federal Parks Act 2000 …..…………..…………………….….26
CHAPTER THREE
3. Material and methods
…………..…………………..……………………….…28
3.1. Material.…………………………………………...……………………..…28
3.2. Methods…………………….…..…………………...………………………28
CHAPTER FOUR
Results………………………………………………………….……………………31
11
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussions ………………………… …………………………….………………..44
CHAPTER SIX
6. Conclusions and recommendations……………...………….47
6.1. Conclusions………………...……………………...…..47
6.2. Recommendations………………………….…..……...48
References list ……… …………….…………..….………….51
Appendices …… ……………………………………………...54
12
INTRODUCTION
Wildlife is basically defined as free-ranging vertebrates in their naturally
associated environments, which is the environment in which species evolved or
environments that permit all the species to use all its adaptations. Other definitions of
wildlife may include all plants and animals in wild ecosystems (Bailey, 1934).
Wildlife is worthy to be conserved due to its several values (Hillmann, 1982).
These values can be stated briefly here as including among others:
1.1. Commercial values of wildlife
The commercial value means cash value or income that can be generated
through the selling or trading live animals or their products or from conducting a
business based on access to wild animal populations (Bailey, 1934). The products
may include the ivory of elephants, the horns of rhinoceros and the glands of musk
deer (Dasmann, 1981). However, wildlife has its negative economic values especially
to farmers. For instance, elephants in African gardens or great flocks of starling in
farmlands can cause serious economic losses through crops damage and other
properties plus cost of control (Bailey, 1934 and Dasmann, 1981).
1.2. Game values of wildlife
The game value refers to a recreational value to those who take pleasure or
advanture to hunt for sport (Dasmann, 1981).
1.3. Ethical values of wildlife
The ethical wildlife values include cultural and religious values and
obligations not to destroy wild species (Dasmann, 1981).
1.4. Scientific and educational values of wildlife
These values refer to the fact that each species has values, which can help
scientists to understand how life evolved and will continue to evolve on this planet
(Miller, Jr. 1992). Ecologists, ethologists, physiologists, …etc. in their various fields
use wildlife to extend knowledge. For example, studies of animal behaviour have
13
contributed in revealing new insights into psychiatric studies of human mind
(Dasmann, 1981).
1.5. History of wild animals breeding in farms
In the near past, zoos kept representatives of wild animal species. The
objective was to entertain, educate and inspire the public with the diversity of nature.
Although zoos often had admirable records for longevity of animals kept under zoo’s
care, replacement for animals that died came primarily from the wild (Lacy, 1989)
and as zoo specimens, there was a time not so long ago, when the demands for
wildlife supported the profession of animal trade (Awad, 1990). The breeding that did
occur in zoos was almost primarily for the purpose of delighting visitors with the
charm of infant animals, and rarely part of planned long-term program (Lacy, 1989).
Fortunately, for conservation purposes most zoos have responsibility today and
attempt to build their stock from captive bred specimens, and if animals are taken
from the wild, they are collected in a strained manner (Awad, 1990). Moreover, with
the increasing demands placed on the environment through the on growing human
population, zoos can no longer harvest from the wild, but will probably be able to
display to the public only those which can be sustained with captive breeding (Lacy,
1989).
It was around the thirteenth century that trade in ostrich feather began to
flourish. Thus in 1913, ostrich feather attained the fourth rank in the gross domestic
products (GDP), following gold, wool and diamond in the Republic of South Africa.
It was in South Africa that the idea to establish ostrich farms originated with the
objective to produce feather.
After the second world war, there was industrial development in the field of
tannery and much concern was directed towards ostrich farming as a source of fine
leather that was used as clothes, bags, shoes, belts …etc. The ostrich leather size was
estimated to be 4.0 square meters in the age group between a year and 14 months
(Hassan, 2001 cited Abdelhameed, 1996) and the price ranged between 230 and 248
US dollars (Hassan, 2001).
In the twenty first century, the demand for ostrich meat rose very sharply
because of its lower cholesterol level (3%) and it’s being free of antibodies and
hormones, higher percentages of iron and proteins (5 times the protein content of
14
cow’s meat). Those qualities supported the establishment of ostrich farms in the
United States, Europe and some Asian countries (China, Japan and Korea), Australia
and other countries in the world. Those nations each has established what has become
known as wild animals’ industry, in which animals have resistance to diseases, thus
reducing the cost of veterinary care. In addition they consume less amount of water
and have a high ability to transform food into meat at a lower cost when compared
with domestic animals (Hassan, 2001).
In Africa, several game farming projects have been initiated and some are still
operating. They are not necessarily restricted to wild animals, but may be a part of
mixed enterprises. In South Africa, farms were stocked with surplus animals collected
from national parks and game reserves. The objectives are as much an aesthetic or
sporting than an economic one. Nevertheless, the produced meat is sold providing
extra income from the farms. The National Parks Board assigns a full time office to
advice the farmers on the managerial matters related to sustainability of certain
species for restocking the land. This exercise has been spreading since 1965. There
were four fenced game farms in South Africa, and by 1980, there were about 280
exclusively game farms with a further 2000 ranches on which some game farming
was carried along side cattle. There have been some experiments in game farming in
Kenya, usually on private lands (Awad, 1990).
In general, while substantial research efforts and money are being invested in
many countries, efforts are only now beginning to assess the impact on biodiversity of
many human uses of wild species. Again, as with sustainable forestry, agriculture and
fisheries management, one of the keys to the successful management of wild species
is restricting access to the harvest of wild populations (UNEP, 1995).
1.6. History of wild animals breeding in farms in the Sudan
The breeding of wild animals in captivity in the Sudan was started in the
public zoos. A notable example was the former Khartoum zoo (1902-1993). It was
established almost for the purpose of entertainment. The zoo was rather not
proportional to Sudan’s resources of wildlife, nor was it in step with the pace of
development of national capital. Consequently it was evacuated and the wildlife it
used to contain were shifted by qualified Sudanese to other locations (Sudanow, June
1993).
15
The commercial captive breeding programs emerged as a result of increasing
value of wildlife products on the market and the on going conservation campaign to
limit commercial deals in products traditionally harvested from the wild. In 1990s the
Wildlife Conservation General Administration (WCGA) introduced the policy of
commercial breeding of wild animals on private farms. The species targeted by the
policy includes gazelles (all species), tortoises, monkeys, crocodiles, ostriches and
other birds (Detailed Plan of Administration, 2002). However, all the approved farms
observed to be showing the interest in gazelles farming and to some degree the
ostriches (Adieang and Gonja, 2000). Based on that main interest, this thesis has been
directed towards evaluating the dorcas gazelle farms. In the Sudan, dorcas gazelle
commercial farms were established for the first time in 1992 (Hassan, 2001). Until
1998, there were 11 farms (10 for gazelles). Seven farms had reached the level
whereby they exported their products (Appendix 1). Their markets are almost
exclusively in the gulf countries. There were 70 other farm approvals pending to be
either implemented or be supported with feasibility studies (Adieang and Gonja,
2000).
1.7. Problem statement and Justification.
The introduction of captive breeding policy and consequently the
establishment of the farms for the purpose has been achieved; and the exercise was
expected to develop further. However, the management practice, which has been
undertaken by the farmers since the years of the establishment, appears not to be
leading towards a success. Most of the farmers have ceased to operate.
The late 1990s and the late 2000 had witnessed formation of two committees
within the Wildlife Conservation General Administration, assigned with duties of
reviewing progress of the wildlife farms. Each committee in its findings has reflected
existence of problems in the farms. Although, Sayeid (1999) conducted a research on
physiological and reproductive changes and diseases observed in dorcas gazelle raised
in captivity, but no research has been conducted to assess the problems in the farms or
to review the progress or the status of farming system in the Sudan.
1.8. Objectives of the study
1. To collect information about population ecology of dorcas gazelle in captivity
16
2. To assess the experience of dorcas gazelle commercial farms in Khartoum State
3. To recommend some management measures towards solving the problems facing
the breeding farms.
1.9. Research hypothesis
The study is goining to test the hypothesis that:1.
Farming system in the Sudan and the management
of dorcas gazelle farms in Khartoum State is a
totally successful practice.
(H0: µ1 = µ2).
2.
Farming system in the Sudan and the management of dorcas
gazelle
farms in Khartoum State is facing many problems. (H0: µ1 ≠
µ2).
17
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Wildlife utilization
Wild animals are utilized in three principal ways: first as food, second as nonedible products and the third as sport hunting (Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
2.1.1. Wild animals as food
The only exception where animals are not hunted for food is in the countries
with a predominantly Hindu and Buddhist populations. There are many tribes who
rely on hunting for their support. For example, Eskimos whose hunting is largely of
marine mammals; the Canadian Indians who follow the migratory carebou and the
Australian Aborigines who hunt kangaroos which are still sufficiently numerous in
Australia for them to be used as food, although the meat is more often used as pet
food rather than for human consumption. Many are killed as vermin by sheep farmers
and the carcasses left dropped. Examples of other animals hunted for food include
dugongs, puma, tigers and jaguars, but their consumption has now been stopped in
response to conservation call. Whales have for centuries provided food for human
consumption. Edible whale oil is used in preparation of margarine and cooking fats.
Whale meat itself is rarely used nowadays as human food except in Japan. The herds
of large ungulates have been depleted by firearms that wild meat has become
progressively less important in the diet of human communities. However, small-sized
mammals have always been a source of human food and remain so today due to their
fecundity and ability to co-exist alongside people. In developed countries, meat of
wild origin whether from large or small mammals is never more than a supplement to
the diet and it is in the tropics that it is an important source of food. In some parts of
West Africa, as much as 73% of meat come from wild animals. An important food
species is the cane rat or grass cutter, hares, monkeys, fruit bats, pangolins,
porcupines and squirrels (Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
In the Sudan, many local and national industries have sprung up in big towns
where local produce, like lady handbags and shoes are made from crocodile, python,
leopard, and serval skins. In the northern part of the country, losses of wildlife are
drastic and even protected wildlife areas have lost most of their animals due to
poaching activities, expansion in mechanized agriculture and exportation of several
18
species of live animals, mostly gazelles and birds which have good markets in the
Arab world, especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wildlife of the south is little
known to most parts of the world because of the frequent outbreaks of civil wars since
pre-independence in 1956. However, game meat is an important source of food in
many areas where livestock cannot be reared either because the areas are infested by
the tse-tse fly or the inhabitants can not afford rearing the livestock. The notable areas
are the whole of Western Equatoria, the Imatong and Western Bahr el Ghazal. During
the long dry season, the young men of the Dinka and Nuer tribes hunt and fish to
supplement their diets because the production of milk is very low during dry seasons
due to poor pasture for their cattle. The monetary benefits which South Sudan used to
earn from wildlife resources are nothing when compared with those of East African
countries which have well developed national parks and good infrastructure
(Kuotwel, 2002).
2.1.2. Wild animals as non-edible products
The most economically valuable non-edible products of wild animals include,
feathers, guano, leather, zoo specimens and pets.
Feathers and their derivatives are the most economically valuable non-edible
product of bird’s origin. The main exception is the ostrich egg shunt. Feathers of
many birds are desired as ornaments, sometimes are incorporated into clothing and
indicate the status of the wearer, but now feathers are old fashion.
On the other hand, the other most non-edible product of birds is guano which
is the accumulation of droppings massed over centuries beneath the roosting and
nesting sites of sea birds. It is rich in nitrogen and an excellent fertilizer. Most of the
deposits are at the coast of Peru where extremely dry climate has allowed the
dropping to build up in place to height of about 40 meters. Large guano deposits are
found in the islands of West Africa. The birds responsible for its production are perch
cormorants, but pelicans also make substantial contributions. (Eltringham,1984 and
Awad, 1990).
Leather is not a product associated with birds, but high quality fancy leather
is made from skin of ostrich. Leather is obtained from the skins of reptiles,
particularly the varanidae or monitor as well as crocodiles and many snakes like
python and boas. No commercially viable products can be obtained from amphibians,
19
except the poisons extracted from the dendro fatted frog of South America by the
Indians for use on arrow tips. However, the entire animal may be valuable for
experimental purposes. As pets only few wild animal species are wanted with
exceptions of tortoises (reptiles). Most pets are domesticated animals. Among the
mammals are the dogs, cats and rabbits. Among the birds are the canaries
(Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
As zoo specimens, there was a time not so long ago, when the demands for
wild animals supported the profession of animal trade. Regarding their qualities,
some products of wildlife have no equivalents with which to compare. Ivory, for
example, is found only on elephants. White plastic can be made and molded into
ornaments that look like ivory carvings, but they are not mistaken for original ivory.
Rhino horns come into the same category (Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
2.1.3. Wildlife as sport hunting
The use of wild animals in sport has been responsible for supporting a number
of industries of considerable economic value. Obvious examples are the manufacture
of fishing tackles for anglers and firearms for hunters. Big game hunting is largely
confined to the tropics. The decline of large mammals throughout much of Asia has
robbed big game hunting of its significance there.
Not many people can afford the cost of the modern hunting safari, but there is
sufficient of them for hunting to be a useful earner of foreign exchange in several
poor countries (Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
Wild animals are involved in hunting mainly as preys, but some are used to do
the actual hunting. For example, cheetah which was used by Indian princes in pursuit
of black buck in the days when cheetah still occurred in the continent. In this case
they were tamed animals, but most were captured from the wild. Falcony is another
example, and if bird watching and game viewing are included as sports, wild animals
have much to contribute to human economy. Much of tourist industries in Africa are
based on wildlife safaris and sale of cameras, binoculars, and particularly films must
be considerably boosted as a result (Eltringham, 1984 and Awad, 1990).
Almost 50% of the American population and 84% of the Canadian population
participate in bird watching, photographing and other non-destructive forms of
outdoor recreational activities involving wildlife (Miller Jr, 1992).
20
Hunting, sport fishing and other uses of wild populations are at the center of
rapid growth in recreation and tourism in developed and developing countries. For
example, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that wildlife related
recreation, for example, hunting, fishing, bird watching in the state of Oregon and
Washington contributes as much as $ 2 billion indirect and direct benefits annually to
the regional economy (UNEP, 1995 cited USFWS, 1988).
2.2. Wild animals as opposed to livestock
The advantages of using wild animals – antelopes, gazelles in Africa, as
opposed to domestic animals are shown in various ways and these include: optimum
and economical uses of different species of vegetation, resistance to endemic
diseases, no need for watering places or dependency, production of fat-free albumen,
high production performance, and good weight gain, also high dressing percentage
(Reiken, 1990)..
Antelopes and gazelles do not have such a constant body temperature as
domestic cattle. Variations of more than three degrees centigrade are quite normal,
whereas in cattle the fluctuation is between 1.5 and 1.8 degrees centigrade. Their
capacity for protein storage is also higher than cattle (Reiken, 1990).
There is no doubt that the furs of wild species are superior in quality to any
that can be taken from conventional domestic animals. Artificial furs made of nylon
or similar materials have tended to become more popular recently, due to the stigma
attached to the animal furs on conservation and human grounds. There is a little to
choose between them in terms of carcass yield. The value usually falls between 50
and 60% for both. The more notable difference between the carcass quality of wild
animals and domestic animals lies in the proportion of fat present. Domestic animals
are much fatter than wild animals. The percentage of fat on the muscles of wild
ungulates is generally low. Carcass quality is not only a matter of percentage since the
value of the carcass depends to a large extent on the acceptability of the meat to the
public. Where meat tends to be judged by two standards, these are flavour and
tenderness (Awad, 1990).
Awad (1990) reported that Hopecraft, in 1982, described his experience in
ranching Grant’s gazelle on a ranch near Nairobi. He compared their performance in
experiment enclosure with that of cattle and claimed that the gazelle produced 16.4 kg
21
of lean meat per hectar compared with 8.9 kg for the experimental cattle. Hide
production from gazelle is 24 times than that from cattle and 30 times more profitable
due to the young age at which the animals can be slaughtered and the high value of
game skins.
Cattle are more productive in terms of milk than the meat. The potential of
wild animals as milk producers has yet to be exploited, or it first be necessary to carry
out a large-scale domestication programs. However, it is not to be expected that wild
animals could produce as much as the cow which has been bred for the purpose over
many generations. However, experiments have proved that milk from wild ungulates
is richer in fat and proteins than the milk of domestic stock, although the amount of
lactose (milk sugar) is about the same in wild and domestic animals. It may be
concluded that milk of wild animals is of rather high quality than that from domestic
animals, but greatly inferior in quantity. Awad, 1990 cited that FAO statistics of 1978
stated that when the world production of meat was 132,400,000 tons, only 700,000
tons (0.5%) came from wild animals. That means the amount of meat derived from
wild animals is small relative to that from domestic sources.
In Zimbabwe, research indicates that lands managed for wildlife will generate
up to 30 times more from sport hunting, wildlife viewing, meat, hides and other
products, than the same land would generate if used for cattle ranching (UNEP, 1995
cited Bond, 1993).
2.3. Wildlife as foreign exchange earner
Commercial activities in wildlife centre primarily on its products such as
meat, hides, horns, tusks, etc. The use of wildlife in international trade may conflict
with its better use in the countries of origin since wildlife may provide food, attract
tourists, and support domestic industries. As more developing countries wish to move
towards a more rational sustained use of their wildlife, some control over export is
becoming essential (Awad, 1990).
These problems were first internationally discussed in 1960, at the Seventh
General Assembly of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN). The assembly urged governments to restrict the import of animals
in accordance to export regulations of the countries of origin. Wildlife trade was again
an important subject of discussion at the IUCN General Assembly meeting in 1969.
22
By that time the IUCN listed the species that it considered a new international
convention could control, and that draft was what became known as the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
(Awad, 1990 and Wijnstekers, 1995).
The export value of wildlife products is large (UNEP, 1995 cited Fitzgerald,
1989). Estimate of international trade in exotic wildlife products, and the international
trade in wild species rival that of the forest and fisheries sectors (UNEP, 1995 cited
Edwards, 1995).
Most of the reported exports come from a handful of countries in Asia
(Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines), South America (Argentina, Bolivia and Guyana)
and Africa (Cameroon, Tanzania and Mali) (UNEP, 1995 cited WRI, 1992).
Historically, the principal markets of wild fauna and flora were in the United States
and European countries. However, the majority of the trade is now directed at several
Asian countries (Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan), while the United
States and a few European countries (Germany, Belgium, France, Austria, Italy, the
United Kingdom) import most of the rest (UNEP, 1995).
Wildlife tourism sometimes called ecotourism is important to the economy of
some less developed countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. One economist estimated
that one male lion living to the age of seven years in Kenya leads to $ 515,000 of
expenditure by tourists. If the lion were killed for the skin it would be worth only $
1,000 (Miller Jr, 1992).
2.4. Ecology of dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas)
Dorcas gazelles are small antelopes noted for their graceful movement and
lustrous eyes (WEBSTER’S, 1996).
2.4.1. Taxonomic status of dorcas gazelle, Gazella dorcas
Dorcas gazelle is taxonomically a member of the kingdom: Animalia; Phylum:
Chordata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Artiodactyla; Family: Bovidae; Subfamily:
Antilopinae; Genus: Gazella and Species: Gazella dorcas (Linnaeus,1758).
Dorcas gazelles have been known since antiquity. They were domesticated by
ancient Egyptians and the Romans (Internet website 1).
23
2.4.2. Morphological features of dorcas gazelle
Dorcas gazelle is regarded as one of the smallest of all gazelles. It is an even
toed antelope with splayed hooves. The height at shoulder is only 53-76 cm: Body
length: 90-110 cm. Tail length: 15-20 cm. Weight: 15-20 kg. It is a polygamous
species having sexual size dimorphism, and both sexes have strongly ringed, ridged,
lyre-shaped horns; the horns of the females are smaller, thinner, shorter, rounder,
more upright, more slender and straighter, with few and weak ridges and length of 1525 cm. In males horns grow up to 15-38.4 cm. They bend sharply first backwards,
then upwards at the tips which are somewhat hooked up and inwards, sometimes
(especially in the young males) strongly carved inwards, the basal section is narrow
oval (18-28) rings, and terminal ¼ is smooth. The colour pattern is that, the upper
pilage is a pale beige or sandy-red in colour with a white rump and belly. There is a
wide rufous and indistinct band which runs along the lower flanks between the front
(fore) and the hind legs, separating the white belly from the upper coat. A similar
coloured strip occurs on the upper hind legs, creating a border for the white rump.
The head is the same beige colour as the body. There is a white-eye ring, and a pair of
white and dark brown stripes running from each eye to the corners of the mouth. The
forehead and bridge of the nose (muzzle) are generally light reddish-tan in colour).
Across the bridge of the nose is a fold of skin (in some literature only old males may
develop it), which females and males inflate and turn into an air regulator or amplifier
(Halternoth and Diller, 1997 and Internet website 1).
2.4.3. Geographical range of dorcas gazelle
The geographical range of dorcas gazelle covers all of North Africa, from
Senegal and Morocco, western Arabia, and Iran to India (Figure 1) (Internet website
1).
In the Sudan, it is distributed in Darfur and Kordofan (Halternoth and Diller,
1997), and its population appears to increase towards the northern and western
portions of Red Sea Hills where they merge with the desert (Figure 2) (Hashim,
1998). However, it has been pointed out that places of dorcas gazelle on the east of
the River Nile is taken by Eriterean gazelle ( Gazella littoralis), which is rather
smaller than dorcas gazelle, and has a more distinct dark lateral band. (Brocklehurst,
1931).
24
Figure 1: Distribution range of Dorcas gazelle in the world.
Source: Internet website2
25
Figure 2: Distribution range of Dorcas gazelle in the Sudan.
Source: Hashim (1998)
26
2.4.4. Natural history of dorcas gazelle
2.4.4.1. Habitat
Dorcas gazelle inhabits savannah, Sahel savannah, semi-deserts, and deserts
with scanty vegetation or dry hills. It prefers stony deserts (also with rocky piles,
erosion gullies) to rocky deserts and sands; in the later they live more at the edges
where dune valleys have plant growth (Halternoth and Diller, 1997) or where recent
rainfall has stimulated plant growth. It avoids steep terrains (Internet websites 2,3).
2.4.4.2. Food habits
Dorcas gazelles eat grass, shoots, weeds, succulents, herbs, buds, flowers,
pods of acacia trees, also browse the green leaves of some bushes and blossoms. They
sometimes stand on their hind legs to reach high leaves. They have been observed
digging the bulbs of perennial plants. In zoos their diets are alfalfa, exotic grain and
vetamix (vitamins) (Halternoth and Diller, 1997, Internet websites 1,2,3).
Their main feeding periods are early mornings and late afternoons. When
persecuted (and on clear nights also) they are nocturnal active (Halternoth and Diller,
1997 ). They are adapted to food and water shortages (Abdelhameed, 2001) and may
undergo their lives without drinking any water, obtaining all needed moisture from
plants they eat (Internet website2). They are capable of producing extremely
concentrated urine during dry weather. However, they lose weight steadily on dry
food when deprived of water. As a result when in such feeding conditions, gazelles
must drink, even in winter. In an experiment on the effect of water deprivation, the
results indicated that feeding ceased when 14 - 17% of normal body weight has been
lost and the animals appeared weak and emaciated. Without water, dorcas gazelles
may take up to 12 days under winter conditions in Khartoum when air temperature
ranges between about 10 - 30o C with relative humidity varying from 20-40%. During
summer, when air temperature fluctuates from about 35-45o C with relative humidity
varying from 10-30%, gazelles cannot survive for more than about 5 days without
water. Two experimental animals died unexpectedly after 6 days water deprivation
during which they lost 24% of their original weight (Mohamed, 1986). The dorcas
gazelles in the Sudan move towards the Red Sea in summer giving rise to
speculations that they drink seawater during dry season. However, gazelles cannot
drink seawater as it causes severe diarrhea and the animal loses body weight very
27
rapidly (Habibi, et al. 1997). Dorcas gazelles usually drink twice or thrice in a day. In
captivity they would drink for 2-3 minutes without raising their heads, continuously
sucking in and swallowing the water. Gazelles regurgitate at any time of the day when
lying, walking or standing. The favourite time for the animal to regurgitate is during
the cool hours of the morning while lying in the sun with its legs stretched out, or
while standing or sitting in the shade. (Mohamed, 1986)
2. 4.4.3. Behaviour
In hostile habitat conditions, dorcas gazelles exist mostly in a form of mating
pairs, but where grazing is good, they form family parties with groups (5-12) of one
adult male and several females with youngs, or in herds of 30-40 animals. Males may
defend a small territory for the breeding season or under favorable conditions, for the
whole year (Halternoth and Diller, 1997). Gazelles lie in the sun during the cool hours
of the morning and in shade during the heat of the day, when basking they stretch out
their legs and necks as if to expose the largest possible surface area to its warmth. In
shade, they curt their heads under their necks to the side, probably to decrease the
surface area exposed to the heat (Mohamed, 1986).
Bachelor herds of 2-5 males are also formed, probably as a defence against
predators. Some populations may migrate seasonally and during the migration they
may aggregate in herds of up to 100 animals. They may associate with other gazelles
and camels (Halternoth and Diller, 1997).
Dorcas gazelle is extremely a fast animal. It can maintain a steady speed of 48
km/hour, and has been known to reach a speed as high as 96 km/hour. During an
alarm call, gazelles can vibrate and sound like the quacking of a large duck. In
addition to being territorial, adult males establish dung middens throughout their
range. A conspicuous display is used in the formation of these fecal piles, with the
male first pawing at the ground, then stretching over the scraped area to urinate, and
then crouching with his anus just above the ground, at which point he deposits his
dung. The pre-orbital glands, although functional, are not used for marking (Internet
website 1).
28
2. 4.4.4. Reproduction
Births occur throughout the year in areas where agriculture has led to an
increased amount of water in the environment, but there are peaks that coincide with
the vegetation that follows the early rains (Internet website 1).
Mating rarely occurs during the day. The male approaches the female by
smelling her genital organs and then rubs her face and neck with his neck. While the
female urinates, the male would come and take some of the urine in his mouth. This is
probably to find out if the female is ready for mating (Mohamed, 1986). Calving
season in Chad region is from November to December, in North Africa it is from
April to May, in Egypt it is from February to April and September to October.
Gestation is around six months (169-181 days) after which a single young (rarely
two) is born. Two births are possible in one year. Mothers lie up apart; lick young dry
and induce defecation in nursing the youngs and ingesting the feces. This is probably
a water conservation adaptation. The young lies up concealed from its mother for 2-6
weeks; the mother comes 3-4 times a day to suckle it, calling with a soft bleat, which
the infant answers. Strange calves are not accepted. Weaning is after 2-6 months. The
first solid food is after one month (Halternoth and Diller, 1997). Sexual maturity is at
9 months for females and 18 months for males. When the young males become
sexually mature, the territorial male increasingly threatens them. The youngs respond
with submissive display such as lying down, and they eventually leave the territory
when they are 9-15 months old. Longevity is up to 12 ½ years. In captivity, longevity
of up to 17 years has been recorded (Internet website 1).
2. 4.4.5. Enemies
Primary predators of dorcas gazelles include cheetah, python, leopard, lion,
serval, caracal, wolf, hyena, eagles and vulture. Fawns are eaten by smaller cats,
rattles, the common jackals and foxes. When predators are around, the gazelles
remain alert and may stott like other bovides (Internet websites 3,4). Human beings
specially the poatchers, are the most dangerous enemies.
29
2.4.5. Economic importance
Dorcas gazelles have positive economic importance (Academic American
Encyclopedia,1980). They have long been hunted by people for food. Sales of live
specimens, trophys and carcasses add economic importance to the gazelles.
2.4.6. Conservation status
Dorcas gazelle is considered to be at a low risk, near threatened, vulnerable
(Internet website2), and threatened (endangered) species in its range countries ( Engel
and Brunsing, 1999 cited Djerba Declaration, 1998). Primarily due to excessive
hunting by people, it is particularly acute where the gazelles migrate and therefore
aggregate in large numbers. Excessive grazing with livestock, agricultural
development and other habitat modifications has adversely affected most populations
in the Middle East and North Africa (Internet website3). Gazelles have long been
exterminated near Khartoum and Omdurman (Brown Jr, 1968). Dorcas gazelle is
listed in Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (UNEP, 2001), and in Appendix II of the
Sudan’s Wildlife Conservation and Federal Parks Act (WCFPA) 1986.
2.5. Wildlife Conservation Policy and Administration in the Sudan.
Wildlife conservation policy of the Sudan states that wildlife constitutes an
important natural wealth and heritage which should be conserved for the benefit and
enjoyment of all in accordance with accepted principles of ecologically based
management and ensure and encourage all forms of rational utilization of wildlife
resources as a source of revenue and employment for the people of the country.
The Wildlife Conservation General Administration (WCGA) is the Sudan
government’s agency assigned with responsibility of implementing the policy. In so
doing, the WCGA uses among other methods, wildlife law enforcement as a tool for
conserving the wildlife resources (Gonja, 1991). The laws currently in effect are the
CITES,1973 and the WCFPA, 1986.
2.5.1. The CITES
CITES was concluded in Washington DC in 1973. Twenty-one countries
signed the convention which entered into force after the tenth ratification in July 1975
30
(Wijnstekers, 1995). The Sudan signed the convention in 1983 and it entered into
force in 1985 (Awad, 1990). Today it has 158 parties (IUCN, 1999). Its seat is in
Geneva, Switzerland, and the UNEP provides its secretariat which administers a
central system of import, export, and re-export permits to enforce the convention.
The convention uses a tier of lists to prohibit or control trade in various
species. It consisted of three appendices. CITES Appendix I lists species considered
endangered and forbids (with a few exceptions) commerce in them, CITES Appendix
II lists species, which are not necessarily, now threatened with extinction, but may
soon be. CITES limits their export so that the secretariat can monitor the effect of
continued trade on their survival and CITES Appendix III lists species which so far
has been little used, that are subject to regulations within the jurisdiction of a party
and for which the corporation of other parties is needed to prevent or restrict their
exploitation (WRI et al., 1989, and Wijnstekers, 1995). Trade under the CITES is
regulated through the articles: III, IV and V ( see appendices list 2)
31
2.5.2. WCFPA 1986.
The WCFPA 1986 was enacted in January 1986 with four objectives. These
objectives are:
First: The conservation of wild animals and preservation of federal parks and game
areas.
Second : The wise use of wildlife resources and its development.
Third: The implementation of the CITES.
Fourth: The provision of information on wildlife resources within the Sudan and
abroad and the encouragement of the scientific research in the field of wild animals
and protected areas.
The WCFPA 1986 includes articles 17, 36, 37, 38, 39, 53 and 54 on the
animal welfare (as presented in appendices list 3).These Articles contain coditions to
be met by any person, hunting, possessing wild animal or its trophy and conducting
business in them. Nevertheless, they contain conditions under which the Director or
other officer authorized by the Director, issue a certificate of legal ownership in
respet of any protected animal or trophy.
2.6. Captive breeding guidelines and objectives
Captive management requires breeding groups of animals to be above a
certain size. It has long been observed that inbreed animals (the offspring of parents
who are genetically related), frequently have birth defects slower growth, higher
mortality, and lower fertility (Lacy, 1989). Among the criteria that are used in captive
breeding programs are:
(1) The availability of a captive group large enough to allow for successful breeding
(2) Sufficient expertise among existing personnel to support the program
(3) A sufficient number of breeding animals be available for captive management.
IUCN’s Species Survival Plans (SSP) program have adapted the working rule
that they must maintain a captive population large enough to sustain 90% of the
genetic diversity of the founder population for a period of 200 years.
The numbers of founders (wild-born animals that breed and contribute to the
gene pool of the receptive population), the generation time for the species, and the
rate of population growth, all interact to determine just how many animals are
necessary to sustain any given species. If there are too few founders, or reproduction
32
is poor, the chance of sustaining a long-term healthy population are slim, and
resources (manpower and space) might better be directed towards some other species.
Recently, the Orinoco crocodile, an SSP species since 1985, was removed from SSP
status. Although this river dwelling crocodile is headed for extinction in its natural
habitat in Venezuela, the numbers in captivity in North America were too low to
maintain a genetically healthy population. An attempt is made to select the species
whose captive preservation would re-enforce other conservation programs, both in
captivity and in the wild, and for which the possibility of reintroduction to protected
habitat exists. Reintroduction programs for the Arabian oryx and golden lion tamarin,
have succeeded in reestablishing wild populations and have provided valuable
guidelines for the future. Different species require different management plans, and
managing population requires keeping track of individuals knowing how many
animals there are and who is related to whom, animal’s birth, death, lineage, sex, and
reproductive history. The International Species Inventory System (ISIS) provides a
mechanism for maintaining such records. Information for each species is compiled in
a studbook (a chronological, genetical history of the species in captivity) (Baker,
1989).
In their experiences with deer farming, Reiken (1990) stated that in
established enterprises marking of calves should be done during the first three days
after birth. At calving time the paddock is to be checked for newborn at least once
every day – they can be marked immediately with ear tags or neck bands and at the
same time the sex is noted to give a clear overall picture of the herd. A handling set
up makes it possible to catch, separate, treat, (warm, castrate, vaccinate) gather for
sale and slaughter without immobilizing them. The simplest set up is a funnel-shaped
race made of boards or plank walls 2.5 meters high, and with enough space for feed
race and water containers. It is important that the animals become accustomed to the
race. This can be achieved by offering them concentrates or other tempting foods. The
animals enter the race through an opening under a sliding drop door and go out again
via a narrowing race. A carrying crate can be installed at this end (Appendix 4).
Regarding ratio between sexes for deer, bodily strength, skill and aggression
determine which male is head of the herd and how many females he collects around
him (Reiken, 1990).
When provided with succulent fodder, captive animals at the King Khaid
Wildlife Research Centre (KKWRC) at Thymamah showed little inclination to drink
33
water during the cool season but drank in summer when the weather was extremely
hot with ambient temperature rising to 50 degrees centigrade.
Habibi et al.(1997) mentioned that Ghobrial in 1974 found that the dorcas
gazelle in the Sudan under captive conditions, the species can live without water
during the cold season for a few days but cannot survive under the same conditions in
summer. At the KKWRC, breeding pen group size in the 100 x 50 meter pens varies
from 2-10 gazelles. The male to female stocking ratio for the Sudanese dorcas gazelle
is 1:9 (Habibi et al., 1997).
The objective of captive breeding and reintroduction is to restore wild
populations. Captive breeding and reintroduction programs should attempt to provide
as much of the known genetic diversity of a species as possible in founder stock, the
taxonomic advisory group and species survival plans for sahelo-sahara antelope
species of the European and American Zoological Associations (EAZA and AAZA)
should be integrally involved in the development of in situ captive breeding and
reintroduction programs, specific management plans should be developed for captive
breeding and reintroduction projects before implementation begins and cooperants in
captive breeding and reintroduction should include the IUCN/Species Survival
Commission (SSC) reintroduction specialist group (Engel and Brunsing, 1999 cited
Djerba Declaration 1998).
2.6.1. Captive Breeding under the CITES
In order to avoid that wild taken eggs and young animals, reared in captivity,
and considered as captive bred, CITES- conference of parties resolution ;number
2.12, Rev., recommends in its paragraph (b) that the term ‘bred in captivity’ be
interpreted to refer only: to offspring, including eggs, born or otherwise produced in a
controlled environment, either of parents that mated or otherwise transferred gametes
in a controlled environment, if reproduction is sexual, or of parents that were in a
controlled environment when development of the offspring began, if reproduction is
asexual.
A controlled environment for animals is defined as an environment that is
intensively manipulated by man for the purpose of producing the species in question,
and that has boundaries designed to prevent animals, eggs or gametes of the selected
species from entering or leaving the controlled environment. General characteristics
34
of a controlled environment may include, but are not limited to, artificial housing,
waste removal, health care, and protection from predators, and artificially supplied
food.
The difference between ranching and captive breeding is that ranching is the
rearing in a controlled environment of specimens taken from the wild. Ranching
operations bring young animals or eggs into a controlled environment; rear them until
they are of a commercially exploitable size.
In captive breeding operations, a parental breeding stock must be managed in
a manner, which has been demonstrated to reliably produce second-generation (F2)
offspring in a controlled environment. This does not imply that the parental breeding
stock of an operation must actually produce second-generation offspring in order that
the first generation offspring is considered to be captive bred in accordance with the
resolution. What it does mean is that the stock must, for example, be managed in the
same way as comparable stocks, which are known to reliably produce secondgeneration offspring. An operation thus managed can therefore export first-generation
offspring, which meets the conditions of the first paragraph of recommendation (b)
before actually producing second-generation offspring, which makes it financially
more feasible to start a commercial captive breeding operation. The definition laid
down in resolution cof. 2.12 (Rev.) clearly also concern the captive breeding of
CITES Appendices II and III specimens. Resolution cof. 9.24 resolves in paragraph
(f) that species of which all specimens in trade have been bred in captivity should not
be included in CITES Appendices if there is no probability of trade taking place in
specimen of wild origin.
The secretariat shall include a new captive breeding operation in its register,
and the owner/manager of any commercial captive breeding operation seeking
inclusion in the secretariat’s register shall be responsible for providing to the
management authority of the country in which it is located the following information,
where appropriate for the species concerned:
(1) Name and address of the owner and the manager of the captive breeding operation
(2) Date of establishment
(3) Species bred (CITES Appendix I only)
(4) Description of parental breeding stock including the following information where
appropriate:
35
(a) Age and identification band or tag numbers, transponders, distinguishing marks,
etc, of each male and each female;
(b) Evidence of legal acquisition of each male and female, e.g., receipts, CITES
documents capture permits, etc; and
(c) The known or likely genetic relationship within and between breeding pairs.
(5) Current stock (number by sex and age of specimen held in addition to parental
breeding stock above)
(6) Annual production of young
(7) Documentation showing that the species has bred to second-generation offspring
(F2) at the facility and the description of the method used, or if the operation has not
bred the species to the second-generation, a description of the methods that have been
used to do so successfully elsewhere.
(8) Description of the operation’s strategy to avoid deleterious inbreeding and to
identify and correct it should it occur.
(9) Description of the facilities being used to house and care for the current and
expected captive stock
(10) Description of the security measures provided to safeguard against escape of the
captive stock into the wild and contingency measures for the safe disposal of captive
stock in the event that the operation is closed
(11) Description of the management of the breeding stock and offspring, especially:
(a) Expected future production of offspring
(b) Description of the strategy to add offspring to the breeding stock as future
replacement stock and/or to expand the breeding stock and
(c) Description of breeding performance of each generation produced in captivity,
including records that describe the percentage of the breeding age portion of the
operation’s specimens that have bred and produced viable offspring
(12) Assessment of any perceived need for argumentation of the breeding stock with
specimens from captive bred or wild source
(13) Type of product expected, e.g, live specimen, skins, hides, and other body parts
(14) Description of the marking methods to be used for the breeding stock and
offspring, and for specimens furnished for export
(15) Once the captive breeding operation in question has been registered, the
operation should provide annually, or as required by the management authority,
36
information of any changes made concerning items 4,5,6,9,10,11, and 13 above
during the preceding year (Wijnstekers, 1995).
2.6.2. Captive breeding under the WCFPA 1986
The WCFPA 1986 has provided the following provisions with regards to
captive breeding:
(1) The Director may, where he is satisfied that any protected animal has been bred in
captivity or any trophy of such animal has been obtained, issue a certificate of legal
ownership, and such certificate shall be considered as confirming conditions required
under Articles 37 and 38 of this Act(Appendix 3).
(2) For any specimen of an animal species bred in captivity or a trophy of such an
animal derived therefrom, a certificate by the Management Authority to that effect
shall be accepted in place of any of the permits or certificates required under the
provisions of Articles 37 and 38 of this Act.
The present government which came to power in 1989 has issued a policy
statement on its full commitment to conserve wildlife. The ten years 1992/3-2002/3
Comprehensive National Strategic Plan (CNSP) adapted by the very government
contains statement on preservation of the country’s wild animal wealth (National
Strategic Paper, 1991). Accordingly, the WCGA has prepared its ten-years plan that
include among other items, wild animal farming (Detailed Plan of Administration,
2002).
In its attempt to implement its ten years plan, the WCGA has initiated in early
1990s the policy of breeding wild animals in captivity on privately owned farms. To
obtain approvals, interested farmers must submit their application to WCGA,
provided that approvals will only be granted upon presentation of economic
feasibility studies and an approval from the Public Investment Authority before
establishing and stocking the farms with the wild animals. Wild species which are the
targets of this policy include the gazelles, tortoises, monkeys, crocodiles, ostriches
and other birds. However, almost all farms are involved with dorcas gazelle breeding,
and this could be due to the believe that it reproduces readily in captivity, with a high
rate of production at lower costs and gazelles are adapted to the climatic changes. The
government policy of breeding wild animals in captivity aims at achieving two main
objectives. One is a commercial objective whereby the sales of the products were
expected to generate income to the beneficiaries and owners of the breeding farms,
37
and the income in turn will have a positive effect on the country’s economy,
especially through export operations. The other strategic objective is the
reintroduction in case the species become exterminated in the wild. Since the
introduction of captive breeding policy in early 1990s, about 38 farms were granted
approvals countrywide. Out of these 8 farms were in operation, 24 had not started, 3
were at an establishment stage and 3 had been disposed off. At the state level
Khartoum had 30 farms situated within its boundary to which approvals had been
granted, and until 1998, only 7 farms (country-wide) had reached export stage making
a total of 220 captive bred live gazelles (Appendix 1).
To be noted here is that the WCGA has provided incentives for the owners of
the gazelle breeding farms via export operations and the notable ones are:
(1) Farm owners pay the amount of $ 600 as export fee per two gazelles, and the
equivalent is $ 850 per two gazelles of a wild origin.
(2) Farm owners pay SD 15,000 per two gazelles, whereas the equivalent is SD
30,000 per two gazelles of a wild origin. This is paid as a local component of the
export fee (Adieng and Gonja, 2000).
Other legislative measures that were taken by the government to support the
captive breeding operations included besides the incentives to the farmers, were the
enacting of the Investment Act 1999 (amended 2000) and Regulation to Organize
Wildlife Conservation and Federal Parks Act 2000.
2.6.3. The Investment Act 1999(amended 2000)
In the field of wildlife the Act stated that, any person investing in zoological
gardens, protected areas, breeding wild animals (gazelles, ostriches, and rare birds)
should have a capital of not less than two million Sudanese Dinars (SD).
2.6.4. Regulation to organize Wildlife Conservation and Federal
Parks Act 2000.
This regulation states that, the Licencing Authority may grant an approval for
commercial captive breeding. Such an approval shall only be granted upon
presentation of the following documents:
(1) A preliminary approval for establishing a farm.
(2) Technical feasibility study indicating the required wild animal species.
38
(3) Evidence of financial capability, ownership of the land or a contract
for a reasonable duration.
(4) Payment of specified fees.
(5) Approval is valid for one year and renewable.
39
MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1. Material
Four wild animal’s farms in Khartoum State were investigated as
follows:
1- Sebair farm for gazelles, situated in Umharaz in Jebel
Aulia province, east of Jebel Aulia road.
2- Babikir Abdelrahman farm for gazelles, situated in
Jebel Aulia province, east of the security inspection
post.
3- Elrasheed Mohamed Ahmed Hamad and Yasir
Elamin Beshir farm for gazelles, situated in Elsagai,
East Nile province, near Eljelly security inspection post.
4- Okapi Enterprise farm, situated in El Makaweer
village, near the military college, Kerari province.
Farms numbered 1, 2 and 3 were breeding dorcas gazelle, whereas farm 4 was
breeding tortoise, crane, pelican, hyrax, lizard, and serval.
3.2. Methods
1. Review of data through the available files as follows:
a. One file in the executive office, WCGA and uncatalogued 5 reports and records in Wildlife
Conservation Administration (WCA), Khartoum
State.
b. Internet websites for literature review on wild
animal farming systems in other countries and
the world in general.
2. Personal contacts and interview with
* Lt. Col. Jaafar Elrasheed Abuzeid, who was the officer incharge of wild animal farms in Khartoum State.
* Major Salah Ali Ibrahim, who was the officer in-charge of
wildlife in the Sixth April Garden in Khartoum.
40
*Warrant officer Ibrahim Taha Idris.
The last two personnel were members in the last committee
formed within the WCGA to review the progress of the farms.
3. Questionnaires ( Appendix 6 ) were prepared covering
information about:
-Name and address of the farm owner(s),
- Name of the firm/enterprise.
- Location of the farm
-Year of establishment,
-Total area of the farm
-Means of ownership
-Animals raised and their number
-Sex, and age group,
-Original habitat,
-Places/sites of collection,
- Methods of collection,
- Number of cages, total area of the cages and design of the cages
- Materials used for construction of the cages
- Source of drinking water and electricity services
- Food types, food rations, food preparation methods and storage
systems
-Daily feeding frequencies, food service time
- Mortality rate, birth rate, eradication or treatment of diseases.
- Effect of the climate on the animals
-Behaviour of the animals,
- Number of labourers and their various duties
-Estimates of monthly and total expenditure, economic benefits,
- Main problems of the farms
- Future plans.
4. Field visits:
During the period from October 2002 to January 2003, thirthy farms were
visited. Only four farms were found currently operating in Khartoum State. However,
one farm was excluded from the study because it was not breeding dorcas gazelle.
41
Each farm was visited four times on separate days. During the first visits, only the
labourers were met. They availed information on where and how to contact the farm
owners. During the second visits, introductory meetings were held with farm owners
and appointments were scheduled for detailed discussions on the subject matter. The
visits took place between 8: 00 am and 7:00 pm and each farm owner was met three
times . During the meetings information were gathered on different aspects of the
farms and the questionnaires were completed..Direct observation was also used in
data collection.
Owners of three ceased farms (out of the 26 farms) were also consulted and they
provided information on the reasons that made them to stop dealing with wild animal
farming.
The wild animal breeding farms operating in Khartoum State were photographed
and listed as Appendix 7.
5. Data analysis includes comparative and descriptive statistical analysis to
determine the coefficient of variation in pen size, the pair price, annual natality
number, daily food ration, daily water requirements, monthly expenditure and the
number of the gazelles raised. Following Elsheikh (2001), three formulas were used
for calculating mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation as follows:
I
µ = Σ X/n
II
σ = √∑/n – x2
III
CV = σ/X x 100
Where:
µ = mean
X = values assumed by variables
n = number of farms
σ = standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation
The data was analysed statistically (Sendecor and Cochran, 1967)
42
RESULTS
Out of the thirty farms visited, only four farms were found to be operating in
Khartoum State. However, one farm was not breeding dorcas gazelle and it was
excluded from the study. Therefore, seventy five percent (75%) of wild animal farms
currently operating in Khartoum State are for dorcas gazelle breeding as part of mixed
enterprises. Total area average where the gazelle farms are situated is 93,800 m2, and
the average area allotted for gazelle-breeding pens is 680 m2. The number of breeding
pens in the farms is limited to one or two. The total average number of gazelle herds
in all farms is about 28. Area average for breeding individuals is 48 m2. Adult male to
female ratio varied from 1:5: 1:9 and 1:10 (Tables 1 and 2).
Shendi West, Atbara, and west of Omdurman are the original habitats and
collection sites of dorcas gazelles currently in the farms. The methods of collection
are purchases of youngs from natives. The average price per pair is 25,000 Sudanese
Dinars ($ 95).
Identification methods and documents on the purchases or any form of
recording were not found. Farm administration is either by the owner or by one
untrained labourer (Table 3).
Diseases and the effects of the climate were not observed. The mortality rate
was said to be low and the average number of reported newborns in a year was 8
gazelles for all farms. Some gazelles were tamed and were tolerant to human
presence, but adult males tended to fight among themselves when placed together in
the same pen (Table 4).
The average amount of water taken by a gazelle per day in all farms
collectively was 21.9 m3 during the winter and 42.2 m3 during the summer. The main
feed was clover (berseem). The average daily ration for a gazelle in all farms was 0.7
kg served either every morning and evening or every morning. It could be served
either as a green fodder during the summer and sun-dried during rainy season or as a
43
green fodder in all seasons. Feed arrangements are by scattering all over the pen’s
area on the ground (Table 5).
The average estimate of establishment expenditure was 1,316,666.6 Sudanese
Dinars, and the average estimate of monthly expenditure for all farms was 28,833.3
Sudanese Dinars.
Table 1: Wild animals’ farms currently operating in Khartoum State
Farm
Total
area
in
Land use
Activities
Area
strategy
other
m2
Location
Number of
Wild animal
Total
species
herd
Dorcas
44
covered
and year
wild
wildlife
by
of
animals’
management
animal
establishm-
breeding
breeding
ent
pens
Um Harraz,
2
than
wild
Females
Males
pens
1
105000
++
Dairy
and
cows
640
pasture
As* Os*
As* Os*
31 8
3
2
23
11 7
2
3
16
9
1
2
Tortoise,
15
-
-
Makaweer,
Crane,
20
-
-
Kerari
pelican,
1
-
-
province,
hyrax,
7
-
-
1997
Lizard,
100
-
-
serval
1
-
-
gazelle
Jebel Aulia
plantations
province,
1992
2
126000
++
Dairy cows,
600
Jebel Aulia,
pasture, dates
Jebel Aulia
and
province,
citrus
2
Dorcas
gazelle
1998
fruits
plantations
and
poultry
farm
3
50400
++
Pasture
citrus
and
800
El
Sagaai,
East
fruits
1
Nile
plantations
province,
and red brick
2001
Dorcas
4
gazelle
production
4
1200
+
None
325
El
6
NB: + = Pure enterprise, ++ = Mixed enterprise, As* = Adults, Os = Other age groups
44
Table 2: Areas allotted to gazelles, total herds and adult males to adult females ratio
in farms operating in Khartoum State.
Farm
Total
Area
Percentage
Total
area
allotted
of
herd
M2
for
allotted
breeding
pens
2
(m )
Area
Adult
available
male to
for
adult
for
breeding
female
breeding
individual
ratio
area
Females
Males
2
m
pens
As Os
As Os
1
105000
640
0.6
44
31 8
3 2
19
1:10
2
126000
600
0.48
23
11 7
2 3
46
1:5
3
50400
800
1.6
16
9
1 2
80
1:9
4
N:B: As = Adults, Os = Other age groups
45
Table 3: Source of dorcas gazelles and administrative systems in farms currently
operating in Khartoum State.
Farm
Gazelle
Original
Collection
Collection
Price of
Supporting
Administrative
Labours
Labours
herd
habitat
sites
methods
gazelles
documents
system
Nos
Education
per two
Recording
(SD)
Feasibility
level
studies
1
2
3
44
23
16
Shendi-
Shendi-
Purchase
west,
west,
of youngs
River Nile
River Nile
from
state
state
natives
Shendi-
Shendi-
Purchase
west
west
of youngs
River Nile
River Nile
from
state
state
natives
Shendi,
Shendi,
Purchase
Atbara and
Atbara and
of youngs
West
West
from
of
Omdurman
of
Omdurman
natives
.
46
40000
Non
Direct
daily
1
Non
1
Non
1
Non
supervision
17500
Non
Direct
daily
supervision
20000
Feasibility
Through
study only
labourer
the
Table 4: The Health Status and Behaviour of Dorcas gazelle populations in farms
currently operating in Khartoum State
Farm
Gazelle
Effect
herd
climate
of
Reported
Eradication
diseases
measures
Birth rate
Number of
Mortality
newborns
rate
Behaviour
per a year
1
44
Not
Non
Non
Good
12
Low
observed
Some tamed,
some not.
Adult males
fight
each
other
when
put together
2
23
Not
Non
Non
Relatively
observed
6
Very low
good
Gazelles
tamed, adult
males
less
aggressive to
each other
3
16
Not
Non
Non
Not bad
observed
7
Very low
Tamed
and
tolerant
to
human
presence,
adult males
are
aggressive to
each other
47
Table 5: Water and food supply systems in farms currently operating in Khartoum
State.
Farm
Gazelle
Source
Drinking
Water
Main
Daily
Food
Feeding
herd
of
arrangements
taken
food
food
service
arrangements
time
drinking
per
ration
water
day
(Rolls)
(m3)
1
44
Water
In basins
380
pump
on
Clover
3
(berseem)
Kg
Every
Served green
66.6
morning
in
the
and
site
summer
sun-
dried during
rainy season,
by scattering
all over the
pens area on
the ground
2
23
Water
In buckets
1330
pump
on
Clover
2
44.4
(berseem)
Every
Served green
morning
by scattering
the
all over the
site
pens area on
the ground
3
16
Water
In a basin
pump
(half
on
barrel)
the
475
a
Clover
(berseem)
site
2
44.4
Every
Served green
morning
by scattering
and
all over the
evening
pens area on
the ground
48
During the period 1995-2000, dorcas gazelle in the Sudan, offered the largest
game quota on the hunting licences (Table 6) and a great number of them were been
exported to the Arab countries (Table 7). Some of the exported animals, were being
offered as the Sudan government’s gifts to dignitaries in various friendly countries
and international agencies (Adieng and Gonja, 2000). Among the exported gazelles
were those bred in the farms.
At present there are no economic benefits, because export has ceased, other
farms are still at establishment stages, and a farm might be more aesthetic (hobby)
rather than commercial (Table 8).
49
Table 6: Numbers of wild mammals hunted during the period 1995-2000 in the Sudan
Year
Oribi
Rabbit
Dorcas
Singa
Um
gazelle
Gazelle
Dikdik
Warthog
Eriteran
Hueglin’s
Nubian
Barbary
Gazelle
Gazelle
Ibex
Sheep
1995
44
154
290
18
12
12
1
1
7
3
1996
-
830
345
13
4
8
2
2
7
4
1997
-
1467 517
8
9
10
-
-
11
5
1998
-
856
552
8
6
12
2
1
-
3
1999
-
18
87
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
2000
-
100
117
1
1
3
2
2
-
1
48
32
45
7
6
25
18
Total 44
3425 1909
Source: Wildlife Conservation Administration, Khartoum State (2000)
50
Table 7: Numbers of live dorcas gazelles exported during the period 1996-2000 in the
Sudan
Year
Numbers exported
1996
119
1997
179
1998
180
1999
241
2000
247
Total
966
Source: Wildlife Conservation Administration, Khartoum State (2000)
51
Table 8: Estimate of establishment and total monthly expenditure; of the farms
currently operating in Khartoum State.
Farm
Gazelle
Estimate
of Total
herd
establishment monthly
expenditure
expenditure
(SD)
(SD)
1
44
2,000,000
60,000
2
23
500,000
9,500
3
16
1,450,000
17,000
52
The results of statistical analysis showed that, the coefficient of variation
among the three gazelle farms currently operating in Khartoum State is higher with
regards to pen area (82.6%), the pair price (90.5%), annual natality number (92.5%),
daily food ration (84.2%), daily water requirements (58.7%), and monthly
expenditure (77.2%). (Table 9). However, the coefficient of variation is low with
regards to gazelle herd (30.4%).
Generally, no apparent difference has been observed among gazelle herds. The
gazelles look healthy; food and water are available all the times in the pens. Lands are
completely flat. The soil is generally sandy-clay and bare without vegetation cover
(grass and shrubs). There are artificial shades, but in one farm there are also tree
shades. These farms are not well equiped as the animal farm that is not breeding
gazelles. The owner of that farm is qualified in wildlife management. There is an
established and staffed office dealing only in fields of wild animal farms and trade.
The personnel include the manager, treasurer, public relations Officer, agents,
computer typist and secretary, messenger, and two labourers in the farm. The office is
equipped with modern systems of communications such as fax and telephones.
Initially, the implementation of the steps listed in feasibility studies has
not been followed. Also the farms have not been visited regularly. Database is
still limited and not enough to be used for making separate and strict laws. As
such the present circumstances may dictate making of laws on a general base
with sound principles and not closing the way for investment in the field of
wildlife (Detailed Plan of Administration, 2002).
Some of the problems identified by the WCGA as major obstacles to its duties
include shortage of equipment and trained staff (see Appendix 5 ). This shortage has
made it difficult for WCGA to carry out its duties effectively. For example, in the
River Nile State (the collection site of the gazelles currently in the farms) there were
only two cars out of the proposed seven (Lumerei, 2002).
All the farms had faced many problems. Problems that lead to the ceasing of
some wild animal farms and currently affecting the operating farms as reported by the
farmers and those noted during the survey include the following:
(1) Absence of rules and regulations.
(2) Fees and prices of animals are very high and not in conformity with those of
foreign markets.
53
(3) Feasibility studies are not comprehensive and are not done by a group of
professionals.
(4) Lack of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.
(5) Lack of management plans.
(6) Wildlife Conservation General Administration tends to loan from the farms,
breeding groups to meet administrative commitments that it is not able to fulfil on its
own. Moreover, none of the loans have been settled.
(7) Some labourers are not honest because they undertake an unauthorized sale of
farm animals. They also misuse funds.
(8) No systems of recording have been established, and there are no standard means
of identifying individual animals.
(9) Capturing is done through direct physical encroachment and tricks, the action that
agitates the animals and increases the risk of injury.
(10) Gazelles are handled almost like domesticated goats, confined to a limited space
and there appears to be no tendency towards expansion.
(11) There is great competition with exports from the wild and exports exempted of
fees by special permissions and owners of the collection centres who exported
animals directly without expending the cost of breeding in the farms.
(12) Involvement of unauthorized people in animal trade.
(13) Lack of marketing opportunities and uncertainty of direct flights.
(14) American embargo and restrictions put on the US Dollar transfer to the Sudan.
(15) Most farm owners have no knowledge of wildlife management, although they
appear to be showing interest to cooperate and accept advices.
(16) There is no direct and immediate supervision.
54
Table 9: The coefficient of variation among the variables measured in the dorcas
gazelle farms currently operating in Khartoum State.
Variables
X1
X2
X3
Μ
Σ
CV
Pen area
640
600
800
680
561.9
82.6 %
Gazelle herd
44
23
16
28
8.5
30.4 %
17500
20000
25833.3
23373
90.5 %
6
7
8
7.4
92.5 %
44.4
44.4
51.8
43.6
84.2 %
1330
475
728.3
427.3
58.7 %
9500
17000
28833.3
22249.9
77.2 %
Price/pair in 40000
SDD
Natality/year 12
(No.)
Daily
food 66.6
ration in kg
Daily water 380
quantity
(m3)
Monthly
60000
expenditure
(SDD)
Where:
SDD = Sudanese Dinar
X1= farm 1, X2 = farm 2, X3 = farm 3
µ = Mean
σ = standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation
55
DISCUSSIONS
Dorcas gazelle farms in Khartoum State are operating as parts of mixed enterprises.
Other activities besides the gazelle management include dairy cow projects, pasture,
and citrus fruits plantation and poultry farming. This policy is similar to what has
been practiced in South Africa where some game farming was carried out in addition
to cattle. However, it has been noted that, given the inconsistency of market demands
for wild products, it is not advisable for a management program to be based on single
species. Investment in the field of wildlife shall not be regarded as a basic source of
income, but only as one of the complements of income generation.
The average breeding pen sizes was found to be 680 m2 and male to female
stocking ratio was varied 1:5, 1:9, and 1:10, whereas at King Khalid Wildlife
Research Centre, the breeding pen size was 100 x 50 meters (5000 m2) and the male
to female stocking ratio for the Sudanese dorcas gazelle was 1:9. The collection site
was almost the same for all gazelle farms, while it has long been observed that the
offspring of parents who are genetically related frequently have birth defects, have
slower growth, higher mortality, and lower fertility.
There was no marking or any standard method for identifying individual
gazelles in the farms, whereas markings such as ear tags or notched ears with number
collars or neck bands has been recommended for identification purposes. This has to
be done at calving time where the sex of the animal can be noted to give a clearer
overall picture of the herd.
Farm management was either done by the unqualified owners or one untrained
labourer, whereas among the criteria that are used in captive breeding programs is
presence of sufficient expertise among the existing personnel to support the program.
It seemed there was no certificate or any document regarding lawful
ownership of the gazelles in the farms. This action contravenes the provisions of
article 36 of Wildlife Conservation and Federal Parks Act 1986, which says, no
person shall possess any protected animal, whether alive or dead, or the trophy of any
such animals, unless such animal or trophy has been lawfully obtained under the
authority of a valid licence or permit or by other lawful means. The burden of
providing lawful possession of any such animal or trophy shall lie with the person
possessing such animal or trophy.
56
There were no veterinary arrangements for the farms. That could be due to the
fact that diseases and the effects of climate were not observed and reported.
Moreover, the farm owners stated that the mortality was low. Whereas Sayeid (1999)
reported that during the years 1996-98 diseases were monitored on 52 dorcas gazelles.
A total of 129 disease conditions were diagnosed and treated. These were
pneumonias, tick and/or lice infections, wounds and or fractures, helminithiasis,
toxicity, septicaemia, abscessation, lactic acidosis, possible viral infections, shipment
stress, alopecia, conjunctivitis, cerebral haemorrhage, ilio-caecal valve paresis, simple
indigetion, bloat and other miscellaneous conditions. Abortion, retained placenta,
septicaemia, pneumonia, and dystocia were the commonest problems encountered
during the gestation and post parturient periods.
Regarding the gazelles herd, the average number of the parental breeding
group for the three farms was only 28 and the average number of the newborns in a
year was only 8 gazelles, whereas the average number of gazelles (from the wild) that
were being exported annually was in hundreds.
As far as feeding of the gazelles is concerned, clover which is the main feed
was fed to the animals by scattering all over the pens on the ground. In their
experiences with deer farming Reinken (1990) stated that feeding arrangements
should be through roofed and portable wooden feeding racks that have proved
satisfactory (Plate 1). Care should be taken to ensure the racks are far enough from
the ground to prevent the animals standing in them.
It has been noted that membership of the committees formed to study status of
wild animal farms does not include organizations and institutions other than wildlife
Officers. Moreover, copies of feasibility studies are very hard to locate. That possibly
could be due to the fact that their importance as management partners might have not
been realized by the farmers and frequently described as not been comprehensive.
The results of the statistical analyses have shown that the coefficient of
variation among the three gazelle farms currently operating in Khartoum State is
higher with regards to area allotted to the gazelles, the pair price, annual natality
number, daily food ration, daily water requirements and monthly expenditure.
Therefore, there is significant difference between the farms tested variables. That
means there is no standard farming system practiced in all the farms that will lead to
successful opportunity. It was clear that those farms do not have much in common
possibly could be due to lack of guidelines. However, the coefficient of variation is
57
low with regards to the gazelle herd. That possibly could be due to the similarity in
their habitats and the methods used for their collection.
No attempt has been made to study management problems hindering the
progress of captive breeding in the Sudan. Sayeid (1999) conducted a research on the
effect of captivity on certain biological parameters of dorcas gazelle. He studied
physiology, reproductive changes and diseases observed in dorcas gazelle in captivity
and he recommended that suitable environment similar to wild habitat be provided.
He noted that high prices with constantly increasing demand for export of gazelles
might solve some of the problems facing animal production in farms in the Sudan.
Adeing and Gonja (2000) recommended that a technical committee be formed to
review and monitor practical implementation of feasibility studies.
However, no possible changes have been observed in the farms leading to
sustainability.
58
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1.Conclusions:
Many factors are considered to have contributed to the inconsistency and
ceastion of most of dorcas gazelle farms in Khartoum State. Unless some measures
are taken it will remain very difficult for the farms to satisfy the objectives of the
species restoration and providing economic receipts for the farmers. The main factors
affecting the farms are the following:
(1) Breeding gazelle as a single species is not appropriate to allow a farm to compete
on the market because market demands for wild products is not stable.
(2) Gazelles are placed in limited spaces and there appears to be no tendency towards
expansion. There are no enough spaces for adult males to establish territories and for
sub-adult males to withdraw to when the adult males become aggressive to them. The
end result is that a stressful situation has been created in which sub-adults continued
to be restless.
(3) Lack of awareness and absence of expertise among the existing farm personnel
have subjected the farms to be managed by those who have no knowledge about
captive management.
(4) The number of captive bred gazelles is not sufficiently enough to meet export
demands. As a result farms have failed to compete with export of gazelles from the
wild.
(5) The memberships of all the committees formed within the Wildlife Conservation
General Administration to review progress of the farms have been confined to
wildlife Officers. The findings of such committees do not extend into investigating
the route causes of problems and thereafter suggest possible solutions.
(6) Collection of breeding groups was from the same habitat. Therefore, gazelles thus
collected are most likely to be closely related genetically. As a result, inbreeding
which is known to affect reproduction and growth rates might be occurring in the
farms.
(7) Farms are operating without market knowledge and guarantee. Exports of gazelles
are directed towards individuals in the Arabian Gulf countries, and not to companies.
Moreover, live specimens are exported. So, frequently the stock is building in those
countries and the market opportunity is becoming narrow.
59
(8) The available literature and rules have not been prepared as guideline the farmers
and research institutions have not been involved to take part in the work. This
situation has forced the farms to operate independently and the application of
knowledge available in captive management becomes rather difficult.
6.2. Recommendations
On the bases of the findings the following have been recommended:
(1) Gazelle farm owners should identify and include other marketable species in their
management programmes so that the farms will have products to supply to meet
market demands for wild products at any time, thus enabling the farms to withstand
market vicissitudes.
(2) Spaces should be increased preferably with artificial rocky piles and gullies,
scanty vegetation and trees and there must be plans to meet expected rise in
population. These plans should include preparation of extra spaces with all husbandry
arrangements. Initially this can be achieved by pen size model of at least 100 x 50
metres with male to female stocking ratio of 1:9 for dorcas gazelle currently being
implemented at the King Khalid Wildlife Research Centre (KKWRC), in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The increase in space is important because dorcas
gazelles currently in the farms were originally translocated from wide ranges (desert)
where they exhibit higher mobility because the area was not yet encroached by human
settlements.
(3) Awareness should be created among the farm owners because they appear to be
showing readiness to cooperate and receive advices. Relevant number of expertise
should be involved in farm management.
(4) Breeding groups should be large enough to produce more gazelles to meet export
demands and to stop export of gazelles from the wild.
(5) Membership of committees that will be formed to carry out work in the field of
conservation and management should include relevant institutions such as Wildlife
Research Centre and universities.
(6) Breeding groups should be collected from different habitats and traces of
individuals should be kept using marking and any method of identification.
(7) Farmers should be aware of market situations and it is advisable that deals are
made with companies rather then individuals.
60
(8) Comprehensive captive breeding guides have to be prepared and made available.
Each species should have a separate management plan and a body should be assigned
to advise and monitor the implementation that is similar to the policy of South Africa
where the National Parks’ Board appoints an agent to assist the farmers in the
management of wild animals in their private farms.
(9) Handling unit-funnel that is adapted by the Germans in deer farming should be
established and be used to separate, isolate, and capture the animals so as to avoid the
risk of injuries, fractures and stress.
(10) The number of labourers in each farm should be more than one such that if one
labourer has been assigned with the duty of serving food and water, then the other
labourers should be doing other jobs, for instance, cleaning, providing security,
monitoring and recording of events in a book that should be prepared for the purpose.
(11) Team work is a pre-requisite for preparations of comprehensive feasibility
studies and management plans and to assure this the team should include in addition
to the WCGA officers, representatives of other relevant institutions such as WRC,
forest , legal, economic, veterinary sectors, universities, …etc.
Such feasibility studies should include information about:
- The farm and its objectives
-Name of the species to be raised
-Number of the parental group(s)
-The expected products (live specimens, hides, eggs, …etc)
-Annual production rate of the species
-Male to female stocking ratio
-Source of the parental breeding group(s) (farm or wild)
-Feeding and drinking water arrangements
-Veterinary supervision
-Number of personnel and their duties
-Description of the buildings and the materials used for construction
-Establishment cost and monthly expenditure, and
-Expected economic benefits.
(12) Monitoring and patrolling facilities such as cars should be provided to the unit of
WCGA in wild animal collection sites to prevent unauthorized collection of such
animals. For any animal collected using lawful means a certificate of legal ownership
should be granted.
61
(13) It is recommended that WCGA and WRC should work to establish a
demonstrating farm to which interested persons should refer before attempting to
undertake any business associated with wild animal captive breeding on private
farms.
62
References list
Abdelhameed, S. M. (2001). Wildlife Ecology. (Unpublished) Lecture Notes. IES,
University of Khartoum.
Academic American Encyclopedia.Ang –Az 2 (1980). Aretệ Publishing Company,
Inc. Princeton, New Jersey. P224.
Adieng, K. and Gonja, M. J. (2000). Investment and Wildlife Economy, Trial and
Future Prospects (Unpublished). Third sectoral conference of WCGA, Khartoum.
13 p.
Awad, N.M. (1990). Wildlife Utilization (Unpublished). Lecture Notes, CNRES,
University of Juba.
Bailey, J. A. (1934). Principles of Wildlife Management. John Wiley and Sons. Inc.p
5,35-43.
Baker, A. (1989). Abroad the Ark- Species Survival Plans. In: Bison Brookfield Zoo
Chicago Zoological Society. Vol. 4 No. 1, USA. P 7-8, 25.
Brocklehurst, H. C. (1931). Game Animals of the Sudan, their Habits and
Distribution. Gumey and Jackson, London, 33 Paternoster Row, Edinburgh,
Tneeddale Court. P 58.
Brown, Jr. G. W. (1968). Desert Biology. Vol.1. Academic Press, New York, Inc., III
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. United Kingdom edition published by
Academic Press, Inc., London, LTD. 24/28 Oval Road, London NW1. p 10-11.
Dasmann, R. (1981). Wildlife Biology. Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. p
5-11.
Detailed Plan of the Administration (2002). Executive File No. 3/A/1. Wildlife
Conservation General Administration, Khartoum.
Elfahal, A. J. (2002). Administrative Sector Paper. (Unpublished). Fourth Sectoral
Conference. Wildlife Conservation Administration, Khartoum. 21 p.
El Sheikh, A. (2001). Statistics (Unpublished). Lecture Notes. 1ES, University of
Khartoum.
Eltringham, S.K. (1984). Wildlife Resources and Economic Development. John
Wiley and Sons Ltd. Chichester New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore. p 1-23,
57- 69.
Engel, H. and Brunsing, K. (1999). Addax Nasomaculatus. Hannover Zoo. p 50-52.
63
Gonja; M. J. (1991). Evaluation of Wildlife Law Enforcement in the Sudan.
(Unpublished). BSc dissertation, CNRES, University of Juba. 50 p.
Habibi, K.; Abuzinada, A. and Nader, I. (1997). The Gazelle of Arabia. National
Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development. Publication No. 29,
English Series. P 220-221.
Halternorth, T. and Diller, H. (1997). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Africa
including Madagascar. Collins, Grafton Street, London. P 96-97.
Hashim, I. M.(1998). Status, Distribution of Desert and Montane Antelopes in Sudan.
A Paper Presented in a Seminar of Sahelo-Saharan Antelopes, Djerba, Tunisia. 1923 Feb. 1998, 19 p.
Hassan, A. A. (2001). Sudanese Experience in Wild Animal Farming (Unpublished).
A Seminar on Wildlife. Organized by Wildlife Research Centre and Arab
Corporation for Investment and Agricultural Development, Khartoum. 14 p.
Hillman, J. C. (1982). Wildlife Information Booklet. Bangagai Game Reserve,
Southern Sudan. P 10.
IUCN Species Survival Commission (1999) CITES: A Conservation Tool. 219c
Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom. P 31-33.
Kuotwel, F. T. (2002). Wildlife Resources (Unpublished). A Seminar on Natural
Resources and their Conservation in Southern Sudan. CNRES, University of Juba.
17 p.
Lacy, R. C. (1989). How Many Pairs are Needed On The Ark? In: Bison Brookfield
Zoo Chicago Zoological Society. Vol. 4 No. 1, USA. P 7-8, 25.
Lumerei, G. (2002). Conservation Paper. (Unpublished). Fourth Sectoral Conference,
Wildlife Administration, Khartoum. 10 p.
Miller, Jr.,G.T (1992). Living in the Environment, Seventh Edition. Wadsworth
Publishing
Company, Belmont, California. A Division of Wadworth, Inc. p 411-
425.
Mohamed, S. M. (1986). Some Effects of Water Deprivation on Dorcas gazelle,
(Gazella dorcas dorcas), in the Sudan. MSc. Thesis, IES, University of Khartoum.
p 1-5.
National Strategic Paper (1991). A Conference on Comprehensive Strategic Plan.
University of Khartoum Press. 31 p.
Reiken, G. (1990). Deer Farming. A Practical Guide to German Techniques. Farming
Press Books. P 57-82.
64
Sayeid, A. S. A (1999). Physiological and Reproductive Changes and Diseases
Observed in Dorcas gazelle, (Gazelle dorcas), Rasied in Captivity. Ph.D Thesis,
University of Khartoum. p 212 – 218.
Sendecor, G. W. and Cochran,W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Ames.
Iowa State University Press. 593 Pp.
Sudanow Magazine (1993). Interview with the Director of Wildlife General
Administration (1976). Office P.Box 2651, 7 Jaomhouriya Avenue,
Khartoum, Sudan. Vol 21, No 4 June, p 18.
The World Resources Institute; The International Institute for Environment and
Development and United Nations Environment Programme(1989). The World
Resources (1988- 89). Basic Books, Inc., New York. P 97.
UNEP (1995). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press. P
966- 969.
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2001). Checklist of the CITES
Species. CITES Secretariat, Geneva. P. 165.
WEBSTER’S Encyclopedic Un-bridged Dictionary of English Language (1996).
Random House Value Publishing, Inc. p 588.
Wijnstekers, W. (1995). The Evolution of CITES. Fourth Edition. CITES
Secretariat 15, Chemin des Anemones case postalle 456 CH-1219
Geneva, Switzerland. P 135-156.
Wildlife Conservation and Federal Parks Act 1986. 21 p.
Internet Websites:
1. http://www.houston zoo.org/mammals/pages/dorcgaz/.htm 2 p
2. http://www.ultimate ungulate.com/gazelle dorc./htm 3 p.
3. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accoun/g.dorcas$
narrative.htm. 3 p.
4. http://kalama.doe. Hawaii.edu/~/aakea/TeamA/dorcas.htm. 1 p.
65
Chatelaine-
Appendix 1: Dorcas gazelle commercial farms in the Sudan 1992-2000
S/NO
Farm/Owner’s name
Location
Species
1
Diab Ibrahim
Port Sudan
Gazelles
Status
and
Exporting
ostriches
2
Omer El Tayeb
El Elaphone
Gazelles
Exporting
3
Abdalla Sebair
El Azozab
Gazelles
Exporting
4
Ameer Engineering
Kalakala Qouba
Gazelles
Exporting
5
Abuzeid Abdalla
El Jedida El Sawra
Gazelles
Exporting
6
Yakoub Tebidi
Al Jeref West
Gazelles
Exporting
7
Arab Co. Livestock
Khartoum
Gazelles
Exporting
8
Wasfie Agency
Sobba
Gazelles
Still
9
Haiffa
El Jeref West
Gazelles
Still
10
El Shaheed
Jebel Aulia
Gazelles
Still
11
Chiefield
Hella Kuku
Ostriches
Still
Source: Adieng and Gonja (2000)
66
Appendix 2 :
Article III: Regulation of trade in specimens of species included in
CITES Appendix I
(1) All trade in specimens of species included in CITES Appendix I shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
(2) The export of any specimen of species included in Appendix I shall require the
prior grant and presentation of export permit. Any export permit shall only be granted
when the following conditions have been met:
(a) A Scientific Authority of the state of exports has advised that such export shall
not be detrimental to the survival of that species;
(b) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that any living
specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to
health or cruel treatment; and
(c) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that an import
permit has been granted for the specimen.
(3) The import of any specimen of species included in Appendix I shall require the
prior grant and presentation of import permit and either an export permit or a reexport certificates. An import permit shall only be granted when the following
conditions have been met:
(a) A Scientific Authority of the state of import has advised that the import will be
for purposes which are not detrimental to the survival of the species involved.
(b) A Scientific Authority of the state of import is satisfied that the proposed
recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it, and
(c) A Management Authority of the state of import is satisfied that the specimen
will not be used for primary commercial purposes.
67
(4) The re-export of any specimen of species included in Appendix I shall require the
prior grant and presentation of a re-export certificate. A re-export certificate shall
only be granted when the following conditions have been met:
(a) A Management Authority of the state of re-import is satisfied that the
specimen was imported into that state in accordance with the provisions of the present
convention;
(b) A Management Authority of the state of re-import is satisfied that any living
specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to
health or cruel treatment; and
(c) A Management Authority of the state of re-import is satisfied that any import
permits have been granted for any living specimen.
(5) The introduction from the sea of any specimen of a species included in Appendix I
shall require the prior grant of a certificate from A Management Authority of the state
of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions
have been met:
(a) A Scientific Authority of the state of introduction advises that the introduction
will not be detrimental to the survival of the species involved;
(b) A Management Authority of the state of introduction is satisfied that the
proposed recipient of a living specimen is suitably equipped to house and care for it;
and
(c) A Management Authority of the state of introduction is satisfied that the
specimen is not to be used for primary commercial purposes.
Article IV: Regulation of trade in specimens of species included in
CITES Appendix II
(1) All trade in specimens of species included in CITES Appendix II shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
(2) The export of any specimen of species included in Appendix II shall require the
prior grant and presentation of an export permit. An export permit can only be granted
when the following conditions have been met:
(a) A Scientific Authority of the state of import has advised that such export shall
not be detrimental to the survival of that species,
68
(b) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that the specimen
was not obtained in contravention of the laws of that state for the protection of fauna
and flora; and
(c) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that any living
specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to
health or cruel treatment
(3) A Scientific Authority in each party shall monitor both the export permits granted
by the state for the specimens of species included in Appendix II and the actual
exports of such specimens. Whenever A Scientific Authority determines that the
export of specimens of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that
species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in
which it occurs and well above the level at which that species might become eligible
for inclusion in Appendix I; the scientific authority shall advise the appropriate
Management Authority of suitable measures be taken to limit the grant of export
permits for specimens of that species.
(4) The import of any specimen of species included in Appendix II shall require the
prior presentation of either an export permit or a re-export certificate
(5) The re-export of any specimen of species included in Appendix II shall require
the prior grant and presentation of a re-export certificate. A re-export certificate shall
only be granted when the following conditions have been met:
(a) A Management Authority of the state of re-export is satisfied that the
specimen was brought into the state in accordance with the provisions of the present
convention; and
(b) A Management Authority of the state of re-export is satisfied that any living
specimen will be so prepared and shipped as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to
health or cruel treatment.
(6) The introduction from the sea of any specimen of species included in Appendix II
shall require the prior grant of a certificate from A Management Authority of the state
of introduction. A certificate shall only be granted when the following conditions
have been met:
(a) A Scientific Authority of the state of introduction advises that the introduction
will not be detrimental to the survival of that species.
69
(b) A Management Authority of the state of introduction is satisfied that any
living specimen will so be handled as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health
or cruel treatment.
(7) Certificates referred to in paragraph (6) above of this article may be granted on the
advise of A Scientific Authority, in consultation with other national scientific
authorities or when appropriate, international scientific authorities, in respect to
periods not exceeding one year for total numbers of specimens to be introduced in
such periods
Article V: Regulation of trade in specimens of species
included in CITES Appendix III
(1) All trade in specimens of species included in CITES Appendix III shall be in
accordance with the provisions of this article.
(2) The export of any specimen of species included in Appendix III from any state
which has included that species in Appendix III shall require the prior grant and
presentation of an export permit. An export permit shall only be granted when the
following conditions have been met:
(a) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that the specimen was
not obtained in contravention of the laws of that state for the protection of fauna and
flora; and
(b) A Management Authority of the state of export is satisfied that any living
specimen will be so prepared as to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or
cruel treatment
(3) The import of any specimen of a species included in Appendix III shall require,
except in circumstances to which paragraph (4) of this article applies, the prior
presentation of a certificate of origin, and where the import is from state which has
included that species in Appendix III, an export permit.
(4) In the case of re-export, a certificate granted by the management authority of the
state of re-export that the specimen was processed in that state or is being re-exported
shall be accepted by the state of import as evidence that the provisions of the present
convention have been complied with respect to the specimen concerned.
70
Appendix 3: The WCFPA 1986, Articles on Animal
Protection and Trade:
Article 17:
(1) No person shall hunt any animal listed in schedule I to this Act
(2) No person shall hunt any animal listed in schedules II and III to this Act, except
under a valid license issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Article 36 :
No person shall possess any protected animal, whether alive or dead, or the
trophy of any such animal, unless such animal or trophy has been lawfully obtained
under the authority of a valid license or permit or by other lawful means. The burden
of providing lawful possession of any such animal or trophy shall lie with the person
possessing such animal or trophy.
Article 37 :
(1) The Director, or other Officer authorized by the Director in writing on his behalf,
may on application, therefore, issue a certificate of legal ownership in respect of any
protected animal or trophy, where he is satisfied that such animal or trophy has been
lawfully obtained under the authority of a valid license or permit or other lawful
means in which the certificate shall include the name of the owner, a description of
the animal or trophy concerned, and the date and place of issue.
(2) No person shall sell or otherwise transfer any schedule I or II, protected animal or
trophy unless he is in possession of a valid certificate of legal ownership issued in
respect of that animal or trophy. Upon such sale or transfer, such certificate shall,
except in case of articles manufactured from parts of protected trophies, be transferred
to the person buying or otherwise receiving such animal or trophy.
Article 38 :
No person shall manufacture article from protected trophies for sale or carry
on the business or deal in protected animals or trophies, except under the authority of
a valid dealer’s permit, which permit may be issued by the Director or any Officer
authorized by him in writing on his behalf, at his discretion and subject to the
payment of such fees and to such other conditions as may be specified in any
regulations made under this Act, or in the permit itself.
71
Article 39 :
(1) No person shall export or attempt to export any protected animal or trophy except
under a valid export permit issued by the Director or any Officer authorized by him in
writing on his behalf, and in accordance with the conditions of such export permit and
subject to the payment of such fees as may be specified in regulations made under this
Act.
(2) No export permit may be issued in accordance with paragraph (1) in respect to any
protected animal or trophy unless the Director or issuing Officer is satisfied that:
(a) Such animal or trophy has been lawfully obtained.
(b) Such export will not be detrimental to the survival of such species of animal in the
Sudan.
(c) In the case of animals and their trophies whose import and export is restricted
under Appendix I and II for the CITES or any trophy of any such animal that an
import permit has been granted by the competent authority of the importing country
in respect of such animal or trophy.
(d) In the case of any live animal, that such animal will be so prepared and shipped as
to minimize any risk or injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment.
Articles on penalties
Article 53 :
Any person contravening any of the provisions of this Act shall be liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or fine which shall be determined by
the court or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and for any person
contravening any of the provisions of this Act for a second time or more, shall be
liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or fine which shall be
determined by the court or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
Article 54 :
Any contraventions of the provisions of this Act or any regulation issued
hereunder by the game Officer or other member of Wildlife Conservation Forces
shall, in addition to any prosecution brought under this Act render such game Officer
or other member of Wildlife Conservation Forces liable to disciplinary action.
72
73
Appendix 4 : Handling Unit - funnel
Source: Reiken (1990)
Appendix 5 : Academic Qualifications of Wildlife Officers in the
Sudan up to the year 2002
74
PhD
MSc
University
Secondary school Rankers
graduates
certificate
Total
-
5
41
132
94
272
-
1.8%
15.1%
48.5%
34.6%
100%
Source: Elfahal (2002)
75
Appendix 6 : Farm owner’s Questionnaire
Name and address of the farm owner(s): ………………………………………………
Name of the firm/enterprise: …………………………………………………………...
Location: ……………………………………………………………………………….
Year of establishment: …………………………………………………………………
Total area: ………………………………………………………………………………
Ownership: …………………………………………………………………………….
Animal species
Total number
Sex
Age group
Original habitats: ……………………………………………………………………….
Places/sites of collection: ………………………………………………………………
Methods of collection: ………………………………………………………………….
Number of cages: ………………………………………………………………………
Total area of the cages: ………………………………………………………………..
Design of the cages: ……………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Materials used for construction of the cages: ………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Estimate of the expenditure: ……………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Sources of drinking water: ……………………………………………………………..
Electricity service: ……………………………………………………………………..
76
Food types: …………………………………………………………………………….
Food ration: ……………………………………………………………………………
Food preparation methods and storage system: ………………………………………
Daily feeding frequencies: …………………………………………………………….
Food service time: ……………………………………………………………………..
Mortality rate: …………………………………………………………………………..
Eradication or treatment: ……………………………………………………………….
Birth rate: ………………………………………………………………………………
Number of newborns during the year/time: ……………………………………………
Effect of the climate on the animals: …………………………………………………..
Behaviour:
……………………………………………………………………………….
Monthly total expenditure, fees and feasibility study cost: ……………………………
Economic benefits: ……………………………………………………………………..
The main problems of the farm: ………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Administrative system in the farms: …………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Number of labourers and their various duties: …………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Future plans: ……………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Enquiries specifically on dorcas gazelle, Gazelle dorcas
Behaviours:
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Activities: ………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Resting periods: ………………………………………………………………………...
Feeding periods: ………………………………………………………………………..
77
Food types: ……………………………………………………………………………..
Birth rate: ………………………………………………………………………………
Mortality rate: …………………………………………………………………………..
Diseases and their causes: ……………………………………………………………...
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Prices of the animals: …………………………………………………………………..
Trade in the animals: …………………………………………………………………...
Countries to which farm animals were being exported: ………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
78
Appendix 7 :
Plate 1: Movable feeding rack
Source: Reiken (1990)
Plate 2 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 1. The researcher (right) completing a
questionnaire, the farm owner (middle) and the labourer (left). Note the
gazelles inside the farm.
79
Plate 3 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 1. The son of the farm owner and the
gazelles inside the farm. Note drinking water arrangements.
Plate 4 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 1. Gazelles feeding on the clover
scattered to them on the ground.
80
Plate 5 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 1. The researcher (right) and the son of
farm owner (left) in clover plantation.
Plate 6 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 2. The brother of the farm owner who is
in-charge of the farm (right) and the researcher (left) completing a
questionnaire.
Note poultry farm behind them as an example of other activities.
81
Plate 7 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 2. The labourer scattering clover on the
ground for the gazelles to eat.
82
Plate 8 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 2. Gazelles feeding on clover that has
been scattered on the ground for them to eat.
Note two buckets of drinking water under a tag near the door towards the
researcher.
Plate 9 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 2. Dairy cows as an example of other
activities.
83
Plate 10 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 2. Tractors and other facilities used in
cultivation.
Plate 11 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 3. South Eastern outer fence wall and
the gazelles shade. Note the citrus plantation
Plate 12 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 3. The researcher in the farm
Note the gazelles inside the fence
84
Plate 13 : Dorcas gazelle farm No 3. Note drinking water arrangements
in the shade, the basins used for serving grains and clover rubbish on the
ground.
Plate 14 : Wild animal farm No 4. The southern outer fence wall. The
photographer relaxing on a motor cycle
85
Plate 15 : Wild animal farm No 4. The researcher near the pelican.
Note the cages and the two common geese
86
87
88