Wildlife, livestock, and disease in Laikipia, Kenya: Pastoralist observations

Background/Question/Methods

    Research focuses on the implications of interspecific disease for human-wildlife conflict in Kenya’s Laikipia District.    

     Conflict between pastoralist populations (whose primary means of survival is livestock) and wildlife is a focus of academic inquiry in Laikipia. Pastoralists are being encouraged to set aside land for wildlife conservation at the same time as they face heightened survival challenges due to more severe and prolonged droughts, which have yielded major livestock die-offs and promoted shifts to alternate subsistence strategies.

     Despite extensive focus on human-wildlife conflict in the region, studies to date have focused on livestock depredation and threats from elephants. The role of disease in human-wildlife conflict has received little attention.

      The underlying assumption for this research was that attitudes toward wildlife stemming from disease threats could have implications for human-wildlife conflict and wildlife conservation. Specific questions included: How do pastoralists view wildlife in light of verified and presumed zoonotic disease? What have livestock disease changes been attributed to? What strategies exist for disease prevention?

      Interviews were conducted with approximately 100 pastoralists in summer 2011. Interviews were also conducted with veterinary and human health professionals in the district. Interview results were analyzed vis-à-vis recent and current serological disease research in Laikipia.

Results/Conclusions

      Respondents believe that livestock are decreasing in number while wildlife are increasing. Most pastoralists believed that livestock disease, particularly tick-borne, is increasing. This was attributed to increased wildlife-livestock overlap. Buffalo and elephant were viewed as primary disease vectors.

      Pastoralists treat livestock with antibiotics, particularly Oxytetracycline (obtained at markets), rather than with traditional methods. Diagnosis and treatment occur without veterinary oversight; interviews found that dosage and treatment duration vary widely, raising concerns about antibiotic resistance. Veterinarians travel to pastoral areas only during outbreaks of notifiable disease, and vaccination occurs after disease has been identified. There is no prophylaxis due to pastoralists’ remoteness and lack of funds, plus veterinarians are not focusing on these populations.

      Findings point to the potential for disease to increase conflict and negative attitudes toward wildlife. Given that pastoralists’ livestock live with wildlife, findings also show that livestock could endanger wildlife health. There is a need for a) livestock and wildlife professionals to increase collaboration to (affordably) reduce the risks that livestock pose to wildlife, and b) to enhance research as well as outreach and education to reduce the likelihood that disease will exacerbate human-wildlife conflict.