Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


Wildlife management for rural development in sub-Saharan Africa

E.O.A. Asibey and G.S. Child

E.O.A. Asibey, formerly Chief Administrator, Forestry Commission, Ghana. is currently an Ecologist at the World Bank in Washington, D.C.

G.S. Child is Senior Officer (Wildlife and Protected Area Management). FAO Forestry Department, Rome.

The authors of this article present a critical review of the status of wildlife management in the sub-Saharan countries of Africa, and suggest the approaches to ensure the sustainable utilization of this critical resource.

More than 130 million hectares in sub-Saharan Africa have been set aside for wildlife conservation. Extensive areas have also been established in which the utilization of wildlife resources is controlled. In addition, virtually every country in the region has hunting legislation in force, which is usually designed to manage recreational hunting, and as a mechanism for raising revenue, in the form of fees and taxes for hunting licences. Thus, wildlife management is recognized by governments as a viable option in the designation of land for various uses.

However, the actual and potential contributions of wildlife to rural economies and nutrition as a source of food and an object of commerce are rarely recognized officially. Indeed, in many countries these aspects are, to a large extent, illegal by definition.

The urgent requirement today is for a significant and sustained effort to include the evaluation, development, management and utilization of wild animals in national plans for socio-economic development. The involvement of national planning and financial institutions at all levels is essential and assistance may also be required from competent international agencies to ensure success. At the same time long-term sustained utilization of wildlife resources cannot succeed without local people participating in management and receiving a fair share of the benefits that accrue.

Human and animal populations

As a starting point for an examination of sub-Saharan wildlife, a brief review of human population trends and related environmental factors is appropriate, as these exert fundamental influences on wildlife resources.

Sustained high rates of population growth characterize almost every country in sub-Saharan Africa. The associated urgent demand for increased food production is leading African farmers to shorten fallow periods, to try to obtain increased yields from low fertility soils, and to grow crops on marginal land. The result is that arable land is steadily being degraded. And, where livestock populations are increasing as fast as and in some areas faster than the human population, Africa's vast grazing lands are undergoing similar destruction. This is especially true where the loss of traditional grazing land to crop production intensifies the pressure on the remaining area.

OVERGRAZING Is threatening to impair permanently the carrying capacity of millions of hectares of dryland range in Africa

In the drier parts of Africa, millions of hectares of grazing land and rangeland are threatened by overgrazing. Many of the perennial rangeland grasses are being replaced by nutritionally poorer annual ones, threatening to impair permanently the rangeland's potential for recovery, and decrease its carrying capacity. As the vegetation has been removed or reduced, the wind has also winnowed out the small amount of silt that the soil contains, reducing its ability to retain moisture.

Sub-Saharan Africa's forests and woodlands are also being depleted; an area of nearly four million ha is being deforested or degraded annually, largely in humid and subhumid West Africa. The main cause of deforestation is clearing for agriculture, but uncontrolled logging, gathering for fuelwood, fire and overgrazing are also taking their toll. It was estimated that deforestation rates in tropical Africa exceeded planting rates by a factor of 29 to 1 in the period 1975-1980 (Lanly, 1982).

Of course, these rangelands and forests are also the habitat for wild animals. Drastic changes in habitat such as those at present being experienced in Africa lead inexorably to changes in species composition and diversity and may have adverse effects on total populations. Therefore, the major challenge for wildlife management in sub-Saharan Africa toward the twenty-first century is to coordinate the management of wild animals and their habitat with overall socio-economic development efforts.

Wildlife as food

The first human beings depended completely on wild animals for their protein supply. With domestication of animal stock and settled agriculture, humans have gradually moved from complete to partial dependence on wild animals for meat. Nonetheless, in all cultures of the modem world, wherever people eat meat, there is still a significant demand for wild meat. Wild animals of various forms and sizes, both vertebrates and invertebrates form part of the diet of people across the globe.

In sub-Saharan Africa the proportion of wild animal meat in total protein supplies is exceptionally high. For example, communities living near a forest in Nigeria obtain 84 percent of their animal protein from bushmeat. In Ghana, approximately 75 percent of the population consumes wild animals regularly; in Liberia, 70 percent; and in Botswana, 60 percent (FAO, 1989). However, even these high figures may understate the reality of the situation as wildlife consumption is often unrecorded as part of the informal sector.

Perhaps the most important measure of the local value of bushmeat comes from studies that ask people what they value most from forests. In an evaluation of the Subri forestry project in Ghana, Korang (1986) found that 94 percent of those surveyed considered the worst impact of forest conversion to be the loss of bushmeat in the area.

In considering the role of wild animals as food, it is important to take a wide view rather than a limited perspective covering only large "game animals". In fact, small animals generally provide the greatest amount of meat to the subsistence diet. Various types of snails, snakes and other reptiles and amphibians are also consumed. For example, in Ghana and several other parts of West Africa, residents of districts with high concentrations of snails are considered lucky by inhabitants of other areas. Insects also often make a significant contribution to overall protein supplies.

Nutritional value of bushmeat

Available evidence indicates that fresh bushmeat compares favourably with domestic meat, in terms of both yield of lean meat per kg of live weight, and in mineral and protein content (Asibey and Eyeson, 1975; Ledger and Smith, 1964). Studies also indicate that the meat of wild animals has superior fat content (Hoogesteijn Reul, 1979).

Hladik et al. (1987) argue that the calorie value of bushmeat is as important as the protein it provides. They note that many highly prized bushmeat species are preferred for their fatty consistencies.

Unfortunately, there is little information on the nutritional value of preserved bushmeat (smoked, salted, biltong). Methods of preservation vary according to locality and resources. The traditional method of smoking is widespread in use, suitability and acceptability, despite its limitations. Salting is restricted by the availability of salt. Biltong can be prepared where a combination of salt and sunshine is available. More systematic work in this area is necessary to cover the wide range of wild animals eaten, as well as the nutritional impact of prevailing methods of preparation and preservation.

Factors influencing consumption of wild meat

The determining factor influencing wild animal consumption appears to be the adequacy of supply. In fact, wherever it has been investigated in African countries, it has become evident that the majority of meat-eating people would eat bushmeat if it were readily available. Studies in Ghana and Nigeria have demonstrated this to be true irrespective of class, income level, educational background, religion or sex (Blaxter, 1975; Martin, 1983; Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1986).

The demand for wild meat is in no way limited to rural areas. In fact, rapidly increasing urbanization has created a spiralling demand for wildmeat in the cities of Africa. Throughout sub-Saharan and particularly in West Africa, there is a long tradition of bushmeat trade based on supplies from rural areas to markets in urban areas. There are well-established chains, from the hunter through go-betweens/processors, transporters, to retailers in the cities. This system provides employment and income for large numbers of people.

Bushmeat is by far the molt expensive in many countries. For example, in Ibadan, Nigeria in 1975, when prices for mutton and beef were US$2.80 and $4.20 per kg respectively, grasscutter meat cost as much as $9.60 per kg and; wild hare cost $7.20 per kg (Asibey, 1987).

Often, the demand for bushmeat and the consequent bushmeat prices are increasing much more rapidly than those for domestic meat. For example, an analysis of market prices in Accra, Ghana revealed that in the period 1980- 1986 bushmeat prices increased eightfold, while those for beef increased sixfold (Asibey, 1987).

In many parts of Africa, the high demand for and cost of bushmeat, compared to other forms of animal protein, has created a situation where the hunter finds it more profitable to sell his catch, rather than eat it.

Wildlife as a source of income

In most sub-Saharan countries, subsistence agriculture provides employment for the majority of people. Activities that generate additional income or reduce expenditure are invaluable, particularly where they enhance the quality of rural life. The forest, forest products and wild animals provide such possibilities. Hunting activities generate considerable income in many parts of Africa (Asibey, 1978a,b, 1987).

In the Bendel State of Nigeria, when 25 percent of the population were earning an annual income of less than US$130 per annum, and 38 percent were earning between US$130 and US$600, a grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus Temminck), a small rodent, was selling for US$7.61. Therefore, a hunter who was able to kill four grasscutters per month, was very comfortably in the second-income bracket (Martin, 1983).

In Ghana in January 1987 the official minimum daily wage was 90 cedis (Ed. note: currency fluctuations make a US$ comparison impractical); at the same time, a grasscutter brought a minimum of 200 cedis in the rural areas, and from 700 to 3400 cedis in Accra (Asibey, 1987). In an earlier study Asibey (1978b) found that farmers more than doubled their agricultural income by selling bushmeat to chop bars (traditional restaurants) in Sunyani, the regional capital.

SMOKED BUSHMEAT for sale in Ibadan, Nigeria

These examples are not isolated cases. Hunting and gathering of wild animals as food items provide substantial income directly or indirectly for large numbers of rural people across Africa (Asibey, 1978a). For many of them, income from hunting is an essential part of their subsistence economy: they must hunt to survive.

The income derived from hunting is often spent on cheaper protein (usually poorly preserved fish) with the savings used to meet other expenses (Asibey, 1974b, 1978a,b). Clearly this trend has the potential to affect the diet of rural people adversely and to threaten their food security in terms of quality and nutritional status of diet. If the availability of bushmeat is not increased, rural consumption may decline, as the rate of exploitation and intensity of hunting to supply urban markets are increased by demand. The situation is compounded where domestic animal husbandry is unable to meet protein needs, for example in trypanosomiasis-infested areas. The socio-economic cost of this scenario to the rural communities requires critical examination.

International trade in bushmeat

Throughout the world, bushmeat has become increasingly important as an item of international trade. Yet despite the considerable production of bushmeat in Africa, no country stands out as an exporter. In part, this is because of the stringent standards demanded by the principal importers, notably the Federal Republic of Germany and France. However, this is mainly due to the lack of statistical information on bushmeat trade within Africa. Most countries of the region (except Ghana) still give no systematic consideration to bushmeat consumption or trade at national levels of planning, finance and development. The limited information collected remains unpublished and thus unavailable.

This is a serious omission, with unfortunate consequences for those whose survival is closely linked to wild animals, as a source of food and income, and also for efforts to conserve and manage wildlife resources.

Conservation and management of wildlife

In most countries of sub-Saharan Africa, wildlife conservation efforts have stemmed from concern over the severe depletion and in some cases near or complete extinction of selected large game species - lion, elephant, rhino, etc. - that represent significant potential sources of national income. Given this orientation, the most common approach has been the application of stringent laws designed to prevent all exploitation of wildlife within protected areas, and to restrict utilization severely throughout the country.

Where animals and their habitat are in jeopardy, this approach is often the only practical first step available toward long-term sustained conservation and management. But it must be clearly recognized as a temporary and transitional phase.

Various options are open for this. The simplest and often the most effective is to protect existing populations. Where viable populations no longer remain, suitable parts of the former range of a species may be selected for reintroduction of wild animals. There is evidence that introduced species can multiply to economically exploitable levels (Teer, 1971). The technology is available but funding is a constraint. Attractive returns that have been demonstrated need to be further consolidated and better communicated to potential investors.

LARGE GAME SPECIES have been depleted in many countries, leading to imposition of protective legislation

However, there is clear evidence that attempts to protect or re-establish wildlife resources that do not take into consideration the socio-economic needs of local people are doomed. Preservation laws are often abused with impunity. This is to be expected where resources are linked with survival People with very low incomes survive as best they can. The temptation to break preservation laws is great, since wild animals can provide food and cash. Furthermore, the people who should enforce the law often receive inadequate salaries and therefore may be tempted to turn a blind eye to or even to aid rich exploiters such as illegal trophy hunters.

If a wildlife management programme is to be effective in the long term, it must be based on the active involvement and participation of local people, and provide them with significant and sustainable benefits in terms of both food and income (see article on a successful effort in Zambia).

Management of wild animals to increase food resources

Although the domestication of many species of wild animals is theoretically possible, relatively little progress has been made in this area. There is high potential for the taming and handling of many species of animals. For example, in Ghana it has been demonstrated that the grasscutter can be raised for quality meat in boxes in human dwellings (Asibey, 1974b,c).

Even without domestication, however, there are indications that wild animals could be successfully managed for food, either in isolation or integrated into existing agricultural systems, i.e. livestock production, forestry, and crop production.

Commercial production of bushmeat

In some countries, besides subsistence captive breeding, attempts have been made at commercial farming or ranching of wild animals for meat and by-products. Bushmeat is not a new commodity that needs to be advertised. None of the countries in which assessments have been made have sufficient wild animals to meet bushmeat demand. Any innovation that increases productivity is therefore desirable. Captive breeding and ranching could be key concepts in this connection, and there are indications of a good future for the development of more such ranches (Jintanugool, 1978).

Where it is desirable to create ranches or centres for bushmeat production, the establishment of these facilities near consumer communities gives the advantages of a ready market, minimal transport and possibilities for recreational use to generate additional income.

Besides reducing pressures on wild populations, ranching and captive breeding can also ease competition between urban and rural users. Non-consumptive use, i.e. game watching, and sport hunting on wild animal ranches can generate additional employment, income and revenue.

Integration of wild animal and livestock production

Both wild and domestic animals convert vegetable matter into valuable meat; however, until recently indigenous animals have been deliberately exterminated to allow exclusive use of rangelands by domestic stock. Limited narrow knowledge, and a fear of reduction in productivity resulting from competition between wild and domestic animals, as well as the presumed transfer of diseases were among the root causes for this approach.

Benchmark studies, however, have conclusively established that the meat-producing potential of wild animals often compares favourably with livestock (Asibey, 1966; Blaxter, 1975; King and Heath, 1975; Hoogesteijn Reul, 1979; Thresher, 1980).

Moreover, the elimination of wild animals does not necessarily lead to maximum utilization of vegetation on rangelands. Domestic animals are selective in their feeding and not all plants on the range are utilized. A variety of compatible animals, which do not compete for food resources, can thus be advantageous (Asibey and Asare, 1978). This is possible with a suitable mix of domestic and wild animal species. For example, domestic cattle and kudu, impala and hartebeeste are managed in combination in South Africa, resulting in an overall increase in yield per hectare (Hoogesteijn Reul, 1979). Systematic integration of wild animals with domestic livestock is also practiced in Zimbabwe (Woodford, 1983; Worou, 1983). It should be observed that the plants consumed by the wild animals might otherwise have to be controlled manually or chemically. It is therefore more economical to combine livestock with wild animals on rangelands to maximize the use of vegetation and avoid the need for weed control.

Given the potential for bushmeat production alongside livestock, it is important to focus on developing systems and technologies to improve integration and increase meat production. There is a need to pull together information on the integration of wild animals and livestock and evaluate socio-economic returns. This should provide direction for future development and more rational utilization of rangelands. The additional revenue that can be derived from wild animals through sport hunting and recreation should also be borne in mind.

Wild animals and forestry

Wild animals are one of the most important direct contributions of the forests to the well-being of local people, yet in the past they have been regarded by foresters as "minor" products or even as pests. Forest management efforts have generally not included the deliberate application of techniques designed to increase the sustainable yield of bushmeat from forest-based wild animals. Further consideration of this possibility could lead to significant improvements in forestry development efforts, both those aimed at commercial production as well as those concentrating on conservation of the resource base.

Selective timber extraction enhances vegetation growth and therefore favours increases in the populations of many forest animals. For example, a recent study (Pries and Reitsma, 1989) found that in southwest Gabon the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer nanus Sparrman) was absent in primary forest but present in secondary forest. Although the study did not produce conclusive evidence with regard to smaller animals, it is probable that the relationship holds for these as well. Allowing or even encouraging hunting of small animals in logging areas by local people could help them to achieve food security and therefore to ensure that the forest would be more valuable to them as forest than under any other form of land use.

Similarly, in conservation areas local people could be allowed to hunt in exchange for assistance in reforestation efforts. This would provide a motivated source of local labour, a serious constraint in many forestry efforts.

On the other hand, monoculture tree plantations tend to result in reductions of both quantity and variety of wild animal species, particularly where exotic tree species are used. The alteration of the natural ground cover may create an inappropriate environment for animal species. This, in turn, can result in an increased risk of fire, as undergrowth that was formerly eaten by animals is left untouched. Planting might be organized in such a way as to allow indigenous species of fodder value to remain in or along the borders of the plantation area. The trade-off that would be socio-economically optimal has yet to be determined.

Habitat manipulation techniques also may be developed and improved to enhance wild animal production in savannah forests. For example, the planting of indigenous trees of nutritional value would help to increase bushmeat yield potential where other interventions may be inadvisable.

Wild animals in crop production systems

In general, agricultural crops have been regarded as being in direct competition with wild animals, with the result that extensive efforts have been devoted toward their complete extermination. In fact, the origin of many of the national game departments in southern Africa can be traced to the perceived need for an organization with the responsibility for destroying wild animal "pests'' that threatened government plantations.

Wild animals can and do cause tremendous damage to agricultural crops. Some antelope species browse young trees and eat valuable agricultural crops. Birds, notably the quelea, are known to cause serious damage to grain crops and drastically reduce yield. Rodents cause untold millions of dollars worth of losses, both in the field and after harvest.

But the plantation system also creates an environment that is particularly favourable to the harvesting and utilization of wild animals as food. Unfortunately, the anxiety generated by the damage tends to be so overwhelming that possibilities to utilize pest species for nutritional purposes are rarely examined. In many situations the development of techniques for the sustainable exploitation of the animals concerned could control damage and provide an additional source of income and food.

Ironically, in many situations effective traditional techniques already exist but are unused because local people are often employed only as a source of labour in plantation systems: their knowledge of local conditions is ignored. For example, in West Africa, various traditional methods exist to trap and utilize potential rodent pests, e.g. grasscutter (Thryonomys swinderianus Temminck) in Ghana, Benin and Côte d'Ivoire, and giant rat (Cricetomys gambianus) in Nigeria around agricultural crops. This both provides food and keeps the population of these animals below excessive levels. By including local people in plantation efforts, these methods could be applied cost-effectively on a large scale. In fact, on many cocoa and oil-palm plantations, local workers can be observed trapping so-called pests for food in their free time.

Rice cultivation under irrigation in northern Ghana faced serious problems with grain-eating bird pests. Local workers were trained in using mist-nets, with the result that the damage was substantially reduced and the farmers obtained a good source and regular supply of protein in what was previously a protein-deficient area (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1986).

WILDBEESTE or other trypanosomiasis - resistant wildlife species could be ranched for hod In tsetse-infested areas

Another approach to integrating wild animal and crop production could be the maintenance or creation of patches of natural mixed vegetation alongside plantation areas, which will allow wild animals to survive. In many countries hedgerows and shelter-belts provide a valuable habitat in areas that would otherwise be devoid of wild animals. Although not deliberately instituted for bushmeat production, systematic application could be valuable in many sub-Saharan countries where large stretches of land are farmed.

There has been no major deliberate effort to integrate wild animals into cropping systems in sub-Saharan Africa. It is hoped that in the long run the renewed interest in the integration of tree growing into agricultural systems (agroforestry) will be followed by integration with wild animals that will take advantage of the tree cover.

Wildlife legislation

Legislation has been a major constraint to the utilization of wild animals for food in subsistence economies, because it is designed to protect endangered species and regulate trophy hunting. Legislation in tropical countries often seeks to establish sport hunting as perceived in Europe. Thus, such concepts as game animals, hunting seasons, bag limits, trophies, hunting reserves and royal game, have been freely adopted. Their biological validity under tropical conditions does not appear to have been questioned.

A serious defect of such legislation is that traditional utilization is ignored or defined as poaching and the technologies used declared unlawful methods of hunting. Furthermore, possession, disposal and commercialization of wild animal meat or other products are illegal. To cater for conflicts with livestock and agriculture, the concept of vermin has been adopted.

Thus, by focusing on endangered and trophy species, national legislation in many developing countries has had a negative effect on the management of species that do not fall into these categories. The institution of state ownership of wildlife, centrally imposed licences and restrictions on the sale of products prevent landholders from considering wildlife management as a potentially profitable land use option. Thus, incentives to conserve wildlife are stifled.

TRAINING IN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT requires strengthening throughout sub-Saharan Africa

Conclusion

Hitherto there has been little or no serious planning to develop the potential of wild animals to contribute to rural economies. For over two decades in most of sub-Saharan Africa, wild animals have received relatively serious attention for their role in tourism. The role of wild animals as food, however, generally is either taken for granted and ignored, or simply not acknowledged as being of any significance.

The management of wildlife resources for their meat-producing potential has remained essentially an academic exercise. An exception is in Zimbabwe, where both commercial and communal landholders now show interest in developing their wild animal stocks for both economic benefits and for food.

In most countries, however, the basic information necessary to regulate and sustain the use of wildlife resources for food does not exist. Detailed work is necessary to survey wild animal resources, to ascertain the present level of dependence of subsistence economies on wild animals for food and income, and to develop options for management.

In most cases, progress is hindered by a shortage of adequately trained workers and a lack of resources. To date, wildlife conservation and management have fallen on the shoulders of a dedicated few, although formally there has been official participation on a continuing basis. Lack of interest at national and international levels has been a chronic blockage to advancement from local or individual efforts to wide-ranging programmes. Although most African wildlife management programmes require an increase in funding to support the human and material resources and technology needed to turn overexploitation into sustained utilization, in many instances relatively modest resources, when directed to effective approaches, could yield substantial results. What is most required is a broad-based commitment to the sustainable utilization of wildlife resources for rural development.

In this context, it is noteworthy that in developed countries wild animals continue to be managed and utilized as a food resource, as well as for spots and recreation. A similar, multiple-use approach should be strongly advocated for sub-Saharan Africa.

The time is ripe to focus critical eyes on the potential role of wild animals in food security, and particularly on possibilities for incorporating these considerations in ongoing rural development projects. The potential also exists for linkages between wildlife management efforts and nutrition projects in developing countries.

Forest reserves and forested land have important contributions to make in maintaining wild animal populations for sustained utilization. However, for forests to fulfil this potential, forest management plans must be re-evaluated to ensure that they consider all forest resources, including wildlife, as a source of local as well as national benefits.

Bibliography

Asibey, E.O.A. 1966. Why not bushmeat too? Ghana Farmer, 10: 165-170.

Asibey, E.O.A. 1974a. Wildlife as a source of protein in Africa south of the Sahara. Bio. Conservation, 6(1): 32-39.

Asibey, E.O.A. 1974b. Some ecological and economic aspects of the grasscutter (Tryonomys swinderianus Temminck), mammalia, rodentia (Hystricomorpha) in Ghana. Univ. of Aberdeen. (Ph.D. thesis)

Asibey, E.O.A. 1974c. The grasscutter, Thryonomys swinderianus Temminck, in Ghana. Symp. Zool. Soc. London, 34: 161-170.

Abbey, E.O.A. 1978a. Wildlife production as a means of protein supply in West Africa with particular reference to Ghana. Proc. 8th World Forestry Congr, Vol. III, p.869-881.

Asibey, E.O.A. 1978b. An aspect of wildlife in the life of farmers in Ghana, Accra, Department of Came and Wildlife. (mimeo)

Asibey, E.O.A. & Asare, E.O. 1978. Range and wildlife management in Africa. Proc. AAASA 3rd General Conference, p. 83-115. Vol. II. Ibadan, Nigeria.

Asibey, E.O.A. & Eyeson, K.K. 1975. Additional information on the importance of wild animals as a food source in Africa south of Sahara. J. Ghana Wildlife Soc. Bongo, 1(2): 13-17.

Asibey, E.O.A. 1987. The grasscutter. Accra, Ghana, FAO Regional Office for Africa.

Blaxter, K.L. 1975. Protein from non-domesticated herbivores. In Pirie, N.W., ed. Food protein sources, p. 147-156. London, Cambridge University Press.

FAO. 1989. Forestry and nutrition: a reference manual. Rome.

Hladik, C. et al. 1987. Se nourrir en fores équatoriale: anthropologie alimentaire différentielle des populations des régions forestières humides d Afrique. Research Team Report No. 263. Paris, CARS.

Hoogesteijn Real, R. 1979. Productive potential of wild animals in the tropics. Wld Anim. Rev. 32: 18-24.

Jintanugool, J. 1978. The integrated management of forest wildlife as a source of protein for the rural population of Thailand. Proc. 8th World Forestry Congr., Vol. III, p. 851-858.

King, J.M. & Heath, B. R. 1975. Game domestication for animal production in Africa. Experiences at the Galana ranch. Wld. Anim. Rev., 16: 23-30.

Korang, T. 1986. Impact of forest management on the rural population: o case-study of the Subri Project. Kumasi, Ghana, Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, Univ. of Science and Technology. (Unpublished thesis)

Lanly, J.P. 1982. Tropical forest resources. FAO Forestry Paper No. 30. Rome. FAO.

Ledger, H.P. & Smith, N.S. 1964. The carcass and body composition of Uganda Lob. J. Wildl. Mgmt, 28(4): 827-829.

Martin, G.H.G. 1983. Bushmeat in Nigeria as a natural resource with environmental implications. Environ. Conserv., 2: 125-132.

Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. 1986. Research priorities for sustainable utilisation of wildlife reserves in West Africa. Proc. 18th IUFRO World Congr. Vol. II, p. 687-698.

Prins, H.H.T. & Reitsma, J.M. 1989. Mammalian biomass in an African equatorial rain forest. J. Anim. Ecol., 58: 851 -861.

Teer, J.G. 1971. Game ranching in Texas, p. 893-899. IUCN Pub. No. 24.

Woodford, M.H. 1983. Wild animal meat and products utilisation at subsistence level in Africa. 7th Session of the African Forestry Commission Working Party on Wildlife Management and National Parks. FO paper AFC/WL:83/6.5.

Worou, L. 1983. The management of national parks and other conservation areas for rural development. 7th Session of the African Forestry Commission Working Party on Wildlife Management and National Parks. FO paper AFC/WL:83/6.2.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page