An Assessment of Human-Livestock Predators Conict in Central and Eastern Part of Bale Mountains National Park, Ethiopia

Background: sharing of space by humans and wildlife at a time may ignite clear conict. Populations of many species are declined due to the degradation of wildlife habitats caused by agricultural activities. Additionally, livestock may compete with wild herbivores for grazing and reduce the abundance of wild prey for carnivores. A reduction in populations of prey species of large predators might cause carnivores to be attracted towards livestock, ultimately provoke and aggravating the human-carnivores conict. This study investigated the current status of human-predators conict in and around the Bale Mountains National Park. Results: most (72.75%) respondents agreed on the presence of livestock predation. Major reported predators were spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), olive baboon (Papio anubis), African wolf (Canis lupaster), aardvark (Orycteropus afer), genet (Genetta genetta), Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), lion (Panthera leo), and leopard (Panthera pardus). Cattle (54.19%), sheep (70.96%), goat (32.0%), donkey (37.72%) and horse (27.54%) were mentioned as major target of predators. Within the past ten years 1623 sheep, 741 cattle, 639 goats, 193 donkeys, and 124 horses were predated. This study found an increasing trend of livestock predation. The trend was reported to be high within the Park (68%). During the past ten years, households reported killings of 3320 livestock that cost 347,460.53 USD. Loss of 8.66 USD per month constituted 27.45% of their monthly income which is expected to have a great sustenance impact. Human settlement (41%), agricultural practices (38.6%), overgrazing (25.3%), deforestation for charcoal production (25.1%), deliberate re to free lands for agriculture (17.3%) were noticed as major causes of livestock depredation. Conclusions: the results present study show that there is strong human-livestock predator conict in the study Therefore, the author suggested that conict mitigation efforts focus on securing the livestock enclosure to protected areas and regular compensation fees for farmers that face great damage from wildlife. The foremost action should be awareness creation about the environmental, social, and economic importance of protected areas. Park management is also expected to promote community involvements in the future plan of mitigation strategies and practices.


Introduction
People together with their livestock survive in and around many protected areas in African. Due to plenty of natural resources, rural people are always attracted to the abode of many wildlife species. Sharing of habitats by humans and wildlife at a time may ignite clear con ict and one causes an adverse impact upon the other [6]. For instance, various activities on natural habitats may exacerbate human-wildlife con ict by inducing habitat fragmentation through which living space for wildlife gets diminished [37,42]. Human-wildlife con ict occurs in different forms all over the world. One of the major forms of con ict between local people and wildlife is livestock predation [3]. Interactions between several carnivore species and domestic animals have been very complex for a long period of time [9]. Predators are rarely a threat to humans in Africa, but they are a signi cant source of livestock losses to both commercial and subsistence livestock producers [11].
Carnivores including lions, leopards, cheetahs, spotted hyenas, wild dogs, and crocodiles, are frequently noticed as main predators causing a great threat to livestock and responsible for the majority of humanwildlife con icts. This can impose important economic costs to local communities [41,46] and the subsequent elimination of predators through retaliatory action is one of the most omnipresent problems faced by carnivores. This is probably due to local people's view of these large carnivores as government properties and they always want to take their own measures against them to express their opposition [18].
Populations of many species are declined due to the degradation of wildlife habitats caused by agricultural activities [38,39]. Additionally, livestock may compete with wild herbivores for grazing and reduce the abundance of wild prey for carnivores [47]. A reduction in populations of prey species of large predators might cause carnivores to be attracted towards livestock, ultimately provoke and aggravating the human-carnivores con ict.
Adverse interactions between humans and carnivores have led to severe results including the extinction to some animal species. According to [20], there is a positive relationship between historical patterns of large carnivore extinction probability and human population density. For example, con ict with people over sheep depredation led to the extinction of two carnivorous mammals, the thylacine or marsupial wolf (Thylacinus cynocephalus) in 1930 [47]. Also, the con ict between Ethiopian wolves and pastoralists in different parts of the country has put the species into an endangered state [8].
In the Bale Mountains National Park, different predators are residing, however, they face a problem of human-wildlife con ict as the local people have a tradition of livestock rearing [36]. Livestock production is the best income nding way for many people living in and around the Park. Thousands of people are living inside and very close to the Park boundary. Due to the lack of natural prey in the park (needs investigation), predators are turning to livestock to survive. In return pastoralists eventually kill animals without knowing their importance and current status. Retaliation measures taken by pastoralists put very important endemic species including Ethiopian wolf (Canis simesis) in an endangered state [8].
Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the human-predators con ict in and around the Bale Mountains National Park. Many investigations have been conducted in and around the BMNP for many years. Due to its enormously wide catchment area which covers 247,000 hectares of land with an altitudinal range from 1500 to 4377 m a.s.l, there is a great need for investigation and assessments to nd out the overall effect of human and wildlife con ict [10]. Selected sites of the present study have never been assessed to nd livestock depredation extent except for Rira. In this study, major con ict causing predators and root causes of livestock depredation were clearly identi ed. The economic loss of livestock depredation of the past decade was also analyzed. Local people's attitude towards con ict and their mitigation strategies was also assessed.

Study area description
Bale Mountains National Park is situated at Bale zone in the Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. The Park is located within geographical coordinates of 6˚29'N -7˚10'N and 39˚28'E -39˚57'E ( Fig. 1), about 400 km from the capital city of the country. The landscape of the Park is highly varied in size and ranged from 1500 m a.s.l. to 4377 m a.s.l. [48]. Different elevation levels consisted within the boundary of the Park determine the temperature, humidity, and rainfall amount and frequency in the area [5,49]. According to [14], topographical features within the Park can be divided into three categories based upon elevation levels, the northern slopes between 3000 and 3800 m a.s.l. comprised of woodlands, grasslands, and wetlands; the central plateau and peaks from 3800-4377 m a.s.l. (Tullu Dimtu) including the second highest mountain point of the country with a central afro-alpine plateau. The southern escarpment of moist tropical forest from 1400-3000 m a.s.l. becomes the third topographical category.

Sampling Design and Data Collection2
Preliminary survey A preliminary survey was conducted between December 2018 and February 2019 and information was also gathered about the rough extent of human-predators con ict regarding local people's perspective.
Based on the information gathered during the preliminary study 31 people were interviewed to check the suitability and comprehensibility of the questionnaire according to the local language of the study area.

Data collection methods
Data were collected from six kebeles (administrative sub-units) from December 2019 to May 2020, using a questionnaire survey of sample households, key informant interviews, and eld observations. Household questionnaires contained both open and close-ended questions. Questionnaire used was adopted from literature [23,45] and modi ed for the purpose of the study (see Additional le A). Questions concerning every numerical information, general socio-economic status of the community, personal pro le, and trend of livestock damage were structured. Open-ended questions that concern their attitude toward wildlife conservation, predators' damage controlling methods, causes of human-predators con ict, and their feedback on the problem were semi-structured. Interviewees were selected based on their age, duration of abidance in the study area, and mainly their position in the community [22]. Key informants were interviewed with some open-ended questions which were designed to gather information about local people's reactions to livestock predation, how they used and were bene ted from resources within the Park, and their coexistence with wildlife. Data were presented narratively and compared with individuals' responses to the questionnaire. Ten years' retrospective data of livestock damage was collected from sample households and district o ces to analyze the monetary loss of households. Photographic eld observation (see additional le B) was done to as a complementary method [24].

Sample size and sampling technique
In the study sites a total of 334 households were chosen based on the sample size determination formula of Cochran [7] as follows.
where n = corrected sample size; n o = required return sample size (based on Cochran's formula = 384, where margin of error is 0.05); N = total population (2575 households from six Kebeles).
Strati ed sampling was adopted to pick sampling unites. The study sites were purposively selected based on distance from the Park as to inside the Park (one site), less than 1 km (two sites), from 1-5 km, and greater than 5 km (three sites). Households were selected randomly from each kebele. Respondents from each household were randomly selected for interview on a rst-come, rst-served basis.
Respondents were randomly selected with some alteration of sex [32]. All interviews of 334 household were conducted by 12 data collectors with the aid of eld assistants who were selected from the community based on their experience of abode in the study sites. Participant members of the community and their local leaders were informed about the aim of the study and asked for proceeding permission [25] and verbal consent was obtained from all respondents.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and responses were compared with the chi-square test. A correlation was also done to determine the relationship between livestock damage and distance from the Park.

Results
Location and grazing land ownership of the respondents A greater proportion of respondents lived outside the Park boundary (83.8%). From the remaining proportion, 4.93% of respondents live within the Park, 4.07% live near to the Park up to 1 km, and 7.2% live near to the Park up to 5 km. Most of the respondents (56.59%) had their own private grazing land. The mean size of private grazing land in study sites was 1.15 ± 0.1 ha per household. There was a strong positive correlation between distance from the Park and the private grazing land ownership (r = 0.93, P < 0.05).

Livestock predation
Most (72.75%) respondents agreed on the presence of livestock predation. Many respondents (82.9%) of Rira (within the Park) and 82.5% of Welti Tosha (WT -within 1 km distance) were faced a greater proportion of livestock predation. The Problem caused by predators was also signi cantly differed across the study sites (χ² = 16.06, P < 0.05). The degree of the con ict was reported to be more extensive within 1km and 5km distance from the Park than within the Park (r = 0.76, P < 0.05).
Eight livestock predators were reported in the study area. These predators were spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), olive baboon (Papio anubis), African wolf (Canis lupaster), aardvark (Orycteropus afer), genet (Genetta genetta), Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis), lion (Panthera leo), and leopard (Panthera pardus). Kebeles were differed in the number of reported predators (F 5 328 = 3.82, P < 0.05). All predators were mentioned by respondents of Rira live inside the Park (P < 0.05). Tierce (33%) of the respondents reported olive baboons and spotted hyenas as major predators of their livestock. About 28% of respondents reported African wolves with olive baboons and spotted hyenas. Many who blamed African wolf were from and Rira (58.5%) which took 4.5% proportion of all respondents. Some (11.4%) of the respondents blamed aardvark and genet for chicken depredation. Very small (3.3%) respondents, exclusively from FA (1 kilometer distance from the Park) of and Rira (Within the Park) mentioned Ethiopian wolf. A few people reported that some of livestock were injured and killed by lions (0.9%) and leopards (1.5%).  The majority (98.26%) of cattle was depredated by spotted hyenas in the byre at night time and the rest were killed by lion in Rira. Hyenas were reported to attack cattle whether they were in the byre or outside.
But the lion did not break byre. Rather it focuses on cattle that stay outside the byre at the night. Many sheep (59.8%) and goats (65.8%) were killed by olive baboon while 27.9% sheep and 29.2% of goats were killed by African wolves and 7.9% sheep by spotted hyenas. The Ethiopian wolf was also reported to kill lamb (1.2%) and goats (2.6%) within 1 km distance from the Park and within the Park. Ethiopian wolf did not dare to kill adult sheep. In addition to the Ethiopian wolf (Table 3), there was another predator for sheep and goats, the, which was responsible for the loss of sheep (3.15%) and goats (2.4%). difference among livestock depredated within past ten years (χ 2 = 432.2, P < 0.001). The real difference was found when cattle and sheep were compared with other livestock (P < 0.05). Therefore, sheep were highly predated livestock and then cattle. Horse predation was the lowest ( Table 2).
The past ve years' depredation loss of livestock was also studied. All kinds of livestock were depredated in all sites within the past ve years. Totally 970 sheep, 402 cattle, 361 goats, 91 donkeys, and 62 horses were predated. There was a signi cant difference in depredated livestock across kebeles (χ 2 = 303.6, P < 0.001). Generally, 5.85 ± 0.13 livestock were depredated within the past ve years per household.
Totally 199 sheep, 27 cattle, and 78 goats were killed. The predation of the three livestock was seemingly reduced last year in many villages, even though it does not mean that the general trend of predation is reduced. And there was an increasing rate in sheep and goat depredation. 1.15 ± 0.02 livestock was lost from each household. There was no reported predation of pack animals during 2018 GC.
There was a signi cant difference among respondents in their response to the trend of livestock depredation (χ 2 = 47.68, P < 0.05). Almost half of (49.01%) respondents mentioned the increasing trend of livestock predation. The trend was reported to be high within the Park (68%). Nearly, 17% of respondents considered the trend as constant. Some of the respondents (14.34%) believed livestock depredation is getting reduced. but no one was convinced in Rira that predation is reduced.

The economic loss of households
During the past ten years, households reported killings of 3320 livestock that cost 347,460.53 USD. Speci cally, 1040.3 USD was lost from each household through livestock depredation (Table 4). Farming and small-scale trades are major sources of money for the majority of the respondents from which they earn an average of 31.57 USD per month. Loss of 8.66 USD per month constituted 27.45% of their monthly income which is expected to have a great sustenance impact. Local predation-curbing techniques Different predator controlling methods were put into effect for several decades in the study area. Respondents mentioned six major mechanisms they used to control predators. These methods were watch-defend (95.21%), pen construction (67.96%), using dogs (59.28%), direct kill (5.69%), using poisoning (17.2%), and destruction of predators' habitat (7.49%) using re (Table 5). Respondents (17.2%) did use poisons to kill lions and leopards within the Park. Suggested mitigation strategies Different suggestions were given by key informants that are supposed to reduce predation: reduce predators' number, return them to the Park, compensation for inhabitants of the Park, awareness creation to know how to control predators, and no idea. The former four were what key informants expect the government (the Park management) to do. Some respondents (5.69%) thought that the number of olive baboons and spotted hyena is outstandingly great. Majority of the key informants recommended that killing of problematic predators might reduce their effect. But 20% of KIs thought that returning them back to the Park is acceptable than killing wildlife. Many (39.2%) of the respondents want to learn some techniques from the government to reduce livestock damage.

Discussion
The result of the present study revealed that there is a strong human-predator con ict in and around BMNP. However many respondents had a good attitude toward wildlife conservation, which did not correlate with their distance from the park (P > 0.05). Because without going to the Park they were able to interact with different wild animals found outside the Park. Having a good attitude towards wildlife conservation has not been a new phenomenon for many African countries. Many researchers conducted in Africa revealed that the majority of the local people have a good attitude towards wildlife conservation. [15,16,30] noticed that many respondents had a positive attitude towards wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Namibia, respectively. As the present study showed, respondents who were highly attacked by predators had a negative attitude towards wildlife conservation. (r = -0.64, P < 0.05). According to the report of [35], the presence of a negative attitude about wildlife conservation among those who faced more attack from carnivores in Norwegian. A study conducted in Ethiopia [27] also found that respondents who confronted more attacks from carnivores had a negative attitude towards wildlife conservation. According to [13], the positive attitude of local people may be changed due to the high level of con ict. In the same manner, con ict mitigation methods are very important to keep local people's attitude positive. The positive attitude of coexisting people is very important for the conservation of carnivores' fauna and management efforts. Based on the evidence from several studies including the present, the author suggests that livestock predation con ict issues are important factors to determine the conservation attitude of local people which intern enervates the involvement of people in the conservation programs and activities.
Most (72.75%) respondents agreed on the presence of livestock predation. All mentioned livestock predators were spotted hyena, olive baboon, common jackal, aardvark, genet, Ethiopian wolf, lion, and leopard. Common jackals, leopards, spotted hyenas and Ethiopian wolve were also found to be livestock predators in different parts of the country [29]. In another part of Africa baboons, lions, leopards, and hyenas were also mentioned among as major predators responsible for damage and killing of livestock [34]. One-third of respondents reported olive baboons and spotted hyenas as major livestock predators in the study area. Research concerning human-wildlife assessment in Malawi indicated baboons as crop raiders and predators [4]. One study [3] counted 704 livestock predation in the Web Valley of BMNP (1999)(2000)(2001)(2002). According to this research, hyenas were responsible for 57% of the total livestock predated.
Leopard was also made responsible for goats and sheep depredation in the previous study. A study conducted in the Menz Guassa district of Ethiopia [12] also reported the loss of sheep, goats, cattle, donkeys, and horses by common jackal, Ethiopian wolve, and hyenas with one additional predator in the Menz Guassa district of Ethiopia. In Kenya predators such as lion, leopard and hyena were found to be responsible for cattle, sheep, and goat losses [11]. Therefore, livestock predators are almost similar throughout the country and the continent.
There was no relationship between the number of livestock predators and distance from the Park (r = -0.1, P = 0.001). This analysis showed that reported predators attack livestock not for local people are lived in or near the Park. There was a different conclusion given in some other related researches. According to [28] sheep loss to Ethiopian wolves was due to livestock approach to Ethiopian wolf habitat. Several wildlife species may have been comprised within some legal boundaries such as parks and protected areas. But the distribution of wildlife in Bale could be very different. However, BMNP harbors very important endemic species of the world such as Mountain nyala and Ethiopian wolf [43] many other animal species live outside the Park territories which make them to confront with human and their livestock.
There was an increasing trend of livestock depredation in the study area. The predation trend estimation across Kebeles did indicate an increasing rate. The number of predated livestock is expected to increase in the next decade. Almost half of (49.01%) respondents stressed the increasing trend of livestock depredation. With the expectation of many depredation events, local people have been using six techniques for curbing the impact of carnivores' attack in the study area. Among all the techniques used, dogs rearing, direct killing, poisoning, and destruct habitats of predators can have a devastating impact on the wildlife of the Park. For instance, 17.2 % of respondents live within the Park did use the poisonous substance to kill lions. This could affect the whole biodiversity through the food chain. The ring was also another mechanism performed by local people live inside protected areas to destruct the habitat of predators which chased away many wildlife populations including avian from the Park. This is supposed to be a major reason for more livestock depredation events Kebeles far from the Park. Alers et al. [2] and Vial [42] agreed that the causes of re in BMNP are anthropogenic.
The present study identi es ve root causes of livestock predation in and around the Park. Human settlement (41%), agricultural practices (38.6%), overgrazing (25.3%), deforestation for charcoal production (25.1%), and ring wildlife habitats (17.3%) were found to be major causes of livestock depredation. During the study time, there was approximately 25,000 livestock that graze within the Park boundary. Furthermore, a total of 874 ha eld was already occupied for agricultural purposes inside the Park. A study conducted in another part of the Park found that agricultural expansion, human settlement, overgrazing by livestock, deforestation, illegal grass collection, and poaching are Root causes of humanwildlife con icts [36]. Another study from the Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya, reported human settlement, Agricultural Expansion, deforestation, and poaching as the main causes of Human wildlife con icts [21]. Also, life loss and injuries of humans and animals, crop and property damage, agricultural encroachment, developmental activities, and livestock grazing were reported as major reasons for human-wildlife con ict in different parts of Africa [17].
Finally, the results of the present study show that there is strong humans-livestock predator con ict in the study area. Therefore, the author suggested that con ict mitigation efforts focus on securing the livestock enclosure to protected areas [19]. Mitigation programs and strategies should be designed based on the positive interests of the local people. People live in and around protected areas suffer a great economic loss due to wildlife damage of livestock and crop. Hence they deserve to receive compensation for losses and ease the economic burden of predator con ict [31,33] Ineffective compensation programs may actually increase the rate of wildlife killings [31,33,40]. Parallelly, the concerned government body should reduce human settlements, agricultural farmland expansions, and overgrazing in and around the BMNP.

Conclusion
Human-wildlife con ict has not been a new phenomenon for countries like Ethiopia where a high level of biological diversity coexists with humans in and around protected areas. Therefore, the ndings of this study revealed mutual damage from both local people and predators. Hence, the foremost action should be awareness creation about the environmental, social, and economic importance of protected areas. Park management is also expected to promote community involvement. It is highly recommended to study the level of damage mainly outside the Park. Very quick action is recommended to be taken in appropriate space and time to reduce the long and short-term harm to both wildlife and human beings. Some recommendations are given by the present study; Tourism plans should consider local people to be bene ted from the income.
Park management is expected to promote community involvement.
Wildlife population study is highly recommended outside the Park.
There should be a buffer zone around the border to reduce con ict.
Studding population status of olive baboon and spotted hyena. Regular compensation fee for farmers that face great damage from wildlife.
Construct strong pens using stone than bamboo or any other soft material would reduce spotted hyena livestock predation.
However it is hard to apply, redistribution of local people to other suitable territories would certainly reduced wildlife attacks.
Pastoralist and farmers should enhance their carefulness to reduce livestock loss to some extent.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate Permits for this research were issued by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) and park management o ce. The "research ethics committee of Debre Markos University" has approved that verbal consent might be obtained from all participants. Written consent was not necessary since the required data is not such sensitive for respondents.

Verbal consent
Availability of data and materials The data used and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request, without disclosure of the interviewees.

Competing interests
The author declare no competing interests

Funding
No funding sources Author's contributions I am contributing for this work starting from designing the study and data collection up to data analysis and manuscript preparation. The author read and approved the nal manuscript.