I agree Nilanga, definitely a good PhD topic. The case you raise with elephants is of great concern I imagine, as elephants standing their ground leads me to think of only the most dire of outcomes. With predators, I think a good deal of any successful implementation of aversive approaches also relies on their being sufficient alternative prey/habitat for predators to avoid livestock areas. The same is true for any non-lethal approaches IMO. If alternatives aren't available, it might be all the more difficult to dissuade predators. Is this similar for elephants in this case (i.e. do they actually have alternative sites/food sources nearby that aren't in conflict)? 

You are right, Rob, in that when aggressive behavior in elephants results from more aversive techniques, the outcomes are not great for either party. It's a tough spot to be in since elephants are also extremely intelligent and can find ways to get past most deterrents. Electric fencing, when managed properly and are functioning appropriately, have been proven to be the most effective in keeping elephants out of crop of human-inhabited areas. But then again, elephants also figure out how to either drop things on the fence and break the current or find other ways past such barriers. There is work being done in various places to restore habitat,fodder plant species, and water and mineral sources that would keep elephants out of human areas, but the whole dynamic is changing overall in the face of massive habitat loss and impediments to movement in the form of corridor blockage or disruption, etc. In addition to doing reactive things like prevention and mitigation measures, it's so important to work on the drivers/root causes of the conflict, such as habitat loss and fragmentation. So it's key to work at both levels for longer term solutions to this issue overall.

A very good summary all-round Nilanga. Only a wholistic approach can truly resolve conflict. 

Hi Fleury,

I like to learn more about this collar. Can you send me some detailed information about it? I like to investigate if it can be an extended sulution to combine this collar with our prowild technology.

Hope to hear from you

Hello Fleury 

I am aware that such a collar has been tested in France to protect sheeps fromm wolves' attacks. I am also looking for some information about it to possibly test it out for jaguars and pumas in South America. It could be relevant to exchange about our respective experience about it. 

I am also setting up the ENCOSH project which aims at co-developping the first international exchange platform to promote the sharing of knowledge, skills and experiences about local initiatives worldwide among various stakeholders. You could have a look in the website: encosh.org

Don't hesitate to get back to me about it. 

Best

Tommy

Here's a blurb of our idea cut-and-pasted from our application: 

We propose utilising animal detection and alerting technology that Wild Spy has already developed and extensively tested (e.g. wireless identification (WID) technology). The system utilises long-life (5-10+ years) animal-borne WID transmitters as a primary and highly accurate means of detecting individual animals when they come within a predetermined range (from 5m up to 500m). Our versatile data logger/receiver and alerting system can be carried by personnel, outfitted to vehicles, buildings or other infrastructure, or carried by drones/aircraft. Alerts can be immediately sent via satellite or radio. Detection data can be stored on board and sent by various means (depending on available networks) and at nominated stages.

In addition, our system has also recently been redesigned to allow activation of additional devices, such as cameras or deterrents/repellents. Almost 1000 sound files can be stored on a deterrent system and played randomly in an effort to prevent habituation to specific sounds and provide tests of sound variety and intensity. A variety of strobe and intense lights can be simultaneously operated with acoustic stimuli. In principle, virtually any electronically-controllable deterrent could be incorporated into the system (e.g. propane cannons, fire crackers, water/chemical jets, motorised effigies). A similar system, complete with an acoustic deterrent, is currently being tested on lions involved in conflict with livestock producers in Botswana, under a project headed by Dr Neil Jordan (UNSW).   

In conjunction with tagged animal detections, additional detection measures will be added to the system to bolster detection probabilities and enable detection of untagged individuals. Pertinent examples include passive infrared (PIR) and so-called “break-the-beam” motion detection if suited to the conditions, which we have successfully used in other projects. Another option will be to use FLIR thermal cameras, which we have many years’ experience with and could prove very useful in some circumstances, especially once thermal signatures of the target species have been properly determined.

This application was largely aimed at larger species that could acoomodate relatively large 433MHz tags, but we also have a 2.4GHz version for smaller critters.

We'll be releasing it all to open-source hopefully very, very soon. 

More than happy to provide additional information to anyone interested and keep up the amazing work everyone. I've been very inspired by the projects I've come across through the challenge and on WILDLABS more generally. 

Also, perhaps this is the beginnings of a think tank of sorts for these kinds of ideas, which I'd love to be involved in. Maybe we could have a group chat/Skype event - or a mini, digital "conference" discussing all these (and other ideas). I'd be keen.