Drones for Anti-Poaching ASCI 530 6.4 Research Blog

Drones are being used in Africa as an anti-poaching tool. Poaching is taking a significant toll on the wildlife population. Over a seven-year period the elephant population declined by 30% and in 2015 around 1300 rhinos were killed for their horns (Nuwer, 2017). Many conservations are utilizing drones to prevent or deter poaching. Poachers can be identified in the park via a camera on a drone. At this point many times the drone is flown directly at the poachers, alerting them to the fact they are being watched, and they flee the area.  Another is to reduce animals contact with humans, by keeping them inside a protected refuge. “DJI Phantom drones can steer elephants away from park boundaries — likely because they sound like a bit like bees, and elephants hate bees” (Nuwer, 2017).

Super Bat (Super Bat, n.d.)

The Super Bat DA-50 is currently being used in Tanzania by the National Park Service (Corrigan, 2017). It is gas powered, fully autonomous with a ceiling of 15,000 feet with an endurance of ten hours. It includes a 20 megapixel camera that can send live video feed to the operator, and can 
automatically follow track and follow targets. Small enough to fit into an SUV, including the catapult to launch. It also has the ability to fly up to 50nm line-of-site from the command center (Super Bat, n.d.). 

Air Shepherd ZT-TIC (Air Shepherd, n.d.)

The Air Shepherd ZT-TIC was developed specifically for anti-poaching and is in use in several parks in Africa. Fully electric with a service ceiling of 4000 feet and an endurance of around five hours. It includes a day and a night camera capable of sending live video feed to an operator up to 30km away. Can fly an automated route and has a control range of 50km line-of-site (Air Shepherd, n.d.).

The long endurance, high altitude, powerful camera and range make the Bat and Air Shepard ideal for covering the large land area that encompasses most refuges. They can both cover a large area of ground faster than anyone on foot or by ground vehicle, both of which could alert poachers to the rangers looking to catch them.  They typical employment of one of these drones is to determine, based on past patterns, where poachers are most likely to enter the park and operate.  Rangers are prepositioned on the ground and the drone is sent up to survey the area. Once poachers are identified the Rangers are sent in to apprehend them (Air Shepard, n.d.). 

The DJI Inspire is in use in Zimbabwe, the Phantom is also in use at the same locations. The Inspire is fully electric with an endurance of 13-18 minutes. With a fully independent camera and a dedicated remote for the camera (Inspire 1 Pro/Raw, n.d.). The Inspire has three advantages over the other two drones listed above. The pure ease of use means little required and any park officer can use one. It’s fully packable and can be easily transported anywhere within the park with just a backpack. The ability to hover means a more precise location and stable images, which is needed for any law proceedings where the poachers are being brought to trial.

DJI Inspire (Inspire 1 Pro/Raw, n.d)

The main disadvantages are that with such a short endurance and range limit this is more of a reactionary tactic. Poachers are identified and the Inspire is sent in to gather images of the criminal act as it’s happening.  It is used in conjunction with a fixed wing. Its powerful camera is the main advantage (Corrigan, 2017).

One of the biggest challenges to using drones for anti-poaching is the efficacy is yet to be determined.  Air Shepherd has made some very large claims about how effective they are.  They claim in a one-year period over a designated area there was a 65% reduction in rhino poaching. The second year they operated there, after learning from the first year and improving tactics, there were no rhino poaching deaths at all, leading to a 100% effectiveness (Corrigan, 2017).  It is important to point out here that this was a study done by Air Shepherd, the company selling drones to that area. It was not peer reviewed or replicated elsewhere. There are many articles claiming how effective drones are, but all the ones I came across ultimately lead back to Air Shepherd as their source material for the data.

There have also been anti-poaching drone operators that show up to national parks promising to stop poaching claiming they have done it in the past. These groups charge a lot of money and fly gas-powered drones low to the ground. These drones lack sensors or cameras of any type, relying on the noise to prevent poaching.  These are likened to snake oil salesman as they claim to stop poaching entirely. Even though poaching in the areas they cover remained the same.  This left many parks hesitant to try drones for anti-poaching as they had wasted valuable money on fraud (Mortimer, 2017).

Kruger National Park, which straddles the border of South Africa and Mozambique, stopped their drone experiment earlier this year. Using Air Shepherd drones, they noted that the results were very disappointing, and no poachers were seen or apprehended (Mortimer, 2017). While the technology is promising on the surface, a lot more development and research needs to be completed. No long-term studies have been done on drones for anti-poaching.

Another large issue facing drones for anti-poaching are that drones are becoming banned in some countries in Africa. Kenya banned all drone activity from wildlife refuges and all private use drones.  Kenya sites “security concerns” over this decision and has stopped any and all research being done in Kenya for anti-poaching drones (Koebler, 2014). South Africa also banned flying drones with cameras for commercial use, the vagueness of the wording meant that all drones with cameras were grounded, including those used for conservation (Andrews, 2015). With a fine of up to 10 years on prison, conservationists aren't willing to risk that they are an exception to the rule (Andrews, 2015).

  

References:

Andrews, C. (2015, April 25). The Promise of Drones in South Africa's Poaching Crisis. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmjaxa/the-promise-of-drones-in-south-africas-poaching-crisis

Air Shepherd. (n.d). Retrieved from http://airshepherd.org/

Corrigan, F. (2017, January 29). 8 Top Anti Poaching Drones For Critical Wildlife Protection. Retrieved from https://www.dronezon.com/drones-for-good/wildlife-conservation-protection-using-anti-poaching-drones-technology/  

Inspire 1 Pro/Raw. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.dji.com/inspire-1-pro-and-raw?site=brandsite&from=landing_page

Koebler, J. (2014, June 04). African Nations Are Banning the Drones That Could Stop Poachers. Retrieved from https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pgaapz/african-nations-are-banning-the-drones-that-could-stop-poachers

Mortimer, G. (2017, March 28). Kruger Park, South Africa, Stops Anti-Poaching Drone Experiment. Retrieved from https://www.suasnews.com/2017/03/kruger-park-south-africa-stops-anti-poaching-drone-experiment/

Nuwer, R. (2017, March 13). High Above, Drones Keep Watchful Eyes on Wildlife in Africa. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/science/drones-africa-poachers-wildlife.html

Super Bat. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://martinuav.com/uav-products/super-bat-da-50/