Observing Animal and Human interactions around a Marburg Virus-infected Bat colony.

Zoonotic infections, diseases which spread from an Animal host into a Human population, are a serious threat to public health, in some cases being the source of pandemics which kill millions of people around the globe, such as the Influenza and Covid Viruses and the medieval Plague outbreaks. Filoviruses, such as the Bundibugyo, Ebola, Marburg, and Sudan Viruses, can cause outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever which kill hundreds or even thousands of people in tropical Africa, after jumping from a natural host, usually a Fruit Bat. The Bats themselves seem to suffer little harm from infection with these Viruses, but Humans and other Animals often succumb very rapidly. 

Since the nature of the wild host of these Viruses became apparent, public health campaigns in many countries have tried to minimise the extent to which people interact with Fruit Bats, but the often remote nature of the communities most at risk, combined with the ability of the Virus to jump from Bats into a variety of other hosts before infecting Humans, has limited the effectiveness of these, underlining the need to better understand the nature of interactions between Fruit Bats, Humans, and other Animals.

In a letter published in the journal Current Biology on 20 April 2026, Bosco Atukwatse, Orin Cornille, Johnson Muhereza, Winfred Nsabimana, and Yahaya Ssemakula of the Kyambura Lion Project of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust, Eric Enyel of the Uganda Wildlife Authority, Charlie Gould of the School of Biological Science at the University of Edinburgh, Arjun Gopalaswamy of Carnassials Global, and Alexander Braczkowski, also of the Kyambura Lion Project of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust, present the results of an study in which camera traps were deployed at Python Cave in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, the dwelling place of a colony of  Egyptian Rousette Bats, Rousettus aegyptiacus, known to act as a reserve for Marburg Virus.

The camera traps were deployed as part of a carnivore-monitoring program in Queen Elizabeth National Park between 16 February and 23 June 2025, with a total of 8832 hours of filming producing evidence of at least 14 species of Animal visiting the size, including Carnivores, Primates, Raptors, and Reptiles. The most common visitors to the cave were Nile monitors, Varanus niloticus, (72 visits), Large Spotted Genets, Genetta tigrina, (69 visits), and Palm-nut Vultures, Gypohierax angolensis, (35 visits). The cave was visited twice by Olive Baboons, Papio anubis, and ten times by Blue Monkeys, Cercopithecus mitis, which were seen actively preying on Bats. African Fish Eagles, Icthyophaga vocifer, made 33 visits to the cave, Black Sparrowhawks, Astur melanoleucus, made 19 visits, Crowned Eagles, Stephanoaetus coronatus, made 17 visits, and Verreaux’s Eagle-owls, Bubo lacteus, made six visits. Seventeen Leopard visits were directly recorded, but parts of a cycle in which the same Leopard repeatedly entered the cave, captured Bats, and exited with them were recorded, leading the team to conclude at least 43 such hunts took place during the study time. A total of 63 incidents of hunting or scavenging Bats by different species were recorded, with a further 258 incidents of Animals entering the caves for less clear reasons.

 Multi-species predation and scavenging at a Marburg Virus Bat reservoir. The distribution of detections per species across 368 trap nights at Python Cave recorded using  6 remote, solar-powered camera traps. Blue indicates predation and scavenging events, whereas  orange represents detections where cave exploration, entry, exit, or resting was observed. Atukwatse et al. (2026).

More alarmingly, over the course of the study Atukwatse et al. also observed 214 individual Humans approaching the cave. These came in 22 different groups, including school groups, researchers, and tourists, many of whom came within meters of the cave entrance (a direct contradiction of park regulations), bypassing a designated observation platform 30 m from the entrance. Only one person, a tourist, was observed to wear a mask when approaching the cave.

Atukwatse et al. do not suggest that these observations represent evidence of Virus transmission, but rather a direct record of ecological interactions at a potential spillover site. This included direct predation of potentially-infected Bats during repeated visits to the cave, and provide direct evidence of the predator-guild targeting Bats in this setting. 

A collage of hunting and foraging by a variety of species. Insets show confirmed prey contact and feeding events. (i) An African Leopard, Panthera pardus, with its Bat prey emerging from the cave interior. (ii) A Crowned Eagle, Stephanoaetus coronatus, with its Bat prey. (iii) A Blue Monkey, Cercopithecus mitis, holding a Bat in its left hand. (iv) A Melanistic Genet, Genetta victoriae, with Bat prey. (v) A Nile Monitor, Varanus niloticus, approaching and then consuming a fallen Bat. (vi) An interspecific interaction (likely a fight) between a Crowned Eagle and a Nile Monitor over two Bats captured by the Eagle. (vii) An African Civet, Civettictis civetta, scavenging on Bat remains. (viii) A Palm-nut Vulture, Gypohierax angolensis, scavenging a Bat carcass. (ix) A group of Olive Baboons, Papio anubis, at the cave mouth, possibly foraging on Bat guano. Atukwatse et al. (2026).

Unlike other famous tropical Bat roosts within caves, such as Kitaka Mine in Uganda, Kitum Cave in Kenya, Goroumbwa Mine in Democratic Republic of Congo, or Macaregua Cave in Colombia, Python Cave lacks a vertical space separating the Bats from ground-based predators. Parts of the cave roof have collapsed, and the cave is partly filled with large volumes of guano, providing predators a way of directly reaching the Bats where they roost. This it turn provides an easy opportunity for any Virus present in the Bat community to spread to other wildlife within the cave. Atukwatse et al. observed instances of bats falling from the overcrowded roof of the cave, then having to crawl over the floor, presenting another tempting target for both terrestrial and airborne predators.

First ever large scale predation by at least 14 species on Egyptian Fruit Bats (a known Marburg Filovirus reservoir) in Python Cave Uganda. The trail cameras were placed at the cave as part of the Volcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust Kyambura Lion Project's long term Leopard and Hyena monitoring work in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Alex Braczkowski/YouTube.

The presence of piles of Bat bones and frequent and repeated visits to the caves by a variety of predators indicates that the site has become a prime feeding site for both predators and scavenges, and that to some extent the richness of the resource has led to a relaxation of normal inter-species hostilities, with, for example, Fish Eagles feeding alongside Vultures, Nile Monitors feeding alongside Pythons, and even a Genet and Python seen together. This implies a loss of territoriality and aggression only seen at the most abundant food sites, although on one occasion  Atukwatse et al. did observe a Crowned Eagle and a Nile Monitor squabbling over a Bat.

These interactions are all the more remarkable in that they are occurring at a site with a frequent Human presence, something which many Animals avoid where possible. The Uganda Wildlife Authority has placed an observation platform about 30 m from the entrance to Python Cave, with the specific intention of limiting Human exposure to Marburg Virus-infected Bats, but despite this Atukwatse et al.'s camera traps recorded Tourists, students from a nearby wildlife training institute, and even school trips approaching the cave mouth without any form of protection. It is particularly concerning that this was happening during the Bat's birthing season, when they are known to shed the Virus at a higher rate. Atukwatse et al. recognise that Bat-viewing is a valuable contribution to the nation's ecotourism income, but nevertheless recommend that the Uganda Wildlife Authority imposes stricter regulation on the site, with mandates for protective gear, enforced distancing, and locally trained guides to serve as sentinels for biosurveillance and education.

It has generally been assumed that the spillover events which lead to outbreaks of Marburg Virus Disease, and other zoonotic infections, occur in locations effectively beyond the observation of science. Atukwatse et al.'s results refute this, providing an example of a site where Marburg-infected Bats are interacting with a variety of other Animals, which is also integrated into the local tourist industry. Some of the species observed, such as Blue Monkeys, have previously been associated with Marburg Virus, and are commonly hunted and consumed by Humans as bushmeat. The consumption of Bats by these Monkeys presents a new route by which Marburg Virus could make its way from the wild Bat reserve into Human populations. Atukwatse et al. recommend that serological surveys are carried out of both the predators seen frequenting Python Cave, and of park rangers who regularly enter the site, in order to assess potential exposure to Marburg or other Filoviruses. This, combined with enhanced surveillance of Python Cave and other similar sites, could enable the development of a new dataset to complement the genomic tools already being developed.

See also...

Evaluating the attitudes of park rangers towards more community based methods of policing conservation in Uganda.

Many nations employ park rangers (or people with similar job titles) to defend endangered flora and fauna against the risks of poaching. In parts of Africa the high value associated with animal products such as Elephant Tusks and Rhinoceros Horns, combined with a lack of other economic prospects in many areas, has led to the increasing militarisation of front-line conservation workers such as Park Rangers, something which can be detrimental to more community based approaches, as heavily armed wildlife guards enforcing conservation laws can easily come into conflict with local communities. This has led conservation groups and academics in the field to consider how alternative methods of policing national parks and other such areas, though to date there has been little effort put into understanding how the rangers themselves see the situation.

In a paper published in the journal Orynx on 22 July 2019, William Moreto and Richard Charlton of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida, present the results of a study in which front-line rangers at national parks in Uganda were surveyed about their attitudes towards traditional enforcement and alternative, non-enforcement strategies to reduce illegal activities in Ugandan protected areas.

Moreto and Charlton interviewed rangers at the Kibale, Lake Mburo and Queen Elizabeth national parks, the Uganda Wildlife Authority headquarters in Kampala and the Uganda Wildlife Education Center in Entebbe.The three national parks were chosen for their variation in physical size and topography, location and organisational size.

Location of the five study sites in Uganda. Moreto & Charlton (2019).

A total of 89 rangers were interviewed, including 73 involved in law enforcement, eight working in intelligence gathering and eight in community relations. Twenty three respondents were from Kibale National Park, twenty three from Lake Mburo National Park, twenty nine from Queen Elizabeth National Park, eight from the Uganda Wildlife Authority headquarters, and eight from Uganda Wildlife Education Center. 84% of the interviewees were male, 16% were female, and the sample represented 32% of the total staff at the sites visited.

Moreto and Charlton note that paramilitary training is the primary education method for wildlife rangers in Uganda, and that as this kind of training focuses primarily on activities within Park boundaries, it was not surprising that law enforcement respondents considered the Park to be their ‘office’. Most of the rangers surveyed viewed traditional law enforcement activities such as foot patrols as the primary strategy to address illegal activities in protected areas. In addition to their role in addressing illegal activities, patrols are also an integral aspect of ranger-based data collection, which results in important ecological and environmental data necessary for the successful management of protected areas.

Members of the Uganda Wildlife Authority with poachers arrested with snare traps. History Ranger of Park/Imgur.

As well as the traditional law enforcement strategies, the rangers interviewed identified three alternative, non-law enforcement approaches they believed were helpful in reducing illegal activities in protected areas, namely providing services and allowing community access to protected areas, educating the community on conservation, sharing information and interacting with community members and local leaders, and establishing tangible and sustainable alternatives to poaching. Many rangers highlighted the integral role that the community played in preventing and reducing illegal activities within and outside protected areas.

One major source of contention between communities and park authorities was negative interactions with wildlife, such as wild animals using crops, killing or transmitting diseases to livestock, or attacking and harming community members. Rangers described proactive measures they could take to prevent such interactions, for example the building of trenches to keep wildlife from entering community land. Such direct engagement with the community helps reinforce the public service element of the ranger profession.

Another strategy employed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority were memorandums of understanding with communities. These formal agreements enable local citizens to access Park resources (e.g. firewood) during specific time periods and at certain locations. Importantly, providing such access to facilitate funerals, weddings and other community events was described as helping to foster positive community relations. The rangers proposed that local community members should be given free access to enter and enjoy the protected areas, and believed that this was important to establish a sense of ownership and stewardship amongst the local community.

Members of a Uganda Wildlife Authority ranger unit with snares discovered in the Murchison Falls National Park. Gov.UK.

The interviewees were aware that although law enforcement rangers were primarily responsible for the management and monitoring of activities within Park boundaries, threats originated from outside the Park, and that protected area management and monitoring effectiveness was largely dependent on community perceptions of conservation. To foster positive attitudes towards conservation, the Uganda Wildlife Authority organised and participated in community sensitisation meetings. These meetings were led by the Community Conservation Department and provided the Authority with a venue to highlight local conservation efforts and the activities of the organisation.

These meetings were also seen as important from a tactical perspective. Most law enforcement rangers believed that traditional law enforcement strategies such as foot patrols, were insufficient to reduce poaching in protected areas and considered community sensitisation meetings beneficial in reducing illegal activities. Specifically community meetings were viewed as a mechanism for developing informal social control and guardianship. Rangers believed that by sensitising community members to the benefits of protected areas, villagers would be willing to intervene in potential illegal activities or provide useful information for ongoing investigations.

Community meetings also enable rangers to educate community members about Park rules and regulations, and the Uganda Wildlife Act. Rangers explained that community members were often not familiar with the laws and regulations governing the Park, which they attributed to high levels of illiteracy, and to the advanced age of some community members. Importantly, the meetings also enabled the Uganda Wildlife Authority and nearby communities to interact and to develop rapport.

A ranger in the Magahinga National Park in Uganda. Sal Roux/Wikimedia Commons.

Although such meetings were not always easy, they were important in bridging the gap between antagonistic parties. An important outcome of these meetings is not only a reduction of illegal activities, but an improvement in community–ranger relations, with community members developing trust in the rangers and perceiving them as legitimate agents.

Through such interactions, rangers may also become better informed about the concerns and issues from the community’s viewpoint, which further facilitates a community-driven, problem-solving policing model. For instance, several rangers described the need to understand the cultural values of communities living close to parks better. By expanding a Park’s value beyond its monetary worth, rangers believed that it would be possible to develop context-specific and culturally-sensitive non-law enforcement strategies. Finally, the rangers reflected on the importance of positively engaging with and obtaining acceptance from local community leaders.

Rangers described the need for tangible alternatives to poaching, which need to be sustainable and require direct input from the local community. They also expressed frustration with external agencies and organisations offering quick fixes with little consideration for long-term impacts. Although external support was welcomed, respondents believed that success ultimately rests in local solutions.

One suggested strategy was to employ community members in park organisations. Although some rangers were hesitant about this approach because of the potential for corruption, others considered it to be a useful strategy because staff originating from nearby communities may be able to develop genuine community trust more easily. In addition to establishing a sense of ownership and stewardship of protected areas, respondents also believed that by providing alternatives, including employment opportunities, poaching could be reduced.

Rangers in the Kibale National Park. Jane Goodall Institute.

Moreto and Charlton asked for rangers’ opinions on the effectiveness of traditional strategies in reducing illegal activities in protected areas, and whether they believed that the criminal justice system is effective in deterring offenders. Although most rangers viewed law enforcement strategies
to be effective in reducing illegal activities, they considered the criminal justice system to be largely ineffective in deterring potential offenders. These findings appear paradoxical, but upon further enquiry we found that most respondents felt that it was other aspects of the criminal justice system, rather than the rangers’ work, that were problematic, including 'weak laws' and 'corrupt courts'.

Despite the perceived deterrent value of traditional law enforcement strategies, respondents pointed to several limiting factors, such as the inability to monitor the protected areas adequately because of their size, access difficulties and restricted availability of resources.

When asked about the effectiveness of alternative, non-law enforcement approaches to safeguard protected areas, participants viewed such activities to be largely effective. Although their operational mandate centred on monitoring within protected areas, law enforcement rangers recognised that illegal activities stemmed from problems outside park boundaries, and understood that traditional law enforcement strategies fail to address underlying problems, such as poverty and population growth, which put increasing pressure on protected areas.

Uganda Wildlife Authority rangers. Morgan Mbabazi/The East African.

Rangers also highlighted several challenges that limit the effectiveness of alternative, non-law enforcement strategies, including the bureaucratic nature of memorandums of understanding and the fact that it is difficult for community members to access park headquarters and request support. Continued negative interactions with wildlife also led to sustained difficulties between rangers and community members. Communities were not compensated for losses, and damage caused by wildlife was viewed as particularly problematic for lower-income and impoverished communities living near protected areas.

The distribution of park revenue was also identified as a potential problem. Specifically, interviewees reported that funds distributed at the district level could be considerably reduced by the time they reached individual villages. Some rangers attributed this to corruption amongst politicians who took money rather than giving it to the community, so that the communities do not directly see tangible benefits from the parks.

It was widely believed that community members still feared rangers or did not trust them. This was exacerbated when local leaders were not involved as mediators between the two parties. Furthermore, where access was difficult or community members were unwilling to participate, conservation meetings were poorly attended and ineffective. 

Uganda Wildlife Authority rangers in the Queen Elizabeth National Park. Amy Pickard/US Air Force.

Rangers who believed that patrols were more effective than community meetings attributed this to the deterrent nature of such patrols, and that regardless of community meetings, there would always be individuals engaged in illegal activities. Study participants further explained that patrols provide vital information for protected area management (i.e. wildlife population counts) and thus are effective beyond their anti-poaching function.

Conversely, rangers who believed that community meetings were more effective than patrols proposed that meetings not only educated citizens on the parks' benefits, but also fostered lines of communication. Rangers also referenced the limitations associated with the reactionary nature of patrol activities and stated that apprehending suspects only after they had poached was still problematic. Although arrests can be viewed as a measure of success from a legal and tactical standpoint, the fact that a poaching incident still occurred was considered a failure from a conservation standpoint.

Taking into account the complexity of issues within and beyond park boundaries, several interviewees considered both patrols and community meetings necessary to address wildlife crime. From this perspective, respondents pointed to the complementary nature of these strategies and highlighted how each approach can be helpful in addressing specific communities and individuals.

A park ranger in the Bwindi Impenetrable National Park in southwest Uganda. Sal Roux/Wikipedia.

Thirty six of the rangers interviewed expressed a need for training programs that were not in military skills, including training in ecology, community-based conservation, human rights, law enforcement and policing, technology, and criminal intelligence. Although rangers recognised the importance of military training for their operations, they also expressed their desire for professional development that broadened their capabilities. Forty four rangers commented on the need for law enforcement rangers to be explicitly trained in community-oriented conservation approaches, and thirty one rangers commented on the potentially detrimental nature of viewing community sensitisation solely
within the purview of the Community Conservation Department and neglecting the role of law enforcement in fostering community relations.

The findings of the study suggest that rangers are more than enforcers of protected area laws and regulations and are willing to engage in activities associated with a community-oriented, problem-solving policing model. This receptivity to alternative, non-enforcement strategies bodes well for ranger capacity-building. The study supports the push towards a more community-focused, problem-solving policing approach in a conservation context and emphasises the view that rangers are vested stakeholders, rather than passive staff.

In addition, their research points to the need for a paradigm shift from wildlife law enforcement to wildlife policing in Uganda, to properly account for the breadth of rangers’ responsibilities. Viewing rangers as a policing body broadens the scope of front-line personnel to account for and entrench non-enforcement activities. Although law enforcement and policing are often viewed as synonymous, they are not the same. Policing encompasses a wide range of activities and is largely viewed as a social service. Wildlife law enforcement should be viewed the same way. A focus on policing rather than anti-poaching facilitates the opportunity to reassess current training procedures, emphasising broad-scope police training rather than relying primarily on paramilitary training. The potential for supplementary policing training based on a community-oriented, problem- solving model, and one that also includes courses on human rights and ecology, appears to be welcomed by the individuals who would receive such capacity building opportunities.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Eleven Lions poisoned in Ugandan National Park.

Eleven Lions have been found dead in a suspected poisoning incident in the Queen Elizabeth National Park in southwest Uganda, according to the Uganda Wildlife Authority. The animals, eight cubs and three adult females, were found in the park on Tuesday 10 April 2018, and were members of the Ishasha Pride, which was popular with tourists and film makers due to their habit of climbing trees, something which most Lions do only reluctantly. The animals had been partially eaten by Hyenas when they were discovered; Hyenas will sometimes attack and kill Lions, but their managing to overwhelm such a large group of Lionesses and nearly-grown cubs is highly unlikely, so deliberate poisoning by Humans is considered to be the most likely explanation for the deaths, and samples taken from the site have been sent for testing.

Two of the Lion cubs that died in a suspected poisoning incident in the Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda this week. Alex Braczkowski/National Geographic.

The poisoning of Lions and other predators is becoming increasingly common in East Africa, and results from the conflict between Cattle-herding communities and wildlife. There have been a number of incidents of Lions attacking Cattle close to the Queen Elizabeth National Park in recent years; Cattle are not allowed within the park, but local villagers sometimes graze them close to the boundary (or pass through it) where they are easy prey for the Lions. A number of wildlife groups have been running Lion awareness courses in villages in the area, but this does not appear to have been sufficient to prevent this weeks attack. Park authorities are now considering setting up a Cattle-exclusion zone around the park.

See also...

Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.