Suspected poachers cut five kilometres of Murchison Falls park fence

Suspected poachers have damaged about five kilometres of electric fencing around Murchison Falls National Park in Oyam District, raising concerns that wildlife could enter nearby farms and settlements.

The Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) says the damage has left openings along a boundary built to reduce encounters between wild animals and neighbouring communities. Investigations are underway to identify those responsible.

The warden responsible for law enforcement, Movadi Turyatemba, said park staff were inspecting the fence daily because the damage usually occurred at night. He suspected poachers and possibly some people from surrounding communities, although responsibility had yet to be established.

The affected sections were reported in Juma, Zambia, Akuridia and Bombay parishes, within Myene and Kamdini sub-counties. Turyatemba warned that gaps in the fence could reverse some of the protection residents had gained since its installation.

His account points to two immediate tasks: finding the people who cut the fence and securing the damaged boundary. Arresting suspects would address the alleged offence, while repairs would deal with the openings through which animals could leave the park.

The suspicion directed at nearby communities requires care. No individual should be treated as responsible simply because they live beside the park. Residents who rely on the fence to protect their crops may also suffer from its destruction.

UWA began a project in 2022 to install 126 kilometres of electric fencing around Murchison Falls National Park. The project covered areas in Buliisa, Masindi, Nwoya, Oyam and Kiryandongo districts, where communities had reported repeated problems with wildlife.

Residents complained that animals entered cultivated land, destroyed crops and sometimes threatened human life. The fence was intended to reduce these encounters and make the park boundary harder to cross. Discouraging poaching and other unauthorised entry was another aim.

For a household farming close to the park, crop damage can affect both food supplies and income. Produce lost before harvest cannot feed a family or be sold to cover other expenses. Where incursions happen repeatedly, farmers may also spend more time watching their fields.

These costs help explain why damage to the fence concerns people beyond the conservation staff responsible for maintaining it. A barrier that keeps wildlife away from crops offers a practical benefit to neighbouring households. Openings weaken that protection even before another incident is reported.

Turyatemba said conflict had declined after UWA erected the fence. His warning concerns the possibility of renewed encounters following the vandalism; it does not establish that animals have already passed through every damaged section or that new crop losses have occurred there.

The distinction matters when assessing the incident. The confirmed damage and the risk it creates should be reported separately from any later wildlife incursions, which would require their own records and verification.

Restoring the affected sections would require an assessment of the damage. Cut wires may be the most visible problem, but an inspection would help establish whether posts or connections also need attention. Repairs should leave a functioning barrier across the affected stretch.

Routine maintenance remains necessary after repairs. Vegetation touching wires, loose connections and damaged supports can reduce a fence’s effectiveness. Checking these conditions gives maintenance teams a chance to address faults before a section stops providing the expected protection.

The reported night damage also makes inspection difficult. Staff may discover a cut only during their next visit, leaving an interval when the boundary is open. Clear reporting arrangements could help residents alert park authorities when they notice damage near their homes or fields.

Such arrangements need to be practical. People should know whom to contact, what location details to provide and how to describe an immediate threat. A report identifying a parish and a nearby landmark is more useful than a general warning that the fence has been cut somewhere.

Residents should also be able to distinguish reporting damage from confronting suspected offenders. Gathering evidence and investigating criminal responsibility are tasks for the relevant authorities. An accessible reporting process would let communities share information without being expected to enforce the park boundary themselves.

Electric Fencing  part of Uganda’s national parks is one of the most important measures to  manage and reduce conflict between people and wildlife in areas neighboring these protected areas. Communities also need a response when animals enter farmland or approach homes. A damaged barrier makes those response arrangements especially relevant while repairs are being organised.

People facing a wild animal should avoid crowding it or trying to drive it away at close range. Keeping others away from the area and contacting the responsible wildlife personnel can reduce exposure to danger. The response needed will depend on the animal and the circumstances.

Anger over damaged crops can also place wildlife at risk. Retaliatory killing is a concern around Uganda’s protected areas, including reports of poisoned lions in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Such incidents show how losses experienced by residents can develop into further harm to animals. In Lake Mburo National Park, lions were wiped out by pastoral communities that complained of the maneaters feeding on their livestock.

Addressing complaints therefore belongs alongside boundary maintenance. Recording where incursions happen, what damage follows and how quickly staff respond can help identify recurring problems. These records can guide decisions about which sections need closer inspection or a different response.

For residents, communication after a report is also useful. Knowing that staff have received a warning and understanding what happens next can reduce uncertainty. Where a repair cannot happen immediately, people need accurate information about the affected area rather than an unsupported assurance that everything is secure.

Discussions with nearby farmers could also establish whether particular fields face repeated incursions. That information would help park staff assess local concerns and explain how inspections or response arrangements might address the problems being reported.

The Oyam investigation will need to establish who damaged the fence and how the cutting was carried out. Meanwhile, the condition of the boundary remains a separate concern for neighbouring households. Inspection findings, repair progress and verified reports of wildlife movement would give residents a clearer picture of the risk while the affected sections are being restored.