BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Cover photo: Gertrud and Helmut Denzau Suggested citation: S. Mohsanin, A. C. D. Barlow, C. J. Greenwood, M. A. Islam, M. M. Kabir, M. M. Rahman, A. Howlader, 2011. BTAP Threat Assessment: Prey Poaching. Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Copyright 2011 Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

AUTHORS
Samiul Mohsanin, Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh Adam C. D. Barlow, Zoological Society of London and Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh Christina J. Greenwood, Zoological Society of London and Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh Md. Anwarul Islam, University of Dhaka and Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh Md. Mofizul Kabir, Jahangirnagar University Md. Mizanur Rahman, Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh Alam Howlader, Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was only possible through the much appreciated support and permission of the Forest Department of Bangladesh and the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Funding, logistical, and administrative support were provided by the Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh and the Zoological Society of London. We are grateful to Dr. Eric Jensen, Malcom Whitehead, John Goodrich, Shannon Barber-Meyer, and Sharon Pailler for helping to develop the research methodology. We are very grateful to Md. Hanif Malik and Md. Sujaul Hossain Liton helped conduct the survey in the field. Earlier drafts of this document were greatly improved by comments from Chloe Inskip. Very special thanks to Gertrud and Helmut Denzau, Rubaiyat and Elisabeth Mansur for contributing their photographs. The content of part of this report is currently being submitted to a peer review journal for potential publication; if published, the paper may differ in content and analysis from this report due to comments made by journal reviewers.

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5 2. METHODS .......................................................................................................................7 2.1. Study area ......................................................................................................................7 2.2. Interview approach and sampling strategy ...................................................................8 2.3. Estimating the scale of prey consumption.....................................................................8 2.4. Identifying factors associated with prey consumption..................................................9 2.5. Assessing the nature of prey consumption .................................................................10 2.6. Assessing the nature of prey poaching ........................................................................10 2.7. Assessing the nature of trade in prey parts .................................................................10 3. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................10 3.1. Scale of prey consumption ...........................................................................................10 3.2. Factors associated with prey consumption .................................................................11 3.3. Nature of prey consumption ........................................................................................11 3.4. Nature of prey poaching ..............................................................................................12 3.5. Nature of trade in prey parts .......................................................................................13 4. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................13 4.1. Scale of prey consumption ...........................................................................................13 4.2. Factors associated with prey consumption .................................................................14 4.3. Nature of prey consumption ........................................................................................14 4.4. Nature of prey poaching ..............................................................................................15 4.5. Nature of trade in prey parts .......................................................................................15 4.6. Broader conservation implications ..............................................................................15 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 17 TABLES....................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 21

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the main threats to wild tigers (Panthera tigris) is poaching of natural prey, yet information is lacking about this threat for most of the tigers range. For tiger conservation in the Sundarbans Reserved Forest of Bangladesh, information is needed to assess the impact of prey poaching and the effectiveness of conservation actions to reduce this threat. This study used an interview survey of 800 households close to the Sundarbans to estimate the scale of prey poaching, investigate factors driving prey consumption, and to record information on the nature of prey consumption/poaching/trading of prey parts. Half of the households reported consuming deer (Axis axis) meat, with mean deer meat consumption of 1.1 kg/household/yr; equivalent to 10,960 deer killed in the last year. Households closer to the forest boundary, and households with higher income levels had relatively higher levels of deer meat consumption, but 29% of households obtained deer meat for free and the cost of deer meat was higher than some other available meat. Deer meat was generally consumed for its good taste (75.8%), inside households (60.1%), and was obtained through personal contacts (98%). Most respondents (91.5%) knew deer consumption was illegal, but viewed the law as ineffective (69.4%). In addition to deer meat consumption, 6.2% respondents used other prey parts such as deer antler and hide. There were nine different poaching techniques identified, including the use of snares, nets, fishing hooks, and poison. The overall findings will be used to help create a strategy to reduce prey consumption in the area. The approach used to evaluate prey poaching through investigation of prey consumption follows studies of bushmeat hunting in Africa, and can potentially be applied to all tiger landscapes.

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

1.

INTRODUCTION

Wild tigers (Panthera tigris) are threatened throughout their range by habitat degradation, tiger poaching, and prey poaching (Walston et al., 2011; Wikramanayake et al., 2011). Over-hunting by humans may have reduced the densities of prey over much of the tigers range (Miquelle et al., 1996; Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002; Steinmetz et al., 2006). Previous studies have found a strong positive relationship between the number of tigers and the number of prey (Smith et al., 1987; Karanth et al., 2004; Linkie et al., 2006; Datta et al., 2008; Harihar et al., 2008). The loss of prey increases the risk of tiger populations going extinct, by reducing the carrying capacity of breeding female tigers, and reducing cub survival (Karanth and Stith, 1999). Madhusudan and Karanth (2002) catalogued some aspects of prey poaching, such as hunting methods, and socio-cultural factors associated with hunting (Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002). One further study investigated the links between household income and prey poaching (Damania et al., 2003). So far no study has quantified the scale of prey poaching in any tiger landscape. Estimating the scale of prey poaching is needed to assess the potential impact of this threat on a tiger population or measure the effectiveness of conservation actions (Karanth and Stith, 1999). Prey poaching may be difficult to investigate directly because of the secretive and illegal nature of this activity (Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002). Estimating the scale of prey consumption in local areas, however, can be used to assess the number of prey being poached to supply that demand (Knapp et al., 2010), and targeting prey consumption may be an effective way of tackling prey poaching (Damania et al., 2003). In addition, identifying factors driving prey consumption is required to help design regulation, awareness, and alternative/incentive conservation actions. Information on the temporal and spatial characteristics of prey consumption, for example, is needed to focus management interventions at appropriate times and locations (JJS, 2003). Identifying characteristics of households with higher prey consumption rate will further help target conservation actions (Knapp et al., 2010). The number of people in a household might influence the scale of prey consumption as the food demand may be higher for larger households (Fa et al., 2009). Likewise household income might influence prey meat consumption, if deer meat is relatively lower cost compared to other meat options (Damania et al., 2003). The distance from forest boundary to household may also influence prey meat consumption levels as the increase in distance may increase transportation costs and the risk of interception by the authorities (Golden, 2009). Peoples knowledge and attitudes to the law regarding prey meat consumption may be a

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

driver for their levels of consumption (Abbot and Mace,1999) and may give insight into the effectiveness of current regulation activities (Damania et al., 2003). Improved understanding of the nature of prey consumption is also needed to further tailor management responses to local conditions (Madhusudan and Karanth, 2002). For the purposes of this study we used the term nature of prey consumption to include type of prey product used, reasons for use, and place of consumption. Ancillary information on the nature of prey poaching (how the poacher captures the prey), and trading (price, place of acquisition) may also help design actions to reduce this activity in an area (JJS, 2003). The Sundarbans Reserved Forest of Bangladesh (SRF) is a tiger conservation landscape (TCL) of global importance (Sanderson et al., 2006), and probably holds one of the largest remaining wild tiger populations in the world (Barlow, 2009). One of the management objectives of the Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan is to minimise prey poaching, but information is currently insufficient to formulate an appropriate conservation response (Ahmad et al., 2009). The objectives of this study were, therefore, to investigate (1) the scale of prey consumption, (2) factors driving prey consumption, (3) the nature of prey consumption, (4) the nature of prey poaching and (5) assessing the nature of trade in prey parts. The study used a questionnaire survey of dietary recall and attitudes, following Nyahongo et al. (2009). Prey consumption in SRF, like wild meat consumption in other countries, may occur in areas far from the place of initial capture (Golden, 2009). Consumption of prey from the SRF can by assigned arbitrarily to three areas: (1) within the SRF, (2) local areas immediately adjoining the SRF, and (3) areas remote from SRF and local areas. We selected the local areas immediately adjacent to the SRF as the focus of this study, because we considered it reasonable that prey consumption was relatively high in these areas; the close proximity of the jungle allows easier access to prey meat compared to more remote areas, and we expected the large human population of the local areas to have an overall greater demand for prey than the much smaller number of people entering the forest. Consumption of chital (Axis axis), hereafter referred to as deer, was the focus of this study because it is the main prey of tigers in the SRF (Reza et al., 2002). Wild boar (Sus scrofa) is a prey item of lesser importance for the tigers in SRF (Reza et al., 2002) and its consumption by local people is largely precluded by the predominance of the Islamic faith in Bangladesh. Barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak) is also present in the SRF, but probably at very low densities (Deodatus, 2003), and not recorded as a main prey item for the tiger (Reza et al., 2002). This is the first study to quantify prey poaching for any

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

TCL, and provides an approach that may help assess prey poaching in other areas so that this threat can be successfully addressed.

2.

METHODS

2.1. Study area

Bangladesh and India has the largest (10,263 km2) mangrove forest in the world (Giri et al., 2007), with approximately 62% (6017 km2) lying on the Bangladesh side as the SRF (Gopal and Chauhan, 2006). The SRF is south of the Tropic of Cancer, and located between N2130-2240, and E8805-8955 in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta (Iftekhar and Islam, 2004). The SRF has been identified as a TCL of Global Priority (Sanderson et al., 2006). Three areas have also been delineated as wildlife sanctuaries; Sundarbans West (715 km2), Sundarbans South (370 km2) and Sundarbans East (312 km2). Given the significance and conservation value of this natural resource, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared these wildlife sanctuaries as a World Heritage Site in 1997. The SRF has a high density of tigers relative to other TCLs (Barlow et al., 2010), and as a consequence, there may be in the range of 100-150 adult female tigers in the SRF, or 335-500 tigers including all demographic groups (Barlow, 2009). Tigers in the SRF are also notably smaller in size than tigers from other populations of the same sub-species (Panthera tigris tigris), which has been postulated to be related to the small size of tiger prey in the SRF relative to other TCLs (Barlow et al., 2010). For centuries, people have entered the SRF to collect a wide range of forest produce such as fish, timber, fuel wood, sungrass (Imperata sp.), honey, golpata (Nypa fruticans), crab, and shrimp larvae (Canonizado and Hossain, 1998) and extraction of resources continues to be fundamental to the economic wellbeing of local communities (Rahman, 2000; Miah et al., 2003). In some areas, people also enter the forest for grazing livestock, and poaching wildlife, both of which are illegal activities (Canonizado and Hossain, 1998; JJS, 2003). The Bangladesh Forest Department is responsible for the regulation of resource extraction. Bangladesh is administratively delineated into 65 districts (zila), each further subdivided into sub-districts called upazilas. To quantify the scale of prey poaching, this study was conducted in the eight upazila immediately adjacent to the SRF: Shyamnagar, Koyra, Dacope, Mongla, Morrelganj, Sharankhola, Mathbaria and Patharghata (Fig. 1). This area totals 8,155 km2, and encompasses 346,950 households and 1,702,026 people (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Most people in these upazilas are directly or indirectly dependent on the SRF for their livelihoods (Islam, 2008). 7

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

2.2. Interview approach and sampling strategy

To investigate prey consumption, a household questionnaire survey was conducted in the eight upazilas between April and May 2010. To help create an atmosphere of trust for the respondents, four interviewers were recruited from the study upazilas. Two days of initial training was given to the interview team on interview technique and ethics, followed by four days of practise interviews, supervised by the lead author. Study objectives were made clear to the interviewers, who also helped to phrase the survey questions to account for the local dialect of the respondents. Each interview lasted 30-40 minutes and was started with the interviewer explaining his identity, the identity of the organisation he was working for, the goals of the study, and that all information was being collected and stored anonymously to protect the rights of the respondent (no name or address of any respondent was asked for or recorded). The respondent was advised by the interviewer that they could stop the interview at any time. If the respondent indicated he/she was comfortable to continue, the interviewer proceeded with questions on the socio-economic issues related to the household, followed by questions on prey consumption. Within the study area of eight upazilas, the sample units for this study were households, including all people living in the household (Nyahongo et al., 2009). For social surveys, sample sizes need not be dependent on population size (Bartlett et al., 2001), and without information on the variance of prey consumption it was not possible to calculate a priori the required sample size based on the desired power of the statistical tests to determine differences between groupings of data. We estimated that a sample size of 100 households from each upazila (total 800 households) would be sufficient to address the study questions; being a much larger sample size than several other similar studies of wild meat consumption published in the last two years (Fa et al., 2009; Golden, 2009; Nyahongo et al., 2009; Knapp et al., 2010). One hundred points in each upazila were selected randomly using Create Random Points extension (Hooge and Eichenlaub, 1997) in ArcView v. 3.3 software (ESRI, Redlands, California). Interviewers travelled to points by boat, motorbike, bus, foot or a combination of these, using the distribution of rivers and roads as navigation aids. The household that was judged by the interviewer to be nearest to the random point was then selected for the survey. The head of the household or someone that felt confident that they could respond for the household was selected for interview, and each household was visited only once during the survey.

2.3. Estimating the scale of prey consumption

To estimate the scale of deer poaching interviewees were asked if they had consumed deer meat in the last year, or more than one year ago. If the household had consumed 8

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

deer meat in the last year, then the interviewer was asked to estimate the quantity (in kg) of deer meat consumed (Knapp et al., 2010). To estimate the total number of deer consumed in the last year, the average kg of deer meat consumed/household/year was multiplied by the total number of households in the eight upazilas and divided by the kg of consumable meat on a deer. We asked 24 poachers (identified through local contacts) across the eight upazilas to estimate the kg of consumable meat for an individual deer. A potential source of bias in data collected via interview surveys is the ability of respondents to recall accurately past events (Nyahongo et al., 2009). We assumed that the prey consumption was a rare enough occurrence that it could be accurately recalled by the household members for the last year. This assumption was reasonable considering the recall ability of people in other studies (Golden, 2009; Knapp et al., 2010), and the low economic status of many people living in the study area, which meant that any novel meat consumption may be a notable event. We assumed that all prey meat originated from the SRF, which seemed reasonable because other sources of wild deer are over 100 km from the study area, and we also tested this by asking consumers about the source of their deer meat. One important issue regarding interview surveys is the risk of bias resulting from the interviewee not telling the truth because they fear social or legal repercussions (Nyahongo et al., 2009). We mitigated the potential for this source of bias by selecting local people to conduct the interviews, ensuring that respondents knew they would remain anonymous, and spending the first 10-15 minutes of the interview building an atmosphere of trust (Knapp et al., 2010).

2.4. Identifying factors associated with prey consumption

To normalise the consumption data (kg of prey consumed/household/year), we reduced the number of zero values by adding a very small value (0.001) to all data, followed by log10 transformation (Fowler et al., 2004). We then carried out one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Fowler et al., 2004) and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (Abdi and Williams, 2010) to look at differences in prey consumption between upazilas and months.

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

2.5. Assessing the nature of prey consumption

Information was collected during the interviews on the type of deer product used, reasons for use, and place of consumption.

2.6. Assessing the nature of prey poaching

Information was collected during the interviews on the different prey poaching techniques if it was confirmed that the respondent was a poacher. Some of the poaching techniques were also demonstrated by the poachers identified during the survey.

2.7. Assessing the nature of trade in prey parts

Information was collected during the interview survey on the origin of deer product, place of deer product acquisition, and price of deer product. Prices were recorded in Bangladesh national currency (Taka) and converted to US dollars (USD), using the historical exchange rate for the survey period (USD 1 = 70 Taka). When prey poachers and traders were identified during the survey, information was also collected on the number of deer/deer parts traded, how the deer parts were transported and where the deer parts were transported to.

3.

RESULTS

3.1. Scale of prey consumption

Out of 800 households 48.5% (n = 388) reported consuming deer meat of which 15% (n = 120) consumed in the last year, 30.8% (n = 246) more than one year ago, and 2.8% (n = 22) consumed both in the last one year and more than one year ago. Mean deer meat consumption was 1.1 kg/household/yr (range 0-111, SDEV = 6.2). According to the local poachers (n = 24), a deer produces an average of 35.75 kg of consumable meat (range 10-60, SDEV = 18.2). Combining the mean household consumption of deer meat in the last year, the number of households (346,950) (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics 2001), and the mean kg of deer meat/deer gives an estimate of 10,960 deer poached in the last year (95% CI = 6,890-15,140). Most respondents (95.1%, n = 369) said that the deer meat parts that they consumed originated directly from the SRF, 0.5% (n = 2) from Forest Departments auction, 0.3% (n = 1) from private farm, and 4.1% (n = 16) did not know the origin of the deer meat they consumed. 10

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

3.2. Factors associated with prey consumption

One-way ANOVA analysis ( = 0.05) showed that the difference in mean deer meat consumption between months was not significant (df = 11, f = 0.75, p = 0.690). One-way ANOVA analysis ( = 0.05) and Tukey's HSD test ( = 0.05) showed significant differences in mean deer meat consumption between upazilas (df = 7, f = 2.78, p = 0.007). Deer meat consumption was highest in Koyra upazila and lowest in Mathbaria upazila (Fig. 2). The mean number of people in each household was 5.5 (range = 1-24, SDEV = 2.3), the mean household income was USD 866.2 /year (range = 171.4-1371.4, SDEV = 927.5), and the mean distance of household to forest boundary was 7.5 km (range = 0-26.8, SDEV = 5.4). From the seven models, model 4 had the lowest AICc score, but models 1 and 3 were 2 AICc apart from model 1, so can be considered interchangeable (Table 1). However, the differences in AICc weight between model 4 (0.45), and model 1 (0.25) and model 3 (0.20) suggest that, overall, model 4 (distance of household from forest boundary and annual income level of household) best explains deer consumption levels relative to other models. Most (91.5%, n = 732) respondents knew that deer meat consumption was illegal, 0.6% (n = 5) thought it was legal, and the remainder (7.8%, n = 63) did not know. Most prey consumers (69.4%, n = 269) stated that they ignored the law because they had no fear of getting captured by the authorities, 13.1% (n = 51) considered the current fine too low, and 8.5% (n = 33) consumed deer meat because it was illegal, and the remainder (9%, n = 35), stated reasons not related to law enforcement. Of the respondents that knew prey consumption was illegal, all did not know the fine; 15.5% thought the fine was lower, and 5% thought the fine was higher than the current fine of maximum USD 28.6 with or without imprisonment of maximum 2 years for poaching a deer or deer meat consumption.

3.3. Nature of prey consumption

In addition to deer meat consumption, 5% (n = 40) of respondents reported using antlers. Of these, 87.5% (n = 35) used antlers for home decoration; 10% (n = 4) used antlers in powder form as medicine to treat wounds, and, 2.5% (n = 1) used an antler as a walking stick. Two people also used deer hide as a prayer mat. The main reasons stated for deer meat consumption was for its good taste (75.8%, n = 294), as an only source of meat 11% (n = 43), and as a cheap source of meat 7.4% (n = 29). The remainder (5.7%, n = 22) consumed deer meat for a variety of reasons including

11

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

the need to entertain guests, religious beliefs, medicinal value, and through occupation (Fig. 3). About a third (29%) of deer meat consumers obtained the dear meat for free. Overall, the mean price of deer meat was USD 2.7/kg (range 0-8.2, SDEV = 2). Mean prices for other prey parts were USD 8.8/whole antler (range 1.4-20.5, SDEV = 5.4), USD 8.2/kg of antler powder (mean = USD 8.2/kg), and USD 12.3/deer hide (range 1.4-27.4, SDEV = 8). Deer meat and parts were obtained from relatives (27.5%), opportunistic traders (25.5%), direct catch (23.5%), from friends (21.5%), and local markets (1.9%). About 60.1% (n = 233) of people consumed deer meat inside their home, 18% (n = 70) at a relatives house, 13.4% (n = 52) while working inside forest, 6.9% (n = 27) at a friends/acquaintances house, 1.5% (n = 6) at a hotel.

3.4. Nature of prey poaching

There were nine different deer poaching techniques identified through the survey: Simple snares, walking traps, spring snare, fishing net, banana-hook trap, sleeping pills, gun, clubbing, and poison. For the simple snares technique, one end of rope (usually nylon) is tied to a branch of a tree and the other end has a loop circling a bush or a tree. When a deer walks through the loop it gets tangled and the loop tightens with every movement (Fig. 4). Another method of poaching is known as Hata (Walking) trap. This has series of snares tied to each other between trees. The poachers drive the deer towards the snare series so that the deer get their heads or legs stuck in the snare, which (Fig. 5 & 6). Also, sometimes a spring snare (Chitka trap) is tied to a flexible but strong young sapling, which is bent and functions like a spring. The spring snare is camouflaged with leaves and held in place by a stick that functions as the trigger mechanism. If the stick is dislodged the loop will spring up to entangle a passing deer (Fig. 7). Sometimes poachers hang fishing nets between trees and chase a deer herd directly towards the net so that the deer get entangled. Poachers also hang a line that is connected to a fish-hook hidden inside a banana (banana-hook trap). When a deer eats the banana, it gets hooked and as it tries to jerk away the hook embeds further into the deer's mouth/troat. Sometimes sleeping pills are inserted into a banana. After eating the drugged banana the deer becomes disorientated, allowing the poachers to more easily catch it (Fig. 8).

12

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Poachers also use guns to shoot deer from a distance; the poachers climb up a tree and attract deer by offering tree leaves to tempt the deer into range. During high (spring) tide in the monsoon, deer are also clubbed with logs when only their head remains above the surface of the water. Poachers from Sharankhola and Chandpai ranges also informed us that they poison deer with pesticides mixed with Keora (Sonneratia apetala) leaves. During the questionnaire survey poachers highlighted that poaching with fishing nets and snares are relatively silent, effective, and cheap methods compared to others.

3.5. Nature of trade in prey parts

About 29% (n = 15) respondents collected the deer antler and hide from relatives, 25% (n = 13) from opportunistic traders, 23% (n = 12) by direct catch, 21% (n = 11) from friends and the rest 2% (n=1) from the market. One deer trader was found in Sharankhola who claimed to trade more than 1,000 deer in one year to different places of Sharankhola, Chandpai and Khulna through his personal contacts.

4.

DISCUSSION

4.1. Scale of prey consumption

It is important to note that the estimate of deer meat consumption in this study only takes into account consumption in local areas adjacent to the SRF, so the overall deer meat consumption will be higher if consumption within the SRF and areas remote from the SRF and local areas are also considered. Currently, there is no accurate estimate of deer numbers in the SRF (the Bangladesh Forest Department are currently developing plans to implement a tiger prey monitoring system for the SRF) so the overall impact of deer poaching on the deer population cannot be directly assessed. However, the estimated 10,960 deer consumed in the local areas helps to quantify deer poaching and highlights this threat as a major concern for tiger conservation in this landscape. As the size of a tiger population is directly related to the size of the prey population (Karanth et al., 2004), the estimated current levels of deer poaching suggests that the current SRF tiger population is likely to be below carrying capacity and could be increased by a reduction in prey poaching (Karanth and Stith, 1999). Nearly all (>95%) of respondents indicated that the source of their deer meat was directly from the SRF, with the remainder coming from Forest Department auctions and deer farms. Forest Department auctions sell deer meat that has been illegally captured in the SRF, and the SRF is the closest source of deer for any local farm, so effectively all deer meat can be considered to have originated from the SRF. 13

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Data presented in this study were sourced from interviews surveys, and so our findings are dependent on the reliability of the answers provided by the respondents. We believe that the data provided are reliable, because (1) the match in the cultural background of the interviewers and interviewees, (2) the observed willingness of respondents to answer questions, (3) a majority of consumers did not fear the law, and (4) the assurance of anonymity. We also think the deer consumption recorded for each household was probably accurate, considering the observed confidence of the interviewees when recalling the amount of deer meat consumed, and the general infrequency and novelty of consumption, reflected in the average consumption recorded of 1.1 kg/household/yr; equivalent to about 0.2 kg/person/year. Furthermore, another study in Tanzania also used dietary recall of wild of meat consumption over a year (Knapp et al., 2010).

4.2. Factors associated with prey consumption

There were no significant temporal differences in deer meat consumption, so any conservation action targeting deer meat consumption may have to be carried out year round. Spatial results showed significant results on deer meat consumption, so conservation actions can be carried out in upazilas in order of decreasing levels of deer meat consumption. Households with higher incomes and close to forest boundary had higher consumption rates relative to households with lower incomes and further away from the forest. However, a substantial proportion of households (29%) obtained the deer meat for free, and some respondents said that they ate deer meat because it was cheap (7.4%). Overall, this suggests that conservation actions targeting households in relation to distance from SRF would be more effective than targeting households based on income. Most people (>90%) were well aware that deer poaching and consumption are illegal, and yet generally had no fear of capture by the authorities (69.4%) or thought the penalty too low (13.1%), which suggests that current regulation activities are not effective. Better regulation and increased penalties would, therefore, be likely to reduce prey consumption. Improving regulation may require building additional law enforcement capacity in the Forest Department, as well as increasing frequency of raids, and improving information networks through establishment of a wildlife crime hotline (Sinha, 2010).

4.3. Nature of prey consumption

Deer meat consumption was far more widespread than consumption (use) of other deer parts such as antlers, so actions designed to specifically target deer meat consumption are likely to have the greatest impact on reducing demand for SRF deer.

14

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Most people consumed deer meat for taste (75.8%), and the mean price of deer meat (USD 2.7/kg) was higher than some other forms of readily available meat, such as chicken (USD 1.5/kg), and fish (USD 2.1/kg). This means that in general people are not consuming deer meat out of economic necessity and there are already other sources of protein available, so identifying alternatives for deer meat would be unlikely to reduce demand. This study captured some reasons why people consumed deer meat, and their attitudes to current law enforcement, which helps design the conservation response. However, a more in-depth social study designed to identify all determinants of deer consumption would help design a holistic social marketing campaign (that included regulation, awareness, and incentive actions) aimed at reducing this behaviour (Smith and Strand, 2008). Such a survey is currently being carried out by the Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh.

4.4. Nature of prey poaching

Ancillary information on the nature of prey poaching should be taken under consideration to help design actions to reduce this activity in an area. However, a more in-depth social study designed to identify all determinants of deer poaching would help design a holistic social marketing campaign (that included regulation, awareness, and incentive actions) aimed at reducing this behaviour (Smith and Strand, 2008).

4.5. Nature of trade in prey parts

Majority (>70%) of the respondents collected the prey parts from relatives, friends or by direct catch. The rest of the respondents bought it either from opportunistic traders or from market. This means that regulatory activities to reduce using prey parts should be directed at households instead of searching opportunistic traders or markets. However, an improved understanding of market chains that allow distribution of deer meat to areas remote from SRF would help direct regulation activities.

4.6. Broader conservation implications

Although prey poaching has been highlighted as a major threat to tigers for decades (Wikramanayake et al., 2010), this study is perhaps the first of its kind to quantify this threat for any TCL. The approach used to estimate deer poaching through investigation of deer meat consumption follows studies of bushmeat consumption in Africa (Knapp et al., 2010), and could be used for all TCLs and other landscapes where poaching of prey has been identified as a threat to an ecosystem or endangered carnivore. As in studies of bushmeat consumption, studies of prey consumption around TCLs can adapt this survey approach to capture different recall times of respondents to account for variation in 15

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

consumption frequency. If deer meat consumption in a TCL was as high as bushmeat consumption in some parts of Africa, which can range from 11-106 kg/person/year (Feer et al., 1995; Auzel, 1996), then consumption may be more difficult for respondents to remember accurately, so recording recall of deer meat consumption over a shorter time frame, such as a day (Fa et al., 2009) or a week (Nyahongo et al., 2009), would have been a more appropriate. The findings of such studies would greatly improve the design of conservation actions to reduce poaching of tiger prey and, therefore, potentially increase the prey base and carrying capacity of tigers for a landscape. Standardising the way information is collected on prey poaching, through prey consumption, would also allow comparisons of prey poaching impact and effectiveness of conservation actions across landscapes.

16

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

LITERATURE CITED
Abdi, H., Williams, L. J., 2010. Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD). in: Salkind, N., (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, California. Abbot, J., Mace. R., 1999. Managing protected woodlands: Fuelwood collecting and law enforcement in Lake Malawi National Park. Conservation Biology 13, 418-421. Agrawala, S., Ota, T., Ahmed, A. U., Smith, J., and Aalst, M. V., 2003. Development and Climate Change in Bangladesh: Focus on Coastal Flooding and the Sundarbans. Environment Directorate and Development Cooperation Directorate, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, France Ahmad, I. U., Greenwood, C. J., Barlow, A. C. D., Islam, M. A., Hossain, A. N. M., Khan, M. M. H., Smith, J. L. D., 2009. Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan 2009-2017, Bangladesh Forest Department, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka. Auzel, P., 1996. Agriculture/extractivisme et exploitation forestire. Etude de la dynamique des modes dexploitation du milieu dans le nord de lufa de Pokola, Nord Congo. Projet Nouabal-Ndoki (WCS). Report to the Wildlife Conservation Society. NY: Wildlife Conservation Society. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2001. Available from http://www.bbs.gov.bd/PageWebMenuContent.aspx?MenuKey=141 (accessed 25 April 2011). Barlow, A.C.D., Mazk, J., Ahmad, I.U. Smith, J. L.D., 2010. A preliminary investigation of Sundarbans tiger morphology, Mammalia 74, 1-3. Barlow, A. C. D., 2009. The Sundarbans tiger: Adaptation, population status, and conflict management, PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota. Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., Higins, C. C., 2001. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 19, 43-49. Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Second Edition. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 488. Canonizado, J. A., Hossain, M. A., 1998. Integrated forest management plan for the Sundarbans Reserved Forest. Report to the Forest Department and Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dhaka. Damania R., Stringer, R., Karanth, K. U., Stith. B., 2003. The Economics of Protecting Tiger Populations: Linking Household Behavior to Poaching and Prey Depletion. Land Economics 79, 198-216. Datta, A., Anand, M. O., Naniwadekar, R., 2008. Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biological Conservation 141, 1429-1435. Deodatus, F., 2003. Wildlife Management Plan of the Bangladesh Sundarban Forest. Sundarban biodiversity conservation project. Technical Report - No. 23. Fa, J. E., Albrechtsen, L., Johnson, P. J., Macdonald, D. W., 2009. Linkages between household wealth, bushmeat and other animal protein consumption are not invariant: evidence from Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Animal Conservation 12, 599610. Feer, F., Chardonnet, P., Msellati, L., 1995. Deuxime partie: Cte dIvoire. in: Chardonnet, P., (Ed.), Faune sauvage Africaine la resource oublie. Tome II. Commission Europenne. Luxembourg: CECA-CE-CEEA, pp. 46-79. Fowler, J., Cohen, L., Jarvis, P., 2004. Practical statistics for field biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

17

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Giri, C., Pengra, B., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Tieszen, L. L., 2007. Monitoring mangrove forest dynamics of the Sundarbans in Bangladesh and India using multi-temporal satellite data from 1973 to 2000. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73, 91-100. Golden, C. D., 2009. Bushmeat hunting and use in the Makira Forest, north-eastern Madagascar: a conservation and livelihoods issue. Oryx 43, 386392. Gopal, B., Chauhan. M., 2006. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarban Mangrove Ecosystem. Aquatic Science 68, 338-354. Harihar, A., Pandav, B., Goyal, S. P., 2008. Responses of tiger (Panthera tigris) and their prey to removal of anthropogenic influences in Rajaji National Park, India. European Journal of Wildlife Research, doi:10.1007/s10344-008-0219-2. Hooge, P.N., Eichenlaub, B., 1997. Animal movement extension to arcview. Alaska Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage. Iftekhar, M. S., Islam. M. R., 2004. Degeneration of Bangladeshs Sundarbans mangroves: a management issue. The International Forestry Review 6, 123-135. Islam, M. S. N., 2008. Cultural landscape changing due to anthropogenic influences on surface water and threats to mangrove wetland ecosystems: A case study on the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. PhD thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology. Jagrata Juba Shangha, 2003. Human-wildlife interactions in relation to the Sundarbans reserved forest of Bangladesh, Report No. 78, Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project, Department of Environment and Forests, Dhaka. Karanth, K. U., Kumar, N. S., Nichols, J. D., Link, W. A., Hines, J. E., 2004. Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 4854-4858. Karanth, K. U., and Stith B. M., 1999. Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger population viability. in: Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P., (Eds.), Riding the tiger, Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 100-113. Knapp, E. J., Dennis R., Jennifer S., Claire L., Stephen P., 2010. A tale of three villages: choosing an effective method for assessing poaching levels in western Serengeti, Tanzania. Oryx 44, 178 184. Linkie, M., Chapron, G., Martyr, D. J., Holden, J., Leader-Williams, N., 2006. Assessing the viability of tiger subpopulations in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 576-586. Madhusudan, M. D., Karanth, K. U., 2002. Hunting for an answer: is local hunting compatible with large mammal conservation in India? in: Robinson,J. G., Bennett, E. L., (Eds.), Hunting for sustainability in the tropics, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 339-355. Miah, M. G., Bari, M. N., Rahman, M. A., 2003. Agricultural activities and their impacts on the ecology and biodiversity of the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka 31, 175-199. Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. G., Hornocker, M. G., Nikolaev, I. G., Matyushkin. E. N., 1996. Food habits of Amur tigers in Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik and the Russian Far East, and implications for conservation. The Journal of Wildlife Research 1, 138-147. Nyahongo, J.W., Holmern, T., Kaltenborn, B.P., Rskaft, E., 2009. Spatial and temporal variation in meat and fish consumption among people in the western Serengeti, Tanzania: the importance of migratory herbivores. Oryx 43, 258-266. Rahman, L. M., 2000. The Sundarbans: A Unique Wilderness of the World. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2, 143-148.

18

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Rangel, T. F., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Bini, L. M., 2010. SAM: a comprehensive application for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology. Ecography 33, 46-50. Reza, A., Feeroz, M. M., Islam, M. A., 2002. Prey species density of Bengal Tiger in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Science 28, 35-42. Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., OBrien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S., Wikramanayake, E., 2006. Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005-2015, The technical assessment. WCS, WWF, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, New York - Washington, D.C. Sinha, S., 2010. Handbook on wildlife law enforcement in India, first ed. Natraj publishers, India. Smith, W.A., Strand. J., 2008. Social marketing behaviour: a practical resource guide for social change professionals. Academy for Educational Development. Washington DC. Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, C. W., Sunquist. M. E., 1987. Land tenure system in female tigers. in: Tilson, R. L., Seal, U. S., (Eds.). in: Tilson, R., Nyhus, P. J., (Eds.) Tigers of the world- The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera tigris. Elsevier publication, Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, pp. 97-108. Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, W., Seuaturien. N., 2006. Collaborating to conserve large mammals in Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology 20, 1391-1401. Walston, J., Robinson, J. G., Bennett, E. L., Breitenmoser, U., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Goodrich, J., Gumal, M., Hunter, L., Johnson, A., Karanth, K. U., Leader-Williams, N., MacKinnon, K., Miquelle, D., Pattanavibool, A., Poole, C., Rabinowitz, A., Smith, J. L. D., Stokes, E. J., Stuart, S.N., Vongkhamheng, C., Wibisono. H., 2011. Bringing the Tiger Back from the Brink-The Six Percent Solution. Public Library of Science Biology 8, 1-4. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Seidensticker, J., Klenzendorf, S., Sanderson, E.W., Simons, R., Heydlauff, A., Ginsberg, J., OBrien, T., Leimgruber5, P., Songer5, M., and Bryja G., 2010. Roads to Recovery or Catastrophic Loss: How Will the Next Decade End for Wild Tigers? in: Tilson, R., Nyhus, P. J., (Second Eds.), Tigers of the world- The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera tigris. Elsevier publication, UK, pp. 493-506. Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B., Shrestha, M., Mishra, H., Ballou, J., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Chestin, I., Sunarto, S., Thinley, P., Thapa K., Jiang, G., Elagupillay, S., Kafley, H., Pradhan, N. M. B., Jigme, K., Teak, S., Cutter, P., Aziz, M. A., & Than U., 2011. A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters 00, 19.

19

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

TABLES
Table 1. AICc model selection results to identify variables associated with deer meat consumption in SRF. Modela Model 4 Model 1 Model 3 Model 2 Model 7 Model 6 Model 5
a b

Variablesb 1,3 1 1,2,3 1,2 3 2,3 2

AICcc 2846.69 2847.91 2848.34 2849.92 2854.21 2855.98 2856.56

AICcd 0 1.22 1.64 3.23 7.53 9.29 9.87

AICc wie 0.45 0.25 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00

Models are listed from top to bottom in order of decreasing parsimony. Variable 1 = distance from household to forest boundary, 2 = number of people in household, and 3 = household annual income. c AICc = Akaike information criterion, and is a measure of the relative goodness of fit of a statistical model. d AICc = difference in AICc between the best model and the actual model. e AICc wi = AICc weight, is the relative likelihood of the statistical model.

20

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the SRF and adjacent eight upazilas.

21

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Figure 2. Map of households surveyed and relative deer meat consumption in each upazila.

22

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Figure 3. Reasons for deer meat consumption stated by respondents. The category other includes entertaining guests, religious beliefs, medicinal value, and convenience.

23

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Figure 4. Snare set out to catch deer. (Photo: Samiul Mohsanin).

Figure 5. Hata (Walking) trap with row of snares in between some trees. (Photo: Rubaiyat and Elisabeth Mansur).

24

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Figure 6. A spotted deer trapped in a Hata (Walking) trap. (Photo: Rubaiyat and Elisabeth Mansur).

Figure 7. Set up of a Chitka Trap. (Photo: Samiul Mohsanin).

25

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching

Figure 8. Banana with a fish hook is set as a trap to attract deer. (Photo: Samiul Mohsanin).

26

BTAP Threat Assessment

Prey poaching