Human–Sloth Bear Conflict in a Human-Dominated Landscape Of

Home , Sloth bear

Human–sloth bear conflict in a human-dominated landscape of northern Odisha, India Authors: Subrat Debata, Kedar Kumar Swain, Hemanta Kumar Sahu, and Himanshu Shekhar Palei Source: Ursus, 27(2) : 90-98

Published By: International Association for Bear Research and Management

URL: https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-16-00007.1

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Subrat Debata1 , Kedar Kumar Swain2 , Hemanta Kumar Sahu3 , and Himanshu Shekhar Palei3,4

1Department of Biodiversity and Conservation of Natural Resources, Central University of Orissa, Koraput-764020, Odisha, India 2Ofﬁce of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, Prakruti Bhawan, Nilakantha Nagar, Bhubaneswar - 751012, Odisha, India 3P.G. Department of Zoology, North Orissa University, Mayurbhanj-757003, Odisha, India

Abstract: Planning for human–carnivore coexistence requires detailed understanding of the ecological and sociological circumstances associated with conflict, particularly in multi-use, human-dominated landscapes. We investigated the influence of socio-ecological factors on human–sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) conflict in a human-dominated landscape of Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India. We examined human–sloth bear conflict data from 12 years (2002–2013) and assessed the attitudes of the people toward sloth bears through semi-structured interviews with 350 people. We recorded 167 human–sloth bear conflict incidents, including 201 human casualties (4 deaths, 104 permanent injuries, and 93 minor injuries) and 7 retaliatory killings of sloth bears. More human–sloth bear conflict occurred during the monsoon season (Jul to Oct) than in other seasons. Monsoon is the peak growing season, when villagers spent more time outdoors farming, including near forest. In addition, lack of toilets in the villages may increase vulnerability of humans to sloth bear attacks. Most people considered sloth bears to be unpredictable and dangerous, which suggests protection and conservation activities may not retain public support. Approaches to mitigate human–sloth bear conflict should emphasize avoiding sloth bears when they are sighted and conducting activities near forests during the day and in groups when possible. Strategies such as improving sanitation facilities, developing effective compensation schemes, forming conflict management teams, and establishing sloth bear conservation awareness programs for villagers, as well as improving cooperation among various stakeholders, are necessary to foster human–sloth bear coexistence.

Key words: attack, coexistence, compensation, human–wildlife conﬂicts, India, Melursus ursinus, sanitation program, sloth bear

DOI: 10.2192/URSUS-D-16-00007.1 Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

Increasing human populations, improper land-use livelihoods and the survival of wildlife (WWF 2015). planning, and loss of natural habitat for wildlife are ma- Human–wildlife conflicts are particularly serious when jor issues greatly affecting human–wildlife coexistence they involve human casualties. Local communities gen- (Saberwal et al. 1994, Granados et al. 2012). The ever erally tolerate livestock or crop depredation but do not increasing competition for space, food, and other re- tolerate human casualties (Bhattarai and Fischer 2014), sources have led to human–wildlife conflicts, which can which result in negative attitudes and retaliatory persecu- include death and injury to humans, loss of crops and live- tion of wildlife and therefore hinder the success of species stock, property damage, and retaliatory killing of wildlife conservation programs around the world (Madden 2004, (Rajpurohit and Krausman 2000, Treves and Karanth Palei et al. 2014b). 2003, Ambarlı and Bilgin 2008, Bhattarai and Fischer India is one of the 18 mega-biodiversity countries in the 2014, Kabir et al. 2014, Ratnayeke et al. 2014, Singh world and is projected to be the most populous nation by et al. 2015). Human–wildlife conflicts have emerged as 2028, with approximately 1.45 billion people (Karanth a serious problem worldwide threatening both human and DeFries 2010). Large-scale land-use change is oc- curring as a result of mining and industrial development, which ultimately affects wildlife and their habi- 4email: [email protected] tats (Karanth and DeFries 2010). As a consequence of

India’s increasing population and development, human– provide insights for other locations with similar conserva- wildlife conflicts are simultaneously increasing. Species tion challenges pertaining to coupled human and natural contributing to human–wildlife conflict in India include systems. In this context, our objectives were to investi- elephants (Elephas maximus), tigers (Panthera tigris), li- gate (1) the extent of conflicts between humans and sloth ons (Panthera leo), sloth bears (Melursus ursinus), leop- bears, (2) spatial and temporal patterns of conflict, and ards (Panthera pardus), and wild pigs (Sus scrofa), with (3) local people’s attitude toward sloth bears and their human–sloth bear conflict among the most important (Ra- conservation. jpurohit and Krausman 2000, DeFries et al. 2010, Can et al. 2014, Ratnayeke et al. 2014). The sloth bear is endemic to the Indian subcontinent Study area and has been reported throughout India, occupying di- We carried out the study in Balasore Wildlife Division verse habitats from wet or dry tropical forests to savan- (BWLD), a revenue district of Odisha state in eastern nas, shrublands, and grasslands (Garshelis et al. 1999, India (Fig. 1). It is located between 21◦03 to 21◦59N Yoganand et al. 2013). However, its historical range has latitude and 86◦20 to 87◦20E longitude and comprises been fragmented and decreased overall because of large- 3,634 km2 of the northern Odisha region. The landscape scale deforestation to facilitate human development. In is a mosaic of reserve forests, monoculture plantations, addition, diminished food resources, illegal killing for pastures, human habitations, and agricultural lands. In gall bladders, and taking of young sloth bears from the addition, most of the forest fringes are degraded by nu- wild for bear dancing resulted in severe population de- merous stone quarries. Elevation of the area ranges from clines and some local extirpations (Yoganand et al. 2006). 145 m to 682 m above sea level. Most of the lower Most of the current sloth bear range occurs in forests out- elevation areas contain villages and agricultural fields; side protected areas (Jhala et al. 2011, Sathyakumar et al. whereas, the upper elevation areas are composed of hills 2012), where people largely depend upon these forests for and forest interspersed with caves and boulder fields, domestic and subsistence resources such as fuel wood, which is suitable habitat for sloth bears. Vegetation of the fodder, thatch grass, building materials, medicinal plants, area includes northern semi-evergreen forest, peninsular wild fruits, and grazing land for livestock (Bargali et al. sal forest and moist mixed deciduous forests (Champion 2005). These situations may encourage competition for and Seth 1968), which comprise approximately 8.7% of resource use and increase the likelihood of human–sloth the total area of BWLD (Anonymous 2007). The 3 dis- bear encounters (Yoganand 2005), which can lead to con- tinct seasons are summer (Mar–Jun), monsoon (Jul–Oct), flict. As a result, sloth bears can elicit fear and anger in and winter (Nov–Feb), with mean temperatures ranging rural communities, often leading to killing of sloth bears from 10◦C during winter to 43◦C in summer and an- (Chauhan 2006). Studies on human–sloth bear conflicts nual precipitation of 1,583 mm. Balasore District is one have been carried out across the sloth bear range (Ra- of the most populated areas in Odisha, with a density jpurohit and Krausman 2000, Bargali et al. 2005, Rat- of 609 people/km2 living in 2,952 villages and raising nayeke et al. 2014, Garcia et al. 2016). However, most 1,296,617 livestock (District Annual Plan 2012). Most of these studies have largely focused on understanding villagers residing in forest fringes are tribal, belonging to the nature and frequency of human injuries and casual- the Santal, Bhumij, Kolha, or Lodha communities, and ties. Information about human attitudes and perceptions their economic activities include raising crops and live- of people toward sloth bears are lacking and are neces- stock, daily wage labor in the stone quarries, and collec- sary because effective conflict mitigation requires knowl- tion of non-timber forest product from the nearby forests edge of the underlying human and environmental drivers (Chattopadhyay 2012). (Thorn et al. 2012). Odisha is one of the eastern coastal states of India and represents prime habitat for sloth bear in the coun- Methods try (Yoganand et al. 2006). Journalistic reporting about Conflict characteristics and causes human–sloth bear conflict in Odisha is common in print Villagers who suffer as a result of sloth bear attacks and electronic media. We conducted this study to gather are entitled to claim compensation from the State For- reliable information on ecological and social aspects of est Department. We obtained information on 201 claims conflict including local people’s attitude toward sloth recorded from 2002 to 2013 from the Divisional Forest bears, which will be useful in improving human–sloth Officer, BWLD. We interviewed each victim, and con- bear coexistence. This information is also expected to ducted all interviews from March to December 2013. If

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

Fig. 1. Study area of human–sloth bear conﬂicts, Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India, 2002–2013.

the attack resulted in human death, we verified by in- the day. During the interview, we asked the victims to terviewing a family member or an individual who had explain their activities and the activities of the sloth bear witnessed the incident. To avoid underestimating the ac- before the attack. Based on their explanations, we iden- tual number of victims (as compared with claimants), we tified potential factors responsible for the attack and cat- also inquired during the interview as to whether the re- egorized it as provoked (the sloth bear was intentionally spondents knew of other victims that had not claimed, approached or teased by people), accidental encounter or had not received, compensation for a sloth bear at- (a person accidentally came into close proximity to a tack (Ogra and Badola 2008). We recorded the victim’s sloth bear, which provoked an aggressive response from age, sex, occupation, and activity at the time of attack, as the bear), or adult females defending dependent young. well as date and time of the incident, followed by phys- We categorized the intensity of injuries to humans as ical verification of the incident location. We classified permanent injury (permanent damage to any body part, the habitat of attack sites as forest, forest fringe, agri- singly or in multiple locations, which has not recov- cultural, and human habitations. We categorized the age ered fully and negatively affects their physical abilities) groups of the victims as <15 years old, 16–30 years old, or minor injury (small wounds or other injuries, which 31–45 years old, 46–60 years old, and >60 years old. have fully healed and do not adversely affect the vic- We categorized attacks by season and 2-hour intervals of tims’ physical abilities). We performed Mann–Whitney–

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

Table 1. Responses of local people toward human–sloth bear conﬂicts in Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India, 2002–2013. Responses include both victims and non-victims of sloth bear attacks.

Questionnaire items Yes No Don’t know Have sloth bears become problematic in recent years? Victims 161 27 13 Non-victims 31 53 65 Overall 192 80 78 Is the sloth bear an unpredictable and dangerous animal? Victims 172 29 0 Non-victims 126 23 0 Overall 298 52 0 Are you satisﬁed with the compensation scheme? Victims 80 121 0 Non-victims 0 0 0 Overall 80 121 0 Do you agree with the protection and conservation of sloth bear? Victims 0 201 0 Non-victims 111 38 0 Overall 111 239 0 Do you have any suggestions to mitigate human–sloth bear conﬂict? Victims 201 0 0 Non-victim 149 0 0 Overall 350 0 0

Wilcoxon test (W) to understand the trend of conflict summarized their responses into broad categories. We incidents across years and Chi-square test (χ2) to under- conducted the interview in the local ‘Odia’ language. stand differences in nature and factors associated with conflict. Results Local attitude toward human–sloth bear Conflict characteristics and causes conflicts From 2002 through 2013, 167 human–sloth bear con- We interviewed local people, including the victims flict incidents were recorded in BWLD (mean ± SD; and non-victims throughout each conflict-affected vil- 13.92 ± 5.33, range = 5–21). Four people died from se- lage. We could not select the non-victim interviewees vere injury, 104 individuals suffered from permanent in- from a random sample and therefore interviewed any juries, and 93 individuals received minor injuries. Seven willing person encountered during our visits. Our selec- sloth bears were killed as a result of retaliation by the tion was not random; therefore, we accept the possibility local villagers. Permanent injuries to victims included of unintended biases and suggest our findings be inter- damage to eyes, mouth, ears, nose, and head; and skele- preted carefully. Similarly, Fredriksson (2005), Jorgen- tal fractures. Minor injuries included scratches on the son and Sandoval (2005), Chauhan and Singh (2006), and body, which healed but often caused scarring. We did Ambarlı and Bilgin (2008) relied on non-random selec- not document any victim attacked more than once and tion of subjects instead of a fully randomized sampling we documented up to 7 people injured in a single attack. technique for similar surveys. We carried out the survey There was a significant increase in incidents of conflict during morning (600–800 hr) and evening (1800–2000 during 2008–2013 compared with 2002–2007 (W10 = hr) because people typically are at their homes or vil- 3.5, P = 0.02; Fig. 2). lages at these times. We alternated interviewing victims Most (n = 166, 82.6%) victims were men, and most 2 and non-victims. Our questionnaire consisted of 5 close- were aged 31–45 years (n = 103, 51.2%, χ 4 = 109.42, ended questions (Table 1). We instructed the respondents P < 0.01; Table 2). Most attacks occurred because sloth 2 to answer only ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘don’t know,’ and to then bears were provoked (n = 103, 51.4%, χ 2 = 37.64, P provide explanations for their answers via an open-ended < 0.01), followed by accidental encounters with bears format. This format is superior to closed-format questions (n = 66), and bears defending the cubs (n = 32). Of all when the primary goal is to understand the behavior and the habitat types, most incidents occurred along the forest 2 attitudes of respondents (White et al. 2005). We later fringes (n = 89, 44.3%, χ 3 = 51.23, P < 0.01). Although

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

10 No. of incidents

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Year

Fig. 2. Annual number of human–sloth bear conﬂict incidents in Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India, 2002–2013.

conflicts were reported throughout the year, they were loss and degradation of sloth bear habitat from increasing 2 more frequent during monsoon season (n = 91, 45.3%, mining activities (χ 3 = 44.04, P < 0.01), followed by an 2 χ 2 = 13.37, P < 0.01; Table 3) and between 0400 and increase in sloth bear population (21.9%) and human pop- 2 0600 hours (n = 63, 31.3%, χ 11 = 142.90, P < 0.01; Fig. ulation (17.7%), whereas remaining respondents (15.1%) 3). Attacks occurred most frequently when victims were were uncertain. Most (85.1%) respondents treated sloth using forest fringes to relieve themselves (n = 82, 40.8%, bear as unpredictable and dangerous (Table 1); whereas, 2 χ 5 = 92.32, P < 0.01; Table 3), followed by during the remaining respondents believed sloth bears were not collection of non-timber forest products, when returning aggressive unless provoked. Of the victims, 60.2% were from a nearby markets or work places during late evening, not satisfied with the compensation scheme and stated during agricultural work, when grazing livestock, and they had to spend more money than the allotted compen- while conducting household activities near their home. sation for treatment of injuries. They also stated the compensation system was complicated and lengthy. When Influence of human–sloth bear conflict on local asked whether protection and conservation of sloth bear attitude should be continued, 68.3% (including the victims) were We recorded the views of 350 individual respondents against any kind of protection or conservation activi- (all 201 victims and 149 non-victims), of whom 54.9% ties (Table 1). Remaining respondents supported sloth suggested that sloth bears have become more problem- bear protection and conservation but suggested that bear atic in recent years (Table 1), and 45.3% attributed this to populations be regulated; they also suggested that the

Table 2. Demographic proﬁle of victims, and severity of human injuries resulting from sloth bear attacks, Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India, 2002–2013.

Major injury Minor injury Death

Victim age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total 0–15 yr 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 16–30 yr 19 3 11 6 1 0 40 31–45 yr 44 1 35 21 2 0 103 46–60 yr 27 1 11 2 0 0 41 >60 yr 9 0 3 0 1 0 13 Total 99 5 63 30 4 0 201

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

Downloaded From: https://www.bioone.org/journals/Ursus on 1/2/2019 Terms of Use: https://www.bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Norwegian University Library of Life Sciences r HUMAN–SLOTH BEAR CONFLICT IN INDIA Debata et al. 95 No. of attacks 1401-1600 0401-0600 0601-0800 0801-1000 1001-1200 1201-1400 1601-1800 1801-2000 2001-2200 2201-0000 0001-0200 0201-0400 Time period (hr)

Fig. 3. Temporal variation in sloth bear attacks on humans in Balasore Wildlife Division, eastern India, 2002– 2013.

compensation scheme for attacks be revised to fea- Yoganand 2005), and they have low tolerance toward ture more rapid response from the government. When humans when met accidentally (Garshelis et al. 1999). asked how to mitigate conflict, 46.0% suggested cap- During monsoon, people spend more time in agricul- 2 turing problem animals and placing them in zoos (χ 3 tural fields adjacent to forest fringes, use forests for live- = 125.68, P < 0.01), followed by fencing and digging stock grazing, and collect wild mushrooms, each of which trenches around sloth bear habitat to monitor their intru- activities increase the likelihood of confrontation with sion into other areas (29.1%), increasing education and sloth bears (Bargali et al. 2005). We suggest attacks also awareness programs (20.3%), and culling problematic increase during monsoon because people are less likely animals (4.6%). to detect sloth bears as a result of increased vegetation. In BWLD, most people are poor and unable to access toilet facilities (District Annual Plan 2012); their consequent use of forests for toileting appears also to increase poten- Discussion tial for encounter and attack by sloth bears. Summer is The human population density in Balasore has in- when most wild fruits are mature and are eaten by sloth creased from 291 individuals/km2 in 1971 to 609 bears (Baskaran et al. 1997, Joshi et al. 1997, Akhtar et al. individuals/km2 in 2011 (District Annual Plan 2012), 2004, Yoganand 2005, Palei et al. 2014a). These fruits which has resulted in increased human encroachment are also collected by local villagers for their own con- into sloth bear habitat. Therefore, the increase in human– sumption or for selling in markets (Mahapatra and Panda sloth bear conflicts in BWLD is unsurprising. Most of the 2012), which makes collectors even more vulnerable to victims in BWLD were males between 31 and 45 years sloth bear attack (Gracia et al. 2016). of age, which is in agreement with earlier studies from Most people in BWLD are poor, so loss of labor po- central India (Akhtar et al. 2004, Bargali et al. 2005), tential as a result of sloth bear attack on the head of western India (Gracia et al. 2016), and Sri Lanka (Rat- a household potentially worsens the family’s economic nayeke et al. 2014). It is probable that males are the wage situation. Consequently, though most respondents linked earners of families and, to provide family income, they the increase in conflict to increased mining activities, are more likely to be active in places and at times that they favored translocation of problem animals to cap- increase encounters with sloth bears. Sloth bears can be tivity instead of alternatives that might affect their own unpredictable and may attack without any provocation livelihood. Although the victims and their affected fam- (Garshelis et al. 1999, Rajpurohit and Krausman 2000, ilies (in case of death of the victim) receive financial

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

compensation from the State Forest Department, it is difficult if not impossible to compensate for associated emotional loss. Informal discussions with local forest officials regarding the delay of compensation payment revealed that the applications must be accompanied by a police report and a medical report on the severity of the injury from local government medical officer. However, we were informed the applicants often do not submit these reports soon after the attack. Most respondents opposed conservation of sloth bears, among which the strongest opponents were victims of attacks. This is likely because the victims considered sloth bear a threat to their lives and livelihood, which hindered victims’ acceptance of conservation initiatives in India (Chauhan 2003, Charoo et al. 2011). Overall, we received mixed responses regarding the resolution of conflict between humans and sloth bears. However, more respondents considered management actions, including capture of sloth bears for placement at zoos and culling of problem animals, to be most appropriate. However, these management actions require institutional training and skills that may not be available, and also have the potential to influence sloth bear population viability (Yokoyama et al. 2002, Can and Togan 2004, Goldstein et al. 2006, Liu et al. 2011).

Implications for co-existence India has put considerable effort into developing human–bear conﬂict management plans (Sathyakumar et al. 2012, Can et al. 2014). There are several management actions that could be used in BWLD to reduce human–sloth bear conﬂict. Firstly, we suggest that mak- ing toilets available to the local people under existing schemes will reduce the risk of sloth bear attacks on

Summer Monsoonhumans Winter (e.g., www.mdws.gov.in). Grand total Education is an ap- proach that has frequently been recommended to address human–bear conflict worldwide (Can et al. 2014). We therefore propose regular public education to increase knowledge of sloth bear conservation needs, ecology, and behavior; this should reduce human–sloth bear confrontation and potential for injuries. However, we rec- ognize that whatever the educational framework, it will likely require evaluation and revision to increase effec- tiveness (Spencer et al. 2007). A fully equipped, well-trained, and motivated conflict management team (including local forest staff, non- government organization representatives, and local res- idents) is desirable to respond to conflict situations for victim treatment. This team should also be trained to deal

Table 3. Seasonality2002–2013. of attacks by sloth bears, and activities ofActivity the victims during attacks,Open in defecation Balasore WildlifeCattle grazing Division, easternNon-timber forest India, product collectionAgricultural workReturning from market 16Household workTotal 5 12 Men 1 8 21 Women 2 5with Total 11 0 0 0 Menemergencies 0 17 Women 4 2 39 34 1 8 Total 2(e.g., Men 15 2 12 6 5 8 19 Women sloth 4 Total 3 51 0 0bear 42 1 Menpresence 78 3 Women 17 0 6 20 5 Total 13in 7 6 21 3 1 5 human 91 31 23 1 0 0 0 49 12 63 21 1 1 5 10 19 43 34 26 2 8 59 82 0 166 1 4 0 34 35 3 27 8 201 7

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

habitations, including crowd control, rescue and treat- CHAROO, S.A., L.K. SHARMA, AND S. SATHYAKUMAR. 2011. ment [if required]), and translocation and/or monitoring Asiatic black bear–human interactions around Dachigam of the animals. The management team should also fa- National Park, Kashmir, India. Ursus 22:106–113. cilitate the victim’s application for compensation funds. CHATTOPADHYAY, A. 2012. The present scenario of socio eco- We expect such initiatives to build trust among people nomic condition of Balasore District of Orissa. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences 2:420–427. with the Forest Department and increase local support CHAUHAN, N.P.S. 2003. Human casualties and livestock depre- for imparting various wildlife conservation interventions, dation by black and brown bears in the Indian Himalaya, including those focused on the sloth bear. 1989–98. Ursus 14:84–87. ———. 2006. The status of sloth bears in India. Pages 26–34 in Japan Bear Network, editors. Understanding Asian bears Acknowledgments to secure their future. Japan Bear Network, Ibaraki, Japan. The study was carried out with the financial assis- ———, AND R.K.J. SINGH. 2006. Status and distribution of sun tance under CAMPA-02-WLM APO 2010–2011 allotted bears in Manipur, India. Ursus 17:182–185. to Balasore Wildlife Division. We sincerely acknowledge DEFRIES, R., K.K. KARANTH, AND S. PAREETH. 2010. Inter- actions between protected areas and their surroundings in the late C.S. Kar, Senior Research Officer, Odisha For- human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biological Conser- est Department (BWLD) and A.K. Nayak, Indian Forest vation 143:2870–2880. Service, for their consistent cooperation and guidance for DISTRICT ANNUAL PLAN. 2012. Comprehensive district annual this study. We are also thankful to the Forest Range Of- plan 2011–12, Balasore District. District Administration, ficers, field staffs, all villagers and victims of BWLD for Balasore and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural De- their cooperation during our fieldwork. Lastly, we thank velopment, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India. the Associate Editor and anonymous reviewers for their FREDRIKSSON, G. 2005. Human–sun bear conflicts in East Kali- valuable inputs in improving the manuscript. mantan, Indonesian, Borneo. Ursus 16:130–137. GARCIA, K.C., H.M. JOSHI, AND N. DHARAIYA. 2016. Assess- ment of human–sloth bear conflicts in North Gujarat, India. Literature cited Ursus 27:5–10. AKHTAR,N.,H.S.BARGALI, AND N.P.S. CHAUHAN. 2004. Feed- GARSHELIS, D.L., A.R. JOSHI, J.L.D. SMITH, AND C.G. RICE. ing ecology of sloth bears in a disturbed area in central India. 1999. Sloth bear conservation action plan. Pages 225–240 Ursus 15:212–217. in C. Servheen, S. Herrero, and B. Peyton, editors. Bears: AMBARLI,H.,AND C.C. BILGIN. 2008. Human–brown bear con- Status survey and conservation action plan. International flicts in Artvin, northeastern Turkey: Encounters, damage, Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re- and attitudes. Ursus 19:146–153. sources, Gland, Switzerland. ANONYMOUS. 2007. Revised working plan of Balasore Divi- GOLDSTEIN,I.,S.PAISLEY,R.WALLACE,J.P.JORGENSON, sion. Forest Department, Government of Orissa, Balasore, F. CUESTA, AND A. CASTELLANOS. 2006. Andean bear– Orissa, India. livestock conflicts: A review. Ursus 17:8–15. BARGALI, H.S., N. AKHTAR, AND N.P.S. CHAUHAN. 2005. Char- GRANADOS, A., R.B. WELADJI, AND M.R. LOOMIS. 2012. acteristics of sloth bear attacks and human casualties in Movement and occurrence of two elephant herds in a human- North Balispur Forest Division, Chhattisgarh, India. Ursus dominated landscape, the Benou´ e´ Wildlife Conservation 16:263–267. Area, Cameroon. Tropical Conservation Science 5:150–162. BASKARAN,N.,N.SIVAGANESAN, AND J. KRISHNAMOORTHY. JHALA, Y.V., Q. QURESHI,R.GOPAL, AND P.R. S INHA. 2011. 1997. Food habits of sloth bear in Mudumalai wildlife sanc- Status of the tigers, co-predators, and prey in India. tuary, Tamil Nadu, southern India. Journal of Bombay Nat- Technical report. Wildlife Institute of India, Uttarakhand, ural History Society 94:1–9. Dehradun. BHATTARAI, B.R., AND K. FISCHER. 2014. Human–tiger Pan- JORGENSON, J.P., AND S. SANDOVAL. 2005. Andean bear man- thera tigris conflict and its perception in Bardia National agement needs and interactions with humans in Colombia. Park, Nepal. Oryx 48:522–528. Ursus 16:108–116. CAN, O.E.,N.D’C¨ RUZE,D.L.GARSHELIS,J.BEECHAM, AND JOSHI, A.R., D.L. GARSHELIS, AND J.L.D. SMITH. 1997. Sea- D.W. MACDONALD. 2014. Resolving human–bear conflict: sonal and habitat-related diets of sloth bear in Nepal. Journal A global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Con- of Mammalogy 78:584–597. servation Letters 7:501–513. KABIR,M.,A.GHODDOUSI,M.S.AWANAND, AND M.N. AWAN. ———, AND I. TOGAN. 2004. Status and management of brown 2014. Assessment of human–leopard conflict in Machira bears in Turkey. Ursus 15:48–53. National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Euro- CHAMPION, H.G., AND S.K. SETH. 1968. The forest types of pean Journal of Wildlife Research 60:291–296. India. Government of India Press, Nasik, India. KARANTH, K.K., AND R. DEFRIES. 2010. Conservation and

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

management in human-dominated landscape: Case studies terizing human–tiger conflict in and around Ranthambhore from India. Biological Conservation 143:2865–2869. Tiger Reserve, western India. European Journal of Wildlife LIU,F.,W.J.MCSHEA,D.L.GARSHELIS,X.ZHU,D.WANG, Research 61:255–261. AND L. SHAO. 2011. Human–wildlife conflicts influence SPENCER, R.D., R.A. BEAUSOLEIL, AND D.A. MARTORELLO. attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: Factors driving 2007. How agencies respond to human–black bear con- the poaching of bears in China. Biological Conservation flicts: A survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 144:538–547. 18:217–229. MADDEN, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and THORN,M.,M.GREEN,F.DALERUM,P.W.BATEMAN, AND wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address D.M. SCOTT.2012. What drives human–carnivore conflict human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife in the North West Province of South Africa? Biological 9:247–257. Conservation 150:23–32. MAHAPATRA, A.K., AND P.C. PANDA. 2012. Wild edible fruit TREVES,A.,AND K.U. KARANTH. 2003. Human–carnivore con- diversity and its significance in the livelihood of indigenous flict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. tribals: Evidence from eastern India. Food Security 4:219– Conservation Biology 17:1491–1499. 234. WHITE, P.C.L., N.V. JENNINGS,A.R.RENWICK, AND N.H.L. OGRA,M.,AND R. BADOLA. 2008. Compensating human– BARKER. 2005. Questionnaires in ecology: A review of past wildlife conflict in protected area communities: Ground- use and recommendations for best practice. Journal of Ap- level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Human Ecology plied Ecology 42:421–430. 36:717–729. WORLD WILDLIFE FUND [WWF]. 2015. Human–wildlife PALEI, H.S., P.P. MOHAPATRA, AND H.K. SAHU. 2014a. Dry conflict. World Wildlife Fund. http://wwf.panda.org/about_ season diet of the sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) in Hadagarh our_earth/species/problems/human_animal_conflict. Wildlife Sanctuary, eastern India. Proceedings of Zoological Accessed 16 Dec 2015. Society 67:67–71. YOGANAND, K. 2005. Behavioral ecology of sloth bear (Melur- PALEI, N.C., H.S. PALEI,B.P.RATH, AND C.S. KAR. 2014b. sus ursinus) in Panna National Park, Central India. Disser- Mortality of endangered Asian elephant Elephas maximus tation, Sourashtra University, Rajkot, Gujarat, India. by electrocution in Odisha, India. Oryx 48:602–604. ———, C.G. RICE, AND A.J.T. JOHNSINGH. 2013. Sloth bear RAJPUROHIT, K.S., AND P.R. K RAUSMAN. 2000. Human–sloth- Melursus ursinus. Pages 438–456 in A.J.T. Johnsingh and bear conflicts in Madhya Pradesh, India. Wildlife Society N. Manjrekar, editors. Mammals of South Asia. Volume 1. Bulletin 28:393–399. Universities Press, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. RATNAYEKE,S.,F.T.VAN MANEN,R.PIERIS, AND V.S.J . P RA- ———, ———, ———, AND J. SEIDENSTICKER. 2006. Is GASH. 2014. Challenges of large carnivore conservation: the sloth bear in India secure? A preliminary report on Sloth bear attacks in Sri Lanka. Human Ecology 42:467– distribution, threats and conservation requirements. Jour- 479. nal of the Bombay Natural History Society 103(2–3):172– SABERWAL, V.K., J.P. GIBBS,R.CHELLAM, AND A.J.T. JOHNS- 181. INGH. 1994. Lion–human conflict in the Gir Forest, India. YOKOYAMA,M.,H.SAKATA, AND A. KATAYAMA. 2002. A re- Conservation Biology 8:501–507. port on human and Japanese black bear conflicts in Kasuga SATHYAKUMAR,S.,R.KAUL, N.V.K. ASHRAF,A.MOOKER- and Muraoka, Hyogo, June and July, 2002. Human Nature JEE, AND V. MENON. 2012. National bear conservation and 13:67–72. welfare action plan. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Wildlife Institute of India and Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi, National Capital Territory of Delhi, India. Received: March 18, 2016 SINGH,R.,P.NIGAM,Q.QURESHI,K.SANKAR,P.R.KRAUS- Accepted: October 27, 2016 MAN,S.P.GOYAL, AND K.L. NICHOLOSON. 2015. Charac- Associate Editor: Sambardam

Ursus 27(2):90–98 (2016)

Downloaded From: https://www.bioone.org/journals/Ursus on 1/2/2019 Terms of Use: https://www.bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Norwegian University Library of Life Sciences