Characteristics of Sloth Bear Attacks and Human Casualties in North Bilaspur Forest Division, Chhattisgarh,India

Characteristics of sloth bear attacks and human casualties in North Bilaspur Forest Division, Chhattisgarh,India

H.S. Bargali1'3, Naim Akhtar2'4, and N.P.S. Chauhan2'5

1WorldWide Fund for Nature- India,Lodi Estate, New Delhi 110003, India 2WildlifeInstitute of India,PO Box 18, Chandrabani,Dehradun 248001, India

Abstract: Sloth bears (Melursusursinus) are endemic to the Indiansubcontinent and frequentlycome into conflict with humans. In the North BilaspurForest Division, a total of 137 attacks (resultingin 11 deaths)occurred between April 1998 and December2000. Most (54%) incidentstook place during the monsoon season. Attacks occurred(45%) early in the morning (0400-0800 hrs) more frequently than at other times; human activities at the time of attack were most frequentlydefecation (27%); locations of attackswere in kitchen gardens,crop fields, and in adjoiningforests. A single bearwas involved in a majority(56%) of incidents,but groups of 2 (20%) and 3 (21%) bears were also involved. Attackswere predominantlyby a single bear (93%) and rarelyby 2 (4%) or 3 bears. In most cases, the attacking bear ran away (55%) or was chased by other people (39%) or livestock. Most victims suffered multiple injuries (52%); single injuries on legs (25%), hand (12%), and head (8%) regions were also recorded.

Key words: bear attacks,India, Melursus ursinus, North BilaspurForest Division, sloth bear

Ursus16(2):263-267 (2005)

The sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) is endemic to the and Madhya Pradeshin central India (Servheen 1990). Indian subcontinentand is found in India, Sri Lanka, Sloth bears are locally consideredto be one of the most Nepal, Bhutan,and Bangladesh.In India, sloth bears are dangerous wild animals. Sloth bears reportedly can distributedfrom the southern tip of the Western Ghat attack without apparentprovocation (Gee 1964), and mountains to the foothills of the Himalayas. Habitat may encounter humans when they raid croplands or degradationdue to increasedhuman population (Cowan when people enter forests to collect non-timberforest 1972, Johnsingh 1986, Schoen 1990), diminished food products(NTFP; Garshelis et al. 1999). Sloth bears raid resources (Murthy and Sankar 1995, Rajpurohit and a variety of crops and occasionally scavenge on cattle Chauhan 1996), and increased poaching for its gall carcasses (Laurie and Seidensticker 1977, Rajpurohit bladder(Laurie and Seidensticker1977, Servheen 1990, and Chauhan 1996, Rajpurohitand Krausman2000). Garsheliset al. 1999) have led to declines in sloth bear Human-sloth bear conflicts in Madhya Pradesh (which populations. Because forest areas outside parks and earlierincluded Chhattisgarh as well) have been reported reserves have decreased,remaining populations of sloth from 17 forest divisions and 13 protectedareas. Most of bear are becoming increasingly fragmented (Garshelis the attacks were recorded in managed forests outside et al. 1999). The sloth bearis includedin ScheduleI of the protectedareas (Rajpurohitand Chauhan1996). Indian Wildlife (Protection)Act 1972 (amended 2002) The forests of NBFD are patchy, fragmented, and and in Appendix I of CITES. interspersedwith agriculturalfields andvillages with high The North Bilaspur forest division (NBFD) is in the human and cattle population. In Pendra and Marwahi state of Chhattisgarh.India's largest sloth bear popula- administrativeranges of NBFD, sloth bears are consid- tion (approximately10,000 bears) is reportedto occupy ered nuisances by local people. The inhabitantsare poor the tropicaldry deciduous forests states of Chhattisgarh tribalpeople who sufferconsiderably from economic loss of crops, mauling, and sometimes killing by sloth bears. The objectives of this study were to describe sloth bear [email protected]@yahoo.com 5npsc@wii. attacksand humaninjuries. We define an "attack"as an gov.in encounterthat ends with humaninjury or death.

263 264 SLOTHBEAR ATTACKS * Ba-gali et al.

Fig. 1. The 1,396-km2 study area in Pendra and Marwahi administrative ranges (regions) of the forest department in the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, for a 1998-2000 study of sloth bear attacks.

Study area included 178 villages and had a human population of The study area includes about 1,396 km2 of Pendra about 180,000 and cattle populationof about 150,000. and Marwahi administrative ranges (regions) of the forest departmentof NBFD in the state of Chhattisgarh Human use in central India (Fig. 1). The study area lies between In bothPendra and Marwahi Ranges most bearden sites 81?45'-82?13' E longitude and 22?40'-2307' N lati- were close to humanhabitation, suggesting to us forced tude. Out of the total study area, patchy forest occu- use of degradedhabitat. Because of extremehot summers pied about 337 km2. Topographically, the region in central India and lack of irrigationfacilities, people includes the Chhattisgarhplains and hilly regions of dependmainly on the southwestmonsoon for agricultural Maikal Range. Most of the forest fragmentsconsist of practices.During non-cropping season, people dependon small hillocks with boulders that offer safe den sites NTFPcollection. Some species of importanceto bearsare to sloth bears. There were more active den sites in also collected by villagers,including flowers and fruitsof MarwahiRange than in Pendra Range (Akhtar 2003), mahuwa, and fruits of bel, char (Buchanania lanzan), where almost all den sites were situated in hillocks of jamun, and tendu (Diospyros melanoxylon). Collection of big boulders. NTFP not only disturbs bears but also limits their We recognized 3 distinct seasons in the study area: availabilityfor bears (Bargaliet al. 2004). summer (Mar-Jun), monsoon (Jul-Oct), and winter (Nov-Feb). Sloth bear diets in this area include jamun (Syzygium cumini), bel (Aegle marmelos), ber (Ziziphus Methods mauritiana), and mahuwa (Madhuca indica) (Bargali Information on human mauling and killing was 2003). During summer, mean temperatures exceed collected during April 1998 to December 2000 from 40?C; during winter mean temperaturesare 9.7?C. The recordsof the forest departmentand throughinterviews. average annual rainfall is 1,381mm. The study area Victims were interviewed directly; in case of death of

Ursus 16(2):263-267 (2005) SLOTH BEAR ATTACKS * Bargali et al. 265

Table 1. Incidents of human mauling and killing by 30 sloth bears in Pendra and Marwahi administrative 25 ranges (regions) in the state of Chhattisgarh in central India during Apr 1998-Dec 2000. 20 15; Men Women Children a. 10 Range MauledKilled Mauled Killed Mauled Killed Total Pendra 16 2 13 3 3 0 37 Marwahi 62 2 19 4 13 0 100 o^-^^^^ <$^O'~~~.~ "~'v>^l>

25O

60 so

30 S 0 a DF WK CG FA VH NTFP

Fig. 4. Activity of victims at the time of attacks by Summer (Mar-Jun) Monsoon (Jul-Oct) Winter (Nov-Feb) sloth bears in Pendra and Marwahi administrative ranges (regions) in the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, Apr 1998-Dec 2000, based on interview Fig. 2. Seasonal variation of sloth bear attacks in of victim, relative, or witness (n = 137). Abbrevia- Pendra and Marwahiadministrative ranges (regions) tions: DF = defecation, WK = walking, CG = cattle in the state of Chhattisgarh in central India, Apr grazing, FA= farming, VH= vicinity of house, NTFP= 1998-Dec 2000 (n= 137). collecting non-timber forests products.

Ursus 16(2):263-267 (2005) 266 SLOTHBEAR ATrACKS * Bargali et al.

Table 2. Mode of sloth bear attack and human Table 3. Mode of survival of victims of sloth bear posture at the time of attack in Pendra and Marwahi attacks in Pendra and Marwahiadministrative ranges administrative ranges (regions) in the state of (regions) in the state of Chhattisgarh, central India, Chhattisgarh in central India, Apr 1998-Dec 2000. Apr 1998-Dec 2000. Bear Victim Rescued Rescued Rescued Bear Bear 2LSa 4LSb climb fell Unknown by by by Range junnped sitting Range left killed people cattle dog Unknown 0 2 2 5 Pendra 13 15 0 Pendra 24 2 10 0 0 1 1 12 5 19 Marwahi 26 35 2 Marwahi 51 0 43 2 2 2 14 7 24 Total 39 50 2 1 Total 75 2 53 2 2 3 a2LS:Bear stood on hindlegs. b4LS:Bear on fore and hindlegs. that the higher incidence of attacks during monsoons In a few incidents,victims became unconsciousor fell to was due to the increased presence of people in crop the ground.Most victims were attackedon their legs, 17 fields for farmingand protectionof crops from bears as on their hands (12.4%), and 15 on other parts of their well as cattle grazing in the forests areas. Bears are bodies. There were 71 cases of multiple injuries to the known to raid groundnutand maize crops, and the pres- victims. Victims suffered injuries such as fracturesand ence of people in forested areas attending grazing severed body parts (eyes, scrotal sac). On 53 occasions, livestock probably added to the probabilityof encoun- victims survived when people nearby shouted and ters with a bear. Because there are no crops in fields chased the bear away; in 4 cases, cattle or dogs rushed duringsummer and winter,bears rely heavily on fruiting toward the bear, chasing it off. trees (especially Ficus species, Bargali 2002). Deserted which reduces Following the attack,bears most commonly (54.7%) crop fields are used for cattle grazing, fled the area. In 2 incidents, bears were killed by other disturbance in forests and reduces the chance of an summerbears from people afterhaving killed theirvictims (Table 3). In both encounter.As well, during emerged of these cases, bears were observed to eat body partsof their dens early in the evening and entered the forest the victim. When villagers and family membersreached where they were likely to encounter people venturing the site, ratherthan fleeing, bears attackedthe crowd, at into forests for the NTFP collection or simply traveling which point family members or people accompanying on footpaths. in and the victim fought and killed the bear (in one case with Following parturition January February, remained near their dens, a thick, heavy stick, and in the otherwith a heavy stone). mothers with cubs mostly not venturing far from their dens until March. With shorterwinter days (and possibly to avoid conflicts with humans), bears emerged from their dens mostly after it Discussion became dark and people had ceased their activities. of extensive to Because damage already degraded Single bears were implicatedin a majorityof attacks. face habitatand collection of NTFP by the locals, bears In cases of a motherwith one or more cubs, most attacks resourcesand direct with a shortageof food competition involved only the mother. Bears usually fled after food resources and Sankar humansfor common (Murthy attacking.In most incidents, bears attackedwhile run- and Chauhan In NBFD, bears 1995, Rajpurohit 1996). ning and pushed their victims using their fore legs or human habitation and cultivation frequently explored head, which may explain why the most common injuries resultedin increased areasin searchof food, which in turn were to victims' legs. Multiple injuries and deaths with occasional or death, and encounters humans, injury appearto result when victims struggledwith the bear. extensive damage to agriculturalor horticulturalcrops (Bargali 2003). Bears mauled more men than women, in possibly because men were more frequently active and times that coincided with bearmovements, or Managementimplications places and frame- were involved in activitiessuch as collection of NTFP or Under the given socioeconomic political one to human-slothbear conflicts is going to marketsor other villages. Women and children work, way mitigate the ill effects of conditions. tended to stay at home more and move in largergroups. to minimize socioecological on the and With the onset of monsoons and increasedvegetation Educationand awarenessprograms ecology of sloth bears and on mitigation strategies cover, people begin agriculturalactivities. We believe behavior Ursus 16(2):263-267 (2005) SLOTHBEAR ATTACKS * Bargali et al. 267

should be initiatedfor villagers in affected areas. In the and Chhattisgarhstate forest departmentfor their help fragmentedand degradedforest areas,habitat protection and cooperation.We also thankPanna Lal, WII, and our should to be carried out to sustain the existing sloth field assistants P. Singh and late K. Kumar for their bear population. assistance.Finally we thankall villagers and victims for In NBFD, villagers still possess the remnants of their cooperationduring the fieldwork. a conservationethic; there is a need to involve village forest communities in the mitigation of the problem by providing all possible supportto them. Village commit- Literaturecited tees should be involved in education and awareness AKHTAR,N. 2003. Habitatuse, rangingpattern and manage- programs,in preventing illegal cutting and lopping of ment of sloth bear(Melursus ursinus) in NorthBilaspur trees, and in helping the forest departmentcontrol forest ForestDivision, Madhya Pradesh. Thesis, Saurashtra Uni- fires and protect forests. People involved in implement- versity,Rajkot, India. ing such measures should be suitably rewarded. To BARGALI,H.S. 2003. Ecology of the problematic sloth bear (Melursus and of human-bear avoid conflicts with bears early in the morning, ursinus) mitigation conflicts in North BilaspurForest Division, Pradesh. incentives should be created for villagers to construct Madhya Thesis,Saurashtra University, Rajkot, India. toilets in their houses using easily available, low-cost , N. AKHTAR,AND N.P.S. CHAUHAN.2004. material. should avoid maize and Feeding Villagers cultivating ecologyof slothbears in a disturbedarea in centralIndia. near den sites and groundnut crops should change Ursus15(2):212-217. agriculturalpatterns by growing crops of less interestto COWAN,I.M. 1972. The status and conservationof bears bears. We recommendthat encroachmenton forest land (Ursidae)of the world-1970. InterationalConference on and mining activities in the vicinity of hillocks, which BearResearch and Management 2:343-367. are potentialden sites for bears,be bannedimmediately. GARSHELIS,D.L., A.R. JOSHI, J.L.D. SMITH,AND C.G. RICE. Because they lack irrigation,local people depend on 1999.Sloth bear conservation action plan. Pages 225-240 in C. the monsoon for agriculture.During the non-growing Servheen,S. Herrero,and B. Peyton,editors. Bears: season, people depend on NTFP collection. Leaves of statussurvey and conservationaction plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature mohline (Bauhinia vahlii) and sal (Shorea robusta) are and Natural Re- sources, Gland, Switzerland. collected by villagers, and tendu leaves (Diospyros GEE,E.P. 1964. The wildlife of India. Collins, London, UK. melanoxylon) are collected by the forest department. JOHNSINGH,A.J.T. 1986. Diversity and conservation of These leaves are used in makingplates and bidi (a crude carnivorousmammals in India. Proceedings of the Indian form of a which is made tobaccoin cigarette by wrapping Academy of Science, Bangalore,India. leaves from tendu). can be Villagers provided employ- LAURIE, A., AND J. SEIDENSTICKER.1977. Behavioural ecology ment by establishing cottage industriesfor making bidi of the slothbears (Melursus ursinus). Journal of Zoology and plates. Villagerscan be motivatedto make ropes and (London) 182:187-204. bambooproducts. This will help in generateemployment MURTHY,R.S., ANDK. SANKAR.1995. Assessmentof bear-man for the locals and reduce their dependenceon forests. conflict in North BilaspurForest Division, Bilaspur,M. P. Increasingincidents of human-bearconflict in Chhat- Wildlife Instituteof India, Dehradun,India. ANDN.P.S. tisgarh, as well as in Madhya Pradesh (Rajpurohitand RAJPUROHIT,K.S., CHAUHAN.1996. Study of animal damage problems in and around areas and Chauhan 1996) and many other parts of the country protected managed forest in India. Phase-I: Bihar (Garsheliset al. 1999), togetherwith the loss of forested Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa. Wildlife Instituteof India, India. areasoutside parks and reserves, a threatto the Dehradun, pose major , AND P.R. KRAUSMAN.2000. Human-sloth-bear survival of sloth bears. Timely identificationand pro- conflicts in Madhya Pradesh, India. Wildlife Society tection of areas with intact forests with substantialbear Bulletin. 28:393-399. is essentialfor the populations conservationof slothbears. SCHOEN,J.W. 1990. Forestmanagement and bearconservation. InternationalCongress of Ecology 5:1-7. SERVHEEN,C. 1990. The statusand conservationof the bearsof Acknowledgments the world.International Conference on BearResearch and ManagementMonograph 2. We thank V.B. Sawarkar,former Director, Wildlife Instituteof India, for his and We cooperation guidance. Received: 26 February2004 thank P.K. former PCCF Mishra, Madhya Pradesh Accepted: 13 May 2005 Forest Department,and staff of both Madhya Pradesh Associate Editor: R. Shideler

Ursus 16(2):263-267 (2005)