A Case of Shettihalli Village in Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, Shimoga, Karnataka

Lake 2016: Conference on Conservation and Sustainable Management of Ecologically TH Sensitive Regions in Western Ghats [THE 10 BIENNIAL LAKE CONFERENCE] th Date: 28-30 December 2016, http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

Human - Carnivore Conflicts: a case of Shettihalli village in Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, Shimoga, Karnataka

Roshan D. Puranik1, 2 and Vijayakumara1 1. Kuvempu University, Shankarghatta, Shimoga 2. EMPRI, Bangalore [email protected], +91-9845320500 Abstract__ Livestock depredation by Tigers every ecosystem on the Earth’s surface has now been (Pantheratigris) and Leopards (Pantherapardus), has influenced by human activities (Vitouseket al., 1997). resulted in a human-wildlife conflicts that hinders the Around 40-50% of the Earth’s surface is estimated to conservation of these globally-threatened species. This have been transformed by humans, often with marked report analyses the alleged economic loss due to ecological effects: for instance, 10-15% of the global livestock depredation by these carnivores and the retaliatory responses of an agro-pastoral community land surface is now covered either by row-crop around Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, a region in the agriculture or urban areas, while an additional 6-8% Western Ghats of India. The methods used to conduct has undergone conversion to pasture (Olson et al., this study were sign surveys and structured and 1983; Vitouseket al., 1997). Humans are now thought unstructured interviews with the households. The to appropriate 35% of the global productivity of village of Shettihalli located inside Shettihalli Wildlife ocean shelves (Pauly and Christensen, 1995), channel Sanctuary with 88 households, attributed a total of 72 more than 40% of the world’s annual primary livestock deaths to wild predators over a period of 12 productivity for their own ends (Vitouseket al., 1986) months. At present, there are 346 cows and 8 buffalos and utilize 60% of freshwater run-off (Postelet al., owned by the 45 household who were interviewed in this village. A total of 70 cow deaths over a period of 1 year, 1996; Sanderson et al., 2002). about 231 cow deaths in the past 5 years, about 362 cow deaths in the past 10 years and about 507 cows death in The expansion of agriculture over the past the past 25 years were reported. A total of 2 buffalo 30 years, has affected global rates of nitrogen fixation deaths over a period of 1 year, about 10 buffalo deaths and phosphorus accumulation. Irrigation schemes in the past 5 years, about 13 buffalo deaths in the past have heaped more demands on the world’s freshwater 10 years and about 24 buffalo deaths in the past 25 systems (Tilmanet al., 2001; Sanderson et al., 2002). years were estimated through the interview. The total The human disturbance index indicates that almost alleged losses due to the conflict amount up to Rs.16, three-quarters of the Earth’s habitable land surface 66,000 which averages about Rs 37,000 per family. No has been disturbed by humans (Hannah et al., 1994; compensation was offered to the households who have lost their cattle which entered inside the Wildlife Hannah et al., 1995), while the recent human Sanctuary area illegally for grazing. Only in two cases footprint map highlights how significant they are when a Tiger (Pantheratigris) and a Leopard having on the planet (Sanderson et al., 2002). Much (Pantherapardus) separately entered inside the village of this anthropogenic impact is due to the world’s and killed cattle, were provided compensation of about burgeoning human population, which currently stands Rs.3000 for their losses. They mainly depended on wood at 7 billion and is predicted by the UN to cross 8.9 as a source of fuel to cook. The roads leading to this billion by 2050 (UN, 2004). The spread of village were all mud road in the interest of the settlement and changing land use has resulted in the sanctuary. There was no public transportation facility fragmentation of natural habitats. The worlds available for the residents of this village. Most of them owned motor bike and a few of them owned four remaining biodiversity areas is increasingly getting wheelers. The Forest Department of this area wants the restricted, to form small fragmented patches within a village to be evacuated in the interest of the Wildlife matrix of human-dominated landscapes (Spalding, Sanctuary. Personal observation and unstructured 1989; McCloskey and Primack, 1993; Laurance and interviews reveled that there were a many cases of illicit Bierregaard, 1997) that enhances interactions and felling of trees for timber and hunting of prey species lead to potential conflicts between conservation and like Sambar, Chital, Hare etc. were common by people development efforts. from both outside and by a few households of the village themselves. The need to address the problem of From a conservation standpoint, although increasing livestock holding and kills in the long run is some wildlife species appear to be able to withstand emphasized. The study conducted in this area is first of its kind these pressures of habitat loss and changing land use 1. INTRODUCTION relatively well (Nee and May, 1992; Anderson, 1997; The 21st century global landscape is Purvis et al., 2001), others are often particularly increasingly human-dominated, with reports that threatened by such environmental changes (Belovsky,

Proceedings – Lake 2016: Ramachandra T V, Subash Chandran M D, Mohan Alva, et al., 2018. Conservation and Sustainable Management of Ecologically Sensitive Regions in Western Ghats, , Sahyadri Conservation Series 65, , ENVIS Technical Report 120 Environmental Information System, CES, Indian Institute of Science, 457 Bangalore 560012

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

1987; Gittlemanet al., 2001). Certain biological 1.2.2 Attacks on Humans: Although not as common characteristics that include large body size, complex as attacks on livestock or game species, wild animal social behavior, low population density, specialized attacks on humans have particularly significant niche requirements, high trophic level and large home impact in terms of causing intense conflict (Quigley range size (Diamond, 1984) make species more and Herrero, 2005). Records of fatalities due to attack vulnerable to extinction. These traits are inherent to by wild animals are poorly collated or difficult to many large carnivores (Gittlemanet al., 2001), obtain in many countries, but where such data exist, making them particularly vulnerable to habitat loss they suggest that deaths due to animals are a tiny and environmental change, and intensifying minority of mortalities, e.g. 0.06% in Norway and conservation concern for such taxa as human 0.07% in the US, that includes those caused by domination of ecosystems escalates further. domestic animals (Loe, 2002). The expansion of human influence even to the remotest corner of the globe, and the ever- Despite its relative global rarity, attacks on increasing pressure to utilize the remaining natural humans can pose a significant threat in some areas: resources has intensified the issue of human-wildlife for instance, the Sundarban forest region of eastern conflict even necessitating a clear cut definition to India has long been a ‘hotspot’ for man-eating Tigers address the problem. Human-wildlife conflict has (Pantheratigris), with around 100 human deaths been defined as a condition wherein ‘The needs and reported annually (Sanyal, 1987), while 100 - 200 behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals people are killed by Asian Elephants (Elephas of humans or when the goals of humans negatively maximus) every year in India (Thirgoodet al., 2005; impact the needs of wildlife’ (Recommendation Veeramaniet al., 1996). Although the number of 5.20, 2003 World Parks Congress). human fatalities in a global context due to wildlife is negligible when compared to famine, war and 1.2 Global Extent of Human-Wildlife Conflict: disease, it has been reported to generate very Human-wildlife conflict occurs in extremely wide significant hostility towards conserving potentially range of situations globally, involving diverse dangerous species (Thirgoodet al., 2005). This is in species. A brief overview of the factors that cause line with research into risk perceptions, where conflict as highlighted by Thirgoodet al. (2005) demand for risk mitigation tends to be driven most reveal that the most common and direct ones are, strongly by the severity of the consequences of a predation upon livestock, attacks on humans and crop hazard, rather than how often it is likely to occur raiding . This review will cover a range of wildlife (Sjoberget al., 2004). Data on human attacks are species causing conflict, with a particular focus upon often vague, and researchers have called for more large carnivores. studies to investigate the circumstances surrounding human attacks (Quigley and Herrero, 2005), in an 1.2.1 Predation upon Livestock: The most common effort to reduce their prevalence and ease coexistence issue cited as causing conflict between humans and between humans and potentially threatening wildlife carnivores in a study by Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson species. (2001) was predation upon livestock. The problem is reported to be extremely widespread, with Lynx in 1.3 Conflict between Humans and Wildlife: France (Stahl et al., 2001), Brown Bears in Norway India’s Perspective: A large and growing body of (Sagoret al., 1997), Pumas in Brazil (Mazzolliet al., conservation literature exists for understanding 2002), Golden Jackals (Canis aureus) in Israel (Yom- interactions between people and landscapes (De-Fries Tov et al., 1995) and Tigers (Pantheratigris) in India et al., 2005, 2009). Countries in South Asia and India (Sekhar, 1998) associated with the problem. in particular, face immense challenges in terms of Depredation has sometimes been intense with conservation efforts posed by poverty, high human villagers in Nepal reporting that 63% of all stock population densities of people, rapidly changing deaths were due to predators (Jackson et al., 1996). landscapes, complicated political and institutional Even relatively low levels of stock loss can impose regimes, and recent economic growth and intolerable costs on poor households (Stander, 1997). urbanization. Although these regions have historically Surplus killing, where predators kill multiple animals supported and continue to support high biodiversity in one attack, can result in severe financial hardship and significant conservation values, the rapidly to the stock-owners (Nowell and Jackson, 1996) and increasing human populations and their dependence engenders a particularly intense hostility towards on landscapes for basic livelihood has created a need carnivores (Oli et al., 1994). to balance broader conservation objectives and human needs.

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

India is largely an agrarian country (46% of area of about 395.6 km2 and it is divided into a core total land area cultivated), with 57% of labor force zone (100.6 km2), a buffer zone (237.4 km2) and a depending mainly on agriculture (UN, 2006). It is tourism zone (57.6 km2). The sanctuary supports dry already a home to 1.2 billion people and is projected deciduous forest, moist deciduous forest and a few to have a huge population to 1.4 billion by 2020 (UN, patches of semi-evergreen, evergreen forest and 2009). Although the population density is variable grassland patches. The area is surrounded by Teak across biomes, ranging from the deserts of Rajasthan plantations which were planted during the British era to the fertile Gangetic Plain (Rangarajan, 2007), its in India. Shettihalli village comprises of 88 overall population density has quadrupled from 80 to households. The main occupation of the people in this 324 people /km2 during the last 150 years. Majority village is agriculture with Areca nut and Paddy being (70%) of Indians lives in rural areas and 80% of the the major crops grown in this village. They also own rural population lives in poverty, with an income of livestock comprising of cows and buffalos which less than two dollars a day (UN, 2009). In spite of an yield milk that is sold on a daily basis to a co- high economic growth of approximately 8% over the operative federation owned by them. last 15 years the country ranks 88th out of 135 countries under the Human Poverty Index (UN, 2009) Livestock depredation by the Tiger , 134th out of 182 countries in the human (Pantheratigris) and Leopard (Pantherapardus) has development index (HDI) and 128th out of 182 for resulted in ahuman-wildlife conflict that hinders the GDP per capita (UN, 2006). conservationof these globally-threatened species India ranked as a mega diversity country throughout theirrange. This study aims at analyzing due to its rich biological diversity, includes more than the alleged economic lossdue to livestock depredation 400 mammal species (particularly the largest viable by these carnivores. populations of Tigers and Asian Elephants) and two There are about 88 households currently global hotspots the Western Ghats and Eastern residing in this village who make their living by Himalayas (Karanth et al., 2009). cultivating Paddy, Areca Nut and other cash crops in a small scale. 346 cows and 8 Buffalos are 1.4 Conflict between Humans and Wildlife: collectively owned by 45 families who were Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary’s Perspective interviewed during this study. These families claim to Shettihalli Wildlife sanctuary houses have lost more than Rs.16,00,000 due to the death of mammals like Tiger (Pantheratigris), Leopard their livestock in the past 25 years. A loss of 507 (Pantherapardus), Wild Dog (Dholes – cows and 24 buffalo during this period is being Cuonalpinus), Jackal (Canis aureus), Gaur claimed. Wild boars are a common menace to the (Bosgaurus), Elephant (Elephas maximus), Sloth farmers of this area which are known to destroy Bear (Ursusursinus), Sambar (Rusa unicolor), crops. A herd of Elephants (Elephas maximus) Cheetal (Axis axis), Wild Boar (Susscrofa), Hanuman entered the farm land about 3 years ago and destroyed Langur (Semnopithecus entellus), Bonnet Macaque the crops which were under cultivation. No official (Macacaradiata), Common Mongoose record of human death due to such conflicts has been (Herpestesedwardsii), Striped-necked Mongoose reported. The study conducted here aims to record the (Herpestesvittcollis), Porcupine (Hystrixindica), wildlife conflict in a scientific way and evaluate Malabar Giant Squirrel (Ratufaindica), Giant Flying wildlife conservation strategies in a sustainable Squirrel, Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata)etc (about manner. This study conducted is first of its kind in 20 species recorded). Indian Rock Python (Python this area. molurus), Cobra (Najanaja), King Cobra The Royal Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris) of (Ophiophagushannah), Indian Rat Snake (Ptyas India are widely distributed from the alpine mucosa), Green Vine Snake (Oxybelisfulgidus), Himalayas to the rain forests of southern Western Marsh Crocodile (Crocodyluspalustris) etc are among Ghats and from the dry forests of Rajasthan to the the reptiles found in the sanctuary. Birds include moist forests of north-east India. In the Indian Hornbills, Kingfishers, Bulbuls, Parakeets, Doves, subcontinent, tigers inhabit tropical moist evergreen Pigeons, Babblers, Flycatchers, Munias, Swallows, forests, tropical dry forests, tropical and subtropical Woodpeckers, Peafowl, Jungle fowl, Partridges etc moist deciduous forests, mangroves, subtropical and (about 121 species recorded). temperate upland forests and alluvial grasslands. The Shettihalli is a village which is located length of the male ranges from 275-290 cm and that inside Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, Shimoga of the female is around 260 cm. The size and color District of Karnataka State in India. Shettihalli vary according to the geographic location and Wildlife Sanctuary was declared as a Wildlife climate. Tiger is solitary and territorial and the Sanctuary on November 23, 1974. It is spread over an territory of an adult male may encompass territories

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227 of two to seven females. It is carnivorous and hunts direct spotting at a speed of approximately 4km/hour. for prey primarily by sight and sound. It feeds on The lines were from the Aihole Anti-Poaching Camp deer, wild pig, bovid and sometimes even other (APC) to the fringe of the Shettihalli Village (Fig. predators like leopards and bears. 2.6), 2nd Beat Line of Aihole APC (Fig. 2.7), Ring Road (Left) (Fig. 2.8) and Rind Road (Right) (Fig. The Indian Leopard (Panthera pardusfusca) 2.9). A Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to is a Leopard subspecies widely distributed on the record the surveyed area and the points were Indian subcontinent. It is about 85.5 cm in length transferred on Google Earth to get the map of the with strong legs and a long well-formed tail, broad location. A Vernier’s Calipers was used to measure muzzle, short ears and small, yellowish grey eyes, the size of the scat. light grey ocular bulbs; black at first sight, but on closer examination dark brown with circular darker Field data were collected using a colored spots, tinged pale red underneath. They combination of qualitative methods (unstructured inhabit tropical rain forests, dry deciduous forests, interviews, participatory observation and focused temperate forests and northern coniferous forests up group discussions) and quantitative methods to an altitude of 2,500 meters (8,200 ft) above sea (structured interviews), which formed the main data level, bordering snow leopard habitat. But they do not source. Unstructured interviews and participatory inhabit the mangrove forests of the Sundarbans. observations were conducted with employees of the Home ranges of male leopards comprised about wildlife department, community representatives and 48 km2 (19 sq mi), and of females about 17 km2 people who had experienced conflict with carnivores. (6.6 sq mi); female home ranges decreased to 5 to 7 The main aims of the questionnaire surveys were to km2 (1.9 to 2.7 sq mi) when they had young cubs. explore the different aspects of human–carnivore conflict patterns and the perceptions and attitudes of The study was conducted during a period between local people towards the main conflict species. It February 2011 to May 2012 in Shettihalli village included questions such as general information of the which comes under Shettihalli Wildlife Sanctuary, households, present number of livestock owned by Shimoga District, Karnataka, India. The methods them, livestock killed in the past 1, 5, 10 and 25 used to conduct this study were sign surveys and years, their opinion and suggestions on the conflict structured and unstructured interviews with the and the Wildlife Sanctuary along with the losses (in households. Rupees) occurred during these years. The 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forest Department employees where questioned on Sign survey – Sign Surveys is a method where in the information such as general information of the observer walks moved along a forest path to find out officials, change in habitat of the forest, change in the signs such as pug marks, scrape marks, scat, herbivore number, change in carnivore number, crop territory markings or direct sighting of the carnivore raid, animal kill, human kill and other losses during to understand the distribution of the carnivores in the the past 1, 5, 10, 25 years. area. Four lines of the length of 2-4km with a width of 15m were moved on in search of signs, scat and 2.1 Maps

Fig.2.1 - Map of Shimoga District in Karnataka Fig. 2.2 - District Map of Shimoga

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

Fig. 2.3 Study Site Map with all Line Transects

Fig 2.4 – Sign Survey Track Aihole camp to Fig 2.5 – Sign Survey Track 2nd Beat Line of Aihole APC Shettihalli Village

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

Fig 2.6 – Sign Survey Track Ring Road (L) Fig 2.7 – Sign Survey Track Ring Road (R)

3. RESULTS

Particulars Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4

Tiger Sighting 0 0 0 0 Tiger Pug Mark 0 0 0 0 Tiger Scat 0 0 1 0 Tiger Scrape 0 0 0 2 Leopard 0 0 0 0 Sighting Leopard Pug 0 2 0 0 Mark Leopard Scat 0 1 0 0 Unidentified 2 0 0 0 Scat Unidentified 1 0 0 0 Urine Table 3.1 –Signs of Carnivores

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

The work was carried out on four line transects i.e. (Fig. 2.8) and Rind Road (Right) (Fig. 2.9). The from the Aihole Anti-Poaching Camp (APC) to the following are the results which were obtained during fringe of the Shettihalli Village (Fig. 2.6), 2nd Beat this study. Line of Aihole APC (Fig. 2.7), Ring Road (Left)

Tiger Sighting 0 Leopard Pug Mark 2

Tiger Pug Mark 0 Leopard Scat 1

Tiger Scat 1 Unidentified Scat 2

Tiger Scrape Marking 2 Unidentified Urine 1 Table 3.2 –Sings from Individaul Sign Leopard Sighting 0 Survey

By the above findings, there was evidence of presence of large carnivores (Tiger and Leopard) around the vicinity when the study was conducted.

Total no of Cows at Present 346 Total no of Buffalos at Present 8 Total no of Cows killed in past 1 year 70 Total no of Cows killed in past 5 years 231 Total no of Cows killed in past 10 years 362 Total no of Cows killed in past 25 years 507 Loss in Rupees (Cow) 15,19,000 Total no of Buffalos killed in past 1 year 2 Total no of Buffalos killed in past 5 years 10 Total no of Buffalos killed in past 10 years 13 Total no of Buffalos killed in past 25 years 24 Loss in Rupees (Buffalo) 1,47,000 Table – 3.3. Total number of livestock currently present and alleged loss due to carnivore predation

Majority of the households in this village Majority of the kills that occurs were at a owned cows and had lost them due to large distance of 1-3 km range from the village carnivore kills. Only a few buffalos were owned in boundaries which lead into the Wildlife Sanctuary. the past and currently only a few households own The data collected on grazing area of the livestock buffalos in very small number. Hence, a very small revealed that the livestock entered deep inside the percent of them were killed by large carnivores. A Wildlife Sanctuary for forage in violation with the few households said that Leopards rules according to the law. Hence no compensation (Pantherapardus) were the main causes for the was offered by the Forest Department to the kills of their livestock. At present, there are 346 households unless it is killed within the village cows and 8 buffalos owned by the 45 household limit (The Forest Department paid Rs.3000 as who were interviewed in this village. A total of 70 compensation for two livestock kills within the cow deaths over a period of 1 year, about 231 cow village limits). There are about 7 grazing patches deaths in the past 5 years, about 362 cow deaths in located within the Protected Area. These patches the past 10 years and about 507 cows death in the measure about 2-20 sq. meters in area which were past 25 years were reported. A total of 2 buffalo formerly grassland which were used for forage by deaths over a period of 1 year, about 10 buffalo the herbivores residing around the area. deaths in the past 5 years, about 13 buffalo deaths in the past 10 years and about 24 buffalo deaths in As per the bar graphs, which were the past 25 years were estimated through the deduced from the information provided by 45 interview. The total alleged losses due to the households at Shettihalli village, deaths of conflict amount up to Rs.16, 66,000 which livestock have increased significantly over time averages about Rs 37,000 per family. majority of them being cows. The buffalo deaths are less in number as the households own only a

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227 handful of them. The villagers who were carnivores captured from other areas to be let interviewed were also questioned about their views, inside this Wildlife Sanctuary. About 5% of them thoughts on ways to tackle such conflicts along want the Government support them and help in with their views on the forest and Wildlife resolving the conflict in this area. About 3.5% of Sanctuary. them want the Forest Department to tackle these issues and the rest 3.5% want the carnivores to be 3.6. Households Perspective on Ways to Tackle killed. A few women even complained that they Human-Carnivore Conflict were afraid to get out of their house after dusk. Some households complained that the forest According to information gathered, about officials were inefficient and are maintaining this 40% of the households said that they have to reserve poorly. Illegal activities like illicit felling of accompany the livestock to the grazing area and trees were common. The households are dependent take responsibility of their cattle by not letting on the forest surrounding their village for timely them wander inside the forest. About 25% of them rains, firewood, manure, pleasant climate, fresh air want the animals to be sent to the zoos. 23% of etc. them want the Forest Department to stop relocating Ways to Tackle Human-Carnivore Conflict

We should take responsibility of the cattle 4% 4% 5% Send the wild animals to the zoo

Stop relocating the wild animals in this WLS 39% Forest Department should help tacking this 23% menace Government support

Kill the animals

25%

4. DISCUSSION carnivores can be tricky, as attitudinal variables often Conflicts between humans and wildlife in interact in complex ways. Thus far, there is no India are escalating due to increased human objective definition for ‘tolerant’ or how it allows an population, loss of natural habitats and in some individual or a community to willingly coexist with regions due to an increase in wildlife populations that carnivores. Collecting accurate and reliable data was the result of successful conservation programs entails long periods of time in the field to gain the (Saberwalet al., 1994). In Shettihalli Wildlife trust of community members and possible biases in Sanctuary, though the killing of livestock by large research methods need to be considered. carnivores is not a recent phenomenon, the number of kills has increased in the last five to ten years Research has indicated that the most hostile according to study. This period coincides with the attitudes towards carnivores are among farmers in declaration of the area as a wildlife sanctuary in 1974. close proximity to protected areas or carnivore home But some households disagreed to this fact. ranges (Naughton-Treves et al., 2003). These hostile attitudes often reduce people’s tolerance of Actual rate of predation on livestock in carnivores, limiting their ability to cope Shettihalli is not available. This is important but not psychologically with livestock loss. In addition, easy to establish, since the losses attributed to wild respondents may exaggerate their loss (Naughton- predators are usually exaggerated, either deliberately, Treves, 1998) or attribute death of their animals to or due to an inability to ascertain the cause of death. predators regardless of the actual cause of death (Oli Assessing peoples’ attitudes and tolerance toward et al., 1994; Mishra, 1997). Only 3.6% of the

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227 interviewees indicated that they would retaliate and households didn’t last long. The power company was kill a predator after their livestock was attacked. evacuated immediately when power lines were being Majority of them accept that it is their fault that they drawn into the village by the Forest Department. let the cattle stray inside the forest in spite of the fact Majority of the households here do not use gas stove. that there are constant prowling carnivores around the They mainly depended on wood as a source of fuel to vicinity. Some percent of the households wants the cook. The roads leading to this village were all mud carnivores in the area to be captured and released into road in the interest of the sanctuary. There is no zoos or relocated to other location or an area which is public transportation facility available for the reserved for them separately. The small percent of residents of this village. Most of them owned motor them want the government or the forest department bike and a few of them owned four wheelers. The officials to help them to tackle the conflict. Forest Department of this area wants the village to be evacuated in the interest of the Wildlife Sanctuary. One of the major concerns for the death of Personal observation and unstructured interviews so many livestock in around Shettihalli Village is due reveled that there are many cases of illicit felling of to the conversion of grassland patches (which the trees for timber and hunting of prey species like herbivore depend on for forage) into grazing patches Sambar, Chital, Hare etc by people from both outside by the livestock. The livestock take over such patches and by a few households of the village themselves. and thereby increasing the competition for food and Veterinary doctor facility was available in a village in-turn become an easy prey to the predator as their named Purdala which is about 8-10km from the study territory lack wild prey population. This directly leads site who is called in case of any illness to the to human-carnivore conflict in the area. Two major livestock. Recently a major fire broke out in this area grazing areas namely SomanJadd and MavinJaddare which is suspected to be the work of the residents of located in dense forest area where maximum the neighboring village. livestock are killed. SomanJadd is an area which is habituated with Teak plantation where as MavinJadd 5. CONCLUSION is covered with thick moist deciduous to semi evergreen forest. A few Chitals, Sambars and other The study revealed that Shettihalli village is small herbivores were spotted in this area along with highly affected by human-carnivore conflict and there dried Elephant dung during the study. are many immediate changes to be brought about to check the rate of conflict in this area. Though we Throughout the survey, the households want could not directly encounter any carnivores in the the forest cover to be around them as they study area, evidence of their presence by indirect acknowledge the fact that it is helpful for rain, methods confirmed their presence. Also, this region pleasant climate, fresh air etc. They also utilize the falls under the migration corridors of large carnivores resources from the forest such as dry leaves, broken and herbivores. The animals enter this Wildlife twigs, branches and other byproducts in manures. Sanctuary from adjoining Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary Dried wood and branches are used as a source of fuel. on the South (Shimoga and Chikmagalur Districts) and Sharavathi Wildlife Sanctuary on the North No compensation was offered to the (Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District) at the time of households who lost their cattle which entered inside migration. It is essential that the household keep a the Wildlife Sanctuary area for grazing illegally. Only vigil on their livestock and not let them stray into the in two cases when a Tiger (Pantheratigris) and a forest. In case they do let the livestock inside the Leopard (Pantherapardus) in separate incidence forest for grazing, they have to accompany to protect entered inside the village and killed cattle, were their own livestock and reduce financial losses. provided compensation of about Rs.3000 for their losses. Compensation was also provided to the It is still unclear as what animal is majorly farmers who lost their crop due to Elephant (Elephas responsible for such disturbances. But unstructured maximus) raids during the year 2009-10. interviews with the households suggested that Leopards are the major predator responsible for the The village of Shettihalli lack basic kills in this area. The best alternative which can be amenities such as electricity. There is no presence of possible made are relocation of the household of this any electric fencing as a result which can threaten the village with suitable compensation for their own wildlife in this sanctuary. The households mainly benefits. depend on kerosene lamps as a source of light. Efforts on using solar lamps were tried by the Government 5.1 Possible Solution for Reducing Human- but didn’t pay off as the panels given to the Carnivore Conflict

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

1. To build community grazing patches under the 6. Belovsky, G. E. 1987. Extinction models and Gram Panchayat. mammalian persistence. Pages 35-57 in M. E. 2. Revoke Gomala land. Soule, editor. Viable populations for 3. Regulate livestock movement inside the conservation. Cambridge University Press, Protected Area which could also give rise to Cambridge, U. K. render pest diseases and be a prey for 7. Briggs, J. 2003. The biogeographic and carnivore as well. tectonic history of India. Journal of 4. The Forest Department has to instantly Biogeography 30, 381–388. compensate with adequate amount after 8. Clark, T. W., and M. B. Rutherford, 2005. verifying the records and proofs. Coexisting with Large Carnivores: Orienting 5. A new Buffer Zone has to be identified and to the Problems. Pages 3-27 inT. W. Clark, M. marked around each Protected Area within the B. Rutherford, and D. Casey, editors. Sanctuary. Coexisting with Large Carnivores. Island Press, Washington D.C. 5.2 Scope of Further Studies: The study conducted 9. Dar, NaeemIftikhar., Riaz Aziz Minhas, was restricted only to 45 household and the Qamar Zaman, Matthew Linkie, 2009. interviews for the remaining households must be Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes carried out for improved interpretation and complete of human–carnivore conflict in and around results. Statistical approach has not been completely Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biological applied here to understand the rate and occurrence of Conservation 142 (2009) 2076–2082. the kills of livestock to improvise on the results. The 10. Datta, Aparajita., M.O. Anand, Rohit study can be further carried emphasized by collecting Naniwadekar, 2008. Empty forests: Large the information of kills during different months and carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha seasons of the year. National Park, North-East India. Nature More transects lines need to be identified Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, 4th Cross, where such work should be carried out for further Gokulam Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka, investigation in other surrounding areas to check the India. Biological Conservation 141 (2008) evidence of the presence of large carnivores in that 1429–1435. area and the density of prey and predator. Prey- 11. De Fries, R., Hansen, A.J., Turner II, B.L., Predator ratio and density should be estimated in the Reid, R., Liu, J., 2005. Increasing isolation of area to determine the population of carnivore which is protected areas in tropical forests over the past viable in this area. Using such data, the carrying twenty years. Ecological Applications 15, 19– capacity of the Sanctuary can also be calculated. 26. 12. De Fries, R., Rovero, F., Wright, P.C., REFERENCES Ahumada, J., Andelman, S.J., Brandon, 1. Ahearn, Sean C., David Smith, L. James, K.,Dempewolf, J., Hansen, A., Hewson, J., AnupR.Joshi, Ji Ding, 2001. TIGMOD: An Liu, J., 2009. From plot to landscape scale: individual-based spatially explicit model for linking tropical biodiversity measurements simulating tiger/human interaction in multiple across spatial scales. Frontiers in Ecology and use forests. Ecological Modeling 140 (2001) the Environment10.1890/080104. 81–97. 13. De Nunzio, J., S. Goff, C. Powell, and L. 2. Anderson, D. R. 1997. Corridor Use, Feeding Canlora. 2006. Bruno, They Did Ya Wrong. Ecology, and Habitat Relationships of Black World Cup Journal, The Washington Post. Bears in a Fragmented Landscape in 14. Diamond, J. M. 1984. Historic extinctions: a Louisiana. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Rosetta stone for understanding prehistoric Tennessee. extinctions. Pages 821-862 inP. S. Martin, and 3. Anon. 2003. Maasai Kill Half the Lions in R. G. Klein, editors. Quaternary extinctions: a Nairobi National Park. Cat News 39:5. prehistoric revolution. Universityof Arizona 4. Bagchi, S., C. Mishra, 2005. Living with large Press, Tucson, Arizona. carnivores: predation on livestock by the snow 15. Dickman, Amelia Jane. 2008. Key leopard (Unciauncia). Journal of Zoology. determinants of conflict between people and Print ISSN 0952-8369. wildlife, particularly large carnivore, around 5. Belden, R. C. and J. W. McCown, 1996. Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Ph.D Thesis, Florida panther reintroduction feasibility University College London (UCL) and study. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. London.

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

16. Distefano, Elisa Human-Wildlife Conflict PDR, Wildlife Conservation Society -Lao PDR worldwide: Collection of case studies, analysis Program, Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic of management strategies and good practices. Republic. Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 17. Flint, E.P., 1998. Deforestation and land use in 1367-9430. Northern India with a focus on Sal 28. Karanth , K. Ullas., James Nichols, Samba N. (Shorearobusta) forests 1880–1980. In: Kumar, William A. Link, and James Hines, Groves, R.H., Damodaran, V., Sangwan, S. 2004. Tigers and their prey: Predicting (Eds.), Nature and the Orient: The carnivore densities from prey abundance. Environmental History of South and Southeast 4854–4858PNASApril 6, 2004 Vol. 101 No. Asia. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 14. India. 29. Karanth, K Ullas., Mel Sunquist, K.M 18. Gittleman, J. L., S. M. Funk, D. W. Chinnapaa. Long term monitoring of tigers, Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, editors, 2001. lessons from Nagarahole. Carnivore Conservation. Cambridge 30. Karanth, K. Ullas., James D. Nicholas, 1998. University Press, Cambridge, U. K. Estimation of Tiger density in India using 19. Glenz, C., A. Massolo, D. Kuonen, and R. Photographic Captures and Recaptures. Schlaepfer. 2001. A wolf habitat suitability Ecology, Vol. 79, No. 8 (Dec., 1998) 2852- prediction study in Valais (Switzerland). 2862. Landscape and Urban Planning 55:55-65. 31. Karanth, K.K., R. Kramer, S. Qian, N.L 20. Graham, Kate., Andrew P Beckerman, Simon Christensen, 2008. Conservation attitudes, Thirgood, 2004 Human–predator–prey perspectives and challenges in India, 2008. conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and Biological Conservation 141, 2357–2367. patterns of management. Biological 32. Karanth, K.K., J. D Nichols, J.E Hines, 2010b. Conservation 122 (2005) 159–171. Occurrence and distribution of Indian 21. Guha, R., 1983. Forestry in British and Post- primates. Biological Conservation 143, 2891– British India: an historical analysis. Economic 2899. and Political Weekly 17, 1882–1896. 33. Karanth, K.K., J.D Nichols, J.E Hines, J.E., 22. Hannah, L., D. Lohse, C. Hutchinson, J. L. K.U Karanth, N.L Christensen, 2009. Patterns Carr, and A. Lankerani. 1994. A preliminary and determinants of species occurrence. inventory of human disturbance of world Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1189–1200. ecosystems. Ambio 23:246-250. 34. Karanth, K.K., J.D Nichols, K.U Karanth, J.E 23. Hannah, L., J. L. Carr, and A. Lankerani. Hines, N.L Christensen, 2010a. The shrinking 1995. Human disturbance and habitat: A ark: Patterns of large mammal extinctions in biome-level analysis of a global dataset. India. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biodiversity and Conservation 4:128-155. London – B 277, 1971–1979. 24. Hazzah, Leela. N, 2006. Living among Lions 35. Karanth, Krithi K., 2007. Making resettlement (Pantheraleo): Coexistence or killing? work: The case of India’s Bhadra Wildlife Community attitudes towards conservation Sanctuary. Nicholas School of Environment initiatives and motivations behind Lion killing and Earth Sciences, P.O. Box 90328, Duke in Kenyan Maasailand. Masters in Science University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. Thesis, Conservation Biology and Sustainable Biological Conservation 139 (2007) 315-324. Development at the University of Wisconsin – 36. Karanth, Krithi K., Lisa M. Curran, Jonathan Madison. D. Reuning-Scherer, 2005. Village size and 25. Hutton, J. M., and N. Leader-Williams, 2003. forest disturbance in Bhadra Wildlife Sustainable use and incentive-driven Sanctuary, Western Ghats, India. Yale school conservation: realigning human and of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 205 conservation interests. Oryx 37:215-226. Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. 26. Jackson, R. M., C. Ahlborn, M. Gurung, and S. Biological Conservation 128 (2006) 147–157. Ale. 1996. Reducing livestock depredation 37. Karanth, Krithi K., Ruth De Fries Ruth, 2010. losses in the Nepalese Himalaya. Pages 241- Conservation and management in human- 247 inProceedings of the 17th Vertebrate Pest dominated landscapes: Case studies from Conference, University of California, Davis. India. Biological Conservation 143 (2010) 27. Johnson. A., C. Vongkhamheng, M. 2865–2869. Hedemark, T. Saithongdam, 2006. Effects of 38. Laurance, W. F., and R. O. J. Bierregaard, human–carnivore conflict on tiger editors, 1997. Tropical Forest Remnants: (Pantheratigris) and prey populations in Lao Ecology, Management and Conservation of

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

Fragmented Communities. University of 51. Oli, M. K., I. R. Taylor, and M. E. Rogers. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 1994. Snow leopard (Panthera 39. Loe, J. 2002. Large carnivore related deaths: a uncial)predation of livestock: An assessment conservation issue. University of Science and of local perceptions in the Annapurna Technology, Trondheim, Norway Conservation Area, Nepal. Biological 40. Löe, Jonny and EivinRöskaft, 2004. Large Conservation 68:63-68. Carnivores and Human Safety: A Review. 52. Parsons, D. R. 1988. 'Green fire' returns to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2004. Southwest: reintroduction of the Mexican Ambio Vol. 33 No. 6, August 2004. wolf. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:799-807. 41. Madhusudan, M.D., K.U Karanth, 2000. 53. Patterson, Bruce D., Kasiki, Samuel M. Hunting for an answer: is local hunting Selempo Edwin, Roland W. Kays, 2004. compatible with wildlife conservation in Livestock predation by lions (Pantheraleo) India? In: Robinson, J.G., Bennet, E.L. (Eds.), and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Tsavo National Parks, Kenya. Biological Columbia University Press, New York, USA. Conservation 119 (2004) 507–516. 42. Mazzolli, M., M. E. Graipel, and N. Dunstone. 54. Pauly, D., and V. Christensen, 1995. Primary 2002. Mountain lion depredation in southern production required to sustain global fisheries. Brazil. Biological Conservation 105:43-51. Nature 374:255-257. 43. Mech, L. D. 1981. The Wolf: The Ecology and 55. Postel, S. L., G. C. Daily and P. R. Ehrlich. Behavior of an Endangered Species. 1996. Human appropriation of renewable Doubleday, New York. freshwater. Science 271:785-788. 44. Mishra, Charudatt., 1997. Livestock 56. Quigley, H. B., and S. Herrero, 2005. depredation by large carnivores in the Indian Characterization and prevention of attacks on trans-Himalaya: conflict perceptions and humans. Pages 27-49 in R. Woodroffe, S. conservation prospects. Environmental Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People Conservation24(4): 338–343 and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? 45. Naughton-Treves, L. 1998. Predicting Patterns Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. of Crop Damage by Wildlife around Kibale 57. Ramakrishnan, Uma., Richard G. Coss, Neil National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology W. Pelkey, 1998. Tiger decline caused by the 12:156-16. reduction of large ungulate prey: evidence 46. Naughton-Treves, L., and A. Treves, 2005. from a study of leopard diets in southern India. Socio-ecological factors shaping local support Biological Conservation 89 (1999) 113–120. for wildlife: crop-raiding by Elephants 58. Ranganathan,Jai., Kai M.A. Chan Kai, (Elephas maximus) and other wildlife in UllasK.Karanth, Smith David, L. James, 2007. Africa. Pages 252-277 in R. Woodroffe, S. Where can tigers persist in the future? A Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People landscape-scale, density-based population and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? model for the Indian subcontinent. Biological Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Conservation 141 (2008) 67–77. 47. Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, A. 59. Rangarajan, M., 2007. Retreating elephant, Trevers, 2003. Paying for tolerance? The vanishing tiger, the environmental legacies of impact of livestock depredation and India and China. In: Pande, I. (Ed.), India at compensation payments on rural citizens’ Sixty. Harper Collins, Delhi, India. attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 60. Rao, K. S., R. K. Maikhuri, S. Nautiyal, and K. 17, 1500–1511. G. Saxena. 2002. Crop damage and livestock 48. Nowell, K., and P. Jackson 1996. Wild Cats: depredation by wildlife: a case study from status survey and conservation action plan. Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal Burlington Press, Cambridge. of Environmental Management 66:317-327. 49. Nyhus, Philip J., Ronald Tilson, 2003. 61. Ribbentrop, B., 1900. Forestry in British India. Characterizing human-tiger conflict in Calcutta Government Press, Calcutta, India. Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for 62. Saberwal, V.K., J.P. Gibbs, R. Chellam& conservation. Oryx Vol. 38 No 1 January A.J.T Johnsingh, 1994. Lion-human conflict in 2004. Gir forest, India. Conservation Biology8(2): 50. Oli, M. K. 1994. Snow leopards and blue 501–7. sheep in Nepal: densities and predator : prey 63. Sagor, J. T., J. E. Swenson, and E. Roskaft. ratio. Journal of Mammalogy 75:998-1004. 1997. Compatibility of Brown Bear

Venue: V.S. Acharya Auditorium, Alva's Education Foundation, Sundari Ananda Alva Campus, Vidyagiri, Moodbidri, D.K. Dist., Karnataka, India – 574227

(Ursusarctos)and free-ranging sheep in compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. Biological Conservation 81:91-95. Norway. Pages 323-339 in R. Woodroffe, S. 64. Sanderson, E. W., M. Jaiteh, M. A. Levy, K. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People H. Redford, A. V. Wannebo, and G. Woolmer. and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? 2002. The Human Footprint and the Last of the Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Wild. Bio Science 52:891-904. 74. Thirgood, S., R. Woodroffe, and A. 65. Sangay, Tiger., Karl Vernes, 2008. Human– Rabinowitz. 2005. The impact of human- wildlife conflict in the Kingdom of Bhutan: wildlife conflict on human lives and Patterns of livestock predation by large livelihoods. Pages 13-26 in R. Woodroffe, S. mammalian carnivores. Biological Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People Conservation 141 (2008) 1272–1282. and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? 66. Sanyal, P. 1987. Managing the man-eaters in Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. the Sundarbans tiger reserve of India: a case 75. Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. study. Pages 427-434 in R. L. Tilson, and U. S. D'Antonio, A. Dobson, R. Howarth, D. Seal, editors. Tigers of the World: The Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Simberloff, Biology, Biopolitics, Management and and D. Swackhammer. 2001. Forecasting Conservation of an Endangered Species. agriculturally driven global environmental Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey. change. Science 292:281-284. 67. Sekhar, N. U., 1998. Crop and livestock 76. UN, 2006. Human Development Report. depredation caused by wild animals in Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty, and the protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Global Water Crisis. United Nations Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Development Program. Palgrave Macmillan, Conservation 25:160-171. New York, USA. 68. Sharma, Reeta., HeikoStuckas, 77. UN, 2009. Human Development Report. RanjanaBhaskar, Imran Khan, Surendra Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Prakash Goyal, Ralph Tiedemann, 2010. Development. United Nations Development Genetically distinct population of Bengal tiger Program. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, (Pantheratigristigris) in Terai Arc Landscape USA. (TAL) of India. Article in Press. 78. Veeramani, A., E. A. Jayson, and P. S. Easa. 69. Sillero-Zubiri, C., and M. K. Laurenson, 2001. 1996. Man-wildlife conflict: cattle lifting and Interactions between carnivores and local human casualties in Kerala. Indian Forester communities: conflict or co-existence? Pages 122:897-902. 282-312 in J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. 79. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, Macdonald, and R. K. Wayne, editors. and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human Domination Carnivore Conservation. Cambridge of Earth's Ecosystems. Science 277:494-499. University Press, Cambridge, U.K. 80. Vitousek, P. M., P. R. Ehrlich, A. A. Ehrlich, 70. Stahl, P., J. M. Vandel, V. Herrenschmidt, and and P. A. Matson. 1986. Human appropriation P. Migot. 2001b. Predation on livestock by an of the products of photosynthesis. Bio Science expanding reintroduced Lynx population: 36:368-373. long-term trend and spatial variability. Journal 81. Wegge, Per., Morten Odden, Chiranjibi Pd. of Applied Ecology 38:674-687. Pokharel, Torstein Storaas, 2008. Predator– 71. Stander, P. E. 1997. The ecology of lions and prey relationships and responses of ungulates conflict with people in North-Eastern Namibia. and their predators to the establishment of Pages 10-17 in B. L. Penzhorn, editor. A protected areas: A case study of tigers, Symposium of Lions and Leopards as Game leopards and their prey in Bardia National Ranch Animals. Wildlife Group of the South Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation 142 African Veterinary Association, (2009) 189–202. Onderstepoort, South Africa. 82. Zabel, Astrid., Stefanie Engel, 2010. 72. Sunquist, M. E., and F. C. Sunquist, 2001. Performance payments: A new strategy to Changing landscapes: consequences for conserve large carnivores in the tropics? carnivores. Pages 399-418 in J. L. Gittleman, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), S. M. Funk, D. W. Macdonald, and R. K. Environmental Policy and Economics, Swiss Wayne, editors. Carnivore Conservation. Federal Institute of Technology, ETH, 8092 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Zurich, Switzerland. Ecological Economics 70 73. Swenson, J. E., and H. Andren, 2005. A tale of (2010) 405–412. two countries: large carnivore depredation and