| Summary: | Intensifying human-wildlife interaction requires effective human-wildlife management strategies. In India, forests designated as Protected Areas (PAs) have better wildlife protection measures unlike Reserved Forests (outside PAs) which are undervalued, although both support similar kinds of wildlife. Wildlife conservation planning and policy-level decision making become incomplete without addressing wildlife management issues outside PA along with PAs as the former act as a buffer/corridor for PAs. We conducted a semi-structured questionnaire survey with the Forest Range Officers (FROs) belonging to nine PAs and seven outside PAs across the Western and Eastern Ghats part of Tamil Nadu State, southern India. We collected information on the human-wildlife interactions, mitigation measures carried out, poaching incidents, and availability of manpower and resources. Over 50% of the FROs reported an increase in Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) incidents for the past five years. Major species involved in conflict in PAs and outside PAs were elephant (Elephas maximus), wild pig (Sus scrofa), leopard (Panthera pardus), bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata), followed by sloth bear (Melursus ursinus), sambar (Rusa unicolor) (more in PAs), gaur (Bos gaurus) (more in outside PAs), dhole (Cuon alpinus), chital (Axis axis), and tiger (Panthera tigris). There were no variations in the mitigation measures employed in PAs and outside PAs. The number of schemes (N = 8–10) available for wildlife management was similar, but to a certain extent, the fund availability was more insufficient outside PAs than in PAs. Tiger (only in PAs), leopard, elephant, and pangolin (Manis crassicaudata) were amongst the fourteen wildlife species poached in the PAs and outside PAs, although wild pig, sambar, black-naped hare (Lepus nigricollis), and chital dominated the list. Prevalent methods for poaching were snares, trained dogs, guns (dominant in PAs), followed by hand-made bombs, poisoning, cage traps, electric traps (only outside PAs), and food baits. Over 50% of the FROs reported decreases in poaching incidences with improved wildlife management strategies for the past five years. PAs had a higher number of anti-poaching camps with anti-poaching watchers than outside PAs. Our study highlighted the disparity in resource allocation among PAs and outside PAs though the intensity of conservation issues was similar. Inadequate availability of resources affected the effective management of conflict species which leads to increase risk of HWC. This is the first study to highlight the success/failure of human-wildlife management depending on reducing lacunas in management effectiveness of PAs and outside PAs for managing at a larger landscape level beyond PAs.
|
|---|
