Monitoring and managing the resource utilization and damages by wild animals in Social Forestry Division Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh
Loading...
Date
2017
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
School of Forestry and Environment Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sciences Allahabad, U.P.-211007, India
Abstract
The studies on the wildlife inhabiting in non protected areas such as human
dominated and agricultural landscapes, non protected forest etc. have not been given due
importance. Therefore the present thesis was planned to study the wild animal diversity, monitor
the resource utilization (habitat use pattern and feeding ecology) by wild animals, investigate the
human-wildlife-livestock interfaces and review the existing policies and prepare a strategy for the
sustainable management of wildlife damages, resource utilization and biodiversity conservation in
Social Forestry Division, Bareilly in 2013-2015. The research methodology included data
collection from the primary and secondary resources, questionnaire survey, Ad libitum sampling
and body condition evaluation of free ranging wild herbivores.
The study showed the presence of 34 species of mammals, 11 reptiles and 104 birds
in Social Forestry Division, Bareilly. The area showed the presence of good biodiversity of
mammals, reptiles and birds, which reflects towards good health condition of ecosystem in the area.
As per Wildlife Census Report, 2013 of Social Forestry Division, Bareilly maximum number of
animals were reported for rhesus macaque (3454) followed by nilgai (2976), black buck (575), wild
pig (556), peacock (374), jackal (296), fox (132), chital (52), wild cat (44), common langur (17),
porcupine (14), bear (12), chousingha (9), monitor lizard (6), wolf (2) and sambhar (2). The census
report lacks few important species such as hog deer, chinkara and hyaena.
The most common dwelling place of wild animals were unprotected forests
(70.55%) followed by agricultural fields (69.11%), non-cultivated fields (68.44%), wetlands
(45.89%), pond (57.11%), wasteland (45.89%), river (37.55%), garden (25.22%), houses and
buildings (17.78%), and temples (16.55%). The finding showed that wild animals were present in
almost all the areas where food, water and shelter were available. The majority of wild mammals
(chital, nilgai, black buck, wild pig, and jackal) were reported in the agricultural areas and
unprotected forest areas whereas, the rhesus macaques were seen in agricultural areas, roof of
houses, gardens, markets, temples and old buildings. The nilgai, black buck, pig and jackal were
reported in wastelands too. The wetlands constructed by Gram Sabha and those used for fishery
were utilized as resources by resident and migratory birds and wild animals. The wild herbivores
used to feed on the crops of wheat, paddy, sugarcane and tuber crops. Wild pigs are fond of tuber
crops like potato, sweet potato, yam, tapioca etc. The jackals are dependent on scavenging.
However, they were also observed feeding on the sugarcane. The rhesus macaques were chiefly
dependent on fruits from tall trees and agricultural crops. They also obtain a considerable portion of
food from solid wastes generated in human settlements or by snatching the edible items.
The body condition of wild ungulates changes drastically with the season. Most
number of animals were observed in good body condition during rainy season (48.03%), followed
by winter season (36.36%) and summer (27.72%). Likewise, animals in poor body condition were
maximum during summer (32.72%), followed by winter (28.79%) and minimum animals during
rainy season (15.16%). The body condition of wild ungulates is dependent upon the availability of
resources necessary for their survival.
The maximum number of wildlife offence cases were registered in the year 2012-
2013 (13) followed by 2010-2011 (12), 2011-2012 (8), 2009-2010 (6), 2013-2014 (5), 2008-2009
(1) and minimum in 2014-2015 (1). The data of the last seven years showed that maximum affected
species was turtle (215) followed by parakeet (220), monkey (40), blue bull (15), partridge (8),
black buck (7), peacock (7), deer (5), hare (3) and sambhar (3). There were two cases registered
each for wild pig and leopard. The owl and langur were least affected with only one number for
each of these species. People for Animal, an NGO, registered more than 20 cases related with the
killing of wild animals in Bareilly during last four years as reported by the Hindustan, Bareilly
dated 13th January 2014. There is an urgent need to effectively run an anti poaching drive in the
area. The incidences of poaching of black buck and swamp deer were reported in local news
papers. The villagers had great compassion for wild animals and incidences were reported where
poachers faced resistance of villagers.
The animal species involved and pattern of conflict in rural and urban areas was
different. The Tehsil headquarters/markets and Bareilly Sadar was infested mostly with the humanrhesus
macaque and snake conflicts. Whereas, rural areas of the remaining five ranges were
infested with the conflicts of nilgai, black buck, rhesus macaque, wild pig, jackal, crocodile and
snake conflicts. A few cases of tiger/ leopard conflict and problems due to bird species were also
reported. Farmers were affected with damages by the wild animals. These damages were in the
form of crop depredation, mauling and depredation of humans and livestock. Rhesus macaque and
common langur were involved in the snatching edible food items and stealing drying cloths and
biting. The data received from the Social Forestry Division, Bareilly showed that 1183 problematic
rhesus macaques were captured from form the different locations of Bareilly. Some road accidents
were recorded by the strike of wild animal species viz. nilgai, hog deer, wild pig and jackal
especially during nights. Such accidents not only injure the wildlife species involved but humans
too. Crop depredation by wild animals was enormous. Agricultural crops of sugarcane, groundnut,
wheat, rice, gram, maize, pearl millet; jowar or sorghum, mustard, mung bean, sweet potato and
pigeon pea were most affected. In some villages, villagers stopped the cultivation of sugarcane,
pigeon pea and groundnut crop because of the high damage caused by Rhesus macaques, Nilgai
and Wild pig. Farmers use the night machan (night huts), fencing, scaring the animals, crackers,
crop repellents (phenol), fire gun, erecting human effigy, fencing with colorful saree and shining
polythene, wire fencing, and killing of problem animals to manage the human-wildlife-livestock
conflict. In case of snakes, farmers additionally use black magic practices to manage the invasion in
human habitations and gardens. Maximum respondents (60.33%) feel that the rehabilitation of
wild animals in wild area is most feasible method for managing the conflict, followed by shifting in
zoo (46.00%), contraception (22.44%) and killing (16.22%). 8.89% respondents feel that nothing is
required while 3.67% showed inability to reply.
The management strategy need to involve habitat protection and improvement,
conservation and development of waterholes, preventing further degradation and increasing forest
quality, Lok Vaniki and creating pastures in existing wastelands. For dealing wildlife offences the
Anti-poaching agencies should be created and helpline numbers should be generated for informing
the wildlife offenses. The development of local communities, improvement of grasslands and
livestock should be done by rearing better yielding cattle and management of weeds (lantana, water
hyacinth, parthenium etc.). Administrative resolutions and working plans are desired to sort out the
weaknesses related with administrative complications, lack of coordination, high biotic pressure
due to human habitations and cattle grassing and developmental pressure. Each division should
schedule site-specific yearly operations for ten years. The eco-development initiatives should be
based on five year micro plans involving eco-development committees and NGOs of specialized
fields. Major site/ habitat specific initiatives and their budgetary provisions are to be approved/
finalized by the coordination committee. District level coordination and yearly meeting with
territorial divisions is necessary. Local level monitoring committee should be constituted.
Coordinated management could be achieved by identifying the partners and collaborations with
potential NGOs
Description
Ph. d thesis
Keywords
null