Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India

Abstract

Illegal hunting poses a dual threat to large carnivores through direct removal of individuals and by prey depletion. We conducted a camera-trapping survey in the Namdapha National Park, north-east India, conducted as part of a programme to evaluate carnivore and prey species abundance. Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) was the only large carnivore detected by camera-trapping. Indirect evidences indicated the presence of the wild dog (Cuon alpinus) and leopard (Panthera pardus), however, there was no evidence of tigers (Panthera tigris), suggesting their possible extinction from the lower elevation forests. Of the major ungulate prey species, sambar (Cervus unicolor) and wild pig (Sus scrofa) were the only large prey detected, while the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) was the only small prey species detected. Relative abundances of all species were appreciably lower than estimates from other tropical forests in south-east Asia. We suspect that illegal hunting may be the cause for the low carnivore and prey species abundance. An ongoing community-based conservation programme presents an opportunity to reduce local people’s dependence on hunting by addressing their socio-economic needs and for using their skills and knowledge of the landscape for wildlife conservation. However, long-term wildlife monitoring is essential to assess the efficacy of the socio-economic interventions in bringing about wildlife recovery.

Full text

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy
Short communication
Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance
in Namdapha National Park, north-east India
Aparajita Datta*, M.O. Anand, Rohit Naniwadekar
Nature Conservation Foundation, 3076/5, 4th Cross, Gokulam Park, Mysore 570 002, Karnataka, India
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 28 June 2007
Received in revised form
5 February 2008
Accepted 16 February 2008
Available online 18 April 2008
Keywords:
Camera-trapping
Eastern Himalaya
Mammals
Relative abundance index
Tiger
Ungulates
ABSTRACT
Illegal hunting poses a dual threat to large carnivores through direct removal of individuals
and by prey depletion. We conducted a camera-trapping survey in the Namdapha National
Park, north-east India, conducted as part of a programme to evaluate carnivore and prey
species abundance. Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) was the only large carnivore
detected by camera-trapping. Indirect evidences indicated the presence of the wild dog
(Cuon alpinus) and leopard (Panthera pardus), however, there was no evidence of tigers (Pan-
thera tigris), suggesting their possible extinction from the lower elevation forests. Of the
major ungulate prey species, sambar (Cervus unicolor) and wild pig (Sus scrofa) were the only
large prey detected, while the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) was the only small prey
species detected. Relative abundances of all species were appreciably lower than estimates
from other tropical forests in south-east Asia. We suspect that illegal hunting may be the
cause for the low carnivore and prey species abundance. An ongoing community-based
conservation programme presents an opportunity to reduce local people’s dependence
on hunting by addressing their socio-economic needs and for using their skills and knowl-
edge of the landscape for wildlife conservation. However, long-term wildlife monitoring is
essential to assess the efficacy of the socio-economic interventions in bringing about wild-
life recovery.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Enforcement of India’s laws that entirely prohibit hunting of
all wildlife is a challenge, especially in north-east India,
where local tribes have a strong tradition of hunting.
Although hunting has ritual, recreational and subsistence
value (Datta, 2002; Hilaluddin et al., 2005; Mishra et al.,
2006), it is also increasingly being driven by high-value mar-
kets for derivatives from species such as tigers (Panthera tigris)
and elephants (Elephas maximus). In the Namdapha National
Park and Tiger Reserve in Arunachal Pradesh, one of four des-
ignated tiger reserves in north-east India, hunting remains a
serious threat. We initiated a community-based conservation
programme in 2004 in an attempt to progressively eliminate
hunting by local communities by addressing their socio-eco-
nomic needs (Datta, 2007). Abundance and trend estimates
for several faunal groups targeted by hunters are needed.
Such information is vital, as presently very little is known of
the status of large carnivores and their prey from the hill for-
ests of north-east India, particularly when compared to those
of peninsular India (Karanth et al., 2004,2004b; Karanth and
Nichols, 1998; Karanth and Sunquist, 1995).
0006-3207/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.022
*Corresponding author: Tel.: +91 821 2515601; fax: +91 821 2513822.
E-mail address: aparajita@ncf-india.org (A. Datta).
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon

Author's personal copy
Our research objectives were to (1) develop a large-scale
camera-trapping survey in the Namdapha National Park to
generate baseline information on the relative abundance of
large carnivores and their prey species, (2) compare our re-
sults to abundance estimates from similar forests in south-
east Asia and (3) examine the current conservation scenario
in Namdapha, and explore avenues for making conservation
successful in the context of lessons learned from the ongoing
community-based conservation programme.
1.1. Study area
The study was conducted within the 1985 km
2
Namdapha Na-
tional Park (272303000 –273904000 N and 96150200–965803300E;
Fig. 1), in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. The site har-
bours extensive dipterocarp forests, the northernmost low-
land tropical rainforests in the world (Proctor et al., 1998)
and has been identified as a globally high priority landscape
for tiger conservation (Wikramanayake et al., 1998). The
elevation ranges from 200 m to 4571 m. With increasing
elevation, there is a transition in habitat from subtropical
broad-leaved forests to subtropical pine forests, temperate
broad-leaved forests, alpine meadows and perennial snow.
Though primary forests cover most of the park, there are
extensive bamboo and secondary forests. The park lies within
the Indo-Myanmar global biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al.,
2000) at the junction of the Palearctic and Malayan biogeo-
graphic realms resulting in a highly diverse species assem-
blage. The floral and faunal composition is highly similar to
adjoining forests in Myanmar and other parts south-east Asia
(Mani, 1974; Myers et al., 2000; Rodgers and Panwar, 1988).
Ninety mammal species are reported from the park,
including nine species of felids, two bear species, 15 viverrid
and mustelid species and seven primate species. Four species
of mountain ungulates: red goral (Nemorhaedus baileyi), serow
(Nemorhaedus sumatraensis), takin (Budorcas taxicolor) and
musk deer (Moschus sp.) occur at higher elevations, while
the hog deer (Axis porcinus) is restricted to the grassland hab-
itat in the river valleys. The main species targeted by hunting
are the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), sambar (Cervus
unicolor), wild pig (Sus scrofa) and gaur (Bos frontalis). These
four species are among the important prey of the tiger, leop-
ard (Panthera pardus) and the wild dog (Cuon alpinus)(Karanth
and Sunquist, 1995), while primates and smaller mammals
constitute important prey for the clouded leopard (Neofelis
nebulosa)(Rabinowitz et al., 1987).
Several indigenous tribes and other communities reside in
and around the park; however those that primarily affect the
park are the Chakma,Miju Mishmi and the Lisu (Datta, 2007).
The Chakma and Miju Mishmi enter the park for fuelwood,
non-timber forest produce collection (Arunachalam et al.,
2004), hunting and fishing. While their impact is restricted
Fig. 1 – Map of Namdapha National Park showing 3 ·3 km grid utilized for sampling. Areas shaded in light grey represent
tropical forests below 2000 msl. Dark grey squares represent the 40 sampled grids.
1430 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435

Author's personal copy
to the western portion of the park, it is members of the Lisu
tribe that reside along the eastern fringe of the park who
access the interior and remote areas. A population of 3988
(Census of India, 2001) reside beyond the south-eastern park
boundary in four villages of the Lisu tribe and nine villages
of the Nepali community. Although some Lisu households
existed within the park earlier, more Lisu families have
migrated into the park since 1997, as their populations have
grown and owing to a serious decline in cultivable land
due to erosion by the River Noa-dihing. Currently, 65 such
families reside in the park and practice settled rice cultivation
in the river valley.
A 157 km road (from Miao on the west to Vijaynagar on the
east) that cuts through the park was built in 1972 (Fig. 1) and is
now only motorable for 16 km within the park. Access to facil-
ities in Miao is on foot through the park for Lisus and Nepalis,
while other tribes access the park when carrying food and
supplies to Vijaynagar in winter.
Illegal hunting is a serious threat to wildlife in the park,
and is prevalent among all tribal groups. At least 34 species
of mammals are hunted as evidenced by skins and skulls
seen in villages in the area (Datta, 2002). The main targets
of subsistence hunting are ungulates and primates, and dried
wild meat and fish are sold in the villages. There is also illegal
hunting for tiger, elephant, musk deer, bears, otters and other
cats (Datta, 2002, 2007). Hunting is mainly carried out with
guns, cross-bows and a variety of indigenous traps, while
metal foot snares are used for tigers. Reliable information
suggests that there were at least 90–100 active hunters among
the Lisu in 2003–2004. No data exists on the extent of hunting
by other tribes in the park, although there is evidence of local-
ised hunting by these tribes.
2. Materials and methods
Prior work at Namdapha (only 17 detections of two ungulate
species over 740 km walked) suggested that conventional
sighting-based transect methods may not be feasible for
monitoring terrestrial mammal populations in these forests
(A. Datta, unpubl. data). Therefore, we employed camera-trap-
ping for large and medium-sized mammals, and pellet and
track plot surveys for indirect evidences of large herbivores
and ungulates. Camera traps were preferred because collect-
ing reliable data based on indirect evidence such as tracks
and scats for indices of carnivore abundance is not feasible
in the study area, due to problems in distinguishing signs gi-
ven the presence of several similar-sized sympatric felids (Sil-
veira et al., 2003). In addition, there are hardly any trails or
roads in the study area and the dominant soil stratum is cov-
ered with leaf-litter.
2.1. Camera-trapping
The study focused on an area of 1200 km
2
, roughly encom-
passing the moist evergreen habitat within the Namdapha
National Park below 2000 m. We imposed a uniform grid
(3 km ·3 km) on a map of the area, the scale of which was
selected to match other camera-trapping surveys in south-
east Asia (Grassman Jr, 2003; Johnson et al., 2006; Kawanishi
and Sunquist, 2004; O0Brien et al., 2003). Of the 130 grids cov-
ering the study area, we randomly selected 80 grids for sam-
pling. However, given the logistical difficulties in the hilly
terrain, limitations of time, manpower and equipment, we
only sampled 40 of the 80 randomly selected grids between
October 2006 and January 2007 covering 30% of the study area
(Fig. 1). In some instances, we sampled grids adjacent to a
randomly selected grid where accessing the grid was imprac-
tical. With only 16 km of motorable road, all field work was
carried out on foot.
We surveyed large carnivores and prey species using 42
passive infra-red camera trap units (38 DEERCAM-300 camera
trap units from Forestry Suppliers Inc., USA and 4 units made
by the Centre for Electronic Design and Technology, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore). In each of 40 sampled grids,
two or three camera traps were deployed. Traps were
deployed along animal trails, streambeds, wallows and ridge-
lines, in locations with evidence of animal movement, as
identified by expert Lisu trackers. We recorded the GPS loca-
tion, altitude and other habitat parameters at each trap site.
A group of highly skilled Lisu trackers assisted in identifying
suitable locations for deploying camera traps. At every loca-
tion, one passive infra-red camera trap was placed perpendic-
ular to the expected direction of animal movement at a height
of 30–40 cm from the ground. We maintained a minimum dis-
tance of 400–500 m between trap locations. However, on two
occasions we placed traps at a distance of 200 m apart, due
to inaccessible terrain and lack of suitable sites. The traps
operated continuously and were removed after a period of
15 days. The number of camera trap-days was calculated
from the date of deployment till the date of retrieval (if film
was not used up) or till the date of the final photo.
2.2. Pellet and track plots
Within 38 of the 40 grids in which camera traps were
deployed, we searched for pellets, dung groups and tracks of
elephants and ungulates in 10 50 m ·2 m plots. These plots
were located at intervals of 100 m perpendicular to a 1 km-
long trail. These 380 plots were each intensively searched
once by two observers.
2.3. Data analysis
Based on photo capture rates of large carnivore and prey spe-
cies, we calculated an index of relative abundance (RAI) as the
number of days required for obtaining a photo capture of a
species (Carbone et al., 2001). Only independent pictures of
a particular species were counted as valid to estimate RAI.
We defined independence following O0Brien et al. (2003)
where each photo was identified to species and rated as a
dependent or independent event, with an ‘independent cap-
ture event’ defined as (1) consecutive photographs of different
individuals of the same or different species, (2) consecutive
photographs of individuals of the same species taken more
than 0.5 h apart and (3) non-consecutive photos of individuals
of the same species. Relative abundance values from the cur-
rent study were also compared to those obtained from studies
in geographically and climatically similar forests in six sites
in south-east Asia which face lower or comparable hunting
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435 1431

Author's personal copy
Table 1 – Relative Abundance Indices (number of trap-days required to get a single photo capture of a species) derived from camera trap surveys for large carnivores and
prey species in Namdapha National Park and six other protected areas in south-east Asia
Location Namdapha
National Park,
north-east India
Hukawng Valley
Tiger Reserve,
north Myanmar
Hkakaborazi
National Park,
north Myanmar
Taman Negara
National Park,
Peninsular
Malaysia
Nam Et-Phou
Louey National
Protected Area,
Laos
Bukit Barisan
Selatan National
Park, Indonesia
Phu Kheio
Wildlife
Sanctuary,
Thailand
Reference Present study,
2006–2007
Lynam (2003) Rao et al. (2005) Kawanishi and
Sunquist (2004)
Johnson et al. (2006) O0Brien et al.
unpublished data
(1998–2006)
Grassman (2003)
Type of camera trap Passive Passive Passive Active and Passive Passive Passive Active and Passive
Effort (number of trap-days) 1537 8836 1238 14 054 3588 24 045 1224
Tiger Panthera tigris – 2945 – 230 417 481 408
Leopard Panthera pardus – – – 94 144 – –
Wild dog Cuon alpines – 4418 29 878 359 6024 111
Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa 768 4418 16 878 Present, but data not
available
587 612
Indian muntjac Muntiacus muntjak 22 1846 25362615
Sambar Cervus unicolor 512 192 – 44 400 89 34
Wild pig Sus scrofa 512 1767 9 28 250 39 31
Gaur Bos frontalis – 2945 – 1562 1250 – 35
Serow Naemorhedus sumatraensis – – 20 270 326 4007 Not present?
Porcupines (2 species) 40 1104 6 95 55 43 122
Primates 37 1767 8 351 23 20 153 21
Hog badger Arctonyx collaris – – 179 – 163 Not present? 408
1432 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435

Author's personal copy
pressures (O0Brien et al., unpubl. data; Grassman Jr, 2003;
Johnson et al., 2006; Kawanishi and Sunquist, 2004; Lynam,
2003; O0Brien et al., 2003; Rao et al., 2005). RAI is negatively
correlated to species abundance (Carbone et al., 2001; O0Brien
et al., 2003) and is a useful tool to compare relative abun-
dances of species, particularly when individuals of these spe-
cies cannot be distinguished from each other.
Although, we did not detect tigers with a trapping effort of
1537 days, we used the equation derived by Carbone et al.
(2001) – where tiger density (y) is a function of RAI
1
(x) such
that y= 133.89x
0.971
– to approximate the maximum possible
tiger density in Namdapha, had a tiger photo been obtained
on the 1538th trap day.
As tigers select large prey when available, we separated
the prey species as large (>100 kg) and small (<100 kg) to
determine the relative abundance of these prey size catego-
ries in the area (Johnson et al., 2006; Karanth and Sunquist,
1995).
Pellet and track plot data were summarized as the mean
number of plots per trail in which a species was encountered
and used to supplement camera trap data on species pres-
ence in the area.
3. Results
We used 1537 trap-days of data for analysis, after deducting
trap-days where cameras malfunctioned and where the film
was finished before the end of a 15 day sampling session.
There were no detections of tigers, leopards and wild dogs
(Table 1). The only large carnivore detected was the clouded
leopard. Other carnivores photographed included marbled
cat (Pardofelis marmorata), golden cat (Catopuma temmincki),
leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), small-toothed ferret bad-
ger (Melogale moschata), yellow-throated marten (Martes flavi-
gula), large Indian civet (Viverra zibetha), common palm civet
(Paradoxurus hermaphrodites), Himalayan palm civet (Paguma
larvata) and crab-eating mongoose (Herpestes urva). There
were no detections of large herbivore species such as Asian
elephant, gaur or serow. With the exception of the Indian
muntjac, encounter rates of the target species were far lower
at Namdapha than at most other sites in south-east Asia.
We obtained 156 independent prey photos, of which large
prey (sambar and wild pig) comprised only 3.9%. The remain-
ing photos were of small prey; two primate species: stump-
tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides), capped langur (Trachypithe-
cus pileatus), Himalayan crestless porcupine (Hystrix brachy-
ura), brush-tailed porcupine (Atherurus macrourus) and
muntjacs. Muntjacs alone made up 45.5% of the independent
photos.
Although we did not detect tigers, we used the equation
derived by Carbone et al. (2001) to derive a density estimate,
if a tiger were to be detected on the 1538th trap night. Based
on this, tiger density in Namdapha would be no more than
0.107/100 km
2
. This translates to no more than two tigers in
the roughly 1200 km
2
lower elevation forests of Namdapha.
Five species of large ungulates were detected in pellet and
track plots. The mean number of plots (±SD) per trail with
tracks was 6.68 (±2.14) for muntjac, while it was 2.02 (±1.65)
for sambar, 1.27 (±1.64) for wild pig, 0.48 (±1.22) for gaur and
0.18 (±0.8) for serow. Pellet and dung groups of three species
were encountered; with 0.34 plots (±0.86) per trail with pellet
groups of muntjac, 0.11 (±0.35) for sambar and 0.03 (±0.16) for
gaur.
4. Discussion and conclusions
Many important outcomes of the study, unfortunately, centre
on the species that were not detected, rather than the ones
that were. Although, there were no detections in >1500 cam-
era-days of trapping effort, we conclude that populations of
leopard, wild dog, gaur and serow still exist in Namdapha,
based on sporadic detections of tracks, scats and droppings.
In addition, wild dogs have been sighted on four occasions
in grassland habitat in the river valleys in earlier surveys
between 2003 and 2005 (A. Datta, pers. obs.). However, no pri-
mary evidence was recorded to suggest the presence of tigers
or elephants within the study area since the winter of 2005 (A.
Datta, pers. obs.). There are reports of tiger sightings by tour-
ists and of cattle kills by tigers in 2005–2006 near the western
boundary of the park, while a single herd of 20 elephants is
known to move in the area occasionally (Forest Department
staff, pers. comm.).
Relative abundance index values from Namdapha of most
of the target species are among the lowest in the south-east
Asian region, comparable to or lower than other highly-
hunted sites (Johnson et al., 2006; Karanth and Nichols,
1998; Rao et al., 2005), and far lower than less hunted sites
(Grassman Jr, 2003; Kawanishi and Sunquist, 2004; O’Brien
et al., 2003). As is often the case in hunted sites, the only spe-
cies not showing this pattern was the muntjac (Johnson et al.,
2006), encounter rates of which were among the highest in
Namdapha. The small-bodied Indian muntjac is likely to be
more resilient to hunting pressure and fare better than larger
ungulates even in hunted areas. This may result from faster
reproductive rates and intrinsic rates of population increase
and other factors, as has been demonstrated in other small-
bodied cervids such as brocket deer (Hurtado-Gonzales and
Bodmer, 2004) and other wildlife species (Bodmer et al., 1997).
A sustained conservation effort would be required for
these species to recover to even the low density levels ob-
served in relatively less hunted protected areas in south-east
Asia (Kawanishi and Sunquist, 2004; O0Brien et al., 2003). The
current status of large mammals in Namdapha is particularly
unfortunate, given anecdotal information that even in the
early 1990s, Namdapha supported healthy populations of ti-
gers and elephants, among other large mammals. A 451 trap
night camera-trapping effort in the western part of Namd-
apha in 1996 yielded captures of leopard, wild dog and
clouded leopard, but none of tigers (Karanth and Nichols,
2000). However, seven scats detected in 363 km walked, as
well as pugmarks were noted by Karanth and Nichols (2000),
much more than currently seen in the park (a single pugmark
seen in 2005). On several visits to the park between 1999 and
2005, with more than 1000 km walked, tiger pugmarks were
seen on only 4 occasions (A. Datta, pers. obs.). A pilot camera
trap survey (364 trap nights) in 2005 also failed to detect
tigers, although the clouded leopard and two bear species
were detected (A. Datta, unpublished data).
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435 1433

Author's personal copy
While tiger densities are typically low in 11 other prey-
poor rainforest Protected Areas in south-east Asia ranging
from 0.53/100 km
2
to 2/100 km
2
as compared to 4/100 km
2
–
16/100 km
2
in seven prey-rich deciduous forest and grassland
Protected Area sites in India and Nepal (Carbone et al., 2001;
Karanth et al., 2004b), the failure to detect substantial evi-
dence of the tiger in Namdapha from 2002 onwards points
to a serious decline. Even in highly-hunted sites across the
border in Myanmar such as the Htamanthi Wildlife Sanctuary
and Hukawng Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, estimated tiger den-
sities were 0.49/100 km
2
and 1.1/100 km
2
, respectively (Ly-
nam, 2003), though in the Hkakaborazi National Park, tigers
are believed to be locally extinct (Rabinowitz and Khaing,
1998; Rao et al., 2005).
Although, there is no reliable evidence suggesting the
presence of tigers currently in the lower elevation areas of
Namdapha, even higher trapping effort and extensive surveys
may be necessary to draw conclusions on the fate of the spe-
cies in the park. The inability to estimate animal densities
reflect the difficulties surrounding the estimation and moni-
toring of wildlife populations in tropical forests, where cryptic
species occur at inherently low densities (Eisenberg and Sei-
densticker, 1976; Karanth et al., 2004a), rendering most con-
ventional sighting-based sampling techniques inadequate. It
is these properties of populations in tropical forests that
make them more vulnerable to declines and extinction (Kaw-
anishi and Sunquist, 2004; Kenney et al., 1995) making the
monitoring of their populations all the more crucial. Future
monitoring efforts must aim to obtain reliable distribution
and population density estimates for the target species. Poor
detectability may also result from avoidance of humans in
areas with high hunting pressures. We stress the need for
development of rigorous techniques for population estima-
tion of terrestrial mammals that occur at low densities in
tropical forests and long-term wildlife population monitoring
programs in the Protected Areas of north-east India.
Although prey depletion is a major threat to tigers (Kar-
anth and Stith, 1999), poaching is believed to be among the
primary factors resulting in the current decline. This is partic-
ularly true in Namdapha, which is located along the interna-
tional border with Myanmar and close to hotspots of trade in
animal body parts (Banks et al., 2006). In Myanmar, there is a
documented decline of tigers due to hunting for trade (Lynam,
2003; Rao et al., 2005). Hunting is a significant threat to the
persistence or recovery of tigers and other large carnivores
in Namdapha. Reliable information from tribal hunters sug-
gests that a considerable number of tigers (10–15) have been
killed for the trade between 1994 and 2002 by professional
poachers, mainly from Myanmar. Currently, all available
information suggests that Namdapha may soon be the sec-
ond Indian Tiger Reserve where the tiger has gone extinct,
close on the heels of the Sariska National Park in 2004 (Tiger
Task Force, 2005). The impending extinction of species from
a Protected Area is a serious cause for concern and can only
be halted only through more proactive measures and political
resolve (Berger, 2003). However, if hunting can be stopped,
recovery of tiger and other populations is possible given that
Namdapha is contiguous with protected forests on all sides
making this amongst the largest contiguous montane forest
habitat for tigers in south Asia (Wikramanayake et al., 1998).
4.1. Making conservation work
The situation in Namdapha reflects a strong disparity
between the law and its enforcement, indicating that legal
protected status alone cannot serve to conserve wildlife
populations even in a Protected Area. The relatively better
status of large mammal populations in two other parks in
north-east India – Kaziranga National Park (Chauhan et al.,
2006; Karanth and Nichols, 2000) and Pakke Wildlife Sanctu-
ary (Chauhan et al., 2006) – suggests that successful conser-
vation results from dedicated park management coupled
with local community support for the park and involvement
in its protection. In contrast in Namdapha, an understaffed
forest department infrequently patrol no more than 5% of
the park; and the Lisu community are at odds with park
authorities over issues of land rights and road development
(Datta, 2007). Timely allocation of funds by the government
and increasing staff motivation may improve the situation
in Namdapha: however, these measures are dependent on
sustained efforts from motivated park administrators. A
long-term solution (and the focus of a conservation
programme initiated by us) would be to gain the support
and co-operation of the Lisu, and other tribes in the
area.
There is increased awareness and willingness among the
Lisu to control and reduce hunting since the conservation pro-
gramme began in 2004 (Datta, 2007), although greater eco-
nomic benefit to individual households through alternate
livelihoods is essential to address the problem entirely. Their
knowledge of the landscape, presents an excellent opportu-
nity for the formation of a community protection force,
whereby they could undertake park protection in return for
monetary and other benefit-sharing schemes. Insights from
this conservation programme suggest that judicious settle-
ment of land rights and education and development pro-
grammes partly facilitated by park authorities can help
reduce the current local antagonism to the park, and result
in effective wildlife conservation.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the help of several officers (S.K. Raha, K.D.
Singh, P. Ringu) of the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department,
park officials and field staff at Namdapha for permissions and
facilitating this work. This study was funded by the Disney
Wildlife Conservation Fund, USA and the Rufford Foundation,
UK. The community-based conservation program has been
funded by the Wildlife Conservation Society, USA, WCS-India
Program, the National Geographic Society, USA, and the Ford
Foundation, New Delhi. We are indebted to our Lisu field staff
especially Akhi Nathany, Duchaye Yobin, Ngwa-akhi Yobin,
several other Lisus, as well as Meghna Krishnadas and She-
khar Subba for their invaluable assistance during the field
survey. We thank Tim O0Brien, Margaret Kinnaird and Will
Duckworth for access and use of unpublished camera trap
data. We thank Charudutt Mishra for help in the field and
suggestions during the preparing of this manuscript. Sugges-
tions and comments by MD Madhusudan, Ullas Karanth, Tim
O0Brien and two anonymous reviewers helped in refining
1434 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435

Author's personal copy
earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank R. Raghunath for
helping prepare the map.
REFERENCES
Arunachalam, A., Sarmah, R., Adhikari, D., Majumder, M., Khan,
M.L., 2004. Anthropogenic threats and biodiversity
conservation in Namdapha nature reserve in the Indian
Eastern Himalayas. Current Science 87, 447–454.
Banks, D., Desai, N., Gosling, J., Joseph, T., Majumdar, O., Mole, N.,
Rice, M., Wright, B., Wu, V., 2006. Skinning The Cat: Crime and
Politics of The Big Cat Skin Trade. Environmental Investigation
Agency and the Wildlife Protection Society of India, London, UK.
Berger, J., 2003. Is it acceptable to let a species go extinct in a
national park? Conservation Biology 17, 1451–1454.
Bodmer, R.E., Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1997. Hunting and the
likelihood of extinction of Amazonian mammals.
Conservation Biology 11, 460–466.
Carbone, C., Christie, S., Conforti, K., Coulson, T., Franklin, N.,
Ginsberg, J.R., Griffiths, M., Holden, J., Kawanishi, K., Kinnaird, M.,
2001. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers
and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4, 75–79.
Chauhan, D.S., Singh, R., Mishra, S., Dadda, T., Goyal, S.P., 2006.
Estimation of tiger population in an intensive study area of
pakke tiger reserve, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Unpublished
Report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India.
Datta, A., 2002. Status of Hornbills and Hunting among Tribal
Communities in Eastern Arunachal Pradesh. Wildlife
Conservation Society, New York and WCS-India Program,
Bangalore. p. 70.
Datta, A., 2007. Protecting with people in Namdapha: threatened
forests, forgotten people. In: Shahabuddin, G., Rangarajan, M.
(Eds.), Making Conservation Work: Securing Biodiversity in
New Century. Permanent Black, New Delhi, pp. 165–209.
Eisenberg, J.F., Seidensticker, J., 1976. Ungulates in southern Asia:
a consideration of biomass estimates for selected habitats.
Biological Conservation 10, 293–308.
Grassman Jr, L.I., 2003. Thailand Cat Project. Unpublished final
report submitted to Cat Action Treasury, Thailand.
Hilaluddin, R., Kaul, R., Ghose, D., 2005. Conservation implications
of wild animal biomass extractions in Northeast India. Animal
Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 169–179.
Hurtado-Gonzales, J.L., Bodmer, R.E., 2004. Assessing the
sustainability of brocket deer hunting in the Tamshiyacu-
Tahuayo communal reserve, northeastern Peru. Biological
Conservation 116, 1–7.
Johnson, A., Vongkhamheng, C., Hedemark, M., Saithongdam, T.,
2006. Effects of human-carnivore conflict on tiger (Panthera tigris)
and prey populations in Lao PDR. Animal Conservation 9, 421–
430.
Karanth, K.U., Chundawat, R.S., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, N.S., 2004b.
Estimation of tiger densities in the tropical dry forests of
Panna, Central India, using photographic capture–recapture
sampling. Animal Conservation 7, 285–290.
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in
India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79,
2852–2862.
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., 2000. Ecological Status and
Conservation of Tigers in India. WCS, US Fish and Wildlife
Service. Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India 123.
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, N.S., 2004a. Photographic
sampling of elusive mammals in tropical forests. In:
Thompson, W.L. (Ed.), Sampling Rare Or Elusive Species:
Concepts, Designs, and Techniques for Estimating Population
Parameters. Island Press, Washington, pp. 229–247.
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, N.S., Link, W.A., Hines, J.E.,
2004. Tigers and their prey: predicting carnivore densities from
prey abundance. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 101, 4854–4858.
Karanth, K.U., Stith, B.M., 1999. Prey depletion as a critical
determinant of tiger population viability. In: Seidensticker, J.,
Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding The Tiger: Tiger
Conservation in Human Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 100–113.
Karanth, K.U., Sunquist, M.E., 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard
and dhole in tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64,
439–450.
Kawanishi, K., Sunquist, M.E., 2004. Conservation status of tigers
in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Biological
Conservation 120, 329–344.
Kenney, J.S., Smith, J.L.D., Starfield, A.M., McDougal, C.W., 1995.
The long-term effects of tiger poaching on population viability.
Conservation Biology 9, 1127–1133.
Lynam, A., 2003. A National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of
Myanmar. Myanmar Forest Department, Unpublished Report.
Ministry of Forestry, Myanmar & Wildlife Conservation
Society-International Program.
Mani, M.S., 1974. Ecology and biogeography in India. W. Junk.
Mishra, C., Madhusudan, M.D., Datta, A., 2006. Mammals of the
high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern
Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs.
Oryx 40, 29–35.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B.,
Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403, 853–858.
O0Brien, T.G., Kinnaird, M.F., Wibisono, H.T., 2003. Crouching
tigers, hidden prey: sumatran tiger and prey populations in
a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6, 131–
139.
Proctor, J., Haridasan, K., Smith, G.W., 1998. How far north does
lowland evergreen tropical rain forest go? Global Ecology and
Biogeography 7, 141–146.
Rabinowitz, A., Andau, P., Chai, P.P.K., 1987. The clouded leopard
in Malaysian Borneo. Oryx 21, 107–111.
Rabinowitz, A., Khaing, S.T., 1998. Status of selected mammal
species in North Myanmar. Oryx 32, 201–208.
Rao, M., Myint, T., Zaw, T., Htun, S., 2005. Hunting patterns in
tropical forests adjoining the Hkakaborazi National Park,
north Myanmar. Oryx 39, 292–300.
Rodgers, W.A., Panwar, S.H., 1988. In: Wildlife Protected Area
Network in India, vol. I & II. Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun.
Silveira, L., Jacomo, A.T.A., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2003. Camera trap,
line transect census and track surveys: a comparative
evaluation. Biological Conservation 114, 351–355.
Tiger Task Force, 2005. Joining the dots: The report of the Tiger
Task Force. Report Submitted to the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (Project Tiger). Government of India.
Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, U.,
Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew, T., Hedao, P., Conner, M.,
Hemley, G., 1998. An ecology-based method for defining
priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as case
study. Conservation Biology 12, 865–878.
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 141 (2008) 1429–1435 1435