Winter distribution and poaching of musk deer, Moschus chrysogaster and Moschus leucogaster in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan

Abstract

Jigme Dorji National Park is home to 2 species of musk deer: Alpine (Moschus chrysogaster) and Himalayan musk deer (M. leucogaster). In summer months, they inhabit alpine areas and in winter, they are found in fir (Abies densa) forest. They are distributed within the altitudinal range of 3171 masl to 4327 masl in winter. The study on musk deer distribution and poaching was carried out in all the potential musk deer habitats under 6 range offices in the month of October to December 2016. A total of 400 snares were removed following 84 days of active patrol by the park staff. One male musk deer was released into the wild which was caught in the snares set around Chutey Goempa forest. Traditional snaring method (leg and neck snares) with barricade were adopted by the poachers. Nylon ropes were the primary material used as snares. During the entire patrol period, two poachers were apprehended under Lingzhi Range, while attempting to set snares for musk deer. They were fined as per the provisions set under Forest Act, 1995. Annual anti-poaching activities should be carried out and anthropogenic activity should be strictly monitored to protect this endangered species.

Full text

ISSN: 2067-533X
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF
CONSERVATION SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue 1, January-March 2018: 193-198
www.ijcs.uaic.ro
WINTER DISTRIBUTION AND POACHING OF MUSK DEER,
MOSCHUS CHRYSOGASTER AND MOSCHUS LEUCOGASTER IN
JIGME DORJI NATIONAL PARK, BHUTAN
Pema DENDUP*, NAMGAY, Choki LHAM
Jigme Dorji National Park, Department of Forests and Park Services,
Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Damji, Gasa, 14002, Bhutan
Abstract
Jigme Dorji National Park is home to 2 species of musk deer: Alpine (Moschus chrysogaster)
and Himalayan musk deer (M. leucogaster). In summer months, they inhabit alpine areas and
in winter, they are found in fir (Abies densa) forest. They are distributed within the altitudinal
range of 3171 masl to 4327 masl in winter. The study on musk deer distribution and poaching
was carried out in all the potential musk deer habitats under 6 range offices in the month of
October to December 2016. A total of 400 snares were removed following 84 days of active
patrol by the park staff. One male musk deer was released into the wild which was caught in
the snares set around Chutey Goempa forest. Traditional snaring method (leg and neck snares)
with barricade were adopted by the poachers. Nylon ropes were the primary material used as
snares. During the entire patrol period, two poachers were apprehended under Lingzhi Range,
while attempting to set snares for musk deer. They were fined as per the provisions set under
Forest Act, 1995. Annual anti-poaching activities should be carried out and anthropogenic
activity should be strictly monitored to protect this endangered species.
Keywords: Agriculture; Income; Musk deer; Patrolling; Poaching; Protected areas; Snares;
Introduction
Seven species of musk deer are known to exist as of today and all the species are
considered Endangered on the IUCN Red List except for Moschus moschiferus which is
vulnerable [1-3]. Musk deer are distributed along Arctic Circle in Russia to Asian countries
such as Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Korean Peninsula, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal,
Pakistan and Vietnam [4]. In Bhutan musk deer is listed in Schedule I of Forest and Nature
Conservation Act, 1995 and it is highly protected [5]. Musk deer are distributed along the
western, northern, central and eastern region of the country and it is found in six protected areas
(PA) [6]. Two species of musk deer roam the forests of Jigme Dorji National Park (JDNP).
Alpine musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) and Himalayan musk deer (Moschus leucogaster),
both categorized as Endangered on IUCN Red List [1, 2, 7]. Musk deer (Moschus spp.) have
high economic importance and therefore, are highly endangered mammal species [8].
Population existence is threatened across its habitat due to deforestation, habitat fragmentation
and anthropogenic activities, such as poaching for its musk pod [9, 10]. Musk pod has high
commercial values and musk deer are over exploited. This has led to the decline in its
population. Musk remains to be one of the most expensive natural products and the values are
*Corresponding author: pemadndp@gmail.com

U.S. ABUBAKAR et al.
INT J CONSERV SCI 9, 1, 2018: 193-198
194
calculated to be more than gold [11-13]. East and Southeast Asian are the major traders and
consumers of musk products [14]. Musk has been used in perfumes and in some Chinese
medicines [15]. The population decline has been aggravated by increased use of snares [16].
Musk deer develop latrine sites by defecating repeatedly at one particular site and such sites
serve functions for chemical communication [17]. Latrines are ecologically very important and
it is highly developed communication methods used by musk deer as they are confounded by
minimal visual contact, dense forest cover, solitary behavior and no vocalization [18-21]. Musk
deer are poached setting snares based on the location of latrine sites [17]. The collection of
timber, fodder, food, medicinal plants and livestock grazing inside PA by the local communities
has also aided the decline in musk deer population [22].
Conservation of these species inside JDNP is a huge challenge due to lack of funding,
inadequate and ineffective patrolling and highly porous park boundary. The aim of this study
was to ascertain the extent of musk deer poaching and to assess winter distribution in the park.
Materials and Methods
Study site
The study on musk deer distribution and poaching was initiated in all the 6 range offices
(Gasa, Laya, Lingzhi, Lunana, Ramina and Soe) of JDNP (Fig. 1). JDNP with an area of
4449km2is second largest PA in Bhutan and it is spread over northwest part of Bhutan. The
elevation changes from 1200 meters above sea level (masl) in south to 7314masl in the north.
There are about 1258 households living inside the park and fir (Abies densa) forest – winter
suitable habitat of musk deer, alone contributes to about 11% of the park area (486 km2).
Fig. 1. Map of JDNP showing the surveyed locations.
Common plant species include fir (Abies densa), blue pine (Pinus wallichiana), birch
(Betula utilis), rhododendron (Rhododendron arboreum.), hemlock (Tsuga domusa), oak
(Quercus lamellosa), juniper (Juniperus recurva), spruce (Picea spinolusa), maple (Acer
campbelii), taxus (Taxus bacata), larch (Larix graffithiana) and chirpine (Pinus roxburghii). In
case of faunal species, the park supports snow leopard (Panthera uncia) red panda (Ailurus
fulgens), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Pantheraparadus), goral (Naemorhedus goral), serow
(Capricornis sumatraensis), Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus), barking deer (Munticus

THREATENED MEDICINAL PLANTS OF KANO FLORA AND THE NEED FOR URGENT CONSERVATION
http://www.ijcs.uaic.ro
195
muntjak), and wild pig (Sus scrofa). This is the only PA probably in the world where one can
find two top predators tiger and snow leopard sharing same habitat [7].
Methodology
With the onset of seasonal migration, musk deer are more prone to poaching in the
woods than in the alpine habitat. While in the woods, poachers have all the advantage to set up
snares and kill musk deer. This study was initiated in October 2016 – December 2016
coinciding seasonal migrations in the winter. The sites
were
identified
based
upon the
h
i
gh
number
of
musk d
ee
r
presence reported through various surveys
a
nd
camera
tr
a
pp
i
ng
exercise carried out by the park management.
In some case the sites were determined
through the information conveyed by the informants. Patrol team traversed through all the game
trails and upon the encounter of musk deer snares, the snares were dismantled and trap materials
destroyed along with the barricade. Live wildlife caught in the snares were released back into
the wild. Global Positioning System (Garmin GPS eTrex Vista HCX) was used to record
locations for future monitoring purposes.
Results
A total of 504 man-days were taken to comb the potential musk deer habitats (14 days x
6 men x 6 range office). Four hundred snares were dismantled and destroyed, 2 poachers
apprehended, 1 male musk deer and 2 male Himalayan monal (Lophophorus impejanus)
released into the wild. Most of the snares were freshly set (43% old traps versus 57% new traps)
along the altitudinal range of 3147 to 4100masl and majority of the snares were seen between
3600 to 3700masl. Maximum number of snares was removed from Gasa range and least from
Soe range (Table 1). Nylon ropes with the diameter of 3 to 5cm was the main material used as
snare. Except for the snares set under Ramina range which was neck trap, all other ranges had
leg snares.
Fig. 2. Number of snares along the altitudinal gradient.
Table 1. Information on snares removed under each range.
Name of Range
Number of snares removed
Type of trap
Alltitude range (m)
Gasa
164
Leg trap
3147 - 3972
Lingzhi
90
Leg trap
3649 - 3953
Lunana
70
Leg trap
3677 - 4048
Ramina
39
Neck trap
3172 - 3789
Laya
36
Leg trap
3174 - 4093
Soe
1
Leg trap
4100

U.S. ABUBAKAR et al.
INT J CONSERV SCI 9, 1, 2018: 193-198
196
Discussion
Musk deer are generally found along the altitudinal range of 2500 to 4800masl [23]. In
winter season, musk deer in JDNP were found distributed along the altitudinal gradient of 3171
to 4327masl (Fig. 3). Their distribution was mostly within fir forest since lichens (a primary
winter food for the musk deer) were recorded plentiful in fir forest. The elevation range of 3600
to 3700masl was the most suitable winter habitat as the survey team recorded majority of musk
deer droppings within this altitudinal range. The same was also indicated by the maximum
number of snares set within this range. In Manaslu conservation area, from Nepal, A. Subedi et
al. [24] showed that altitude range of 3600 to 3800m is the most suitable altitudinal range.
Fig. 3. Patrol team of Gasa Range rescuing and releasing male musk deer
which was caught in the snares set by poachers.
The result from our current study revealed that Gasa range had the highest number of
snares. One of the main reasons for such finding could be related to easy accessibility with
many alternative entrance routes (Gasa, Ponjothang, Gayza, Zomina, Damji, Panikong,
Phuentshogang) to musk deer habitat. Gasa district is connected with un-paved road facilities
and with easy accessibility, the distance to the musk deer habitat is about a day walk or less
from the nearest road point.
Annual household income is also one of the major factor contributing to musk deer
poaching. Resident communities of the park earn enough income to support their family. Their
income comes from the sale of agriculture products, livestock products, medicinal plants, raw
material for incense and through the sale of Chinese caterpillar (Ophiocordyceps sinensis).
Chinese caterpillar contributes to major portion of annual income as it fetches high amount in
the auction yard. Local communities of the park do not involve in musk deer poaching as they
have strong religious sentiments towards both wild and domestic animals. People do not even
consume the meats of animals killed by wild predators. Non-resident communities of the park
are the main poachers who come and poach musk deer in JDNP. The park authority in the
previous years apprehended some poachers and all of them were identified to be non-resident
communities. These are the group of people with low level of income and their poor socio-
economic status is the driving factor behind musk deer poaching. They live in areas where
agriculture farming and livestock rearing do not bring much benefit.
With regard to other ranges, accessibility is the main issue. A minimum of two days
walk is required to get into the musk deer habitat and the poachers do not have alternate route.
With only one entrance route, poachers are under the high risk of getting caught by the park
officials. Under Lingzhi range, two poachers were caught while attempting to set snares for the
musk deer around Tsatugang forest area. Both were non-resident of the park and they were
fined as per the existing rules.

THREATENED MEDICINAL PLANTS OF KANO FLORA AND THE NEED FOR URGENT CONSERVATION
http://www.ijcs.uaic.ro
197
In Soe range during the entire patrol period, the team had removed only one trap and the
team had recorded many musk deer evidences. In the past (>10 years) Soe range used to have
many poaching incidences. Finding of minimum poaching evidence is also directly related to
socio-economic status of the people. Some people residing around Soe range have diverted their
activity towards illegal trade of Red Sandalwood (Pterocarpus santalinus) across border to
Tibet which generated high income.
Other probable reasons related to musk deer poaching may be due to less amount of fine
mentioned in the forest rules. The fine amount is relatively less than what they supposedly earn
in the black market. For killing of musk deer 200,000.00Nu is imposed (Forest and Nature
Conservation Rules and Regulations of Bhutan 2017). On contrary, wildlife crime is a huge and
lucrative business and musk pods can fetch as much as 45000 USD per kilogram (2.2 pounds)
in international market [1]. Another most important factor contributing to the poaching of any
wildlife species is the lack of fund to conduct regular and organized patrolling.
Conclusion
Majority of the snares were fresh and they were set within the month of October.
Poachers are aware of the seasonal migrations of the musk deer and hence take advantage to
trap maximum musk deer. In order to apprehend poachers, patrolling effort should be focused
before the onset of the seasonal migration. Entire musk deer habitat within the park should be
intensively combed for the snares. Only male musk deer have musk pods but the use of snares
have high negative conservation implications. The snares not only traps target species but other
non-targeted species are also killed indiscriminately. Musk deer are endangered species and the
only method to save musk deer is through active patrolling of its habitat. Therefore, adequate
fund is required for extensive anti-poaching program and frontline staff should be trained with
technology-driven communication and surveillance system. In addition, local informants should
be deployed in every village and they should be given incentives for their information. Further,
study on movement ecology of musk deer in different locations should be carried out to help
park management develop area specific anti-poaching plan.
Acknowledgements
The study of musk deer distribution and poaching in Jigme Dorji National Park was
funded by Wildlife Trust of India (Indian nature conservation organization committed to the
service of nature). All the frontline staff of Gasa, Laya, Lingzhi, Lunana, Ramina and Soe range
who were involved in carrying out this study is very much appreciated and acknowledged for
their hard works. We would like to thank Mr. Lhendup Tharchen for his support and
collaboration with the donors. Mr. Yangka Tashi and Mr. Pema Dorji are also acknowledged
for their help during the development of study proposal.
References
[1] R. Harris, Moschus chrysogaster,The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016:
e.T13895A61977139. www.iucnredlist.org.
[2] R.J. Timmins, J.W. Duckworth, Moschus leucogaster,The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2015: e.T13901A61977764. www.iucnredlist.org.
[3] B. Nyambayar, H. Mix, K. Tsytsulina, Moschus moschiferus,IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, 2013. Version 2013.2. www.iucnredlist.org.
[4] P. Grubb, Artiodactyla, Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and
Geographical Reference (third edition), Baltimore, USA, Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2005, pp. 637-722.
[5] * * *, Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan, Royal Government of Bhutan,
Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, 1995.
[6] T. Wangchuk, P. Thinley, K. Tshering, C. Tshering, D. Yonten, B. Pema, S. Wangchuk, A
Field Guide to the Mammals of Bhutan, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu, 2004.

U.S. ABUBAKAR et al.
INT J CONSERV SCI 9, 1, 2018: 193-198
198
[7] P. Thinley, L. Tharchen, R. Dorji, Conservation Management Plan of Jigme Dorji
National Park for the Period January 2015 – December 2019, Biodiversity
conservation in pursuit of Gross National Happiness, Department of Forests and Park
Services, Thimphu, Bhutan, 2015.
[8] X. Li, X. Jiang, Implication of musk deer (Moschus spp.) depletion from hunter reports
and dung transect data in northwest Yunnan, China. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 22(5),2014, pp. 474-478.
[9] M.J.B. Green, Some Ecological Aspects of a Himalayan Population of Musk Deer.
Editor: C.M. Wemmer, Biology and Management of the Cervidae, Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1987, pp. 307-319.
[10] O. Ilyas, Status, habitat use and conservation of Alpine musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster)
in Uttarakhand Himalayas, India, Journal of Applied Animal Research, 43(1), 2014, pp.
83-91.
[11] M.J.B. Green, The distribution, status and conservation of the Himalayan musk deer
Moschus chrysogaster, Biological Conservation, 35(4), 1986, pp. 347–375.
[12] M.N. Shrestha, Animal welfare in the musk deer, Conference: 25th Congress of the
World-Veterinary-Association, Yokohama, Japan, Sep 03-09, 1995, Applied Animal
Behaviour Science,59(1-3), 1998, pp. 245–250.
[13] V. Homes, On the scent: conserving musk deer – the uses of Musk and Europe’s Role in
its Trade,TRAFFIC Europe Report, Brussels, Belgium, 1999, p. 3.
http://www.trafficj.org/publication/99_On_the_Scent.pdf
[14] J. Mills, Need for further research into tiger bone and musk subtitutes agreed, TRAFFIC
Dispatches, 8, 1998, 3p.
[15] S. Helin, L. Zhixiao, The Musk Deer in China,Shanghai Scientific and Technical
Publishers, 2007, 222 p.
[16] R. Blouch, Raleigh, A. McCarthy, D. Moore, C.M. Wemmer, Deer: Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan, Gland, Switzerland, IUCN/SSC Deer Specialist Group, 1998,
106p.
[17] P.B. Singh, B.B. Shrestha, A. Thapa, P. Saud, Z. Jiang, Selection of latrine sites by
Himalayan musk deer (Moschus leucogaster) in Neshyang Valley, Annapurna
Conservation Area, Nepal, Journal of Applied Animal Research, 46(1), 2018, pp. 920-
926.
[18] B. Kattel, Ecology of the Himalayan musk deer in Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal,PhD
Thesis, Colorado State University, Colorado, 1992.
[19] M.J.B. Green, B. Kattel, Musk deer: Little Understood, Even its Scent, The First
International Symposium on Endangered Species Used in Traditional East Asian
Medicine: Substitutes for Tiger Bone and Musk, Dec 7–8; Hong Kong, 1997, p. 5.
[20] B.J.B. Green, Scent-marking in the Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster),
Journal of Zoology, 1(part: 4), 1987, pp. 721–737.
[21] J. Lai, H. Sheng, A comparative study on scent marking, Deer of China: Biology and
Management (Editors: N. Ohtaishi, HL. Sheng) Elsevier Science Publishers,Amsterdam
(Netherlands), 1993, pp. 204–208.
[22] A.A. Khan, B.U.D. Qureshi, M.S, Awan, Impact of musk trade on the decline in
Himalayan musk deer Moschus chrysogaster population in Neelum Valley, Pakistan,
Current Science, 91(5), 2006, pp. 696-699.
[23] * * *, R.J. Timmins, J.W. Duckworth, Moschus leucogaster, The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2015. www.redlist.org.
[24] A. Subedi, A. Aryal, R.K. Koirala, Y.P. Timilsina, X. Meng, F. McKenzie, Habitat
ecology of Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in Manaslu conservation area,
Nepal,International Journal of Zoological Research, 8(2),2012, pp. 81–89.
______________________________________
Received: July 15, 2017
Accepted: February 28, 2018