Wildlife Hunting & Use
in the Nam Ha National Protected Area:
Implications for Rural Livelihoods
& Biodiversity Conservation
By Arlyne Johnson, Sarinda Singh,
Malykham Dongdala, and Outhai Vongsa
(December 2003)
WILDLIFE HUNTING & USE IN THE NAM HA NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA:
IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL LIVELIHOODS & BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Cover Illustrations:
Villager selling a Lesser Oriental Chevrotain along a road in the Nam Ha
National Protected Area. Photo:
A. Johnson (WCS).
Background of
forest cover in Lao PDR. Photo: Stuart Chape (IUCN).
Citation:
Johnson, A., S. Singh, M. Dongdala and O.Vongsa. 2003.
Wildlife
hunting and use in the Nam Ha National Protected Area: Implications for
rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. December 2003. Wildlife
Conservation Society, Vientiane.
Copies available from:
Wildlife Conservation Society – Lao Program
Unit 17, Ban Sisavath, Chanthabouly District
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel/Fax: +856 21 215400
Email: [email protected]
Reproduction of material from this document for education or other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior permission of WCS,
provided that the source is acknowledged.
The findings, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations express
in this report represent those of the authors and do not imply the
endorsement of WCS or the donor.
The designation of geographical
entities and their presentation in this report do not imply an opinion on the
part of WCS concerning the legal status of any county, territory or area,
or its authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXCEUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 6
Nam Ha National Protected Area ..................................................................................................... 6
METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey teams ................................................................................................................................... 8
Survey structure ............................................................................................................................... 9
Land use mapping............................................................................................................................ 9
Local language names of common wildlife....................................................................................... 9
Household survey ............................................................................................................................ 9
Household selection......................................................................................................................... 9
Survey process .............................................................................................................................. 10
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Survey villages and households..................................................................................................... 11
Local language names of common wildlife..................................................................................... 11
Wildlife Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 12
Seasonal hunting effort .................................................................................................................. 12
Hunting methods ............................................................................................................................ 13
Hunters from outside of the village ................................................................................................. 15
Hunting areas................................................................................................................................. 15
Wildlife Use....................................................................................................................................... 15
General .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Animal-specific ............................................................................................................................... 16
Medicine......................................................................................................................................... 16
Sale................................................................................................................................................ 17
Wildlife Populations ......................................................................................................................... 19
Animal Abundance ......................................................................................................................... 19
Human-Animal Conflict .................................................................................................................. 21
Comparison of Wildlife Hunting and Use ....................................................................................... 22
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 23
Use of restricted and controlled species........................................................................................ 23
Managing hunting by NPA villages................................................................................................. 24
Hunting seasons and zones ........................................................................................................... 24
Hunting methods ............................................................................................................................ 25
Managing illegal hunting by outsiders and wildlife trade ............................................................. 25
Hunting by outsiders ...................................................................................................................... 25
Wildlife trade .................................................................................................................................. 26
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 29
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mr. Phimkeo Thamlasine, Chief of the Luang Namtha Forestry Office and
previous Chief of the Nam Ha Protected Area, for requesting and facilitating the study. Mr. Phimkeo
identified the villages that should be surveyed and worked with Wildlife Conservation Society –Lao
Program staff and the Faculty of Science (FoS) and Faculty of Forestry (FoF) at the National
University of Laos to design and implement the study.
Student field work in the villages was
facilitated by provincial and district staff from the Nam Ha Protected Area Management Unit , including
Mr. Outhai Vongsa and Mr. Songphone Luangluxay (PAFO), Mr. Chukavanh Thammavong (Long
District), Mr. Thongsavahn Chanthakomman (Luang Namtha District), Mr. Ae Saymany (Viengphuka
District), and Mr. Somxay Phanthavong (Sing District). We thank students from the Faculty of
Forestry, Mr. Singkeo Phommachanh, and the Faculty of Sciences, Mr Noy Phaneinhaune and Mr.
Khiengkai Gnokhanthone for conducting the interviews as part of their final year thesis research.
Professor Lau Mua (FoF) and Professor Bounnam Pathoumthong (FoS) participated in the student
trainings and provided valuable recommendations for interview design.
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of staff of the Wildlife Conservation Society, especially
Mr. Michael Hedemark who prepared the maps and provided GIS expertise for the study, Mr. Troy
Hansel who provided invaluable advice and references on village interview methods, and Mr. Dale
Boles, Dr. Doug Hendrie, and Mr. Bryan Stuart who provided wildlife weights . We also thank Mr. Paul
Sweet at the American Museum of Natural History for providing wildlife weights and Dr. Jim
Chamberlin for his review and recommendations on the nomenclature used to present village and
wildlife names.
This study was made possible through the Biodiversity Conservation MoU between the National
University of Laos (Faculties of Sciences and Forestry) and the WCS-Lao Program and the Nam Ha
Strengthening MoU between the Department of Forestry and the WCS-Lao Program. We thank the
Wildlife Conservation Society for generously providing the funding for this study.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
4
EXCEUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlife hunting and use is a critical component of rural livelihoods in Lao PDR. At the same time,
wildlife populations are in serious decline from over harvest for subsistence and trade. Effective
management of human use of wildlife populations is crucial if the nation’s unique biodiversity is to
persist. National regulations aim to manage wildlife for sustainable use in multi-use protected areas
and define both controlled species that are available for harvest and restricted species that are totally
protected. To date, there has been no systematic evaluation of how current hunting practices
compare to these guidelines. This report summarises results from a study of wildlife hunting and use
by villages in the Nam Ha National Protected Area and makes recommendations for wildlife
management and rural development that are relevant to conditions found in most protected areas
throughout Lao PDR.
Standardised household surveys were conducted in 59% of villages in and on the border of the Nam
Ha National Protected Area (NPA) from January 2002 to March 2003,. Questions encompassed
wildlife hunting, use and wildlife populations, with a smaller subset referring specifically to 55 species
of mammals, birds, and herpetiles having important use and conservation value in the NPA. Village
areas used for hunting and agriculture were mapped and local language names of common wildlife
recorded.
Results provide evidence that a wide variety of animals are hunted and used for food and medicine by
villages in the NPA management zone. The majority of hunting by villages appears largely
opportunistic, occurring in forested areas near hill rice fields with the bulk of hunting effort coinciding
with periods of hill rice field preparation and harvest. Guns were the most common method reported
for capturing most wildlife, followed by snares. The most frequently eaten animals were also primarily
those that were reported to be most frequently sold. In general, animals used for medicine were less
frequently hunted but among the most valuable for trade. The majority of animals were sold
sometimes with 97% of reported sales being to people in Luang Namtha province. 31% of
households reported that outsiders come to their village to buy wildlife. In addition to hunting by NPA
residents, 40% of households reported that people from outside of the NPA also hunt in their village
area.
Of immediate concern to both rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation is that the most
frequently used animals were small-bodied (<2 kg. in size) while the majority of large-bodied
mammals and birds, and all reptiles, were more frequently reported as decreasing in abundance. The
majority of households felt that the decline in wildlife abundance was a problem that negatively
impacted rural livelihoods and that more effective management of hunting was needed. The trend
towards consumption of small-bodied animals and decline in larger animals resembles that reported
over ten years ago from similar habitats and cultures in neighboring northern Thailand where today
many of the animals that were in decline are now gone from those sites. To arrest this trend in the
Nam Ha NPA and assure the availability of wild meat for rural livelihoods of NPA villages in the future,
several management actions are recommended.
1) Results are applied to review the use of restricted and controlled species, identifying animals that
require more urgent protection and those that may be more suitable for subsistence use.
2) Given the existing hunting effort and meat preferences of villages, the feasibility of stricter
enforcement of hunting zones versus hunting seasons is reviewed as a management tool.
3) Increase the rigor and frequency of gun collections and the control of village militia weapons and
ammunition to arrest the decline of large animals. This will likely not impact food security since
most frequently used animals by villagers are also commonly captured with snares. Suggestions
are made for use and management of snares to reduce impact on protected species.
4) Block or control motorized vehicle access to the NPA which currently facilitates hunting by
outsiders and wildlife trade. Train and support customs, police and NPA officers to effectively
operate regular checkpoints and patrols.
5) Expand efforts to educate the urban public of NPA boundaries and wildlife laws that prohibit
hunting by outsiders in the NPA and wildlife trade.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
5
INTRODUCTION
In Lao PDR, hunting of wildlife represents an important part of rural livelihoods and nutrition ( Foppes
et al. 1997, Clendon 2001, Krahn 2003). Lao is also one of the fastest growing tourism destinations in
the world, with wildlife viewing at the top of the list for international visitors (WT0 2001, 2002). At the
same time, wildlife populations are declining due to over-harvesting for subsistence and trade
(Duckworth et al. 1999, Nooren and Claridge 2001). In a threat assessment of the Nam Ha National
Protected Area (NPA), over-harvest of wildlife was identified by NPA staff as one of the main
problems contributing to a decline in abundance of many wildlife species (Johnson 2000).
To solve this problem, national regulations aim to manage wildlife for sustainable use in multi-use
protected areas such that subsistence needs of enclave villages are met while also conserving viable
populations of wildlife (Robichaud et al. 2001). Regulations that provide guidelines for wildlife use
include the Forest Law No. 01/1996 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Regulation No.
0524/2001 on the Management of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas, Aquatic Animals and
Wildlife (MAF 2001). MAF 0524 outlines what species can be harvested and where, identifies
seasons and methods of harvest, as well as who has access to hunt in NPAs (Table 1). Article 17 of
MAF 0524 states that it is illegal to sell wildlife. To date, there has been no systematic evaluation of
how these regulations compare with current village practices.
Table 1: Regulations for wildlife hunting and use in Lao PDR (MAF No. 0524/2001)
[1]
Species
Restricted
Hunting &
[2]
Trade
Hunting
[3]
Where
Hunting
[2]
Method
Amount
[4]
Prohibited
Trade
Controlled
[3]
When
Prohibited
Permitted outside
of NPA restricted
zones and
corridors
Trade
Permitted from
Nov 1-April 30
Prohibited to use
explosives,
poisons, electricity,
warfare weapons
and rifles
Prohibited
Hunting at a
sustainable rate
[1] Articles 18 and 19
[2] Article 17
[3] Article 4; hunting in the NPA Management Zone restricted to previously settled persons
[4] Article 10
Successful wildlife management and rural development requires baseline information on wildlife use
as well as the status of wildlife populations and habitats. This report describes wildlife hunting and
use by villages within and on the border of the Nam Ha NPA in Luang Namtha (LNT) Province.
Results are relevant to the design of wildlife management and rural development strategies in
protected areas throughout Lao PDR. The study was requested by the Nam Ha NPA Management
Unit and is being used to guide the design of the NPA management plan being developed by the LNT
Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).
Nam Ha National Protected Area
The Nam Ha NPA covers 222,300 hectares of hill evergreen, semi-evergreen forests and broadleaf
woodlands in Luang Namtha Province (Figure 1). Elevation ranges from 560m to 2094m (Tizard et al.
1997). The NPA is contiguous with the Shangyong reserve of the Xishuangbanna National Nature
Reserve in southern China. The “core conservation zones” marked in Figure 2 were identified by
Tizard et al. (1997) as having particular importance as wildlife habitat.
Nam Ha NPA is an important component of the Lao protected area system, representing fauna from
the northern geographical subdivision of the country (Ling 1999) and from the sub-tropical transition
zone of central Indochina (MacKinnon and Mackinnon 1986). The northern Indochina sub-tropical
forests have the highest ranking for bird species richness and third highest ranking for mammal
species richness of all eco-regions in the Indo-Pacific (Wikramanake et al. 2002). The Nam Ha NPA
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
6
is the fourth largest protected area in the region (Hedemark 2003) and ranked third nationally in
importance of mammal and bird species richness and endemism (Ling 1999). Over 288 bird species,
at least 37 large mammal species (Tizard et al. 1997) and potentially 22 reptiles
and amphibians (Stuart 2002) are found in Nam Ha NPA. Most of the larger species are listed as
globally threatened or vulnerable (Duckworth et al. 1999).
Figure 1. Location of Nam Ha NPA and district boundaries in Luang Namtha province
Nam Ha has a high human population density relative to other NPAs (Southammakoth and Craig
2001, Tizard et al. 1997). A forest inventory estimated that 68% of Nam Ha NPA has been affected to
some degree by human activity (Hedemark 2003). There are 41 villages inside and on the border of
the NPA whose principle area of natural resource use is within the protected area boundary.
Most villages belong to the Lao Theung and Lao Sung ethnic groups (Ling 1998). Production of hill
rice and livestock constitute the major food sources for most villages, although non-timber forest
products, including wildlife, are reported to be essential food sources in the event of rice and livestock
shortages (Meredith 1997, Phengsopha 2000). Cash incomes are derived from the sale of surplus
rice and livestock. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) become the primary source of cash income
when paddy farming and livestock raising are limited by shortages of suitable land and a high
occurrence of livestock disease (deKoning 2000, Hedemark and Vongsak 2003).
METHODS
From January 2002 to March 2003, surveys were conducted in 24 villages inside and near the
boundary of the NPA (Figure 2). The survey team stayed from 3-5 days in each village with longer
stays required during harvesting season (January-March) when surveys were conducted at night after
villagers returned from their fields.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
7
Survey teams
Surveys were conducted by final-year students from the Faculties of Sciences (FoS) and Forestry
(FoF) at National University of Laos with one student administering the survey while the other
recorded responses. WCS staff trained and supervised students in collaboration with the Nam Ha
Protected Area Management Unit (PAMU). A provincial or district forestry officer (DAFO / PAFO)1
from the PAMU accompanied the survey teams to the village to introduce the team and the purpose of
the survey to the village leaders. Beyond this, the PAMU staff usually did not participate in the
household surveys.
January 23-30, 2002
Survey team training: Dr. Arlyne Johnson (WCS), Mr. Phimkeo Thamalsine
and Mr. Outhai Vongsa (PAMU) and Professor Lau Mua (FoF)
Feb.-March 2002
Sept.-Oct. 2002
Village surveys: Ms. Malaykham Duangdala, Mr. Singkeo
Phommachanh (FoF)
January 6-11, 2003
Survey team training: Dr. Arlyne Johnson and Ms. Malykham Duangdala
(WCS), Mr. Phimkeo Thamlasine and Mr. Outhai Vongsa (PAMU), and
Professor Bounnam Pathoumthong (FoS)
January-March 2003
Village surveys: Mr Noy Phaneinhaune, Mr. Khiengkai Gnokhanthone (FoS)
Figure 2. Location of 24 villages around Nam Ha NPA where hunting surveys were conducted
1
PAFO staff who worked on the project were Mr. Outhai Vongsa and Mr. Songphone Luangluxay. DAFO staff
included Mr. Chukavanh Thammavong (Long District), Mr. Thongsavahn Chanthakomman (Luang Namtha
District, Mr. Ae Saymany (Viengphuka District), and Mr. Somxay Phanthavong (Sing District).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
8
Survey structure
Data was collected at two levels, the village and the household, with the emphasis directed towards
the latter. The general methodology was as follows:
• PAMU staff introduced the team and its purpose to the village headman,
• The team collected information from the village headman on village name, district, the number of
households and residents, and the length of time the village had been in its present location,
• The team conducted land use mapping and local wildlife name exercises with the village
headman and others,
• The village headman introduced the team and its purpose at a village meeting. A list of suitable
households, based on the relative degree of wildlife use, was provided to the survey team.
• The two interviewers conducted the household surveys using a structured, yet flexible,
questionnaire format, to maintain a sense of ease with villagers, particularly when touching on
potentially sensitive issues (DoF/DFRC 2000, Rabinowitz 1997)
Land use mapping
The objective of this exercise was to map the area used by the village for hunting, fishing, and
agriculture. The activity was conducted with the village headman and other interested community
members. Using a standardised participatory rural assessment method (Byers 1996) maps were
drawn on large paper. A village land allocation map was used as a base, if present. If difficult for the
group to work on paper, the map was made on the ground, using stones and sticks to mark
geographic landmarks (rivers, mountains, roads, paddy fields and trails). The mapping activity
generally took from 40-90 minutes.
Local language names of common wildlife
The objective of this activity was to develop a local language list for the common mammals, large
birds and reptiles found in the village area that could be referred to during the household interviews.
The team worked with the headman and elders to list the local names of wildlife known to occur in the
area on a large piece of paper. This list of local names was then crosschecked with picture cards of
animals that would be discussed during the household surveys.
Household survey
The household survey was comprised of 15 multiple-choice, semi-structured and open-ended
questions (see Appendix 1). Interviewers followed a flexible structure and informal interview format.
The standardised wording of the questions in the survey form was utilised as a guide with further
explanation provided if needed.
Eight questions related to hunting, trade and use of wildlife by the household and the village in
general, while seven questions (questions 3-10) were asked in reference to 56 key wildlife, including
29 mammals, 8 reptiles, 1 amphibian and 18 birds (see species list, Appendix 2.1). Animals were
selected according to the following criteria: known to occur in the NPA, previously reported as used
for subsistence or for sale in the province, having conservation and management importance in NPA
(Duckworth et al. 1999, MAF 2001, Tizard et al. 1997), and ease of identification. The list included 25
restricted and 17 controlled species as defined in articles 18 and 19, MAF 0524 (MAF 2001).
The animal-specific questions were asked for each animal in turn. Simultaneously, a single picture
card of each animal was shown to overcome difficulties arising from differences between names of
wildlife in Lao and the local language and to ensure correct identification. Most animals were
identified to species level. Exceptions to this, arising from taxonomic uncertainties, are noted in
Appendix 2.2.
Household selection
The household survey was conducted with a sample of at least 10% of all households from each
village. The selection of households was generally made by the village headman on the basis of
which households were known to utilise wildlife. For the September-October 2002 field session,
households were selected by the interviewers on the basis of a wealth ranking exercise (Marris et al.
2002). House size (small, medium or large) was assumed to be congruent with the wealth rankings of
poor, medium and wealthy and a random sample selected for each of these categories.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
9
Survey process
Each household survey took from 15 –90 minutes to complete, depending on the extent of wildlife
used by the household and their comprehension of survey questions. Surveys were conducted in the
home of each household and began with casual conversation. If respondents expressed signs of
discomfort during the survey, interviewers would break from the survey questions and engage in
general conversation until the respondents were more relaxed. Surveys were conducted in the Lao
language with a local translator organised by the village headman as necessary. This translator was
usually a male villager, most often either the village headman or teacher (depending on the village
headman’s fluency in Lao).
Analysis
The questions were organised into three broad topics, wildlife hunting, wildlife use and wildlife
populations. The animals were classified into 10 groups on the basis of taxon, body size and habitat.
The main analysis summarised the percentage of households that responded positively to any
question or response category as a function of the sample size for each question or animal. The
second method for analysis was comparing and ranking animals in descending order by the
percentage of households responding to a particular question. In order to standardise comparisons
across animals with different sample sizes the total of 320 households was used to derive the
percentages used in the ranking. This represents a conservative interpretation of the data though it
may underestimate trends for uncommon animals with few households responding. Throughout, the
comparison of number of responses regarding use of different animals is taken as a proxy of the
relative frequency of use of each animal and also as an indicator of relative abundance.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
10
RESULTS
Survey villages and households
The 24 villages2 surveyed (Appendix 3) represented 59% (n=41) of villages in and on the border of
the NPA. The average village population was 255 people with an average of 47 households per
village (Figure 3). We conducted surveys in an average of 32% of households per village (Appendix
3).
Figure 3: Total and surveyed number of households in each
village.
140
# households
120
100
# households
80
# households
surveyed
60
40
20
0
Village
The majority of villages surveyed were from the Akha ethnic group(14 villages) followed by Khamu
(3), Mien (3), Hmong (2), Kui (1) and Tai (1) (Table 2). The predominance of Akha in the survey area
is typical of the western section and more remote villages of Nam Ha NPA (Ling 1998, Phiapalath
1999). Children made up 50-60% of the population in the surveyed households indicative of the high
national population growth rate of 2.5% (UNDP 2002).
Table 2: Village and household information by the main ethnic group.
Main ethnic
group
Akha
Khamu
Mien
Hmong
Kui
Tai
Total
# villages
surveyed
% surveyed
villages
#
households
surveyed
% surveyed
households
14
3
3
2
1
1
24
58%
13%
13%
8%
4%
4%
100%
185
60
36
15
12
12
320
58%
19%
11%
5%
4%
4%
100%
Local language names of common wildlife
Common and Lao names were recorded for the 56 key wildlife (Appendix 2.1). Given the differences
between scientific and local taxonomies for wildlife, responses to some animals likely included more
than one species (see Appendix 2.2). As this is a preliminary consideration of wildlife use, we were
more interested in the types of animals (e.g., hard-shell turtles, bats, macaques, bulbuls, etc.) people
were using rather than identifying all to species-specific level. Transliteration of the ethnic names in
2
Villages are referred to by their name only once it has been identified in text or tables as a village
(e.g. Ban Namsa or Namsa village is referred to simply as ‘Namsa’).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
11
Lao language of key wildlife were recorded from all villages. Ethnic names for animals differed
between villages and within ethnic groups. We documented eight variations of Akha names, three in
Khamu and two in Mien languages (Appendices 2.3 and 2.4).
Wildlife Hunting
Seasonal hunting effort
Hunting effort for the majority of animals was reported to be greatest from September-February
(Figures 4.1-4.6). Frogs were an exception to this pattern (Figure 4.7), with harvesting largely in May
and June at the beginning of the rainy season. Other exceptions to this seasonal pattern were likely
due to small sample sizes (i.e. n<10). primarily for larger or reportedly rarer animals.
Figure 4.1: Seasonal hunting for pheasants, patridges & quail
(n=320).
0.2
0.3
0.18
M ountain Bamboo
Part ridge
Ruf ous-t hroat ed
Part ridge
0.14
0.12
Red Junglefowl
0.1
0.08
Silver Pheasant
0.06
Grey-peacock Pheasant
0.04
0.02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Greater Coucal
0.2
Shikra
0.15
Chinese Pond Heron
0.1
Spangled Drongo
0.05
Black-crested Bulbul
Yellow-legged
But tonquail
0
Great Barbet
0.25
% households
0.16
% households
Figure 4.2: Seasonal huntihg for sm all-m edium birds (n=320).
Bar-backed Part ridge
0
1
2
3
4
5
Month
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Months
Figure 4.4: Seasonal hunting for sm all carivores (n=320).
Figure 4.3: Seasonal hunting for large birds (n=320).
0.14
0.14
Oriental Pied Hornbill
M ountain Imperial Pigeon
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
0.06
0.04
Crest ed Serpant Eagle
0.02
% households
% households
0.1
0.08
0.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Hog Badger
0.08
Large Indian Civet
0.06
Common Palm Civet
0.04
M asked Palm Civet
0.02
0
1
Yellow-throated M art en
0.12
0.12
0
12
1
2
3
4
5
Months
6
7
8
9
10
11
Leopard Cat
12
Months
Figure 4.6: Seasonal hunting for rodents (n=320).
Figure 4.5: Seasonal hunting for ungulates (n=320).
0.35
0.14
Wild Pig
Black Giant Squirrel
0.3
Lesser Orient al Chevrot ain
0.1
Sambar Deer
0.08
0.06
Red M untjac
0.04
Southern Serow
% households
% households
0.12
Pallas's Squirrel
0.25
0.2
Red-cheeked Squirrel
0.15
Large Flying Squirrel
0.1
East Asian Porcupine
0.05
0.02
Hoary Bamboo Rat
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Months
Months
Figure 4.7: Seasonal hunting for turtles and frogs (n=320).
0.35
% households
0.3
Big-headed Turtle
0.25
0.2
Indochinese Box Turtle
0.15
Hoplobatrachus
rugulosus
0.1
0.05
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Months
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
12
Across the year, the results of the ranking indicated that the 15 most frequently hunted animals on a
monthly basis were birds, small mammals and frogs less than 2 kg. in size (Table 3). For example,
18% of households reported hunting Red-cheeked Squirrel on a monthly basis throughout the year.
The majority of animals frequently hunted were birds (5 pheasants and partridges, 1 pigeon and 4
small-medium sized birds) and the most common mammals were rodents (squirrels and bamboo
rats).
Table 3: Most frequently hunted wildlife on a monthly basis
(n=320).
Hunting methods
Guns were the most common method
reported for capturing most wildlife,
followed by snares (Figures 5.1-5.9).
We defined ‘snare’ as any technique
that enabled the capture of wildlife
without human intervention at the
actual time of capture. 56% of total
responses for hunting methods across
all animals were guns, followed by
26% for snares, 14% for other and
<1% for bows. Guns were the most
commonly used weapon for capturing
arboreal animals and medium to large
terrestrial wildlife (>2 kg.) Other
methods that were commonly reported
for some animals were slingshots
(small songbirds, e.g., Blackcrested Bulbul), hand collection (hard-shell turtles, frogs, pangolin, bamboo rats), and hitting with a
stick (bats). Bows were only occasionally used for squirrels, some medium-sized mammals and for
birds.
Relative frequency of hunting
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Pallas's Squirrel
Black-crested Bulbul
Hoary Bamboo Rat
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Bar-backed Partridge
Spangled Drongo
Great Barbet
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
Silver Pheasant
Rufous-throated Partridge
Red Junglefowl
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Greater Coucal
% responses
18%
17%
16%
12%
12%
10%
9%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
Results of the ranking between animals ever reported by households indicated that the animals most
frequently hunted with guns were primarily small arboreal mammals and birds (squirrels, pigeons, and
songbirds) and a few terrestrial mammals larger than 3 kg. in size (civets, muntjac and pig) (Table 4).
The animals most commonly collected with snares were primarily terrestrial mammals and birds.
Table 4: Animals most frequently reported to be hunted with guns and snares (n = 320).
Animals most frequently
hunted with guns
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Pallas's Squirrel
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
Great Barbet
Black-crested Bulbul
Spangled Drongo
Red Muntjac
Red Junglefowl
Common Palm Civet
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
Silver Pheasant
Masked Palm Civet
Wild Pig
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Black Giant Squirrel
% households
54%
53%
41%
38%
35%
32%
28%
25%
25%
25%
23%
19%
18%
17%
17%
Animals most frequently
hunted with snares
% households
Bar-backed Partridge
Rufous-throated Partridge
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Red Junglefowl
Silver Pheasant
Black-crested Bulbul
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
Greater Coucal
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Spangled Drongo
Hog Badger
East Asian Porcupine
Great Barbet
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
42%
25%
24%
23%
19%
18%
17%
16%
15%
12%
12%
7%
9%
7%
7%
13
Figure 5. Hunting methods used for capturing wildlife (n = number of households who
reported hunting for each animal). Methods include guns (G), bows (B), snares (S), and other
(O). For each animal, the sample size (n) equals the number of households responding.
Figure 5.1: Hunting m ethod: pheasants, partridges & quails.
Figure 5.2: Hunting m ethods for sm all-m edium birds.
100%
100%
90%
70%
179
127
25
114
118
O
106
44
60%
% households
% households
132
90%
80%
S
B
50%
G
40%
30%
20%
10%
128
80%
212
18
79
70%
O
60%
S
50%
B
40%
G
30%
34
20%
10%
0%
0%
Great Barbet
Great er
Coucal
Shikra
Chinese Pond
Heron
Spangled
Drongo
Black-crest ed
Bulbul
Anim al
Anim al
Figure 5.4: Hunting m ethods for snakes and lizards.
Figure 5.3: Hunting m ethods for large birds.
100%
100%
80%
70%
% households
% households
90%
O
60%
50%
76
17
40%
S
19
139
B
G
30%
20%
10%
0%
Orient al Pied Hornbill
M ountain Imperial
Pigeon
Thick-billed Green
Pigeon
80%
O
60%
S
B
40%
14
20%
G
13
13
0%
Crested Serpant
Eagle
King Cobra
Wat er M onitor
Bengal M onit or
Anim al
Anim al
Figure 5.6: Hunting m ethods for other m am m als.
Figure 5.5: Hunting m ethods for turtles and frogs.
100%
100%
80%
% households
% households
90%
70%
60%
38
38
50%
O
98
S
40%
B
30%
G
20%
10%
80%
47
O
60%
10
15
G
20%
0%
Pangolin
Big-headed Turt le
Indochinese Box Turt le
Hoplobat rachus rugulosus
Short -nosed Fruit
Bat
Anim al
Slow Loris
Pig-t ailed M acaque
Anim al
Figure 5.8: Hunting m ethods for ungulates.
Figure 5.7: Hunting m ethods for sm all carivores.
100%
100%
80%
% households
% households
B
40%
0%
O
60%
S
B
40%
20%
S
27
47
14
14
85
62
22
G
80%
O
60%
14
40%
90
S
10
B
G
20%
57
106
0%
Yellowt hroat ed
M arten
Hog Badger
Large Indian
Civet
Common
Palm Civet
M asked Palm Leopard Cat
Civet
0%
Wild Pig
Anim al
Lesser Oriental
Chevrot ain
Sambar Deer
Red M unt jac
Sout hern Serow
Anim al
Figure 5.9: Hunting m ethods for rodents.
% households
100%
80%
60%
O
57
213
227
50
164
S
B
40%
G
65
20%
0%
Black Giant
Squirrel
Pallas's
Squirrel
Red-cheeked
Squirrel
Large Flying
Squirrel
East Asian
Porcupine
Hoary
Bamboo Rat
Anim al
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
14
Hunters from outside of the village
% households
40% of households (n=320) reported that outsiders come to hunt in their village area. Households in
villages farther away from a main road (especially Nambo, Phinho, and Namkhong villages), reported
more
outsiders
Figure 6: Hunting in village area by outsiders as a function of
coming to hunt in the
distance of village from a m ain road (n=320).
village area (Figure
6). One interviewer
100%
noted that villages
90%
100
P resent
79
farther from roads are
80%
141
A bsent
often thought to have
70%
60%
more wildlife than
50%
more
accessible
40%
villages. Under this
30%
assumption,
it
is
20%
possible
that
new
10%
roads to previously
0%
0-1 km
<1-5 km
>5-15 km
inaccessible forests
do initially attract
Distance from m ain road (km )
more outside hunters.
Hunting areas
Most households responded that they usually hunt near their hill-rice fields (often guns were kept in
the fields) and less so in forested areas away from fields (Appendix 4). Responses indicated that this
was because it was more difficult to access forested areas and not because the animals were not
there. When hunting larger animals, hunters reported they would go to forested areas. More hunting
was reported near hill-rice fields than paddy fields, which is likely due to larger areas of forest
remaining in close proximity to hill-rice fields as compared to paddy fields.
Wildlife Use
General
Average # of times eaten
Across villages, households (n=317) reported eating some type of meat or fish an average of 6.7
times in the week prior to
Figure 7: Average m eat consum ption in the w eek prior to the
the survey (Figure 7). On
survey (n =317 households).
average,
wildlife
was
reported eaten 1.9 times
10
in the previous week while
9
fish was eaten 1.95 times.
12
8
Wildlife
Wildlife and fish made up
7
185
Fish
an average of 66% of
6
55
36
Do mestic
15
5
occurrences
of
meat
4
consumed
during
the
3
week by all ethnic groups
2
14
other than the Mien who
1
reported
consuming
0
Akha
Hmong
Khamu
Kui
Tai
M ien
domestic meat relatively
more
frequently.
The
Ethnic group
quantity
of
meat
consumed
was
not
recorded. Interviewers observed that relatively small amounts of meat were consumed per individual
per meal but that meat was often present. It is important to note that this data was collected from
January-March and September-October, which were also reported as peak hunting periods (Figure 4).
Across all households (n=317), there was an expressed preference for domestic meat (42%) followed
by wildlife (34%) and then fish (24%). Across ethnic groups, the Akha were unique in that slightly
more households reported a preference for wildlife to domestic meat (Figure 8).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
15
Figure 8: Most preferred type of m eat by ethnic group (n =
317 households).
80
185
# responses
70
60
Wildlife
50
Do mestic meat
40
Fish
30
55
36
20
14
15
10
12
0
Akha
Hmong
Khamu
Kui
Tai
M ien
Ethnic group
Animal-specific
The majority (73%) of the 55 animals were reported eaten by at least one household (Appendix 5).
The ranking of animals most frequently eaten on a monthly basis indicated that a smaller subset of
animals including small songbirds, rodents, frogs, pheasants and partridges made up the bulk of
wildlife consumed (Table 5).
Table 5: Wildlife most commonly eaten at least once a month (n=320).
Species
Black-crested Bulbul
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Pallas's Squirrel
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Bar-backed Partridge
Spangled Drongo
Great Barbet
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
Rufous-throated Partridge
Hoary Bamboo Rat
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Silver Pheasant
Red Junglefowl
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Common Palm Civet
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Greater Coucal
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
Black Giant Squirrel
% households
57%
54%
51%
49%
38%
35%
31%
29%
21%
20%
15%
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
9%
8%
6%
5%
Medicine
Twenty-one (38%) of the animals were reported as used for medicine by at least one household, of
which eight are listed as restricted species in MAF 0524 (Table 6). Animals that were most frequently
used as medicine if captured included Southern Serow, Slow Loris and Pangolin, similarly reported
elsewhere as being important for medicinal use (Nooren and Claridge 2001, Tungittiplakorn and
Dearden 2002). Four rarer animals (Burmese Python, Clouded Leopard, Asian Golden Cat, and
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon) were also used for medicine although less than four
households reported using these animals for any purpose.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
16
Table 6: Wildlife most frequently used as medicine (n= # respondents, removed
species with n<10).
Status
Animal
n
% households MAF 0524
Southern Serow
10
90%
R
Slow Loris
10
30%
C
Pangolin
15
20%
R
East Asian Porcupine
65
17%
C
Pig-tailed Macaque
27
11%
C
Large Flying Squirrel
50
8%
R
Large Indian Civet
14
7%
Sambar Deer
14
7%
R
Wild Pig
57
7%
C
Crested Serpant Eagle
19
5%
R
Leopard Cat
22
5%
Silver Pheasant
114
4%
R
Red Junglefowl
118
3%
C
Big-headed Turtle
38
3%
Red Muntjac
90
2%
C
Masked Palm Civet
62
2%
R
Grey-peacock Pheasant
106
1%
R
Sale
Local sale prices were obtained for 42 animals (76% of the animals on the checklist), indicating that
the majority of wildlife are sold at some time (Table 7). Sale prices were reported for 78% of
mammals, 93% of birds, and 78% of herpetiles. Average prices ranged from a maximum of 462,500K
for a Pangolin to a minimum of 700K for a
Table 8: Wildlife most frequently sold on monthly basis Spangled Drongo. There appeared to be a
(n = 320).
general correspondence between price and
Animal
% households
the known value of the animal (e.g.
Pallas's Squirrel
7%
Pangolins expensive due to medicinal use)
Red-cheeked Squirrel
7%
as well as body size. The average price per
Great Barbet
4%
kilo across all animals was less variable,
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
3%
with the majority of animals falling between
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
3%
10,000-15,000K/kilo except for the more
Bar-backed Partridge
3%
expensive Pangolin (50,000K/kilo) and
Grey-peacock Pheasant
3%
cheaper
Lesser
Oriental
Chevrotain
Rufous-throated Partridge
2%
(6,000K/kilo).
Silver Pheasant
Common Palm Civet
Red Junglefowl
Black-crested Bulbul
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Black Giant Squirrel
Hoary Bamboo Rat
Masked Palm Civet
Red Muntjac
Large Flying Squirrel
Spangled Drongo
Slow Loris
Water Monitor
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Pig-tailed Macaque
Yellow-throated Marten
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Averaging across all values given in price
per individual, the average price for animals
that were used as medicine was higher
(62,700K) than the average price for animals
not used for medicine (13,000K).
The
corresponding prices for animals per kilo
were 18,300K for medicinal animals
compared to 11,000K for non-medicinal
animals. Animals used for medicine as well
as consumption were generally more
expensive than animals used purely for
consumption.
Although the majority of animals were sold
sometimes, the vast majority of households
did not contribute information on the
frequency of wildlife sale. This is likely because it is known that sale is illegal. Rodents and birds
made up 87% of animals most frequently sold on a monthly basis (Table 8). The percentage of
households reporting sale of particular animals is still very low due to the low number of responses.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
17
Animal
Pallas's Squirrel
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Red Muntjac
Wild Pig
Great Barbet
Silver Pheasant
Hoary Bamboo Rat
Common Palm Civet
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
Red Junglefowl
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
Bar-backed Partridge
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Spangled Drongo
Pangolin
Large Flying Squirrel
Rufuous-throated Partridge
Masked Palm Civet
Black Giant Squirrel
Indochinese Box Turtle
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Water Monitor
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Pig-tailed Macaque
Black-crested Bulbul
Sambar Deer
Yellow-throated Marten
Leopard Cat
Slow Loris
Southern Serow
Asiatic Softshell Turtle
Bengal Monitor
Large Indian Civet
King Cobra
Oriental Pied Hornbill
East Asian Porcupine
Greater Coucal
Mountain Bamboo Partridge
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
Shikra
Burmese Python
Table 7: Average price of wildlife sold.
Kip per
Kip per
individual
n
kilo
4,485
33
3,269
26
0
13,913
0
15,450
4,079
19
23,111
18
6,500
18
24,688
16
10,000
30,867
15
6,000
12,000
16
14,607
14
8,692
13
5,154
13
11,000
11
700
10
462,500
8
50,000
12,222
9
5,111
9
27,000
8
21,857
7
15,000
19,813
8
714
7
20,000
4
10,000
1,000
1
10,000
35,000
2
9850
1,375
4
0
13,250
21,667
3
16,000
3
5,667
3
0
10,667
90,000
1
15,000
14,500
2
13,000
2
10,500
2
6,500
2
70,000
1
15,000
8,000
1
7,000
1
6,500
1
3,000
1
0
10,000
n
0
0
23
20
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
2
0
4
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
%
households
10%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Ranking relative to the sample size of each type of animal rather than the total sample size, gave an
indication of what was being commonly sold relative to its abundance. Seven animals (Slow Loris,
Water Monitor, Southern Serow, Large Flying Squirrel, Pig-tailed Macaque, King Cobra and Large
Indian Civet) were sold often relative to the frequency of their use (i.e. when they are caught it was
more likely that they would be sold as compared to other animals).
Trade in wildlife was directed to sale in the local area, with 97% of reported sales being to people from
Luang Namtha Province (Figure 9), of which 35% were to people in the same village. The total
number of responses to this question (n = 73) is considerably less than the total sample size
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
18
% households
(n = 320), and may reflect the sensitivity of the issue of wildlife trade more so than the actual
percentage of households that
Figure 9: Who w ildlife is sold to (n = 73).
engage in sale of wildlife.
40%
31% of households reported
35%
that outsiders (people who do
30%
not live in their village) come
25%
to their village to buy wildlife
20%
(Figure 10).
While it is
15%
possible that wildlife may be
10%
sold again and result in
5%
connections with larger wildlife
trade routes, the actual
0%
Other villages
Same village
Luang Namtha t own Outside Luang Namtha
contacts for sale from villages
Province
in and around the NPA seem
Where buyers of w ildlife are from
to be predominantly local.
Figure 10: Presence of outsiders com ing to buy w ildlife
(n = 320).
80%
% households
70%
221
60%
50%
40%
30%
99
20%
10%
0%
Present
Absent
Outsiders com ing to buy w ildlife in village
Wildlife Populations
Animal Abundance
Household assessment of decline in animals numbers was largely consistent with the threat status
assigned to animals both nationally and globally. The ranking exercise indicated that animals listed in
Duckworth et al. (1999) under various categories of risk in Lao PDR were more commonly reported by
households to be decreasing in abundance (Table 9) or were not reported at all in household surveys
(0% of households in Table 9). Likewise, most animals reported by less than 5% of households to be
decreasing in abundance are not identified as being at risk in Lao PDR or as globally threatened.
The only exception to this was that less than 1% of households felt that Big-headed Turtle are in
decline despite being listed as at risk in Lao PDR (ARL).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
19
Table 9: Wildlife most commonly reported as decreasing in abundance (n=320)
Animal
Status
Lao PDR risk Global threat
%
MAF 0524
category
status
households
Reticulated Python
PARL
Burmese Python
PARL
Asiatic Softshell Turtle
PARL
Clouded Leopard
ARL
Asian Golden Cat
LKL
Tiger
ARL
Smooth-coated Otter
ARL
Pig-tailed Macaque
PARL
Water Monitor
PARL
King Cobra
PARL
Oriental Pied Hornbill
Pangolin
ARL
Leopard Cat
Hog Badger
LKL
Crested Serpant Eagle
Chinese Pond Heron
Southern Serow
PARL
Indochinese Box Turtle
ARL
Large Flying Squirrel
Black Giant Squirrel
PARL
Sambar Deer
PARL
East Asian Porcupine
NARL
Bengal Monitor
PARL
Shikra
Mountain Bamboo Partridge
Large Indian Civet
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
Greater Coucal
Masked Palm Civet
Silver Pheasant
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
Grey-peacock Pheasant
Hoary Bamboo Rat
Red Junglefowl
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Red Muntjac
Wild Pig
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
Great Barbet
Spangled Drongo
Common Palm Civet
Pallas's Squirrel
Rufous-throated Partridge
Bar-backed Partridge
Red-cheeked Squirrel
Slow Loris
LKL
Black-crested Bulbul
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Yellow-throated Marten
Big-headed Turtle
ARL
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbo ARL/PARL
Asiatic Black Bear
ARL
Sun Bear
ARL
Gaur
ARL
GNT
GT-VU
GT-VU
GNT
GT-EN
GT-VU
GT-VU
GNT
GT-VU
GNT
GT-VU
DD
GT-EN / DD
GT-VU
DD
GT-VU
13%
10%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
R
R
R
Lao PDR risk status' (ARL = At Risk
in Lao PDR; PARL =Potentially at
Risk in Lao PDR; LKL = Little
Known in Lao PDR; NARL = Not at
Risk in Lao) and 'Global threat
status' (GT-EN = Globally
Threatened - Endangered; GT-VU =
Globally Threatened - Vulnerable;
GNT = Globally Near-Threatened;
DD = Data Deficient) from
Duckworth et al. (1999).
R
R
R
R
C
R
C
C
R
C
R
R
R
R
R
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
R
R
R
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
20
The majority of households (65%) identified decreases in animal abundance as a problem (Figure 11).
Of those reporting a problem, 41% further explained that wildlife declines were problematic because
of impacts on livelihoods (food and income). A majority of households suggested that stricter control
of hunting is needed to resolve the problem (Figure 12).
Figure 11: Changes in w ildlife abundance seen as a
problem or not.
250
# responses
200
P ro blem
No pro blem
150
100
50
0
Decreasing
Increasing
Only 32% of responses
indicated a problem with
wildlife
increasing
in
abundance
(Figure
11)
because of damage to crops
and livestock. In contrast,
the majority of households
(69%) felt that an increase in
animal abundance was not a
problem, while 35% of these
specifically mentioned the
use of these animals for food
as the reason why increases
were a positive thing.
Changes in w ildlife abundance
Figure 12: Suggestions from villagers of w hat to do about the problem
of w ildlife declines (n=280).
160
140
# responses
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Stop/Cont rol hunting
Improve agriculture
Protect f orests
Follow
laws/Conservation
Don't Know
Suggestion
Human-Animal Conflict
Figure 13: Problems with wildlife.
70%
% households
60%
50%
280
40%
30%
159
20%
10%
3
0%
Raiding crops
Killing domestic animals
Problems with wildlife
Hurting or killing people
The majority of households
(88%) reported problems
with raiding of crops by
wildlife, while 50% reported
problems with wildlife killing
of domestic animals, and
less than 1% reported harm
to people from wildlife
(Figure 13).
The most
common
responses
of
people to these problems
were to 1) guard fields, 2)
shoot or snare problem
animals, or 3) make farm
improvements to reduce the
problem.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
21
Comparison of Wildlife Hunting and Use
Table 10 compares the relative frequency of wildlife hunting and use across animals. An arbitrary cutoff of the ‘top 15’ animals with the highest percentage of household responses to several survey
questions was selected for comparison.
The 15 most frequently hunted animals from those surveyed included ten birds, four mammals, and
one amphibian (Table 10). Three of these are birds (two pheasants and the coucal) that are restricted
species for which hunting is legally prohibited in Lao PDR under MAF 0524 (Table 1). Nine of the
most frequently hunted animals were also among the top 15 animals most frequently hunted with
guns, while 11 were among those reported to be most frequently hunted with snares. Seven animals
(primarily songbirds, pheasants, and partridges) were also those frequently hunted with both guns and
snares.
Animals that are most frequently hunted are also primarily those that are reported to be most
frequently eaten and most frequently sold. Exceptions to this were coucals that may be hunted for
enjoyment more so than consumption. Likewise, frogs (Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) were frequently
eaten but not commonly sold, suggesting that they may be relatively more important as a food item
during the wet season when other animals are not hunted as much.
Table 10: Most frequently used wildlife.
Wildlife most frequently hunted
1. Red-cheeked Squirrel
2. Pallas's Squirrel
3. Black-crested Bulbul
4. Hoary Bamboo Rat
5. Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
6. Bar-backed Partridge
7. Spangled Drongo
8. Great Barbet
9. Thick-billed Green Pigeon
10. Silver Pheasant
11. Rufous-throated Partridge
12. Red Junglefowl
13. Grey-peacock Pheasant
14. Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
15. Greater Coucal
Frequently
hunted with
guns
Frequently
hunted with
snares
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Used as
medicine
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Frequently
sold
Frequently
eaten
Status
MAF 0524
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
R
C
C
R
C
R
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Few of the commonly hunted animals were reported as being used for medicine. Exceptions were the
pheasants and none of these were reported as being widely used for medicine (i.e. < 10 households
reporting their use). In general, animals used for medicine were less frequently hunted but among the
most valuable for trade.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
22
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This study found that a wide variety of animals are hunted and used for food and medicine by villages
in the NPA management zone. Hunting appears largely opportunistic, occurring in forested areas
near hill rice fields with the majority of hunting effort coinciding with periods of hill rice field preparation
and harvest. Wildlife trade from villages and hunting by outsiders also occurs, thus contributing to the
decline of controlled species that are important for food and restricted species that are already rare
and in decline. Of immediate concern to both rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation is that
the most frequently used animals are small-bodied (<2 kg. in size) while the majority of large-bodied
mammals and birds, and all reptiles, were more frequently reported as decreasing in abundance. The
majority of households felt that decline in wildlife abundance is a problem and that more effective
controls on hunting are needed. The trend towards consumption of small-bodied animals and decline
in larger animals resembles that reported over ten years ago from similar habitats and cultures in
neighboring northern Thailand (Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002). Today, several of the larger
mammals and birds that were in decline are now extirpated (e.g, large and medium cats, Sambar
Deer, Southern Serow, most primates, hornbills) from these northern Thailand sites and people
report eating largely squirrels and animals that were previously undesired for consumption (e.g.,
snakes and turtles). To arrest the decline of larger animals in the Nam Ha NPA and assure the
availability of wild meat for rural livelihoods of NPA villages in the future, several management actions
are recommended.
Use of restricted and controlled species
Several animals listed as restricted in MAF 0524 (MAF 2001) were reported used for food, medicine
and trade. Of the 25 restricted animals included in the survey, 11 (44%) were reported as eaten at
least once a month. Eight (33%) were among those most frequently used for medicine. Three
animals (two pheasants and a coucal) were among the top 15 most frequently hunted animals,
although it is important to note that these three were also less commonly reported as decreasing in
abundance as compared to other restricted species and those listed as at risk in Lao PDR
(Duckworth, et. al. 1999).
Of the 17 controlled species on the list, ten were among the most frequently hunted wildlife, all 17
were reported as eaten at least once a month, and six (35%) were among those most frequently used
for medicine.
Management recommendations
•
More enforcement is needed in both urban centers and villages around the Nam Ha NPA to stop
hunting and use of animals listed as restricted species, which are also under some degree of risk
in Lao PDR or globally threatened, and that were commonly reported as decreasing in abundance
in this study. These animals included pangolin, large cats, otters, Sambar Deer, Southern Serow,
hornbills, pythons and King Cobra.
•
Some animals that are currently listed as controlled species were also more commonly reported
as decreasing in abundance in this study, and are also listed as being at some degree of risk in
Lao PDR or globally threatened. These include Pig-tailed Macaque, Black Giant Squirrel, East
Asian Porcupine and Bengal and Water Monitors. Given their reported use and potential decline
in the Nam Ha NPA, these animals may not be able to withstand continued harvest. Their
designation as controlled species open for harvest in the NPA should be reconsidered.
•
Several animals currently listed as restricted species, but which are not listed as being under
some degree of risk or globally threatened, were less commonly reported to be decreasing in
abundance and were commonly hunted for food or medicine in this study. These included
Masked Palm Civet, Silver Pheasant, Grey-peacock Pheasant, Mountain Imperial Pigeon, and
Greater Coucal. Given their reported use by villages and potential abundance in the Nam Ha
NPA, the status of these animals should be evaluated and their listing as restricted reviewed to
determine if some degree of harvest for village subsistence could be permitted without
threatening the viability of their populations in the NPA.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
23
•
Currently no guidelines exist for government staff or villages to know if harvest of controlled
species is within the limits of sustainability. To determine sustainability, ongoing information is
needed on the actual abundance, harvest and use of controlled as well as other heavily utilised
animals in the NPA. A priority for research and monitoring is information on the status and use of
the larger frequently hunted animals including the pheasants, partridges, pigeons, civets, and
small ungulates. This information should be used to design and adapt village wildlife
management plans that will assure population viability and availability of these animals as a food
source for the future.
•
Of the 55 animals included in the survey, 14 animals were neither listed as restricted or controlled
species by MAF 0524. Unlisted animals that were commonly reported as frequently used or as
declining in abundance by this study should be assessed and classified for management. Of
priority among these are all turtles as well as recommendations for harvest of small carnivores
(Leopard cat, Yellow-throated Marten, Large Indian Civet, Common Palm Civet), frogs, herons,
and small songbirds.
Managing hunting by NPA villages
Hunting seasons and zones
Hunting pressure for most animals was reported as being highest from September – March. These
months coincide with the period prior to upland rice harvest when food shortages occur (SeptemberOctober), months when farmers are in the fields harvesting hill rice (October –December), and a
period of free time (December –February) prior to cutting forest (February-March) for new hill rice
plots (NAFRI 2003); and data from this study). Hunting in September and October, and for frogs in
May and June, is outside of the six-month period (November-April) when hunting is legally permitted
under MAF 0524 (MAF 2001).
Given the opportunistic nature of hunting and the reported use of wildlife for food and medicine, it will
likely be difficult and unrealistic to stop villages from hunting frequently used controlled and
uncontrolled species during the prohibited hunting season, especially during September and October
in periods of rice shortages. Even if domestic livestock are available for consumption at this time,
villagers may still elect to hunt wildlife and reserve domestic animals for sale at a later date when cash
is needed to buy rice or other goods. Given that the majority of the villages surveyed are from the
Akha ethnic group, who actually indicated a slight preference for wild over domestic meat, they will
very likely hunt even when domestic animals are available unless hunting regulations can be enforced
by local authorities.
Management recommendations
•
Given the potential importance of some common animals (small squirrels, bamboo rats, bulbuls)
for food security, it may be more realistic to limit the use of controlled and uncontrolled species by
geographic location rather than by season. This could allow for some degree of harvest of
common animals by villages in NPA management zone throughout the year while increasing
efforts to strictly enforce bans on hunting of all animals within the demarcated NPA core zone.
Hunting of restricted species needs to be enforced at all times in all areas.
•
NPA core zones are not completely demarcated or understood by people living in or around the
NPA. Some villages are physically inside or have land allocated within the NPA core zone. If
zones are to be useful in managing hunting, several actions are recommended. Core zones, i)
need to be of sufficient size to harbor viable populations of most species the NPA aims to
manage, ii) the core zone boundaries should be thoroughly marked and mapped to lie outside of
village use areas, iii) education is needed to inform both the rural and urban public of the location
and complete protection of the core zone, and iv) regular education / enforcement patrols done by
joint village/NPA patrol teams to ensure that no hunting takes place in the core zones.
•
The role of wildlife in rural food security in Lao is not well documented or understood. Recent
nutritional studies from some villages in Xekong and Salavan provinces (Clendon 2001, Krahn
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
24
2003) suggest that wild meat still plays a critical role in providing for balanced rural diets. More
detailed information on the type, frequency and quantities of wild meat consumed in villages
relative to other sources of protein needs to be collected and results used to guide wildlife
management strategies in the NPA.
Hunting methods
Despite ongoing gun collections in NPA villages over the years, guns were still reported to be the
most common hunting method and were prominent in the capture of larger, rare animals that were
more often reported as declining. Guns in NPA villages include an array of unregistered homemade
muskets as well as semi-authomatic AK 47s issued to village militia. As in other locations in Lao,
government issued, factory-manufactured cartridges for the village miliatia weapons are altered to
change the solid lead bullet to lead shot, and are reloaded and reused (Hansel, manuscript in prep.).
In addition to guns, a wide variety of specialised snares are employed for hunting ground birds,
terrestrial and volant mammals (see snare descriptions in Johnson and Phirasack 2002).
Management recommendations
•
•
•
•
Gun collections should be continued and their frequency increased to eliminate the use of
firearms in the NPA. Gun control will likely not threaten village food security since the majority of
the most frequently eaten animals reported in this study were also captured with snares or by
other methods. Efforts should be prioritised to target villages that are actively selling animals or
that report outsiders hunting as these are the most immediate threats to both rural livelihoods and
biodiversity conservation. It is not clear if outsiders bring their own firearms or secure them in the
village. Stonger enforcement effort should aim to confiscate guns from anyone at any time in the
NPA.
The use of village militia weapons for hunting was not investigated by this study but very likely
pose a greater threat than muskets since they are more effective for harvest of larger, rare
animals and for hunting of small animals when reloaded with lead shot (Hansel, manuscript in
prep.). Closer management of village militia weapons and ammunition is critical to assure that
they are not used for hunting in the NPA.
Frequency of use of snares suggest that gun collections alone will not limit the extent of hunting of
many animals (especially of terrestrial birds and mammals). It is possible that use of snares will
increase if guns are effectively limited. Therefore, strict delineation and enforcement of the core
zone protection areas where hunting is prohibited will be critical to assure effective refuges for
animal production.
A concern with snares is that they do not discriminate in prey selection and will inadvertently trap
rare and restricted species in the NPA management zone. Hunting with common snares, such as
long fence line noose snares (called “heo pan”) or log drop snares (called “heo tham”), should be
evaluated to identify frequency of types of animals caught to determine how large a problem this
is. Likewise, types of snares that are permitted for use should be reviewed to determine what
snares likely pose a threat to restricted species and species under some degree of risk in Lao
PDR. For example, specialised snares to capture bears (called “heo mii”) or trip wire spear or
gun traps (called “heo hao”) to kill large mammals should be prohibited. Since the latter could as
easily injure a human as a large mammal, their use also poses a threat to NPA visitors.
Managing illegal hunting by outsiders and wildlife trade
Hunting by outsiders
Despite village land allocation in the NPA management zone and regulations that limit hunting in
NPAs to only village residents, a large number of households surveyed (40%) reported hunting by
outsiders in their village areas. Hence, the extent of wildlife harvest recorded in our village’s surveys
represents only a portion of the total wildlife harvest in these areas of the NPA.
This is a
management concern for several reasons. First, harvest by outsiders directly violates national
policies for poverty alleviation by extracting controlled species that are designated for sustainable use
as food for NPA village residents in the management zone. Secondly, it contributes to the decline of
animals that are already over harvested making sustainable use more difficult and unlikely to achieve.
Finally, illegal hunting of restricted species reduces animal populations that are already rare and that
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
25
include unique animals with potentially high long-term economic value as attractions for nature-based
tourism in the NPA (e.g., large mammals and birds such as primates, hornbills, etc.), one of the
important industries in the province.
The data from this study suggest that new roads and tracks pushed into previously inaccessible
regions of the NPA facilitate access for outsiders to hunt (and buy) wildlife in the NPA. Elsewhere in
Lao PDR, roads are associated with increased sale and eventual decline of NTFPs, tending to have
greater negative impacts on families that are already poor and underprivileged (Chamberlain et al.
2002). Given that 67% of the NPA is already fragmented by human use (Hedemark 2003) and is
bordered by major roads on all boundaries, creating more access for motorized traffic to enter the
NPA invites outside hunting into the final frontiers of the protected area. This makes it less likely that
NPA staff and villagers will be able to effectively enforce existing regulations to control wildlife harvest.
Management recommendations
•
•
•
•
Block and or effectively control access by outside motorized travel (trucks and motorbikes) to the
interior of the NPA along existing roads and tracks. Functional road checkpoints are needed on
existing main roads in the NPA from Luang Namtha to Muang Sing and where the Route 3
Northern Economic Corridor upgrade enters and departs the NPA. Training and ongoing support
for customs, police, and NPA staff to operate the checkpoints is needed. Smaller tracks entering
the NPA, to Namkhong in the north and from Viengphukka to Muang Long in the west, also
require controls of some sort to restrict or inspect outside traffic.
Do not construct any more new roads and tracks in the NPA.
Expand efforts to educate all people (through signing and mass media) in the province about the
location and boundaries of the NPA, as well as who has rights to legally hunt in the NPA
management zone.
Strictly enforce the ban on hunting by outsiders in the NPA as stated in MAF 0524.
Wildlife trade
This majority of animals included in this study were traded to some degree. Given the illegality of
trade and reluctance of households to discuss trade, what is reported likely represents a very
conservative estimate of the scale and extent of trade. The problems with trade are similar to those
already reported for outsiders hunting in the NPA (see previous section). Trade of common animals
(87% of animals sold in this study) limits that which is available for consumption and village food
security in the NPA and reduces the likelihood of ever achieving sustainability of wildlife use. Trade of
rarer restricted species threatens the viability of populations that were frequently reported to be in
decline and increases the likelihood that these species will be extirpated from the NPA as they have
been under similar conditions in northern Thailand (Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002).
Management recommendations
•
See recommendations from the previous section on hunting by outsiders (see above) to control
or restrict access to the NPA, which are also relevant to stopping wildlife trade.
•
Expand efforts to educate the public that buying of wildlife is counter to government policies for
poverty alleviation and threatens both rural livelihoods and the viability of the nature-based
tourism industry in the province. Aim the education campaign at urban populations with
disposable income and dispense information at wildlife markets and at road check points.
•
Increase the frequency of enforcement in urban markets and road checkpoints to stop sale of all
animals. Although often thought of as harmless, results from this study suggest that sale of
common animals (squirrels, bamboo rats, pheasants, partridges and songbirds) reduces the size
of animal populations that are likely most important for village consumption.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
26
REFERENCES
Byers, B. A. 1996. Understanding and influencing behaviors in conservation and natural resources
management. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.
Chamberlain, J., P. Phomsombath, and V. Thantavong. 2002. The impact on poverty of rural roads in
Louang Prabang and Khammouane provinces under LSRSP 1. Pages 20 + appendices.
SIDA, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Clendon, K. 2001. The role of forest food resources in village livelihood systems: a study of three
villages in Salavan Province. Pages 39. IUCN, Vientiane.
deKoning, M. 2000. Feasibility study for the promotion of non-timber forest products. Nam Ha NBCA
Management Unit, Forestry Section, PAFO / German Development Service, Luang Namtha.
DoF/DFRC. 2000. A managers' guide to protected area management in Lao PDR. Pages 173. Lao
Swedish Forestry Programme and IUCN-Lao PDR, Vientiane.
Duckworth, J. W., R. E. Salter, and K. Khounboline. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: the 1999 status report.
IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Wildlife Conservation Society/Centre for Protected
Areas and Watershed Management, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Foppes, J., T. Saypaseuth, K. Sengkeo, and S. Chantilat. 1997. The use of non-timber forest products
on the Nakai Plateau. Pages 1-79. IUCN, Vientiane.
Hansel, T. Manuscript in preparation. Observations on Subsistence Hunting along the Phu Yai
Mountain Range, Xanakham District, Vientiane Province, Lao PDR.
Hedemark, M. 2003. Forest survey of the Nam Ha National Protected Area: results of GIS and field
activities completed in March 2002. Pages 43. Wildlife Conservation Society, Vientiane.
Hedemark, M., and U. Vongsak. 2003. Wildlife survey of the Nam Ha National Protected Area:
wildlife observation from 4 areas of the Nam Ha National Protected Area in March 2002.
Pages 43. Wildlife Conservation Society - Lao Program, Vientiane.
Johnson, A. 2000. Use of a conceptual model and threat assessment to design and monitor
effectiveness of the Nam Ha National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Lao PDR. Pages 356364 in A. Galt, T. Sigaty, and M. Vinton, eds. The World Commission on Protected Areas,
2cnd Southeast Asia Regional Forum. IUCN Lao PDR, Pakse, Lao PDR.
Johnson, A., and S. Phirasack. 2002. Wildlife and threat monitoring and patrolling in the Nam Ha
National Protected Area: A report on a WCS training for the Nam Ha Protected Area
Management Unit, Luang Namtha Province. Pages 35. Wildlife Conservation Society,
Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Krahn, J. 2003. Cooking up dietary change in Lao upland kitchens. UNDP, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Ling, S. 1998. Luang Namtha community-based conservation project: summary of village data
collected in Luang Namtha province (1996-1998). Wildlife Conservation Society, Luang
Namtha.
Ling, S. 1999. A biological system of prioritisation for protected areas in the Lao PDR. CPAWM /
Wildlife Conservation Society Cooperative Program, Department of Forestry, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
MacKinnon, J. R., and K. Mackinnon. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the IndoMalayan realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
MAF. 2001. Regulation on the management of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCAs),
aquatic animals and wildlife. No. 0524/AF.2001. Pages 18. Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Vientiane.
Marris, G., M. Hedemark, A. Johnson, and C. Vongkhamheng. 2002. Environmental baseline study of
the route 3 upgrade through the Nam Ha National Protected Area. Pages 1-97. Wildlife
Conservation Society-Lao Program, Vientiane.
Meredith, M. E. 1997. Wildlife and conservation in Luang Namtha Province, Lao PDR. International
Seminar on the Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Biosphere
Reserve, Jinghong, China.
NAFRI. 2003. Household survey of Phonsay and Namo Districts, Luang Prabang Province.
Socioeconomics Unit, National Agriculture and Forest Research Institute, Vientiane.
Nooren, H., and G. Claridge. 2001. Wildlife Trade in Laos: The End of the Game. IUCN, Amsterdam.
Phengsopha, K. 2000. The Analysis and Introduction of Land-Use in Nam Ha NBCA, Luang Namtha
Province. Pages 1-74. NUOL-Department of Forestry, Vientiane.
Phiapalath, P. 1999. Protected areas and local people's participation in natural resource management
for sustainable development: a case-study in Nam Ha Protected Area, Lao PDR. School of
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
27
Environment, Resources and Development. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Rabinowitz, A. 1997. Wildlife Field Research and Conservation Training Manual. WCS, New York.
Robichaud, W., C. W. Marsh, S. Southammakoth, and S. Khounthikoummane. 2001. Review of the
national protected area system of Lao PDR. Pages 113. Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme,
Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Southammakoth, S., and I. Craig. 2001. Fact sheets: National Bio-diversity Conservation Areas
(NBCAs) in Lao PDR. Pages 145. Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme, Vientiane.
Stuart, B. 2002. Personal communication. Provisional list of Nam Ha reptiles of conservation concern.
March 11. Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Tizard, R., P. Davidson, K. Khounboline, and K. Salivong. 1997. A wildlife and habitat survey of Nam
Ha and Nam Kong protected areas, Luang Namtha province, Lao PDR. CPAWM/WCS
Cooperative Program, DoF, MAF, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Tungittiplakorn, W., and P. Dearden. 2002. Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in
northern Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 50: 57-73.
UNDP. 2002. National Human Development Report for Lao PDR: Advancing rural development.
UNDP, Vientiane.
Wikramanake, E., E. Dinerstein, and C. J. L. e. al. 2002. Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A
conservation assessment. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, United State.
World Tourism Organization (2001). Tourism Market Trends – Asia, 2001 Edition. World Tourism
Organization, Madrid, Spain.
World Tourism Organization (2002). Tourism Market Trends 2002 - World Overview and Tourism
Topics. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
28
APPENDICES
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
29
Appendix 1: Survey form for the wildlife use study in the Nam Ha NPA.
DATA SHEET FOR WILDLIFE USE STUDY IN THE NAM HA NPA (January 2002)
Date:
Start time:
Finish time:
Names of interviewer(s):
Village Information
Village name:
Age of village:
# of households:
# of people:
District:
HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
Conduct this interview with the head of the household in a sample of households (at least 10% of households
per village)
Name of the head of the household
Number of people in the household
Men (18 years or older)
Women (18 years or older)
Children (<18 years)
Ethnic Group
How many years have you lived in this village?
WILDLIFE INFORMATION
1. How many times last week, did you eat these types of meat?
Domestic meat
Wildlife meat
Fish
2. If you had a choice of domestic meat, fish or wildlife meat to eat, what would be your order of preference?
Domestic meat
Fish
Wildlife meat
best
best
best
medium
medium
medium
least
least
least
REPEAT FOR EACH ANIMAL
3. How often do you eat this animal?
1. At least once a week
2. At least once a month
3. Occasionally
4. Never eat at all
4. Where is the easiest place on the map to hunt this animal? (Put number on map and record).
5. In which months do you hunt for this animal? (Tick the months hunted).
6. How do people in your village hunt for this animal? (Tick the methods).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
30
7. On average, what price does this animal sell for? (Record price).
8. On average, how often is this animal sold? (Tick one).
1. At least once a week
2. At least once a month
3. Occasionally
4. Never sell at all
9. Do you use any part of this animal for medicine?
10. Do you think that the numbers of this animal have increased, decreased or stayed the same?
REPEAT QUESTIONS 3 - 10
11a. For any of the animals that you said are decreasing, are you concerned about the decrease?
Why are you concerned? What ideas do you have about how to stop this decline?
11b. For any of the animals that are increasing, are you concerned about the increase?
Why are you concerned? What ideas do you have about how to stop this increase?
12. Do people from outside of your village come to hunt in your area?
YES
NO
YES
NO
13. Who does your village sell wildlife to? (Tick any that apply).
Neighbors in the same village
People from other villages
People from Luang Namtha town
People from outside Luang Namtha province
14. Do people come to your villages to ask to buy wildlife?
15. Has your household had any problems with wildlife? (Tick if yes).
Raiding your crops?
Killing your livestock?
Hurting or killing people?
What ideas do you have for solving this problem?
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
31
Animal #
Appendix 2.1: English (common names), Lao and scientific names for wildlife noting that these vary across broad ethnic groups and
across villages. Status as Restricted (R) or Controlled (C ) species in MAF No. 0524/2001 (Articles 18 and 19)
Common Name
Lao Name
Transliteration of Lao Name
Scientific Name
Status
MAF
0524
1
Pangolin
ì†−
2
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
À¥¨
Cia
Cynopterus sphinx
3
Slow Loris
ìó¤-ìö´
Ling lom
Nycticebus coucang
C
4
Pig-tailed Macaque
ìó¤-¡ñ¤-¹¾¤-¦˜−
Ling kang haang san
Macaca nemestrina
C
5
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon
ê½-−ó-Á¡É´-©¿ / ¢¾¸
Thanii keem dam / khaaw
Hylobates concolor / leucogenys
R
6
Asiatic Black Bear
Ïó-£¸¾¨
Mii khwaay
Ursus thibetanus
R
7
Sun Bear
Ï-ó-Ͼ
Mii maa
Ursus malayanus
R
8
Yellow-throated Marten
À¹¤ñ−-À£õº
Ngen khua
Matrtes flavigula
9
Hog Badger
Liin
R
Manis javanica / pentadactyla
Ïø-ìõ¤
Muu luung
Arctonyx collaris
R
10 Smooth-coated Otter
−¾¡-−Õ
Naak nam
Lutrogale perspicillata
R
11 Large Indian Civet
À¹¤ñ−-¹¾¤-¡È¾−
Ngen haang kaan
Viverra zibetha
12 Common Palm Civet
À¹¤ñ−-º´
Ngen om
Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
13 Masked Palm Civet
À¹¤ñ−-¹¾¤-¢ð
Ngen haang kho
Paguma larvata
14 Leopard Cat
À¦õº-Á´¸
Sua meew
Prionailurus bengalensis
15 Clouded Leopard
À¦õº-쾨-À´¡
Sua laay meek
Pardofelis nebulosa
R
16 Asian Golden Cat
À¦õº-ij
Sua fay
Catopuma temminckii
R
17 Tiger
À¦õº-£Ȥ
Sua khoong
Panthera tigris
R
18 Wild Pig
Ïø-¯È¾
Muu paa
Sus scrofa
C
19 Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
±¾−-Ä¡É
Faan kay
Tragulus javanicus
C
20 Sambar Deer
¡¸¾¤
Kwaang
Cervus unicolor
R
21 Red Muntjac
±¾−
Faan
Muntiacus muntjak
C
22 Gaur
¡½-êò¤
Kathing
Bos gaurus
R
23 Southern Serow
À¨õº¤-°¾
Nyuang phaa
Naemorhedus sumatraensis
R
24 Black Giant Squirrel
¡½-»º¡-©¿-ªȤ
Kahook dam nyay
Ratufa bicolor
C
25 Pallas's Squirrel
¡½-¹º¡
Kahook
Callosciurus erythraeus
C
26 Red-cheeked Squirrel
¡½-¹º¡-Á¡É´-Á©¤
Kahook keem deeng
27 Large Flying Squirrel
®È¾¤
Baang
Dremomys rufigenis
Petaurista sp.
R
C
R
28 East Asian Porcupine
À´˜−
Men
Hystrix brachyura
C
29 Hoary Bamboo Rat
ºí−
On
Rhizomys pruinosus
C
30 King Cobra
¤Ñ-¥‰¤-ºÈ¾¤
Nguu cong aang
Ophiophagus hannah
R
31 Reticulated Python
¤Ñ-ÀÍœº´-¤ö¸
Nguu luam ngua
Python reticulatus
R
32 Burmese Python
¤Ñ-ÀÍõº´-£¸¾¨
Nguu luam khwaay
Python molurus
R
33 Asiatic Softshell Turtle
¯¾-±¾
Paa faa
Amyda cartilaginea
34 Big-headed Turtle
Àª‰¾-¹ö¸-ù¨È
Taw hua nyay
Platysternon megacephalum
35 Indochinese Box Turtle
Àª‰¾-ÀÍõº¤
Taw luang
Cuora galbinifrons
36 Water Monitor
À»û¨
Hia
Varanus salvator
C
37 Bengal Monitor
Áì−
Leeng
Varanus bengalensis
C
38 Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
¡ö®
Kop
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
39 Bar-backed Partridge
−ö¡¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-©¿
Nok kho kho sii dam
Arborophila brunneopectus
40 Mountain Bamboo Partridge
−ö¡-¡½-ê¾-¯È¾
Nok katha paa
Bambusicola fytchii
41 Rufous-throated Partridge
−ö¡-¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-Á©¤
Nok kho kho sii deeng
Arborophila rufogularis
42 Red Junglefowl
Ä¡È-¯È¾
Kay paa
Gallus gallus
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
C
C
32
Animal #
Appendix 2.1: English (common names), Lao and scientific names for wildlife noting that these vary across broad ethnic groups and
across villages. Status as Restricted (R) or Controlled (C ) species in MAF No. 0524/2001 (Articles 18 and 19)
Common Name
Lao Name
43 Silver Pheasant
−ö¡-¢¸¾-Íñ¤-¢¾¸
Transliteration of Lao Name
Scientific Name
Status
MAF
0524
R
Nok khua lang khaaw
Lophura nycthemera
R
R
44 Grey-peacock Pheasant
−ö¡-¡º¤¡º©
Nok koong kood
Polyplectron bicalcaratum
45 Green Peafowl
−ö¡-¨÷¤
Nok nyung
Pavo muticus
46 Yellow-legged Buttonquail
−ö¡-£÷É´
Nok khum
Turnix tanki
47 Great Barbet
−ö¡-ªñ¤-ìð
Nok tang lo
Megalaima virens
C
48 Oriental Pied Hornbill
−ö¡-¡ö¡-−ö¡-Á¡¤
Nok kok nok keeng
Anthracoceros albirostris
R
49 Greater Coucal
−ö¡-¡ö©-¯õ©
Nok kod puud
Centropus sinensis
R
50 Mountain Imperial Pigeon
−ö¡-´ø´
Nok muum
Ducula badia
R
51 Thick-billed Green Pigeon
−ö¡-À¯í¾
Nok paw
Treron curvirostra
C
52 Shikra
Á͸
Leew
Accipiter badius
R
53 Crested Serpant Eagle
»÷-ɤ
Hung
Spilornis cheela
R?
54 Chinese Pond Heron
−ö¡-À¥‰¾
Nok caw
Ardeola bacchus
55 Spangled Drongo
−ö¡-Á§¸-©ö¤
Nok seew dong
Dicrurus hottentottus
56 Black-crested Bulbul
−ö¡-¢¸¡À¹ìõº¤
Nok khuak luang
Pycnonotus melanicterus
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
C
33
Appendix 2.2: Comments regarding the wildlife names and species identification.
Common name
General
Comment
Responses to some animals (e.g. Slow loris, Pig-tailed Macaque, Pallas's squirrel, Hoary Bamboo
Rat, Greater Coucal, Mountain Imperial Pigeon, Thick-billed Green Pigeon, Chinese Pond Heron,
Spangled Drongo, Black-crested Bulbul) may encompass more than one species. For other
species (e.g. Wild Pig, Lesser Oriental Chevrotain, Silver Pheasant) there is little chance for
confusion. Difficulties lie in the differences between scientific and local taxonomies, as well
problems of identification (e.g. use of 2-dimensional photo rather than actual animal,
geographical/age/sex variation in animal morphology, variation in distinctiveness between different
types of animals). As this is a preliminary consideration of wildlife use, the interest is more directed
to the types of animals people are using rather than identifying all to a species-specific level.
Pangolin
The Pangolin is possibly one of two species, Manis javanica or M.pentadactyla , it is currently not
known which of these species is found in Nam Ha NPA. Identification to the species level is not
possible from photographs so it was not possible to confirm identification with villagers.
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
A photograph of this species was shown to respondents however there are several species of bats
in Nam Ha NPA and it is unlikely that all responses relate to this particular species. It was chosen
to be representative of bats in general rather than a specific taxa. The Lao name used for this
species simply means 'bat'.
Black/White-cheeked
Crested Gibbon
The Gibbon is possibly one of two species, Hylobates concolor or H.leucogenys. At the time of
the survey, it was not known which of these species occurred in Nam Ha NPA. Identification to
the species level is not possible from photographs so it was not possible to confirm identification
with villagers. This information will be be available from a separate project that conducted field
surveys to identify the species present in Nam Ha NPA.
Large Flying Squirrel
Identification to species was not made. There may be more than one species of Large Flying
Squirrel in Nam Ha NPA.
Indochinese Box Turtle
This species was used to be indicative of a hard-shelled turtle. Wildlife surveys subsequent to the
selection and use of this species suggest that it does not actually occur in Nam Ha NPA.
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Green Peafowl
This species was used to be indicative of a frog. While it occurs in Nam Ha NPA it is unlikely that
respondents were only thinking of this specific taxon when they provided information on their
hunting of frogs.
This species was included as a check for accuracy as it was extirpated from Nam Ha NPA some
time ago (Tizard et al. 1997) and is excluded from all analyses.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
34
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
35
Appendix 2.3: English, Tai Dam and Akha names for wildlife.
Akha
Tai Dam
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤
Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ
Common Name
®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤
®É¾−-−Õ-»š
®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤
®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾
®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò−
®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩
Pangolin
ì†−
꺤-£ô
꺤-£ô
꺤-£ô
꺤-£ô
ª½-À£ó½
꺤-£ô
꺤-£ô
꺤-£ô
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
À¥¨-¡¾−-¢¾¸
À®-¹¾
À®-¹¾
À®-¹¾
À®-¹¾
À®-¹¾
À®-¹½
À®-»¾
À®-»¾
Slow Loris
ìó¤-ìö´
À´¸-캤
º¾-¡¾-À¡¾
À´-¸-캤
À´-¸-캤
´ò¸-ìð
À´¸-ìð
º¾-¡¾-À¡¾
º¾-¡¾-À¡¾
Pig-tailed Macaque
ìó¤-¡ñ¤
Œ--
º¾-´ó¸ª¾-³ó¸
º¾-´ò¸
º¾-´ò¸
Œ--
º¾-À´É¸
º¾-À´É¸
º¾-À´É¸
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon
Œ--
Œ--
º¾-´ó¸-−½
´ò¸-−½
Œ--
Œ--
À´¸-§õÁì½À´¸-−½
º¾-À´¸-−½
º¾-À´¸-−½
Asiatic Black Bear
À¹´õº¨
Œ--
¹¾-¹ø-¤¾-´½
¹¾-¹õ´
Œ--
¹¾-¹õ´
¹¾-¹÷¤
º¾-À´É¸-®½-²ò¸
º¾-À´É¸-®½-²ò¸
Sun Bear
Ïó
¹¾-»ø-§ó
¹¾-¹ø-§ó
¹¾-¹ø-¥ó
Œ--
¹¾-¹ø-¥ó
¹¾-¹÷¤
À»ö¾-´½-−½-®ø
À»ö¾-´½-−½-®ø
Yellow-throated Marten
À¹¤ñ−-´º¤
»ð-ªº¤
À®§ò
»ð-ªº¤
»ð-ªº¤
À®¨-¦ò
À®§ó−¾-®ð
À¯-§ó-À»ö¾-§ò
À¯-§ó-À»ö¾-§ò
Hog Badger
솤-Ïø
Œ--
ì¾-§ò
ì¾-§ó
ì¾-§ó
ì¾-§ó
µ¾-§ò
¥½-§ó−
¥½-§ó−
Smooth-coated Otter
®¸−
ºð-§÷´
ºõ-§÷¤
ºó-§÷¤
ºó-§÷¤
ºó-§÷¤
Àº-§÷¤
ºô-§÷¤
ºô-§÷¤
Large Indian Civet
À¹¤ññ−-¹¾¤-¡È¾−
º¾-£Ëº¤
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À²-ºò
À¥-´½-ºõ-À¥¾½
À¥-´½-ºõ-À¥¾½
Common Palm Civet
À¹¤ññ−-º´
Á³-µô
Á²-²õ
À²¨-ºò
À²¨-ºò
À²¨-ºò
À²ºò²ô
º¿-²-ó
º¿-²-ó
Masked Palm Civet
À¹¤ññ−-Ïó
»ø-¤
¤¾-º-À²
»ø-¤
¤¾-º-À²
À²¨-ºò
À²ºò−½-§½
À²-³õ
À²-³õ
Leopard Cat
À¦õº-Á´¸
º¾-£º¤
º¾-»º¤
º¾-£º¤
º¾-£º¤
ºð-»ð
º¾-»º¤
º½-»º¤
º½-»º¤
Clouded Leopard
À¦õº-쾨-À´¡
Œ--
£¾-§õ
Œ--
Œ--
À®É-ì¾-À®-ì¾
¹¾-¨õ
£¾-µõ
£¾-µõ
Asian Golden Cat
À¦õº-ij
Œ--
À¦õº-Á²
Œ--
À¦õº-Á²
¹¾-Á¨
À¦õº-À²¨
À§ó-À²¨
À§ó-À²¨
Tiger
À¦õº-¥Ȥ
Œ--
£¾-ì¾
Œ--
Œ--
Œ--
¹¾-ì¾-ì½-´½
£¾-ì¿-´½
£¾-ì¿-´½
Wild Pig
Ïø-캤
¨½-Àê
¹ìɾ-Àê
¹¾-Àê
¹¾-Àê
¹¾-Àê
º¾-ÀêÉ
¡¾-Àê
¡¾-Àê
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
³¾−-áÉ
À¥-¹¾-ª¾-¯-ºÈ¤
À¥-¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤
À¥¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤
À¥¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤
À−-¡¾-À©ó®-ºÈ¤
À§-¹¾-ª¾-À¯¾½
À§-¹¾-ª½-¯ð
À§-¹¾-ª½-¯ð
Sambar Deer
¡¸É¾¤
¹É¾-Á¥½
¹ìɾÁ¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
¹¾-Á¥½
Red Muntjac
³¾−
À¥¹¾
§ó-¹¾
¥ó-¹¾
§ó-¹¾
¥ó-¹¾
§ó-¹¾
À§-¹¾
À§-¹¾
Gaur
¤ö¸-¡½-êò¤
Œ--
Œ--
À−-¨-
Œ--
À−-¨-
À−-¨ø
À−½-¨
À−½-¨
Akha
Tai Dam
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤
Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ
Common Name
Southern Serow
À¨õº¤
µ¾
®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤
®É¾−-−Õ-»š
®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤
µ¾
µ¾
µ¾
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©Ã
- ÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩
®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾
®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò−
®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
µ¾
¨½
¨½
¨½
Black Giant Squirrel
©È¾¤
¹ø-§½
¹ø-¦½
¡ð-»½
¹ø-¦½
¡ð-»½
¡ð-¹½
¹-¦¾
¹-¦¾
Pallas's Squirrel
¹º¡-À®‰¾
»ø¥½-»ø-ªº¤, »ø-¥½-»ø¨-½
º÷-¥¾-ªº¤
¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤
¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤
¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤
¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤
¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤
¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤
Red-cheeked Squirrel
ÃÎ-Á¡É´-Á©¤
»ø-¥½-¯¾-À−
º÷-¥¾-¯¾
¹øø-¥¾-¹ø-®½
¹øø-¥¾-¹ø-®½
¹øø-¥¾-¹ø-®½
¹øø-¥¾-®¾
º÷-¥½-º÷-¯¾
º÷-¥½-º÷-¯¾
Large Flying Squirrel
®È¾¤
¹-§ø
»-§ø
¹ø-§÷
»-§ø
¹ø-§÷
¹-§ø
º-§ø
º-§ø
East Asian Porcupine
ÀϘ−
»ö®-²ø
¹-²ø
¹ð-²ò¸
¹ð-²ò¸
¹ð-²ò¸
¹²÷
¹²÷
¹²÷
Hoary Bamboo Rat
º−-
»öö®-³ó
¹²ó
¹ø-²ø
¹ø-²ø
¹ø-²ó
¹-²ò
¹-²ó
¹-²ó
King Cobra
¤Ñ-¥ö¤-ºÈ¾¤
º½-ìð-²ø-´¾
ºó-£¾-ºõ-²õ
º½-ìð
º½-ìð
º½-ìð
º½-Âì-ºô-−½
º½-Âì-Âê½-´½
º½-Âì-Âê½-´½
Reticulated Python
¤øÀ Íõº´
º¾-ì÷-−½-
º¾-ìð-ºõ-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-Âì-ºô-´½
©¾-ì÷¨-§õ
©¾-ì÷¨-§õ
Burmese Python
¤øÀ Íõº´
ªÒ-ìò-§ô
ªð-ìó-§õ
ìò
ìò
ìò
º½-Âì-ºô-´½
º½-Âì-´½
º½-Âì-´½
Asiatic Softshell Turtle
¯¾-±¾
À¯¸-¯¾
À¯-¯-ë½
À®-¨¾
À®-¨¾
À®-¨¾
À®-À®¨
À©-À®¨
À©-À®¨
Big-headed Turtle
Àª‰¾¡-¸¾¨-캤
Œ--
À®-§õ-À®¨
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-Áµ½
®ò-§ó-®ò-Àµ¾½,À®-¡ø
®ò-§ó-®ò-Àµ¾½,À®-¡ø
Indochinese Box Turtle
Àª‰‰-¾-£¿
À¯-¡ø-§ˆ
À®-¡ø-§-ó
À®-¡÷
À®-¡÷
À®-¡÷
À®-¡ø
À®ó-¡ø-§õ
À®ó-¡ø-§õ
Water Monitor
À»û¨
ºô-µð
ºõ-¨ð
ºõ-¨ð
ºõ-¨ð
ºõ-¨ð
ºõ-¨ð
À©¾½-ª¾-À©¾½-Àµ¾½
À©¾½-ª¾-À©¾½-Àµ¾½
Bengal Monitor
Áì−
ºø-¥ø-µð
ªðð-¨ð
Àªó-¡ð
Àªó-¡ð
Àªó-¡ð
ªð-¨-ð
ºø-Àµ¾½
ºø-Àµ¾½
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
¡ö®
±¾-®õ
±¾-®ô
¹¾-®õ
±¾-®ô
¹¾-®õ
»¾-²¾-®ô
£¾-²¾-¡÷-Âì½
£¾-²¾-¡÷-Âì½
Bar-backed Partridge
−ö¡¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-©¿
£õ-À¥¾½-£õ-À¥
¤¾-Á§-£õ-À−
¤¾-Á§
¤¾-Á§
¤¾-Á§
¤¾-Á§½
£÷-Â¥½-£÷-À¥½
À¥¨-£÷-À¥¨£¾
Mountain Bamboo Partridge
Ä¡È-Á¢É
µ¾-Àµó½
£¾-À¨ó½
¹¾-À¨õº
¹¾-À¨õº
¹¾-À¨õº
¤¾-Àµó
¡¾-À¨ó
¹¾-Àµó
Rufous-throated Partridge
−öö¡-£ð-´º´
¤½-Á§
¤¾-Á§Â¯-¯
−¾-Á§
−¾-Á§
−¾-Á§
¤¾-Á§½
º½-Á§½
¹¤¾-Á§½
Red Junglefowl
Ä¡ÈÈ-¯È¾
µ¾-µó
¤¾-µó
¡¾-µó
¡¾-µó
¡¾-µó
µ½-¨ó
¡¾-¨ó
¹¾-¨ó
Silver Pheasant
−öö¡-¢¸¾
À¡ó½
À¡ó
À¡ó
À¡ó
À¡ó
À¡ó
À¡ó
À¡ó
Grey-peacock Pheasant
−öö¡-¡º¤¡º©
®¾-¡÷¨
®¾-¡÷¨
®¾-¡÷¨
®¾-¡÷¨
®¾-¡÷¨
¯ð-¡÷¨
®¾-¡÷¨À»
®¾-¡÷¨À»
Akha
Tai Dam
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤
Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ
Common Name
Œ--
®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤
®É¾−-−Õ-»š
®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤
Œ--
Œ--
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩
Œ--
®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾
®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò−
®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
§÷−-ªõ
§÷©-À©
§÷©-À©
Green Peafowl
Œ--
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
−öö¡-¦÷É´
£-µ¾-´½
¹ð-µ½-´½
¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½
¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½
¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½
»ø-µ¾-ì¾-´½
¹øø-ì¾-´½
À¹ó-µ¾-´½
Great Barbet
−öö¡-ª˜¤-ìð
§ò¸-ìø
§ó¸-ì÷-
§÷-ì÷
§÷-ì÷
§÷-ì÷
¥ø-ì÷
§÷-ì÷
§÷-ì÷
Oriental Pied Hornbill
−ö¡Á¡¤
»ø-¤º¨
»ð-¤º¨
¡¾-Á§½
¡¾-Á§½
¡¾-Á§½
»ð-Á¡
¹º−-−½
¹º−-À®¨
Greater Coucal
−ö¡-¡ö©
ªõ-ªó-´½
©ó-ªô
ªð-ªô
ªð-ªô
ªð-ªô
©ø©÷
®ò¸-©ó-©ó®
®ò¸-©ó-©ó®÷
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
−ö¡-»ø´
¹¾-¡ø-»ð
¹¾-¡ø-»ð
¹¾-¡÷-¨ð
¹¾-¡÷-¨ð
¹¾-¡÷-¨ð
»ðð-¡ø-¹Ó
¹¾-¡ø-¹ð
¹¾-¡ø-´½
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
−ö¡-À¯¾
¹¾-¡ø-À¨
¹¾-¡ø-À¨
¹¾-¡÷-À¨õº
¹¾-¡÷-À¨õº
¹¾-¡÷-À¨õº
»ð-¡ø-À¨ò
¹¾-¡ø-µô
¹¾-¡÷-´ó-ìó
Shikra
Á»¸
¹¾-À¥-À¥-À¯¸
¹¾-À¥-Á¯¸
¹¾-À¥-
¹¾-À¥-
¹¾-À¥-
»¾-À¥
¹¾-Àµ½
¹¾-Àµ½
Crested Serpant Eagle
»÷ɤ-
¹¾-À¥-´½
¹¾-À¥-
¯-¯½-Âì½
¯-¯½-Âì½
¯-¯½-Âì½
®ø-´½
¹¾-¥ò-¥ò-´½
»ð-¯÷
Chinese Pond Heron
−ö¡-¨¾¤
¤ô-µ¾-´½, ¥ó-»ð
¥ð-Á£½
¨ó-¹ð
¨ó-¹ð
¨ó-¹ð
ºð-º¾-−½
ºõ-º½
ºô-º½-´½
Spangled Drongo
−ö¡-Á§¸
¥ó-À¥½-À−
¨õ-À¥½-£ø-¨½
¥óó-À¥½
¥óó-À¥½
¥óó-À¥½
¥ó-À¥ó
¥ø-¥÷-´½
¥ø-¥÷-´½
Black-crested Bulbul
−ö¡-¢¸¡À¹ìõº¤
´ð-À¨-§õ
´ð-À¨-£¾
´ð-À¨-§õ
´ð-À¨-§õ
´ð-À¨-§õ
À³ó-Áµ-¹¾
´½-À¨-§õ
´½-À¨-ë
Œ--
Appendix 2.4: English, Kui, Yao, Hmong and Khamu names for wildlife.
Yao
Kui
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤
Common Name
®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡
®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
Khamu
Hmong
®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó
®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾
®É¾−©º−-ħ
®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
®É¾−-−Õ-®
Pangolin
³¾-£÷
ÄÍÉ
쾨
¡øÈ-µð
ºõ´-¯-¸È−
¡¿-®ö¸-ìð
£¿-À¡õº−
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
¯÷-¨¾
®É¾-®÷¨
®½-®÷¨
ªø-¯ö¸
Àªõº−
Àªõº-ì
Àªùõº−¡¸¾¨
Slow Loris
´ð-¢ð-£ö¸
®š¤-À´ö¾
¥¼−
Áì-®¾-´ö¸
쾨-À¥¤
쾨-À¥¤
¸½-À¥
Pig-tailed Macaque
´ðð-¢ð-−ò
®ó¤
®ó¤
ªøø-Àì¨
¸½
ìó¤
¸½-¯½-Àª½
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon
´ð-−½
¥¼−
¥¼−-À¥¨
Œ--
Œ--
À»-µ-ìð
Œ--
Asiatic Black Bear
µø-À¡ó
¥¼®-¤ö¤
¥¼®-¤ö¤
©¾¨-®ö¸
»¸−
¹¸-ìð
»¸−-Àìó-−Õ
Sun Bear
¸½-À¡ó
¥¼®-¥ø
¥¼®
©¾¨-Á©
»¸−
¹¸-ìðì-ºñ¡
À´ó¨-ì½-¸ñ¡
Yellow-throated Marten
³-¦ñ¡-¡÷
©¼−-ĨÉ
±ñ−-®ó-»½
Ͼ-§ð
¡ë¾−
¡¸¨
ì½-¸¾¨-¨½-À´ó½
Hog Badger
³½-²ð-ìð
µºÉ¨
µº¨
¹¨¾´-®ö¸
±ø−-À§õº¤-
À§õº¤-ª½-Âì¤
³ëø−
§ñ©
§ñ©
ªø-§ö¸
−¾¡
−¾¡
−¾¡
¥ø
©¼−-§ò¤-À¡
©¼−
ªø-¯¸
ö
¦ñ−-ª½-¡¾−
§ñ-ë-¡¾−-¯-ºÉ¤
¡½-§º−
Common Palm Civet
¯É¾-¸ò-¡Ó-−÷
©¼−-¥¼−
©¼−-À¨õº
Ͼ-¥ó´ö¸
ª½-´º¤
§ññ-ë-À©õº¨
§ñ−-Àº-ëó−
Masked Palm Civet
£
©¼−-®ö¸
©¼−-Á¨
Ͼ-©¾¨
ª½-´º¤-ì÷¤
뾤-£ð
Îñ¤-Ïó
©½-´É¾¸-¥È¾¸
©½-´½-À¥ö¾
ªø-¯ó
§ñ−
§ñ¤-À©õº¨
§ñ−Àìó
ìɾ−-»ø
©½-´½-À®¸
À¯ö-¥ˆ
§ñ−-Àìó
Àëó-¸¾¨-Á¨½
ì½½-¸¾¨-ìñ®-ìø
©½-´É¾¸¸-§ò
©½-´½-¹÷¤
¥ð-Àì¨
ì½-¸¾¨-¯ø-Àìõº
À¹ó´-®ɡ
ì½-¸¾¨-¨ó´
Smooth-coated Otter
Large Indian Civet
Leopard Cat
À¡ó-²ô
¡ø-Ä©
Clouded Leopard
ì¾-£-¢
Asian Golden Cat
¡ô−-−ó
Tiger
ì¾-−ó-À©¨
¯È¼−-ª¾−
ì¼−-ª¾¸
ªø-¥ð-ìð
ì½½-¸¾¨-−Õ
Àëóó-À¨-§¾-츤
ì½-¸¾¨
Wild Pig
Á»®-¸½
À»¨-ª÷Ȥ
À»¨-ªø¤
®ö¸-Àª½
À§õº¤-³ò
캤®¾−
À§õº-³ò
Ä©-§ó-−ó
¥ø¤-¥ó
¥ø¤-¡ó
À¡‰-¾Ä¡È
áÉ
À§õº¤¤-³ò
±¾−-áÉ
Sambar Deer
§¾-§ò
ĵ
Áµ
´¾-ìš
ª¾-¨¾¡
ª½-¨¾¡
ª½-¨½
Red Muntjac
§¾-§ò¡ø
¥ø¤-¥ó
¥ø¤-
À¡ö
¯¸È¨
¯ö¸½
¯¸¨
Gaur
¹¾-¨ò¸
»¼¤-¤Ð¤
µ¾¤-¤ö¤
¨ø-¡É
¡½-ªò¤
¡½-©ò¤
¡½-ªò¤
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Yao
Kui
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤
®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó
®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾
®É¾−©º−-ħ
®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
µø¤
ªø- §¾¨
À¡½
À¡½
À¡½
µ¾¤-¥÷©
µ¾¤-¥÷
Ïð-Ä¡È
¯¤-Á¡È
²º¡-¯ô-ë
¯ö¤-Á¡
³½-Àê¾½
®ö®-§ò
®ö®-§ò
−¾-ªö¤-ªœ
³º¡-À¹ìõº¤
³º¡-À¹ìõº¤
³º¤-Àìõº¤
Red-cheeked Squirrel
³½-§ð
Àµ¨
Àµ¨
Ͼ-µö¸
³º¡-−½
³º¡-−½
³º¤-−½
Large Flying Squirrel
³½-§ø
®ö®®-Á§¤
®ö®®-Á¦¤
Ï!À¥‰¾
Àìõº¡
À¹ìõº¡
Àìõº¡
East Asian Porcupine
³½-¯ø
©¼−-ĵ
ª¼−-Àµ
À¥ö-¾
¡ð-¯ô
Àëó-Áë½
Àì½
Hoary Bamboo Rat
³½-²ó
Âì¸
Âì
Ïɾ-¡ð
ª½-¡ñ−
ª½-¡ñ−
ª½-¡¾−
¥ö¤-À£ö¾-−¾¤
−¿-À®ó-§ò
−¾-§¾-À§¤
´¾-ìó-¯¾-−ô´
´ñ-ë-¡¼¤
´ñ©-Àìó-¡¼¤
쾨-§õ
¹ñ−-À§¨
¹¾−-À§¨
−¾-©¾
´ñ©-Àìó-¡ø−
´ññ-ë-¡ø−
´½-Àìó-¡ø−
쾨¨-À−¾½
¹ñ−-À§¨
ª´-−¾¤
Œ--
´ñ©-Àìó-¡ø−
´ñ-ë-Àëó¡¾-ª¾¡
´½-Àìó-¡ø−-ª½-¡÷©
¯¾-±¾
ê¸−-µó
®¼¸-ª
À¨-§ö¤
ªô´-¯½
ª¿-®½
ªö´-¯½
ª´-¡º¤-ª
ª-ĹÈ-¨
À¸ö¡ó-À©
ºº-¤-캤
Àª‰¾-º´
Àª‰¾
ªÉ-¥¼´
ª-®¼−
À¸öö¾¡-󢸾
Àª‰-£¿
¹È¾-£¿
Àª‰¾
Common Name
Southern Serow
Black Giant Squirrel
Pallas's Squirrel
King Cobra
Reticulated Python
Burmese Python
Asiatic Softshell Turtle
Big-headed Turtle
Indochinese Box Turtle
»½
³½-−½
¸õ-Àì¾½-²õ
¡õ-¥ò
®ó-£÷-§õ
®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡
®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾
µ÷¤-
Khamu
Hmong
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
®É¾−-−Õ-®
Water Monitor
¡-À¡½
ªÉ-¡¾−º¸´
«¾−
−¾-¡¾-À©
ª½-¡º©
ªùº¨¡º©
ª½-¡º©
Bengal Monitor
¡¡-À¡½-§õ
ªÉ-«¾−-®¼−
−¾¤-¡ø-쾤
−¾-¡¾-¢¸¾
ª½-¡º©
Áì−
ª½-¡º©-ê-ë¾−
Á¡¤
Á¡¤
±¾-®õ
Œ--
¡ö®
êùò¡
À−¾½-À¥¨-ùÈ-¨
−Ó-À¥¨-ùÈ-¨
ªø-µõ
±ëö¤-§º¨
±ëö¤
±ëö¤-µº¤
Àµ¨-¡ø-Ä¥
−ÓÓ-Á¥
ªø-µö¸
Àº¨-À£ñ¡
²ö-ë¤-§-ºÈ¤-§º¨
Œ--
À−¾½½-À¥¨-¡ø
−Ó-À¥¨-
µó-À¡ö¾
±ëöö¤-¡¾-¯º¤
²ëö¤-¨ó´-À¡ó−©ù¸-ë
±ö-ë¤-À¡-Ä¡ð
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Bar-backed Partridge
Mountain Bamboo Partridge
Rufous-throated Partridge
¥ñ−-−ð-¯¾
¤½-©ð
À£-−ø-Áì½
¤½-©ð
Red Junglefowl
Ä»-¡½
À−¾½-Á¥
À−¾½-Á¥
Ä¡È-¡øÈ
Àº¨¨-³ò
Àëóº¤-ëð-³ò
ºó-º¼−-³ò
Silver Pheasant
¡Ó
ª´-À−¾½
ª´-À−¾½
©ù¾
Àê-ëõº−
Àªùõº−-¡¾¤§¾
À¹ìõº−
À−¾-½¥¼´-¥õ−
À−¾-½¥¼´-¥õ−
À»ö-¾»ö¸
¡º¤¡º¨
¡º¤¡º¨
¯¡-¯¨
Grey-peacock Pheasant
¤½-¡-Àì
Yao
Kui
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤
®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡
®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
Common Name
®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó
®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾
®É¾−©º−-ħ
®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
®É¾−-−Õ-®
À−¾½-¨÷¤
Œ--
Œ--
Œ--
−ö¡-¨÷¤
Œ--
À−¾½-À¥É¨-±÷È−
À−¾½-À¥É¨-±÷È−
−ö¤-ºõ
ªô-¡ø©
ª½-¡÷©
ª½-¡ø©
¯ó-ìø
¥ñ¤-¹ì
¥ñ¤-¹ì
−¾-À쉾
¥½-캡
¦½-¹ìº¡
¦½-¹ìº¡
ªð-¥ñ¤-À¤¾½
À−¾½-ª¾
À−¾½-±ö¤-¸¾¤-ª½
−öö¤-ªö¤-À©
Á¯-ë½-Á¯½
Á®½Å
¡¼¤-¡É¼¤
º¦¾-¡õ
À−¾½-±ñ−-®-´ø−
À−¾½-±ñ−-®-´ñ−
ªö¸-µö¸
Àº¨-ºô©
Àëõº¤-ìð-ºô©
Àºù¨-Àìó-ºó®
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
¤¾-¯õ-¤
À−¾½-¡ø-§ò/¡-¤Ð´
À−¾½-¡-¤ö´
¡ö¸-©¾¨
§õ´-»õ−
À¡ò-ëð-¡ø−
§õ´-»õ−
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
À¤ò-¯ø
À−¾½-¡-Á´¤
À−¾½-¡½-Á´¤
¡¸−-¨ö¸
ªù¨
¨¾-©©
廬
Shikra
º¾-¥ô
ª´-¥¾¤-®ö¸
ª´-¥¾¤-µ
ªø-Àì¨
¡¾−-§õ´
¹¾¤-§ò´
¡¾¤-§õ´
Á¡¤-¡Ò-µº©
©¾-ìó¸-¨ó¸
¯¡
¡ë¾¤-ªð
¡È¾¤-¡½
À−¾½-¡ø¤¸¾
À−¾½-º¾®-
−ö¤À´-−ó-À¨-¨ó
¡¾−-¡½
¡ù¾¤-¡½
¡ë¾¤-¡½
§ò¤-Â¥½-ªÓ-³º¤
À−¾½-§ó¤-À¥¸
À¨¨-À§ö¾-ì-ë¾
¥½-¥ø´
§ò´-¥¾
¡ò-ì÷´
À−¾½-¯ó¤-¯¼--¸-µ¾¤
Àìñ−-¨ö¸
£½
£½
£½
Green Peafowl
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
Great Barbet
Oriental Pied Hornbill
Greater Coucal
Crested Serpant Eagle
Chinese Pond Heron
Spangled Drongo
Black-crested Bulbul
−ö¡-¨÷¤
Khamu
Hmong
º-Á´Å
º¾-¥ò-²õ,º¾-¥ó-À©¨ ª´-¥¾¤-À¥¨
À¤¾
À¤¾-²ð-¡½-¥¾
À¤¾-ìð-Á´½-Àª¾½ À−¾½-¯ò¤-¯¼¸
Appendix 3: Information of the villages and households that were surveyed.
Village
District
Main ethnic
group
Date surveyed
Village
population
# households
% households
surveyed
Population of
surveyed
households
%
population
surveyed
# men in
surveyed
households
# women in
surveyed
households
# children in
surveyed
households
Chakhun Kao
Long
Akha
13/02/03
140
30
40
83
59%
24
26
33
Donsai
Luang Namtha
Khamu
2/2/2003
150
40
30
64
43%
12
14
38
Houihok
Vieng Phoukha
Akha
28/02/02 - 01/03/02
157
27
37
66
42%
19
16
31
Khuasung
Luang Namtha
Khamu
26/09/02 - 28/09/02
234
47
32
89
38%
20
25
44
Kongka
Sing
Yao
16/01/03
226
37
32
89
39%
21
20
48
Kuiysung
Luang Namtha
Kui
29/01/03
277
38
32
85
31%
19
21
45
Lakkham Mai
Luang Namtha
Akha
29/01/02 - 14/02/02
226
50
26
91
40%
22
23
46
Makkuay Mai
Long
Akha
12/2/2003
215
46
26
77
36%
20
21
36
Nambo
Long
Hmong
6/2/2002
94
13
46
57
61%
9
10
38
Namded Kao
Sing
Akha
1/14/2003
254
54
22
93
37%
21
23
49
Namha
Luang Namtha
Khamu
19/09/03 - 23/09/03
579
112
29
211
36%
52
58
101
Namhi
Long
Akha
8/02/02 - 9/02/02
358
64
22
102
28%
22
23
57
Namkhong
Luang Namtha
Tai
5/3/2002
165
25
48
98
59%
20
19
59
Namluang
Luang Namtha
Akha
6/03/03 - 7/03/03
162
27
44
73
45%
20
21
32
Nammat Kao
Luang Namtha
Akha
20/02/02 - 21/02/02
266
35
42
132
50%
31
31
70
Nammat Mai
Luang Namtha
Akha
21/02/03 - 23/02/03
186
33
45
98
53%
24
23
51
Namsa
Luang Namtha
Akha
24/02/03
673
130
12
145
22%
32
34
79
Namyang
Luang Namtha
Akha
22/01/03 - 23/01/03
505
95
13
113
22%
30
25
58
Pakha
Luang Namtha
Yao
30/01/03
230
43
28
104
45%
22
20
62
Phinho
Long
Hmong
11/02/02 - 12/02/02
201
25
36
84
42%
14
20
50
Phouye Mai
Vieng Phoukha
Akha
17/02/03 - 18/02/03
205
39
31
62
30%
18
17
27
Saylek
Sing
Yao
15/01/03
236
40
30
87
37%
19
22
46
Sopee
Sing
Akha
18/01/03
198
40
30
65
33%
17
20
28
Thonglat
Vieng Phoukha
Akha
26/02/02 - 28/02/02
44
93
50%
187
34
TOTAL
6124
1124
AVERAGE PER VILLAGE
255
47
2261
32%
94
41%
16
22
55
524
554
1183
22
23
49
Appendix 4: Location of hunting in each village area as indicated in the village mapping exercise.
#
Field observations made by survey team on areas most/least commonly
responses
reported by households as being used for hunting (% households).
85
The most hunting was in the north-west near some mountains (66%) and the least
Chakhun Kao Long
(ADD MAP)
in the south-west (6%). There were no rice-fields in the south.
Donsai
Luang Namtha
61
The most hunting was in the south-ewest (48%) where there was a smaller amount
of hill-rice fields compared to the other areas.
Houihok
Vieng Phoukha
137
The most hunting was in the south-west area further from the mountain range
(66%) and the least in the east area (18%). The village moved to its present
location closer to the road in the last few years. Like other villages in the Muang
Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
Khongka
Sing
22
Most of the hunting reported is in the east (95%). However Kongka is next to
Saylek and appeared to have similar practices of hunting in the rice fields rather
than in Nam Ha NPA. Differences between these two villages could also relate to
the small number of responses.
Khuasung
Luang Namtha
134
The least hunitng was in the south-east (2%) further from the Namha River. There
were no other trends in the location of hunting.
Kuisung
Luang Namtha
99
There were no substantial differences in where huntig occurred though a slight
trend for more hunting in there south-east (38%) and less in the north-west (10%)
closer to the mountains. This village is close to the Chinese border but there
appears to be little sale of wildlife. The village is far from other villages.
Village
District
Lakkham Mai Luang Namtha
221
Makkuay Mai Long
27
Nambo
Long
66
Namded Kao
Sing
14
Namha
Luang Namtha
290
Namhi
Long
193
Namkhong
Luang Namtha
214
Namluang
Luang Namtha
240
Nammat Kao
Luang Namtha
272
The most hunting was in the north-east area (66%) and the least in the south-east
area (9%) where the village and the fields are located. Bears were reported in this
area though not reported in the survey.
The most hunting was in the north (96%) near the mountains which had hill-rice
fields. There was less hill-rice fields in the south-east and the south-west had
more paddy-fields.
The most hunting was in the south-west area further from the mountain range
(59%) and the least in the south-east area (6%) while the north-west also had a
relatively low amount of hunting (12%). Like other villages in the Muang Long
District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
Most of the hunting was in the north-west (79%) and the least in the south-west
(0%). In the south there was a forest that was protected by the village where
hunting of wildlife was prohibited. There were a small number of responses for
this village.
The most hunting was in the south-east area (38%) and the least in the north-east
area (11%) but there was not substantial variation in the location of hunting for
this village. A road bisects the village.
The most hunting was in the north-east area closer to the mountain range (40%)
and the least in the south-west downstream area (6%). Like other villages in the
Muang Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial
amount of wildlife.
The western area, which had only 9% of hunting also had many tracks (though not
easy vehicle access). The most hunting (65%) was in the eastern area in the
direction of the northern core area of the NPA. This village has large areas of
forest around it relative other areas. Elephants come near the village and are
sometimes hunted.
There were no strong trends for this village, there was slightly more hunting in the
north-west (36%) and the least in the south-west (16%). Elephants come near the
village and are sometimes hunted.
The least hunting was in the north-west area (16%) but there was not substantial
variation in the location of hunting for this village. This village is located in the
central core conservation zone.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
44
Appendix 4: Location of hunting in each village area as indicated in the village mapping exercise.
#
Field observations made by survey team on areas most/least commonly
Village
District
responses
reported by households as being used for hunting (% households).
Nammat Mai Luang Namtha
205
There were no strong trends for this village, there was slightly more hunting in the
north-east (39%) and the least in the south-east (15%). This village is located in
the central core conservation area.
Namsa
Luang Namtha
134
The most hunting was in the north-east (42%) and the least in the north-west (7%)
but there were no substantial differences in the location of hill-rice fields,
moutains and rivers between these areas. There is a substantial amount of hunting
of wildlife in this village.
The most hunting was in the north-west area (49%) however there were rice fields
throughout the entire area surrounding the village and it appeared that hunting
would be common in all of these areas. There appeared to be a relatively
significant amount of hunting and people from this village going to Luang Namtha
Namyang
Luang Namtha
169
Pakha
Luang Namtha
71
Phinho
Long
106
Phouye Mai
Vieng Phoukha
62
Saylek
Sing
17
Sopee
Sing
43
Most of the hunting was in the north-west (40%) and the least in the south-west
(12%). The main track near the village ran from the south-west to the north-east.
Thonglat
Vieng Phoukha
240
The most hunting was in the north-east area (56%) and in the north particularly
(85%) and the least in the south-west area (5%). Like other villages in the Muang
Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
The most hunting was in the north-west near a large area hill-rice field (77%) and
the least in the east (9%) closer to the mountains.
The one village is in two locations about 30 minutes walk apart. Less hunting is in
the east (32%) towards the south-western core area, this area is also fringed by
mountains. The trend for more hunting in the west (68%) and in the north-west
(38%) in particular though this is not a strong trend.
The most hunting was in the north-west near some small mountains (71%) and the
least in the south (5%). This is a relatively new village.
Most of the hunting was in the south (88%) and less in the north (12%) with
mountains being located in the north-east and rice-fields in all areas. There were
few responses for this village.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
45
Appendix 5. Households (n=320) who reported eating an animal at least once a week (w), once per month (m), once per year (y), or never (n).
Appendix 5.1: Frequency of eating small-medium birds (n=320).
Appendix 5.2: Frequency of eating partridges, pheasants, or quails
(n=320).
100%
0.80
n
0.60
y
m
0.40
w
0.20
% households
% households
1.00
80%
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
0%
Bar-backed
Partridge
0.00
Black-crested
Bulbul
Great Barbet
Spangled
Drongo
Greater Coucal
Shikra
Chinese Pond
Heron
Red
Junglefowl
Silver
Pheasant
Rufousthroated
Partridge
Yellow-legged
Buttonquail
Mountain
Bamboo
Partridge
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.3 : Frequency of eating large birds (n=320).
Appendix 5.4: Frequency of eating snakes and lizards (n=320)
100%
100%
80%
80%
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
% households
% households
Grey-peacock
Pheasant
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
0%
Thick-billed Green
Pigeon
Mountain Imperial
Pigeon
Crested Serpant Eagle
Oriental Pied Hornbill
0%
Water Monitor
King Cobra
Bengal Monitor
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.5: Frequency of eating turtles and frogs (n=320)
Reticulated Python
Appendix 5.6: Frequency of eating other mammals (n=320)
100%
100%
80%
n
60%
y
40%
m
w
20%
% households
% households
Burmese Python
Animal
80%
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
0%
Hoplobatrachus
rugulosus
Indochinese Box Turtle
Big-headed Turtle
Asiatic Softshell Turtle
0%
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Pig-tailed Macaque
Animal
Appendix 5.7: Frequency of eating large carnivores (n=320)
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
% households
% households
80%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0%
Asian Golden
Cat
Tiger
Black-cheeked
Gibbon
Asiatic Black
Bear
n
y
m
w
Common
Palm Civet
Sun Bear
Masked Palm
Civet
Yellowthroated
Marten
Leopard Cat Large Indian
Civet
Hog Badger
Smoothcoated Otter
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.9: Frequency of eating ungulates (n=320)
Appendix 5.10: Frequency of eating rodents (n=320)
100%
1.00
80%
n
60%
y
m
40%
w
20%
0%
Lesser Oriental
Chevrotain
Red Muntjac
Wild Pig
Sambar Deer
Southern Serow
Gaur
% households
% households
Pangolin
Appendix 5.8: Frequency of eating small carnivores (n=320)
100%
Clouded
Leopard
Slow Loris
Animal
0.80
n
0.60
y
0.40
m
0.20
w
0.00
Redcheeked
Squirrel
Pallas's
Squirrel
Hoary
Bamboo
Rat
Animal
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation
East Asian Black Giant
Porcupine Squirrel
Large
Flying
Squirrel
Animal
46