Policy to On-ground Action: Evaluating a Conflict Policy Guideline for Leopards in India

S. Gubbi, Aparna Kolekar, V. Kumara
{"title":"Policy to On-ground Action: Evaluating a Conflict Policy Guideline for Leopards in India","authors":"S. Gubbi, Aparna Kolekar, V. Kumara","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2020.1818428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Amongst the large carnivores, the leopard Panthera pardus is a highly adaptable, elastic species. Because of these ecological traits, it comes into direct conflict with people, posing serious consequences to the lives of those affected, thus impeding larger conservation goals. In India, one of the key mitigation strategies towards leopard conflict includes capture and translocation of individual leopards. In response to severe conflict, a policy guideline was brought out in 2011 by the government that discouraged capture and translocation of leopards. In this study we evaluate the impact of these guidelines and responses of the field managers towards them. A total of 357 leopards were captured in Karnataka state during 2009–2016. The data collected on these captures indicates that since the government guidelines were issued, leopard captures have increased by 9.67 per year, and monthly translocations increased threefold. Captured animals were translocated mostly to protected areas (85.5%), taken to captivity (10.8%), and a few resulted in capture mortality (3.8%). A total of eight primary reasons were listed for capture of leopards, with livestock depredation (38.1%) being the main reason. Questionnaire surveys revealed that 64% of the managers were unaware of the presence of the guidelines, and only 1.9% followed them. The guidelines make a set of thoughtful suggestions to reduce conflict, but large-scale improvement is required by bringing in field-level managers, communities, media personnel, and other stakeholders while developing such policies. Similarly, targeted outreach and capacity building is mandatory to raise awareness and for effective implementation of the guidelines.","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"127 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2020.1818428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Amongst the large carnivores, the leopard Panthera pardus is a highly adaptable, elastic species. Because of these ecological traits, it comes into direct conflict with people, posing serious consequences to the lives of those affected, thus impeding larger conservation goals. In India, one of the key mitigation strategies towards leopard conflict includes capture and translocation of individual leopards. In response to severe conflict, a policy guideline was brought out in 2011 by the government that discouraged capture and translocation of leopards. In this study we evaluate the impact of these guidelines and responses of the field managers towards them. A total of 357 leopards were captured in Karnataka state during 2009–2016. The data collected on these captures indicates that since the government guidelines were issued, leopard captures have increased by 9.67 per year, and monthly translocations increased threefold. Captured animals were translocated mostly to protected areas (85.5%), taken to captivity (10.8%), and a few resulted in capture mortality (3.8%). A total of eight primary reasons were listed for capture of leopards, with livestock depredation (38.1%) being the main reason. Questionnaire surveys revealed that 64% of the managers were unaware of the presence of the guidelines, and only 1.9% followed them. The guidelines make a set of thoughtful suggestions to reduce conflict, but large-scale improvement is required by bringing in field-level managers, communities, media personnel, and other stakeholders while developing such policies. Similarly, targeted outreach and capacity building is mandatory to raise awareness and for effective implementation of the guidelines.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从政策到实地行动:评估印度豹的冲突政策指导方针
在大型食肉动物中,豹是一种适应性强、弹性强的物种。由于这些生态特征,它与人类直接冲突,对受影响者的生活造成严重后果,从而阻碍了更大的保护目标。在印度,针对豹子冲突的关键缓解策略之一包括捕获和转移豹子个体。为了应对严重的冲突,政府于2011年出台了一项政策指导方针,禁止捕捉和转移豹子。在这项研究中,我们评估了这些指导方针的影响和现场管理人员对他们的反应。2009年至2016年期间,卡纳塔克邦共捕获了357只豹子。这些捕获的数据表明,自从政府发布指导方针以来,豹的捕获量每年增加9.67只,每月的易位增加了三倍。被捕获的动物大多被转移到保护区(85.5%),被圈养(10.8%),少数被捕获死亡(3.8%)。共有8个主要原因被列出,其中家畜捕食(38.1%)是主要原因。问卷调查显示,64%的经理不知道指导方针的存在,只有1.9%的人遵循了这些指导方针。该指南为减少冲突提出了一套深思熟虑的建议,但在制定此类政策时,需要引入实地管理人员、社区、媒体人员和其他利益攸关方,进行大规模改进。同样,有针对性的外联和能力建设是提高认识和有效执行准则的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.
期刊最新文献
Lost in Translation? Why Outdated Notions of Normativity in International Law Explain Germany’s Failure to Give Effect to the Ramsar Convention of 1971 Wild Things: Animal Rights in EU Conservation Law Addressing Illegal Transnational Trade of Totoaba and Its Role in the Possible Extinction of the Vaquita Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility Carceral Logics: Human Incarceration and Animal Captivity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1