Human Wildlife Conflict and Wild Animal Rescue at Visakhapatnam Zoo

Human Wildlife Conflict and Wild Animal Rescue at Visakhapatnam Zoo

This excerpt is drawn from a PhD thesis by G. Ramalingam (2015) and examines the dynamics of human–wildlife conflict and the rescue of wild animals (Indira Gandhi Zoological Park, Visakhapatnam).

Ramalingam notes that “nearly all natural ecosystems of the world are under pressure due to extensive human use”, leading to irreversible biodiversity loss. Understanding and managing human wildlife conflict is therefore crucial for conservation, especially in human-inhabited landscapes.

The following unaltered excerpt (Chapter VI, pp. 125–143) includes detailed introduction, methods, results and discussion from the original research. It is presented here verbatim to convey the author’s full account of conflict mitigation and animal rescue efforts.

NTRODUCTION

A large number of studies carried out, in recent times, reinforce the fact that nearly all natural ecosystems of the world are under pressure due to extensive human use (e.g., Gadgil 1990, Kryuchkov 1993, Hannah et al. 1994, Mittermeier et al.

2003, Bawa et al. 2004, Imhoff et al. 2004, Cardillo et al. 2006, Bremner et al. 2010, Harris 2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) critically examined the conditions and trends of the ten major ecosystems of the world and confirmed that rapid and extensive use of resources by humans, in the last five decades had resulted in extensive change of ecosystem, leading to irreversible loss of biodiversity.

With the studies confirming rapid degradation of natural ecosystems and their declining resilience, the need of the new millennia is to enhance and contain ecosystem capacity, conserve and protect biodiversity, through legal, political and socio-ecological interventions,

such as creation and maintenance of Protected Areas (PAs) (Bruner et al. 2001, Rodrigues et al. 2004, Chape et al. 2005, Loucks et al. 2008). In India protection of natural resources dates back to 252 B.C., when sanctuaries for wild animals were set up under rule of Emperor Ashoka (Panwar & Mathur 1991). Indian Emperors, Mughals and then the British also reserved areas for varied reasons.

The Indian PAs and all other forests have very rarely been free of human interference and activities. Recognizing presence of communities within the landscapes categorized as protected, the IUCN introduced categories of the PAs on the basis of management objectives and degree of human interference. Despite this classification of PAs, nearly all the categories of PAs are found to have some instance of human activities (Leroux et al. 2010).

‘Human-wildlife conflict’
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) usually emerges as a result of intimate interspersion of people with wildlife (Rodgers 1989) and also due to competition for scarce resources.

According to the World Conservation Union (IUCN 2003), HWC results from overlap of wildlife’s requirement of space and food with that of humans, creating losses to resident communities and wild animals.

More recently, the World Parks Congress suggested HWC to denote the situation where the needs and behaviour of wildlife have negative impacts on humans’ goals or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife (IUCN 2003).

The present day human-wildlife conflict emerges in new settings where resource scarcity, economic imbalance, increase in human population challenges conservation goals and ecosystem sustenance (Limenh 2007), and frequency and severity of such impacts are predicted to intensify (Madden 2004).

HWC are frequently rooted in issues like poverty, overpopulation and lack of options for local livelihoods and are largely due to lack of involvement of stakeholders in planning, management and decision making, and unclear property and tenurial rights of the communal lands.

The “wildlife against humans” conflicts are manifested in form of crop raiding, livestock predation, property damage, human injury and death (GOI 2001, NBSAP 2002);

on the other hand “humans against animals” conflicts occur in form of loss or decline of wild ungulate population by driving them to areas of sub-optimal habitat (Ranjitsinh 1981, Osborne et al. 1983, Chundawat & Qureshi 1999).

Restraint of wild animals

Restraint varies from confinement in an unnatural enclosure to complete restriction of muscular activity or immobilization (hypokinesia). Both physical and chemical restraints are now practiced.

Anciently only physical restraint was utilized. Just when man learned of chemical immobilization (poison arrows) is not known, but it antedates recorded history.

During Prehistoric times, bow and arrow were used for capturing animals. Morphine was the first drug used for anaesthetic effects and the first synthetic drug used for animal capture was the Fentanyl during early 1980.

Restraint practices evolved with the domestication of animals for food, fiber, labor, sport, and companionship. Domestication necessitated special husbandry practices.

As people began to minister to animals’ needs, they found it necessary to restrict activity by placing them in enclosures. Each restraint incident has some effect on the behavior, life, or other activities of an animal.

Wild animals kept in captivity require special husbandry practices. They must be transported, housed, and fed. If they become ill, they must be examined and treated. Free-ranging animals may have to be translocated, as was necessary when a dam is to be built or for animal management for reducing overpopulation or building a population in a new location.

All of these animals must undergo significant screening, which in turn requires restraint, transport, and eventual release.

Diseases in wildlife populations must be monitored, since some have far-reaching consequences for the health of domestic livestock and human beings.

As far as wild animals are concerned, any captive situation involves some form of restraint.

Many wild animals can inflict serious, if not fatal, injury. The first concern when dealing with wild animals should be the safety of human beings. Those who own or have administrative responsibility for wild animals must recognize that the animal, no matter how valuable, cannot be handled in such a way as to jeopardize the safety of those who must work around it. Techniques are known that when properly used can safeguard both animal and operator.

Certain wildlife populations have become so depleted they are near extinction. It is not economically feasible, nor is there sufficient animal life for each person to gain through personal experience the intimate knowledge of various behavioral patterns and characteristics to enable them to develop expertise in the successful use of restraint procedures.

Therefore we must learn from the experiences of others who have dealt extensively with one species or family of animals and utilize their knowledge of the more successful techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Human-animal conflict:
The study and observations on human-animal conflict was done in the north coastal Andhra Pradesh comprises of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and East Godavari districts during the period from 2011 to 2014.

This area was selected for the study as the wildlife is rich due the presence of contiguous hill ranges of Eastern Ghats. Local people interactions and their opinions were collected for the better understanding of the local situation.

Many incidents of human-animal conflict arose during the study period and resulted in peaceful resolution but many times the wild animals were subjected to trauma and even death. Few incidents of human injuries and death also occurred in these areas.

Restraint of wild animals

To be effective, operational planning must take place in a structured way. To start, one must have a clear objective. Priority must be given to both the safety of capture team personnel and the animals that are captured.

A detailed examination of the factors that may affect the success or failure of the operation must be undertaken. Plan the operation on paper so that a record of the factors considered is made and may be kept for future reference.

Each capture will have facets that are unique to the situation and a record of the plan adopted will be valuable in evaluating the efficacy of the work done, and indicating where improvements can be made. The proactive and adaptive management would improve chances of success. Ethics prescribe that those who capture animals accept the responsibility of ensuring the animals survive and that stress and trauma are kept to a minimum.

Need of the restraint:
• Help the animal come out from risk/danger
• Wild animal straying into human habitation
• To control of wild animals causing distress to public
• Wild animal injured/sick in wilderness
• Animal Translocation
• Veterinary studies/ Research/ other scientific studies

Factors considered:
• Species of animal
• Behavior of animal – Solitary, Group / Pack / Pride
• Animals in heat or with young ones
• Territoriality
• Breeding season
• Season
• Population
• Health of animal
• Age, Sex, Body score index
• Parasites levels
• Pregnancy
• Diseases

Environment:
• Temperature: Extremes to be avoided
• Climate: Extremes to be avoided
• Season: Extremes to be avoided
• Terrain: Steep slopes, Water, Barrier trees
• Habitat: Thick Forests, open grass lands
• Time of the day

Capture Methods:
Physical method:
• Physical restraint is capturing the animal manually with or without help of tools like traps, nets and snares etc.

In physical capture the following protocol is being maintained.
– Maintain silence
– Approach with confidence
– Well informed about the Anatomy and physiology of animal
– Sufficient manpower
– Blindfold whenever possible
– Confinement of animal within squeeze cages etc.

General equipment (tools) needed:
• Cotton ropes
• Blind folds
• Ear plugs
• Axe & Shovel
• Stretcher
• Specialized vehicles
• Crates & loading facilities
• Radios
• Emergency treatment packs
• Surgical equipment
• Thermometer and Stethoscope
• Emergency light
• Tarpaulin sheet
• Water and Buckets
• Feeding tubs and Watering troughs
• Gunny bags
• Magnetic compass
• Tape

Restrain and Capture tools:
• Ropes
• Hobbles
• Wrapping tapes
• Catch pole
• Pole Syringes
• Blow darts
• Pistol
• Rifle
• Drop nets, Jump nets, Drop Bomas, Net guns
• Trap cages, Leg holds, Box traps, Snares etc.

The innovative use of physical restraint methods such as the use of opaque plastic to create a boma (pioneered by Jan Oelofse in the 1960s) or net-gun capture – shooting a net from a helicopter – improved both individual and mass animal capture success immeasurably.

Stress and mortalities were reduced further when these methods were combined with sedation and tranquilization, for example, the use of long-acting tranquillizers such as haloperidol and zuclopenthixol acetate (Clopixol-Acuphase) in antelope and rhino.

Chemical restraint:
Oral medications are administered through feed or hand-held syringes, Intramuscular injections, projected syringes/darts, Guns (Palmar projectors), Pistol (Short-range projector), Rifle (Long range projector), and Blow pipes etc. Dart gun and Dart syringe:
• Here the movement of animal is restricted by using drugs.
• Drug delivery is by: Oral, By Injection or By remotely projected syringes or darts.

Basic considerations for chemical restraint:

1. Type of terrain
   – No dense cover, Steep slopes, Water bodies
2. Type of animal
   – Aggressive, Powerful, Potentially dangerous to operator with an animal which has a young one to defend
3. Animal immobilized should not be excited
   – By Chasing, By making sounds
4. Cover the eyes of the animal immobilized to get quicker effects of drug
5. Do it during daylight when the temperature is less
6. Observe the animal till it attains the normal stature.
7. Safety of the handler from dangerous animal & Narcotic drugs, e.g.: M-99 (Etorphine).

Use of different drugs:

1. Diazepam
2. Acepromazine
3. Xylazine Hydrochloride (Antidote – Yohimbine)
4. Ketamine Hydrochloride
5. Etorphine (M 99) – Revivon (M 50) (Antidote Narcan)
6. Hellebrun’s Mixture (Combination of KCL+XCL) at 1:1.25
7. Capture all (Combination of KCL+XCL) at 1:0.5

Equipment used for administering the chemical agents:

1. Dart Gun, Model 60, Range: 30–60 m
2. Pistol, Model 30, Range: 10–30 m
3. TeleInject, Range: 10–30 m
4. Blow Pipe, Range: 5 m
5. Jab Stick

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vast amount of studies on people-wildlife interface have been carried out across the major wilderness areas globally. To understand the concept of human-wildlife interaction and interface, it is necessary to first look into the factors associated with such interactions i.e., the ecological limitations and associated resource use, economically driven resource use and sociology of resource utilization.

All societies worldwide are dependent on earth’s limited resources, which are often non-renewable. In the era of post-modernization, the communities living in the forested area are extensively using the resources for their day-to-day subsistence.

Direct use of resources obtained from forests by the local communities ranging from dependence for food, fire, shelter, fiber, livestock health and wealth, have been the focus of many studies (Dixon & Sherman 1991, Fiallo & Jacobson 1995, Badola 1999, Awasthi et al. 2003, Baral & Heinen 2007, Chandola et al. 2007).

Indirect use or rather non-consumptive use of the resources from the forests has also been subject of study by many scholars (Badola & Silori 1999, Campbell 1999, Archabald & Naughton-Treves 2001, Stem et al. 2003; Stone & Wall 2004).

Dependence on natural resources has been attributed to a number of factors ranging from free availability of resources, traditional use and due to lack of alternatives to the resources. Continued and indiscriminate use of resources has led to the changes in land use patterns, results of which are reflected in the loss of biodiversity and biodiverse rich areas.

Increased human population has further resulted in fragmentation of wild habitats, resulting in matrix of overlaps between natural landscapes and humanscape (McCloskey & Spalding 1989, Primack 1993, Laurance & Bierregaard 1997).

The close interspersion of human and wild animals has resulted in increased rate of interaction between human and wild animals, where both often compete for land and food resources, leading to situation of competition. Overlap of human habitation and wild habitats along with development changes has brought in breakdown of traditional livelihood systems, which was based on sustainability principles.

Livestock grazing is another form of traditional human use of natural landscape, which has consequences on grazing by the wild ungulates in the same landscape. The impact of livestock foraging on the density and diversity of wild herbivore has been studied well in different ecosystems and biomes of the world.

Competition between wild ungulates and livestock is an important aspect of human-wildlife interaction, which has led to local extinction through exclusion from a habitat.

The intensity of loss and resulting retaliation among the local communities against the wild mammals is high in tropics and developing countries (Distefano 2005), as livestock and agriculture form the backbone of economy and people are dependent on natural resources for their sustenance, thus making the resident human population vulnerable.

Most of the damage incurred by the local communities can be attributed to the carnivore species, since these have large home ranges (Treves & Karanth 2003).

Mitigative measures:
Immediate payment of compensation scheme has been working well in many places of North coastal Andhra Pradesh as a mitigative measure and hence it is being used extensively. Lack of authentic information of livestock loss from remote villages is a challenge for the Forest Department.

The livestock and crop insurance schemes shall also be utilized for payment of compensation with the active involvement of local communities in association with insurance companies and concerned departments.

Incentive program such as promotion of sale of handicrafts, and payment made to local communities towards the pastoral area foregone for conservation, should be recognized and replicated with consent and involvement of local communities in other village settlements.

Traditional grazing rules should be strictly followed by all the shepherds and cattle grazers of the local community. Restricted grazing by migratory livestock in critical wildlife habitats and demarcation of grazing and non-grazing areas needs to be carried out, in consultation with the local community.

Honorary positions should be created within the village hamlets for appointment of the person who could monitor the movement of the pack-animals and be authorized to impose spot fines.

Preventive options:
The elephant proof trenches and solar fencing may be done throughout the human settlements across the human inhabited landscapes in Srikakulam and Vizianagaram districts and maintained on periodic basis. Many options are available for controlling elephant raids and crop damages like alternate crop patterns, creation of suitable habitat and sufficient food within the forested areas. Similarly, guarding of crops was not successful in cases where agricultural fields were scattered and small.

However, timing of the guarding requirement clashes with the timings of the household work. Allocation of households to take turn to guard the fields could be a better way of sharing and utilizing the social capital.

Spreading awareness among the residents of local communities on the range of benefits that they could receive in lieu of co-existence with the wild animals, through community awareness and sensitization program, religious teachings and bringing up local specificity in the text-books of school children could result in sense of pride and belonging among the local residents.

The shift in economic conditions and occupational patterns in the study area can be seen as a positive sign for successful conservation of wildlife. A large number of wildlife species are forced from or stray from their natural habitats.

Immobilization and animal welfare:
Immobilization is the forced restriction of movement of all or part of an animal’s body, either by physical or chemical means. It is used to impose management of some kind, for human and/or animal benefit. Immobilization is a common practice in many animal management procedures.

Physical immobilization methods usually involve traps to restrain the whole animal (eg. pitfall traps, cage traps, box traps, crush cages, plastic tubes, restraint boards, restraint chairs), or part of the animal (eg. snares, leg-hold traps, chutes, head-holding devices) or just use direct handling restraint.

Chemical immobilization is achieved using drugs, which have a range of intended effects, from those which produce a widespread muscular paralysis while the animal is fully conscious, to those which produce unconsciousness with anaesthesia (lack of sensation, eg. of pain).

Wild animals rescued by Vizag zoo:
The Vizag zoo is instrumental in hand rearing of many orphan young ones at inpatient facility. The following species have been successfully reared and rehabilitated in the past, e.g., Grey pelicans, Painted storks, Great Indian Horned Owls, Barn owls, small Indian civets, Leopard cats, Peacocks and Alexandrine parakeets, Mouse deer, Indian fox etc. shown in Plate 21.

Capture by chemical immobilization of straying wild animals from reserved forests and saving their lives and relocating back to reserved forests which is housed with a good habitat the following are the animals:
• Leopard (F) at Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam District.
• Leopard (M) from Vizag city, MVP colony. VSP Dist.
• Leopard (M) from Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
• Leopard (M) from Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
• Gaur (M) from Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
• Gaur (M) from Vizianagaram.

Rescue and Rehabilitation of animals by Vizag zoopark:
• Fox pups 2 Nos. on 05-04-2007 rescued from Simhachalam Reserved forests and shifted to Nehru Zoological Park, Hyderabad.
• Gray Pelicans and Painted storks 4 & 6 Nos. rescued on 05-04-2007 from Telineelapuram and rehabilitated with zoo park.
• Bison male 20-04-2007 from Rajahmundry, presently in Bison enclosure.
• Striped Hyena female 15-05-2007 from Circus.

• Palm civets 2 Nos. on 15-05-2007 from circus and released into Kambalakonda R.F.
• Marsh crocodile 1 No. 15-05-2007 from circus presently at marsh crocodile enclosure.
• Common langoors 3 Nos. on 15-05-2007 from circus (one died and two shifted to S.V. Zoological Park, Tirupathi).

• Indian Rock Python 1 No. on 15-05-2007 from circus rehabilitated in Kambalakonda R.F.
• Star tortoise 6 Nos. on 15-05-2007 from circus rehabilitated in Kambalakonda R.F.
• Peacocks 4 Nos. on 25-05-2007 from Srikakulam presently housed in Zoo Park.

• Great Indian Horned Owl 1 No. on 28-05-2007 from local rescue housed in Zoo Park.
• Barn owl 1 No. on 31-05-2007 locally rescued and housed in Zoo Park.

• Small Indian Civets 2 Nos. on 30-06-2007 rescued from Dairy farm,

Visakhapatnam (one died and other is housed in Zoo Park).
• Common Monitor Lizard 1 No. on 06-08-2007 locally rescued and housed in Zoo Park.
• Giant Squirrel 1 No. on 28-09-2007 locally rescued and died in quarantine.
• Barn owl 1 No. on 24-01-2008 from Srikakulam and died in quarantine.
• Gray Pelicans 2 Nos. on 07-02-2008 from Srikakulam and died in quarantine.

• Peacock 1 No. on 18-03-2008 from Srikakulam presently housed in Zoo Park.
• Panther (F) 1 No. on 24-03-2008 captured and housed in Zoo Park.

Rescue of Leopards in North coastal Andhra Pradesh:
Reports of man-animal conflict in the region have reached an alarming level.

Saturday night’s incident (27.02.2011) of straying of a four-year-old adult panther at MVP Colony underscores the rapidly shrinking wildlife habitat, forcing the animals to foray into human habitation.

Repeated and regular invasions by the creatures of the wild are not only symptomatic of increased man-animal conflict but also of the mindless encroachment and destruction of their natural habitat.

Many such incidents have been reported in the region in the past five years and the occurrences have only gone up in the recent past. Two tribal boys were attacked by a panther at Tribal Welfare Boys’ Residential School in the night in January 2010.

In February 2008, a similar incident had occurred on the city suburbs at Thimmapuram when a panther had struck terror in the area and was eventually captured and kept in Indira Gandhi Zoological Park. In 2005, a panther strayed into a poultry farm in thickly populated Visalakshinagar and mauled the watchman.

A leopard had come on a ‘sojourn’ to Nandagirinagar in Akkayapalem a few years ago. In fact, several incidents of panthers from the wild hit by speeding vehicles in the national highway were reported in the recent past.

Environmentalists fear that many invaluable species of animals, some on the verge of extinction, will be lost forever if the authorities concerned do not wake up to the problem and declare the green patches and hills as protected areas. Poaching of wild animals should be prevented at any cost to ensure sustained availability of food to the predators, they feel.

Operation Gaja: Rescue of male elephant in Vizianagaram–Salur area.
The two male elephants that had separated from a herd in the Bolangir Elephant Sanctuary in Odisha strayed into forest area at Sikhaparuvu in Salur mandal a month ago.

The elephants caused little damage to banana, maize and other plantations in Salur and Makkuva mandals.

A male elephant came in contact with a lowly laid overhead livewire at Galibillivalasa village in Salur mandal and died on the spot in the early hours of Monday (11.05.2015). The elephant was about 20 years of age.

The Operation Gaja was successfully completed as the forest department captured a 12-year-old male elephant, which had separated from its group and entered R. Valasa region under Salur forest in Vizianagaram district on Tuesday (19.05.2015). The officials, with the help of tamed elephants Jayanth and Vinayak, took two to three hours to capture the elephant.

The officials of the forest department from Vizag, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam districts and also veterinary surgeons, working at Vizag Zoo, were deployed to capture the lonely tusker which had been destroying crops and creating fear among the residents of Salur Agency for the past few days.

Source: Researcher: G. Ramalingam; Some studies on behavioural patterns and health status of carnivores in Indira Gandhi Zoological Park, Visakhapatnam India; Guide: K. Sreeramulu; University: Andhra University; Completed Date: 2015; Exit pages: 125–143.