Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MUMBAIKARS for SGNP
2011-2012
A FOREST DEPARTMENT & CENTRE FOR WILDLIFE STUDIES
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO ADDRESS
HUMAN-LEO...
DETAILS OF THE ENTIRE TEAM CAN BE OBTAINED AT
http://www.mumbaikarsforsgnp.com/about_sgnp_our_staff.htm
http://www.mumbaik...
CONTENTS
!
SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9
REPORT 1. “CAMERA TRAPPING”. LEOPARDS OF SGNP, MUMBAI. ZEESHAN A. MIRZA, RAJESH ...
! Figure 2.3. Trend for Leopard Deaths, Leopard Relocations and Trappings carried out!
! by the Forest Department. ! ! ! !...
! Figure 3.15. Map of locations of attacks on humans by leopards in the Aarey and Film City !
! areas! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !...
! Figure 5.1. Map showing sampled versus total grids overlaid on SGNP for examining
! herbivore occupancy and abundance fr...
REPORT 7. MAPPING HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT LOCATIONS USING MEDIA REPORTS IN AND AROUND
SGNP, MUMBAI. NIKHIL DISORIA.!! ! ! !...
! Appendix 8.1. Visits by team members to different leopard incidents between
! August 2011 and September 2012. ! ! ! ! ! ...
SUMMARY
The goals of the project.
Sanjay Gandhi National Park is one of the four Parks in the world which is adjacent to a...
PLANNED ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY REPORT NO.
Mapping past conflict instances.
Providing conflict information on the internet...
framework normally used to assess density of animals (Karanth & Nichols 1998; O’Connell 2011)
could not be employed largel...
other hand, appear to have been individual problem animals since the attacks were temporally and
spatially contained.
Ther...
eas seem to be near the tourist zone, Malad trench line, Shilonda trail and areas around Tulsi and Vi-
har Lake. For Samba...
porting still remained high. We also found that media reports can help supplement the Forest De-
partment records. We obta...
REPORT 1.
“CAMERA TRAPPING” LEOPARDS IN SGNP, MUMBAI.
Zeeshan A. Mirza
Post-Graduate Program in Wildlife Biology & Conserv...
1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Camera trapping sites were chosen with the help of locals and forest guards for whom we pay our
deepe...
Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) in Mumbai has been in the limelight for the numerous cases of
man-leopard conflicts betw...
Figure 1.2. The Aarey Milk colony is located at the south of SGNP and is marked as a dashed poly-
gon with an icon titled ...
1.5. METHODS
Camera trapping was initiated on 5th November 2011 and continued till 5th April 2012 i.e. for 153 days.
Deer ...
1.7. THE LEOPARDS OF SGNP
The images of all the individuals are provided below along with the general location from where ...
Leopard Male 1
1LEFT FLANK
RIGHT FLANK
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
21
1 LEOPARD 1 (MALE)
Locations where LM 1 was photographed.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
22
2Leopard Male 2
Location where LM 2 was photographed.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
23
2 LEOPARD 2 - MALE
3Leopard Male 3
Locations where LM3 was photographed.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
24
3 LEOPARD 3 - MALE
4Leopard Male 4
Locations where LM4 was photographed.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
25
4 LEOPARD 4 - MALE
5Leopard Male 5
Locations where LM5 was photographed.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
26
5 LEOPARD 5 - MALE
6Leopard Male 6
Locations where LM6 was photographed.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
27
6 LEOPARD 6 - MALE
1.8. FEMALE LEOPARDS
Twelve female individuals were identified based on the markings of their left flanks. Their locations
a...
7Leopard female 1
Leopard photographed at the following locations in Aarey Milk Colony.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera...
8Leopard Female 2
LEFT FLANK
RIGHT FLANK
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
30
8 LEOPARD 8 - FEMALE
Leopard LF2 photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
31
9Leopard Female 3
LEFT FLANK
RIGHT FLANK
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
32
9 LEOPARD 9 - FEMALE
Leopard LF3 photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
33
10Leopard Female 4 (possibly lactating?)
Leopard LF4 photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ...
11Leopard Female 5
LEFT FLANK
RIGHT FLANK
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
35
11 LEOPARD 11 - FEMALE
Leopard LF5 photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
36
12Leopard Female 6
Leopard LF6 photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
37
1...
13Leopard Female 7
Leopard LF7 photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
38
13...
14Leopard Female 8
Leopard LF8 photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
39
14...
15Leopard Female 9
Leopard LF9 photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
40
15...
16Leopard Female 10
Leopard LF10 photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
41
...
17Leopard Female 11 - aka BINDU (see Appendix 1.1)
Leopard LF11 photographed at the following location.
Note: Although Bin...
18Leopard Female 12
Leopard LF 12 photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
43...
1.9. LEOPARDS OF UNKNOWN SEX (AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ABOVE).
19U1 - LEFT FLANK
U1 - RIGHT FLANK
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ...
Leopard ‘U1’ photographed at the following locations.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
45
20U 2 - LEFT FLANK
WAS PHOTOGRAPHED ACCOMPANYING LF 7 IN FOLLOWING IMAGE
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
46
20 LEOPARD 20 - SEX UN...
Leopard ‘U2’ photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
47
21U3 - LEFT FLANK
Leopard ‘U3’ photographed at the following location.
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
48
21...
1.10. REFERENCES
Athreya V. Is Relocation a Viable Management Option for Unwanted Animals? - The Case of the
Leopard in In...
Appendix 1.1. The story of BINDU (a leopardess from Aarey Milk Colony)
Sex – Female
Home range: Aarey Milk Colony & Royal ...
With her mother
17/05/2011
Place: Aarey
Image courtesy: Rajesh Sanap
As part of the biodiversity surveys, we (RS & ZM) wou...
Friends with the Police.
7/09/2011
Place: Aarey Colony
Image courtesy Mr. L Tompe (Police Department).
Report 1! ! ! ! ! !...
A 5 Star escapade
08/11/2011
Place: Hotel Renaissance, Mumbai
Image courtesy: Forest Department, SGNP.
It was as if even s...
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
54
A tragic incident
February 2012
Place: Aarey Milk Colony.
Image courtesy: Forest Department
A worker from one of the cattl...
Return to home ground
June 2012
Place: Royal Palms, Goregaon (West).
Image courtesy: Arnab Chaudhuri (local resident of Ro...
Records of Bindu’s movement
Map Courtesy: Google Earth
1. Aarey Milk Colony
2. Aarey Milk Colony
3. Aarey Milk Colony
4. S...
Appendix 1.2. The story of leopard LM2 from SGNP
Description: LM2 with chip number 00-063B-5476
Sex/maturity – Male/adult
...
Capturing the Leopard:
3rd November, 2012: The Thane Forest Department set up a leopard cage at the attack site in the eve...
Identification of the leopard by rosette patterns:
Based on the rosette patters, the rescued animal was identified as LM2 fr...
Locations where LM2 was recorded
1. captured in a trap cage at Nitie ,Powai region on 7 Dec 2004
2. released at Gundgaon, ...
Appendix 1.3. Camera trapping process.
The camera traps were mainly set up on well-used paths.
Camera traps were tied to p...
Cameras were placed in the evening and removed in the morning in most cases.
Cameras were checked when activated each even...
Appendix 1.4. Right flanks images of leopards obtained in the camera traps. These were not used
in the abundance estimates ...
RIGHT MALE - C
RIGHT FEMALE - A
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
65
RIGHT FEMALE - B
RIGHT FEMALE - C
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
66
RIGHT FEMALE - D
RIGHT FEMALE - E
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
67
Appendix 1.5. Other species photo-captured.
First record for SGNP: Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii) 
The Ruddy Mongoose ...
Small Indian Civet
Chital
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
69
Wild Boar
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
70
Sambar
Porcupine
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
71
Hanuman langur
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
72
Palm Civet
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
73
Peafowl
Black-naped Hare
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
74
Barking Deer
Jungle Cat
Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping
!
75
Appendix 1.6. Camera Trapping Team members.
ZEESHAN MIRZA
He is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Wildlife Biology &...
List of Volunteers who assisted with the camera trapping work.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23...
REPORT 2.
LEOPARD TRAPPINGS AND ATTACKS ON HUMANS
IN AND AROUND SGNP: AN ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICT.
Vidya Athreya (vidya.athr...
2.1. SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to use Forest Department records of conflict related incidents from
SGNP and t...
2.2. METHODS
We used records of leopard attacks on humans present with the SGNP Forest Department and Thane
Forest Departm...
Figure 2.2. Leopard Trapping, Relocation and leopard deaths between 1984 and 2011.
A sudden increase in the number of case...
Table 2.1. Details of leopard trappings and attacks on humans between 2000 and January 2013.
YEAR ATTACKS TRAPPINGS
2000 2...
Table 2.2 provides detailed information for the period between 2002-2004 of leopard trappings and
attacks on humans. There...
2.4. Conflict in adjoining parts of SGNP and Thane
Trapping is an ubiquitous practice used to deal with leopards that are n...
Table 2.5. The number of leopard captures and releases between 1999 and 2004 in some Forest Di-
visions of Maharashtra.
FO...
2. Arbitary capture is known to worsen conflict (Athreya et al. 2011) at the site of capture and release.
SGNP used to have...
Appendix 2.1. Case Study (Leopard from Sangamner released in SGNP and re-trapped in Thane
marriage Hall).
Based on a lette...
ards (2 from Nashik, 5 adults + 2 cubs from Junnar) were sent to SGNP. If such animals are being re-
leased into SGNP then...
Table 2.7. Details of Thane Forest Division captures and releases in the region (Phansad, SGNP
and Tansa)
Report 2! ! ! ! ...
CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICERS (NAMES NOT MENTIONED)
• In October 2004, interview with field level forest official in Nashik Fo...
Appendix 2.2. Details of leopard attacks on humans that occurred in 2011 and 2012.
Tungareshwar area
14 October 2011 - inj...
2. - Aarey woman death
When: 2 Nov 2012
Where: Maroshi pada, near Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Colony
What: A 50-year-old lady ...
UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKS
1. Lion safari area, SGNP - NOT LEOPARD ATTACK
When: 19 Sept 2011
Where: Lion safari area, SGN...
REPORT 3.
A STUDY OF HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT IN THE
THANE FOREST DIVISION, MUMBAI.
Kritika S. Kapadia (kritikask@gmail.com)...
3.1 Summary
This study focused on the patterns of attacks on humans in the Thane Forest Division over the last
twenty year...
The forests of the Division are distributed in 11 Forest Ranges, 51 Rounds and 170 Beats for the pur-
pose of administrati...
were Aarey Milk Colony, Bhiwandi, Vasai, Kashimira, Murbad, Tungareshwar. A record of the attacks
details can be found in ...
Figure 3.2. Locations of human deaths by leopards in the areas under the jurisdiction of Thane
Forest Division between 199...
A majority of the human victims were either children up to 10 years old or the elderly (Figure 3.4).
The children were eit...
Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary (TWLS): TWLS lies in the Vasai and Bhiwandi talukas in Thane
district, containing 95.70 sq...
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project

2,342

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,342
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project"

  1. 1. MUMBAIKARS for SGNP 2011-2012 A FOREST DEPARTMENT & CENTRE FOR WILDLIFE STUDIES COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO ADDRESS HUMAN-LEOPARD (Panthera pardus) CONFLICT IN AND AROUND SANJAY GANDHI NATIONAL PARK (SGNP). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! DIRECTOR & CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SANJAY GANDHI NATIONAL PARK Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Mumbai. VIDYA ATHREYA Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore. VIDYA VENKATESH Last Wilderness Foundation, Mumbai.
  2. 2. DETAILS OF THE ENTIRE TEAM CAN BE OBTAINED AT http://www.mumbaikarsforsgnp.com/about_sgnp_our_staff.htm http://www.mumbaikarsforsgnp.com/Initiatives_In_Sgnp.htm ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2
  3. 3. CONTENTS ! SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 REPORT 1. “CAMERA TRAPPING”. LEOPARDS OF SGNP, MUMBAI. ZEESHAN A. MIRZA, RAJESH V. SANAP & VISHAL SHAH! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 15 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! 1.2 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! 1.3 INTRODUCTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 16 ! 1.4 STUDY AREA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17 ! 1.5 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 19 ! 1.6 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 19 ! 1.7 THE LEOPARDS OF SGNP! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! 1.8. IMAGES OF FEMALE LEOPARDS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! 1.9 LEOPARDS OF UNKNOWN SEX! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 44 ! 1.10 REFERENCES!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 49 ! Figure 1.1. Google Earth map of SGNP! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17 ! Figure 1.2. Google Earth map of Aarey Milk Colony! ! ! ! ! 18 ! Figure 1.3. Photo captures of all male leopards! ! ! ! ! ! 20 ! Figure 1.4. Photo captures of all female leopards! ! ! ! ! ! 28 ! Appendix 1.1. The story of BINDU (a leopardess from Aarey Milk Colony)! ! 50 ! Appendix 1.2. The story of leopard LM2 from SGNP! ! ! ! ! 58 ! Appendix 1.3. Camera trapping process! ! ! ! ! ! ! 62 ! Appendix 1.3. Right flank images of leopards! ! ! ! ! ! 64 ! Appendix 1.4. Other species photo-captured! ! ! ! ! ! 68 ! Appendix 1.5. Camera Trapping Team members! ! ! ! ! ! 76 REPORT 2. LEOPARD TRAPPINGS AND ATTACKS ON HUMANS IN AND AROUND SGNP: AN ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICT. VIDYA ATHREYA, AJAY BIJOOR & APARNA WATVE.! ! ! ! ! 78 ! 2.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 79 ! 2.2 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 80 ! 2.3 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 80 ! 2.4 CONFLICT IN SGNP AND THANE FOREST DIVISION!! ! ! ! ! 84 ! 2.5 CONCLUSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 85 ! Figure 2.1. Attacks on humans between 1991 and 2010 caused by leopards in and ! around SGNP.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 80 ! Figure 2.2. Leopard Trapping, Relocation and leopard deaths between 1984 and 2011.! 81 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3
  4. 4. ! Figure 2.3. Trend for Leopard Deaths, Leopard Relocations and Trappings carried out! ! by the Forest Department. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 82 ! ! Table 2.1. Details of leopard trappings and attacks on humans between 2000 and 2007! 82 ! Table 2.2. Trend for Trappings vs. Attacks in 2004!! ! ! ! ! 83 ! Table 2.3. Information from the records which indicate that political pressure is also ! an important cause for setting up traps to capture leopards. ! ! ! ! 83 ! Table 2.4 (a). Leopard Captures and attacks on people between 2000 - 2005. ! ! 84 ! Table 2.4 (b). Leopard Captures and attacks on people between 2005 - 2009 . ! ! 84 ! Table 2.5. Number of leopard captures and releases between 1999 - 2004 in some Forest ! Divisions of Maharashtra! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 85 ! Table 2.6 Capture and releases of leopards in surrounding Forest Circles! ! ! 88 ! Table 2.7 Details of Thane Forest Division captures and releases! ! ! ! 89 ! Appendix 2.1. Case Study (Leopards from Sangamner released in SGNP and re-trapped in ! Thane marriage Hall).! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 87 ! Appendix 2.2. Details of leopard attacks on humans that occurred in 2011 and 2012.! 91 REPORT 3. A STUDY OF HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT IN THE THANE FOREST DIVISION, MUMBAI. KRITIKA S. KAPADIA.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 94 ! 3.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 95 ! 3.2 AIM! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 95 ! 3.3 STUDY AREA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 95 ! 3.4 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 96 ! 3.5 OBSERVATIONS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 97 ! ! 3.5.1 HUMAN ATTACKS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 97 ! ! 3.5.2 LIVESTOCK ATTACKS !! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101 ! 3.6 REFERENCES! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 103 ! 3.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 103 ! ! ! Figure 3.1. The Thane Forest Division Map! ! ! ! ! ! 96 ! Figure 3.2. Locations of human deaths by leopards in the areas under the jurisdiction ! of Thane Forest Division between 1990 and 2011 - displayed on Google Earth! ! 98 ! Figure 3.3. Documented human injuries obtained from FD data - displayed on ! Google Earth! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 98 ! Figure 3.4. Graph of the age of humans attacked by leopards in Thane FD.! ! 99 ! Figure 3.5. Locations of human attacks by leopards in Aarey Milk Colony!! ! 99 ! Figure 3.6. Locations of human attacks by leopards at the periphery of Tansa WLS ! 100 ! Figure 3.7. Location of human death due to leopard attacks at Murbad, Thane FD.! 111 ! Figure 3.8. Locations of livestock attack at Murbad, Thane FD! ! ! ! 112 ! Figure 3.9. Locations of Sakarwadi Murbad, overlooking the Malsej Ghat, site of first ! human attack in 20 years.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 112 ! Figure 3.10. Locations of human attacks by leopards at Kashimira, Thane FD.! ! 113 ! Figure 3.11. Site of attack on human by leopard at a pada (tribal hamlet) in Kashimira! 114 ! Figure 3.12. Locations of human attacks by leopards in Bhiwandi!! ! ! 114 ! Figure 3.13. Location of Aarey Milk Colony in relation to SGNP! ! ! ! 121 ! Figure 3.14. Map of locations of attacks on humans by leopards in the Aarey and Film ! City areas! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 122 Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 4
  5. 5. ! Figure 3.15. Map of locations of attacks on humans by leopards in the Aarey and Film City ! ! areas! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 124 ! Table 3.1. Month-wise data of attacks on people by leopards in the Thane FD! ! 97 ! Table 3.2. List of attacks on livestock by leopards in the Thane Forest Division ! between 1990 and 2010. !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101 ! Table 3.3. List of attacks on humans by wild boars and other species (not leopard) in the ! Thane Forest Division between 1990 and 2011.! ! ! ! ! ! 102 ! Table 3.4. List of attacks on humans in Aarey Milk Colony prior to 2003 which were ! obtained from the SGNP FD records. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 123 ! Appendix 3.1. The list of attacks on humans and livestock between 1990 and 2011 in ! the Thane Forest Division.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 104 ! Appendix 3.2. Description of all human attacks by leopards that occurred between ! 1991 and 2011! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 105 ! Appendix 3.3. Interviews with some Forest Department field staff and local people in ! ! Thane Forest Division! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 111 ! Appendix 3.4. List of livestock attacks from the compensation records! ! ! 117 ! Appendix 3.5. Records of leopard deaths as per Thane FD records.! ! ! 120 ! Appendix 3.6. Biodiversity and Conservation of Aarey Milk Colony.! ! ! 121 REPORT 4. ASSESSING FREE-ROAMING DOG (CANIS FAMILIARIS) ABUNDANCE IN A MARK-RESIGHT FRAME- WORK IN AAREY MILK COLONY, MUMBAI. GIRISH A. PUNJABI.! ! ! ! ! 125 ! 4.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 126 ! 4.2 INTRODUCTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 126 ! 4.3 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 127 ! ! 4.3.1 STUDY AREA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 127 ! ! 4.3.2 DOG SURVEYS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 128 ! 4.4 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 130 ! 4.5 DISCUSSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 131 ! 4.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 132 ! 4.7 REFERENCES! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 132 ! Figure 4.1. The map of the study area indicates the survey route and dog count points ! used to estimate dog abundance in a mark-resight framework in Aarey colony, India! 128 ! Figure 4.2. The image indicates photographs obtained for a distinct naturally marked dog ! over two secondary sampling intervals in Aarey colony, India.! ! ! ! 129 REPORT 5. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HERBIVORES IN SGNP, MUMBAI. GIRISH A.PUNJABI.! 134 ! 5.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 135 ! 5.2 INTRODUCTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 135 ! 5.3 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 135 ! ! 5.3.1 STUDY AREA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 135 ! ! 5.3.2 ANALYSIS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 138 ! 5.4 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 138 ! 5.5 DISCUSSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 142 ! 5.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 143 ! 5.7 REFERENCES! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 144 Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 5
  6. 6. ! Figure 5.1. Map showing sampled versus total grids overlaid on SGNP for examining ! herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012! ! ! 136 ! Figure 5.2. Method used for surveying for the occupancy field work! ! ! 137 ! Figure 5.3. Map showing locations of disturbance signs recorded in SGNP for examining ! herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012! ! ! 138 ! Figure 5.4. Map showing Cheetal (Axis axis) cluster abundance in SGNP from February ! to March, 2012.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 139 ! Figure 5.5. Map showing Sambar (Rusa unicolour) cluster abundance in SGNP ! from February to March, 2012.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 140 ! Figure 5.6. Map showing locations of herbivore signs recorded in SGNP for ! examining herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012! ! 141 ! Figure 5.7. Map of important locations in SGNP for examining occupancy and ! abundance! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 142 ! Table 5.1. Parameter estimates for the model examining the effect of covariates ! (cumulative disturbance index and terrain/slope index) on lambda of Cheetal! ! 139 ! Table 5.2. Parameter estimates for the model examining the effect of covariates ! (cumulative disturbance index and terrain/slope index) on lambda of Sambar! ! 140 REPORT 6. LEOPARD MORTALITY DUE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ALONG THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY OF THE SGNP, MUMBAI. AJAY BIJOOR, SONU SINGH & MRIGANK SAVE. ! ! ! ! ! 145 ! 6.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 146 ! 6.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY INFERENCES ! ! ! ! ! ! 147 ! 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 152 ! ! Figure 6.1. Map with accident locations on Google Earth! ! ! ! ! 146 ! Figure 6.2. Year-wise statistics of leopard deaths due to road accidents at the periphery ! of SGNP.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 147 ! Figure 6.3. Month-wise statistics of leopard deaths due to road accidents at the periphery ! of SGNP.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 147 ! Figure 6.4.a-c. Details of the accident locations on the map.! ! ! ! 149 ! Figure 6.5. Flagging the connectivity around SGNP! ! ! ! ! 151 ! Figure 6.6. Possible locations for building over-bridges or under-passes to facilitate ! the movement of wildlife to and from SGNP.! ! ! ! ! ! 152 ! Figure 6.7. Images of over-bridges made for wildlife movement in other parts of the ! world! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 153 ! Table 6.1. Complete List of leopard accidents (1994-2011)! ! ! ! ! 148 ! Appendix 6.1. Data collected during the project.! ! ! ! ! ! 155 ! Appendix 6.2. Additional References! ! ! ! ! ! ! 158 ! Appendix 6.3. Our Extended Team! ! ! ! ! ! ! 159 ! Appendix 6.4. Men at Work! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 161 ! Appendix 6.5. Images of some of the Accident Locations! ! ! ! ! 162 Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 6
  7. 7. REPORT 7. MAPPING HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT LOCATIONS USING MEDIA REPORTS IN AND AROUND SGNP, MUMBAI. NIKHIL DISORIA.!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 164 ! 7.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 165 ! 7.2 INTRODUCTION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 165 ! 7.3 MATERIALS & METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 165 ! 7.4 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 165 ! 7.5 DISCUSSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 168 ! 7.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 169 ! Figure 7.1. Trend for Media Reports vs. Attacks in 2002-2007.! ! ! ! 166 ! Figure 7.2. Map of locations detailed in above table where dogs were attacked or ! leopards were sighted.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 166 ! Figure 7.3. Map of human injuries and deaths caused by leopards obtained from media ! reports! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 167 ! Table 7.1. Interviews with the local people where leopard incidents had occurred as per ! media reports.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 167 ! Appendix 7.1. Locations of media reports of sighting of leopards, leopard death & ! attack on dogs between 1999 and 2010.! ! ! ! ! ! ! 170 ! Appendix 7.2. Information from people interviewed at locations of leopard incidences.! 175 REPORT 8. CATS IN THE CITY: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND LEOP- ARDS IN THE SGNP LANDSCAPE, MUMBAI. SUNETRO GHOSAL.! ! ! ! ! 176 ! ! 8.1 SUMMARY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 177 ! 8.2 INTRODUCTION ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 177 ! 8.3 STUDY AREA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 178 ! 8.4 OBJECTIVES! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 178 ! 8.5 METHODS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 178 ! 8.6 RESULTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 180 ! 8.7 DISCUSSION ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 181 ! 8.8 CONCLUSION! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 189 ! 8.9 RECOMMENDATIONS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 189 ! 8.10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 191 ! 8.11 REFERENCES!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 191 ! ! ! ! Figure 8.1. Some of the Waghoba shrines located in the SGNP landscape! ! ! 180 ! Figure 8.2. The changing population demography of people in Mumbai, especially ! around SGNP! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 182 ! Figure 8.3. Villagers ‘flushing’ out a leopard from a thicket where it was said to have ! been observed, a few days after an attack on a child in Mandvi range, Tungareshwar ! Wildlife reserve. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 183 ! Figure 8.4. A female leopard strolling through the verandah of one of the row houses ! in Royal Palm, Goregaon East. The incident understandably caused apprehension ! amongst the residents of the row houses. ! ! ! ! ! ! 186 ! Figure 8.5. The MfSGNP team—including members of the forest department rescue ! team—who visited the residents of the row houses in Royal Palms to understand their ! apprehensions and facilitate a dialogue to reduce conflict. ! ! ! ! 187 ! Figure 8.6. Waghoba shrine in Aarey Milk colony.! ! ! ! ! 187 Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 7
  8. 8. ! Appendix 8.1. Visits by team members to different leopard incidents between ! August 2011 and September 2012. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 194! ANNEXURES - REPORTS ON SOME OF THE LEOPARD INCIDENCES IN AND AROUND SGNP BY THE ! ! TEAM MEMBERS. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 195 ! ! ! A. Blackman forever! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 195 ! ! B. Leopardbhai MBBS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 202 ! ! C. MfSGNP - stakeholder meeting at royal palms! ! ! ! 205 ! ! D. Leopard attack incident report (Shankar Tekdi, Mulund)! ! ! 210 ! ! E. Site visit report : Mandvi, Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary! ! ! 218 ! ! F. Media reports on the issue printed during the project period! ! ! 222 Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 8
  9. 9. SUMMARY The goals of the project. Sanjay Gandhi National Park is one of the four Parks in the world which is adjacent to a large me- tropolis (http://english.upa-network.org/). The density of humans around the Park is unparalleled in the world, with ~20,000 people/sq. km living at the Park’s periphery. The forests of the Park which are native to the region have a variety of wildlife, including the leopard and are extremely important to the people of Mumbai since it supplies ~ 10% of the city’s water. However, because of the pressures the Park faces, it has unique challenges and one of it is the presence of the leopards and the conflict that occurs there. Mumbaikars for SGNP (MfSGNP) project was primarily initiated to address the human leopard con- flict in Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) with the aim of identifying the causes of conflict and to attempt to mitigate the same. The MfSGNP is a year long (2011-2012) collaborative effort between the Forest Department and members of civil society to try and understand more about the leopard con- flict and plan for future mitigatory actions to ease the conflict in terms of management/research ac- tion and policy. The first task was to obtain a baseline information on the leopard numbers in the Park. The second was to identify patterns in conflict and to provide a logical explanation for the same. The third was to assess the perception towards leopards of different stake holders and to use it to mitigate conflict. Since SGNP is a Park that has a hard edge (without a buffer) and with an extremely high density of humans at its edges, how humans perceive the leopards is likely to play a crucial role in affecting conflict which is why the project was participatory in nature involving as many interested people in- cluding the media. All the study reports appended in this document have been carried out by inter- ested volunteers which itself indicates the kind of interest present among the people of Mumbai to- wards their Park. This positive participation has to be harnessed for the long term conservation of the Park. The project was conducted in partnership with various Mumbai-based institutions like Bhavan’s Col- lege, Media partners and enthusiastic volunteers. It also involved the Police Department and Fire Bri- gade authorities since they play a crucial role during leopard emergencies. DETAILS OF THE PROJECT PLANNED ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY REPORT NO. Use camera traps to assess mammalian species in SGNP, especially to identify some individual leopards which are using the periphery of the Park. Zeeshan Mirza and team 1 Summary of human leopard conflict in SGNP. Vidya Athreya and team 2 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9
  10. 10. PLANNED ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY REPORT NO. Mapping past conflict instances. Providing conflict information on the internet. Kritika Kapadia and team 3 Assessing dog population in Aarey Milk Colony Girish Punjabi and team 4 Distribution and abundance of herbivores in SGNP using occupancy methods. Girish Punjabi and team 5 Assessing locations of leopard mortality due to vehicu- lar accidents on roads that adjoin SGNP Ajay Bijoor and team 6 Using media reports to map leopard incidences in and around SGNP. Nikhil Disoria and team 7 Cats in the city: Narrative analysis of the interactions between people and leopards in SGNP. Sunetro Ghosal and team 8 Involving interested public using social media - face- book. Diya Banerjee and team Facebook page - Mumbaikars for SGNP To collate and make available on the internet existing biodiversity information on the Park. Vidya Venkatesh, Sachin Rai and team www.mumbaik arsforsgnp.com To analyse the leopard feces using DNA to assess leop- ard population in SGNP. Zeeshan Mirza and team along with a lot of inter- ested volunteers. In process Using diet analysis to assess diet of leopards in SGNP Nikit Surve and team along with a lot of interested vol- unteers. In process Based on the above, to provide management recom- mendations to the SGNP Field Director. The MfSGNP team In process At the end of the project, an awareness programme aimed at different stake-holders will be carried out. The MfSGNP team In process SALIENT FINDINGS OF THE PROJECT Report 1: Leopard abundance in Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) and Aarey Milk Colony (AMC) A camera trapping exercise was carried out in and around the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai between November 2011 and April 2012 in order to assess the minimum number of leopards present in the area. An associated goal of the work was to involve as many volunteers as was possible. The work was carried out along with the field staff of the Forest Department. The capture - recapture ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 10
  11. 11. framework normally used to assess density of animals (Karanth & Nichols 1998; O’Connell 2011) could not be employed largely because of the issue of camera theft. Camera traps were placed on both sides of paths where there were indications of leopard usage and traps were placed at one location for a minimum of seven days. A total of six males, 12 females and three other individuals (whose sex could not be determined) were identified based on their rosette patterns. Only the left flanks were used for identification because we obtained more left flank images of individuals. Thus, a minimum of 21 leopards (in a total of ~117 sq. km area) were photo-captured in SGNP (104 sq. km) and the surrounding area of Aarey Milk Colony (13 sq. km) during the five month study period. Report 2: Conflict patterns in and around SGNP The objective of this study was to use Forest Department records of conflict related incidents from SGNP and the adjoining Thane Forest Division in order to assess the temporal patterns of human leopard conflict. The results indicate that there were two peaks in leopard conflict in the SGNP and Thane areas. The attacks on humans peaked at a smaller level between 1997-1998 when a total of 24 attacks on people were reported and a much larger peak between 2002 - 2004 when a total of 84 at- tacks on people were reported. The average number of leopard attacks on humans (if both injuries and deaths are considered) are seven per year between 1986 and 2010 but in the two years between 1997 -1998, the average was 12 attacks on humans per year, and in the three years between 2002 and 2004, it was an average of 28 attacks per year. Between 2005 and 2010, the average number of leopard attacks on people was 2 per year. The year end in 2012 saw an increase in attacks on humans by leop- ards. In terms of confirmed attacks, after the December 2006 human death which occurred at Nim- bonipada, the next confirmed human death in the region occurred on 15th July 2012 at Shankar Tekdi and was followed by 6 incidents between 2 November 2012 and 26th January 2013 (see Appendix 2.2). These attacks were concentrated at the south-eastern part near Bhandup and Aarey Milk Colony. Some salient features of the patterns of the data and from information obtained from interviews with local people and Forest Department officials indicate that the earlier conflict (prior to 2004) was possi- bly due to the following reasons 1. Large scale captures and releases of leopards of leopards trapped in the region used to occur, espe- cially between 2002 - 2004. 2. Leopards were released into SGNP from Ahmednagar and Pune districts. 3. Leopards were released into Pune Division from SGNP. 4. Political and public pressure on the Forest Department to set up traps is a serious issue, even in the absence of attacks on people. From the interviews it also appears that there is a general realisation among the Forest Department personnel that arbitrary capture and releases worsen the problem and it appears to have drastically decreased since 2005. The periods of very high conflict were 1997-1998 and 2002 - 2004 where many attacks occurred in many places. The attacks that occurred in Tungareshwar (October - December 2011), Tansa (July, August 2012) and south-eastern part of SGNP (November - January 2013) on the ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 11
  12. 12. other hand, appear to have been individual problem animals since the attacks were temporally and spatially contained. There are fairly large number of leopards (21 minimum adults in ~ 120 sq. km from Report 1) and therefore only the presence of leopards does not imply large number of attacks on humans. However, at the same time, people have to be made aware of the dos and donts when living in areas that also support leopards. Many of the attacks on humans in 2012 could have been avoided if people were aware of the precautions they have to take to reduce leopard problems. Report 3: Conflict in Thane Forest Division This study focused on the patterns of attacks on humans in the Thane Forest Division over the last twenty years. The Forest Department records indicate that a majority of attacks took place in 2002- 2004. The highest number of livestock attacks (15) occurred in 1993. A majority of the human victims were either children up to 10 years old or the elderly. Aarey Milk Colony and Kashimira were high- lighted as the areas with a high level of conflict. Of the attack sites visited, a general perception of pada (hamlets) dwellers appeared to be that the leopards causing conflict appeared to be ones re- leased in the area from elsewhere. The question that needs further exploration is why did the attacks scale up in 2002-2004, in particular in areas on the border of the park. Post 2004, the number of attack have significantly reduced. However, there have been localised attacks in the Tungareshwar area (five in late 2011), Tansa (three in the middle of 2012) area and south-eastern parks of SGNP (seven in 2012 and January 2013) which have been detailed in Report 2. Interviews with Forest Officers who served in Thane and SGNP in the past and a few local people indicates that leopard releases from ‘outside’ areas are a serious issues and could be responsible for attacks on people near the release sites, including the increase in attacks on people between 2002 and 2004. Report 4: An assessment of potential prey population in the form of stray dogs at the periphery of SGNP In order to obtain an estimate of prey abundance available for the leopards outside the Park bounda- ries, we estimated the dog populations in Aarey Milk Colony. It has to be noted that we did not esti- mate the density of domestic pigs, cats or the quantum of animal carcasses that are dumped in the area; all which are potential prey for the leopard. We found a total (Nj) of 681 ± 34 (95% CI = 617 – 752) dogs in the study area, with an overall mean resighting probability of 0.53 ± 0.03 (95% CI = 0.47 – 0.58). This corresponds to a density estimate of 57 dogs per km2 (CI = 51 – 63) which provides evidence of the high potential prey biomass available for leopards in AMC. We did not assess the biomass contributed by other species such as feral pigs, house cats and the meat disposed off by the butchers/tabela owners in AMC. Thus it is evident how resource rich human use areas around SGNP are, and perhaps explains the excursions by leopards to feed on dogs and other domestic animals associated with humans. Report 5: Herbivore occupancy in SGNP This study suggests that overall, both Cheetal and Sambar, potential prey species of the leopard, seem to be most abundant in the Central, Southern and Western parts of the park. For Cheetal, the best ar- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 12
  13. 13. eas seem to be near the tourist zone, Malad trench line, Shilonda trail and areas around Tulsi and Vi- har Lake. For Sambar, the best areas seem to be areas around Tulsi and Vihar Lake, Chenna, areas around Lion and Tiger safari, Highest point, Gaimukh and Air force station, Yeur. Wild pig, Four- horned antelope and Muntjac sign detections were very low overall indicating that they likely occur in very low densities throughout the park. Occurrence of fire, followed by local biomass extraction seemed to be the most common forms of hu- man disturbance and therefore management may need to address these threats first. Areas around Yeur seem to be heavily disturbed given the low detection of herbivore signs and high detection of signs of human disturbance. It is recommended that positive human presence (Forest Department and wildlife viewers) be increased in the northern and eastern parts of the Park. Report 6: Leopard mortality due to vehicular traffic on the highways north of SGNP and in AMC. We assessed all the past mortality incidents of leopards due to vehicle accidents along the northern parts of SGNP where the forest is connected to the northern forested landscape such as Tungareshwar and Tansa Wildlife Sanctuaries and other forests of the Thane Forest Division. Since 1994 a total of 35 leopard accidents due to vehicles hits were reported. We sampled 12 accident spots reported from 2005 onwards since they were the most recent and we recorded the GPS co-ordinates for each site. We know from the case of Ajoba, the collared leopard who moved across the Ghodbunder road, that they do cross the highways as well as swim across the Ullas creek to move back and forth from the main Park to the Nagla block and the northern areas. It is also evident from the data on the vehicular acci- dents because of many accidents that occur in the stretches connecting the patches of forests. In the case of Aarey Milk Colony and Film City, a total of three accidents were reported in 2012. In one case the animal was rescued and taken to the SGNP rescue centre. In one case the cub died and in the sec- ond the fate of the animal was not known as it got away. The problem of crossing over is probably much more severe in the case of the much shyer ungulates and smaller animals. Based on all of the information collected and a basic analysis we recommend that this issue be taken up urgently and speed breakers be constructed in areas around the Park where high traffic movement is present (including AMC where leopards have been hit by vehicles), that over-passes or under-bridges be built for the wild animals at a few points connecting the surrounding forests which are cut by high traffic highways, in order to aid the wild animals movement between forest patches in the landscape. These over-passes are likely to be more important for the ungulates who would find crossing the busy roads very difficult. Finally, many of the accidents occurred near garbage dumps that were near hotels at the edges of the roads. These areas are likely to have stray dogs that attract leopards. It is recommended that the hotels at the edges of the highway be encour- aged to dispose their wastes by composting. Report 7: Using media reports to investigate human - leopard interactions in and around SGNP Forest Department records mainly provide information on conflict (livestock and human attacks by leopards and leopard mortality due to various factors). In this study, we used media records to broaden the study of human leopard interactions and used media reports to visit the sites where leopards had been sighted and/or where leopard had preyed on dogs etc. Analysis of the trend in media reporting indicated that even though instances of conflict were very few after 2005, media re- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 13
  14. 14. porting still remained high. We also found that media reports can help supplement the Forest De- partment records. We obtained two interesting locations of leopard incidences to the east of SGNP where leopards were present up to 2 km from the border of the Park in an area surrounded by dense human structures indicating that they probably are more ubiquitous and wide spread in their ranging relative to what we expect of them. Also, media reports provide us information on a wider range of human - leopard interactions than only Forest Department records which are large conflict related (human deaths and injuries and/or leopard deaths and injuries) because other interactions between humans and leopards (such as sightings/predation attempts on dogs and pigs/present in residential areas) are many a time reported in the press and can be very useful information base for future stud- ies. We would also like to point out that in some cases, human deaths have been attributed to leopards without proof. This can increase the fear among people leading to increased pressure on the Forest Department to arbitrarily trap and contribute to conflict. Therefore it is very important that attacks are fully verified before they are reported. Report 8: How people relate to leopards; a social science study. People and large carnivores share a complex and dynamic relationship, embedded in a matrix of eco- logical, cultural, historic and political contexts. This component of the research provides an insight into the subjective interactions that contextualise diverse perceptions that people have of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) landscape and the leopards that share it with them. The SGNP land- scape is densely populated along the periphery of the national park and is home to different (and of- ten a cosmopolitan mix) of communities with different social constructions of the landscape and the resulting claims of its physical configurations. This report builds on a body of knowledge that claims that such perceptions and narratives are based on how people engage with, and so provide meaning to, space, thus reflecting dynamic socio-cultural value and political systems. The research uncovered several narratives that frame people’s perceptions of the SGNP landscape, from being a valuable wilderness that needs to be protected, to being a valuable resource base for people to being a social-moral landscape. Similarly, leopard narratives include ones of blood thirsty monsters, harmless neighbours, gods and elusive mysteries. This discussion of narratives, thus, pro- vides one part of a larger explanation of the dynamic and complex interactions between people, the SGNP landscape and leopards. It also provides some insights into how narratives compete, how coex- istence is dynamically negotiated and how perceptions of conflict can exist even in the absence of ac- tual material loss. Finally, it recommends that the Forest Department undertake structured outreach programmes in addition biological monitoring, to manage these interactions and reduce perceptions of conflict, while accounting for diverse perceptions and their political impacts. References: National workshop for formulating human-leopard conflict management policy. 2007. A Wildlife Trust of India - Ministry of Environment and Forest workshop. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 14
  15. 15. REPORT 1. “CAMERA TRAPPING” LEOPARDS IN SGNP, MUMBAI. Zeeshan A. Mirza Post-Graduate Program in Wildlife Biology & Conservation, WCS-India Program, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, GKVK, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560065, India E-mail: snakeszeeshan@gmail.com Mobile no.: 07406658994 Rajesh V. Sanap D-5-2, Marol Police Camp, M. M. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, 400059, Maharashtra, India. E-mail: rajeshvsanap@gmail.com Mobile no.: 09664987541 Vishal A. Shah 10/12, Sahjivan Soc, Bhatwadi, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400084 Maharashtra, India. E-mail: rollyrider@yahoo.co.in Mobile no.: 08860004948 Citation: Mirza, Z., Sanap, R.V. & V. Shah. 2013. Camera trapping: Leopards of SGNP, Mumbai. A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #1. Sub- mitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 15
  16. 16. 1.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Camera trapping sites were chosen with the help of locals and forest guards for whom we pay our deepest gratitude for sharing their knowledge of the forest with us. Fieldwork would not have been possible without help and willingness of all the RFOs, especially Mr. Prashant Masurkar, RFO (Mobile Squad), who not only helped us but also participated in many of our trapping sessions. We also wish to thank all the RFOs, especially Mr Todarmal for facilitating our work and the field staff of the Forest Department of SGNP as well as Thane Forest Department for all their timely help. Forest guards, in particular Parshuram Kaka was of great help in setting up camera traps and also in searching for possible sites for camera trapping. Pintz Gajjar is thanked for all her help and encouragement. Volunteers helped with camera trapping and scat collection in different areas for which we would like to thank them. 1.2 SUMMARY A camera trapping exercise was carried out in and around the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai between November 2011 and April 2012 in order to assess the minimum number of leopards present in the area. An associated goal of the work was to involve as many volunteers as was possible. The work was carried out along with the field staff of the Forest Department. The capture - recapture framework normally used to assess density of animals (Karanth & Nichols 1998; O’Connell 2011) could not be employed largely because of the issue of camera theft. Camera traps were placed on both sides of paths where there were indications of leopard usage and traps were placed at one location for a minimum of seven days. A total of six males, 12 females and three other individuals (whose sex could not be determined) were identified based on their rosette patterns. Only the left flanks were used for identification because we obtained more left flank images of individuals. Thus, a minimum of 21 leopards (in a total of ~117 sq. km area) were photo-captured in SGNP (104 sq. km) and the surrounding area of Aarey Milk Colony (13 sq. km) during the five month study period. 1.3 INTRODUCTION The Indian leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) is a leopard subspecies widely distributed on the Indian subcontinent and classified as Near Threatened by IUCN since 2008. The species Panthera pardus may soon qualify for the vulnerable status due to habitat loss and fragmentation, heavy poaching for the illegal trade of skins and body parts in Asia, and persecution due to conflict situations (Henschel et al. 2012). In most parts of the world they are becoming increasingly rare outside protected areas where populations are decreasing (Marker et al. 2008). In India, leopards occur both in protected areas as well as human-dominated landscapes where they persist near human settlements by feeding on livestock and domestic dogs and this has been the case since historical times (Daniel 2009). The high tolerance of the people, relative to other countries in the world, to the presence of large, wild, and po- tentially dangerous animals perhaps makes it possible for species such as leopards to persist close to human settlements where domestic animals are abundant (Athreya et al. 2011). Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 16
  17. 17. Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) in Mumbai has been in the limelight for the numerous cases of man-leopard conflicts between 2002 to 2006 and again a spate of attacks between July 2012 and Janu- ary 2013. This area has been the focus of intense media attention as well as of policy makers but not many scientific studies on the ecology (Edgaonkar & Chellam 1998; BNHS 2006) of leopards or con- flict (BNHS 2007) has been carried out to deal with the conflict issue. In this study we wanted to assess the minimum number of leopards present in and around the Park in a way that involved a lot of volunteers making it a citizen science project so that the results of the work can also be disseminated widely. We used camera traps that were triggered by thermal sensors to obtain leopard images in and around SGNP. The individual leopards obtained in the images were identified to obtain a minimum number of leopards present in the Park between September 2011 and March 2012. 1.4 STUDY AREA SGNP lies between 19° 8'N, 72° 53' E and 19° 21'N, 72° 58'E. Also known as the Borivali National Park, it extends over an area of ~104 km2, 8.5 km2 of which is covered by lakes. SGNP lies partly in Thane and partly in the Mumbai Suburban district. For management purposes the Park has been classified into a core zone of 28.1 km2, a buffer zone of 66.2 km2 and a tourism zone of 8.6 km2. Figure 1.1. SGNP is surrounded by the metropolis of Mumbai on three sides. To its north is the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. (Google Earth image). Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 17
  18. 18. Figure 1.2. The Aarey Milk colony is located at the south of SGNP and is marked as a dashed poly- gon with an icon titled A in the following image (obtained from wikimapia.org). The eastern limit of the Park is bordered by the Yeoor forest division, the west by the Krishnagiri Upvan plains and the suburb of Borivali, the north by the Nagla forest block and on the south by the Aarey Milk Colony in the suburb of Goregaon. The National Highway 8, also known as the Western Express Highway runs south-north along the western border of the Park, connecting the city of Mumbai to Ahmedabad, while the Eastern Express Highway, running along the eastern border con- nects Mumbai to Nasik. The density of humans at the periphery of the Park is about 20,000/km2 (http://www.demographia.com/db-mumbaidistr91.htm). Aarey Milk Colony and Film City is located to the southern border of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Aarey Milk Colony (established in 1949) is situated in Goregaon East; a suburb of Mumbai cov- ers an area of 12.8 sq. km (http://dairy.maharashtra.gov.in/). On average, 16,000 cattle are reared on 1,287 hectares of land, and 32 cattle farms. The Aarey milk colony, situated 20 miles (32 km) from Bombay on the main Ghodbunder Road is one of the most modern milk colonies in the world. This area is a grass and scrub environ with a few hillocks, possessing two perennial and one seasonal pond as well as many seasonal streams in the area. The maximum elevation recorded in the area is about ca. 100 m. The much altered scrub forests of the study area are contiguous with SGNP to its north. The forest is of mixed moist deciduous type and is dominated by Tectona grandis, Bombax ceiba, Butea mono- sperma, Pongamia pinnata, Cassia fistula, Ziziphus sp., heavily intermixed with exotic species such as Eucalyptus, the Rat Poison tree as well as Gulmohur and Lantana sp. The area experiences a maximum temperature of 36 degree Celsius and a minimum of about 11 degree with maximum recorded rainfall of about 950mm. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 18
  19. 19. 1.5. METHODS Camera trapping was initiated on 5th November 2011 and continued till 5th April 2012 i.e. for 153 days. Deer Cam DC300 (Green Bay, USA) camera traps were used for trapping. Camera trap sites were se- lected based on presence of indirect evidence left by leopards in the form of scat, pug marks or scrape signs on the ground. Information from locals as well as the Forest Department of leopard movement was also taken into considered while selecting camera trap sites. On two occasions, carcasses of Spot- ted Deer (Axis axis) were found which were presumed to have been killed by leopards and camera traps were placed on the path leading to these carcasses. A pair of camera traps was placed usually at any given site to get exposures of both the flanks of the animal. Twigs, grass, rocks and sticks were used to block the sides of very wide trails to ensure that the animal walks right in the centre of the path which would enable the camera to capture a clear image of the flank. In certain places only a single camera trap was used due to the issue of security of the camera traps. Camera traps were left on throughout the day at some sites, especially in forested areas with less human disturbance and for the most part were turned off in the morning and switched on in the evening to avoid losing expo- sures due to human movement. Each trap was set at a site for a minimum of seven days after which it was installed at a new site. The camera traps were moved before time only if the film roll was entirely exposed or if it was malfunctioning. Camera traps at the carcasses were left as long as the entire film roll would get exposed. The delay time after each exposure was set at 15 seconds. To identify individ- ual leopards we also used images available with the Forest Department and members of the public. Leopards identified from the photographs were given a code; for example ‘LF1’ and ‘LM2’, where ‘L’ stands for leopard; ‘M’ stands for a male; ‘F’ stands for a female, “U” stands for unsexed individual and the number indicates the individual identification. Using this code the leopard can be identified for its sex as well as individual identification. Only left flanks were used for identification because we obtained more unique images of the left flank. 1.6. RESULTS A total of 46 film-rolls were used (~1650 exposures) of which 148 were leopard images. A total of 21 individuals were identified based on the rosette patterns on the left flank, six were males, 12 were fe- males and the sex of three could not be ascertained. Nine individuals were recaptured at more than one site. Of the above, one male (Male 6) and one female (Bindu) were photographed using a hand- held camera in Aarey Milk Colony and the rest were photographed in the camera traps. Apart from leopards, photographic evidence of other mammalian species (Appendix 1.5) were 1. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 2. Spotted Deer (Axis axis) 3. Sambar (Rusa unicolor) 4. Hanuman Langur (Semnopithecus entellus) 5. Bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) 6. Common Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) 7. Asian Palm Civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) 8. Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica) 9. Indian Grey Mongoose (Herpestes edwardsii) 10. Ruddy Mongoose (Herpestes smithii)*** 11. Jungle Cat (Felis chaus) *** Dealt in detail below Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 19
  20. 20. 1.7. THE LEOPARDS OF SGNP The images of all the individuals are provided below along with the general location from where they were photo captured. Figure 1.3. Locations where all male leopards were photo-captured. Area of capture of individual males denoted with different coloured icons. Male 1- green, Male 2- red, Male 3- yellow, Male 4- dark blue, Male 5- maroon and pink, Male 6- light blue Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 20
  21. 21. Leopard Male 1 1LEFT FLANK RIGHT FLANK ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 21 1 LEOPARD 1 (MALE)
  22. 22. Locations where LM 1 was photographed. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 22
  23. 23. 2Leopard Male 2 Location where LM 2 was photographed. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 23 2 LEOPARD 2 - MALE
  24. 24. 3Leopard Male 3 Locations where LM3 was photographed. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 24 3 LEOPARD 3 - MALE
  25. 25. 4Leopard Male 4 Locations where LM4 was photographed. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 25 4 LEOPARD 4 - MALE
  26. 26. 5Leopard Male 5 Locations where LM5 was photographed. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 26 5 LEOPARD 5 - MALE
  27. 27. 6Leopard Male 6 Locations where LM6 was photographed. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 27 6 LEOPARD 6 - MALE
  28. 28. 1.8. FEMALE LEOPARDS Twelve female individuals were identified based on the markings of their left flanks. Their locations are provided in the image below. Figure1.4. Locations where all female leopards were photo-captured. Area of capture of individual females denoted by different coloured icons. Female 1: red; Female 2: green; Female 4: white; Female 5: blue; Female 6: pink; Female 7: yellow; Female 8: purple; Female 9: light blue; Female 10: light green; Female 11: light pink; Female 14: or- ange; Female 15: mauve. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 28
  29. 29. 7Leopard female 1 Leopard photographed at the following locations in Aarey Milk Colony. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 29 7 LEOPARD 7 - FEMALE
  30. 30. 8Leopard Female 2 LEFT FLANK RIGHT FLANK Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 30 8 LEOPARD 8 - FEMALE
  31. 31. Leopard LF2 photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 31
  32. 32. 9Leopard Female 3 LEFT FLANK RIGHT FLANK Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 32 9 LEOPARD 9 - FEMALE
  33. 33. Leopard LF3 photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 33
  34. 34. 10Leopard Female 4 (possibly lactating?) Leopard LF4 photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 34 10 LEOPARD 10 - FEMALE
  35. 35. 11Leopard Female 5 LEFT FLANK RIGHT FLANK Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 35 11 LEOPARD 11 - FEMALE
  36. 36. Leopard LF5 photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 36
  37. 37. 12Leopard Female 6 Leopard LF6 photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 37 12 LEOPARD 12 - FEMALE
  38. 38. 13Leopard Female 7 Leopard LF7 photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 38 13 LEOPARD 13 - FEMALE
  39. 39. 14Leopard Female 8 Leopard LF8 photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 39 14 LEOPARD 14 - FEMALE
  40. 40. 15Leopard Female 9 Leopard LF9 photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 40 15 LEOPARD 15 - FEMALE
  41. 41. 16Leopard Female 10 Leopard LF10 photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 41 16 LEOPARD 16 - FEMALE
  42. 42. 17Leopard Female 11 - aka BINDU (see Appendix 1.1) Leopard LF11 photographed at the following location. Note: Although Bindu has been sighted frequently and for more than a year, we could not obtain her image in the camera traps. We had set up a trap near an area she uses commonly but we could not set it on the main path because of very high human traffic. Therefore it was easier to photo- graph her using a SLR than a camera trap because of the possibility of theft of the trap. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 42 17 LEOPARD 17 - FEMALE
  43. 43. 18Leopard Female 12 Leopard LF 12 photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 43 18 LEOPARD 18 - FEMALE
  44. 44. 1.9. LEOPARDS OF UNKNOWN SEX (AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ABOVE). 19U1 - LEFT FLANK U1 - RIGHT FLANK Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 44 19 LEOPARD 19 - SEX UNKNOWN
  45. 45. Leopard ‘U1’ photographed at the following locations. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 45
  46. 46. 20U 2 - LEFT FLANK WAS PHOTOGRAPHED ACCOMPANYING LF 7 IN FOLLOWING IMAGE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 46 20 LEOPARD 20 - SEX UNKNOWN
  47. 47. Leopard ‘U2’ photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 47
  48. 48. 21U3 - LEFT FLANK Leopard ‘U3’ photographed at the following location. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 48 21 LEOPARD 21 - SEX UNKNOWN
  49. 49. 1.10. REFERENCES Athreya V. Is Relocation a Viable Management Option for Unwanted Animals? - The Case of the Leopard in India. Conservation Society [serial online] 2006 [cited 2012 Jul 14]; 4:419-23. Available from: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2006/4/3/419/49275 Athreya, V. ; Odden, M.; Linnell, John D. C. ; Ullas K., K. (2011) Translocation as a tool for mitigating con- flict with leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India Conservation Biology, 25 (1). 133-141. BNHS. 2006. City Forest Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. BNHS. 2007. City Forest Report. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai. Daniel, J.C. 2009. The leopard in India: A natural history. Natraj Publishers. Dehradun. India. Edgaonkar, A. and R. Chellam. 1998. A preliminary study on the ecology of the leopard, Panthera pardus fusca in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, In- dia. Henschel, P., Hunter, L., Breitenmoser, U., Purchase, N., Packer, C., Khorozyan, I., Bauer, H., Marker, L., Sogbohossou, E. & Breitenmoser-Wursten, C. 2008. Panthera pardus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 27 June 2012. Karanth, K. U., and J. D. Nichols. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic cap- tures and recaptures. Ecology 79:2852– 2862. O’Connell, A.F., Nichols, J. & Karanth, U.K. (2011) Camera Traps in Animal Ecology. Methods and Analyses. Springer, page 286. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 49
  50. 50. Appendix 1.1. The story of BINDU (a leopardess from Aarey Milk Colony) Sex – Female Home range: Aarey Milk Colony & Royal Palms Presumed Birth date – February or March 2011 Approximate age: 1.4–1.5 years Identification rosettes L- Left flank R- Right flank Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 50
  51. 51. With her mother 17/05/2011 Place: Aarey Image courtesy: Rajesh Sanap As part of the biodiversity surveys, we (RS & ZM) would visit Aarey Colony regularly in search of spiders and other critters. On one such night, Rajesh called me to show something that he had spot- ted. I and Vishal hurriedly started walking towards him and to our amazement we could see three pairs of eyes glowing in the beam of our flashlights. These eye shines were unmistakable and it took little time for us to conclude that they were leopard cubs. We were cautiously looking out for the mother which surely would be around. Rajesh pointed his flashlight in a far corner and two large and much brighter eyes gave away the location of the mother. She was hiding behind the thicket of a large bush and watching all our movements as well as the cubs. We observed the cubs for over 30 mins and then resumed our search for critters. As we were leaving, one of the curious cubs started following us and was in close proximity providing us with a great opportunity to photograph it. This was the first time that we came across this female and we had no clue that she would grow up and rule the area where she was born. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 51
  52. 52. Friends with the Police. 7/09/2011 Place: Aarey Colony Image courtesy Mr. L Tompe (Police Department). Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 52
  53. 53. A 5 Star escapade 08/11/2011 Place: Hotel Renaissance, Mumbai Image courtesy: Forest Department, SGNP. It was as if even she couldn’t resist going to a 5 Star hotel for recreation. Unfortunately she wasn’t the most desirable guest for the hotel staff that day. Hence, the Forest department was called to capture her. Not much of details are available about this misadventure, but the last thing we heard was that she was captured after tranquilization and immediately released the next day in the core area of SGNP. It wasn’t going to be the last… Sleeping beauty 23/11/2011 Place: Aarey Colony Image courtesy Zeeshan Mirza and Vishal Shah We were on our way back home from SGNP after checking a camera trap when we received a call from a local enthusiast in Aarey that a leopard was sitting on a road near by. By the time we reached the spot, the leopard had already left and was nowhere in sight. We stood there for a while talking to our friend who had called us when a pack of dogs gathered out attention. These dogs were frantically barking and we presumed that they were barking at the leopard. So we rushed in the direction of the dogs across a grass field nearly 50m away. Upon reaching there, we saw some local residents standing out of their houses with sticks and on being questioned said that the leopard just passed their houses. Our speculations were correct and so we started searching for the leopard. Suddenly, a local resident saw something moving up a mango tree nearby and started shouting, so we rushed to the spot. And there it was, resting in the upper branches of the mango tree. She was totally undeterred by the curi- ous people gathered below and merrily whiling away her time resting and sleeping. We stood there photographing it for nearly One and a Half hours. Then she started descending the tree giving us some really good poses for photography. She jumped down, gave us a purring growl and ran off into the grass field nearby. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 53
  54. 54. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 54
  55. 55. A tragic incident February 2012 Place: Aarey Milk Colony. Image courtesy: Forest Department A worker from one of the cattle sheds in unit no. 28 was ‘attacked’ by a leopard on 10/01/2012. This guy apparently was walking down the road towards New Zealand hostel and the leopard jumped on him and scratched him. This we presume that the leopard hadn’t seen the guy approaching and got startled when he was too close and attacked as it got startled. The guy survived with minor injuries. This incident made the locals to put pressure on the Forest department and the department set up tow traps in AMC, one at unit no 28 and one at unit no. 15. Nearly after a month later, a female leopard got caught at the trap set up at unit no. 28. Images received from the forest department confirmed that the captured leopard is Bindu. She was released in the national park immediately after rescue. But camera trapping at the site of the attack showed that another female lives there too; so which leopard actually attacked the man still remains a mystery… Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 55
  56. 56. Return to home ground June 2012 Place: Royal Palms, Goregaon (West). Image courtesy: Arnab Chaudhuri (local resident of Royal Palms) We were informed of a bold leopard apparently ‘terrorizing’ residents of Royal Palms. In order to identify the leopard we along with the forest department set up camera traps in the area. Meanwhile the local residents shared images of the leopard with us. We were amazed at the way the leopard was seen playing around and resting in places probably used to the presence of the people living there. This leopard was a female and was Bindu indeed. So after she was released in February, she had made it back to her home range. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 56
  57. 57. Records of Bindu’s movement Map Courtesy: Google Earth 1. Aarey Milk Colony 2. Aarey Milk Colony 3. Aarey Milk Colony 4. SGNP (Release site ) 5. Royal Palms Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 57
  58. 58. Appendix 1.2. The story of leopard LM2 from SGNP Description: LM2 with chip number 00-063B-5476 Sex/maturity – Male/adult Weight – 58 kg Sites where camera trapped or trapped in cage: Aarey Milk Colony, Kanheri Caves region, Powai re- gion 2nd November, 2012: An attack took place in Maroshi Pada, near Royal Palms (Goregaon east, Mum- bai). The area lies on the border of SGNP sandwiched between the park and Aarey. The victim Shwetha Paghe, a 50 year old woman was killed and dragged late evening when she went to answer nature’s call. Image of article published in Mid Day –Ranjeet Jadhav Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 58
  59. 59. Capturing the Leopard: 3rd November, 2012: The Thane Forest Department set up a leopard cage at the attack site in the eve- ning and around 10.30 pm a leopard got trapped in the cage. The leopard was handed over to the Bo- rivali Forest Department for post capture procedure. No one can be sure if the trapped leopard was responsible for killing the woman or not. Post-capture procedure: 4th November, 2012: The Forest department team taking details of post captures procedure. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 59
  60. 60. Identification of the leopard by rosette patterns: Based on the rosette patters, the rescued animal was identified as LM2 from the database of images captured during the camera trapping (Mirza et al. 2012). In addition to this the leopard possessed a Radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip that indicated that the leopard was trapped in the past. Left flank Camera trapping image Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 60
  61. 61. Locations where LM2 was recorded 1. captured in a trap cage at Nitie ,Powai region on 7 Dec 2004 2. released at Gundgaon, Tulshi region on 4 Jan 2005 3. captured in camera trap at Kanheri region on 31 Dec 2011 4. captured in trap cage following an attack on a human at Moroshi Pada, Aarey Milk colony on 2.Nov.2012 Records of LM2 movement Map Courtesy: Google Earth Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 61
  62. 62. Appendix 1.3. Camera trapping process. The camera traps were mainly set up on well-used paths. Camera traps were tied to poles or trees. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 62
  63. 63. Cameras were placed in the evening and removed in the morning in most cases. Cameras were checked when activated each evening. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 63
  64. 64. Appendix 1.4. Right flanks images of leopards obtained in the camera traps. These were not used in the abundance estimates because we did not get images of their left flanks. RIGHT MALE - A RIGHT MALE - B Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 64
  65. 65. RIGHT MALE - C RIGHT FEMALE - A Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 65
  66. 66. RIGHT FEMALE - B RIGHT FEMALE - C Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 66
  67. 67. RIGHT FEMALE - D RIGHT FEMALE - E Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 67
  68. 68. Appendix 1.5. Other species photo-captured. First record for SGNP: Ruddy mongoose (Herpestes smithii)  The Ruddy Mongoose (Herpestes smithii) is a species of mongoose found in hill forests of peninsu- lar India and Sri Lanka. The ruddy mongoose is a very closely related to Indian grey mongoose, but distinguished by its slightly larger size and black tipped tail extending for 2 to 3 inches at the distal end. This species has previously not been recorded from SGNP. The present record constitutes the first report of this species from the national park. Grey Jungle Fowl Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 68
  69. 69. Small Indian Civet Chital Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 69
  70. 70. Wild Boar Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 70
  71. 71. Sambar Porcupine Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 71
  72. 72. Hanuman langur Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 72
  73. 73. Palm Civet Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 73
  74. 74. Peafowl Black-naped Hare Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 74
  75. 75. Barking Deer Jungle Cat Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 75
  76. 76. Appendix 1.6. Camera Trapping Team members. ZEESHAN MIRZA He is currently pursuing a master’s degree in Wildlife Biology & Conservation from National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore. Zeeshan is interested in the study and photo documentation of snakes, lizards, scorpions and tarantulas. Along with his friend Rajesh Sanap, he has documented the biodiversity of Aarey Milk Colony in Mumbai, during which he has closely observed leopards. RAJESH SANAP Rajesh graduated from the field of arts with Economics and Sociology as his main subjects from Pat- kar College, Mumbai.  Currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Environmental Sciences from Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, he is interested in the study and photo documentation of taran- tulas, trapdoor spiders and scorpions. During the surveys conducted in Aarey Milk Colony along with Zeeshan, he would frequently encounter leopards which motivated him further to explore the habits of this elusive cat and evaluate their amazing and perhaps misunderstood relation with hu- mans. VISHAL SHAH A post graduate in Marketing, Vishal started his career in the field of Media Planning. He is also an avid traveler with an interest in wildlife, photography and adventure sports. Since the past 2 years he has been studying and rescuing snakes. He also helps Zeeshan and Rajesh in their research work. It was during this phase that he developed an interest in the Leopards of Mumbai. NIKHIT SURVE A student at St. Xaviers College, Mumbai, he is pursuing a degree in Botany and Zoology. Nikhit is a nature enthusiast and enjoys watching and exploring wildlife He wants to share his knowledge in minimization of man animal conflict so that both of them can exist in harmony. He feels that conser- vation and development go hand in hand and one should not be partial towards either of them NITESH SHRIYAN A graduate in Information Technology and is presently working with Tata Consultancy Services. He is interested in nature photography, trekking and travelling. PRATHAMESH DESAI He has done his B.Sc. in Hospitality and Tourism Management and works in a luxury hotel. An avid and experienced bird watcher for last 3 years, he has achieved a lot in this field. His team won the HSBC Mumbai Bird Race 2012. He has been associated with some noted NGOs in Mumbai and Thane including Nyass, BNHS, Pariyawaran Dakshata Mandal and HOPE. He had an opportunity to organ- ize the Dombivli Bird Race last year. Prathamesh has also worked on the birds of Dombivli for the last 2 years and has created various checklists and articles on them. He organizes bird watching trails and gives presentations and lectures on Birding in various schools. ROHIT JHA A student pursuing his Masters in Wildlife Biology and Conservation at the National Centre for Bio- logical Sciences, Bangalore, he likes to combine his passion and interest for all things wild and natural with hard core field work in order to gain tangible benefits for wild animals and their habitats and satisfy his yearning for an ecologically stable world. Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 76
  77. 77. List of Volunteers who assisted with the camera trapping work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Name Place Abhijeet Ranade  Borivali Ankit Vyas Kandivali Ankita Humraskar Borivali Anusha Shetty   Ashish Jadhav Goregaon Divya Singh   Jayant Dofey Pune Kanan Thakar   Kunal Ullalkar Marol Mrugank Save Dadar Munira Kachwala   Navin Sawant Marol Neha Agrawal   Nikita Simlani   Nilesh Nagwekar Andheri Parvez Shaifi   Prasann Nalavade Marol Prasanna Subramanian Borivali Preetha Srinivasan Dahisar Rajesh Sanap Marol Rohit Jha Mira road Satish Pawar Marol Tejal Bhatt   Vijaya Mudaliar Mira road Vishal Shah Ghatkopar Yagnesh Mehta   Yogesh Band Borivali Satish Pawar Mira road Zeeshan Mirza Marol Kirti Chavan  Thane Kuldeep Chaudhari Thane Rohan Kale Dombivili Sharad Singh Dombivili Sonu Singh Thane Sugandha Nimkar Thane Vinay Sawant Thane Report 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Camera trapping ! 77
  78. 78. REPORT 2. LEOPARD TRAPPINGS AND ATTACKS ON HUMANS IN AND AROUND SGNP: AN ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICT. Vidya Athreya (vidya.athreya@gmail.com) Ajay Bijoor (ajaybijoor@gmail.com) Aparna Watve (aparnawatve1@gmail.com) Citation: Athreya, V., Bijoor, A. & A. Watve. 2013. Leopard Trappings and Attacks on humans in and around the periphery of SGNP, Mumbai. A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #2. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 78
  79. 79. 2.1. SUMMARY The objective of this study was to use Forest Department records of conflict related incidents from SGNP and the adjoining Thane Forest Division in order to assess the temporal patterns of human leopard conflict. The results indicate that there were two peaks in leopard conflict in the SGNP and Thane areas. The attacks on humans peaked at a smaller level between 1997-1998 when a total of 24 attacks on people were reported and a much larger peak between 2002 - 2004 when a total of 84 at- tacks on people were reported. The average number of leopard attacks on humans (if both injuries and deaths are considered) are seven per year between 1986 and 2010 but in the two years between 1997 -1998, the average was 12 attacks on humans per year, and in the three years between 2002 and 2004, it was an average of 28 attacks per year. Between 2005 and 2010, the average number of leopard attacks on people was 2 per year. The year end in 2012 saw an increase in attacks on humans by leop- ards. In terms of confirmed attacks, after the December 2006 human death which occurred at Nim- bonipada, the next confirmed human death in the region occurred on 15th July 2012 at Shankar Tekdi and was followed by 6 incidents between 2 November 2012 and 26th January 2013 (see Appendix 2.2). These attacks were concentrated at the south-eastern part near Bhandup and Aarey Milk Colony. Some salient features of the patterns of the data and from information obtained from interviews with local people and Forest department officials indicate that the earlier conflict (prior to 2004) was possi- bly due to the following reasons 1. Large scale captures and releases of leopards of leopards trapped in the region used to occur, espe- cially between 2002 - 2004. 2. Leopards were released into SGNP from Ahmednagar and Pune districts. 3. Leopards were released into Pune Division from SGNP. 4. Political and public pressure on the Forest Department to set up traps is a serious issue, even in the absence of attacks on people. From the interviews it also appears that there is a general realisation among the Forest Department personnel that arbitrary capture and releases worsen the problem and it appears to have drastically decreased since 2005. The periods of very high conflict were 1997-1998 and 2002 - 2004 where many attacks occurred in many places. The attacks that occurred in Tungareshwar (October - December 2011), Tansa (July, August 2012) and south-eastern part of SGNP (November - January 2013) on the other hand, appear to have been individual problem animals since the attacks were temporally and spatially contained. There are fairly large number of leopards (21 minimum adults in ~ 120 sq. km from Report 1) and therefore only the presence of leopards does not imply large number of attacks on humans. However, at the same time, people have to be made aware of the dos and donts when living in areas that also support leopards. Many of the attacks on humans in 2012 could have been avoided if people were aware of the precautions they have to take to reduce leopard problems. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 79
  80. 80. 2.2. METHODS We used records of leopard attacks on humans present with the SGNP Forest Department and Thane Forest Department since 1986. These were plotted and patterns were noted. We also used interviews with Forest Department officials and local people to assess the reasons why some periods had more attacks on humans compared to other years. We also used media records and site visits for the years 2011 - January 2013 to obtain information on leopard attacks on humans. 2.3. RESULTS (i) A total of 176 attacks on humans by leopards between 1991 - January 2013 were reported (Figure 2.1). No confirmed attacks took place around SGNP in 2011 and no human deaths occurred between 2007 - 2009. In 2010 and 2011, deaths occurred in the Tungareshwar and Thane Divisions but not around SGNP. However, in 2012 and in January 2013, 4 attacks and 3 attacks, respectively, occurred at the periphery of SGNP. (ii) The average number of leopard attacks on humans (if both injuries and deaths are considered) are seven per year between 1986 and 2010 but between the high intensity periods of 1997 - 1998, the aver- age was 12 attacks on humans per year and between 2002 and 2004, it was 28 attacks per year (Table 2.1; Figure 2.1). Figure 2.1: Attacks on humans22 between 1991 and January 2013 caused by leopards in and around SGNP. 0 5 10 15 20 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Human Death Human Injury Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 80 22 Data available from 1991
  81. 81. Figure 2.2. Leopard Trapping, Relocation and leopard deaths between 1984 and 2011. A sudden increase in the number of cases of trapping and relocation of leopards in the years between 2002 to 2004 is also observed (Table 2.1; Figure 2.2). Of these, almost all of the records for leopard trappings in the year 2004 state the reason for the trapping to be “to avoid the attacks of leopard out- side the forest on humans and due to political interference it became necessary to capture leop- ards” or on account of “complaints from localities”. All the trappings are not in response to a man- eating incident. June 2004 was the worst affected month from the perspective of leopard attacks recording 9 deaths and 3 attacks in that single month. The peak in attacks on humans occurred in June 2004 when a large number of leopards that were trapped in and around the Park and maintained in captivity were released following the elections (personal communication Forest Officer Thane Forest Division; Figure 2.2). We now take a closer look at the years between 2000 and January 2013 to view the trend of trappings vs. attacks on humans by leopards (Table 2.1). The increase in attacks commence in March 2001 which is also the similar time that the large scale capture and release of leopards occurred in the adjoining Junnar Forest Division. 0 15 30 45 60 1984 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Leopard Deaths Leopard Relocation Trapping Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 81
  82. 82. Table 2.1. Details of leopard trappings and attacks on humans between 2000 and January 2013. YEAR ATTACKS TRAPPINGS 2000 2 1 2001 10 3 2002 32 19 2003 28 26 2004 24 51 2005 4 1 2006 5 0 2007 3 2 2008 0 na 2009 0 na 2010 2 0 2011 5 3 2012 7 6 2013 3 3 Figure 2.3. Trend for Trappings vs. Attacks between 2002-2004 0 4 8 11 15 Jan-00 Sep-00 May-01 Jan-02 Sep-02 May-03 Jan-04 Sep-04 May-05 Jan-06 Sep-06 May-07 Trapping Attacks Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 82
  83. 83. Table 2.2 provides detailed information for the period between 2002-2004 of leopard trappings and attacks on humans. There does not appear to be a direct relationship between trapping and the at- tacks, even if we consider a delay between an attack and trappings. This is especially obvious with the trappings carried out between January and March 2004, 15 leopard trappings occurred although 5 human attacks had taken place (Table 2.2). Table 2.2. Trend for Trappings vs. Attacks in 2004 MONTH ATTACKS TRAPPINGS Jan 1 5 Feb 2 7 Mar 2 3 Apr 0 2 May 0 0 Jun 12 5 Jul 0 7 Aug 0 4 Sep 2 4 Oct 2 4 Nov 0 3 Dec 3 7 Table 2.3. Information from the records which indicate that political pressure is also an important cause for setting up traps to capture leopards. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 83
  84. 84. 2.4. Conflict in adjoining parts of SGNP and Thane Trapping is an ubiquitous practice used to deal with leopards that are not ‘wanted’ by the local peo- ple, usually because they fear them and the belief that if the leopards are removed then the problem/ leopard presence will decrease in the area. SGNP consists of a small protected area that nestled within a larger landscape that is administered by the Thane Territorial Forest Division. The three adjoining Forest Divisions to Thane are Junnar Forest Division (belonging to Pune Forest Circle), Ahmednagar and Nashik Forest Divisions (belonging to Nashik Forest Circle). Forest Department records indicate that leopards captured in the above Divisions used to be released in Thane Forest Division as well as in Sanjay Gandhi National Park in the past. Interviews with officers from SGNP indicates that leop- ards trapped in SGNP used to be released in Malshej Ghat in Junnar Forest Division. Therefore this region appears to have had a lot of mixing of leopards, caught in one place and released in another. These regions also experienced serious conflict with attacks on humans, especially in Junnar where in 2001, large number of people were attacked, perhaps for the first time ever in the state. The interventions in all three sites have reduced since then (Table 2.4a,b), but in many cases the re- leases are not intimated to the local forest officials at the site of release or the residents of the area. Table 2.4 (a). Leopard Captures and attacks on people between 2000 - 2005 . (Note. The number of leopards trapped are usually released except for in 2003, when about 10 - 15 leopards from Junnar and 9 from SGNP were maintained in permanent captivity in Junnar Rescue centre). AREA PEOPLE ATTACKED PEOPLE DEAD LEOPARDS TRAPPED Junnar (Pune) 42 15 114 Nashik Forest Circle 117 18 98 Table 2.4 (b). Leopard Captures and attacks on people between 2005 - 2009 . (Note. Most of the trapped leopards were released). AREA PEOPLE ATTACKED PEOPLE DEAD LEOPARDS TRAPPED Junnar (Pune) 3 0 9 Nashik Forest Circle 15 5 29 In most cases leopards are trapped because they are a perceived problem and almost all trapped leop- ards are released (Table 2.5) except for some animals maintained in captivity in SGNP and in Junnar Rescue Centre. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 84
  85. 85. Table 2.5. The number of leopard captures and releases between 1999 and 2004 in some Forest Di- visions of Maharashtra. FOREST DIVISION NUMBER OF LEOPARDS CAPTURED NUMBER OF LEOPARDS RELEASED Nashik 82 82 Kolhapur 24 24 Pune 115 114 Thane 16 16 Dhule 4 2 Mumbai Wildlife 46 30* Nagpur 6 6 Total 293 274 Note: * 10 were sent to Junnar Rescue Centre in Junnar Forest Division. 2.5. Conclusion There have never been any reliable estimates of number of leopards present in SGNP or a detailed study of conflict to conclusively draw patterns of conflict. However, it is known from research con- ducted in the Ahmednagar district (Athreya et al. unpublished data) that only the presence of high density of leopards does not translate to high conflict levels. This also appears to be the case in SGNP. The analysis carried out using the Forest Department records conflict indicates that conflict was rarer than common, increasing in intensity only during two periods which was also accompanied by large scale capture release of leopards found in and around the National Park as well as of releases of leop- ards into SGNP from adjoining forest divisions. Similar patterns are seen with respect to conflict in the adjoining Forest Divisions of Nashik and Junnar. Capture has decreased substantially since 2005, with no animals captured in 2010. There is however pressure to trap on the Thane Forest Department. The recent attacks (2011 in Tungareshwar region; 2012 in Tansa and in south-eastern areas adjoining SGNP) indicate that the three spurts were probably caused by individual animals considering the at- tacks was spatially and temporally contained. In many cases (based on media reports), the attacks could have been avoided. The recommendations are 1. It is important to have detailed studies of the ecological and sociological causes of conflict espe- cially the effect of captures and releases in conflict in SGNP and the surrounding Forest Circles of Pune and Nashik. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 85
  86. 86. 2. Arbitary capture is known to worsen conflict (Athreya et al. 2011) at the site of capture and release. SGNP used to have both in very large numbers at the peak of conflict and since captures have been decreased, despite high leopard presence, conflict is at very low levels. 3. The reasons for capture in 2004 are due to public and political pressure, therefore these need to be addressed and the public and politicians need to be made aware of the dangers of arbitrary cap- ture. The other reason stated in the Forest Department records for justification of capture was to prevent human attacks. However it is likely that captures increase human attacks and the Forest Department has to take a proactive stance in informing the the local people and politicians, of the dangers associated with arbitrary captures and releases. 4. Releases of leopards trapped in the irrigated landscapes of Pune, Ahmednagar and Nashik Forest Divisions occur in the forests of Thane Forest Division because of the presence of forest cover and sparse human populations (often tribal). There is no monitoring of the effect of these releases on the attacks on people near the release sites. 5. Given that SGNP has high number of leopards and extremely high density of humans staying at the periphery of the Park (and in encroached areas it the Park boundaries), the potential for con- flict will always be there. However, it is important that the factors that could lead to the conflict (such as presence of garbage which attracts dogs and therefore leopards, bad toilet facilities, peo- ple going singly in leopard areas in the night etc.) are reduced. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 86
  87. 87. Appendix 2.1. Case Study (Leopard from Sangamner released in SGNP and re-trapped in Thane marriage Hall). Based on a letter sent from Vidya Athreya to the Chief Wildlife Warden on 15th October 2004. “Dear Sir, In our systematic checking of microchips of the leopards in the Manickdoh Rescue Centre, Junnar, today, we found that the leopard which had entered a house in Sangamner on 17th March 2004, which we had helped rescue, was also the same animal who had entered the marriage hall in Thane on June 7th 2004. The Sangamner leopard was sent on 18th March 2004 to SGNP and we chipped him on 23rd March 04 at SGNP with the chip number 00-0618-1AFE. On 2nd July, 2004 we had inserted chips into various leopards in SGNP as well as checked others for chips. We then found a male who had a chip # 00– 063B-0D46 which was not our batch of chips and we were informed by the SGNP staff present there that it was the same animal that was trapped in the marriage hall in Thane (and which media reports say occurred on the 7th of June). Since he already had a chip (which was not ours) we did not make any attempt to further check for other chips on him. Today in Manickdoh, we found this animal to have two chips (one inserted by us and another by SGNP). This then implies that he was released from SGNP after being sent there from Sangamner and was re-caught at Thane. Numerous leopards are sent from W. Maharashtra to SGNP either because they are unwell, or are mothers with cubs or are caught in severe conflict situations (e.g.., Junnar). For instance, data only from Nashik and Junnar for the period between January 2002 and December 2003 shows that 9 leop- Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 87
  88. 88. ards (2 from Nashik, 5 adults + 2 cubs from Junnar) were sent to SGNP. If such animals are being re- leased into SGNP then that would explain the high densities of leopards seen in SGNP. In the last two months, at least three leopards have been sent to SGNP from W. Maharashtra and it is important that these not be released, especially in SGNP which is a island hemmed in by the city of Mumbai. Artificially created high densities of leopards is likely to increase conflict levels.” SOME OF THE RELEASE DOCUMENTS FROM THE FD Table 2.6. Leopards from East Nashik sent/released to SGNP (Mumbai Forest Circle), Malshej Ghat (Pune Forest Circle), Peint Valsad (near the Gujarat Maharashtra border), Dahanu Forest Division. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 88
  89. 89. Table 2.7. Details of Thane Forest Division captures and releases in the region (Phansad, SGNP and Tansa) Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 89
  90. 90. CONVERSATIONS WITH OFFICERS (NAMES NOT MENTIONED) • In October 2004, interview with field level forest official in Nashik Forest Division indicates that large number of leopard are trapped and released in areas that are other to what is written in the records. • In May 2004, interview with field level forest official from Thane Forest Division indicated that large number of leopards which had been captured but not released due to elections were released following elections. The officer mentioned within a few days attacks on people started and that was the highest intensity period of conflict in SGNP. • The DCF in charge of Junnar region in 1986 had written a letter to DCF of Nashik requesting them to not release trapped leopards in Malshej Ghats. Even today leopards trapped in both, Pune and Nashik Forest Circles are released in this area. • Field level officer who was in SGNP in 2003 mentioned that there used to be lots of captures and releases, with leopards trapped in Junnar being released in SGNP and vice versa in the past. That this has been stopped since 2005. CONVERSATION WITH TRIBALS WHO LIVE AROUND SGNP • They mentioned that from their relatives who work in the leopard captive centre mentioned that in the years 2002 to 2004, trapped animals were released, animals that were used to humans feedings them and the local animals would have displaced these animals making them come to inhabitations and killing people. Many tribal families also lost their family to the spate of leopard attacks in this period. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 90
  91. 91. Appendix 2.2. Details of leopard attacks on humans that occurred in 2011 and 2012. Tungareshwar area 14 October 2011 - injured 14 November 2011 - fatal attack 26 November 2011 - injured 27 November 2011 - fatal attack All the above attacks were close to each other. The attack below was to the west, near Bhiwandi and about 7 - 8 km from the previous attack. 10 December 2011 - fatal attack 15 July 2012 - Fatal attack Shankartekdi (SGNP) Tansa area 25 July 2012 - purposeful attack, rescued 30 August 2012 - purposeful attack, rescued. 5 August 2012 - fatal attack SGNP area 2 November 2012 - fatal attack 17 November 2012 - fatal attack 6 December 2012 - dragged the body 1 January 2013 - injured 6 January 2013 - injured 26 January 2013 - injured CONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKS 1. - Mulund girl 15 July 2012 Shankar Tekdi, Mulund West A 7-year-old girl (Sanjana Thorat) attacked by a leopard at 2230 hours, when she was defecating on a garbage dump, 10m above their hutment. Her mother and grandmother are said to be watching over her. The girl’s head was found the next morning around 155m from the attack site. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-17/mumbai/32712765_1_leopard-forest-officials -sanjay-gandhi-national-park The little child was defecating late at night near the garbage dump, in the dark when she was picked up. Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 91
  92. 92. 2. - Aarey woman death When: 2 Nov 2012 Where: Maroshi pada, near Royal Palms, Aarey Milk Colony What: A 50-year-old lady (Shwetha Paghe) was killed by a leopard when she stepped out at 2130 from her hutment to urinate. Her cries alerted others, even as the leopard dragged her body into the forest. The body was found early morning, with the leopard allegedly sitting near it. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/leopard-kills-50yearold-woman-in-goregaon/1026522/ The lady was answering nature’s call late in the night alone. 3. - Tembipada girl When: 17 Nov 2012 Where: Forests near Tembipada, Bhandup What: A 2-year-old girl (Usha Vinayak Yadav) is said to have been killed around 2300 as she was uri- nating near some bushes while her mother stood 15-20 feet way. Her body was found the next morn- ing around 0645 in the BMC training facility inside the forest, with its hands and neck missing. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Leopard-drags-2-year-old-into-forest-in-Bhandup -kills-her/articleshow/17272386.cms The little girl was answering nature’s call late at night without the presence of an adult at close prox- imity. 4. - Bhandup Water Complex When: 6 December 2012 Where: BMC Bhandup water complex What: A 55 year old security guard’s body was found at 7:30 am near the Vihar lake. However, a news report said that was a habitual drinker and it is likely that he was lying on the road in the night. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2012120720121207040322402b122d5fc/Security-guard-kill ed-eaten-in-3rd-leopard-attack-since-July.html 5. Place: Maroshi Pada Date: 1st Jan 2013 Remark : Injured Details: The incident took place around 6:30 am when the boy (approximately age 12 year old) went for a toilet.   6. Date: 5/6th January 2013 Where: Mataipada in Aarey Milk Colony. What: A 25 year old woman went out in the night to fill water when she was attacked. She was taken to the hospital to treat her wounds. http://m.timesofindia.com/city/mumbai/Leopard-attacks-woman-in-Aarey/articleshow/17917683. cms 7. - Adarsh Nagar, Aarey Milk Colony When: 26 January 2012 Where: at the settlement What: The 9 year old boy went with his friend to answer nature’s call at 7:30 pm when he was at- tacked. His dead body was found and the leopard was seen at the dead body. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nineyearold-killed-in-leopard-attack/1065642/ Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 92
  93. 93. UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKS 1. Lion safari area, SGNP - NOT LEOPARD ATTACK When: 19 Sept 2011 Where: Lion safari area, SGNP What: A 19-year-old boy (Sanjesh Bolre) was killed by a friend in SGNP on 19 SEPT 2011. His body was found near the lion safari area in SGNP. Leopards were initially blamed but in May 2012 the po- lice arrested a friend who confessed to killing the boy in the national park. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Humiliated-teen-killed-classmate-in-national-par k/articleshow/13583935.cms 2. Kashimira body - UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACK When: 21 Nov 2011 Where: Kashimira What: A 70-year-old man (Harishchandra Ladkya Gorat) was missing on 21 Nov 2011 when he went to the forest to collect wood. His decomposed body was discovered on 27 Nov 2011. The death was attributed to leopards based on little definitive evidence. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_leopard-kills-man-in-kashimira_1618253 3. Adarsh Nagar, Aarey Milk Colony - UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACK When: 24 April 2012 Where: Adarsh Nagar, Aarey Milk Colony What: A 5-year-old boy (Sunny Soni) sent missing on 24 April 2012: Parts of his hand, leg and head were found on 6 May 2012. It was identified by the boy’s short and attributed to leopards with no clear evidence. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_missing-aarey-boys-body-parts-found_1685374 4. Mulund man - UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACK When: 5 Nov 2012 Where: Forests near Khindipada, Mulund What: The partially eaten body of an unidentified 50-year-old man was found in the forests near Khindipada, Mulund/Bhandup. According to local forest guards, he was mentally ill and had been seen wandering in the area for two days prior to the discovery of the body and had been warned about leopards. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_leopard-mauls-50-year-old-in-mulund_1760726 5. Powai - UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACK When: 20 December 2012 Where: Powai. What: The 28 year old woman was missing for a week when her body was found. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/woman-found-dead-leopard-attack-suspected/1052827 Report 2! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Summary of Conflict 93
  94. 94. REPORT 3. A STUDY OF HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT IN THE THANE FOREST DIVISION, MUMBAI. Kritika S. Kapadia (kritikask@gmail.com) Citation: Kapadia, S.K. 2013. A study of the presence of human-leopard conflict in the Thane Forest Division. Mumbai. A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #3. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra. Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 94
  95. 95. 3.1 Summary This study focused on the patterns of attacks on humans in the Thane Forest Division over the last twenty years. The Forest Department records indicate that a majority of attacks took place in 2002- 2004. The highest number of livestock attacks (15) occurred in 1993. A majority of the human victims were either children up to 10 years old or the elderly. Aarey Milk Colony and Kashimira were high- lighted as the areas with a high level of conflict. Of the attack sites visited, a general perception of pada (hamlets) dwellers appeared to be that the leopards causing conflict appeared to be ones re- leased in the area from elsewhere. The question that needs further exploration is why did the attacks scale up in 2002-2004, in particular in areas on the border of the park. Post 2004, the number of attack have significantly reduced. However, there have been localised attacks in the Tungareshwar area (five in late 2011), Tansa (three in the middle of 2012) area and south-eastern parks of SGNP (seven in 2012 and January 2013) which have been detailed in Report 2. 3.2. Aim. The aim of the study was multifold, commencing with the effective collection and documentation of past conflicts in the region surrounding SGNP. Often the leopard issue in the Mumbai city limits gets focussed media attention and we wanted to assess the level of conflict in the entire Thane Forest Divi- sion which are the areas surrounding SGNP and extend up to the western ghats. The documentation also included the attitude and assessments (if any) of a small sample of Forest Department field staff, villagers, and relatives of the victim. Upon documentation, the aim was to use the findings of the study to determine patterns of conflict, if any. 3.3. Study area The study was focused on the Thane Forest Division, which comprises of forest, public and private land surrounding the national park. The division is spread over Thane, Kalyan, Bhiwandi, Vasai, Ul- hasnagar, Ambernath, Murbad, Wada (P). The division extends from the Arabian Sea in the west to the Pune district in the East (Figure 3.1). Dahanu, Shahpur and Alibaug are the surrounding Forest Divisions. The Geographical area of Thane District is 9558 Sq Km. The total area of the Division is 891 Sq Km. The Western Ghat runs from South to North in the eastern part of the Division adjoining Pune District. Some of the hills are devoid of vegetation owing to repeated incidence of fire and subsequent surface run off during the rains. The forest area is of 813 Sq Km or 9.1% of the total area. This is di- vided into Reserve forest consists of 520 Sq Km (64% of the forest area). 262 Sq Km is Protected Forest; or 32% of forests. The remainder of the forest is divided into Acquired Forest (8 Sq Km), Compensa- tory areas (2.8 Sq Km), 0.16 Sq Km is Unclassed Forests, and 19.7 Sq Km of Mangrove Forest. In addi- tion to this, 77 Sq Km area is earmarked/handed over to FDCM Ltd. This forested land does not oc- cur for continuous stretches or compact blocks; but is fragmented across a larger area, interspersed with cultivation and revenue waste land23. Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 95 23 Source: Working plan for the forests of Thane Forest Division for the period 2009-2010 to 2018-2019, Vol II. M.M.Ngullie , I.F.S. Conservator of Forests. Working Plan Division.
  96. 96. The forests of the Division are distributed in 11 Forest Ranges, 51 Rounds and 170 Beats for the pur- pose of administration and management. Forests are distributed in all the Ranges, Rounds and Beats. The official census record of 2006-2007 states two leopards to be present in Thane Division. Figure 3.1. Map of the Thane Forest Division. The green areas are reserved forest and yellow areas are protected forests. SGNP is shown in or- ange and Tungareshwar in pink and are managed by the Field Director of SGNP. The rest of the areas are administered by the CCF - Territorial Thane Forest Division. Note: Aarey Milk colony, highlighted by a red circle is not designated as a forested area. 3.4. Methods The records of compensation given on account of any conflict were obtained from the office of the Thane Forest Division. The data contained compensation records of over 20 years (1990-2010). Addi- tionally, the data was verified with the DFO’s office and attacks of 2011 were incorporated. The re- cords were used as a baseline information to classify all leopard related conflicts in the region. Ap- pendix 3.1 provides a table on number of leopard attacks through the years. All human attacks were selected for field visit sites. There were a total of 43 sites visited. Three new attacks were identified on location; which occurred in 2011. 11 attacks are ‘undocumented’ or there is no GPS location for these conflict points. There were various reasons for this, such as insufficient data to identify locations in the field. Locations were divided into sections as per geographic proximity. The general divisions Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 96
  97. 97. were Aarey Milk Colony, Bhiwandi, Vasai, Kashimira, Murbad, Tungareshwar. A record of the attacks details can be found in Appendix 3.2. The Forest Department official of the respective area was interviewed. Accompanied by a Department representative (van majdur or range officer), each attack site was visited. The GPS location of the at- tack site was recorded. Photo documentation was also carried out. Wherever possible, the villagers from the surrounding hamlets were interviewed. (See Appendix 3.3 for more details). 3.5. Observations 3.5.1. Human Attacks A total of 67 human attacks due to leopards have been documented in the Thane Forest Division be- tween 1990 to January 2013 of which 32 were deaths, and 35 were injuries. Forty-three sites of human deaths and injuries caused by leopards were visited between December 2011-April 2012 (Figure 3.2; Figure 3.3). The highest count of attacks was 23 in 2004, followed by 10 in 2002. There were no docu- mented attacks between 1992-2000. Although it appears as if a majority of the human conflicts have occurred towards the end of each year, this pattern is broken in June 2004 where 11 attacks occurred in one month. Table 3.1. Month-wise data of attacks on people by leopards in the Thane Forest Division. YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 1991                       X 2001     XXX               X   2002             X   XX XX XX XXX   2003         X   XX   XX   X X 2004 X X XXX     XXX XXX XXX XX     XX XX   XXX 2005               X         2007                       XX 2010               X         2011                   X XXX X 2012 XX XX XX X Jan 2013 XXX Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 97
  98. 98. Figure 3.2. Locations of human deaths by leopards in the areas under the jurisdiction of Thane Forest Division between 1990 and 2011 - displayed on Google Earth Figure 3.3. Documented human injuries obtained from FD data - displayed on Google Earth Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 98
  99. 99. A majority of the human victims were either children up to 10 years old or the elderly (Figure 3.4). The children were either playing outside their homes, or in the field relieving themselves. Several people were returning to their homes in the evening time. Figure 3.4. Age distribution graph of human attacks in Thane district. Aarey Milk Colony (AMC): Aarey Milk Colony and Film City is located to the south of SGNP. A total of 11 human attacks have taken place here in the last 10 years up to 2011. There have been 7 deaths and 4 injuries. Most attacks occurred in 2004 and some in 2003 (Figure 3.5; Appendix 3.1). Figure 3.5. Instances of human conflict in Aarey Milk Colony. (Key: Blue – Human Deaths. Green: Human Injuries). Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 99
  100. 100. Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary (TWLS): TWLS lies in the Vasai and Bhiwandi talukas in Thane district, containing 95.70 sq. km of notified forest area (City Forest report -2007-2008). A total of 14 attacks have occurred on the peripheral areas of TWLS. While a majority occurred in 2002, three at- tacks took place in 2011 at Chandip and Sativali respectively (Figure 3.6). There is a proposal to make 10 km radius of land around the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary an eco-sensitive zone, therefore not permitting certain activities such as chemical factories, mining activities and noise creating factories. Figure 3.6. Map of past attacks occurred on the periphery of TWLS (Key:Blue– Human Deaths. Green: Human Injuries). A leopard body was found at the outskirts of Mandvi with its paws cut off. There was a frequent leopard presence in the area previous to the discovery, with two attacks on children (Appendix 3.2). Close to this attack site is Gidraipada, where three leopards were frequently present for a month in 2002. While being interviewed, a villager said the leopards had ‘terrorized’ the area for a month and people were afraid to venture out of their homes after evening. Ultimately, two of the leopards were killed and one was caught and killed by the villagers (as per the interviews). The pada dwellers interviewed on the site visits attributed attacks on humans to leopards released in their area. ‘The jungle ones are fine, it’s the “others” that are trouble’ pada dweller, Sativali. (Appen- dix 3.3). Report 3! ! ! ! ! ! Conflict and leopard presence in Thane Forest Division 100

×