Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project

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.

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

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

! 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

! 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


!

5

! 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


!

6

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


!

7

! 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


!

8

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

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.mumbaikarsforsgnp.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

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 SGNPThe 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

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 DivisionThis 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 SGNPIn 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 SGNPThis 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

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 SGNPForest 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

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

REPORT 1.

“CAMERA TRAPPING” LEOPARDS IN SGNP, MUMBAI.

Zeeshan A. MirzaPost-Graduate Program in Wildlife Biology & Conservation, WCS-India Program, National Centre for Biological Sciences,Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, GKVK, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560065, IndiaE-mail: [email protected] no.: 07406658994

Rajesh V. SanapD-5-2, Marol Police Camp,M. M. Road, Andheri (East),Mumbai, 400059, Maharashtra, India.E-mail: [email protected] no.: 09664987541

Vishal A. Shah10/12, Sahjivan Soc, Bhatwadi,Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400084Maharashtra, India.E-mail: [email protected] 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.


!

15

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 SUMMARYA 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 INTRODUCTIONThe 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).


!

16

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 AREASGNP 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).


!

17

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.


!

18

1.5. METHODSCamera 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. RESULTSA 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


!

19

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


!

20

Leopard Male 11LEFT FLANK

RIGHT FLANK

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

211 LEOPARD 1 (MALE)

Locations where LM 1 was photographed.


!

22

2Leopard Male 2

Location where LM 2 was photographed.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

232 LEOPARD 2 - MALE

3Leopard Male 3

Locations where LM3 was photographed.


!

24

3 LEOPARD 3 - MALE

4Leopard Male 4



!


5Leopard Male 5



!


6Leopard Male 6



!


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.


!

28

7Leopard female 1

Leopard photographed at the following locations in Aarey Milk Colony.


!

297 LEOPARD 7 - FEMALE

8Leopard Female 2

LEFT FLANK

RIGHT FLANK


!


Leopard LF2 photographed at the following locations.


!

31

9Leopard Female 3

LEFT FLANK

RIGHT FLANK


!




!

33

10Leopard Female 4 (possibly lactating?)



!


11Leopard Female 5

LEFT FLANK

RIGHT FLANK


!




!

36

12Leopard Female 6



!


13Leopard Female 7

Leopard LF7 photographed at the following location.


!


14Leopard Female 8



!


15Leopard Female 9



!


16Leopard Female 10



!


17Leopard Female 11 - aka BINDU (see Appendix 1.1)


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.


!


18Leopard Female 12

Leopard LF 12 photographed at the following location.


!


1.9. LEOPARDS OF UNKNOWN SEX (AND DIFFERENT FROM THE ABOVE).

19U1 - LEFT FLANK

U1 - RIGHT FLANK


!

4419 LEOPARD 19 - SEX UNKNOWN

Leopard ‘U1’ photographed at the following locations.


!

45

20U 2 - LEFT FLANK

WAS PHOTOGRAPHED ACCOMPANYING LF 7 IN FOLLOWING IMAGE

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!


Leopard ‘U2’ photographed at the following location.


!

47

21U3 - LEFT FLANK

Leopard ‘U3’ photographed at the following location.


!


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.


!

49

Appendix 1.1. The story of BINDU (a leopardess from Aarey Milk Colony)

Sex – FemaleHome range: Aarey Milk Colony & Royal PalmsPresumed Birth date – February or March 2011Approximate age: 1.4–1.5 years

Identification rosettes

L- Left flankR- Right flank


!

50

With her mother17/05/2011Place: AareyImage 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.


!

51

Friends with the Police.7/09/2011Place: Aarey ColonyImage courtesy Mr. L Tompe (Police Department).


!

52

A 5 Star escapade 08/11/2011Place: Hotel Renaissance, MumbaiImage 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 23/11/2011Place: Aarey ColonyImage 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.


!

53


!

54

A tragic incidentFebruary 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…


!

55

Return to home ground June 2012Place: 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.


!

56

Records of Bindu’s movement

Map Courtesy: Google Earth1. Aarey Milk Colony2. Aarey Milk Colony3. Aarey Milk Colony4. SGNP (Release site )5. Royal Palms


!

57

Appendix 1.2. The story of leopard LM2 from SGNP

Description: LM2 with chip number 00-063B-5476Sex/maturity – Male/adultWeight – 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


!

58

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.


!

59

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


!

60

Locations where LM2 was recorded1. captured in a trap cage at Nitie ,Powai region on 7 Dec 20042. released at Gundgaon, Tulshi region on 4 Jan 20053. captured in camera trap at Kanheri region on 31 Dec 20114. 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


!

61

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.


!

62

Cameras were placed in the evening and removed in the morning in most cases.

Cameras were checked when activated each evening.


!

63

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


!

64

RIGHT MALE - C

RIGHT FEMALE - A


!

65

RIGHT FEMALE - B

RIGHT FEMALE - C


!

66

RIGHT FEMALE - D

RIGHT FEMALE - E


!

67

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


!

68

Small Indian Civet

Chital


!

69

Wild Boar


!

70

Sambar

Porcupine


!

71

Hanuman langur


!

72

Palm Civet


!

73

Peafowl

Black-naped Hare


!

74

Barking Deer

Jungle Cat


!

75

Appendix 1.6. Camera Trapping Team members.

ZEESHAN MIRZAHe 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 SANAPRajesh 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 SURVEA 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 SHRIYANA graduate in Information Technology and is presently working with Tata Consultancy Services. He is interested in nature photography, trekking and travelling.

PRATHAMESH DESAIHe 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 JHAA 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.


!

76

List of Volunteers who assisted with the camera trapping work.

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

Name PlaceAbhijeet Ranade Borivali

Ankit Vyas KandivaliAnkita Humraskar Borivali

Anusha Shetty Ashish Jadhav GoregaonDivya Singh Jayant Dofey Pune

Kanan Thakar Kunal Ullalkar MarolMrugank Save Dadar

Munira Kachwala Navin Sawant MarolNeha Agrawal Nikita Simlani

Nilesh Nagwekar AndheriParvez Shaifi

Prasann Nalavade MarolPrasanna Subramanian Borivali

Preetha Srinivasan DahisarRajesh Sanap Marol

Rohit Jha Mira roadSatish Pawar Marol

Tejal Bhatt Vijaya Mudaliar Mira road

Vishal Shah GhatkoparYagnesh Mehta

Yogesh Band BorivaliSatish 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


!

77

REPORT 2.

LEOPARD TRAPPINGS AND ATTACKS ON HUMANS

IN AND AROUND SGNP: AN ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICT.

Vidya Athreya ([email protected])Ajay Bijoor ([email protected])Aparna Watve ([email protected])

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

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.


79

2.2. METHODSWe 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


80

22 Data available from 1991

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


81

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


82

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.


83

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.


84

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.


85

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.


86

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-


87

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.


88

Table 2.7. Details of Thane Forest Division captures and releases in the region (Phansad, SGNP and Tansa)


89

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.


90

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


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



6 December 2012 - dragged the body

1 January 2013 - injured



CONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKS

1. - Mulund girl 15 July 2012Shankar Tekdi, Mulund WestA 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-parkThe little child was defecating late at night near the garbage dump, in the dark when she was picked up.


91

2. - Aarey woman deathWhen: 2 Nov 2012Where: Maroshi pada, near Royal Palms, Aarey Milk ColonyWhat: 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 girlWhen: 17 Nov 2012Where: Forests near Tembipada, BhandupWhat: 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.cmsThe little girl was answering nature’s call late at night without the presence of an adult at close prox-imity.

4. - Bhandup Water ComplexWhen: 6 December 2012Where: BMC Bhandup water complexWhat: 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-killed-eaten-in-3rd-leopard-attack-since-July.html

5. Place: Maroshi PadaDate: 1st Jan 2013Remark : InjuredDetails: 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 2013Where: 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 ColonyWhen: 26 January 2012Where: 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/


92

UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKS

1. Lion safari area, SGNP - NOT LEOPARD ATTACKWhen: 19 Sept 2011Where: Lion safari area, SGNPWhat: 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-park/articleshow/13583935.cms

2. Kashimira body - UNCONFIRMED LEOPARD ATTACKWhen: 21 Nov 2011Where: KashimiraWhat: 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 ATTACKWhen: 24 April 2012Where: Adarsh Nagar, Aarey Milk ColonyWhat: 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 ATTACKWhen: 5 Nov 2012Where: 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 ATTACKWhen: 20 December 2012Where: 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


93

REPORT 3.

A STUDY OF HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT IN THE

THANE FOREST DIVISION, MUMBAI.

Kritika S. Kapadia ([email protected])

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

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.


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.

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


96

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 XXXX

XX XXX

2003 X XX XX X X

2004 X X XXX XXXXXXXXXXX

XX XX XXX

2005 X

2007 XX

2010 X

2011 X XXX X

2012 XX XX XX X

Jan 2013 XXX


97

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


98

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).


99

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).


100

3.5.2. Livestock attacks

The compensation data documented a total of 126 attacks by leopards. 71 were livestock attacks (Ta-ble 3.2; Appendix 3.4). The highest number of livestock attacks occurred in 1993 (15). The lowest number, 4 took place in 1997 and 2008. There are no documented attacks between 1997 and 2008. If we take the data for compensation for the years in which information is present. The amount for losing a cow or an ox is very low.

Table 3.2. Attacks on livestock by leopards in the Thane Forest Division between 1990 and 2010.

YEAR NUMBER OF CASES

AVERAGE AMOUNT OF COM-

PENSATION FOR COW AND OX

1990 7 983

1992 5 1146

1993 9 1000

1996 3 1000

1997 4 1000

1998 2 2000

2008 4 4500

2010 2 4500

Presence of leopards in other wildlife sanctuaries: Records of other wildlife sanctuaries in the area, namely Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary were also inspected. Both sanctuar-ies reported presence of leopards, with livestock attacks present. However, no human attacks were reported. However, in 2012, three attacks on people were reported at the periphery of Tansa WLS.

Other wild animal attacks: A total of 38 attacks by wild boars have been documented in the Thane district. Only one human was killed in these attacks. A majority of these attacks have occurred in Murbad. Only one monkey attack has been documented in Thane. However, Tansa and Phansad re-port of crop damage by monkeys (Table 3.3).


101

Table 3.3. Attacks on humans by wild boars and other species (not leopard) in the Thane Forest Division between 1990 and 2011.

YEAR WILD BOAR ATTACKSWILD BOAR ATTACKS OTHER SPE-CIES ATTACKS ON HUMANS

Humans Injured

Humans Killed

1990 0 0 0

1991 0 0 0

1992 0 0 0

1993 0 0 0

1994 0 0 0

1995 0 0 0

1996 0 0 0

1997 0 0 0

1998 0 0 0

1999 0 0 0

2000 3 0 0

2001 5 1 0

2002 5 0 0

2003 3 1 0

2004 5 0 0

2005 1 0 0

2006 4 0 0

2007 3 0 1

2008 3 0 0

2009 4 0 0

2010 0 0 0

2011 0 0 0

36 2 1


102

3.6. References

City Forest Report. 2007 - 2008. A publication by the Bombay Natural History Society. Mumbai.

Mirza Zeeshan and Sanap Rajesh (2010). Biodiversity of Aarey Milk Colony and Film City. Submitted to Government of Maharashtra and Forest Department of Maharashtra.

3.7. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ajay Bijoor for the help on summarising the data, Vishal Shah for his inputs and the bike rides, Sankalp for the field trips on his bike, the Round officers and van majdoors willing to give me time on the weekends, and the MFS team for teaching me so much.


103

Appendix 3.1. List of attacks on humans and livestock between 1990 and 2011 in the Thane Forest Division.

SR NO. YEAR CATTLE ATTACKS

SHEEP ATTACKS

TOTAL LIVE-

STOCK AT-

TACKED

HUMANS INJURED

HUMANS KILLED

TOTAL HUMANS

AT-TACKED

1 1990 9 2 11 02 1991 1 0 2 1 13 1992 8 1 9 04 1993 15 2 17 05 1994 06 1995 6 2 8 07 1996 3 3 08 1997 5 5 09 1998 2 2 0

10 1999 3 3 011 2000 0 012 2001 4 4 413 2002 10 4 6 1014 2003 8 5 3 815 2004 23 10 13 2316 2005 1 1 117 2006 2 2 218 2007 2 2 219 2008 2 2 4 020 2009 0 021 2010 2 6 9 1 122 2011 3 2 3 523 2012 na na na 2 5 724 Jan 2013 na na na 2 1 3 TOTAL 56 15 126 30 32 67

Note: There are some minor discrepancies between the above table and the detailed table obtained from the Forest Department and is probably due to human error in entry.


104

Appendix 3.2. Information on all human attacks that occurred between 1991 and 2011. All sites were visited, GPS locations were obtained as well as the affected families were interviewed.

DATE OF INCIDENT DETAILS OF THE ATTACK

23 December 1991. This attack occurred at Chinchoti, Vasai (N19˚ 22' 58.7", E72˚ 53' 49.9"). Shri Barkya Lalya Karmado was injured.

17 March 2001. This attack occurred at Bilalpada. Nana Shankar Valvi was seriously injured.

17 March 2001. This attack occurred at Hawaipada. Ramakant Jagan Bhavar was seriously injured.

17 March 2001. This attack occurred at Hawaipada. Pradup Sitaram Dayat was seriously in-jured.

26 November 2001. This attack occurred at Gokhivaru Range . Kum Kalpesh Jaiwant Dalvi Age 11 was seriously injured.

31 July 2002. This attack occurred at Bhandup Complex (N 19 09'15.53" E 72 57'59.03" ). Sau Parivalli Laxman Waghu, Age- 50 was killed.

21 September 2002. This attack occurred at Chinchoti C. No. 1096 (N19˚ 22' 58.7", E72˚ 53' 49.9"). Chandrakant Sitaram Lohar Age 12, an Adivasi Warli was killed.

24 September 2002. This attack occurred at Gidnupada, Sativali (N19˚ 24' 39.7", E72˚ 53' 15.2"). Dayanand Sadu Chavhan was injured. Leopard not sighted recently.

26 September 2002. This attack occurred at Bailbudapada Sativali, Vasai (N19˚ 24' 39.7", E72˚ 53' 15.2"). Papa Hima Gharesalat Age 4 was killed.

11 October 2002. This attack occurred at Gidraipada Sativali (N19˚ 24' 39.7", E72˚ 53' 15.2"). Smt Yamunabai Chandan Bhare, Age 52 was killed.

12 October 2002. This attack occurred at Gidraipada Sativali (N19˚ 24' 39.7", E72˚ 53' 15.2"). Smt Vanita Govind Sawant Age 45 was seriously injured. . In 2002, leopards were sighted almost every evening. They were sighted on a wall near the houses as well as the house rooftops. three leopards were frequently present for a month in 2002. There was a fatal as well as two non fatal attacks. 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.

25 November 2002. This attack occurred at Palhar, Vasai (N 19.26263 E 072.52437). Smt baby Laxman Kanera, Ago 10 was killed.

28 November 2002. This attack occurred at Palhar, C No. 1088 (N 19.26263 E 072.52437). Sonu Baban Dalvi, Age 10 was injured.


105


29 November 2002. This attack occurred at Tungareshwar No. 70 (N19˚ 24' 59.5", E72˚ 54' 07.0"). Shri Ramsurat Babulal Yadav, Age- 60 was killed. Leopard not seen recently. Last seen in November 2011. Villager interviewed believed leopard is seen in the area when it is released here. Dogs have not been taken from this area.

1 May 2003. This attack occurred at Pimpulshat Chimbhipada C. No. 1057. Dilip Ladkya Gurnda Age 30 was seriously injured

7 July 2003. This attack occurred at Vikroli Parksite Mountain (N 19.11431 E 72.91638). Viky Nabodh Thakur, Age 8 was killed. The 8 yr old boy had gone out for his daily toilet thingy, when the leopard attacked...it was hiding in the bush..they found his dead body metres away from the attack site.

12 July 2003. This attack occurred at Baltihadi, Vasai. Smt Anusuya Dharam Handwa Age - 35 was injured

12 September 2003. This attack occurred at Khandoba Telodi, Ghatkopar. Sau Sujata Suresh Gurav Age 31 was seriously injured

9 November 2003. This attack occurred at Film City Temple (N19˚ 09' 47.23", E72˚ 53' 18.93"). Jayashri Raja Naik, Age 15 was killed.

17 December 2003. This attack occurred at Arrey Colony Devichapada (N19˚ 09' 42.18", E72˚ 53' 18.2"). . Infan Kamruddin Khan, Age - 7 was killed. Preliminary contact (off-location): Aarey Police Station - 9821248781 Bambere Sir - he aided in identfiy-ing the locations to visit and confirmed the records shown to him.

16 january 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony, Near Khambacha pada (N19˚ 08' 42.76", E72˚ 53' 05.65"). Avinash Suresh Thapad, Age 9 was injured. Leopard seen a month back (10 November 2011).

3 June 2004. This attack occurred at Durga Nagar Aarey Colony Unit No 6 (N19˚ 08' 26.81", E72˚ 52' 16.69"). Kanchan Ravindra Kumar Yadav Age 6 was killed.

8 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Khambacha Pada Unit No 25 (N19˚ 08' 42.76", E72˚ 53' 05.65"). Datta Dashsath Garud Age 3 was killed. Leopard seen a month back (10 November 2011).

14 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Fabicolour Arts (N19˚ 09' 51.63", E72˚ 51' 57.05"). Smt. Mayaya Waman Mose Age 23 was injured. Leopard sighted near Balaji outside family quarter Unit No. 2 in December 2011.

16 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Jivachapada Unit no 29 (N19˚ 09' 17.37", E72˚ 53' 43.23"). Sagar Mohan Valvi Age 6 was killed.

17 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Unit No 4 (N19˚ 09' 34.4", E72˚ 52' 33.4"). Ruchita Lalso Pukli Age 4 was killed. Leopard picked up goat in in Unit 31 . 10-13 days back (1 Dec 2011) .


106


25 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Vanicha Pada Unit No 5 (N19˚ 09' 02.63", E72˚ 52'28.37"). Aslam Mohammad Ansari Age 9 was injured. Leopard sighted 2-3 (7th Dec 2011) days back. Leopard stalked a kid around 10:30 PM. Leopard picked up a hen.

28 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony Morachapada Unit No 29 (N19˚ 09' 20.70", E72˚ 53'0.03"). Paju Punja yadav Age 18 was killed.

11 June 2004. This attack occurred at Maschapada Kashimira (N19˚ 15' 59.9", E72˚ 53.50.6' ). Smt. Parvati Dugdu Kakdi Age 60 was killed. Leopard seen nearly every eve-ning in the area. Last attack a month back . The RFO directed the quiries to the van majdoors who have been in the area for long and experianced with the area.

13 June 2004. This attack occurred at Maschapada Kashimira (N19˚ 15' 59.9", E72˚ 53.50.6' ). Vijay Vasant Ibad Age 40 was killed. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

18 September 2004. This attack occurred at Kashi C.No.1136 R. Forest (N19˚ 15' 52.1", E72˚ 53.46.0" ). Smt Kesri Babu Lilne Age 65 was killed. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

26 September 2004. This attack occurred at Kashimira Bablichabhat (N19˚16'00.8", E72˚53'01.2" ). Shri Lalau Radhika Mahati Age 30 was injured. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

3 October 2004. This attack occurred at Kashimira Mashachapada (N19˚ 15' 59.9", E72˚ 53.50.6' ). Sow. Sangeeta Kodya Janate Age 35 was killed. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

12 October 2004. This attack occurred at Kashimira Bablichabhat (N19˚16'00.8", E72˚53'01.2" ). Kau. Savitri Keshav Pagi Age 65 was killed. Leopard seen nearly every eve-ning in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

3 December 2004. This attack occurred at Mini at Baratachapada. SMT Gangubai Pandu Sashta Age 60 was killed

5 December 2004. This attack occurred at Mashachapada Kashimira (N19˚ 15' 59.9", E72˚ 53.50.6' ). Bharti Yashwant Thopad Age 12 was injured. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

8 December 2004. This attack occurred at Mashachapada (N19˚ 15' 59.9", E72˚ 53.50.6' ). Dinesh Thakrya Pagira Age 12 was injured. Leopard seen nearly every evening in the area. Last attack a month back (December 2011).

14 June 2004. This attack occurred at Aarey Colony near Royal Palm Hotel (N 19 09'33.44" E 72 52'05.39" ). Nagamma Sharanappa Pujari Age 4 was injured.

9 June 2004. This attack occurred at NITIE Campus Near Vihar Lake (N 19 08'16.91" E 72 54'00.61" ). Babar Jugan Bhopi Age 45 was killed.


107


23 March 2004. This attack occurred at Kuhe, Phanaspada, Bhiwandi (N 19.38068 E 72.98776). Anil Kaluram Palve, Age 5, Kuha Phanaspada was killed.

21 March 2004. This attack occurred at Khadki Bhiwandi (N 19.39003 E 072.98863). Gita Mul-chand Nikoli, Age 9 years was injured. Heightened activity in 2004. Continu-ous sightings for 7-8 days. Brick workers were present in the village. Attack was on a young girl playing on the outskirts, at about 6 in the evening. The mother pulled the girl away. The leopard returned to the house at night.

24 March 2004. This attack occurred at Bhramanpada, Bhiwandi (). Sonu Arjun Khivu, Age 3.5 was injured.

26 August 2005. This attack occurred at Rfo Totavadi. Devkabai Goma Mangal Age 40 was injured

19 December 2007. This attack occurred at Khopat thane. Smt Shudibai Santhosh Govdkar Age 29 was injured

19 December 2007. This attack occurred at Khopat Thane. Shri Maganlal Shaubar Kumawat Age 35 was injured

14 August 2010. This attack occurred at Sakarwadi Murbad (N19˚ 20' 30.3", E73˚ 43.058'). Saman Waman Pardhi Age-6 was killed. last leopard seen in 2010. Leopard last seen 9.8.2010 - 29.8.2010. Leopard in Sakarwadi was theorised to be chas-ing a herd of dogs when it attacked the child (mistaken identity) Last 20 years there has not been a human attack. Only livestock attacks have taken place in the areas before. Next attack was near Titwala/Kalyan near Phalegaun; FD unsure of its origin, if it was a released leopard. Ahmednagar stated it had not released the leopard. Hajimalang (Alibaug) was also cited as experiencing leopard activity in recent times. (End of 2011 - Beginning of 2012).

14 October 2011. This attack occurred at Shivansai (19°27'54.36"N, 72°54'57.46"E). Name un-known, was injured.

14 November 2011. This attack occurred at Unknown (19°26'44.94"N, 72°53'35.51"E). Name un-known, was killed.


108


26 November 2011. This attack occurred at Shivansai (N 19.27545 E 072.5457). Chirag Patil, Age 14 was injured. Last leopard seen on the evening of 22 January. Leopard used to frequent the area for chickens. Boy was attacked on the way home one eve-ning. Father pulled son away. Villagers were upset thinking the FD has re-leased leopards in the area, as there was heightened activity in November -December 2011. People of Shivansai were unhappy with with situation in November- December 2011. Did not leave home after 7 pm. There was height-ened leopard activity in those two months. Activity was reduced since. Dead leopard was found in open land, approximately 1/2 km from Shivansai on 23 January 2012. One villager interviewed (Nathu Shina barap), stated a leopard was spotted the previous evening. He felt the jungle leopards were fine but the 'other leopards' are trouble. Leopard was also seen at temple. Villagers believe FD has released around 5 leopards in the area.

27 November 2011. This attack occurred at Chandip - Japalipada (N 19.28055 E 072.54437). Name unknown, Age 2 was killed.

10 December 2011. This attack occurred at Akloli Vajeshwari, Bhiwandi (N 19.28392 E 073.1748). was killed. Traps have been set up and are still present (April 2012), however, the leopard has not been caught.

15 July 2012 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. but had moved away to view a fight was happening in the settlement. The girl’s head was found the next morning around 155m from the attack site. This area has never had a leopard attack before.

25 July 2012 A 35-year-old woman, who had gone inside Tansa wildlife sanctuary in Thane district for farming, was killed after being attacked by a leopard on Wednes-day. The same leopard is feared to have killed two animals in the same area near Mauli village in Shahapur taluka the next day. Taken from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-27/thane/32888534_1_leopard-attack-durga-forest

30 July 2012 On July 30, a 14-year-old boy was attacked by a leopard. He is currently in the hospital. Taken from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-13/mumbai/33181546_1_man-eater-leopard-forest-officials-leopard-attack

5 August 2012 On August 5, Akshay Bhavar and his two friends Devnath and Nilya walked inside the forest when Akshay was attacked by a leopard. His body was found on the following day. Taken from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-13/mumbai/33181546_1_man-eater-leopard-forest-officials-leopard-attack


109


2 November 2012 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.

17 November 2012 A 2-year-old girl (Usha Vinayak Yadav) is said to have been killed around 2300 as she was urinating near some bushes while her mother stood 15-20 feet way. Her body was found the next morning around 0645 in the BMC training facility inside the forest, with its hands and neck missing.

6 December 2012 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.

1 January 2013 The incident took place around 6:30 am when the boy (approximately age 12 year old) went for a toilet.

6 January 2013 A 25 year old woman went out in the night to fill water when she was at-tacked. She was taken to the hospital to treat her wounds.

26 January 2013 The 9 year old boy went with his friend to answer nature’s call at 7:30 pm when he was attacked. His dead body was found and the leopard was seen at the dead body.


110

Appendix 3.3 – Information from interviews of Forest Department personnel as well as local peo-ple from different areas of Thane Forest Division. This data is not exhaustive but more as an indi-cator of issues that need to be addressed in the long term.

MURBAD : Murbad is located beyond Kalyan, on the edge of Malsej Ghats. Forest type is dry decidu-ous and mixed type.

Interview with Forest Officer

Has there been a presence of leopards in the area? In the last 20 years in Murbad, there have been only occasional livestock attacks; no human attacks. Comparatively conflict by Neelgai and wild boar are much more frequent.

Are leopards released from other areas into Murbad? Junnar people release leopards in this area, however, they intimate before they do.

Have there been any human attacks by leopards? The only human attack by a leopard was February 2010. The leopard was present from around 9th August 2010 to 29th August 2010. There was an inves-tigation done but it wasn’t determined where the leopard was from and who had released him. Ah-mednagar Forest Department stated they didn’t release it.

Has there been any activity since the 2010 attack? Next attack was near Titwala, Kalgar, in an area called Phalgar. There was a live stock attack near Kalyan, around October. It might be the same leop-ard who was present in Murbad in August. Also, in Hajimalan – Alibaugh there was a livestock attack in October 2011. Ambernath Taluka, Badlapur – has also been another site for an attack in recent times.

Figure 3.7. Location of human death due to leopard attack at Murbad (shown in Pink). See Appen-dix 3 for details about attack.


111

Figure 3.8. Site of livestock attack at Murbad, leopard came in from the forested area (unseen in the picture), climbed into the ledge, and entered the buffalo shed.

Figure 3.9. Sakarwadi Murbad, overlooking the Malsej Ghat, site of first human attack in 20 years.


112

Interview with pada (tribal settlement) dwellers: “There used to be leopards frequenting the area more often in the past. In 1953 the forest was a lot denser around the village. I myself have shot leop-ards with my rifle. First they used to come till the house. In 1999 my cow was attacked close to my field, far from my house.

Sakarwadi Murbad: 14th August 2011. This is the site where the only human attack has occurred in Murbad. The victim was a small girl. Attack may have been due to mistaken identity. Leopard was after a herd of dogs. The girl was attacked upon instead. Last twenty years there has only been live-stock attacks, this one was the first human attack.

KASHIMIRA:

Has there been a presence of leopards in the area? The padas visited were bordering the National Park. Leopard activity occurs almost every evening where they can take up to 7-8 dogs and goats. A leopard took two goats from the village in October. The area was part of encroachment into the forest. Due to this, pada dwellers often did not ask for compensation. These areas have undocumented at-tacks due to them being illegal settlements.

Have there been leopards caught or released in the area? Leopards have been released into the area in the past. One was released three years ago (2008) at Maljhipada Sassonaghar. Another was released one and a half years ago (2010). There are several traps set up in the villages here for capturing leop-ards. Around four leopards had been caught near the Darga. Around 6 near Dakulpada- 2-3 years ago (2008).

Figure 3.10. map of conflict points of Kashimira (deaths in blue and injuries in green). See Appen-dix 3 for details.


113

Figure 3.11. Field visit at pada (tribal hamlet) in Kashimira - site of a leopard attack on a person.

BHIWANDI:

Figure 3.12. Past attacks in Bhiwandi. The deaths are in pink and injuries are in blue. Details are in Appendix 3.3.


114

Bhiwandi has patches of very dense jungle and infrequently visited forest. There is a proposal to make 10 km radius of land around the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary an eco-sensitive zone, there-fore not permitting certain activities such as chemical factories and noise creating factories.

Interview with RFOs

Has there been a presence of leopards in the area? There has been no record of livestock attack in the last four years. Besides, compensation is not given if the attack has occurred in the monsoon, so if any attacks have taken place then they are undocumented. A leopard was last seen in Akoli in 2011. There have been rumours of tiger presence in Kuhe in the past however it is highly possible the villagers often mistake hyenas for the tiger.

Have there been any human attacks by leopards? There have been around four human attacks in the past. Three took place in 2002. One was in 2011, on a steep slope in Akoli.

Are leopards released from other areas into Bhiwandi? We did inspect the possibility of a leopard being released in November 2011 when the attack in Akoli happened. It seemed probable as a leopard was seen in the area after long. There have been traps placed in the area since, however no leopards were caught; it is possible a previously trapped leopard will not be caught again. However, nothing was proven. But we are not ruling it out. In 2004 while working with the Jawhar Forest Department, 4 leopards were trapped. The location and date of release were unknown, and the releases was not done in an organized manner.

Also, the public in Shahapur (base of Malshej Ghats) thinks leopards from Junnar are released in Shahapur.

Interview with pada dweller in Khadki: In 2004 some leopards might have been released in the area. The brick workers in the area were scared and watchful for a period of 7-8 days. Brick workers came in and shut themselves into the house on those days. The 6 months old girl was playing outside the house in the evening. The mother spotted the leopards come and grab her, pulled her away so she was saved. Injured and not killed. The same leopard came to the house at night.

Tungareshwar and Vasai:

At site of dead leopard at Mandvi

Interview with Forest Officer: The villagers of Shivansai and other villages in the radius of 2-3 km are frustrated due to the frequent presence of leopards, livestock attacks and human attacks that took place towards the end of last year. It is highly possible the incident was the work of one of the villag-ers. The villagers believe the Forest Department has released leopards in the area due to which there has been a heightened activity over the last few months. There has been comparatively minimal activ-ity in the past two months of the new year compared to November and December 2011.

Interview with pada dweller: He believed the killing to be a work of hunters, whom he claimed are present in the surrounding forest. He also believed adequate food is unavailable in the national park for leopards’ and hence they were making their way into the nearby villages.


115

Another pada dweller: ‘The jungle ones are fine, it’s the “others” that are trouble’. A leopard was last seen in the area the previous night (21 January 2012). A leopard has also been sighted at the village temple.

Sites near Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary:

Interview with pada dwellers: There had been a non-fatal attack on the site in November 2011. Villag-ers at the site stated a leopard was seen in the area last in November. They believed leopards are re-leased in the area by the Forest Department.

Close to this attack site is Gidraipada, where three leopards were frequently present for a month in 2002. There was a fatal as well as two non fatal attacks. 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 vil-lagers.


116

Appendix 3.4. Livestock Attack details from the compensation records.

DATE NAME OF THE OWNER PLACE PREY COMPENSATION

1 May 1990. Tulshiram Hima Bhurbada Bangarwadi 1 Cow 750

1 May 1990. Shri Manu Mahadu Shid Jambhalwadi Cow 900

12 February 1990. Shri Jaitu Devu Wagh Zadghar Cow 1125

12 February 1990. Shri Ganpat Vishal Pawar Malavi Cow 1125

12 February 1990. Smt. Jijabai Kano Shindi Karpatwadi 4 Sheep

375

12 February 1990. Shri Dhavu Rama Lachka Khapri Cow 825

21 June 1990. Shri Balun Ambo Wagh Pendhri Ox 1125

22 June 1990. Shri Raghu Balu Thombra Palu Cow 750

24 April 1990. Shri Sada Kalu Pasdhi Karpatwadi Cow 750

27 June 1990. Shri Maidu Bhau Wagh Sisewadi Ox 1500

6 September 1990. Shri Navsu Komlu Ughda Zadghar 6 Goats

900

30 April 1991. Shri Palo Hari Mungal Khoprivali Ox 2250

10 February 1992. Shri Dunda Babaji Gaikar Pendri Ox 1500

12 February 1992. Shri Balu Hari Raut Chasdi Cow 900

12 February 1992. Shri Vishal Rama Raut Chasole Cow 750

12 February 1992. Shri Ramchandra Krishna Kat-kari

Vaishakhari 5 Goats

1275

12 February 1992. Shri Suresh Deoram Dharade Palu Ox 1875

16 August 1992. Shri Mahadu Goma Pokla Vakalwadi 2 Cow 1500

16 August 1992. Shri Yashwant Ganpat Pathari Merdi Cow 1000

25 September 1992.

Shri Sauharam Chintaman Bridwi

Kasni Ox 1000

26 June 1992. Shri Krishna Hari Pradhari Charola Ox 1000

11 March 1993. Shri Chima Soma Ughda Pathar wadi Cow 1000

17 May 1993. Baban Bahu Nimx ? Cow 1000

2 January 1993. Shri Nathu Anaj Nimx Khutal Ox 1000

29 June 1993. Barku Mahadu Bhala Waghwadi Cow 1000

29 June 1993. Smt Indirabai Namdro Thorat Naishakhari Cow 1000


117


29 June 1993. Smt Tarabai Hema Bhoir ? Cow 1000

29 June 1993. Ekrath Bhikaji Gharat Vaishakhari Cow ?

29 June 1993. Shri Somnath Nama Wagh Perdhri Ox 1000

29 Juen 1993. Shri Dattu Bhau Somgal Perdhri Ox 1000

4 December 1993. Shri Tukaram Bhiva Khadi Kudshit Goat 75

4 May 1993. Vasant Ramchandra Vekhant Talavai Ox 1000

6 February 1993. Shri Bharat Hiru Mou Pahi Cow 1000

6 February 1993. Kahiram Baban Pathare Khutal Cow 1000

6 February 1993. Tukaram Kusha Bangla Bangarwadi Goat ?

6 February 1993. Sawtaram Laxman Pichad Kudshit Ox 1000

13 June 1996. Dhondu Kalu Kavathi Cow 1000

13 September 1996.

Shankar Chahu Bungra Cow 1000

23 February 1996. Dharma Bhav Khahar Cow 1000

11 June 1997. Malu Alo Wagh Ox 1000

17 July 1997. Jaitu Devu Padir Ox 1000

22 March 1997. Devu Shankar Dohle Cow 1000

6 November 1997. Jaitu Dharma Poru Sushira Cow 1000

19 January 1998. Barku Kashinath Kathu Shingapur Cow 1000

3 August 1998. Kathod Laxman Gaikar Pendhri Cow 3000

18 January 1999. Mahadu Alo Kenta Khed/Marbad Cow 1000

20 March 1999. Harishchandra Maruti Mov Palu/Marbad Ox 3000

20 March 1999. Krishna Kondoji Moru Palu/Marbad Ox 3000

1 February 2008. nago Maidu Khakar Nyahadi Mur-bad

1 Cow 4500

2 January 2008. Devdar Naga Khakar Valivare (ko-liwadi)

6 Goat 135000

7 February 2008. Vithal Dhavu Pokla Valivari Koli-wadi

5 Sheep

11250

9 January 2008. Vithal Navgu Shindi Merdi Murbad 1 Ox 4500


118


19 August 2010. Anil Raghunath Deshmukh Fangni Mur-bad

Calf 4000

20 August 2010. Malo Ragho Wagh Zadghad To-kavadi

Goat 2500

28 September 2010.

Ganesh Rajaram Pawat Sagav Bad-lapur

2 Goat 1500

29 August 2010. Ashok Totu Gaikar Pendhri Mur-bad

Calf 4000

9 August 2010. Namdeo Soma Kirke Savane Mur-bad

Goat 2500

Shri Pandurang Shiva Khodka Sukalwadi Ox 1000

Shriram Salvalaram Dash ? Ox 2000

Rashiram Shiva Faradi ? Ox 1000

Daji Kambu Gharat Cow 1000

Kathod Babu Thakri Cow 1000

Dharma Bhari Khakarr Ox 1000

Shravan Tula Savant Ox 1000

Dharma Bhau Khakar Ox 1000

Pandu Alo Bangar Sheep 75

Harichandra Janu Baburao 3 Sheep

225


119

Appendix 3.5. Records of leopard deaths fromThane FD records.

SR. YEAR DATE TIME SEX L E N G T H (M)

H E I G H T (M)

TA I L (M)

PLACE

1 1994 14.2.94 Male Manpa

2 1996 9.1.96 Male 53 KG Waghba

3 1994 13.12.94 Morning Male 1.59 0.62 S. No243

4 1998 23.1.98 1:30 AM Unknown Bhandap

5 1998 3.11.98 Day Male Sr No. 1141 Humayun

6 1998 26.11.98 10:30 PM Male Patlipada

7 1999 13.3.99 1:45 AM Female

8 1999 3.12.99 6:00 PM Male (60 kgs) H-Tail 1.70 m

0.65 m Pahpav near volmil

9 2000 26.5.00 Night Female 1.80m 0.60m Kavesar

10 2002 10.4.02 unknown 0.60m 0.40m Borivali

11 2002 27.4.02 Day Male 1.76m 0.65m C No 1138

12 2002 20.5.02 Female 1.166 Thane

13 2002 26.6.02 6:30PM Female 1.80m 0.65m Shrinagar

14 2002 21.8.02 Male 1.50m 0.55m China SN

15 2002 30.12.02 9:30 Male Bhaindup

16 2002 30.12.02 4:30AM Female NH 8

17 2003 9.6.03 8:15 Male S No 241

18 2004 4.2.04 1:30AM Female 1.60m 0.56m Bombay

19 2004 21.3.04 11:30PM Male Gaimukh

20 2007 29.4.07 Male Samnavghar

21 2007 11.10.07 7:00AM Male (48 kgs) 1.30m 0.80m 0.90m Patlipada

22 2007 16.12.07 7:00AM Male (65 kgs) 1.37m 0.88m 0.90m JBPT

23 2008 24.1.07 2:30PM Male (60 kgs) 1.40m 0.86m 0.85m Borivali

24 2008 17.2.08 12:00PM Female 1.40m 0.66m 0.78m C No 1139

25 2008 1.3.08 4:30PM Female 1.50m 0.53m Owalkarwa

26 2009 14.9.09 8:00PM Female 1.86m 0.65m 0.78m Opp

27 2010 6.04.10 9:00PM Male 2.02m 0.72m 0.82m Opp Versova


120

Appendix 3.6. Biodiversity and Conservation of Aarey Milk Colony.

Location:

Adjacent to Sanjay Gandhi National Park in the southwest is a stretch of 13 sq. km area which is the

Aarey Milk Colony and also houses the Film City which is used by the Mumbai Film Industry (Mirza

and Sanap 2010).

Figure 3.13. map of Aarey Milk Colony in relation to SGNP.

Who is in charge of Aarey and Film City? Aarey and Film City are revenue land leased by the state to the dairy development board and Film City management respectively. Its an approximate 99 year lease that is controlled by the Collector and it is under the Chief Minister’s direct control. The Aarey Milk company currently owns and takes care of Aarey Milk Colony. All complaints related to Aarey are directed towards them. If it’s a wildlife re-lated query/complaint, it is directed towards the Thane Forest Department and NOT to the adjoining SGNP authorities.

Biodiversity of Aarey: It is apparent that Aarey is special, given the sensitivity of its position, ‘bordering’ SGNP to the extent that it is virtually an extension. Mirza and Sanap (2010), speculated a high occurrence of biodiversity in Aarey, and is probably the first biodiversity documentation of the area. The current estimation is of 75 species of birds, over 85 species of butterflies, 13 amphibians, 46 reptiles, 20 + species of Inverte-brates and 16 species of mammals including leopards in the Aarey Milk Colony (Mirza and Sanap


121

2010). With already such a high account of biodiversity it is hard to ignore Aarey while discussing conservation of the SGNP landscape. However, what is surprising is, Aarey does not have a forest status (Figure 3.14), is state-owned revenue land managed by the Dairy Development Board.

Figure 3.14. Map of the Thane Forest Division. The green areas are reserved forest and yellow areas are protected forest. SGNP is also shown in orange and Tungareshwar in pink. Note: Aarey Milk

colony is not designated as a forested area.

Presence of Leopards in Aarey

There has long-since been an informal understanding that leopards are often spotted in Aarey Milk Colony, more often than SGNP at times possibly due to much greater human traffic in Aarey thereby increasing encounters. Leopards find easy prey in stray dogs and pigs, which frequent the open gar-bage areas in Aarey. Rajesh Sanap, Zeeshan Mirza and Vishal Shah have continuously spotted the leopard ‘Bindu’. They spotted her when she was a cub (Appendix 1.1). Through other records and pictures, a total of 5 sightings have been confirmed of Bindu. Bindu was caught in January 2012 and released within SGNP, only to be seen again at Royal Palms complex in the Aarey area, in June 2012.

‘Living with leopards’ at Aarey is an imperative reality, an experience residents of the Royal Palms complex recently met with. Upon sighting a leopard outside their residents, parents of young children were the most concerned. There was shock, fear and frustration by what appeared to be an unrespon-sive Forest Department on the weekend. The MFS team used this as an opportunity to discuss ‘Living with Leopards’ with the residents. They pointed out the harming effects of trapping and the negligi-


122

ble result it has had on leopards like Bindu. The long-term mitigation action is to reduce the attrac-tiveness of the residential area to leopards and that can only be achieved through better garbage dis-posal around houses and colonies so that feral dogs (which attract leopards) are not present in the area.

Man-Animal Conflict It would be assumed, with a presence of leopards in the colony, the instances of man-animal interac-tions are high in Aarey Colony. However, its trend is a curious one. Of the documented human inju-ries and deaths, one three instances have occurred previous to 2003 (Table 3.4). Conflicts seem to have occurred in large numbers between 2003-2004 (Appendix 3.1), after which the situation once again came to virtually a stand-still until recent reports of unconfirmed attacks. A total of 19 confirmed at-tacks on human have taken place here since 2003 of which 12 people died and 7 were injured. Most attacks occurred in 2004 and a few in 2003 (Figure 3.8.2). Although we can only speculate about the cause, it is evident that the presence of leopards does not translate to high conflict levels.

Table 3.4. Attacks on humans in Aarey Milk Colony prior to 2003 which were obtained from the SGNP records. It should be noted that these were absent in the Thane Forest Department records

we had obtained.

S .NO DATE TYPE OF INCIDENT

NAME OF VICTIM/FAMILY

LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT

RELEASE AREA (FOR

THE TRAPPED

LEOPARD) .

1 20/3/91 Human In-jury, Trap-ping, Leopard Release

Nathuram Baruk Kar-pat

Khadakpada Main Pump House, Aarey Milk Col-ony

Nagla Area

2 03/06/91 Human Injury Suresh Posha Gorat Aarey Milk Colony

3 27/3/92 Aarey Milk Colony No. 13

Died on 2/4/92

Aarey is not very different than the suburbs of London and part of USA, which are witnessing the rise of ‘Urban Carnivores’ and it is incumbent upon the residents to ensure they do not provide attractants for carnivores for whom large quantities of waste and where the domestic animals associated with waste could be a potential food source.


123

Figure 3.15. Map of locations of attacks on humans by leopards in the Aarey and Film City areas (Key: Pink - Human Deaths, Blue: Human injuries).

Recommendations for Aarey Milk Colony:

1. It is imperative that the colony enjoys a higher protection status than as is currently the case, no forest status at all! This will increase the green cover that is so scarce in this city, lead to the protection of its biodiversity and also allow for better management of human leopard interac-tions.

2. There are talks of a boundary wall being built around the national park, the question is, on what side of that wall will Aarey stand and its relevance to the presence of wildlife in Aarey Milk Colony.

3. Vehicles need to be limited in the speed in the Aarey area. In the past five years, there have been 6 reported run-overs of leopards by speeding vehicles.

4. Inclusion and education of the residents of Aarey is important to ensure safety, viability and strength of the community.

5. Currently, there are several open areas where garbage is dumped or it clogs the water bodies (Mirza and Sanap 2010). Adequate sanitization measures will mitigate the frequency of leop-ards in Aarey.

6. We also heard reports from the local residents that they believe that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation releases stray dogs in Aarey. This is a dangerous scenario where the dogs can attract leopards to residential areas.

Future Of Aarey: The current future of Aarey Milk Colony appears to be uncertain, given plans to convert it into land for development and entertainment use. It is a matter of urgency to ensure the bio-diversity in the area is adequately protected.


124

REPORT 4.

ASSESSING FREE-ROAMING DOG (CANIS FAMILIARIS) ABUN-

DANCE IN A MARK-RESIGHT FRAMEWORK IN AAREY MILK

COLONY, MUMBAI

Girish Arjun Punjabi ([email protected])Researchers for Wildlife Conservation,F-21, National Centre for Biological Sciences,Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,GKVK, Bellary Road,Bangalore-560065, India.Website: http://www.rwcindia.org

Citation: Punjabi, G. 2013. Camera trapping: Using natural marks to estimate free-roaming dog Canis familiaris abundance in a Mark-resight framework in Aarey colony, Mumbai. A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #4. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department.Mumbai, Maharash-tra.

Report 4! ! ! ! ! ! Assessing domestic dog abundance in Aarey Milk Colony

125

4.1 SUMMARY

Free-roaming dogs (Canis familiaris) adopt many ecological roles, often functioning as predators, prey, or competitors of wildlife in diverse environments. Dogs are potential reservoirs of disease that can be transmitted to both wildlife and people, and therefore numerous levels of management interventions have been suggested to control dog populations. In India, dog bites cause rabies to thousands of peo-ple annually. Rabies transmissions is related to dog population size yet studies to enumerate dog populations, crucial for tackling rabies, are not common in India. Furthermore, domestic animals can be very important food resource for wild carnivores and leopards are known to prey on dogs. There-fore, to assess the dog populations in the Aarey Milk Colony, where leopards occur, we used natural marks on dogs along with counts of non-marked individuals in a mark-resight framework to estimate the total number (or abundance) of free-roaming dogs.

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.

4.2 INTRODUCTION

Dogs (Canis familiaris), indeed, are man’s best friend and the reason why this phrase has been coined is probably because domestic dogs are ubiquitous where humans are. They are classified as owned or unowned, feral or stray, city or village, but there is no doubt that dogs occur across all kinds of rural-urban gradients. Since they occur so commonly, dogs very often interact with wildlife and here they may take up the role of predators (Kruuk & Snell 1981; Campos et al. 2007), prey (Edgaonkar and Chellam 2002), competitors (Lacerda et al. 2009) or even reservoirs of disease (Cleveland et al. 2000). But such freely moving dogs (a.k.a. free-ranging dogs) are not just a problem to wildlife; they may also spread disease to human beings. Therefore, almost all over the world, there is some or the other strategy to control and manage dog populations. For all of these dog control & management pro-grammes, there is a need of monitoring methods to understand if such interventions are working, or not. In this report, we describe one such method, which uses natural marks on the dogs themselves to help us count them, so as to estimate the total number (or abundance) of dogs in an area.

A number of methods have already been described in order to count dogs. Some common methods of dog population estimation are block counts, where dogs are counted in all or representative blocks (or wards) in large cities (WSPA http://www.icam-coalition.org); mark-recapture using paint sprays (Totton et al. 2010), where dogs are marked using paint and then counted; mark-resight using ear notched marks made during Animal Birth Control programmes on the dogs (Hiby et al 2011); and transect sampling where no marking on dogs is required (Childs et al. 1998; Matter et al. 2000), but may be combined with other marking methods. However, a number of these methods may need prior artificial marking, which may be difficult to do in the first place. In such cases, we can use the natural marks on the dogs themselves to count them.


126

In many dogs on the street, one can notice that some individuals have easily-visible and distinct natu-ral marks on them. For example, black dogs with white patches or brown dogs with white spots. However, some others may be plain brown, black or white. In such populations we can potentially exploit this pattern of some distinct naturally marked dogs and other unmarked (or plain) dogs in a ‘mark-resight’ framework to estimate the total number of dogs in an area. However, before one sets out to do this, there are some assumptions that one needs to bear in mind (which is important for any statistical method to work well).

In this study, the most important assumption is that sightability for naturally-marked or unmarked dogs should be the same, in the sense that, the naturally-marked dogs should not be more visible that the unmarked dogs, just because they have natural marks. Now, this is reasonable with such domestic animals, since you never see dogs with natural marks more prominently on a street, just because they have those marks. Another important assumption is that the population of dogs is ‘closed’, which is to say that the total dogs in a ward or an area are not changing (increasing or decreasing), during the period of the count. Also, their marks should not change, which is acceptable, as dogs, when they be-come adults, their natural marks will not change in form or colour. Lastly, although this is a sugges-tion and not an assumption, the number of marked dogs in a population should be known before ac-tual counting.

We did this pilot study on dogs in the Aarey milk colony of Mumbai as part of the ‘Mumbaikars for SGNP’ project. Since stray dogs form an important part of leopard diet, leopards are often seen using Aarey colony, most likely due to easy availability of dogs in the area. Thus, we felt that getting an es-timate of total number of free-ranging dogs in the colony will be important to understand how much food (as dogs) is available for these large cats.

4.3 METHODS

4.3.1 STUDY AREA

The study area comprised the Aarey Milk Colony (AMC) situated in suburban Mumbai in the state of Maharashtra in India. The AMC, measuring 12.8km-2, was established in the year 1949 in order to institute a cleaner and organized way of supplying milk to the citizens of Mumbai city (see: http://dairy.maharashtra.gov.in). The AMC consists of more than 30 cattle production units with a total capacity to house over 15,000 head of cattle. The eastern portion of AMC is bordered by SGNP, a forested landscape of nearly 104km-2 in area. The northern, western and southern frontiers of the AMC are bordered by the suburbs of Mumbai city, a metropolis of more than 12 million people. Nearly 55% of the area of AMC together comprises of uncultivated land, cultivated grassland, water bodies, gardens, orchards and forest cover. The remaining area is allotted to cattle production units and institutions belonging to the Government of India, which largely comprise built-up areas. There are also a number of native tribal villages, residential colonies and slums within its premises.

The vegetation type in AMC is heavily human-modified, however a few remnant patches of Southern moist deciduous forest (Champion & Seth 1968) are also found. A high floating population of recrea-tional visitors and resident human population in the cattle units, villages, slums, and built-up areas have heavily subsidized free-roaming dogs (the majority being strays) with food in the AMC. Given


127

the availability of dogs, leopards are sighted often in the premises of the AMC, since free-roaming dogs are potential prey species for the leopard (Edgaonkar & Chellam 2002)

4.3.2 DOG SURVEYS

We conducted the entire survey from 25th February to 1st March, 2012. We initially surveyed all of AMC on a motorbike and identified points where adult dogs were observed, either in clusters or sin-gly. We tracked the majority of the roads within the AMC using a hand-held GPS (Garmin Inc., USA, GPS 72H) and marked all locations with dog presence. These points were generally close to human habitations and included garbage and cattle carcass dumps, cattle units, slums, villages and the prem-ises of institutions within the AMC. A total of 65 such points were identified and overlaid on a map of the AMC to design a survey route. Although we recorded areas where dogs were observed, we en-sured that our survey route uniformly covered most areas within the colony where dogs could be found. This was primarily done to ensure that the sampled area had no uncovered regions in terms of areas where dogs occurred. However, we did not cover a small portion (c. 1.3km-2 comprising NDDB and SRPF) in the western edge of the AMC due to its inaccessibility and time constraints (Figure 1).

Figure 4.1 The map of the study area indicates the survey route and dog count points used to esti-mate dog abundance in a mark-resight framework in Aarey colony, India.

We first followed this survey route to identify and photograph individual adult dogs with easily dis-tinguishable natural marks. These dogs were identified by observing natural marks on their flanks (sides), head and tail. We identified only those dogs as marked which had visibly distinct and con-


128

spicuous natural markings and could be easily recognized by photographing them. Nevertheless, we ensured that during our initial survey we identified as many naturally marked dogs as we could de-tect. Such naturally marked dogs were identified as ‘marked’ individuals in the population. This was done two days prior to actual sampling to adhere to the assumption of closure, since mortality rates of free-roaming dogs is assumed to be moderate to high. Mono-coloured adult dogs or plain dogs, without conspicuous natural marks were regarded as ‘unmarked’ individuals in the population. We also observed that free-roaming dogs were most visible during morning and evening hours in our study area, thus surveys (initial and actual) were planned keeping in mind activity and visibility lev-els of dogs so as to increase the sightability of individuals.

Figure 4.2. The image indicates photographs obtained for a distinct naturally marked dog over two secon-dary sampling intervals in Aarey colony, India.

We conducted the actual sampling surveys during daylight hours over three days, where each day comprised one ‘secondary’ sampling interval. The ‘primary’ sampling interval (28th February to 1st March, 2012) was kept short to adhere to the assumptions of (geographic and demographic) closure.


129

On each secondary sampling interval, the entire survey route was covered using a motorbike and high quality photographs of dogs with natural marks were taken using a digital SLR camera (Canon India Pvt. Ltd., India, Canon 1000D, Canon 18-55 mm lens) (Figure 2). The photographs of dogs in-cluded as many distinct natural marks on the individual to reduce the possibility of misidentification. At each point as well as along the survey route, all marked dogs seen were photographed and the numbers of unmarked dogs were recorded. We thoroughly surveyed the area around each point to detect as many dogs as possible, ensuring that we did not traverse this surveyed area twice to avoid double counts. The survey route was covered in a unidirectional way such that sampling was without replacement, i.e. each individual was sighted only once during each day of surveying (McClintock et al. 2009). This was made certain by covering all roads in the survey route only once. If some roads had to be repeatedly traversed on the same sampling interval to reach other points, we did not count or photograph dogs during this repeat traverse to avoid double counts of unmarked dogs. Given that we used natural marks, it was essential to identify whether the individual was from the known ‘marked’ population or an entirely new individual with distinct natural marks to avoid biasing the mean resighting probability (which helps in calculating the abundance). Such naturally marked indi-viduals, who were not identified during our initial surveys, were included in the ‘unmarked’ popula-tion.

Data input and Analysis

We performed the analysis in Program MARK (White and Burnham 1999, Version 6.2) using the mixed logit-normal mark-resight estimator, where number of ‘marked’ individuals in the population should be known exactly (McClintock et al. 2009), similar to the Bowden’s estimator in program NOREMARK (White 1996). As we had taken photos of marked dogs, we could use individual hetero-geneity models with the data. Individual heterogeneity, basically, accounts for the fact that some indi-vidual dogs are more visible than others due to their status or nature. For example, aggressive domi-nant dogs may be moving around their area more to drive away less dominant individuals and there-fore are resultantly seen more often. We used the time-constant model with or without individual het-erogeneity parameters. Since some convergence issues occurred for values of " (individual heteroge-neity parameter), we manually supplied initial values covering the probable range for these parame-ters in some models. We also used other options to overcome convergence issues for values of ", such as the ‘Alt.Opt.method’ and ‘Do not standardize design matrix’. Model selection was performed in an information-theoretic framework using Akaike’s information criteria corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), which is a ranking framework for models.

4.4 RESULTS

We identified a total of 101 naturally marked individuals in the population before actual sampling, and these were resighted over three secondary sampling intervals during the primary interval. Fifty-seven dogs were resighted once, 29 dogs were resighted twice and only 15 dogs were resighted all three times across the three sampling intervals. A total of 270, 294 and 356 unmarked dogs were counted over the three secondary sampling intervals.


130

We used a total of seven models, of which the first six models represented the time-constant individ-ual heterogeneity model and one model represented the time-constant model where " was fixed to zero. All seven models were ranked evenly, since the individual heterogeneity parameter (") could not be estimated correctly in any of the first six models and experienced convergence issues. All model estimates of N and p were exactly identical and there was no difference in the AICc scores for any model.

A total abundance (Nj) of 680.64 ± 34.06 (95% CI = 617.22 – 751.35) dogs were estimated to be present in the AMC. Overall mean resighting probability (#ij) was estimated to be 0.53 ± 0.03 (95% CI = 0.47 – 0.58).

4.5 DISCUSSION

We demonstrate a simple approach for estimating dog numbers using natural marks in a mark-resight framework with the flexible logit-normal mixed-effects model (McClintock et al. 2009). This method may be advantageous in cases where no readily available marks exist and both practical and ethical limitations prevent other forms of prior artificial marking. We believe our method of employ-ing natural marks to estimate dog abundance would be useful for biologists, public health depart-ments and dog welfare organizations concerned in planning animal birth control (ABC) initiatives. Understanding the abundance of a free-roaming dog population before an intervention or control programme and successively over the years afterwards enables one to evaluate the success of such initiatives. Most importantly, to estimate abundance precisely one needs to use approaches that ac-count for imperfect detectability or sightability.

The pet dog to man ratio estimated in India is about 1:36 (Sudarshan 2004), however dog manage-ment is poor and the majority of dogs, even those with a formal owner, are partially or totally unre-stricted in their movements (Menezes 2008). In our study area (c.12km-2) in the AMC in suburban Mumbai, we estimated a total of 681 (95% CI = 617 - 751) free-roaming dogs, which would yield den-sities of approximately 57 (51 - 63) dogs per km-2. When compared to some other studies across the world, such as the Mirigama area (c.10.3km-2) of Sri Lanka, Matter et al. (2000) found 4.6 inhabitants per dog, and densities of 108 (95% CI = 100 - 116) dogs (owned and ownerless) per km-2. In Kath-mandu, Nepal, Kato et al. (2003) found a stray dog density of 2,930 dogs per km-2 and a ratio of 4.7 people per dog. In the Aarey milk colony, even though densities are lower than the above mentioned urban areas, such an abundance of free-roaming dogs represents immense quantities of potentially available prey for leopards, especially given the proximity of our study area to SGNP.

Our results demonstrate a reasonably large population of free-roaming dogs in the AMC of suburban Mumbai, acting as potential prey for leopards as well as posing a disease risk to humans. Currently in our study area, systematic animal birth control initiatives, as well as vaccination drives are recom-mended so as to control the dog population and minimize disease risk to humans. However, there is no site-specific monitoring of the same over time to assess its efficacy. Our study provides a suitable method to assess changes in dog populations in such cases.


131

4.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Mr. Sunil Limaye, Field Director and Chief Conservator of Forests of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra State Forest Department for support. The ‘Mumbaikars for SGNP’ project initiated by him was instrumental in conceiving this study. Rajesh Sanap was ex-tremely helpful in carrying out the dog surveys and we are grateful for his help. We also want to ac-knowledge Zeeshan Mirza, Vishal Shah, and Vidya Venkatesh who were very helpful with the logis-tics.

4.7 REFERENCES

Campos, C.B., Esteves, C.F., Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., Jr, P.G.C. & Verdade, L.M. (2007) Diet of free-ranging cats and dogs in a suburban and rural environment , south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Zoology, 273, 14-20.

Champion, H.G. & Seth, S.K. (1968) A revised survey of the forest types of India. Nueva, Delhi.

Childs, J.E., Robinson, L.E., Sadek, R., Madden, A., Miranda, M.E. & Miranda, N.L. (1998) Density estimates of rural dog populations and an assessment of marking methods during a rabies vac-cination campaign in the Philippines. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 33, 207-218.

Cleaveland, S., Appel, M.G.J., Chalmers, W.S.K., Chillingworth, C., Kaare, M. & Dye, C. (2000) Sero-logical and demographic evidence for domestic dogs as a source of canine distemper virus infec-tion for Serengeti wildlife. Veterinary Microbiology, 72, 217-227.

Edgaonkar, A. & Chellam, R. (2002) Food habit of the leopard, Panthera pardus in the Sanjay Gandhi national park, Maharashtra, India. Mammalia, 66, 353-360.

Hiby, L.R., Reece, J.F., Wright, R., Jaisinghani, R., Singh, B. & Hiby, E.F. (2011) A mark-resight survey method to estimate the roaming dog population in three cities in Rajasthan, India. BMC Veteri-nary Research, 7.

Kato, M., Inukai, Y., Yamamoto, H. & Kira, S. (2003) Survey of the stray dog population and the health education program on the prevention of dog bites and dog-acquired infections : a comparative study in Nepal and Okayama Prefecture, Japan. Acta Medica Okayama, 57, 261-266.

Kruuk, H. & Snell, H. (1981) Prey selection by feral dogs from a population of marine iguanas (Am-blyrhynchus cristatus). Journal of Applied Ecology, 18, 197-204.

Lacerda, A.C.R., Thomas, W.M. & Marinho-Filho, J. (2009) Domestic dogs as an edge effect in the Brasília National Park, Brazil: interactions with native mammals. Animal Conservation, 12, 477-487.

Matter, H.C., Wandeler, A.I., Neuenschwander, B.E., Harischandra, L.P.A. & Meslin, X.F. (2000) Study of the dog population and the rabies control activities in the Mirigama area of Sri Lanka. Acta Tropica, 75, 95 - 108.

Mcclintock, B.T., White, G.C., Burnham, K.P. & Pryde, M.A. (2009) A Generalized Mixed Effects Model of Abundance for Mark-Resight Data When Sampling is Without Replacement. Modeling Demo-graphic Processes in Marked Populations. (eds D.L. Thomson, E.G. Cooch & M.J. Conroy), pp. 271-289. Springer.


132

Menezes, R. (2008) Rabies in India. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178, 564-566.

Sudarshan, M. (2004) Assessing burden of Rabies in India. WHO sponsored National Multi-centric rabies survey 2003. Bangalore, India.

Totton, S.C., Wandeler, A.I., Zinsstag, J., Bauch, C.T., Ribble, C.S., Rosatte, R.C. & Mcewen, S.A. (2010) Stray dog demographics in Jodhpur, India following a population control / rabies vaccination program. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 97, 51-57.

White, G.C. (1996) NOREMARK: population estimation from mark-resighting surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24, 50-52.

White, G.C. & Burnham, K.P. (1999) Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study, 46, 120-138.


133

REPORT 5.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HERBIVORES IN SGNP, MUMBAI.

Girish Arjun Punjabi ([email protected])Researchers for Wildlife Conservation,F-21, National Centre for Biological Sciences,Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,GKVK, Bellary Road,Bangalore-560065, India.Website: http://www.rwcindia.org

Citation: Punjabi, G. 2013 Distribution and Abundance of herbivores in SGNP, India. A Mumbaikars for SGNP report #5. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra.

Report 5! ! ! ! ! ! ! Herbivore occupancy in SGNP

134

5.1 SUMMARY

We examined the distribution and abundance of herbivores in Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP). We used the occupancy modelling technique, to estimate cluster (herd) abundances of Cheetal Axis

axis and Sambar Rusa unicolour. We could not estimate cluster abundances for other species due to low number of detections (< 10). We found that human disturbance and steep terrain both negatively in-fluenced Cheetal abundance in the park, while only disturbance index negatively influenced Sambar abundance. Although the variations in cluster abundances were high, this study is perhaps the first of its kind that gives baseline estimates of ungulate abundance in SGNP. This study will be useful to management in identifying priority areas and make interventions in other regions of the park where herbivore abundances were found to be low.

5.2 INTRODUCTION

Occupancy is a state variable examining the proportion of sites occupied by an animal (MacKenzie et al., 2002). Generally, when examining occupancy the focus shifts from actually counting animals to examining proportion of sampling units (for example, grid cells) occupied by the animal. The occu-pancy technique has become increasingly popular in species distribution and occurrence modeling, due to its ability to tease apart true absence from non-detection. Moreover, recent advances in the oc-cupancy technique have also introduced models to estimate abundance using repeated counts (Royle and Nichols, 2003). There have also been recent developments to accommodate spatial dependence in survey replicates used for sampling (Hines et al., 2010). Using a combination of these developments and on the basis of one earlier study (Rayar, 2010), we designed an occupancy survey to understand distribution and abundance of herbivores in SGNP. The herbivore species known to occur in the park were Cheetal Axis axis, Sambar Rusa unicolour, Muntjac Muntiacus muntjac, Wild boar Sus scrofa, four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis, and Chevrotain Mosciola indica.

Grid cells, each measuring 3.25 km-2 were overlaid on a map of the study area. The grid size was based on examining literature on known home range sizes of herbivore species (Rayar, 2010). A total of 40 grid cells covered the park entirely, however on further examining the areas we ascertained 32 grid cells could be sampled given low percentage forest cover or steep terrain and logistical con-straints in the remaining 8 grids. However, at the end of the study we managed to survey a total of 27 grid cells given problems of accessibility and steep terrain. Of the 27 sampled grid cells, we detected enough signs of only Cheetal and Sambar to perform the occupancy and abundance modeling. Over-all detections for other species were too low (< 10 detections) to perform any modeling using the data. The study perhaps is the first of its kind to give baseline estimates of Cheetal and Sambar cluster abundances (herd/ group abundances) in SGNP.

5.3 METHODS

5.3.1. STUDY AREA

SGNP, situated in suburban Mumbai, and measures 103 km-2 in area. The topography of the park is hilly and vegetation is mainly characterized by Southern Moist deciduous forest (Champion & Seth, 1955). More details on the study area can be found in the unpublished report by Edgaonkar and Chel-lam (1998). The intensive study area covered a large portion of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (c.


135

80% by area of SGNP). We covered most portions of the park except for the central portion (encom-passed by 3 grid cells) and a portion towards the East, near Mulund (2 grid cells). These areas were not sampled due to access issues, steep terrain and logistical constraints. The entire area of Nagla block was not a part of the proposed study area, however we did sample the southern end of Nagla block, just above the creek. Please refer to figure 1 for map of total and sampled grids.

Field sampling

Each grid cell had 9 points and the design used for the survey has been shown in the Figure 1, 2. Dis-tance between each set of points (A to B to C to F to I to H to G to D to E) was 600 m and the total walk effort in each cell was a maximum of 4.8 km. Each set of points was further divided into 100 m replicate segments and data on presence-absence of herbivores (Cheetal Axis axis, Sambar Rusa unicol-our, Muntjac Muntiacus muntjac, Wild boar Sus scrofa, and four-horned antelope Tetracerus quadricornis) was collected on these replicates. We also collected data on human disturbance on the same replicate segments to be used as a covariate in the analysis.

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. The method of carrying out the survey for the occupancy field work.

Data compilation

Data was entered into spreadsheets as capture histories. Capture histories are dummy codes in the form of 1’s and 0’s indicating presence and absence respectively of the species sign or disturbance. Since we only detected Cheetal and Sambar signs in the study area adequately (> 50 detections), we used them in the distribution and abundance modeling further. Detection of other herbivores or their signs were very low (<10), therefore we could not model them to understand their distribution and abundance. However, we plotted them on maps of the study area, so as to understand where these detections occurred spatially.

Covariates

Primarily habitat and disturbance factors were considered to be important determinants of large her-bivore distribution. For measuring human disturbance we calculated a cumulative disturbance index, which was used as a covariate during modeling, by adding all detections of human disturbance in a grid cell divided by the walk effort in the respective grid cell. Habitat factors were ascertained by cre-ating two indices- terrain/slope index and percentage forest cover. We calculated terrain/slope index by counting the number of contour lines in each grid cell, since the number of contour lines in each cell would appropriately index the terrain/slope in each sampling unit. The denser or more number of contour lines in a grid cell, the steeper the slope and vice versa. Percentage forest cover though cal-culated, was not used as a covariate since it was negatively correlated with cumulative disturbance index (Pearson’s r > -0.6). We expected human disturbance to negatively influence Cheetal and Sam-bar abundance (Ceballos and Lascurain, 1996), while terrain/slope index was hypothesized to nega-tively affect Cheetal abundance (Schaller, 1967; Duckworth et al. 2008) and positively affect Sambar abundance (Timmins et al. 2008). We used covariates to examine their effect on occupancy as well, but they were not used to examine their effect on detection probability for any of the models.


137

5.3.2. ANALYSIS

The analysis for Cheetal and Sambar was done using data structured as per 3 replicate lengths each- 100m, 300m and 600m. Three kinds of models were used at each replicate length for each species- the Mackenzie et al. model (2002); the Royle and Nichols model (2003) and the Hines et al. model (2010). The Royle and Nichols model (2003) was the model that furnished values of r (where r = animal spe-cific detection probability) and ! (lambda = grid cell specific cluster abundance). The selection of the appropriate replicate length to explain cluster abundance for Cheetal and Sambar was chosen based on values of # and #’ from the Hines et al. (2010) model at each of these lengths, where # = probabil-ity of species presence on replicate, given absence on previous replicate and #’ = probability of species presence on a replicate given presence on previous replicate. As replicate lengths become independ-ent, the difference between # and #’ becomes lower. For more details on the technicalities of analysis please refer to Rayar, 2010. All analysis was performed using software PRESENCE2 (Hines, 2006).

5.4. RESULTS

The co-variates used to assess human disturbance were poaching signs, clear-felling, fire and biomass extraction (Figure 3). The presence of human (as in the tourist area) was not used.

Figure 5.3. Map showing locations of disturbance signs recorded in SGNP for examining herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012


138

Cheetal

For Cheetal, the 100m replicate scale seemed the best choice, given the low difference in values of # and #’, as well as overall values of r (animal specific detection probability) and $ (grid cell specific cluster abundance). Both cumulative disturbance index and Terrain/slope index were important vari-ables in explaining $ (lambda) (Table 1). The negative sign of the estimate indicates a negative effect. The value for r (overall animal specific detection probability) at the 100 m replicate length for Cheetal was as low as 0.03. The values for lambda across the sampled grid cells have been shown in Figure 4.

Table 5.1. Parameter estimates for the model examining the effect of covariates (cumulative distur-bance index and terrain/slope index) on lambda of Cheetal.

COVARIATE PARAMETER ESTIMATE(SE)

Cumulative disturbance index-0.449 (0.150)

Terrain/slope index-0.119 (0.0363)

Figure 5.4. Map showing Cheetal (Axis axis) cluster abundance in SGNP from February to March, 2012.


139

Sambar

For Sambar, the 600m replicate scale seemed the best choice, given the values of r (animal specific de-tection probability) and ! (grid cell specific cluster abundance). Cumulative disturbance index was an important effect, but terrain index did not have any effect due to weak parameter estimates (Table 2). The value of the standard error for terrain index was high therefore the variable was not influential. The value for r (overall animal specific detection probability) at the 100 m replicate length for Sambar was as low as 0.07. The values for lambda across the sampled grid cells have been shown in Figure 5.

Table 5.2. Parameter estimates for the model examining the effect of covariates (cumulative distur-bance index and terrain/slope index) on lambda of Sambar.

COVARIATE PARAMETER ESTIMATE(SE)

Cumulative disturbance index-0.154 (0.073)

Terrain/slope index0.0313 (0.030)

Figure 5.5. Map showing Sambar (Rusa unicolour) cluster abundance in Sanjay Gandhi National Park from February to March, 2012.


140

Other species and disturbance

For all other species, namely Muntjac, Four-horned antelope and Wild pig, the number of detections overall were too low to perform the analysis meaningfully, therefore we have only plotted their occur-rence on maps. These have been shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5.6. Map showing locations of herbivore signs recorded in SGNP for examining herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012


141

5.5. DISCUSSION

1) This study suggests that both Cheetal and Sambar cluster (herd) abundance in the park are

negatively influenced by human disturbance (cumulative disturbance index), indicated by the

negative sign of the parameter estimates of the Royle and Nichols (2003) model, shown in the

Tables 1 & 2.

2) Cheetal cluster abundance is also influenced negatively by steep terrain (terrain/slope index),

therefore areas with steeper terrain do not seem to support higher cluster abundances of

Cheetal.

3) Overall, both Cheetal and Sambar seem to be most abundant in the Central, Southern and

Western parts of the park. For Cheetal, the best areas seem to be near the tourist zone, Malad

trench line, Shilonda trail and areas around Tulsi and Vihar 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 (Figure 7).

Figure 5.7. Map showing important locations mentioned in the above report in SGNP for examin-ing herbivore occupancy and abundance from February to March, 2012


142

4) The Northern and Eastern parts of the park both seem to have very low cluster abundance of

Cheetal and Sambar. These areas include Manpada, Ovala, Nagla (south side) and Yeur East.

5) Wild pig, four-horned antelope and Muntjac sign detections were very low overall (7, 5 and 1

detection respectively) indicating that they likely occur in very low densities throughout the

park.

6) Occurrence of fire, followed by local biomass extraction seemed to be the most common

forms of human disturbance and therefore management may need to address these threats

first, since cumulative disturbance index was seen to negatively influence Cheetal and Sam-

bar cluster occurrence/ abundance in the park.

7) Areas around Yeur seem to be heavily disturbed given the low detection of herbivore signs

and high detection of signs of human disturbance.

5.6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone from the Mumbaikars for SGNP project for giving me an opportunity to work in SGNP, Mumbai. Most of all Vidya Athreya, who has been more of a friend than a boss and whose constant backing ensured I focused on my work. I would like to sin-cerely thank the Maharashtra State Forest Department, especially the Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mr. Sunil Limaye. I have never met a more enthu-siastic and supportive forest officer. Even with the colossal amount of work, he always found time to listen to us. A special thanks to the prompt Vidya Venkatesh, who was really smooth with the logis-tics. I also acknowledge the help of Mr. Prashant Masurkar, Range Officer, Mobile Squad who was wonderful to interact with and his keenness for photography is quite an inspiration. Mr. Kiran Dab-holkar, Range Officer, Tulsi Range was very helpful, and I am especially grateful to him for sharing his vehicle. I also want to thank all forest department staff of SGNP who helped us extensively, from our surveys to our stay. I regret not being able to name them individually here. I am thankful to San-jay Rokde for feeding us on most days of our work in SGNP.

I appreciate the help of Vishal Shah, the zealot, during our shirt-ripping occupancy surveys! It would have been quite difficult to accomplish this task without his help and motivation. Rajesh Sanap and Zeeshan Mirza were tremendous help and I am thankful to them both. Chintan Seth was great com-pany to get my bike to Mumbai at the onset, I thank him for that. Lastly, I want to thank my family and friends here in Pune, who have been ever so supportive.


143

5.7. REFERENCES

Ceballos- Lascurain, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Champion, H.G. & Seth, S.K. (1968) A revised survey of the forest types of India. Nueva, Delhi.

Duckworth, J.W., Kumar, N.S., Anwarul Islam, Md., Hem Sagar Baral & Timmins, R.J. 2008.Axis axis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23 May 2012.

Edgaonkar, A. & Chellam, R. (1998) A preliminary study on the ecology of the leopard Panthera par-dus fusca in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra. Dehradun, India.

Hines, J. E. (2006). PRESENCE2- Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters. USGS-PWRC.http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.html.

Hines, J.E., Nichols, J.D., Royle, J.A., MacKenzie, D.I., Gopalaswamy, A.M., Kumar, N.S. & Karanth, K.U. (2010) Tigers on trails: occupancy modeling for cluster sampling. Ecological Applications, 20, 1456-1466.

Killivalavan Rayar. (2010) Assessing potential tiger habitats in Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Karnataka using occupancy modelling approaches. Masters thesis, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Wildlife Conservation Society-India Program, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1-56.

MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J. & Langtimm, C. a. (2002) Estimating site cccupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248-2255.

Royle, J.A. & Nichols, J.D. (2003) Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology, 84, 777-790.

Timmins, R.J., Steinmetz, R., Sagar Baral, H., Samba Kumar, N., Duckworth, J.W., Anwarul Islam, Md., Giman, B., Hedges, S., Lynam, A.J., Fellowes, J., Chan, B.P.L. & Evans, T. 2008. Rusa uni-color. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23 May 2012.


144

REPORT 6.LEOPARD MORTALITY DUE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ALONG

THE NORTHERN PERIPHERY OF SGNP, MUMBAI.

Ajay Bijoor ([email protected]) Sonu Singh ([email protected])Mrigank Save ([email protected])

Citation: Bijoor, A., Singh, S. & M. Save. 2013. Leopard mortality due to vehicular traffic along the northern periphery of SGNP, Mumbai. A Mum-baikars for SGNP project report #6. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra.

Report 6! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leopard deaths due to vehicle collisions

145

6.1. SUMMARY

The objective of this study was to record locations where leopard deaths have been reported due to vehicular accidents along the northern periphery of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and to use the information to provide recommendation to reduce the mortality. We have also added information from Aarey Milk Colony and Film City areas which lie to the south of SGNP, which are wooded and have a strong leopard presence as well as high traffic. We have information for this only for the year 2012.

This study was conducted between January-April 2012 as part of the Forest Department project “Mumbaikars for SGNP”. In all 12 accident spots located to the north of SGNP were reported from 2005 onwards; these locations were visited by our team and GPS co-ordinates were recorded for each site. Forest Department records from 1994 indicate a total of 35 accidents however location details for accidents prior to 2005 are not accurate and were used only to draw inferences about the accident. 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 second the fate of the animal was not known as it got away. Based on all of the information collected and a basic analysis we recommend that this issue be taken up urgently and that over-passes or under-bridges be built for the wild animals at a few points to the north of SGNP, connecting the for-ests of the north with that of SGNP. Furthermore, speed breakers need to be put into place in the Aarey area to reduce such accidents.

Figure 6.1. Map with accident locations situated to the north of SGNP on Google Earth.


146

GPS Locations of Accident Locations

The list of accidents dating back to 1994 was obtained through the Forest Department. In all a list of 35 accidents (13 accidents post 2005, 22 accidents prior to 2005) was obtained. Of these, 12 records from post 2005 accidents which are along the Ghodbunder Road and the Mumbai-Ahmedabad high-way were identified and the locations were visited, as best possible, with support of concerned forest department staff between March and April 2012. Incidents prior to 2005 appear difficult to trace since the information of the accident locations are very sketchy. The table in Appendix 6.1 we provide a synopsis of the locations of the 13 accidents that occurred post 2005 as well as the three 2012 incidents that occurred in Aarey Milk Colony and Film City and the observations.

6.2. DATA ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY INFERENCES

A year-wise split of accidents indicates a significant spike in for two of the 18 years for which data was available i.e. 2002 and 2007. Both these years have recorded seven and six deaths respectively, which is three-times higher than the mean death rate of two deaths per year.

Figure 6.2. Year-wise statistics of leopard deaths due to road accidents at the periphery of SGNP.

A split of the accidents scattered over the months in which they have been reported indicate that acci-dents are significantly higher in the months of December and May. Error bars with fixed value of 1 (which is greater than the standard error) indicate two points – first that the number of accidents is lower than the monthly mean value (3 deaths) during the monsoon months (Jun-Sept) and second that the months of April and December clearly have recorded a higher number of accidents.

Figure 6.3. Month-wise statistics of leopard deaths due to road accidents at the periphery of SGNP.

0

1.75

3.50

5.25

7.00

1994 1998 2000 2003 2006 2008 2010

21

32

1

7

12

1

6

3

1

32

0

2.25

4.50

6.75

9.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4

23

6

4

2

01 1

2 2

8


147

Interestingly, in the two worst years, 2002 and 2007, most incidents were reported in the months of December (4 of the total 8 deaths in December) and April (3 of the total 6 deaths in April).

Of a total of 13 accidents reported in the months of December and April, 6 accidents dating between 1994 and 2004 were unable to trace due to sketchy details of the accident location. Five accidents dur-ing this time are reported from the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway from Delhi Darbar Inn up to Kolli Chowki. Interestingly the one accident reported in Chena during this time is also very close.

One accident reported in December 2007 was from the IIT-NITIE road.

In terms of areas, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway (from Delhi Darbar Inn up to Kolli Chowki) appears the most vulnerable in terms of accidents along with spots around Chena check post.

Between 1994 and 2005, 22 accidents have been reported - noticeable the Tungareshwar Sanctuary was only declared in 2003 and it is unclear how many leopard deaths were reported from these areas. Since 2005 to date there have been 13 accidents of which 6 cases are within the jurisdiction of Tunga-reshwar range.

Table 6.1. Complete List of leopard accidents (1994-2012)

Sr. No Date Location Sex

1 14-02-94 Manpada M2 13-12-94 S. No. 243 M3 01-01-96 Waghba M4 23-01-98 Bhandup -5 03-11-98 Sr. No. 1141 Humayun M6 26-11-98 Patlipada M7 13-03-99 - F

8 03-12-99 Pahpav near volmil M9 26-05-00 Kavesar F

10 10-04-02 Borivali -

11 27-04-02 C No. 1138 M

12 20-05-02 Thane F13 26-06-02 Shrinagar F

14 21-08-02 Chena SN M

15 30-12-02 Bhandup M

16 30-12-02 NH 8 F

17 09-06-03 S No. 241 M

18 04-04-04 Bombay F

19 21-03-04 Gaimukh M

20* 29-04-07 Sasunavghar M

21* 11-10-07 Patlipada M

22* 16-12-07 JBPT M

23 24-01-08 Borivali M

24 17-02-08 C No. 1139 F

25 01-03-08 Owalkarwa F

26* 14-09-09 Opp F27* 06-04-10 Opp Versova M


148

Sr. No Date Location Sex28 01-05-06 Juchandra area on Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway F29 17-04-07 Sarjamori area on Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway M30 21-05-07 Sarjamori area on Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway F31 26-10-10 Juchandra area - Bafane Phata to Juchandra Road F32 23-12-10 Juchandra area on Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway F33 01-12-11 Vasai Phata to Chinchoti Phata - Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway M34 10-12-07 Bhandup-NITIE Road, Adjacent to IIT Road M35 29-04-07 Sasu-Navghar, Nagla Road, Mum-Ahm Highway M36 11-10-07 Patlipada, Thane-Ghodbunder Road M

37 16-12-07 Ghodbunder, Mumbai-Ahmedabad Highway M

38 14-09-09 Chena Village (East), Thane-Ghodbunder Road F39 06-04-10 Mauje-Chena (West), Mumbai-Thane Ghodbunder Highway M40 11-01-11 Mauje-Chena (West), Mumbai-Thane Ghodbunder Highway M41 April 2012 Film City M42 8-05-12 Aarey Milk Colony F43 1-10-12 Aarey Milk Colony na

*Represent repeat incidents

Figure 6.4.a. Details of the accident locations on the map.


149

Figure 6.4.b. Details of the accident locations on the map.

Figure 6.4.c. Details of the accident locations on the map.


150

The main areas where leopards were hit by vehicles are on the Ghodbunder road and the Mumbai Ahmedabad highway that passes close to Nagla and Tungareshwar forests. Furthermore, to the south of the Park, the areas of Aarey Milk Colony and Film City are areas where leopard accidents due to vehicles occur. On the east, the only site where leopards can move to the eastern forests of Karnala and even Bhimashankar are through one patch and it is important that green cover and underpasses/over bridges are maintained to facilitate wild animal movement in this part of the landscape (Images provided below). Although no GIS analysis has been carried out to assess connectivity, Point 36 lies at the only area where green cover extends eastwards. If we look at the entire landscape the forest patches are visible as pale polygons and 36 is the only green area connecting the southern forests to the forests of SGNP and therefore is likely to be an important area to consider for maintaining under-passes or over-bridges for wildlife movement.

Apart from aiding wildlife movement, accidents of leopards could potentially lead to increased con-flict as it increases the chances of injured animals or sub-adults without mothers which could then be dangerous to human lives. We recommend that overpasses and/or under-bridges be seriously con-sidered to help the movement of leopards and other wildlife in the landscape and maintain connec-tivity as well as to potentially remove the precursor of conflict.

Figure 6.5. Possible connectivity of forested landscapes around SGNP


151

6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on a review of the accident spots, there are a few points that we believe, if addressed could help reduce the number of accidents.

6.3.1. Controlling the speed of the vehicles, especially during the night time.This can be done by putting speed breakers and is relevant for the roads in Aarey Milk Colony and FIlm City areas as well.

6.3.2. Regular Waste Collection and Composting especially near residential areas.Several of the accident spots are close to garbage dumps that are near hotels and restaurants which commonly occur at the edges of the roads along the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway and Ghodbunder Road. The garbage is likely to attract stray dogs that leopards tend to prey on. A possible suggestion would be to ensure better garbage disposal facilities at the hotels and restaurants and encourage them to use composters.

6.3.3. Construction of underpasses or over-bridges across the roads for the use of wildlife.

Underpasses coupled with fences and barricades have proved fruitful in bringing down wildlife-vehicle collisions. However, the location, type, and dimensions of wildlife crossing structures must be carefully planned with regard to the species and surrounding landscape. In this case, it is important that they are conducive for use among the carnivores as well as the herbivores so as to maintain con-nectivity in the forests of the region. IIT - Mumbai could be approached to assist in designing effective underpasses/over-bridges for the use of wildlife in the areas roughly pointed out below.

Figure 6.6. Areas where over-bridges or under-passes can facilitate the movement of wildlife to and from SGNP.


152

The http://www.theworldgeography.com/2012/06/unusual-bridges-for-animals-wildlife.html pro-vides some images of over bridges to facilitate wild animal movement. Some images on the web page

are below

Figure 6.7. Images of over-bridges made for wildlife movement in other parts of the world.


153


154

Appendix 6.1. Data collected during the project.

Sr. No

Date Location Sex Details Provided By

Details of GPS Coordinates

Location Description, in brief Adiditional Details / Cur-

rent Status

1 01-05-06

Juchandra area on

Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-

way

F

Shri. Zende (Mazdoor) –

9561248717 on 31 Mar 12. The spot was visited along with Shri Ghote

and Shri Jagdale on 28 Apr 12.

N - 19o 22.283'E - 72o 53.742'

Accuracy - 16.4 ft

This accident was reported on the highway, roughly a km away from Kolli Police Chowki towards Mumbai.

This location has undergone change since the time of the accident with the construc-tion of a flyover being completed a few meters beyond the reported spot. Also there is a cluster of houses that have come up, which was absent six years ago according to the forest guards. Not many sightings have been reported from the area in recent years.

Head to Tail - 0.95 m

Length of Tail - 0.75 m

Total Length - 1.7 m

Recorded

2 17-04-07 Sarjamori area on


way

M



and Shri Jagdale on 28 Apr 12.

N - 19o 21.851'E - 72o 53.606'

Accuracy - 16.4 ft

The incident was reported 200 mts south of Bafane Phata. Work of widening the road is currently in progress along this road.

Recorded

3 21-05-07

Sarjamori area on


way

F



and Shri Jagdale on 28 Apr 12

N - 19o 21.369'E - 72o 53.654'

Accuracy – 16 ft

This accident was reported from Kantharia tabela (150 mts of the dairy). However, this spot is significantly away from the main highway and at least 500 mt inside on a mud track. It is unclear whether the death was of a road accident of any other reason.

Total Length - 2 m

Height - 0.86 mWeight - 29 kg

Recorded

4 26-10-10

Juchandra area - Bafane

Phata to Juchandra

Road

F




N - 19o 21.956'E - 72o 53.301'

Accuracy – 16 ft

This accident took place on Juchandra Road which is off the highway on Bafane phatta. The accident was reported few meters from an industrial block. Either side of the road has vast expanses of agricultural land with no human inhabitation. Down the road, there was is a hotel at roughly 50 mt dis-tance and a pile of garbage was found just off the road from where this accident was reported.

Head to Tail - 123 cm

Length of Tail - 79 cm

Chest - 84 cmFore leg - 64 cmHind leg - 65 cm

Recorded

5 23-12-10

Juchandra area on


way

F




N - 19o 23.689'E - 72o 53.411'

Accuracy – 16 ftThis is very characteristic road along this highway with forested patches on either sides of the road the left side of the road has a natural embankment while on the right there is a fall to go off the road. Minimal human activity.

Recorded


155

Sr. No




rent Status

6 01-12-11

Vasai Phata to

Chinchoti Phata -


way

M




N - 19o 23.778'E - 72o 53.265'

Accuracy – 16 ft

The accident was reported from Satovli Khind which is near the police check post after Kolli Chowki under Reserve Forest Compartment no. 1096.

The incident was reported around 10.30 p.m at night. This is very characteristic road along this highway with forested patches on either sides of the road the left side of the road has a natural embankment while on the right there is a fall to go off the road. Minimal human activity.

Ajoba’s Spot!

Recorded

7 10-12-07

Bhandup-NITIE Road,

Adjacent to IIT Road

MYet to contact Shri

Dabholkar and check.

8 29-04-07

Sasu-Navghar,

Nagla Road, Mum-Ahm

Highway

M

Visited the spot with Shri. Khapke on 31 Mar 2012 – (93322723756) -

details provided by Shri. Gopale and

team.

N - 19o 18.9073'E - 72o 53.9983'

Accuracy - 16.92 m

This spot is on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway and there is no fencing to restrict entry from the forest on to the road. The incident was reported between 2-3 a.m.

Recorded

9 11-10-07

Patlipada, Thane-

Ghodbunder Road

M

Shri Patole – 9869211308

Location visited along with Shri

Vinod – 9004606687 on 28

Apr 2012.

N - 19o 14.564'E - 72o 58.539'

Accuracy – 18 ft

This spot is barely 50 mt from the very busy Bramhand signal in Thane on the Ghod-bunder road. According to Shri Vinod, who took us to the spot the incident was re-corded at 5.30 a.m by locals. The leopard, having been hit by the car had settled by the corner of the road. The number of inci-dents reported from this area are however sporadic.

Interestingly, Shri Vinod did mention of a fairly healthy presence of the leopard at the Manpada check post (beyond Tikujini Wadi) where he is based. Leopard sightings are regular here and have been seen to pick dogs from the vicinity. Also, the leopard has been reported to move around the Kokani-pada area in search of dogs.

Recorded


156

Sr. No




rent Status

10 16-12-07

Ghod-bunder,


way

M

Shri Rathod – 9967837481

Location visited along with Shri

Abhay Dada’s van Mazdoor –

(9920305304) on 28 Apr 2012.

N - 19o 16.970'E - 72o 53.517'

Accuracy – 16 ft

This spot is on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway, roughly 300 mt after Delhi Darbar Inn in the direction to Ahmedabad.

According to the Van Mazdoor the incident was recorded at 4 a.m in the morning. His assessment is that there are industrial and residential areas on the other side of the highway with a sizeable population of dogs which get picked by the leopard. This inci-dent was however, recorded when the fence wall was not built around this area of the park. Incidentally plans are in place to widen this segment of the road with 30 mts marked on either side for widening.

Recorded

11 14-09-09

Chena Village (East), Thane-

Ghodbunder Road

FProvided by Shri. More on 31 Mar

2012

N - 19o 16.7196'E - 72o 54.4701'

Accuracy - 15.98 m

Falls under Sur-vey No. 99

The spot is approximately 50 mts further that the spot where the incident no. 13 took place. Here again, there is a boundary wall on one side and this road connects to the old road that was originally used before the multi-lane highway was built.

Recorded

12 06-04-10

Mauje-Chena (West),

Mumbai-Thane Ghod-bunder

Highway

MProvided by Shri. More on 31 Mar

2012

N - 19o 16.9325'E - 72o 55.1372'

Accuracy - 26 m

This spot is about 100 mts from the toll naka towards thane, on Ghodbunder road. As explained by the forest staff, the leopard was hit on the road from where it climbed on to the slope which has a few houses. It remained there in an injured state until the locals reported the incident.

Recorded

13 11-01-11

Mauje-Chena (West),

Mumbai-Thane Ghod-bunder

Highway

MProvided by Shri. More on 31 Mar

2012

N - 19o 16.5993'E - 72o 55.359'

Accuracy - 1.74 mFalls under Sur-

vey No. 99

A boundary wall was incomplete at the time of the accident. The opposite side of the road has a garbage dump that is littered by the hotels in the vicinity. These hotels are approximately 50 mts from the accident spot. Chena village is behind the forest check-post and there is a reduction in leop-ard sightings since the creation of the multi-lane Ghodbunder road.

Recorded

14 April 2012

Film City An adult male was hit by a vehicle and taken to the SGNP rescue centre.

15 8-05-12Aarey Milk

Colony

A cub was killed and the local reported that another leopard was seen for many days at the same area after the incident.

16 10-10-12Aarey Milk

Colony

More details are not known as the animal managed to move away.


157

Appendix 6.2. Additional References

Guideline for Building Underpasses: Recommended minimum dimensions for underpasses and overpasses have been suggested for some ungulate species, but the needs of wide-ranging species are vague at best. The most comprehensive guidelines for designing wildlife crossing structures, includ-ing most below-grade crossing structures, can be found in Iuell. This European handbook draws from the wealth of European experience building a variety of wildlife crossings. Guidelines for different wildlife taxa in Europe and North America can be found in Iuell, Foster and Humphrey, Clevenger and Waltho, Clevenger and Waltho, and Kruidering and others.

Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Reduction Study (USA): http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08034/08034.pdf

Roads, Sensitive Habitats and Wildlife – Environmental Guideline for India and South Asia: http://www2.wii.gov.in/eianew/eia/bgpbook/roadbpg.pdf

Foster, M.L., and S.R. Humphrey. 1995. Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1): 95–100.

Kruidering, A.M., G. Veenbaas, R. Kleijberg, G. Koot, Y. Rosloot, and E. Van Jaarsveld. 2005. Leidraad faunavoorzieningen bij wegen. Rijkswaterstaat, Dienst Weg-en Waterbouwkunde, Delft, The Nether-lands.

Iuell, B. (ed.). 2003. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Design-ing Solutions. KNNV Publishers: Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Clevenger, A.P., and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14: 47–56.

Clevenger, A.P., and N. Waltho. 2005. Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation 121: 453–464.


158

Appendix 6.3. Our Extended TeamThe study was carried out between January and April 2012, with the field visits being carried out dur-ing the months of March and April. During this time a number of people from the State Forest De-partment supported us in numerous ways and also helped us get to the locations that we intended to cover as part of the study. We would like to make a special mention of all these people and thank them again for their unending support.

Name RemarksSunil Limaye Director – SGNP, for supporting us in every possible way during the exercise.

Dr. Vinaya JongaleVeterinary Doctor at SGNP who promptly shared the list of leopard accidents since 2005.

Sanjay LachkeRFO Tungareshwar for guiding us to his team that helped us track six of the ac-cident spots

Shri SalgoankarRFO Yeur who spent an hour looking through our list and guiding us precisely to the locations and team members we ought to contact in our endeavor.

Shri MoreRound Officer – Chena, who welcomed us into his very well camouflaged office, took us to three of the accident locations, and has promised to scour his old re-cords to pull out any additional reports that may help.

Shri KhapkeOfficer at Nagla, who stood under the scorching sun of a lazy Saturday after-noon where one of the leopards had perished, standing guard until our entou-rage arrived.

Shri ZendeVan Mazdoor at Tungareshwar, one of the sharpest and most organised workers we met during the study who promptly had all the data, and a lot more informa-tion, at the tip of his fingers.

Shri ShindeRound Officer – Kavesar, who was kind enough to line up his troops to have us cover all the accidents within his jurisdiction.

Shri PatoleOfficer at Manpada who assisted us in tracking one of the accidents on the Ghodbunder Road.

Shri VinodOfficer at Forest Check Post at Manpada who took us to one of the accident spots that turned out to be one of the busiest roads in Thane and then regaled us with stories of the leopard in the nearby forested areas.

Shri GogateOfficer at Tungareshwar who took us to six of the accident locations, riding ahead on his bike and making sure we had nailed the spot precisely.

Shri Sharad Jagdale

Officer at Tungareshwar who took us to the six accident spots in Tungareshwar, at times making us stand in the middle of the highway, in an attempt to ensure that we had recorded the precise reading. He has promised to get us sightings of leopards in action that frequents his area of cordon.

Shri RathodOfficer at Nagla who in spite of being on leave got us connected with his team to track one of the accident spots.

Shri AbhayOfficer at Nagla who along with his Van Mazdoors took us to one accident spot on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway and made us aware of the ground level challenges they face in maintaining records over the years.


159

Also a mention of the volunteers who worked in putting together this report

Name RemarksKrutika Kapadia For unknowingly helping us with a list of accidents from 1994 to 2007.

Srinivasan AiyarFor his million analytical questions while on the road, in his attempt to map the mind of the elusive cat.

Most of all our thanks to Vidya Athreya who very patiently guided us through the creation of this

report


160

Appendix 6.4. Men at Work

Photographic evidence of our team on the prowl!

Picture 1: MSGNP team with Shri More at Chena Post

Picture 2: MSGNP team recording GPS co-ordinates of the accident spot


161

Appendix 6.5. Images of some of the Accident Locations

Picture 3: Accident spot on 11 Jan 2011 – the boundary wall was not yet complete then.

Picture 4: Accident spot on 14 Sept 2009 – barely 50 mt. away from the spot in the previous picture


162

Picture 5: Accident spot on 29 Apr 2007 – on the Mumbai - Ahmedabad highway


163

REPORT 7. MAPPING HUMAN LEOPARD CONFLICT LOCATIONS USING

MEDIA REPORTS, IN AND AROUND SGNP, MUMBAI.

Nikhil Disoria ([email protected])

Citation: Disoria, N. 2013. Mapping human leopard conflict locations using media reports in and around SGNP, Mumbai.A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #7. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra.

Report 7! ! ! ! ! ! ! Information from media reports on conflict

164

7.1 SUMMARY

As part of the Mumbaikars for SGNP project, between July 2011 and July 2012, we obtained media reports on human leopard interactions over the years and visited the locations mentioned in the re-port. The media reports were summarised as well as the locations were marked using a GPS. The re-sults indicate that even though instances of conflict were very few after 2005, media reporting still remained high. We also found that media reports can help supplement the Forest Department re-cords. We obtained two interesting locations of leopard incidences to the east of SGNP where leop-ards 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 widespread 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 focus on conflict (leopards killed or human killed) and can therefore provide a much wider context of the interaction between humans and leopards in the landscape.

7.2 INTRODUCTIONThe only information that researchers use to note leopard presence are Forest Department records. However, these focus on conflict incidences whereas there are a range of interactions between leop-ards and humans which are not considered. Media reports could be important sources of other kinds of interactions between leopards and humans. In order to assess if this is the case and to better under-stand the non-conflict kind of interactions between humans and leopards in the SGNP landscape we accessed media reports and conducted site visits to obtain more information on the leopard - human interactions.

7.3 MATERIALS & METHODSWe used media records from 1999 to 2010 of leopard conflict from Times of India (51 points) & Ma-harashtra Times (18 points) that were compiled by Saloni Bhatia. Ten reports had to be removed due to overlap and therefore we had a total of 59 reports of leopard incidences in and around the Park. Of these we visited a total of 32 media report locations and obtained information on the details of the conflict from either the people directly affected by the leopard attacks or spoke to the people who had interacted with leopards (sighted or leopard seen dead).

The field work lasted from July 2011 to July 2012 (Including the compilation of data by Saloni Bhatia and the closure of the field visit by the team).

7.4 RESULTS

Media reports on leopard attacks with Mumbai seem to have begun to appear only after 2002. Though 2002 and 2003 saw close to 60 instances of leopard conflict there appears to have been only 3 articles in the newspapers reporting these. This however changed from the year 2004. A single month in 2004 (June) saw 9 human deaths and 3 attacks and a accompanying surge is observed in the media coverage with 10 articles in a single month. The trend changes from here on, with the number of arti-cles featured surpassing the number of accidents/incidents.

The media reports also provide a much wider spread of where leopards are present. In the case of some of the accounts, from the media reports it is possible to identify that leopards were more than a


165

kilometre away (points 4 and 5 in Figure 7.1) from the periphery of the Park, in highly density popu-lated areas.

Figure 7.1. Trend for Media Reports vs. Attacks in 2002-2007.

Figure 7.2. Map of locations of human leopard interactions such as sightings and/or predation on dogs obtained from media reports.

Media Reports Attacks

0

3.75

7.50

11.25

15.00

Jan-02

Jun-02

Nov-02

Apr-03

Sep-03

Feb-04

Jul-04

Dec-04

May-05

Oct-05

Mar-06

Aug-06Jan

-07Jun-07

Nov-07


166

Figure 7.3. Map of human injuries and deaths caused by leopards obtained from media reports.

Table 7.1. Interviews with the local people where leopard incidents had occurred as per media re-ports.

DATETYPE OF

LEOPARD INCIDENT

SOURCE OF IN-

FOR-MA-

TION

GPS COORDI-NATES

CODE ON IMAGE

INCIDENT # (ON EXCEL SHEET)

NAME OF THE LOCA-TION

NAME OF PERSON IN-TERVIEWED

28-Oct-03 Only Sight-ing MT N 19˚14'12.8"

E 072˚57'59.7" 1 Sr.No.10Case Id 11 Article11A Tikujiniwadi, Thane Watchman

11-Dec-03 Only Sight-ing TOI N19˚ 7' 12"

E 072˚ 53' 45" 2 Sr.No.4Case Id 11 Article11A

Rainbow Building (on the wall), Raheja

Vihar, PowaiWatchman


167

20-Nov-06 Dog Death TOI N19˚ 16' 14.0"E 072˚ 56' 43.0" 3 Sr.No.37Case Id 90

Article90A Eden Woods Com-

plex, ThanePrajapati

Watchman

01-Mar-08 Leopard Death TOI N 19˚ 10' 17.0"

E 072˚ 57' 23.0" 4 Sr.No.45Case Id 101 Article101A

Owalekar Wadi, Thane (W) _

22-Nov-08 Only Sight-ing TOI N 19˚13'51.8"

E 072˚59'10.3" 5 Sr.No.47Case Id 106 Article106A

Bayers India kolshet, Thane Watchman

30-Sep-09 Sighting MT N 19˚ 11' 26.4",E 072˚ 52' 30.4" 6 Sr. No. 16 Case Id

19 Article 19A

Road No.2 Mhatma Phule Chawl, Kran-

tinagar, Kandivali (E)

Lalta Yadav (Tea Stall)

19-Jul-10 Sighting TOI N19˚ 10' 02.0", E 072˚52' 56.0" 7

Sr. NO. 51, Case Id. 117, Article Id.

117A

Bldg No. 28, Sankalp Siddhi, New Mhada

Colony, Dindoshi Goregaon (E)

Watchman

20-Aug-10 Attack on dogs TOI N 19˚ 11' 14.0"

E 072˚ 56' 22.0" 8 Sr.No.52 Case Id 121 Article121A

Lok Nisarg Housing Society Complex,

Mulund (W)Watchman

7.5. DISCUSSION

Media discourse seems to occur at a higher rate than the frequency at which leopard incidences occur. Leopards do indeed fascinate and provoke public attention at the same time. Media reports also point out the interesting fact that leopard excursions into human use areas around the Park are probably much more common than we realise and can thus strengthen or challenge existing ideas about large felid persistence in human use landscapes. Furthermore, SGNP, from the leopard’s point of view is only one part of the entire leopard landscape that consists of all the forested patches and protected areas in the region. The media reports also allow us to get more information on human - leopard in-teractions especially in the absence of attacks on humans. For instance, in Table 1, the media reports consist of sightings of leopards which is not reported in FD records. The role of media is vital in not just bringing to light the conflict incidents and accidents occurring around the park but also to spread the right message and allow for appropriate management and not increase fear often spread due to the lack of information and rumours.

Furthermore, it has come to light that some human incidences are attributed to leopards in the media even though the proof is not present. In the following case,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Humiliated-teen-killed-classmate-in-national-park/articleshow/13583935.cms

a person was murdered and it was though to be a leopard attack. Such news reporting could act in fueling conflict because with news of attacks on humans, the pressure on the Forest Department to trap increases enormously and our work finds that random capture and release could increase attacks


168

on humans near the release sites. Therefore, any human attack has to be proved that it is indeed a leopard attack before it is published so that conflict is not increased.

7.6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Jayshree Murali & Adwait Jadhav for accompanying and helping me during my survey of the Ghod-bunder, Mulund & Thane Area. Thanks to Principal Bhavan’s College for providing me the necessary support to carry out the survey. Inputs and recommendations of Vidya Venkatesh were of immense importance to the project. I’m grateful to my family for their moral support and friends, who untir-ingly helped me in finding ways to reach various locations of leopard-human conflicts within the Mumbai region.

The members of the team were: Saloni Bhatia, Nikhil Disoria, Swapnil Gosavi, Tejas Tawade, Hardik Waghela, Shiv Singh, Sandip Kachhap, Vikrant Chourasiya, Kailash Hirdode, Jyoti james, Yugandhara Kaskar, Karishma Hin-dlekar, Pranjali Manjrekar & Tanvi Mhetras were part of Mapping Team.


169

APPENDIX 7.1. Locations of media reports of sighting of leopards, leopard death & attack on dogs between 1999 and 2010. These were visited and the local people were interviewed to obtain the details of the incidences. The white cells indicate the sites that were visited (32), the green cells could not be sampled due to lack of information (27) and the yellow cells could not be visited due to lack of time (8).

DATETYPE OF

LEOPARD INCIDENT

SOURCE OF IN-

FORMA-TION

GPS COORDI-NATES

INCIDENT # (ON EX-

CEL SHEET)

NAME OF THE LOCATION

NAME OF PERSON INTER-

VIEWED

CONTACT DETAILS

DATE OF LAST

LEOPARD INCIDENT

NEAR-EST

GAR-BAGE DUMP

3-May-1999

Human Death Gitan-jali Salvi 5yrs

Geovun N 19˚ 15' 21.7" E 072˚ 52' 40.3" _

Shankar Man-dir Tekdi Adi-

vasi Dongri Ketki pada Dahisar (E)

Ankush 9930124916

Old women

killed on May 2009

1m

Around year 2000

Child Death N 19˚ 11' 02.0"E 072˚ 56' 10.0" _

Near Teak-wood Building,

Mulund (W) but house no longer there

Watch-man _ _ 0m

4-Mar-2002

Human Death (Gauri

7yrs)TOI N 19˚11' 10.9"

E 072˚ 52'40.7"

Sr. No. 2, Case Id 2 Article 2A

Biri Piri Bha-tungle pada,

Adivasi nagar, Kurar, Malad

(E)

Mira (Mausi) Sandu Bhalal Rathod (Mama)

_ _ 1m

31-Oct-2002

Human In-jury but not

DeathTOI

Sr. No. 1Case Id1 Article Id

1A

near SGNP, Malad

23-Oct-2003 Trapped TOI

Sr. No. 3 Case Id9 Article Id

9A

IIT Powai

28-Oct-2003

Only Sight-ing MT N 19˚14'12.8"

E 072˚57'59.7"

Sr.No.10Case Id 11

Arti-cle11A

Tikujiniwadi, Thane

Watch-man _ _ _

11-Dec-2003

Only Sight-ing TOI N 19˚ 7' 12"

E 072˚ 53' 45"

Sr.No.4Case Id 11

Arti-cle11A

Rainbow Build-ing (on the

wall), Raheja Vihar,Powai

Watch-man _ _ _

17-Dec-2003

Child death (Irfan Kam-

ruddin Khan)

TOI Sr. No. 5

Case Id12 Article Id

12A

Aarey Colony , Goregaon

16-Feb-2004

Human Death (Kalu

Vijay Bhogle) N 19˚ 11' 07.7",

E 072˚ 52' 18.2" _

Sant Nirankari chawl, Am-

bedkar Nagar, Dutt Road,

Kurar, Pimpi-ripada , Malad

(E)

Dikshita Dinesh Pawar

9892545861 _ 1m

21-Feb-2004


DeathTOI


14A

Virar


170

7-Jun-2004

Child death (Bhagwan

Gopi)TOI


17A

Aarey Colony / Vihar Lake, Goregaon /

Powai

19-Jun-2004

Man Death (Kuldeep

Gurubaksh Singh)

TOI N 19˚ 10' 53.0"E 072˚ 55' 59.0"

Sr.No.9 Case Id 19 Arti-cle19A

Mulund Hill Daily Walker _ _ _

19-Jun-2004

Human Death (Kazi

Baba)TOI

N 19°10' 44.2992" E 72° 56' 8.559"


31A

near Gaiband-shah Dargah, Palasapada,

Mulund

_ _ _ _

22-Jun-2004 No Attack TOI


23A

main street, IIT Powai

24-Jun-2004

Human death (Uday

Shankar Tambe)

TOI Sr. No. 11 Case Id26 Article Id

26A

near Vanrai Housing Soci-ety, Borivali national Park

25-Jun-2004

Human In-jury (Aslam Ahmad An-

sari)

TOI

N 19° 9' 40.8564" E 72° 53' 7.8828"

Sr. No. 12 Case Id 27 Article Id

27A

Vanichapada, Aarey Colony

Goregaon _ _ _ _

28-Jun-2004

Human Death TOI

N 19˚ 09' 16.9" ,E 072˚ 52' 58.5"


32A

29-Krishna nagar, Aarey colony, Gore-

gaon (E)

Krishna (cousin of Late Raju

Yadav)

9664681236

leopard killed a dog 10/1/2011

1m

28-Jun-2004

Human In-jury MT N 19˚13' 44.3" ,

E 072˚ 52' 00.8"

Sr. No. 15 Case Id 18

Article 18A

Ekta woods Raheja Estate Borivali (E)

Amar Singh _ _ 500m

28-Jun-2004 Trapped TOI


30A

Raheja Com-plex, near

SGNP, Borivali

29-Jun-2004

Human In-jury TOI N 19˚ 08' 10.0"

E 072˚ 54' 04.0"

Sr.No.16Case Id 36

Arti-cle36A

NITIE Campus, Raheja Com-plex,Powai

Watch-man _ _ _

3-Jul-2004 Trapped TOI


46A

Ghodbunder Road, Ka-

shimira Area



51A

at forest gate near Darbar Road, near

Mulund Col-ony, Mulund

7-Jul-2004

Human In-jury (Sudhir

Jagdish Chaudhary)

TOI

N 19°10' 55.4952" E 72° 52' 43.1718"


58A

Res.Foresst SNo.239/1,Mal

ad _ _ _ _



55A

in SGNP(Mashith

apada) near Ghodbunder Road, Thane


171

20-Jul-2004 No Attack TOI


61A

near Adarsh Nagar Slums, Aarey Colony,

Goregaon

2-Aug-2004 No Attack TOI


65A

near SGNP, Abhinav Na-gar, Borivali

18-Sep-2004

Human In-jury (Akash)

N 19˚ 11' 05.9" , E 072˚ 52' 24.4"

_

Sant Nirankari chawl, Am-

bedkar Nagar, Dutt Road,

Kurar, Pimpi-ripada , Malad

(E)

Sandippa _ _ 11m

3-Oct-2004

Human Death

(Sangita Kondya Janate)

TOI

N 19°16' 7.3554"E 72° 54' 56.4006"


66A

Mandvipada, Near Mira

Road Ghod-bandar

_ _ _ _

16-Nov-2004

Human death

(Suresh Mu-kane)


68A

SGNP, Bhandup

16-Nov-2004

Human death MT


12A

Khindipada, Bhandup

21-Oct-2005

Human Death (An-mol Manish

Bansal)

TOI

N 19° 6' 53.064"E 72° 53' 49.9806"


75A

Sunraj Bldg. Raheja Vihar

Powai _ _ _ _

18-Dec-2005

Child Death (Puja Pawar) TOI N 19˚ 14' 26.5"

E 072˚58' 09.7"

Sr.No.27Case Id 76

Arti-cle76A

Near Mulla Baug Area _ _ _ _

20-Dec-2005


Death (Yashwant

Chowdhary, Bhowar)


77A

near SGNP Ghodbunder Road, Thane

10-Feb-2006

Human Inju-ry(Prathmes

h Ganpat Sonwadkar)

TOI

N 19° 14' 3.0366"E 72° 53' 2.8176"


81A

North Ma-gathane, Res.F _ _ _ _

19-Feb-2006

Human Death(Kamla

Laxman Warli)

TOI

N 19° 13' 10.8264" E 72° 52' 58.2342"


82A

Navapada, South Ma-

gathane SGNP _ _ _ _

29-Mar-2006

No Attack TOI Sr. No. 31Case

Id83Arti-cle Id 83A

Poman Village, Vasai

23-Apr-2006

Human Death TOI

N 19°11' 1.68" E 72° 52' 58.9974"


84A

Nimbonipada, Malad SNo _ _ _ _


172

8-Jul-2006


Death (Shakeel

Deshmukh)

TOI

Sr. No. 33Case

Id86 Arti-cle Id 86A

Kajupada, Bo-rivali

29-Jul-2006

Human Death(Nisha

Dattaram Telekar)

TOI

N 19°11' 56.0616" E 72° 53' 16.857"

Sr. No.34 Case Id 87 Article Id

87A

Patache pani, Janupada _ _ _ _

1-Aug-2006 Trapped TOI


88A

IIT Powai

7-Sep-2006 Trapped TOI

Sr. No. 36Case

Id89 Arti-cle Id 89A

Owala, Ghod-bunder Road,

Thane

20-Nov-2006

Dog Death TOI N19˚ 16' 14.0"E 072˚ 56' 43.0"

Sr.No.37Case Id 90

Arti-cle90A

Eden Woods Complex,

Thane

Prajapati Watch-

man _ _ _

25-Dec-2006

Human Death TOI

N 19°10' 58.4688" E 72° 52' 23.1024"

Sr No. 38 Case Id 92 Article Id

92A

Nimbonipada, Malad Sno _ _ _ _

11-Oct-2007

Leopard death TOI


94A

Ghodbunder Road, Thane

10-Dec-2007

Leopard death TOI


95A

near IIT Powai

19-Dec-2007


Death (Shradha

Gowalkar, Madanlal Kumavat)

TOI


97A

Gokuldaswadi, Khotpat Area,

Thane

24-Jan-2008

Leopard death TOI


99A

Panchwad vil-lage,Yeoor,Tha

ne

16-Feb-2008

Leopard death MT


1A

Wanichapada, Thane

17-Feb-2008

Leopard death TOI

Sr. No. 44 Case

Id100 Ar-ticle Id 100A

Makhda-chapada, Yeoor,

Thane (out-skirts)

1-Mar-2008

Leopard Death TOI N 19˚ 10' 17.0"

E 072˚ 57' 23.0"

Sr.No.45Case Id 101

Arti-cle101A

Owalekar Wadi, Thane

(W) _ _ _ _


173

9-Jun-2008 Trapped TOI

Sr. No. 46 Case


Yeoor (foot-hills), Thane

9-Jun-2008 Trapped MT


8A

Indiranagar, Waghle Estate,

Thane

22-Nov-2008

Only Sight-ing TOI N 19˚13'51.8"

E 072˚59'10.3"

Sr.No.47Case Id 106

Arti-cle106A

Bayers India kolshet, Thane

Watch-man _ _ _

22-Nov-2008

No Attack MT Sr. No. 4 Case Id5 Article Id

5A

Sitladevi Mandir, Kelve,

Thane

25-Nov-2008

Leopard death MT


9A

Kinjewade, Kankavle


Sr. No. 49 Case


Ghodbunder Road, Thane

30-Sep-2009 Sighting MT

N 19˚ 11' 26.4" , E 072˚ 52' 30.4"

Sr. No. 16 Case Id 19

Article 19A

Road No.2 Mhatma Phule Chawl, Kran-tinagar, Kan-

divali (E)

Lalta Ya-dav (Tea

Stall) _ _ 4m

30-May-2010

Livestock / pet death MT


6A

Kelvas, Thane

19-Jul-2010 Sighting TOI N19˚ 10' 02.0",

E 072˚52' 56.0"

Sr. NO. 51, Case Id. 117,

Article Id. 117A

Bldg No. 28, Sankalp Siddhi,

New Mhada Colony, Din-doshi Gore-

gaon (E)

Watch-man _

Sighting on 11/8/2011

10m

20-Aug-2010

Attack on dogs TOI N 19˚ 11' 14.0"

E 072˚ 56' 22.0"

Sr.No.52 Case Id

121 Arti-cle121A

Lok Nisarg Housing Soci-ety Complex, Mulund (W)

Watch-man _

Seen normally in rainy season

_

26-Oct-2010

Leopard death MT


15A

Mumbai-Ahmedabad

31-Nov-2010

Leopard injury TOI

Sr. No. 53 Case


Ketkipada, Dahisar (East)


174

APPENDIX 7.2. Information from people interviewed at locations of leopard incidences.

Based on the details provided in Table 1, the generalisations made by the people interviewed at each site are provided below. It provides an idea into the stories and the perceptions people have of the leopards, as well as the close interactions that people appear to have with these animals.

Goregaon Area: N 19 10' 02.0" E 072 52' 56.0" The people report lots of stray dogs which are present near the garbage areas. They also mentioned that dogs are regularly attacked by the leopards during the early morning at around 4am. Some grazers leave there dead goats and livestock in open which also attracts leopards.

Malad Area: N 19 11' 07.7" E 072 52' 18.2" We heard that people illegally enter SGNP and take water from damaged pipeline and that the leopard also comes to drink water there. The people said that most of the attacks are on children of 5-7 yrs. of age at around 3 pm in afternoon.

Kandivali Area: N19 11' 26.5" E 072 52' 36.7" A female Leopard with two cub is regularly seen near Mariam Mandir (Destroyed By FD in 1995) and she kills pigs, dogs and goats. The locals are not both-ered by the leopard presence and say that it is send by Devi Mata. They think that leopard kill dogs, pigs as there is no food left in the forest for them. There is a stream which turns into Nalla (Gutter) as it passes the slums below. Leopards are observed drinking water water from the stream at 7pm in evening. The people also mentioned that when the female leopard has cubs they are aggressive but if you keep safe distance from the animals they do not try to come close to humans.

Borivali Area: N19 13' 44.3" E 077 52' 00.8" A leopard sleeping in construction site at night had at-tacked watchman in morning at 10am. Apparently the leopard was cornered and had not exit except to go straight at the person to escape.

Dahisar Area: N 19 15' 36.8" E 072 52' 51.9" There is Temple called as Wagheshwari Mata Mandir which is regularly visited by the leopards in the night around 3-5am.

Nalla Sopara Area: N19 26' 33.8" E 072 53' 40.8" Near Pellar Dam Leopards regularly visit to drink water. A 7 yrs. old child was grabbed by neck in front of the whole family at 7am but left by the com-motion made by the people but the child died on the spot. No more attacks were reported after that incident. This is the only incident where the leopard seems to purposely attack a human.

Mulund: People who have their daily walks in the Park enter the forest around 4am and leave at 5pm. The boundary and barricade of the Forest department has been broken to create a path into the forest even though there is clear Notice board of the Forest Department stating that the area is a pro-hibited area and any person entering is entitled of penalty by Forest jurisdiction. The buildings in the area are said to be built as recently as 2005 and the locals were complaining as to why the contracts were cleared by the administration knowing that the land belongs to the Forest Department.


175

REPORT 8.

CATS IN THE CITY: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE

INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND LEOPARDS IN THE

SGNP LANDSCAPE, MUMBAI

Sunetro Ghosal ([email protected], [email protected])Research Fellow, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

Citation: Ghosal, S.. 2013. Cats in the city: Narrative analysis of the interactions between people and leopards in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park landscape, Mumbai. A Mumbaikars for SGNP project report #8. Submitted to the SGNP Forest Department. Mumbai. Maharashtra.

Report 8! ! ! ! ! Human leopard interactions in and around SGNP

! 176!

!

8.1 SUMMARYPeople 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.

8.2 INTRODUCTION People and biodiversity conservation, especially if it involves large carnivores, share a complex and dynamic relationship (Saunders 1998; Knight 2000; Dahlstom 2003; Madhusudan and Mishra 2003; Treves and Karanth 2003; Fascione et al 2004; Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005). Previous research shows that interactions between people and large carnivores are embedded in matrix of ecological, cultural, historic and political contexts (Saberwal et al 1994; Sukumar 1994; Skogen and Krange 2003; Bagchi and Mishra 2006; Karanth et al 2010; Rangarajan and Sivaramakrishnan 2012). Thus, subjective interactions take place in different contexts at the same time, ranging from the biological and cultural to the economic and political. The Mumbaikars for SGNP project (MfSGNP) investigates these inter-actions, across its complexity. this sub-component of the project investigates the subjective interac-tions between people, SGNP and leopards (Panthera pardus fusca).

It attempts to understand people’s conceptualisation of SGNP and its management, the Forest De-partment and the leopard. It also maps the sacred geography of this diverse landscape to trace the vitality of institutions that impact natural resource management. This component, this, aims to pro-vide understanding of the political, social, economic and historical factors that influence people’s in-teractions with SGNP and leopards, which will complement the ecological research of the project.


! 177!

!

8.3 STUDY AREA SGNP is spread across north (suburban) Mumbai and Thane district. Its boundaries stretch from the Krishnagiri Upvan plains and Borivali in the west to the Yeoor forest division in Thane in the east and from Aarey Milk colony in Goregaon in the south to Nagla block in Thane district in the north (Edga-onkar and Chellam 1998). SGNP is a part of the Malabar Coast biogeographic zone of the Western Ghats, of which only 0.4% is included in the Protected Area network. The official area of the park has expanded by five times since pre-Independence era and presently covers a little over 103 sq. km. At one point SGNP was home to a sizeable population of tigers (Panthera tigris tigris) and there are old reports of their presence in 1822 from Malabar hill and in 1858 from Mazagon and Mahim in southern Mumbai (Prater 1929). The moist delicious forests of SGNP serves as the catchment area for several of Mumbai’s water reservoirs including Vihar, Tulsi and Powai lakes.

SGNP preserves a small fragment of the natural biological assemblage—several of which are classi-fied as endangered—that historically covered the entire region including Mumbai city. While the tiger dominated the ecological and cultural landscape of SGNP in the past, it is currently occupied by the leopard (Panthera pardus fusca).

While SGNP is severely impacted by anthropogenic factors (Edgaonkar and Chellam 1998) it is also located within the municipal limits of a densely packed metropolitan city. According to the 2011 cen-sus, the population density for suburban Mumbai, which surrounds SGNP, is an average of 20,925 people per sq. km (Deol 2011). This paper conceptualises SGNP and areas around its immediate pe-riphery as a multi-use landscape matrix: the SGNP landscape. Managing this landscape matrix and the diversity of interactions within it, poses several political, social and ecological challenges.

8.4 OBJECTIVESThis component of the project has the following objectives:1. Document and critically analyse different constructions of SGNP and leopards. Research questions:

a. What are the different social constructions of SGNP?b. What are the different social constructions of leopards in the SGNP landscape?

2. Analyse the impact of these constructions on the interactions between people and leopards in the SGNP and identify possible interventions necessary to mitigate perceptions of conflict. Research questions:

a. What impact do these constructions have on human-leopard interactions in the SGNP landscape?

b. What are possible interventions to help mitigate perceptions of conflict between people and leopards?

8.5 METHODSThe methodological framework adopted for this component of the project was meant to collect his-torical, interpretative and geographical data related to the interaction between people, SGNP and leopards. In addition to the methods discussed below, a quantitative survey was initially planned but


! 178!

!

later discarded in favour of the semi-structured interviews, which provided enough data to meet the outlined objectives.

Literature review

Literature in peer-reviewed journals, books and reports were reviewed to source information and con-textualise this project with other studies on conservation and people-wildlife relations. Archival re-search was also carried out to source historical data and reports of observations and interactions rele-vant to the present area of SGNP, especially the past issues of the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society.

Ethnographic interviews

Unstructured and informal interviews were used to generate data on interpretations of SGNP and leopards. The interviews were carried out in English, Hindi and/or Marathi. They were meant to un-derstand the ‘meanings’ people attach to leopards and SGNP, and the ecological, geographical, cul-tural, social, economic and political factors that may have influenced these interpretations. Several strategies were used to identify interview subjects. This included identifying members of institutions linked with managing SGNP, conservation organisations, news reports, references from subjects and randomised subjects identified through participant observation. These individuals served as empiri-cal samples, representing the general perceptions of their group. However, to avoid discussing indi-vidual narratives and their impact on these perceptions, details of each respondents backgrounds were also collected (though not disclosed in this report to protect their identities) and other members of each stakeholder groups were also interviewed. A generalised interview guide was used to ensure all relevant points were covered. However, the lack of a formal structure ensured that the interviews were free flowing, personal and conversations, thus throwing up unanticipated insights and ideas. Also, being informal the focus of the interviews was its content, i.e. meaning, rather than on form. By accounting for the social identity of the interviewee (while not disclosing their actual identity), the data helps uncover possible correlations between social relations and attitudes. The interviews also generated data on narratives and discourses that inform people’s interaction with SGNP and leop-ards. The output of this method is interpretative in nature, reflective of the subjective nature of social constructions of nature. This method was chosen as it allows informants to express themselves and reflect on their perceptions. It thus provides access to the ‘meaning’ that people attach to different constructions, while also allowing flexibility and a more nuanced setting for discussions and dia-logues.

A rigorous data collection method was followed to ensure that variations in the content of the inter-views provide insight into diversity of constructions, rather than discrepancies in the data collection method (Maxwell 1996, Pader 2006). The interview guide was a topic checklist that facilitated naturally-flowing conversations, while covering all the issues relevant to the objectives of this re-search. The analysis was done manually by listening (and reading) the interviews several times and noting the ‘meanings’ expressed by the respondent. This is then collated with other respondents, field observation notes and data generated by other methods.


! 179!

!

Participant observation

Considerable time was spent in the SGNP landscape to understand and document people’s interac-tion and engagement with the park and reactions. Several informal discussions were held with differ-ent people, centred around SGNP, leopards and the Forest Department. These have also been in-cluded in the observation notes. This time spent in the field also helped identify people for ethno-graphic interviews. Besides providing a rich source of data and explanations, the field observation notes also provide texture and coherence to the analysis and conclusions of other data.

Moral geography

The moral narratives and locations of Waghoba shrines were located to understand the sacred-moral geography of the SGNP landscape. This analysis has the potential to yield additional insights in the interaction between people and leopards, when correlated with some of the biological and historical data collected in other components of the project.

8.6 RESULTSForty one ethnographic interviews have been carried out with a cross section of stake holder, spread across the geography of the SGNP landscape besides several informal discussions. These include sev-eral stake holder groups including management personnel, tribal residents, residents and pastoralists along the periphery of the park, naturalists, members of different class and ethnic groups present in the study area, politicians, academics and relatives and friends of victims of leopard attacks. All but 2 interviews were recorded with assurance of anonymity and oral consent from the subject. As these were qualitative in nature, they were analysed for ‘meanings’ attributed to SGNP and leopards and other relevant issues.

Figure 8.1. Some of the Waghoba shrines located in the SGNP landscape. (Map courtesy: MfSGNP project, Google Earth platform).


! 180!

!

Archival and literature reviews have revealed some reports and records pertaining to the SGNP land-scape but also areas further south, including the island city of Mumbai. These records correlate and triangulate with narratives and oral histories documented in the interviews. Several shrines dedicated to the large felid god, Waghoba were located, photographed and their GPS locations have been re-corded. In addition, narratives were documented from people living in the neighbourhood of these shrines, which need to be analysed for the role they play in the negotiations between people and leopards in time and space. Interviews provided information about two additional shrines but these could neither be visited/located or their narratives documented. Furthermore, this data excludes shrines located beyond SGNP landscapes.

8.7 DISCUSSION SGNP is part of a physically and conceptually complex landscape. It is acted on and itself plays a part in political, socio-cultural, economic, ecological and religious processes. The physical space apart, it is conceptualised in different ways by different people and communities. Given these different concep-tualisations, these diversities of constructions are the site of intensive contestations, negotiations and conflicts. Thus, the SGNP landscape, including the metropolitan areas that surround it, is infused with complex layers of subjective meaning and their power dynamics (Bender 1993; Ingold 2000). The interaction between people and leopards are located within this subjective context. This complexity and diversity reflects the multiple engagements people have with the SGNP landscape complex as well as the political, cultural, economic and ecological negotiations between people, leopards and conservation managers. This research provides an insight into these subjective complexities and high-lights possible interventions.

The SGNP landscape:

The most prevalent narrative of the SGNP landscape is constructed as a unique natural and political heritage which provides critical ecosystem services to Mumbai city, especially clean air and water. This narrative is framed within the contradictions between nature conservation and development im-peratives, which is in turn driven by a perceived corrupt morality and political nexuses. Thus, SGNP is valued for its health benefits to Mumbai’s urban ecosystem and also as a moral balm for the ‘evils of urbanity’. The logical argument emerging from this narrative is the need to protect SGNP from the nexus of builders and politicians, who exert influence over urban planning and have nibbled away at the park’s peripheries. These narratives are held even residents who have directly benefitted from these land use changes, “Yes, this was also forested. It is wrong and animals also need some place...but it cannot be removed now...since we have already used so much place... housing and infra-structure development projects should now focus on slum areas rather than the national park.” The ecological and political impacts of these changes have already been highlighted by other researchers (Jadhav 1995; Edgaonkar and Chellam 1998; Bhagat et al 2006, Zerah 2006). Thus, management of the SGNP landscape presents a political and ecological challenge in the face of intense land use pressures in Mumbai.

Furthermore, the distinction of SGNP as a forested has provided a clear demarcation, whereby con-tiguous areas such as Aarey Milk Colony, which is also forested in parts, is regarded as non-forest ar-eas meant for people and not wild animals.


! 181!

!

Figure 8.2. The changing population demography of people in Mumbai, especially around SGNP(Source: Bhagat et al 2006 (and adapted in Vaquier 2010).

As the population trends in the map above highlight, there is a shifting trend in population densities, especially around the periphery of SGNP (Bhagat et al 2006, Vaquier 2010). These pressures are only going to increase, unless there are shifts in the population growth patterns in Mumbai. Furthermore, as Zerah (2006) argue, the conflicts over land use are intensely political as is conservation of land-scapes such as SGNP (Chhatre and Saberwal 2006). Besides the actual pressure of land use change, these shifts are also instrumental in changing perceptions of landscape and their use.

These protection narratives are strongest amongst naturalists, who articulated it in a nature-under-siege framework. Their narrative is that urgent steps need to be taken to preserve SGNP’s ecological integrity and so ensure leopard do not stray outside. On similar lines, politicians and some naturalists claim the Forest Department needs to manage SGNP more actively to arrest its ecological decline. A local politician emphasised, “The national park needs to be beautified so that people can appreciate and value it. More trees need to be planted in addition to the existing natural forest. That way people will value the source of their water!” Another measure suggested by several respondents is the need to build a compound wall around SGNP. The logic is to visually demarcate the territory of the na-tional park and to prevent people from encroaching on it.

The narratives of the SGNP landscape in the lower classes diverge from the constructions discusses so far. For instance, the indigenous tribal communities value the SGNP landscape as part of their iden-tity and as a storehouse of their cultural and natural resource base, even as they engage with the modernity of Mumbai. One respondent said, “...we know every corner of the forest and how it


! 182!

!

changes throughout the year...we would be lost without it...” The migrant communities regard SGNP as a social and economic challenge, which they must bear till they can afford to live elsewhere. With this due exception, none of the other respondents expressed a desire to move away from the periph-eral areas of the park.

However, a majority of the people interviewed, across class lines, have never actually visited SGNP. Their ideas of it are drawn from the media, an awareness of its proximity and discussion in the neighbourhood. Of all the groups of stakeholder interviewed, it is the tribal communities, residents of the slums along the periphery of the park, morning walkers and naturalists who visit SGNP regularly.

Other significant visitors to SGNP observed are tourists and picnickers. The ecological significance of SGNP has a peripheral significance to both these groups. They visit SGNP for its entertainment poten-tial (lion and tiger safari, boating, Kanheri caves etc) and as an open space for their leisure activities and family outings. The SGNP landscape to this group is a mysterious realm beyond the tourist areas where these groups are normally concentrated.

The SGNP landscape, thus, has very different constructions among different people and communities. These meaning systems are important and need to be taken into account as they frame perceptions of the landscape, the Forest Department and crucially, leopards. Just as leopards are typically regarded as belonging in the SGNP landscape rather than outside, so also biodiversity conservation is located in SGNP, while the outside is meant for development. These constructions of the landscape provide a rich tapestry of conflicts, negotiations, antagonism, resistance and support, each with their power dy-namics, which the Forest Department negotiate to conserve the SGNP landscape.

LeopardsFigure 8.3. Villagers ‘flushing’ out a leopard from a thicket where it was said to have been ob-

served, a few days after an attack on a child in Mandvi range, Tungareshwar Wildlife reserve. The area was surrounded by villagers and started to close in after the Forest Department arrived on the

scene. Fortunately, the report turned out to be false as the mob had whipped itself into a frenzy, which could have led to injuries to people and animal alike. (Photo courtesy: Sunetro Ghosal).


! 183!

!

The case illustrated above is symbolic of the challenges of managing the interaction between people and leopards in a landscape like SGNP and Tungareshwar. The interactions between people and leop-ards in SGNP are complex and dynamic. Leopards, Panthera pardus fusca, like their larger cousins ti-gers, Panthera tigris tigris, have historically been present in the SGNP landscape (Prater 1929, Athreya et al 2007). While tigers are no longer present in the area, leopards continue to live in area as the larg-est carnivore species in the SGNP landscape surrounded by some of the world’s most densely popu-lated suburbs. Though they maintained a low key presence in this area, ‘leopards’ became a politi-cally charged issue after a spurt in attacks on humans in 2004-05 (Athreya et al 2007). This sub section summarises the different constructions of leopards we documented through the interviews and their impacts.

Where are leopards located in the socio-cultural taxonomy in the SGNP landscape? The data collected suggests that leopards are recognised as ‘persons’; not equating them to humans or pseudo-humans but recognising them as conscious actors in the social and ecological landscape (Ingold 1988). How-ever, different people and communities attribute varying degrees of ‘intentionality’ to leopards, de-pending on their philosophical position on man-nature relations.

The responses to leopards documented through interviews range from apprehension to admiration, framed by media reports, lack of platforms to source reliable information about Mumbai’s leopards and also address possible grievances. The narratives of leopards locates them as ‘wild’ and ‘natural’ residents of the forests like SGNP where “there are no people”, which imply that they are ‘unnatural’ in areas outside the forest. It assumes that like nature and culture cannot coexist, so also people and leopards cannot share space without leading to tragic consequences. The logical explanation one can draw from this assumption for leopards observed SGNP is that they “stray out of the national park in search of food...as there is not enough food for them in park and are forced to look outside...[and also because] people are encroaching into their territory inside the park”.

The conceptual location of leopards in forests is the product of a worldview that places nature and culture in opposition. Thus, if leopards are ‘straying’ in search of food, something must be wrong in-side the park. The responsibility for these problems sits squarely on the government, embodied in the Forest Department personnel who manage SGNP. The short term solution to the ‘straying’ leopard is to have the Forest Department trap the animal Forest Departmentand relocate it inside the park or to other wilderness areas—a practice that is now known to increase conflict (Athreya et al 2010) and has since been reduced in the state due to guidelines issued by the Forest Department—and immediate improvement of the leopards prey base, achieved through the release of pigs and deer animals in the park. The perceived long term solution is to improve the management of the park, including the building of a compound wall, to ensure that leopards remain inside.

The leopards, however are not encumbered by such moral expectations, remain true to their reputa-tions as the most adaptable of large cats living in a wide range of habitats with a very flexible diet (Prater 1971, Myers 1976, Bailey 1993). The leopards in the SGNP landscape are no exceptions with a varied diet dominated by stray dogs but also including rodents, wild herbivores, macaques, birds and livestock (Edgaonkar and Chellam 1998, Tiwari 2009). This is in line with observations by Daniel


! 184!

!

(2009) and Shah et al (2009) of leopards opportunistically preying on domestic animals when avail-able. The peripheral areas of SGNP and the areas surrounding it are rich in biomass for leopards, as these areas are often used as informal dump yards by residents of the area, in addition to ineffective waste management and garbage disposal systems by the municipal corporation. As a result, these areas host healthy populations of stray dogs to meet the dietary requirements of leopards who are resident in the peripheral areas. These feeding habits are also in line with those of closely related, but less adaptable, large felids like lions and jaguars, which are known to opportunistically extract bio-mass from human-dominated landscapes (Rabinowitz 1986, Valeix et al 2012).

Thus, leopards do live along the peripheral areas of SGNP but their presence is interpreted as an ‘ab-normality’ with causes located in problems faced by the park. Several residents around SGNP said that leopard sightings have increased along with an apparent behavioural shift in the last ‘7-8’ years, “Something has changed. Earlier we would see leopards once in a while but now it’s a daily occur-rence! Earlier, they [leopards] would be nervous and go away the moment they would spot people...now they seem habituated to people and seem much more aggressive. Something has changed.” This may well be due to a recovery of the leopard populations in SGNP after the intensive trappings carried out in 2004-05 in response to the increase in human attacks. However, the percep-tion may also be influenced by more diligent media reports of leopard-related issues. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the 2004-05 attacks such reports assume a greater political significance. In this con-text, even the mere sighting of a leopard can be perceived as a conflict. The lack of communication, response and action from the Forest Department in addition with support of local political leaders further exacerbates the conflict, till the only acceptable solution is for the animal to be trapped and relocated.

To examine the politics of leopard management in the SGNP landscape it is essential that we revisit the events of 2004-05. In this period, leopard attacks on humans peaked, most likely due to the large scale trapping and release of leopards of the region as well as ‘problem’ leopards from other areas that were released in SGNP (Forest Department records). This procedure is in keeping with the un-derstanding at that time that leopards from anywhere could be relocated anywhere with little regard to their biological attributes such as territoriality and social structure.

While there may have been an instinctive fear or large carnivores earlier, the human deaths have con-solidated the perception of leopards as “blood thirsty monsters” in public discourses and narratives. While leopards like its cousins in the large cat family, diligently avoid humans, they can easily kill a human and do cause human mortality across its range (Goyal 2001, Loe and Roskaft 2004). During the course of this study we came across three instance were human deaths around the park were attrib-uted to leopards without evidence. In one case, it was later revealed that the actual killer was human rather than feline. However, there has been no confirmed human deaths since 2006 in the SGNP landscape, where unprovoked predation on humans by leopards has been observed. However, in July 2012 a girl was picked up by, what is believed to be, a leopard. This incident occurred while she sat on a garbage dump near a settlement that has encroached within the national park. The attack occurred in the dark around 1030 pm, while her mother was a few metres from her. However, following this


! 185!

!

incident, other attacks have taken place 40 kms away in the Tansa Widllife Sanctuary, where 4 people were injured by leopards, with eyewitnesses.

A discussion of humans as prey for leopards is fraught with ethical, moral, political and ecological contradictions, which this report will not attempt to summarise. However, these interactions too have their own narratives, like the one discusses earlier of leopards being blood thirsty monsters. The only significant counter-narrative to this construction is the one of ‘innocent leopards’ put forth by envi-ronmentalists and supporters of wildlife conservation. This narrative is best described in this extract from an interview of an environmental activist, “...leopards attack people only in two situations...one, in extreme desperations, when it is cornered...two, as a mistaken identity e.g. young children or ladies squatting in the dark...when they could be mistaken for a dog or a four-legged animal, which are the legitimate prey of the animal...” (emphasis added). While this narrative counters the leopards-as-monsters narrative, it constructs human use in SGNP as unnatural and requires political action to minimize their use of this landscape. That said, the basic assumption and management implication of both these narratives are identical: People and leopards cannot live together and must be kept apart.

Unfortunately, the leopards in the SGNP landscape somehow fail to comply with this issue of legiti-macy in its diet and its moral implications. While they usually do live off its “legitimate” prey, there have been attacks on people too for whatever reasons. The leopard’s sense of vision—which crucial part of their hunting strategy—in the dark is among the best amongst the large felid family, who have the sharpest night vision amongst all carnivores and mammals (Schaller 1967, Prater 1971). The at-tacks—mostly on children and women squatting but also on adult males—are unlikely to be the result of a mistaken identity and more likely to be opportunistic. However, this is one area that requires substantially more inter-disciplinary research to provide a better understanding of leopards preying on people.

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. (Photo courtesy: Padmaja Krishnan).


! 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 ap-prehensions and facilitate a dialogue to reduce conflict. The residents have now taken pro-

active steps and plan to organise meetings for residents to learn about living with leop-ards. (Photo courtesy: Nilesh Wairkar, Mumbai Mirror).

A third narrative of leopards in the SGNP landscape is that of its indigenous tribal communities. These narratives build on the idea of leopards as ‘persons’, who occupy their animistic landscape. One such construction is that of Waghoba, a big cat village deity, who is said to look after the welfare of the villagers.

Figure 8.6. Waghoba shrine in Aarey Milk colony. (Photo: Sunetro Ghosal)


! 187!

!

While in other parts of Maharasthra, the institution of Waghoba includes tigers and leopards, the nar-ratives of the tribal communities in SGNP are more discerning. In the words of one community mem-bers, “The tiger is Waghoba...the leopards is not Waghoba, it is just a leopard”. Despite this social de-motion, leopards still occupy an important place in the socio-ecological landscape of these communi-ties. This narrative of the leopards is one of familiar wariness, similar to ones that would be directed at an aggressive neighbour. Though the members of these communities play a marginal role in the political and social processes (Padmanabhan 2011), their knowledge of the SGNP landscape is inti-mate and unmatched. Interestingly, even though these communities have grievances against the state, its conservation policy and the Forest Department, the leopards do not appear to have become en-snared into these emotionally volatile negotiations.

The Forest Department: The Forest Department and its administrative set up play a central and critical role in the manage-ment of the SGNP landscape and the interaction between people and leopards. However, the domi-nant perception, evident across different groups and even sub-groups, is of the Forest Department being ‘unresponsive’ and ‘uncommunicative’. Furthermore, there is very little awareness on the intra-departmental responsibilities: for instance the wildlife (SGNP) and territorial division (Mumbai divi-sion, Thane). This leads to a lot of confusion amongst people who are trying to reach the Forest De-partment with leopard related complaints. One resident echoed others, “We first went to Borivali...they told us this area comes under some other department whose office is in Thane...we ap-proached them and have still heard back from anyone. It would really help if someone, anyone, visits this place to find out what is happening [with leopards] and suggest some solutions.” Furthermore, the lack of coordination has in some cases led to two divisions giving out very different messages to residents, especially as political pressure comes to bear on them to ‘act’ on specific complaints.

In addition to being unresponsive, the antagonistic narratives of the Forest Department are intensified with rumours of the Forest Department releasing leopards in different areas and of inadequacy of the department in not being able to ‘retain’ animals inside SGNP. One resident said, “Why blame the leopard? The department is not doing anything and only seems to act in the even of a crisis or if there is pressure from the media and politicians.” However, there are also some dissenting voices to these negative narratives: “The Borivali [control room] was very prompt and responsive. They called back to tell us on the immediate steps we needed take, gave us the other number [Mumbai division control room] and also informed them [Mumbai division]...”

The perceived disconnect between the Forest Department and people can be traced to its institutional culture and legacy. Historically, the political discourse of the Forest Department was one of resource exploitation, which in time expanded to include conservation (Weil 2006, Robbins et al 2009). Further, the Forest Department works within the policy framework of Indian conservation policies, which emphases protectionism by excluding people. Unfortunately, as the narratives presented earlier high-light, policies alone do not ensure conservation in practice. The interviews carried out as part of this project document frustration, resistance and outright antagonism directed at the government on gen-eral but the Forest Department more specifically. One respondent explained, “Why are people an-tagonistic? There are problems but there is also a big communication gap...there is no response from


! 188!

!

the department...they first deny there is a problem but never provide any information...” Another said, “Are they [Forest Department] waiting for a crisis to act? How can we find solutions till some-one speaks to us?” This trend is observed in other contexts too, where conservation is perceived as an imposition and resisted (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke 2005, Skogen et al 2008, Robbins et al 2009). This disconnect narrative extends to other government departments too especially the police and the mu-nicipal corporation. There are instances when residents have called the police on sighting leopards. The police are neither trained to respond to such calls nor are they equipped to handle it, practically or politically. One policeman said, “The leopards come here regularly. People often complain to us but we really don’t what to do...” However, as mentioned earlier there have been individual efforts with the Forest Departments to engage in dialogues with various stake holders to provide information and address grievances but needs to be formalized and insitutionalised. 8.8 CONCLUSIONAs outlined above, the SGNP landscape is characterised by multiple narratives and counter-narrative. These narratives have a very real impact on conceptualisations of SGNP, leopards and the Forest De-partment. While perceptions of conflict, especially with leopards, may be related to material loss, the intensity and its expression is located in these narratives. These subjective interpretations need to be accounted and addressed, along with ecological imperatives, to mitigate conflicts through dialogue and negotiated action. Some recommendations are listed below on practical steps to address the is-sues outlined in the discussion of this report.

8.9 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Forest Department is a critical institution and active agent in managing the SGNP landscape.

However, it needs to engage more proactively with its neighbours and visitors. While the neigh-bours serve both as its most active supporters as well as its most challenging opponents (say in the event of leopard sightings or attacks), the visitors provide the potential to create a critical mass of supporters. This can be done through restructuring the current walkway to ensure that people visit the nature interpretation centre and are also briefed about the rules of the park. The Mumbaikars for SGNP brochure can be very useful for such an activity. These measures can be used to sensitise visitors and tourists about the rich heritage of the park, the challenges it faces and rules of conduct inside.

2. The Forest Department must implement proactive steps to engage with people and various stake-holders, as an integral part of their mandate to protect and conserve SGNP. Also, rather than treat it as a one-time exercise these engagements within the SGNP landscape, especially with those living along the periphery of the park. This engagement must be through regular visits to these housing colonies by personnel from the Forest Department.

3. Management of the SGNP landscape is currently spread across several government departments as well as sub departments within the Forest Department. This has often led to miscommunication, lack of dialogues and often facilitated a perception of conflict. Aarey Milk Colony is a case in point, which is adjoining the national park but is managed by the Dairy Development Board and comes under the purview of Mumbai Division (Thane) of the Forest Department. Decision making and response time can be streamlined if areas around SGNP are brought under the management of


! 189!

!

SGNP. Furthermore, area with high ecological potential like Aarey Milk Colony can be bought un-der the management SGNP to maintain its ecological potential and to serve as a crucial buffer zone.

4. Furthermore, the Forest Department must also explore and institutionalise coordination with other government departments at different levels from the field staff to officers. These are areas that need urgent and sustained response. The Mulund school leopard case in April 2012 may provide some instructive lessons in responding to crisis. In this case, the timely and coordinated response by the Forest Department and the police department ensured that a potentially volatile situation was handled in a calm and efficient manner. However, there is a need to institutionalise and formalise such linkages and other such initiatives Forest Department personnel have been taking in their in-dividual capacities.

5. An important issue is the coordination between the two sub divisions of the Forest Department responsible for different parts of the SGNP landscape: wildlife and territorial. Even though each have different management mandates and face different levels of political pressure to act, the pub-lic response between these two divisions need to be coordinated. One possibility is to institutional-ise coordination meetings and develop a protocol for responding to complaints and crisis. This pro-tocol could also be shared with residents, politicians and government officials.

6. One crucial area in which the department can play a critical role, in coordination with other gov-ernment departments and residents is to push for more efficient garbage and waste management in the SGNP landscape.

7. The Forest Department also requires regular scientific inputs from applied research to anchor its management plan, while also communicate these changes with different stake holders. The dia-logues with stakeholders may in turn also provide a platform to identify areas that require re-search.

8. The media can play a constructive role in these outreach initiatives. However, the journalists and editors need to be sensitised through regular workshops to ensure they understand the complexity of the issues. This holds true for politicians too, who operate within a dynamic political landscape, with its inherent pressures and imperatives. They play a crucial role in influencing policy, address-ing management challenges and public perception of the Forest Department, SGNP and leopards. The Forest Department may also want to proactively engage with such public opinion makers on a regular basis, to ensure it has the necessary political leverage and space to carry out its functions of conservation management.

9. The Forest Department may also want to explore creating a visible presence in areas particularly prone to conflicts. This will facilitate dialogues, hands on engagement with people in the area and opportunities to educate people on living with leopards.

Meetings and visits conducted under this component of the MfSGNP project:1. Tungareshwar WS (02 December 2011)2. 41 anonymous interviews and numerous informal meetings (March to July 2012)3. Site visit and meeting residents around NES school, Mulund (22 April 2012)4. Royal Palm (05 July 2012)5. Shankar Tekdi (19 July 2012)6. Meeting with the additional CP (19 July 2012)


! 190!

!

8.10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author and the project are indebted to Saloni Bhatia who provided her inputs in the form of 16 ethnographic interviews she conducted on this issue. Also, this study would not have been possible without the help of all the people who took the time and effort to speak to us. The author also ac-knowledges the support and help of the Forest Department, especially the staff at SGNP and Thane, the participants of the Mumbaikars for SGNP project and finally the leopards of SGNP who provided a fascinating mix of intrigue, mystery, tragedy and drama.

8.11 REFERENCESAthreya, V.R., Thakur, S.S., Chaudhuri, S. and Belsare, A.V. 2007. ‘Leopards in Human Dominated

Areas: A Spillover from Sustained Translocations into nearby forests?’, Journal of Bom-bay Natural History Society, 104: 45-50

Athrey, V.R., Odden, M., Linnell, J.D.C. and Karanth, K.U. 2010. ‘Translocation as a Tool for Mitigating Conflict with Leopards in Human-Dominated Landscapes of India’, Conservation Biology, 25: 133-141

Bagchi, S and C. Mishra. 2006. ‘Living with Large Carnivores: predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia)’ Journal of Zoology, 268: 217-224

Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid, Columbia University Press, New York.

Bender, B. (Ed). 1993. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg Publishers

Bhagat, R.B., Guha, M., Chattopadhyay, A. 2006. ‘Mumbai after 26/7 Deluge: Issues and Concerns in Urban Planning’, Population and Environment, 27: 337-349

Chhatre, A. and Saberwal, V.K. 2006. Democratizing Nature: Politics, Conservation and Development in India, Oxford University Press

Daniel, J.C. 2009. The leopard in India: A natural history. Natraj Publishers, DehradunDahlstom, A.N. 2003. Negotiating Wilderness in a Cultural Landscape: Predators and Saami Reindeer Herd-

ing in the Laponian World Heritage Area, Uppsala (Sweden): Acta Universitatis UpsaliensisDeol, R.S. 2011. Census of India 2011: Provisional Population Totals (Maharashtra), Government of India:

New DelhiEdgaonkar, A. and Chellam, R. 1998. A Preliminary Study on the Ecology of the Leopard Panthera pardus

fusca in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, RR-98/002, Dehradun: Wildlife In-stitute of India

Fascione, N., Delach, A. and Smith, M.E. (eds) 2004. People and Predators: From Conflict to Coexistence, Washington: Island Press

Goyal, P.S. 2001. ‘Man-eating leopards: Status and Ecology of Leopard in Pauri Garhwal, India.’ Car-nivore Damage Prevention News 3: 9.10

Herda-Rapp, A. and Goedeke, T.L. (eds) 2005. Mad about Wildlife: Looking at social conflict over wildlife, Leiden (The Netherlands): Brill

Ingold, T. (ed). 1988. What is an animal?, New York: RoutledgeIngold, Tim. 2000. The perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, London:

Routledge


! 191!

!

Jadhav, R.N. 1995. ‘Encroachments in Sanjay Gandhi National Park’, Journal of the Indian Society of Re-mote Sensing, 23: 87-89

Karanth, K.K., Nichols, J.D., Karanth, K.U., Hines, J.E., and Christensen, N.L. 2010. ‘The Shrinking Ark: patterns of large mammal extinction in India’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277: 1971-1979

Knight, J. (ed) 2000. Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspectives, London: Routledge

Loe J and Roskaft E. 2004. ‘Large carnivores and human safety: a review’, Ambio 33: 283-288Madhusudan, M.D. and Mishra. C. 2003. ‘Why Big, Fierce Animals are Threatened: Conserving Large

Mammals in Densely Populated Landscapes’: 31-55, in V. Saberwal and M. Rangarajan. Eds. Battles over Nature: Science and the Politics of Conservation, New Delhi: Permanent Black

Maxwell, J.A., 1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Integrative Approach, Thousand Oaks (California, USA): Sage Publications Inc., Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 41

Myers, N. 1976. ‘The Leopard Panthera pardus in Africa’, IUCN Monograph Papers no. 5, Switzerland: IUCN

Pader, E., 2006. ‘Seeing with an Ethnographic Sensibility’ in Yanow, D. and Schwartz-Shea, P., (Eds) 2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Padmanabhan, V. 2011. A study of the urban poor in Navpada, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, unpublished masters dissertation, Centre for Development Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Prater, S.H. 1929. ‘On the occurrence of tigers on the islands of Bombay and Salsette’, Journal of the Bombay Natural History, 33(4): 973-974

Prater, S.H. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals, Mumbai: BNHS/Oxford University PressRabinowitz, A.R. 1986. ‘Jaguar Predation on Domestic Livestock in Belize’, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 14:

170-174 Rangarajan, M. and Sivaramakrishnan, K. 2012. ‘Introduction’ in M. Rangarajan and K. Sivara-

makrishnan, eds. India’s Environmental History: From Ancient Times to the Colonial Period, New Delhi: Permanent Black: 1-36

Robbins, P., McSweeney, K., Chhangani, A.K. and Rice, J.L. 2009. ‘Conservation as it is: Illicit Resource Use in a Wildlife Reserve in India’, Human Ecology, 37: 559-575

Saberwal, V.K., J.P. Gibbs, R. Chellam and A.J.T. Johnsingh. 1994. ‘Lion-Human Conflict in the Gir Forest, India’, Conservation Biology, 8: 501-507

Saberwal, V. and Rangarajan, M. Eds. 2003. Battles over Nature: Science and the Politics of Conservation, New Delhi: Permanent Black

Saunders. N.J. (ed) 1998. Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, Abingdon: Routledge Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger: A study of Wildlife in India, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press Shah, G.M., Jan, U., Bhat, B.A., Ahmad, F. and J. Ahmad. 2009. ‘Food habits of the leopard Panthera

pardus in Dachigam National Park, Kashmir, India’. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1: 184-185Skogen, K. and O. Krange. 2003. ‘A Wolf at the Gate: The Anti-Carnivore Alliance and the Symbolic

Construction of Community’ Sociologia Ruralis, 43: 309-325


! 192!

!

Skogen, K., I. Mauz and O. Krange. 2008. ‘Cry Wolf! Narratives of Wolf Recovery in France and Nor-way’ Rural Sociology, 73: 105-133.

Sukumar, R. 1994. ‘Wildlife-Human Conflict in India: An Ecological and Social Perspective’: 303-317 in R. Guha, ed. Social Ecology, Delhi: Oxford University Press

Tiwari, K. 2009. Preliminary study on the diet composition of the leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai: BNHS

Treves, A. and K.U. Karanth. 2003. Human-Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Man-agement Worldwide, Conservation Biology, 17: 1491-1499

Valeix, M., Hemson, G., Loveridge, A.J., Mills, G and Macdonald, D.W. 2012. ‘Behavioural Adjust-ments of a Large Carnivore to Access Secondary Prey in Human-Dominated Landscape’, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 49: 73-81

Vaquier, D. 2010. The impact of Slum Resettlement on Urban Integration in Mumbai: The Case of the Chan-divali Project, CSH Occasional paper No. 26 (Centre de Sciences Humaines, French Re-search Institutes in India)

Weil, B. 2006. ‘Conservation, exploitation, and cultural change in the Indian Forest Service, 1875-1927’, Environmental History, 11: 319-343

Zerah, M. 2006. ‘Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai’, Cities, 24: 122-132


! 193!

!

Appendix 8.1. Visits by team members to different leopard incidents between August 2011 and September 2012.

SR. NO.

LOCATION VISITED REPRESENTA-TIVE NAME

REASON OF VISIT

1 Aarey Unit 13 Zeeshan M, Rajesh S Leopard sighting and mob gathering

2 Aarey Unit 29 ZM, RS Leopard sighting

3 Maritime Institute ZM, RS Leopard sighting

4 Echjay compound, Kanjurmarg ZM, RS, Vishal Shah Leopard sighting

5 IIT, Powai ZM, RS, VS Leopard sighting

6 Tungareshwar Sunetro G, Vidya A Leopard roadkill and human attack

7 NDDB ZM, RS, VS Leopard sighting

8 SRPF ZM, RS, VS Leopard sighting

9 Shankar Tekdi, Mulund SG Leopard sighting and human attack

10 NES school, Mulund SG Leopard sighting

11 Royal Palms SG, ZM, RS, Vidya V Leopard sighting

12 Aarey Nurses quarters RS, VV Leopard sighting


194

“Blackman Forever” - the incident about the leopard in the

Kanjurmarg factory ~ by Vishal Shah

We have seen and heard of leopards in the forest, in villages and on the

periphery of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park; but the other day we were

amazed to hear and read about a Leopard who crossed several obstacles to enter a moulding workshop compound.

On the way, it crossed a forest, an sprawling educational institute campus, a

small patch of forest, a busy 4-lane road, 4 railway tracks, 3 residential

complexes, 2 factory workshops and a huge slum. This feline was some

adventurer, or possibly a super hero from the leopard world. A ll it needed was a

fitting nickname. We did not want to miss the opportunity of meeting this guy who had become an instant “ terror” to the 30,000 people who live in the area.

195

The factory compound through which the Leopard possible entered

We made our way to the Echjay compound in Kanjurmarg. One of their

employees, Mr Dilip Dalvi was in the thick of action on the eventful day and

narrated—perhaps for the hundredth time—to us!

196

Mr Dilip Dalvi (right) w ith Vishal Shah (left)

On 17th December, 2011, one of the workers in Machine Shop B was going about

his daily routine, starting w ith a peaceful breakfast around 8:30 am. As he

finished his breakfast, he got up and picked up a bottle of water, when he saw

something behind one of the heavy machines stand too. And what he thought

was a dog all along, turned out to be a leopard after all! A ll hell broke loose when he shouted “ Palaa, wagh aala…..! (run, a leopard has come)” . The workers

and the leopard ran in opposite directions.

Later the workers and staff members gathered in the workshop. The two

entrances, a small back door and a large partially-glass door to the main corridor,

of the shop w ith the leopard were locked,. A small block of iron, weighing about

10 kg, was also used to secure the main door (clearly underestimating the leopard’s strength).

197

Skid marks over a greasy floor

Meanwhile, frantic calls were made to the police and forest department. The

police duly arrived and waited outside the ‘blocked’ door for the forest

department officials. Some of the workers could not contain their curiosity and

started trying to peek into the shop. The leopard, meanwhile, was testing his

might against the main door. “ Get me out” is one possible interpretation of its

constant roars. Some two and a half hours had now passed since the leopard was

first spotted and then locked inside the workshop.

198

The Machine shop B where the Leopard was trapped

Mr Dalvi was chatting to the policemen, who were on a tea break outside the

workshop, when the leopard declared a full cavalry charge on the door. The door

offered little resistance under this assault and sprung open. The leopard jumped

out to its freedom and in the midst of the tea drinking policemen, some workers

and Mr Dalvi. It gave a loud victory roar (we presume) which sent everyone

scurrying w ith tea cups and saucers flying around.

The leopard jumped towards Mr Dalvi, who had no time to react.. Mr Dalvi

looked around for help only to realize that everyone, including the policemen

had disappeared. For a long but brief moment, the leopard, a police van and Mr

Dalvi stood in a kind of a triangle. Now, here is why we call the Leopard a hero;

given his strength, he could very well have killed Mr. Dalvi or any of the other

people around. But he did not attack anyone. Instead, he took cover below the

police van and before anyone could react, darted off towards the compound wall

199

and into the slum area. ‘Gone!” were the only words Mr Dalvi could utter and

indeed, the leopard was gone.

Pugmark impression found in the compound

When the forest department reached the spot w ith the trap cage, there was no

leopard to catch but his signs were all over the workshop; black oil-dipped

pugmarks peppered the floor and the door. The leopard was initially thought to

be a black panther but we now realized that its black ‘costume’ was machine

grease. You can see skid marks under one of the machines, where he tried to use

his paws, in vain and finally led to his dramatic exit. The trap still remains in the

compound; but the leopard has vanished.

200

One of the several pugmarks that it left inside the shop

(Disclaimer: The sex of the Leopard remains unconfirmed, so we have taken

some liberty in regarding the leopards as a ‘He’)

201

�

1�of�3�

�

LEOPARD-BHAI MBBS

Sunetro Ghosal

When the Supreme Court of India cleared the Right to Education Act, it probably did not bargain

on large felids exercising this right. But in walked a leopard to a Mulund school, on a quiet

Saturday morning on 21 April 2012, though it’s a little unclear if it had lofty thoughts of literacy on

its mind or was on the lookout for dogs to eat. Either way, it went through the effort of crossing a

garden, a road, possibly a housing colony or two and high compound walls to get to the school.

There it remained peacefully till around 10am when a gardener noticed the feline pirouetting

around the campus and raised an alarm.

The school staff, managed to keep their wits, and having traced the leopard to a basement, they

locked it in. This ensured that leopard and people, each with their own sense of fear and panic, did

not cause any harm to each other. The school staff then informed the police and the forest

department about their feline visitor. A crowd had started to gather around the school as the news of

the leopard spread in the area. The police ensured that the crowd was kept under control and did not

stress the leopard or hamper the forest department’s efforts to catch it.

� Eastern�edge�of�SGNP�in�Mulund�

�

The�school�campus�

202

�

2�of�3�

�

The leopard’s presence in the school is possibly linked to its proximity to Sanjay Gandhi National

Park, which is home to some very urbane leopards. There have been a few tragic incidents in the

area over the last few years, including an elderly gentleman who had ventured into the park early

one morning for his walk and was killed by a leopard. The park border in these parts is rather

porous with people venturing into the forest for walks and a host of other reasons. In fact, several

colonies in the area are embroiled in a legal case, after someone discovered that their homes were

built on land demarcated as private forests.

A leopard’s eye view of Mulund west from SGNP

The leopards, however, are hardly prejudiced by the political and legal complexities that shroud the

area and are known to frequent the area. The area and its stray dogs must seem like a well-stocked

larder. An elderly resident who has lived in the area for 37 years was overheard saying that leopards

are regular visitors to the area and could not fathom why everyone was making such a fuss over this

one. Others, however, felt that since leopards could potentially harm people, steps should be taken

to keep them away from human areas.

Leopards are possibly regular nocturnal visitors to the area, with its healthy population of stray

dogs. In fitting rebuttal to the bad PR leopards have, of being blood-thirsty beasts, these leopards

seem to have politely avoided all the people it was bound to have encountered in such densely

populated areas. This leopard, however, paid for its momentary lapse in diligence (of avoiding

detection) by finding its way into every newspaper and media channel in the city.

203

�

3�of�3�

�

Once detected, the calm and level headed approach of the school authorities prevented hysteria and

panic, which could have created conflict where there was none. Furthermore, their proactive action

of immediately informing the police and the forest department ensured that people, with their

potent mix of fear and inquisitiveness were kept away.

On their part, the forest officials took stock of the situation and decided against tranquilising the

leopard in the basement. Instead, they blocked all escape routes and set up a trap cage and tried

lighting fire crackers to drive the leopard into the cage. They quickly realised that Mumbai’s

leopards, like all its human inhabitants, are probably habituated to such cacophony for it to be

useful. Finally, they put a chicken in the trap cage as live bait to tempt the leopard, who stubbornly

ignored its serenading clucks. It stayed put in the school basement, while the media outside, went

into overdrive telecasting the going-ons of the now famous school basement to the world at large.

Finally around 5 am the next morning, hunger got the better of the cat, who on deciding to have a

go at the chicken, found himself trapped. Thus, ended the saga of an ambitious leopard, who was

whisked away to the national where it was subject to a medical examination before being released

in the national park.

Forest path inside the eastern edge of SGNP in Mulund

204

1

MfSGNP-stakeholder meeting at Royal Palms

A summary report (05 July 2012) Trigger incident: A leopard was spotted at 1830 hours on 30 June 2012, walking through their back yards by several residents of row houses, Royal Palms, Aarey, Goregaon East. The residents called the control room at Sanjay Gandhi National Park. On realising that the location was outside the national park, the control room alerted Mumbai (territorial) division in Thane and advised the residents accordingly. The residents said there was no response from Mumbai division and they finally called the police. The incident was reported in Mumbai Mirror on 04 July 2012. The article summarises the incident and is attached to this report for reference (Appendix ‘A’). Mitigation meeting: A team from the Mumbaikars for SGNP project met some residents of the row houses at Royal Palms on 05 July 2012 at 1600. The meeting was attended by the following people: Residents of Royal Palms:

1) Ashima Chaudhuri 2) Padmaja Krishnan 3) Bindu Uruj

Mumbaikars for SGNP team

1) Dr. Sanjiv Pinjarkar 2) Mr. Sunetro Ghosal 3) Mr. Rajesh Sanap 4) Three members of the SGNP rescue team

Mumbai Mirror team

1) Virat Singh 2) Nilesh Wairkar

A summary of the discussion: The main concern voiced by the residents was that earlier leopards were spotted in the night and that the incident in daylight was a matter of concern, especially since it walked through their backyards. They were apprehensive for the safety of their own children as well others who play in the colony and areas around it. They asked for solutions to this issue.

205

2

The Mumbaikars for SGNP (MfSGNP) brochure was handed out to the residents present. They later asked for more copies, to distribute in the neighbourhood. As the discussion progressed the MfSGNP team outlined that trapping leopards was not a viable solution, especially since it had not harmed anyone and had only been spotted in the area. To this, the residents asked if one needed to wait for an attack before acting. The MfSGNP outlined the research evidence on the territoriality of large felids like leopards and the possibility of leopard numbers increasing if resident animals were trapped and removed as other individuals would move into the area. In addition the discussion also covered evidence that translocated animals tend to home back to their original territory and clarification on the MoEF guidelines on managing human-leopard conflicts. The residents said something still needed to be done. They said they were exploring the option of enclosing their backyards with 10 feet high vertical fences and were wondering if they should cut a Gulmohur tree that could be used by a leopard to climb to the roof of the row houses and asked for advice from the MfSGNP team. The MfSGNP team members inspected the area and said that a fence would not secure the area from agile animals like leopards and may even aggravate the situation. The MfSGNP recommended taking precautionary measures like ensuring the children were never unaccompanied. The residents said they already did that and wanted more meaningful measures that could be implemented to prevent any conflicts with leopards. After further discussions the meeting concluded by identifying the following measures for action:

1. MfSGNP would identify areas in the colony to install camera traps. This would help identify the individual animals and correlate it with the leopard database maintained by the SGNP department officials. It would also help establish if it is a stable resident in the area. The residents suggested a few areas and have extended their support for this activity. Action: Rajesh Sanap will coordinate with the residents, identify different locations and install the camera traps and recruit the help of the residents to prevent theft.

2. Ensure that garbage in the colony are areas around it are cleared regularly, as research shows that garbage sustains a viable stray dog population, which in turn attract leopards. . The residents agreed to take up the matter with the municipal corporation (BMC) and the colony. They said their previous attempts have failed and asked for a letter from the project with this recommendation, as it would strengthen their case to the BMC. Virat said if the residents took up the issue, the media might be able to help increase pressure on the BMC to act. MfSGNP clarified that the leopard would probably remain in the area even after garbage was clear, but it would hold fewer attractions for it. Action: Sunetro Ghosal will send a draft of the letter to Mr. Sunil Limaye, director SGNP, who will send it across to Ms. Ashima Chuadhuri.

206

3

3. The residents requested for additional copies of the MfSGNP brochure to distribute amongst other members of the colony. These were handed over to them and said more could be provided to them if required. One of the residents (Padmaja Krishnan) suggested that the brochure also be translated to Tamil as a majority of the residents of the hutments adjoining the colony were Tamils. She volunteered to translate it. Action: The brochure is making an impact and needs to be used actively during such meetings. The artwork is attractive and there is merit in the suggestion to translate it to other languages, which needs to be explored.

4. The residents also offered to organise meetings with other members of the colony and requested MfSGNP team members to attend to provide inputs, briefings and clarifications. They also asked if it was possible to also engage with the residents of the hutments adjoining the colony. While they were assured that such interactions were planned and if they could help create channels, the MfSGNP team would provide all the necessary inputs. Action: Follow up and ensure that MfSGNP members attend the meetings. Also, it is important to create a module, centered around the brochure, to ensure the message remains consistent.

5. The residents pointed out that they did not get any response from Mumbai division. The

MfSGNP team assured them that coordination issues were being streamlined to ensure prompt response from the appropriate authorities. Action: Institutionalise regular coordination meetings with Thane forest division, police, fire brigade and the BMC to ensure a more stream lined response to possible crisis. An additional step, would be to create a platform for dialogues with residents of peripheral areas of SGNP. Also, given the proactive role played by Virat Singh of Mumbai Mirror in enabling this dialogue, it is important to systematically engage with the media, to reach out to a large audience. This could possibly be done through regular workshops for them to understand the dynamics of the interactions between people and leopards.

Note: The mix of researchers and forest department personnel on the MfSGNP provided a good balance to the interactions with the residents. Furthermore, the three members of the rescue team were familiar with the area from previous visits to address leopard-related incidents. They shared this experience and helped temper the discussion. However, it is important that the department engages with residents on the peripheral areas to ensure that situations are tackled and defused before they snowball into crisis.

� Report compiled by Sunetro Ghosal, on behalf of the MfSGNP team

207

4

APPENDIX ‘A’ There’s a leopard in my balcony! • Three-year-old first to spot it at her window • Residents lock kids indoors for three days By Virat A Singh Posted On Wednesday, July 04, 2012 A full-grown leopard sits on the boundary wall of a row house at Royal Palms in Goregaon; the big cat then crosses over into the next house and strolls around its verandah, passing by a tricycle that had a toddler astride just hours earlier; the animal then climbs onto the boundary wall again and disappears into the thicket towards a golf course. If a picture speaks a thousand words, the three images on this page tell you everything about how dangerous the man-animal conflict has become in residential areas around Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. And with humans pushing ever closer to the park and the animals' habitat shrinking rapidly, a resolution looks unlikely. These chilling pictures were clicked on Saturday afternoon by two residents of Royal Palms. Padmaja Krishnan caught the cat walking the verandah of her row house, and Palash Kashyap clicked the leopard perched on the boundary wall of a house and then jumping into the neighbouring bungalow. The pictures, however, do not capture even a fraction of the horror that the Krishnans and two other families went through in the 20 minutes that the leopard was lurking around their houses. In fact, at one point there was just a glass door between the leopard and Krishnan's three-year-old. That sliding door, through which Krishnan clicked the picture featured above after the leopard had jumped down to survey her verandah, has not been opened since. A maid from another house, who had taken a three-month-old baby for a walk, froze when she spotted the leopard just seven or eight feet away from her. Luckily, the cat just walked by. Leopard in your house The cat was first spotted by Palash from his apartment at around 6.30 pm on Saturday as it walked towards the row houses where his friend Bindu Uruj occupies house number 5. As he dashed to get his camera, he called Uruj and alerted her. When Uruj went to her window, she did not see anything. She, however, decided to alert her neighbours. Ashima Chaudhuri, who lives in house No 3, was catching some Wimbledon action on TV with the rest of the family, when Uruj called. "Bindu's first words were, 'do not panic…a leopard has walked towards your courtyard. Quickly get your kids inside.' Before I could react, another neighbour Padmaja Krishnan from house number 4 called my husband to say the leopard had jumped into our compound," Chaudhuri told Mumbai Mirror on Tuesday. Before she could gather her wits, Chaudhuri heard the noise of some pots crashing in her verandah. As she and others in the house went to the window, they saw the leopard walking around. "It was sheer luck that my son Krishna was not out playing. But as the leopard jumped over the wall to move towards the road leading to the golf course, I remembered that my maid had taken my six-month-old baby for a walk. It was god's grace that nothing untoward happened," Chaudhuri said.

208

5

At the Krishnans' house, three-year-old Annapurna saw the leopard first. The cat was standing outside the sliding French windows of their living room. "Annapurna called me to see what's in the living room. I could not believe my eyes, it was a big leopard looking straight at us. Thank god the window was shut," said Krishnan. After the leopard jumped down to the verandah, she grabbed her small camera and began clicking pictures. "I was chilled to my bones as I saw the cat walk by the tricycle that Annapurna often rides out there." Forest officials unresponsive As the three families come to terms with the shocking experience, what has left them bitter is the forest officials' refusal to rush help. The first call to Sanjay Gandhi National Park control room was made immediately after the leopard was spotted. An attendant took down the complaint and told them that the area was under Bombay Range's jurisdiction and passed on a number. "To our shock, an official from Bombay Range told us that since it was a Sunday the next day, they should call back on Monday. Is this how forest department should react to a panic call?" said Uruj. When Uruj called again on Sunday, the operator asked her to file a written complaint. "We were left with no choice but to call some of our friends in the police department who sent cops from Aarey police station. We understand we live in close proximity to a forest, but it is the government that has sanctioned these houses and allowed us to stay here, so it is also their responsibility to ensure our safety," Chaudhuri said. While the Urujs moved into their row house at Royal Palms 11 years back, the Chaudhuris have been here for fours years now. The Krishnans moved in only three months back. While all three families had heard stories of leopard spottings, this is the first time they saw one themselves. "It's shaken us. I am not allowing kids to venture out at all. All windows and doors are shut at all times," said Chaudhuri. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Mumbai Division, G T Chavan, said his officers are aware of the incident. "The problem is that the Royal Palms area is like a corridor between SGNP and Aarey Colony and leopards often move through it. Another problem is the carcasses of calves and buffaloes that are dumped in the area by tabelas. These along with stray dogs attract leopards." Wildlife biologist Vidya Athreya, who is a collaborator for the year-long 'Mumbaikars for SGNP' project aimed at studying the man-leopard conflict, said people who live around forest areas must learn to co-exist with animals. "Caging leopards and releasing them somewhere else is a temporary solution because another leopard will soon claim this territory," she said. Another wildlife expert, who did not wish to be identified, said forest officials must react quickly to residents' calls. "Mumbai needs a special team of volunteers who can rush to such sites quickly. Forest officials' casual approach will only anger residents," he said. The Aarey Colony police station has written to forest officials seeking their help. "We have visited the houses and seen the pictures clicked by the residents. They are scared. They can't forever lock their kids inside. The forest department must do something." http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/15/20120704201207040331259564fbf7479/There%E2%80%99s-a-leopard-in-my-balcony.html#ftr2

209

1

Leopard attack incident report (Shankar Tekdi, Mulund) Sunetro Ghosal

Norwegian University of Life Sciences / Mumbaikars for SGNP Project

Submitted on behalf of ‘Mumbaikars for SGNP’ project to: Shri Sunil Limaye, IFS Chief Conservator for Forests, Maharashtra Forest Department Director, Sanjay Gandhi National Park 1. SUMMARY: A leopard attacked a 7-year-old girl (Sanjana Thorat) at 2230 hours on 15 July 2012 in Shankar tekdi, Mulund west. The attack took place when the girl was defecating on a garbage dump, 10m above their hutment, while 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. This report collates observations and analysis of a visit on the evening of 19 July 2012 to the site and conversations with different individuals.

Map1: Attack site in relation to Mumbai city and SGNP.

(Map courtesy: Mumbaikars for SGNP project, using Maharashtra Forest Department data on a Google Earth platform)

210

2

2. GEOGRAPHY OF THE ATTACK: The terrain along the eastern edge of Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) in Mulund is marked by a steep slope—18.5 degrees inclination from the foothill to the edge of the forest. The slope levels out briefly after the hutments, that crowd the foothills, to a clearing of around 15-20m before rising sharply into forest cover, which is a mix of plantations and natural vegetation. The hutments along the foothills are part of larger encroachments on SGNP territory, especially along Shankar Tekdi—the area around the attack. Individually, the hutments are rather small (the two hutments observed from the inside were approximately 4 sq m) and are densely packed together. Toilet facilities are around the base of the hill and most people defecate, urinate and throw garbage in the clearing between the hutments and the forest. The attack site (N19.17329, E072.93172) is 75m inside the national park’s eastern boundary (See Map2).

Map2: Attack site (Map courtesy: Mumbaikars for SGNP project, using Maharashtra Forest Department data on a Google

Earth platform)

211

3

The attack took place in the clearing between the hutments and the forest, which is used as a garbage dump and frequently visited by dogs and goats (see photo1).

Photo1: The attack site (Photo: Sunetro Ghosal) 3. SUMMARY: Sometime after 2200 hours, the girl asked to go to the toilet. Her mother and grandmother accompanied her to the clearing above their hutment. There are no light sources in the area and it is said to have been overcast with a slight drizzle. As a result of the drizzle, neither were any of the other residents around nor were there any dogs in the area at that point. It is unclear where the mother and grandmother were standing at the point when the leopard attacked the girl. Some accounts, including the one by the family on the day of the site visit, claim that the grandmother was standing 5-6m away watching a fight taking place in the lower hutments, while the mother stood within a meter of the child. However, according to their earlier account and those of others both mother and grandmother were standing 5-6 m away watching the fight. When they realized the girl was taken away, the two ladies ran back to their hutment and raised an alarm. The father is said to have summoned others and it took around 20-30minutes before a search operation was launched and the police and forest department were informed.

212

4

Forest department personnel arrived at the scene within an hour and spent the night searching the area, with help from locals. A leopard was spotted in the area and is said to have growled at the team searching for the girl. Finally, in the morning they managed to drive away a leopard and a local dog led them to the girl’s head (N19.17260, E72.93044), about 155m south-west from the attack site (see Map3). The search operation was subsequently called off.

Map3: Attack site and location where the head was retrieved (Map courtesy: Mumbaikars for SGNP project, using Maharashtra Forest Department data on a Google Earth

platform) 4. ANALYSIS:

4.1. The family’s response to questions seems to have undergone considerable refinement in the four days from the attack and the field visit, given their intensive exposure to the media and political activists. Their responses were triangulated with other residents of the area, individuals present on the night of the attack and other observers.

4.2. The residents of the hutments, including the victim’s family, confirm that leopards have

been visiting the area regularly. They reported that in the past it regularly predated on dogs, goats and poultry in the area. Several reported that dogs would alert them of the leopard’s presence in the area and at times it would even walk past their hutments and drink water from open containers. The area has several attractions for the leopard, especially since the area along the edge of the forest is littered with garbage and regularly visited by goats, dogs and rodents. The leopard’s dietary fondness for these animals—especially domestic dogs—is well documents in SGNP and elsewhere (Daniel 1996,

213

5

Edgaonkar and Chellam 1998, Tiwari 2009, Shah et al 2009). The residents claimed that their children often played unattended at the forest’s edge past dusk and that adults would be busy with household chores outside till midnight but that the leopards had never in the past attacked people in the area.

4.3. On the night of 15 July 2012, when the girl, accompanied by her mother and

grandmother, reached the garbage dump, it was both dark and deserted. There were no lights in the area and the bulbs in the hutments are too weak to illuminate the area—a halogen light has been installed in the area after the attack. Furthermore, the moon was in its last quarter and could not have provided any natural light either, especially since it was overcast. There was also a light drizzle around the time, which meant that no other people were around. The girl’s mother reports that dogs were also absent from the area. Some people in the lower hutments were having an argument and this attracted the grandmother’s attention and she moved a few meters away from the girl. The mother claimed she was within a meter of the girl when the attack took place. However, on the day following the attack, she had reported that she had joined the grandmother. Members of the rescue team confirmed that they had heard the latter version on the night of the attack. If this indeed was the case, the girl would have been alone on the garbage dump, which was shrouded in the dark, when she was attacked.

4.4. The mother claims to have spotted the leopard attacking the girl and described it has

being ‘huge’ and ‘brownish’ in colour. She said this was the first time she saw the whole animal as in the past they would only see its head when it peeked over the rise. Since its unclear where the mother was standing at the time of the attack, her account of the leopard may not be very accurate given that the area was in darkness. If her discount her eye witness account, we need to fall back on circumstantial evidence to identify the attacker. These suggest that the leopard was the attacker, especially since at least one animal remained in the area at the time of the rescue operations when the hill side was teeming with people. Also, a leopard was driven off from the area when the head was eventually found.

4.5. There have been arguments put forth that the leopard may have mistaken the girl for a

dog or goat (who are otherwise present in the area) in the dark and the over grown vegetation. This seems implausible. The leopard may well have come to inspect the place for goats and dogs but encountered the girl instead. The leopard’s sense of vision—a crucial element of their hunting strategy—in the dark is among the best amongst the large felid family, who have the sharpest night vision amongst all carnivores and mammals (Schaller 1967, Prater 1971). Thus, the darkness could not have posed a challenge to the leopard. Furthermore, the garbage dump is relatively clear of vegetation and where there is vegetation, it is less than 25 to 30cm high (see photo2). Thus, the leopard was probably aware of the girl before it attacked. While leopards and other large felids generally avoid people (Bailey 1993, Valeix et al 2012) this animal seems to have risked the presence of two adults standing 5-6 meters away to attack the girl squatting on the ground. This can speculatively be attributed to hunger and opportunism based on studies on large felids elsewhere (Neto 2011).

214

6

4.6. While this does not automatically mean the animal can be declared habitual man eater, it also does not rule out the possibility of it repeating this act. The literature points out that large felids prey on humans for several reasons including opportunism, injury and lack of prey but also as a behavioral pattern learnt from other members of their group (Peterhans and Gnoske 2001, Yeakel et al 2009, Neto 2011).

Photo2: The attack site does is clear of vegetation and even in areas with vegetation, it is not high enough to obstruct the vision of an adult leopard. (Photo: Sunetro Ghosal)

4.7. In this regard, it is critical that people in this and other similar areas take precautions to

ensure children are always attended by an adult and that people do not venture out alone after dark. Furthermore, the garbage needs to be cleared to reduce the stray dogs who frequent it (Edgaonkar and Chellam 1998). We observed empty alcohol bottles and glasses, a few meters from the spot when the girl’s head was eventually found. This suggests that members of this community are still venturing into the forest after dark and probably returning in an inebriated state.

4.8. The area of this incident is legally a part of SGNP and on the margins of suburban

Mumbai. However, the boundary of the national park is poorly marked on the ground. As per the ruling of the Bombay High Court all encroachers are to be removed from SGNP, and efforts are underway to ensure compliance. However, living in these legal, ecological and socio-political margins exposes these residents to vulnerabilities (Robbins 2004). The vulnerabilities include exposure to conflicts with wild animals, civil neglect, lack of legal security nets and exposure to political opportunism. This case provides evidence of all four vulnerabilities. a) The residents claim that leopards regularly visited the area, has killed dogs and goats in

the area. However they claim that leopards have never killed any humans, even though unsupervised children would play along the forest edge till dusk. A forest watcher however, recalled that the series of attacks in 2005 by leopards in different parts of SGNP had instilled fear even in the forest staff.

215

7

b) The residents have no legal rights to the land as they are regarded as encroachers on forest land. Thus, they are not eligible for any compensation caused by wild animals under The India wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and its various amendments, which apply to such cases. Furthermore, they cannot legally access even basic amenities and infrastructures. Public toilets are located further down the hillock and there is no functional waste disposal system. However, as per the directive of the Bombay High Court, a large proportion of these residents are scheduled to be relocated to alternative accommodation in Chandivali by August 2012.

c) Given the clear status of the land they occupy, their legal status remains unclear and legal access to government schemes meant for the lower classes remain beyond reach. However, most of these residents do access employment and source resources from the informal sectors.

d) The residents of these hutments are particularly vulnerable to political opportunism. This is evident in the political response to the leopard attack. Since the victim and her family are members of a lower caste, leaders of the Republican Party of India took up their case and are said to have publicly donated a sum of INR 50,000 to the family. This could not be confirmed independently. Further, they party organized a protest march within 48 hours to demand monetary compensation from the state government and immediate regularization of the hutments or relocation.

5. Recommendation: As already mentioned in point 7, there are certain actions that be initiated to reduce the possibilities of similar incidents.

5.1. Identify areas with similar vulnerabilities along the periphery of SGNP, including encroached areas slated for relocation.

5.2. Target these areas for two focused interventions directly and through different media: a) Important precautions people must take since they are sharing a landscape

with leopards. This module must also provide some basic information on leopard ecology, including how relocating leopards might increase conflict or initiate it where there is none.

b) Coordinate with the municipal corporation (BMC), the police and residents change waste disposal and management in these areas to ensure that garbage is not allowed to collect in the area. This will in turn reduce the presence of dogs and rodents from the area, and in turn reduce the biomass available for leopards (Athreya 2012).

5.3. Establish a protocol of response in such situations, whereby relevant data (pugmarks, photos, interviews etc) can also be collected by a trained person, while the rescue team carries out its operations with the police control crowds that may collect in the area. In turn, the analysis of this data needs be fed back to improve management and response mechanisms.

216

8

6. References: Bailey, T.N. 1993. The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid, Columbia

University Press, New York. Daniel, J.C. 1996. The leopard in India – A natural history, Natraj Publishers, Dehradun (India) Edgaonkar, Advait and Chellam, Ravi. 1998. A preliminary study on the Ecology of the Leopard,

Panthera pardus fusca, in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Maharashtra, RR-98/002, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (India)

Neto, M.F.C. 2011. ‘Attacks by Jaguar (Panthera onca) on humans in Central Brazil: Report of Three Cases, with Observation of a Death’, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 22: 130-135

Peterhans, J.C.K. and Gnoske, T.P. 2001. ‘The Science of ‘Man-Eating’ Among Lions Panthera leo with a Reconstruction of the Natural History of the ‘Man-Eaters of Tsavo’, Journal of East African Natural History, 90: 1-40

Prater, S.H. 1971. The Book of Indian Animals, Mumbai: BNHS/Oxford University Press Robbins, Paul. 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell Publishing,

Chichester (UK) Schaller, G.B. 1967. The Deer and the Tiger: A study of Wildlife in India, Chicago: University of

Chicago Press Shah, G.M., Jan, U., Bhat, B.A., Ahmad, F. and J. Ahmad. 2009. ‘Food habits of the leopard

Panthera pardus in Dachigam National Park, Kashmir, India’. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1: 184-185

Tiwari, K. 2009. Preliminary study on the diet composition of the leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai: BNHS

Valeix, M., Hemson, G., Loveridge, A.J., Mills, G and Macdonald, D.W. 2012. ‘Behavioural Adjustments of a Large Carnivore to Access Secondary Prey in Human-Dominated Landscape’, Journal of Tropical Ecology, 49: 73-81

Yeakel, J.D., Patterson, B.D., Fox-Dobbs, K., Okumura, M.M., Cerling, T.E., Moore, J.W. Koch, P.L. and Dominy, N.J. 2009. ‘Cooperation and individuality among man-eating lions’, PNAS, 106: 19040-19043

217

Site visit report: Mandvi (Tungareshwat Wildlilfe Sanctuary)

Author: Sunetro Ghosal

1

This initial report based on a visit to the peripheral areas (Mandvi) of Tungareshwar Wildlife

Sanctuary on 02 December 2011. The visit was facilitated by the Chief Conservator of forests

and Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary, Sunil

Limaye. Ground support at the sites was facilitated by Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary Range

Forest Officer (Wildlife), Sanjay Lachke and Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary Range Forest

Officer (Territorial), Mr. Deshpande.

Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary is dominated by steep and thickly forested hills, bordered by a

mosaic of croplands, hamlets, infrastructure projects (including dams and road networks) and a

network of notified and non-notified reserve forests. The wildlife sanctuary is bordered by

Sanjay Gandhi National Park in the South and Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary in the east.

• The visit included the sites of three attacks (one fatal, two non-fatal), with a brief

interaction with members of the hamlet. During this visit, the residents (especially males)

of the hamlet (where two non-fatal attacks had occurred in October and November 2011)

were in a state of panic with reports of a leopard in the area. Mr. Lachke and his staff

members discussed the issue with the villagers, highlighting that there have been no

attacks over the years, which pacified the villagers briefly. The officials said the

department should be allowed to deal with the animal, if it in the area. As it turned out,

no animal was found in the area but this did not prevent the gathered villagers from

working itself into frenzy. The villagers were understandably agitated with their

excitement directed at the thicket where they leopard was suspected to be but no

aggression was directed to the forest officials in the area. The forest department officials,

though greatly outnumbered continued to reason with the villagers to calm them.

• The visit also included sites on National Highway no. 8, where two leopards have been

killed by vehicles in the last one year. The highway skirts the wildlife sanctuary in the

west and divides it from reserve forests in several locations.

• GPS locations of the visited sites were recorded.

• Besides interacting with the villagers and forest officials, official reports maintained by

the forest department officials regarding the human attack cases in the area, especially the

fatal ones, were also reviewed briefly.

218



2

The sites west of Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary

The attack sites on the periphery of Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary

219



3

SUMMARY :

The attack sites are clustered within a radius of 4 sq km, along the north-western edge of

Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary. If the accident sites (where three leopards were killed by

vehicles since October 2010) are included, the incidents are located within a 12 sq km range.

According to reports and conversations with local officials and villagers, prior to October 2011

there were no reports of leopards attacking people in and around Tungareshwar Wildlife

Sanctuary. While, the October 2011 attack was the first recorded attack on humans, leopards

have historically been present in the area. There are numerous reports of livestock depredation

by leopards and actual sightings in the area.

ANALYSIS :

1. Given the small area in which the attacks have occurred, they are likely to be the caused

by the same individual leopard.

2. However, with no previous attacks in the area, the crucial question to ask is what has

changed to set off this latest trend of human attacks?

3. There are several possible explanations:

a) Relocation of a trapped animal: Research in Maharashtra on leopards suggests that

the management strategy of relocating ‘problem’ animals often leads to increased

conflicts, with stressed large cats homing back to their home ranges where they may

attack people (Athreya 2006; Athreya et al 2010). According to forest officials, no

leopards have been trapped or released in the Tungareshwar Wildlife Sanctuary in

the last few years. The officials at Sanjay Gandhi National Park confirmed that no

releases have taken place in the park in the recent past. However, this should also be

cross checked with officials at Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary before ruling it out.

220



4

b) A juvenile delinquent: The perpetrator of the attacks may be a juvenile delinquent

leopard. There is a strong evidence to support this explanation. Firstly, the pugmarks

observed (reported by Mr. Lachke and Ms. Athreya) during the investigations of one

of the attacks were rather small, suggesting a fairly young animal. Secondly, the

failed attacks suggest an inexperienced individual: it failed to hold onto a dog despite

repeated attempts and it scratched a child. In both cases, a more experienced cat may

have been more successful. Furthermore, two female leopards were killed in road

accidents in October and December 2010. There are reports of a female with cubs

being spotted in the area prior to these accidents. It is possible that the delinquent

individual may have been the cub of one of these females, who has since been

orphaned and now unable, or unsure, on how to negotiate a coexistence with people

in the landscape. However, strong the evidence may seem, this argument is based on

circumstantial, even if relevant, information. In this regard, I plan to interview the

mother of one of the attack victims, who observed the cat, for additional information.

c) An injured animal: Another plausible explanation is that the leopard is injured,

which may also explain its inability to hunt (outlined in the previous point).

However, it should be reiterated that these are hypothetical explanations, which cannot be

explored further till more information is available.

REFERENCES :

Athreya, V.R. 2006. ‘Is Relocation a Viable Management Option for Unwanted Animals? – The

Case of the Leopard in India’, Conservation and Society, Volume 4 (3): pp 419-423

Athreya, V.R. Odden, M., Linnell, J.D.C. and Karanth, K.U., 2010. ‘Translocation as a Tool for

Mitigating Conflict with Leopards in Human-Dominated Landscapes in India’,

Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 1, pp. 133-141

221

Annexure F: News reports compiled by Diya Banerjee.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152575461905472&set=o.233005403430696&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

http://english.upa-network.org/

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Poaching-not-easy-at-SGNP/Article1-1013608.aspx

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/leopard-skin-confiscated-in-mumbai/article4428484.ece

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/leopard-attack-spooks-schoolkids-parents-in-aarey-colony--attendance-hit/1076278/0

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/IIT-B-students-warned-about-leopard-attacks/Article1-1012421.aspx

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/regional/marathi/news-interviews/Urmila-Matondkars-Marathi-debut-based-on-real-life-story/articleshow/18416135.cms?intenttarget=no

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/four-leopard-cubs-rescued-in-junagadh/1072113

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/leopards-enter-human-territory-more-may-follow-this-summer/1072137/0

http://www.mid-day.com/lifestyle/2013/feb/030213-leopards-aarey-milk-colony-mumbai.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Power-network-through-Sanjay-Gandhi-National-Park-gets-sanction/articleshow/18341994.cms

http://www.wildlifesos.org/blog/back-mom

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/2/2013013020130130034448563ab4dd628/Fear-of-leopards-keeps-Aarey-kids-from-schools.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Maharashtra-to-focus-on-wildlife-crimes/articleshow/18120896.cms

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/jan/140113-wrong-leopard-trapped-for-third-time-at-aarey-colony.htm

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/jan/140113-wrong-leopard-trapped-for-third-time-at-aarey-colony.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Mark-resight-Researchers-find-safer-time-effective-method-to-count-strays/articleshow/17946968.cms?intenttarget=no

http://thelastwilderness.org/11/01/2013/six-injured-in-leopard-attack-in-nilambur-1850/

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/jan/100113-residents-want-lights-to-thwart-leopard-attacks.htm

http://epaper2.mid-day.com/showtext.aspx?boxid=228645&parentid=190186&issuedate=07012013&edd123=mumbai

222

http://thelastwilderness.org/07/01/2013/can-we-live-together-1832/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Lack-of-toilets-make-hutment-dwellers-vulnerable-to-leopard-attacks-Officials/articleshow/17915431.cms


http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/jan/020113-Leopard-mauls-teen-near-Aarey-Colony.htm

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2013/jan/020113-Encroachments-at-SGNP-intensifies-man-animal-conflict.htm

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121228/nation.htm#4

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/National-body-clears-projects-in-SGNP-GIB-sanctuary/articleshow/17591960.cms?intenttarget=no

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/dec/191212-Brave-villager-rescues-leopard-cubs-from-22-ft-pit.htm

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Two-leopard-cubs-fall-into-well-saved-by-Ghodbunder-residents/Article1-974771.aspx


http://thelastwilderness.org/10/12/2012/after-mirror-report-safety-net-for-citys-leopard-rescue-heroes-1740/

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-injuring-4-leopard-rescued-from-borewell/1042604/

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/dec/081212-Drunk-sleeping-guard-posed-easy-prey-for-leopard.htm

http://thelastwilderness.org/07/12/2012/meet-mumbais-leopard-rescue-heroes-who-arent-even-insured-1737/

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Leopard-caught-napping-in-staircase-of-Andheri-building/articleshow/17472551.cms

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?edorsup=Sup&ed_code=820040&ed_page=5&boxid=13037&id=31141&ed_date=11%2F04%2F2012

http://timescity.com/mumbai/events/earth-mela-2012-day-1/63952

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/nov/211112-Mumbai-2-leopards-caught-but-no-space-to-house-them.htm

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Green-pigeon-in-Sanjay-Gandhi-National-Park-has-survey-team-in-a-flutter/articleshow/17408343.cms

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/zoo-expansion-at-sanjay-gandhi-park-gathers-steam/1037334/0

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/520937

223

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_leopard-kills-two-year-old-girl-in-bhandup_1766310

http://epaper.gujaratimidday.com/showtext.aspx?boxid=75050365&parentid=140445&issuedate=11112012&edd123=Gujrati

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/nov/051112-mumbai-Villagers-answer-to-leopard-attacks-public-toilets.htm

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=MIRRORNEW&BaseHref=MMIR%2F2012%2F11%2F05&PageLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01200&ViewMode=HTML

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_private-vehicles-likely-to-be-banned-in-borivli-national-park_1756959

224

Final report mumbaikars_for_sgnp_project

Environment

krishnagiri

sant nirankari

tungareshwat

panthera tigris

usha vinayak

air force

panthera pardus

aarey milk