search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
614 C. Sampson et al.


TABLE 2 Summary statistics of yes/no responses and number of rural and urban participants who responded to the questions about their experiences with poaching in Myanmar (December 2016–May 2018).


Question Are you afraid of elephant poachers?


Do Myanmar people help poachers from other countries find elephants in Myanmar?


Rural % Affirmative (n) Urban % Affirmative (n) P 70% (79)


55% (73)


Do Myanmar people help poachers avoid capture? 39% (75) Have you ever seen an elephant poacher?


59% (76)


28% (78) 56% (85)


42% (71) 6% (85)


χ2


,0.0001 77.990 0.9254


0.659


0.009 0.195


,0.0001 53.294


suggest that elephants could also provide benefits to rural communities through the enjoyment people receive fromsee- ing elephants, as reported by Gadd (2005), and through me- chanisms such as job creation in ecotourism and providing labour in the transportation and timber industries.


Knowledge of and views on elephant conservation


The most recent assessment of the Asian elephant popula- tion in Myanmar was published in 2004 (Leimgruber & Wemmer, 2004). Despite the commitment and efforts of conservation agencies and the government of Myanmar to conserve the country’s remaining 1,430–2,065 wild ele- phants (Leimgruber & Wemmer, 2004), recent research (Sampson et al., 2018) suggests that poaching may be occur- ring at a higher rate than previously suggested. Local knowl- edge can be valuable in determining trends in wildlife populations (e.g. Mallory et al., 2003; Gilchrist et al., 2005), and could provide insights on elephant population numbers and distribution (Songer et al., 2016). That amajority of rural participants believed the elephant population is decreasing may suggest that the estimate from 2004 is now outdated. Both rural and urban participants stated that poaching is


the greatest threat to wild elephant populations. Sampson et al. (2018) reported that elephant populations in the rural areas where we conducted interviews had been tar- geted by poachers in the months immediately prior to our study. In addition, surveys conducted in Myanmar’s legal wildlife markets have shown a 400% increase in elephant skin available for purchase during 2009–2014, suggesting a rise in consumer demand (Underwood et al., 2013; Nijman & Shepherd, 2014). Some of the participants’ responses were contradictory.


For example, rural respondents supported protecting ele- phant habitat although they were less likely than urban par- ticipants to agree that habitat destruction and agricultural expansion were threats to elephants. This probably reflects the dependence of rural populations on farming and a reluctance to admit that these activities can be detrimental to elephants.Habitat loss is amajor concern for wildlife con- servation in Myanmar (Bhagwat et al., 2017) and for Asian elephants throughout their range (Leimgruber et al., 2003, 2008; Songer et al., 2016). Most respondents were aware


thatMyanmar has the largest expanse of continuous elephant habitat within the species’ range (Leimgruber et al., 2003), a fact that conservation agencies could use in communicating the importance of regulating development of wild areas to maintain this unique and important resource.


Motivations for compliance with conservation laws


Myanmar’swildlife protection laws prohibit the killing of ele- phants and the possession of any elephant body part, with punishments of up to 10 years in prison (State Law and Order Restoration Council Law No.583/94.1994). Given that most participants believed that wildlife authorities would be likely to capture elephant poachers, it is unsurprising that both ruralandurbanparticipants indicatedtheyare compliant with wildlife laws. However, as many participants indicated they were not fully aware of the wildlife laws in Myanmar, there is an opportunity for conservation agencies to invest in community educationand engagement to ensurewildlife laws arebetterunderstoodbycitizens inbothruralandurbanareas.


Experiences with and perception of hunting and poaching


The drivers behind poaching can be complex. Some people poach wildlife for subsistence, others for commercial rea- sons or elevation of social status (Eliason, 1999). Many par- ticipants believed that poachers killed elephants for money. In Myanmar, the mean income of farmers is c. USD 1,000 per year (C. Sampson, unpubl. data). In contrast, people can be paid up to USD 4,000 for assisting a poacher to find an elephant (Z. M. Oo, pers. comm., 2017), and dried elephant skin is sold for up toUSD3.65 per square inch (Hla Hla Htay & Henshaw, 2017). This provides considerable financial motivation for poaching or assisting poachers. Rural parti- cipants listed a greater variety of elephant body parts taken by poachers, aligning with reports from the Myanmar gov- ernment, which suggests rural participants are more famil- iar with the wildlife trade. Respondents in our study described observing violent be-


haviour by poachers and indicated they fear them, findings that are corroborated by reports that citizens are afraid to


Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 609–616 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000156


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164