882 H. Ibbett et al.


Irvingia malayana, and wildlifewas easier to catch as animals were distracted while foraging on new growth. In addition, it was reported that lulls in agriculture and loggingmeant peo- ple had more time to allocate to hunting, and poor road con- ditions reduced the chance of encountering ranger patrols. Six per cent of respondents indicated hunting was more fre- quent in the dry season when the absence of foliage made it easier for dogs to run unhindered, and when water scarcity meant efforts could be targeted around water sources. Sev- enteen per cent of respondents did not know when most hunting occurred.


Hunting methods


Dogs were the most commonly reported hunting method (87%of 60 current hunters), followed by slingshot (47%), snares (13%) and crossbow (3%; Table 1). Only 7% of all respondents reported ever having set snares in the forest, and only eight interviewees reported currently doing so (1%), setting a mean of 46 snares, although one respondent reported maintaining 500 snares. People in 35% of current hunting households reported


using more than one method to catch wildlife. Dogs and slingshots were reported more frequently by current hunters than retired hunters, with snares, crossbows and guns reported less frequently by current hunters (Table 1). Respondents often said that guns were only used by people outside the community or authorities, such as police or the military. Several respondents reported seeing soldiers hunting primates, with guns, and another stated they had seen men with rifles, in 4 × 4 vehicles, with cool-boxes to take meat away. One respondent said they had borrowed a gun from the police to shoot black-shanked douc langur P. nigripes. Of those that reported hunting, 68% said they did so only


for subsistence, 28% hunted for food and income, and only one household reported hunting solely for income.One indi- vidual said that, if successful, they could earn USD 250–500 per month selling meat to villagers or external traders. This is considerably more than the monthly earnings of a casual labourer, which are KHR 15,000–30,000 per day (USD 80– 150 per month). The most commonly caught species were monitor lizard (Varanus spp., 71% of current hunters), wild boar Sus scrofa (28%), chevrotain (Tragulus spp., 13%) and civets (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus, Viverra zibetha, 12%; Table 2). Other species caught included northern red munt- jacMuntiacus vaginalis, sambar Rusa unicolor, long and pig- tailedmacaque (Macaca fascicularis,Macaca nemestrina), black- shanked douc langur, southern yellow-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus gabriellae, Sunda colugo Galeopterus variegatus, red jungle fowl Gallus gallus, and various tortoise, turtle and squirrel species. Compared to retired hunters, a greater proportion of current hunters reported catching monitor lizards and civets, and fewer reported catching wild boar, muntjacs and chevrotains (Table 2).


Protecting crops


Alongside killing wildlife for food, medicine and income, respondents reported killing wildlife to protect crops. Sev- enty-one per cent of all households reported that wildlife ate or destroyed crops, and 20% reported setting snares (a mean of 20 per household) around farms to protect crops. Four per cent of households reported setting 100–300 snares. The main problem species reported were the wild boar (85%of respondents with wildlife problems), long-tailed macaque (52%), elephant (32%) and green peafowl Pavo muticus (24%). Other species mentioned included the East Asian porcupine Hystrix brachyura, red muntjac, jungle fowl and bamboo rat (Rhizomyini spp.).


Hunting by dogs


Seventy-nine per cent of households owned dogs, and 45%of those who went to the forest took dogs with them for com- panionship and for protection against encounters with wild- life. Although a few respondents reported actively using dogs to hunt species such as muntjac and sambar, many of those who reported dogs killing wildlife said it was unintentional. When accompanying owners to the forest, dogs would chase wildlife scents. Owners also reported dogs roaming away from home to hunt, catching species such as monitor lizards, chevrotains, turtles and tortoises. Excluding puppies, we recorded a total of 1,633 dogs; the mean number of dogs owned across all 705 households was 2.31 (a mean of 2.91 dogs per 557 dog-owning households). Approximately 40% of households were surveyed, suggesting the total number of domestic dogs living within Keo Seima Wildlife Sanc- tuary could exceed 4,000,or 1.36 per km2, a higher density than many species of conservation interest (Wildlife Conser- vation Society, unpubl. data).


Wildlife use and consumption


Eighty-five per cent of all households consumed wild meat, and 45% used wildlife products for medicinal purposes. Overall, 70% of respondents preferred eating wild meat


Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 878–888 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001455


TABLE 1 Hunting methods reported by a total of 192 retired hunters (27% of respondents surveyed) and 60 current hunters (8%ofre- spondents surveyed) in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia, in 2018.


Method Dogs


Slingshot Snares


Crossbow Gun


Total no. of respondents


No. of retired hunters (%)


155 (81) 73 (38) 40 (21) 12 (6) 5 (3)


192


No. of current hunters (%)


52 (87) 28 (47) 8 (13) 2 (3) 0 (0)


60


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