Estimating hunting in Cambodia 883


TABLE 2 Species most commonly caught, as reported by a total of 252 current and retired hunters in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia, in 2018.


Species


Monitor lizard Varanus spp. Wild boar Sus scrofa


Chevrotain Tragulus spp. Primates3


Sambar Rusa unicolor Total no. of repondents


National status (Red List status1) No. of retired hunters (%) No. of current hunters (%) Common (LC)


Common (LC) Unclassified (LC)


Northern red muntjac Muntiacus vaginalis Common (LC) Civets2


Common (LC)


Common/Rare (LC/EN) Common (VU)


116 (60) 78 (41) 46 (24) 26 (15) 9 (5)


11 (6) 2 (1)


192


43 (71) 17 (28) 8 (13) 2 (3)


7 (12) 3 (6)


1 (,1) 60


1LC, Least concern; VN, Vulnerable; EN, Endangered. 2Common palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus and large Indian civet Viverra zibetha. 3Long-tailed/pig-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis/nemestrina: Common/LC; black-shanked douc langur Pygathrix nigripes and yellow-cheeked crested gibbon Nomascus gabriellae: Rare/EN.


TABLE 3 Reasons given by 705 respondents living in Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary when asked about their preference for differ- ent types of meat in 2018 (six respondents indicated they had no preference, and six did not answer the question).


Reason for preference


It is better for your health 299 (42) It has no chemicals It is tastier It is natural


235 (33) 209 (30) 58 (8)


It is more affordable It is easier to buy


Total no. of respondents


1 (,1) –


490 (70)


Meat type preferred Wild meat (%) Domestic meat (%) 16 (2)


5 (,1) 21 (3) –


7 (,1) 122 (17)


166 (24)


to domestic alternatives, mostly because wild meat was believed to be healthier, free from chemicals, and chnganh (delicious) (Table 3). Twenty-four per cent of respondents preferred domestic meat, mostly because itwasmore access- ible. Domestic meat was reportedly more widely sold, and easier to buy in small quantities, than wild meat, which was usually only sold by the kilogram. Several respondents said wild meat could unknowingly be bought, as it is difficult to differentiate meat once butchered. Only 4% of respon- dents who preferred domestic meat cited affordability, and prices often overlapped. Wild boar, for example, was USD 3.75–6.25 per kg in villages, whereas domestic pork in the district town (which is usually cheaper for commodities in general than villages) was USD 3–4.5/kg. Muntjac and sam- bar meat was less available, and more expensive than wild boar meat (village price USD 5–8.75/kg). Respondents reported accessing wild meat in several


ways. It was most commonly (78% of respondents) bought from villagers or motorcycle traders from the district town. Some said traders hid meat in compartments under their motorbike seats. Thirty-three per cent of respondents reported catching wild animals to eat, which is surprising considering only a small proportion (9%) reported hunting;


20% reported being given wild meat by family or neigh- bours. More households ate wild meat in the wet (90%of consumers) than in the dry season (73%), with wild meat also consumed more frequently in the wet (mean 1.79 times per month) than in the dry season (mean 0.95 times per month). This corroborates the reportedly higher fre- quency of wildlife interactions in the wet season, when species can be caught eating crops. In addition, domestic meat alternatives were reportedly less available during the wet season, as rain restricts traders’ access and villagers have less income to purchase domestic meat. The species most commonly reported as eaten were wild


boar (79%),monitor lizard (30%),muntjac (22%), chevrotain (11%),monkeys (4%), civets (3%), sambar (3%), tortoises and turtles (3%) and jungle fowl (2%). Snakes, porcupine and other rodents accounted for ,1% each. Species most likely to be boughtwere wild boar,monitor lizard and red muntjac. Species most likely to be caught were monitor lizard, wild boar, chevrotain and muntjac, and monitor lizard was most likely to be gifted (Table 4). The most common species used for medicine were the slow loris Nycticebus pygmaeus (83%of households) and the porcupine (77%). Insomevillages, slow loris could be ordered from local hunters, who caught them at night using spotlights and slingshots. Others bought slow loris or porcupine from neighbours or traders, when available. One respondent reported that a tonic made from rice wine and slow loris, traditionally given to mothers after childbirth, could be purchased at one of the provincial markets. Other speciesmentionedmore than once formedic- inal purposes included chevrotain (12%of households), cobra (Naja spp., 4%), flying squirrel (Pteromyini, 4%), muntjac (2%), civet (2%), black-shanked douc (2%), Sunda pangolin Manis javanica (1%) and hornbill (Bucerotidae spp., ,1%). The majority of respondents believed that since 2013


levels of hunting (82% of respondents), wildlife consump- tion (90%) and sale of wildlife by villagers (89%) had decreased. Fifty-four per cent of respondents believed hunt- ing levels had declined because wildlife was scarcer and


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


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