884 H. Ibbett et al.


TABLE 4 χ2 tests of association between whether a species was re- ported as consumed by a household, and how wild meat was ac- cessed (with 1 degree of freedom). All species reported as eaten were tested, but only species for which there were positive asso- ciations with access type are reported.


How household accessed wild meat


Bought Caught Gifted


Species household reported consuming


Wild boar


Monitor lizard Muntjac


Monitor lizard Wild boar Chevrotain Muntjac


Monitor lizard χ2 P


58.266 ,0.001 19.338 ,0.001 18.362 ,0.001 121.020 ,0.001 40.765 ,0.001 20.410 ,0.001 7.271 0.007 4.941 0.026


therefore harder to catch, 13% thought patrols deterred people, 10% said forest loss meant there was nowhere to hunt, and 9% said livelihood changes meant people were now too busy farming cash crops to hunt. Reasons freely given by respondents for these changes included growing village populations increasing demand for wildlife, and because hunters secretly sold wildlife to traders. Others suggested that increasing village populations meant people were less inclined to share wild meat with neighbours, to avoid having to share wild meat with many people. Fifty- two per cent of respondents believed that hunting by outsiders had decreased, 38% of respondents did not know or thought hunting was not undertaken by outsiders, and 9% thought hunting by outsiders had increased. Outsiders were typically regarded as people from outside the com- mune. Some respondents stated that declines in hunting by local people meant there was more wildlife, which attracted outsiders to hunt.


Law enforcement


Knowledge of rules Seventy-one per cent of respondents stated there were rules about catching wildlife. Of these, 26%attributed their knowl- edge of rules to theWildlife Conservation Society (e.g. ‘WCS saidwe cannot catchwildlife’).Twenty-seven per cent did not know if there were rules, and 2% believed there were none. When asked specifically about setting snares around farms, 26% of respondents incorrectly believed it was legal, 45% correctly said it was not and 29%did not know. The majority of respondents (78%) thought that if a


member of their household went hunting, their friends and/or family would disapprove.However, some respondents explained that it depended on what was caught; using dogs to catch small animals, such as monitor lizards or turtles, for food, was considered acceptable, whereas shooting large


FIG. 4 The perception of 705 respondents regarding whether neighbours would know about a villager’s hunting activity, a villager being caught by a patrol if hunting, and a villager receiving a penalty if caught by a patrol in Keo Siema Wildlife Sanctuary.


animals, such as elephants,was not.Twelve per cent of respon- dents thought others would approve of hunting, and 10%did not know or had no opinion. If someone in the village caught wildlife, 76% of respondents thought it likely that neighbours would know (Fig. 4). Some respondents said it was difficult to keep it secret because children would spread the news, although secrecy would allow people to avoid sharing their catch and reduce the risk of being reported.


Perceptions of law enforcement effectiveness


If a villager hunted, only 40%of respondents thought it like- ly that a patrol would catch them, but if caught, 64%thought it likely a hunter would receive a penalty (Fig. 4). Expected penalties listed by respondents included arrest (45% of re- spondents), warning (16%), fine (15%), and confiscation of meat and/or snares (13%). Twenty-four per cent of respon- dents did not know what the penalty would be. Respondents often stated that the type of penalty received depended on the severity of the crime, and whether the hunter had pre- viously been caught. Some reported that if they were only hunting for food, and had caught only small animals such as wild boar, monitor lizards or tortoises, patrols may show leniency. However, if caught hunting large animals such as elephants, sambar or gaur, punishment could be a fine of up to USD 2,000 or imprisonment. Despite respondents saying there was a 40% probability


of being caught when hunting, overall, just 13 respondents (7%of all those who reported ever hunting) had been caught by a patrol when hunting, and only once did a household report severe punishment. In this incident, the respondent’s son had been lent a gun by the police to shoot sambar. After his arrest by rangers, the police reportedly intervened and, rather than being prosecuted, the son was released with a fine of USD 500. Mostly, respondents reported receiving warnings or having meat confiscated.


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