Baseline Documentation of Mammalian Diversity in Mouling National Park

Authors K. M. Jayahari and Monalisa Sen Project Investigators Dr. K.M.
Jayahari, Monalisa Sen, Sudipto Chatterjee and Ashok Kumar Bordoloi Reviewers Professor P.S. Ramakrishnan and Sunandan Tiwari Photo Credits Dr. K.M. Jayahari, Monalisa Sen and Ashok Kumar Bordoloi Design and Layout Sasi M
First published in 2010 by
Winrock International India S-212 Panchsheel Park New Delhi- 110017
Copyright Jayahari K.M. and Sen Monalisa, 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
BASELINE SURVEY FOR DOCUMENTING MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK ANd DEVELOpING AN ACTION PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING THE TRAdITIONAL INSTITUTION OF THE AdI TRIbAL COMMUNITY IN ARUNACHAL PRAdESH
Funded by Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (Small Grants Programme)
Contents
Acknowledgement...................................................... 4 Chapter 1 Introduction.............................................. 6 Chapter 2 Study Area............................................... 9 Chapter 3 Literature Review. ..................................... 18 Chapter 4 Mammalian Diversity................................. 21 Chapter 5 People and Park........................................ 33 Chapter 6 Recommendations and Way Forward.............. 47 References ............................................................ 49
Acknowledgement
he Biodiversity and Conservation Programme of Winrock International India gratefully acknowledges the funding support from Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund through the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. We place in record the help and support extended by Mr Thomas Samuel M, Programme Co-ordinator, Darjeeling Unit, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. The project implementers are grateful for the help and support extended by the Forest Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Thanks are due to Shri B.S. Sajwan, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Shri D. V. Singh, former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Shri M. K. Palit, Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department for giving us the permission to work in Mouling National Park. We would also like to thank Mr Milo Tamang, Divisional Forest Officer, Mouling National Park for his help and guidance. The logistic support provided by Mr Bhattacharya, Mr Deb and Mr Pangan, Jennging Forest Division, is duly acknowledged. We express our gratitude to Professor P.S. Ramakrishnan who readily agreed to peer review this publication. The critical comments provided by him have helped improve the quality of the report. Our thanks are also due to Mr. Sunandan Tiwari for painstakingly reviewing the report in detail. His comments have ensured that this work comes out as a quality publication. We would like to take this opportunity and thank all the villagers living around Mouling National Park for their readiness to co-operate in the study through active participation in the community consultations. We would not have been successful in developing an indepth understanding of the area and the prevalent scenarios had it not been for the whole-hearted support of the local people.
MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK
The authors thank Dr Thomas Geissmann, Anthropological Institute, University Zrich-Irchel, Switzerland and Dr J R B Alfred, Former Director, Zoological Survey of India for their cooperation which was critical for the success of the project. A special mention for Army, a local village boy who accompanied us throughout the study period. His translation skills, along with the understanding of the area played a critical role in ensuring the successful completion of the field work. At Winrock International India, we would like to thank Dr Kinsuk Mitra, President and Mr Somnath Bhattacharjee, Vice-President for their encouragement, trust and support which have played a crucial role to ensure the success of the project. Thanks are also due to Mr. Sasi M without whose help the designing and layout of this publication could not have been finalized. The hard work of Mr Ashok Kumar Bordoloi, Project Officer also deserves a mention. The data collected by him by travelling through all these villages and the local linkages built by him have ensured the collection of meaningful and authentic data from the field.
CHapter 1
Introduction
he state of Arunachal Pradesh in India has more than 61.55% forest cover (FSI, 2009), of which more than 60% is under community ownership. Even though these forest areas were traditionally owned by tribal communities and administered based on the traditional customary laws by the local village councils, the forest department has classified them as Unclassed State Forest (USF). There were demands from different agencies to amend the Forest Conservation Act 1980 with respect to the USF to make it in unison with the customary law (Poffenberger, 2005). The insistence of the forest department to maintain USF is being considered as the denial of both the special constitutional safeguards accorded to the indigenous people living in the area and the traditional claim of the people on their land.
The history of setting aside biodiversity significant areas as protected premises by communities can be traced back to thousands of years Arabian Hemas and Sacred Grooves in Asia are examples of this. In the present conservation scenario, National Parks play a significant role in conserving a regions biological diversity even though they are the latecomers in the protected area movement (Child, 2004; Aaron et al., 2001). During the last two decades based on different case studies around the world many conservation biologists have argued for pristineness free from human habitation or presence. This argument was countered by many ecologists sighting the best models of participatory conservation efforts. After all, human free protected areas are not practically possible to be established in case of countries like India, especially in the North Eastern region where the community traditionally owns the forest. The focus of this project is Mouling National Park, a Protected Area (PA) of 483 sq km, reportedly a pristine patch of semi evergreen forest, relatively undisturbed and free from Park and people conflict. The Adi tribe and its sub-tribes being the original inhabitants of the area, enjoy the ownership of the land, which however has no legal validity, especially within the Park.
The intactness of the Park is attributed to its remoteness, difficult terrain and absence of motorable roads even at a distance of 15 kms around the Park boundary. In addition to this, the three peaks within the Park are considered highly sacred and believed to be the spiritual abode of ancestors of the tribal community. Mouling National Park has been identified as a priority site outside the priority corridors in Eastern Himalaya by the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, as a corridor to the adjacent Dihang-Dibang landscape, a Biosphere Reserve in the state. The fact that the management plan of the Park could be prepared and approved only after two decades of its notification indicates the severe constraints which the process had to face. One of the constraints has been complete absence of documentation of biological diversity of the Park. Due to absence of any motorable roads, the Parks boundary has been drawn with the aid of existing topo-sheets and aerial survey. This has resulted in demarcation through straight line segments in a mountainous terrain, which is reflected in the straight line boundaries which the Park has. The PA has been carved out of a USF and possibilities exist that extensive consultations have not been carried out with the local communities while delineating the boundaries of the Park. The remoteness of the Park however, does not make the Park immune to threats. Even though the Park faces relatively low levels of threats, unconfirmed reports of poaching and illegal trade inside the Park are disturbing. The intensity of shifting cultivation around the Park is of grave concern and it is possible that with the waning off of traditional management systems, the slash and burn agriculture may negatively impact the Parks ecological resources in the years to come. This project has undertaken an initiative of documenting the Parks biodiversity as an essential first step to development of an effective management system for the Park. Lack of motorable roads, means of communication and reluctance on the part of local communities to cooperate for surveying the area due to religious taboos restricted earlier attempts for scientific studies in the buffer zone of the Park. Mr. Sudipto Chatterjee one of the investigators of the present project was instrumental in developing a project on baseline survey of high priority biologically rich areas of Arunachal Pradesh which included Mouling National Park, in collaboration with the State Forest Research Institute (SFRI) at Itanagar in 1994. However, non availability of information on the Parks geography, lack of community support and wrong timing, restricted the survey team to a minimal survey only in the buffer area of the Park. An inventory of the Park therefore practically does not exist and the same has been highlighted in the management plan of the Park.
The very fact that a management plan of Mouling National Park could be placed after 21 years of its notification is an indicator in itself of the constraints in effective conservation of the Park. The very basic ingredients for good management of a Park- manpower, infrastructure, accessibility, documentation of biodiversity are not available. For proper participatory management of a Protected Area, an understanding of the relationship between local people and Protected Area is tantamount to the implementation of legal regulations. The conservation attitude of local people, historical use of resources of the area, issues of land ownership and conventional management are some of the significant factors which need to be investigated in detail (Newmark et al., 1994). This is highly relevant to Mouling National Park since it has been delineated from the USF which is under the traditional ownership of the community living around it. Till date the community is ignorant about the boundary separating Mouling National Park from the USF. Communities living around Mouling National Park belong to Adi tribe who are traditional hunters. The acquaintance of Adi tribe with the animals in Mouling due to frequent hunting trips and the tradition of keeping skulls of the hunted mammals have been used as an opportunity in the present study for documentation of the mammalian diversity of the Park. The study has also unearthed information about the most hunted species of the area. Studies on hunter communities have always had a considerable impact on overall perceptions of the foraging way of life (Baily et al., 1989). The existence of hunting as a livelihood option especially for food requirement has to be considered as the community is incapable of being able to subsist in a tropical forest solely on domesticated plant or animal resources. Studies like this are only a stepping stone towards testing hypothesis on the sustainability of hunting in Indian forest protection scenario. These studies are however, essential in order to overcome the conservation hurdles created due to the ambiguities in the policy and legal framework, in the unique socio-ecological scenario prevalent in North Eastern India.
CHapter 2
Study Area
Location
Mouling National Park is situated in the central part of the state of Arunachal Pradesh, in north eastern India. Eastern Himalayas is one of the global biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) which lies in the confluence zone of Indo-Malayan, Afro-Tropic and Indo-Chinese bio-geographical realms (Mani, 1974; Rodgers and Panwar, 1988). The region is one among the 200 important eco-regions of the world as well (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998). Hooker (1904) described the significance of the forest diversity in the region as a result of immigration from neighboring countries, and the area is considered as an active center of organic evolution (Rao, 1994). High levels of endemism in this region have been studied as early as 1939 (Chatterjee, 1939). According to Myers (1988), 36% of the 5800 plant species reported from the Eastern Himalayas are endemic. Takhtajan considered this area as a cradle of flowering plants (Takhtajan, 1969).
Figure 2.1: Location of Mouling National Park in Arunachal Pradesh
The state of Arunachal Pradesh, being the largest state in north eastern India, occupies a major portion of Eastern Himalayas. Out of the 83,784 km2 land area of Arunachal Pradesh, 82% is under forest cover, (comprising of tropical wet evergreen, subtropical, temperate and alpine forests (Rao and Hajra, 1986; Chennaiah et al., 1998). The state encompasses five ecosystems and twenty six major tribal communities. There are ten declared Protected Areas in the state which includes eight Wildlife Sanctuaries, one Orchid Sanctuary and two National Parks. The altitude range of 100 7090 meters from sea level, nurtures a wide diversity of flora and fauna within the state. The state is home to the highest number of living gymnosperms in India. More than 600 species have been recorded from the state of Arunachal Pradesh (Singh, 1994). Mouling National Park spreads across the administrative boundaries of three districts in the state of Arunachal Pradesh East Siang, West Siang and Upper Siang with head quarters at Pasighat, Along and Yingkiong respectively. The Park administrative office is at Jenging which is outside the National Park area and there is no road connectivity to the National Park. The road from Along and Pasighat to Tuting circles around the National Park from the south to the north eastern part of the National Park and connects the villages lying outside the National Park. Another motorable road connects the villages of Yubuk, Suble, Subsing, Hottek, Pareng to the main road and encircles the Park from southern side towards south eastern boundary. Mouling National Park is situated at E 940 41 17.38-E 940 59 82 and N 280 28 39-N 280 41 56 in the Dihang- Dibang Biosphere Reserve in the Adi hills of Arunachal Pradesh (Fig 2.1, Fig 2.2 and Fig 2.3), covering an area of 483 km2. Mouling Reserve Forest was notified in August 1986 (Govt. order No. FOR/55/Gen/81 ) and re-notified as Mouling National Park vide gazette notification (No. FOR/55/Gen/81) in December 1986. Mouling National Park is delineated both by artificial and natural boundaries. According to the management plan of the National Park, the boundaries are artificial lines joining peaks/ high points except the boundary following natural nallahs such as Dumbi Mubung and tributary of Siring Nallah in the North, Sirnyuk Nallah and its tributary in the East, Gobang Nallah and Simang river in the South. However proper boundary demarcation using stone or permanent marking structures has not been completed yet. The core and buffer area demarcation is also in pending. For administrative purposes, the management plan states that all the areas falling within a distance of 10kms from the boundary shall be treated as buffer zone and the same will be based on natural and geographic features. There are two forest ranges in the park vis Jenging and Ramsing Forest Ranges with offices at Jenging and
Boundary
10
Ramsing villages respectively.
TopograpHy and Vegetation
The altitude ranges from 500 3064 meters from sea level. The overall area can be divided into three mountain ranges Gangang Mouling, Marang Mouling and Mouling Sibum extending from north to south. Highest peaks of these mountain ranges vis Gangang is at 3064 meters from sea level,
Figure 2.2: Mouling National Park boundary
Figure 2.3 Topography of Mouling National Park
11
Marang at 2940 meters from sea level and Sibum at 2745 meters from sea level. According to the management plan of the National Park, the vegetation comprises of the forest types: Assam valley tropical wet evergreen, Assam valley semi evergreen, Eastern Hollock Moist Deciduous, Eastern Himalaya Subtropical, Himalayan Sub Tropical Pine, East Himalayan Wet Temperate, Himalayan Moist Temperate, Eastern Himalayan Montane Bamboo and East Himalayan Sub Alpine Birch/Fir forests (Champion and Seth, 1968). The low to mid altitudes along the inner valleys are dominated by tropical wet evergreen and semi evergreen forests, tending towards wet subtropical broad
Figure 2.4: Mouling National Park-connectivity, drainages and villages
12
Table 2.1: Vegetation and land cover classes of Mouling National Park (Singh et al., 2005) Vegetation/ Land Use Types Tropical Evergreen Tropical Semievergreen Subtropical Evergreen Temperate Broad Leaf Temperate Conifer Temperate Scrub Abandoned Jhum Degraded Forest Bamboo Agriculture/ Current Jhum Barren/Sand River Channel Area (km2) 7.63 Area (Champion & Seth (1968) Classification scheme (%) 1.50 Assam Valley Tropical Evergreen Forest and Upper Assam Valley Tropical Evergreen Forest 0.78 Assam Alluvial Plains Semi-Evergreen Forest and Sub-Himalayan Light Alluvial Semi- Evergreen Forest 49.96 East Himalayan Subtropical Wet Hill Forest 29.07 East Himalayan Wet Temperate Forests, Lauraceous Forests and Bak Oak Forests 0.65 East Himalayan Mixed Coniferous Forest 0.65 East Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/Fir Forest 6.54 0.07 0.67 Cane Brakes 0.77 0.15 -0.01
3.99
252.8 147.09
3.28 3.32 33.17 0.36 3.49 3.96 0.76 0.03
leaved forests and temperate upper reaches. Singh et al., 2005 have carried out a remote sensing based vegetation classification of Mouling National Park, the results of the study are consolidated in Table 2.1.
People around tHe Park
The word Mouling in Adi language means red poison. Even today the local community is scared of the highly poisonous snakes found in Mouling hills and are reluctant to venture into the mountains due to the same reason. There are no villages or settlements within the boundary of Mouling National
13
Park, where as twenty six (26) villages are located within the 10 km radius of Mouling National Park. These are Bomdo Puging, Gette, Yingkiong, Shimong, Ramsing, Moying, Gosang, Karko, Jenging, Taggeng, Kumko (Pangkang), Jorkong, Riga, Subsing, Sine, Yinku, Yubuk, Messing, Lissing, Bogo, Yio, Payum, Gameng, Gasheng and Gatte (Pange) (Fig 2.4). All these villages are inhabited by members of the Adi tribe. The area is sparsely populated, most settlements being concentrated along rivers Siang, Sikke and Siyom. The Adi is the largest tribe, forming 14.39% of the total population of Arunachal Pradesh. As any other tribe in Arunachal Pradesh, Adi tribe also exercises traditional right over the natural resources including land and water in their surroundings (Sing et al., 2008). Adi tribe practices shifting cultivation, plant based technology, metallic work, carpentry, and pottery. The Adis were once expert in casting brass. According to the Adi belief Minor Bote was the first ancestral God of metallic work and carpentry, from where they inherited the tact (Sing et al., 2008). For Adi community, hunting is cultural and customary, which provides supplementary food nutrients and is also a leisure activity. The weapons commonly used are snares, spears, bows, arrows, daw, airgun and rifle. Sing et al. (2008) mention that arrows poisoned with the paste of the roots of an alpine herb, Aconitum ferox are used for hunting. The Adi tribe worships Sun and Moon Gods. These Gods are called upon when there is pain and suffering. This form of worshipping has now developed as a religion - Doyni Poloism and new temples of the Sun and Moon Gods have been built in most of the villages. The elders in the region say that the tradition of collective prayers and offerings in temple has begun only in the last 5 6 years. The Adi community lives in villages. There is no word in Adi vocabulary meaning towns. Most of the Adi settlements are located near the rivers. Typical Adi houses are made of bamboo, strengthened with wood. The houses are made on wooden pillars, lifting the flooring above four feet. Below the flooring bamboo mats are spread which are generally made of thick bamboo splits. They rear pigs and store firewood. The house is generally devoid of any window. The two doors of the house, in front and at the back act as ventilators. Inside the house it remains pitch dark except the hearth, which remains ablaze throughout the day and night. The smoke emitted from the hearth escapes through the thatched roof and leaves a thick coating of soot over the walls and the ceiling which acts as insecticide and preserves the interiors from insects, pests and also keeps away the mosquitoes. Most of the
Culture
14
villages around the study area are electrified but the use of lights inside the house is restricted. All houses have an open portion of the platform which is used for sitting out, drying grains and weaving while the partially covered portion is used for the same purpose during the cloudy and rainy days. Construction of a new house is generally done by the community wherein all able bodied persons contribute their labour (Rizvi and Roy, 2006).
Agriculture
The main agriculture produces of Adi tribe are food crops. Rice remains the most important crop. They also grow jobs tears (Coir lachryma), finger millets (Eleusine coracana), fox-tail millet (Setoria italica) and maize (Zea mays). They also cultivate namdung, mustard, country bean, pumpkin, white gourd, small onion, soyabean, flat bean (during winter), brinjal, bitter gourd, french bean and small mustard plant (Rizvi and Roy, 2006). Chilly and ginger are the only cultivated spice crops and potato and tomato were introduced recently. Adi community brews indigenous liquor from millets known as apong through a simple distillation process. Hunting and fishing are the other sources of food and main protein supplements for the Adi community. Fish and meat are smoked and stored in the houses. They rear pigs, fowl and Mithuns (a domesticated free-range bovine species - Bos frontalis). Most of the pigs and fowl are offered in religious function but Mithuns are slaughtered for feasts.
Resource sharing
Traditionally entire land including forests, parts of rivers and streams flowing within the boundaries of a village belong to people living in the village and each village has well marked boundaries. Such markers include streams, hill features, big trees and large stones. Most of the resources are individually owned by the members of the village. However some land, water and other resources remain as community property. These properties are seldom sold to individuals of the village for raising money for village development activities. Trespassing into each others area for hunting creates conflicts between villages and is resolved through payment of a fine by the trespasser. Most often, the fine amounts to a major share of the kill. Mouling National Park is relatively free from agriculture but most of the areas are owned by different villages. The distance from the villages to Mouling, coupled with the fear of presence of highly poisonous snakes in Mouling has kept these areas free from agriculture. These areas are thus used only for hunting purposes by the Adi community.
Administration
Village administration authorities exist in every village, headed by a
15
Head Gaam and Gaon buras, appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of the district. Many Gaon buras are the representatives of different clans in the village. Even though clan system exists in most of the villages around Mouling National Park, there is no hierarchy within the clans and clan names differ from village to village. Kebang is the term in Adi vocabulary which refers to village administrative gathering wherein general decision making occurs. Kebang decision making process is always under the influence of the representatives elected to the block and district Panchayats from the constituencies to which the village belongs, but ultimate power of decision making lies with the Gaon buras who act as the village panchayat leader in the three tire local governance system.
Climate
The area is extremely humid, with high rainfall (2343 mm annually) and has no well-defined dry season. As it cuts so low into the mountains, the Siang valley carries wet tropical conditions further north than in most other areas in the Himalayas, facilitating dispersal of lowland tropical elements along with it (Birand and Pawar, 2004). Average humidity is around 80% and temperature varies according to elevation. The lowest average temperature in the study area has been reported to be 110C and highest as 250C.
16
A view of Siang River
Houses of Adi tribe
Hearth inside an Adi house
Adi tribesmen constructing split bamboo flooring
An Adi man
A Donyi Polo temple
17
CHapter 3
Literature Review
ccording to the IUCN definition, a Protected Area is an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biodiversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (Emerton et al., 2006). Protected Areas form the core of conservation efforts around the world (Bruner et al., 2001). Over the past four decades there has been a ten-fold increase in the number of protected areas listed by the United Nations. The area under protection has likewise expanded from 2.4 million km2 in 1962 to over 20 million km2 in 2004 (Chape et al., 2005). Roughly 12% of the global land surface is now classified as Protected Area. These include a range of different regimes ranging from strict protection, through non-consumptive use, to extractive resource utilization. In practice, most Protected Areas combine several different management objectives. There are also many different legal and customary arrangements under which the lands and species that comprise Protected Areas are owned or managed. Protected Area management authorities include government agencies, private businesses, non-governmental organizations, private individuals and local communities. In recent years, globally there has been substantial growth in the number of Protected Areas managed by agencies other than government. Most privately-owned and community-conserved areas are not included in the UN list of Protected Areas, however, in spite of their potentially significant contribution to biodiversity conservation (Chape et al, 2003). India is unique in richness of biodiversity due to diversity of physiography and climatic conditions. India ranks as the sixth among the 12 mega biodiversity countries of the world (Mandal, 2003). Two out of the 35 global biodiversity hotspots are located in India- North-Eastern Himalayas and Western Ghats. Indias biodiversity is unique for the range of biological diversity, harboured by virtue of its bio-geographical position and the array of physical environments. Wildlife protection has a long tradition in Indian
18
history. Wise use of natural resources was a prerequisite for many huntergatherer societies of India, which date back to at least 6000 BC. Extensive clearance of forests accompanied the advance of agricultural and pastoral societies in subsequent millennia, but an awareness of the need for ecological prudence emerged and many so-called pagan nature conservation practices were retained. As more land became settled or cultivated, so these hunting reserves increasingly became refuges for wildlife. Many of these reserves were subsequently declared as national parks or sanctuaries, mostly after Independence in 1947. India was one among the many nations in the world who replicated the model of the worlds first National Park The Yellow Stone National Park of USA, and set up an exclusive network of Protected Areas to conserve its genetic diversity. Several problems plague Protected Area management in India. Setting up of Protected Areas has also been marked by conflicts with indigenous communities living inside the forest for generations. It had been debated widely nationwide about who should be the authority of such Protected Areas; the forest department or the community or a joint authority should be envisaged upon. The management practice should evolve towards greater participation of community including preparation for working plan of Protected Areas. Overall increased awareness should be created towards importance of biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection (Kothari et al, 1989). The legal procedures for establishment of 60 percent National Parks and 90 percent Sanctuaries have not yet been completed and 57 percent of the National Parks and 27 percent of the Wildlife Sanctuaries do not have management plans (Mandal, 2003). Limited published and unpublished information exists on biodiversity and conservation issues of Mouling National Park. Rodgers and Panwar (1988) in their volumes Planning a protected area network for India observed that Mouling National Park which was notified in 1982, in light of no buffer area to the Park, recommended that the existing Park be extended by 800 sq km and a sanctuary of 700 sq km be created as a peripheral buffer zone. The unit should be extended to a portion of Siang River or a major tributary. The State Forest Research Institute at Itanagar undertook a baseline survey for the biodiversity of Mouling in April 1995. Prior to the survey the study team referred to a publication by Mr. A. K. Chatterjee which provided a brief on the flora and fauna of the region. The floristic account of the Siang district was published by R S Rao and and P K Hajra, Botanical Survey of India (BSI) in 1964. Mouling was however not surveyed by the BSI.
19
Burkil, (1938), Bor (1938) and Biswas (1941) have made contributions to the documentation of botanical richness of the Abor Hills (earlier name of the Siang district). To develop a basic understanding of the floristic diversity of the region the team referred to flora of Assam by Kanjilal (1934-40), Flora of British India by Hooker (1872-1897) and Flowers of Himalaya by Polunin and Stainton, (1984). The team approached the Park from two locations, one group surveyed the Park at the village Jengging - Done area and covered two day foot march distance and the other covered the Ramsing-Siring nala and the Lissing area. It is imperative to mention here that even an organized team could not penetrate into the Park and the survey was restricted to locations close to Park boundary (SFRI Report,1996). Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, a research unit of Nature Conservation Foundation in Mysore (Panwar and Birand, 2001), surveyed the amphibians, reptiles and birds of Mouling National Park. The researchers have commented on the inventory of amphibians as remarkable. Notable records of this survey were rediscoveries of species recorded during the Abor expedition of 1912 (Ananadale 1912) after a gap of a century. These include Xenophrys boettgeri, Rhacophorus naso, Theloderma theloderma. Amolops viridimaculatus was a new range record and was earlier known to occur only in China. The survey, conducted in harsh winter conditions by Nature Conservation Foundation concluded that areas reptile fauna could exhibit a high degree of uniqueness. There is possibility of discovery of a new genera of snakes and the efforts to publish the record is being attempted by the SFRI, Itanagar. The NCF team sighted 113 species of birds of which 41 were not reported in the earlier study conducted by Sen and Mukhopadhyaya (1999). For the lack of adequate information on the biodiversity and conservation issues of the Park, no substantial inputs from the Park could be provided to the recent Rapid Assessment for Prioritization for Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) conducted by the State Forest Research Institute, Itanagar (2006). Adhikari et al., 2006 have provided a very brief account of the notable plant species found in the Park. They conclude existence of 114 bird species under 38 families from nine study locations in Mouling. Over all apart from the limited information of the flora, reptiles and birds no other scientific information is available about the biodiversity of the Mouling National Park and this makes the present initiative significant from biodiversity point of view.

20
CHapter 4
Mammalian Diversity
Introduction
The state of Arunachal Pradesh harbours a diverse array of mammals. Even though research oriented explorations have been carried out in the forests of the state from the colonial period onwards wildlife research has so far largely remained restricted to low and mid-elevation habitats (Sinha et al., 2005). Recent explorations in the mid to high elevations of western Arunachal Pradesh has led to discovery of a rich assemblage of mammals (Mishra et al., 2006), including the Arunachal macaque, Macaca munzala, first described by Sinha et al (2005). Poor exploration of the biodiversity of Arunachal Pradesh can be attributed to the rugged terrain, lack of infrastructure, proper connectivity and accessibility and a long history of isolation as a result of political factors (Borges, 2005). Another reason which acts as a constraint for researchers and their inability to avail proper local support for explorations is the low population density of the state (10-13 people per km2), which is infact the lowest in the entire country. Even though topographically Mouling National Park lies in the medium and low altitude zones in Eastern Himalayas, this is one among the least explored areas. Detailed research oriented expeditions have not been carried out in the core area of the National Park. The most recent amphibian and reptilian survey was conducted nine years ago (Pawar and Birand, 2001) after almost 90 years of the survey conducted by Annandale (1912a and b). Bird surveys have, however been conducted a bit more recently in the area (Pawar and Birand, 2001). So far no scientific documentation of mammalian diversity has been carried out in Mouling National Park, apart from occasional sightings of dead or alive animals which are recorded in the management plan of the Park.
MetHods
Adi tribe is well known for their tradition of hunting. They also keep the skulls of the animals hunted, inside their houses. The proposed methodology
21
comprises of an assessment of the diversity of the skulls in the collection of the hunters in every village and documentation of the location of the catch. Detailed consultations were carried out with three four hunters in every village. Photographs from available field guides on mammals of India (Prater, 1993 and Menon, 2003) were used during these consultations to identify the animals as they have different local names and are not familiar with the English or Hindi names of these species. Adequate care was taken to consult all the veteran as well as the younger generation hunters in all the villages. Initial village surveys were conducted to carry out mapping of community land and hunting areas in the 17 villages closely surrounding Mouling National Park (Fig. 4.1). In order to map out the areas with community ownership, the community members were first familiarised with the map by helping them to locate their position with respect to the known roads and rivers in the map and then requested to map their hunting and cultivation areas. This exercise was repeated in all the villages and individual village maps were produced, which were later super-imposed to map out the common boundaries between the neighbouring villages. In case of any ambiguity, a second round of consultation was carried out. With the help of the maps, the villages which have stake in Mouling National Park area were sorted out and detailed community consultations were carried out in these villages. The local names of the animals in Adi vocabulary were documented and attempts were made to locate the species with maximum abundance and those which have most frequent sightings. The skulls in the individual collections were photographed, counted species wise and measured. The photographs and measurements were compared with museum specimens. These skulls were also studied and identifications were confirmed by Mr V. G. Gogate, Scientist E (retired) , National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi. All the trophies, skins and other animal parts kept by the community members in their houses were also studied in detail.
Results Mammalian diversity within the Park

Initial survey for community land mapping was conducted in 15 villages and 10 villages were identified to have stake in Mouling National Park as their hunting or cultivation areas fall within the administrative boundary of the Park (Fig 4.1 and Fig 4.3). 7 out of these 10 villages were surveyed in detail for documentation of mammalian diversity. Three villages Lissing, Messing and Kumko were not surveyed. All our efforts to reach Lissing and Messing failed due to bad weather, minor landslides and village festivals.
22
Messing has only 6 households. In case of the third village Kumko, even though the community confirmed that their land holdings extend to the Park, however in recent years no one has ventured into the Park either for hunting or for any other purposes. Out of the 7 villages surveyed in detail, 4 (Bumdo, Ramsing, Goseng and Karko) are situated in the north eastern side of the Park. The hunting areas of the communities of these villages are also situated in the north eastern side of the Park. Their hunting areas extend to the hill ranges connecting the three peaks Morang Mouling, Ganging Mouling and Mouling Sibum, covering the catchment area of Siang River within the Park. 3 other villages Yubuk, Suble and Yinku are situated at the southern side of the Park with their hunting areas restricted to south of the hill ranges connecting the three peaks within the Park. Even though the hunting areas of these villages extend upto the peaks of the Park, they generally hunt in the fringes of the Park and are extremely scared to move into the core areas. During the survey it became evident that there are only 1 or 2 veteran hunters who have ventured to the peaks and have an in-depth and elaborate understanding of their community area. Altogether 47 mammals were recorded from Mouling National Park, during the survey, 11 species were confirmed to be present in the Park by all the surveyed villages (Table 4.1). These are Mithun (Bos frontalis), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Tiger (Panthera tigris), Wild Dog (Cuon alpines), Wild Pig (Sus scrofa), Himalayan Crestless Porcupine (Histrix brachyuran), Himalayan Water Shrew (Chimarrogale himalayica), Indian Muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), Indian Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), Yellow Throated Marten (Martes flavigula) and Large Indian Civet (Viverra zibetha). Eight mammalian species were confirmed by only the villages situated at the north and eastern side of the Park (Bumdo, Ramsing and Karko). They are Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Grey Mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), Hispid Hare (Caprolagus hispidus), Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica), Small-Toothed Ferret Badger (Melogale moschata), Snow Leopard (Uncia uncial), Spotted Linsang (Prionodon pardicolor) and Takin (Budorcas taxicolor). There was no species which were confirmed only by the villagers at southern part of the Park. The villages at the north eastern side of the Park confirmed all the 47 recorded mammals where as the villages situated at southern side confirmed only 32 species. Out of the species confirmed to be present in the north and eastern side of the Park, presence of 21 species was confirmed by all the villages, whereas 10 species were confirmed by only 1 village each. Grey Mongoose, (Herpestes javanicus), Small Indian Civet (Viverricula indica) and Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) seem to be distributed only in the community area of Bumdo. Asiatic Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus) and Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata) were recorded only from community area of Ramsing village and Hispid Hare (Caprolagus
23
hispidus), Kashmir Flying Squirrel (Hylopetes fimbriatus), Pygmy Shrew (Suncus etruscus), Small-Toothed Ferret Badger (Melogale moschata) and Indian Giant Flying Squirrel (Ratufa indica) were identified by only the members of Goseng village. Presence of 16 species was confirmed by all the villages situated at the southern side of the Park and only one additional species was reported from village Suble. 36 percent of the mammals recorded from Mouling National Park fall under IUCN threatened categories (Fig 4.2).
Figure 4.1: Extent of land under community ownership of different villages in areas inside and around Mouling National Park
Vulnerable 15% Least Concern 4%
Threatened 2% Near Threatened 11%
Critically Endangered 2%
Endangered 13%
Least Concern 53%
Figure 4.2: IUCN Status of Mammalian species present in Mouling National Park
24
Figure 4.3: Three dimensional view of the community areas The people in all the villages were very familiar with most of the mammals which they have recognised and were able to give detailed description about the species once they recognised the photograph. The pocket localities of presence were very difficult to specify, apart from the altitudinal range where the species can be found, which was demarcated on the basis of the snowline which is seen during the winters. The villagers did not indicate noticing any variation in the populations of the mammals present in and around Mouling National Park over time. Takin (Budorcas taxicolor) is rarely found in Mouling, even though very rare sightings have been confirmed by the villagers in the north eastern part of the Park, but the species has not been hunted or sighted in recent times. The villages on this side have a separate Takin hunting area in their community land in the snow covered area. This area lies towards the north east of Mouling National Park and does not fall within the Park boundaries.
Observations on the skull collections of the hunters
Members of Adi community have the tradition of keeping the skulls of wild animals hunted by them, inside the house and the skulls of domestic animals like Mithun and Pig outside the house. The skull collection can only be considered as a representation of the kill made by the hunter. A direct count of the number of skulls cannot be taken as an index of the intensity of hunting. Abiding by the rituals of Adi tribe, these tribals bury portions of the stock of the skulls at the graves of their children and spouses. All the houses surveyed have thus parted away with some portions of the skull collection. Apart from the tradition of burying skulls at the grave of spouses or children, a portion of a hunters collection is passed on to his sons and a portion is buried along with his body. Hence estimating the exact number of kill which a hunter has made in his lifetime was not possible by counting the skulls. On the whole, skulls of 11 species were recorded from the villages surveyed
25
Table 4.1: The list of Mammal species confirmed to be present in Mouling National Park through community consultation
Suble Yubuk Yinku
26
P P P P P P P P P Bumdo Goseng Ramsing Karko P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Common Name Asiatic Black Bear Grey Mongoose Hispid Hare Kashmir Flying Squirrel Marbled Cat Pygmy Shrew Small Indian Civet Small-Toothed Ferret Badger Snow Leopard Hoary-Bellied Himalayan Squirrel Leopard Cat Northern Tree Shrew Chinese Pangolin Indian Giant Flying Squirrel Jungle Cat Namdapha Flying Squirrel Rhesus Macaque Spotted Linsang Takin Clouded Leopard Eurasian Otter Fishing Cat Fishing Cat Serow Orange-Bellied Himalayan Squirrel
Scientific Name Ursus thibetanus Herpestes javanicus Caprolagus hispidus Hylopetes fimbriatus Pardofelis marmorata Suncus etruscus Viverricula indica Melogale moschata Uncia uncia Callosciurus pygerythrus Prionailurus bengalensis Tupaia belangeri Manis pentadactyla Ratufa indica Felis chaus Biswamoyopterus biswasi Macaca mulatta Prionodon pardicolor Budorcas taxicolor Neofelis nebulosa Lutra lutra Prionailurus viverrinus Prionailurus viverrinus Naemorhedus sumatraensis Dremomys lokriah
No 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Common Name Assamese Macaque Common Langur Five Striped Palm Squirrel Himalayan Rat Malayan Giant Squirrel Sun Bear Indian Palm Civet Mithun Large Indian Civet Leopard Tiger Wild Dog Wild Pig Bats Himalayan Crestless Porcupine Himalayan Water Shrew Indian Muntjac Indian Pangolin Bandicoots Rats Squirrels Yellow Throated Marten
Scientific Name Bumdo Goseng Ramsing Karko Macaca assamensis P P Semnopithecus entellus P P P P Funambulus pennantii P P P Rattus nitidus P P P Ratufa bicolor P P P Helarctos malayanus P P P Paradoxurus hermaphroditus P P P P Bos frontalis P P P P Viverra zibetha P P P P Panthera pardus P P P P Panthera tigris P P P P Cuon alpinus P P P P Sus scrofa P P P P Bat sp. P P P P Histrix brachyura P P P P Chimarrogale himalayica P P P P Muntiacus muntjak P P P P Manis crassicaudata P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Martes flavigula P P P P
Suble P P
Yubuk P
Yinku P
27
(Table 4.2). Gibbon skulls and Takin (Budorcas taxicolori) were seen only in villages situated at the north eastern side of the Park. The skulls resembling that of Rhesus Macaque were found from village Suble at the southern side of the Park but these were abnormally large in size, which the villagers have identified as Monkey only. Even though skulls matching the size, dentition and measurements of Hollock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) were seen in the collection in three villages at the north eastern side of the Park, the villagers were not able to recognise the photographs of the species even after displaying photographs of male and female separately. Serow (Naemorhedus sumatraensis) skulls formed the major proportion of the skull collection in the villages at north eastern part of the Park whereas in the villages at southern side of the Park, Assamese Macaque (Macaca assamensis) skulls dominated. The villagers at the southern side of the Park could not recognise the photograph of Asiatic Black Bear but skulls of this species were spotted in their collections. However these skulls (Asiatic Black Bear) were very old and dated back to over two generations.
Discussion
More than 47 species of mammals are present in the National Park. In the highly inaccessible terrain like that of Arunachal Pradesh, mammalian diversity documentation in consultation with local communities especially hunters is one of the practical tools for preliminary analysis of the mammalian wealth of an area like Mouling National Park. Such studies in the state have even shed light in the direction of discovery of new primate species in Western Arunachal Pradesh(Mishra et al., 2006). Adi tribe around Mouling National Park was found to be very knowledgeable about the morphological features of the mammal species found in their area. However, since their hunting area Table 4.2: Maximum number of skulls recorded from houses Sl Villages Common English No. Name Bumdo Ramsing Goseng Yubuk Suble 1 Asiatic Black Bear 8 7 7 13 4 2 Serow 32 43 23 10 15 3 Barking Deer 11 18 14 22 13 4 Wild Boar 29 32 12 24 14 5 Common Langur 4 8 3 4 6 Gibbon 4 3 5 7 Takin* 13 7 8 Assamese Macaque 5 3 42 22 9 Sun Bear 8 12 9 4 10 Rhesus Macaque 4 2 1 8 11 Macaque** 2
**Suspicious skull with abnormally big size * Most of the skulls are not from Park
28
is very much limited to their community land and trespassing into others land is punishable with fines, information on the overall distribution of mammals is unavailable with the villagers. Hypotheses regarding the limited distribution of mammalian species can definitely be drawn based on the fact that certain species which were identified by the villagers on one side of the Park were not reported by the villagers on the other side. At least 11 mammalian species were confirmed to be widely distributed in the National Park. 9 mammalian species were found to be distributed in the north and eastern part of the three highest peaks of the Park. The southern slopes of the highest peaks of the Park have comparatively lower diversity than other parts of the Park. The data confirms the wide and continuous distribution of 16 mammalian species towards the north and eastern side of the three peaks of the Park where as 21 species have habitat specific patchy distribution. On the southern side of the peaks, 6 species were confirmed to be widely distributed and 3 species have patchy distribution. The absence of the skull of Takin (Budorcas taxicolor) from the recent collections of any of the hunters raises doubts regarding the local extinction of this species from Mouling National Park. Compounded by the fact that these villages have separate Takin hunting areas, far away from the Park, the presence of only one skull of this species, which was confirmed by the villagers to have been hunted from Mouling, points towards the possibility of occurrence of a very small population of Takin within Mouling National Park, many generations ago. This can thus be considered as a striking result which highlights the chance of local extinction of a species, due to hunting. The presence of a skull similar to that of Hollock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in the collection of the villagers and the inability of the villagers to recognise Hollock Gibbon, through photographs and descriptions of both male and female adults of the species, also points towards the possibility of presence of a new primate species in the region. The present documented distribution of the two subspecies of Hollock Gibbon do not cover. Mouling area (Das et al., 2003 and 2006 and Chetri et al., 2008). Two more abnormally big skulls resembling the Rhesus Macaque also were found during the survey. Considering the facts that the suspicious skulls were collected many years ago and no such skulls were present in the recent collection, doubts about the local extinction of some primate species are raised. These skulls were identified from Suble - the only village which confirmed the presence of Rhesus Macaque from the southern part of the Park. This again leads to the suspicion of presence of an arboreal primate, similar to the Rhesus Macaque- the possibility of Arunachal Macaque, recently discovered from the western Arunachal Pradesh also can not be ruled out.

29
Skulls of Gibbon
Skulls of Assamese Macaque
Skulls of Rhesus Macaque
30
Skulls of Barking Deer
Skull and horns of Serow
Skull of Sun Bear
31
The collection of skulls with a hunter
The collection of skulls with bullets and arrows used for kill
Scat of Wild Dog
Wild Boar
32
CHapter 5
People and Park
Introduction
Virtually every part of the world has been inhabited and modified by people in the past, and the currently existing or apparent wilderness has often supported high densities of people (Pimbert and Jules, 1995). Protected areas are not a new concept to mankind even in its modern version. Sacred grooves in India are one of the best evidences to prove this point, where stringent restrictions exist on access and utilisation of resources and services provided. These restrictions were based on traditional, local or religious laws which were in force till the recent past. Gadgil and Chandran (1992) observed that the simple thumb rules by which the sacred groves were managed were in many dimensions parallel to the modern ecosystem approach. However, modern day conservation strategies of protected area administration follow a different thought process and have alienated away from the requirements of the local communities. This is exemplified right from the establishment of the first National Park in the world the Yellowstone National Park, wherein the Park inhabitants were either vacated from the area or driven out by the army who governed the Park till 1916 (Morrison, 1993). Gmez-Pompa and Kaus (1992) summarised the concept of denying access of Protected Areas even to local people as untouched or untamed land is mostly an urban perception and the view of people who are far removed from the natural environment they depend upon. Many studies have demonstrated that adoption of the western concept of Protected Area Management affects the food security and livelihood of people living in and around Protected Areas (Ghimire, 1992; Kothari et al, 1989; Wells and Brandon, 1992; West and Brechin, 1992). Moreover by neglecting the indigenous knowledge of the local community and management systems, the administration is missing out on a golden opportunity to manage the Park with minimum efforts and maximum efficiency (Pimbert and Jules, 1995). Since Mouling National Park is situated in the North Eastern part of the country, which is well known for unrest among public and presence of extremist forces supported by cross border terrorist activities, the people component of the Park is as
33
important as the biodiversity component. This chapter deals with the overall relationship of the people in and around the National Park against the socioeconomic backdrop of the communities.
MetHods
Community consultation was the prime method adopted to understand the traditional customary relationships of the local communities with nature. The consultations have been carried out in multiple rounds (more than three times) between September 2009 and March 2010. Group discussions regarding resource utilisation, hunting and traditional systems related to resource extraction and land use were carried out initially. In the initial discussions in 10 villages around Mouling National Park, 7 villages were identified as having stake in the Park . Secondly, based on the broad information collected in the first round of discussions, semi-structured interviews were carried out in these 7 villages with different groups of people village head men, older people, women and young people of the community. All the points of discussions were noted and questions were repeated to reconfirm their viewpoints on all issues.
Results
There are no villages situated within the boundary of Mouling National Park but more than two third of the total area of the Park has been mapped as community owned land. Community dependency on the Park can be classified into 5 categories: a) Hunting b) Agriculture including Jhum c) Non Timber Forest Product extraction d) Timber and other forest produces for construction e) Fodder
Hunting
Adi tribe hunts for various reasons, the three significant ones being- food, custom (tradition) and recreation but it is solely a male oriented activity. Adi villages around Mouling National Park are poorly connected with the outside world. In villages Karko, Gosang and Jenging we found native people who had graduated during 1980s and later, but are still living in the village and leading traditional way of life (often with better facilities than others). All these villages are self sufficient with respective to food. Rice is the staple food of the communities, which is cultivated through Jhum (shifting cultivation) and wet rice cultivation (WRC). Even though vegetables cultivated by the villagers can partially provide protein supplementation, the main source of protein for the communities is meat. Bringing domestic meat (like chicken) from outside to a village is considered a sin. The people who attempt this are
34
punished through imposition of huge fine in the form of monetary penalty. A. Hunting using snares: Snares are placed in the personal land by the Adi tribe for hunting animals for household consumption. Snares are kept throughout the year in personal lands, after identifying the tracks of animal movement. Animals caught in these snares are the source of meat throughout the year. Snares are checked regularly while undertaking daily trips to agriculture fields. The meat acquired by hunting through snares is consumed mainly by the owner of the land. Excess meat is sun dried and stored for later consumption. B. Casual hunting: Most of the members of the Adi community carry hunting weapon (generally a dao) all the time with them when they roam around in the nearby areas. Any animals sighted during this time are hunted. Generally the roads and other paths are not included under private and personal ownership by the community members. The hunter thus exerts his right on the meat which is thus hunted and claims it as his own. C. Community hunting: Adi tribals have the tradition of carrying out communal hunting wherein a group of hunters from the same village join in for the hunt. These hunting trips last for multiple days and big animals like bear are hunted. In case of Bumdo, Ramsing, Goseng and Karko (villages situated in the north-eastern part of the Park), such annual community hunting trips are undertaken for Takin hunting as well. During these hunting trips, the group members are free to hunt for food on the way, even from areas which are under private ownership. Hunting weapons have also seen a change over time. Earlier only bow and arrows were used. Present day hunting has also seen the usage of guns along with the traditional bow and arrow. The meat which is hunted in such a community hunting trip is brought to the village and shared among all the villagers. The lions share of the meat goes to the person whose arrow or gunshot killed the animal and the balance is shared by the villagers. Community hunting is carried out during November to February, a period when agriculture work is either minimal or non-existent. Only those community members who have taken up hunting as a career can go for these community hunting expeditions. Community hunting is generally carried out in the common hunting areas called Mobom. Hunters going for collective hunting have to deposit a fee with the Head Gaam (village headman) . The money is called Sire Mobom. This money is added to the core fund of the village and used for village development activities. On these long community hunting trips, the members
Modes of hunting
35
of the village who clear the way to the Mobom first get the right to fish and hunt there. D. Customary hunting: Customary hunting is carried out as part of the week long Aran festival of Adi community. As part of the festival meat has to be provided to the families where the girl of ones family has got married. Generally dried meat is gifted to the sisters/ daughters. Aran festival is celebrated towards end of February and hunting is carried out in February. Only the hunters of the village go for these hunts, but are assisted by more villagers in the hunt and to carry the meat back to the village. Apart from Aran, customary hunting practice is undertaken for every marriage and other ceremonies in the village as meat forms the major food item in all functions and celebrations. E. Hunting for recreation: Most of the men of the Adi community undertake small hunting (generally birds) for recreation. From March to June the community is busy with agricultural work and during the other seasons people engage in bird hunting on their personal land and also along the road side. Every day at least 10 20 people go for bird hunting using slingshots and air guns. The daily catch ranges from 3 to 10 birds per person. They hunt all the birds seen around irrespective of the palatability of the meat. Some of the carcasses are left in the hunting area itself and are not eaten. Dead birds are gifted to friends and families too. This form of hunting is followed more for recreational purpose and to perfect ones aiming skills, rather than for food. The State Forest Department is taking measures for curbing the hunting occurring within the National Park. In Bumdo village, the department has found that the snares are kept unchecked for more than a week and that results in unnecessary killing of the animals. The department officials confiscate all the snares found in the area during patrolling. The villages around the National Park have a significant local population who own licensed guns (refer Table 5.1).
Hunting as a career
All the members of Adi communities undertake hunting using snares and bird hunting as a recreational activity. Actual hunters who use bow and arrow or guns are limited. Hunting is considered as a career which is associated with some holy spirits. Once a man decides to become a hunter, he has to keep the spirit of hunted animals (in the form of skulls of the animals he has hunted), inside his house and offer fresh skulls regularly to strengthen the spirit and keep it satisfied. This spirit is believed to help the hunter during the hunts. According to the Adi belief, once a man becomes a hunter, he has to continue to hunt till he is physically fit and cannot leave hunting; else he will face the wrath of the spirit in the form of some physical deformity.
36
Table 5.1: Population and number of guns with licence in the villages around Mouling National Park Number of Number of Guns Villages Population House holds with license Bomdo 72 350 30 Ramsing 71 346 33 Moying 10 80 Not available Gosang 43 519 Not available Karko 181 689 97 Jenging 312 1267 Not available Kumko 46 236 11 Riga 326 1868 Not available Hotek 7 26 Not available Suble 25 149 3 Yinku 37 138 8 Yubuk 57 306 2 Lissing 16 92 1 To maintain the sanctity of the spirit, the skulls are kept in a place inside the house, away from the outsiders (non Adi people). Tampering with the sacred spirit is believed to lead to lethal problems for the family of the hunter. Every time a bigger carnivore (leopard or tiger) is hunted, the hunter has to sacrifice a domestic pig or fowl to please the Holy Spirit. In the hunt for these higher carnivores, the owner of the kill is the person who is able to catch hold of the tail of the dead animal first. This person (who can be different from the person whose bullet or arrow killed the animal) has the right on the lions share of the meat and the skull as well. Skulls of leopard and tiger are not preserved. Leopard skulls are used for making different curios.
Community regulation and concept on Hunting

There are many restrictions imposed by traditional Adi rules and beliefs on hunting. A. Hunt only adult animals: Adi people hunt only adult animals and not the sub-adults or infants. The infants, accidentally caught in the snares are also discarded without consumption of the meat. B. Never hunt mother with babies: Adi community never hunts a nursing
37
mother However, accidental hunting of such an animal does happen in a scenario when the hunters are unable to spot the juveniles, before the kill. C. No easy hunting at water holes: Adi community has imposed a complete ban on hunting animals at the water holes. There are sufficient number of water bodies in and around the National Park which are familiar to the hunters but they do not place snares or hunt animals at these water drinking spots. D. Small carnivores are not edible: Traditionally a ban exists on hunting and consumption of small carnivores by Adi tribe. However, the youngsters have now started breaking this traditional rule and are hunting the small carnivores (especially in the night) and consuming the meat.
Changes in Animal Population

The Adi community believes that the wild animals originate at the Mouling peaks and migrate into the valleys. This community hunts mostly in the areas which are near the villages, extending to maximum possible areas which are at a distance of 2-3 days walk from the villages. These areas over lap into the National Park boundary but do not reach into the core areas, even though ownership is claimed by the local community in these areas as well. Fear of snakes, religious taboos and inaccessibility prevents the villagers from hunting in core areas of the Park. However, during the interaction with the elders of the community it became evident that the Adis also have their own system of ensuring a healthy population of wild animals. They leave the core without frequent hunting to ensure that animals flourish there and the spillages or overflow which reaches the valleys is sufficient to adequately meet the requirements of the community. Villagers have not noticed major changes in the availability of animals for hunting. The community however is sure about the reduction in the sightings of nocturnal small carnivores in the area such as Civets and Jungle Cats (in the north eastern part of the Park) due to the availability of better torches and guns to hunt these nocturnal animals. This reduction is also attributed to the fact that the youngsters have deviated from the customary ban on eating the meat of these small carnivores.
Wildlife trade
There is no evidence of the presence of any organised wildlife trade occurring within Mouling National Park. Selling of game meat is cost ineffective as hunting is an expensive business in terms of money, time and human resources which has to be invested by the very remote villages which surround the National Park. Recent trends show that buyers are reaching these villages to purchase animal parts. A traditional taboo exists on the removal of any item from the hunters collection, particularly for sale. However, due to the lucrative offers which the buyers give, compounded by the fact that the grip
38
of the traditional beliefs and taboos is loosening, some villagers are selling animal parts like horns of serow, skin and fat of bear, skin of deer and leopard bones.
Agriculture including Jhum cultivation
A remote sensing assisted study is required to map out and confirm the inclusion of community Jhum areas within Mouling National Park. Some of the existing studies have shown the presence of abandoned and existing Jhum areas within the Park boundary. All the villages which were surveyed confirmed that they are practicing Jhum cultivation in their private land holdings. The rotation period of the cultivation ranges between 3 years to 20 years. Rice is the prime crop cultivated in Jhum areas along with maize and vegetables like papaya, beans, tomato, chilli, pumpkin and cabbage. Boundary demarcation of Mouling National Park is not clear to the local community. Superimposing the Park boundaries on images downloaded from Google Earth also confirm the presence of cleared areas (for Jhum) inside the Park boundaries in locations shown by the villagers.
Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) Collection
The present study duration is too short to understand the NTFP extraction pattern and intensity but the results are based on the signals received during the community interactions. Altogether there is no regular NTFP extraction from the National Park area, there are some NTFP collection agents who are actively working in the area, but the collection of species is absolutely based on the market demand. The agents engage the local villagers to collect the species based on the orders procured by them and buy it from them at nominal prices. NTFP collection is comparatively less in the north-eastern part of the National Park but is occurring regularly in the southern part of the Park. Exact assessment of timber extraction was not carried out during the study. Field observations reveal that regular timber extraction is occurring from the southern side of the Park. The presence of domestic elephants in forest areas and truck tracks through the river beds to the interior forest areas are the evidences for the same. Adi tribals construct houses on wooded pillars and the reinforcement structures are made of wood. The remaining structures are constructed using bamboo. Both bamboo and timber are extracted from the forest. Most of the utensils (like spoons, ladels and glasses) used by the Adis are made of bamboo which is collected from forest areas. The chances for collection of bamboo from the core area of the National Park is very less because of the long transporting distance from the Park area to the villages and also due to the fact that enough bamboo is available in the community
Timber and other forest utilisation
39
areas outside the Park boundary. However, considering the size and quantity of the timber moving out of the area it is sufficient to doubt that timber smuggling occurs from the forest areas as well.
People Park Conflict
There is no wildlife conflict arising in the area, since the community hunts only for local consumption and game meat trade is not prevalent in the area. The entry of wildlife into the agriculture land is not a major issue, rather it is considered as a factor that helps in hunting. There is emerging conflict about land ownership, since the boundary of the Park is not clearly understood by the villagers. They are also not clear about the inclusion of their Jhum lands within the Park area. The villagers of Goseng expressed this apprehension very clearly during the community consultations. They have also submitted an application to the local administration of the Park (Divisional Forest Officer) regarding the need to rectify and rationalise the Park boundaries. A similar concern was shown by the villagers of Yubuk. Even though they are not certain about the boundaries of the Park, they are sure that some of their Jhum cultivation land has been included within the area of the Park. They have collectively submitted an appeal to the Honourable Deputy Speaker of the State to realign and rationalise the boundary of the Park. During the interactions, it was found that almost all the villagers are ready to give up their rights on non agricultural areas, which have been included inside the boundary of the National Park, but are not ready to give up their traditional hunting rights.
Discussion Hunting
The effects of hunting for food by forest dependent communities on the biodiversity of the area have always been debated from both the sides. Wild animals are an important source of protein for the rural people living in or near tropical forests (Robinson and Redford, 1994; Hladik et al., 1993). In regions without sustainable food production, hunted wildlife can be essential for food security (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999; Fa et al., 2003). Bennett (2002) argues that wildlife is currently being extracted from tropical forests at more than six times the sustainable rate. Hunting has been demonstrated as a severe threat to the faunal biodiversity in tropical forest (Robinson and Bennett, 2000; Milner-Gulland et al., 2002). A large amount of work has to be carried out to understand the sustainability of hunting by a community and also to understand the sustainable levels of hunting required for survival of the community. Per unit area productivity of the agricultural land of communities living inside and around Protected Areas is a significant factor which decides the food sustainability from both land requirement and hunting requirement
40
point of views. Such factors have been worked out in detail through scientific methods to study similar issues in different parts of the world (Ohl et al,. 2007). Even though there is severe criticism from conservation agencies about wildlife hunting occurring in North Eastern states of the country, no studies relating to the food security, nourishment level and requirement, access to the food market (both in terms of infrastructure available and financial capacity) have been carried out in this region. Under the present conditions, minimal hunting for subsistence is inevitable for the communities living in the villages around Mouling National Park as this is their only protein source. Since these villages are a more or less closed system in terms of food production and remoteness, poor accessibility and poor economic conditions are the main hurdles which prevent them from gaining access to the food market. Meat, thus remains a necessary component of their food which can come through hunting only because of customary restrictions on consuming the meat of the domestic pig and fowl. Since the population in these villages is fast increasing, hunting cannot be continued sustainably for long, even if it is sustainable presently. As of now there is no evidence from Mouling regarding the decline in population of wildlife due to hunting, in general. The communities are also aware about the decline in population of the nocturnal small carnivores and attribute it to hunting and loosening of the existing social taboos. This information is too preliminary to draw any conclusions regarding sustainability of present level of hunting in this region with respect to wildlife conservation. Detailed studies are hence necessary to understand the situation but there is sufficient data for a strong null hypothesis that conventional level and mode of hunting of Adi tribe is sustainable. Hunting of wild animals is common in North East India, due to many reasons (Hilaluddin and Ghose, 2005). This is part of their foraging, culture, custom, livelihood and lifestyle inherited over time immemorial. Attempting to bring an overnight stoppage using the claws of law is impossible considering the special socio-economic scenario existing in this region. Even though the sustainable extraction of plant resources especially NTFPs by forest dependent communities is empirically agreed as a tool for livelihood improvement associated conservation measure, internationally debates are going on, on the usage of wildlife resources as any other natural resources in natural resource management oriented conservation. Enormous work has been conducted to design the sustainable methods of NTFP extraction where as limited efforts have been put in case of wildlife resource extraction (Mockrin et al., 2005). Brechin et al. (2002) demonstrated that the responses to the biodiversity crisis will have to focus on questions of human organization. In light of such research outputs, understanding the inefficiencies of the present enforcement
41
system to curb hunting in North Eastern India, a conservation paradigm has to be designed with necessary changes in the current conservation doctrines, laws and enforcement mechanisms. This is inevitable in order to protect the remaining pristine biodiversity rich pockets like Mouling National Park within this global biodiversity hotspot in India. Intensity of bird hunting is severe around Mouling National Park. Extreme hunting in this area has been proved as a reason for the local extinction of bird species (McGowan et al., 1998). Hunting has been ascertained as one of the prime reasons for the local extinction of the pheasants in Eastern Himalayas (Kalsi, et al., 2007). In the high altitudes during winter season birds usually move to the lower altitudes and this is the time when they are hunted more (Ramesh K., 2007). Mouling peaks are situated in the high altitudes and local bird migration to areas with lower altitude occurs during the winters. Extreme hunting pressure on these birds during this period can cause local extinction of bird species from the region. Indiscriminate hunting of birds around Mouling National Park needs immediate attention and intervention through strict regulations
Necessity to strengthen the traditional practices and community institutions
Traditions and customs play a vital role in community and individual decisions of the Adi tribe, living around Mouling National Park. With regard to hunting, traditional community institutions still have their control over most of the processes of wildlife resource extraction, ownership rights, time of hunting and locations. The hunting areas are well demarcated among the villages. The existence of a social taboo on bringing domestic animals and meat from outside is an effective mechanism for preventing the transmission of pathogens from the domesticated animals to the forest. This practice helps to avoid bovine contagions to break out inside the forest area. The restrictions like hunting not being allowed at water holes and leaving the nursing mothers and juveniles are strict measures to ensure maintenance of sustainable populations of animals in the wild. Rodents and small carnivores which are critical components of an ecosystem were customarily not hunted earlier. The requirement of giving an offering after hunting the higher carnivores tiger and leopard, discourages the hunters from focussing on them and that maintains the population of these species which normally are less in number and critical for maintenance of the balance in an ecosystem. The concept of hunting in the foot hills and taboos on accessing the core areas and reaping the spillage/ over flow of wildlife stands very close to the source sink concept of population dynamics (Pulliam and Danielson, 1991). All these facts point towards the intention of the community for ensuring
42
sustainability in resource extraction and conservation through customary laws. The significant executive body which implements these regulations is the community institution- Kebang. Hence, strengthening the customs and community institutions in this region has to be viewed as another tool for better wildlife conservation and effective Park administration.
Requirement of transparency and public relationships
Even though National Parks are one of the most accepted approaches to conservation, for the local resident communities where the Parks are being delineated, it is a new establishment, demanding a lot of change in their livelihood and life (Ormsby and Kaplin, 2004). Protected Area declaration even in the early period of establishment of the concept was associated with the eviction of local people from the area (Pimber and Pretty, 2005). The absence of detailed information about the Protected Areas before declaration with the local community is a significant factor which creates people-Park conflict later (Hough, 1988). In case of Mouling National Park, all legal procedures regarding the delineation of the boundaries of the National Park have been duly completed before the Park declaration. However, due to poor literacy levels, the local community who has their community land inside Mouling National Park is not aware about the present boundary alignment of the Park. Decision making based on the opportunity costs of different forms of land use is an integral part of conservation planning which is critical in mitigating the anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity by the local dependant community (Hutton and Leader-Williams, 2003). The present study identified that more than two third of the area delineated as Mouling National Park is falling in the land on which the local community has ownership rights. Most of the villagers are ready to donate their non agriculture land to the National Park, bringing up the possibility of a requirement for realignment of the present boundary. Considering the sociopolitical situation existing in this region and presence of extremist forces, any conflict on land and agriculture areas within the Park can take a dangerous turn. It is thus essential that detailed community consultations are carried out in order to solve this issue and avert the possibility of future people- Park conflict.
43
Adi boys practicing archery Skulls of slaughtered domestic animals kept outside the house
An Adi burial ground
Bird hunter with catch
Community area mapping in Bumdo Village
A snap of community consultation on Mammalian diversity
44
Memorandum submitted by Yubuk Village
Community Land Mapping in Yubuk Village
Timber cutting in one of the village Hunted Birds
Handle made of snow leopard skull Terrace cultivation in Kumko village
45
Adi women inspecting ornaments prepared in the village Gandhi Brigde the connection between Moying and Yinkiyong
Preparing Feed for the pigs
Squirrels are used in puja by the Adis
Women drying grains
Traditional apparatus used to prepare the local drink Apong
46
Hunted birds kept inside an Adi house
Mouling National Park harbours a rich floral diversity
Community Consultation at Karko
Children enjoying a sunny day enroute to Yubuk village
Skin of arboreal mammal in the possession of the villagers
Mouling is home to a wide variety of orchids
47
CHapter 6
Recommendations and Way Forward

The attitude towards managing ecologically significant biodiversity resources, including Protected Areas has undergone many transitions across the world. However, in the developing countries management practices are yet to attain a level where proper back-up through scientific inventorization and situation analysis of socio-economic and anthropogenic scenario existing is available. Conservation oriented empirical knowledge development gained pace during the 1950s and is continuously growing till today on a day to day basis. In India, a paradigm shift from the colonial interest based Park administration started during the 1990s. Even if there has been tremendous progress on the management side, lack of proper inventorization and existence of antediluvian regulations are major bottlenecks in the path towards effective conservation and improvement of the nations biodiversity. The present study also brings out the urgent need for proper scientific inventorization of the biodiversity of Mouling National Park, one of the pristine biodiversity treasures in North-Eastern India. The study also highlights the high requirement for a unique site-specific Participatory Forest Management option keeping in mind the ethnic, anthropogenic and socio economic scenario existing in the area. The conclusions of the study and the recommendations are summarized below. a) A detailed exploration in Mouling National Park for documentation of the biodiversity is crucial, as early as possible. It is only through such an in-depth study, can an assessment of the actual status of biodiversity and conservation requirements of the Park be made. b) Osteological studies and molecular studies (if required) have to be carried out in detail with the skulls kept by the hunters living in the villages, surrounding Mouling National Park. These skulls can be considered as footprints of the transitions which have occurred in the biodiversity of the area. Trends in biodiversity changes in Mouling can be understood from the information thus generated. Possibility of discovery of a new species or sub-species through the study of these skulls, which have been kept for more than 100 years cannot be ruled out.
48
c) Considering the land use and ownership pattern existing in North-Eastern India and Mouling National Park, detailed discussions have to be carried out with the local community with regard to the Park boundaries. If required the option of realignment of the boundaries, while maintaining the total area of the National Park also has to be considered. d) Hunting is a core component of the tradition of the Adi tribe. The study has documented community hunting in the area even though confirmation of this hunting being carried out within the National Park boundary could not be done. Instead of approaching hunting with prejudice, it is recommended to have detailed studies carried out on the impact of hunting on biodiversity of the area and understanding the traditional methods through which hunting can be regulated. Such studies are essential as only these can throw light on the actual impact of hunting and the effectiveness of methods of participatory regulation of hunting in the area. e) The study has documented that hunting of birds is severe in the area. Rather than adoption of only legal measures to stop this activity, it is recommended to have intensive awareness generation activities in the area, especially among the young generation through schools and other religious institutions about the ecological significance of birds and their role in maintaining the delicate ecological balance in nature. f) The study also reveals that development of accessibility options like roads should be limited to the buffer zone of the Park since inaccessibility is found to nurture pristineness and promote conservation.
49
References
Aaron G. Bruner, Raymond E. Gullison, Richard E. Rice, Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity, Science . 291(5501): 125 128 Adhikari et al. 2006. Protected Areas and biodiversity conservation in Arunachal Pradesh. Annandale, N. 1912a. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition, 1911-12: I. Batrachia. Rec. Ind. Mus. VIII: 7-36. Annandale, N. 1912b. Zoological results of the Abor Expedition, 1911-12: II. Reptilia. Rec. Ind. Mus. VIII: 37-59. Bailey, C.R. Head, G., Jenike, M., Owen, B., Rechtman, R. and Zechenter, E. 1989. Hunting and Gathering in Tropical Rain Forest: Is It Possible? American Anthropologist. 60 82. Bennett, E.L. 2002. Is there a link between wild meat and food security? Conservation Biology. 16: 590592 Birand, A. and Pawar, S. 2004. An ornithological survey in north-east India, Forktail, 20: 15-24 Bor, N.L. 1938 A Sketch of the vegetation of Aka Hills, Assam. Synecological study, Indian For. Rec. (MS) Bot. 1(4): 103-221. Borges, R.M. 2005. The Frontiers of Indias Biological Diversity. Tropinet. 16 (3): 2 -4.
50
Brechin, R.S., Wilshusen, R.P., Fortwangler, L.C and West, C.P. 2002. Beyond the SquareWheel:Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of Biodiversity Conservation as Social and Political Process. Society and Natural Resources. 15: 41 -64 Bruner, A., Gullison, G., Raymond, E., Rice., Richard, E. and de Fonseca Gustavo A.B. 2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science. 291: 105. Burkill, I H. 1938. The botany of Abor expedition. Vol. 10. No.1 Champion, S.H. G and Seth, S.K. 1968. A revised survey of the forest types of India. The manager of publication. Delhi. Chape, S., Blyth, S., Fish, L., Fox, P. and Spalding, M. (Compliers) .2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and UNEP- WCMC: Cambridge, UK. Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M, and Lysenko, I. 2005. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Britain. 360: 443-455. Chatterjee, A.K. 1989. Survey of snow leopard and its associated animals in Mouling National Park, East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh. Arunachal Forest News. 7(1 and 2). Chatterjee, D. 1939. Studies on the endemic flora of India and Burma. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal. 11: 1967. Chennaiah, G. Ch., Dutta, H. and Dutta, S.K. 1998. Remote Sensing applications for sustainable development for land and water resources - A case study in Pashighat area. In: Perspectives for Planning and Development in North East India (eds. R.C. Sundriyal, Urea Shankar and T.C. Upreti). Himvikas Occasional Publication,11 : 32-39 Chetry, D., Chetry, R., Das, A., Loma, C and Panor, J .2008. New Distribution Records for Hoolock leuconedys in India. Primate Conservation. 23: 125128. Child B .2004. Parks in transition. Earthscan, London (United Kingdom), IUCN Publication, 267 p.
51
Das, J., Biswas, J., Bhattacharjee, P.C., Mohnot, S.M. 2006. First distribution records of The eastern Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock Hoolock Leuconedys from India. Zoos Print Journal 21(7): 2316 2320. Das, J., Feeroz, M.M., Islam, M.A., Biswas, J., Bujarborua, P., Chetry, D., Medhi R. and Bose J. 2003. Distribution of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock hoolock) In India and Bangladesh. Zoos Print Journal. 18(1): 969 976. Emerton, L., Rao, K., Nguyen, N., Tu, N. and Bao, T. 2003. Covering the costs of Vietnams Protected Areas. IUCN and Government of Vietnam Forest Protection Division: Hanoi. Fa, J. E., D. Currie, and Meeuwig. J. 2003. Bushmeat and food security in the Congo Basin: linkages between wildlife and peoples future. Environmental Conservation. 30:71-78. FSI, 2003. The State of Forest 2003. Forest Survey of India. DehraDun, Uttranchal, India. FSI, 2006. The State of Forest 2006. Forest Survey of India. DehraDun, Uttranchal, India. Gadgil, M. and Chandran, M .1992. Sacred Groves. India International center Quarterly. 19(1-2):183 -187. Ghimire, K. 1992. Parks and People: Livelihood Issues in National Parks Management in Thailand and Madagascar, UNRISD Discussion Paper 29, Geneva. Gomez-Pompa A. and A. Kaus .1992. Taming the Wilderness Myth. Bioscience. 42(4): 271-279. Hilaluddin, R. K. and Ghose, D. 2005. Conservation implications of wild animal biomass extractions in Northeast India. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation. 28(2): 169 179 Hladik, C. M., A. Hladik, O. F. Linares, H. Pagezy, A. Semple, and Hadley, M. 1993. Tropical Forest, People and Food - Biocultural Interactions and Applications to Development. UNESCO, Paris and Parthenon, Carnforth. Hooker, J. D. 1904. A Sketch of the Flora of British India, London.
52
Hough, J.L. 1988. Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and surrounding human communities in developing countries. Environmental Conservation. 15(2): 129136. Hooker J.D. 1875. Flora of British India; L. Reeve, London. Hutton, J.M and Leader-Williams, N .2003. Sustainable use and incentivedriven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx. 37: 215 -226 Kalsi, R.S. Kaul, R, and Sathyakumar, S. 2007. The Himalayan Quail Extinct or Evasive? ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas. Widlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 10 (1):79 -82 Kanjilal U.N et al. 1934-40. Flora of Assam. Government Press, Shillong. Kothari, A., P. Pande, S. Singh, and R. Dilnavaz .1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: Status report. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. Mandal, M. 2003. Protected Area Management in India: A Perspective. Paper presented at XII World Forestry Congress at Quebec, Canada. Web link: www.aseanbiodiversity.info/scripts/count_article.asp?Article_code. Mani, M.S. 1974. Ecology and Biogeography in India. Dr.W. Jun b.v. Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. McGowan, P. J. K., Duckworth, W., Xianji, W., Balen, S. W., Xiaojun, Y., Kahn, M., Yatim, H., Thanga, L., Setiawan, I. & Kaul, R. 1998. A review of the status of Green peafowl Pavo muticus and recommendations for future action. Bird Conservation International. 8: 331341. Menon, V. 2003. A Field Guide to Indian Mammals, Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Limited, P 200. Milner-Gulland, E. J., E. L. Bennett, and the SCB .2002. Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group. 2003. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 351-357. Mishra, C., Madhusudan, M.D. and Datta, A. 2006. Mammals of the high altitudes of western Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Himalaya: an assessment of threats and conservation needs. Oryx. 40: 1-7.
53
Mockrin, H.M., Bennett, E.L. and LaBruna, T.D. 2005. Wildlife farming: a viable alternative to hunting in tropical forests?, Working Paper 23.Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Morrison, J. 1993. Protected Areas and Aboriginal Interests in Canada, WWF-Canada Discussion paper. Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: hotspots in tropical forestry. Environmentalist 8: 120. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 403:853858. Newmark, D.W., Manyanza, N.D., Gamassa, D.M. and Sariko,H. I. 1994. The Conflict between Wildlife and Local People Living Adjacent to Protected Areas in Tanzania: Human Density as a Predictor. Conservation Biology. 249 - 255 Ohl, J., A. Wezel, G. H. Shepard Jr., and D. W. Yu. 2007. Sweden agriculture in a human-inhabited protected area: the Matsigenka native communities of Manu National Park, Peru. Environment, Development, and Sustainability: DOI: 10.1007/S10668-007-9086-3. Olson, D. M. and Dinerstein, E. 1998. The global 200: A representation approach to conserving the earths most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biology. 12: 502515. Ormsby, A. And Kaplin, A. B. 2005. A framework for understanding community resident perceptions of Masoala National Park, Madagascar. Environmental Conservation. 32 (2): 156164 Paul,A., Khan, M. L., Arunachalam, A and Arunachalam, K. 2005. Biodiversity and conservation of Rhododendrons in Arunachal Pradesh in the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot. Current Science. 89 ( 4): 623 634. Pawar, S. and Birand, A. 2001. Survey of amphibians, Reptiles and Birds of North East India, CERC Technical Report 6, Centre for Ecological Research and Conservation, Mysore, p 120.
54
Pimber, P.W. and Pretty, N.J. 1995. Parks, People and professionals: putting participation into protected area management, UNRISD Discussion paper 57, Geneva, p 65 Pimbert, M.P and Jules, N.P. 1995. Parks, People and Professionals: Putting Participation into Protected Area Management, Discussion Paper No 57, UNRISD, Geneva Poffenberger, M. 2005. Forest Sector Riview of North East India, Community Forestry Internaional, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 90 p. Polunin,O. and Stainton, A. 1984. Flowers of the Himalaya. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. Prater, S.H. 1993. The Book of Indian Animals, Bombay Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, 324. Pulliam, R. H. and Danielson, J.B. 1991. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection: a landscape perspective on population dynamics. The American Naturalist. 137: s50 s66. Ramesh, K. 2007. Tragopans, the horned pheasants; their Taxonomy, Distribution and Status, ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Vol. 10 (1), Widlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 69 75. Rao, R. R. 1994. Biodiversity in India: Floristic Aspects, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun. Rao, R. R. and Hajra, P. K. 1986. Floristic diversity of the Eastern Himalaya in a conservation perspective. Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences (Plant Science) Suppl. 103125. Rizvi, S.H.M. and Roy, S.2006. Adi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, Vedams Books, New Delhi, ISBN: 81-7646-524-0, P 98. Robinson, J. G., and E. L. Bennett .2000. Hunting for Sustainability in Tropical Forests. Columbia University Press, New York. Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H .1994. Measuring the sustainability of hunting in tropical forests. Oryx. 28: 249-256. Rodgers, W.A. & Panwar, H.S. 1988. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area
55
Network in India, Volume I & II). A Report Prepared for the Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Government of India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India. Sen, A. K. & S.K. Mukhopadhyay.1999. Avian fauna of Mouling National Park, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Current Science 76: 1305-1308 Sing, R.K., Sing, A. Tag, H., and Adi Tribes .2008. Traditional Skill among the Adi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 7: 27 -36. Sing, S., Sing, T.P. and Srivastava, G. 2005. Vegetation cover type mapping in Mouling National Park in Arunachal Pradesh, Eastern Himalayas- an integrated geospatial approach. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing. 33(4): 547 563. Singh, P. 1994. Recent bird records from Arunachal Pradesh. Forktail. 10: 65104. Sinha, A., Datta, A., Madhusudan, M.D. and Mishra, C .2005. Macaca munzala: A New Species from Western Arunachal Pradesh, Northeastern India. International Journal o f Primatology. 26(4): 977 989. Sinha, A., Kumar, S.R., Gama, Madhusudanan, M.D. and Mishra, M. 2006. Distribution and Conservation Status of the Arunachal Macaque, Macaca munzala, in Western Arunachal Pradesh, Northeastern India. Primate Conservation. 2006 (2): 45 48. Takhtajan, A. 1969. Flowering Plants, Origin and Dispersal, Edinburgh. Wells, M., and K. Brandon. 1992. People and parks: linking protected area management with local communities. World Bank/World Wildlife Fund/ USAID, Washington, D.C., USA. West, P.C. and S.R. Brechin .1992. Resident People and National Parks, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Wilkie, D., and J. F. Carpenter. 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: as assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 8:927-955.

56
For further information
Biodiversity Conservation Group
Winrock International India S-212, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi - 110 017 Tel: 91-124-4303868; Fax: 91-124-4303862
ISBN 81-89470-17-5

Baseline Documentation of Mammalian Diversity in Mouling National Park

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baseline Documentation of Mammalian Diversity in Mouling National Park

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authors K. M. Jayahari and Monalisa Sen Project Investigators Dr. K.M.

First published in 2010 by

Winrock International India S-212 Panchsheel Park New Delhi- 110017

Funded by Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (Small Grants Programme)

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Figure 2.1: Location of Mouling National Park in Arunachal Pradesh

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Ramsing villages respectively.

TopograpHy and Vegetation

Figure 2.2: Mouling National Park boundary

Figure 2.3 Topography of Mouling National Park

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Figure 2.4: Mouling National Park-connectivity, drainages and villages

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

3.28 3.32 33.17 0.36 3.49 3.96 0.76 0.03

People around tHe Park

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Village administration authorities exist in every village, headed by a

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

A view of Siang River

Houses of Adi tribe

Hearth inside an Adi house

Adi tribesmen constructing split bamboo flooring

A Donyi Polo temple

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Results Mammalian diversity within the Park

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Threatened 2% Near Threatened 11%

Least Concern 53%

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Observations on the skull collections of the hunters

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Skulls of Assamese Macaque

Skulls of Rhesus Macaque

Skulls of Barking Deer

Skull and horns of Serow

Skull of Sun Bear

The collection of skulls with a hunter

Scat of Wild Dog

People and Park

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Community regulation and concept on Hunting

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Changes in Animal Population

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

Agriculture including Jhum cultivation

Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) Collection

Timber and other forest utilisation

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK

People Park Conflict

MAMMALIAN DIVERSITY OF MOULING NATIONAL PARK