Reasons Against possible translocation of leopards (Panthera pardus kotiya) This article is concerned with leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) populations adjacent to or in the vicinity of Municipal areas and towns. During our ongoing leopard survey within the island we have been monitoring populations of leopard that coexist in areas close to human populated zones. The Dunumadalawa forest reserve (Wakara watte) located within the Municipal limits of the town of Kandy, Central Province, Sri Lanka is one such area. We conducted leopard research within this reserve from October, 2003 until May, 2004. There are many other areas in varying habitat zones that fall under similar categorizations as Dunumadalawa and encounter the same issues addressed in this article. We are aware of the low-level human-leopard conflict that is occurring on the periphery of many reserve lands. This conflict is essentially in the form of some border-area residents complaining that the leopards within the reserve are periodically killing both livestock and pet dogs. Over the course of the eight months that we conducted our study in the Dunumadalawa area we have seen evidence of this conflict and had conversations with many area residents regarding this problem. It has been brought to our attention that some residents have called on the DWLC to do something about this perceived conflict and that the possibility of translocating one or more leopards from this reserve has been discussed. We believe that the translocation of a leopard or leopards from this watershed reserve or any other area is not a worthwhile option. The reasons for our objections to this have largely come about as a result of our field research in the reserve, as well as our four years of ongoing leopard research in the country and many years of prior work in the field of rehabilitation and reintroduction of other species. In addition to this a literature review and communications with other international scientists regarding translocations has also turned up a strong case against translocation. A study concentrating on monitoring man-leopard conflict and follow up of tranlsocated leopards, just released by one of our colleagues in India (Athreya et al. 2004 http://www.ncra.tifr.res.in/~rathreya/JunnarLeopards/) is also strongly recommending against this option. Another excellent reference regarding this issue comes from P.H. Hamilton’s 1981 report entitled “The leopard (Panthera pardus) and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in Kenya: Ecology, Status, Conservation, Management”. The reason we bring this topic into the public forum at all is to make it known that translocations as a possible solution should it be considered in any case is not a viable option, especially in a country where fortunately such conflict is low. We also set out recommendations that must be seriously considered in this time of ‘development’ in Sri Lanka if conflict is to be kept at a low and any escalation prevented. Reasons Against translocations: Translocating wildlife, especially top predators such as the leopard, should only be used as a last resort. (a) Wild animals gain a great deal of knowledge about all aspects of survival from their nurturing in the wild. This is particularly true of higher order mammals such as the leopard. Transferring an animal from one habitat type into a different, alien habitat usually results in the inability of the animal to adapt to its new surroundings. A new prey base, new competitors and the potential of a new climate can have tremendously adverse effects on the survival potential of the animal in question. Moving a leopard from the hills to Yala, Knuckles or even to Horton Plains for instance would be essentially equivalent to shooting the leopard in the first place. (b) b. Drugs required to affect a translocation in the wild are notoriously difficult to administer in appropriate doses. This situation is escalated when no prior monitoring of the animal is conducted, as is the case in most translocations. Sri Lanka does not appear to have open areas in which to introduce new animals. Moving a leopard from one area (e.g. Dunumadalawa) into another area is a disturbance to the new area. Even if the problems with habitat adjustment described above are ignored, the translocated leopard would be unlikely to survive because he/she would be placed into an environment already inhabited by an existing leopard population. Leopards are territorial and unlike some other species, do not simply move over to accommodate new arrivals; instead it is likely that the new arrival would be constantly harried by the existing population. In all likelihood it would be killed or constantly moved from one location to another with no ability to establish itself in the new environment. If a translocated animal did manage to establish itself in the new environment it would be at the expense of an already existing member of the population. In either event the net effect on the Sri Lankan population would be to lose one leopard. While in extreme cases the zoo might appear to be an option, the Colombo zoo is already badly overburdened with captive leopards. There is more than one leopard living in these forest areas/reserves. We have detected a minimum of three leopards (2 adult) that live (resident) within the Dunumadalawa reserve and it is very possible that at least one more utilizes the reserve as part of its home-range. There is one female and her presently one to one and a half year old cub who are resident in the reserve and one adult male whose home range includes the reserve. Furthermore it is likely that another female utilizes certain segments of the reserve as well as the occasional inhabitation by young animals, possibly prior litters of the females. Therefore it would take a considerable effort to remove all of the leopards from the reserve. It is a distinct possibility that the reason for the increase in the perceived conflict over the course of the last few months (end 2003-begininig 2004) is because of the existence of the mother and cub. Female leopards need to kill more frequently when they have young and often they rely on easier prey to minimize energy expenditure. This appears to be consistent with the oscillating trend of dog deaths which seems to peak periodically and then decline again approximately every two years (time span between cubs). This scenario that is occurring at Dunumadalawa is reflective of other populations living adjacent to and in reserves and forested areas close to human habitation. Our surveys show similar trends in village areas in Bogawantalawa, Agarapatana, Wilgamuwa, Galgadawela, Kaikawala, Meemure and areas around Heycock mountain (S. Wimalasuriya personal communication). These leopard populations do not exist in isolation. They are dynamic populations that are connected to other forest reserves via tea, rubber estates and pine plantations. For example patchy connected areas appear to extend from Dunumadalawa at the northern terminus, south through Heeressagala, Hantane, Galaha and beyond to the Pidruatalagala protected area and on to Horton Plains and Peak Wilderness. Therefore the removal of one leopard would simply be counteracted by the arrival of a new leopard. Already the survival rate of cubs to adulthood in most leopard populations is less than 50%. This is because leopards are territorial and their structure makes it difficult for new recruits to establish themselves. Taking one leopard from a population would have almost no effect if that population is connected in such a way as to allow the influx of new animals. Therefore the best that can be hoped for by removing one leopard is a temporary respite from any human-leopard conflict until a new animal moves into the vacated area. In fact a form of translocation has already been affected in many areas with the poaching of leopards. Dunumadalawa forest reserve has had two male leopards and one other (probably a female) removed by poachers over the course of the past 2 years. This appears to have had no effect on the low-level preying on domestic animals. The leopard is not the only predator that is interacting with livestock and pets. A number of the reports that we have investigated of dogs being taken by leopards have turned out not to be leopards at all, but fishing cats ( Felis viverrinus ). Therefore the low-level conflict would not be solved even were all of the leopards in and around the reserves/areas translocated. While we do not know the exact number of fishing cats within these areas they are not uncommon. Most of the dogs and livestock killed by leopards are killed inside the reserves. Many dogs that live on the periphery actively enter the forested areas for a variety of reasons including chasing deer. In this way it is not entirely unnatural for a leopard to prey upon a dog within the forest. There are some incidents where a leopard has entered a compound to take a dog but this is very much the exception to the rule- with the said compound being on the very edge of the forest. The degree of human-leopard conflict is at a low level and has been so for many years. Many of the old, long-established residents of the areas bordering the forest reserves are well aware of the complications inherent with living on the border of a healthy forest and, while upsetting, do not begrudge the leopards their occasional interactions with pets. Some of the forests have matured over the last few decades and as such are now permanent homes to the wildlife. It is mostly the newer residents, most of whom are unaware of the existence or extent of the forest adjacent to them, that are particularly upset by the incidents of conflict. We believe that the above-stated reasons are sufficient to explain why the option of translocation of leopards is a poor one. However we also recognize that there is a problem perceived in some areas with regards to the conflict between the leopards of the forest reserve and the pets/livestock belonging to people on the peripheries of that reserve. We suggest a number of steps be taken far in advance of any consideration of translocation of individuals. We have through our project already initiated such procedures. An awareness campaign. It is imperative that people living in the immediate vicinity of forest areas are aware that the forest is a large and healthy one that connects to other forest habitats and that it contains in most instances wild boar, barking/axis deer, pythons, cobras, fishing cats and leopards. Only people that are willing to live in the vicinity of such a forest would then become new residents. An education campaign. People need to know how to live in the proximity of such forests. It is important that they understand what they can do to minimize the likelihood of conflict with wildlife. Already we have encouraged home-owners on the periphery of these forests to fence in their gardens. This not only discourages leopards but also the wild boar that continually enter the properties to root in the gardens. In addition it is important that people take precautionary steps to ensure the safety of their dogs. This can be by putting up a dog-house or keeping the dog inside at night or simply not letting the dog enter the forest especially at dawn, dusk and at night. Increased protection within the reserve and in adjacent areas. One possible reason for any potential increase in the human-leopard conflict is the reduction in the leopard’s natural prey base. While relevant departmental staff, based at the forest reserves, does their best to protect the immediate forest area and poaching does not seem to be a major issue in some areas, it is necessary that this level of protection be extended to the connecting zones as well. When numbers of natural prey are reduced the leopard will immediately begin to incorporate “other” prey sources into its diet (i.e. domestic). Vigilance. With the increase in awareness regarding the existence of leopards in these areas, it is possible that there will be a corresponding increase in the threats to the leopard. Therefore a monitoring system would be very useful to keep up to date on the leopards within these reserves (We have trained relevant staff in certain areas and will be continuing such monitoring under our Leopard Project). The leopard is a CITES Appendix I endangered species across its Asian range. This means that there is a ban on all trade in leopard parts or products. Furthermore the Sri Lankan sub-specie (P.p.kotiya) is unique thus heightening its endangered status. We are very thankful for the continued support of the Department of Wildlife Conservation and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Biodiversity Unit). Our goals, like those of the DWLC & MENR, and we hope the general public include the conservation of the Sri Lankan leopard in all areas as well as the minimization of conflict between the human population and this islands only large cat and top carnivore. July 2004 Andrew Kittle and Anjali Watson The Leopard Project The Wilderness & Wildlife Conservation Trust   «Back