Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2022 | 14(10): 21903–21917
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7971.14.10.21903-21917
#7971 | Received 14 April 2022 | Final
received 31 August 2022 | Finally accepted 04 October 2022
SMALL WILD CATS SPECIAL SERIES
The killing of Fishing Cat Prionailurus
viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) (Mammalia: Carnivora:
Felidae) in Hakaluki Haor,
Bangladesh
Meherun Niger Sultana 1,
Ai Suzuki 2, Shinya Numata 3,
M. Abdul Aziz 4 & Anwar
Palash 5
1,2,3 Department of Tourism
Science, Graduate School of Urban Environmental Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan
University, 1-1 Minami-Osawa, Hachioji, Tokyo
192-0397, Japan.
2 Graduate School of
Asian and African studies, Kyoto University, Yoshidashimoadachoi-cho
46, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
2 Research Organization
of Open Innovation and Collaboration, Ritsumeikan
University, Iwakura-Cho 2-150, Ibaraki, Osaka
567-8570, Japan.
4 Department of
Zoology, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka-1342,
Bangladesh.
5 IGCSE faculty, IBDP
Biology, Adbul Kadir Molla
International School, Narshingdi-1600, Bangladesh.
1 moudnj27@gmail.com
(corresponding author) 2 ai23suzuki@gmail.com, 3 nmt@tmu.ac.jp,
4 maaziz@juniv.edu, 5 palash.anwar@akmis.net
Abstract: While considerable
attention has been paid to the killing of carnivore species which cause
significant damage, little attention has been paid to the killings of other
carnivores causing less personal and economic damage. We therefore assessed the
patterns and motives behind the killing of Fishing Cats Prionailurus
viverrinus by local people in northeastern
Bangladesh. We conducted interviews with local people and used qualitative
content and narrative analyses to clarify the pattern and motives of killing.
Most Fishing Cats were killed by gatherings of 10–15 people with any available
tools. Dead bodies were not used after killing, suggesting that the intention
was only to kill the individuals. The results of the survey indicated that fear
was the strongest motive for killing, which differed from the motivation behind
the killing of other sympatric carnivores. Therefore, we conclude that the
killing of Fishing Cat cannot be prevented only by an economic based solution
but, rather a change in attitude towards the species among local communities.
Keywords: Conservation, fear,
human-wildlife interactions, human-carnivore interaction, motives, small wild
cat.
Editor: Angie Appel, Wild Cat
Network, Bad Marienberg, Germany. Date of publication: 26 October 2022
(online & print)
Citation: Sultana, M.N., A.
Suzuki, S. Numata, M.A. Aziz & A. Palash (2022). The killing of
Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus (Bennett, 1833) (Mammalia: Carnivora:
Felidae) in Hakaluki Haor,
Bangladesh. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(10): 21903–21917. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7971.14.10.21903-21917
Copyright: © Sultana et al. 2022. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: The fieldwork was supported
by the “Tokyo Human
Resources Fund for City Diplomacy
(THRF)” as a scholarship from
Tokyo Metropolitan University and Toyota
Foundation Research Grant (D16-R-0176). The Funder
had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Meherun Niger Sultana is a PhD student and is interested in
biodiversity conservation. At present, she is working in the Fishing Cat
project, Bangladesh. Ai Suzuki
has been working on human-wildlife interactions and conservation. Her research
interest is conservation of small wild cats and research implementation gap in
carnivore conservation. Shinya Numata heads the Human-Nature lab. He is working on
nature-based tourism focusing on wildlife tourism, protected area management,
extinction of nature experiences, tropical rainforests and urban ecosystems. Md. Abdul Aziz serves as professor and
has been engaged in research and conservation on threatened wildlife species
and their habitats in Bangladesh. His research interests include, but are not
limited to, conservation research of mammals with particular focus on the Tiger
and other carnivore species. Anwar Palash
has a keen interest in behavioural ecology, wildlife
biology and conservation. At present, he is teaching biology at Abdul Kadir Molla International School as IBDP and IGCSE biology
teacher.
Author contributions: MNS, AS, SN, and
MAA contributed to conceiving and designing the questionnaires. MNS and AP
implemented the interview surveys. MNS performed the analyses with the
assistance of SN and AS and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. All
authors contributed to writing the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We are thankful to
the Tokyo Metropolitan University for support through the Human Resource Fund
for City Diplomacy and Toyota Foundation for funding. We also thank Sultan
Ahmed, Umme Habiba Ilma and
Jarin Tabassum for their volunteering to collect data
and report preparation. Special thanks go to Sayam U.
Chowdhury and Rezvin Akter
for sharing ideas. We appreciate the contribution of Afsana
Nasreen Eva and Mohammad Shamsuddoha for helping to
prepare the study area map. We appreciate the support of the local people,
especially Abdul Mukit, for their help in collecting
data, and local respondents for their time for interviews. We are also grateful
to all our laboratory colleagues and Ratul Rahman for
helpful comments. We sincerely thank Professor Md. Anwarul
Islam and WildTeam Bangladesh for logistics support
during our survey. We thank the reviewers and editor for their valuable
comments on the manuscript.
Human–wildlife
interactions happen in the area where both people and wildlife occur, but it
depends on the attitude of society whether it results in conflict or not (Bruskotter & Wilson 2014; Young et al. 2015; Dorresteijn et al. 2016; Frank & Glikman
2019). Interactions between human and wildlife vary from species to species and
location (Frank & Glikman 2019). In broad stroke,
conflict with large-sized carnivores differ from conflict with small- and
medium-sized carnivores in the magnitude and severity of damage caused (Ahmad
et al. 2016). For instance, the Forest Department in Bangladesh recorded an
average of 20–30 people killed each year by Tigers Panthera
tigris in the Bangladesh Sundarbans (Inskip et al. 2013), whereas damage caused by small
carnivores are generally restricted to small livestock or poultry (Rawshan et al. 2012). Although the damage from small- or
medium-sized carnivores is limited, they often live close to human settlements.
Consequently, they have more chance to come into contact with people such as
Jungle Cat Felis chaus
in Pakistan (Anjum et al. 2020), Golden Jackal Canis
aureus in Bangladesh (Jaeger et al. 2007), and Jungle Cat, Golden Jackal
and Indian Fox Vulpes bengalensis
in India
(Katna et al. 2022).
This is a
conservation concern since killing small- and medium-sized carnivores is
relatively easier than killing large carnivores. Even without the significant
damage for people’s life, the negative interactions between people and
small-sized carnivores could be driven by perceived damage (Holmern
& Røskaft 2014).
The Fishing Cat Prionailurus viverrinus
is a small wild cat listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species; it is thought to be declining across its range (Mukherjee et al. 2016).
In Bangladesh, it is categorized as Endangered on the national Red List and is
widely distributed throughout the country (Feeroz
2015). It is fully protected throughout the country since 1973 under the
Bangladesh Wild Life (Preservation) Order, 1973, and currently under the
Bangladesh Wild Life (Conservation and Security) Act, 2012. The killing of
Fishing Cats by local people is observed in most of Bangladesh and is possibly
carried out in retaliation for perceived predation on small livestock, fish and
poultry (Chowdhury et al. 2015). However, little information is available as to
how and why local people kill Fishing Cats.
With our present
study we sought to clarify the pattern of Fishing Cat killing and to find hints
at potential approaches that can assist to modify people’s attitude. We
conducted in-depth interviews to investigate: 1) how local people in the study
area killed Fishing Cats and 2) whether their motives for killing Fishing Cats
differed from those for killing sympatric carnivore species like Jungle Cat and
Golden Jackal.
Study area
Our study site was
the Hakaluki Haor Wetland
(HHW), a marshy wetland ecosystem in Bangladesh, which is a bowl or saucer
shaped depression that has the appearance of an inland sea during the monsoon
floods. It is located in the northeastern part of Bangladesh (Figure 1) and has
a total area of 416.14km2 (CWBMP-DOE-CNRS Consortium 2005) in the Moulvibazar and Sylhet districts and five upazilas, namely Kulaura, Barlekha, Fenchugonj, Juri, and Golapgonj (IUCN 2005). It
is surrounded by hillocks, reserve and planted forests, tea estates and rubber
plantations with a floodplain area of 700km2 (Iqbal et al. 2015).
Because of its economic and ecological significance, it was declared as one of
the ecologically critical areas by Bangladesh Department of Environment in 1999
(Ahmed et al. 2008).
HHW is one of the
largest inland wetland ecosystems in southern Asia and encompasses more than 10
small sanctuaries for fish and birds (Khan 2012). It comprises more than 80
inter-connected permanent waterbodies ranging in width from 10m to 1km in the
dry season from November to March; these waterbodies merge to a single
inundated area extending over 180km2 during the rainy season from
April to October (IUCN 2005). The wetland components of HHW are managed by
different government agencies (Khan 2012). Two government agencies govern
waterbodies depending on their size, the Forestry Department manages the
vegetation and wildlife, and some areas are managed by communities for
restoration of plantations (Khan 2012).
HHW support the
livelihoods of around 190,000 people. They generally have a lower middle class
or middle class economic status (Aziz et al. 2021), with 32% depending on
fishing and related professions, 29% on rearing of poultry and cattle, 6% on
fuel wood collection, 3% sand extraction, and 2% on reed collection (Rana et
al. 2009).
Firstly, we
selected our focused area where killing of Fishing Cats is likely to happen
based on information collected since 2017 during a Fishing Cat conservation
project as well as provided in electronic and print media and by local forest
departments. Secondly, we conducted a pilot survey for testing our initial
questionnaire. Thirdly, we conducted a general survey to select respondents who
have information on the killing of Fishing Cats and were willing to participate
in further in-depth interviews. When they agreed to have their answers
recorded, we proceeded with in-depth interviews.
We used
non-probability convenience sampling method followed by snowball sampling to
identify respondents for gaining a deeper insight on the topic in question
(Ritchie et al. 2003; Pratt et al. 2004; Karanth et
al. 2008; MacMillan & Han 2011; Said et al. 2016; Saif
et al. 2016). The questionnaire for the general survey was designed to acquire
general information from respondents about their encounters with carnivores and
their presence nearby (see Annex 1). For the in-depth interviews, we prepared a
semi-structured questionnaire (see Annex 2) to obtain an understanding of the
general scenario and details of events (Rust et al. 2017). Interviews were
conducted in Bengali.
We took special
care to build trust with respondents to ask for their knowhow about the killing
of Fishing Cats. We have worked in this area since 2017 in the framework of a
small-scale Fishing Cat conservation project and often talked about Fishing Cat
killing. This helped to build the rapport with key persons in the villages. In
addition to establish local contacts, we spent time outside the formal
interview process with the respondents and their family members, especially
children, to gain their trust. We did not collect GPS locations of respondents’
homes and did not ask for their names or addresses to avoid security issues and
ensured their willingness to provide time for the interview.
Prior to the
interview, we asked each respondent for permission to record the interview. We
stopped recording if the respondent was not comfortable being recorded. We
initially asked for general information about Fishing Cats (Annex 1). Then we
conducted an in-depth interview with any person who was involved in a killing
incident, or anyone who witnessed such an incident. We verified the
respondent’s information on the sighting, encountering and killing of Fishing
Cats, Jungle Cats and Golden Jackals by showing them photographs of each animal
and asking them to describe the animals’ external features. Interviews
continued until the data reached saturation (Newing
et al. 2011). When we came across the killing information, we conducted
interviews in different parts of the village with different respondents in
order to verify the episodes and their involvement. The reliability of the
episodic data was assessed by asking details about the month, season and local
activities at the time of the killing event, e.g. before or after harvesting
time, monsoon or not, and how old were their children at that time.
During interviews,
we ensured the respondents were not influenced or pressurized by the audience.
The interviews were conducted inside respondents’ homes in a secluded and
silent room to avoid recording talk by other people nearby. We did not provide
any financial incentives to the respondents, but spent time with them at the
start of each interview to get to know them and their preferred topics of
interest.
We performed a
qualitative content analysis to categorise the
motives for each killing incident. We also performed a narrative analysis to
describe the general killing pattern. The most common words used by the
respondents in the texts and recordings were extracted as motives for the
killings. We categorized the motivation mentioned by respondents for the first
time as primary motivation. Other motivations mentioned in the course of
interviews are considered secondary motivation. We tested the rigour and accuracy of our descriptions and interpretations
by comparing seven interview recordings about reported killing events and
examined common descriptions to find a common pattern of the killings. To
identify major underlying motives for killing, we count the frequency of each
motive and categorization of risk as high, medium and low to define the level
of each motive.
From 17 February
to 16 March 2020, we conducted 133 interviews with a total of 107 respondents
in 37 villages of Moulvibazar District (Table 1).
Each interview took around 1–2 hours to complete.
Fishing Cats were
sighted in the dry season by 64 respondents (85% of all). Of the 75
respondents, 18 respondents (24%) answered that Fishing Cats came to their
village for poultry, 21 respondents (28%) answered that they were looking for a
hiding place, and the remaining 36 respondents (48%) did not know the reason.
However, 49 of them (65%) have no idea about the trend of the number of
killings of Fishing Cat, Golden Jackal, and Jungle Cat.
From the general
survey, we identified 26 respondents (35%) who had joined or witnessed the
killing of Fishing Cats and who were willing to answer questions about the
process of killing during the in-depth survey. They reported 13 incidents of
Fishing Cat killing and three incidents of Fishing Cat rescues in 11 different
villages around the HHW in the period from November 2010 to January 2020 (Table
2). Twelve incidents occurred inside villages and one in the wetland area. Local
villagers around the HHW were the main participants in the killings (Figure 2).
One killing incident was claimed to have been conducted by people from the
hills who occasionally come down to Hakaluki Haor. Respondents involved in killing events were all men.
Each killing generally began with an accidental encounter with a Fishing Cat.
Residents from neighbourhoods in the villages called out to each other
when a Fishing Cat was observed (Figure 2). Encounters were mostly sudden, and
in 10 incidents people beat Fishing Cats to death in large group gatherings of
more than 25 people with any tools they could grab such as a bamboo stick or a
knife. When villagers recognized the presence of a Fishing Cat sleeping, hiding
or resting in a shed, poultry house and water pipe, they used the time for the
preparation to kill the cat. Both situations started from calling neighbours to gather at that spot. When the crowd agreed to
kill the Fishing Cat at the encounter point, then the process of killing
started.
The bodies of the
dead Fishing Cats were not used (Image 1). Local villagers generally disposed
of the body after a killing to avoid any health hazard or odour
from the decomposing carcass. In four cases, local villagers displayed the
carcass in a common area of the village due to a sense of excitement after the
killing. In one case, local villager kept the skin of a mature Fishing Cat and
disposed of the remaining carcass.
Six constant
common traits were present before a kill: 1) The collaboration of the neighbourhood with 5–10 villagers involved; 2) The absence
of a knowledgeable person in terms of national wildlife laws; 3) The absence of
knowledge about wild animals; 4) The agreement of participants in the killing
as retaliation for previous Fishing Cat attacks on livestock and poultry; 5)
Previous knowledge of a nearby carnivore attack in the same or neighbouring village; and 6) Direct sighting of a Fishing
Cat and misidentification of the species at the time of encounter.
We identified five
primary motives of respondents for killing Fishing Cats, namely fear, poultry
loss, loss of social respect, social norms and retaliation (Table 3). The main
motives given for killing Fishing Cats were “fear” and “social norm” (Figure
3). In contrast, the main motives for killing Jungle Cats and Golden Jackals
were poultry loss and retaliation, respectively. Nine respondents (35%)
expressed their concerns about poultry loss as their main motivation for
killing Jungle Cats, and 11 respondents (42%) mentioned this motive for killing
Golden Jackals. Commonly, the prevention of economic loss was the motive for
the killing of Jungle Cats and Golden Jackals, but not for killing Fishing
Cats. In regard to Fishing Cat, 20 respondents (77%) referred to it as ‘Khuphia Bagh’ meaning Tiger. Besides those main
motives, excitement, and curiosity about killing wild animals, retaliation and
self-satisfaction were commonly given as motives for killing Fishing Cat and
other carnivore species. Five respondents (19%) emphasized the role of social
bonding in their intention to join the killing of all carnivore species.
Five motives were
identified as primary and five as secondary to join in killing Fishing Cats
(Table 2). Respondents expressed fear for getting attacked by the cat. They
also shared concerns to avoid an attack as a Fishing Cat had attacked poultry
or cow before. Twenty respondents were
worried of losing social respect if they did not join the killing. Sixteen
respondents mentioned revenge for poultry loss to join the killing of a Fishing
Cat.
Moreover,
respondents shared concern about a sighting of a Fishing Cat as they were
worried about being attacked by it, assuming Fishing Cat to be a Tiger. When
asked about how often this cat comes to the village, respondents stated:
“Twice may be. I
told you that last year, this Tiger attacked our religious leader. I tell we
have to face it, there is no safety for us here.”
“Did it ever take
any poultry? Yes! They also took poultry and attacked people at night. People
felt so at risk at that time, they never returned back alone from the market,
always stayed in groups. Or if they had to move alone, they kept some tools
with them.”
“This is a
communication road used for going to school, college and markets, we all the time
stay in the market area, everyone in the area says there is a Tiger, do not get
late to come home. It was kind of a panic situation. So, after it got killed
the panic vanished as the Tiger was dead. This happened once upon a time, not
now, already being killed.” When asked about its spotted skin and size,
a respondent showed a young animal and replied: “Yes, similar like this, and
two individuals. I have seen the Tiger directly at late night after watching
movie. It was crossing the road. Then someone saw it and screamed “Tiger, Tiger
is there”, and we ran towards it.” “We call it Tiger. Leopard? Kind of that.”
Our study was the
first attempt to gain an understanding of the detailed process of the killing
of Fishing Cats in Bangladesh and motives underlying this killing. Our
interviews in villages of Hakaluki Haor revealed two types of killing patterns that depend on
the activity of the Fishing Cat encountered. When it was active, people
spontaneously gathered in a large group of more than 25 people and reached for
any available tools to beat the Fishing Cat to death. This killing pattern is
commonly seen in the killing of other carnivores, which can cause loss of
livestock or threaten human life, both in Bangladesh (Inskip
et al. 2014) and in India (Kolipaka 2018). Saif et al. (2018) described similar large gatherings of
people using an array of tools for killing Tigers in the Bangladesh Sundarbans.
When the Fishing Cat was resting or sleeping, people usually formed a group of
5–10 people and used guns, local fishing gear or bamboo implements to kill the
cat. Both patterns are unique in regard to Fishing Cats, whereas respondents
did not feel the need to gather in groups and be well equipped when
encountering Jungle Cats and Golden Jackals.
Such preparation
for special tools including axes, sticks, bamboo rods and billhooks are
generally used in encounters with large damage-causing animals (Saif et al. 2018). We found a similar behaviour
in our study area that small groups of people joined to kill Fishing Cats
suggesting that people feel the need to be well equipped to make sure to kill
Fishing Cats. Both killing patterns started by calling neighbours
for help to form small to large groups to join the killing events of Fishing
Cat. We emphasize that this behaviour is unique
towards the Fishing Cat. Chowdhury et al. (2015) described similar severe
beatings, strangulations and captures of Fishing Cats elsewhere in Bangladesh
by mobs of villagers who later hung up the dead animals for display. In contrast, villagers in our study area
attempted to kill Jungle Cats and Golden Jackals without the help of neighbours and special tools.
Our results suggest that fear is a
strong motivation for killing Fishing Cats. Fear is assumed to be induced by
large carnivores that people perceive as harmful (Castillio-Huitrón
et al. 2020). Inskip et al. (2014) found worry and
fear of harm by Tigers in Bangladesh to be a stronger motivation than
retaliation. Carnivore killing behaviour is complex
and nuanced, sometimes driven by emotions like fear (Johansson et al. 2016).
Such negative emotions represented a significant motivation for the killing of
Fishing Cats. In contrast, respondents killed other medium-sized carnivores
mainly in retaliation for poultry loss.
The reason why only the Fishing Cat
evokes the feeling of fear within the community needs further study. The most
plausible reason is that local villagers confuse Fishing Cats with animals
related to Tigers and consider them to be potentially dangerous. Respondents
used the word “Bagh” for Fishing Cats throughout their stories when explaining their
concerns about safety and risks. The local name “Bagh” means Tiger. Their
concept of “Bagh” is often likely to be more abstract concept as “kind of a
Tiger”, when they put other words in front of “Bagh” such as “Cheeta Bagh” (a spotted Tiger) indicating Leopard Panthera pardus, “Khuphia Bagh” indicating Fishing Cat. On the other hand,
Jungle Cat has not been called “Bagh”, as locals did not consider it being a
member of the “Tiger” group.
Common motivations for killing
carnivores are for the use of their body parts like skins (Datta
et al. 2008), fur (Saif et al. 2016), and meat
(Harrison et al. 2016). In our study area, neither parts nor the whole body of
Fishing Cats were used by local people after a kill. Only the Fishing Cat’s
carcass was displayed in the common areas of villages out of a sense of
excitement after the killing. This may indicate that the excitement of
successfully killing which is also a reason to join a killing event (Røskaft et al. 2007; Saif et al.
2018).
Although three sympatric carnivores have been
killed in our study area, an economic incentive-based conflict mitigation plan
is unlikely to be effective for the conservation of the Fishing Cat. Emotional
fear-based behaviour is more difficult to control (Castillo-Huitrón
et al. 2020), and it is often difficult to effectively implement measures with
a cognitive fix, i.e. changing attitude and behaviour by providing knowledge (Heberlein 2012). On the other hand, the technological fix,
i.e. changing behaviour by addressing a particular environmental problem (Heberlein 2012) could be applied by intervening in the
steps of the process of killing Fishing Cats. Six constant common traits were
found across all 13 cases including collaboration with neighbours who were not
aware of the illegality of the killing. The first step to make it difficult to
kill Fishing Cats technically would be to explore which of those six common
traits are necessary conditions in the society to kill Fishing Cats, and which of
those can act as strong barriers to stop the process of killing.
It may be difficult but not impossible to
reduce people’s willingness for fear-based killing in the long term. Although
fear often evokes automatic appraisal, the learning could change the cognitive
process when the fear is based on a false perception (Jacobs & Vaske 2019). This emphasizes the importance to dispel the
misconception about the Fishing Cat in the long term such as education for the
younger generation. We suggest developing outreach strategies to retrieving a
positive perception for animals integrated with local culture. Positive
interest and attention towards species could favour changing people’s
perception for conserving the species. Prokop et al. (2011) suggested that if
children see wildlife species in a positive way through different media showing
the real facts about unpopular animals, this is more likely to decrease fear
and disgust but develop empathy. Species-specific positive ecological knowledge
sharing with new generations could lead to eradication of the embedded fear in
the society, increase awareness, impact attitudes, and advocate empathy.
Table 1. Details of
respondents participating in the interview survey.
|
Interview type |
Total number of
respondents |
Sex |
Age class 18–37 |
Age class 38–57 |
Age class 58–77 |
Professions |
|
Pilot survey |
32 |
25 men 7 women |
17 men 3 women |
5 men 4 women |
3 men |
10 farmers 5 fishers 4 shopkeepers 5 students 6 daily labourers 2 unemployed |
|
General survey |
75 |
60 men 15 women |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
In-depth survey |
26 |
25 men 1 woman |
10 men 1 woman |
8 men |
7 men |
7 farmers 3 fishers 1 hunter 4 shopkeepers 5 students 4 daily labourers 1 housewife 1 businessman |
Table 2. Description
of each killing incident with the factors involved in killing and the story
line for each killing incident.
|
Case |
Year |
Season |
Who killed |
First encounter |
What killer did |
What happened |
Dead body |
Other people joined |
Assumed species |
Incident frequency |
|
1 |
2010 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Someone found a
Fishing Cat sleeping in an unused water pipe |
Came to call others
to catch it |
Village head used
gun to kill the Fishing Cat |
Buried in nearby
field area |
Out of fear they
tried to kill it |
Cheeta Bagh |
First Fishing Cat
incident in the village |
|
2 |
2013/2014 |
Dry |
Local villagers
along with poultry owner |
Observed a Fishing
Cat inside a commercial poultry house |
Screamed and asked
for help to catch it |
They caught it with
net and beat it to death |
Buried far away
from home area |
Out of fear and
avoid next attack to poultry and people |
Wild animal
(carnivore) |
Encountered this
type of incident earlier |
|
3 |
2013/2014 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Regular haor worker suddenly encountered a Fishing Cat |
Screamed and called
others for help to catch it |
They chased and
killed it |
Drowned in the
waterbody |
Out of fear that it
could attack people and to avoid next attack |
Bagh |
Encountered many
times before |
|
4 |
2013/2014 |
Dry |
Fishermen |
Suddenly got face
to face with a Fishing Cat in the haor |
Screamed and
alerted other fishermen and attacked it at once |
Attacked and killed
|
Drowned in the
waterbody |
Due to fear and
avoid next attack |
Khuphia Bagh (Fishing Cat) |
Encountered many
times before |
|
5 |
2015/2016 |
Wet |
Local villagers |
Suddenly
encountered a Fishing Cat, and it tried to come closer |
Screamed and asked
help to kill the unknown cat |
Others tried to
catch and kill it |
Drowned in nearby
irrigation channel |
Out of fear and to
avoid next attack |
Bagher bachcha (Tiger cub) |
First incident in
the village |
|
6 |
2018 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Suddenly observed a
wild animal inside the village lying in a bushy area |
Called other nearby
people to identify and catch the cat |
They tied the cat
with a rope to a tree. People poked it with a stick, took photographs, and
eventually it died |
Buried the dead
body far from locality |
Curiosity, also
fear to see unknown wild animal |
Bagh |
Encountered this
type of incident earlier |
|
7 |
2018 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Suddenly observed a
Fishing Cat hunting ducks |
Screamed and called
others for help to catch the cat |
All chased and
caught it, later beat it to death |
Buried in field far
from home area |
Out of fear that it
could attack human and to avoid next attack |
Bagh |
First incident in
village but encountered in haor before |
|
8 |
2018 |
Dry |
Farmers, local
villagers |
Fishing Cat hiding
in the paddy field |
Screamed |
Caught and beat it
to death |
Buried |
Curiosity, help
others |
Cheeta (Leopard) |
Encountered many
times before |
|
9 |
2019 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Suddenly
encountered a Fishing Cat but had a prior idea of its presence around the
village |
Screamed and chased
it |
Caught and killed
it |
Buried in the
nearby field area |
Out of fear and
disturbance to calves and cow |
Wild animal
(carnivore) |
First killing
incident inside village |
|
10 |
2019 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Chased 3-4 Fishing
Cat kittens when found in bush inside village |
Screamed and chased
them |
They caught one
kitten and killed it |
Took with them |
Curiosity to catch
Tiger cubs |
Cheeta cubs (Leopard
cubs) |
First incident in
the village |
|
11 |
2019 |
Dry |
Indigenous people |
Owner of the house
seen before, then informed indigenous people |
Search according to
information |
Caught and killed |
Took with them |
They went to the
incident place out of curiosity |
Wild animal
(carnivore) |
Encountered many
times before |
|
12 |
2020 |
Dry |
Local villagers
along with poultry owner |
Has prior
information about the presence of Fishing Cat |
Called other nearby
people when saw Fishing Cat sleeping in the poultry house |
They chased and
beat to death two Fishing Cat |
Put out skin of one
individual and threw the two dead bodies far away from the village |
Other people joined
out of fear and to avoid next attack by the same individual |
Bagh |
First incident in
the village |
|
13 |
2020 |
Dry |
Local villagers |
Saw a Fishing Cat
sleeping in his cow stable |
Silently called
relatives living nearby to help him kill the cat |
All chased and
caught it, later beat it to death |
Buried in field far
from home area |
Out of fear that it
could attack human and to avoid next attack |
Cheeta Bagh (Leopard) |
First incident in
village but identified species from Facebook post |
For figures, images
& annexures – click here for full PDF
Ahmad, S., S. Hameed, H. Ali, T.U. Khan, T.
Mehmood & M.A. Nawaz (2016). Carnivores’ diversity and conflicts with humans in Musk Deer National
Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. European Journal of Wildlife
Research 62(5): 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1029-6
Ahmed, I., B.J. Deaton, R. Sarker & T. Virani (2008). Wetland ownership and management in a common
property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh. Ecological Economics 68(1–2):
429–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.016
Anjum, A., A. Appel & M. Kabir (2020). First photographic record of Jungle Cat Felis chaus Schreber, 1777 (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) in Haripur
District, Pakistan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(2): 15251–15255. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5386.12.2.15251-15255
Aziz, M.S.B., N.A. Hasan, M.M.R. Mondol, M.M. Alam & M.M. Haque (2021). Decline in fish species diversity due to climatic and anthropogenic
factors in Hakaluki Haor,
an ecologically critical wetland in northeast Bangladesh. Heliyon
7(1): e05861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05861
Bruskotter, J.T. & R.S. Wilson (2014). Determining where the wild things will be:
using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation
Letters 7(3): 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12072
Castillio-Huitrón, N.M., E.J. Naranjo, D. Santos-Fita & E. Estrada-Lugo (2020). The importance of human emotions for
wildlife conservation. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1277. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01277
Chowdhury, S.U., A.R.
Chowdhury, S. Ahmed & S.B. Muzaffar (2015). Human-Fishing Cat
conflicts and conservation needs of Fishing Cats in Bangladesh. Cat News
62: 4–7.
CWBMP-DOE-CNRS
Consortium (2005). Baseline Survey of Hakaluki Haor. Coastal Wetland Biodiversity Management Project,
Department of Environment and Center for Natural
Resource Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 26 pp.
Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar
& M.O. Anand (2008). Occurrence and conservation status of small carnivores
in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Small
Carnivore Conservation 39: 1–10.
Dorresteijn, I., A.I. Milcu,
J. Leventon, J. Hanspach
& J. Fischer (2016). Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence:
Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio 45(4): 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0760-7
Feeroz, M.M. (2015). Prionailurus
viverrinus, P. 94. In: IUCN Bangladesh (ed.) Red
List of Bangladesh. Volume 2: Mammals. International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 232 pp.
Frank, B. & J.A. Glikman (2019). Human-wildlife conflicts and the need to include
coexistence, pp 1–19. In: Frank B., J.A. Glikman
& S. Marchini (eds.). Human-Wildlife
Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 456 pp.
Harrison, R.D., R. Sreekar, J.F. Brodie, S. Brook, M. Luskin, H. O’Kelly, M.B.
Rao & N. Velho (2016). Impacts of hunting on tropical forests in Southeast
Asia. Conservation Biology 30(5): 972–981.
Heberlein, T.A. (2012). Navigating
environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press, x+228 pp.
Holmern, T. & E. Røskaft
(2014).
The poultry thief: subsistence farmers’ perceptions of depredation outside the
Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 52(3):
334–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12124
Inskip, C., M. Ridout, Z.
Fahad, R. Tully, A. Barlow, C.G. Barlow, M. Islam, T. Roberts & D.
MacMillan (2013). Human–Tiger conflict in context: risks to lives and
livelihoods in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Human Ecology 41(2): 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9556-6
Inskip, C., Z. Fahad, R. Tully, T. Roberts & D.
MacMillan (2014). Understanding carnivore killing behaviour: Exploring
the motivations for Tiger killing in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Biological
Conservation 180: 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.028
Iqbal, M.M., S. Nasren, M.A.A. Mamun & M.M. Hossain (2015). Fish assemblage
including threatened species in Hakaluki Haor, Sylhet Bangladesh. Journal of Aquaculture in the
Tropics 30: 233–246.
IUCN (2005). Approaches to
Sustainable Wetland Resource Management. IUCN Bangladesh Country Office,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, x+88 pp.
Jacobs, M. & J.J. Vaske (2019). Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and
Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife, pp. 65–84. In: Frank B., Glikman J.A. & S. Marchini
(eds.). Human–Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 456 pp.
Jaeger, M.M. E. Haque, P. Sultana & R.L. Bruggers
(2007).
Daytime cover, diet and space-use of Golden Jackals (Canis
aureus) in agro-ecosystems of Bangladesh. Mammalia:
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/MAMM.2007.016
Johansson, M., I.A.
Ferreira, O.G. Støen, J. Frank & A. Flykt (2016). Targeting human fear of large carnivores – many
ideas but few known effects. Biological Conservation 201: 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.010
Karanth, K.K., R.A. Kramer, S.S. Qian & N.L.
Christensen (2008). Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and
challenges in India. Biological Conservation 141(9): 2357–2367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.027
Katna, A., A. Kulkarni, M. Thaker
& A.T. Vanak (2022). Habitat specificity
drives differences in space-use patterns of multiple mesocarnivores
in an agroecosystem. Journal of Zoology 316(2): 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12933
Khan, S.M.H.
(2012). Participatory wetland resource governance in Bangladesh:
an analysis of community-based experiments in Hakaluki
Haor. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 297
pp.
Kolipaka, S.S. (2018). Can Tigers survive in
human-dominated landscapes? Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, 180 pp.
MacMillan, D.C. &
J. Han (2011). Cetacean by-catch in the Korean Peninsula – by chance
or by design? Human Ecology 39(6): 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9429-4
Mukherjee, S., A. Appel,
J.W. Duckworth, J. Sanderson, S. Dahal, D.H.A.
Willcox, V. H. Muñoz, G. Malla, A. Ratnayaka, M. Kantimahanti, A. Thudugala, R. Thaung R. & H.
Rahman (2016). Prionailurus viverrinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e. T18150A50662615. Downloaded on 19 August 2022 https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18150A50662615.en
Newing, H., C. Eagle, R. Puri
& C. Watson (2011). Conducting research in conservation: Social science
methods and practice. Routledge, London, 376 pp.
Pratt, D.G., D.C.
Macmillan & I.J. Gordon (2004). Local community attitudes to wildlife utilisation
in the changing economic and social context of Mongolia. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13(3): 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000009492.56373.cc
Prokop, P., M. Usak & M. Erdogan (2011). Good predators in bad
stories: Cross-cultural comparison of children’s attitudes towards Wolves. Journal
of Baltic Science Education 10(4): 229–242.
Rana, M.P., M.S.H.
Chowdhury, M.S.I. Sohel, S. Akhter & M. Koike
(2009).
Status and socio-economic significance of wetland in the tropics: A study from
Bangladesh. Biogeosciences and Forestry
2(5): 172–177. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0512-002
Rawshan, K., M.M. Feeroz &
M.K. Hasan (2012). Human-carnivore conflicts in Bangladesh. Tigerpaper 39(3): 17–21.
Ritchie, J., J. Lewis
& G.E. Am (2003). Designing and selecting samples, pp. 77–108. In:
Ritchie, J. & J. Lewis (eds.). Qualitative research practice: A guide
for social science students and researchers. Sage Publication, London, 336
pp.
Røskaft, E., B. Händel, T.
Bjerke & B.P. Kaltenborn (2007). Human attitudes
towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology 13(2):
172–185. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[172:HATLCI]2.0.CO;2
Rust, N.A., A. Abrams,
D.W. Challender, G. Chapron,
A. Ghoddousi, J.A. Glikman,
C.H. Gowan, C. Hughes, A. Rastogi, A. Said, A. Sutton, N. Taylor, S. Thomas, H.
Unnikrishnan, A.D. Webber, G. Wordingham & C.M.
Hill (2017). Quantity does not always mean quality: The importance
of qualitative social science in conservation research. Society &
Natural Resources 30(10): 1304–1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1333661
Said, A., J. Tzanopoulos & D.C. MacMillan (2016). Bluefin Tuna fishery
policy in Malta: The plight of artisanal fishermen caught in the capitalist
net. Marine Policy 73: 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2016.07.025
Saif, S., A.M. Russell, S.I. Nodie,
C. Inskip, P. Lahann, A.
Barlow, C.G. Barlow, A. Islam & D.C. MacMillan (2016). Local usage of Tiger
parts and its role in Tiger killing in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 21(2): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1107786
Saif, S., H.T. Rahman & D.C. MacMillan, D.C.
(2018).
Who is killing the Tiger Panthera tigris and why? Oryx 52(1): 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000491
Young, J.K., Z. Ma, A. Laudati
& J. Berger (2015). Human–carnivore interactions: lessons learned from
communities in the American West. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20(4):
349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1016388