Assessment of Different Aspects of Elephant Depredation …
261
elephants varied, but the level of understanding on the causes of depredation was
almost the same. Most of the respondents also opined that the elephants were mostly
sighted in agricultural fields and this indicated that paddy cultivation efficiently
attracted the elephants.
Human–wildlife conflicts are mostly driven by the availability of resources or the
lack of them (Brooks and Maude 2010) and this was evident in the fringe villages.
In this case, massive habitat destruction due population growth (especially, due to
immigration of flood displaced people from different parts of the state) and human
developments were the main causes. Hazarika and Dutta (2018) did a qualitative study
in the area found that people have settled in the migratory corridor between Abhaypur
and nearby Sola Reserve Forest located at a distance of about 30 km. They also state
that when elephants are driven away into the forest by the forest administration of
Assam, they moved to Nagaland on the other side. But they are again chased back
from Nagaland and hence, the elephants returned. Thus, we state that the resulting
hindrance to movement, administrative/management reasons, and shortage of food
resources caused the elephants to move out of their habitats into the forest fringes,
where ample amount of paddy was available for raiding. Intensified land use results
in habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation and this causes elephants to come into
greater contact with humans, especially in cultivated areas (Chartier et al. 2011).
Measures applied by forest department and villagers (crackers, fires and noise)
were mostly partially effective and in some cases, completely ineffective. The villagers not only lighted fires around paddy fields, but also threw balls of fire to chase
away elephants. However, crackers were comparatively more effective than fires and
noise (as indicated by the scores provided by the villagers in Table 2). A few also
guarded their agricultural fields and some even pelted stones. People also sometimes
informed the forest department when elephants were sighted and expected necessary
action. Application of control measures required financial inputs and a considerable
investment of time (in case of guarding). Thus, the issue needs to be addressed as it
can jeopardize wildlife management, as evident in several Bolivian protected areas,
where crop depredation by wildlife has threatened management and conservation
(Pereza and Pacheco 2006).
Human–wildlife conflicts are sometimes trans-boundary in nature and as a result
collaboration between different local jurisdictions and under certain circumstances
two or more countries might be required (Nature Conservation Division, Royal Government of Bhutan 2008). Under the studied situation, the issue in Abhaypur required
the intervention of the forest administrations of two Indian states. Compensation and
insurance schemes can be introduced around Abhaypur. Such schemes have been
implemented around protected areas in Namibia, Nepal and Kenya (Bowen-Jones
2012). Compensation of losses arising from human–wildlife conflict increases tolerance level of the community towards wildlife (Ogra and Badola 2008). Cultivation
of crops not edible to edible to elephants can also be considered as a mitigation
measure, which can even be subsidized for the benefit of the victims. In fact, the
cultivation of alternative crops has also been suggested by Neupane et al. (2017) to
control human–elephant in southern Nepal. The villagers provided valuable suggestions regarding the control measures that should be applied. Steps should be taken
261
elephants varied, but the level of understanding on the causes of depredation was
almost the same. Most of the respondents also opined that the elephants were mostly
sighted in agricultural fields and this indicated that paddy cultivation efficiently
attracted the elephants.
Human–wildlife conflicts are mostly driven by the availability of resources or the
lack of them (Brooks and Maude 2010) and this was evident in the fringe villages.
In this case, massive habitat destruction due population growth (especially, due to
immigration of flood displaced people from different parts of the state) and human
developments were the main causes. Hazarika and Dutta (2018) did a qualitative study
in the area found that people have settled in the migratory corridor between Abhaypur
and nearby Sola Reserve Forest located at a distance of about 30 km. They also state
that when elephants are driven away into the forest by the forest administration of
Assam, they moved to Nagaland on the other side. But they are again chased back
from Nagaland and hence, the elephants returned. Thus, we state that the resulting
hindrance to movement, administrative/management reasons, and shortage of food
resources caused the elephants to move out of their habitats into the forest fringes,
where ample amount of paddy was available for raiding. Intensified land use results
in habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation and this causes elephants to come into
greater contact with humans, especially in cultivated areas (Chartier et al. 2011).
Measures applied by forest department and villagers (crackers, fires and noise)
were mostly partially effective and in some cases, completely ineffective. The villagers not only lighted fires around paddy fields, but also threw balls of fire to chase
away elephants. However, crackers were comparatively more effective than fires and
noise (as indicated by the scores provided by the villagers in Table 2). A few also
guarded their agricultural fields and some even pelted stones. People also sometimes
informed the forest department when elephants were sighted and expected necessary
action. Application of control measures required financial inputs and a considerable
investment of time (in case of guarding). Thus, the issue needs to be addressed as it
can jeopardize wildlife management, as evident in several Bolivian protected areas,
where crop depredation by wildlife has threatened management and conservation
(Pereza and Pacheco 2006).
Human–wildlife conflicts are sometimes trans-boundary in nature and as a result
collaboration between different local jurisdictions and under certain circumstances
two or more countries might be required (Nature Conservation Division, Royal Government of Bhutan 2008). Under the studied situation, the issue in Abhaypur required
the intervention of the forest administrations of two Indian states. Compensation and
insurance schemes can be introduced around Abhaypur. Such schemes have been
implemented around protected areas in Namibia, Nepal and Kenya (Bowen-Jones
2012). Compensation of losses arising from human–wildlife conflict increases tolerance level of the community towards wildlife (Ogra and Badola 2008). Cultivation
of crops not edible to edible to elephants can also be considered as a mitigation
measure, which can even be subsidized for the benefit of the victims. In fact, the
cultivation of alternative crops has also been suggested by Neupane et al. (2017) to
control human–elephant in southern Nepal. The villagers provided valuable suggestions regarding the control measures that should be applied. Steps should be taken