Beyond The Sugarcane Fields

A landmark study on reducing man-leopard conflict misses the conservation point

Tehelka, 29 March, 2013

NO ANIMAL, not even the snake, attracts more bad press than the leopard. The worst victim of poaching in India, it is also the biggest killer of people among all large carnivores. The leopard’s prey preference for smaller livestock and dogs draws it close to habitations. The result is nationwide conflict, from Uttarakhand to Kerala and Gujarat to Assam.

Against this background, a recent paper, Big Cats in Our Backyards, published by the Public Library of Science, an open-source scientific publication project, has important clues to co-existence. The study recorded up to six resident leopards per 100 sq km in the Sangamner sub-division of Maharashtra’s Ahmadnagar district. They lounge in the ample cover of sugarcane fields during the day and scout the villages and towns for dogs in the night.

The arrangement is working without significant conflict in this densely populated agricultural belt where people don’t panic at the mere sight of leopards. This is against the conventional practice of trapping every “stray” leopard and releasing them in faraway forests. The study establishes that the cropland leopards are not “stray” animals but residents with cubs and cannot be whisked away.

If trapped and released away from home, leopards, like all cats, try to return and run into people at unfamiliar places. Since trapping is a traumatic experience, such encounters rarely end amicably. The lesson from the study is that leopards among people are not necessarily a threat to human safety as long as they are not disturbed. The study also found a degree of traditional tolerance towards these animals in the rural communities; this, of course, can be enhanced by compensating villagers for livestock losses.

While the findings offer insight into the leopard’s adaptability, judging larger carnivores by the same parameters may backfire. Sugarcane fields also attracted tigers in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh. Many blame the intolerance of the local residents for the resulting conflict. But tigers need large prey and recurrent loss of cattle cannot be compared to that of chicken. More importantly, an accidental encounter with a leopard usually ends with a deep scratch or two, but a tiger can break the human skull with an irritated swipe.

The paper also paints the cropland model as an alternative approach to conservation. That claim is suspect. First, the so-called “backyard leopards” live in a modified habitat. A cropland is a monoculture plantation which, compared to natural forests, performs little or no ecosystem services, such as hosting biodiversity or acting as carbon sinks or watersheds. No matter how many leopards find shelter in cropland, no amount of plantation can compensate the loss of a forest.

Secondly, sugarcane is being promoted across large areas in certain states for purely economic reasons. The presence of leopards in these fields is incidental and a change in crop selection or land use may expel them rapidly in the not so distant future.

Thirdly, having resident populations on cropland does not necessarily help genetic exchange. When wild animals disperse from a forest, they don’t search for another forest. They merely look for a suitable habitat with good cover and prey, which usually happens to be another forest, where they settle down and join a new population.

If leopards find sufficient artificial cover and domestic prey base to settle down in cropland outside the parent forest, it results in an expansion, and not dispersal, of a wild population. When two neighbouring populations expand, they draw closer. But the extension of a forest population in a sugarcane field, in fact, creates two sub-populations.

Cropland leopards are known for their obesity. Animals thriving on easy domestic prey are unlikely to disperse to forests where they would have to hunt in the wild. But resource-rich cropland may keep drawing more individuals from forests, creating a dense sub-population buffer between two diminishing wilder populations. Does this affect gene flow? Unlikely. Will this alter population distribution and dynamics? That calls for another study.