Journal of Threatened Taxa | | 26 October 2022 | 14(10): 21903–21917




ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

#7971 | Received 14 April 2022 | Final received 31 August 2022 | Finally accepted 04 October 2022





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 (corresponding author) 2, 3, 4, 5





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.


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.


Sampling strategy and approach to 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.


General survey

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.


In-depth survey

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.


Motives for killing Fishing Cats

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.


The motivation for killing Fishing Cats

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).


Implications for conservation practices

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


Age class


Age class


Age class 58–77


Pilot survey


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


60 men

15 women





In-depth survey


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.




Who killed

First encounter

What killer did

What happened

Dead body

Other people joined

Assumed species

Incident frequency




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




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




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


Encountered many times before





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




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




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


Encountered this type of incident earlier




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


First incident in village but encountered in haor before




Farmers, local villagers

Fishing Cat hiding in the paddy field


Caught and beat it to death


Curiosity, help others

Cheeta (Leopard)

Encountered many times before




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




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




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




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


First incident in the village




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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.[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.

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. 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.

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.

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.