Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2025 | 17(3): 26627–26635
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
| ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9353.17.3.26627-26635
#9353 | Received 06
August 2024 | Final received 01 March 2025 | Finally accepted 13 March 2025
Patterns and economic impact of livestock
predation by large carnivores in protected areas of southern Kashmir, India
Lubna Rashid 1 & Bilal A. Bhat 2
1,2 Department of
Zoology, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir 190006, India.
1 lubrash12@gmail.com, 2
bilalwildlife@gmail.com (corresponding author)
Editor: Angie Appel, Wild Cat Network, Germany.
Date of publication: 26 March 2025 (online & print)
Citation: Rashid, L. & B.A. Bhat (2025). Patterns and economic impact of livestock predation by large
carnivores in protected areas of southern Kashmir, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(3): 26627–26635. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9353.17.3.26627-26635
Copyright: © Rashid & Bhat 2025. 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: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Ms. Lubna Rashid is a PhD scholar in the Department of Zoology at the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India. Her research focuses on human-wildlife interactions in the protected areas of south Kashmir, India. Dr. Bilal A. Bhat is currently working as an assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at the University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India. His research interests include wildlife ecology, conservation science, and human-wildlife interactions. He has authored 60 researcharticles, including 56 journal articles, and four book chapters.
Author contributions: LR—writing
original draft, validation, visualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, conceptualization, software. BAB—writing, review & editing, validation, supervision, methodology, conceptualization, project administration, resources.
Acknowledgements: We sincerely thank the Department of Wildlife Protection, Jammu & Kashmir, for allowing us to carry out our research within the protected areas. We are also grateful to the village heads at our study sites for providing essential information and the respondents for their cooperation and support during our questionnaire survey.
Keywords: Achabal
Conservation Reserve, Asiatic Black Bear, carnivore, conservation,
human-wildlife interaction, Leopard, mitigation, Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary,
seasonal variation.
Human-carnivore negative
interaction is one of the most pressing challenges in global carnivore
conservation (Khorozyan et al. 2015; Dhungana et al. 2019). This interaction is largely driven
by the intrinsic traits of large carnivores, including their size, carnivorous
diet, and extensive territorial range (Pooley et al. 2017; Kuiper et al. 2021).
In agricultural landscapes, carnivores often resort to preying on ungulates or
livestock to meet their high-protein dietary needs (Inskip
& Zimmermann 2009; Thorn et al. 2012). Although humans and large predators
have coexisted for thousands of years, this interaction has intensified in
recent decades, particularly in regions where human and wildlife habitats
overlap (Morehouse et al. 2020). Growing intolerance towards large carnivores
has been fueled by frequent livestock predation and occasional attacks on
humans (van Eeden et al. 2018; Khosravi
et al. 2024). Consequently, retaliatory killings have emerged as the foremost
threat to many carnivore species (Woodroffe et al. 2007; Le Flore et al. 2019; Kichloo et al. 2024).
A significant portion of
large carnivore species share their habitats with economically vulnerable human
communities, with over a third of their territories overlapping these areas (Braczkowski et al. 2023). This overlap intensifies
human-carnivore interaction, especially in and around protected areas, which
often harbour large and potentially disruptive mammal
species (Karanth & Nepal 2012; Karanth et al. 2013; Hanson 2022). The socio-economic
impact on rural livelihoods is profound, primarily due to predation on
livestock by these carnivores. These losses pose a substantial obstacle to
balancing rural development and biodiversity conservation efforts (Gusset et
al. 2009; Loveridge et al. 2010; Khorozyan et al.
2015).
We explored livestock
predation by the Asiatic Black Bear Ursus thibetanus and the Leopard Panthera
pardus in and around some protected areas of
Kashmir. These two carnivore species are increasingly
involved in negative interactions with humans, frequently preying on livestock
(Charoo et al. 2011; Dar & Bhat 2022; Dawood et
al. 2025). This situation is particularly challenging for communities living
near protected areas, where socioeconomic conditions are often fragile, and
livelihoods heavily depend on livestock rearing and agriculture (Bhat et al.
2022; Islam et al. 2023). Despite the frequency and significant impact of these
events, the issue has not received adequate attention in Kashmir. Farmers
frequently endure livestock losses without compensation or support, which can
lead to resentment and, in some cases, retaliatory killings of Asiatic Black
Bears and Leopards, both of which are already in global decline (Garshelis & Steinmetz 2020; Stein et al. 2020).
To address
this issue, it is essential to explicitly understand the patterns of livestock
predation to identify regions and periods with high levels of predation. Both
the ecological and social aspects of predation incidents, along with the
economic losses they incur, need to be thoroughly assessed (Goodrich 2010; Dhungana et al. 2018, 2019). We investigated livestock
predation across three protected areas in southern Kashmir: Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary, Achabal Conservation Reserve, and
Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary. We focused on the
ecological and social dimensions of livestock predation, without
overgeneralizing the interaction aspect. Our objective was to evaluate the
economic impact of livestock predation and to identify the spatial patterns of
these events, which can provide a foundation for developing effective
management strategies in the region.
The study
was carried out in and around three protected areas in southern Kashmir: Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajparian
Wildlife Sanctuary, and Achabal Conservation Reserve.
These three study areas were selected based on varying levels of human-wildlife
interactions, the number of villages in the vicinity, diverse land cover types,
and differences in the socioeconomic status of the surrounding communities. Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary, located in Anantnag District of Jammu & Kashmir, is nestled
between the Zanskar and Pir Panjal
mountain ranges, approximately 96 km south of Srinagar (Figure 1A). It spans an
area of 425 km2, with elevations ranging 2,000–5,425 m (Islam et al.
2023). It is surrounded by eight villages situated in and around its
boundaries.
Achabal Conservation Reserve is also located in Anantnag
District, with elevations ranging 1,636–2,434 m (Figure 1B). The reserve is
about 65 km south-east of Srinagar and has nine villages within its buffer zone
(Farooq et al. 2021). Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary,
also known as Daksum Wildlife Sanctuary, is located
in Anantnag District of Jammu & Kashmir at an
elevation ranging 2,360–4,270 m (Figure 1C). Located about 41 km south-east of Anantnag along the Anantnag-Semthan-Kishtwar
National Highway 1B, the sanctuary covers an area of 48.27 km2 (Bhat
et al. 2023). There is only one village in the vicinity of the sanctuary,
however, livestock from nearby villages are often grazed within the protected
area.
Data on
livestock predation by the Asiatic Black Bear and the Leopard in villages in
and around three protected areas were collected using the exponential
non-discriminative snowball sampling method (Noy
2008; Akrim et al. 2023). Initially, we obtained
information on livestock loss incidents from the village heads and subsequently
verified with other residents. Where possible, we cross-checked incidents by
visiting the sites and authenticating the kills. Monthly visits to village
heads were conducted over a two-year period to gather information on any new
incidents.
We
interviewed affected livestock owners using semi-structured questionnaires to
collect data on their socioeconomic status, details of the attacked livestock
such as age, gender, time, and date of attack, the predator species involved,
and the location of the attack. We visited incident sites and recorded
coordinates using a handheld Garmin Oregon-750 GPS device. In cases, where the
sites were difficult or dangerous to access, we inferred coordinates using
Google Earth (Zarco-González et al. 2013).
Additionally, we obtained data on the total livestock owned by village inhabitants from the
Veterinary Department of Jammu & Kashmir.
We
conducted all statistical analyses using R software (R Core Team 2022) and
employed Pearson’s chi-square test to analyse
data related to patterns of Asiatic Black Bear and Leopard predation, including
the livestock species attacked, as well as the time, place and seasons of
attacks. Differences between Leopard and Asiatic Black Bear regarding these
patterns were also examined using Pearson’s chi-square test. We used a
polynomial regression model to determine if carnivores showed a preference for
any particular age group of the prey. We performed linear regression to
investigate whether livestock losses were proportional to their relative
availability in the selected villages. Additionally, we generated a livestock
predation map, showing the predation sites of Asiatic Black Bear and Leopard
using ArcMap 10.5.
From
January 2021 to December 2022, we surveyed a total of 50 respondents from three
protected areas, encompassing 29 in Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary, 19 in Achabal Conservation Reserve,
and two in Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary. They all had
experienced at least one case of livestock predation during this period. The
majority of respondents (80%) earned their income from farming or daily labour, followed by those involved in business (6%),
government jobs (6%), tourism (4%) and private jobs (4%). They primarily kept
Sheep Ovis aries,
Domestic Goat Capra hircus, Cattle Bos taurus followed by Domestic Horse Equus caballus, except in Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary, where Cattle were more common (Table
1).
A total of 92 livestock losses were
reported by respondents, encompassing 59 in Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary, 30 in Achabal Conservation Reserve, and three in
Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary (Figure 2). In Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary, there were 32 incidents of livestock predation. The Leopard was responsible for
53.12% of the attacks, the Asiatic Black Bear for 34.37%, and 12.5% of the
attacks were of unknown origin. Of the 59 livestock lost, most were
Sheep (64.41%), followed by Domestic Horse (16.95%), Cattle (15.25%),
and Domestic Goat (3.39%). Both predators primarily preyed on Sheep, with
the Asiatic Black Bear also targeting Cattle and the Leopard preferring Domestic Horse. Notably,
neither Asiatic Black Bear attacks on Domestic Horse nor Leopard attacks on
Cattle were reported.
In Achabal Conservation Reserve, 20 incidents of
livestock predation were reported. The Leopard was responsible for 85% of the
attacks and the Asiatic Black Bear for 15%. The 30
livestock lost included Cattle (50%), Sheep (43.33%), and Domestic Horse
(6.67%). The Asiatic Black Bear exclusively attacked Cattle, while the Leopard
primarily targeted Sheep, followed by Cattle. In Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary, only two incidents were reported, resulting in the loss of three
Cattle over a two-year period. Respondents identified the Asiatic Black Bear as
responsible for both attacks.
A significant difference was observed in
the livestock species attacked in Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary (χ2 =
19.052; p < 0.001; Cramer V = 0.594) and in the livestock species attacked
by the Leopard in Achabal Conservation Reserve (χ2 = 8.222; p = 0.016). There was also a significant difference between
the livestock species attacked by Asiatic Black Bear and
Leopard across the three protected areas (χ2 = 12.186; p = 0.007; Cramer V = 0.374).
The ages of the livestock attacked ranged
from less than 1‒7 years for Sheep, 2‒6 years for Domestic Goat, less than 1‒8
years for Cattle, and less than 1‒11 years for Domestic
Horse. Regression analysis revealed that the predators did not significantly
prefer any specific age group, although the 4‒6
years age group experienced slightly more attacks (Figure 3).
Asiatic
Black Bear attacks in three protected areas occurred predominantly during the
day (62.5%), followed by unknown times (25%), night (6.25%), and morning
(6.25%). Leopard attacks were most common during the day (70.59%), followed by
night (20.59%), evening (5.88%), and morning (2.94%). There was no significant
difference in the timing of attacks between the Asiatic Black Bear and the
Leopard (χ2 = 3.819; p = 0.282). Most Asiatic Black Bear attacks (92.59%)
occurred inside the forest, with 7.41% just outside it, and none near the
respondents’ homes or livestock pens. In contrast, the majority of Leopard
attacks (61.67%) occurred in the forest, followed by 33.33% inside corrals or
near the respondents’ homes, and 5% just outside the forest. The difference in
attack locations between the Asiatic Black Bear
and the Leopard was statistically significant (χ2 = 11.687; p =
0.003; Cramer V = 0.366).
The
majority of Asiatic Black Bear
(85.19%) and Leopard attacks (45%) occurred during the summer. For the Asiatic
Black Bear, this was followed by autumn (11.11%) and spring (3.7%), with no
attacks in winter. For the Leopard, the subsequent seasons were spring
(41.67%), autumn (8.33%), and winter (5%). There was a significant difference
in the seasonal distribution of attacks between the Asiatic Black Bear and the
Leopard (χ2 = 15.718; p = 0.001; Cramer V = 0.425). Additionally, a
significant difference was observed in the seasonal distribution of attacks for
both Asiatic Black Bear
(χ2 = 32.889; p < 0.001) and Leopard (χ2 = 32.533; p
< 0.001). The livestock species attacked also varied significantly across
seasons (χ2 = 22.253; p = 0.008; Cramer V = 0.292) (Figure 4).
However, no significant relationship was observed between the location of the
attack and the seasons (χ2 = 8.312; p = 0.216).
Linear
regression analysis showed a significant correlation between the frequency of
livestock killings and their relative availability (r2 = 0.71, p =
0.018) (Figure 5).
The
estimated economic loss resulting from livestock predation by Leopard and Asiatic Black Bear over two years was substantial
across the three surveyed protected areas. In Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary, the total loss amounted to 1,295,500
INR, representing an annual loss per respondent of 22,336.21 INR (1,861.35
INR/month/respondent). In Achabal Conservation
Reserve, the total loss was 878,000 INR, averaging 23,105.26 INR per respondent
annually (1,925.44 INR/month/respondent). In Rajparian
Wildlife Sanctuary, the losses were relatively lower, totalling
160,000 INR, with an average of 40,000 INR per respondent annually (3,333.33
INR/month/respondent).
When
asked about mitigation measures, most respondents favoured
the translocation of predators to other areas (24%), followed by compensation
(22%), while some offered no specific suggestions (18%). Other proposed
measures included fencing of protected areas (16%), habitat restoration for
wildlife (12%) and the elimination of problematic individuals (8%).
Livestock
predation was reported across all three surveyed protected areas, though cases
in Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary were minimal. This
may be attributed to the proximity of Rajparian
Wildlife Sanctuary to only one village, resulting in fewer livestock grazing
inside the sanctuary. Additionally, a well-guarded sheep farm within the
sanctuary possibly deterred predator movements in the area. Notably, no cases
of livestock predation were reported in Aru and Mandlan
villages in Overa-Aru Wildlife Sanctuary, and in
Sahibabad, Jogigund, Khundroo,
and Sombroona villages in Achabal
Conservation Reserve. This suggests reduced predator activity in the Mandlan-Aru stretch of Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary compared to the Khelan-Dahwatoo
stretch, and, similarly, less activity in the Sahibabad-Sombroona
stretch of Achabal Conservation Reserve. Most
incidents were recorded in Andoo village in Achabal Conservation Reserve and Nala
Overa in Overa-Aru Wildlife
Sanctuary likely due to their proximity to forests, making them more vulnerable
to predator incursions.
Sheep
were the most frequently preyed upon livestock by both the Leopard and the Asiatic Black Bear. The Asiatic Black Bear
primarily preyed on cattle, while the Leopard targeted Domestic Horse in
addition to sheep. The preference for Sheep can be attributed to their optimal
size, non-defensive behaviour, ease of killing, and
high availability. Surplus killing, where multiple individuals are killed in a
single attack, was observed primarily by the Leopard, a behaviour
also documented in other studies (Sangay & Vernes 2008). This phenomenon contributed to the majority
of kills during the study being attributed to the Leopard. The Leopard
typically prefers prey species weighing 10–40 kg and 2–25 kg (Dhungana et al. 2019), while the Asiatic Black Bear has
been reported to target all livestock species (Sangay
& Vernes 2008; Jamtsho
& Wangchuk 2016).
Both the Asiatic Black Bear and the Leopard were observed
to attack livestock across various age groups, with a slight preference for the
4–6 age range. This age group might be more attractive due to the optimal size
and vulnerability of the animals. A more detailed study with a larger dataset
could provide clearer insights into age-related predation patterns.
Asiatic
Black Bear attacks mostly occurred in the summer, followed by the autumn, with
predation peaking in June and July. Most Leopard attacks were also reported in
the summer, closely followed by the spring. No Asiatic Black Bear attacks were
recorded during the winter, likely due to their inactivity in this season. In
the summer, an abundance of forage in forests leads local communities to graze
their livestock in these areas, increasing their vulnerability to predation (Akrim et al. 2023). Additionally, the peak cropping season
keeps people busy, resulting in livestock being left unguarded and more
susceptible to attacks (Sangay & Vernes 2008).
Livestock
kills by both the Asiatic Black Bear and the Leopard were predominantly
diurnal, with a smaller percentage occurring at night. This contrasts with
results of similar studies conducted in Pakistan (Qamar et al. 2010) and India
(Gujarat) (Mesaria et al. 2023), where Leopard
attacks were mostly nocturnal. However, it aligns with findings from the Indian
Himalayan Region, where livestock predation occurs more often during the day
when livestock are taken for grazing and left unguarded (LeFlore
et al. 2019; Naha et al. 2020).
Dense
vegetation cover often leads to an increased risk of predation by large
carnivores (Kolowski & Holekamp
2006; Beattie et al. 2020). We observed similar patterns in our study area,
with the majority of Asiatic Black Bear and Leopard attacks occurring inside
forests. While these incidents may not be classified as human-wildlife negative
interaction (IUCN 2023), they still have a profound impact on the financial
well-being of local residents, highlighting the need for focused attention and
effective mitigation efforts. A significant proportion of Leopard attacks also
occurred inside corrals, possibly due to its hunting behaviour
and the multi-use nature of the landscape, which includes both forests and
agricultural areas (Naha et al. 2020).
The
perception of local people towards carnivores was generally positive, although
a small portion advocated for their elimination. Given the hesitance of
respondents to express their opinions more clearly, evidenced by 18% not
suggesting any preventive measures, it can be inferred that more local people
might hold this view. The negative attitude stems from substantial economic
losses caused by livestock predation, which is especially significant for
people from lower socioeconomic classes who depend on livestock for their
sustenance, increasing the risk of retaliatory killings and posing a
conservation concern.
Respondents
suggested various mitigation measures, including translocation of predators,
compensation for livestock losses, fencing of protected areas, and habitat
restoration. While not all measures may be feasible, habitat restoration is
particularly important as a healthy wild prey base can reduce conflicts (Khorozyan et al. 2015; Khan et al. 2018). A fair and speedy
compensation scheme could minimize economic losses and support long-term
wildlife conservation. Additionally, providing financial assistance to farmers
for building better corrals and increased guarding of livestock, especially
during summer, could significantly reduce predation rates (Le Flore et al.
2019; Akrim et al. 2023; Samelius
et al. 2021; Ullah et al. 2024).
Authorities,
in collaboration with local communities, should implement a comprehensive
conflict management strategy to alleviate the financial burden on people living
near protected areas and ensure the long-term conservation of wildlife.
Table 1. Total
livestock kept by residents in three protected areas: Overa-Aru Wildlife
Sanctuary (OAWS), Achabal Conservation Reserve (ACR),
and Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary (RWS).
|
Protected
area |
Cattle |
Domestic
horses |
Sheep
and domestic goats |
|
OAWS |
2,665 |
862 |
2,421 |
|
ACR |
1,265 |
30 |
1,420 |
|
RWS |
275 |
8 |
300 |
Table 2. Total
livestock lost to predation in three protected areas: Overa-Aru
Wildlife Sanctuary (OAWS), Achabal Conservation
Reserve (ACR), and Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary
(RWS).
|
Predator |
OAWS |
ACR |
RWS |
Total |
|||||
|
Sheep |
Cattle |
Domestic Horses |
Domestic Goats |
Sheep |
Cattle |
Domestic Horses |
Cattle |
||
|
Asiatic Black Bear |
13 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
27 |
|
Leopard |
23 |
0 |
8 |
2 |
13 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
60 |
|
Unknown |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
|
Total |
38 |
9 |
10 |
2 |
13 |
15 |
2 |
3 |
92 |
FOR
FIGURES - - CLICK HERE FOR FULL PDF
Akrim, F., T. Mahmood, J.L. Belant,
M.S. Nadeem, S. Qasim, I.-U.-D. Zangi
& M.A. Asadi (2021). Livestock depredations by leopards in Pir Lasura National Park,
Pakistan: Characteristics, control and costs. Wildlife Biology 2021(1),
(11 February 2021). https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00782
Akrim, F., N. Khursheed, J.L. Belant,
T. Mehmood, T. Mahmood, A. Rafique, S. Qasim, A.
Mushtaq, S. Aslam, Z.A. Subhani, U. Habib, S.A.
Hashmi, A. Aslam & N. Munawar (2023). Patterns, costs, and drivers of livestock depredations by leopards in
rural settlements of Pakistan. Global Ecology and Conservation 46:
e02564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02564
Beattie, K., E.R. Olson, B. Kissui, A. Kirschbaum & C. Kiffner (2020). Predicting livestock depredation risk by African Lions (Panthera leo) in a
multi-use area of northern Tanzania. European Journal of Wildlife Research 66(1):
11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1348-5
Bhat, A.H., A.H. Mir & S.A. Charoo (2023). Influence of habitat heterogeneity on avian diversity in the Rajparian Wildlife Sanctuary, Kashmir Himalaya. The
Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology 84(1): 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-023-00326-w
Bhat, T.A., S. Tanveer & K. Ahmad (2022). Community attitude towards wildlife
conservation: Insights from Hirpora Wildlife
Sanctuary Kashmir Himalayas. Journal of Himalayan Ecology and
Sustainable Development 17: 1–18.
Braczkowski, A.R., C.J. O’Bryan, C. Lessmann,
C. Rondinini, A.P. Crysell,
S. Gilbert, M. Stringer, L. Gibson & D. Biggs (2023). The unequal burden of human-wildlife
conflict. Communications Biology 6(1): 182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04493-y
Charoo, S.A., L.K. Sharma & S. Sathyakumar (2011). Asiatic Black Bear-human interactions around Dachigam
National Park, Kashmir, India. Ursus 22(2):
106–113.
Dar, J.A. & B.A. Bhat (2022). Seasonal diet composition of Leopard (Panthera pardus) in
and around Kazinag National Park, Kashmir, India. Biologia 77(12): 3511–3518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-022-01242-0
Dawood, U., Z.A. Teli,
B.A. Bhat, S.A. Charoo & L. Rashid (2025). Understanding the patterns of livestock
predation by wild carnivores for conservation planning in Kupwara,
Kashmir Himalaya. European Journal of Wildlife Research 71(1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01889-x
Dhungana, R., B.R. Lamichhane,
T. Savini, M. Dhakal, B.S.
Poudel & J.B. Karki (2019). Livestock depredation by Leopards around Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Mammalian
Biology 96: 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.03.006
Dhungana, R., T. Savini, J.B.
Karki, M. Dhakal, B.R. Lamichhane
& S. Bumrungsri (2018). Living with Tigers Panthera
tigris: Patterns, correlates, and contexts of
human–Tiger conflict in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Oryx 52(1): 55–65.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001587
Farooq, M., M.A. Rather & B.A. Sheikh
(2021). Wildlife Protected
Area Network Atlas of Jammu & Kashmir (UT). Department of Ecology,
Environment & Remote Sensing, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, 280 pp.
Garshelis, D. & R. Steinmetz (2020). Ursus thibetanus (amended version of 2016 assessment). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T22824A166528664. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2020-3.RLTS.T22824A166528664.en
Goodrich, J.M. (2010). Human-Tiger conflict: A review and call for
comprehensive plans. Integrative Zoology 5(4): 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00218.x
Gusset, M., M.J. Swarner,
L. Mponwane, K. Keletile
& J.W. McNutt (2009).
Human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: Livestock predation by Endangered
African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus
and other carnivores. Oryx 43(01): 67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308990475
Hanson, J.H. (2022). Household Conflicts with Snow Leopard
Conservation and Impacts from Snow Leopards in the Everest and Annapurna
Regions of Nepal. Environmental Management 70(1): 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01653-4
Inskip, C. & A. Zimmermann (2009). Human-felid conflict: A review of patterns
and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43(01): 18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530899030X
Islam, T., L. Ali, I.A. Nawchoo
& A.A. Khuroo (2023). Diversity and utilization patterns of fodder
resources in a Himalayan protected area. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 195(9): 1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11739-z
IUCN (2023). IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife
conflict and coexistence. First edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, xiv +
243 pp. https://doi.org/10.2305/YGIK2927
Jamtsho, Y. & S. Wangchuk (2016). Assessing patterns of human–Asiatic black
bear interaction in and around Wangchuck Centennial
National Park, Bhutan. Global Ecology and Conservation 8: 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.09.004
Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy,
P.K. Prasad & S. Dasgupta (2013). Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from
Western Ghats protected areas. Biological Conservation 166: 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.027
Karanth, K.K. & S.K. Nepal (2012). Local Residents Perception of Benefits and
Losses From Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environmental Management 49(2):
372–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1
Khan, U., S. Lovari,
S.A. Shah & F. Ferretti (2018). Predator, prey and humans in a mountainous area: Loss of biological
diversity leads to trouble. Biodiversity and Conservation 27(11):
2795–2813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1570-6
Khorozyan, I., A. Ghoddousi,
M. Soofi & M. Waltert
(2015). Big cats kill more
livestock when wild prey reaches a minimum threshold. Biological
Conservation 192: 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.09.031
Khosravi, R., L. Julaie, G.
Fandos, T. Kuemmerle &
A. Ghoddousi (2024). Determinants of livestock depredation risk
by Persian leopards in southern Iran. Biological Conservation 291:
110510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110510
Kichloo, M.A., A. Sohil & N. Sharma (2024). Living with Leopards: An assessment of
conflict and people’s attitudes towards the common leopard Panthera
pardus in a protected area in the Indian
Himalayan region. Oryx 58(2): 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605323001278
Kolowski, J.M. & K.E. Holekamp
(2006). Spatial, temporal, and
physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a
Kenyan reserve border. Biological Conservation 128(4): 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.021
Kuiper, T., A.J. Loveridge & D.W.
Macdonald (2021). Robust
mapping of human–wildlife conflict: Controlling for livestock distribution in
carnivore depredation models. Animal Conservation 25(2): 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12730
LeFlore, E.G., T.K. Fuller, M. Tomeletso
& A.B. Stein (2019).
Livestock depredation by large carnivores in northern Botswana. Global
Ecology and Conservation 18: e00592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00592
Loveridge, A.J., S.W. Wang, L.G. Frank &
J. Seidensticker (2010). People and wild felids: conservation of cats
and management of conflicts, Pp. 161–195 In: Macdonald, D.W. & A.J.
Loveridge (eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 783 pp.
Mesaria, S., P. Desai, S. Patel, D. Gadhavi, A.J. Giordano & N. Dharaiya
(2023). Livestock depredation by
Leopards, associated economic losses, and financial compensation to communities
in Chhota Udepur District
of central Gujarat, India. Human-Wildlife Interactions 17(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.26077/5242-8408
Morehouse, A.T., C. Hughes, N. Manners, J. Bectell & T. Bruder (2020). Carnivores and communities: A case study of
Human-Carnivore Conflict mitigation in southwestern Alberta. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution 8: 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00002
Naha, D., S.K. Dash, A. Chettri, P.
Chaudhary, G. Sonker, M. Heurich,
G.S. Rawat & S. Sathyakumar (2020). Landscape predictors of human–Leopard
conflicts within multi-use areas of the Himalayan region. Scientific Reports
10(1): 11129. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67980-w
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The hermeneutics of
snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology 11(4): 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305
Pooley, S., M. Barua,
W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A.J.
Loveridge, D.W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri,
A. Zimmermann & E.J. Milner-Gulland (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and
future approaches to improving human–predator relations. Conservation
Biology 31(3): 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859
Qamar, Z.Q., N.I. Dar, U. Ali, R.A. Minhas,
J. Ayub & M. Anwar (2010). Human-Leopard conflict: An emerging issue of
Common Leopard conservation in Machiara National
Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Wildlife 1(2):
50–56.
R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and Environment for
Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Accessed at https://www.R-project.org/ on 27 May 2024.
Samelius, G., K. Suryawanshi,
J. Frank, B. Agvaantseren, E. Baasandamba,
T. Mijiddorj, Ö. Johansson, L. Tumursukh
& C. Mishra (2021). Keeping
predators out: Testing fences to reduce livestock depredation at night-time
corrals. Oryx 55(3): 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000565
Sangay, T. & K. Vernes
(2008). Human–wildlife conflict
in the Kingdom of Bhutan: Patterns of livestock predation by large mammalian
carnivores. Biological Conservation 141(5): 1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.027
Stein, A.B., V. Athreya,
P. Gerngross, G. Balme, P.
Henschel, U. Karanth, D. Miquelle,
S. Rostro-Garcia, J.F. Kamler, A. Laguardia,
I. Khorozyan & A. Ghoddousi
(2020). Panthera
pardus (Amended Version of 2019 Assessment). The
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: e.T15954A163991139. Accessed on 13
June 2024. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T15954A50659089.en
Thorn, M., M. Green, F. Dalerum,
P.W. Bateman & D.M. Scott (2012). What drives human–carnivore conflict in the North West Province of
South Africa? Biological Conservation 150(1): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.02.017
Ullah, N., I. Basheer, F.U. Rehman, M. Zhang,
M.T. Khan, S. Khan & H. Du (2024). Livestock Depredation by large carnivores and human–wildlife conflict
in two districts of BalochistanProvince, Pakistan. Animals:
An Open Access Journal from MDPI 14(7): 1104. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14071104
van Eeden, L.M.,
M.S. Crowther, C.R. Dickman, D.W. Macdonald, W.J. Ripple, E.G. Ritchie &
T.M. Newsome (2018). Managing
conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology 32(1):
26–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12959
Woodroffe, R., L.G. Frank, P.A. Lindsey,
S.M.K. Ole Ranah & S. Romañach
(2007). Livestock husbandry as a
tool for carnivore conservation in Africa’s community rangelands: A
case–control study. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(4): 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9124-8
Zarco-González, M.M., O. Monroy-Vilchis & J. Alaníz (2013). Spatial model of livestock predation by Jaguar
and Puma in Mexico: Conservation planning. Biological Conservation 159:
80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.007