Tiger Ecology Study inFELDA Jerangau Barat,

Peninsular Malaysia

June 2006

Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab Brian Lee Meng Siong

Dionysius S.K. Sharma Mohd Azlan Jayasilan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

Tiger Ecology Study in FELDA Jerangau Barat, Peninsular Malaysia.

June 2006

Prepared by Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab, Brian Lee Meng Siong, Dionysius S.K. Sharma and Mohd Azlan Jayasilan.

Reviewed by Gareth Goldthorpe and Kae Kawanishi.

Suggested Citation: Ahmad Zafir Abdul Wahab, Brian Lee Meng Siong, Sharma, D.S.K. and Mohd. Azlan, J., 2006, Tiger Ecology Study in FELDA Jerangau Barat, Peninsular Malaysia, World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia.

Published June 2006 by WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Petaling Jaya, Malaysia under the project Tigers Alive I (MY0225B). Any reproduction of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. © Text 2006 WWF. All rights reserved.

iii

Acknowledgement

WWF-Malaysia wishes to thank the major donors whose contributions have funded the

project and enabled the project to meet its conservation and social objectives:

• WWF-International (Tiger Emergency Fund)

• WWF-UK

• WWF-Japan

• WWF-Netherlands

• The British High Commission

• ESSO Ladies Recreation Club

• Mr. Felix Tee

• And other individual donors

Throughout the tiger ecology study, WWF-Malaysia’s team has had the pleasure of

working with organizations and individuals to understand the issues and jointly develop

solutions for the conflict. We would like to thank the Department of Wildlife and

National Parks (DWNP) of Terengganu especially the Director, En. Ahmad Shamsudin,

for his support for the project and the Department of Forestry of Terengganu for their

permission to carry out the study in the Jerangau Forest Reserve.

Special appreciation goes to Pak Mat for being a wonderful forest guide and a good

friend. Others who have made this project a success include (but are not limited to) Mr.

Barry Smith, volunteers and interns who graced the project with their tireless dedication.

Special thanks for the Tigers Alive team members especially Mark Rayan Darmaraj,

Emmelia Azli and Sara Sukor for their contribution in finalizing this report.

This project would not have been a success without the commitment and friendship of the

local community in FELDA Jerangau Barat.

iv

Table of Content

List of Figures ................................................................................................................vList of Tables .................................................................................................................vExecutive summary........................................................................................................1 Ringkasan eksekutif .......................................................................................................3 1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................52.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................63.0 Study area.................................................................................................................64.0 Methodology............................................................................................................8

4.1 Camera-trapping ..........................................................................................8 4.2 Sampling sites ..............................................................................................8 4.3 Elucidating aspects of tiger ecology ..........................................................14

4.3.1 Number of individual tigers .................................................................14 4.3.2 Tiger territories and minimum roaming areas .....................................14 4.3.3 Activity pattern for tigers and their main natural prey ........................15 4.3.4 Density index of tigers and natural main prey .....................................16

4.4 Assessing the impacts of the conflict prescriptions on the tiger population and the rate of cattle predation in the adjacent villages. ..........................................16

5.0 Results and discussions..........................................................................................17 5.1 Number of tigers ........................................................................................17

5.1.1 First camera-trapping session ..............................................................17 5.1.2 Second camera-trapping session ..........................................................18

5.2 Tiger territories and minimum roaming area .............................................19 5.3 Activity pattern for tigers and their main natural prey ..............................22 5.4 Density index of tigers and natural main prey ...........................................25 5.5 Impacts of the implemented prescriptions on the local tiger population. ..26 5.6 Camera-trapping as a tool for conservation ...............................................26 5.7 Applying the understanding of tiger ecology to conflict mitigation..........27 5.8 Problems faced in camera-trapping ...........................................................28

6.0 Recommendations..................................................................................................28 References…................................................................................................................30 Appendix 1: Wildlife photographed in FELDA Jerangau Barat, February 2000 to

October 2001..............................................................................................31 Appendix 2: Tigers photographed in the study area during first camera-trapping

session (February 2000 to October 2001)..................................................33 Appendix 3: New tiger individuals photographed in the study area during the second

camera-trapping session (May 2003 to September 2003)..........................37 Appendix 4: Wildlife photographed in FELDA Jerangau Barat, May 2003 to

September 2003 .........................................................................................38

v

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Map of FELDA Jerangau Barat and Jerangau Forest Reserve....................7 Figure 4.1: Mounting a camera trap.............................................................................10 Figure 4.2: Testing the camera trap .............................................................................10 Figure 4.3: Location of camera traps for the first camera-trapping session .................... (February 2000 to October 2001) ................................................................................12 Figure 4.4: Location of camera traps for the second camera-trapping session................ (May 2003 to September 2003) ...................................................................................13 Figure 5.1: Map showing minimum roaming area for resident tigers base on locations of camera traps (February 2000 to October 2001).......................................................21 Figure 5.2a: Activity level (%) for tigers photographed in the first camera-trapping

session (February 2000 to October 2001)..................................................23 Figure 5.2b: Activity level (%) for tigers photographed in the second camera-trapping

session (May to September 2003)..............................................................23 Figure 5.2c: Activity level (%) for prey species photographed in the first camera-

trapping session ( February 2000 to October 2001)..................................24 Figure 5.2d: Activity level (%) for prey species photographed in the second camera-

trapping session (May to September 2003) ...............................................24

List of Tables

Table 5.1: Tigers photographed in the first session (February 2000 to October 2001)..............................................................................................................................18

Table 5.2: Tigers photographed in the second session (May 2003 to September 2003)..............................................................................................................................19

Table 5.3a: Tiger PTRDI .............................................................................................25 Table 5.3b: Wild pig PTRDI........................................................................................25 Table 5.3c: Barking deer PTRDI .................................................................................25

1

Executive summary

Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) Jerangau Barat (FJB) in the State of

Terengganu has a long history of livestock predation by tigers compared to other oil

palm plantation schemes. This oil palm plantation scheme has become one of the

hotspots for human-tiger conflict.

WWF-Malaysia initiated this study to assess the Malayan tiger (Panthera tigris

jacksoni) population and elucidate aspects that are relevant to understanding and

solving the human-tiger conflict in the area. This study also incorporated a component

to assess the overall effect of implementing various conflict mitigation prescriptions

to the local tiger population. Camera-trapping was selected as the main tool to

accomplish both the objectives.

Two camera-trapping sessions were conducted in the surrounding forest of the oil

palm plantation and the Jerangau Forest Reserve (JFR). The first session was carried

out from February 2000 to October 2001 while the second was conducted from May

2003 to September 2003.

From the first camera-trapping session 12 individual tigers were found to roam the

study area. A total of five males, four females and a cub were identified. Out of these,

one male and three females were identified as resident tigers. There were also two

other unidentified tigers whose sex could not be determined. In the second session, six

individual tigers were identified which includes three males, two females and one

tiger whose sex could not be determined. Three individuals, one male and two

females photographed in the second session are actually resident tigers that were

photographed in the first session.

Average minimum roaming areas for resident tigers were estimated from the camera-

trapping results. The minimum roaming area for the resident male and three other

resident females was 345km2, 198km2, 229km2 and 186km2 respectively. Results from

camera-trapping also enabled the plotting of activity levels for tigers and their main

prey, wild pig (Sus scrofa) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak). The study shows

that the tigers were nocturnal, being most active during dawn and dusk (6am to 8am

2

and 6pm to 8pm). The wild pig (Sus scrofa) and barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak)

both show a diurnal pattern with a tendency for the latter to be more active during

dusk.

The results from camera-trapping and surveys conducted among farmers at selected

villages around FJB suggested that the local tiger population was not negatively

affected by the implementation of better livestock management by the locals in oil

palm schemes.

Density indices for tiger, wild pig and barking deer were also calculated. The indices

for all three species were considerably lower during the second session compared to

the first. This could be due to the replanting activities that had taken place in the area

and the shorter study duration.

In this study, camera-trapping enabled the study team to monitor the tigers in the area

and understand their ecology in relation to human-wildlife conflict. It was a practical

way to monitor the effectiveness of conflict mitigation prescriptions in terms of its

impact to the local tiger population. The photographs from the camera traps were also

a tremendous asset in influencing and engaging the stakeholders.

The study team came across several problems relating to the current methods of

camera-trapping. Besides significant resource requirements, in terms of finance and

manpower, camera traps can be prone to malfunction when left in the field due to rain

and moisture. Film in camera traps was also sometimes spoilt by fungus. Camera

traps are also at risk of being stolen or damaged by elephants. Despite these

limitations, camera-trapping has been shown to be a very practical and feasible tool to

estimate minimum roaming area for tigers and for monitoring tiger populations

especially in areas where other methods do not work.

3

Ringkasan eksekutif

Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) Jerangau Barat (FJB) di

Terengganu telah mengalami konflik manusia-harimau sejak bertahun-tahun lampau.

Kawasan kemajuan kelapa sawit ini telah menjadi salah satu kawasan yang kerap

mengalami konflik manusia-harimau.

WWF-Malaysia telah mengambil inisiatif untuk mengkaji populasi harimau Malaya

(Panthera tigris jacksoni) serta memperincikan aspek-aspek yang berkaitan bagi

memahami dan mengurangkan konflik manusia-harimau di kawasan berkenaan.

Kajian ini juga melibatkan komponen untuk menilai kesan keseluruhan pelaksanaan

peraturan mitigasi konflik yang telah diambil terhadap populasi harimau setempat.

Kajian kamera perangkap telah dipilih sebagai kaedah utama untuk mencapai kedua-

dua objektif tersebut.

Dua sesi kajian menggunakan kamera perangkap telah dijalankan di kawasan hutan

sekitar FJB dan Hutan Simpan Jerangau. Sesi yang pertama telah dijalankan dari

Februari 2000 hingga Oktober 2001 manakala sesi yang kedua dijalankan dari Mei

2003 hingga September 2003.

Hasil kajian bagi sesi yang pertama telah mengenalpasti 12 ekor harimau yang

berkeliaran di kawasan kajian. Lima ekor harimau jantan, empat betina dan seekor

anak telah dikenalpasti. Dua lagi harimau tidak dapat ditentukan jantinanya. Seekor

harimau jantan dan tiga ekor harimau betina telah dikenal pasti sebagai harimau yang

mempunyai kawasan keliaran tetap di kawasan berkenaan. Dalam sesi yang kedua,

enam ekor harimau telah berjaya dikenalpasti. Daripada jumlah ini, tiga daripadanya

adalah jantan, dua betina dan satu lagi yang jantinanya tidak dapat ditentukan. Tiga

individu yang dikenalpasti (satu jantan dan dua betina) dalam sesi yang kedua adalah

merupakan harimau tempatan yang telah direkodkan semasa sesi yang pertama.

Purata kawasan rayau minima bagi setiap harimau tempatan telah dianggarkan

dengan menggunakan hasil kajian kamera perangkap. Purata kawasan rayauan bagi

harimau tempatan jantan dan tiga harimau tempatan betina adalah masing-masing

345km2, 198km2, 229km2 dan 186km2. Selain itu, hasil kajian kamera perangkap juga

4

membolehkan tahap aktiviti bagi harimau dan haiwan mangsa diplotkan. Hasilnya

menunjukkan harimau paling aktif di waktu malam. Babi hutan (Sus scrofa) dan

kijang (Muntiacus muntjak), lebih aktif di waktu siang dengan kijang yang lebih aktif

pada waktu senja.

Hasil kajian kamera perangkap dan survei yang telah dijalankan terhadap petani-

petani dari kampung-kampung di sekitar FJB mencadangkan populasi harimau di

kawasan berkenaan tidak menerima kesan negatif hasil dari implementasi pengurusan

haiwan ternak yang lebih baik di kawasan perladangan sawit berkenaan.

Indeks kepadatan bagi harimau, babi hutan dan kijang turut dikira. Index bagi ketiga-

tiga spesies adalah lebih rendah semasa sesi kajian kamera perangkap yang kedua. Ini

mungkin kerana aktiviti penanaman semula kelapa sawit yang telah berlaku di FJB

sewaktu kajian dijalankan dan tempoh kajian yang lebih singkat.

Dalam kajian ini, penggunaan kamera perangkap telah membolehkan kumpulan

kajian memantau harimau di kawasan berkenaan dan memahami ekologi harimau

berkaitan dengan konflik manusia-harimau. Penggunaan kamera perangkap juga

merupakan salah satu kaedah yang praktikal untuk memantau keberkesanan langkah-

langkah mitigasi konflik yang telah diambil dari segi kesannya terhadap ekologi

harimau setempat.

Kumpulan kajian turut menghadapi beberapa masalah yang berkaitan dengan

penggunaan kamera perangkap. Selain daripada memerlukan sumber kewangan serta

sumber manusia yang tinggi, kamera perangkap mudah rosak apabila digunakan di

lapangan akibat hujan dan kelembapan. Filem di dalam kamera juga kadangkala

dirosakkan kulat. Selain itu, terdapat juga kejadian di mana kamera perangkap dicuri

atau dimusnahkan oleh gajah. Walau bagaimanapun, dalam kajian ini kamera

perangkap telah menunjukkan bahawa penggunannya adalah sangat praktikal dan

berkesan untuk memantau populasi harimau serta menganggar kawasan rayauan

harimau di kawasan-kawasan yang kaedah lain agak kurang berkesan untuk

digunakan.

5

1.0 Introduction

This study was part of a multi-stakeholder project to develop solutions to human-tiger

conflicts in a Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) scheme in Jerangau

Barat, Terengganu (FJB), Terengganu. The settlers in this scheme grow and manage

oil palm trees and harvest the fruit for a living and a number of them rear and sell

cattle to supplement their income.

This oil palm plantation scheme has a long history of livestock predation by tigers

compared to other oil palm plantation schemes, possibly due to the close proximity of

their settlement (and their cattle paddocks) to the forests. Tigers from the surrounding

Jerangau Forest Reserve venture into their estates and regularly attack the cattle. As a

result, FJB has become a hotspot for human-tiger conflict. As an example, within a

period of six months in 1997 to 1998, 53 heads of cattle were killed in FELDA

Jerangau Barat alone (Vidyadaran & Sharma, 2000).

There were two other studies which were conducted concurrently to the current one; a

study on cattle management and another on the socio-economic status of the FJB

community. The results of these three studies were used to develop solutions to

mitigate and manage human-tiger conflicts in FJB. All three studies are summarized

‘Living In Harmony: Resolving conflicts between people and tigers at FELDA

Jerangau Barat, Peninsular Malaysia’ which also makes certain conservation

management recommendations.

While the other two studies focused on the human side of the conflict, the current

study attempts to assess the Malayan tiger (Panthera tigris jacksoni) population

dynamics and elucidate aspects that are relevant in understanding and solving the

conflicts.

This study also incorporates a component to assess the overall effect of implementing

various conflict mitigation prescriptions (WWF-Malaysia, 2006). This was done via a

two-pronged approach. The first was to conduct an assessment of the tiger population

in the forest surrounding the FELDA settlement. The study team tried to asses

whether the resident tigers still remained in the area after implementation of the

6

various conflict mitigation prescriptions by the project participants. The second was to

gauge tiger predation levels in adjacent villages at the end of the project.

2.0 Objectives

There were two main objectives of this study:

i. To elucidate aspects of tiger ecology relevant to the development of human-

tiger conflict solutions in FJB.

ii. To assess the impacts of the implemented prescriptions on the local tiger

population.

3.0 Study area

The study was conducted at FJB and Jerangau Forest Reserve (JFR) in the State of

Terengganu (N 4o 55.5′, E 103o 05.7′). The oil palm scheme was established in 1972

and is situated within the northern part of JFR (Figure 3.1). The main activities in this

FELDA scheme are oil palm production and cattle farming.

JFR receives an average annual rainfall of 2,000mm. The vegetation consists of

mainly hill dipterocarp forest and lowland dipterocarp forest. The dipterocarp forest

around the oil palm scheme, except for one compartment (approximately 1km2) was

logged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This has resulted in a secondary forest type,

particularly to the south of FJB and scrub vegetation comprising a mosaic of ferns

(Dicranopteris sp., Gleichenia sp.) particularly in abandoned log yards and on old

logging roads.

Logging activities were evident during the study period. Despite the disturbances due

to logging, the forest north of FJB still consists of extensive stands of mature

dipterocarp trees. Earlier studies have shown that diverse wildlife still exists in JFR.

Commonly recorded ungulates that are natural tiger prey include wild boar (Sus

scrofa), barking deer (Muntiacus muntjak), mousedeer (Tragulus spp.) and sambar

deer (Cervus unicolor) (Davison, unpublished data).

7

Figure 3.1: Map of FELDA Jerangau Barat and Jerangau Forest Reserve

There were 363 settlers and their families living in the settlement. Out of this, an

estimated 60 individuals were involved in cattle farming, a practice that is encouraged

within the plantations as a way for settlers to supplement their income. However, as

the cattle are left to freely graze throughout the plantation, they become easy prey for

tigers roaming the fringes of the forest.

As a direct result of human-tiger conflict in the area, one tiger was shot in 1998 for

killing at least 30 cattle in a single week (Vidyadaran and Sharma, 2000). There were

also unofficial reports that more tigers were actually killed throughout the years by

the locals, as retaliation against the loss of livestock. Tigers were shot or poisoned. As

the managing authority for human-wildlife conflict, the Department of Wildlife and

National Parks’ (DWNP) common practice is to capture persistent ‘problem tigers’

8

using steel cage-traps baited with goats or cattle (Nurizan and Laily, 2000). From the

community’s point of view, tigers are pests that should be eliminated.

4.0 Methodology

4.1 Camera-trapping

Camera-trapping was selected as the main tool to accomplish both objectives of the

study. This technique was deemed suitable as it has been shown to effectively

document the presence and distribution of terrestrial vertebrates without causing any

negative impacts on the animals (Champton, 1992; Griffiths & Van Schaik, 1993;

Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Cutler & Swann, 1999).

Two sessions of camera-trapping were conducted. The first session lasted 18 months

from February 2000 to October 2001. Data from this session was analyzed to

elucidate various aspects of tiger ecology as described in the following sections. This

was necessary to aid the development of solutions for the human-tiger conflicts in

FJB.

Data from this first session also formed the baseline data with which the tiger

population in the area was monitored. This was necessary in order to assess the

impacts of the conflict prescriptions on the tiger population. A second camera-

trapping session was conducted from May 2003 to September 2003 to assess the tiger

population five months after the implementation of a better livestock management

where farmers, involved in this project, were provided with tiger-proof paddocks and

guidelines on how to better manage their cattle for mitigating conflict with tigers.

4.2 Sampling sites

As part of the process to identify suitable locations for the cameras, field surveys were

carried out to evaluate known and active trails that tigers use. This was to maximize

the number of tigers that could be photographed. Local knowledge was also consulted

to determine the presence of tigers in a particular area.

9

This non-random selection was necessary as tigers occur in low densities in

Peninsular Malaysia. A random placement of sampling sites would result in many

cameras not detecting tigers (Karanth & Nichols, 2002).

Suitability of sampling sites was determined by factors such as the presence of

secondary signs such as tracks, scat deposition and width of trails (Karanth, 1995).

Unlike studies in India, where metal poles were used to mount the cameras, camera-

trapping in the tropical forests of Peninsular Malaysia highly depends on the

availability of suitable trees for the cameras to be mounted on. For example, in

Tadoba and Kanha, India, there is easy accessibility by vehicles into study areas and

this allows the research team to carry the metal poles to the targeted area. The hilly

terrain and dense forest growth in the Jerangau study area, however do not allow for

this. Constraints were also considered in the site selection process. These include the

number of available cameras, terrain conditions, accessibility, manpower and time.

Following standard methodology for camera-trapping large mammals, the cameras

were mounted on tree trunks, approximately 50cm above ground level (Figure 4.1)

and positioned facing obvious wildlife trails, paths or tracks. A clear site was selected

whenever possible to avoid the need to disturb or clear vegetation.

Once the cameras were in position, the locations were labeled on the film cases to

ensure the photographs could be referenced to the camera locations. The camera traps

were also tested before they were left unattended in the forest (Figure 4.2).

10

Figure 4.1: Mounting a camera trap

Figure 4.2: Testing the camera trap

A standard datasheet was used to record the coordinates of each location via a GPS

before they were converted into a GIS-ready format. The cameras were left for

approximately a month before the film and batteries were replaced.

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a©

WW

F-M

alay

sia/

Ahm

ad Z

afir

Abd

ul W

ahab

11

For the first camera-trapping session, 16 camera traps were operational at any one

time at 14 sites. Single cameras were deployed at all sites except for two sites (Figure

4.3) which were designated as checkpoints whereby two cameras were set up to face

each other across the trail. These checkpoints served to capture both flanks of

individual tigers and enable identification for tigers photographed at other sites. As

mentioned by Karanth (1995), it is essential to identify tigers by obtaining pictures of

both flanks simultaneously. However, having only a few checkpoints is not the best

approach in obtaining pictures required for studying tigers, and, since the current

study, WWF-Malaysia now uses double-camera traps at all camera-trapping locations,

as proposed by Karanth and Nichols (2002).

All the cameras operated continuously from February 2000 to October 2001 except

during the wet season (November to March), as the harsh weather would have caused

the cameras to malfunction.

In the second camera-trapping session a total of 19 cameras were deployed with 15 to

19 units active at any one time (Figure 4.4). No checkpoints were set for this session.

It should be noted that during the second camera-trapping session, there were some

areas within FJB being replanted with new oil palm. This might cause bias to the

results of the study. Besides that, camera traps were set at different locations within

the study area.

Due to climatic and logistical constraints, the trapping efforts in each session were not

equal.

12

Figure 4.3: Location of camera traps for the first camera-trapping session

(February 2000 to October 2001)

13

Figure 4.4: Location of camera traps for the second camera-trapping session (May 2003 to September 2003)

14

4.3 Elucidating aspects of tiger ecology

4.3.1 Number of individual tigers

Karanth and Nichols (2002) and Franklin et al. (1999) provided basic guidelines on

identifying individual tigers using diagnostic features in the stripe patterns. These

records were then used to identify individuals photographed at other sites in the

second session.

Each individual was given a simple code e.g. M1 for male tiger 1 and F1 for female

tiger 1. All capture occasions for each individual were then recorded in a Microsoft

Excel spreadsheet.

4.3.2 Tiger territories and minimum roaming areas

This study determined the resident and transient status of individual tigers by the

number of capture occasions throughout the study period. As there are currently no

recommended guidelines for ascertaining the status of individuals for Malayan tigers,

the authors decided to use the frequency of capture over a 12 month period as a guide.

A single year was divided into four quarters within which it was arbitrarily decided

that any individual photographed at least once in any three of those quarters,

consecutive or not, was considered a resident.

There are two reasons as to why the study team chose to use this system; firstly, as

camera-trapping is not carried out during the rainy season data could not be assessed

on a monthly basis throughout the year. Secondly, the connectivity of the study site to

adjacent forest blocks allows for free movement of tigers from one to the other and, as

the tiger’s roaming area is large, this can be considered likely. As a result, there is a

certain level of likelihood that tigers might not be captured on camera during periods

of movement between forest blocks or plantations.

15

The authors acknowledge that the camera trap locations in this study may not be

optimal in ensuring that no tigers had zero probability of being photographed. This is

one area that needs further study and improvement.

Minimum roaming area was determined for all resident tigers in the study area. This

was done using a GIS software (ArcView) where the outermost camera locations of

each individual were connected with straight, convex lines ultimately forming a

Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP). The area within this polygon was then taken as

the absolute minimum roaming area for the individual. Though there are inherent

weaknesses to this method, such as a tendency to overestimate home ranges and its

inability to show areas of activity within the range, it is a good tool for allowing

comparisons between similar studies (Gareth Goldthorpe, pers. comm.). Furthermore,

the MCP in this study is meant only to provide crude estimates of minimum roaming

area for tigers in the study area.

As it is unlikely that a tiger would limit its movements within the artificial boundaries

of the absolute minimum roaming area, a buffer distance was added. For the purposes

of this study, a distance of 7,492m was used for the male and 4,278m for the females.

This value was derived from the mean of half the maximum distances between

capture locations for all resident tigers (Karanth, 2002). The total area within this

buffered area was then taken as the minimum roaming area for each individual.

4.3.3 Activity pattern for tigers and their main natural prey

As the cameras were set to operate continuously it was possible to ascertain the time

of capture for each animal. The percentage of daily photographs, for a particular

species, taken at a particular time provides a measure of activity levels. Plotting the

percentage of activity levels against the time of capture, activity patterns for the

various species can be determined.

For the purposes of this study, activity patterns for tigers and their main natural prey

were plotted in order to determine if the activity patterns of each subset coincide.

Understanding the activity patterns of tigers, particularly in relation to their prey,

16

helps us to develop cattle management guidelines for the settlers in the area. Activity

patterns were plotted for each camera-trapping session.

4.3.4 Density index of tigers and natural main prey

The density index of tigers and their natural main prey was estimated using camera-

trap photographs. For the prey, only two species were subjected to this analysis

barking deer and wild pig. Sambar deer, another common staple diet for tigers, were

not photographed during the study.

To estimate the density, the Photo Trapping Rate-based Density Index (PTRDI), as

developed by Karanth (2002), was used. This index shows the number of

photographic captures of tigers and their prey per unit sampling effort. The equation

used to estimate the quantitative index of density for the study was:

I = n / trap nights

Where I = index estimates (mean number of photos per 100 trap nights)

n = total number of tigers or tiger prey photos

The strength of the index to demonstrate true prey density was not examined in this

study. This would have required the validation of the index via an independent

estimate of absolute prey density e.g. derived from line transect surveys (Karanth &

Nichols, 2002). However, due to time constraints and our need for only a crude

estimate, we decided to use this index.

4.4 Assessing the impacts of the conflict prescriptions on the tiger population

and the rate of cattle predation in the adjacent villages.

To assess the impacts of the implemented mitigation prescriptions, two approaches

were taken. The first was to conduct a second camera-trapping session, as described

in the previous section, from May to September 2003. The second was to conduct

informal questionnaire surveys on six villages adjacent to the study project site. This

survey was aimed at determining whether the implemented prescriptions had any

17

effect on the rate of cattle predation in the surrounding areas. In the survey, the

farmers were asked whether or not they faced any increase in cattle predation between

2002 and 2003. Farmers surveyed were from Kampung Gunung, Kampung Tok Dor,

Kampung Menerong, Kampung Pereh, FELDA Mengkawang and Kampung Baru

Sungai Binjai.

5.0 Results and discussions

5.1 Number of tigers

5.1.1 First camera-trapping session

The study covered 5,972 trap nights, which resulted in a total of 3,314 photographs.

Out of these, 67% were of wildlife. The full species list is given in Appendix 1. A

total of 101 photographs of tigers were acquired (Table 5.1). Individual tigers were

identified and sexed via good quality photographs.

Based on differences in pelage, 12 tiger individuals were found to roam the study

area. A total of five males, four females and one cub were identified (Appendix 2). In

addition, two individuals, whose sex could not be determined, were also recorded.

Photographs of the cub provided evidence of reproduction in the area.

The two males, M2 and M3 had been photographed since they were both cubs,

approximately 11-12 months old, at the beginning of the study. Both the cubs were

photographed consistently (at least once every quarter) until they were sub-adults. M2

was eventually photographed as an adult. In the photographs these cubs were

unaccompanied by adult females. According to Karanth (1995), tiger cub populations

can be underestimated where tiger cubs have low capture probabilities due to

deliberate avoidance of traps and other behavioral differences. The low capture rates

for cubs could also be due to the time delay set for the camera traps. As the cameras

were set to a minimum of three minutes between photographs, cubs accompanying

adult females (walking in front) were unlikely to be photographed.

18

In this study, nine identified adult tigers were hypothesized to roam the 170km2 area,

giving an average density of 5.29 tigers/100km2.

Table 5.1: Tigers photographed in the first session (February 2000 to October 2001)

Tiger individual Sex Number of Photographs

M1 Male 55

M2 Male 3

M3 Male 3

M4 Male 5

M5 Male 1

F1 Female 4

F2 Female 11

F3 Female 7

F4 Female 9

U1 -unknown- 1

U2 -unknown- 1

C1 (Cub) 1

Total 101

5.1.2 Second camera-trapping session

The construction of paddocks, as part of the conflict mitigation prescriptions was

completed on 16th October 2002. The second camera-trapping session, carried out to

monitor the impact of the conflict mitigation prescriptions started on 5th May 2003.

This period encompassed 1,641 trap nights, resulting in 433 wildlife photographs.

13% of these were of tigers. During that period, six tiger individuals were

photographed including one male (M1) and two females (F2 and F3) that have been

photographed in the first session (Table 5.2). This supports the classification of these

individuals as resident tigers.

M1 was photographed in different locations to those recorded in the first session

suggesting that it had changed its original roaming area. This situation could be due to

oil palm replanting activities that had taken place on February 2002 in some areas.

19

During this session, three new tiger individuals were also recorded including two new

males and one un-sexed individual (Appendix 3). There was insufficient data to

conclude whether these were transients or new residents. There were fewer tiger

individuals photographed in the second session but this is most likely due to the

shorter camera-trapping period.

Table 5.2: Tigers photographed in the second session (May 2003 to September 2003)

Tiger individual Sex Number of Photographs

M1* Male 3

M6 Male 2

M7 Male 2

F2* Female 4

F3* Female 1

U3 -unknown- 1

Total 13

*- Also photographed in the first session (February 2000 to October 2001)

5.2 Tiger territories and minimum roaming area

Out of the five males photographed, only one was confirmed to be a permanent

resident in Jerangau forest. This individual (M1) was photographed 55 times

throughout both camera-trapping sessions. M2 and M3, both of which were

photographed as juveniles, were photographed at least once every three quarters of the

year until they were sub-adults. M2 was photographed only once upon reaching

adulthood. This is in accordance to known tiger behaviour whereby offspring leave

their mothers upon reaching maturity to find their own territories (Karanth &

Chundawat, 2002).

The remaining males were photographed on less than four occasions throughout the

study period, suggesting that they were either transient or dispersing individuals and

not permanent residents. However, it is also possible that the cameras were set on the

periphery of their home range. As for the females, they were all photographed

20

between four to eleven times throughout the study period. Three females were found

to be residents; F2, F3 and F4. These animals were considered to be residents as they

fulfill the requirements as detailed in section 4.3.2.

The tigers that were photographed only occasionally may be considered to possess

territories that are either adjacent to, or partially over-lapping the study site. This

suggests that they may have little territorial stake within the study site and are referred

to, herein, as non-resident or transient individuals (Franklin et al., 1999). These

individuals may have been attracted to the area by the presence of domesticated

animals and wild boars or, in the case of males, by the females.

The minimum roaming areas for tigers in the study area were determined. For the

resident male, the minimum roaming area was 345km2 (Figure 5.1). The resident

females F2, F3 and F4 were estimated to have ranges of 198km2, 229km2 and 186km2

respectively. In Sumatra, Franklin et al. (1999) estimated the home range for three

Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) as 49km2, 70km2, and 116km2 for two

females and a male respectively.

It must be noted that the habitat in the current study differs from that found in the

study in Sumatra. The habitat in this study is mainly secondary, logged forest fringing

plantations and human settlement whilst the habitat studied by Franklin et al. (1999)

included lowland secondary forest and grasslands. These differences might explain

the variance between the roaming areas for the tigers. Also, the minimum roaming

areas in this study were calculated only for resident individuals.

21

Figure 5.1: Map showing minimum roaming area for resident tigers base on locations of camera traps (February 2000 to October 2001).

The study shows that roaming areas for resident males overlap with those of the

females. The complex dynamics between residents, transients and human activity is

still not fully understood throughout the tiger range countries, especially in areas

22

where dense tropical rainforest is interspersed with plantations and other forms of

human land-use.

The capture patterns of individuals show that tigers move through degraded forest

habitat and oil palm plantations. This suggests that oil palm plantations are part of

their roaming area. This was substantiated by local reports that tigers have been seen

crossing the road and in oil palm plantations. Local villagers know of one incident in

2001, whereby a vehicle almost hit a tiger as it was trying to cross an asphalt road.

Immigration of tigers into the study site is anticipated due to two different factors.

Firstly, the removal of resident tigers by DWNP or local communities would create a

territorial vacuum. Secondly, the presence of active habitat reduction pressures in

surrounding areas can create a sink from which tigers from a source enter; in this case

Jerangau Forest Reserve.

5.3 Activity pattern for tigers and their main natural prey

Even though camera-trap photographs were supposed to record the date and time of

capture, these were occasionally illegible. This was often caused by flash

overexposure in the corner of the photograph where the date and time was marked.

Besides that, there were also occasions where date and time were not printed on the

photograph due to errors in programming the camera. As the result, not all

photographs could be used for this analysis.

The calculated activity levels for tigers are shown in Figure 5.2a and 5.2b. The

differences between figures 5.2a and 5.2b might be caused by a combination of the

replanting of oil palm, a shorter study period and a smaller sample size. The results

from the first camera-trapping phase illustrate more reliable patterns of activity for

tigers in the study area due, mainly, to a larger sample size facilitated by a longer

trapping session. However, both the figures indicate that tigers are most active at

night, especially during dawn (6-8am) and dusk (6-8pm) and these same patterns were

also evident in the study by Laidlaw and Wan Shaharudddin (1998). This supports

accepted understanding that tigers in this area are relatively nocturnal. However, this

23

was the opposite of the study by Kawanishi (2002), which found that the tigers in

Taman Negara are diurnal being more active in the day.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time

Act

ivity

leve

l (%

)

n= 101

Figure 5.2a: Activity level (%) for tigers photographed in the first camera-trapping session (February 2000 to October 2001).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time

Act

ivity

leve

l (%

)

n= 13

Figure 5.2b: Activity level (%) for tigers photographed in the second camera-trapping session (May to September 2003).

24

Wild pigs and barking deer both exhibited diurnal patterns (Figure 5.2c and 5.2d).

This is comparable with the findings by Kawanishi (2002). From this study, barking

deer were found to be more active at dusk in both sessions.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time

Act

ivity

leve

l (%

)

Muntiacus muntjak Sus scrofa

n (Muntiacus munjak) = 172 , n (Sus scrofa) = 774

Figure 5.2c: Activity level (%) for prey species photographed in the first camera trapping session ( February 2000 to October 2001).

02468

101214161820

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Time

Act

ivity

leve

l (%

)

Muntiacus muntjak Sus scrofa

n (Muntiacus munjak) = 23, n (Sus scrofa) = 141

Figure 5.2d: Activity level (%) for prey species photographed in the second camera-trapping session (May to September 2003)

25

5.4 Density index of tigers and natural main prey

From the total number of photographs obtained of tigers, barking deer and wild pig, a

PTRDI of each species was calculated.

Table 5.3a, b and c respectively show the density index of tiger, wild pig and barking deer.

Table 5.3a: Tiger PTRDIPeriod Sampling efforts (trap nights) n I Feb ‘00 –Oct ‘01 5,972 151 2.53

May ’03 – Sept ‘03 1,641 13 0.89

Table 5.3b: Wild pig PTRDI Period Sampling efforts (trap nights) n I

Feb ‘00 –Oct ‘01 5,972 774 12.96

May ’03 – Sept ‘03 1,641 141 8.59

Table 5.3c: Barking deer PTRDIPeriod Sampling efforts (trap nights) n I

Feb ‘00 –Oct ‘01 5,972 172 2.88

May ’03 – Sept ‘03 1,641 23 1.40

n: total number of photographs

I: mean number of photographs/100 trap nights

The PTRDI for all three species were considerably lower during the May 2003 to

September 2003 period. This could be due to the oil palm replanting activities that

had taken place in the area or maybe due to seasonality.

Surprisingly, throughout the study period, no photographs of sambar deer were

recorded. This could be indicative of a local extinction of this species or the low

number of this animal, probably due to over-hunting, or an active avoidance of traps.

Hunting activities in the area were shown through photographs from the camera-traps

of armed men, assumed to be local, taken during the study period. The absence of

26

sambar deer might also be a result of logging activities during the camera-trapping

sessions. The implications of this for resident carnivores may be reflected in the

occurrence of predation upon livestock. No effort was made to record secondary sign

of this species in the area.

5.5 Impacts of the implemented prescriptions on the local tiger population.

Both the assessments carried out during the study period show that the resident tigers

still remained in the area after the implementation of better livestock management

practices in FJB. This suggests that resident tigers are not dependent on domestic

cattle for food and that natural prey species are in enough abundance to support them.

The survey conducted on local farmers from Kampung Gunung, Kampung Tok Dor,

Kampung Menerong, Kampung Pereh, FELDA Mengkawang and Kampung Baru

Sungai Binjai showed that there was no increase in cases of tiger predation on

livestock in the selected villages. Even though there were less free-ranging cattle in

FJB, the conflict was not diverted to the surrounding villages.

Both the assessments suggest that the tigers do not totally depend on cattle as their

source of food and can still survive in the area with less free-ranging cattle. Probably,

the tigers in the Jerangau forest are opportunists preying upon the relatively easily

killed free-ranging cattle. The removal of these “easy targets” may results in a shift

back to the original prey-base as represented by such species as barking deer and wild

pig.

5.6 Camera-trapping as a tool for conservation

The importance of camera-trapping in understanding tiger ecology has been

demonstrated in this study as it has in many others (Karanth & Nichols, 1998; Cutler

& Swann, 1999; Karanth & Nichols, 2002, Kawanishi, 2002). Camera-trapping

enabled the study team to monitor the tigers in the area and understand their ecology

in relation to human-wildlife conflict. The combination of camera-trapping and

27

questionnaires targeted to local communities proved a very practical way to monitor

the effectiveness of conflict mitigation prescriptions in terms of its impact to the local

tiger population.

The photographs from the camera-traps were also a tremendous asset in influencing

and engaging the stakeholders. They provide an effective communication tool for

farmers who have, mostly, below-average education. These photographs were often

used in workshops and informal discussions to explain and advise farmers to change

their approach to cattle management.

Even though most of the forest surrounding FJB and the JFR are disturbed and

degraded, they still support diverse wildlife. Species richness in the area, based on

data from camera-trapping efforts alone, revealed a total of 43 wildlife species

(Appendix 1 and Appendix 4).

Towards the end of this study period, an improved camera-trapping methodology was

published by Karanth and Nichols (2002). A more effective method of conducting

camera-trapping and analyzing the results was recommended by the authors. The

methods proposed result in better data collection that can be used to estimate tiger

population density in a study area. These include camera-trap settings, distance

between traps and the various statistical analysis methods. Future tiger studies should

apply these recommended methods as it will result in better estimates as well as

provide a standard platform for comparison with other studies. However, it must first

be adapted to local needs as necessary. As an example, to overcome problems due to

high humidity levels in the tropical rain forests, desiccants should be placed liberally

in each camera trap housing to avoid jamming of the film and spool of the camera.

5.7 Applying the understanding of tiger ecology to conflict mitigation

The farmers and the FELDA management were made aware of the natural roaming

area of tigers near them. They were shown maps of tigers’ roaming areas and the

overlap of tiger habitat with their cattle roaming areas during the study period. These

clearly demarcated areas of potential human-wildlife conflict and identified areas that

28

are unsuitable for cattle grazing. Explanations were also made regarding the time of

the day tigers are active in search of prey. Consequently, farmers were advised not to

let their livestock roam freely at night and to have a proper paddock system for

securing their livestock when tigers are active.

The results of this study were also instrumental in the study team’s efforts to engage

and collaborate with other stakeholders such as the Department of Veterinary

Services, the Department of Forestry and DWNP. It became obvious to all at the end

of the project that there is a need to have practical guidelines for livestock

management in order to reduce levels of human-wildlife conflict and at the same time,

increase the farmers’ income.

5.8 Problems faced in camera-trapping

The research team encountered several problems in the methods applied in this study.

Aside from the significant resource requirements (e.g. high levels of effort, manpower

and funds) camera traps tend to malfunction when left in the field for extended

periods, due mainly to rain and humidity. Sometimes, photographs taken by the

camera-traps had to be disregarded as the films were spoilt by fungus. To overcome

this, silica gel pellets were placed in each protective case as a desiccant. Cameras

were also often damaged by elephants and, in some rare cases, camera units were

actually stolen by, it is assumed, members of the local communities. In such cases, it

is necessary to prepare extra units for replacement.

6.0 Recommendations

From the point of view maximising resources in such studies, it is suggested that the

staff from the Forestry Department and the DWNP be invited to play a bigger role.

This could be in form of field assistants or forest guides. This would reduce

manpower costs and logistic issues while at the same time jointly build the capacity of

all stakeholders. Strategic collaboration among stakeholders will enable more efficient

utilisation of all resources.

29

Such collaboration will also encourage data sharing among the partners. At the

moment, data sharing is still not widely practiced among partners. An appropriate

platform for this can potentially be developed by the Department of Wildlife and

National Parks in the form of the Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers

(MYCAT).

Specific recommendations for mitigating the issue of tiger predation on livestock can

be found in WWF-Malaysia’s report ‘‘Living In Harmony: Resolving conflicts

between people and tigers at FELDA Jerangau Barat, Peninsular Malaysia’.

The authors acknowledge the weaknesses in the design of this study which includes

camera-trapping period, gap between camera-trapping session and assessment of

impact being too short and the use of crude analytical tools. However, due to the

general lack of data on the Malayan Tigers in Peninsular Malaysia, this study still

brings benefit for the mitigation of human-tiger conflict and conservation of the

species.

30

References

Champton, F. W., 1992. With a camera in tiger-land. London.

Cutler, T. L. & Swan, D. E., 1999. Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bullettin 27: 571 – 581

Franklin, N., B. Sriyanto, D. Siswomartono, J. Manansang & R. Tilson. 1999. Last of the Indonesian tigers: a cause for optimism. In: Seidensticker, J., S. Christie & P. Jackson (eds.) Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human dominated landscapes. University Press, Cambridge. Pp 131-147.

Griffiths, M. G. & Van Schaik, C. P., 1993. Camera-trapping: a new tool for the study of elusive rain forest animals. Tropical Biodiversity. 1: 131-135

Karanth, K. U. 1995. Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation 71: 333-338

Karanth, K.U. & Chundawat, R.S. 2002. Ecology of the tiger: Implications for population monitoring. In: Karanth K.U. & Nichols J.D. (eds.), Monitoringtigers and their prey: A manual for researchers, managers and conservationist in Tropical Asia, Centre for Wildife Studies, India. Pp 9-22.

Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. 1998. Estimating tiger densities in India from camera trap data using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology. 79:2852-2862.

Karanth, K.U. & Nichols, J.D. 2002. Monitoring tigers and their prey: A manual for researchers, managers and conservationists in tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife Studies, India.

Kawanishi, K. (2002). Population status of tigers (Panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. 150 pp.

Laidlaw, R. and Wan Shaharuddin W. N., 1998, Activities pattern of the Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti) and prey species in Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 16:85-96.

Nurizan, Y. and Laili, P. 2000. Socio-economic status of settlers and perception towards tiger-human conflicts at FELDA Jerangau Barat, Terengganu. Unpublished report for World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia, Petaling Jaya.

Vidyadaran, M.K. and Sharma R.S.K. 2000, Cattle management in relation to tiger predation at FELDA Jerangau Barat oil palm estate, Terengganu: Current practices and recommendations for improvement. Unpublished report for World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia, Petaling Jaya.

WWF-Malaysia, 2006, Living together in harmony: Resolving conflicts between people and tigers at FELDA Jerangau Barat, Peninsular Malaysia. Report by World Wide Fund for Nature Malaysia, Petaling Jaya.

31

Appendix 1: Wildlife photographed in FELDA Jerangau Barat, February 2000 to October 2001

Common name Scientific Name Number of photographs

Asian elephant Elephas maximus 10

Asian wild dog Cuon alpinus 13

Banded linsang Prionodon linsang 3

Barking deer Muntiacus muntjak 172

Bat sp. 1

Binturong Arctictis binturong 1

Black panther Panthera pardus 103

Brush- tailed porcupine Atherurus macrourus 26

Buffalo Bubalus bubalis 2

Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa 13

Common palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus 16

Common porcupine Hystrix brachyura 13

Crested fireback pheasant Lophura ignita 1

Crestless fireback pheasant Lophura erythropthalma 1

Feral/domestic cat Felis catus 2

Golden cat Catopuma temminckii 38

Great argus pheasant Argusianus argus 37

Green-winged pigeon Chalcopaps indica 8

Jungle fowl Galus galus 8

Large Indian civet Viverra zibetha 3

Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis 86

Long-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis 21

Long-tailed porcupine Trichys lipura 7

Malay civet Viverra tangalunga 28

Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus 167

Malayan tapir Tapirus indicus 280

Malayan tiger Panthera tigris jacksoni 151

Marble cat Pardofelis marmorata 1

32

Masked palm civet Paguma larvata 2

Mongoose - 16

Monitor lizard Varanus sp. 20

Moon rat Echinosorex gymnurus 1

Mouse deer Tragulus spp. 83

Pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina 91

Rat Rattus sp. 14

Serow Capricornis sumatrensis 1

Squirrel - 12

Wild pig Sus scrofa 774

Yellow-throated marten Martes flavigula 2

33

Appendix 2: Tigers photographed in the study area during first camera-trapping session (February 2000 to October 2001)

Male 1

Male 2

Male 3

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

34

Male 4

Male 5

Female 1

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

35

Female 2

Female 3

Female 4

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

36

Cub 1

Unknown 1

Unknown 2

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/M

ohd

Azl

an Ja

yasi

lan

©

WW

F-M

alay

sia/

Moh

d A

zlan

Jaya

sila

n ©

WW

F-M

alay

sia/

Moh

d A

zlan

Jaya

sila

n

37

Appendix 3: New tiger individuals photographed in the study area during the second camera-trapping session (May 2003 to September 2003).

Male 6

Male 7

Unknown 3

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/A

hmad

Zaf

ir A

bdul

Wah

ab

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/A

hmad

Zaf

ir A

bdul

Wah

ab

©W

WF-

Mal

aysi

a/A

hmad

Zaf

ir A

bdul

Wah

ab

38

Appendix 4: Wildlife photographed in FELDA Jerangau Barat, May 2003 to September 2003

Common name Scientific Name Number of photographs

Asian Elephant Elephas maximus 2

Asian wild dog Cuon alpinus 6

Banded linsang Prionodon linsang 1

Barking deer Muntiacus muntjak 23

Black panther Panthera pardus 33

Brush-tailed porcupine Atherurus macrourus 6

Clouded leopard Neofelis nebulosa 1

Common palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus 3

Crestless fireback pheasant Lophura erythropthalma 17

Golden cat Catopuma temminckii 10

Great argus pheasant Argusianus argus 6

Green-winged pigeon Chalcophaps indica 2

Hornbill 1

Large Indian civet Viverra zibetha 4

Leopard cat Prionailurus bengalensis 8

Long-tailed macaque Macaca fascicularis 7

Malay civet Viverra tangalunga 6

Malayan sun bear Helarctos malayanus 21

Malayan tapir Tapirus indicus 54

Malayan tiger Panthera tigris jacksoni 13

Malaysian peacock pheasant Polyplectron inopinatum 1

Mongoose 10

Monitor lizard Varanus salvator 1

Mousedeer Tragulus spp. 40

Pig-tailed macaque Macaca nemestrina 12

Rat 2

Wild pig Sus scrofa 141

Yellow-throated martin Martes flavigula 2

39

WWF-Malaysia, the national conservation trust, is committed to safeguarding our country’s natural resources and unique wildlife for all Malaysians. Since 1972, WWF-Malaysia has worked on important conservation projects, from saving endangered species such as tigers and turtles, to protecting our highland forests, rivers and seas.

WWF-Malaysia is able to leverage upon conservation expertise world wide as part of WWF, the global conservation organisation that has almost 5 million supporters and activities in more than 90 countries.

WWF’S Mission is to stop the degradation of the natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by: - conserving the world’s biological diversity - ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable - promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful exploitation consumption

for a living planet ®

WWF-Malaysia Tabung Alam Malaysia

49 Jalan SS23/15 Taman SEA 47400 Petaling Jaya Selangor, Malaysia

Tel: +60 (03) 7803 3772 Fax: +60 (03) 7803 5157 Email: wwfmal@wwf.org.my Website: www.wwfmalaysia.org

Donations are tax-deductible under Malaysian law