NOWHERE TO HIDE:THE TRADE IN SUMATRAN TIGER

CHRIS R. SHEPHERDNOLAN MAGNUS

A TRAFFIC SOUTHEAST ASIAREPORT© 2004 TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
All rights reserved.
All material appearing in this publication is
copyrighted and may be produced withpermission. Any reproduction in full or inpart of this publication must credit TRAFFICSoutheast Asia as the copyright owner.
The views of the authors expressed in thispublication do not necessarily reflect thoseof the TRAFFIC Network, WWF or IUCN.
The designations of geographical entities inthis publication, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC
or its supporting organizations concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The TRAFFIC symbol copyright andRegistered Trademark ownership is held by
WWF, TRAFFIC is a joint programme of
WWF and IUCN.
Layout by Noorainie Awang Anak,
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
Suggested citation: Shepherd, Chris R. and
Magnus, Nolan (2004).
Nowhere to hide: The trade in Sumatran Tiger

TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
Cover photograph:
Chris R. Shepherd / TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

NOWHERE TO HIDE:THE TRADE IN SUMATRAN TIGER

CHRIS R. SHEPHERDNOLAN MAGNUS

Credit: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

TRADE OF THE SUMATRAN TIGER Panthera tigris sumatrae
TRADE
OF THES U M AT R A N T I G E R
Panthera
tigrissumatrae
TRADE
OF THESUMATRAN TIGER
Panthera
tigrissumatrae
TRADE
OF THESUMATRAN TIGER
Panthera
tigrissumatrae

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

CONTENTS
Key to Abbreviations used in this reportiv

Acknowledgementsv

Executive Summaryvi

1. Introduction
1.1 Status and conservation of the Sumatran Tiger
1.2 Background on Sumatran Tiger parts and products
1.2.1 International trade
1.2.2 Domestic trade
1.2.3 The role of fakes
1.3 Legal protection framework for Sumatran Tigers

1
1-10
11
12-14
15-18
18
18-20

2. Methods
2.1 Literature review
2.2 Market surveys

20
20
21

3. The supply: Tiger hunting in Sumatra
3.1 Hunting methods
3.2 Incidental killing of tigers
3.3 Human-tiger conflict
3.4 Estimating the total number of Sumatran Tigers killed and removed

22-23
24-26
26-27
28-32
32-36

4. The market: Illegal trade in Sumatran Tiger parts and products
4.1 Market structure
4.2 Market surveys
4.2.1 North Sumatra
4.2.2 Aceh
4.2.3 West Sumatra
4.2.4 Jambi
4.2.5 South Sumatra
4.2.6 Lampung
4.2.7 Bengkulu
4.2.8 Riau

37
38-39
39-45
45-51
51-52
52-53
53-55
55-56
56-58
58-60
60-62

4.3 Conclusion

62-63

5. The role of Sumatran zoos in tiger conservation and trade

63-66

6. Conclusions

67-69

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tigerii

7. Recommendations

70-72

References

73-78

Appendices
Appendix 1. Provincial records of known incidents of human-tiger
conflicts in Sumatra from 1997 to 2002

94-98

Appendix 2. TRAFFIC market survey results by province

81-93

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

iii

Key to Abbreviations used in this report
CITES
cm
DFNC
FFI-ID
GIS
ID
IP
IRF
kg
km
KSDA
m
NGO
PHKA
PHVA
RPU
SECP
STCP
TCU
TPU
TRAFFICWCS
WWF-ID

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora:
treaty regulating international trade in endangered species
centimetre
Department of Forestry and Nature Conservation (Department of PHKA)
Fauna and Flora International Indonesia Programme, British-based international
conservation NGO
Geographic Information System: mapping software for combining different types ofdata
Indonesia
Indonesia ProgrammeInternational Rhino Foundation
kilogrammekilometre
Natural Resources Conservation Agency (Under PHKA)
metre
Non-Governmental Organisation
Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam: Ministry of Forestry, Indonesia
Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (program of the IUCN/SSC
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group
Rhino Protection Unit: anti-poaching teams managed by PHKA and theInternational Rhino Foundation
Sumatran Elephant Conservation Programme (FFI)
Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program: a partnership between the Tiger Foundation,
Sumatran Tiger Trust and PHKA
Tiger Conservation Unit: large blocks of habitat for Tigers identified by GIS
analysis (Wikramanayake et al 1998)
Tiger Protection Unit: anti-poaching teams for Tigers managed by PHKA and NGO
partners including FFI, STCP and WCS
The wildlife trade monitoring network
Wildlife Conservation Society: US-based international conservation NGO
Conservation organization

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following individuals and organisations for their valuable assistanceduring the field surveys, without which this report would not have been possible: Farina Dewi, Mike
Griffiths, Yarrow Robertson, Anhar Lubis, and the Indonesian programme staff from Fauna and FloraInternational, Wildlife Conservation Society and Yayasan WWF Indonesia.
The authors would also like to thank Debbie Martyr, Dr. Kae Kawanishi, Chairul Saleh, Hariyo T.
Wibisono, Sarah Christie, Stuart Chapman and Elizabeth A. Burgess for their assistance in the peer review
process of this report, in addition to TRAFFIC staff that also reviewed and commented on this report,
particularly James Compton, Maija Sirola, Sabri Zain and Steven Broad.
Special thanks are due to Kristin Nowell, from the IUCN-SSC Cat Specialist Group, for the technicalediting of this report.
The initial phase of this research was made possible by a grant from 21st Century Tiger. Following
TRAFFIC's completion of the research, WWF-United Kingdom generously provided additional funding
to allow for the technical review and publication of this report.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tigerv

Executive Summary
The Sumatran Tiger is listed as Critically Endangered, (the highest category of threat), on the IUCN
2003 Red List of Threatened Animals (Anon., 2003a). Since the early 1990s, a continued andleading threat faced by the Sumatran Tiger is poaching for their bones, which are used in a variety of
traditional Asian medicines. Indonesia was singled out in South Korean Customs import records as
being a major supplier of tiger bone (1975-1992). During the 1990s, the international conservation
community and the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) greatly increased efforts to conserve wild tiger populations and eliminate
domestic markets for tiger bone throughout the world, especially in Asian countries. A review ofprogress by TRAFFIC (Nowell, 2000) found that significant progress had been made. However,Sumatra was singled out as a tiger range area where trade in tiger bone and other tiger products
continued in a fairly open manner. TRAFFIC thus organized a comprehensive survey of tiger
poaching and trade in Sumatra to document the current extent of the problem and provide thenecessary information to management and enforcement authorities to act upon.
Despite Sumatran Tigers being fully protected by law, with tough provisions for jail time and steep
fines, as well as increased effort in tiger conservation and building law enforcement and antipoaching capacity, this survey demonstrates the existence of a substantial market for tiger parts andproducts in Sumatra. Surveys were carried out in all eight provinces of Sumatra in 2002, with a totalof 24 towns and cities being surveyed, recording 484 observations from shops and dealer sources in
2002. Only seven towns in this survey did not have tiger parts for sale (29% of towns). In the other17 towns a total of 117 shops and dealers (25% of those surveyed) were found to have tiger parts forsale. A total of 453 retail shops were surveyed and 86 (19%) were observed to have tiger parts for
sale, primarily canines and claws. Most trade in skins and bones was carried on in a covert mannerby a variety of dealers. Thirty-one dealer contacts were made with information on the sale of tiger
parts.
Most Sumatran tigers were found to be killed by professional or semi-professional hunters operating
individually or in small groups. They were also found to be killed primarily with inexpensive andsimple-to-make wire cable leg-hold snares. Sometimes the traps which catch and kill Sumatran
Tigers were sometimes intended to catch other species, and the tiger was killed by accident.
Information on this type of tiger killing from investigators suggests that at least four tigers per year
are killed as “incidental killings”. Although not the target species, the tiger’s parts frequently entered
the trade.
Human-tiger conflict has long been a serious problem in Sumatra, compared to other parts of thetiger’s global range. Many people have been killed or wounded by tigers; tigers frequently prey on
livestock. As a result, villagers often seek to have problem tigers killed, although they areencouraged to contact the Forestry department to try to have the problem animal live-trapped andremoved from the area.
Although the numbers of tigers lost through incidental killings or as a result of human-tiger conflictare significant, most tigers in Sumatra are apparently killed deliberately for commercial gain. Our

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tigervifindings show that tiger poaching has not declined significantly over the past decade, despite
greatly increased conservation efforts and global measures to curtail tiger bone trade. Previously it
was thought that tigers were being poached primarily on the edges of forests in regions near villages
where they come into conflict with people. However, in TRAFFIC’s investigation, poachers andundercover investigators stated that tigers are hunted deep within national parks.
The survey also suggested the possibility that tiger bone trade in Sumatra has declined. TRAFFIC’s
surveys found less tiger bone available than in previous surveys from 1995 (Plowden and Bowles,
1997), and also lower prices for Sumatran Tiger bone than have been reported in the past (Tilson andTraylor-Holzer, 1994, Nowell, 2000). This report echoes the conclusion of TRAFFIC’s global review
of tiger bone trade in the late 1990s (Nowell, 2000): that despite apparent progress incurtailing markets for tiger bone used in traditional Asian medicines, there is little evidence toindicate a major decline in tiger poaching.
Information from traders in Sumatra also indicates that tiger bone and other tiger parts arereportedly still smuggled out of Sumatra. Traders report that tiger parts are sold to Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore, Japan, Malaysia and China. Singapore and Malaysia may act as transit countries as wellas consumers for tiger parts.
The findings of this report show the structure and extent of the trade, which is essential in guiding
future work, and in highlighting the importance of increased enforcement. Numerous sourcesindicate that a lack of political will at best, and widespread corruption at worst, hinders enforcementof trade and hunting bans. In the last few years, there have been intensified efforts to improve law
enforcement and anti-poaching capacity in Sumatra. This report should sound the alarm regarding
the crisis Sumatra’s Tigers currently face, and provide vital information for government andconservation organizations to work from.
Loss of habitat through illegal logging, and high levels of human-tiger conflict will continue tothreaten the Sumatran Tiger unless greater effort is made to control timber harvest and land
conversion, and develop effective policies to manage problem tigers and buffer zones aroundreserves.
However, since it appears that the majority of Sumatran Tigers are killed because of the value of theirparts, eliminating the market for tiger parts in Sumatra and other consumer countries should lead toa reduction in tiger poaching. The primary recommendation of this report is that Indonesianauthorities must urgently increase enforcement efforts and implementation of laws banning trade intiger parts and products or extinction is near for the last of Indonesia’s tigers.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

vii

1. INTRODUCTION

Credit: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

The Tiger Panthera tigris is today an Endangered species (Anon., 2003a), and over the past decadeconservationists have considered illegal international trade in Tiger bone for traditional Asian medicines
as the primary force driving Tigers toward extinction. TRAFFIC has led the way in helping theconservation community understand the scope, volume and workings of illegal Tiger trade. Killed for a
Cure: A Review of the Worldwide Trade in Tiger Bone (Mills and Jackson, 1994) was the firstcomprehensive documentation of the extent of the trade. This report helped motivate countries,
organizations and individuals around the world to focus on Tiger conservation and shutting down
medicinal trade in Tiger bone. Progress toward implementation of new trade controls was reviewed in asecond TRAFFIC report (Mainka 1997). In the late 1990s, TRAFFIC commissioned surveys around theworld to evaluate markets for Tiger bone and other Tiger parts and products, and this was published as
Far from a Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited (Nowell, 2000). Killed for a Cure indicated Indonesia as aleading global source of Tiger bone from the mid 1970s to the early 1990s, despite this trade being
illegal and there being no official Indonesian records for it, based on import statistics from South Korea(Mills and Jackson, 1994). Far from a Cure found evidence of substantial progress toward eliminating
markets for Tiger bone in many countries, but Indonesia was highlighted as a supplying market for Tiger
parts and products where illegal trade was still carried out relatively openly (Nowell, 2000).
As a next step, TRAFFIC undertook extensive
market surveys in Sumatra to describe anddocument current illegal Tiger trade. This reportsummarizes Sumatran Tiger conservation efforts,
provides background on Sumatran Tiger trade, andthen draws together data from TRAFFIC surveys
and a number of other sources to analyze
poaching, the role of Tiger conflict with humans,and current illegal markets for Tiger parts andproducts in Sumatra. The state of Tigers in
A Sumatran Tiger in captivity. Sumatran
Sumatran zoos is also examined. The population
Tigers are rapidly disappearing from the wild.
of Sumatran Tigers Panthera tigris sumatrae is
Critically Endangered (Anon, 2003a). In the late 1990s it was estimated that there were as few as 400500 left in the wild (Seidensticker et al., 1999). By providing the first in-depth examination of illegal
Tiger trade in Sumatra, this report aims to help the Indonesian government and conservation community
to better enforce hunting and trade bans, and ensure that Sumatran Tigers do not follow in the tracks ofthe now-extinct Tigers of Bali and Java.

1.1 Status and Conservation of the Sumatran Tiger
Indonesia is the world’s largest archipelago, being made up of more than 17,000 islands extending for
4,500 km west from Sumatra to Papua (formerly Irian Jaya). With an area of approximately 476 000 km2,
Sumatra is the second largest Indonesian island as well as the sixth largest island in the world. Politically,
the island is divided up into eight provinces, including Aceh, North Sumatra (Sumatra Utara), WestNOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

1

Sumatra (Sumatra Barat), Riau, Jambi, Bengkulu, South Sumatra (Sumatra Selatan), and Lampung (Map1). Sumatra boasts some of the highest levels of biodiversity in the world and, with 201 species, has moremammals than any other island in Indonesia (Anon., 1994, Whitten et al., 1997).

Map 1. Location of Sumatra in Southeast Asia region

SumatraSumatra is the only Indonesian island to still retain a wild tiger population. Tigers became extinct on Bali
and Java in the 20th century. Tigers were last positively recorded from the island of Bali in the late 1930s.
The Bali Barat National Park was established in 1941 in tiger habitat in western Bali, but it is likely thattigers in Bali became extinct by the end of World War II or possibly as late as the early 1950s. The
causes of extinction include hunting and loss of forest habitat and prey base (Nowell, 2003a). Tigers wereformerly widespread on the Indonesia island of Java, but by 1970 had become restricted to the Meru Betiri
Reserve on the eastern south coast. Javan Tigers were last positively recorded during a survey there in
1976. There have been no confirmed records since then (although Leopards Panthera pardus persist
there, and their tracks are sometimes mistaken for tiger). The primary causes of the Javan Tiger’s decline
are hunting and loss of forest habitat, and its final disappearance from Meru Betiri Reserve is linked tothe absence of suitable large wild cervid prey (Nowell, 2003b). There are no Javan Tiger or Bali Tiger
subspecies in captivity; these races of tiger have been lost forever.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

2

The population of Tigers on Sumatra is thus the last remaining Tiger population in Indonesia. Sumatra
became isolated from mainland Asia as an island 6000-12 000 years ago when sea levels rose, but theisland shares much of its fauna with Peninsular Malaysia, including Tigers (but not Leopards). There
have been thousands of years of separation between Sumatran and mainland Asian Tigers (Seidensticker,1986). The uniqueness and taxonomic classification of the Sumatran Tiger is a matter of debate among
cat specialists. Sumatran Tigers are often described as smaller than mainland Asian Tigers, with darker
coloration and thicker stripes. However, some researchers have found little difference between Sumatran
Tigers and those found on the Asian continent on the basis of morphology (Kitchener, 1999) as well as
genetics (Wentzel et al., 1999). On the other hand, one group of researchers has argued that the Sumatran
Tiger genome is consistently distinctive and warrants classification as a full species of Tiger, Pantherasumatrae, separate from the Tiger Panthera tigris of continental Asia (Cracraft et al., 1998). The
consensus and operating view in the cat conservation community is to classify the Sumatran Tiger as oneof five existing Tiger subspecies, Panthera tigris sumatrae, as first described by the great early 20th
century felid taxonomist, Reginald Pocock (Pocock, 1929).

Credit: Chris Shepherd/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

There are far fewer Sumatran Tigers (Harimau Sumatera in Bahasa Indonesia) alive in the wild today
compared to historical times. In the early 20th century, Dutch colonists often reported Tigers as a“plague,” so numerous and bold that they would enter the planters’ estate house compounds (Treep,1973). Borner (1978) estimated that there were 1000 Sumatran Tigers; ten years later, Santiapillai andRamono (1985) felt the population should
be “numbered in hundreds rather thanthousands.” But today the Sumatran Tiger
is listed as Critically Endangered by theWorld Conservation Union, which meansthat the species is facing an extremely highrisk of extinction in the wild (Nowell et al.,2003c). The most recent attempt toestimate the total number of wild Tigers on
Sumatra was at a 1992 international
conference (Sumatran Tiger Populationand Habitat Viability Analysis). The
general consensus of the workshop was
A Sumatran Tiger in the Medan Zoo in North Sumatra.
that “there are probably fewer than 400
Tigers living in six major protected areasof Sumatra. Another 100 or fewer Tigers
outside of the protected areas are probably
not going to survive for long” (Tilson et al., 1994: 2).
Following the workshop, the Indonesian government developed a Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy(Ministry of Forestry, 1994). In the late 1990s, the Exxon oil company (now Exxon/Mobil corporation),
which has the Tiger as its logo, established the Save the Tiger Fund, and in recent years it and otherinternational donors have supported Indonesian efforts to conserve the Sumatran Tiger with significant
investments. New research has updated estimates for some individual populations (see below and Table2), but 400-500 is still the estimate of the total number of wild Sumatran Tigers in general use by the

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

3

IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group (Seidensticker et al., 1999). For the purposes of a population estimate
for the IUCN Red List, which includes only mature breeding individuals, the Cat Specialist Groupestimates the number at approximately fewer than 250, with no single population much larger than 50
mature breeding individuals (Nowell et al., 2003c).
The Sumatran Tiger occurs from sea level to at least 2,000 m, in both primary and secondary forests(Treep, 1973, 1978; Griffiths, 1993). The Sumatran Tiger lives in both lowland and montane rainforest
and in freshwater swamp forests throughout Sumatra (Wikramanayake et al., 2002). Unfortunately the
habitat critical to both Tigers and their prey in Sumatra is rapidly vanishing. The approximate forest loss
in Sumatra from 1985 to 1997 was 67 000km², most of this being lowland rainforest. However, theannual rate of forest loss has been increasing across Indonesia. Country-wide, the deforestation rate in
the 1980s was 8000km²/year. In the early 1990s this rate had increased to around 12 000km2/year. From
about 1996 to the present the rate has almost doubled to more than 20 000km2/year. In Sumatra’s
lowland forests from 1985 to 1997 the average annual forest loss was about 2800km2/year(Wikramanayake et al., 2002). Indonesian forestry officials themselves say that illegal logging is
widespread and out of control (Paddock, 2004). There are few areas with large enough tracts of lowland
forest to support Tiger populations.
Wikramanayake et al. (1998) carried out a comprehensive range-wide analysis of Tiger habitat to
identify priority areas for conservation. Their system of Tiger Conservation Units (TCUs) has been
widely adopted by the conservation community. TCUs in Sumatra are shown in Table 1. Three large
habitat blocks in Sumatra are Level I TCUs, of global Tiger conservation significance and having the best
probability of long-term persistence of Tiger populations: the areas surrounding Kerinci Seblat, Gunung
Leuser, and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Parks. Altogether, Wikramanayake et al (1998) estimate that
Sumatra currently contains approximately 130 000 km2 of habitat for Tigers, of which just 42 000 km2,
or one-third, has some form of protection from development and logging.
Table 1. Priority conservation areas and estimated habitat for the Sumatran Tiger (Wikramanayake
et al., 1998)
Tiger Conservation Unit

Total area of unit (km2)

Total protected area of unit (km2)

Level I: Highest probability of persistence of Tiger populations over the long term
Kerinci Seblat-Seberida
50,884
16,605
Gunung Leuser-Lingga Isaq
36,53011,423
Bukit Barisan Selatan-Bukit Hitam
6,594
4,784
Level II: Medium probability of persistence of Tiger populations over the long term
Kerumutan-Istana Sultan Siak
11,816
1,742
Berbak-Sembilang
6,670
2,196
Siak Kecil-Padang Lawas
2,235
1,995
Way Kambas
1,300
1,300
Level III: Low probability of persistence of Tiger populations over the long term
Four small areas were identified
1,309
0Areas recommended for immediate survey as potential significant Tiger habitat
Sibolga-Dolok Surungan
4,685
594
Dangku3,431
106Padang Sugihan
2,505
652
Air Sawan
2,444
605
Total
130,403
42,002NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

4

Six national parks in Sumatra offer the highest level of protection for Tigers (Map 2). Unfortunately,
these areas have largely been isolated from one another through logging and conversion of forest toplantations and agriculture, leaving little or no Tiger interchange and gene flow between these separate
populations (Tilson et al., 1994). The status of these parks and their Tiger populations is reviewed indetail below, and summarized in Table 2.
Map 2: a map of the TCUs, with 6 national parks overlaid.

Courtesy of WWF USNOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

5

A recent development in efforts to protect Tigers and stop poaching in Sumatra’s national parks has been
the establishment of anti-poaching teams called Tiger Protection Units (TPUs), based on the Rhino
Protection Unit (RPU) model championed by the International Rhino Foundation (Anon., 2004). The
teams carry out patrols to deter and detect poaching, follow up with investigations, arrests andprosecution, and also conduct community education and outreach. The teams are typically made up of
PHKA Forest officials, park staff, park police, members of communities bordering the park andconservationists, and all receive special and intensive training programs. In addition to the newly
established TPUs, there are currently 10 RPUs in Gunung Leuser National Park, six in Bukit Barisan
Selatan National Park, five in Way Kambas National Park, and three in Kerinci Seblat National Park
(Anon., 2004).
A. Kerinci Seblat
Kerinci Seblat National Park was established in 1981 and extends into four provinces: Jambi, West
Sumatra, South Sumatra and Bengkulu. Kerinci Seblat is the largest single protected area in the world
where Tigers occur (Jackson and Kemf, 1999), covering 14,846 sq km and is the second largest park in
Southeast Asia. Wikramanayake et al. (1998) assigned it the top score out of all the Tiger Conservation
Units within the Tiger’s range, making it of leading global significance for Tiger conservation. However,much of the buffer-zone around the park has been heavily affected by human activities, including illegal
logging and conversion to agriculture (Hartana and Martyr, 2001). There are some 450 villages along theborders of this national park with 1.4 million people. Certain areas of the park and its buffer-zone havealso been designated as ‘Traditional’ or ‘Special Use’ zones. The former are areas of forest traditionallyutilized by local people for the collection of non-timber forest products and village timber requirements
but which must remain under forest cover to maintain watershed protection. Special Use zones are areas
converted to agriculture within the national park borders, usually in areas of long-standing enclaves(Hartana and Martyr, 2001). The habitat within Kerinci Seblat has been split into two main blocks which
are becoming increasingly fragmented, mainly due to road building (the park has a 1500 km road
network), logging and human encroachment. About 15 000 households illegally farm approximately 50
000 ha within the park. Illegal logging and mining, as well as conversion of park land to oil palm andrubber plantations continue to eat away at the remaining forest (Pratje, 1998).
Tiger population: In 1992, participants at the Sumatran Tiger PHVA workshop estimated the populationof Tigers in Kerinci Seblat and surrounding forest areas to be approximately 76 animals (Faust and Tilson,
1994). However, Hartana and Martyr (2001) consider this an underestimate, based on camera trapping,field surveys and patrols led by Fauna and Flora International Indonesia Programme (FFI-ID) since 1995.
They suggest the park has a carrying capacity, or potential, of 170 Tigers, based on GIS analysis ofsatellite imagery of the area. However, poaching is a serious threat, and they do not estimate the actual
number of Tigers currently in the park.
Tiger conservation: With reports of a serious rise in Tiger poaching in Kerinci Seblat in the late 1990s,
the Kerinci Seblat Tiger Protection Project was initiated in 2000, a partnership between the parkadministration and the FFI-ID. Two TPUs were established in 2002, with a third planned. The TPUs are
led by KSNP rangers and staffed by members of local forest-edge communities. The units patrol anaverage of 12 days per month, and made 69 arrests in their first years work (Hartana and Martyr, 2001).
In 2002 they broke up a major Tiger poaching syndicate (FFI-ID pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

6

B. The Leuser Ecosystem and the Gunung Leuser National Park
The Leuser Ecosystem, first established in 1995 and expanded in 1998, is a legal entity based on
Presidential Decree No. 33/1998, to be managed for conservation. It was designed to contain viable
populations of all major wildlife species. It covers 25 000 km2 and includes a number of protection
forests and the Gunung Leuser National Park, established in 1980 and approximately 9000 km2 in size.
Much of this land is montane tropical forest, with mountains extending over 3000 meters. Although
Tigers and their prey are less abundant at higher elevations (Griffiths, 1993), the large area of the Leuser
Ecosystem is a significant and high priority area for Tiger conservation (Level I TCU: Wikramanayake etal., 1998). Some logging concessions and transmigration areas are found in the Leuser Ecosystem, asthese had already been granted before the Ecosystem was established (van Schaik et al., 2001).
Unfortunately, this important area is under threat by current rates of illegal logging and conversion offorest to plantations and agriculture. An official with the Leuser Management Unit (LMU) told theIndonesian press in 2003 that some 34 000 ha (340 km2) was being deforested every year (LMU pers.
comm. to TRAFFIC, 2003). In 2003 the military undertook high-profile enforcement actions in the
Gunung Leuser National Park to crack down on illegal logging. Major road construction is planned in
the Gunung Leuser National Park, known as the Ladia Galaska highway project, which would further
fragment Tiger habitat.
Tiger population: On the basis of camera trapping and extrapolation of densities, Mike Griffiths (1992,
1993) estimated the population of Tigers in Gunung Leuser National Park to be between 110-180 adultindividuals. He felt that this number was “probably less than half of what it was six years previously”(Griffiths, 1993). The 1992 Sumatran Tiger PHVA workshop used a working estimate of 110 Tigers basedon Griffith’s work (Faust and Tilson, 1994; Griffiths, 1992), and underscored the importance of GLNP as
probably the most secure large area remaining for Tigers in Sumatra (Tilson et al., 1994). However,
habitat continues to be lost as legal and illegal logging, conversion to plantations and clearance for
agriculture eats away at the remaining forest. No recent surveys have been undertaken to determine thepresent number of Tigers in the Leuser area, but Tigers are likely to be declining due to uncontrolled
poaching, killing of ‘problem’ Tigers and massive habitat loss.
Tiger conservation: Much effort by numerous organisations has gone into protecting the Ecosystem, led
by the Leuser Development Programme. The Leuser Management Unit was formed to implement the firstseven years of the Programme backed by a partnership between the Government of Indonesia and theEuropean Union. Later management authority will transfer to the Leuser International Foundation, anIndonesian non-profit NGO established by presidential decree. The Leuser Development Programme
lists a number of Tiger research and conservation priorities on its website (http://www.eu-ldp.co.id/), but
no specifically Tiger-related work is currently being undertaken. There are 10 Rhino Protection Units
carrying out poaching patrols which do provide a measure of protection for Tigers and their prey (IRF,
2004).
C. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park
The Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park was established in 1982 and is the third largest national park in
Sumatra at approximately 3560 km2 (Pratje, 1998). It is shared by both Lampung and Bengkulu
provinces. Lampung, Sumatra’s most populated province, holds 82% of the park (Pratje, 1998). BBSNP
has been identified as one of the three high priority Level I Tiger Conservation Units in Sumatra by

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

7

Wikramanayake et al., (1998: Table 1). But villages, cultivated areas and plantations surround the parkand encroachment and illegal settlements threaten the forests within this park. The park’s thin shaperesults in approximately 700km of borders where encroachment for logging, agriculture and illegal
hunting are major problems (O’Brien et al., 2003). From analysis of satellite images, it appears that thepark has lost 662 km2 of forest since 1985, and all forest within 10 km of the park boundaries has
disappeared. Projecting current deforestation rates into the future, all lowland forest within the park will
be gone by 2036 (Anon., 2002c). Poaching is also a serious problem, and Pratje (1998) singled out thevillages of Bintuan and Krui for illegal animal trade.
Tiger population: Based on extensive camera trapping and extrapolation of density, it is currently
estimated that the park population totals 40-43 adult Tigers (O’Brien et al., 2003). Tiger abundance
declined dramatically in the southern portions of the park due to heavy poaching, dropping from anestimated 13 animals in 1999 to 4-5 in 2000/2001 (Anon., 2002c). Based on current rates of forest loss,(Kinnaird et al., 2003) predict that by 2010 there will not be sufficient habitat remaining to conserve
Tigers.
Tiger conservation: From 1999-2002 the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Indonesia Program
carried out intensive research into the status of the BBSNP Tiger population using camera traps. They
found that Tigers and their prey are more abundant in the core interior parts of the park, and less abundanton the edges where they come into contact with people (Anon., 2002c, Anon., 2003b; O’Brien et al.,2003). Evidence of Tiger poaching collected during this period led to the formation of two Tiger
Protection Units in 2001. The four person teams have members from the Indonesian Department ofForestry (PHKA) as well as staff from local NGOs and are overseen by WCS. One of the TPUs carriesout regular anti-poaching patrols in the park; the other works inside and outside the park on intelligenceand investigation. During 2002, the patrolling team spent 169 days in the field and covered
approximately 690 km, removing a number of Tiger snares. The intelligence team focused on thesouthern part of the park and carried out 11 operations in 279 days (Anon., 2003b). In January 2003,
WCS helped set up a Wildlife Crime Unit for Lampung province to identify arrest and prosecute illegal
wildlife traders (Anon., 2003c).
D. Berbak National Park
Berbak’s protection status was changed from Game Reserve to National Park in 1992. Although it gained
more protection, its area shrank from 2447 to 1716 km2. Located on the east coat of Sumatra, thelandscape in Berbak is generally flat and sloping with altitudes ranging from sea level to 12.5 m. Berbak
is an internationally significant RAMSAR wetland. It contains the largest peat swamp conservation
forest in Asia, and much of the forest is flooded for up to nine months of the year. Tilson et al. (1994)
considered Berbak to have the best habitat for Tigers in Sumatra; but others consider peat swamp to bepoor habitat for the large mammals which are the Tiger’s primary prey species (Seidensticker, 1986;
Santiapillai and Ramono, 1985). Illegal logging and cultivation on the borders of the park have led tolarge-scale fires within its boundaries, especially in 1997, when four people were killed by Tigers leaving
the park (Anon., 1997). In a 2002 news report, the Head of the local branch of the Natural Resources
Conservation Agency (BKSDA) Agus Priambudi said that illegal logging was gradually destroying thepark. The interview took place after a Tiger killed two men in a logging concession adjacent to Berbak(Anon., 2002d).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

8Tiger population: The Sumatran Tiger PHVA workshop estimated the Berbak Tiger population at
approximately 50 (Faust and Tilson, 1994). Santiapillai and Ramono (1985) considered Berbak to be an
important reserve with a significant Tiger population. To date there has been little Tiger research effort
in Berbak.
Tiger conservation: The Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program (STCP), which works in Way Kambas
and Bukit Tigapuluh National Parks, plans to help develop future Tiger conservation project activities in
Berbak. GIS analysis of satellite imagery has identified a possible habitat corridor which would link
Berbak and Bukit Tigapuluh National Parks and provide connectivity for the two Tiger populations(Nyhus et al., 2000).
E. Way Kambas National ParkWay Kambas National Park (1300 km2) is located in Lampung province on the southeast coast of
Sumatra. As a result of the Indonesian government’s transmigration program, which moved tens of
thousands of villagers from other islands to Sumatra, Lampung province is now one of Sumatra’s mostdensely populated regions. More than half a million people live near the park’s borders (Nyhus et al.,1999). Way Kambas was first declared a nature reserve in 1937 and its protection status was upgraded tonational park status in 1989. However, the area has been extensively logged during the last 30 years, andis now comprised primarily of lowland secondary forest and grassland. Because of its history of
disturbance, Tiger researchers consider it a representative model for much of the potential Tiger habitat
remaining in Sumatra (Franklin et al., 1999).
Tiger population: Based on extensive camera trapping and extrapolation of densities in 1995-1997,
Franklin et al. (1999) estimated the Way Kambas population at 36 resident adult Tigers. They identified
21 individual Tigers in their study site in the centre of the park, comprising just 12% of the park’s total
area.
Tiger conservation: The STCP is a collaborative conservation effort between the Directorate General ofForest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHKA), The Tiger Foundation (Canada) and the Sumatran
Tiger Trust (UK). The STCP has been working in Way Kambas since 1985. A detailed study of Tiger
status and ecology has been carried out using camera traps (Franklin et al., 1999). These camera traps
turned up surprising evidence of a Sumatran Rhino population in the park, and Rhino Protection Unitanti-poaching teams were established in 1996, with a current total of seven RPUs. However, Tigers andrhinos favour different habitats within the park, so two four-member Tiger Protection Units were formed
in 2003. Team members are from local communities, the PHKA and the STCP (Franklin et al., 2003).
F. Bukit Tigapuluh National Park
Bukit Tigapuluh National Park is located near to Kerinci Seblat National Park and is included in the
Kerinci Seblat Tiger Conservation Unit (Table 1). It was officially declared a national park in 1995. Thispark covers approximately 1290 km2 and contains montane forest as well as a large and significant areaof lowland rainforest. Parts of the park were formerly logged over and are now being regenerated and aremnant 300 km2 of primary forest remains (Pratje, 1998). Illegal logging and loss of habitat is a severe
threat in Bukit Tigapuluh National Park. Weak enforcement and poor boundary demarcation haveresulted in significant timber losses within the park (Anon., 2003d). There is also pressure to convert

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

9more land to agriculture, and there are several settlements located inside the park boundaries (Pratje,
1998). Logging roads leading into the park have fragmented much of the forest and make the park
vulnerable to further encroachment and destruction. However, there is a strong advocacy movement toestablish a buffer zone around the park, and the Indonesian government is considering implementation ofincreased protection for remaining forestland surrounding the park (Anon., 2003d).
Tiger population: The STCP has begun carrying out camera trap surveys in Bukit Tigapuluh National
Park. Preliminary analysis has produced photographic capture rates for Tigers similar to those in Way
Kambas National Park, which is approximately the same size, suggesting that the Tiger populations may
be equivalent (Anon., 2003d).
Tiger conservation: As in Kerinci Seblat, the main threat to Tigers in Bukit Tigapuluh is poaching. As
discussed later in this report, levels of Tiger hunting have been high in this area for decades. In 2003, the
STCP began establishing Tiger Protection Units, with a total of 6-8 planned. Members of the team arerecruited from PHKA and local communities bordering the park and given intensive training. In 2003,
the TPUs patrolled for 104 days, covering 700 km by motorcycle and foot (Anon., 2003d).
Table 2 summarizes Tiger status and conservation in the six major national parks of Sumatra.
Table 2 Tiger status and conservation in the six major national parks of Sumatra.
National
Park

Year

Area (km2)

TCU level9

Density2

Establ.

population* tiger/100 km )Kerinci
1981
Kerinci
1981
SeblatSeblatGunung1980
Gunung1980
RPUs11
Leuser
Leuser
Bukit
1982
Bukit
1982
BarisanBarisanSelatan
Berbak1992
Selatan
Way Kambas 1989
Berbak1992

1,716

BukitKambas
Tigapaluh
Way
1989

1,300

Bukit

1,290

1995

Tiger

9,000
3,560

poaching

1 1
76-170?
76-170?

I

9,000

110-1802110-1802I

3,560

40-43340-433

1,716
1,300

50?4
365
50?4

1995

5
1,290
36

14,846 14,846

36?6

1.67

1.67

4.38
4.38 36?6

Tiger Anti-

I

II
II

I
I

I

210
10 RPUs11
212

II
II
I

I

210
10

212

313
313

214

214

References: *? = population is an estimate not based on Tiger data specific to the area. 1. Faust and Tilson, 1994,
Hartana and Martyr, 2001. 2. Griffiths, 1992, 1993; Faust and Tilson, 1994. 3. O’Brien et al., 2003. 4. Faust
and Tilson, 1994. 5. Franklin et al., 1999. 6. Anon., 2003d – based on camera trap encounter rates being similar
to Way Kambas, which is of equivalent area. 7. O’Brien et al., 2003. 8. Franklin et al., 1999. 9. Wikramanayake
et al., 1998 (see Table 1 for Tiger Conservation Unit level description. 10. Hartana and Martyr, 2001. 11. Rhino
Protection Unit: Anon., 2004. 12. Anon., 2003b. 13. Franklin et al., 2003. 14. Anon, 2003d

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

10

1.2. Background on trade in Sumatran Tiger parts and products
As throughout much of Tiger range, historical records from the previous two centuries point to the skinas the most valued part of a Tiger from Sumatra. The value of a skin from Sumatra in the early 1930s
was reported as 150-350 Dutch florins (Treep, 1973). By the 1970s, the price of a Sumatran Tiger skinwas quoted as USD$1,000, and by the mid 1980s Santiapillai and Ramono (1985) found the retail valueof a Sumatran Tiger skin had risen to US$3,000. None of these sources mention Tiger bone as a valuablecommodity, although Treep (1973) noted that “the Chinese especially” valued some parts of the Tiger as“magic medicines”.
But in 1990 the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group issued an alarm call, linking reports of intensive
poaching in India and Nepal, the Tiger’s South Asian stronghold, with market demand for Tiger bone intraditional Asian medicine (Jackson, 1990). Shortly thereafter, Mills (1993) pointed to Sumatra as among
the world’s largest sources of Tiger bone in international trade, after she found Customs records in South
Korea showing extensive imports of Tiger bone from Indonesia dating back to the mid-1970s. Indonesia,
however, has not recorded any official exports of Tiger bone since it joined CITES in 1979.
This section analyzes the historical international trade in Tiger bone from Indonesia, and provides detailed
background on domestic trade in Sumatra. The discussion is divided into two main categories and six
sub-categories:A) International trade
I.

Export of Tiger skins and bones for international markets.

II.Importation of manufactured or processed medicines that contain Tiger bone.

III. Markets predominately catering to international workers and tourists for custom designed gold
pendants using Tiger teeth and claws.
B) Domestic trade
IV. Traditional Asian Medicine/magic practiced throughout Sumatra and other parts of Indonesia
uses Tiger derivatives as ingredients for prescriptions or as amulets to ward off evil spirits

Credit: FFI-Indonesia

V. Domestic trade in Tiger skins and stuffed Tigers
appears to be a highly specialized market with
police, army and business men as the primary con
sumers.

Sumatran Tiger skin from a dealer in
Kerinci.

VI. Finally there appears to be a minority of
individuals selling live Tigers to zoos and private
collections locally and possibly internationally

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

11

1.2.1. International trade
Beginning in 1975 all Tiger sub-species were listed on CITES Appendix I with the exception of the Amur
Tiger Panthera tigris altaica, of the Russian Far East and adjoining areas of China and North Korea. In
1987, this sub-species was also listed on Appendix I, creating a total ban on commercial Tiger trade andthus closed an important loophole that had allowed international trade of Tigers to continue. Indonesia
acceded to CITES in 1979, and since then official Indonesian records show no exports of Tiger bone. In
July of 1993, South Korea acceded to CITES. Prior to this South Korean customs kept records of Tiger
bone imports, nearly all of which were in violation of CITES, because the source of many of these imports
were countries that had already joined CITES, including Indonesia (Mills, 1993: Table 3). These detailed
records reveal Indonesia as South Korea’s main supplier of Tiger bone, and they provide some of the bestand only insights into international Tiger exports from Indonesia. Post 1992 there is no further
information regarding international trade from Indonesia. This should not imply that international trade
no longer exists: illegal international trade carried out by smuggling will of course not be reported in
official exports or imports.
ExportIndonesia’s past exports of Tiger bone to South Korea
Prior to becoming a signatory to CITES in 1993 the Department of Customs Administration of South
Korea kept records of Tiger bone imported since 1975. The Department’s statistics show that, between
1975 and 1992, South Korea imported 6128 kg of Tiger bone, an average of 340 kg per year (Mills, 1993).
The majority of this import was from Indonesia, a total of 3720 kg (61%) over 18 years (Table 3). While
imports from other countries were sporadic, Indonesian imports occurred regularly, nearly every year forwhich records were kept. If the average dried weight of a Tiger skeleton is approximately 12 kg (Nowell,
2000), these shipments may represent 333 dead Tigers. Unfortunately, there is no way to know how many
Tiger skeletons went into these shipments, or indeed be certain that the bones declared as Tiger did notinclude other species, as fakes or substitutes, mixed in.
South Korean importers declared a value of their Tiger bone imports to the Department of Customs
Administration. Table 3 shows the total and average per kg declared values for Indonesian Tiger bone
imports (Table 3). The largest volume years for Indonesian imports were 1981 (1060 kg), 1975 (620 kg),
and 1988 (560 kg). It is interesting that the lowest per kg declared values were associated with theselarge-volume imports. The highest per kg value (USD 238/kg) was reported in 1992 for a relatively small
shipment of 55 kg in 1992, the year before South Korea joined CITES and Tiger imports became illegal.
However, when adjusted for inflation, using the midpoint year of 1985 as the basis, this figure of USD
238 declines to USD 151, not significantly different from the overall inflation-adjusted average declaredvalue of Indonesian Tiger bone of USD 158/kg (Table 4). The overall average inflation-adjusted declaredvalue of Indonesian Tiger bone is not significantly different from that of USD 175/kg from othercountries, including range states such as India and consumer states such as Japan. However, while thevalue of Indonesian Tiger bone did not decline much over time when adjusted for inflation, the value ofTiger bone from other exporters fell by 40%. These types of changes in price are somewhat surprising,
given declining Tiger populations and thus a decline in the supply of Tiger bone, which would be expected
to result in a price increase, even when adjusted for inflation.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

12Other countries that South Korea recorded import of Tiger bone from during this period include China,
Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Singapore, Taiwan, oddly Madagascar, and others (“others” making up
for less than 10% of the total imports) (Mills, 1993). Of the nine countries recorded as being sources ofSouth Korea’s Tiger bone imports, only five are range states for Tigers. It is possible, even likely thatsome of the Tigers exported from non-range states could also have originated from Indonesia.
Singapore and Malaysia’s role in the trade of Indonesia Tiger products
Singapore and Malaysia are close neighbours to Sumatra, and there is some evidence that Singapore is are-exporter of illegal Tiger products from Sumatra. In 1987 Singapore joined CITES and since that timeit has shown no records of international Tiger trade. Between 1991 and 1992 China reported exporting
more than 26 000 containers of traditional Asian medicine and tonics containing Tiger derivatives to
Singapore. However, what is more interesting is the number of exports. Between 1970 and 1985 South
Korea recorded importing 195 kg of Tiger bone from Singapore. The obvious question is where did thesebones originate? From Singapore it is suspected that Tiger parts are then shipped to Korea, China,
Taiwan, Malaysia and possibly Japan (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). In an expose on
Sumatran Tiger poachers (WWF-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2000) interviewees indicated that Singapore wasanimportant market for Tiger bones, which was confirmed in the findings of this report. According to one
poacher’s account, the Tiger bones were delivered to Riau Province and then shipped to Singapore by
speedboat. Upon arrival Singapore investors met the delivery but what happened to the bones from there
is unknown, (WWF-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2000). According to dealers interviewed in this survey, Tiger
parts continue to be sold not only to Singapore but also to Malaysia.
Indonesian exports of Tiger bone to Taiwan
From 1980 and 1987, when Tiger and bear imports were banned by their Wildlife Conservation Law,
Taiwan reported importing 3949 kg of Tiger and bear bones from Singapore. Tiger bone from Singapore
may have originated in Indonesia, as Singapore has no Tigers of its own. Taiwan had no separate
category for listing Tiger bones, so it is impossible to determine what proportion of these shipments were
Tiger (Mills and Jackson, 1994). Taiwan’s Customs data also document that Indonesia directly exported
100 kg of Tiger and /or bear bone to Taiwan in 1984, though again how much of the shipment was Tiger
bone is unknown (Mills and Jackson, 1994). There is no recent evidence pointing to Taiwan as animporter of Tiger parts from Indonesia, and Taiwan has made great strides toward eliminating illegal tradein Tiger bone medicines (Nowell, 2000), but some illegal trade may continue.
International import of Tiger products to Sumatra
In 1991 and 1992, China’s annual CITES reports indicated that Indonesia imported 225 containers ofTiger medicines (Mills and Jackson, 1994). However, there have been no further reports or anecdotal
evidenceof imports into Indonesia and no imported Tiger products were observed during this survey. The readyavailability of locally sourced Tiger parts, including bones, in Sumatra would suggest that importing offurther Tiger products to Sumatra from other countries unlikely because of the associated expense andunnecessary risk.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

13

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Table 3. Tiger bones imported into South Korea from Indonesia

Bones
1975
importedfromIndonesia

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

Kg

620

131

110

96

144

70

1,060

-

18

-

41

23

182

560

190

170

250

55

USD

6,188 7,707 11,283 12,458 17,731 10,536 12,513 -

3,019 -

7,875

3,852 44,026 31,584 32,165 21,932 44,349 13,114

USD/kg

10

59

103

130

123

151

12

168

192

167

242

56

169

129

177

238

Estimated 51
number oftigers*

10

9

8

12

5

83

3

1

15

46

15

14

20

4

-

1

-

Adapted from the Statistical Yearbook of Foreign Trade, Department of Customs Administration, South
Korea, Volume 12 (mills, 1993).
*Assuming that a dried tiger skeleton weighs 12 kg (Nowell, 2000)

Table 4. Average inflation-adjusted *USD price per kg of South Korean tiger bone imports
from Indonesia
Time period
1975-1983
1984-1992
1975-1992

Indonesia
172
143
158

Others216
128
175*Source: Mills (1993) (includes annual IMF inflation adjustment factors)

14

1.2.2. Domestic trade
Indonesia has a substantial and well-developed domestic market for Tiger products (Nowell, 2000).
Previous reports from investigations of the trade suggested that much of the Tiger products available areutilized within Indonesia (Plowden and Bowles, 1997; Indrawan et al., 1999). Tigers are traded within
Indonesia for a number of reasons, including use in traditional Asian medicines and magic, trophies andcurios, and to be kept live as pets and status symbols.
Traditional medicinal and magic uses of Tiger parts in Sumatra
Tiger parts have long been used in Asian systems of traditional medicine, especially that of the Chinese.
Although many parts of the Tiger may be used in traditional Asian medicines, traditionally the bones aremost widely used to treat rheumatism. The Tiger’s penis is also considered an aphrodisiac when soaked
in wine (Chan, 1995). Tiger parts are also used for magic purposes as well, which often has an overlap
with medicinal uses and is therefore included in the same category. Skins, claws and canines are also
valued as novelties and souvenirs. The following is a list of Tiger parts and their uses in traditional Asian
medicinal and magical practices in Sumatra:
Canines – Magic, curios – Canine teeth used to make ornamental jewellery, primarily pendants
on necklaces. Some local people believe Tiger canines provide good luck and protective powers
to those who wear them (Anon. vendor Bukittinggi, West Sumatra, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002). The sale of canines is predominantly carried out through shops
selling gold, but shops selling precious stones, antiques and souvenirs also sell Tiger canines.
Claws – Magic, curios – Claws are most often inlayed in gold to make pendants for necklaces.
Local people believe Tiger claws provide good luck and protective powers to those who wear
them (Anon. vendor Jambi, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). The selling of claws appears to
be almost exclusively carried out through gold shops, although antique shops and souvenir shops
also sold Tiger claws.
Whiskers –Magic – Whiskers are believed to have magical powers to protect those who possess
it from malicious curses. Magic from whiskers is believed to be most powerful when removed
from a live Tiger (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Tail – Magic – The tail is usually sold still intact with the skin. However, if the skin is badly
damaged the skin may be divided into small pieces for individual sale. In such cases the tail issometimes sold separately as a trophy or talisman that is said to protect one from curses if kept
in the home.
Skin – Magic – Some people in Indonesia also believe that Tiger skin contains magical powers.
Most typically small pieces of Tiger skin are used to protect the owner from black magic. These
pieces are also used by Shaman to cast black magic spells on others (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002). Additionally they maybe shaped into a belt with a magical code used toprotect the one who wears it from all dangers posed by wild animals or bad spirits (FFI-ID inlitt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). Intact skins in good condition are far more valuable than the total ofsmall pieces that can be derived from a skin. Therefore only those skins, which are badly

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

15damaged, are cut into pieces for sale (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Some local
people believe that the skin will have no powers if it is covered by a human shadow before thetrapped Tiger is killed (C. Saleh, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Skin from sole of paw – Magic – Used by some local people for ritual purposes.
Skin from the forehead – Magic – This is said to be the most expensive part of the skin, as the
stripes between the ears are thought to look like the Chinese character for royalty (Shepherd,
pers. obs., 2002). This piece of skin is believed to bring the owner prosperity and good luck.
Eyebrows –Magic – The eyebrows are said to be very powerful and have the ability to protect
the owner from evil and give them strength.
Penis – Traditional “tonic” – The penis is said to have aphrodisiac powers.
Gall – Traditional medicine – Tiger gall is dried and put into tablets used to cure bone diseases.
Flesh - Traditional medicine, crop protection – Flesh is cooked and eaten to treat skin diseases.
Farmers burn small strips of flesh around the edge of a field to keep wild pigs away. The
market for Tiger flesh remains generally local and is not apparently commercially significant.
However, it is known that there is a market for dried Tiger flesh for about IDR 71 200-89 000/kg(USD 8-10/kg) in remote rural areas (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2001). Further it is known
there is a dealer in Riau who exports Tiger meat to Malaysia (Shepherd, pers. obs., 2000).
Fat – Magic – Farmers believe keeping a bottle of Tiger fat will protect their farms fromdepredation by Wild Pigs (WWF-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2000).
Milk – Traditional medicine – Used in medicinal remedies (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2001).
Tiger dung – Magic, crop protection – Some Indonesian ‘Dukuns’ (Shaman or Witch Doctor)
use the manure to treat people who are suffering from black magic spells that has been cast uponthem. In one instance, a Dukun brought a man to the Medan Zoo, who was suffering terribly
from a spell that had been cast on him. The Dukun requested Tiger manure from the keeper at
the zoo and fed it to the suffering man on the spot. Occasionally farmers and plantation
workers request Tiger manure from keepers at the Medan Zoo. The manure is spread around theedges of the crops or plantations and the scent apparently keep Wild Pigs Sus scrofa away. While
Tigers are not likely killed for this purpose, it is interesting to note its use (Shepherd, pers. obs.,
2000).
Bone – Traditional medicine – Ground into powder to be taken with a glass of warm water. It
is used to treat rheumatism and head aches. The front humerus bone is said to be most highly
valued for its strength in traditional medicine (Chan, 1995).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

16

Right front paw bone - Traditional medicine, magic – According to dealers, the bone found in
the right front paw is regarded as being the strongest one, which enables a Tiger to pull a preybigger than itself. The bone is put into a glass of warm water and let for a short period of time,then drunk to treat headaches. Some users believe it to have a power to drive away bad spirits.
Fake Tiger paws are commonly observed in Chinese markets (Nowell, 2000).
Domestic trade in Tiger skins and stuffed Tigers
Indonesia enacted major conservation legislation in 1990 (see Section 3), and shortly thereafter theIndonesian Ministry of Forestry required all persons in prior possession of protected species and theirparts and products to register and obtain a permit. The initial registration period was to extend fromFebruary through May of 1992 (Decree No. 301/Kpts-II/1992) but was extended to October 1992 (Decree
No. 479/Kpts-VI/1992). A total of 1081 stuffed and mounted Tiger skins were reported to have beenregistered. Registered Tiger specimens included 100 stuffed Sumatran Tigers kept in houses ofgovernment officials and businessmen in South Sumatra. Another 200 stuffed Tigers were held by private
individuals in Lampung and about 300 in Palembang. The origin of these Tigers was undetermined, but
presumably they were from Sumatra originally, or were captive-born offspring from either wild-caught or
privately-held Tigers (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994).
Interest in possessing a Tiger skin continues in Sumatra. The skin maybe stretched or stuffed. Intact skins
in good condition are far more valuable than the total of small pieces that can be derived from a skin (FFIID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Tiger skins are reportedly given to a senior officer by police or
military personnel to help them attain a more senior position or are given as gifts by businessmen to help
close a business deal. It is still seen as a sign of great prestige to have skins or live animals that are rareor highly endangered (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). High-ranking officers may receive
stuffed Tigers from their colleagues as a gift upon retirement (C. Saleh, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
The domestic trade of live Tigers for zoos and private collections
While much of the trade in Tigers revolves around the demand for traditional Asian medicines, there isalso a trade in live Tigers as pets or status symbols. In Sumatra, as is the case throughout much ofIndonesia, the owning of a rare species, especially those protected by law, is viewed by many to indicate
status. It shows that an individual is important and powerful as to be immune from prosecution overwildlife infractions (Nash, 1993). Tigers are no exception. Wealthy individuals or people of senior
positions, such as military, police, or government officials, often have their own private collections ofanimals; some may reach the size of small zoos (Shepherd, pers. obs, 2002.).
Wild Tigers are also offered for sale to zoos. According to the Director of the Medan Zoo, Tigers havebeen offered to the zoo on numerous occasions, but the identity of the dealers remains unknown. Offers
usually come in the form of an anonymous phone call to the Director, asking if he is interested inpurchasing a Tiger. As dealers do not reveal their identity, it is unknown if the same individual
repeatedly offers Tigers for sale or if there is a number of different individuals selling live Tigers. Equally
it is unknown if the individuals offering Tigers are hunters, dealers or villagers trying to rid themselvesof a conflict Tiger. The Director of the Medan Zoo says that he has never accepted any Tigers that havebeen offered in such a manner and does not know the fate of such animals. In one case, however, theMedan Zoo turned down the opportunity to purchase two Tiger cubs in August 2002, and the cubs are

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

17known to have gone to a zoo in Riau two weeks later (Anon, 2002). The Director of the Medan Zooreports receiving three to four calls of such a nature each year over the past five years. It is believed that
Tigers offered to the Medan Zoo originate from North Sumatra.
1.2.3. The role of fakes
Around the world, many Tiger parts and products seen in trade are fake – that is, they are neither actual
Tiger parts nor are they derived from Tigers. For example, it is possible, even probable, that much of the“Tiger bone” content of manufactured pills, plasters, gels and wine does not actually contain any (Nowell,
2000). Whole bones from other animals are frequently passed off as Tiger bones. Fake Tiger parts are
not limited to those used in medicine, but also include fake penises (typically water buffalo with carved,
exaggerated barbs), skins (painted dog, cattle or goat skins), and claws and teeth (from other animals, ormade out of plastic or resin). Yates (2000) provides a photo and text guide for investigators to help themdistinguish genuine and fake Tiger products. In many retail markets, fakes are common. For example,
biologists from the Institute of Ecological and Biological Resources in Hanoi, Vietnam carried out a Tiger
trade survey for TRAFFIC in 1999, and estimated that 50-70% of the teeth and claws they found insouvenir markets labelled as Tiger were fake (Nowell, 2000). However, with the exception of someplastic Tiger canines and one small fake piece of Tiger skin seen in markets of southern Sumatra (Hartanaand Martyr, 2001), there have been very few reports of fake Tiger parts and products in Sumatra. The
majority of items documented in this TRAFFIC survey were genuine Tiger. Sumatra stands out
internationally as an area where most trade is in verifiable genuine Tiger parts, and as such its markets
represent a significant threat to the Sumatran Tiger’s continued survival.

1.3. Legal protection framework for Sumatran Tigers
The first national legislation to protect Tigers in Indonesia was passed in 1972. In 1990, Indonesia passed
the Act of the Republic of Indonesia on Conservation of Living Resources and Ecosystems (1990), whichis also known as the Conservation Act (No. 5) of 1990. This Act is used as the legal basis for theconservation of wild species, including fully protected species, such as the Tiger (Mills, 1994). The act
is also known as Conservation Act No. 5. Intentional violations of this Act are punishable byimprisonment of up to five years and/or fines up to IDR 100 000 000 (USD 11 235). Violations throughnegligence are punishable by imprisonment of up to one year and/or fines up to IDR 50 000 000 (USD5600). These penalties are very high, compared to the average annual gross national income forIndonesia, which in 2001 was IDR 6 052 000 (USD 680) and IDR 3 827 000 (USD 430) for low income
families. This law should pose a strong deterrent to illegal hunting and trade in Sumatran Tigers, if
properly enforced. The Indonesian government further strengthened existing domestic laws by requiring
all individuals holding Tigers or Tiger parts to register these possessions by acquiring a one-time permit(Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994; Plowden and Bowles, 1997). The agency responsible for implementing
the Conservation Act is the Department of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Indonesian
Ministry of Forestry (Perlindungan Hutan dan Konservasi Alam: PHKA).
Indonesian legislation allows the government to seize and confiscate specimens of protected animals
involved in violations. All seized items are held in stocks or used in research and education activities or

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

18

destroyed. All stock, both government and privately owned, are marked and registered. At the end of
1992, 1081 Tiger skin mounts were registered in private hands in Indonesia (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer,
1994). Government held stocks are consolidated (Mainka, 1997). However, in late 2003, a new Decree(Number: 447/Kpts-II/2003) was enacted under the Ministry of Forestry. In Chapter VII: Disposal of
Confiscated (Seized) Specimens of that Decree, Part One, Article 113 states that all confiscated specimensof protected species listed in CITES Appendix I will be used for scientific or educational purpose. If theseare valueless for scientific and educational purposes, they are to be destroyed. There is no mention of
keeping these specimens in stock.
Four confiscated mounted Tiger specimens were burned in a public ceremony at an August 2002
government-NGO workshop on Anti-Poaching and Illegal Trade in Sumatran Tigers and their Products(Anon., 2002b).
Indonesia has a substantial number of Forest ranger personnel spread throughout its provinces, who areunder the control of PHKA’s Department of Forestry and Nature Conservation (DFNC). These
include specialist ‘Jagawana’ who, together with Forest Police and Investigators, tackle poaching andother forms of wildlife crime. Field units have access to speedboats, pick-up trucks, motorbikes, rifles
and revolvers. The total strength of personnel who could potentially be involved in enforcement isintended to be raised to some 15 000 in the near future. Undercover operations are permitted. DFNC
staff appears to enjoy a relatively good working relationship with the police, Customs and army. DFNC
staff who detain offenders are obliged to pass them over to the police. The police thereafter initiate
prosecution procedures (Sellar et al., 1999).
In addition to having national legislation to protect the Tigers, Indonesia is also a member state to theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Indonesia
became a Signatory to CITES on 28 December 1978, which came into effect on 28 March, 1979. The
Tiger is listed in Appendix I by CITES which prohibits any commercial trade of live Tigers or their partsand derivatives. PHKA-DFNC is the agency in Indonesia responsible for the implementation of CITES
with regards to Tigers. All CITES shipments have to be inspected in cooperation with Indonesian
Customs prior to export (Sellar et al., 1999).
While all commercial Tiger trade was made illegal under CITES in 1987, following the alarming reports
of poaching for Tiger bone in the early 1990s the Parties to CITES enacted a number of resolutions tostrengthen efforts to stop the trade. In 1994, a Resolution (Res. Conf. 9.13) was passed exhorting theParties to prohibit domestic trade in Tiger bone (an area technically beyond the remit of the Convention,
which focuses on trade between nations). The Resolution also called for a number of additional
measures aimed at stopping the use of Tiger parts for traditional medicine (Mainka, 1997; Nowell, 2000).
CITES also commissioned CITES Technical and Political Tiger Missions to visit key supplying andconsuming Parties, including Indonesia (Sellar et al., 1999). While the CITES Tiger Missions TechnicalTeam was impressed with some aspects of Indonesia’s implementation of CITES for Tigers, particularly
the Tiger Protection Units carrying out anti-poaching measures in several national parks in Sumatra, theyalso found “sufficient grounds to suspect that significant illicit trade of Indonesia’s fauna and flora, todomestic and international markets, is taking place...The open nature of the trade noted by the technicalteam suggests that few deterrent factors are operating at present” (Sellar et al., 1999). The CITES Tiger

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

19

Resolution was modified and strengthened in 2000 partly on the basis of the report of the CITES Tiger
Missions Technical Team, and in 2002, the Parties extended its provisions to cover all Asian Appendix I
big cat species, whose bones could potentially be used as a substitute for Tiger bone (Res. Conf. 12.5).
Adequate legislation is in place to protect the Sumatran Tiger, making illegal hunting and both domestic
and international trade (Mainka, 1997; Sellar et al., 1999). However, enforcement and prosecution aresorely lacking or, in many areas, non-existent. In Sumatra there have been only four known convictions
for Tiger poaching and trade since 1997 (D. Martyr, pers comm., to TRAFFIC, 2003). There are anumber of factors blocking progress. Resources are limited, especially for prosecution of wildlife cases.
Lack of capacity of trained and capable enforcement personnel is a problem which is steadily being
addressed by the government and conservation groups, as will be discussed later in this report there havebeen major investments in training and support for forestry staff and police. Still, corruption at worst andlack of political will and commitment at best severely hinder the control of the illegal hunting and trade(FFI-ID, WWF-ID in litt. 2000, 2003). The next section of this report presents extensive data
documenting illegal hunting and trade in the Sumatran Tiger, showing that much more law enforcement
effort is required to save this endangered animal.

2. METHODS
TRAFFIC’s first comprehensive review of the Tiger trade Killed for a Cure (Mills and Jackson, 1994)
was able to draw on official trade statistics for analysis, and with this information showed the severity of
the global Tiger situation. By the early 1990s international and domestic Tiger trade was illegal in mostconsumer and range states, including Indonesia. The awareness and pressure brought to bear on elementsof the Tiger trade meant that much of the information compiled for a follow-up report, Far from a Cure:the Tiger Trade Revisited (Nowell, 2000), had to be gathered through market surveys and investigations.
Similar methods were relied upon for this survey, for there is no longer any legal documentation ofdomestic or international trade in Tiger parts and products from Indonesia. From April to November
2002, surveys were conducted by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia throughout Sumatra to assess the level ofdomestic and international trade in Tigers and their parts. To achieve the most comprehensive andaccurate account of the Sumatran Tiger trade possible, data were gathered from a variety of sources
including literature reviews, market surveys, surveys by protected area staff, and interviews with hunters,
retailers, dealers, zoo staff, undercover investigators working for NGO-government Tiger conservation
programs, and local non-governmental organizations.
Monetary figures collected in Indonesian Rupiah were converted to US Dollars using the web-based
currency converter provided by OANDA (http://www.oanda.com). At the time (late 2003) of writing thisreport the conversion rate was 1 US Dollar (USD) = 8900 Indonesian Rupiah (IDR).

2.1 Literature review
A comprehensive review of relevant literature was conducted. Sources included:••

Information provided by the Government of Indonesia to TRAFFIC.
Published and unpublished information including; interviews, surveys and progress reports.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

20

•
•
•

This was provided by Tiger and Tiger trade experts from, FFI-ID, WWF-ID, WCS, the STCP
and numerous individuals working in the region.
Relevant data collected by TRAFFIC during other wildlife trade surveys.
Articles and reports on Tiger trade and conservation sourced from media reports and the Internet.
Sumatran Tiger captive breeding and zoo records from Indonesian zoos and members of theinternational zoo community.

2.2 Market surveys
Market surveys were carried out by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia in major cities and suspected Tiger tradehubs in Aceh, North Sumatra, Riau, West Sumatra, Jambi, South Sumatra and Lampung. Surveys were
not carried out in Bengkulu by TRAFFIC, but by other organisations who contributed their findings tothis report.
In each province, cities, towns and villages identified by previous studies by TRAFFIC, other NGOs andinformants as trade centres for Tigers and Tiger parts were investigated. Surveys were conducted in gold,
precious stone, souvenir, western pharmaceutical, and traditional Asian medicine shops in these towns, asthese are the outlets known to sell Tiger and other wildlife parts. Occasionally, based on information
gathered during the course of these surveys, other markets or shops selling Tiger parts or products wereidentified by interviewees and investigated. For the purposes of conducting research in the markets,
investigators posed as buyers to gather data on highly sensitive subjects such as customers, suppliers,
origins, trade routes, and availability of Tigers and Tiger parts. Although the primary purpose of thisresearch was to investigate the Tiger trade, all species of wildlife observed were identified and counted.
No wildlife products were actually purchased. Tiger parts were counted, identified as genuine or fake (seeYates, 2000) and in most instances, prices were recorded. In addition to those specimens openly
available for sale, investigators made requests of salespersons to search for items concealed in boxes,
under the counter or that were kept at other locations.
Due to the illegal nature of the trade and the variety of sources and localities examined by the authors, it
was not possible to use a standardised questionnaire. When interviewing dealers selling Tiger parts,
researchers attempted to collect information on volumes of trade, uses of Tiger parts, sources and origin
of Tiger parts, prices at different market levels, methods of hunting, trade routes and end markets.

2.3 Non-governmental and governmental authorities
To gain a deeper insight into Tiger trade activities, especially covert activities and changes in trends,
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia worked in collaboration with the Sumatran offices of international nongovernmental organizations, including FFI-ID, WWF-ID, the WCS, and the STCP. All of theseorganizations been very active in Tiger protection in Sumatra and have been collecting intelligence on theidentity of Tiger hunters and buyers of Tiger products. Moreover, in collaboration with local authorities,
they have been actively working towards prosecuting illegal trade in Tiger parts and products.
Information on Tiger status and poaching was specifically sought from these sources. This information
also helped to verify and validate information collected from shopkeepers, wildlife dealers, zoos, andforestry officials.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

21

3. The supply: Tiger hunting in Sumatra
Habitat loss, fragmentation and reduction of prey base are important threats to Tigers. Moreover, they
serve to increase the Tiger’s vulnerability to poaching, which has been considered the most urgent threat
to the survival of the species since the early 1990s. Genuine Tiger products seen in markets come fromtwo potential sources of supply: wild Tigers, or Tigers in captivity. Tigers in captivity are discussed laterin this report. Conservation concern focuses on preventing poaching of wild Tigers.
Sumatra stands out for having a graphic documentation of the threat posed by Tiger poaching for tradecaptured on film. In 1988, Cinecontact Productions produced a video program for Survival Anglia called“Animal Traffic: 31 Tigers”. The filmmakers accompanied a team of Tiger hunters somewhere in
Sumatra as they set wire snares and eventually caught, then shot, as female Sumatran Tiger. The Tiger
was skinned and its parts were hidden and taken into an urban market for sale. The lead hunter claimed
to have already caught 30 Tigers in the past year; this program documented his 31st. An Indonesiantaxidermist in the video claimed to have sold 10 Tiger skins within the last year (Tilson and TraylorHolzer, 1994).

Credit: Nolan Magnus, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

Since then, much effort has been invested throughout Tiger range in improving anti-poaching measures,and in collecting data on Tiger poaching in order to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures.
This is especially true in Sumatra. This report presents the first comprehensive data on Tiger poaching in
Sumatra, gathered from a number of different sources, including TRAFFIC’s own interviews with Tiger
hunters (Box 1). This information can be very difficult to collect: since Tiger hunting is illegal, it is covert
and difficult to detect. Sumatra stands out among Tiger range states for having made good progress incollecting this type of data, which provide a basis for evaluating the severity of the poaching threat for
the Sumatran Tiger.

Wire snare confiscated in the Bukit Barisan Selatan
National Park. Simple snares like these are used tocatch tigers.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

22

Box 1. Interview with a hunter.

This interview was conducted by TRAFFIC with a second-generation tiger hunter who was taught the trade by his father
and began hunting in 1954. He has lived in the same rural village in Lampung Province nearly all his life. He comesfrom a village that is relatively poor where the primary source of income is derived from farming. Now 81 years old,he continues to hunt with his sons and teach others the trade of tiger hunting.

He said that his hunting methods and traditions have not changed in the 48 years he had been hunting tigers. Hunting
takes places deep within Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. Although he claimed that hunting tigers was his primarymeans of livelihood, he also said he only made two hunting trips each year.

During these trips, a trap line is laid consisting of approximately 60 snares, set along paths frequently used by tigers.
Over his lifetime he claimed to have caught more than 115 Sumatran Tigers. The interviewee could not give an annual
average for the number of tigers he had illegally killed over the 48 year he had been actively hunting. However, he wasable to provide some interesting insight into rate of illegal killing and how this has changed. In 1989, he had a record
take of 14 tigers in one year. However, the last five years he and his sons had killed an average of two tigers per year.
“Now,” he says, “it is much tougher to catch tigers because there are so many more men hunting tigers than everbefore.”In fact the intensity of competition to catch tigers has led to hunters robbing each other’s traps when they

happen upon a snared animal.

Almost all the tigers caught in this village are sent to East Java or Jakarta where they are sold locally (not exported outof the country). The few that are not sent to Java are sold in Palembang or to local buyers. Prior to our arrival thisinterviewee said he had sold a stuffed Sun Bear for IDR 12 004 320 (USD 1348.80) and one tiger skin for a price of
IDR 20 007 200 (USD 2248). In 1989, when he caught 14 tigers, he sold all specimens to East Java, where they were
sold

for

local

use

includingtaxidermy,skins,

ornamentation,

and

magic

purposes.

His sale of all tiger parts to Java appears to contradict reports from investigators that most tiger parts from this area aretransported from Bandar Lampung to Palembang before being exported to Singapore. The explanation for this anomaly
is that this community originated in Java and still maintains strong ties to this region through family orbusiness connections. Another interesting phenomenon of this region in southern Sumatra is that many local huntershere do not sell the bones for traditional Asian medicine as is the common practice elsewhere. Apparently this isbecause the hunters here perceive the skins, teeth and claws as the only valuable parts on a tiger. When a tiger iskilled, the current practice is to immediately skin the animal either where it is caught or in a safe location. Only the skin,teeth, and claws are removed while the meat and bones are left to rot.

In addition to tigers this interviewee also hunted other animals. It was indicated that although other species were caught
they were usually not the primary targets. Many animals use the same paths in the forest and are caught accidentallyin tiger snares. Although these leg hold snares are intended to be species-specific they are often not. The intention ofusing species-specific snares for tigers stems not from conservation minded concerns but rather from an effort tomaximize the dollar earned per unit of effort spent hunting. Sambar Deer Cervus unicolor, Sun Bear and Binturong
Arctictis binturong were the species he said he most frequently snared as incidental killings. However, he also said on
occasions when orders are placed for specific species or when there is a known demand for an item, these animals areactively pursued.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

23

Hunting methods
1. Snares
Just as depicted in the 1988 film “31 Tigers”, Sumatran Tigers are today still predominately hunted using
wire snares (Anon, 2002; FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC,
2002). There are two types of snares used; spring loaded leg-hold snares and also neck snares.
A. Leg Hold Snares
Tigers are primarily hunted using a traditional wire cable leg hold snare. Although there can be someminor regional variations in the methods or materials used for snaring, by and large the descriptions that
follow will hold true throughout all regions of Sumatra (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002; WWFID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). These snares are simple, cheap and yet highly effective. Thismethod of hunting allows teams of hunters to set 60 or more snares per day providing maximum
coverage of an area in an effort to catch Tigers with very little financial cost, physical exertion or risk ofbeing caught (Anon., pers comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Professional poachers prefer heavy-duty cable since this minimizes lacerations that would reduce thevalue of the Tiger pelt. However, this type of cable requires a substantial investment by poachers andfinancial constraints thus limit the number of snares that can be set (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC,
2002). Brake cable or heavy-duty nylon rope may also be used; the advantage being that cheap materials
allow for a large number of snares to be set, as reported from Lampung province (Anon., pers comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002).

Credit: Nolan Magnus, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

Men usually go out in teams of two to four individuals to set snares in the forest, including within
national parks, two or more times a year, with each team setting between five and 60 snares per trip. Prior
to setting the snares a scouting trip is often conducted to select sites. Hunters look for Tiger sign (tracks
or faeces), but also choose areas that are relatively rich in ungulate sign, including hilltop ridge trails andsalt licks. These scouting trips usually take at least one or two days. The setting of the snares usuallytakes about one day to complete. A small pit is then dug and the snare is set and covered with leaves anddebris to conceal it. A young flexible but solid tree or tree branch near the snare acts as the spring.
Finally a small log or branch is placed across the path in front of the snare. This requires that the Tiger
step across the log into the loop of wire snare, triggering the tree spring and tightening the noose around
its foot. The use of a log obstacle is reported to cause
the Tiger to place its full weight on the readied trap andprevents it from quickly pulling back when the trap issprung. Some hunters claim they know the length of a
Tiger’s stride and this allows them to place the log inorder to specifically catch Tigers. This same trap isalso used for Sambar Deer,, mouse deer Tragulus spp.,
Malayan Tapirs Tapirus indicus, Sun Bears Helarctos
malayanus, Binturong, and other species of wild cats.
Tigers can be caught in any cable snare with a large
Demonstrating how snares are set.
enough loop setting for its foot, no matter what theSnares are simple and inexpensive.
target species a hunter may have been aiming for.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

24

B. Body and Neck Snares
Two sticks about 130 cm long are erected approximately 60 cm apart (or as large as is deemed necessary
from a consideration of paw prints) on either side of a path. A snare approximately two feet in diameteris made using steel wire. The snare is placed between the two sticks and the end is connected to a solid
flexible young tree trunk, which serves as a spring (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
The tree is selected based on strength and flexibility. It must be small enough and flexible enough that it
can be bent over to act as a spring for the snare, yet big enough that it can hold the partial weight of the
Tiger suspended in the air once the snare is sprung. Setting the spring usually requires the help of at least
two other people to bend the tree over and set the trigger mechanism. A Tiger walking along this trail
would push the wire releasing the trigger. This allows the tree to snap back to its upright position anddraws the snare tight around the neck or body of the Tiger. The tree in its upright position keeps tension
on the wire so that the snare does not loosen allowing the Tiger to escape (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002).
2. Poison
Poison was used by the Dutch colonial government to kill Tigers in the early 1900s, by spraying animal
carcass bait with pesticide (Treep, 1973). Treep (1973) also relates an incident in 1937 where a dog
carcass poisoned with strychnine was used to kill a Tiger previously wounded by gunshot. The poison
most often used now appears to be a commercially available organophosphate-based poison for Wild Pigs,
known as the TheMix 500 mg (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). There are two primarymethods for poisoning Tigers. The first involves killing a chicken and then filling the stomach withpoison. The carcass is then taken to an area frequented by the Tiger and left for the Tiger to find. The
other means by which Tigers are poisoned involves locating a Tiger kill. Tigers usually eat some of theirkill and cache the rest for later. This cache is then covered with poison by the hunters, who come backinseveral days to collect the poisoned Tiger that has returned to feed again on the poisoned carcass. Thismethod is frequently used when Tigers prey on livestock close to a village (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002), but it is also used by poachers (WWF-ID,
pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
3. Rifles or homemade guns
Hunting Tigers using guns alone is very rare (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Hunting clubs,
army and police are the individuals most often responsible for this type of Tiger poaching. Often police
and army personnel are used as guards for timber or other types of industrial companies in or around theprotected areas where Tigers might be found. Although it is believed they do not go out purposefully
looking for Tigers to poach, they often shoot whatever they see as a recreational past time. However, once
an animal has been shot (Tiger, wild pig or deer) the carcass is often sold (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002). It is important to note that it is thought that these men are not going to the forest to
work for Tiger traders or gangs selling Tigers. In the Province of Riau in the last two years four Tigers
are known to have died by these means (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

25

4. Pit traps
Pit traps are rarely used to hunt Tigers. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that althoughmaking a pit trap is cheap it is very labour intensive. Digging pits that are large and deep requires time.
The more time an individual must spend in the protected area, the greater the likelihood they may becaught. At the same time the hunter cannot set as many traps which reduces the probability of catchinga Tiger (60 snares can be set in one day where as a single pit trap may take several days to dig). Pit traps
may be used for elephants and rhino as well as Tigers (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
5. Box traps
Treep (1973) wrote, “In Sumatra the local population captures Tigers, at least when they become anuisance for the people, by means of cage-traps. The trap is a “room” made of poles (approximately 3.25
m long, 0.60 m wide, and approximately 1.30 m high); within it, a living bait (e.g., a goat), tied up at theback. When the Tiger enters the trap, it sets in action a mechanism which shuts the door. Before use thetraps are inaugurated by a Dukun. Klees (1920) mentions nine Tigers captured that way in Padang, West
Sumatra.” Treep (1973) also notes a 1914 Dutch colonial report of 100 Tigers captured over a 6 year
period in 60 box traps. Santiapillai and Ramono (1985) relate news reports of “Tiger charmers” in Acehprovince live-trapping over 64 Tigers over the space of a few months. While no further information
regarding this method of trapping was found during this survey, it should be noted that one injured Tiger
was captured in this way by villagers in 1997 (See ‘A Tiger Called Tele’, Box 3 Chapter 5) in North
Sumatra.

3.2. Incidental killing of Tigers
Many Sumatran hunters set snares to catch other species, including bears, which are also valued in
traditional Asian medicine, but also ungulates, prey species of Tigers, which humans also like to eat. And
since where there are Tiger prey species there are likely to be Tigers, these snares can also kill Tigers,
unintended by the hunter. Snares placed near agricultural areas to catch crop-raiding animals like deerand Wild Pigs, can also catch their predator, the Tiger. Ironically, the Tigers could provide a natural means
to control Wild Pig and deer populations (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2001; FFI-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). This can be considered accidental orincidental killing of Tigers.
Snares set for the smaller animals with light cable or strong nylon cord are often not strong enough tohold a Tiger (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2001). On occasion the Tiger may escape a snare, often
suffering debilitating wounds (See ‘A Tiger Called Tele’, Box 3 chapter 5). These wounded animals arelikely to become the area’s next ‘problem Tigers’ as wounded animals often can no longer catch theirregular prey and therefore turn to simpler prey such as domestic animals including cattle, goats and dogs.
However, the ones that do not escape are either taken to zoos, or more likely killed and sold.
According to information provided primarily by FFI-ID, a total of 12 Tigers were reportedly accidentally
captured in snares set for other species, especially wild pigs, between late 1999 and mid 2002 (Table 5).
Ten of the 12 Tigers listed in Table 5 were killed or died, and the remaining two possibly escaped. The

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

26

FFI-ID reports indicate at least four Tigers per year are incidentally killed, rather than on purpose.
However, this figure is likely to be an underestimate of the total number of Tigers killed in this manner,as such kills are seldom reported and are instead discovered through investigation and intelligence reports.
This indicates that as long as snare-hunting for other species continues, Tigers will continue to be caught
incidentally, and potentially enter into trade.
Table 5. Tigers as incidental killings
Case

Received

Area

SourceBrief details and results

Tiger killed
accidentally in
pig snare

Late 1999

Sungai Pelakar,
Sarolanggun, Jambi

FFI-ID, 2003

Tiger killed in snare set
for Wild Pig by oil palm
company. Manager sold.
Witnesses confirm the
manager was sacked forkilling the tiger.

Tiger dies indeer snare

2000

Tabir Hulu,Merangin
Merangin district

FFI-ID, 2003

Tiger caught in
pig snare

September
2000

Desa Kuta Balang,
Tapanuli Tengah,
North Sumatera

FFI-ID-SECP
and KSDA I,
2002

Tiger caught in
pig trap

November
2000

Desa Mambang Baru FFI-ID-SECP
Kec. Batang Toru Kab. and KSDA I,
Tapanuli Selatan,
2002

Tiger caught in Sambar
Deer snare set by hunterseeking meat for the
Eid-ul-Fitri celebrations
at end of fasting monthof Ramadan.
Report of villagers
obtaining a tiger caught
and killed in a wild pig
trap
A tiger responsible for a
non-fatal attack on a local
man was snared by awild
Tiger killed insnare

September
2000

Nort Sumatra
Desa Kuta Balang,
Tapanuli Tengah,
North Sumatra

FFI-ID-SECP
Survey Team,
Sept 2002

Man attacked

NovemberDesa Mambang

FFI-ID-SECP

Tiger caught in a Wild

when tiger

2000

Baru Kec. Batang

Survey Team,Pig snare but it escaped

Toru Kab. Tapanuli

Sept. 2002

causing some bite andcaught in snare

pig trap.

Selatan, North Sumatra

Villager reported that atiger had been trapped in
a Wild Pig trap.

scratch would to one
individual

Tiger killed
accidentally in

April 2000

Lubuk Linggau,

FFI-ID, 2003

South Sumatra

Farmer reported incident
to TNKS but whensnare

rangers went to site,
carcass had goneThree tigers
killed (snares)

July-Aug 2001 North Bengkulu
district, Bengkulu

FFI-ID, 2003

Rotting pelts found (nobone) of three tigers (plus
4 tapirs) in one snare line
poachers had not
checked their snares till

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

27

3.3. Human-Tiger conflict
Tigers pose a threat to humans as well as their livestock. Many parts of Sumatra have high levels of Tigerhuman conflict, situations in which large numbers of people as well as Tigers have been killed (Nowell,
2000). This has a long history: Treep (1973) includes a number of early 20th century descriptions ofincidents where Tigers killed people, or their livestock, and were subsequently hunted and killed. At the
1992 Sumatran Tiger PHVA Workshop, Indonesian Forestry officials estimated that, on average, about 17
incidents involving problems with Tigers are reported every year from the five national parks of Sumatra.
Of these 17 instances, about 12 resulted in Tiger losses: about six through poaching or poisoning andanother six through official removal with government involvement (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994).
Nowadays, human-wildlife conflict “has reached a critical level”, posing a serious threat to animal
conservation (Nazir Foead of WWF-ID, quoted in the Jakarta Post, Sept. 28, 2002). For example, Tigers
killed at least six and possibly as many as 30 people in one area of Riau province from 2000-2003; seven
Tigers were killed, six captured and taken to a zoo, and two captured and released into a newly establishedforest reserve (Anon. 2003e, Paddock, 2004).
Adi Susmianto, director of Indonesia’s National Biodiversity Reference Unit was quoted as stating “Theconflict is mostly driven by people’s activities in forests” (Jakarta Post, Sept. 28, 2002). Indeed, the mostrecent Tiger attack in Riau province took the life of an illegal logger (Paddock, 2004). As plantations andlogging remove forest and villagers push their cultivated areas further and further into the Tigers’ habitat,
the number of conflicts increases. Furthermore, the areas near newly settled villages are quickly emptiedof the Tiger’s main prey species, especially deer. It appears that many of the Tigers in trade were killed
or captured as a result of their conflict with man (Jakarta Post, Sept. 28, 2002).
Table 6 suggests that at least 17 Tigers have been reported as killed in Sumatra from 1997-2002, with two
additional Tiger being trapped and possibly killed and another two being captured live and given to zoos.
Many of these Tigers were caught in snares, while others were shot. Ten humans were killed and afurther eight wounded by Tigers during this same period. Furthermore, there were 23 incidents of Tigers
preying on domesticated animals, the majority of these being dogs, with one Tiger taking over 40 dogs
over a period of time.
Unfortunately these numbers likely reflect only a portion of the true total annual number of Tigers killed
or captured each year as a result of conflict with humans. This report has collected additional reports ofTiger-human conflict which indicate that government statistics (included in Appendix 1) are incomplete(Appendix 1 and Anon., 2003e). Moreover, through anecdotal evidence it has been suggested that park
authorities often turn a blind eye to reports of Tiger killings to protect human lives or to protect livestock(WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). However, as hunting Tigers is illegal, Tiger killings often
go unreported even if the initial attack on humans or livestock was reported. This is further complicatedby the fact that there is currently no scheme in place to compensate villagers for loss of property or lifein the event of a Tiger attack. This means that the illegal sale of a Tiger killed after it comes into conflictwith humans is the only way locals might recuperate losses.
It would appear from the data that human Tiger conflict is greatest in the province of West Sumatra as
over 80 percent of Tiger attacks occurred there within the last three years. West Sumatra has one of theNOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

28most active Tiger conservation and Protection Unit programs and several NGOs, but especially FFI-ID,
collect detailed information whenever possible, which is lacking for other regions in Sumatra (Appendix
1). The lack of comprehensive data for the other provinces does not necessarily indicate that human-Tiger
conflict is less than in West Sumatra, or that fewer Tigers are killed or captured for this reason. Many
people interviewed by TRAFFIC in Aceh province indicated high levels of human-Tiger conflict;however, civil unrest in the region makes it difficult for conservationists to work effectively there. On theother hand, Nyhus et al. (1999) carried out an intensive monitoring program around Way Kambas
National Park and found a surprisingly low level of conflict, “in stark contrast to the rest of Sumatra.”Mitigation and management of human-Tiger conflict is essential to the well-being of the communities
living around Tiger populations and for the conservation of Sumatran Tiger. Villagers, commercial agro
forestry workers and forest product collectors, who most often come into conflict with Tigers, often feelthe only resolution is to remove the threat by either killing or trans-locating the problem animal.
Removing the problem Tigers does not seem to be a viable long-term solution, and real steps towards
reducing this conflict will require better education for the people living in rural areas regarding livestock
management, and better planning of land use and other practices.
Tigers that attack humans, prey on livestock, take up residence in farmland or move into a village arelikely to be killed by villagers trying to protect themselves and their livelihoods. In attempting to deal
with these problems on their own, poisoned bait is often used by villagers to eliminate problem Tigers(WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). In situations where villagers are content to wait for
problem Tigers to move away poachers are often quick to offer their services resulting in the deaths ofTigers that could otherwise have been avoided (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). Poachers who cometo a village offering to kill problem Tigers usually only want the Tiger and do not request additional
payment. Alternatively, a community may hire a professional hunter to destroy problem animals. In suchcases the hunter may be paid a fee ranging from IDR 500 000 – 2 000 000 (USD 56-225) or he may takethe skin depending on the wishes of the community (WWF-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2000). In February
2002, local television aired a news clip regarding a Tiger that had killed more than forty dogs in theprovince of West Sumatra. Less than a day and a half later three groups of hunters approached thevillage offering to ‘resolve’ the problem posed by the Tiger (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

29

Table 6. Records of human-Tiger conflicts by Province, 1997-2002
Province

Number of tigers

Human

HumansNumber of

killed (captured)fatalities

woundedattacks against

Sourcelivestock
North Sumatra
1997-98

1

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.
2002

1999

1

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.
2002

2000

1, (1)

3

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.

1

KSDA Unit I, Pak Ambar

2002; KSDA Unit I, Pak Ambar
2001
2002

3

1

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.
2002; KSDA Unit I, Pak Ambar

Aceh
1997

1*

1999

2

2000

1

1

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.

2

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.

2002
1

2002
FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.
2002
2001

1

1

FFI-SECP survey team. Sept.
2002

West Sumatra
2000

2

2001

4, 1*

2002

3

2

6

FFI-ID tiger progress report,

7

FFI-ID tiger progress report,

5

FFI-ID, 2003

2001
2001; FFI-ID, 2003
1

Jambi
2002

2

Jakarta Post, June 18, 2002

5

Reuters, Nov. 07, 2002

Riau
2002

1, (1)TOTALS 17, 2*, (2)

10

8

23

*Trapped but not confirmed to be killed() Trapped live and placed in zoos

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

30

Figure 3. Outcome of human-Tiger conflict incidents known in six sub-districts in Jambi
between 2001 and 2002.

Num be r of tige rs

5
4
3

tigers not killed
tigers killed

210Bangko Gunung Gunung Muara
Kerinci Raya
Siau

Sungai Sungai
Manau Penuh

L o ca tio n

Source: FFI-ID in litt to TRAFFIC, 2002
In Jambi four Sumatran Tigers are known to have been killed out of a total of 12 cases of human-Tiger
conflicts in 2000-2001 (Figure 3). The remaining eight animals may have been killed, but if so, this went
unreported, or escaped persecution. However, recently villagers who encounter conflict with a Tiger havebegun to call local Tiger conservation and protection units for aid instead of attempting to take matters
into their own hands (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). The major problem with Tiger-humanconflicts is the Indonesia urban perception of the Tiger is that it is a “savage animal”. These perceptions
are increasingly eroding traditional beliefs about Tigers and its beneficial relationship with communities(FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Currently it is felt that an immediate proactive response by
Tiger protection and conservation units can be extremely useful in mitigating conflict (FFI-ID, pers.
comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
The Indonesian government has had a long-standing policy that when conflict arises, they will provide
assistance to live-trap the problem Tiger and remove it from the area (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994).
If they are successful, the question then remains what are they to do with the animal? In the past, theproblem Tigers were put into zoos, particularly the large Taman Safari Zoo on Java, which has over 30
Sumatran Tigers, many of which are problem Tigers live trapped by a team of hunters specially organizedby the zoo (Box 2). However, this only provides a temporary solution to the problem.
Throughout Sumatra, zoos are sorely overcrowded and many cages for housing wildlife are in a terrible
state of disrepair (TRAFFIC, pers. obs. 2002). Zoos cannot continue to take in a multitude of problem
animals when they barely have resources to take care of the animals they already have (Drh. Anhar Lubis,
Medan Zoo, pers comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). As one of the main attractions, Tigers in these zoos are
exposed to hundreds of thousands of human visitors each year. Human acclimatization is inevitablemaking it highly unlikely that Tigers can be safely reintroduced from facilities such as these to the wild
where they are expected to live in harmony with their human neighbours.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

31

Box 2 Tiger claims the life of five people in Riau province
In August, Riau residents angry over the deaths of four locals launched a search for a man-eating tiger.
They caught and killed a very young tiger and killed they thought was responsible. Unfortunately they
were wrong, as two weeks later another man was found dead.
Seeking the assistance of professional tiger hunters a team from Safari Park Zoo in Cisarua was sent
to help. A 243-pound, 7-year-old tiger was captured in September. After long negotiations with locals
who wanted to exact revenge by killing the tiger team members were allowed to take the tiger back to
the Zoo where it is hoped in the future he can become a stud for their breeding centre.
Source: (Reuters, November 07, 2002)

The Ministry of Forestry and the STCP are evaluating the establishment of a Tiger Rescue Centre. Thisis envisioned as a holding facility for problem Tigers, a place which will always be open for problem
Tigers so that accommodation arrangements do not continually need to be made on a case-by-case basis(Anon., 2002b). It is hoped to translocate problem Tigers to other blocks of habitat far from people,
although such areas are becoming increasingly few in Sumatra. In 2003, this strategy was tried for the
first time. For the previous two years, the area around the town of Dumai, Riau province had been
suffering serious levels of human-Tiger conflict, as noted in Box 2. Altogether, perhaps as many as 30
people,and numerous livestock, were killed by Tigers, and seven Tigers killed by people, with anothersix captured and removed to zoos. In an unprecedented initiative by the mayor of Dumai, logging
concessions were suspended in a 600 km2 region of Sungai Sembilan district, near Dumai, and this area
was formally declared as the Senepis Tiger Conservation Area in August 2003. Further Tiger attacks in
September to October 2003 resulted in the loss of nine goats and two cows, and the local people
demanded that the problem Tiger be removed. Working together, the local conservation authorities andthe STCP live-trapped two adult male Tigers and translocated them to the new Tiger Conservation Area.
The Tigers are monitored by camera traps set up in the area, and a management plan is being developed
for the area, with plans to incorporate radio-collaring to better monitor the movements and fate oftranslocated problem Tigers (Anon., 2003e).
A solution more likely to succeed in reducing human-Tiger conflict in the long term would focus onchanging attitudes and taking preventative measures. Public education is important for this. For
example plantation workers should not go to the plantation and cattle should be kept in paddocks between
7am and 9am and at night, as it is found that Tigers come out to hunt during these times and people should
travel in groups in areas where there might be Tigers.

3.4. Estimating the total number of Sumatran Tigers killed and removed
Knowledge of the levels of Tiger poaching throughout Sumatra (number of Tigers killed each year) is
critical information for Tiger conservation. Tilson and Traylor-Holzer (1994) estimated that 42 Tigers per
year were removed from the population in the early 1990s: six being problem Tigers live-trapped andremoved from the wild by PHKA, and an estimated 36 being illegally killed, primarily for trade. Since
then no comprehensive estimates have been attempted for the total annual number of Sumatran Tigers
killed throughout the island.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

32

One of the most detailed databases of current and historic Tiger poaching cases has been publishedrecently by the STCP (2003), working in Bukit Tigapuluh National Park. Intensive effort in 2003 was put
into developing an informant network, and through many interviews with local people detailed estimates
were put together for the number of Tigers poached in BTNP for a 30 year period, from 1972-2003(Figure 3). Their information indicates that approximately 305 Tigers were poached from BTNP duringthat period, at an average rate of 10 per year. They estimate that 32 different poaching gangs were activein the area during this period. A peak in poaching activity (number of poachers or poaching groups active)
was noted during the 1980s, a decade characterized by unprecedented rates of land conversion andlogging in Riau province.

Figure 4. Estimated number of Tigers poached in the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park andsurrounding areas, 1972-2003 (Anon., 2003d)

Source: STCP
In order to provide a working estimate for the total number of Sumatran Tigers killed or captured in recent
years, we have pulled together data collected from a number of different sources, including datacollected by NGO’s (FFI-ID, WWF-ID, WCS and STCP), government agencies and newspapers. In a
few cases NGOs have published detailed data in their reports, but generally this information is kept in
unpublished databases and was personally communicated to TRAFFIC. Ideally, reports of Tigers killed
can be verified by the presence of an actual Tiger carcass, but in many cases reports of Tiger deaths aresecond-hand. Due to the many sources of data, we carefully inspected detailed accounts of each Tiger
killed to try to eliminate duplicate data. In the event of uncertainty, we have attempted to err on the sideof caution.
As shown in Table 7, an estimated 253 Sumatran Tigers were killed or live-trapped from 1998-2002, at
an average of 51 Tigers per year. On the face of it, this suggests that removal rates for Tigers have notchanged much over the past decade, despite major increases in Tiger protection efforts in the late 1990s.
However, it is difficult to be certain about this conclusion. First, Tilson and Traylor-Holzer’s (1994)

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

33estimate of 42 Tigers per year was an estimate, and is likely to be off by some unknown factor. Secondly,
the numbers may to some degree reflect the intensity of conservation effort – numbers in Riau, West
Sumatra, Jambi and Lampung are highest, but these are also areas with major Tiger conservation
programs (See Section 1.1.). Other districts where there is less active Tiger conservation effort may havehigher numbers of Tigers killed which go undetected. In particular, civil unrest in Aceh deters monitoring
and Tiger protection in this province, which was formerly recognized as a stronghold for Tigers (Treep,1973). The city of Medan in North Sumatra was found by this survey to be one of Sumatra’s mainmarkets for Tiger parts and products (see Section 4.1.1.), which suggests that Tiger poaching may behigher in North Sumatra and Aceh than indicated by the data.
Table 7. Estimated number of Sumatran Tigers removed from eight provinces, 1998-2002*Eighteen Tigers, or 8% of the total, were not killed but were problem animals trapped alive and removed
Province

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Total

Average

SourceNorth Sumatra

1

1

4

n/a

n/a

6

2.4

FFI-SECP, 2002;
TRAFFIC, 2002

Aceh

n/a

2

2

1

n/a

5

1

Riau

19

17

9

12

10

67

13.4

FFI-SECP, 2002;
TRAFFIC, 2002
WWF-ID, 2002;
STCP, 2003

West Sumatra

2

14

35

12

3

65

13

FFI-tiger progress
report, 2001;
FFI-ID, 2003

Jambi

2

9

1

5

22

39

7.8

FFI-ID, 2002;
WWF-ID, 2002

South Sumatra

2

4

1

2

n/a

9

1.8

WWF-ID, 2002

Lampung

19

8

12

6

12

57

11.4

WWF-ID, 2002;
WCS ID, 2003

Bengkulu

n/a

2

1

n/a

1

4

0.8

FFI-ID, 2002

Total

45

57

65

38

48

253*

Approx. 51

from the wild.
Totals for the province of Riau were sourced from records from both STCP and WWF-ID, with thehigher counts from either organization being used in the totals given in Table 7. The records of Tigers
removed from the wild, as recorded in Table 7, were taken from a number of unpublished sources andcarefully examined to avoid duplication.
An example of the effect of intensified Tiger conservation efforts can be seen in West Sumatra. In 1998
only two Tigers were known to have been killed in this province. During this time members of the
FFI-ID Kerinci team conducting surveys and camera trapping began to record a rise in numbers of Tigers
poached (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). In 1999, the number rose to 14 animals. Then in theyear 2000, when FFI-ID began patrolling and enforcement activities in Kerinci Seblat National Park, theNOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

34

number of Tigers confirmed killed rose dramatically to 35. This increase is not necessarily a result of
increased poaching activity, but in large due to the tremendous effort FFI-ID made to uncover poaching
and the illegal Tiger trade. However, in 2001 and subsequently in 2002, the number of Tigers killed inWest Sumatra decreased to less than half the number of Tigers killed in 2000. As FFI-ID has made aconsistent effort during this time to uncover poaching and illegal trade, it is likely that this provincial
decrease in the total number of Tigers killed is a result of their anti-poaching and Tiger protection efforts
in the area.
Thirdly, despite the proven track record of Indonesian authorities of tolerance and lenience towards
individuals who kill Tigers because of human-Tiger conflict (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2001; FFI-ID
in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003), killing a Tiger is illegal, and many deaths go unreported to the authorities
because of fear of reprisal (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Further, because of the secretive
nature of poaching Tigers it is unlikely that investigators would discover all Tigers killed in any given
year (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). The secretive nature of the Tiger trade in combination
with fear and suspicion, and inconsistent and incomplete reporting, makes gathering and compilingaccurate detailed information on Tiger poaching an extremely difficult task (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC,
2003). Professional and semi-professional poachers have pre-existing networks of buyers establishedthrough which Tiger products are easily and quietly moved (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Although the use of undercover investigators in recent years to gather data on poaching of Tigers has
provided researchers with a wealth of information not previously available, it is impossible for occasional
surveys by undercover agents to detect all of the Tigers killed annually. The relatively large scale which
Tigers are traded on and the apparent lack of regularity with which investigators gather information
further complicate this. Therefore, it is likely that the data in Table 7 underestimate the total number ofTigers poached.
Finally, there were numerous discrepancies in the 1998-2002 data, which makes it difficult to ascertain
how accurate the count of Tiger removals is. These discrepancies highlight the importance of having acentrally and carefully managed Tiger database (see Recommendations). During data collection for thisproject, researchers posing as buyers and accompanying undercover investigators from other NGOs anddiscovered a lack of consistency in their reporting. During the process of writing investigators found anumber of inconsistencies in data for the total number of Tigers killed annually. The data used in thisreport was therefore analysed thoroughly and cautiously to avoid duplication. It is likely that the numberof Tigers killed annually is higher than estimated in this report.
It has previously been suggested that Tigers killed as a result of conflict with humans are the primarysource for Tiger parts and products seen in trade from North Sumatra (Plowden and Bowles, 1997).
Anecdotal information given to TRAFFIC by interviewees in Aceh province also corroborates theimportance of Tigers killed as a result of conflict as a source for Tiger parts in trade. However, on an
island-wide basis it appears that the number of Tigers killed for commercial gain far outweighs thenumbers of Tigers killed as a result of conflict. From Table 6, at least 17 Tigers are known to have been
killed from 1998-2002 as a result of human-Tiger conflict. Another 18 Tigers were live-trapped during
this period, probably as a result of human-Tiger conflict as well. This is a total of 35 Tiger removals likely
to be a direct result of human-Tiger conflict, but it is just 14% of the total number of Tigers killed during
this period. As discussed previously, an average of at least four Tigers per year are thought to be killed

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

35

accidentally, as incidental killings, in traps set for other species. Subtracting the incidental killings,
estimates still leaves the apparent motive for the remaining 78% of dead Tigers, at least 198 Tigers overa five year period, as poaching for trade.

Credit: Chris Shepherd / TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

Tigers in conflict with people constitute a local problem likely to be a feature of conservation
management for as long as Tigers and people continue to compete for space and sustenance. Parts of
Sumatra do suffer high levels of human-Tiger conflict, and it is important that the conservation
community continue to work toward developing successful solutions to this problem. Population
dynamics models suggest that Tiger populations may be resilient to steady low off-takes (Karanth andStith, 1999), such as would be expected to arise from human-Tiger conflicts. Commercial poaching, on
the other hand, is likely to result in higher off-takes, increasing the chances of sharp population declines
or extinction of vulnerable Tiger populations (Kenney et al., 1994). Kenney et al. (1994) emphasize,
moreover, that “it is unwise to be complacent even if anti-poaching efforts are successful,” since thedemographic consequences of poaching might not be immediately obvious and extinction may occur
many years after poaching is reduced or eliminated.

Data collected by this survey indicates that
Sumatran Tigers are being killed and removed
at an average rate of at least 51 Tigers per year
over the past five years. With a total population
estimated at 400-500 Tigers (Seidensticker etal., 1999), this implies that at least 10% arebeing lost every year. As discussed above,
although this estimate of current Tiger losses is
the most comprehensive to date, for manyreasons it is likely to be an undercount, andannual losses are likely to be greater. In order tobe most useful, it is important to link Tiger
deaths to Tiger populations in order to evaluate
A Sumatran Tiger taken from the wild after
having been crippled by snares. The tiger
their impact, since most Sumatran Tiger
was placed in the Medan Zoo in North
populations are isolated from each other, andSumatra.
the population dynamics of each will differ.
At the 1992 Sumatran Tiger PHVA Workshop, it was estimated that approximately 42 Tigers were killed
or removed each year on an annual basis, with 12, or 29%, the result of human-Tiger conflict (Tilson andTraylor-Holzer, 1994). This survey estimates that approximately 51 Tigers per year have been killed or
removed from 1998-2002, with 14% the result of human-Tiger conflict. Given the speculative nature of
the earlier estimate, and the likely under-reporting of the current estimate, it is not possible to conclude
that human-Tiger conflicts have decreased. The only certain conclusion is that there is no evidence that
Tiger poaching for trade has declined significantly since the early 1990s, despite intensified conservationand protection measures in Sumatra over the past decade, and apparent success globally in curtailingmarkets for Tiger bone. This survey of Tigers killed in Sumatra indicates that poaching for trade is
responsible for the vast majority (over 78%) of estimated Tiger deaths, at least 40 per year and possibly
higher.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

36

4. The market: Illegal trade in Sumatran Tiger parts andproducts
Historically, the Tiger’s skin is described of being the product of primary commercial value in Sumatra(Treep, 1973), with prices ranging from USD 1000 in the 1970s (Borner, 1978) to USD 3000 in the 1980s(Santiapillai and Ramono, 1985). When new conservation legislation was enacted, the government
required people already in possession of endangered species products to register these with theauthorities. Some 1081 stuffed Tiger mounts were registered in Indonesia (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer,
1994), demonstrating the existence of a sizeable domestic market for Tiger skins.
At the 1992 Sumatran Tiger PHVA workshop, a number of anecdotal reports were compiled concerning
trade in Tiger parts in Sumatra (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994). A former poacher interviewed in
Padang, West Sumatra, in 1992 said that Tiger products were smuggled to Singapore with relative ease.
An earlier report of Sumatran Tiger skins for sale in Singapore surfaced in 1988, when a British
journalist was offered Tiger skins and told he could be supplied with 10 pelts per month, mostly from
Sumatran Tigers. In 1993 a restaurant in the city of Pekanbaru, the capital of South Sumatra province,
which has a large ethnic Chinese population, offered Tiger meat to a group of Chinese tourists as one ofits courses. A Jakarta taxidermist offered a complete Sumatran Tiger skin (reputedly wild-caught from
Jambi, South Sumatra) for IDR 5 million (USD 2500) in 1994, which included an official permit from
PHKA legally registering this specimen in Indonesia. The Tiger skin without the permit would have only
cost IDR 1 million (USD 500). He also offered a sack of Tiger leg bones for IDR 300 000/kg (USD
250/kg) as well as claws and canine teeth from Tigers for IDR 40 000 (USD 20) each. This individualstated that most of his customers were from Thailand or South Korea.
Until this report, there has only been one systematic survey of Sumatran markets for Tiger products,
carried out in North Sumatra in 1995 (Plowden and Bowles, 1997). They concluded, “No evidence wasfound that there is organized poaching for Tigers or for the international trade in bones used in oriental
medicine. However, it is apparent that many Tigers killed opportunistically or deliberately by farmers arebeing fed into a commercial domestic market for Tiger bones, teeth, claws and skins. This is centred on
the gold shops in the main communities in Sumatra.” This was a somewhat surprising result given thehistory of large exports of Tiger bone from Indonesia to South Korea from the mid-1970s to the early
1990s (Mills 1993: see Section 1.2.). It is also surprising given the wholesale nature of the Tiger bone
trade that they documented in 1995: Tiger bone was being sold by the kg in seven out of the sixty-threegold shops surveyed, or 11% of the gold shops in North Sumatra. Several of these had complete Tiger
skeletons, which they allowed the investigators to examine and weigh. On the other hand, only one of
the nine traditional Asian medicine shops they surveyed offered small quantities of Tiger bone
preparations for retail customers (7% of shops surveyed). Although staff at the other shops had denied it,
the shop owner carrying Tiger bone claimed that other traditional medicine shops in Medan also stocked
Tiger bone. Plowden and Bowles (1997) also found gold (eight out of 63: 13%) and souvenir shops (oneout of seven: 14%) selling canine teeth and claws.
For this project, TRAFFIC carried out extensive island-wide surveys of a variety of retail outlets,
including souvenir shops, gold shops and traditional Asian medicine shops. We also conductedinterviews with individual traders, middlemen and Tiger poachers. In this section, we describe themarket structure for Tiger parts in Sumatra and analyze the results of our market surveys in detail.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

37

4.1. Market structure
In Sumatra the Tiger hunters sometimes live very close to the protected areas they poach from (i.e. they
are primarily local villagers). However, Tiger hunters also include police, military, and the local
shooting/hunting associations. Hunters sometimes work in teams and typically, after a Tiger is killed, thebody is divided between members of the hunting team. Depending on whether the hunter isopportunistic or is a professional he may have a buyer already lined up or he may have to wait to find abuyer.
While waiting for potential buyers, it is reported that bones are often buried and skins are left in a secure
location. Results of interviews indicated hunters might not always keep skins at their home. On several
occasions during this survey, when talking to hunters near protected areas where Tiger(s) had beenpoached, individuals were sent to fetch skins from secure locations. If skins are kept at the hunter’s homethey are often stored in sealed pails of preservative (D. Martyr, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002). Due to increased enforcement efforts by the local authorities, some dealers take extra
caution when selling Tiger parts. Currently hunters in West Sumatra will not deliver Tiger parts until all
the goods have been fully paid for. Poachers are safe in their village and cannot be arrested there becauseof the lawlessness that has become commonplace in some places within Indonesia (FFI-ID, pers. comm.
to TRAFFIC, 2002), making enforcement efforts difficult. In the current political and social climate, tomake an arrest, authorities must convince a hunter or dealer to leave his village and come to a designatedplace where it is safe for the police to arrest him. Villagers will defend each other to the point of killing
anyone who enters the village to arrest a member of the village or cause
problems (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). In other areas where enforcement is lacking, parts
are openly displayed for sale in shops.
Figure 5 shows the structure of the trade of Tiger parts in Sumatra. Middlemen or brokers either help thehunters to find a buyer or buy directly for resale. In the latter case the middleman usually has potential
buyer organized, perhaps a long time client. Middlemen may also sell to a district buyer (FFI-ID, pers.
comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). For example, in Banko, West Sumatra, district buyers purchase Tiger parts
from middlemen who buy directly from villagers near Kerinci-Seblat National Park. In Bukittinggi
district buyers may sell teeth, claws or off cuts of pelts or entire skins (often lesser quality merchandise)to retailers for sale to tourists (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Almost all district level dealers in Tiger products are dealers in other wildlife products, in particular
Agarwood Aquilaria spp. (also known as gaharu), freshwater turtles and tortoises, snake skins andedible swiftlet nests. In Bandar Lampung reptile dealers are the main dealers of Tiger skins (WWF-ID,
pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). In addition to collecting turtles, snakes and monitor lizards these men
also opportunistically hunt Tigers. Along with local village hunters, they are the primary dealers of Tiger
part and skins, as they have the trade routes for illicit wildlife and contacts already established. The
majority sell directly to provincial level dealers but in West Sumatra at least two are known to have solddirectly to Jakarta and other parts of Java (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). FFI-ID has received
narrative reports of a market in Surabaya and Bandung, Java, (the latter is said to be a traditional Asian
medicine production centre), as well as, a number of reports of Tiger skins and bone being sold to a major
dealer in Bali who subsequently exports pelts and bone (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). The
final destination of these exports is not known.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

38

From the district dealers the Tiger parts are moved relatively quickly to provincial dealers in Jambi,
Palembang, Bandar Lampung, Padang, and Pekanbaru. Provincial dealers have holding facilities where
Tiger parts are accumulated, usually in a “safe house” or warehouse, until buyers come along or until ashipment is ready to go overseas (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
In Indonesia, the end users of Tiger skins are very often police or military. They give Tiger skins as gifts
to their superior officers in hopes of climbing the ranks more quickly. This is apparently a very
long-standing tradition that goes back to the monarchy of Indonesia. Although there is no monarchy it ispracticed amongst the military and to a much lesser extent the police, as noted in Figure 5. Tiger parts
also leave Indonesia for international markets.
Although it is suspected that most of the Tiger products exported from Indonesia go through Singapore it
is still not clear how much remains in Singapore and how much continues on to other international
markets.

4.2. Market surveys
Throughout the eight provinces of Sumatra, a total of 24 towns and cities were surveyed in 2002,
recording 484 observations from shops and dealer sources in 2002. Only seven towns in this survey did
not have Tiger parts for sale (29% of towns), but in the other 17 towns a total of 117 shops and dealers,or 25% of those surveyed overall, were found to have Tiger parts for sale, as recorded in Appendix 2. A
total of 453 retail shops were surveyed, and of these 19% (86) were observed to have Tiger parts for sale.
Table 8 shows the main types of retail outlet surveyed, with the percentage having Tiger products for sale.

Map 3.
Sumatra: 8 provinces andtowns surveyed.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

39

Figure 5. Market structure for the sale of tiger parts in Sumatra

Opportunist poacher

Profesional poacher

Accidental (conflict orincidental killing)

Middlemen, including taxidermist
Souvenir shops(small parts)
Magic/traditional
medicine dealers usually small parts
and boneDistrict level dealer with
provincial capital or Jakarta
links

Provincial dealer/wholesaler

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

End user (pelt and stuffed
tigers) - usually civil
servants/military officer/
businessman

End users (both within
Indonesia and international

40

Similar to the previous 1995 survey (Plowden and Bowles, 1997) in North Sumatra, TRAFFIC found one
traditional Asian medicine shop in Medan city stocking Tiger bone (the owner claimed to stock a small
quantity, but was uncomfortable discussing the subject and would not show it to the TRAFFIC
investigator). TRAFFIC also found several gold shops in North Sumatra – and only in North Sumatra –selling wholesale quantities of Tiger bone by the kg. One shop had a complete skeleton. Around Sumatra,
TRAFFIC found gold and souvenir shops selling Tiger claws, canine teeth, and skin pieces. Of all retail
outlets, antique shops had the highest availability of Tiger parts, mainly canines and claws, and it ispossible that their offerings are antique rather than of recent origin.
In addition to the retail outlets surveyed, thirty-one dealer contacts were made, and all had either Tiger
parts for sale, information on Tiger parts, or claimed to be able to obtain Tiger parts. Most of the Tiger
bone and whole Tiger skins observed or reported during this survey were offered in a clandestine fashion
through various types of dealers, ranging from poachers to middlemen to taxidermists. This strongly
suggests that there is a substantial underground trade in Tiger parts in Sumatra, which does not depend
upon retail outlets to openly display these items.
Table 8. Availability of Tiger products in retail outlets in Sumatra

Type of retail outlet

Total number surveyed

Percent having tiger parts or
products for sale

Souvenir shop

109

7%

Gold and gems shop

331

13%

Antique shop

16

50%

Traditional Asian medicine shop

128%

Wildlife market

20

Restaurant

1

100%

Jamu medicine and magic shop

1

100%

Table 9. Main types of Tiger parts observed during 2002 market surveys
Tiger part or productTotal number observed

Percent of total observed

Claw

175+

42%

Canine102+

24%

Whisker80+19%Whole skin

24+

6%

Piece of skin

20

5%

Bone

8 (= 8 cases)

2%

Whole stuffed tiger

5

1%

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

41

Table 10. Summary of Tigers and Tiger parts observed in trade in Sumatra in 2002
Location / Canine Molar Claw WhiskerTail

Pieces

Whole

Part

of skin

skin

Skull

Bone

Stuffed

(kg)

tiger

1+
1

30 +**

Live

North Sumatra

Medan
19
Pancur
7
Batu
Belawan 3
2
Binjai15
SiantarTebingTinggi1
PadangSidempuan 5+
Sibolga
6+
Mandailing
Natal
1+
Brastagi*
Stabat*Sembahe*Sei Rampah
District*
Tangung
Morawa*Aceh
Aceh
Tamiang 6
Aceh
Timor
8
Riau
Riau
Pekanbaru 2
Batam
1
West Sumatra
Padang2
Bukittinggi 26
Jambi
Jambi
4
Bengkulu
Bengkulu
South Sumatra
Palembang
Lampung
BandarLampung*Villagesbordering
Bukit Barisan
National Park
TOTAL 106+ 2

54
28

7+
75+ 1

1
15

2
1

3+

1

4

17
1
4

1

7+

3+

1+

present
2

1

1

9

1

49

1

10

present 5

3

5

18

189+ 80+

1

24+

24

5
4

36 +

5

5

*locations surveyed with no Tiger parts observed** 20 kg of bone was reportedly available but not seen by investigators
Note: Information regarding skin and bones in West Sumatra from FFI-ID,

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

42

Table 9 (on previous page) shows a breakdown of the types of Tiger parts and products observed during
our surveys. Tiger claws were the item most frequently seen, with canine teeth second. A surprisingly
large number of whole Tiger skins (24+) have been observed or offered to investigators (FFI-ID, pers.
comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002; TRAFFIC, 2002): there are few other markets in Asia where such a volume
of skins could be readily observed (Nowell, 2000). None of the Tiger bone observed was on open display,and in only four cases did dealers allow investigators to see the bones. One complete skeleton (minus theskull) was seen at a gold shop in Pancur Batu, North Sumatra. Staff at the traditional Asian medicine
shops knew Tiger bone was illegal and said that was why they did not carry it.
Table 10 (on previous page) shows a breakdown of the types of Tiger parts seen in different locations
around Sumatra.
Table 11. Prices for Tiger parts and products collected during this survey
Item

Quantity

Averageprice (IDR)(n prices)

Average price(USD)(n prices)

Price range (IDR)

Price range(USD)

Stuffed tiger

5

25 009 000

2810 (2)20 007 200-30 010 800

2248-3372

Whole skin: retail 4+

18 342 900

2061 (3)10 003 600-35 012 600

1124-3934

Whole skin:20+

4 610 200

518 (11)2 002 500-8 499 500

225-955

Skin piece24+

1 361 700

153 (10)53 400-7 502 700

6-843

Bones

36 kg+

240 300

27 (7)

106 800-605 200

12-68

Skull

4

1 174 800132 (2)854 400-1 504 100

96-169Canine106+676 400

76 (24)44 500-2 002 500

5-225

Claw

mount

wholesale149+

249 200

28 (25)35 600-1 005 700

4-113

Claw inlayed gold 40+

827 700

93 (18)391 600-1 602 000

44-180

Whisker

115 700

13 (3)

17 800-249 200

2-28

Bottle of tiger fat 6427 200

48 (2)

258 100-605 200

29-68

Dried tiger flesh per kg

80 1009 (n/a)71 200-89 000

8-10

Tiger penis

1

258 100

29 (1)

Live tiger cub

5

1 005 700

113 (1)80+

Sources: Appendix 2, Table 17, and text.
Table 11 shows the average and range of prices observed for Tiger parts during this survey. Skins andskin mounts obtained the highest prices IDR 30 010 800-30 206 600 (USD 3372-3394). The averagewholesale price (from dealers) for a Tiger skin IDR 4 610 200 (USD 518) was substantially lower thanthe price asked by retail outlets IDR 18 342 900 (USD 2061). Skin pieces, canines, and claws were thenext most valuable Tiger parts. Surprisingly low prices were asked per kg of Tiger bone, lower than the
average retail price of a claw or canine tooth. The skull was the most valuable Tiger bone, not fortraditionalAsian medicine, but for display.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

43

Table 12. Comparison of prices collected by the TRAFFIC 2002 survey and prices
reported by Hartana and Martyr (2001)
Item

Price this survey(Sumatra-wide
average) (IDR)

Whole tiger 4 610 200
skin(wholesale)
Tiger bone 240 300(kg)(wholesale)
Canine676 400(retail)Price this survey(Sumatra-wide
average) (USD)

Price for Kerinci
Seblat area (Hartanaand Martyr, 2001)(IDR)

Price for Kerinci
Seblat area
(Hartana andMartyr, 2001)
(USD)

518

4 734 800-5 259 900

532-59127

213 600-267 000

24-30

76

89 000

10

Table 12 compares the prices for Tiger parts observed during this survey to prices reported by Hartanaand Martyr (2001) for the Kerinci Seblat National Park area, in West Sumatra. Similar prices are reported
for skins (wholesale) and bones, but Tiger canines are quite inexpensive in the Kerinci Seblat area whencompared to the remainder of Sumatra.

Table 13. Prices for Sumatran Tiger products, early 1990s to 2000
Item

Early 90s price(USD)

Whole skin500-2500

n/a

2061

Bones/kg

250

20-20041

Canine

20

34-68

76

Claw

20

2-16

28

3(fake)29 (real?)

Penis

Late 90s price (USD)

2002 price (USD)

100-150 (real)
Sources: Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994 (early 1990s skin price); Nowell, 2000 (other 1990s prices); this survey(2002 price).

Table 13 compares the prices for Tiger parts observed during this survey to prices previously reported forthe same items in the early and late 1990s (not adjusted for inflation). Prices for Sumatran Tiger
products have remained relatively steady over time, and have not risen, as might be expected, as a resultof inflation or of a declining supply of Tigers. The only product to show a decline in price is Tiger bone.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

44

Table 14. Hunter and trader price comparison for Tiger bone (per kg), late 1990s to 2002
Market segment

Late 1990s (IDR)

Late 1990s (USD)

2002 (IDR)

2002 (USD)

Hunter124 60014

106 800-151 300

12-17

Trader178 000-1 780 000

20-200204 700-605 200

23-68

Source late 90s: Nowell (2000) and Beebach, WCS-Indonesia Program in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003 Source early
2000: Appendix 2

Table 14 breaks down Tiger bone prices into prices sought by hunters, and prices asked by dealer/traders.
The price asked for a kg of Tiger bone by hunters has remained remarkably steady, and low, over time.
The price asked by dealers and traders, however, appears to have fallen. This suggests the hopeful
possibility that demand for Tiger bone medicines, both inside Sumatra and internationally, is falling.
Hartana and Martyr (2001) write of the Kerinci Seblat area: “There does not appear to be a large,
organized market for Tiger bone in this area of Sumatra although the bones of a Tiger marketed in Muara
Bungo in March were sold before the pelt... Hunters here perceive the skins, teeth and claws as the only
valuable parts on a Tiger.” However, it would be premature for conservationists to claim a victory in
reducing demand for Tiger bone medicines and illegal trade in Tiger bone, as several cases were
documented during this survey, and there are still numerous reports of Tiger bone trading in Sumatra that
could not be verified. Section 3 showed that the majority of Sumatran Tigers are still being poached for
trade, and even if Tiger bone is no longer the product most in demand, markets for other Tiger parts areapparently sufficient to provide a strong motive for Tiger poaching.
4.2.1. Market surveys: North Sumatra
Fourteen towns and cities were surveyed in North Sumatra. Three of these locations, Padang Sidempuan,
Sibolga and Mandailing Natal, were surveyed in less detail than the other 11 locations.
1. MedanMedan is the capital of North Sumatra. It is the third largest city in Indonesia and has a large ethnic
Chinese community. It has an international airport and seaport, and is a major hub for wildlife trade,including the export of freshwater turtles and tortoises, python skins, the international and domestic tradein birds, Asian Arowana Fish Scleropages formosus and wildlife-based traditional Asian medicines.
Medan is also situated relatively close to the Gunung Leuser Ecosystem, one of the largest wildlife areas
in Sumatra, and home to one of Sumatra’s largest Tiger populations. Past observations of Tiger parts intrade in Medan led TRAFFIC to target this city as a priority site:
In 1996, a traditional Asian medicine dealer selling various wildlife parts in front of the Medan Central
Post Office was asked about high-profile species such as Tiger. The dealer invited the researcher to his
home, where numerous items were stored. Among these were a complete Tiger skeleton and two nearcomplete rhino skeletons, all of which he claimed were from Kerinci Seblat National Park (Shepherd,1996).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

45

In February 1999, three Tiger claws, one canine and some small pieces of skin were observed by the same
researcher in a precious stone shop behind Medan Mall in Medan. These items were extremely fresh, as
there was still dried blood and bits of flesh on them, and according to the dealer, had come from a Tiger
killed in the Kotacane (Aceh) area two weeks earlier.
Observations of Tiger parts for sale in Medan in 2002
Twelve souvenir shops, 33 gold shops and two shops selling precious stones were surveyed. Four
traditional Asian medicine dealers, four ‘western’ pharmacies and one roadside traditional Asian
medicine dealer were also surveyed. Furthermore, one wildlife market was surveyed, where informalinterviews were held with dealers there. Five of the 53 dealers surveyed stated that the Tiger parts camefrom animals killed in Aceh, while the others did not know, as they were purchased from middlemen.
A. Souvenir and antique shops in Medan
Twelve souvenir shops in Medan were surveyed, including six shops inside the departure lounge of thePolonia Airport. Although a number of wildlife parts were observed for sale in the airport shops, no partsof Tigers were available. Four of the remaining six shops in the city (67%) had Tiger parts openly for
sale, as well as a number of other wildlife parts (including those from Sun Bear, Sambar Deer and Asian
Elephant Elephas maximus ivory and bones). It is likely that at least a portion of these souvenir shops
were the same shops surveyed by Plowden and Bowles (1997), as these are all of the souvenir shops inMedan. In conversations with the dealers at the four shops with Tiger parts for sale, it was stated by one
dealer that the Tiger parts had originated from animals killed in Aceh, while the other three said they did
not know where they came from as they purchased their Tiger parts from other middlemen who
randomly brought wildlife products to the shops for sale.
One of these shops was also surveyed by TRAFFIC in November 2000, when one head and one skull andtwo canines were observed. It was surveyed again in 2001, and one head, with the teeth all removed, andfour paws were observed. This same shop had a complete stuffed Tiger about five years ago (Shepherd
pers. obs., 1997) but no longer does. When asked about this, the dealer stated that it had been chopped
up and pieces of the skin sold separately. The head on display was all that remained. The other pieces ofskin were sold much cheaper than what was being asked for the pieces off of the head.
Another dealer said that approximately 10 years ago he commonly received Tiger bone, skin and otherparts for resale but rarely does now. He stated that at that time, when bones were purchased, buyers fromSingapore would always come to buy them. He claimed to have sold the bones to them for as much as
IDR 1 780 000/kg (USD 200/kg). This shop, during this survey, had only three Tiger claws for sale.
The information regarding the Tiger parts for sale in the souvenir shops in Medan was given to the KSDA
Unit in Medan (the enforcement arm of the PHKA) approximately two days after these observations weremade by TRAFFIC. The KSDA claims to have sent a team into to investigate, but stated that no Tiger orother protected wildlife parts were observed in any of the shops. TRAFFIC again went to the shops in
the following days and again observed all the same Tiger parts in open display.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

46

B. Gold and precious stone shops in Medan
Thirty-three gold shops and two precious stone shops were surveyed in Medan in 2002, of which eight(23%) had Tiger parts for sale. Dealers in two of these shops stated that the Tiger parts they sold werefrom Aceh, while the rest said that hunters or middlemen brought parts to them and were not sure of theorigins. Three of these dealers stated that it was becoming increasingly difficult to acquire Tiger parts tosell, possibly due to Tigers becoming scarce, and that middlemen coming around selling parts of Tigers
and bears do so less often than before. One of the dealers had four canine teeth and a complete skin (skinnot observed by TRAFFIC) for sale that appeared to be relatively fresh and according to the dealer, werefrom a Tiger killed near Kotacane, Aceh, approximately eight months earlier.
The majority of the products were canine teeth and claws, some of which were inlayed in gold. The gold
obviously made the price of this item much more expensive. One dealer said these products are now too
expensive for people to buy, and therefore fewer of these products are sold. When asked if he had any
Tiger skin for sale, he said no as it was illegal. However, he said that one would not get arrested forhaving claws and teeth of Tigers, as this was not illegal.
Another shop had for sale three Tiger canines and 1kg of Tiger bones. According to this dealer, he used
to sell a lot of Tiger bone from this location, as well as bear parts (bear claws were also available). The
Tiger bones in stock observed by TRAFFIC were apparently a few years old. The bones were kept in the
shop itself, under the counter. According to this dealer, it is becoming harder to acquire Tiger parts forresale than it was in the past. This dealer claimed to have one regular buyer of Tiger parts from theNetherlands. It is not known what this individual does with the parts.
C. Traditional Asian medicine shops in Medan
Four traditional Asian medicine shops were visited in Medan, and none of these had any Tiger products
on display, although some parts of other species were. Only one admitted to having any Tiger bones instock, while the others refused to discuss the issue, saying it was illegal and that they therefore did notcarry any. It was obvious that these well-educated people knew of the legislation protecting Tigers, andwere wary (being ethnic Chinese they may have felt under more pressure by local authorities). It is very
possible that these dealers do have Tiger products, but do not trade with strangers. The owner of this one
traditional Asian medicine shop stated that he did have a small unspecified amount of Tiger bone in stock,
to be used in medicines. The bone is not sold on its own, but mixed in with other ingredients, dependingon the illness. The dealer stated he had no other Tiger parts, but was clearly uncomfortable discussing
this topic.
D. Western pharmacies
Four large western pharmacies were surveyed, and although a few types of patent medicine, manufactured
in China, claiming to contain tortoise and pangolin Manis sp. were available, there were no medicines
claiming to contain Tiger parts.
E. Street sellers of traditional Asian medicines
A dealer selling a whole variety of different animal parts was often set up on the walkway in front of
Medan’s central post office. Among all the animal parts was on Tiger claw for IDR 35 000 (USD 4) which
the dealer claimed to have been from Padang, West Sumatra. The dealer also claimed to have one

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

47

incomplete Tiger skeleton and was asking IDR 500 000 (USD 56) for it. The skeleton was apparently
missing the front legs, head and the paws. The TRAFFIC investigator did not see this skeleton, as it was
kept at the dealer’s home and a small down payment was requested before he would show it tointerested buyers. The other parts of the animal had already been sold off.
2. Pancur Batu
Seven gold shops were surveyed (which also dealt in precious stones and decorative items) in the small
town of Pancur Batu, situated along the road between Medan and Brastagi. Wildlife products, including
those from Sun Bears, Sambar Deer, Muntjac Muntiacus muntjak and Serow Naemorhedus sumatraensis
and small wild cat species, were openly for sale in six of these shops, with five of them (71%) having
Tiger parts.
One shop had a number of Tiger parts, as well as bear parts for sale. The Tiger parts included five canines,
12 claws, one complete skeleton minus the skull and one near complete skin (minus the forehead) whichaccording to the owner, was purchased five years ago from a dealer or hunter in the town of Kotacane,
Aceh. No price was given as the dealer asked for offers and did not really know current prices, but wasvery anxious to sell it. The skin was kept in a bag at his home but he promptly retrieved it by motorbike
for the TRAFFIC investigator to see. A second piece of Tiger skin, approximately 30x60 cm in size wasalso kept hidden under the counter and was brought out for display by the dealer. This piece was very old
and in poor condition, and according to the owner, originated in Aceh.
The dealer in another shop stated that a well known senior mafia figure from Medan often comes to their
shop to purchase Tiger whiskers, as do senior members of the military, as it is believed these offer theowner protection against harm. Approximately 20 kg of Tiger bones were also for sale, but as the boss
was not present, a price was not given for these. The skull from this Tiger had already been sold and was
not observed. The owner of this shop is a hunter and claimed to have killed all the animals observed in
the shop himself. He hunts with a small team, usually in Aceh, which was apparently where the Tigers
were killed.
Another shop seemed to specialize in selling Tiger parts and apart from 19 Sun Bear claws for sale, theonly wildlife products this shop sold were those from Tigers. All parts were displayed openly andincluded one piece of skin from a Tiger’s forehead for, 10 small pieces of skin, measuring approximately
6x 4 cm, a larger piece of skin, measuring approximately 90x60 cm, three leg-bone portions cut into
lengths of approximately 10 cm in length, four bottles of Tiger fat, a number of Tiger whiskers and one
Tiger skull (with no teeth, as these were already sold). According to this dealer, these Tiger parts camefrom animals killed in and near Aceh. She said that a couple of years ago she had four complete Tigers,
all of which were sold to buyers from Singapore. She also said that a buyer from Java used tooccasionally buy Tiger parts from him, but no longer after being caught by police en route back to Java(no records of this arrest were found by TRAFFIC). The dealer stated to the investigator that if heassisted in selling all of the Tiger parts, he would get an IDR 2 000,000 (USD 225) commission. She also
stated that she would likely not get anymore Tiger parts in as they are now very rare and hard to get.
Market surveys were previously carried out in Medan and Pancur Batu in 1995 by Plowden and Bowles(1997). Table 15 compares their survey results with the TRAFFIC survey. TRAFFIC’s 2002 survey

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

48

found more gold and souvenir shops engaged in selling Tiger products than in the mid-1990s. However,whereas Plowden and Bowles (1997) found that gold shops were important sellers of Tiger bone, withfive whole skeletons seen that were verifiably Tiger, TRAFFIC surveys found the shops selling mainly
Tiger canines and claws. Plowden and Bowles (1997) found seven gold shops selling a total of 36 kg ofbone, which they were allowed to inspect and weigh. Four gold shops surveyed by TRAFFIC in North
Sumatra were found to have Tiger bone: one with a small lot (1 kg), one reportedly with rather more (20kg, not seen and verified), one with portions of leg bones, and one with a complete skeleton, minus theskull. It is notable that only in North Sumatra did TRAFFIC find gold shops selling Tiger bone;elsewhere, Tiger bone was mainly sold by various types of dealers. TRAFFIC also found more trade inwhole skins and skin pieces than was previously observed by Plowden and Bowles (1997) in North
Sumatra.
Table 15. Retail outlets in Medan and Pancur Batu selling Tiger products: comparisonof 1995 and 2002 surveys
Type of shop

Traditional Asian
medicine shop
Western pharmacy
Gold shop
Souvenir shop
Gold shop

Location

Percent having tiger products

Percent having tiger

for sale in 1995

products for sale in 2002

11% (1/9)

25% (1/4*)

Medan
0 (0/4)Medan
10% (1/10)
Medan
14% (1/7)
Pancur Batu 100% (1/1)

0 (0/4)23% (8/35)
67% (4/6)
71% (5/7)

Medan

Sources: 1995: Plowden and Bowles (1995); 2002: this TRAFFIC survey.

*One traditional Asian medicine shop owner claimed to have a small amount of Tiger bone in stock, but
he would not show it and was uncomfortable discussing the subject
3. Brastagi
Nine souvenir shops in the central market in Brastagi, which caters mostly to local and foreign tourists,
were surveyed. Of the nine shops, only one had any wildlife parts available; one very old muntjac antler
set for sale. The owner of this shop said he sometimes sells other wildlife products, such as bear claws,
Malayan Pangolin Manis javanica skins and tongues and, in the past, had sold Tiger canines. This dealer
also stated that usually Malaysian tourists buy the wildlife products, such as the teeth and claws, and in
the past had purchased Tiger and bear claws from him.
4. Belawan
Nine gold shops, two traditional Asian medicine shops and two souvenir shops were surveyed in the port
town of Belawan. None of the gold shops in Belawan had Tiger parts or any other wildlife parts for sale.
All dealers were asked if they knew where such products could be purchased. Most did not know,
although two suggested the souvenir shops in Belawan or Medan.
A. Souvenir shops in Belawan
Two souvenir shops were surveyed, one in the town centre, the other at the port itself. Wildlife parts wereobserved only in the former of these two locations. Some Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata shell

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

49

items were available, as well as parts of two Tiger canines and two Tiger molars. The origin of these items
was not known, as they were purchased from a dealer.
B. Traditional Asian medicine shops in Belawan
Two traditional Asian medicine shops in Belawan were surveyed, and according to the dealers, the only
products from animals these two shops had were seahorses. One of the dealers suggested looking in Toko
Bintang, on Jalan Sumatra, Belawan.
5. Binjai
Twenty-nine gold shops and one traditional Asian medicine shop were surveyed in the town of Binjai.
Additionally, the home of one dealer was visited and information was gathered from him. Anotherdealer, a middleman for suppliers in Aceh, was met with and much information was recorded. Of the 29
gold shops surveyed in Binjai, only four (14%) had Tiger parts for sale, although a number of others had
wildlife parts on sale. It is interesting to note that none of these dealers in Binjai openly displayed the
Tiger parts, or any other wildlife parts, but all instead had these parts kept in safes in the shops. However,none seemed reluctant to show TRAFFIC staff, posing as a potential buyer, the parts. One dealer that did
not have any Tiger parts for sale suggested going to Medan, again highlighting the fact that Medan is aknown trade hub for these products. No Tiger parts were available in the medicinal shop.
The owner at a glass-cutting and cabinet making shop had Tiger parts for sale and invited TRAFFIC toobserve these. Upstairs, in the dealer’s home, above the main business, twelve Tiger canines, apparently
from three animals were produced from a box in a closet. The dealers said that two sets were from Tigers
killed approximately 15-20 years ago, while the third set was from a Tiger that was apparently killedapproximately two years ago. According to him, all of the Tigers were killed in Aceh. This dealer said
that he only deals in Tiger canines, more for hobby reasons than anything. He stated that a Malaysian
man comes around semi-regularly, looking for Tiger parts to buy. This particular dealer has sold threesets of four Tiger canines (12 teeth in total) to the Malaysian buyer. He did not know (or would not say)the name of the Malaysian dealer, only that he thought he was from Kuala Lumpur. The dealer said he
did not deal in skins, as they are too hard to conceal in his home. He also cautioned the investigator that
if one was going to buy any of the teeth, not to buy the fresh ones, as they were illegal, however the oldones were not. He stated that taking them out of the country would be dangerous as it is against the law
because Tigers are protected. He also stated that he used to receive Tiger canines from hunters more
frequently, but that Tigers were now very hard to find.
Middleman in Binjai
TRAFFIC met with a dealer who acts as a middleman for hunters and other dealers in the area in Binjai.
This middleman stated that he only had two Tiger canines in his possession at the time, but claimed hehad contacts with many more. He also stated that one of his contacts currently had a rhino horn, and thatsome ivory was also available, but he would rather not deal in ivory as it was very risky. He stated thatit could be acquired but it was easier to move chopped up pieces rather than whole tusks. He also said
that his family was in the live reef fish business. He claimed that all the wildlife parts, such as the Tiger
and rhino, he deals in are from Aceh, but he kept the parts at a location known as Tanjung Purah.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

50

6. Stabat
Five gold shops were surveyed in the small town of Stabat, but none of these had any wildlife parts forsale.
7. Sembahe
A wildlife market, set up on the side of the road in the small village of Sembahe, between Medan andBrastagi, sells a number of animals. However, the dealers here stated that they did not sell Tigers, or Tiger
parts, and recommended that the TRAFFIC investigator go to Pancur Batu or Medan.
8. Siantar
Fifteen gold shops and one antique shop were surveyed in the city of Siantar. Of these, only the antique
shop had any Tiger parts for sale. Two of the gold shop dealers stated that if one wanted to buy Tiger
parts, it would be better to go to Medan. In the antique shop the dealer stated that he used to deal in Tiger
parts on a regular basis. However, although he said that he no longer did, one Tiger whisker was available
from him. According to him, it was not illegal to sell Tiger whiskers as these are found in the forest, nottaken from killed animals.
9. Tanjung Morawa
Three gold shops were surveyed in the central market area of this town, and no Tiger parts were available.
10. Sei Rampah District
Two gold shops were surveyed in this small town and no Tiger parts were available.
11. Tebing Tinggi
Seven gold shops and one restaurant that also sold precious stones were surveyed. Of these, two of thegold shops and the restaurant had Tiger products openly available for sale. One of these shops had claws
for sale that were obviously from a freshly killed animal as there was still fur, skin and dried meat attachedto the base. The dealer said he did not know where these originated, as they were brought to the shop byanother dealer. This shop also had one Tiger canine for sale, but the price was not given for it, and again,
the owner said he did not know the age or origin, as it had been brought to the shop by another dealer,different from the one that sold the fresh claws.
4.2.2. Aceh
Many dealers in Tiger parts interviewed in the cities and towns of North Sumatra province identified Acehprovince as where the Tigers were killed. According to people interviewed in Aceh, the primary reason
Tigers are killed is due to conflict with humans and livestock. The locals take it upon themselves to kill
the Tigers, as they are dissatisfied with the efforts by the government to take care of these problem
animals. These problem Tigers, once killed, inevitably end up being sold, and the killing of such problem
Tigers is seldom reported or detected (Section 3.3). Hunting Tigers purely for profit is also a serious
problem in this province. Locals that were interviewed generally supported the killing of Tigers, as theyfelt they were a threat to themselves and their livestock. According to one hunter, in the 1970s Tigers
were often captured for sale live, to circuses and perhaps zoos. This practice carried on into the 1990s,
although the motive had changed and the majority of the captured Tigers were presented as gifts to local

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

51authorities or to employers. Stuffed Tigers are also commonly given to these sorts of people as gifts form
Aceh. Some Tigers and Tiger parts are reportedly also smuggled out of the country from Aceh. In 2001,
one live Tiger, along with three Sumatran Orangutans Pongo abelii, were reportedly smuggled from Aceh
to Peninsular Malaysia, on a speedboat (C. Saleh, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Souvenir shops in Aceh often carry parts and products derived from wildlife, often species protected bylaw. Lack of strict enforcement of these laws allows for the dealers in these shops to openly display the
wildlife products and to speak freely about them. Although much of the province of Aceh was unable tobe surveyed due to political unrest, a total of 17 shops were surveyed of which eight (47%) had Tiger
canines openly displayed for sale. On average, more souvenir shops in Aceh openly sold Tiger canines
than anywhere else in Sumatra (the Sumatra-wide average being 7% of souvenir shops having Tiger parts:
see Table 9). A total of fourteen canine teeth were observed in these shops and, according to the dealers,more were available, but were not on display.
4.2.3. West Sumatra
A Tiger dealing syndicate based in Siulak, North Kerinci, West Sumatra, was broken up in September
2002 through the investigative efforts of FFI-ID and the local enforcement agencies. The syndicate wasbuying Tigers from Kerinci itself and the districts of Pesisir Selatan and Solok in West Sumatra. The mostactive poaching centre in West Sumatra appeared to be villages near the town of Tapan in the South Pasisir
District, where former rhino poachers have turned their focus to Tigers and travel widely, covering West
Sumatra as well as Bengkulu and Jambi (D. Martyr in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). They appear to have been
sending Tiger pelts to Padang but were holding on to the Tiger bone, for reasons which have not been
ascertained. The son of one of the two main players in this syndicate works at Padang airport in a seniorcapacity. It is suspected that this man was subsequently exporting Tiger bone and pelts (FFI-ID in litt. to
TRAFFIC, 2003). There is also circumstantial evidence of strong demand for Tiger bone from a Chinese
dealer in Padang. This individual has reportedly also bought Clouded Leopard Neofelis nebulosa bone
for traditional Asian medicine (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003).
Bukittinggi shop owners interviewed by TRAFFIC during market surveys indicated that Tigers killedlocally were the source of at least some of their Tiger products. These findings are corroborated by local
NGO’s, who report that Tiger parts including claws, canine teeth, whiskers and poor quality skins go to
Bukittinggi for sale to foreign and local tourists (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). High quality Tiger
skins and parts from West Sumatra go to Padang, where there are believed to be one or maybe two main
dealers (not found by TRAFFIC during the 2002 surveys). It is uncertain if Tiger products from Padangthen go to Jakarta or Singapore, possibly via Batam (FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2003). However,a WWF-ID investigator from Palembang believes that from Padang Tiger parts are not sent to Batam andthen on to Singapore, but rather are sent directly to Singapore (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC,
2002). (TRAFFIC surveys in Batam found no direct evidence of Tiger parts for sale: Section 4.2.8)
Surveys in West Sumatra were conducted in the cities of Padang and Bukittinggi by TRAFFIC in 2002
and observations were as follows:

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

52

Padang
A total of 41 gold shops, 38 souvenir shops and one antique shop were surveyed in Padang. No authentic
Tiger parts were available in any of the gold or souvenir shops were observed and dealers, when asked
by TRAFFIC surveyors, stated that none were available. Four souvenir shops had fake Tiger canines for
sale, which they insisted were genuine. A survey of the antique shop revealed two genuine Tiger canine
teeth displayed in a glass case. No information was provided as to the origin of these.
Bukittinggi
A comprehensive survey of all gold shops, souvenir shops and antique shops in Bukittinggi was carriedout, with surveys being conducted in eight precious stone shops, 11 gold shops, 23 souvenir shops, and
14 antique shops. No Tiger parts were observed in any of the precious stone, gold or souvenir shops. Of
the 14 antique and art shops, six had genuine Tiger parts. The Tiger parts were openly displayed in all ofthese shops, and included canine teeth, claws and pieces of skin. The dealers in these shops stated thatthey did not know where the parts came from as they were brought to them for sale by a middleman. One
shop owner stated that each month a supplier from a local village brings him more Tiger parts. He did,
however, indicated that it was getting more difficult to obtain Tiger parts. He also stated that he had twocomplete Tiger skins for sale as well but that they were kept at his house, and not on display. The ownerof the shop stated that he sells Tiger parts mostly to customers from Singapore and claimed he had soldone large canine tooth the previous day to a man from Singapore for IDR 2 002 500 (USD 225). This may
have been the same Bukittinggi shop owner interviewed a year earlier by Hartana and Martyr (2001), whooffered a tooth for IDR 400 000 (USD 47) that he said would fetch IDR 800 000 (USD 95) in Bali. He
urged investigators to buy the canine on the spot, because he planned to send it to Singapore.
4.2.4. Jambi
The Tiger is the official mascot of the province of Jambi. This province plays an important role in theillegal trade of Tiger parts in Sumatra. The supply of Tigers and Tiger parts for this market comes mostly
from Bangko, Muara Bungo and Sarolagun. Kerinci Seblat National Park is an important source of Tiger
parts in Jambi and all Tigers poached from Kerinci Seblat National Park apparently go to Jambi, which isthe centre for provincial dealers (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). From Jambi most of the Tiger skins
and bones are reportedly moved through the ports of Tembilahan (Riau), Pekanbaru (Riau), Palembang
and possibly to a lesser extent directly to Jakarta. There are collectors at provincial level that sell
directly to traders in Tembilahan, Palembang, Jakarta, and Singapore (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002), as well as traders that sell direct to the end user. Ten skins were observed for sale in
the province of Jambi in 2002 (FFI-ID, 2002 in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2002; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002).
.
Although it is known that many civil servants and police and army officers in Jambi own stuffed Tigers(and other protected animals), it is believed that Jambi is mainly a clearing house for Tiger products (FFIID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003). It is suspected that the small ferry port of Kuala Tungkal, approximately
two hours by road north of Jambi, may be a main exit point for Tiger products from this area, withproducts being exported to Malaysia or Singapore (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003; WWF-ID, pers.
comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

53

In 2002 TRAFFIC surveyed a total of 36 gold shops and three antique shops in the city of Jambi. Thirteenof these shops had Tiger parts for sale (33%), though none were openly displayed. When a request wasmade to purchase such items, the owners of all shops that did not have Tiger parts on display indicatedthey did not have any Tiger parts available. One gold shop indicated that he had no Tiger parts for saleright now as he had sold the last of his stock (two Tiger claws) the previous day. Several of the shops that
had Tiger parts for sale had unusually large numbers of Tiger claws available for sale. One shop had 12
claws and one canine; another had 16 claws, and the last shop had six Tiger claws. In every case theowners kept all the Tiger merchandise at home with the possible exception of a sample, which they had
hidden away at the shop. For each of these three shops investigators waited while the merchandise was
retrieved so that parts and quantities could be verified.
Fifty-two Tiger claws and two Tiger canines were found for sale during market surveys in Jambi. Becauseof the quantity of Tiger claws available claws were divided according to size into the categories small,medium and large. The 11 large claws observed during surveys ranged in price from IDR 102 350-302
600 (USD 11.50-34) and sold for average price of IDR 222 500 (USD 25). There were also 11 medium
sized claws for sale ranging in price from IDR 53 400-200 250 (USD 6-22.50) with an average price of
IDR 133 500 (USD 15). There were 29 small claws ranging in price from IDR 35 600-151 300 (USD 417). The average price for a small claw was IDR 57 850 (USD 6.50). Although gold shop owners
indicated it had become more difficult to obtain large and medium Tiger claws two shop owners statedthat is was still relatively easy to obtain small claws. The two gold shop owners had 28 claws and a canine
tooth between them. Only two Tiger canines were found for sale. One owner asked IDR 849 950 (USD
95.50) and the other owner wanted IDR 1 797 800 (USD 202).
Trade of canine teeth and claws in Jambi’s gold shops fluctuates (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003).
However, it would appear from anecdotal evidence and interviews conducted with shop owners that Tiger
claws and teeth are becoming more difficult to obtain. There are two possible reasons for this. If Tiger
populations are declining, then so is the supply of parts. But also the conservation and protection
measures undertaken in the area may be paying off. Local hunters, traders, middlemen, as well as retail
outlet shops appear to have become much more secretive in their transactions for fear of legal reprisals.
Gold shops surveyed in Jambi, that did have Tiger parts already set in gold had them openly displayed
but raw Tiger parts were kept hidden either in safes in a back room, in drawers below the display counters,
or at the individual’s home. One shop that had bear and Tiger claws for sale had the bear claws openly
displayed while Tiger claws were hidden. The shop owner indicated that this was because he was scaredof being arrested for selling Tiger claws
From information collected in Jambi province during this survey, it is estimated that the average income
for a hunter from the sale of primary Tiger parts would be over IDR 8 366 000 (USD 940) (Table 16).
The average gross national income (GNI) for Indonesia for 2001 was IDR 6 052 000 (USD 680) and IDR
3 827 000 (USD 430) annually for low income families. Thus a hunter can make as much as twice the
GNI of a low income earner from a single Tiger. However, hunters still make substantially less moneyfrom Tiger trade in comparison to middlemen and retailers (Table 17).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

54

Table 16. Price of Tiger parts in Jambi
Parts ofbody

Hunterprice (IDR)

Hunterprice (USD)

Amount from one
tiger
one tiger

Value of parts
from one tiger(IDR)

Value of parts
from one tiger
(USD)

Bone
Penis
Claw
Skin
CanineTotal

102 350
253 650
53 4005 001 800
253 650

11.50 /kg
28.50 /piece
6 /piece562
28.50 /piece

12 kg
1
18
1
4

1 201 500
253 650907 800
5 001 800
1 001 250
8 366 000

135
28.50
102
562
112.50940

Table 17. Price comparison of Tiger parts in each market level in Jambi
Parts of
body

Bone
Penis
Claw
Skin

Stuffedtiger
CaninePrices at market level
Hunter(IDR)

Hunter(USD)

Middlemen(IDR)

102350/kg(b)253650/piece(a)53400/piece(a)5001800/
tiger (b)11.50/kg (b)-28.50/piece(a)6/piece (a)253650/piece(a)151300/piece
(a)
10003
600/tiger (b)

-

-

-

253650/piece (b)28.50/piece(b)302600 (b)562/tiger(b)-Middlemen Collectors/(USD)
Investors(IDR)-253650/kg(a)28.50/kg(a) -Collectors/
Investors(USD)
28.50/kg (a)17/piece (a) 218050/
piece (c)1124/tiger(b) 20007200/
tiger (c)24.50/piece(c)2248/tiger (c)-3372/tiger(c)135/piece (c)30010/
tiger (c)34/piece (b) 1201-

Sources: (a = WWF-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2000; b = FFI-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002;
c = TRAFFIC Market Survey)
4.2.5. South Sumatra
WWF-ID (pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002) considers that gold shops selling Tiger claws constitute theprimary form of Tiger trade in Palembang, the capital city of South Sumatra. Evidence from TRAFFIC
market surveys (see Table 10) support these claims. However, other investigators also suggest that
Palembang is a central hub in the illegal Tiger trade network in South Sumatra (C. Saleh, pers. comm. to
TRAFFIC, 2002). The WWF-ID investigator responsible for Lampung Province said his intelligenceindicated that approximately 60% of the Tigers and Tiger parts poached in Lampung were sent to
Palembang (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). There are also many hunters in Lahat andLubuk Linggua that sell to Palembang. Large quantities of Tiger bones are reportedly sent to Palembang(WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002), but it is not known what happens to those bones after arrivalin Palembang. The Tiger trade in Palembang, South Sumatra, is apparently controlled by reptile dealers

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

55

and organised criminals (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). According to WWF-ID
investigators, there is one main shop selling Tiger in Palembang. From Palembang only a very small
proportion of Tiger parts reportedly go to Jakarta. Most are sent to Batam and then onto Singapore(Figure 6).
Figure 6. Dynamics and routes of Tiger trade in South Sumatra*

Larger arrows indicate greater volume and frequency of trade

TRAFFIC conducted market surveys in a total of 32 gold shops and of these nine (28%) were found tohave Tiger claws for sale. Eighteen Tiger claws, many of which were inlayed in gold, were available forsale.
Investigations in Palembang revealed the presence of an active taxidermist, locally known as the best
taxidermist in this region of Sumatra. This taxidermist often receives skins from other provinces to havemounted, reportedly often brought to him by senior military and police officials (C. Saleh, pers. comm.
to TRAFFIC, 2003). Investigators had little trouble locating his house, as he was well known to locals.
Although investigators were able to locate this individual, attempts to establish further contact for the
purposes of data collection were unsuccessful, as he appeared to be highly suspicious of strangers.
4.2.6. Lampung
Bandar Lampung is the capital of Lampung Province. It is only a short boat trip to Java, making tradewith Jakarta possibly more feasible than with the next major urban centre Palembang which requires
travelling inland over rough roads. Bandar Lampung is also the gateway to two large national parks –Way Kambas and Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, both of which have Tigers and active conservation
projects by WCS, WWF-ID and the STCP, WWF-ID and WCS are also actively investigating Tiger
poaching and trade in Lampung (Anon., 2003b; WWF-ID pers. comm.).

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

56

In Lampung Province, the Tiger trade is reportedly controlled by organized crime groups that specializein the sale of Tiger parts, rhino horn and elephant tusks. A network extends through Padang, Jambi,
Palembang, Lampung Jakarta, and Bengkulu connecting these gangs, though it is not known who iscoordinating them. Freshwater turtle and tortoise traders play a role in the trade through the sale and‘laundering’ of Tigers and Tiger parts (FFI-ID, pers comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Most of the Tigers in trade throughout Lampung Province originate from Bukit Barisan Selatan National
Park (see Figure 7, on the next page). Locals from several villages nearby the national park including
Gisting, Kota Agung, Talang Padang, Pulau Panggung, Pagelaran, Wonosobo, Pringsewu, and Gading are
known to actively hunt Tigers within the park boundaries (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Upon killing a Tiger, it is reported that most hunters send skins and other valued parts to initial dealers
and local markets in Bandar Lampung, Teluk Betung and Jalur Dua Perumpas. From the results of themarket survey in Bandar Lampung it is evident that there is only a small market for Tiger parts. It issuspected that the towns of Teluk Betung and Jalur Dua Perumpas have similarly small Tiger markets.
Investigators believe that these initial dealers send at least 60% of the Tiger parts to Palembang most ofwhich is apparently exported to Malaysia and Singapore. The remaining 40% of the Tiger parts fromTigers killed in Lampung are apparently sent to Jakarta, East Java and Tanggerang where they are sold bydealers and retail outlets such as gold shops, traditional Asian medicine shops and antique shops toconsumers (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Bandar Lampung is not known as a tourist town and subsequently there are only a few souvenir shops.
Market surveys conducted by TRAFFIC focused on gold shops and traditional Asian medicine shops.
No Tiger parts were observed in Lampung during this survey. However, during early 2002, WWF-ID
personnel carried out surveys in the city’s gold shops and an unspecified number of Tiger claws wereobserved for sale. One shop owner told TRAFFIC that a week earlier a man had come here to his shop
trying to sell one Tiger claw, asking IDR 752 050 (USD 84.50). The owner offered IDR 502 850 (USD
56.50), more than three times the average price of claws in Jambi, but the man left saying it wasn’t
enough. The apparent lack of any open commercial market in Lampung is noteworthy, as Lampung
province had the second highest level of Tigers killed or removed in 2002 (Table 7), and quotes ofrelatively high prices for Tiger parts.
Although no Tiger parts were found for sale in the city of Lampung itself, five Tiger skins were found forsale in villages bordering Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. At the home of one poacher three skins
were discovered. Two were sold to Jakarta at a price of IDR 15 005 400-20 007 200 (USD 1686-2248)
each and a third sold to Palembang (price unknown). Two other Tiger skins stored at the home ofanother poacher in a nearby village were also discovered during a visit by TRAFFIC. These results
suggest that most Tiger trade in this region has likely moved underground as vendors sell only toindividuals they know and poachers have resorted to selling directly from their homes.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

57

Figure 7. The flow of tiger trade originating from Bukit Barisan Selatan National

4.2.7. Bengkulu
Tiger skins from Bengkulu Province are primarily sold to Lubuk Linggua, where allegedly the best
taxidermist in Sumatra is located. Lesser quality skins and other Tiger parts then go to either Jambi or
Palembang. Tiger and rhino hunted in this area may also be sent to Lampung and from Lampung onto
Jakarta (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). There are many hunters in Lahat and Lubuk
Linggua, Bengkulu, who sell to Palembang. Hunters from Lubuk Linggau are also known to sell to
Jambi.
This province was not surveyed by TRAFFIC, however intelligence was provided to TRAFFIC from FFIID carrying out investigations there, for use in this report. Investigations were carried out on three
individuals or businesses that had been identified as major Tiger dealers in the city of Bengkulu, in
Bengkulu Province.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

58

Location 1
The home-based business of one taxidermist was visited by investigators posing as interested buyers inearly 2003. The business was run by an elderly man and his son, the former being well known for his
work, and has done work for a number of individuals and institutions, including the Natural History
Museum in Bogor, Java. The investigators were shown a photograph of a Sumatran Tiger, stuffed andphotographed in the taxidermist’s home.
According to this individual, he had previously sold a stuffed Sumatran Tiger for IDR 15 000 000 (USD
1685), and currently had the skin of another large adult Sumatran Tiger, measuring 2 m in length, which
he was willing to sell for IDR 13 000 000 (USD 1460). The taxidermist did not allow the investigators
to see the stuffed Sumatran Tiger, unless a sale was agreed upon, but he did display some Sumatran Tiger
claws.
The son of the taxidermist also offered to sell Tiger bones, of which he claimed to have 6 kg and was
asking IDR 200 000/kg (USD 22.50/kg). He also offered bear bones and deer antlers, as well as marine
turtle meat. He also stated that they had Tiger meat sometimes, but were out of stock at the time.
He went on to say that he once had in his possession two live Tiger cubs, but these were given to the Chief
Minister of that district. No further information was obtained regarding these cubs. It was claimed by
locals nearby that this taxidermist currently had a live Tiger in his possession but investigators found nofurther evidence of this during their visit.
Location 2
Investigators visited the premises of a freshwater turtle and tortoise and snake dealer in the city of
Bengkulu in early 2003. This dealer stated that in the past he had bought and sold Tiger bones quite
frequently but now found obtaining them difficult. He currently had in his possession 3 kg of bones forsale at IDR 400 000 (USD 34) which he said came from a young male Sumatran Tiger. He showed a few
of the bones to the investigators for proof. According to the dealer, he had not yet been able to sell theskull and skin of the Tiger because they were damaged (the head had been crushed by a spear), and the
Tiger was quite small, making the skin of less value as a trophy.
Location 3
In early 2003, investigators in Bengkulu received information from an informant that an individual in a
town on the borders of Bengkulu and South Sumatra, had purchased a stuffed Sumatran Tiger from ataxidermist there, and then wanted to sell it for IDR 14 000 000 (USD 1573). The investigators visitedthe premises of the taxidermist, who claimed to be a retired military officer, who now did taxidermy fromhis home, catering largely to police and military officials. In his home a number of stuffed animals wereobserved including Asiatic Golden Cat Catopuma temminckii, Leopard Cat Felis bengalensis, and one
Clouded Leopard still in the process of being stuffed, and was immersed in preservatives. He claimed hehad a second Clouded Leopard skin also being prepared. A number of other species were also observed.
The dealer showed the investigators one Tiger tooth that had been fashioned into a pendant. Photographsof this individual preparing Tiger parts for use in a traditional dance were also observed by investigators.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

59

According to him, he was often asked by military and police to stuff Tigers, for which he charged
approximately IDR 1 000 000 (USD 112) and which took about 20 days to complete. He claimed to beable to acquire permits to own and transport Tigers for the clients, and showed a recently signed permit
to the investigators, giving permission for a client to transport two dead male Tigers from Palembang.
The permits were signed and stamped by a KSDA Unit in South Sumatra, indicating the level of corrupt
connections this taxidermist had. According to the taxidermist, it takes two to three days to arrange apossession or transport permit for a Tiger. Permits provided by this dealer apparently all bear the same
permit number and date, with a forged government stamp (FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003).
This individual is reported to have sold two stuffed Tigers to the local head of district Parliament,
indicating his connections with powerful backers.
This individual also said that he has bought Clouded Leopard skins which, according to this dealer, werepurchased in the Lubuk Linggau area for approximately IDR 3 000 000 (USD 337) and selling for IDR 4000 000 (USD 450)
4.2.8. Riau
Pekanbaru is the capital of the province of Riau. It has a large Chinese population and is near one of
Sumatra’s largest ports, the closest major port to Singapore, making it another suspected hub for Tiger
trade (The island of Batam, which is part of the Riau province, is considered an important transit point
for Tiger parts leaving Sumatra to Singapore, and is dealt with in a separate section of this report). While
it is known that wildlife is illegally traded in Riau, no prior studies focusing specifically on Tiger havebeen carried out.
Tigers and Tiger products are collected primarily from the three districts in Riau: Kuantan Sengingi,
Indragiri Hulu and Indragiri Hilir. From these districts Tiger and Tiger parts are transported to the cities
of Dumai, Pekanbaru and Batam. From inland regions of Riau Tiger products go mostly to Pekanbaru.
In the south and central coast regions Tiger products go directly from hunters to dealers in Batam. In thenorthern regions of Riau Tiger products go to Dumai first, then on to Batam by boat (FFI-ID in litt. to
TRAFFIC, 2003; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002) and then apparently on to Singapore or
Malaysia. Because of its close proximity to Singapore and Malaysia, Riau is a prime location for the tradeof Tigers and it is one of the main gateways for international Tiger trade from Sumatra. The reason forthis is because of the ease with which Tiger parts can be moved to Batam and then shipped to Singapore
with little or no law enforcement to stop trade (C. Saleh, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Three markets were surveyed by TRAFFIC in 2002 in Pekanbaru: Pasar Nangka, Pasar Pusat and Pasar
Kodim. In each market, investigators attempted comprehensive surveys of all gold shops and traditional
Asian medicine shops.
In Nangka Market (Pasar Nangka) there are no traditional Asian medicine shops and a total of 20 gold
shops, none of which had Tiger parts and when the owners were questioned they stated that none wereavailable. However, one shop did have three bear claws for sale, suggesting that there is a market for thistype of merchandise.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

60

In the Central Market (Pasar Pusat) there were two gold shops and two traditional Asian medicine shops.
One gold shop had a Tiger canine for sale (price not available). The canine was not yet set in gold but
the owners would only to sell it to a customer who was interested in purchasing a Tiger pendent necklace.
The shop would then do the gold work as part of the deal. Results from surveys from traditional Asian
medicine shops indicated no Tiger bone or other parts were currently available for sale. However, one
shop had a variety of other wildlife products for sale including bear gall bladder as a medicine to treat
heart ailments.
A total of 11 gold shops and three traditional Asian medicine shops were surveyed in Kodim Market(Pasar Kodim) and no Tiger parts were found.
Results from surveys of Pekanbaru indicate that Tiger parts are not openly available as in other cities,
including Jambi and Palembang. Wildlife parts that were available in the traditional Asian medicine
shops had, according to WWF-ID, often been there for long periods of time which may suggest demand
is not high.
However, there still may be substantial underground wildlife trade in Pekanbaru. One major wildlife
dealer was interviewed in Pekanbaru who claimed to deal in a variety of endangered species products
including ivory, Tiger parts, live Sumatran Tigers, live Siamang Hylobates syndactylus, Sun Bear partsetc. He claimed to have encountered live Tiger cubs in trade in 1997-1998. This information was
corroborated by a second source, a staff member at the Pekanbaru Zoo (Section 5).
Batam Island, Riau
Batam is a popular holiday destination, especially for tourists from nearby Singapore, which isapproximately an hour away by ferry. Most of the tourists that come to visit from Singapore areapparently businessmen. Consistent narrative evidence collected by individuals monitoring trade over thelong term indicates that the island of Batam is a major transit point for Sumatran Tiger skins and bones(FFI-ID in litt. to TRAFFIC, 2003; WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Information from tradersin Batam indicates that most goes to Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore but that Tiger parts are also sold toJapan, Malaysia, and China (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). From Batam parts arereportedly shipped to Singapore by boat and plane. Skins are put in bags and carried over to Singapore
by individuals. Traders are aware that to an x-ray machine, a Tiger skin appears to be just like folded
clothes, so it is very difficult for officials to detect. Other small parts such as teeth and claws are put inluggage or are carried over by individuals (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). The volume ofsuch illicit trade is impossible to estimate as such trade is rarely detected, but it may account for a large
proportion of the Tigers killed each year.
This city has very few souvenir shops and the supply of Tiger parts openly available was found to belimited. Market surveys were conducted in all the gold shops, souvenir shops and curious shops found in
Batam Centre, Nagoya and Jodoh districts. In Batam Centre District a total of five souvenir shops weresurveyed in the Batam Centre and Carnival Plaza Malls. There was no evidence of any Tiger or wildlife
products for sale in any shops. In Nagoya surveys of 10 gold shops and three souvenir shops wereconducted. The six gold shops located in Lucky Plaza had no Tiger parts openly displayed or offered forsale when investigators made requests to purchase such items. Four gold shops in Centre Point Mall were

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

61

also surveyed but no Tiger parts were found for sale. Souvenir shops randomly located throughout the
Nagoya district did not reveal any Tiger parts for sale upon investigation. Surveys were administered toa total 35 gold shops and one magic shop in Jodoh district. Thirty-three shops did not have Tiger parts
displayed openly or available for sale when investigators made requests. One gold shop indicated they
did not have any Tiger parts for sale but an attendant indicated that he had a friend with Tiger claws forsale. Arrangements were made to view the Tiger claws, which were kept at the man’s home. Investigators
verified that three genuine Tiger claws were for sale. According to this individual, the claws had comefrom Palembang. One gold shop had a fake Tiger canine made from quarts inlayed in a gold pendantsetting. Surveys of a magic shop located in this district revealed a variety of wildlife parts for saleincluding one small piece of Tiger skin.
To determine if Tiger parts were in fact available in Batam TRAFFIC investigators used the assistance of
locals to determine the availability of Tiger products. Word passed to local dealers who believed the
TRAFFIC investigator to be a tourist looking for souvenirs. Within two hours of beginning research in
Batam, a local man turned up in the lobby of the investigator’s hotel with two Tiger claws for sale.
The results of the market survey in Batam appear to indicate that Tiger products are not openly available
for sale. If Singapore were the main destination for Tiger products being exported out of Sumatra then
why would Tiger parts not be more readily available to the masses of Singaporean tourists in Batam?
Enforcement does not appear to be any more stringent in Batam than elsewhere, so it is unlikely that thetrade is controlled there. The most likely reason few Tiger parts were found is because Tiger products
only go through Batam, as a transit point.

Conclusion
This survey found 25% of shops and dealers surveyed in Sumatra in 2002 selling Tiger parts and products.
Table 19 indicates the main trouble spots for Tiger trade in Sumatra. While there is some cause for
optimism – fewer gold shops were seen selling Tiger bone compared to a previous survey (Plowden andBowles, 1997), and prices for Tiger bone appear to be quite low and possibly declining (Tables 14 and15) – there is still plenty of cause for concern. Tiger bones were still seen for sale, as well as an increased
number of Tiger skins, skin pieces, claws, canines and other parts, in comparison to Plowden and Bowles(1997) survey. All of this trade is illegal, and must be made an enforcement priority in order to eliminate
the poaching threat to the Sumatran Tiger.
Table 18. Locations identified by this survey as being hotspots for illegal Tiger trade
Location

Type of establishment

MedanGold and souvenir shops
Pancur Batu
Gold shops
Bukittinggi
Antique shops
Jambi
Gold shops
Bengkulu
Taxidermists and wildlife dealers
Villages bordering Poachers’ homes
Bukit Barisan
Selatan National ParkNOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Type of tiger product
Skins, bones, canines, claws,
Skins, bones, canines, claws, whiskers
Claws and canines
Claws and canines
Skins and bones
Skins

62

Table 19. Availability of tiger parts and products in 2002 surveys in retail shops in theeight provinces of Sumatra
Province

Percent of retail shops selling tiger parts

North Sumatra
North Sumatra: Medan and Pancur Batu
AcehWest Sumatra
JambiSouth Sumatra
Lampung
Bengkulu
Riau

16%
35%
47%
5%
33%
28%
no datano data3%

Table 19 shows that enforcement can have a strong deterrent effect, at least upon open retail trade in
Tiger parts and products. Availability of Tiger parts and products in retail shops (including gold,
souvenir and antique shops) is lowest in the parts of Sumatra where law enforcement effort has been
highest, with active government-NGO partnerships such as the Lampung Wildlife Crime Unit (Anon.,
2003b) and the Tiger Protection Unit anti-poaching teams operating in parts of West Sumatra and Riau
provinces. The TRAFFIC surveys show the need for these efforts to be increased, and expanded to theremainder of Sumatra.

5. The role of Sumatran zoos in Tiger conservation and trade
International captive breeding
Globally, there are five regional captive populations of Sumatran Tigers, which include the European
programme, the Australasian programme, the SSP in North America, the JAZGA in Japan and the PKBSI
programme in Indonesia. Combined, the total number of Sumatran Tigers in the world’s zoos is about
250 (Christie, 2002). Of these, approximately 80 are in Indonesian zoos.
Sumatran zoos
There are seven main public zoos in Sumatra, including ones in Medan and Siantar in North Sumatra,
Pekanbaru in Riau, Bukittinggi in West Sumatra, a mini zoo in Lahat, a zoo in Palembang and one in
Bengkulu. While these zoos are improving slowly, they remain in a state of extremely poor condition.
Captive breeding in Sumatran zoos
Captive breeding of Sumatran Tigers and other endangered species appears to be high on the agenda of
the zoos in Sumatra. However, it appears that only a few of these zoos are actually equipped withproper facilities and trained staff. Many of these zoos seem to be under the illusion that their mission
should be to breed endangered species, regardless of the fact that they are not equipped to efficiently andpractically do so. The Medan Zoo provides a perfect example of why captive breeding of Sumatran

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

63

Tigers should be discouraged in at least some of the Sumatran zoos at this time. Cubs were born at thezoo before any enclosures were built to house them and before any plans as to where they would end up
were arranged. Funding to house, feed and care for these extra Tigers was, and remains, insufficient.
Through no fault of their own, staff lack sufficient skills and training needed to properly care for theseanimals. Furthermore, veterinary supplies are severely lacking. While it is recognised that these Tigers
hold genes vital to the long-term health of the world’s captive population of Sumatran Tigers, proper
preparations should first be made.
Zoos as rescue centres
Zoos also find themselves acting as depositories for injured or confiscated Tigers (see Box 3). These
Tigers are an important source of new genetic material to contribute to the captive breeding program.
However, many of the zoos in Sumatra are not set up to handle the Tigers that they already keep, let aloneforsudden additions. For these zoos to be able to function as rescue centres, and ultimately benefit theinternational community involved in the Captive Breeding Programme for Sumatran Tigers,
international aid, both technical and financial, is needed.
Aside from zoos, there are currently no rescue centres set up in Sumatra to keep confiscated Tigers,
although PHKA and the STCP are evaluating the establishment of a Tiger Rescue Centre. This isenvisioned as a holding facility for problem Tigers, a place which will always be open for problem Tigers
so that accommodation arrangements do not need to be made on a case-by-case basis when problems arise(Anon., 2002a). Currently, there are several rescue centres in Indonesia, but very few of these are able tohandle animals such as Tigers, and all face financial and technical obstacles, as the zoos do. As a result,officials are sometimes reluctant to confiscate animals, as there is no place to put them. One example ofsuch a case took place in Bali, where a sausage factory in Denpasar was found to be keeping a number ofprotected animals in a private collection, including three young orangutans, one Sun Bear, two Estuarine
Crocodiles Crocodylus porosus, ten Bali Starlings Leucopsar rothschildi and a number of other bird
species and one Sumatran Tiger. When officials were alerted to this collection by members of local
NGOs, they raided the premises and confiscated only the orangutans, as this was the only species that
could be sent to a well established rescue centre (although the Bali Starlings could have been sent to theBali Starling Breeding Centre in West Bali) (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002).
Zoos involved in the trade
While zoos have a significant role to play in the conservation of the Sumatran Tiger, some zoos appear tohave a very negative role in Tiger conservation, as some zoos actively partake in the illegal trade of
Tigers, and other endangered wildlife. In conversations with staff in a number of Sumatran zoos, it wasreported that many of the species that are protected by law in Indonesia kept in these zoos were acquired
illegally, from hunters or wildlife markets. Zoos are often approached by poachers and dealers who haveanimals to sell. According to one senior staff in a Sumatran zoo, this is the easiest way to acquire animals,
as there is no paperwork involved.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

64

The staff at a zoo in Riau stated that senior management staff from a large zoo on Java often contacted
them, looking for species for their own zoo, which included Sumatran Tigers as well as Malayan Tapirs
and Golden Cats. The staff at this zoo also stated that this particular Javan zoo has offered rewards forthese species to local hunters in Riau and possibly elsewhere.
One dealer, based in Pekanbaru, Riau, carries out wildlife trade in both Pekanbaru and Medan (North
Sumatra). Not only does he deal in many types of wildlife himself, but he is also very well connectedwith many of the major dealers in Indonesia and abroad. He deals in all sorts of wildlife including ivory,
Tiger parts, live Tigers, live Siamang, Sun Bear parts etc. Regarding the Tiger trade in Indonesia, thisindividual gave the following information: Live Tiger cubs are often encountered by this individual. In
1997 and the first half of 1998, three sets of cubs, totalling six cubs were sold. According to this dealer,
all the live cubs captured in Sumatra are sold to a zoo on Java. He went on to say that this zoo pays ahigher price than any other zoos or private collectors for Tigers and other species.
Another source, working in the zoo in Riau, stated to TRAFFIC in October 1997, that a dealer approachedthe zoo and had four Tiger cubs for sale, and was asking IDR 1 000 000 each (USD 112). Around thissame time the zoo in Medan was offered four cubs as well, presumably the same ones. However, neitherof these two zoos purchased them. The staff at the zoo in Pekanbaru claimed that the cubs were sold forthe asking price to a zoo on Java. The staff at the zoo in Pekanbaru claimed that the zoo on Java wasgiven preference over them due to close relations with the Forestry Department.
Another zoo in North Sumatra is also alleged to purchase a number of species for their collection fromdealers and wildlife markets. Staff at the zoo stated to TRAFFIC in October 1999 that a number ofanimals are purchased from the large bird markets in Jakarta as well as the wildlife market in Medan. Thiszoo makes no secret of its actions, as a “Wanted” advertisement appeared in the Analisa Newspaper(Medan) (Figure 8), stating that the zoo wanted to buy rare animals, including mouse deer, Serow,
Malayan Tapir, Binturong, Clouded Leopard, Sumatran Tiger and others – dead or alive. Presumably thedead animals were wanted for the Wildlife Museum in Medan, which is under the same ownership as theSiantar Zoo. The PHKA in North Sumatra often dispose of confiscated wildlife by donating them to thiszoo as well.
Education and awarenessDespite the poor conditions of the zoos in Sumatra, having many broken down facilities, inadequate
housing for the animals and often having unhealthy animals on display, the number of visitors remains
high. To visitors, the Sumatran Tigers are always one of the main attractions. However, very little isavailable in these zoos regarding education for the visitors on the subject of Tiger conservation. This istrulyawasted opportunity, as having educational material available in these locations would provide
information and raise awareness of Tiger conservation to a large number of people at a low cost.
Currently, many of these zoos treat the Tigers as circus-like attractions with members of staff observed
harassing the Tigers for the entertainment of the crowds at various zoos during this survey.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

65

Box 3. A Tiger called Tele
In February 1997, a team of three people, including the first author of this report, left from Medan with a vehicle offeredby the Leuser Development Programme. Information regarding the trapped tiger was far from detailed and thecondition of the animal was not known. The basic plan was to get the tiger and move it, after the veterinarians had
examined it, to the Gunung Leuser National Park. However, upon arrival, it was found that this animal would not beable to be released due to multiple wounds. The tiger’s tail was pinched in the door of the trap and had already become
infected. Furthermore,aftertranquilising it and examining it closely, it was found to be missing all but two digits on one
forepaw and all of the digits on the other, as a result of snaring. Further examination revealed a snare on the forelegthat the animal’s skin had grown over completely except for a piece of wire protruding from one spot. The snare wasmade of the brake cable from a bicycle.

Interestingly, the village people that had captured the tiger did not want to see it destroyed, as the local police intended
on doing. A few local entrepreneurs had set up a small tent and were selling soup and rice, as well as charging
admission to the bus loads of villagers coming to see the trapped tiger. The Forestry Department was involved as well,
but was quite undecided as to what should be done. It was finally agreed that the animal should be taken back to theMedan Zoo, for treatment. While loading the tranquilized animal into the truck, the crowd swarmed around it, pullingout its whiskers, hair and trying to pull out claws.

Finally, at the Medan Zoo, a thorough examination was made and the wire snare on its foreleg was removed. The tail,all but a short stub, was amputated as it had begun to rot. It was observed that the animal, a female, was in the laterstages of its life, as the canine teeth were old and worn and two were broken off.

As the zoo did not have enough cages, the resident male was placed in a temporary cage and the female in his cage.
However, due to the lack of cages, this was only until the female recovered and began to adapt to the new
surroundings. Later the male was introduced into the same enclosure by the staff of the zoo. According to the zoo
staff, pleas were made to international zoos as well as to the Sumatran Tiger Breeding Programme for funds to build a
new enclosure, but none came. As a result, the female became pregnant and gave birth to three cubs – a male andtwo females in December 1997. The male was again moved to a small temporary holding cage. Due to poor conditionsin the cages, the male cub died. The two surviving female cubs were registered with the Sumatran Tiger Captive
Breeding Programme.
Credit:Nolan Magnus/TRAFFIC Southeast Asia

When the cubs reached sub-adult age, they wereseparated from the female. Now the cage situation wassuch that the male was in the temporary holding cage, thefemale in one half and the cubs in the other of the cage(the cage was initially split into two to facilitate cleaning).
As this arrangement did not allow for the cages to becleaned, the female was again put in the same cage as
the male. She soon gave birth, this time to a lone male. At
the time of writing, this male has not yet been registeredwith the programme.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

A Sumatran Tiger Tele, showing badly
wounded front paws. The paws were
wounded when the animal was caught insnares. As a result, this tiger turned to small
domestic livestock. It was caught and placedin the Medan Zoo in North Sumatra.

66

6. Conclusions
The Sumatran Tiger is listed as Critically Endangered, the highest category of threat, on the IUCN 2003
Red List of Threatened Animals (Anon., 2003a). The total population was most recently estimated at just
400-500 Sumatran Tigers (Seidensticker et al., 1999). Habitat for Tigers has been reduced by logging andsettlement to approximately 130 000 km2, with only about 42 000 km2 protected as some form ofconservation area (Wikramanayake et al., 1998). Loss of habitat remains a significant threat to Tigers.
Indonesian Forestry officials acknowledge that in many parts of Sumatra, illegal timber harvesting andconversion of land for agriculture and plantations are out of control (Paddock, 2004). In one criticallyimportant Tiger conservation area, Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, which has an estimated 40-43
Tigers (O’Brien et al., 2003), researchers estimate that if current rates of loss continue by 2010 illegal
logging will have nearly eliminated all the habitat for Tigers (Kinnaird et al., 2003).
Since the early 1990s, poaching of Tigers for their bones, used in a variety of traditional Asian medicine
systems, has been considered the leading threat to Tigers (Mills and Jackson, 1994). Indonesia was
singled out by South Korean Customs import records as being a major supplier of Tiger bone, exporting
an astonishing 3720 kg from 1975-1992. This trade was in violation of the CITES, which Indonesia
became Party to in 1979, and indeed the Indonesian government has no official record of these exports.
During the 1990s, the international conservation community and the Parties to CITES greatly increased
efforts to conserve wild Tiger populations and eliminate domestic markets for Tiger bone in Asian
countries and elsewhere in the world. A review of the situation by TRAFFIC (Nowell, 2000) found thata good deal of progress had been made. However, Indonesia was singled out as a Tiger range state wheretrade in Tiger bone and other Tiger products continued in a fairly open manner. TRAFFIC thus organized
this comprehensive survey of Tiger poaching and trade in Sumatra to document the current extent of the
problem and provide the necessary information for law enforcement authorities to act upon.
Despite Sumatran Tigers being fully protected by law, with tough provisions for imprisonment and steep
fines, as well as increased effort in Tiger conservation and building law enforcement and anti-poachingcapacity, this survey demonstrates the existence of a substantial market for Tiger parts and products in
Sumatra. Surveys were carried out in all eight provinces of Sumatra in 2002, with a total of 24 towns andcities being surveyed, recording 484 observations from shops and dealer sources in 2002. Only seventowns in this survey did not have Tiger parts for sale (29% of towns). In the other 17 towns, a total of
117 shops and dealers (25% of those surveyed) were found to have Tiger parts for sale. A total of 453
retail shops were surveyed and 86 (19%) were observed to have Tiger parts for sale, primarily canines andclaws. Most trade in skins and bones was carried in a covert manner by a variety of dealers. Thirty-one
dealer contacts were made with information on the sale of Tiger parts.
Most Tigers are killed by professional or semi-professional hunters operating individually or in small
groups. In the provinces of Lampung and Riau it is estimated that each team kills an average of two
Tigers annually (WWF-ID, pers. comm. to TRAFFIC, 2002). Some hunters may catch many more
(TRAFFIC interview with a hunter, Box 1, and Anon., 2003d).
Sumatran Tigers are killed primarily with inexpensive and simple-to-make wire cable leg-hold snares.
Some are also poisoned, particularly those killed as a result of human-Tiger conflict. Previously, it was

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

67thought that Tigers were being poached primarily on the edges of forests in regions near villages where
they come into conflict with people. However, in this survey, poachers and undercover investigators statethat Tigers are hunted deep within national parks.
The wire snares which catch and kill Sumatran Tigers are sometimes intended to catch other species, andthe Tiger dies by accident. Tiger prey species are also favoured as human food, and other rare species in
Sumatra with commercial value are also targeted by hunters, including the Sun Bear. Information on thistype of Tiger killing from investigators suggests that at least four Tigers die as “incidental killings” eachyear. Although not the target species, the Tiger parts frequently enter the trade.
Human-Tiger conflict has long been a serious problem in Sumatra, compared to other parts of the Tiger’s
global range. Many people have been killed or wounded by Tigers. Tigers frequently prey on livestock
and, as a result, villagers often seek to have problem Tigers killed, although they are encouraged tocontact the Forestry department to try to have the problem animal trapped alive and removed from thearea. This survey found that at least 35 Tigers were killed or removed as a result of human-Tiger conflictfrom 1998-2002. Based on investigators’ reports, many of these Tigers, although killed for a different
reason, subsequently enter into the trade.
Although the numbers of Tigers incidentally killed or as a result of human-Tiger conflict are significant,most Tigers in Sumatra are apparently killed deliberately for commercial gain. Information collectedduring this survey indicates that an average of at least 51 Sumatran Tigers per year were killed or removed
from 1998-2002. For at least 78% of these, the primary motive appears to be poaching for trade. Thesehigh numbers of Tigers being removed over this five year period, from an increasingly fragmented
population suggest that the estimated population of 400-450 remaining Sumatran Tigers in the wild
(Seidensticker, 1999) may have been low.
The annual number of Sumatran Tigers killed or removed in the early 1990s was estimated at 42 (Tilson
and Traylor-Holzer, 1994). For many reasons, both this estimate and this survey’s estimate are rough andincomplete. While it is unclear whether the level of Tiger removals has increased or remained relatively
steady, it is clear what the findings do not show is that Tiger poaching has declined significantly over the
past decade – despite greatly increased conservation efforts and global measures to curtail trade in Tiger
bone.
TRAFFIC market surveys did suggest the possibility that trade in Tiger bone has declined in Sumatra.
This investigation found less Tiger bone available than a previous survey from 1995, and also lower prices
for Sumatran Tiger bone than have been reported in the past (Tilson and Traylor-Holzer, 1994; Nowell,
2000). This investigation echoes the conclusion of TRAFFIC’s global review of Tiger bone trade in thelate 1990s (Nowell, 2000): that despite apparent progress in curtailing markets for Tiger bone fortraditional Asian medicines, there is little evidence to indicate a major decline in Tiger poaching.
In Sumatra, the existence of a substantial domestic market for Tiger skins and other parts, especially claws
and canines, as trophies, charms and souvenirs, is a major factor in the continuing incidence of poaching.
Retail prices for quoted for Tiger skins have remained high, at USD 1000-3000, since the 1970s.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

68

Information from traders in Sumatra also indicates continued illegal international trade in Tiger parts outof Sumatra. Traders reported that Tiger parts are sold to Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, andChina. Singapore and Malaysia may act as transit countries as well as consumers for Tiger parts. Tiger
bone is reportedly still smuggled out of Sumatra, along with other Tiger parts.
Qualified zoos in Sumatra should support Sumatran Tiger conservation through education, outreach,
captive breeding, and as holding facilities for problem animals. However, a number of zoos are reportedly
involved in the illegal trade, purchasing illegally captured Tigers. One zoo in North Sumatra placed anadvertisement in a local newspaper in June 2000 looking for Sumatran Tigers, and other animals, “deador alive.”
The findings of this report show the structure and extent of the trade, which is essential in guiding future
work, and in highlighting the importance of increased enforcement. Numerous sources indicate that, atbest, a lack of political will and in the worst-case scenario, widespread corruption, hinders enforcementof hunting and trade bans. In the last few years there have been intensified efforts to improve law
enforcement and anti-poaching capacity in Sumatra, and it is hoped that soon these efforts will begin to
pay off. This report will hopefully sound the alarm regarding the crisis Sumatra’s Tigers currently faceand provide vital information for government and conservation organisations to work from.
The numbers of Tigers killed and quantity of Tiger parts and products presented in this report should betreated as an under-representation, as it was not possible to survey all locations where poaching and trade
may occur. Some locations, such as the majority of the province of Aceh, were not surveyed due topolitical unrest, and therefore information for this province should be treated as incomplete. Provinces
where Tiger conservation and anti-poaching programs are active have more information about Tiger trade,but levels of poaching and trade are not necessarily higher than in places where conservation andenforcement are weaker. Information given in this report should be treated as an indicator of the severityof the trade in Tigers and Tiger parts in Sumatra, and not as a definitive summary. Recommendations are
made in the next section to improve Tiger trade monitoring and enforcement.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

69

7. Recommendations
This report suggests that 78% of the approximately 51 Sumatran Tigers killed every year are being
poached for the value of their parts in Sumatran markets. The primary recommendation of this report isthat Indonesian authorities must improve enforcement of their laws banning trade in Tiger parts andproducts. Eliminating the market for Tiger parts in Sumatra should lead to a reduction in Tiger poaching.
However, this will not necessarily save the Critically Endangered Sumatran Tiger. Loss of habitat throughillegal logging, and high levels of human-Tiger conflict will continue to threaten the Sumatran Tiger
unless greater effort is made to control timber harvest (including illegal logging) and land conversion, anddevelop an effective policy to manage problem Tigers.
Recent years have seen substantial investment in building the capacity of Indonesian authorities toenforce trade bans for Tigers in Sumatra. In August 2002, a workshop on Anti-Poaching and Illegal Tradeof Sumatran Tigers and their Products was held in Bogor (Anon., 2002b). More than 240 participants
attended the workshop, representing a number of government agencies with law enforcement roles, aswell as the NGO conservation community. A public burning of confiscated wildlife specimens was held,
including several whole stuffed Tigers. The mainly Indonesian participants, representing a broad
spectrum of government and NGO stakeholders, issued a number of detailed recommendations related tolaw enforcement, which TRAFFIC endorses and urges the international community to support
implementation of. These recommendations are:
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Develop a system of information management relating to the Sumatran Tiger with a focus on aspects
relating to status, conflict, poaching and trade;
Increase capacity and focus of law enforcement bodies, in particular PPNS and Forest Police, with thegoal of raising awareness and the application of conservation law;
Develop a process of integrated law enforcement that involves all stakeholders, including local
people, Forest Police/PPNS, Police, Armed Forces, Justice Department, Criminal Courts, the media
and NGOs, all with the common goal of fighting against poaching and trading in Sumatran Tigers andother endangered species (rhino and elephant);
Provide legal assistance to prosecuting teams on important cases, with the goal of setting legal
precedents through proper and heavy sentencing;
Increase the capacity and active role of NGOs and civil society in Tiger conservation, through aprocess of developing institutional capacity, including the working programme and capacity of the
Tigers, Rhinos and Elephants Advocacy Network (see below);
Develop an effective protocol for the monitoring of private possession and commercial possession of
wildlife and their products, both living and dead, with emphasis on Tiger, rhino and elephant;
Develop a protocol for the handling of conflict between humans and wildlife, in order to assure
security of both wildlife and the existence of human communities;
Promote and develop the welfare of local traditional people as a component of an integrated strategy
of Tiger conservation;
Develop a strategic campaign of outreach for the general public in accordance with conservationneeds and identified target groups;
Extend and expand the conservation areas available for Tigers, which can also serve to protect otherwildlife species, as an effective means of conserving endangered species in isolated habitats;

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

70•

Develop mechanisms of reward and punishment for those personnel and institutions involved inconservation law enforcement.

TRAFFIC also makes the following recommendations on the basis of the findings of this report.
The Indonesian authorities should be encouraged and supported to follow through on the data presented
on Tiger markets in this report and prioritize enforcement actions against retail outlets and urban dealersin Tiger products. North Sumatra is particularly highlighted as an area where trade in Tiger bone andskins is still carried out in a relatively open manner, and would provide a good starting point. In other
cities and towns, trade in carried out covertly, and undercover tactics must be employed. IndonesianNGO partnerships have proven effective in identifying traders in Tiger bone; these efforts must be backed
up with more effective prosecution. The penalties for illegal Tiger trade are severe enough to serve as astrong deterrent if properly enforced.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of increased law enforcement efforts, there must be more effective
monitoring of Tiger trade and poaching. Monitoring networks in both Tiger range areas as well as in tradecentres should be established. Networks already established should continue to be expanded upon. NGOIndonesian partnerships have greatly increased their ability to monitor and collect data, but data sharing
and communication between groups and different areas is poor. As recommended by the workshop on
Anti-Poaching and Illegal Trade of Sumatran Tigers and their Products (August 2002), there should be acentralized database to track incidents and reports of Tiger poaching and trade. The recently created NGO
consortium, the Tigers, Rhinos and Elephants Advocacy Network, should be supported in its efforts tocreate and manage a centralized database. TRAFFIC’s expertise on such databases and experience inother Tiger range states should be contributed to the effort.
Other Asian Tiger range states, including Thailand and Cambodia, have successfully converted Tiger
poachers into wildlife rangers. The Sumatran conservation community should consider adopting thismodel, particularly in North Sumatra and Aceh. Since Tiger poachers are motivated primarily bycommercial gain, providing them with a decent living wage should remove their incentive to poach. Not
only does this directly reduce the poaching threat to Tigers, but it also allows conservationists to makeuse of these men’s knowledge of local Tiger populations.
Funding should be found, possibly from the international zoological body, to establish and implement
education and awareness programmes within each Sumatran zoo. Local staff should be fully trained andinitially funded to carry out this work. Given the conditions at these zoos and the excellent opportunity
to reach vast numbers of people, this should be looked at as the highest priority for the zoos role in Tiger
conservation. Funding for such programmes should also provide for the design and creation of education
and awareness materials, such as children’s books, booklets, posters etc. The Tiger, one of the mostpopular animals in the zoos amongst the public, should be used as a ‘flagship’ in these programmes.
Zoos should become more transparent in their acquiring of, breeding and exchanges of Tigers.
Precautionary measures, such as strict guidelines and monitoring should be put into place by theauthorities to ensure that zoos are not involved in the illegal trade of Tigers.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

71

The role of Sumatran zoos in any breeding programmes should be clarified and carried out in a
responsible manner, so as to ensure the animals are well cared for and are a benefit to the global Sumatran
Tiger captive breeding project. If the zoos are unable to provide quality care for the Tigers, or are notcontributing to the conservation of the Tigers, then breeding of the species should be discouraged.
Funding should be provided to assist these zoos in improving the conditions of the enclosures of the
Tigers and all the species kept.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

72

References
Anon., 1994. Indonesian Sumatran Tiger Conservation Strategy. Directorate General of Forest
Protection and Nature Conservation, Republic of Indonesia.
<http://www.5tigers.org/Research/Conferences/indonesia/ConsStrat/sumcon.htm>, downloaded 8
January 2004.
Anon., 1997. Songbirds choked by smog. The Sun newspaper, October 6.
Anon., 2002a. Progress report, July-December 2002. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program (STCP).
Downloaded 8 January 2004 from http://www.5tigers.org/Research/sumatran/indonesia/SCTP2002JulyDec.pdf
Anon., 2002b. Report on tiger, elephant and rhino law enforcement workshop. Cipayung, Bogor,
Indonesia, August 2002. Sumatran Tiger Conservation Program (STCP). Downloaded 1 January 2004
from http://www.5tigers.org/Research/sumatran/indonesia/LawEnforcementWorkshop2002.pdf
Anon., 2002c. Survey, Assessment and Conservation of the Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae)in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park – III. Final report to the Exxon/Mobil Save the Tiger Fund.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/STF/Reports/WCS/Indonesia/WCS_BBSNP_2000.pdf
Anon., 2002d. Tiger kills two loggers. Antara news agency, downloaded from <www.laksamana.net>
20 January 2004.
Anon., 2003a. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Red List. < http://www.redlist.org>.
Anon., 2003b. Survey, Assessment and Conservation of the Sumatran Tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae)in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park – IV. Final report to the Exxon/Mobil Save the Tiger Fund.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/STF/Reports/WCS/Indonesia/WCS_BBS_IV.pdf
Anon., 2003c. From Data to Action: Curbing Wildlife Crimes in Sumatra, Indonesia. Unpublishedinterim report to 21st Century Tiger, October 2003. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).
Anon., 2003d. Integrated tiger protection and monitoring in Bukit Tigapuluh National Park of Sumatra,Indonesia. Report to the Save the Tiger Fund for the period April to September 2003. Sumatran Tiger
Conservation Program (STCP). Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/STF/Reports/STCP/BTNP_8_03.htm
Anon., 2003e. Wild Tigers released into new reserve in Riau. Press release, The Tiger Foundation andSumatran Tiger Trust Indonesia Program. Downloaded 8 January 2004 from <http://www.tigertrust.info/latest/newreservepressrelease.htm>

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

73

Anon., 2004. Rhino Protection Units (RPUs). International Rhino Foundation. Downloaded 28
January from http://www.rhinos-irf.org/irfprograms/asiaprograms/rpu_all/
van Beek, C.G.G., 1996. Geology, Geomorphology and Climate of Gunung Leuser National Park. In:
van Schaik, C. P. and Supriatna, J., (eds) 1996. Leuser: A Sumatran Sanctuary. Yayasan Bina Sains
Hayati Indonesia, Indonesia.
Borner, M., 1978. Status and conservation of the Sumatran tiger. Carnivore, 1: 97-102.
Chan, S., 1995. Study of Tiger Bone used in Chinese Medicine in Malaysia and Singapore. TRAFFICSoutheast Asia, Selangor, Malaysia. Unpublished report.
Christie, S., 2002. Status in Zoos: The Sumatran Tiger. Unpublished report. The Zoological Society of
London.
Cracraft, J., Feinstein, J., Vaughan, J. and K. Helm-Bychowski. 1998. Sorting out Tigers (Panthera
tigris): mitochondrial sequences, nuclear inserts, systematics and conservation genetics. Animal
Conservation 1: 139-150.
Faust, T. and Tilson, R., 1994. Estimating how many Tigers are in Sumatra. In Tilson, R.L., Komar
Soemarna, Widodo Ramono, Sukianto Lusli, Traylor-Holzer, K., and Seal, U.S., editors. 1994.
Sumatran Tiger Report: Population and Habitat Viability Analysis. A joint endeavour of the Indonesian
Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and the IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist
Group. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/Research/Conferences/indonesia/PHVA/faust.htm
Franklin, N., Bastoni, Sriyanto, Dwiatmo Siswomartono, Manansang, J. and Tilson R., 1999. Last of
the Indonesian Tigers: A Cause for Optimism. Pp 131-147 in Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson,P., eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Franklin, N., Hasiholan, Waldemar and Gill, D.S., 2003. Tiger Protection Units in Way Kambas
National Park. 5 Sept 2003 Sumatran Tiger Trust report downloaded 8 January 2004 fromhttp://www.tigertrust.info/latest/protectionunits.htm
Griffiths, M., 1992. Population Densities of Sumatran Tigers in Gunung Leuser National Park. WWFIndonesia. In R.L. Tilson, Komar Soemarna, Widodo Ramono, Sukianto Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, andU.S. Seal, editors. 1994. Sumatran Tiger Report: Population and Habitat Viability Analysis. A joint
endeavour of the Indonesian Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and the IUCN/SSC
Captive Breeding Specialist Group. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/Research/Conferences/indonesia/PHVA/griffiths.
Griffiths, M., 1993. Management of Large Mammals (June 1991-April 1993). Final report, project ID
0084, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

74

Hartana Alip Tantun and Martyr, D.J. 2001. Kerinci Seblat Tiger Protection Project. Report to Save theTiger Fund on activities and progress 200-2001. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/STF/Reports/KerinciSeblat/TigerReport.pdf
Indrawan, M., Saleh, C., Wibisono, H.T., Shepherd, C.R., Foead, N. and H.K. Chen. 1999. Trade andpoaching of tiger and rhino in Indonesia: from Sumatra to Java and Bali. Unpublished report, WWF
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Jackson, P. 1990. Chinese medicine threatens Asia’s last tigers. Cat News 13: 7.
Jackson, P. and Kemf, E., 1999. Wanted Alive! Tigers in the Wild. WWF International, Gland,
Switzerland.
Karanth, K.U. and Stith, B.M., 1999. Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger population
viability. Pp 104-113 in Seidensticker, J.,, Christie, S., and Jackson, P., eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger
Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kenney, J.S., Smith, J.L.D., Starfield, A.M. and McDougal, C.W. 1994. The long-term effects of tiger
poaching on population viability. Conservation Biology 9(5): 1127-1133.
Kinnaird, M.F., Sanderson, E.W., O’Brien, T.G., Wibisono, H.T. and Woolmer, G., 2003. Deforestation
trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv. Biol. 17(1):245-257.
Kitchener, A.C. 1999. Tiger distribution, phenotypic variation and conservation issues. Pp 19-39 in
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and Jackson, P., eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in HumanDominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mainka, S. A., 1997. Tiger Progress? The response to CITES Resolution Conf. 9.13. TRAFFIC
International, Cambridge, UK.
Mills, J. A., 1993. Tiger bone trade in South Korea. Cat News 19:13-16.
Mills, J. A. and Jackson, P., 1994. Killed for a Cure: A Review of the Worldwide Trade in Tiger Bone.
TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Nash, S. V., 1993. Sold for a song: The trade in Southeast Asian non-CITES birds. TRAFFIC
International, Cambridge, UK.
Nowell, K. and Jackson, P., 1996. Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Nowell, K., 2000. Far from a Cure: the Tiger Trade Revisited. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge,
UK.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

75

Nowell, K., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser, C. and Jackson, P., 2003a. Panthera tigris ssp balica . In:
IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. < http://www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on 8
January 2004.
Nowell, K., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser, C. and Jackson, P., 2003b. Panthera tigris ssp sondaica .
In: IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. < http://www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on
8 January 2004.
Nowell, K., Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser, C. and P. Jackson. 2003c. Panthera tigris ssp sumatrae .
In: IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. < http://www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on
8 January 2004.
Philip J. Nyhus, Ronald Tilson, Neil Franklin, Bastoni, Sriyanto, M. Yunus, and Sumianto. 2000.
Tigers, Cameras, and Satellites: Interdisciplinary efforts to map the habitat and threats to the last
Sumatran tigers. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/Research/sumatran/indonesia/NyhusESRI/NyhusESRI.htm
Nyhus, P., Sumianto and R. Tilson. 1999. The tiger-human dimension in southeast Sumatra. Pp 144145 in J. Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in
Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
O’Brien, T. G., Kinnaird, M. F. and Wibisono, H. T. 2003. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Prey: Sumatrantiger and prey populations in a tropical forest landscape. Animal Conservation 6: 131-139.
Paddock, R.C. 2004. Unkindest Cuts Scar Indonesia: As illegal logging eats away at the archipelago’sland, the animals whose habitat is sacrificed bite back at the hand that wields the chainsaw. Los Angeles
Times, January 2, 2004.
Plowden, C. and Bowles, D. 1997. The illegal market in tiger parts in northern Sumatra, Indonesia.
Oryx 31(1): 59-66.
Pocock, R.I. 1929. Tigers. Journ. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 33: 505-541.
Pratje, P., 1998. Reintroduction of the Sumatran Orangutan. FZS-Project –NO. 1253 /98. Frankfurt
Zoological Society. Germany.
Santiapillai, C. and Ramono, W., 1985. On the status of the tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae Pocock1829) in Sumatra. Unpublished report to IUCN-The World Conservation Union and the World Wildlife
Fund, Gland, Switzerland
van Schaik, C. P., Monk, K. A. and Robertson, J. M. Y., 2001. Dramatic decline in orang-utan numbersin the Leuser Ecosystem, Northern Sumatra. Oryx, 35(1) 14-25.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

76

Seidensticker, J., Christie, S. and P. Jackson. 1999. Preface. Pp 1-4 in J. Seidensticker, S. Christie andP. Jackson, eds. Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Seidensticker, J. 1986. Large carnivores and the consequences of habitat insularization: Ecology andconservation of Tigers in Indonesia and Bangladesh. In Cats of the World: biology, Conservation andManagement, ed. S.D. Miller and D.D. Everett, Pp 1-41. Washington DC, National Wildlife Federation.
Sellar, J. et al. 1999. Report of the CITES Tiger Mission Technical Team. to the 42d meeting of the
CITES Standing Committee, Lisbon, Portugal, 28 Sept to 1 Oct 1999, Doc. SC.42.10.4. Downloaded
January 25 2004 from http://www.cites.org/eng/cttee/standing/42/42-10-4.pdf
Shepherd, C. R., 1996. Some notes on Wildlife Trade in the City Of Medan, North Sumatra(Unpublished notes). TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Selangor, Malaysia. Unpublished notes.
Shepherd, C. R., 2001. Observations of Wildlife Parts for sale in Souvenir Shops in Medan, North
Sumatra, Indonesia (Unpublished notes). TRAFFIC Southeast Asia,
Selangor, Malaysia. Unpublished notes.
Theile, S., Laux, T., Horstmann, B. and R. Nursaid, 1997. Domestic wildlife trade in Java and Bali,
Indonesia. Final Project Report. Berlin, Germany and Malang, Indonesia. (Unpublished report)
Tilson R. L., Komar Soemarna, Widodo Ramono, Sukianto Lusli, Traylor-Holzer, K., and Seal, U.S.,
editors. 1994. Sumatran Tiger Report: Population and Habitat Viability Analysis. A joint endeavour of
the Indonesian Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and the IUCN/SSC Captive
Breeding Specialist Group. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/Research/Conferences/indonesia/PHVA/intrphva.htm
Tilson, R. and Traylor-Holzer, K. 1994. Estimating Poaching and Removal Rates of Tigers in Sumatra.
In R.L. Tilson, Komar Soemarna, Widodo Ramono, Sukianto Lusli, K. Traylor-Holzer, and U.S. Seal,
editors. 1994. Sumatran Tiger Report: Population and Habitat Viability Analysis. A joint endeavour of
the Indonesian Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) and the IUCN/SSC Captive
Breeding Specialist Group. Downloaded 1 January 2004 fromhttp://www.5tigers.org/Research/Conferences/indonesia/PHVA/tilson.htm
Treep, L. 1973. On the Tiger in Indonesia (with special reference to its status and conservation).
Report no. 164, Department of Nature Conservation and Nature Management, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Wentzel, J. et al., 1999. Subspecies of tigers: molecular assessment using ‘voucher specimens’ ofgeographically traceable individuals. Pp 40-49 in J. Seidensticker, S. Christie and P. Jackson, eds.
Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

77

Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Loucks, C. J., (editors), 2002. Terrestrial ecoregions of
the Indo-Pacific: a conservation assessment. Island Press. Washington DC, USA.
Wikramanayake, E.D., Dinerstein, E., Robinson, J.G., Karanth, U., Rabinowitz, A., Olson, D., Mathew,
T., Prashant Hedao, Conner, M., Hemley, G. and D. Bolze. 1998. An ecology-based method for
defining priorities for large mammal conservation: The Tiger as case study. Conserv. Biol. 12(4): 865878.
Whitten, A. J., Damanik, S. J., Anwar, J. and Hisyam, N., 1997. The Ecology of Sumatra. Periplus
Editions (HK) Ltd.
Yates, B.C. 2000. Recognition of tiger parts in trade. Pp 90-96 in Nowell, K., 2000. Far from a Cure:the Tiger Trade Revisited. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

78

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

79

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

80

APPENDIX 2. Market survey results by province
Market surveys for North Sumatra
NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer ProductMedanprecious stone claw
shop

Medan

Quantity Price
(IDR)
3
-

Price (USD) Origin

Age-Aceh, near
Kotacane

2 weeks prior toobservation

Date of observation Sourceof information
Feb. 1999
TRAFFIC

canine1--Aceh, near
Kotacane

2 weeks prior toobservation

Feb. 1999

TRAFFIC

piece of skin(small)4--

Aceh, near
Kotacane

2 weeks prior toobservation

Feb. 1999

TRAFFIC

3--

Kotacane, Aceh

2 weeks prior toobservation

Sept. 1999

TRAFFIC

canine1--

Kotacane, Aceh

Sept. 1999

TRAFFIC

piece of skin

-

-

-

Kotacane, Aceh

2 weeks prior toobservation
2 weeks prior toobservation

Sept. 1999

TRAFFIC

live cub

3

-

-

Aceh

May-00Medan Zoo

precious stone claw
shop

Medan

wildlife dealer

Medansouvenir shop head

1

-

-

Nov. 2000

TRAFFIC

skull

1

-

-

Nov. 2000

TRAFFIC

caninelive adult

2
1

-

-

1
1

-

-

Aceh

4

-

-

Aceh

3
5
1

200 250600 750

Medan
Medan
Medan

Medan
Medan
Medan

-

souvenir shop claw
souvenir shop head (teeth
removed)paw(no claws)
souvenir shop claw
souvenir shop claw
souvenir and canine
antique shop

Nov. 2000
Tapanuli Selatan,
North Sumatra

22.5 Aceh-Aug. 2001
Nov. 2001

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC-

Nov. 2001

TRAFFIC-

Nov. 2001
Nov. 2001

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
Mar-02 TRAFFIC

2 years-

67.5 Aceh

old

TRAFFIC
Jul-01 Medan Zoo

81

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer

Product

Quantity

Medangold shop

canine3351 550

39.5

bone

1 kg

600 750

67.5 -

canine2

1 802 250/pair

skin

1

-

canines4

876 650

98.5

-

-

canine inlayed gold

1453 900

51-

75 6501 802 250/pair-

8.5
202.50/pair-

1
1

849 950200 250

1

Medan

Medan

Medan
Medan

gold shop

precious stone
shop

traditional Asian
medicine shop
souvenir shop

Medan

Antique shop

Medangold shop

Medan

82

gold
shop

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

Mar-02

TRAFFIC

Mar-02

TRAFFIC-

Mar-02

TRAFFIC--

Mar-02

TRAFFIC

95.5
22.5

-

-

Mar-02

TRAFFIC

400 500

45

-

-

2
12
1
1
4
5

654 150
6 483 650
654 150151 300
66 750151 300

73.5
28.5
73.5
17
7.5
17 Aceh-Mar-02

TRAFFIC

Apr-02

TRAFFIC1

1 001 250

112.5

-

a few years
old-skin piece 12x12 cm
1
claw
2
bone
small amountskull
skin from forehead(10x10 cm)
skin from forehead(10x10 cm)
canineclaw
caninecanineclaw
claw
claw (inlayed inthick piece of gold)

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

OriginAge--a few years
old202.50/pair Kotacane, Aceh 8 months-

Kotacane, Aceh 4 years

Apr-02

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer

Medan

gold
shop

claw

1

-

Medan

gold
shop
gold
shop

claw (inlayed In
16.75 grams of gold)
claw (inlayed In
16.75 grams of gold)

1

1 602 000

1

claw

Medan

Product

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

Origin-Age-

Apr-02

TRAFFIC180--

Apr-02

TRAFFIC

1 602 000

180

-

-

Apr-02 TRAFFIC

14

102 350

11.5

-

-

Apr-02 TRAFFIC

gold shop

Medan

-

live cub

2

-

-

-

PancurBatu

gold shop

canine

5

-

-

-

-

302 600

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

claw
bones

12
1 skeleton
minus headskin
1skin (30x60 cm piece1- poor condition)

PancurBatu

PancurBatu

gold shop

gold shop

gold shop

Sourceof information

-

Medan

PancurBatu

Date ofobservation

34/kg

2 months

canine

1

-

-

-

-

claw
skin from forehead(12x5 cm)
caninebones
whiskers
skin piece 18x18 cm

161

2 002 500

-

-

-

1
20 kg
75
1

502 850
62 300151 300-

225 Aceh

recent56.5 Aceh
Aceh
7 Aceh17

recentrecentrecent-Oct. 2002

Medan Zoo

Mar-02 TRAFFIC

Mar-02 TRAFFIC

Mar-02 TRAFFIC-

Mar-02 TRAFFIC

83

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer

Product

PancurBatu

gold shop

skin from forehead12 002 500

skin (6x4 cm)

10skin (60x90 cm)
bone (legs cut in 10
cm lengths)
fat

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

Age

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

225 Aceh

recentMar-02

TRAFFIC

200 250

22.5 Aceh

recent1

7 502 700843 Aceh

recent-752 050

84.5 Aceh

recent4 bottles

600 750

67.5 Aceh

recent1
1
3
2
10

253 650
1 504 100
1 504 100
40 05040 050129 050

28.5 Aceh
169 Aceh
169 Aceh
4.5
4.5
14.5

recentrecentrecent--Apr-02

TRAFFIC

Jun-02

TRAFFIC

22.5

-

-

Jun-02

TRAFFIC-

Jun-02
Jun-02

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC-

15 years
1x 2-3 years
2x 15-20
years-

Jun-02Oct-02

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

34-

recentOct. 2002

TRAFFIC

2-

Oct. 2002

TRAFFIC

Belawangold shop

Binjaigold shop

whiskerskull (no teeth)
skull (no teeth)
caninemolar
claw

Binjaigold shopclaw

7

200 250

BinjaiBinjai

Toko Mas Sinar
Dealercaninecanine112502 850-

Dealergold shop

canineclaw

2
1

356 000

gold shopclaw

3

302 600

caninewhisker11-Antique shop

BinjaiTebingTinggiTebingTinggiTebingTinggi

Origin

56.5
-

Aceh

40

17 80084

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer Product

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

OriginAge

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

Kab. Tapanuli gold shop
Selatan/ Padang
Sidempuan

canine1---

3 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Kab. Tapanuli gold shop
Selatan/ Padang
Sidempuan

canine2---

3 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Kab. Tapanuli gold shop
Selatan/ Padang
Sidempuan

canine1---

5 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Kab. Tapanuli gold shop
Selatan/ Padang

canine----recentJul-02

TRAFFIC

skin

-

-

-

-

recentwhisker

-

-

-

-

recentKab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

gold shop

canine----4 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Kab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

gold shop

claw
canine----4 years-

Jul-02

TRAFFIC85

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer Product

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

Origin

Age

claw

-

-

-

-

-

Kab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

gold shop

canine

-

-

-

-

-

gold shop

claw
canine--Kab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

-

-

-

claw

-

-

-

-

-

traditional
canineAsian medicine
shop

-

-

-

-

recentskinclaw
whisker

-

-

-

-

recentrecentrecent

skull

1

-

-

-

recent4---

recentKab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

Kab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

traditional
canineAsian medicine
shop

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Jul-02

TRAFFIC86

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Town

Store or dealer Product

Quantity

Kab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

traditional
canineAsian medicine
skin

4

-

-

-

-

claw
whisker-

traditional
canineAsian medicine
skinKab. Tapanuli
Tegah Sibolga

Kab.
MandailingNatalgold shop

Price
(IDR)

Price (USD)

OriginAge

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information-

recentJul-02

TRAFFIC--

recent---recentrecent2---

recentJul-02

TRAFFIC

-

-

-

-

recent

claw

-

-

-

-

recentwhisker

-

-

-

-

recentcanine

-

-

-

-

-

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

claw

-

-

-

-

-

87

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Aceh

Town

Store or dealer Product

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price
(USD)

OriginAge

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

Kabupaten
Aceh Tamiang
Kabupaten
Aceh Tamiang
Kabupaten
Aceh Tamiang
Kabupaten
Aceh Tamianggold shop

canine3---

5 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

gold shop

canine1---

recentJul-02

TRAFFIC

gold shop

canine1---

7 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

gold shop

canine1---

4 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Kabupaten
Aceh Timur

gold shop

canine3---

6 years

Jul-02

TRAFFIC

Town

Store or dealer Product

Quantity

Age

Riau
Riau

DealerDealerDate ofobservation
Sept. 1998
Sept. 1998

Sourceof information
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

Market surveys for Riau

Pekanbaru
Pekanbaru
Batam
Batam
Batam

gold shop
gold shop
gold shop
gold shop
Dealerbones
live cub

1

Price
Price
(IDR)
(USD)
200 250/kg
1 001 250skin1

200 250

caninecaninecanine
skin
claw

1
1
1
1
2

502 850302 600
302 600

Origin22.50/kg
112.5 Lipat Kain,
Riau
22.5 Lipat Kain,
Riau
56.5
34
34
-

recentrecentrecentrecentrecent-88

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Riau

Town

Store or dealer Product

Riau
Riau

DealerDealerPekanbaru
Pekanbaru
Batam
Batam
Batam

gold shop
gold shop
gold shop
gold shop
DealerQuantity

bones
live cub

1

Price
Price
(IDR)
(USD)
200 250/kg
1 001 250skin1

200 250

caninecaninecanine
skin
claw

1
1
1
1
2

502 850302 600
302 600

Origin22.50/kg
112.5 Lipat Kain,
Riau
22.5 Lipat Kain,
Riau
56.5
34
34
-

Age
recentDate ofobservation
Sept. 1998
Sept. 1998

Sourceof information
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002
Nov. 2002

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

recentrecentrecentrecent-89

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Sumatra

Town

1

2 901 400

326-

recentDate ofobservation
Sept. 2001

1
1
4.5kg
2
4
6

8 503 950
2 251 700
151 300
2 002 500
351 55080 100253 650

955.5
253
17
225

-

recentrecentrecentrecentOct. 2001
37316
37316
37438

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003

PadangBukittinggi
Bukittinggi

skin
skin
bone
skin
bone
antiques Shop canine
souvenir shop claw
souvenir shop canine

Oct. 2002
Oct. 2002
Oct. 2002

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

Bukittinggi

souvenir shop canine

9Oct. 2002

TRAFFIC

Oct. 2002

TRAFFIC

Oct. 2002

TRAFFICWest SumatraWest SumatraWest SumatraWest SumatraWest Sumatra

Store orDealerhunter anddealerHunterHunterHunterDealerProduct
skinclaw
Bukittinggi

Bukittinggi

souvenir shop canine

souvenir sop

piece of skinclaw
canine (carved)
canineQuantity

2
6
1
3
4
1

Price
(IDR)

Price
(USD)

351 550-2 002
500
253 650-502
850
400 500
502 850

Origin

39.5
9
28.5

39.50-225 West
SumatraWest
Sumatra28.50– 56.50
45
56.5

-

Age

5 years
recentrecent andold-Sourceof information
FFI-ID, 2003

old
-

90

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Jambi

Town

Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi

Store orDealerdealerhunterhunterdealerdealerdealerHunter anddealerdealerdealerhunter andpoacherdealerdealerdealerdealerdealergold store

Jambi

gold store

Jambi

gold store

Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi
Jambi

Product

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price
(USD)

OriginAge

Date of
Sourceof information
observation
Jun-00 FFI-ID, 2003
Jul-00 FFI-ID ,2003
Jul-00 FFI-ID, 2003
Sept. 2000
FFI-ID, 2003
Sept. 2000
FFI-ID, 2003
Sept. 2000
FFI-ID, 2003
Feb. 2002
FFI-ID, 2003

skin
skin
skin
skin
skin
skin
bone

1
1
1
1
1
1
4

3 502 150
6 804 050
7 204 550
3 804 750
4 703 650
4 703 650
102 350

393.5
764.5
809.5
427.5
528.5
528.5
11.5

-

recentrecentrecentrecentrecentrecentrecentbone
piece of skin
skin

8.5
1
1

102 350
1 001 250
4 503 400

11.50/kg
112.5
506

-

recentrecentrecentFeb. 2002
Feb. 2002

skin and boneskin and bonefull tiger skin
stuffed tiger
stuffed tiger
claw inlayed
gold
claw
claw
claw inlayedgoldclaw inlayedgoldclaw inlayed
gold

1
1
1
2
3
1

3 804 750
4 503 400
35 012 600
30 010 800
20 007 200
542 900

427.5
506
3934
3372
2248
61

-

recentrecentrecenttwo years
recent-Jul-02 FFI-ID, 2003
Jul-02 FFI-ID, 2003
Nov. 2002
FFI-ID, 2003
Nov. 2002
FFI-ID, 2003
Nov. 2002
FFI-ID, 2003
Nov. 2002
FFI-ID, 2003

13
3
1

35 600102 350796 550

4
11.5
89.5

-

recentrecentNov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

Nov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

1

596 300

67

-

-

1

467 250

52.5

-

-

-

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
Mar-02 FFI-ID, 2003

91

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Jambi

Town

Store orDealerProduct

Jambi

gold store

claws inlayedgoldclaw inlayedgoldclaw inlayed
gold
claw
claw
claw
canineclaw
claw inlayed
il
claw

Jambi

gold store

Jambi

gold store

Jambi

gold store

Jambi
Jambi

gold store
gold store

Jambi
Jambi

gold store
gold store

canineclaw inlayedgoldclaw inlayed
gold
claw
claw

Jambi
Jambi

dealerdealercaninecanineJambi

gold store

Quantity

Price
(IDR)

Price
(USD)

OriginAge

Date ofobservation

Sourceof information

Nov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

2

872 200

98

-

-

1

698 650

78.5

-

-

2

391 600

44-

recentNov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

3
3
2
1
1
1

226 950151 300
129 050854 400
302 600
200 250

25.5
17
14.5
96
34
22.5

-

recentrecentrecentNov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

recentrecentNov. 2002
Nov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 200312

253 650

28.5-

recent1
1

1 802 250
1 250 450

202.5
140.5

-

recentrecentNov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003

1

453 900

51-

recent1
2

302 600
302 600

34
34-

recentrecentNov. 2002
Nov. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003

1
1

801 000
1 504 100

90
169

-

recentrecentDec. 2002
Dec. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003-

92

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Market surveys for Bengkulu

Town

Store orDealerProduct

Bengkulu

restaurant

skin

Bengkulu
Bengkulu
Bengkulu

restaurant
dealerhunter

skin
bone
bone

Quantity
1

Price
Price
(IDR)
(USD)
10 003 600

Origin1124-

2
2.5 kg
2.5 kg

10 003 600
151 300
151 300

1124
17/kg
17/kg

-

Age
recentrecentrecentDate ofobservation
Aug. 2001

Sourceof information
FFI-ID, 2003

Aug. 2001
Jan. 2002
Feb. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003

Date ofobservation
Aug. 2001

Sourceof information
FFI-ID, 2003

Market surveys for South Sumatra

Town

Store orDealerProduct

Bengkulu

restaurant

skin

Bengkulu
Bengkulu
Bengkulu
South SumatraSouth Sumatra

restaurant
dealerhunterhunterhunter

skin
bone
bone
skin
skin

Quantity
1

Price
Price
(IDR)
(USD)
10 003 600

Origin1124-

2
2.5 kg
2.5 kg1
1

10 003 600
151 300
151 300
4 501 620
4 501 620

1124
17/kg
17/kg
505.8
505.8

-

Age
recentrecentrecent-Aug. 2001
Jan. 2002
Feb. 2002

FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
FFI-ID, 2003
2002 FFI-ID, 2003
2002 FFI-ID, 2003

93

APPENDIX. 1. Provincial records of known incidents of human-tiger conflicts in Sumatra from 1997 to 2002
Table 1. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in North Sumatra
NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Date

Location

Conflict

1997-1998

Desa Rantau Panjang Kec. Muara
Batang Gadis Kecamatan
Mandailing NatalAn old tiger was seen regularly in
Because of the fear and anxiety caused by FFI-ID-SECP
Surveyand around the village’s agricultural the close proximity of the tiger, the villagers Team, Sept 2002
land at the edge of the forest.
captured & killed it although it had notharmed them or their livestock yet.

20-Nov-99

Gunung Tua Tapanuli Selatan

Further information not available

Villagers trapped a tiger because it they
thought it posed a danger to them. The
remains were sold to a foreigner road
construction worker.

21-Jan-00

Desa Napompa, Kec. Nasambilan
Kab. Labuhan Batu

Sarina Harahap (9 yr) was attacked
and seriously wounded by a tiger.

Then the tiger (sized: length: 190 cm, weight FFI-ID-SECP Survey
250 kg) was later killed using rat poison.
Team, Sept 2002

Nov-00Desa Mambang, Tapanuli Selatan

A tiger was frequenting a small town
in Tapanuli Selatan when it
apparently attacked and injured
somebody.

A team was organized by the Leuser
FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Management Unit to capture the animal
Team, Sept 2002
when it was decided by the Forestry
Department that the animal should be moved
to the Siantar Zoo or killed. It is not known
what happened to this animal as the LMU
team did not cat

2000 Desa Sempurna, Tapanuli Selatan,

Man attacked by tiger but survived.

Tiger has not been captured

2000 Labuhan Batu

Disturbing villagers

2001 Labuhan Batu

Small girl was attacked but survived

Further information not available

Man killed and partially eaten inplantation
Man killed and partially eaten inplantation (most likely by the sametiger as above)

Not yet captured despite continuing efforts

23 Feb. 2002

Desa Siunggas, Tapanuli Utara

28 Feb. 2002

Desa Bulupayung, Tapanuli
SelatanResultS ource

FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002

KSDA Unit I (Pak
Ambar)
Tiger was captured but no information as to KSDA Unit I (Pakwhat happened to it
Ambar)

Not yet captured despite continuing efforts

KSDA Unit I (Pak
Ambar)
KSDA Unit I (Pak
Ambar)
KSDA Unit I (Pak
Ambar)

94

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

APPENDIX. 1. Provincial records of known incidents of human-tiger conflicts in Sumatra from 1997 to 2002
Table 1. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in North Sumatra

2-Mar-02

Oct-02

Desa Buluh Payuh, Sipirok
Tapanuli Selatan

Siregar (25 yr) was killed and partially Further information not available
eaten by a tiger. The village was only
5 km from Desa Sunggas (above).
Desa Kendit Kec bahorok Langkat Tiger preyed on four people’s
The incidents were reported to TNGL.
livestock.

FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002
FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002

Table 2. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in Aceh
Date

Location

1997

Manggeng – Aceh Selatan

1999
1999
2000

VictimResultTiger reported to be preying on
It was subsequently trapped. Further
livestock.
information is/ is not available
Desa Jeuring – Lokop Aceh Timur A tiger was reportedly attacking
It was eventually poisoned.
humans and livestock.
Singkil – Aceh Singkil
A tiger was reportedly attacking
The tiger was later caught and killed.
livestock in the area.
Tanah Merah, Aceh Utara
A lactating female tigers was trapped The tiger was killed and milk was taken for

S ource

FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002
FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002
FFI-ID-SECP Survey
Team, Sept 2002
FFI-ID-SECP Survey

95

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Table 3. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in West Sumatra
Date

Location

VictimFeb. 2000

Pungut Mudik area; Pungut/Rena
Pematik Enclave

Jun-00Air Dikit River TNKS

Aug. 2000

Lubuk Pinang/ Pesisir Selatan

Aug. 2000

Sungai Penuh Kerinci

Sept. 2000

Kec Gunung Kerinci

Reportedly killed one goat and
Tiger poisoned on instructions of senior
FFI-ID Tiger Progress
subsequently a dog close to themember of administration of this ICDP
Report 2001
Pungut Mudik village
village.
Man dragged out of his forest resting Further information not available.
FFI-ID Tiger Progress
hut by legs and badly bitten before
Report 2001
logging friends could drive animal
off.
Illegal loggers complained about the Tiger shot.
FFI-ID, Tiger Progresspresence of a tiger and the perceived
Report 2001
threat it posed.
Tigress with two cubs killed dog
Unknown
FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
guarding farmland at forest edge.
Report 2001
Attack took place during daylight
hours.
Dog killed by tiger when tied up and Further information not available.
FFI-ID, Tiger Progressleft unattended over night.
Report 2001th
3 goats, 5 chickens and one duck
Following November 16 this tiger was not FFI-ID, Tiger
eaten by tiger. All incidents took
seen again until it was shot January Progress Reportplace at night and not during
approximately 6km from this site.
2001
daylight hours with animals takenfrom enclosures or underneath
occupied houses
Man bitten in the leg by a tiger while Tiger was hunted by the community but it FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
farming his land.
escaped.
Report 2001
One dog killed
Neighbors tried to shoot tiger but failed. Dog FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
carcass subsequently baited with but did not Report 2001
return to kill. Local informants advise that
this tiger had previously escaped from a trap
and had a rope around its forequarters andbelly.

9-16 Nov. 2000 Dusun Masjid and dusun Batu
Kijang;Nov. 2000

Sungai Manau Kab Merangin
Sarolanggun

15 Dec. 2000

Gunung Kerinci

ResultS ource96

NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Table 3. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in West Sumatra
Date

Location

VictimResult19 Dec.
Danau Kerinci
2000
18 March 2001 Jangkat, Merangin

While out hunting one dog killed and Further information not available.
eaten by tiger.
One water buffalo calf killed.
Tiger likely killed, but not confirmed.

25 March 2001

Jangkat, Merangin

One water buffalo killed.

Dec. 2001

Gunung Kerinci

Dog killed at the edge of farmland

July 2001-Feb. Central Kerinci area:
2002

Animal depredating dogs along a
25km (n-s) strip of farmland incentral Kerinci valley area

Not fewer than 40 dogs.

S ource

FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
Report 2001
FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
Report 2001
There was strong pressure from the FFI-ID, Tiger Progresscommunity to kill this animal and despite the Report 2001
PHS team’s work in this area it was
subsequently trapped and shot. The tiger
was divided up amongst certain villagers andthe skin was sold.
Subsequently a Palembang man came to the FFI-ID, Tiger Progress
village offering to kill this tiger although the Report 2001
offer was not taken up. Given the poachingactivities of certain individuals in this area,
the fact that this tiger is not reported to havetaken other livestock may
Adult or young adult tiger (Batak Tiger) FFI-ID, 2003
taking dogs in farm land up to 2.5km fromforest edge. Possibly two animals (JulyOctober) with a tiger reported shot (poacher
named) in early November.
Permission was requested in late February
for this animal to be caught with aid of
Taman Safari vet team and moved to a safearea. The tiger was shot dead, second weekof March while the team was awaiting adecision from PHKA on intervention

97

Table 3. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in West Sumatra
NOWHERE TO HIDE: The Trade in Sumatran Tiger

Date

Location

VictimResultS ourceNov. 2001

Jembatan Dua, Sungai Penuh,
Kerinci
Sungai Asam, North Kerinci

1 goat killed

Tiger not killed.

FFI-ID, 2003

Feb. 2002
Feb. 2002
Mar-02
May-02
Aug. 2002
Aug. 2002
Sept. 2002

Talang Lindung, Sungai Penuh,
Kerinci
Renah Kayu Embun, Kerinci
Nilo Dingin village, Merangin
Birun village, Sungai Manau,
Merangin
Birun village, Sungai Manau,
Merangin
Perentak village, Sungai Manau,
Merangin

Farmer seriously injured by tiger Tiger not killed.
FFI-ID, 2003
(believed sub adult male)
Water buffalo attacked by female Tigers not killed.
FFI-ID, 2003
with cub. Not seriously injured
Two dogs, one chicken
Tiger not killed.
FFI-ID, 2003
Chickens
Patrols taken up and the tiger was chased FFI-ID, 2003
away.
Adult female with two cubs ear Adult female killed
FFI-ID, 2003
village
One goat
Two cubs: - one (female, aged six months)
FFI-ID, 2003
shot deadOne chicken
One cub: aged six months, shot dead
FFI-ID, 2003

Table 4. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in Jambi
Date

Location

VictimResultS ource

May 19 2002

Kumpeh Hulu

Two farmers killed by tiger attack

No further information available

Jakarta Post June 18
2002

S ource

Table 5. List of known human-tiger conflict incidents in Riau
Date

Location

VictimResultMid 2002

Riau Province

Five people killed by tiger attacks

In August residents launched a search for Reuters Nov 07 2002
the animal. They found a young male andkilled it in an act of revenge. However they
did not get the right animal as another man
was found dead two weeks later. Seeking
help from a zoo on Java the animal was l98

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works toensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat
to the conservation of nature. It has offices covering mostparts of the world and works in close co-operation with theSecretariat of the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)For further information contact:
The Director
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
Unit 9-3A, 3rd Floor
Jalan SS23/11, Taman SEA
Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Malaysia
Telephone: (603) 7880 3940
Fax: (603) 7882 0171
Email: tsea@po.jaring.my
The Executive Director
TRAFFIC International
219a Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 0DL
United Kingdom
Telephone: (44) 1223 277427
Fax: (44) 1223 277237

MARCH 2004

Email: traffic@trafficint.org