ILLUMINATING
THE BLIND SPOT:
A Study on Illegal Trade in
Leopard Parts in India(2001-2010)

Rashid H. Raza
Devendar S. Chauhan
M. K. S. Pasha
Samir Sinha

A TRAFFIC REPORTThis report was publishedwith the kind support of© 2012 TRAFFIC India,
All rights reservedISBN 978-1-85850-254-0
Reproduction in any form of the material in this publication,
whether in full or in part, may be done only with due credit
to the publisher.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark
ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC is a joint programmeof WWF and IUCN. In India, TRAFFIC operates as aprogramme division of WWF-India.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarilyreflect those of the TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN.
While utmost care has been taken to publish the document
accurately, TRAFFIC India will not be responsible for any
errors.
Suggested Citation: Raza, R.H.; Chauhan, D.S; Pasha,
M.K.S & Sinha, S. (2012). Illuminating the blind spot: A
study on illegal trade in Leopard parts in India (2001-2010).
TRAFFIC India/WWF India. New Delhi, India.
Photo Credits: Cover Photo by Kalyan Verma
Design and Printed by Kriti Communications
Map Disclaimer: The designations of the geographicalentities in this publication and the presentation of thematerial do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of WWF-India or TRAFFIC India,
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.

Kalyan Verma

Published by TRAFFIC India,
New Delhi, India

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT:
A Study on Illegal Trade in
Leopard Parts in India(2001-2010)

G. S. Bhardwaj

Rashid H. Raza
Devendar S. Chauhan
M. K. S. Pasha
Samir Sinha

CONTENTS
Acknowledgmentsiv

Forewordv

Executive Summaryvii

Introduction

1

1.1 Population and conservation status2

1.2 Background information on illegal trade6

1.3 Objectives

8

2 Methods

9

2.1 Spatial analysis

10

2.1.1Assigning seizure data to standard locations

10

2.1.2 Delineating hotspots

11

2.2 Estimating the magnitude of trade13

2.2.1 Estimating minimum number of Leopards killed

13from seizure of body parts
2.2.2 Estimating the undetected fraction of Leopard trade13

2.2.2.1 Estimating the total number of localities in illegal

14

trade using mark-recapture statistics
2.2.2.2 Estimating the total number of Leopards in illegal trade17

3 Results & Discussion

19

3.1 Volume of trade20

3.2 Spatio-temporal trends

23

3.2.1 Hotspots

23

3.2.2 Temporal trends

26

3.3 Conclusions

29

4 Recommendations

31

4.1 Improve understanding of Leopard trade dynamics

32

4.2 Strengthen wildlife law enforcement32

4.3 Improve scientific knowledge on Leopards

33

Referencesii

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

34

List of Figures
1.1 A compilation of Leopard densities in Asia

3

2.1 Assigning seizure data to standard locations

12

2.2 Map of India showing the geographic zones, states and territories

15

2.3 Bar graph of localities accounting for numbers of
Leopards killed and in trade.

18

3.1 Kernel density map of seizure locations25

3.2 Successive seizures with respect to days separating them26

3.3 Ten year trends in illegal trade in Leopards

27

3.4 Estimated trend in localities active in Leopard trade28

List of Tables
1.1 Density estimates for Leopard in Asia

4

2.1 Fitted mark recapture models

16

2.2 Distribution of numbers of Leopards killed by localities

18

3.1 State wise annual summary of Leopard body part seizure incidents

21

3.2 Reported Leopard body part seizure data summary byState and Union Territory for 2001-2010

22

3.3 Data summary of the reported Leopard body part seizures bygeographical zones for 2001-201023

3.4 Estimated number of localities involved in Leopard tradeduring 2001-2010

23

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TRAFFIC expresses sincere gratitude to the Secretary General and CEO, WWF-India, Mr Ravi
Singh for his encouragement and support for this study. To the State Forest Departments ofDelhi, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, and West Bengal for making available the data on Leopard body part seizures intheir States. Financial support for this study was provided by WWF-UK.
We are thankful to the staff of the Library and Documentation Centre at the Wildlife Institute ofIndia, Dehradun, for providing assistance and support for compilation of news reports. The timeand effort put in by Professors.Y.V.Jhala and Qamar Qureshi (Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun) in discussing and reviewing the mark-recapture methods used in this report at various
stages is gratefully acknowledged. Professor S.P.Goyal (Head, Wildlife Forensics Lab, Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehradun) kindly made available the data on the weight of Leopard claws thatwas useful in converting Leopard numbers in instances where total weight of seized Leopard
claws was recorded.
Dr Advait Edgaonkar (Indian Institute of Forest Management) reviewed this report and provided
insights into Leopard ecology and distribution from his extensive experience of research on
Leopards. Joseph Vettakavan (WWF-India) shared Leopard density estimate for Moyar-Sigurfrom the ongoing Tiger project and also reviewed this report. Dr Matthew Linkie from Fauna &Flora International provided peer review of the mark-recapture methods used in this report.
TRAFFIC is grateful to all of the above.
We also thank our colleagues at TRAFFIC’s office in India for their support: Akhilesh Kumar
helped with the data collation, and Dilpreet B. Chhabra worked through numerous drafts of thisreport with patience and meticulous detail. TRAFFIC’s James Compton, Pauline Verheij, Chris
R. Shepherd, Sarah Stoner, Steven Broad and Richard Thomas are also thanked for their
feedback and comments which improved earlier versions of this report.
The Rufford foundation is gratefully acknowledged for its support to TRAFFIC in the final
stages of production of this report.

iv

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in Indiav

vi

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Leopard Panthera pardus is a widespread species in India. It is protected by national law(Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, listed inAppendix I). However illegal trade in Leopard
body parts (skin, bones, and claws) continues to threaten the survival of the species in the wild.
Even though the Leopard is found all across the country there is no reliable estimate of its
population. A review of literature regarding population densities of Leopard in Asia indicatesthat although the species may have a wide geographical range, it is unlikely to occur in relatively
high abundance. Leopard-human conflict is a serious problem in India and the subcontinent andis another cause of significant mortality of Leopards.
TRAFFIC undertook a study on the illegal trade in Leopard parts in India with an aim toprovide, firstly, indicators of the severity of the trade in Leopard parts in India, andsecondly, to identify regions where effective and enhanced enforcement measures will help
to have a significant impact in curbing this trade.
A database of seizures of Leopard body parts in India was compiled from newspaper records,
supplemented by records of the State Forest departments for the years 2001-2010. The date andlocation of seizure, and type and quantity of Leopard parts seized were recorded. No other recordof mortality, either natural or due to conflict with people was included. Thus this databaseexclusively reflects reported incidents of illegal trade of Leopard body parts and probableminimum number of Leopards killed and in illegal trade. However, it is acknowledged that
Leopards killed in conflict may end up in illegal trade. Conflict is a significant cause of mortalityof Leopards and its linkages to illegal trade need to be studied in greater detail.
During 2001-2010, a total of 420 incidents of seizures of Leopard body parts were reported from209 localities in 21 out of 35 territories in India (27 States, 7 Union territories and 1 National
capital territory of Delhi). Most of the States (20 out of 27) have reported seizure incidents,
123 out of 593 (21%) of districts have reported one or more seizures during the past 10 years.
These reported seizures account for at least 1127 Leopards poached and in illegal trade. Thistranslates to a recorded seizure of 2.2 Leopards every week.
Another key finding is that Leopard skins dominate the illegal market of Leopard body parts:
371 (88.3%) seizure incidents involved only skins. An additional 23 (5.5%) incidents involved
skins with other parts such as claws, bones or skulls. Seizures of bones are a very minor fraction
whether alone or with other body parts.
However, these data only reflect the trade which was detected. In order to estimate the‘undetected’part of the trade ‘Mark-Recapture open population models*’were used.

* Mark-Recapture is a method commonly used in ecology to estimate population size.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in Indiavii

As per this analysis, it was estimated that a total of 424.95 ± 33.97 (mean ± standard error)
localities were active in Leopard trade during 2001-2010.
The total estimated number of Leopards poached and in illegal trade in the decade of
2001-2010 is 2294.54 ± 403.34 standard deviation (95% confidence interval,
1565.86 - 3139.00). This gives an estimate of at least four Leopards poached and in illegal
trade, every week for the past 10 years.
These results more than double all reported Leopard related statistics on illegal trade (total
number of localities involved in trade and the total number of Leopards killed). However
keeping in mind the nature and limitations of the data, these estimates are conservatively
presented as an improved lower limit of the magnitude of Leopard trade in India.
Delhi has emerged as the most important hub of illegal trade in Leopards, with more than 26% of
all Leopards accounted for in reported seizures. It is followed by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
Together with the neighbouring states of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (which also recorded
sizeable volume of seizures) this region forms the epicentre of illegal trade in Leopard parts.
Uttarakhand leads in the number of incidents of seizures involving relatively small number of
Leopards killed, indicating that this State is a major source. This is in contrast to Delhi, which is amajor centre of collection and trade of Leopard body parts. In Delhi, individual seizure incidents
have generally involved larger numbers of Leopard parts and products than seizure incidents inother States. Northern India accounts for more than half of all seizure incidents nationwide andaccounts for 67.8% of Leopards killed. In fact 75% of localities associated with trade of Leopard
body parts are likely to be concentrated in 7% of the country, in the northern zone. Although thehigh concentrations of localities in northern India stands out in contrast to other regions, lower
levels of reporting or relatively weaker law enforcement effort and effectiveness may obscurepatterns in other regions. As such, the overall results should be read with these caveats in mind.
This is especially true for north-eastern India from where very few seizure records are available.
For the entire country, the mean number of days separating two successive seizure incidents is
8.6 days; however 56% of seizures are separated by just five days or less. More than 70% of
seizures have occurred within 10 days of each other. On average 3.5 seizures every month has
been recorded for the past 10 years. Since this is only the detected part of the trade, it indicates ahigh magnitude of trade in Leopard body parts.
TRAFFIC India’s findings on Leopard trade are an indication of the enormity of this threat to the
future of Leopard in the wild. Some of the essential and immediate steps required to beundertaken in curbing this threat to Leopards are given below.

viii

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Recommendations
Improve understanding of the dynamics of Leopard trade in India and across the region
Creation of a systematic, centralized and publicly accessible database on wildlife crime isessential in understanding dynamics of illegal wildlife trade. An impressive baseline has been
established with the launch of ‘tigernet’ (www.tigernet.nic.in/), an official database of the
National Tiger Conservation Authority on Tiger mortality and crimes in India. This initiativeneeds to be expanded to other species highly impacted by illegal trade, including the Leopard.
By its very nature of being able to survive in forest edges, the Leopard comes into conflict withpeople. Human-Leopard conflict is a major driver for Leopard mortality and while it has not been
analysed for the purposes of this study, further research is needed in order to evaluate how suchconflict may be facilitating poaching of Leopards and illegal trade in their parts.
Strengthen Wildlife Law Enforcement
Despite recent progress, wildlife law enforcement continues to receive a low priority in India.
Within the country, a Task Force needs to be created for States with high rates of illegal trade in
Leopard. The Task Force will help to analyse the patterns of these crimes and target the key
offenders and should have representatives across multiple agencies such as the Forest, Police,
Para-Military, Army, Railway Protection Force, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau to coordinate such actions.
Since regions highly vulnerable to illegal trade in Leopards straddle the borders of several
adjacent States (in the northern, central and southern zones), enhanced interstate coordinationand communications between enforcement agencies would be essential.
Given the highly organised and transnational nature of wildlife crime, as in the case of Tiger
and Leopard skin and bones trade, an organised multinational effort needs to be put in place.
The recently established South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) and India’sbilateral agreements with various countries including Nepal and China are good opportunities tobuild upon such regional collaboration and support. Many of the issues related to strengtheningof wildlife law enforcement, are not specific to Leopards alone but, if implemented well, will also
have a likely significant, positive impact on efforts to control of illegal wildlife trade overall.
Improve scientific knowledge on Leopards
While information on the Leopard-human conflict and its resolution is rapidly accumulating,there is little knowledge base to assess the impact of high rates of human-induced mortality on
Leopards. Knowledge on Leopard’s ecology and biology remains scarce. India does not have anational program for population estimation and monitoring for the Leopard and little scientific
data exist on the vital rates of their populations. It is critical to build the knowledge base on
Leopard ecology, if this Prince of Cats is to be conserved with its effective ecological role as a key
predator in the ecosystems it inhabits.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in Indiaix

x

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

1. INTRODUCTION
Kalyan VermaILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

11 INTRODUCTION
The Leopard Panthera pardus is found throughout India with the exception of deserts and the
Sundarban mangroves, it has a wide altitudinal range and occurs all along the Himalayas with the
exception of high-altitude deserts (Khan, 1986, Daniel, 1996; Johnsingh et al., 1991) and it is themost common and widely distributed species among large carnivores in India (Johnsingh et al.,1991). The Leopard is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prohibits internationalcommercial trade in the species (and its body parts or derivatives) between all CITES Parties.
India has been a Party to CITES since 1976. Within India, the trade of live or dead Leopard or its
body parts and derivatives has been prohibited since the implementation of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act (WLPA) in 1972. However, the international demand for Leopard
skins, bones and other products continues to encourage poaching and illegal trade, threatening
the survival of the species.
TRAFFIC undertook a study to document and analyse the illegal trade in Leopard parts in India.
Data across 10 years (2001-2010) were collated to understand the magnitude of illegal trade andidentify the geographic ‘hotspots’ of trade to aid in conservation and enforcement efforts.
By synthesizing detailed information on this illegal trade, it is aimed, firstly, to provide,indicators of the severity of the trade in Leopard parts in India, and secondly, to identify
geographic areas where interventions, including more effective and enhanced enforcement
measures, would lead to a significant decrease in this illegal trade. These are essential first steps
in developing strategies to combat this deadly trade threatening the survival of Leopards in India.
1.1 Population and conservation status
Although the Leopard is the most widely distributed large carnivore in India, information on its
distribution and abundance is remarkably scarce (based on literature searches conducted for thisreport). In fact, comparatively more is known at present regarding the distribution and abundanceof Tiger Panthera tigris, a much rarer species. The Leopard is understood to be widespread(Daniel, 1996) and populations exist outside India’s
network of Protected Areas (PAs), as well as in suboptimal habitats and human-dominated landscapes(Seidensticker et al., 1990).
In 17 ‘Tiger bearing’ states in India, the Leopard
occupies ca 1 74 066 km2 of area, nearly double the area
occupied by the Tiger (Jhala et al., 2008). However afiner resolution and more detailed analysis, covering 13
districts in south-central Madhya Pradesh found thatnearly 80% of the 52 370 km2 predominantly forested
landscape may be poor or marginal quality habitat for
Leopards, largely due to lack of wild prey species and
TRAFFIC India

2

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

proximity of villages (Edgaonkar, 2008). Further, only 12% of the 2569 transects surveyed insouth-central Madhya Pradesh recorded Leopard presence (Edgaonkar, 2008).
Even in regions such as north-eastern India with more than 60% forest cover, there areindications that the Leopard may not be abundant. A camera trapping study conducted in
Namdapha Tiger Reserve inArunachal Pradesh, did not record a single photo capture of Leopard,with an effort of >1500 trap days (Datta et al., 2008). This points to the rarity of Leopardsin the landscape, presumably due to extensive hunting of carnivores as well as their prey species,(Datta et al., 2008).
Determining population numbers of Leopards is a bigger challenge still. Population monitoring
for a species such as the Leopard is difficult owing to the elusive nature of the animal and its
widespread distribution. A compilation of 28 estimates from 19 studies suggests that densities
above 10 individuals/100 km2 may be quite rare (See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1). Considering that
ecologists have tended to study Leopards in the best possible habitats in the landscape, and that in
the majority of its range in India conditions may be less than favourable, densities in most part of
the range might be fewer than 5 individuals/100 km2.
Thus although the species may be widespread in geographical extent, it is unlikely that it
occurs in relatively high abundance.
Figure 1.1
A compilation of Leopard densities in Asia

A compilation of Leopard densities in Asia based on information compiled in Table 1.1. Most of the estimates are22
fewer than 10 individuals/100 km , the majority being fewer than 5/100 km .Although some studies are from outside
India, they may represent habitat conditions in India. Two studies reported estimates from the same study sites.These
were included as separate estimates considering that these two cases represent changed conditions over different
time periods.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

3

Table 1.1
Density estimates for Leopard in Asia1
Site

Density Standard Country
Error
South Armenia
0.34
Armenia
3.06
ArmeniaSouth Armenia (potential density 7.18
based on prey abundance)
1.04
0.01
BhutanJigme Sigme Wangchuk N.PHigh altitude forests
Chilla-2004
9.76
3.5
India
Chilla-2005
8.68
2.8
India
Chilla-2006
3
2.11
India
Chilla-2007
2.07
1.63
India
Gir
14.3
India
Junnar (Mahatrashtra)
3.85
India
Kamti
7.5
2.8
India
Churana
9.3
2
India
Lagda
7.3
5.1
India
Sanjay Gandhi National Park
33
India
Sariska
Moyar valley-Sigur Plateau(Nilgiris-Western Ghats)

1

23.5
6.24

8.12

India
India

Java (favourable habitat)
20
Java (moderately favourable
10
habitat)4
Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife
Sanctuary-Thailand (Dry forests)
Huai Kha Khaeng-1996
7.88

Indonesia
Indonesia

2.97

ThailandHuai Kha Khaeng-1997

5.21

1.59

ThailandHuai Kha Khaeng-1998

4.86

2.56

Thailand

Kaeng Krachan National Park
Bamu, Fars
Royal Bardia National Park
Jabal Samhan Nature Reserve
Southwest Primorski Krai
RuhunaWilpattu National Park
Global

4.78
1.87
0.07
5
0.4
1.2
0.2
17.86
3.3
0.5-37.04

Thailand
Iran
Nepal
Oman
RussiaSri Lanka
Sri Lanka
GlobalThailand

References
Khorozyan et al. (2008)
Khorozyan et al. (2008)
Wang and Macdonald (2009)
Harihar et al. (2011)
Harihar et al. (2011)
Harihar et al. (2011)
Harihar et al. (2011)
Vijayan and Pati (2002)
Athreya et al. (2004)
Edgaonkar (2008)
Edgaonkar (2008)
Edgaonkar (2008)
Forest dept., quoted in
Athreya et al. (2007)
Chauhan et al. (2005)
Pers. comm. Joseph Vettakavan(WWF- Tiger project report in
prep)
Santiapillai and Ramono (1992)
Santiapillai and Ramono(1992)
Rabinowitz (1989)
Simcharoen andDuangchantrasiri (2008)
Simcharoen andDuangchantrasiri (2008)
Simcharoen andDuangchantrasiri (2008)
Ngoprasert (2004)
Ghoddousi et al. (2010)
Wegge et al. (2009)
Spalton et al. (2006)
Kostyria et al. (2003)
Santiapillai et al. (1982)
Eisenberg and Lockhart (1972)
Carbone and Gittleman (2002)

With the possible exception of the Russian study, all studies outside India included here cover habitat conditions likely to occur in India.

4

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Although no reliable population figures or trends are available for the entire country, there has
been a long standing anxiety among biologists and conservationists that the Leopard in India is inserious decline (Talwar and Aziz, 1996; Chellam, 2010). It is noteworthy that these reports are
separated by 14 years yet they have expressed similar concerns.
In the 1990s, perception of Leopard as a problem animal was widespread, as it is now. Talwar andAziz (1996) point out that in 1995 the Government of Himachal Pradesh had made a formal
request to India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests, to cull 270 Leopards, one-third of theState’s putative 821 Leopards at that time, which they considered in excess of what the State
could support, and hence, responsible for Leopard-human conflict. It is noteworthy that no
reliable population estimate of Leopards in Himachal Pradesh was available then (or now).
There is still a disproportionate emphasis on the problem that the Leopard causes in comparison
to the crisis that the Leopard is facing.

Kalyan VermaThe population of Leopards found outside the network of PAs is highly vulnerable. When living
near human populations, they are often regarded as dangerous owing to livestock depredationand posing a threat to humans. This has been documented by case studies in the Indian
subcontinent (Athreya et al., 2011; Chauhan and Goyal, 2000; Negi, 1996), including examplesof high intensity conflict in Pakistan (Lodhi, 2007; Dar et al., 2009). Conflict has been
documented in two protected areas in the Himalayan regions of Bhutan, (Sangay and Vernes,2008) and in Bardia National Park, Nepal (Tamang and Baral, 2008). The volume compiled byLoveridge et al (2010) includes a national overview of large carnivore conflict in Bhutan as well
as a global perspective of how wild felids interact with humans. In some States in India, Leopardhuman conflict has reached serious proportions. The Forest Department of the State of

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

5Maharashtra reports 902 human injuries and 201 deaths due to Leopard attacks in six years(1999-2005, [Athreya et al. 2011]). According to reported official statistics in Uttarkhand,during the 11 years between 2000 and 2011, 363 persons were injured and 204 killed in Leopard
attacks. Ninety Leopards were declared man-eaters during this period, with the majority of theseanimals being killed (Kimothi, 2011). Leopards are often harmed by humans when they predateon livestock and are killed, with increasing frequency in recent times, because of actual or
perceived threats to human life. Thus Leopard-human conflict is also a significant source ofmortality of Leopards.
Leopards receive considerable protection along with co-existing carnivores within PAs,
acknowledging that this is dependent on the effectiveness of patrolling and law enforcement, butthere are no clear management strategies to conserve individuals residing outside PAs.

TRAFFIC India

It is also noteworthy that there is evidence that areas with good Tiger densities are often low
density Leopard habitats, presumably due to competition from Tigers (Odden et al., 2010).
Some research findings show that Leopard densities have been observed to decline as Tiger
populations start to recover (Simcharoen and Duangchantrasiri, 2008; Harihar et al., 2011).

1.2 Background information on illegal trade
Although there are insufficient data to characterize the extent of illegal trade in Leopard parts in
the 1990s, some indication can be obtained from the seizures carried out during this period.
Talwar and Aziz (1996) record seizures of at least 262 Leopard skins between July 1993 andDecember 1994, including a single seizure of 87 skins from Darjeeling district in the State ofWest Bengal. They also extensively discussed the rampant poaching and easy availability of
Leopard skins in the illegal market in the early 1990s.
The years 1999 & 2000 saw some high volume seizures such as the seizure of 50 Leopard skins in1999 in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (The Times of India- 20th December 1999), two seizures in
Uttarakhand during May 2000 yielding 80 Leopard skins (Indian Express 11th and 24th May 2000)

6

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

and a seizure of 70 Leopard skins and 18 000 clawsbelonging
to at least 1000 Leopards2 in January 2000, in Khaga, Uttar
Pradesh (The Hindu 13th January 2000). The seizure in
Khaga was the largest seizure of Leopard body parts everrecorded globally. This particular seizure changed the overall
understanding of illegal wildlife trade dynamics in India. It
revealed the massive scale and level of organization within
the illegal trade network and a continuing demand for
Leopard products. These records alone represent at least
1392 Leopards killed and in illegal trade during 1991-2000.
In traditional Chinese medicine, Leopard body parts are
sometimes prescribed as substitutes for Tiger body parts(Pringle et al., 1999; Sellar, 1999; Nowell, 2000) and thispersistent belief in traditions, whether medicinal or folkbased, that Leopard or other felid bones bring health or vigour
to potential consumers, may further increase pressure on the
Leopard. In India, a key concern is the illicit trade of Leopard
body parts to other countries in Asia. Several prosecutions
involving illegal trade in wildlife products have occurred in
Nepal, which acts as a transit route for wildlife trade between
India and China (Shah et al., 2004). In April 2003, police in
Syoyambhu region of Nepal seized 109 Leopard skins from abus headed towards Dhanding, which is a traditional route
TRAFFIC between Nepal and China (Shah et al., 2004).
Several investigations have suggested that the majority of Leopard skins in trade originate inIndia, especially those in the ethnic Tibetan regions of China (Anonymous, 1986; Barnes, 1989;
Heinen et al., 1995; Nowell and Jackson, 1996; Kumar and Wright, 1997; Wright and Kumar,1999). In October 2003, China seized a very large consignment containing 32 Tiger skins, 579
Leopard skins and 665 Otter skins in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China (Banks andNewman, 2004). These items were recovered from two Nepali nationals and many of these skins
were suspected to have originated in India. Nepal’s role as a transit country is largely due to thefact that large stretches of India’s international border with Nepal is porous. A variety of items,
including Tiger and Leopard parts and products, are smuggled across by experienced porters who
know the paths to avoid guard posts (Pringle et al., 1999).
Oswell (2010) found that many of the Leopard (and Tiger) parts on sale in northern Myanmar andnorthern Laos were reported to have originated in India and were then smuggled across the IndoMyanmar border. Shepherd and Nijman (2008) also found Tiger and Leopard parts reportedly
being smuggled by air to Yangon from India and then overland to Tachilek in northern Myanmar.

218000 claws = 1000 Leopards, since a Leopard like all cats has only 18 claws, (Nowak 2005).

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India7

1.3 Objectives
With this background, the following objectives were defined for this study to understand andhighlight the pattern and trends in Leopard trade in India in the decade of 2001-2010:
1. Estimate the magnitude of trade in India of Leopard parts.
2. Describe the geographic spread of India’s trade in Leopard parts andidentify ‘hotspots’of trade.

TRAFFIC India

3. Analyse the temporal trend of the trade in Leopard parts.

WWF-India

Leghold trap used to trap big cats including Leopard and Tiger

8

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

2. METHODS
Axel Gebauer

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

92 METHODS
A database of seizure incidents involving Leopards for 10 years (2001-2010) was compiled.
Information on the status and extent of illegal trade in Leopard body parts in India was collectedfrom published literature: reports (including annual reports from the CITES Management
Authority of India3), books, journals, scientific articles and newspapers. Forest departments ofeight States which showed high levels of Leopard-related crime (Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal) as
well as the National Capital Territory of Delhi provided data on Leopard seizures from theirjurisdictions. Data from the forest departments cover the period of 2002-2008. This added avaluable 120 unique incidents to the database4. Care was taken to eliminate records duplicated in
the media and forest department records.
The chief source of data however remains the newspaper reports of seizures involving Leopard
body parts. Newspapers comprising national and regional dailies published between 2001 and2010 were scanned for any news item relating to illegal trade in the species. Thus, all records inthe database are backed by news reports published by print or electronic media in the publicdomain. The database recorded date and location of seizure and type and quantity of Leopard
parts seized. No other record of mortality either reported as natural or due to conflict with people
was included. Thus the data exclusively reflect incidents and mortality related to illegal trade in
Leopard parts. Some limitations of the data are that some regions like north-east India seem
poorly covered, and data are sparse in particular in the first half of the decade. Regrettably theselimitations are unavoidable in an analysis of wide spatio-temporal spread, with Verheij et al.
(2010) using a similar methodology for analysis of trends in Tiger trade. The analytical results
were interpreted with these limitations in mind.
2.1 Spatial analysis.
2.1.1 Assigning seizure data to standard locations
All data were geo-referenced and brought into a geographic information system (GIS) for
visualization and further analysis. Based on the information available in the reports each incident
was geo-referenced to the closest point possible, e.g. places in large cities were geo-referenced
using Google Earth. However this strategy leads to a non-standard list of localities, as it isdifficult to define a “location”. The location of seizures is reported at various levels of resolution,e.g. a single location can be a reported as a specific building (a hotel), a street address or an
administrative sub-unit. However it is important to define what is meant by a “location” such thateach seizure record is accurately assigned to a predefined unit. This makes comparisons possible
and analysis replicable.
Assigning incidents to sub-districts, known as talukas in Indian administrative terminology,
leads to greater aggregation and hence loss of information, therefore a point database of
populated places of India (from Gridded Population of the World database3

4

Although the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade database records two seizures of Leopard body parts from India by the United States during
this period, these incidents have not been included in the analysis.
Analysis was done both with and without including the additional data set received from the Forest Departments. The overall geographicalpattern from both analyses shows close correspondence.

10

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/) was used as the ‘standard’ list of localities in India andeach record was assigned to one of these. After removing duplicate coordinates there are 3539
‘standard locations’ of populated places in India (defined as “locations with 1000 or more
persons”). These may be considered equivalent to ‘large villages’. Voronoi polygons were built
based on these points, by joining the lines dividing the distance between two points in equal
halves5. Thus it provides a convenient way of assigning points to the nearest ‘standard location’.
Regions with high population density get smaller polygons and vice versa. A point was assigned
to a locality if it fell inside the polygon of that location. The 420 incidents were thus assigned to a
total of 209 locations. The process is depicted in Figure 2.1, showing assigned localities aroundDelhi.
2.1.2 Delineating hotspots of illegal trade in Leopard parts
A simple depiction of seizure locations
provides an approximate understandingof where concentrations of illegal tradeare likely to be. However to delineate
these concentrations of illegal trade or‘hotspots’ of illegal trade in Leopard
parts, inferences about the intervening
space between two points must be made.
This situation is analogous to analysis ofanimal space use, where inferences are
made about concentration of activity(utilization of area) based on locational
data gathered by simple observations or
Xu Ling/TRAFFIC East Asia
radio-tracking. Kernel Density
Estimation (KDE), statistical data smoothing methods (Crawley, 2007) are highly recommended
methods of animal space use analysis (Worton, 1989, Hooge and Eichenlaub, 2000).
KDE has been used for mapping crime hotspots as well (Chainey & Ratcliffe, 2005;
Chainey et al., 2008).
KDE applied in two dimensions (such as with locational data with latitude and longitude
coordinates) generates a continuous space filling model that estimates the relative concentrationof points. In case of animal space use KDE gives a probabilistic map based estimate of relative
amount of time the animal subject spends in a given area and hence the probability of it being
present in that area. The area enclosing the 50% probability zone is considered the core area
within a home range. The area enclosing the 95% probability is almost the entire home range ofthe animal. It can also be said that there is a 50% probability of finding the given animal in the area
enclosing the 50% probability zone and so forth. Applying this approach to locations of seizuresof Leopard body parts, we can identify areas which are most intensively used by criminals
dealing with illegal trade in Leopard parts.
5

Voronoi polygons have a unique property that any location within the polygon is closer to its ‘central’ point than to the ‘central’ point of any
adjacent region (see the central points, in this case populated localities [represented by blue dots] in Figure 2.1). Thus if a seizure location falls
within the Voronoi polygon enclosing a populated locality, it can be reliably said that the seizure location is closest to this particular populated
locality and not the adjacent.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

11Thus extending this approach to mapping criminal activity, the areas enclosing the respective
probability zones based on locations of seizure incidents reflect the probability of a seizure
occurring in the enclosed area.
Analyses for this study were performed in Arcview version 3.2 using the animal movement
extension, developed for ecological analysis of home ranges and movement patterns of wildlife(Hooge and Eichenlaub, 2000). It is worth noting that some professional criminologists also findthe animal movement extensions software useful for criminological data analysis (Levine,
2007).
Figure 2.1
Assigning seizure data to standard locations

The example illustrates the method by which geo-referenced points were assigned to standard location database.
The figure shows seizure points in and around Delhi, and the Voronoi polygons to which these points were assigned.
Note that it is possible for a ‘standard location’ to be within an adjoining State if the seizure location is nearest to a
populated locality in that neighbouring State. However, for all tabulations done to compare State-by-State, the exact
seizure locations relative to State geographical boundaries were used.

12

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

2.2 Estimating the magnitude of trade
2.2.1 Estimating minimum number of Leopards killed from the seizure of body parts.
It is possible to arrive at a minimum number of Leopards involved in each incident based on the
seizure records (see Shepherd and Nijman, 2008). For example, if 5 skins and 180 claws wererecovered, the minimum number of Leopards killed is 10, since the number of claws account for
10 individuals at least. In one instance weight of claws seized was given with no indication of
numbers (seizure of 3 kg claws besides 39 skins and other parts, reported from Patelnagar, New
Delhi on 1st February 2005). The weight was converted into numbers by using average weight of asingle claw without bone (1.12 gm ±0.4, N=10)6. This translated to 149 Leopards7.
In cases of recovery of bones, 6 kg of bones is assumed to account for one individual, assuming
adult Leopard live weight as 60 kg and bone weight to comprise 10% of the body weight of theanimal. This is in line with Prange et al. (1979), who derived an equation for skeletal mass ofmammals:
Skeletal mass = 0.061Bodymass1.09, where mass is in kg, r2 = 0.984, which is effective for a mass
ranging from 6 gm to 6000 kg.
Using this equation, bone mass of a 60 kg adult Leopard is calculated as 5.4 kg (9% of adultweight), thus it is a reasonable approximation to use 6 kg of bones to comprise one individual.
2.2.2 Estimating the undetected fraction of Leopard trade.
An important characteristic of illegal wildlife trade is that much of it is difficult to observe andhence the true magnitude of trade is unknown. Two key descriptors of illegal trade in Leopard
parts are the number of seizure localities involved with this trade and the total number of
Leopards killed and traded during 2001-2010.

MKS Pasha

Since seizure data provide part of the picture, the analytical approach is aimed at estimating theundetected fraction of the trade. This is arrived at by a two-step process. First the total number of
localities is estimated through mark-recapture analysis, which accounts for the undetected
localities (see Section 2.2.2.1). Secondly the estimated number of localities is multiplied with theaverage number of Leopards accounted for by seizures within a locality, to arrive at the estimateof total number of Leopards killed and traded during 2001-2010 (see Section 2.2.2.2).

6
7

Data kindly provided by Dr. S.P Goyal, Head, Wildlife Forensics Lab, Wildlife Institute of India
It is assumed that in a seizure report, the correct numbers of Leopard parts have been documented and there is little uncertainty regarding
conversions from body parts to number of individuals; most seizures recorded whole Leopard skins, rather than pieces.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

13

2.2.2.1 Estimating the total number of localities in illegal trade using Mark-Recapture statistics
The seizure incidents represent an unknown fraction of the actual magnitude of trade, both interms of the number of locations where illegal trade incidents took place and by extension thenumber of Leopards killed. Some locations have been involved in multiple incidents while many
locations occur only once in the database.
In another words it can be said that localities associated with Leopard trade are imperfectly
detected. Since it can be logically assumed that new spots of crime emerge as well as older ones
are abandoned, the data mimic an ‘open population’, where new locations can be ‘born’and older
ones ‘die’ during the continuous sampling duration (10 years, uniform sampling intensity
assumed since daily records of news were scanned and recorded). Thus this information isamenable to ‘open population models’ of mark-recapture literature. Specifically the POPAN
models (Schwarz and Arnason 1996) were used, as implemented in software MARK version 5.1(Cooch and White, 2010), with RMARK version 2.0.4 (Laake, 2011), an interface of MARK in
the R language (R Development Core Team, 2010).
Mark-recapture statistical methods were developed for estimation of animal populations when it
is not possible to count all individuals due to imperfect detection (Williams et al., 2002). Thesemethods have now found application in fields as diverse as epidemiology (Tilling et al., 2001)
and software testing (Ebrahimi, 1997). This approach is congruent to application of markrecapture methods on sessile objects, for example the work by Alexander et al. (2009) which
estimated the numbers and survival of patches of a cryptic plant Asclepias meadii across several
years, while Williams et al. (2011) estimated the number of nests of asynchronously breedingwater birds. Both these studies used open population models.
The data were aggregated by year thus generating a ‘capture matrix’ or a ‘seizure matrix’ of 209
locations for 10 years. If a seizure incident occurred in a given location in a particular year it wasrecorded as ‘1’otherwise as ‘0’. The localities were grouped in five geographical zones: Central,
Eastern, Northern, Southern andWestern, (see Figure 2.2)
Thisenabled derivation of estimates of
total number of localities active in
Leopard trade during the past decade,for each region as well as aggregatedtotals for the entire country.
Twenty eight mark-recapture models
were fitted to the seizure locality data
to estimate the total number of
unreported localities. Geographicalzones were used as a group variable.
Amritpal Singh

14

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Detection parameter p, population entry parameter pent and survival parameter phi (φ) weremodelled with an intercept (p., pent. and φ.). These parameters were allowed to vary with time asa factor (p.time, pent.time and φ.time) and as a function of geographical zones (p.zone, pent.zone
and φ .zone).
Figure 2.2
Map of India showing the geographic zones, States and territories.

The geographic zones were used for aggregating the seizure data for mark-recapture analysis.
Names of States and territories are given below, against their respective numbers on the map.
1-Andaman and Nicobar, 2-Andhra Pradesh, 3-Arunachal Pradesh, 4-Assam, 5-Bihar,
6-Chandigarh, 7-Chhattisgarh, 8-Dadra and Nagar Haveli, 9-Daman and Diu, 10-Delhi, 11-Goa, 12-Gujarat,
13-Haryana, 14-Himachal Pradesh, 15-Jammu and Kashmir, 16-Jharkhand, 17-Karnataka, 18-Kerala,
19-Lakshadweep, 20-Madhya Pradesh, 21-Maharashtra, 22-Manipur, 23-Meghalaya, 24-Mizoram, 25-Nagaland,
26-Orissa, 27-Pondicherry, 28-Punjab, 29-Rajasthan, 30-Sikkim, 31-Tamil Nadu, 32-Tripura, 33-Uttar Pradesh, 34Uttaranchal, 35-West Bengal.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

15

Models fitted in the mark-recapture analysis were ranked based on Akaike information criterion
for small samples (AICc) weights8 (Table 2.1), and model averaged estimates of, the derived“population” of locations (the N population estimate in mark-recapture literature) for each zone
was estimated. Based on these, the sum total number of locations for the country and its variance
was calculated manually (see Table 3.4).
Table 2.1
Fitted Mark recapture models
Model

AICc

ΔAICc

AICc Weight-2log Likelihood

Num. Parφ. p.time pent.zone N.zone

886.380.00

0.58

841.3421

φ. zone p.time pent.zone N.zone

887.070.69

0.41

832.7425

Saturated model

1188.76

G. S. BhardwajWith these interlinked parameters, a total number of Leopards killed was derived byextrapolating the observed numbers of Leopards killed to the total estimated number oflocations. Thus it was possible to place a new lower limit on the magnitude of illegal trade in
Leopards in India (see Section 2.2.2.2 below).

8

Akaike information criterion (AIC) is a measure of the relative goodness of fit of a statistical model, based on information theory. AICc is a
modification ofAIC for cases where the sample size is small or there are a large number of parameters in the model.

16

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

2.2.2.2 Estimating the total number of
Leopards in illegal trade based on estimatedtotal number of localities.
Most locations have had a single seizure andaccount for a single Leopard killed, a small
fraction of locations have a high frequency of
seizures and/or account for bulk seizures (seeTable 2.2). Thus the data have a high positive
skew with a very long tail on the right (seeFigure 2.3). Data of these properties can beapproximated by a gamma distribution(Crawley, 2007). A gamma distribution was
generated for the total estimated number oflocations from the mark-recapture analysis
using the rate and shape parameters of theobserved kills per location data (thusincorporating the mean and variance of theobserved data). The sum of these values is theestimated minimum number of Leopards killedin the past decade (2001-2010). This process
was simulated 100 000 times. The mean
number obtained from these simulations is theestimated total number of Leopards killed, and WWF-India
95% confidence limits were generated fromthese simulations. The uncertainty in the estimate of total number of locations was incorporated
by allowing the number of locations to be selected for the simulation to vary according to anormal distribution with mean and standard deviation as the mark-recapture estimated mean andstandard error. Simulations were carried out in the R language (R Development Core Team,
2010).
These estimates are proposed as a new lower limit of the magnitude for illegal trade in Leopards.
Considering that gaps in the data remain, it is reasonable to say that the numbers (number of
localities in trade and number of Leopards killed) are at least this numerous: probably higher but
unlikely to be lower than these estimates. Thus the mean numbers from mark-recapture analysis
and simulations, in combination with their confidence intervals, are the estimates of a newenhanced lower limit of magnitude for Leopard trade.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

17

Table 2.2
Distribution of numbers of Leopards killed as per localities
Leopards killed (range)

Number of seizure localities

1-10

192

10-20

9

20-30

3

30-40

2

40-50

1

50-60

1

200-231

1

Most localities record seizures of body parts accounting for 1-10 Leopards. The highest numbers
are for Delhi, and represent 231 Leopards.
Mean = 5.4, S.D = 17.2, Median = 2, Min = 1, Max = 231.
Figure 2.3
Bar graph of localities accounting for numbers of Leopards killed and in trade.

Most localities account for smaller numbers of Leopards, as in Table 2.2 above, only 8 localities account for 20 ormore Leopards killed and in trade.

18

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Kalyan VermaILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

19

3 Results & Discussion
3.1 Volume of trade
During 2001-2010, a total of 420 incidents of seizures of Leopard body parts were reported from209 localities in 20 out of 28 States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi (see Tables 3.1 &3.2). Most of the States (71%) have reported seizure incidents, 123 out of 593 districts (20.2%),
189 out of 5451 Tehsils (3%) and 209 out of 3539 of total populated localities (6%) have reported
one or more seizures during the past 10 years (see Table 3.3 for zonal summary). Six out of eightstates with no reports of seizures are in north-eastern India (Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, the other two States are Goa and Sikkim). It is
unlikely that the absence of seizure records from these States is due to an absence of poaching,rather it may reflect under-reporting in the public domain or an actual lack of seizures.
The reported seizures account for an observed
1127 Leopards poached and in illegal trade.
Leopard skins are the dominant Leopard part in theillegal trade, 371 (88.3%) seizure incidents
involved only skins. An additional 23 (5.5%)
incidents involved skins accompanied by otherparts such as claws, bones or skulls. Seizures ofbones are a very minor fraction whether alone orwith other body parts. Nowell (2000), whenanalysing seizure data from India during the period
1990-98, had also found that Leopard bones wereseized in much lower quantities by comparison
with Tiger bones, although Leopard skin seizures
were much higher than Tiger skin seizures during
the same period.

Samir Sinha

Conducting mark-recapture analysis to estimate
the undetected fraction of the trade substantially
increased the estimates of the magnitude of illegal
trade.
The total estimate of localities involved in Leopard trade during 2001-2010 is 424.95 ± 33.97
Standard error (S.E), (95% Confidence Interval, 358.37- 491.53, See Table 3.4). These values(mean no. of localities ± SE) were used in conjunction with the parameters of the observed
number of Leopard kills in 209 seizure localities, in the simulations to derive the estimated total
minimum number of Leopards killed. Simulation (as detailed in Section 2.2.2.2) results give thetotal estimated number of 2294.54 ± 496.26 standard deviation (95% confidence interval,
1565.86 - 3139.0) of Leopards poached and in illegal trade in the decade 2001-2010 .

20

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

These results more than double all Leopard trade related statistics (i.e. total number of localities
involved in trade and the total number of Leopards killed and in trade). However keeping in
mind the nature and limitations of the data, these estimates are conservatively presented as an
improved lower limit of the magnitude of Leopard trade in India.
Table 3.1

2008

2009

2010

Total

2006

2005

1

2007

Andhra Pradesh

2004

2003

State

2002

2001

State-wise annual summary of Leopard body part seizure incidents

1

1

3

1

7

1

4

Assam
Bihar

1

Chhattisgarh

1
6

1
1
4

2

10

6

Gujarat2

1

Haryana

1

3

3

2

Himachal Pradesh

6

1

6

2

Delhi

4

3

2

Jharkhand

1

Karnataka

2

4

Kerala1

1

Madhya Pradesh

5

5

2

7

7

5

4

6

2

4

3

3

2
6

1

11

4

2

44

3

7

1
1

10

Jammu and Kashmir

Maharashtra

5

1

4

5

2

2

4
1

Orissa5

8

1

3

Punjab

6

1

6

7

3

5

1

1

3

2

1

2

33

3

3

6

3

40

4

1

2

1

Tamil Nadu

2
1

2

3

41
7

14

1

Rajasthan

25

1

1

1
2

5

6

2

16

Uttar Pradesh

4

5

4

2

7

6

2

2

9

6

47

Uttarakhand

4

8

20

10

14

8

2

1

6

11

84

2

4

6

3

1

52

56

68

31

30

West Bengal
Total

17

42

16
24

57

43

420

In northern India, Delhi and adjacent States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh record highnumbers of seizure incidents. Maharashtra and adjacent Madhya Pradesh in central India form another zone withhigh numbers of incidents. In southern India, Karnataka alone has a high number of seizure incidents.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

21

Table 3.2
Reported Leopard body part seizure data summary by State and Union Territoryfor 2001-2010
State (Geographic
zone)

Seizurelocations

Seizureincidents (%)

Minimumkilled (%)

Districts Sub-districts
affected (Tehsil) affected

Andhra Pradesh (S)6

7 (1.7)9 (0.8)5

6

Assam (E)55 (1.2)6 (0.5)5

5Bihar (E)12 (0.5)3 (0.3)1

1

Chhattisgarh (C)9

11 (2.6)

12 (1.1)

69Delhi (N)844 (10.5)297 (26.4)

1

2

Gujarat (W)7

7 (1.7)17 (1.5)

5

7Haryana (N)7

10 (2.4)

46 (4.1)

5

5

Himachal Pradesh (N)11

25 (6)

54 (4.8)

5

11

Jammu & Kashmir (N)

3

4 (1)

5 (0.4)3

3

Jharkhand (E)1

1 (0.2)1 (0.1)

1

1

Karnataka (S)25

41 (9.8)

89 (7.9)

11

24

Kerala (S)4

7 (1.7)14 (1.2)

3

5

Madhya Pradesh (C)18

33 (7.9)50 (4.4)

15

18

Maharashtra (W & C)

16

40 (9.5)

57 (5.1)

9

17

Orissa (E)1214 (3.3)

23 (2.0)

7

12

Punjab (N)1

1 (0.2)2 (0.2)

1

1

Rajasthan (W)3

5 (1.2)6 (0.5)

3

4

Tamil Nadu (S)12

16 (3.8)

18 (1.6)

9

12

Uttar Pradesh (N)23

47 (11.2)

184 (16.3)

15

20

Uttarakhand (N)30

84 (20)176 (15.6)

921West Bengal (E)7

16 (3.8)

58 (5.1)

4

5Grand Total

209

420

1127

123

189

Note that although Delhi has recorded 10.5% of all seizure incidents, these seizures account for 26.4% of Leopards intrade, seizures in Delhi involve larger numbers of Leopards. In contrast, Uttarakhand accounts for 20% of all seizure
incidents but only 15.6 of Leopards in trade. This suggests Delhi as a major centre of accumulation and trade in
Leopard parts and Uttarakhand as an area from where Leopard parts are being sourced.
C-Central, E-Eastern, N-Northern, S-Southern, W-Western.

22

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Table 3.3
Data summary of the reported Leopard body part seizures bygeographical zones for 2001-2010
Zone

Seizure Locations (%)

Seizure incidents (%)

Minimum Killed (%)

Central38 (18.20)

67 (16.0)

94 (8.3)

Eastern

26 (12.4)

38 (9.0)

91 (8.1)

Northern

83 (39.7)215 (51.2)

764 (67.8)

Southern

47 (22.5)

71 (16.9)

130 (11.5)

Western

15 (7.2)

29 (6.9)48 (4.3)

Grand Total

209

420

1127

Table 3.4
Estimated number of localities involved in Leopard trade during 2001-2010
Zone

Observed

Estimate

Standard
Error

95% Lower
confidence Limit

95% Upper
confidence Limit

Central

38

74.01

11.02

52.41

95.62

Eastern

26

64.14

16.64

31.53

96.74

Northern

83148.1516.74

115.33180.96Southern

47111.54

21.00

70.39

152.70Western

15

27.10

5.89

15.55

38.66

Total for India

209

424.9533.97

358.37491.53* LCL- Lower confidence limit, UCL - Upper confidence limit

3.2 Spatio-temporal Trends
3.2.1 Hotspots
Delhi is clearly the most important hub of Leopard trade with 26.4% of all Leopards accounted
for in seizures. It is followed by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Together with the neighbouring
states of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (which also recorded a sizeable volume of seizures) thisnorthern region forms the epicentre of trade in Leopard parts (see Table 3.2). Uttarakhand leadsin the number of incidents of seizures involving relatively small numbers of poached Leopards,
indicating that this State is a major source. This is in contrast to Delhi, where large volume
seizures have taken place; this suggests that Delhi is a major centre of collection of Leopard bodyparts. It is noteworthy that there is no significant population of Leopards in Delhi or its immediatesurroundings; therefore the Leopards parts seized here originate from other States.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

23

TRAFFIC

Data summarized by geographic zones clearly indicate that major areas of Leopard trade are in
the north. India’s Northern zone accounts for more than half of all seizure incidents and accounts
for 67.8% of Leopards in illegal trade (see Table 3.4). The estimated number of locations also
mirrors the pattern in the observed data, although the estimated numbers nearly double thosereported. The relative rankings of respective zones remain the same in both the reported andestimated data sets.

The observed patterns of seizures are unlikely to be random. Seizures are likely to take place atseveral key points along the trade chain: close to the location of killing, along the transportationroute(s), at the point of processing (for skins, particularly), at points of collection (including
warehouses) or location of sale. All these features are likely to contribute for the highconcentration of seizure locations in the northern zone. Northern India also shares longinternational borders with Nepal and China, including mountainous terrain which is difficult tomonitor and thus provides an opportunity for smuggling of Leopard parts along with other highvalue wildlife products.
Spatial analysis of concentration of seizure records further illustrates the high chances of a
locality active in Leopard trade occurring in India’s northern region, in particular along theHimalayan region of Uttarakhand and Himachal and in and around Delhi (see Figure 3.1).
A second zone of concentration is centred on Bangalore in southern India. In central India, aregion straddling the border of the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarhshows a concentration of seizure locations. Although the pattern of high concentrations oflocalities in northern India is quite clear, lower levels of reporting or relatively weaker law
enforcement effort and effectiveness may obscure patterns in other regions. These results should
be read with these caveats in mind. This is especially true for north-eastern India from where very
few seizure records are available.

24

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Figure 3.1
Concentration of seizure locations and kernel density map

Kernel density map is a probabilistic surface covering the entire area and summing to 1 or 100%. Thus the red
shaded area (50% kernel density) indicates that there is a 50% chance of a locality active in Leopard trade occurringin the enclosed area. The red and yellow shaded areas combined indicate that there is a 75% chance of such a locality
occurring in these two zones and so forth. The 50% kernel zone covers 3.1% of the geographical area of India andthe 75% zone an additional 3.85%. Thus 75% of localities in trade of Leopard body parts are likely to beconcentrated in 7% of the country.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

25

3.2.2 Temporal Trends
The mean number of days separating any two seizure incidents is 8.6 days; however 56% ofseizures are separated by just five days or less. In fact more than 70% of seizures have occurred
within 10 days of each other (see Figure 3.2). This is a remarkable frequency of crime related to
Leopards.
Figure 3.2
Successive seizures with respect to days separating them

The 10-year trend in Leopard trade-related statistics is provided in Figure 3.3. Both the number ofincidents of seizures and the number of locations involved in seizures have shown an increase in
the past two years with a corresponding increase in the number of Leopards killed. From a highpoint in 2005, Leopard trade-related indicators decreased for three consecutive years before
rising from 2009 and continuing to increase in 2010.
The trend in the estimated number of localities “active” each year for 2001-2010 shows anincreasing trend throughout the decade (see Figure 3.4 a). The trends, when broken down byzones, reveal geographical differences. While the Northern zone has remained relatively stablewith about 60-70 localities remaining active each year, the Southern zone has shown an
increasing trend for much of the decade, though for the past four years the number has remained
between 40-50 (see Figure 3.4 b).

26

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Figure 3.3
Trends in illegal trade in Leopards, 2001-2010

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

27

Figure 3.4 a
Estimated trend in localities active in Leopard trade in India

Figure 3.4 b
Estimated trend in localities active in Leopard trade by geographic zones

Points are mean number of localities active in trade of Leopard parts estimated through mark-recapture
methods. Bars represent standard error.

28

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

3.3 Conclusions
TRAFFIC has documented and analysed the magnitude and trends in illegal trade in Leopard
body parts for 10 years, from 2001-2010. Due to its covert nature, much of the trade remains
undocumented. Statistical techniques of mark-recapture were used to estimate the undetected
fraction of this trade.
Based on the above, the key findings of the report are listed below:•

Trade in Leopards has been widespread with 21 out of 28 States in India recording seizures of
Leopard body parts. A total of 420 seizures in 209 localities have been recorded during 20012010.

•

The public domain records of reported seizures account for a minimum of 1127 Leopards
killed. Based on further statistical analysis, an estimated number of 2294.54 ± 403.34
Leopards have been killed. This translates to a reported 2.2 Leopards killed per week
(i.e. based on publicly reported seizures) and an estimated 4.4 Leopards killed per week
(i.e. after statistical analysis) for illegal trade over the past 10 years.

•

Wildlife crime associated with Leopards occurs on average at a frequency of 3.5 seizure
incidents every month (based on reports over the past 10 years); a majority of the seizures(70%) have occurred within 10 days of a previous seizure.

•

The northern jurisdictions of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh aremost associated with illegal trade in Leopard parts. In the south of the country, the State of
Karnataka is most associated with illegal trade in Leopard parts.

•

Overall the geographic hotspot of Leopard trade is centred on northern India, incorporating
3.15% of India’s geographical area, 50% of locations involved in Leopard trade are likely tooccur here. Thus focusing law enforcement efforts in this region is likely to be more
successful in targeting traders and syndicates involved in illegal trade of Leopards.

•

A total of 209 unique localities have been recorded as being active in Leopard trade at somepoint over the past 10 years.Following statistical analysis, the estimated number of localities
to have ever been active in Leopard trade during this period is 428.04 ± 34.81. There has been
an overall increasing trend in the number of localities reported as active each year, but
southern India appears to be growing fastest, pointing to a need for increased law
enforcement effort in that region in the near future.

Since the data are based on a collation of published information on seizures, it has limitations interms of uneven temporal and spatial coverage leading to possible under-reporting. The use ofadvanced analytical methods has been pursued in the attempt to overcome these limitations.
However, these results are conservatively proposed as an improved estimate of the lower limit ofillegal trade in Leopards. Coupled with better recording and documentation of wildlife crime,
such use of advanced statistical tools can vastly improve the ability of law enforcement agencies
to analyse patterns of criminal activity.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

29

30

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Mrudul Godbele

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

31

4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the research and analysis conducted under this project, TRAFFIC has the following
recommendations:
4.1 Improve understanding of Leopard trade dynamics in India•

A large amount of information related to Leopard mortality, seizures and associated trade isavailable in the public domain but this information is rarely available in one place in a
credible form where it is collated analysed and made available for decision making. The
Ministry of Environment and Forests should consider the establishment of a national
database on mortality and seizures of Leopard and other key wildlife species; along the linesof tigernet (http://www.tigernet.nic.in) which will yield valuable, verified information over a
period of time. Compiling such information in a systematic fashion would thus support moredetailed analysis towards effective targeting of law enforcement efforts to prevent Leopard
killing and increase arrests and prosecutions of criminals involved in such activities.

•

Information should also be shared by law enforcement authorities across various locations toaddress a source-to-end market continuum for trade in Leopard products. Use of modern
scientific tools, including forensic techniques, should be encouraged to gather better
information. Adapting modern statistical and analytical tools for analysis of wildlife trade islikely to greatly enhance the understanding of India’s wildlife trade in general, and that ofhigh-value targets such as Leopards and other big cats in particular. National and State Law
enforcement agencies should consider regular upgrading of capacity in these fields.

•

It is generally assumed that the drivers for Leopard trade are similar to those which drive tradein other Asian big cats, especially because they share the same set of poachers, middlemen
and traders. However, human-Leopard conflict is a major driver for Leopard mortality andwhile it has not been analysed for the purposes of this study, it would be realistic to assume
that such conflict would also be a major contributor to supplying the trade. This is also
supported by the fact that some of the States identified as major sources for Leopard parts arealso identified as hotspots for human-Leopard conflicts. It is recommended that the Ministryof Environment and Forests co-ordinate further research in order to evaluate how humanLeopard conflict may be related to poaching of Leopards and illegal trade in their parts.

4.2 Strengthen Wildlife Law Enforcement•

32

Despite some recent steps, such as the establishment of a national Wildlife Crime Control
Bureau, wildlife law enforcement continues to be seen as a low priority component of overall
crime management and control in India. This needs to change. Wildlife crime, including thatinvolving Leopards, has increasingly been identified as a form of transnational organizedcrime. Any response to organized crime should also necessarily be organized. Syndicates
involved in wildlife crime are increasingly being seen as also engaged in other forms of crime
including those threatening national security, such as trafficking of arms, narcotics andhumans. Several elements are thus recommended for action:

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

•Improved levels of training and resources should be provided to law enforcement agencies tocounter such threats, including the pursuit of intelligence-led enforcement strategies. All
offences interdicted should be followed to a logical conclusion, i.e. case preparation of
wildlife crime incidents must be professionally conducted in order to support efforts by the
judiciary to prosecute to the full extent of the law.

•

In the States of Delhi, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya
Pradesh and Karnataka, where illegal trade in Leopard parts is identified as a major issue, aspecial task force needs to be created to analyse patterns in such crime and target key
offenders in a systematic and sustained manner to curb this problem. This should haverepresentatives across multiple agencies such as the Forest Department, Police, Paramilitary,
Army, Railway Protection Force, Central Bureau of Investigation and the Wildlife Crime
Control Bureau, to coordinate such actions. At the local level, NGOs such as
TRAFFIC/WWF, Wildlife Trust of India, Wildlife Protection Society of India and Aaranyak,
amongst others who work on wildlife trade issues, can also be valuable partners in such
efforts.

•

Given that illegal trade in Leopard parts generally flows to end-use markets outside India,
engaging with regional partners is imperative to make a long-term and significant impact onstemming this illegal flow. The South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) andIndia’s bilateral agreements on biodiversity conservation with various countries including
Nepal (MoU on trans-boundary biodiversity conservation cooperation) and China (MoU on
forestry cooperation) are good opportunities to build upon such regional collaboration andsupport. It is to be emphasised that many of the issues flagged above, especially those related
to strengthening of wildlife law enforcement, are not specific to Leopards alone but, if
implemented systematically, will also have a likely positive impact on management andcontrol of overall illegal wildlife trade.

4.3 Improve scientific knowledge on Leopards
There is still a large gap in the scientific understanding of behavioural and ecological aspects of
the Leopard in India, despite several years of perceived focus on management and scientificissues. However, other than human-Leopard conflict, there is a very limited body of work on
Leopards available in the public domain. In other words, while there is still some information onwhat the Leopard does, especially in human-dominated landscapes, there is little knowledge on
what the Leopard is. Aspects of the Leopard’s life such as prey-predator relationships, breeding
cycles, age and sex-specific survival rates are poorly known. There is no recent scientificinformation on Leopard distribution, density or population across the country. This means thatthe analysis of Leopard poaching and trade has no baseline against which to assess the impact onwild populations.
•

Country wide distribution and abundance surveys on the lines of the population estimation
exercise for Tigers is urgently required. Since Leopard and Tigers occur together in many
areas, there is an opportunity for the Ministry of Environment and Forests to synergize these
efforts.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

33

References
Alexander, H., N. Slade, W. Kettle, G. Pittman, and A. Reed, 2009. Detection, survival rates anddynamics of a cryptic plant, Asclepias meadii: applications of mark-recapture models to
long-term monitoring studies. Journal of Ecology 97:267–276.
Anonymous, 1986. Cat skins on sale in Lhasa. Cat News 4.
Athreya, V., M. Odden, J. D. C. Linnell, and K. U. Karanth, 2011. Translocation as a Tool for
Mitigating Conflict with Leopards in Human-Dominated Landscapes of India.
Conservation Biology 25:133–141.
Athreya, V., S. Thakur, S. Chaudhuri, andA. Belsare, 2004. A study of the Man-Leopard Conflicts
in the Junnar Forest Division, Pune District, Maharashtra. Report prepared for the Forest
Department, Maharashtra, and the Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi.
Technical report, Kati Trust, Pune.
Athreya, V., S. Thakur, S. Chaudhuri, andA. Belsare, 2007. Leopards in human-dominated areas:a spillover from sustained translocations into nearby forests? Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society 104:45–59.
Banks, D. and J. Newman, 2004. The Tiger Skin Trail. Environmental InvestigationAgency, UK.
Barnes, L., 1989. The overt illegal fur trade in Kathmandu, Nepal - Inverness Research
Associates, Inverness, California.
Carbone, C. and J. Gittleman, 2002. A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density.
Science 295:2273.
Chauhan, D. and S. Goyal, 2000. A study on distribution, relative abundance and food habitsof leopard Panthera pardus in Garhwal Himalayas. Technical report, Wildlife Instituteof India, Dehradun.
Chauhan, D., A. Harihar, S. Goyal, Q. Qureshi, P. Lal, and V. Mathur, 2005. Estimating leopard
population using camera traps in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Technical report, Wildlife Instituteof India-Dehradun, India.
Chellam, R., 2010. India’s Leopard problem. Is Panthera pardus vanishing faster than Panthera
tigris? Sanctuary Asia.
Chainey, S. & Ratcliffe, J. 2005, GIS and crime mapping, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Chainey, S.; Tompson, L. & Uhlig, S. 2008, The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial
patterns of crime, Security Journal 21(1), 4–28.
Cooch, E. and G. White, 2010. Program MARK: a gentle introduction, 9th edition. Colorado,State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Crawley, M. J., 2007. The R book. John Wiley & Sons.
Daniel, J. C., 1996. The Leopard in India: A Natural History. Nataraj Publishers, Dehradun.
Dar, N., R. Minhas, Q. Zaman, and M. Linkie, 2009. Predicting the patterns, perceptions andcauses of human-carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan.
Biological Conservation 142:2076–2082.
Datta, A., M. Anand, and R. Naniwadekar, 2008. Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey
abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biological Conservation
141:1429–1435.

34

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT: A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Ebrahimi, N., 1997. On the statistical analysis of the number of errors remaining in a software
design document after inspection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23:529–532.
Edgaonkar, A., 2008. Ecology of the leopard Panthera pardus in Bori Wildlife Sanctuary and
Satpura National park, India. Ph.D. thesis, University of Florida.
Eisenberg, J. and M. Lockhart, 1972. An ecological reconnaissance of Wilpattu National Park,
Ceylon-Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, volume 101 of Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology.
Ghoddousi, A., A. Kh. Hamidi, T. Ghadirian, D. Ashayeri, and I. Khorozyan, 2010. The status of
the Endangered Persian leopard Panthera pardus saxicolor in Bamu National Park, Iran.
Oryx 44:551–557.
Harihar, A., B. Pandav, and S. Goyal, 2011. Responses of leopard Panthera pardus to therecovery of a tiger Panthera tigris population. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:806-814.
Heinen, J. T., P. B. Yonzon, and B. Letsure, 1995. Fighting the illegal fur trade in Kathmandu,
Nepal. Conservation Biology 9: 246–248.
Hooge, P. and B. Eichenlaub, 2000. Animal movement extension to arcview version 2.0. US
Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center-Biological Science Office, Anchorage, USA .
Jhala, Y., Gopal.R, and Q. Q, editors, 2008. Status of Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in India.
Number TR08/001. National Tiger ConservationAuthority and Wildlife Institute of India.
Johnsingh, A., H. Panwar, and W. Rodgers, 1991. Ecology and conservation of large felids in
India. In N. Maruyama et al., editor, Wildlife conservation: present trends and perspectives
for the 21st centuary. Proc. Intl. Symposium on Wildlife Conservation in Tsukuba andYokohama, 21-25 August 1990., pages 160–166.
Khan, M. A. R., 1986. The status and distribution of the cats in Bangladesh. In S. Miller and
D.D.Everette, editors, Cats of the world: biology, conservation and management, pages
43–49. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Khorozyan, I., A. Malkhasyan, and A. Abramov, 2008. Presence–absence surveys of prey andtheir use in predicting leopard Panthera pardus densities: a case study from Armenia.
Integrative Zoology 3:322–332.
Kimothi, P., 2011. Sanitation is U’khand’s key to solving man-leopard conflict. The Pioneer,
15April, page no. 4, Delhi edition
Kostyria, A., A. Skorodelov, D. Miquelle, V. Aramilev, and D. McCullough, 2003. Report on a
census of far-eastern leopards using camera traps in south-west Primorskii province, winter2002-2003. Technical report, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Kumar,A. and B. Wright, 1997. Tiger skins seized in Calcutta. Cat News 27.
Laake, J., 2011. RMark: R Code for MARKAnalysis. R package version 2.0.1.
Levine, N., 2007. CrimeStat: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident
Locations (v 3.1). Ned Levine & Associates, Houston, TX, and the National Institute ofJustice, Washington, DC.
Lodhi, A., 2007. Conservation of Leopards in Ayubia National Park, Pakistan. Master’s thesis,
University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT - A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

35

Loveridge, A. J., S. W. Wang, L. G. Frank, and J. Seidensticker, 2010. People and wild felids:
conservation of cats and management of conflicts. In D. W. Macdonald and A. J. Loveridge,
editors, Biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press.
Negi,A., 1996. Man-eating Leopard of Garhwal. Cheetal 35:22–24.
Ngoprasert, D., 2004. Effects of Roads, Selected Environmental Variables and Human
Disturbance on Asiatic Leopard Panthera pardus in Kaeng Krachan National Park.
Master’s thesis, King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi.
Nowak, R., 2005. Walker’s Carnivores of the World. Johns Hopkins Univ Press.
Nowell, K., 2000. Far from a Cure: the Tiger Trade Revisited. TRAFFIC International,
Cambridge, UK.
Nowell, K. and P. Jackson, 1996. Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Odden, M., P. Wegge, and T. Fredriksen, 2010. Do tigers displace leopards? If so, why?
Ecological research 25: 875–881.
Oswell,AH. 2010. The Big Cat Trade in Myanmar and Thailand. TRAFFIC SoutheastAsia
Prange, H.; Anderson, J. & Rahn, H. 1979, Scaling of skeletal mass to body mass in birds andmammals, The American Naturalist 113: 103–122.
Pringle, C., C. Murgatroyd, and M. Mangal, 1999. CITES Compliance in Nepal. Technicalreport, British Embassy, Kathmandu, Nepal.
R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,Austria.
Rabinowitz, A., 1989. The density and behavior of large cats in a dry tropical forest mosaic in
Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society
37:235–251.
Sangay, T. and K. Vernes, 2008. Human-wildlife conflict in the Kingdom of Bhutan: patterns of
livestock predation by large mammalian carnivores. Biological Conservation
141:1272–1282.
Santiapillai, C., M. Chambers, and N. Ishwaran, 1982. The leopard Panthera pardus fusca(Meyer 1794) in the Ruhuna National Park, Sri Lanka, conservation. BiologicalConservation 23:5–14.
Santiapillai, C. and W. Ramono, 1992. Status of the leopard Panthera pardus in Java, Indonesia.
Tiger Paper 19:1–5.
Schwarz, C. and A. Arnason, 1996. A general methodology for the analysis of capture-recaptureexperiments in open populations. Biometrics 52:860–873.
Seidensticker, J., M. Sunquist, and C. McDougal, 1990. Leopards living at edge of the Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In J. Daniel and J. Serrao, editors, Conservation in
Developing Countries: Problems and Prospectes, pages 415–23. Bombay Natural History
Society, Bombay, India: Oxford University Press, London.

36

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT - A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

Sellar, J., 1999. Tiger technical missions report. Technical report, Presented at 42nd meeting of
the CITES Standing Committee, Lisbon, Portugal.
Shah, K. B., T. B. Thapa, and P. B. Budha, 2004. Status survey of the forest leopard Panthera
pardus Linnaeus, 1758 in Nepal. Technical report, WWF Nepal Program Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Shepherd, C. R. and Nijman, V. (2008). The wild cat trade in Myanmar. TRAFFIC Southeast
Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.
Simcharoen, S. and S. Duangchantrasiri, 2008. Monitoring of the Leopard Population at Khao
Nang Rum. In Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary. Thai Journal of Forestry 27:68–80.
Spalton, J., H. al Hikmani, D. Willis, and A. Said, 2006. Critically endangered Arabian leopards
Panthera pardus nimr persist in the Jabal Samhan Nature Reserve, Oman.
Oryx 40:287–294.
Talwar, R. and T.Aziz, 1996. The Leopard in trouble. WWF-India Quarterly 7: 6–9.
Tamang, B. and N. Baral, 2008. Livestock depredation by large cats in Bardia National Park,
Nepal: Implications for improving park people relations. The International Journal of
Biodiversity Science and Management 4: 44–53.
Tilling, K., J. Sterne, and C. Wolfe, 2001. Estimation of the incidence of stroke using a capturerecapture model including covariates. International journal of epidemiology
30:1351–1359.
Verheij, P., K. Foley, and K. Engel, 2010. Reduced to Skin and Bones: An Analysis of Tiger
Seizures from 11 Tiger Range Countries (2000-2010). TRAFFIC International, Cambridge,
UK.
Vijayan, S. and B. Pati, 2002. Impact of changing cropping patterns on man-animal conflicts
around Gir Protected Area with specific reference to Talala sub-district, Gujarat, India.
Population & Environment 23:541–559.
Wang, S. and D. Macdonald, 2009. The use of camera traps for estimating tiger and leopard
populations in the high altitude mountains of Bhutan. Biological Conservation
142:606–613.
Wegge, P., M. Odden, C. Pokharel, and T. Storaas, 2009. Predator-prey relationships andresponses of ungulates and their predators to the establishment of protected areas: A casestudy of tigers, leopards and their prey in Bardia National Park, Nepal. BiologicalConservation 142:189–202.
Williams, B., J. Nichols, and M. Conroy, 2002. Analysis and management of animal
populations: modeling, estimation, and decision making. Academic Press.
Williams, K. A., P. C. Frederick, and J. D. Nichols, 2011. Use of the superpopulation approach toestimate breeding population size: An example in asynchronously breeding birds. Ecology
92: 821-822.
Wright, B. and A. Kumar, 1999. Update on the Trade in Tiger Parts. Unpublished report to the
CITES Tiger Technical Mission, New Delhi, India.

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT - A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard Parts in India

37

38

ILLUMINATING THE BLIND SPOT - A Study on Illegal Trade in Leopard parts
Parts inin India
India

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensurethat trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to theconservation of nature. It was established in 1976 and since then it
has developed a considerable international reputation for helping to
identify and address conservation challenges linked to trade in wild
animals and plants. TRAFFIC India carries out research and provides
analysis, support and encouragement to efforts aimed to ensure thatwildlife trade is not a threat to the conservation of nature in India.

For more information contact:
TRAFFIC India
c/o WWF-India Secretariat,
172-B, Lodi Estate,
New Delhi-110003,
India
Tel: (91) 11 41504786; 43516290
Fax: (91) 11 43516200
Email: trafficindia@wwfindia.net
Website: www.trafficindia.org or www.traffic.org

AUGUST 2012

TRAFFIC International,
219a Huntingdon Rd,
Cambridge CB3 ODL,
UK
Tel: +44 (0)1223 277427
Fax: +44 (0)1223 277237
Email: traffic@traffic.org
Website: www.traffic.org