Hunting_NamHa 2003.pdf - TABI

Wildlife Hunting & Use
in the Nam Ha National Protected Area:
Implications for Rural Livelihoods
& Biodiversity Conservation
By Arlyne Johnson, Sarinda Singh,
Malykham Dongdala, and Outhai Vongsa
(December 2003)

WILDLIFE HUNTING & USE IN THE NAM HA NATIONAL PROTECTED AREA:
IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL LIVELIHOODS & BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Cover Illustrations:
Villager selling a Lesser Oriental Chevrotain along a road in the Nam Ha
National Protected Area. Photo: A. Johnson (WCS). Background of
forest cover in Lao PDR. Photo: Stuart Chape (IUCN).
Citation:
Johnson, A., S. Singh, M. Dongdala and O.Vongsa. 2003. Wildlife
hunting and use in the Nam Ha National Protected Area: Implications for
rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. December 2003. Wildlife
Conservation Society, Vientiane.
Copies available from:
Wildlife Conservation Society – Lao Program
Unit 17, Ban Sisavath, Chanthabouly District
Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel/Fax: +856 21 215400
Email: wcslao@wcs.org
Reproduction of material from this document for education or other noncommercial
purposes is authorized without prior permission of WCS,
provided that the source is acknowledged.
The findings, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations express
in this report represent those of the authors and do not imply the
endorsement of WCS or the donor. The designation of geographical
entities and their presentation in this report do not imply an opinion on the
part of WCS concerning the legal status of any county, territory or area,
or its authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXCEUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 6
Nam Ha National Protected Area ..................................................................................................... 6
METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey teams ................................................................................................................................... 8
Survey structure............................................................................................................................... 9
Land use mapping............................................................................................................................ 9
Local language names of common wildlife....................................................................................... 9
Household survey ............................................................................................................................ 9
Household selection......................................................................................................................... 9
Survey process .............................................................................................................................. 10
Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Survey villages and households..................................................................................................... 11
Local language names of common wildlife..................................................................................... 11
Wildlife Hunting ................................................................................................................................ 12
Seasonal hunting effort .................................................................................................................. 12
Hunting methods............................................................................................................................ 13
Hunters from outside of the village................................................................................................. 15
Hunting areas................................................................................................................................. 15
Wildlife Use....................................................................................................................................... 15
General .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Animal-specific............................................................................................................................... 16
Medicine......................................................................................................................................... 16
Sale................................................................................................................................................ 17
Wildlife Populations ......................................................................................................................... 19
Animal Abundance ......................................................................................................................... 19
Human-Animal Conflict .................................................................................................................. 21
Comparison of Wildlife Hunting and Use ....................................................................................... 22
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 23
Use of restricted and controlled species........................................................................................23
Managing hunting by NPA villages................................................................................................. 24
Hunting seasons and zones........................................................................................................... 24
Hunting methods............................................................................................................................ 25
Managing illegal hunting by outsiders and wildlife trade ............................................................. 25
Hunting by outsiders ...................................................................................................................... 25
Wildlife trade .................................................................................................................................. 26
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................... 29
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Mr. Phimkeo Thamlasine, Chief of the Luang Namtha Forestry Office and
previous Chief of the Nam Ha Protected Area, for requesting and facilitating the study. Mr. Phimkeo
identified the villages that should be surveyed and worked with Wildlife Conservation Society –Lao
Program staff and the Faculty of Science (FoS) and Faculty of Forestry (FoF) at the National
University of Laos to design and implement the study. Student field work in the villages was
facilitated by provincial and district staff from the Nam Ha Protected Area Management Unit , including
Mr. Outhai Vongsa and Mr. Songphone Luangluxay (PAFO), Mr. Chukavanh Thammavong (Long
District), Mr. Thongsavahn Chanthakomman (Luang Namtha District), Mr. Ae Saymany (Viengphuka
District), and Mr. Somxay Phanthavong (Sing District). We thank students from the Faculty of
Forestry, Mr. Singkeo Phommachanh, and the Faculty of Sciences, Mr Noy Phaneinhaune and Mr.
Khiengkai Gnokhanthone for conducting the interviews as part of their final year thesis research.
Professor Lau Mua (FoF) and Professor Bounnam Pathoumthong (FoS) participated in the student
trainings and provided valuable recommendations for interview design.
We would like to acknowledge the assistance of staff of the Wildlife Conservation Society, especially
Mr. Michael Hedemark who prepared the maps and provided GIS expertise for the study, Mr. Troy
Hansel who provided invaluable advice and references on village interview methods, and Mr. Dale
Boles, Dr. Doug Hendrie, and Mr. Bryan Stuart who provided wildlife weights . We also thank Mr. Paul
Sweet at the American Museum of Natural History for providing wildlife weights and Dr. Jim
Chamberlin for his review and recommendations on the nomenclature used to present village and
wildlife names.
This study was made possible through the Biodiversity Conservation MoU between the National
University of Laos (Faculties of Sciences and Forestry) and the WCS-Lao Program and the Nam Ha
Strengthening MoU between the Department of Forestry and the WCS-Lao Program. We thank the
Wildlife Conservation Society for generously providing the funding for this study.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 4

EXCEUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlife hunting and use is a critical component of rural livelihoods in Lao PDR. At the same time,
wildlife populations are in serious decline from over harvest for subsistence and trade. Effective
management of human use of wildlife populations is crucial if the nation’s unique biodiversity is to
persist. National regulations aim to manage wildlife for sustainable use in multi-use protected areas
and define both controlled species that are available for harvest and restricted species that are totally
protected. To date, there has been no systematic evaluation of how current hunting practices
compare to these guidelines. This report summarises results from a study of wildlife hunting and use
by villages in the Nam Ha National Protected Area and makes recommendations for wildlife
management and rural development that are relevant to conditions found in most protected areas
throughout Lao PDR.
Standardised household surveys were conducted in 59% of villages in and on the border of the Nam
Ha National Protected Area (NPA) from January 2002 to March 2003,. Questions encompassed
wildlife hunting, use and wildlife populations, with a smaller subset referring specifically to 55 species
of mammals, birds, and herpetiles having important use and conservation value in the NPA. Village
areas used for hunting and agriculture were mapped and local language names of common wildlife
recorded.
Results provide evidence that a wide variety of animals are hunted and used for food and medicine by
villages in the NPA management zone. The majority of hunting by villages appears largely
opportunistic, occurring in forested areas near hill rice fields with the bulk of hunting effort coinciding
with periods of hill rice field preparation and harvest. Guns were the most common method reported
for capturing most wildlife, followed by snares. The most frequently eaten animals were also primarily
those that were reported to be most frequently sold. In general, animals used for medicine were less
frequently hunted but among the most valuable for trade. The majority of animals were sold
sometimes with 97% of reported sales being to people in Luang Namtha province. 31% of
households reported that outsiders come to their village to buy wildlife. In addition to hunting by NPA
residents, 40% of households reported that people from outside of the NPA also hunt in their village
area.
Of immediate concern to both rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation is that the most
frequently used animals were small-bodied (

INTRODUCTION
In Lao PDR, hunting of wildlife represents an important part of rural livelihoods and nutrition ( Foppes
et al. 1997, Clendon 2001, Krahn 2003). Lao is also one of the fastest growing tourism destinations in
the world, with wildlife viewing at the top of the list for international visitors (WT0 2001, 2002). At the
same time, wildlife populations are declining due to over-harvesting for subsistence and trade
(Duckworth et al. 1999, Nooren and Claridge 2001). In a threat assessment of the Nam Ha National
Protected Area (NPA), over-harvest of wildlife was identified by NPA staff as one of the main
problems contributing to a decline in abundance of many wildlife species (Johnson 2000).
To solve this problem, national regulations aim to manage wildlife for sustainable use in multi-use
protected areas such that subsistence needs of enclave villages are met while also conserving viable
populations of wildlife (Robichaud et al. 2001). Regulations that provide guidelines for wildlife use
include the Forest Law No. 01/1996 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) Regulation No.
0524/2001 on the Management of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas, Aquatic Animals and
Wildlife (MAF 2001). MAF 0524 outlines what species can be harvested and where, identifies
seasons and methods of harvest, as well as who has access to hunt in NPAs (Table 1). Article 17 of
MAF 0524 states that it is illegal to sell wildlife. To date, there has been no systematic evaluation of
how these regulations compare with current village practices.
Table 1: Regulations for wildlife hunting and use in Lao PDR (MAF No. 0524/2001)
Species [1]
Restricted
Hunting &
Trade [2] Where [3] When [3] Method [2] Amount [4]
Hunting
Prohibited
Trade
Prohibited
Controlled
Hunting
Trade
Permitted outside
of NPA restricted
zones and
corridors
Permitted from
Nov 1-April 30
Prohibited to use
explosives,
poisons, electricity,
warfare weapons
and rifles
Prohibited
Hunting at a
sustainable rate
[1] Articles 18 and 19
[2] Article 17
[3] Article 4; hunting in the NPA Management Zone restricted to previously settled persons
[4] Article 10
Successful wildlife management and rural development requires baseline information on wildlife use
as well as the status of wildlife populations and habitats. This report describes wildlife hunting and
use by villages within and on the border of the Nam Ha NPA in Luang Namtha (LNT) Province.
Results are relevant to the design of wildlife management and rural development strategies in
protected areas throughout Lao PDR. The study was requested by the Nam Ha NPA Management
Unit and is being used to guide the design of the NPA management plan being developed by the LNT
Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Office (PAFO) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).
Nam Ha National Protected Area
The Nam Ha NPA covers 222,300 hectares of hill evergreen, semi-evergreen forests and broadleaf
woodlands in Luang Namtha Province (Figure 1). Elevation ranges from 560m to 2094m (Tizard et al.
1997). The NPA is contiguous with the Shangyong reserve of the Xishuangbanna National Nature
Reserve in southern China. The “core conservation zones” marked in Figure 2 were identified by
Tizard et al. (1997) as having particular importance as wildlife habitat.
Nam Ha NPA is an important component of the Lao protected area system, representing fauna from
the northern geographical subdivision of the country (Ling 1999) and from the sub-tropical transition
zone of central Indochina (MacKinnon and Mackinnon 1986). The northern Indochina sub-tropical
forests have the highest ranking for bird species richness and third highest ranking for mammal
species richness of all eco-regions in the Indo-Pacific (Wikramanake et al. 2002). The Nam Ha NPA
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 6

is the fourth largest protected area in the region (Hedemark 2003) and ranked third nationally in
importance of mammal and bird species richness and endemism (Ling 1999). Over 288 bird species,
at least 37 large mammal species (Tizard et al. 1997) and potentially 22 reptiles
and amphibians (Stuart 2002) are found in Nam Ha NPA. Most of the larger species are listed as
globally threatened or vulnerable (Duckworth et al. 1999).
Figure 1. Location of Nam Ha NPA and district boundaries in Luang Namtha province
Nam Ha has a high human population density relative to other NPAs (Southammakoth and Craig
2001, Tizard et al. 1997). A forest inventory estimated that 68% of Nam Ha NPA has been affected to
some degree by human activity (Hedemark 2003). There are 41 villages inside and on the border of
the NPA whose principle area of natural resource use is within the protected area boundary.
Most villages belong to the Lao Theung and Lao Sung ethnic groups (Ling 1998). Production of hill
rice and livestock constitute the major food sources for most villages, although non-timber forest
products, including wildlife, are reported to be essential food sources in the event of rice and livestock
shortages (Meredith 1997, Phengsopha 2000). Cash incomes are derived from the sale of surplus
rice and livestock. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) become the primary source of cash income
when paddy farming and livestock raising are limited by shortages of suitable land and a high
occurrence of livestock disease (deKoning 2000, Hedemark and Vongsak 2003).
METHODS
From January 2002 to March 2003, surveys were conducted in 24 villages inside and near the
boundary of the NPA (Figure 2). The survey team stayed from 3-5 days in each village with longer
stays required during harvesting season (January-March) when surveys were conducted at night after
villagers returned from their fields.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 7

Survey teams
Surveys were conducted by final-year students from the Faculties of Sciences (FoS) and Forestry
(FoF) at National University of Laos with one student administering the survey while the other
recorded responses. WCS staff trained and supervised students in collaboration with the Nam Ha
Protected Area Management Unit (PAMU). A provincial or district forestry officer (DAFO / PAFO) 1
from the PAMU accompanied the survey teams to the village to introduce the team and the purpose of
the survey to the village leaders. Beyond this, the PAMU staff usually did not participate in the
household surveys.
January 23-30, 2002
Feb.-March 2002
Sept.-Oct. 2002
January 6-11, 2003
January-March 2003
Survey team training: Dr. Arlyne Johnson (WCS), Mr. Phimkeo Thamalsine
and Mr. Outhai Vongsa (PAMU) and Professor Lau Mua (FoF)
Village surveys: Ms. Malaykham Duangdala, Mr. Singkeo
Phommachanh (FoF)
Survey team training: Dr. Arlyne Johnson and Ms. Malykham Duangdala
(WCS), Mr. Phimkeo Thamlasine and Mr. Outhai Vongsa (PAMU), and
Professor Bounnam Pathoumthong (FoS)
Village surveys: Mr Noy Phaneinhaune, Mr. Khiengkai Gnokhanthone (FoS)
Figure 2. Location of 24 villages around Nam Ha NPA where hunting surveys were conducted
1 PAFO staff who worked on the project were Mr. Outhai Vongsa and Mr. Songphone Luangluxay. DAFO staff
included Mr. Chukavanh Thammavong (Long District), Mr. Thongsavahn Chanthakomman (Luang Namtha
District, Mr. Ae Saymany (Viengphuka District), and Mr. Somxay Phanthavong (Sing District).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 8

Survey structure
Data was collected at two levels, the village and the household, with the emphasis directed towards
the latter. The general methodology was as follows:
• PAMU staff introduced the team and its purpose to the village headman,
• The team collected information from the village headman on village name, district, the number of
households and residents, and the length of time the village had been in its present location,
• The team conducted land use mapping and local wildlife name exercises with the village
headman and others,
• The village headman introduced the team and its purpose at a village meeting. A list of suitable
households, based on the relative degree of wildlife use, was provided to the survey team.
• The two interviewers conducted the household surveys using a structured, yet flexible,
questionnaire format, to maintain a sense of ease with villagers, particularly when touching on
potentially sensitive issues (DoF/DFRC 2000, Rabinowitz 1997)
Land use mapping
The objective of this exercise was to map the area used by the village for hunting, fishing, and
agriculture. The activity was conducted with the village headman and other interested community
members. Using a standardised participatory rural assessment method (Byers 1996) maps were
drawn on large paper. A village land allocation map was used as a base, if present. If difficult for the
group to work on paper, the map was made on the ground, using stones and sticks to mark
geographic landmarks (rivers, mountains, roads, paddy fields and trails). The mapping activity
generally took from 40-90 minutes.
Local language names of common wildlife
The objective of this activity was to develop a local language list for the common mammals, large
birds and reptiles found in the village area that could be referred to during the household interviews.
The team worked with the headman and elders to list the local names of wildlife known to occur in the
area on a large piece of paper. This list of local names was then crosschecked with picture cards of
animals that would be discussed during the household surveys.
Household survey
The household survey was comprised of 15 multiple-choice, semi-structured and open-ended
questions (see Appendix 1). Interviewers followed a flexible structure and informal interview format.
The standardised wording of the questions in the survey form was utilised as a guide with further
explanation provided if needed.
Eight questions related to hunting, trade and use of wildlife by the household and the village in
general, while seven questions (questions 3-10) were asked in reference to 56 key wildlife, including
29 mammals, 8 reptiles, 1 amphibian and 18 birds (see species list, Appendix 2.1). Animals were
selected according to the following criteria: known to occur in the NPA, previously reported as used
for subsistence or for sale in the province, having conservation and management importance in NPA
(Duckworth et al. 1999, MAF 2001, Tizard et al. 1997), and ease of identification. The list included 25
restricted and 17 controlled species as defined in articles 18 and 19, MAF 0524 (MAF 2001).
The animal-specific questions were asked for each animal in turn. Simultaneously, a single picture
card of each animal was shown to overcome difficulties arising from differences between names of
wildlife in Lao and the local language and to ensure correct identification. Most animals were
identified to species level. Exceptions to this, arising from taxonomic uncertainties, are noted in
Appendix 2.2.
Household selection
The household survey was conducted with a sample of at least 10% of all households from each
village. The selection of households was generally made by the village headman on the basis of
which households were known to utilise wildlife. For the September-October 2002 field session,
households were selected by the interviewers on the basis of a wealth ranking exercise (Marris et al.
2002). House size (small, medium or large) was assumed to be congruent with the wealth rankings of
poor, medium and wealthy and a random sample selected for each of these categories.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 9

Survey process
Each household survey took from 15 –90 minutes to complete, depending on the extent of wildlife
used by the household and their comprehension of survey questions. Surveys were conducted in the
home of each household and began with casual conversation. If respondents expressed signs of
discomfort during the survey, interviewers would break from the survey questions and engage in
general conversation until the respondents were more relaxed. Surveys were conducted in the Lao
language with a local translator organised by the village headman as necessary. This translator was
usually a male villager, most often either the village headman or teacher (depending on the village
headman’s fluency in Lao).
Analysis
The questions were organised into three broad topics, wildlife hunting, wildlife use and wildlife
populations. The animals were classified into 10 groups on the basis of taxon, body size and habitat.
The main analysis summarised the percentage of households that responded positively to any
question or response category as a function of the sample size for each question or animal. The
second method for analysis was comparing and ranking animals in descending order by the
percentage of households responding to a particular question. In order to standardise comparisons
across animals with different sample sizes the total of 320 households was used to derive the
percentages used in the ranking. This represents a conservative interpretation of the data though it
may underestimate trends for uncommon animals with few households responding. Throughout, the
comparison of number of responses regarding use of different animals is taken as a proxy of the
relative frequency of use of each animal and also as an indicator of relative abundance.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 10

RESULTS
Survey villages and households
The 24 villages 2 surveyed (Appendix 3) represented 59% (n=41) of villages in and on the border of
the NPA. The average village population was 255 people with an average of 47 households per
village (Figure 3). We conducted surveys in an average of 32% of households per village (Appendix
3).
140
Figure 3: Total and surveyed number of households in each
village.
# households
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
# households
# households
surveyed
Village
The majority of villages surveyed were from the Akha ethnic group(14 villages) followed by Khamu
(3), Mien (3), Hmong (2), Kui (1) and Tai (1) (Table 2). The predominance of Akha in the survey area
is typical of the western section and more remote villages of Nam Ha NPA (Ling 1998, Phiapalath
1999). Children made up 50-60% of the population in the surveyed households indicative of the high
national population growth rate of 2.5% (UNDP 2002).
Table 2: Village and household information by the main ethnic group.
Main ethnic
group
# villages
surveyed
% surveyed
villages
#
households
surveyed
% surveyed
households
Akha 14 58% 185 58%
Khamu 3 13% 60 19%
Mien 3 13% 36 11%
Hmong 2 8% 15 5%
Kui 1 4% 12 4%
Tai 1 4% 12 4%
Total 24 100% 320 100%
Local language names of common wildlife
Common and Lao names were recorded for the 56 key wildlife (Appendix 2.1). Given the differences
between scientific and local taxonomies for wildlife, responses to some animals likely included more
than one species (see Appendix 2.2). As this is a preliminary consideration of wildlife use, we were
more interested in the types of animals (e.g., hard-shell turtles, bats, macaques, bulbuls, etc.) people
were using rather than identifying all to species-specific level. Transliteration of the ethnic names in
2 Villages are referred to by their name only once it has been identified in text or tables as a village
(e.g. Ban Namsa or Namsa village is referred to simply as ‘Namsa’).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 11

Lao language of key wildlife were recorded from all villages. Ethnic names for animals differed
between villages and within ethnic groups. We documented eight variations of Akha names, three in
Khamu and two in Mien languages (Appendices 2.3 and 2.4).
Wildlife Hunting
Seasonal hunting effort
Hunting effort for the majority of animals was reported to be greatest from September-February
(Figures 4.1-4.6). Frogs were an exception to this pattern (Figure 4.7), with harvesting largely in May
and June at the beginning of the rainy season. Other exceptions to this seasonal pattern were likely
due to small sample sizes (i.e. n

Across the year, the results of the ranking indicated that the 15 most frequently hunted animals on a
monthly basis were birds, small mammals and frogs less than 2 kg. in size (Table 3). For example,
18% of households reported hunting Red-cheeked Squirrel on a monthly basis throughout the year.
The majority of animals frequently hunted were birds (5 pheasants and partridges, 1 pigeon and 4
small-medium sized birds) and the most common mammals were rodents (squirrels and bamboo
rats).
Table 3: Most frequently hunted wildlife on a monthly basis
(n=320).
Relative frequency of hunting % responses
Red-cheeked Squirrel 18%
Pallas's Squirrel 17%
Black-crested Bulbul 16%
Hoary Bamboo Rat 12%
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus 12%
Bar-backed Partridge 10%
Spangled Drongo 9%
Great Barbet 8%
Thick-billed Green Pigeon 7%
Silver Pheasant 7%
Rufous-throated Partridge 7%
Red Junglefowl 7%
Grey-peacock Pheasant 6%
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain 5%
Greater Coucal 5%
Hunting methods
Guns were the most common method
reported for capturing most wildlife,
followed by snares (Figures 5.1-5.9).
We defined ‘snare’ as any technique
that enabled the capture of wildlife
without human intervention at the
actual time of capture. 56% of total
responses for hunting methods across
all animals were guns, followed by
26% for snares, 14% for other and
2 kg.) Other
methods that were commonly reported
for some animals were slingshots
(small songbirds, e.g., Black-
crested Bulbul), hand collection (hard-shell turtles, frogs, pangolin, bamboo rats), and hitting with a
stick (bats). Bows were only occasionally used for squirrels, some medium-sized mammals and for
birds.
Results of the ranking between animals ever reported by households indicated that the animals most
frequently hunted with guns were primarily small arboreal mammals and birds (squirrels, pigeons, and
songbirds) and a few terrestrial mammals larger than 3 kg. in size (civets, muntjac and pig) (Table 4).
The animals most commonly collected with snares were primarily terrestrial mammals and birds.
Table 4: Animals most frequently reported to be hunted with guns and snares (n = 320).
Animals most frequently
hunted with guns
% households
Animals most frequently
hunted with snares
% households
Red-cheeked Squirrel 54% Bar-backed Partridge 42%
Pallas's Squirrel 53% Rufous-throated Partridge 25%
Thick-billed Green Pigeon 41% Lesser Oriental Chevrotain 24%
Great Barbet 38% Grey-peacock Pheasant 23%
Black-crested Bulbul 35% Red Junglefowl 19%
Spangled Drongo 32% Silver Pheasant 18%
Red Muntjac 28% Black-crested Bulbul 17%
Red Junglefowl 25% Yellow-legged Buttonquail 16%
Common Palm Civet 25% Greater Coucal 15%
Mountain Imperial Pigeon 25% Red-cheeked Squirrel 12%
Silver Pheasant 23% Spangled Drongo 12%
Masked Palm Civet 19% Hog Badger 7%
Wild Pig 18% East Asian Porcupine 9%
Grey-peacock Pheasant 17% Great Barbet 7%
Black Giant Squirrel 17% Short-nosed Fruit Bat 7%
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 13

Figure 5. Hunting methods used for capturing wildlife (n = number of households who
reported hunting for each animal). Methods include guns (G), bows (B), snares (S), and other
(O). For each animal, the sample size (n) equals the number of households responding.
Figure 5.1: Hunting method: pheasants, partridges & quails.
Figure 5.2: Hunting methods for small-medium birds.
% households
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
0%
179
25
12 7
118
114
10 6
44
O
S
B
G
% households
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
0%
13 2
Great Barbet
79
Great er
Coucal
34
Shikra
18
Chinese Pond
Heron
12 8
Spangled
Drongo
212
Black-crested
Bulbul
O
S
B
G
Animal
Animal
Figure 5.3: Hunting methods for large birds.
Figure 5.4: Hunting methods for snakes and lizards.
100%
10 0 %
% households
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
17
76
13 9
19
O
S
B
G
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
14
13
13
O
S
B
G
0%
Orient al Pied Hornbill
M ountain Imperial
Pigeon
Thick-billed Green
Pigeon
Crested Serpant
Eagle
0%
King Cobra Wat er M onitor Bengal M onit or
Animal
Animal
Figure 5.5: Hunting methods for turtles and frogs.
Figure 5.6: Hunting methods for other mammals.
10 0 %
100%
90%
% households
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
38
38
98
O
S
B
G
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
15
47
10 27
O
S
B
G
10 %
0%
Big-headed Turtle Indochinese Box Turt le Hoplobat rachus rugulosus
0%
Pangolin
Short-nosed Fruit
Bat
Slow Loris
Pig-tailed Macaque
Animal
Animal
Figure 5.7: Hunting methods for small carivores.
Figure 5.8: Hunting methods for ungulates.
100%
100%
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
47
Yellowt
hroat ed
Marten
14
Hog Badger
14
Large Indian
Civet
85
Common
Palm Civet
62
22
M asked Palm Leopard Cat
Civet
O
S
B
G
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
57
Wild Pig
10 6
Lesser Oriental
Chevrot ain
10
14
90
Sambar Deer Red M unt jac Sout hern Serow
O
S
B
G
Animal
Animal
Figure 5.9: Hunting methods for rodents.
100%
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
57 213 227 50
65
16 4
O
S
B
G
0%
Black Giant
Squirrel
Pallas's
Squirrel
Red-cheeked
Squirrel
Large Flying
Squirrel
East Asian
Porcupine
Hoary
Bamboo Rat
Animal
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 14

Hunters from outside of the village
40% of households (n=320) reported that outsiders come to hunt in their village area. Households in
villages farther away from a main road (especially Nambo, Phinho, and Namkhong villages), reported
more outsiders
Figure 6: Hunting in village area by outsiders as a function of
coming to hunt in the
distance of village from a main road (n=320).
village area (Figure
6). One interviewer
100%
noted that villages
90%
10 0
80%
79
Present
farther from roads are
14 1
70%
Absent often thought to have
60%
more wildlife than
50%
more accessible
40%
villages. Under this
30%
assumption, it is
20%
possible that new
10 %
0%
roads to previously
0-1 km 5-15 km
inaccessible forests
Distance from main road (km)
do initially attract
more outside hunters.
% households
Hunting areas
Most households responded that they usually hunt near their hill-rice fields (often guns were kept in
the fields) and less so in forested areas away from fields (Appendix 4). Responses indicated that this
was because it was more difficult to access forested areas and not because the animals were not
there. When hunting larger animals, hunters reported they would go to forested areas. More hunting
was reported near hill-rice fields than paddy fields, which is likely due to larger areas of forest
remaining in close proximity to hill-rice fields as compared to paddy fields.
Wildlife Use
General
Across villages, households (n=317) reported eating some type of meat or fish an average of 6.7
times in the week prior to
Figure 7: Average meat consumption in the w eek prior to the the survey (Figure 7). On
survey (n =317 households).
average, wildlife was
reported eaten 1.9 times
10
in the previous week while
9
8
12
fish was eaten 1.95 times.
Wildlife
7 18 5
Wildlife and fish made up
Fish
6
an average of 66% of
15 55
36 Domestic
5
occurrences of meat
4
consumed during the
3
week by all ethnic groups
2
14
other than the Mien who
Average # of times eaten
1
0
Akha Hmong Khamu Kui Tai M ien
Ethnic group
reported consuming
domestic meat relatively
more frequently. The
quantity of meat
consumed was not
recorded. Interviewers observed that relatively small amounts of meat were consumed per individual
per meal but that meat was often present. It is important to note that this data was collected from
January-March and September-October, which were also reported as peak hunting periods (Figure 4).
Across all households (n=317), there was an expressed preference for domestic meat (42%) followed
by wildlife (34%) and then fish (24%). Across ethnic groups, the Akha were unique in that slightly
more households reported a preference for wildlife to domestic meat (Figure 8).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 15

80
70
Figure 8: Most preferred type of meat by ethnic group (n =
317 households).
18 5
# responses
60
50
40
30
20
10
15
55
14
12
36
Wildlife
Domestic meat
Fish
0
Akha Hmong Khamu Kui Tai M ien
Ethnic group
Animal-specific
The majority (73%) of the 55 animals were reported eaten by at least one household (Appendix 5).
The ranking of animals most frequently eaten on a monthly basis indicated that a smaller subset of
animals including small songbirds, rodents, frogs, pheasants and partridges made up the bulk of
wildlife consumed (Table 5).
Table 5: Wildlife most commonly eaten at least once a month (n=320).
Species
% households
Black-crested Bulbul 57%
Red-cheeked Squirrel 54%
Pallas's Squirrel 51%
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus 49%
Bar-backed Partridge 38%
Spangled Drongo 35%
Great Barbet 31%
Thick-billed Green Pigeon 29%
Rufous-throated Partridge 21%
Hoary Bamboo Rat 20%
Grey-peacock Pheasant 15%
Silver Pheasant 15%
Red Junglefowl 14%
Short-nosed Fruit Bat 13%
Common Palm Civet 12%
Mountain Imperial Pigeon 11%
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain 9%
Greater Coucal 8%
Yellow-legged Buttonquail 6%
Black Giant Squirrel 5%
Medicine
Twenty-one (38%) of the animals were reported as used for medicine by at least one household, of
which eight are listed as restricted species in MAF 0524 (Table 6). Animals that were most frequently
used as medicine if captured included Southern Serow, Slow Loris and Pangolin, similarly reported
elsewhere as being important for medicinal use (Nooren and Claridge 2001, Tungittiplakorn and
Dearden 2002). Four rarer animals (Burmese Python, Clouded Leopard, Asian Golden Cat, and
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon) were also used for medicine although less than four
households reported using these animals for any purpose.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 16

Table 6: Wildlife most frequently used as medicine (n= # respondents, removed
species with n

Table 7: Average price of wildlife sold.
Animal
Kip per
individual n
Kip per
kilo n
%
households
Pallas's Squirrel 4,485 33 - 0 10%
Red-cheeked Squirrel 3,269 26 - 0 8%
Red Muntjac - 0 13,913 23 7%
Wild Pig - 0 15,450 20 6%
Great Barbet 4,079 19 - 0 6%
Silver Pheasant 23,111 18 - 0 6%
Hoary Bamboo Rat 6,500 18 - 0 6%
Common Palm Civet 24,688 16 10,000 1 5%
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain 30,867 15 6,000 1 5%
Thick-billed Green Pigeon 12,000 16 - 0 5%
Red Junglefowl 14,607 14 - 0 4%
Mountain Imperial Pigeon 8,692 13 - 0 4%
Bar-backed Partridge 5,154 13 - 0 4%
Grey-peacock Pheasant 11,000 11 - 0 3%
Spangled Drongo 700 10 - 0 3%
Pangolin 462,500 8 50,000 1 3%
Large Flying Squirrel 12,222 9 - 0 3%
Rufuous-throated Partridge 5,111 9 - 0 3%
Masked Palm Civet 27,000 8 - 0 3%
Black Giant Squirrel 21,857 7 15,000 1 3%
Indochinese Box Turtle 19,813 8 - 0 3%
Short-nosed Fruit Bat 714 7 - 0 2%
Water Monitor 20,000 4 10,000 1 2%
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus 1,000 1 10,000 4 2%
Pig-tailed Macaque 35,000 2 9850 2 1%
Black-crested Bulbul 1,375 4 - 0 1%
Sambar Deer - 0 13,250 4 1%
Yellow-throated Marten 21,667 3 - 0 1%
Leopard Cat 16,000 3 - 0 1%
Slow Loris 5,667 3 - 0 1%
Southern Serow - 0 10,667 3 1%
Asiatic Softshell Turtle 90,000 1 15,000 1 1%
Bengal Monitor 14,500 2 - 0 1%
Large Indian Civet 13,000 2 - 0 1%
King Cobra 10,500 2 - 0 1%
Oriental Pied Hornbill 6,500 2 - 0 1%
East Asian Porcupine 70,000 1 15,000 1

(n = 320), and may reflect the sensitivity of the issue of wildlife trade more so than the actual
Figure 9: Who w ildlife is sold to (n = 73).
percentage of households that
engage in sale of wildlife.
40%
35%
31% of households reported
that outsiders (people who do
30%
not live in their village) come
25%
to their village to buy wildlife
20%
(Figure 10). While it is
15%
possible that wildlife may be
10 %
sold again and result in
5%
connections with larger wildlife
0%
trade routes, the actual
Other villages Same village Luang Namtha t own Outside Luang Namtha
contacts for sale from villages
Province
in and around the NPA seem
Where buyers of wildlife are from
to be predominantly local.
% households
80%
Figure 10: Presence of outsiders coming to buy wildlife
(n = 320).
70%
% households
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
99
221
10 %
0%
Present
Absent
Outsiders coming to buy w ildlife in village
Wildlife Populations
Animal Abundance
Household assessment of decline in animals numbers was largely consistent with the threat status
assigned to animals both nationally and globally. The ranking exercise indicated that animals listed in
Duckworth et al. (1999) under various categories of risk in Lao PDR were more commonly reported by
households to be decreasing in abundance (Table 9) or were not reported at all in household surveys
(0% of households in Table 9). Likewise, most animals reported by less than 5% of households to be
decreasing in abundance are not identified as being at risk in Lao PDR or as globally threatened.
The only exception to this was that less than 1% of households felt that Big-headed Turtle are in
decline despite being listed as at risk in Lao PDR (ARL).
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 19

Table 9: Wildlife most commonly reported as decreasing in abundance (n=320)
Animal
Lao PDR risk
category
Global threat
status
%
households
Status
MAF 0524
Reticulated Python PARL 13% R
Burmese Python PARL GNT 10% R
Asiatic Softshell Turtle PARL GT-VU 10%
Clouded Leopard ARL GT-VU 9% R
Asian Golden Cat LKL GNT 9% R
Tiger ARL GT-EN 8% R
Smooth-coated Otter ARL GT-VU 8% R
Pig-tailed Macaque PARL GT-VU 8% C
Water Monitor PARL 8% C
King Cobra PARL 8% R
Oriental Pied Hornbill 8% R
Pangolin ARL GNT 7% R
Leopard Cat 7%
Hog Badger LKL 7% R
Crested Serpant Eagle 7% R
Chinese Pond Heron 6%
Southern Serow PARL GT-VU 6% R
Indochinese Box Turtle ARL GNT 6%
Large Flying Squirrel 6% R
Black Giant Squirrel PARL 6% C
Sambar Deer PARL 5% R
East Asian Porcupine NARL GT-VU 5% C
Bengal Monitor PARL 5% C
Shikra 5% R
Mountain Bamboo Partridge 5% C
Large Indian Civet 4%
Yellow-legged Buttonquail 4%
Greater Coucal 4% R
Masked Palm Civet 4% R
Silver Pheasant 3% R
Mountain Imperial Pigeon 3% R
Grey-peacock Pheasant 3% R
Hoary Bamboo Rat 3% C
Red Junglefowl 3% C
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain 3% C
Red Muntjac 3% C
Wild Pig 2% C
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus 2%
Thick-billed Green Pigeon 2% C
Great Barbet 2% C
Spangled Drongo 2% C
Common Palm Civet 1%
Pallas's Squirrel 1% C
Rufous-throated Partridge 1% C
Bar-backed Partridge 1% C
Red-cheeked Squirrel

The majority of households (65%) identified decreases in animal abundance as a problem (Figure 11).
Of those reporting a problem, 41% further explained that wildlife declines were problematic because
of impacts on livelihoods (food and income). A majority of households suggested that stricter control
of hunting is needed to resolve the problem (Figure 12).
# responses
250
200
150
10 0
50
0
Figure 11: Changes in w ildlife abundance seen as a
problem or not.
Decreasing
Increasing
Changes in w ildlife abundance
Problem
No problem
Only 32% of responses
indicated a problem with
wildlife increasing in
abundance (Figure 11)
because of damage to crops
and livestock. In contrast,
the majority of households
(69%) felt that an increase in
animal abundance was not a
problem, while 35% of these
specifically mentioned the
use of these animals for food
as the reason why increases
were a positive thing.
Figure 12: Suggestions from villagers of w hat to do about the problem
of w ildlife declines (n=280).
16 0
14 0
12 0
# responses
10 0
80
60
40
20
0
Stop/Cont rol hunting Improve agriculture Protect f orests Follow
laws/Conservation
Suggestion
Don't Know
Human-Animal Conflict
Figure 13: Problems with wildlife.
% households
70%
60%
50%
280
40%
30%
159
20%
10%
0%
3
Raiding crops Killing domestic animals Hurting or killing people
Problems with wildlife
The majority of households
(88%) reported problems
with raiding of crops by
wildlife, while 50% reported
problems with wildlife killing
of domestic animals, and
less than 1% reported harm
to people from wildlife
(Figure 13). The most
common responses of
people to these problems
were to 1) guard fields, 2)
shoot or snare problem
animals, or 3) make farm
improvements to reduce the
problem.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 21

Comparison of Wildlife Hunting and Use
Table 10 compares the relative frequency of wildlife hunting and use across animals. An arbitrary cutoff
of the ‘top 15’ animals with the highest percentage of household responses to several survey
questions was selected for comparison.
The 15 most frequently hunted animals from those surveyed included ten birds, four mammals, and
one amphibian (Table 10). Three of these are birds (two pheasants and the coucal) that are restricted
species for which hunting is legally prohibited in Lao PDR under MAF 0524 (Table 1). Nine of the
most frequently hunted animals were also among the top 15 animals most frequently hunted with
guns, while 11 were among those reported to be most frequently hunted with snares. Seven animals
(primarily songbirds, pheasants, and partridges) were also those frequently hunted with both guns and
snares.
Animals that are most frequently hunted are also primarily those that are reported to be most
frequently eaten and most frequently sold. Exceptions to this were coucals that may be hunted for
enjoyment more so than consumption. Likewise, frogs (Hoplobatrachus rugulosus) were frequently
eaten but not commonly sold, suggesting that they may be relatively more important as a food item
during the wet season when other animals are not hunted as much.
Wildlife most frequently hunted
Table 10: Most frequently used wildlife.
Frequently
hunted with
guns
Frequently
hunted with
snares
Used as
medicine
Frequently
sold
Frequently
eaten
Status
MAF 0524
1. Red-cheeked Squirrel * * * * C
2. Pallas's Squirrel * * * C
3. Black-crested Bulbul * * * * -
4. Hoary Bamboo Rat * * C
5. Hoplobatrachus rugulosus * -
6. Bar-backed Partridge * * * C
7. Spangled Drongo * * * * C
8. Great Barbet * * * * C
9. Thick-billed Green Pigeon * * * C
10. Silver Pheasant * * * * * R
11. Rufous-throated Partridge * * * C
12. Red Junglefowl * * * * * C
13. Grey-peacock Pheasant * * * * * R
14. Lesser Oriental Chevrotain * * C
15. Greater Coucal * R
Few of the commonly hunted animals were reported as being used for medicine. Exceptions were the
pheasants and none of these were reported as being widely used for medicine (i.e. < 10 households
reporting their use). In general, animals used for medicine were less frequently hunted but among the
most valuable for trade.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 22

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This study found that a wide variety of animals are hunted and used for food and medicine by villages
in the NPA management zone. Hunting appears largely opportunistic, occurring in forested areas
near hill rice fields with the majority of hunting effort coinciding with periods of hill rice field preparation
and harvest. Wildlife trade from villages and hunting by outsiders also occurs, thus contributing to the
decline of controlled species that are important for food and restricted species that are already rare
and in decline. Of immediate concern to both rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation is that
the most frequently used animals are small-bodied (

• Currently no guidelines exist for government staff or villages to know if harvest of controlled
species is within the limits of sustainability. To determine sustainability, ongoing information is
needed on the actual abundance, harvest and use of controlled as well as other heavily utilised
animals in the NPA. A priority for research and monitoring is information on the status and use of
the larger frequently hunted animals including the pheasants, partridges, pigeons, civets, and
small ungulates. This information should be used to design and adapt village wildlife
management plans that will assure population viability and availability of these animals as a food
source for the future.
• Of the 55 animals included in the survey, 14 animals were neither listed as restricted or controlled
species by MAF 0524. Unlisted animals that were commonly reported as frequently used or as
declining in abundance by this study should be assessed and classified for management. Of
priority among these are all turtles as well as recommendations for harvest of small carnivores
(Leopard cat, Yellow-throated Marten, Large Indian Civet, Common Palm Civet), frogs, herons,
and small songbirds.
Managing hunting by NPA villages
Hunting seasons and zones
Hunting pressure for most animals was reported as being highest from September – March. These
months coincide with the period prior to upland rice harvest when food shortages occur (September-
October), months when farmers are in the fields harvesting hill rice (October –December), and a
period of free time (December –February) prior to cutting forest (February-March) for new hill rice
plots (NAFRI 2003); and data from this study). Hunting in September and October, and for frogs in
May and June, is outside of the six-month period (November-April) when hunting is legally permitted
under MAF 0524 (MAF 2001).
Given the opportunistic nature of hunting and the reported use of wildlife for food and medicine, it will
likely be difficult and unrealistic to stop villages from hunting frequently used controlled and
uncontrolled species during the prohibited hunting season, especially during September and October
in periods of rice shortages. Even if domestic livestock are available for consumption at this time,
villagers may still elect to hunt wildlife and reserve domestic animals for sale at a later date when cash
is needed to buy rice or other goods. Given that the majority of the villages surveyed are from the
Akha ethnic group, who actually indicated a slight preference for wild over domestic meat, they will
very likely hunt even when domestic animals are available unless hunting regulations can be enforced
by local authorities.
Management recommendations
• Given the potential importance of some common animals (small squirrels, bamboo rats, bulbuls)
for food security, it may be more realistic to limit the use of controlled and uncontrolled species by
geographic location rather than by season. This could allow for some degree of harvest of
common animals by villages in NPA management zone throughout the year while increasing
efforts to strictly enforce bans on hunting of all animals within the demarcated NPA core zone.
Hunting of restricted species needs to be enforced at all times in all areas.
• NPA core zones are not completely demarcated or understood by people living in or around the
NPA. Some villages are physically inside or have land allocated within the NPA core zone. If
zones are to be useful in managing hunting, several actions are recommended. Core zones, i)
need to be of sufficient size to harbor viable populations of most species the NPA aims to
manage, ii) the core zone boundaries should be thoroughly marked and mapped to lie outside of
village use areas, iii) education is needed to inform both the rural and urban public of the location
and complete protection of the core zone, and iv) regular education / enforcement patrols done by
joint village/NPA patrol teams to ensure that no hunting takes place in the core zones.
• The role of wildlife in rural food security in Lao is not well documented or understood. Recent
nutritional studies from some villages in Xekong and Salavan provinces (Clendon 2001, Krahn
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 24

2003) suggest that wild meat still plays a critical role in providing for balanced rural diets. More
detailed information on the type, frequency and quantities of wild meat consumed in villages
relative to other sources of protein needs to be collected and results used to guide wildlife
management strategies in the NPA.
Hunting methods
Despite ongoing gun collections in NPA villages over the years, guns were still reported to be the
most common hunting method and were prominent in the capture of larger, rare animals that were
more often reported as declining. Guns in NPA villages include an array of unregistered homemade
muskets as well as semi-authomatic AK 47s issued to village militia. As in other locations in Lao,
government issued, factory-manufactured cartridges for the village miliatia weapons are altered to
change the solid lead bullet to lead shot, and are reloaded and reused (Hansel, manuscript in prep.).
In addition to guns, a wide variety of specialised snares are employed for hunting ground birds,
terrestrial and volant mammals (see snare descriptions in Johnson and Phirasack 2002).
Management recommendations
• Gun collections should be continued and their frequency increased to eliminate the use of
firearms in the NPA. Gun control will likely not threaten village food security since the majority of
the most frequently eaten animals reported in this study were also captured with snares or by
other methods. Efforts should be prioritised to target villages that are actively selling animals or
that report outsiders hunting as these are the most immediate threats to both rural livelihoods and
biodiversity conservation. It is not clear if outsiders bring their own firearms or secure them in the
village. Stonger enforcement effort should aim to confiscate guns from anyone at any time in the
NPA.
• The use of village militia weapons for hunting was not investigated by this study but very likely
pose a greater threat than muskets since they are more effective for harvest of larger, rare
animals and for hunting of small animals when reloaded with lead shot (Hansel, manuscript in
prep.). Closer management of village militia weapons and ammunition is critical to assure that
they are not used for hunting in the NPA.
• Frequency of use of snares suggest that gun collections alone will not limit the extent of hunting of
many animals (especially of terrestrial birds and mammals). It is possible that use of snares will
increase if guns are effectively limited. Therefore, strict delineation and enforcement of the core
zone protection areas where hunting is prohibited will be critical to assure effective refuges for
animal production.
• A concern with snares is that they do not discriminate in prey selection and will inadvertently trap
rare and restricted species in the NPA management zone. Hunting with common snares, such as
long fence line noose snares (called “heo pan”) or log drop snares (called “heo tham”), should be
evaluated to identify frequency of types of animals caught to determine how large a problem this
is. Likewise, types of snares that are permitted for use should be reviewed to determine what
snares likely pose a threat to restricted species and species under some degree of risk in Lao
PDR. For example, specialised snares to capture bears (called “heo mii”) or trip wire spear or
gun traps (called “heo hao”) to kill large mammals should be prohibited. Since the latter could as
easily injure a human as a large mammal, their use also poses a threat to NPA visitors.
Managing illegal hunting by outsiders and wildlife trade
Hunting by outsiders
Despite village land allocation in the NPA management zone and regulations that limit hunting in
NPAs to only village residents, a large number of households surveyed (40%) reported hunting by
outsiders in their village areas. Hence, the extent of wildlife harvest recorded in our village’s surveys
represents only a portion of the total wildlife harvest in these areas of the NPA. This is a
management concern for several reasons. First, harvest by outsiders directly violates national
policies for poverty alleviation by extracting controlled species that are designated for sustainable use
as food for NPA village residents in the management zone. Secondly, it contributes to the decline of
animals that are already over harvested making sustainable use more difficult and unlikely to achieve.
Finally, illegal hunting of restricted species reduces animal populations that are already rare and that
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 25

include unique animals with potentially high long-term economic value as attractions for nature-based
tourism in the NPA (e.g., large mammals and birds such as primates, hornbills, etc.), one of the
important industries in the province.
The data from this study suggest that new roads and tracks pushed into previously inaccessible
regions of the NPA facilitate access for outsiders to hunt (and buy) wildlife in the NPA. Elsewhere in
Lao PDR, roads are associated with increased sale and eventual decline of NTFPs, tending to have
greater negative impacts on families that are already poor and underprivileged (Chamberlain et al.
2002). Given that 67% of the NPA is already fragmented by human use (Hedemark 2003) and is
bordered by major roads on all boundaries, creating more access for motorized traffic to enter the
NPA invites outside hunting into the final frontiers of the protected area. This makes it less likely that
NPA staff and villagers will be able to effectively enforce existing regulations to control wildlife harvest.
Management recommendations
• Block and or effectively control access by outside motorized travel (trucks and motorbikes) to the
interior of the NPA along existing roads and tracks. Functional road checkpoints are needed on
existing main roads in the NPA from Luang Namtha to Muang Sing and where the Route 3
Northern Economic Corridor upgrade enters and departs the NPA. Training and ongoing support
for customs, police, and NPA staff to operate the checkpoints is needed. Smaller tracks entering
the NPA, to Namkhong in the north and from Viengphukka to Muang Long in the west, also
require controls of some sort to restrict or inspect outside traffic.
• Do not construct any more new roads and tracks in the NPA.
• Expand efforts to educate all people (through signing and mass media) in the province about the
location and boundaries of the NPA, as well as who has rights to legally hunt in the NPA
management zone.
• Strictly enforce the ban on hunting by outsiders in the NPA as stated in MAF 0524.
Wildlife trade
This majority of animals included in this study were traded to some degree. Given the illegality of
trade and reluctance of households to discuss trade, what is reported likely represents a very
conservative estimate of the scale and extent of trade. The problems with trade are similar to those
already reported for outsiders hunting in the NPA (see previous section). Trade of common animals
(87% of animals sold in this study) limits that which is available for consumption and village food
security in the NPA and reduces the likelihood of ever achieving sustainability of wildlife use. Trade of
rarer restricted species threatens the viability of populations that were frequently reported to be in
decline and increases the likelihood that these species will be extirpated from the NPA as they have
been under similar conditions in northern Thailand (Tungittiplakorn and Dearden 2002).
Management recommendations
• See recommendations from the previous section on hunting by outsiders (see above) to control
or restrict access to the NPA, which are also relevant to stopping wildlife trade.
• Expand efforts to educate the public that buying of wildlife is counter to government policies for
poverty alleviation and threatens both rural livelihoods and the viability of the nature-based
tourism industry in the province. Aim the education campaign at urban populations with
disposable income and dispense information at wildlife markets and at road check points.
• Increase the frequency of enforcement in urban markets and road checkpoints to stop sale of all
animals. Although often thought of as harmless, results from this study suggest that sale of
common animals (squirrels, bamboo rats, pheasants, partridges and songbirds) reduces the size
of animal populations that are likely most important for village consumption.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 26

REFERENCES
Byers, B. A. 1996. Understanding and influencing behaviors in conservation and natural resources
management. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.
Chamberlain, J., P. Phomsombath, and V. Thantavong. 2002. The impact on poverty of rural roads in
Louang Prabang and Khammouane provinces under LSRSP 1. Pages 20 + appendices.
SIDA, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Clendon, K. 2001. The role of forest food resources in village livelihood systems: a study of three
villages in Salavan Province. Pages 39. IUCN, Vientiane.
deKoning, M. 2000. Feasibility study for the promotion of non-timber forest products. Nam Ha NBCA
Management Unit, Forestry Section, PAFO / German Development Service, Luang Namtha.
DoF/DFRC. 2000. A managers' guide to protected area management in Lao PDR. Pages 173. Lao
Swedish Forestry Programme and IUCN-Lao PDR, Vientiane.
Duckworth, J. W., R. E. Salter, and K. Khounboline. 1999. Wildlife in Lao PDR: the 1999 status report.
IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Wildlife Conservation Society/Centre for Protected
Areas and Watershed Management, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Foppes, J., T. Saypaseuth, K. Sengkeo, and S. Chantilat. 1997. The use of non-timber forest products
on the Nakai Plateau. Pages 1-79. IUCN, Vientiane.
Hansel, T. Manuscript in preparation. Observations on Subsistence Hunting along the Phu Yai
Mountain Range, Xanakham District, Vientiane Province, Lao PDR.
Hedemark, M. 2003. Forest survey of the Nam Ha National Protected Area: results of GIS and field
activities completed in March 2002. Pages 43. Wildlife Conservation Society, Vientiane.
Hedemark, M., and U. Vongsak. 2003. Wildlife survey of the Nam Ha National Protected Area:
wildlife observation from 4 areas of the Nam Ha National Protected Area in March 2002.
Pages 43. Wildlife Conservation Society - Lao Program, Vientiane.
Johnson, A. 2000. Use of a conceptual model and threat assessment to design and monitor
effectiveness of the Nam Ha National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Lao PDR. Pages 356-
364 in A. Galt, T. Sigaty, and M. Vinton, eds. The World Commission on Protected Areas,
2cnd Southeast Asia Regional Forum. IUCN Lao PDR, Pakse, Lao PDR.
Johnson, A., and S. Phirasack. 2002. Wildlife and threat monitoring and patrolling in the Nam Ha
National Protected Area: A report on a WCS training for the Nam Ha Protected Area
Management Unit, Luang Namtha Province. Pages 35. Wildlife Conservation Society,
Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Krahn, J. 2003. Cooking up dietary change in Lao upland kitchens. UNDP, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Ling, S. 1998. Luang Namtha community-based conservation project: summary of village data
collected in Luang Namtha province (1996-1998). Wildlife Conservation Society, Luang
Namtha.
Ling, S. 1999. A biological system of prioritisation for protected areas in the Lao PDR. CPAWM /
Wildlife Conservation Society Cooperative Program, Department of Forestry, Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
MacKinnon, J. R., and K. Mackinnon. 1986. Review of the protected areas system in the Indo-
Malayan realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
MAF. 2001. Regulation on the management of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas (NBCAs),
aquatic animals and wildlife. No. 0524/AF.2001. Pages 18. Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Vientiane.
Marris, G., M. Hedemark, A. Johnson, and C. Vongkhamheng. 2002. Environmental baseline study of
the route 3 upgrade through the Nam Ha National Protected Area. Pages 1-97. Wildlife
Conservation Society-Lao Program, Vientiane.
Meredith, M. E. 1997. Wildlife and conservation in Luang Namtha Province, Lao PDR. International
Seminar on the Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Biosphere
Reserve, Jinghong, China.
NAFRI. 2003. Household survey of Phonsay and Namo Districts, Luang Prabang Province.
Socioeconomics Unit, National Agriculture and Forest Research Institute, Vientiane.
Nooren, H., and G. Claridge. 2001. Wildlife Trade in Laos: The End of the Game. IUCN, Amsterdam.
Phengsopha, K. 2000. The Analysis and Introduction of Land-Use in Nam Ha NBCA, Luang Namtha
Province. Pages 1-74. NUOL-Department of Forestry, Vientiane.
Phiapalath, P. 1999. Protected areas and local people's participation in natural resource management
for sustainable development: a case-study in Nam Ha Protected Area, Lao PDR. School of
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 27

Environment, Resources and Development. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Rabinowitz, A. 1997. Wildlife Field Research and Conservation Training Manual. WCS, New York.
Robichaud, W., C. W. Marsh, S. Southammakoth, and S. Khounthikoummane. 2001. Review of the
national protected area system of Lao PDR. Pages 113. Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme,
Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Southammakoth, S., and I. Craig. 2001. Fact sheets: National Bio-diversity Conservation Areas
(NBCAs) in Lao PDR. Pages 145. Lao-Swedish Forestry Programme, Vientiane.
Stuart, B. 2002. Personal communication. Provisional list of Nam Ha reptiles of conservation concern.
March 11. Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Tizard, R., P. Davidson, K. Khounboline, and K. Salivong. 1997. A wildlife and habitat survey of Nam
Ha and Nam Kong protected areas, Luang Namtha province, Lao PDR. CPAWM/WCS
Cooperative Program, DoF, MAF, Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Tungittiplakorn, W., and P. Dearden. 2002. Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in
northern Thailand. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 50: 57-73.
UNDP. 2002. National Human Development Report for Lao PDR: Advancing rural development.
UNDP, Vientiane.
Wikramanake, E., E. Dinerstein, and C. J. L. e. al. 2002. Terrestrial ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A
conservation assessment. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, United State.
World Tourism Organization (2001). Tourism Market Trends – Asia, 2001 Edition. World Tourism
Organization, Madrid, Spain.
World Tourism Organization (2002). Tourism Market Trends 2002 - World Overview and Tourism
Topics. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 28

APPENDICES
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 29

Appendix 1: Survey form for the wildlife use study in the Nam Ha NPA.
DATA SHEET FOR WILDLIFE USE STUDY IN THE NAM HA NPA (January 2002)
Date:
Village Information
Start time: Finish time:
Names of interviewer(s):
Village name:
Age of village:
# of households:
# of people:
District:
HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
Conduct this interview with the head of the household in a sample of households (at least 10% of households
per village)
Name of the head of the household
Number of people in the household
Men (18 years or older) Women (18 years or older) Children (

7. On average, what price does this animal sell for? (Record price).
8. On average, how often is this animal sold? (Tick one).
1. At least once a week
2. At least once a month
3. Occasionally
4. Never sell at all
9. Do you use any part of this animal for medicine?
10. Do you think that the numbers of this animal have increased, decreased or stayed the same?
REPEAT QUESTIONS 3 - 10
11a. For any of the animals that you said are decreasing, are you concerned about the decrease?
Why are you concerned? What ideas do you have about how to stop this decline?
11b. For any of the animals that are increasing, are you concerned about the increase?
Why are you concerned? What ideas do you have about how to stop this increase?
12. Do people from outside of your village come to hunt in your area? YES NO
13. Who does your village sell wildlife to? (Tick any that apply).
Neighbors in the same village
People from other villages
People from Luang Namtha town
People from outside Luang Namtha province
14. Do people come to your villages to ask to buy wildlife? YES NO
15. Has your household had any problems with wildlife? (Tick if yes).
Raiding your crops? Killing your livestock? Hurting or killing people?
What ideas do you have for solving this problem?
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 31

Appendix 2.1: English (common names), Lao and scientific names for wildlife noting that these vary across broad ethnic groups and
across villages. Status as Restricted (R) or Controlled (C ) species in MAF No. 0524/2001 (Articles 18 and 19)
Animal #
Common Name
Lao Name
Transliteration of Lao Name
Scientific Name
Status
MAF
0524
1 Pangolin ì†− Liin Manis javanica / pentadactyla R
2 Short-nosed Fruit Bat À¥¨ Cia Cynopterus sphinx
3 Slow Loris ìó¤-ìö´ Ling lom Nycticebus coucang C
4 Pig-tailed Macaque ìó¤-¡ñ¤-¹¾¤-¦˜− Ling kang haang san Macaca nemestrina C
5 Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon ê½-−ó-Á¡É´-©¿ / ¢¾¸ Thanii keem dam / khaaw Hylobates concolor / leucogenys R
6 Asiatic Black Bear Ïó-£¸¾¨ Mii khwaay Ursus thibetanus R
7 Sun Bear Ï-ó-Ͼ Mii maa Ursus malayanus R
8 Yellow-throated Marten À¹¤ñ−-À£õº Ngen khua Matrtes flavigula
9 Hog Badger Ïø-ìõ¤ Muu luung Arctonyx collaris R
10 Smooth-coated Otter −¾¡-−Õ Naak nam Lutrogale perspicillata R
11 Large Indian Civet À¹¤ñ−-¹¾¤-¡È¾− Ngen haang kaan Viverra zibetha
12 Common Palm Civet À¹¤ñ−-º´ Ngen om Paradoxurus hermaphroditus
13 Masked Palm Civet À¹¤ñ−-¹¾¤-¢ð Ngen haang kho Paguma larvata R
14 Leopard Cat À¦õº-Á´¸ Sua meew Prionailurus bengalensis
15 Clouded Leopard À¦õº-쾨-À´¡ Sua laay meek Pardofelis nebulosa R
16 Asian Golden Cat À¦õº-ij Sua fay Catopuma temminckii R
17 Tiger À¦õº-£Ȥ Sua khoong Panthera tigris R
18 Wild Pig Ïø-¯È¾ Muu paa Sus scrofa C
19 Lesser Oriental Chevrotain ±¾−-Ä¡É Faan kay Tragulus javanicus C
20 Sambar Deer ¡¸¾¤ Kwaang Cervus unicolor R
21 Red Muntjac ±¾− Faan Muntiacus muntjak C
22 Gaur ¡½-êò¤ Kathing Bos gaurus R
23 Southern Serow À¨õº¤-°¾ Nyuang phaa Naemorhedus sumatraensis R
24 Black Giant Squirrel ¡½-»º¡-©¿-ªȤ Kahook dam nyay Ratufa bicolor C
25 Pallas's Squirrel ¡½-¹º¡ Kahook Callosciurus erythraeus C
26 Red-cheeked Squirrel ¡½-¹º¡-Á¡É´-Á©¤ Kahook keem deeng Dremomys rufigenis C
27 Large Flying Squirrel ®È¾¤ Baang
Petaurista sp.
R
28 East Asian Porcupine À´˜− Men Hystrix brachyura C
29 Hoary Bamboo Rat ºí− On Rhizomys pruinosus C
30 King Cobra ¤Ñ-¥‰¤-ºÈ¾¤ Nguu cong aang Ophiophagus hannah R
31 Reticulated Python ¤Ñ-ÀÍœº´-¤ö¸ Nguu luam ngua Python reticulatus R
32 Burmese Python ¤Ñ-ÀÍõº´-£¸¾¨ Nguu luam khwaay Python molurus R
33 Asiatic Softshell Turtle ¯¾-±¾ Paa faa Amyda cartilaginea
34 Big-headed Turtle Àª‰¾-¹ö¸-ù¨È Taw hua nyay Platysternon megacephalum
35 Indochinese Box Turtle Àª‰¾-ÀÍõº¤ Taw luang Cuora galbinifrons
36 Water Monitor À»û¨ Hia Varanus salvator C
37 Bengal Monitor Áì− Leeng Varanus bengalensis C
38 Hoplobatrachus rugulosus ¡ö® Kop Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
39 Bar-backed Partridge −ö¡¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-©¿ Nok kho kho sii dam Arborophila brunneopectus
40 Mountain Bamboo Partridge −ö¡-¡½-ê¾-¯È¾ Nok katha paa Bambusicola fytchii C
41 Rufous-throated Partridge −ö¡-¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-Á©¤ Nok kho kho sii deeng Arborophila rufogularis
42 Red Junglefowl Ä¡È-¯È¾ Kay paa Gallus gallus C
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 32

Appendix 2.1: English (common names), Lao and scientific names for wildlife noting that these vary across broad ethnic groups and
across villages. Status as Restricted (R) or Controlled (C ) species in MAF No. 0524/2001 (Articles 18 and 19)
Animal #
Common Name Lao Name Transliteration of Lao Name Scientific Name
43 Silver Pheasant −ö¡-¢¸¾-Íñ¤-¢¾¸ Nok khua lang khaaw Lophura nycthemera R
44 Grey-peacock Pheasant −ö¡-¡º¤¡º© Nok koong kood Polyplectron bicalcaratum R
45 Green Peafowl −ö¡-¨÷¤ Nok nyung Pavo muticus R
46 Yellow-legged Buttonquail −ö¡-£÷ É´ Nok khum Turnix tanki
47 Great Barbet −ö¡-ªñ¤-ìð Nok tang lo Megalaima virens C
48 Oriental Pied Hornbill −ö¡-¡ö¡-−ö¡-Á¡¤ Nok kok nok keeng Anthracoceros albirostris R
49 Greater Coucal −ö¡-¡ö©-¯õ© Nok kod puud Centropus sinensis R
50 Mountain Imperial Pigeon −ö¡-´ǿ Nok muum Ducula badia R
51 Thick-billed Green Pigeon −ö¡-À¯í¾ Nok paw Treron curvirostra C
52 Shikra Á͸ Leew Accipiter badius R
53 Crested Serpant Eagle »÷-ɤ Hung Spilornis cheela R?
54 Chinese Pond Heron −ö¡-À¥‰¾ Nok caw Ardeola bacchus
55 Spangled Drongo −ö¡-Á§¸-©ö¤ Nok seew dong Dicrurus hottentottus C
56 Black-crested Bulbul −ö¡-¢¸¡À¹ìõº¤ Nok khuak luang Pycnonotus melanicterus
Status
MAF
0524
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 33

Appendix 2.2: Comments regarding the wildlife names and species identification.
Common name
General
Pangolin
Short-nosed Fruit Bat
Black/White-cheeked
Crested Gibbon
Large Flying Squirrel
Indochinese Box Turtle
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
Green Peafowl
Comment
Responses to some animals (e.g. Slow loris, Pig-tailed Macaque, Pallas's squirrel, Hoary Bamboo
Rat, Greater Coucal, Mountain Imperial Pigeon, Thick-billed Green Pigeon, Chinese Pond Heron,
Spangled Drongo, Black-crested Bulbul) may encompass more than one species. For other
species (e.g. Wild Pig, Lesser Oriental Chevrotain, Silver Pheasant) there is little chance for
confusion. Difficulties lie in the differences between scientific and local taxonomies, as well
problems of identification (e.g. use of 2-dimensional photo rather than actual animal,
geographical/age/sex variation in animal morphology, variation in distinctiveness between different
types of animals). As this is a preliminary consideration of wildlife use, the interest is more directed
to the types of animals people are using rather than identifying all to a species-specific level.
The Pangolin is possibly one of two species, Manis javanica or M.pentadactyla , it is currently not
known which of these species is found in Nam Ha NPA. Identification to the species level is not
possible from photographs so it was not possible to confirm identification with villagers.
A photograph of this species was shown to respondents however there are several species of bats
in Nam Ha NPA and it is unlikely that all responses relate to this particular species. It was chosen
to be representative of bats in general rather than a specific taxa. The Lao name used for this
species simply means 'bat'.
The Gibbon is possibly one of two species, Hylobates concolor or H.leucogenys. At the time of
the survey, it was not known which of these species occurred in Nam Ha NPA. Identification to
the species level is not possible from photographs so it was not possible to confirm identification
with villagers. This information will be be available from a separate project that conducted field
surveys to identify the species present in Nam Ha NPA.
Identification to species was not made. There may be more than one species of Large Flying
Squirrel in Nam Ha NPA.
This species was used to be indicative of a hard-shelled turtle. Wildlife surveys subsequent to the
selection and use of this species suggest that it does not actually occur in Nam Ha NPA.
This species was used to be indicative of a frog. While it occurs in Nam Ha NPA it is unlikely that
respondents were only thinking of this specific taxon when they provided information on their
hunting of frogs.
This species was included as a check for accuracy as it was extirpated from Nam Ha NPA some
time ago (Tizard et al. 1997) and is excluded from all analyses.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 34

Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 35

Appendix 2.3: English, Tai Dam and Akha names for wildlife.
Tai Dam
Akha
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤ Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤ ®É¾−-−Õ-»š ®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤ ®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò− ®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
Common Name
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩 ®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾ ®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
Pangolin ì†− 꺤-£ô 꺤-£ô 꺤-£ô 꺤-£ô ª½-À£ó½ 꺤-£ô 꺤-£ô 꺤-£ô
Short-nosed Fruit Bat À¥¨-¡¾−-¢¾¸ À®-¹¾ À®-¹¾ À®-¹¾ À®-¹¾ À®-¹¾ À®-¹½ À®-»¾ À®-»¾
Slow Loris ìó¤-ìö´ À´¸-캤 º¾-¡¾-À¡¾ À´-¸-캤 À´-¸-캤 ´ò¸-ìð À´¸-ì𠺾-¡¾-À¡¾ º¾-¡¾-À¡¾
Pig-tailed Macaque ìó¤-¡ñ¤ Œ- º¾-´ó¸ª¾-³ó¸ º¾-´ò¸ º¾-´ò¸ Œ- º¾-À´É¸ º¾-À´É¸ º¾-À´É¸
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon Œ- Œ- º¾-´ó¸-−½ ´ò¸-−½ Œ- Œ- À´¸-§õÁì½À´¸-−½ º¾-À´¸-−½ º¾-À´¸-−½
Asiatic Black Bear À¹´õº¨ Œ- ¹¾-¹ø-¤¾-´½ ¹¾-¹õ´ Œ- ¹¾-¹õ´ ¹¾-¹÷¤ º¾-À´É¸-®½-²ò¸ º¾-À´É¸-®½-²ò¸
Sun Bear Ïó ¹¾-»ø-§ó
¹¾-¹ø-§ó
¹¾-¹ø-¥ó Œ- ¹¾-¹ø-¥ó ¹¾-¹÷¤ À»ö¾-´½-−½-®ø À»ö¾-´½-−½-®ø
Yellow-throated Marten À¹¤ñ−-´º¤ »ð-ªº¤ À®§ò »ð-ªº¤ »ð-ªº¤ À®¨-¦ò À®§ó−¾-®ð À¯-§ó-À»ö¾-§ò
Hog Badger 솤-Ïø Œ- ì¾-§ò ì¾-§ó ì¾-§ó ì¾-§ó µ¾-§ò ¥½-§ó− ¥½-§ó−
Smooth-coated Otter ®¸− ºð-§÷´ ºõ-§÷¤ ºó-§÷¤ ºó-§÷¤ ºó-§÷¤ Àº-§÷¤ ºô-§÷¤ ºô-§÷¤
Large Indian Civet À¹¤ñ−-¹¾¤-¡È¾− º¾-£Ëº¤ À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð
À¥-´¾-ìð-¥ð À²-ºò À¥-´½-ºõ-À¥¾½
Common Palm Civet À¹¤ñ−-º´ Á³-µô Á²-²õ À²¨-ºò À²¨-ºò À²¨-ºò À²ºò²ô º¿-²-ó º¿-²-ó
Masked Palm Civet À¹¤ñ−-Ïó »ø-¤ ¤¾-º-À² »ø-¤ ¤¾-º-À² À²¨-ºò À²ºò−½-§½ À²-³õ À²-³õ
Leopard Cat À¦õº-Á´¸ º¾-£º¤ º¾-»º¤ º¾-£º¤ º¾-£º¤ ºð-»ð º¾-»º¤ º½-»º¤ º½-»º¤
Clouded Leopard À¦õº-쾨-À´¡ Œ- £¾-§õ Œ- Œ- À®É-ì¾-À®-ì¾ ¹¾-¨õ £¾-µõ £¾-µõ
Asian Golden Cat À¦õº-ij Œ- À¦õº-Á² Œ- À¦õº-Á² ¹¾-Á¨ À¦õº-À²¨ À§ó-À²¨
À¯-§ó-À»ö¾-§ò
À¥-´½-ºõ-À¥¾½
Tiger À¦õº-¥Ȥ Œ- £¾-ì¾ Œ- Œ- Œ- ¹¾-ì¾-ì½-´½ £¾-ì¿-´½ £¾-ì¿-´½
Wild Pig
Ïø-캤 ¨½-Àê ¹ìɾ-Àê ¹¾-Àê ¹¾-Àê ¹¾-Àê º¾-ÀêÉ ¡¾-Àê ¡¾-Àê
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain ³¾−-Ã¡É À¥-¹¾-ª¾-¯-ºÈ¤ À¥-¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤ À¥¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤ À¥¹¾-ª¾®-ºÈ¤ À−-¡¾-À©ó®-ºÈ¤ À§-¹¾-ª¾-À¯¾½ À§-¹¾-ª½-¯ð À§-¹¾-ª½-¯ð
Sambar Deer ¡¸É¾¤ ¹É¾-Á¥½ ¹ìɾÁ¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½ ¹¾-Á¥½
Red Muntjac ³¾− À¥¹¾ §ó-¹¾ ¥ó-¹¾ §ó-¹¾ ¥ó-¹¾ §ó-¹¾ À§-¹¾ À§-¹¾
Gaur ¤ö¸-¡½-êò¤ Œ- Œ- À−-¨- Œ- À−-¨- À−-¨ø À−½-¨ À−½-¨
À§ó-À²¨

Tai Dam
Akha
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤ Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤ ®É¾−-−Õ-»š ®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤ ®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò− ®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
Common Name
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩 ®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾ ®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
Southern Serow À¨õº¤ µ¾ µ¾ µ¾ µ¾ µ¾ ¨½ ¨½ ¨½
Black Giant Squirrel ©È¾¤ ¹ø-§½ ¹ø-¦½ ¡ð-»½ ¹ø-¦½ ¡ð-»½ ¡ð-¹½ ¹-¦¾ ¹-¦¾
Pallas's Squirrel ¹º¡-À®‰¾ »ø¥½-»ø-ªº¤, »ø-¥½-»ø¨-½ º÷ -¥¾-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥½-¹ø-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤ ¹ø-¥¾-ªº¤
Red-cheeked Squirrel ÃÎ-Á¡É´-Á©¤ »ø-¥½-¯¾-À− º÷ -¥¾-¯¾ ¹ø-¥¾-¹ø-®½ ¹ø-¥¾-¹ø-®½ ¹ø-¥¾-¹ø-®½ ¹ø-¥¾-®¾ º÷ -¥½-º÷-¯¾ º÷ -¥½-º÷-¯¾
Large Flying Squirrel ®È¾¤ ¹-§ø »-§ø ¹ø-§÷ »-§ø ¹ø-§÷ ¹-§ø º-§ø º-§ø
East Asian Porcupine ÀϘ− »ö®-²ø ¹-²ø ¹ð-²ò¸ ¹ð-²ò¸ ¹ð-²ò¸ ¹²÷ ¹²÷ ¹²÷
Hoary Bamboo Rat º−- »ö®-³ó ¹²ó ¹ø-²ø ¹ø-²ø ¹ø-²ó ¹-²ò ¹-²ó ¹-²ó
King Cobra ¤Ñ-¥ö¤-ºÈ¾¤ º½-ìð-²ø-´¾ ºó-£¾-ºõ-²õ º½-ì𠺽-ì𠺽-ì𠺽-Âì-ºô-−½ º½-Âì-Âê½-´½ º½-Âì-Âê½-´½
Reticulated Python ¤øÀ Íõº´ º¾-ì÷ -−½-
º¾-ìð-ºõ-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-ìð-ºò-´½
º½-Âì-ºô-´½ ©¾-ì÷¨-§õ ©¾-ì÷¨-§õ
Burmese Python ¤øÀ Íõº´ ªÒ-ìò-§ô ªð-ìó-§õ ìò ìò ìò º½-Âì-ºô-´½ º½-Âì-´½ º½-Âì-´½
Asiatic Softshell Turtle ¯¾-±¾ À¯¸-¯¾ À¯-¯-ë½ À®-¨¾ À®-¨¾ À®-¨¾ À®-À®¨ À©-À®¨ À©-À®¨
Big-headed Turtle Àª‰¾¡-¸¾¨-캤 Œ- À®-§õ-À®¨
Indochinese Box Turtle Àª‰-¾-£¿ À¯-¡ø-§ˆ
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-¨ð
À®-§ò-À®-Áµ½ ®ò-§ó-®ò-Àµ¾½,À®-¡ø ®ò-§ó-®ò-Àµ¾½,À®-¡ø
À®-¡ø-§-ó À®-¡÷ À®-¡÷ À®-¡÷ À®-¡ø À®ó-¡ø-§õ
Water Monitor À»û¨ ºô-µð ºõ-¨ð ºõ-¨ð ºõ-¨ð ºõ-¨ð ºõ-¨ð À©¾½-ª¾-À©¾½-Àµ¾½ À©¾½-ª¾-À©¾½-Àµ¾½
Bengal Monitor Áì− ºø-¥ø-µð ªð-¨ð
Àªó-¡ð
Àªó-¡ð
À®ó-¡ø-§õ
Àªó-¡ð ªð-¨-ð ºø-Àµ¾½ ºø-Àµ¾½
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus ¡ö® ±¾-®õ ±¾-®ô ¹¾-®õ ±¾-®ô ¹¾-®õ »¾-²¾-®ô £¾-²¾-¡÷ -Âì½
Bar-backed Partridge −ö¡¢Ò-£ð-¦ó-©¿ £õ-À¥¾½-£õ-À¥
¤¾-Á§-£õ-À− ¤¾-Á§ ¤¾-Á§ ¤¾-Á§ ¤¾-Á§½ £÷ -Â¥½-£÷-À¥½
Mountain Bamboo Partridge Ä¡È-Á¢É µ¾-Àµó½ £¾-À¨ó½ ¹¾-À¨õº ¹¾-À¨õº ¹¾-À¨õº ¤¾-Àµó ¡¾-À¨ó ¹¾-Àµó
Rufous-throated Partridge
−ö¡-£ð-´º´ ¤½-Á§ ¤¾-Á§Â¯-¯ −¾-Á§ −¾-Á§ −¾-Á§ ¤¾-Á§½ º½-Á§½ ¹¤¾-Á§½
Red Junglefowl Ä¡È-¯È¾ µ¾-µó ¤¾-µó ¡¾-µó ¡¾-µó ¡¾-µó µ½-¨ó ¡¾-¨ó ¹¾-¨ó
Silver Pheasant −ö¡-¢¸¾ À¡ó½ À¡ó À¡ó À¡ó À¡ó À¡ó À¡ó À¡ó
Grey-peacock Pheasant −ö¡-¡º¤¡º© ®¾-¡÷¨ ®¾-¡÷¨ ®¾-¡÷¨ ®¾-¡÷¨ ®¾-¡÷¨ ¯ð-¡÷¨ ®¾-¡÷¨À» ®¾-¡÷¨À»
£¾-²¾-¡÷ -Âì½
À¥¨-£÷ -À¥¨£¾

Tai Dam
Akha
®É¾−-−Õ-¡ö¤ Íñ¡-£¿-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−-−Õ´ñ©-À¡‰¾ ®É¾−¹¸É¨-¹ö¡ ®É¾−-−Õ-ÀÍõº¤ ®É¾−-−Õ-»š ®É¾−²ø-Áµ-ÃÏÈ,−Õ-¨¾¤ ®É¾−−-¥¾-À¢ò− ®É¾−-¦ö®-ºò
Common Name
®É¾−-−Õ-´ñ©-ÃÏÈ ®É¾−- ꉤ-쾩 ®É¾−-Ͼ¡¡¸É¨,−Õ-¦¾ ®É¾−-−Õ-Á©©-À¡‰¾
Green Peafowl Œ- Œ- Œ- Œ- Œ- Œ- §÷−-ªõ §÷©-À© §÷©-À©
Yellow-legged Buttonquail
−ö¡-¦÷ É´ £-µ¾-´½ ¹ð-µ½-´½ ¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½ ¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½ ¹¾-¨¾-ì½-´½ »ø-µ¾-ì¾-´½ ¹ø-ì¾-´½
À¹ó-µ¾-´½
Great Barbet −ö¡-ª˜¤-ìð §ò¸-ìø §ó¸-ì÷- §÷-ì÷ §÷-ì÷ §÷-ì÷ ¥ø-ì÷ §÷-ì÷ §÷-ì÷
Oriental Pied Hornbill −ö¡Á¡¤ »ø-¤º¨ »ð-¤º¨ ¡¾-Á§½ ¡¾-Á§½ ¡¾-Á§½ »ð-Á¡ ¹º−-−½ ¹º−-À®¨
Greater Coucal −ö¡-¡ö© ªõ-ªó-´½ ©ó-ªô ªð-ªô ªð-ªô ªð-ªô ©ø©÷ ®ò¸-©ó-©ó®
Mountain Imperial Pigeon −ö¡-»ǿ ¹¾-¡ø-»ð
Thick-billed Green Pigeon −ö¡-À¯¾ ¹¾-¡ø-À¨
¹¾-¡ø-»ð
¹¾-¡ø-À¨
¹¾-¡÷ -¨ð
¹¾-¡÷ -À¨õº
¹¾-¡÷ -¨ð
¹¾-¡÷ -À¨õº
¹¾-¡÷ -¨ð »ð-¡ø-¹Ó
¹¾-¡÷ -À¨õº »ð-¡ø-À¨ò
Shikra Á»¸ ¹¾-À¥-À¥-À¯¸ ¹¾-À¥-Á¯¸ ¹¾-À¥- ¹¾-À¥- ¹¾-À¥- »¾-À¥ ¹¾-Àµ½ ¹¾-Àµ½
Crested Serpant Eagle »÷ ɤ- ¹¾-À¥-´½ ¹¾-À¥- ¯-¯½-Âì½ Â¯-¯½-Âì½ Â¯-¯½-Âì½ ®ø-´½
Chinese Pond Heron −ö¡-¨¾¤ ¤ô-µ¾-´½, ¥ó-»ð ¥ð-Á£½
Spangled Drongo −ö¡-Á§¸ ¥ó-À¥½-À−
Black-crested Bulbul −ö¡-¢¸¡À¹ìõº¤ ´ð-À¨-§õ ´ð-À¨-£¾ ´ð-À¨-§õ ´ð-À¨-§õ ´ð-À¨-§õ
¨ó-¹ð
¨ó-¹ð
¹¾-¡ø-¹ð
¹¾-¡ø-µô
®ò¸-©ó-©ó®÷
¹¾-¡ø-´½
¹¾-¥ò-¥ò-´½ »ð-¯÷
¹¾-¡÷ -´ó-ìó
¨ó-¹ð ºð-º¾-−½ ºõ-º½ ºô-º½-´½
¨õ-À¥½-£ø-¨½ ¥ó-À¥½ ¥ó-À¥½ ¥ó-À¥½ ¥ó-À¥ó ¥ø-¥÷
-´½ ¥ø-¥÷
-´½
À³ó-Áµ-¹¾ ´½-À¨-§õ ´½-À¨-ë

Appendix 2.4: English, Kui, Yao, Hmong and Khamu names for wildlife.
Kui
Yao
Hmong
Khamu
Common Name
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤ ®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡ ®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾ ®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó ®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾ ®É¾−©º−-ħ ®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
®É¾−-−Õ-®
Pangolin ³¾-£÷ ÄÍÉ ì¾¨ ¡øÈ-µð ºõ´-¯-¸È− ¡¿-®ö¸-ì𠣿-À¡õº−
Short-nosed Fruit Bat ¯÷ -¨¾ ®É¾-®÷¨ ®½-®÷¨ ªø-¯ö¸ Àªõº− Àªõº-ì Àªùõº−¡¸¾¨
Slow Loris ´ð-¢ð-£ö¸ ®š¤-À´ö¾ ¥¼− Áì-®¾-´ö¸ 쾨-À¥¤ 쾨-À¥¤ ¸½-À¥
Pig-tailed Macaque ´ð-¢ð-−ò ®ó¤ ®ó¤ ªø-Àì¨ ¸½ ìó¤ ¸½-¯½-Àª½
Black/White-cheeked Crested Gibbon ´ð-−½ ¥¼− ¥¼−-À¥¨ Œ- Œ- À»-µ-ìð Œ-
Asiatic Black Bear µø-À¡ó ¥¼®-¤ö¤ ¥¼®-¤ö¤ ©¾¨-®ö¸ »¸− ¹¸-ì𠻸−-Àìó-−Õ
Sun Bear ¸½-À¡ó ¥¼®-¥ø ¥¼® ©¾¨-Á© »¸− ¹¸-ìðì-ºñ¡ À´ó¨-ì½-¸ñ¡
Yellow-throated Marten ³-¦ñ¡-¡÷ ©¼−-Ä¨É ±ñ−-®ó-»½ Ͼ-§ð ¡ë¾− ¡¸¨ ì½-¸¾¨-¨½-À´ó½
Hog Badger
Smooth-coated Otter
³½-²ð-ì𠵺ɨ µº¨ ¹¨¾´-®ö¸ ±ø−-À§õº¤- À§õº¤-ª½-Âì¤ ³ëø−
À¡ó-²ô §ñ© §ñ© ªø-§ö¸ −¾¡ −¾¡ −¾¡
Large Indian Civet ¥ø ©¼−-§ò¤-À¡ ©¼− ªø-¯ö
¸ ¦ñ−-ª½-¡¾− §ñ-ë-¡¾−-¯-ºÉ¤
Common Palm Civet
¯É¾-¸ò-¡Ó-−÷ ©¼−-¥¼− ©¼−-À¨õº Ͼ-¥ó´ö¸ ª½-´º¤ §ñ-ë-À©õº¨
¡½-§º−
§ñ−-Àº-ëó−
Masked Palm Civet £ ©¼−-®ö¸ ©¼−-Á¨ Ͼ-©¾¨ ª½-´º¤-ì÷¤ 뾤-£ð Îñ¤-Ïó
Leopard Cat ¡ø-Ä© ©½-´É¾¸-¥È¾¸ ©½-´½-À¥ö¾ ªø-¯ó §ñ− §ñ¤-À©õº¨ §ñ−Àìó
Clouded Leopard ì¾-£-¢ ìɾ−-»ø ©½-´½-À®¸ À¯ö-¥ˆ §ñ−-Àìó Àëó-¸¾¨-Á¨½
ì½½-¸¾¨-ìñ®-ìø
Asian Golden Cat ¡ô−-−ó ©½-´É¾¸¸-§ò ©½-´½-¹÷¤ ¥ð-Àì¨
ì½-¸¾¨-¯ø-Àìõº À¹ó´-®ɡ ì½-¸¾¨-¨ó´
Tiger
ì¾-−ó-À©¨ ¯È¼−-ª¾− ì¼−-ª¾¸ ªø-¥ð-ìð ì½½-¸¾¨-−Õ Àëó-À¨-§¾-츤
ì½-¸¾¨
Wild Pig Á»®-¸½ À»¨-ª÷ Ȥ À»¨-ªø¤ ®ö¸-Àª½ À§õº¤-³ò 캤®¾− À§õº-³ò
Lesser Oriental Chevrotain
Ä©-§ó-−ó ¥ø¤-¥ó ¥ø¤-¡ó À¡‰-¾Ä¡È Ã¡É À§õº¤¤-³ò ±¾−-áÉ
Sambar Deer §¾-§ò ĵ Áµ ´¾-ìš ª¾-¨¾¡ ª½-¨¾¡ ª½-¨½
Red Muntjac §¾-§ò¡ø ¥ø¤-¥ó ¥ø¤- À¡ö ¯¸È¨ ¯ö¸½ ¯¸¨
Gaur ¹¾-¨ò¸ »¼¤-¤Ð¤ µ¾¤-¤ö¤ ¨ø-Â¡É ¡½-ªò¤ ¡½-©ò¤ ¡½-ªò¤

Kui
Yao
Hmong
Khamu
Common Name
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤ ®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡ ®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾ ®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó ®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾ ®É¾−©º−-ħ ®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
®É¾−-−Õ-®
Southern Serow »½ µ÷¤- µø¤ ªø- §¾¨ À¡½ À¡½ À¡½
Black Giant Squirrel ³½-−½ µ¾¤-¥÷© µ¾¤-¥÷ Ïð-Ä¡È Â¯¤-Á¡È ²º¡-¯ô-ë ¯ö¤-Á¡
Pallas's Squirrel ³½-Àê¾½ ®ö®-§ò ®ö®-§ò −¾-ªö¤-ªœ ³º¡-À¹ìõº¤ ³º¡-À¹ìõº¤ ³º¤-Àìõº¤
Red-cheeked Squirrel ³½-§ð Àµ¨ Àµ¨ Ͼ-µö¸ ³º¡-−½ ³º¡-−½ ³º¤-−½
Large Flying Squirrel ³½-§ø ®ö®®-Á§¤ ®ö®®-Á¦¤ Ï!À¥‰¾ Àìõº¡ À¹ìõº¡ Àìõº¡
East Asian Porcupine ³½-¯ø ©¼−-ĵ ª¼−-Àµ À¥ö-¾ ¡ð-¯ô
Àëó-Áë½
Àì½
Hoary Bamboo Rat ³½-²ó Âì¸ Âì Ïɾ-¡ð ª½-¡ñ− ª½-¡ñ− ª½-¡¾−
King Cobra
¸õ-Àì¾½-²õ ¥ö¤-À£ö¾-−¾¤ −¿-À®ó-§ò −¾-§¾-À§¤ ´¾-ìó-¯¾-−ô´ ´ñ-ë-¡¼¤
´ñ©-Àìó-¡¼¤
Reticulated Python 쾨-§õ ¹ñ−-À§¨ ¹¾−-À§¨ −¾-©¾ ´ñ©-Àìó-¡ø− ´ñ-ë-¡ø−
Burmese Python 쾨¨-À−¾½ ¹ñ−-À§¨ ª´-−¾¤ Œ- ´ñ©-Àìó-¡ø− ´ñ-ë-Àëó¡¾-ª¾¡
´½-Àìó-¡ø−
´½-Àìó-¡ø−-ª½-¡÷©
Asiatic Softshell Turtle ¯¾-±¾ ê¸−-µó ®¼¸-ª À¨-§ö¤ ªô´-¯½ ª¿-®½ ªö´-¯½
Big-headed Turtle ¡õ-¥ò ª´-¡º¤-ª ª-ĹÈ-¨ À¸ö¡ó -À© ºº-¤-캤 Àª‰¾-º´ Àª‰¾
Indochinese Box Turtle ®ó-£÷
-§õ ªÉ-¥¼´ ª-®¼− À¸ö¾¡-󢸾 Àª‰-£¿ ¹È¾-£¿ Àª‰¾
Water Monitor ¡-À¡½ ªÉ-¡¾−º¸´ «¾− −¾-¡¾-À© ª½-¡º© ªùº¨¡º© ª½-¡º©
Bengal Monitor ¡¡-À¡½-§õ ªÉ-«¾−-®¼− −¾¤-¡ø-쾤 −¾-¡¾-¢¸¾ ª½-¡º© Áì− ª½-¡º©-ê-ë¾−
Hoplobatrachus rugulosus
¥ñ−-−ð-¯¾ Á¡¤ Á¡¤ ±¾-®õ Œ- ¡ö® êùò¡
Bar-backed Partridge ¤½-©ð À−¾½-À¥¨-ùÈ-¨ −Ó-À¥¨-ùÈ-¨ ªø-µõ ±ëö¤-§º¨ ±ëö¤ ±ëö¤-µº¤
Mountain Bamboo Partridge
À£-−ø-Áì½
Àµ¨-¡ø-Ä¥ −Ó-Á¥ ªø-µö¸ Àº¨-À£ñ¡ ²ö-ë¤-§-ºÈ¤-§º¨ Œ-
Rufous-throated Partridge ¤½-©ð À−¾½½-À¥¨-¡ø −Ó-À¥¨- µó-À¡ö¾ ±ëö¤-¡¾-¯º¤ ²ëö¤-¨ó´-À¡ó−©ù¸-ë ±ö-ë¤-À¡-Ä¡ð
Red Junglefowl Ä»-¡½ À−¾½-Á¥ À−¾½-Á¥ Ä¡È-¡øÈ Àº¨¨-³ò Àëóº¤-ëð-³ò ºó-º¼−-³ò
Silver Pheasant ¡Ó ª´-À−¾½ ª´-À−¾½ ©ù¾ Àê-ëõº− Àªùõº−-¡¾¤§¾ À¹ìõº−
Grey-peacock Pheasant ¤½-¡-Àì À−¾-½¥¼´-¥õ− À−¾-½¥¼´-¥õ− À»ö-¾»ö¸ ¡º¤¡º¨ ¡º¤¡º¨ ¯¡-¯¨

Kui
Yao
Hmong
Khamu
Common Name
®É¾−-¡÷¨-¦ø¤ ®É¾−−-¦¾¨-À¹ìñ¡ ®É¾−-¥ö¤-¡¾ ®É¾−-²ò−-»Ó ®É¾−-−Õ-¹É¾ ®É¾−©º−-ħ ®É¾−¢ö¸-¦ø¤
®É¾−¯È¾-£È¾
®É¾−-−Õ-®
Green Peafowl −ö¡-¨÷¤ À−¾½-¨÷¤ Œ- Œ- Œ- −ö¡-¨÷¤ Œ-
Yellow-legged Buttonquail º-Á´Å À−¾½-À¥É¨-±÷ È−
À−¾½-À¥É¨-±÷ È− −ö¤-ºõ ªô-¡ø© ª½-¡÷© ª½-¡ø©
Great Barbet
¯ó-ìø ¥ñ¤-Â¹ì ¥ñ¤-¹ì −¾-À쉾 ¥½-캡 ¦½-¹ìº¡ ¦½-¹ìº¡
Oriental Pied Hornbill ªð-¥ñ¤-À¤¾½ À−¾½-ª¾ À−¾½-±ö¤-¸¾¤-ª½ −ö¤-ªö¤-À© Á¯-ë½-Á¯½ Á®½Å ¡¼¤-¡É¼¤
Greater Coucal º¦¾-¡õ À−¾½-±ñ−-®-´ø− À−¾½-±ñ−-®-´ñ− ªö¸-µö¸ Àº¨-ºô© Àëõº¤-ìð-ºô©
Àºù¨-Àìó-ºó®
Mountain Imperial Pigeon
¤¾-¯õ-¤ À−¾½-¡ø-§ò/¡-¤Ð´ À−¾½-¡-¤ö´ ¡ö¸-©¾¨ §õ´-»õ− À¡ò-ëð-¡ø−
§õ´-»õ−
Thick-billed Green Pigeon
À¤ò-¯ø À−¾½-¡-Á´¤ À−¾½-¡½-Á´¤ ¡¸−-¨ö¸ ªù¨ ¨¾-©© ª¨
Shikra º¾-¥ô ª´-¥¾¤-®ö¸ ª´-¥¾¤-µ ªø-Àì¨ ¡¾−-§õ´ ¹¾¤-§ò´ ¡¾¤-§õ´
Crested Serpant Eagle
º¾-¥ò-²õ,º¾-¥ó-À©¨ ª´-¥¾¤-À¥¨ Á¡¤-¡Ò-µº© ©¾-ìó¸-¨ó¸ ¯¡ ¡ë¾¤-ªð ¡È¾¤-¡½
Chinese Pond Heron À¤¾ À−¾½-¡ø¤¸¾ À−¾½-º¾®- −ö¤À´-−ó-À¨-¨ó ¡¾−-¡½ ¡ù¾¤-¡½ ¡ë¾¤-¡½
Spangled Drongo
Black-crested Bulbul
À¤¾-²ð-¡½-¥¾ §ò¤-Â¥½-ªÓ-³º¤ À−¾½-§ó¤-À¥¸ À¨¨-À§ö¾-ì-ë¾ ¥½-¥ǿ §ò´-¥¾ ¡ò-ì÷´
À¤¾-ìð-Á´½-Àª¾½ À−¾½-¯ò¤-¯¼¸ À−¾½-¯ó¤-¯¼-¸-µ¾¤ Àìñ−-¨ö¸ £½ £½ £½

Appendix 3: Information of the villages and households that were surveyed.
Village
District
Main ethnic
group
Date surveyed
Village
population
# households % households
surveyed
Population of
surveyed
households
%
population
surveyed
# men in
surveyed
households
# women in
surveyed
households
# children in
surveyed
households
Chakhun Kao Long Akha 13/02/03 140 30 40 83 59% 24 26 33
Donsai Luang Namtha Khamu 2/2/2003 150 40 30 64 43% 12 14 38
Houihok Vieng Phoukha Akha 28/02/02 - 01/03/02 157 27 37 66 42% 19 16 31
Khuasung Luang Namtha Khamu 26/09/02 - 28/09/02 234 47 32 89 38% 20 25 44
Kongka Sing Yao 16/01/03 226 37 32 89 39% 21 20 48
Kuiysung Luang Namtha Kui 29/01/03 277 38 32 85 31% 19 21 45
Lakkham Mai Luang Namtha Akha 29/01/02 - 14/02/02 226 50 26 91 40% 22 23 46
Makkuay Mai Long Akha 12/2/2003 215 46 26 77 36% 20 21 36
Nambo Long Hmong 6/2/2002 94 13 46 57 61% 9 10 38
Namded Kao Sing Akha 1/14/2003 254 54 22 93 37% 21 23 49
Namha Luang Namtha Khamu 19/09/03 - 23/09/03 579 112 29 211 36% 52 58 101
Namhi Long Akha 8/02/02 - 9/02/02 358 64 22 102 28% 22 23 57
Namkhong Luang Namtha Tai 5/3/2002 165 25 48 98 59% 20 19 59
Namluang Luang Namtha Akha 6/03/03 - 7/03/03 162 27 44 73 45% 20 21 32
Nammat Kao Luang Namtha Akha 20/02/02 - 21/02/02 266 35 42 132 50% 31 31 70
Nammat Mai Luang Namtha Akha 21/02/03 - 23/02/03 186 33 45 98 53% 24 23 51
Namsa Luang Namtha Akha 24/02/03 673 130 12 145 22% 32 34 79
Namyang Luang Namtha Akha 22/01/03 - 23/01/03 505 95 13 113 22% 30 25 58
Pakha Luang Namtha Yao 30/01/03 230 43 28 104 45% 22 20 62
Phinho Long Hmong 11/02/02 - 12/02/02 201 25 36 84 42% 14 20 50
Phouye Mai Vieng Phoukha Akha 17/02/03 - 18/02/03 205 39 31 62 30% 18 17 27
Saylek Sing Yao 15/01/03 236 40 30 87 37% 19 22 46
Sopee Sing Akha 18/01/03 198 40 30 65 33% 17 20 28
Thonglat Vieng Phoukha Akha 26/02/02 - 28/02/02 187 34 44 93 50% 16 22 55
TOTAL 6124 1124 2261 524 554 1183
AVERAGE PER VILLAGE 255 47 32% 94 41% 22 23 49

Appendix 4: Location of hunting in each village area as indicated in the village mapping exercise.
# Field observations made by survey team on areas most/least commonly
Village District
responses reported by households as being used for hunting (% households).
Chakhun Kao Long 85 The most hunting was in the north-west near some mountains (66%) and the least
(ADD MAP)
in the south-west (6%). There were no rice-fields in the south.
Donsai Luang Namtha 61 The most hunting was in the south-ewest (48%) where there was a smaller amount
of hill-rice fields compared to the other areas.
Houihok Vieng Phoukha 137 The most hunting was in the south-west area further from the mountain range
(66%) and the least in the east area (18%). The village moved to its present
location closer to the road in the last few years. Like other villages in the Muang
Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
Khongka Sing 22 Most of the hunting reported is in the east (95%). However Kongka is next to
Saylek and appeared to have similar practices of hunting in the rice fields rather
than in Nam Ha NPA. Differences between these two villages could also relate to
the small number of responses.
Khuasung Luang Namtha 134 The least hunitng was in the south-east (2%) further from the Namha River. There
were no other trends in the location of hunting.
Kuisung Luang Namtha 99 There were no substantial differences in where huntig occurred though a slight
trend for more hunting in there south-east (38%) and less in the north-west (10%)
closer to the mountains. This village is close to the Chinese border but there
appears to be little sale of wildlife. The village is far from other villages.
Lakkham Mai Luang Namtha 221 The most hunting was in the north-east area (66%) and the least in the south-east
area (9%) where the village and the fields are located. Bears were reported in this
area though not reported in the survey.
Makkuay Mai Long 27 The most hunting was in the north (96%) near the mountains which had hill-rice
fields. There was less hill-rice fields in the south-east and the south-west had
more paddy-fields.
Nambo Long 66 The most hunting was in the south-west area further from the mountain range
(59%) and the least in the south-east area (6%) while the north-west also had a
relatively low amount of hunting (12%). Like other villages in the Muang Long
District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
Namded Kao Sing 14 Most of the hunting was in the north-west (79%) and the least in the south-west
(0%). In the south there was a forest that was protected by the village where
hunting of wildlife was prohibited. There were a small number of responses for
this village.
Namha Luang Namtha 290 The most hunting was in the south-east area (38%) and the least in the north-east
area (11%) but there was not substantial variation in the location of hunting for
this village. A road bisects the village.
Namhi Long 193 The most hunting was in the north-east area closer to the mountain range (40%)
and the least in the south-west downstream area (6%). Like other villages in the
Muang Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial
amount of wildlife.
Namkhong Luang Namtha 214 The western area, which had only 9% of hunting also had many tracks (though not
easy vehicle access). The most hunting (65%) was in the eastern area in the
direction of the northern core area of the NPA. This village has large areas of
forest around it relative other areas. Elephants come near the village and are
sometimes hunted.
Namluang Luang Namtha 240 There were no strong trends for this village, there was slightly more hunting in the
north-west (36%) and the least in the south-west (16%). Elephants come near the
village and are sometimes hunted.
Nammat Kao Luang Namtha 272 The least hunting was in the north-west area (16%) but there was not substantial
variation in the location of hunting for this village. This village is located in the
central core conservation zone.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 44

Appendix 4: Location of hunting in each village area as indicated in the village mapping exercise.
# Field observations made by survey team on areas most/least commonly
Village District
responses reported by households as being used for hunting (% households).
Nammat Mai Luang Namtha 205 There were no strong trends for this village, there was slightly more hunting in the
north-east (39%) and the least in the south-east (15%). This village is located in
the central core conservation area.
Namsa Luang Namtha 134 The most hunting was in the north-east (42%) and the least in the north-west (7%)
but there were no substantial differences in the location of hill-rice fields,
moutains and rivers between these areas. There is a substantial amount of hunting
of wildlife in this village.
Namyang Luang Namtha 169 The most hunting was in the north-west area (49%) however there were rice fields
throughout the entire area surrounding the village and it appeared that hunting
would be common in all of these areas. There appeared to be a relatively
significant amount of hunting and people from this village going to Luang Namtha
Pakha Luang Namtha 71 The most hunting was in the north-west near a large area hill-rice field (77%) and
the least in the east (9%) closer to the mountains.
Phinho Long 106 The one village is in two locations about 30 minutes walk apart. Less hunting is in
the east (32%) towards the south-western core area, this area is also fringed by
mountains. The trend for more hunting in the west (68%) and in the north-west
(38%) in particular though this is not a strong trend.
Phouye Mai Vieng Phoukha 62 The most hunting was in the north-west near some small mountains (71%) and the
least in the south (5%). This is a relatively new village.
Saylek Sing 17 Most of the hunting was in the south (88%) and less in the north (12%) with
mountains being located in the north-east and rice-fields in all areas. There were
few responses for this village.
Sopee Sing 43 Most of the hunting was in the north-west (40%) and the least in the south-west
(12%). The main track near the village ran from the south-west to the north-east.
Thonglat Vieng Phoukha 240 The most hunting was in the north-east area (56%) and in the north particularly
(85%) and the least in the south-west area (5%). Like other villages in the Muang
Long District the area around this village appears to have a substantial amount of
wildlife.
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 45

Appendix 5. Households (n=320) who reported eating an animal at least once a week (w), once per month (m), once per year (y), or never (n).
1.00
Appendix 5.1: Frequency of eating small-medium birds (n=320).
100%
Appendix 5.2: Frequency of eating partridges, pheasants, or quails
(n=320).
% households
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
n
y
m
w
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
n
y
m
w
0.00
Black-crested
Bulbul
Great Barbet
Spangled Greater Coucal Shikra Chinese Pond
Drongo
Heron
Animal
Bar-backed
Partridge
Red
Junglefowl
Silver
Pheasant
Grey-peacock
Pheasant
Animal
Rufousthroated
Partridge
Yellow-legged
Buttonquail
Mountain
Bamboo
Partridge
Appendix 5.3 : Frequency of eating large birds (n=320).
Appendix 5.4: Frequency of eating snakes and lizards (n=320)
100%
100%
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
n
y
m
w
% households
80%
60%
40%
n
y
m
w
20%
0%
Thick-billed Green
Pigeon
Mountain Imperial Crested Serpant Eagle
Pigeon
Animal
Oriental Pied Hornbill
0%
Water Monitor King Cobra Bengal Monitor Burmese Python Reticulated Python
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.5: Frequency of eating turtles and frogs (n=320)
Appendix 5.6: Frequency of eating other mammals (n=320)
100%
100%
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
n
y
m
w
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
n
y
m
w
Hoplobatrachus
rugulosus
Indochinese Box Turtle Big-headed Turtle Asiatic Softshell Turtle
0%
Short-nosed Fruit Bat Pig-tailed Macaque Slow Loris Pangolin
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.7: Frequency of eating large carnivores (n=320)
Appendix 5.8: Frequency of eating small carnivores (n=320)
100%
100%
90%
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
n
y
m
w
% households
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
n
y
m
w
0%
0%
Common
Masked Palm
Yellow-
Leopard Cat Large Indian
Hog Badger
Smooth-
Clouded
Leopard
Asian Golden
Cat
Tiger
Black-cheeked
Gibbon
Asiatic Black
Bear
Sun Bear
Palm Civet
Civet
throated
Marten
Civet
coated Otter
Animal
Animal
Appendix 5.9: Frequency of eating ungulates (n=320)
Appendix 5.10: Frequency of eating rodents (n=320)
100%
1.00
% households
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Lesser Oriental
Chevrotain
Red Muntjac Wild Pig Sambar Deer Southern Serow Gaur
n
y
m
w
% households
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Redcheeked
Squirrel
Pallas's
Squirrel
Hoary
Bamboo
Rat
East Asian Black Giant
Porcupine Squirrel
Large
Flying
Squirrel
n
y
m
w
Animal
Animal
Wildlife Hunting & Use: Implications for rural livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 46