Myanmar - Global Tiger Initiative

Part 4: Status and Distribution of Tigers in Myanmar - 2002PART 4: STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIGERS INMYANMAR – 2002Direct field surveys for tigers were done at 17 sites (Fig. 9; see also Appendix I for sitedescriptions). Although the survey efforts covered only 1.3% of areas with forest cover,these sites were places where tigers were known historically, and where the most recentavailable evidence, including reports from foresters and local people, suggested tigers mightstill be found. The surveys provided new and unique records of occurrence for 19 globallythreatened species, 25 CITES listed species and 45 Myanmar protected species (Appendix II).4.1 Tiger status and distribution - Tigers were reported present at 88% of sites, but confirmedby direct survey in just 23% of sites (Table 2). The rate at which tigers were “caught”(detected) by camera-traps was just over 3,000 trap nights of sampling per photo-record.For example, if 30 camera-traps were placed in the field each for 100 days, one might expecton average 1 photo-record of tiger from the survey effort. In comparison, using a similarsurvey design in Thailand (Lynam et al. 2001), tigers were reported at all seven potentialtiger sites, and detected at 86% of the sites, for a capture rate of just over 200 trap-nightsper photo-record. For example, of 20 camera-traps were placed for 10 nights, one mightexpect to get a single photo-record of tiger. The survey effort required to find a tiger at theMyanmar sites was an order of magnitude higher than at the Thailand sites.Table 2. Comparison of tiger survey results in Myanmar and Thailand.Results of survey Myanmar (17 sites) Thailand (7 sites*)1. Reports of tigers (Sites) 88% All2. Tiger confirmed 23% 86%3. Capture rate – tigers (Days per capture) 3,112 2174. Capture rate – large mammals (“) 5 55. Species richness (large mammals) 16.4 ± 1.3 15.2 ± 1.86. Human traffic (Walk pasts per 100 days) 2.3 3.4* All Thailand sites were in long-established protected areasSeveral features of the data warrant further explanation. Firstly, tigers were detected at alow proportion of sites where tigers where they were reported. Some local people living inand near forest areas apparently perceive other animals in the forest as tigers. For example,in Alaungdaw Kathapa National Park, rangers mistook tracks of Golden cat and Asiaticleopard for tiger, and because these two species were abundant near park headquarters, therangers reported tiger as common (Lynam et al. 1999). As a result, a conservation agencymounted a campaign to “Save the Tigers of Alaungdaw Kathapa”, when direct survey effortsacross 25% of the park found no tigers. A wider monitoring of habitats found no furtherevidence of tigers suggesting that they are now extirpated from the Park. Clearly, somerangers and local people cannot resolve tiger track and sign from other cat species, and needfurther training to be able to do so with some degree of confidence.9.