Illegal Use and Activities

Of the 36 national parks and 176 sanctuaries that responded, 3 (8%) and 46 (26%), respectively, reported incidences of illegal occupation or illegal use or both. Occupation in this context means the presence of people or buildings or both. Use refers only to activities that do not involve the presence of people or buildings.

Encroachment (20%) was the most frequent form of illegal occupation, followed by labor camps (2%), and temples (2%). In response to the query "by whom," villagers were said to be responsible in 52% of the cases, Scheduled Tribes in 13%, "private persons" in 12%, agriculturists in 7%, and lessees in 5% of the cases. The government and nomadic tribes tied for sixth place with 3% each. Gujjars, mineworkers, and "hillmen" were each mentioned in 2% of the cases. The term villager could also cover most of the other categories mentioned above.

The most frequently reported illegal use was cultivation, 37% of all reported cases. The other frequent activities were grazing (20%), encroachment (20%), and fishing (5%). The other illegal use activities were all below 5% of the total number of cases reported.

Though prima facie these activities cannot be judged in terms of their ecological impact, their illegality certainly seems to imply that they have not been evaluated nor found acceptable.

Encroachment

Three (7%) of the 44 national parks and 32 (20%) of the 160 sanctuaries responding reported encroachment.

Offenses

Of the 45 national parks and 172 sanctuaries responding, 31 (69%) and 96 (56%), respectively, reported incidence of one or more types of offenses.

For national parks, the following offenses were the most common: destruction of habitat (average of 971 occurrences per park over the period 1979-1984); illegal grazing/entry of cattle (369); causing fire hazards (38); illegal hunting (28); and improper entry (22). For sanctuaries, destruction of habitat (471); improper entry (221); illegal grazing/entry of cattle (158); and causing fire hazards (22) were the most common offenses. However, these averages by themselves do not provide an accurate picture of these different areas because variations were significant.

Conflicts

A disturbing aspect of the human pressures in and around parks and sanctuaries is the incidence of injury or death of human beings caused by wild animals. Of the 39 national parks and 167 sanctuaries responding, 14 (36%) and 49 (29%), respectively, reported incidents of injury or death of human beings due to attacks by wild animals.

A total of 629 cases were reported for the five-year period (1979-1984), of which 379 (60%) were reported from national parks and 250 (40%) were reported from sanctuaries. Of the 629 cases reported, 485 (77%) were fatal. Of these 485 fatal cases, 329 (68%) occurred in national parks and 156 (32%) in sanctuaries. Seen from another perspective, of the 379 cases reported from national parks and 250 reported from sanctuaries, 87% and 62%, respectively, were fatal.

Clashes

The alienation of local people from the natural resources around them and the inadequate alternative sources of fuel, fodder, water, timber, and of earning a livelihood often force them to make demands on the resources of parks and sanctuaries. As a result, they come into conflict with park and sanctuary authorities. At times vested interests also provoke, or directly participate in, such confrontations.

Very often conflicts over the use and control of natural resources become law-and-order problems, which result in physical clashes between local people and the authorities. Sixteen (37%) of the 43 national parks and 31 (17%) of the 179 sanctuaries responding reported the incidence of such clashes. The major reasons given for these clashes were illicit felling of trees, poaching, illegal grazing, encroachments, and other forest-related offenses.

THREE SELECTED PROTECTED AREAS

Gir National Park

Biological Profile

Flora. The protected area is the only remaining patch of natural forest in the entire Saurashtra peninsula. Eighty-one common tree species, 48 herb and shrub species, 18 species of climbers, and 14 species of grasses, including bamboo, occur in Gir National Park.

Fauna. Gir contains the last wild population of the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica), with the 1990 count being 284 lions. The forests of Gir contain 31 mammals, at least 24 species of reptiles, almost 300 species of birds, and more than 2,000 species of insects. Apart from the Asiatic lion, some of the other endangered species are Chowsingha (Tetracerus quadricornis), Chinkara (Gazella gazella bennetti), Rusty spotted cat (Felis rubiginosa), Ratel (Mellivora capensis), Pangolin (Manis crassicaudata), Marsh crocodile (Crocodilus palustris), and Indian python (Python molurus).

Human Population

Fifty-four nesses (small pastoral settlements of cattle graziers called Maldharis) exists within the protected area. They are inhabited by 2,540 people and 9,820 livestock (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1992). Approximately 65 people (and 110 head of cattle) permanently occupy the three main temple complexes within the protected area.

In addition, 14 forest settlement villages are located inside the protected area with a total human population of about 4,494 and a cattle population of 4,241 (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1993). One of these villages is a settlement of Siddis, who are of African origin and are classified as a Scheduled Tribe. Two hundred thirty-nine Siddis are in this village (District Census, 1981).

Ninety-seven villages are within a 6-kilometer radius from the boundary of the protected area. They have a total human population of 1,31,087 and a cattle population of approximately 94,600 (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1993).

Human Population Pressures. The following items represent the negative impacts on protected areas by local people:

• Degradation and alteration of the ecosystem due to grazing;
• Destruction of habitats due to forest fires - both accidental and intentional - started by people collecting NTFP and by trains;
• Air and noise pollution due to traffic on thoroughfares;
• Disturbance to animals due to the large number of pilgrims and tourists within the protected area;
• Accumulation of solid waste around temple complexes, Maldhari nesses, and forest settlement villages;
• Degradation of forest due to removal of fodder and small timber;
• Change in the behavior and diet of the lions due to the availability of a large number of livestock prey within the protected area;
• Shortage of biomass due to restrictions on the use of the protected area for grazing, removal of fuelwood, NTFP, and fodder;
• Decrease in income due to restrictions related to collection of fuelwood;
• Socio-cultural deprivation because of restriction on the activities and movements of pilgrims within the protected area;
• Restriction on the use of certain thoroughfares and payment of fees for the use of certain roads;
• Crop damage by wild animals;
• Cattle depredation by wild animals;
• Injury and loss of human life due to attacks by wild animals, especially by lions and leopards, and;
• Restriction of people's movements, especially at night, due to danger of attack from lions and leopards.

Grazing. The Maldharis, who live in the nesses inside the protected area, and the residents of the forest settlement villages have concessions for grazing their cattle inside the protected area. An estimated 14,171 head of livestock (including cattle and horses) from the nesses and forest settlement villages within the protected area graze inside the protected area (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1992). In addition, an estimated 94,582 cattle from villages adjacent to the protected area graze within the protected area.

The protected area's requirement for grass for the protected-area cattle and cattle within the 6-km radius is 3,22,518.86 metric tons annually (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1992). Grazing has modified the habitat. Most Maldhari nesses (or villages) are located close to rivers, and the composition of the riverine habitat is gradually changing due to domestic livestock. Acacia and Zizyphus species have established themselves in the shrub layer of the habitat (Khan, 1990). Due to excessive grazing, the weed Lantana camara has spread.

Temples and tourism. Three main temples are located within the protected area: Kankai, Banej, and Tulsishyam. Approximately 80,000 pilgrims visit these temples annually. Approximately 45,000 tourists visit the tourism zone within the protected area annually (Asari, 1994).

Thoroughfares. The PWD roads that pass through the protected area are heavily used by tourists, pilgrims, inhabitants of the nesses and forest settlement villages within the protected area, and the inhabitants of villages adjacent to the protected area. Regular bus routes are along these roads. The impact on the protected area is in the form of noise and air pollution, accumulation of litter along the roads, fires caused by carelessness, and disturbance to animals. In addition, people often leave their vehicles and wander off the road into the forest.

Fuelwood Extraction. Temple complexes, forest settlement villages, and Maldhari nesses within the protected area are dependent on the protected area for fuelwood. Villagers along the boundary of the protected area depend almost exclusively on the protected area for fuelwood needs. The fuelwood requirement for nesses/villages in and within the 6-km radius of the protected area is 1,54,050 kg daily and 56,228.25 metric tons annually (Ecodevelopment Plan, 1993).

Attacks on Humans by Lions. In the last three years, 120 people were attacked, 20 of them fatally (Chengappa, 1993). The presence of lions in revenue (private) lands surrounding the protected area had long been considered an acceptable consequence of living near the protected area. More recently, however, the increase in the number of attacks and in the ferocity of the attacks, from just mauling to direct predation, has aggravated the human-lion conflict (Saberwal et. al., in press).

Local villagers have increasingly become hostile to the lions because of the threat that these lions pose to their lives and to the lives of their livestock. The lions also curtail the villagers' movements at night.

Livestock Kills. From 1979 to 1980 and from 1983 to 1984, 1,648 livestock from within the protected area and 3,322 from adjacent areas were killed (All India Survey, 1984). According to a recent study, the species composition of prey killed by lions within the protected area from 1987 to 1990 showed that 64.8% of kills were wild prey and 35.2% were livestock (Chellam, 1993). The easy availability of livestock prey in and around the protected area has significantly changed the diet of the lion and consequently affected its "wildness." In fact, the lions that have dispersed out of the protected area are totally dependent on livestock for their survival, although this dependence is at least partly due to the sparsity of wild prey.

Weed Infestation. A problem of Lantana camara and Neurocanthes spherostachysi infestation in certain areas adjacent to the nesses and the forest villages exists in the protected area.

Periyar Tiger Reserve

Biological Profile

Flora. The forest types occurring in PTR, as per the Champion and Seth classification are as follows:

1. Tropical Evergreen Forests (IA/C4);
2. Semi-Evergreen Forests (2A/C2);
3. Moist Deciduous Forests (3B/C2), and;
4. Grasslands (IIA/C1/DS2).

In addition, 70 species of grasses, 75 species of herbs, 130 species of shrubs, and 132 species of trees have been identified (Status Paper, undated).

Fauna. Forty-nine species of mammals, 243 species of birds, 28 species of reptiles, 8 species of amphibians, 22 species of fish, and 112 species of butterflies have been identified in PTR. Periyar is home to both the Indian tiger and the Asian elephant. In recognition of its suitability as a tiger habitat, it was declared a Tiger Reserve in 1978 (Status Paper, undated).

Human Population

No humans inhabit land within the core zone of the reserve. Some tribal villages were relocated from the core zone to the buffer zone during the 1950s. These include:

1. Members of two tribal communities, the Mannans (236 families) and the Paliyans (105 families), are settled within and on the northern edge of PTR in its tourism zone. They occupy an area of 88.40 ha. The total population of this settlement is 1,185.
2. Another group of tribals, the Uralis (38 families) are settled within and close to the northern edge of the buffer zone of PTR. They occupy an area of 39.39 ha. The total population of this settlement is 174.
3. The Arayans (186 families), also tribals, are settled within and on the western tip of PTR. They occupy an area of 112 ha. The total population of this settlement is 677.

Some families have reportedly encroached on forest land within the PTR (Eco-development Scheme, undated). According to the District Census Handbook of 1981, the number of people living in a 10-km radius from the boundary of PTR in Kerala is 364,815. The number of people living in a 10-km radius from the boundary of PTR in Tamil Nadu is 272,122, a total of 636,937.

Human Population Pressures. The following items represent the negative impacts on PTR by local people:

• Air and noise pollution as well as disturbance to wild animals due to the movement of vehicles transporting pilgrims inside PTR;
• Pollution and threat of infectious diseases due to the accumulation of solid wastes inside PTR during the pilgrim season;
• Degradation of forests due to extraction of fuelwood and timber for sale;
• Incidence of forest fires accidentally caused by people entering PTR for collection of NTFP;
• Debarking and the resultant damage of cinnamon trees inside PTR due to collection of NTFP;
• Disturbance to animals due to the presence of a large number of tourists and pilgrims in PTR;
• Deforestation due to clear felling by Ganja (cannabis) cultivators in PTR;
• Reduction of animal population due to animal poaching;
• Infestation of weeds due to grazing and forest fires;
• Growing and extraction of eucalyptus to provide raw material to the industry, and;
• Disturbance due to the high number of tourists visiting the reserve.

The following items represent the negative impacts on local people by the PRT:

• Shortage of biomass due to restrictions related to the collection/extraction of biomass from, or access to, the forest for activities such as grazing, fuelwood collection, fodder collection, and small timber extraction;
• Reduction in incomes because of restrictions related to NTFP collection and head loading of fuelwood for sale;
• Socio-cultural deprivation because of restrictions on the activities and movements of pilgrims inside PTR, and;
• Damage to crops in the adjacent areas of PTR by wild animals, especially wild boars.

Tourism. In 1991-1992, roughly 250,000 people were reported to have taken boat rides at the PTR. In 1986-1987, almost 200,000 people were reported to have taken boat rides (Status Paper, undated). These figures show a 25% increase in about six years. The protected area authorities believe that the total number of tourists visiting the PTR might well be close to 350,000. The influx of so many people in the area, apart from exerting a direct pressure, also exerts an indirect pressure. Almost all the hotels and restaurants in Kumily town, all of which cater to the tourists visiting PTR, use fuelwood for cooking and heating. This fuelwood is extracted from the forests of the PTR. Kumily is the town situated adjacent to the northern boundary of PTR near Thekkady.

Grazing. Roughly 2,000 cattle are reported to enter the PTR for grazing from Kumily, from estates adjoining the northern boundary of the buffer zone of the PTR and from areas around Vallakadavu. They graze in the reserve along a length of about 40 km (Eco-development Scheme, undated). Due to the grazing, the weed Lantana camara has in part spread in the PTR, all along the edge of the Periyar Lake as well as along many of the paths and roads in the reserve. Eupatorium has also infected the area (Eco-development Scheme, undated).

Great Himalayan National Park

The Great Himalayan National Park (GHNP) is located in the northwestern Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh. The park has an area of 62,000 hectares (620 sq. km). The GHNP ranges from 1,300 m to 5,805 m above sea level, and the eastern reaches of the park are under permanent snow.

GHNP is a remote area with low resident-human population densities. There are no motorable roads inside the GHNP. The steep terrain inside makes much of the park inaccessible to all but the fit and experienced trekker.

Biological Profile

The GHNP contains some of the least disturbed areas of natural vegetation in Himachal Pradesh, including the catchment areas of the Jiwa Nal, Sainj, and Tirthan rivers. Together they comprise the upper catchment of the Beas river. The park also contains several threatened species of wild flora and fauna. It is contiguous to Tirthan Sanctuary (6,112.98 ha) to the south and Rupi Bhaba Sanctuary (26,914.50 hectares) to the east. The Rupi Bhaba Sanctuary is in turn contiguous to Pin Parvati National Park (67,500 hectares) to the north. These four wildlife conservation areas comprise the largest and best preserved area of wildlife habitat in India and possibly in the Western Himalayas (Gaston and Garson, 1991).

Flora. About one-third of the park comprises closed canopy forest. Most forest cover occurs in belts around the Jiwa, Sainj, and Tirthan and their tributaries in the western half of the park. Fourteen forest types have been recorded in the park according to Champion and Seth's (1968) detailed classification. A more general categorization is used by Gaston and others (1981) as follows:

• Subtropical pine forest characterized by chir pine, found between 600 and 1700 m;
• Himalayan moist temperate forest, characterized by both coniferous and broad-leaved species, found between 1,500 and 3,600 m;
• Subalpine forest dominated by birch and fir species, found between 3,000 and 3,400 m;
• Moist subalpine scrub characterized by Rhododendron species, found between 3,000 and 3,5000 m, and;
• Dry alpine scrub characterized by juniper species, found between 3,400 and 3,800 m.

Fauna. Very little is known about the park's fauna, other than some general information on bird and mammal species. A number of threatened mammal and bird species are found in the park, including endangered species such as snow leopard, musk deer, and Western tragopan pheasant. Other threatened species found in the park include the Himalayan brown bear, Himalayan tahr, the Blue sheep, the Himalayan weasel, the Himalayan palm civet, the flying squirrel, the jungle cat and possibly the leopard cat, the wolf, and the Himalayan ibex. (However, the presence of the last two remains to be confirmed.) Occurrence and distribution of other fauna (reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates) does not appear to be comprehensively documented.

Gaston et al. (1981) identified 117 bird species in the Sainj and Tirthan valleys alone. Thus, the total number for the whole park may be higher. The park's management plan cites 150 bird species. Thus, a bird list of over 300 species has been compiled, based on Gaston et al. (1981), Gaston (1986), and the list provided by park authorities. The classification of the 221 species sighted in the whole upper Beas catchment area by Gaston et al. (1981) suggests that a large proportion, if not the majority, of species found in the park are residents. However, a significant number of summer migrants and a smaller proportion of winter migrants are also present.

The majority of species are passerines. A number of major raptor and pheasant species also occur in the park. Notable among the pheasant species is the highly endangered Western tragopan, of which a viable population is believed to be present in the park, as well as the threatened monal and cheer pheasants.

Human Population

Until recently, four small villages with between 20 and 30 families had the right of habitation in the park. As of 1990, there has been no permanent habitation in one of these villages - Kundar - but the other three villages remain inhabited throughout the year. Park villagers practice small-scale cultivation, herd livestock, and have other rights, including the right to various forest products.

Most of the human habitation outside the park is to the west, southwest, and south; it is concentrated in the lower Jiwa, Sainj and Tirthan valleys. Nearly 200 hamlets and villages appear to be located within a radius of 10 km. According to park authorities, 22 villages are located within a radius of 10 km, with an estimated population of 1,200 (All India Survey, 1992).

Human Population Pressures. The following items represent the negative impacts on GHNP by local people:

• Grazing of sheep and goats in the park and in high-altitude thatches (meadows) is degrading the habitat and disturbing the animals;
• Collection of medicinal, aromatic, and edible herbs and plants is degrading the habitat, disturbing the animals, and threatening many species with local extinction;
• collection of fuelwood is degrading the habitat;
• Extraction of timber is deforesting the area, and;
• Poaching of animals, especially the Musk deer (Moschus moschiferus), is threatening the species with local extinction.

• Restrictions on habitation within the park;
• Restrictions on cultivation within the park;
• Restrictions on grazing and fodder collection;
• Restrictions on herb collection;
• Restrictions on the collection of fuelwood and NWFP;
• Restrictions on hunting, and;
• Restrictions on the right of way.

Local people, as well as people from neighboring areas, graze their livestock in the park. Migrant grazing is seasonal, from May to October. During those months, goats and sheep are herded to high-altitude pastures or thatches.

Grazing of sheep and goats in what is now GHNP has been taking place for generations. For many local people it is more a way of life than an economic activity. The graziers come mainly from the 200 hamlets where many of the people claim traditional grazing and herb and mushroom collection rights. These rights have been recorded in the Rights and Settlements of Kullu District, written by Alex Anderson in 1886.

Flock sizes are variable, and the number of graziers accompanying each flock is related to flock size. For example, a flock of 400 to 500 animals is generally accompanied by a group of five or six graziers. Each flock consists of sheep and goats belonging to several families from one or more villages. Graziers coming from beyond adjacent areas often pick up sheep and goats from the villages they pass through on their way to the park. Such graziers often stay in farmers' fields, so their flock can manure the fields while the graziers are given food and shelter in exchange. The graziers are paid by the other villagers, often in kind rather than cash, for taking their sheep and goats into the park.

Five hundred sheep and goats, 135 cattle, and two mules live in the park villages (All India Survey, 1992). The two resident families of Manjhan have claimed to have more than one hundred livestock between them. In addition, several thousand sheep and goats graze on the park on a seasonal basis. According to park checkpost records, nearly 19,000 sheep and goats in roughly equal numbers passed through the park during the summer of 1989.

The impact of grazing on the park is not fully known. However, livestock are known to transmit diseases to wild animals, encourage weed growth, and prevent regeneration of trees in low-altitude thatches. Studies of the impact of grazing on forests have shown that the grazing of livestock not only hinders regeneration of naturally dominant tree species, but it can also lead to significant changes in the structure and composition of shrub and herb communities on the forest floor (Garson and Gaston, 1985).

Herb Collection. Herb (jaddibooti) collection, which in this context includes the collection of medicinal herbs and of edible and aromatic plants, is considered to be one of the most serious pressures on the park. Thousands of people enter the park from May to November to collect herbs. Many of the herbs are found only in the high-altitude meadows, but some are also found in forests. The peak collection season is from June/July to August/September. Nearly 60 herb species are reportedly collected from the park, but the main species collected are Dhoop (Jurinea macrocephalla) and Gucchi or Morel mushroom (Morchella esculenta).

Herb collection is a physically strenuous, and sometimes dangerous, activity. The herbs are often found in places that are not readily accessible, are at high altitudes, and have difficult terrain, e.g., very steep slopes. A number of fatalities occur every year.

The sale of herbs appears to be a principal source of monetary income for many collectors. An individual herb collector may be able to earn as much as Rs. 20,000 a year, and the total household income may be much higher. As the low-input agriculture practiced by the local people does not yield sufficient food for the whole year, food and many other commodities have to be purchased. The sale of herbs is the main source of income for these people.

The collectors generally sell their herbs to local shopkeepers. Local shopkeepers then sell the herbs to local herb exporters from nearby towns. The exporters in turn send the herbs to cities like Delhi and Amritsar. The final price of the herb in the city is many times higher than the price given to the herb collector from GHNP.

Some of the herbs collected from the park and other nearby forests are directly used by the villagers. A strong tradition of using medicinal herbs, and a lack of allopathic medical facilities, has resulted in a heavy dependence on medicinal plants.

Herb collection has probably been taking place in this area for centuries. Some details of this activity are given in Anderson's Settlement Report. Anderson suggests that herb collection may have been an occupation of the "...poorer classes...(who) by the sale.... eke out a scanty livelihood." Until recent years herb collection was thought to be an exclusively male activity. However, women have also been observed collecting Gucchis and Dhup.

Park authorities, other local people, and herb collectors themselves have reported that herb collection has increased significantly over the last ten years, both in terms of the quantities extracted and the number of collectors coming to the area. The number of non-rightholders coming to the park has increased, and, apparently, rightholders are now extracting herbs outside the areas specified in the settlement. The children of rightholders, it seems, are not that interested in collecting herbs themselves, so they may employ others to do so. Although not comprehensive, park records indicate that more than 9,000 kg of herbs, mainly Dhoop and Nehani, were extracted between the months of July and November 1989.

Of all the human activities currently taking place in the park, herb collection is believed to have the most serious impact. Herb collectors themselves report an overexploitation of certain species and a progressive decline in the quality and quantity of herbs. Six to eight years ago, for example, four- or five-year-old Dhoop plants with roots as thick as a person's forearm were abundant. Today, four- or five-year-old plants are difficult to find. As such, one-year-old plants, with roots no thicker than an inch, are being collected.

A large number of people enter the park every year for herb collection. They disturb the animals and their habitat. They also consume fuelwood and other park resources, and they leave their refuse. Furthermore, collectors are going into new or not often visited areas as herbs are becoming scarce.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Alex. 1886: Alex Anderson Forest Settlement of 1886 of Kullu District.

Asari. 1994. Personal comments of Asari, Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala.

Chellam, Ravi. 1993. Ecology of the Asiatic Lion. Mimeograph, April 1993.

Chengappa, R. 1993. Taming the Roaring Surplus. India Today, 31 January 1993.

District Census Handbooks for Junagadh and Amreli Talukas, Gujarat. 1981.

District Census Handbooks for Kullu District. 1981.

Ecodevelopment Plan For Gir National Park. 1992. Government of Gujarat.

Ecodevelopment Project for Gir National Park. 1993. Forest Department, Gujarat State.

Eco-development Scheme for Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala. Undated. Kerala Forest Department.

Garson, P.J., and A.J. Gaston. 1985. The Conservation of Natural Forests and their Indigenous Wildlife in the Hill Districts of Himachal Pradesh. Paper presented at a conference on The Conservation of the Indian Heritage, Cambridge, 17-20 September 1984.

Gaston, A.J., M.L. Hunter, and P.J. Garson. 1981. The Wildlife of Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalayas. Report of the Himachal Wildlife Project. Technical Notes No. 82, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine. Orono, ME: University of Maine.

Gaston, A.J., and P.J. Garson. 1991. Preliminary Report of Studies in September-October 1991. Himachal Wildlife Project-III. Unpublished report.

House Hold Schedule 1 and 2. 1991. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA).

Indian Institute of Public Administration. 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India: A Status Report.

Indian Institute of Public Administration. 1994. Biodiversity Conservation Through Ecodevelopment: An Indicative Plan.

Khan, J.A., W.A. Rodgers, A.J.T. Johnsingh, and P.K. Mathur. 1990. Gir Lion Project: Ungulate Habitat Ecology in Gir. Unpublished project completion report for the Wildlife Institute of India.

Kumar, Vijay. 1991. Personal Comments.

Management Plan of Great Himalayan National Park.

Phillimore, P.R. 1981. Migratory graziers and their flocks. In The Wildlife of Himachal Pradesh, Western Himalayas, A.J. Gaston, M.L. Hunter, and P.J. Garson, 98-111. Orono, ME: University of Maine.

Saberwal, Vasant K., James P. Gibbs, Ravi Chellam, and A.J.T. Johnsingh. In press. Biological and Social Dimensions of Lion-Human Conflict in the Gir Forest.

Singh, Shekhar. 1984. All India Survey of National Parks and Sanctuaries. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA). Filled in by Shri K. R. Ladwa. 12 June 1984.

Singh, Shekhar. 1989. All India Survey of National Parks and Sanctuaries. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA).

Singh, Shekhar. 1992. All India Survey of National Parks and Sanctuaries. Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA).

Singh, Vikram. 1991. Personal Comments.

Status Paper on Periyar Tiger Reserve, Thekkady: 1991-92. Undated. Kerala Forest Department.

Survey of India Toposheets. Indian Institute of Public Administration.