A Preliminary Wildlife and Habitat Survey of the Proposed Northern ...

Information was sought concerning a small number of species or species groups (namelypheasants identifiable to species and hornbills with distinction of large or small) in interviewswith local people, see 3.6 below. Although hunters readily recognize showy groups such ashornbills, species identifications are sometimes not reliable. A few such reports are discussedin the results.3.4 Mammal Survey3.4.1 Opportunistic observation of mammalsDiurnal mammals directly sighted (principally squirrels, treeshrews and primates) wererecorded opportunistically during fieldwork. Signs were examined and identified wherepossible, chiefly tracks and scat. However, because many genera are polytypic (particularlythose of conservation interest, e.g. Bos, Panthera, Ursus, Cervus) few prints areunequivocally identifiable to species.3.4.2 InterviewsInterviews with local people were done (see 3.6 below) to gather information onelusive and scarce species. Confirmation was sought whenever possible.3.5 Village InterviewsInformal interviews were done with inhabitants of five villages in the northern section of theNTX as well as with Vietnamese loggers on the wet forest logging road. Five other villageswere interviewed in the NGA. The interview technique was a flexible one aimed at gatheringinformation informally, rather than a structured interview. Time constraints meant that someinformants were asked only about the highest priority species while other informants werequestioned over a period of several days (when growing confidence and trust led them to givemore detailed information, particularly about hunting practices). The aim was to gather dataon wildlife status and distribution and on local human interaction with wildlife. Although itwas easy to elicit information on the former topics, discussion of the latter, particularlyhunting activities, was often avoided by the villagers. Status information was soughtparticularly on those species which are hard to confirm or assess by field methods. Speciesfor which information was sought were chosen according to the ability of local people toidentify them positively. This ruled out many small species such as small cats, civets, mostrodents, bats and birds. Informants (preferably people who regularly used the forest) wereasked about the presence of broad groups of species such as deer, cats or pheasants, howmany species they thought were present and a detailed description of each (especially in thecase of closely similar species). Opportunities for confirmation, for example by examinationof antlers, skins and feathers was taken whenever possible. People encountered in the forestwere drawn into friendly conversation to establish their purpose in entering the forest andwhat species they had seen. First hand confirmation was sought when informants reportedwildlife incidents or sightings for which they were not eyewitnesses. Local names weregathered. Results are discussed under the relevant sections (4.1.2 for birds and 4.2.2 formammals). Indication of apparent abundance was sought by asking when the last sightingwas, or on what percentage of visits to the forest a particular species was seen.The village interviews resulted in few recent reports of most large mammals and large birds,confirming the scarcity of these species.40