International Journal of Mol. Ecol. and Conserv 2015, Vol.5, No.4, 1-7
1
Research Article Open Access
Wildlife Poaching in Nigeria National Parks: A Case Study of Cross River
National Park
Jacob D.E.
1
, Nelson I.U.
2
, Udoakpan U.I.
1
, Etuk U.B.
1
1. Forestry and Wildlife Department, University of Uyo, Nigeria
2. Biodiversity Preservation Center, Uyo, Nigeria
Corresponding author email: Email
International Journal of Mol. Ecol. and Conserv, 2015, Vol.5, No.4 doi: 10.5376/ijmec.2015.05.0004
Received: 24 Feb., 2015
Accepted: 28 Mar., 2015
Published: 22 Apr., 2015
Copyright
©
2015 Jacob et al., This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preferred citation for this article:
Jacob et al., 2015, Wildlife Poaching in Nigerian National Parks: A Case Study of Cross River National Park, International Journal of Mol. Ecol. and Conserv,
Vol.5, No.4 1
-
7 (doi
Abstract
This study examined the rate of wildlife poaching in Cross River National Park (CRNP) and the park’s management
strategies in combating it. The primary data was collected using structured questionnaires and Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI). A
total of 90 enumerator–administered questionnaires were randomly administered to 15 hunters in 6 support zone communities namely;
Aking, Osomba, Akor, Obung, Ifumkpa and Owai. The randomly selected communities represent 20% of the 30 communities which
were easily accessed by road. Also, ten (10) management staff of CRNP was sampled to elicit information on the management
strategies of the park to combat poaching in the support zone communities. The secondary data was collected from related literatures,
journals and bulletin. Data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistical technique. The result indicated that majority of the
respondents were married (46.67%), literate (85.57%), within the age class of 24-59 years (86.67%), mostly full time hunters
(45.56%) and 37.78% earned between ₦4,000 and ₦7,000 weekly. Also, majority of the respondents were aware of the park
existence (68.69%), park legislation (71.55%) and the reason for its creation to include conservation (70.48%). Moreover, 74.4% of
the respondents in the support zone communities hunt with their guns, 70.00% hunted in group preferring a group size of 3-4 people
and elephant was the least preferred animal to hunt (7.3%). However, 64.44% of the respondents hunted on a daily basis, 33.33%
killed 3-4 animals/day and 43% of the respondents trek 10km and above during their hunting expedition. Furthermore, 70% of the
interviewed park staff agreed that the rate of poaching in the area was high and 50% of them identified Anti-poaching patrols as the
most effective way to check poaching in the area. Involvement of the support zone communities in the management of the park is
recommended to ensure the goal of establishing the park.
Keywords
Cross River National Park; Nigeria; Wildlife poaching; Conservation
Introduction
Wildlife conservation efforts in the sub-Saharan Africa
countries stemmed from the concern over the
depletion and in some cases, near or complete
extinction of some large game species in the region
(Ajayi, 1979; Anadu et al., 1988; Asibey and Child,
1991; Davey, 1993). Moreover, illegal trade and
trafficking in endangered fauna and flora species,
fueled mostly by the growing demand for exotic
plants and animals worldwide had also resulted in
biodiversity depletion in the region (Eniang, 2001). As
a conservation measure, protected areas with stringent
laws were designed to prevent all exploitation of
wildlife within the protected areas, and to restrict
resources utilization were established. The Cross
River National Park in Nigeria like any other
protected area also witnessed strong resistance by host
communities on the park policy of restricting their free
access to the natural resources within the park
environment
(
Ibor, 2003; Jacob, 2008; Ogogo et al.,
2010; Jacob and Ogogo, 2011). The consequences of
these resistances have manifested in the form of
conflicts between the park authorities and the
indigenous peoples of the support zone communities.
The rich diverse ecosystems of the park contain wood,
honey, beeswax, building poles, fodder resources,
fruits and medicinal plants (Sunderlin et al., 2005;
Giliba et al., 2010). Economically, disadvantaged rural
communities also depend on wildlife-based products
such as bushmeat, fur, skin, claws, horns and teeth as
sources of income and/or protein (Carperneto and
Fusari, 2000; Pattiselanno, 2004; Bennett et al., 2006;
