International Journal of Mol. Ecol. and Conserv 2015, Vol.5, No.4, 1-7
5
Figure 8 Respondent’s Awareness and violation of Park rules
2.5 Level of poaching and combative measures
Data collected from management staff of CRNP
indicates that there is a high rate of poaching within
the park (Figure 9). Majority (70.0%) of the
respondents agreed that the rate of poaching in the
area is high, while the remaining 30.0% of the
respondents obliged to low poaching in the area. As a
combative measure to curb the high rate of poaching
in the park, 50.0% of the respondents identified
Anti-poaching patrols as the most effective way to
check poaching in the area, 30.0% were of the views
that effective conservation education will help in
combating the rate of poaching in the area, while
20.0% of the respondents argued that using Arrest and
prosecution as a measure to check poaching in the
park in the most effective measure.
Figure 9 Level of poaching and combative measures
3 Discussions
The future of the country’s rich biodiversity is under
threat from increasing degradation of the ecosystem,
stemming primarily from economic motives. Over
90% of the rural populace depends on the forest
resources for their livelihoods and economic survival
(Ogogo, 2008). This is evident in the types of species
commonly hunted by community members in the
Oban Division of the (CRNP). As indicated in Figure
5, porcupine are the most hunted wildlife species in
the area, thus posing a threat to the its population
survival including grasscutter and deer. This opinion is
also shared by the park management who claimed
there is a high rate of poaching in the area (Figure 9).
However, there seems to be a decrease and a drop of
primate hunting in the study area including elephant
hunting which had generated worldwide attention to
the poaching activities in the area in the past (Eniang,
2001; Ebin, 2001; Eniang and Ebin, 2002).
The use of guns and fire arms during hunting
expedition indicates the sophistication of the hunting
techniques used by poachers in the area. This is very
dangerous for the survival of the wildlife population
in the park. As indicated in Figure 5, a high proportion
of the respondents (74.4%) from the support zone
communities used guns during their hunting
expedition carried out daily with a kill of 3-4 animals
(Figure 6). According to Ebin (2001), these illegal
activities in the park have been on the increase for a
long period of time and will continue to exist until a
drastic and effective method is applied in controlling
poaching in the area (
Van Orsdol, IUCN, 1994; 1984;
Jacob, 2008; Jacob and Ogogo, 2011). From the
findings, it is obvious that the rate of animals hunted
is high. This may be attributed to the high protein
demand of rural communities and also for economic
purposes. Majority of the rural community’s members
depends largely on the forest resources for sustenance
and livelihood (Gadgil, 1992; Pimpert and Pretty,
1995;
Waugh, 1995;
Andrew-Essien and Bisong, 2009;
2012
). Apart from the high hunting rate, there is
serious encroachment into the protected areas for
unsustainable agricultural practices. This situation has
raised deforestation rates within the park area. This
could be attributed to the increasing population and
the need for fertile land within the support zone
communities for agricultural activities, thus agreeing
with the observation of Bode (2006) that there exist a
relationship between population growth and resource
conservation.
Consequently, the management of Cross River
National Park is not relenting in its efforts to combat
