A young man, mid-car wash, shouted, “Oye! Shooet!” at the approaching monkey. But the monkey didn’t flinch. It wasn’t until the man picked up a stone that the monkey backed off, baring its teeth in anger. As a parting gesture, the monkey left a messy deposit on the veranda of the house.
This incident, mere meters away from Panbang Primary School, raises concerns about student safety. A witness to the event attributed the problem to the recent translocation of monkeys from Trongsa to Royal Manas National Park. “The Trongsa’s monkey is now creating a problem here,” he said. I couldn’t believe what I heard and asked how he came to that conclusion. That’s when the gentleman pointed me to the recent Kuensel article.
The translocation in question was reported in a Kuensel article titled “No more monkey business” on 27 December 2024. The article claimed that the relocation of around 30 macaques had finally resolved the long-standing human-monkey conflict in Trongsa. However, just two weeks later, Panbang witnessed its first monkey intrusion into homes.
This means that while the residents of Trongsa may have breathed a sigh of relief, their newfound peace appears to have come at the expense of the residents of Panbang, who are now facing the brunt of the monkey menace. While there is no concrete evidence linking the monkeys invading Panbang homes to the recent relocation efforts, it’s undeniable that this is a new phenomenon in the area. Never before have monkeys been seen entering homes in Panbang, raising concerns about the potential consequences of this sudden change.
The effectiveness of translocation as a solution to human-wildlife conflict is disputed. Wildlife experts worldwide have long questioned this approach, citing concerns about animal stress, disease transmission, and liability. India’s experience with translocating macaques, for instance, highlights the limitations of this method.
Despite being billed as a humane solution, translocation has often exacerbated the intricate and sometimes volatile relationship between humans and macaques. Scientists have increasingly acknowledged that wildlife translocation involves relocating animals and their associated pathogens – some aptly term it moving ‘biological packages.’
Some global examples of the consequences of translocation include the spread of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis following the relocation of bison from Canada to the US, and the rabies outbreak linked to translocated raccoons from Florida to West Virginia. These incidents highlight growing concerns about the potential threats to biodiversity and human health arising from host and parasite translocation.
Before I confuse readers, to ensure clarity, it’s essential to distinguish between two types of translocation: one aimed at resolving human-wildlife conflict and the other focused on conservation. While both involve relocating animals, they have different objectives and outcomes. It must be noted that this discussion specifically revolves around the former.
Translocation can be effective in certain situations, such as reestablishing endangered species, enhancing genetic diversity, and stocking species in formerly occupied habitats. However, its effectiveness is questionable in the context of mitigating human-wildlife conflict.
Managing problem wildlife is a global challenge, and in a Vajrayana country like Bhutan, the emphasis on compassion adds complexity. Our commitment to non-lethal methods and protection-focused conservation has achieved success, but it also limits our ability to effectively address human-wildlife conflict.
Unless we rethink our approach and consider the broader consequences of our actions, our conservation efforts and spiritual values may be compromised. This concern is reflected in the sentiments of farmers, who sometimes feel neglected, remarking that ‘the government prioritises monkeys over people.’
While our people may prioritise non-lethal methods for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, their concerns about effective solutions are evident. Translocation may be perceived as a humane approach, but the desperate measures some farmers adopt, such as illegally electrifying their fences, suggest a deeper frustration.
Tragically, this has resulted in electrocution not only of wild animals but also humans. This raises a critical question: are we inadvertently putting both human lives and endangered wildlife at risk?
Alternative management options are rarely discussed. Although translocation is perceived as humane, the fate of translocated animals is rarely monitored. Wildlife experts argue that translocation is rarely a viable solution and can even exacerbate the problem.
Instead, experts recommend alternative approaches such as habitat modification, exclusion, and repellents. Human-wildlife conflict is a complex issue that requires a nuanced approach. Ultimately, it is a symptom of a larger issue – encroachment into wildlife habitats, feeding of wild animals, and poor management.
For Panbang, the newfound human-monkey conflict appears to be the direct result of Trongsa Dzongkhag’s translocation measure. Was the Department of Forests and Park Services even consulted? While the translocation of monkeys appeared to be a simple solution, the problem had merely shifted to another location.
Contributed by Sangay Wangchuk
He is a forester turned human geographer from Panbang. He works as a Regional Manager- Sustainability at NGH in Australia and currently in Panbang. Prior to that, he worked for the Department of Forests and Park Services for sixteen years in Bhutan.