Chapter 37: Ex-situ conservation of wild pigs and peccaries427
the grasslands is dry-season burning resulting in domination
by a few fire-resistant grasses and temporary loss of cover and
other resources. Other threats include agricultural encroach-
ments, livestock grazing, commercial forestry and flood-
control schemes, human settlements, and increased risk of
diseases through contact with domestic livestock (Narayan et al.
2008a, 2008b; Meijaard et al. 2011).
In 1995 an International Conservation Management and
Research Agreement was signed between the Union Ministry of
Environment & Forests, India, the Assam Forest Department,
the then IUCN SSC Pigs, Peccaries, and Hippos Specialist Group,
and the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust, aiming to imple-
ment the Pygmy Hog Conservation Action plan and leading to
the Pygmy Hog Conservation Programme (Oliver et al., 1997;
Meijaard et al. 2011). This first plan included the establishment
of a captive breeding programme for the species with the roles
of providing insurance against the very real risk of extinction in
the wild, providing individuals for reintroduction and gaining
much-needed knowledge on the behaviour and life history of the
species – roles which are still present in the most current recov-
ery plan (Narayan & Deka 2016). A ‘Pygmy Hog Conservation
Research and Breeding Centre’ was custom-built at Basistha near
Guwahati, the Assam state capital, later followed by a second
facility at Potosali, close to Nameri National Park in northwest
Assam. Details on the development of the captive population
and reintroduction efforts can be found in Narayan and Deka
(2016) and a summary is presented here. From the arrival of the
first wild hogs at Basistha in 1996, until 2016, no fewer than 559
hogs from over 140 litters were born at the two breeding facili-
ties, of which about 58 per cent were reared beyond the age of
three months. The current population counts 75 hogs in Basistha
and Potasali and three on display in Assam State Zoo, Guwahati
(Table 37.1). Four wild males and six wild females (three of which
arrived pregnant), all originating from Manas National Park,
contributed to the captive population. So far, 35 hogs have been
released in eight social groups in Sonai Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary
between 2008 and 2010, 59 in 12 social groups in Rajiv Gandhi
Orang National Park between 2011 and 2015, and six hogs in
Barnadi Wildlife Sanctuary in 2016 – thus resulting in the 100th
pygmy hog released. The pygmy hogs are breeding and dispersing
in Orang National Park and may well have doubled in number.
Following management and security challenges in Sonai Rupai
the reintroduced population there has not improved in status.
The captive and reintroduced populations together (225–250)
may thus well account for over 50 per cent of the entire popula-
tion of the species on Earth (Narayan, personal communication).
Javan Warty Pig (Sus verrucosus)
The Javan warty pig (Sus verrucosus) is currently listed as
Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
(Semiadi et al. 2016). The Bawean warty pig Sus verrucosus
blouchi from Bawean island is considered a full species by
Groves and Grubb (2011), but pending additional genetic
studies has been maintained at subspecies level by the IUCN
SSC WPSG. The first ecological study of the Bawean warty pig
estimated a population of 172–377 individuals on the island
and found no Sus scrofa, thus excluding hybridization threats
(Rademaker et al. 2016). Rademaker et al. (2016) conclude that
the Bawean warty pig qualifies to be listed as Endangered. There
are no Bawean warty pigs in captivity. The Javan warty pig from
mainland Java (Sus verrucosus verrucosus) survives only in a few
highly fragmented populations on Java. An island-wide survey
carried out in 2003 found that the species still occurred in about
10 locations and that compared to a survey carried out in 1982
it had disappeared from, or had dropped to low encounter rates,
in 17 of 32 populations (Semiadi & Meijaard 2006). The main
threats to the Javan warty pig include habitat loss (during nor-
mal 35–50-year harvest cycles or through illegal logging of the
teak plantations they like to frequent) and hunting (by sports
hunters and in retaliation for crop raiding, often in the form of
poisoning) (Semiadi et al. 2016). Hybridization with Sus scrofa
vittatus has been suspected but it is not yet clear if and to what
degree this happens in the wild (Meijaard 2014; Meijaard et al.
2014). It is feared that the in-situ status of the Javan warty pig is
continuing to decline and a new initiative, ‘Warty Watch’, has
been started, aiming to review existing data and camera-trap
footage collected by private individuals, authorities and NGOs,
and forming new collaborations to create an island-wide Javan
warty pig monitoring network (Rademaker 2016).
Given the precarious situation of the species, in addition
to continuing assessments of the in-situ population, the estab-
lishment of an ex-situ programme on Java was proposed by the
IUCN SSC WPSG with the aim of establishing a pure insurance
population of the Javan species to safeguard against extinction,
supply individuals for reintroduction if and when possible/
appropriate, and to gain biological knowledge and raise aware-
ness among the people of Java about this little-known endemic
species (Semiadi & Meijaard 2006; Semiadi & Sözer 2008). The
captive breeding programme was established in 2007 at the
Cikananga Wildlife Centre in West Java (www.cikanangawild-
lifecenter.com/), with support from the Indonesian Research
Centre for Biology, the IUCN SSC Wild Pig Specialist Group and
the EAZA Pigs and Peccaries TAG, and financially supported by
Los Angeles Zoo, Wroclaw Zoo, and the Zoological Society for
the Conservation of Species and Populations (ZGAP). The pro-
gramme started with a founder population of 12 individuals of
wild origin (Rademaker et al. 2016) (two of which did not leave
descendants), two old males obtained from a private person
that died before breeding and one male and two females from
Surabaya Zoo, of which the females never bred but the male
potentially did (there was more than one male in his breeding
group). Successful housing and breeding this species in captiv-
ity has proven to be challenging due to the apparent stressful
nature of the species in captive conditions (Bulk 2014; Meijaard
et al. 2014). In particular, the wild-origin individuals appear to
be excitable and easily stressed, which may in part be related
to them having being housed in pairs rather than in groups
of six to eight individuals as appears to be the case in the wild
(Rademaker et al. 2016). Reproductive rates also appeared lower
in years in which individuals were not housed in groups and
once females had not bred during a breeding season it appeared
to be harder to get them to do so next season. Keeping multi-
male–multi-female groups with post-hoc paternity testing for
genetic management is suggested as an alternative management.03913:02:26