DRAFT 2004 IUCN RED LIST
Tapirus bairdii - EN [Endangered]
Tapirus indicus - VU [Vulernable]
Tapirus indicus, Sumatra population - VU [Vulnerable] move to EN [Endangered]
Tapirus terrestris - VU [Vulnerable]
Tapirus terrestris, northern Colombia and Venezuela subpopulation - CR [Critically Endangered]
Tapirus pinchaque - EN [Endangered]
TAPIRUS BAIRDII
SPECIES:
Tapirus bairdii (Gill, 1865)
Central American tapir, Baird's tapir (English)
Tapir de Baird (French)
Anteburro, Danta, Tapir centroamericano (Spanish)
Macho de Monte (Panama, northwestern Colombia)
Danta del Choco', Dante, Danta, and Danto (elsewhere in Colombia)
Vaca Danta in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, specifically in the coastal and southern ranges.
IUCN LISTING:
EN (Endangered) A 1abcde + 2abcde + 3bce
DISTRIBUTION:
Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, southern Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama,
western Colombia (CR), El Salvador (ex), Ecuador (?). In southern Mexico (Oaxaca), tapirs are
present in the following localities: Santa Maria Chimalapas (Los Chimalapas), the zone of the isthmus,
Cordillera de Veinte Cerros and adjacent zone of the northern range of Oaxaca (Ivan Lira, pers.
comm.). Recent range extensions of 377 km bring the Baird’s tapir back to its former northern limits
and the new northern limit is now Tuza de Monroy near the municipality of Santiago Jamiltepec in
Oaxaca State.
COMMENTS: Naranjo recommends we delete criterion C2a (N =< 2,500 individuals) because there
are that many in SE Mexico and Guatemala alone. Cruz-Aldán concurs and Lira estimates a population
in Mexico of over 2,500 animals because former estimates did not include the Oaxaca region. Also,
populations in the Chimalpas zone are stable. Six large Biosphere Reserves in Campeche, Chiapas
and Quintana Roo are thought to hold over 1,500 tapirs. In Guatemala, the Maya Biosphere Reserve
should hold several hundred more, as should each of the other small parks in Belize, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The relatively small Corcovado National Park is thought to hold
at least 300 tapirs. Aldán and Naranjo as well as Matola feel the overall population is <5,000.
Recently, several individuals of this species have been observed along the Atlantic coast in northern
Choco in the Tripogadi Serrania, outside the Katios National Park. Recent reports of its presence near
Jurado and the upper Salaque confirm its presence in northwestern Colombia’s Darien region (Diego
J. Lizcano). If each adult tapir requires at least 500 ha, a rough estimate is 450 animals although
hunting, warfare and habitat fragmentation could impact this estimate. Castellanos reports tracks of
tapirs, presumably Tapirus bairdii, in the Ecological Reserve Cotacachi Cayapas that is located in the
northwest of Ecuador. If Tapirus bairdii, it would be a new distribution (south of Colombia); if
1
Tapirus pinchaque, it would be a new range extension into lower elevations for Ecuador. Torres feels
mountain tapirs were responsible for these tracks.
Lira adds new endangered categories because he and Naranjo have detected a number of infectious
diseases and parasites in tapirs of southern Mexico that originated from cattle and horses. In
addition, several dead adult tapirs have been found in Chimalpas near livestock raising zones that are
thought to have died from contagious diseases.
TAPIRUS INDICUS
SPECIES:
Tapirus indicus (Desmarest, 1819)
Indian tapir, Malayan tapir, Malay tapir, Asian tapir (English)
Tapir à dos blanc, Tapir de Inde, Tapir malais, Tapir à chabraque (French)
Tapir de la India (Spanish)
Badak Cipan (Malay)
IUCN LISTING: Sumatran population: EN (Endangered) A1a-c + 4d, C1
Malaysian and Southeast Asian population: VU (Vulnerable) A2c + 3c, B2b(iii)(iv), c(I), C1 + 2a(i)
DISTRIBUTION:
Central and southern Sumatra, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma)
South of latitude 18 degrees N, Laos (?)
COMMENTS: Today a generation is probably 12 years so it will take a period of 36 years for a
reduction in population size (van Strien). In Sumatra, over 50% of the remaining forest is outside
tapir habitat. In Thailand 40% of the remaining forest is outside protected areas and only 5% of
Myanmar’s land area is protected forest (Lynam). Unless serious efforts to stem illegal logging and
forest encroachment are made, all forest outside conservation areas will be lost over the next few
decades, and potentially lost by as early as 2005 (Science Magazine). Given that, populations in
Sumatra are definitely EN (A1a-c + 4d) (van Strien).
Holden and Traeholt both agree that large-scale habitat destruction has continued (2000-2003) in
Sumatra, historically the species’ main stronghold, noting that most remaining habitat in central
Sumatra is outside of any protected area. Given the uncontrolled illegal logging situation in Sumatra,
their status is being increased to EN. Localized hunting in Sumatra also occurs as well as elsewhere
in its distribution range albeit not to the same extent (Traeholt and Martyr).
In the past, several Indonesian zoos, especially Pekanbaru, traded in live tapirs for sale to other
Indonesian zoos or private collections, or for sale as meat in local markets. Fifty tapirs are reported
passing through the Pekanbaru Zoo since 1993. Some of these animals are suspected of having
originated from protected areas. Elsewhere, extraction may not be very high but it is uncertain how
many individuals are actually hunted every year. Regardless, when combined with the number of
estimated road kills, 5-10 may have been killed in Malaysia alone in 2002, 3 in the state of Selangor
alone, a harvest of 3-5 adult tapirs, when combined with their long reproductive cycle and
increasingly fragmented sub-populations, is very critical (Traeholt).
2
The consumption of tapirs in Malaysia brings contradictory statements. Kawanishi feels there is
probably no evidence of consumption by Muslims in that country but Traeholt feels it is a cultural
issue, not a religious one, tapirs being commonly consumed by Indonesians, 80% of whom are also
Muslim. Martyr also notes that while they are not hunted intentionally in Central Sumatra, they are
eaten by local people when snared or killed while seeking wild pigs. Traeholt and Kawanishi both
noted that non-Muslims consume them in Malaysia, Indonesia and other range countries.
In peninsular Malaysia, Kawanishi feels their population fares better than in Sumatra, with camera
trappings showing that tapirs are among the most abundant large mammals, along with barking deer
and wild boar. Traeholt notes (2004), however, that Malay tapirs appear able to ‘hide’ behind
comments that they ‘appear’ to be common, noting that this observation is merely based on relative
densities from camera traps and transects conducted by the Malaysian Department of Wildlife and
National Parks (DWNP) in absence/presence format only. While a population reduction of 50% is
required for Endangered listing may not seem to apply, the current population estimate has been
dropped from 15-20,000 in Malaysia alone to only 1,500-2,000. This change reflects an overestimated population, one that probably never approached 15-20,000, which has now been adjusted
through new research by a factor of 10. Also, Traeholt points out that there were strong indications
from gunshots, tapir tracks, blood and wheel tracks that 3-5 tapirs were hunted just outside Krau
Wildlife Reserve alone in 2003. Because this is not documented by DWNP at the present time, it
remains “hearsay” but Traeholt feels that the matter is not whether or not there is a harvest but
whether or not we think it is sufficient to impact the population in Malaysia. If it isn’t, he feels that
leaving Peninsular with VU is probably correct but noting that there is a present but unknown level of
harvest that should be researched further.
Here tapirs are found in virtually all types of forest: primary, logged, disturbed, small pockets,
plantations and even near major cities. The Malaysian economy is more stable than other range
countries, the cause of near-extinction facing many large mammals, including tapirs. If the current
forest coverage (45%) remains, and given their adaptability and lack of value to local people,
Kawanishi feels VU is more appropriate than EN. Othman reports tapirs occurring in all areas
surveyed and in many forest types, to include secondary forest and forest fringe areas near human
habitation. Land use could be a factor in the future but Malaysia has greatly reduced forest loss.
Traeholt’s camera data concurs very much with Kawanishi in terms of number of pictures taken,
observing that tapirs are even photographed more often than pigs. However, of the more than 110
pictures of tapirs taken in Krau Wildlife Reserve, only about 8-9 different individuals were identified,
suggesting that tapirs roam over large areas, with some individuals regularly visiting sites 10 km apart
and repeatedly visiting the same areas. Some pictures also show that tapirs are not randomly spread
distributed but typically lumped together in only a few units that contain many pictures of the same
tapirs. Some individuals have been photographed more than 30 times. Not a camera shy species,
Traeholt notes that they are not bothered by people being around for a few days prior, unlike
primates, dholes and tigers. In Krau Wildlife Reserve, individual tapirs seem to visit saltlicks
significantly more often than other animals, often visiting a lick 2-3 times a week.
In Malaysia, the amount of remaining habitat may be the strongest supporter of tapir populations.
Both Kawanishi and Traeholt agree that Malaysian forested areas are far better protected than that of
other range countries. Regardless, Traeholt feels that the population density is highly overestimated
based on the camera trap frequency in Taman Negara National Park. He doesn’t think that the impact
of habitat reduction/destruction on the tapir if fully understood. While they may be found in
secondary forest as often as primary forest, a reproductive cycle of 25 years is needed to get a
qualified estimate of this impact. Also, survival in secondary forest as demonstrated by associated
3
road-kills and secondary forest “distribution” may be the result of forced dispersal by dominant
individuals.
Comments from Lynam on tapir status and distribution in Thailand and Myanmar: Thailand supports
one of the most comprehensive systems of protected areas in Southeast Asia. Over 200 National
Parks, Marine National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Non-hunting areas cover 17% of land area
(Prayurasiddhi et al. 1999). Almost all-remaining intact forest now lies within protected areas, with
mostly degraded lands outside. Since most existing tapir habitat is already protected, the future for
conservation of the species in Thailand is quite positive. In contrast, Myanmar’s protected areas
make up 5% of land area (Myanmar Forest Department) and most tapir habitat lies outside these
protected areas. In Myanmar, tapirs are entirely restricted to rainforests in the Tenasserim Ranges
on the Thai-Myanmar border (Yin, 1993). The tenure of these lands on the Myanmar side of the
border is disputed and due to civil unrest, has been inaccessible for wildlife survey until now. A team
of Myanmar Forest Department staff working the Tenasserims during 2001 detected tapirs from
camera-traps, track and scat at two sites: the Minmoletka Taung area and the Hitaung Pru Reserve
Forest (Ministry of Forest 2003).
In Thailand Tapirus indicus is recorded from forest areas in the west and south of the country
(Lekagul and McNeely 1988), including transboundary forest areas in border areas, and large isolated
forest remnants. The transboundary forests represent the most extensive, contiguous habitats for
large mammals left in the country (Prayurasiddhi et al. 1999). They include the Western Forest
Complex (Thai-Myanmar border), which includes 12 protected areas, and covers over 18,730 sq km
including both dry and wet forests, and the Kaeng Krachan/Chumpol complex which covers 4,373 sq
km, mostly wet evergreen forest on the Thai-Myanmar border. The Balahala Forest is an expanse of
1,850 sq km of tropical rainforest on the Thai-Malaysia border. All areas are contiguous with larger
forest areas on opposite sides of the country border. Recent survey efforts (Lynam 1999; Lynam
2000; WCS 2001; Kaewsirisuk 2001; A. Pattanavibool personal communication) suggest that tapirs
are present though uncommon in each of these transboundary forest areas.
Tapirs are generally not hunted for subsistence or commercial trade in Thailand or Myanmar, since
their flesh is considered distasteful. Some hill tribes believe that killing a tapir brings bad luck, so
they are not hunted. Malay tapirs are shy animals and appear to be highly sensitive to forest
fragmentation. In Halabala Wildlife Sanctuary on the Thai-Malaysia border, Kaewsirisuk (2001) found
that the species does not venture within a few hundred meters of forest-plantation edges. At Khao
Sok National Park, tapirs are interior forest species that avoid forest edges (Lynam 1996). Kawanishi
(2002), however, found in Taman Negara, the largest national park in Malaysia, that although the
human traffic level was heavier in area closer to the park boundary, tapirs showed no edge effects.
While forest loss continues in Thailand, forests in protected areas remain relatively stable in size and
composition to other countries because of a ban on commercial logging that has been in place since
1989. For this reason, while tapirs may indeed be endangered in general by forest loss, populations
in Thailand are probably more stable. The species has uncertain status and future in Myanmar due to
security issues and forest clearance for rubber and oil palm plantations. However, two new protected
areas have been designated in the Tenasserims: Taninthayi National Park and Lenya River Wildlife
Sanctuary. If these areas can be protected, they will preserve valuable tapir habitat in the future.
Recent DNA comparisons of orangutans and tigers from Southeast Asia suggest that they may be
completely different species, not subspecies, from those on Borneo and Peninsular Malaysia
respectively. Given this recent finding, it is also possible that once tapirs from Sumatra, Malaysia and
elsewhere in Asia are compared using modern technology, Malay tapirs from Sumatra may be found
4
to be completely different species or subspecies from those in Peninsular Malaysia or Thailand.
(Traeholt).
Abdul Kadir Abu Hashim and Hasdi Hassan. 2003. Distribution of the Malay tapir in Peninsular Malaysia:
Preliminary results. Paper presented at the Malay Tapir Conservation Workshop, Krau Wildlife Reserve,
August 2003.
Department of Wildlife and National Parks. 1990-2003. Inventory reports (unpublished documents).
DWNP/DANCED. 2002. Krau Wildlife Reserve Management Plan. Unpublished document.
Holden, J.; Yanuar, A. & Martyr, D. 2003. The Asian tapirs in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra: Evidence
collected through photo-trapping. Oryx 37 (1): 34-40.
Kaewsirisuk, S. (2001). Comparative study of habitat use of tapirs between edge and interior at Halabala
Wildlife Sanctuary, Waeng District, Narathiwat Province, Thailand. Bangkok, Royal Forest Department: 21.
Kawanishi, K. 2002. Population status of tigers ( Panthera tigris) in a primary rainforest of Peninsular Malaysia.
Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Kawanishi, K. and M. E. Sunquist. In press. Conservation status of tigers in a primary rainforest of Malaysia.
Biological Conservation.
Lynam, A. J. (1996). Distributions of large fauna with respect to the edge of a Thailand protected area. New
Yorik, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Lynam, A. J. (1999). Camera-trapping reveals the status of Malayan tapirs in southern Thailand
rainforest
remnants. Tapir Conservation 9 (1): 9-10.
Lynam, A. J. (2000.). Effects of human land use on faunal abundance in some Thai forest reserves.
Final
Report to National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT). Bangkok, Wildlife Conservation Society: 52.
Myanmar Forest Department 2003. A National Tiger Action Plan for the Union of Myanmar. Ministry
of
Forestry 57pp.
Prayurasiddhi, T., S. Chaiwatana, S. Naporn (1999.). Forest Complexes in Thailand. Bangkok, Royal Forest
Department, Prueksirin Printing.
WCS (2001). Report on "Defining, estimating and conserving the tiger populations in Thailand's forest
complexes in the new millennium; A workshop for junior staff in protected areas" Kaeng Krachan National
Park, Thailand. Bangkok, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Wildlife Conservation Society. 2003. Final report: status, ecology and conservation of tigers in
Peninsular
Malaysia. Unpublished report to DWNP.
TAPIRUS PINCHAQUE
SPECIES:
Tapirus pinchaque (Roulin, 1829)
Woolly tapir, Mountain tapir, Andean tapir (English)
Tapir pinchaque, Tapir des Andes (French)
Danta cordillerana, Danta lanuda, Danta negra, Pinchaque, Tapir andino, Danta de montaña, Danta
del Páramo (Spanish)
Sacha Huagra (Quichua - northern Incan dialect spoken by many in Ecuador)
Sacha vaca (Peru) and for any tapir (S. Colombia)
IUCN LISTING:
EN (Endangered) A 1de + 2cde + 3cd, C1, E
DISTRIBUTION:
Northern Peru (Cordillera del Condor and Cordillera de las Lagunillas), Ecuador
(mostly eastern Andes but also northern portion of western Andes), Andean Colombia where the
largest populations remain (Los Nevados National Park in the Central Cordillera and Sumapaz National
Park in the Eastern Cordillera) as well as in Chingaza National Park (Montengero). There are no valid
reports of this species in the Western Cordillera.
5
COMMENTS: Add "A1d" to the list of criteria for classifying this species as fully endangered.
Formerly hunting pressure was a primary threat through most areas of the mountain tapir’s
distribution (Downer) but today (2004), poppy growing and its eradication, warfare and habitat
fragmentation are currently the main threats on this species (Constantino, Montenegro, Sandoval).
While a few tapir populations may benefit because guerrilla presence may also relieve colonization
pressure (Downer), most Colombian biologists feel their presence is having an overall negative impact
on the species’ conservation. Additionally, guerrillas do not trust researchers (Dávalos 2001, Semple
2000). In some areas, hunting is decreasing due to local regulations and people’s increased
awareness of this species’ rarity and conservation status.
Add "A1e and A2e” as further reasons for the mountain tapir's endangerment. Justification:
widespread cattle introduction into the last remaining mountain tapir refuges. Breeding herds of
cattle have been observed in western Sangay National Park in Ecuador, causing mountain tapirs to
abandon areas in San Diego headwater area of park just to north of Sangay Volcano. Visits to other
legal refuges of the mountain tapir, i.e. Cayambe Coca Ecological Reserved in Ecuador, and reports
from National Sanctuary of Tabaconas-Namballe in Peru and parks in Colombia, indicate that the
same problem with cattle invasion into mountain tapir sanctuaries is occurring and negatively
affecting the mountain tapirs as well as increased hunting associated with vaquero roundups of the
mountain tapirs. Reports of mountain tapir killings in Cordillera de Las Lagunillas of northern Peru
were received during the summer, 2001, that substantiate that hunting is a major threat. Recent
evidence in 2003-2004 has been gathered that indicates a thriving trade in mountain tapir parts for
traditional or folklore medicine and in live mountain tapirs for use as mascots, both of which threaten
the small remaining population of the Cordillera de Las Lagunillas. This trade is both national and
international, and includes trade of tapir parts with China (Downer). Also, a mining project in northern
Peru threatens to destroy the headwater cloud forests and paramos of the scant population of
mountain tapirs there (2002-204). A recent oil spill from a broken pipeline (Nov. 2003-Feb.2004) in
the area of Papallacta east of Ecuador has a significant, deleterious impact on the mountain tapir
population in the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve and in the nearly created Antisana National Park.
According to Castellanos, mountain tapirs should be considered EN due to population fragmentation
caused by human activities.
Dávalos, L. M. 2001. The San Lucas mountain range in Colombia: how much conservation is owed to the
violence? Biodiversity and Conservation 10:69-78.
Semple, K. 2000. A habitat held hostage (FARC guerrillas drive out researchers). Audubon 102: 82-103.
TAPIRUS TERRESTRIS
SPECIES:
Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758)
Brazilian tapir, Lowland tapir, South American tapir (English)
Tapir d'Amérique, Tapir terrestre (French)
Tapir brasileño, Anta, Anta brasileña, Danta, Danto, (Spanish)
Anta (Argentina and Brazil)
Sacha vaca (Quichua name in Peru) and for any tapir (S. Colombia)
M’borevi (Northeast Argentina)
IUCN LISTING:
VU (Vulnerable) A1cd +2c +3c
6
DISTRIBUTION:
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana,
Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela.
SPECIES:
Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758)
Brazilian Tapir, Lowland Tapir, South American Tapir (English)
Tapir brasileño, Anta, Anta brasileña, Danta, Danto, (Spanish)
Sacha vaca (Quichua name in Peru) and for any tapir (S. Colombia)
IUCN LISTING:
CR (Critically Endangered) B
DISTRIBUTION:
Western side of the Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra Nevada de Santa
Marta, upper Sinu River and Trans-Andean Colombian lowlands of Colombia provience (??????) of
Colombia. In Venezuela, CR status is also appropriate for the mountain range states of Carabobo,
Aragua and Miranda, tapirs.
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES:
Tapirus terrestris is classified as VULNERABLE in Venezuela but [Rodríguez, J. P. & F. Rojas-Suárez.
1999. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 2da. edición. PROVITA, Fundación Polar. Caracas,
Venezuela. 472 pp.] in the northern part of the country, this species is absolutely Endangered in the
Coastal Range and Critically Endangered in the Maracaibo Lake Basin and Andean foothills (see
northern subpopulation). Also, confident information shows this species to be absent in some
localities where it was present in the past, including northwestern portions of Sierra de La Culata
National Park (Torres).
Most Tapir Specialist Group members from Venezuela and Colombia feel Tapirus terrestris population
inhabiting the trans-Andean Colombian lowlands is Critically Endangered (CR). See also Rodriguez, J.
V. 1998 - Listas preliminares de mamiferos colombianos con algun riesgo a la extincion. Informe final
presentado al Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biolgicos Alexander von Humboldt. [on-line].
URL: http://www.humboldt.org.co/Listas_Preliminares.htm. (The lists in this source use the IUCN
categories and criteria.)
While CR status could be applied for the subspecies T. t. colombianus living in Colombia on the
western side of the Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and upper Sinu
River, the taxonomy of this species has not been well studied and geographical criteria serve this
analysis best at this time.
In Venezuela, Naveda reports based mostly on tracks and droppings. In the mountain range states of
Carabobo, Aragua and Miranda, tapirs have been severely affected by deforestation and hunting and
populations should at least be considered CR.
Most SG members feel Tapirus terrestris is VULNERABLE across the entire range. Medici feels that we
can list Tapirus terrestris as VU across the entire range, and list certain populations in (Colombia) as
CR, and in some ecosystems in Brazil as EN.
In Brazil, Medici feels it should be EN (A1abcd + 3cd, B1a (ii, iii, iv) c (ii,iii), noting that good
populations only exist in Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul States. In Amazonia, there currently is
abundant forest, but deforestation is increasing and she feels it will be only a matter of time before
7
that region experiences the same population fragmentation and reduction already experienced by
tapir habitats in other regions. This is especially true in the Atlantic Forest and Cerrado Ecosystems.
In northwest Argentina, Chalukian feels that although they may be common in some areas,
particularly inside national protected areas, they are sensitive to deforestation and human activities,
and have already disappeared in many areas of transition between montane and Chaco forests. In the
northeast tapirs are present only inside protected areas where illegal hunting is minimal. Outside of
protected area, they are still hunted, chased by dogs, and negatively impacted by competition with
cattle and illegal timber activities. Based on current knowledge, she feels they should remain listed as
VU. Although diurnal in protected areas, they become nocturnal in areas of human activity. Similar
observations have been noted in Brazil.
While CR status could be applied for the subspecies T. t. colombianus living in Colombia on the
western side of the Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and upper Sinu
River, the taxonomy of this species has not been well studied and geographical criteria serve this
analysis best at this time. The eastern subspecies of the Colombian Amazonia and Llanos Orientalis
should only be EN or VU.
In Guyana, Watkins points out that little concrete information is available but tapirs are not protected
at present and are hunted by subsistence hunters as well as by a developing bush-meat industry as
roads are cut into the forest for logging.
In Bolivia, Wallace reports that a recent IUCN meeting on Bolivian vertebrates felt that tapirs were
Vulnerable due to their susceptibility to hunting, habitat degradation, and ease of hunting around salt
licks. He notes in recent observations (2003) that while tapirs continue to fare poorly around people,
protected or remote areas have strong, and even higher than expected populations. While they may
well be more common than expected in protected areas, as was found out in Costa Rica and
elsewhere, they do not fare well in the presence of hunting. In the Bolivian Amazon, Wallace projects
densities of 0.25 to 1.5 tapirs per sq. km in good habitat.
In French Guiana, Richard-Hansen notes that tapirs are regularly hunted and sold commercially for
meat in markets and restaurants. In the northern part of the country where most people live (and
hunt), evidence is still found as footprints although sightings are rare. (.005 - 02 individuals/km). In
central and southern French Guiana, the forest is undisturbed and tapirs are only hunted by
indigenous people. Populations are thought to be higher although illegal gold mining could induce a
growing impact as bush meat. Census programs are planned to study these remote areas.
In Venezuela, Naveda reports based mostly on tracks and droppings. Tapirus terrestris is present
throughout the country but is more common in the south (Bolivar and Amazonas States). Local
people of Yaracuy State in the north report tapirs to be common, with two animals killed recently by
hunters in Las Cumaraguas Mountain. Some hunting is also reported in Imataca Forest Reserve
(Bolivar State) for local consumption. Populations in the mountains of the northern coast tend to be
isolated and overall, the principal risk is loss of habitat. Hunting is presently a low risk although
commercialization could acerbate the situation.
VU is probably appropriate for Venezuelan
populations. Salas agrees, pointing out that they exist in very large numbers in some of the large,
intact forest tracts south of the Orinoco River (Bolivar and Amazonas States) totaling 5 million
hectares. Population estimates are well above 50,000, and likely are over one million. Other
potentially large populations exist north and west of the Orinoco in states adjacent to Colombia.
Tapirs are only found in certain areas here but guerrilla activities make surveying difficult. A third
potentially large tapir population may exist just north of the Orinoco Delta. No surveys have been
8
done, but an estimate of 5,000 may be reasonable. In the mountain range states of Carabobo,
Aragua and Miranda, tapirs have been severely affected by deforestation and hunting and populations
should at least be considered CR.
To date, no conclusion has been drawn as to why tapirs may thrive in one partially logged or
disturbed area and may be absent from others. Both situations have been reported for several
species, and may depend on additional factors such as hunting.
COLLABORATORS: Alan Shoemaker, Diego J. Lizcano, Epigmenio Cruz Aldán, Kae Kawanishi, Mike
Chong, Sharon Matola, Leonardo Salas, Patrícia Medici, Denis Alexander Torres, Emilio Constantino,
Eduardo J. Naranjo Piñera, Nico van Strien, Sahir Othman, Craig C. Downer, Silvia C. Chalukian,
Graham Watkins, Robert Wallace, Jeremy Holden, Cecile Richard-Hansen, Adrián Naveda Rodriguez,
Wilson Novarino, Armando Castellanos, Budsabong Kanchunasaka, Antony Lynam, Bengt Holst,
Deborah Martyr, Iván Lira Torres, José Fragoso, Olga Lucía Montenegro, and Sergio Sandoval Arenas.
SPECIES: Tapirus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) - Subpopulation of northern Colombia and northern
Venezuela.
Brazilian tapir, Lowland tapir, South American tapir (English)
Tapir brasileño, Anta, Anta brasileña, Danta, Danto, (Spanish)
Sacha vaca (Quichua name in Peru) and for any tapir (S. Colombia)
IUCN LISTING:
CR (Critically Endangered) A1c, B1a
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES:
Tapirus terrestris is classified as VULNERABLE in Colombia and Venezuela. [Rodríguez, J. P. & F.
Rojas-Suárez. 1999. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 2da. edición. PROVITA, Fundación Polar.
Caracas, Venezuela. 472 pp.]. In the northern part of the Venezuela, however, this species is
absolutely Endangered in the Coastal Range and Critically Endangered in the Maracaibo Lake Basin
and Andean foothills.
DISTRIBUTION:
Western side of the eastern Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta, upper Sinu River and other Trans-Andean Colombian lowlands of Colombia proviences of
Magdalena, Bolívar, Córdoba (upper Sinú River) and northwest Antioquia. In Venezuela, CR status is
also appropriate for the mountain range states of Carabobo, Aragua and Miranda.
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES:
Tapirus terrestris is classified as VULNERABLE most of their range but [Rodríguez, J. P. & F. RojasSuárez. 1999. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 2da. edición. PROVITA, Fundación Polar. Caracas,
Venezuela. 472 pp.] in northern Venezuela and Colombia, this species is absolutely Endangered in the
Coastal Range and Critically Endangered in the Maracaibo Lake Basin and Andean foothills. Also,
confident information shows this species to be absent in some localities whwere it was present in the
past, including northwestern portions of Sierra de La Culata National Park (Torres).
9
This subpopulation was first found by Hershkovitz (1954) who described it as the subspecies Tapirus
terrestris colombianus, based on the skull of a young adult from a site called “El Salado” on the
eastern flank of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta at the road connecting Valencia and Pueblo Bello,
state of Magdalena. In addition to the states of Magdalena, the distribution given by Hershkovitz
included the states of Bolívar, Córdoba (upper Sinú River), northwest Antioquia and was already
considered extinct in the state of Atlántico.
All these states are in the Caribbean region of Colombia, where original ecosystems have been
dramatically transformed into agriculture. By 2001, 97.6% of the Caribbean region had been changed
disturbed and most of its forest (ca 8,000,000 ha) removed for use by cattle ranchers (IGAC &
CORPOICA 2002). Under these circumstances, this subpopulation of lowland tapirs will remain only in
the largest fragments of forest, i.e. the Paramillo National Park (southern state of Córdoba and
northern state of Antioquia) and surrounding areas, as well as in some areas of Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta National Park (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente 2002).
Most SG members from Venezuela and Colombia feel that Tapirus terrestris populations inhabiting the
trans-Andean Colombian lowlands are Critically Endangered (CR). See also Rodriguez, J. V. 1998.
Listas preliminares de mamiferos colombianos con algun riesgo a la extincion. Informe final
presentado al Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biolgicos Alexander von Humboldt. [on-line].
URL: http://www.humboldt.org.co/Listas_Preliminares.htm. (The lists in this source use the IUCN
categories and criteria.)
While CR status could be applied for the subspecies T. t. colombianus living in Colombia on the
western side of the eastern Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and upper
Sinu River, the taxonomy of this species has not been well studied and geographical criteria serve this
analysis best at this time.
In Venezuela, Naveda reports based mostly on tracks and droppings. In the mountain range states of
Carabobo, Aragua and Miranda, tapirs have been severely affected by deforestation and hunting and
populations should at least be considered CR.
Hershkovitz, P. 1954. Mammals of Northern Colombia, Preliminary report No. 7: Tapirs (Genus Tapirus), with a
Systematic Review of American Species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum. Smithsonian
Institution, 103 (3329): 465-496.
IGAC & CORPOICA. 2002. Zonificación de los Conflictos de Uso de las Tierras en Colombia. Estudio en 4 CD Rom. CD-4 : Uso Adecuado y Conflicto de Uso de las tierras en Colombia. Instituto Geográfico Agustin
Codazzi y Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria. Bogotá.
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 2002. Programa Nacional para la Conservación y Recuperación de la Danta
(Genero Tapirus) en el El Territorio Colombiano. Sin publicar.
10
RED LIST ASSESSMENT
Questionnaire
(Please complete one questionnaire per taxon)
1a. Scientific name (including authority details):
Tapirus terrestris
1b. Synonym/s (if there has been a taxonomic change in the last 5 years or if widely used)
None
1c. English Common Name (if known)
Brazilian Tapir, Lowland Tapir, South American Tapir
1d. Other Common Names (if known and state language)
Tapir d'Amérique, Tapir terrestre (French); Tapir brasileño, Anta, Anta brasileña, Danta, Danto
(Spanish); Anta (Argentina and Brazil); Sacha vaca (Quichua name in Peru) and for any tapir (S.
Colombia)
2a. Order
PERISSODACTYLA
2b. Family
TAPIRIDAE
3. Distribution (describe the range in terms of countries of occurrence, subcountry units
e.g. states, provinces, etc.; for an inland water taxon use the name/s of the lakes, river
systems, etc. it occurs in; for a marine taxon use names of estuaries, territorial waters, FAO
fisheries areas)
Argentina, Bolivia (V), Brazil, Colombia (CR), Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru,
Suriname, Venezuela (V)
Note: A distribution map showing the Extent of Occurrence MUST be included.
3a. Red List Assessment (using the revised 2001 IUCN system), ticking one of the
following:
 Extinct (EX)
 Extinct in the Wild (EW)
 Critically Endangered (CR)
 Endangered (EN)
 Vulnerable (VU)
 Near Threatened (NT)
 Least Concern (LC)
 Data Deficient (DD)
 Not Evaluated (NE)
3b. Red List Criteria (e.g. A2c+3c; B1ab(iii); D)
3b. Red List Criteria - A1cd +2c +3c A1cd + 2c + 3c
11
Note: If one of the threatened categories is selected (i.e. CR, EN or VU) then ALL the
criteria, subcriteria and sub-subcriteria met for that category, must be listed in the box
provided.
4. Rationale for the Red List Assessment (Including whatever population or range
information were used, inferences, assumptions, etc. For NT specify what criteria were
nearly met and for DD specify what little information is known. Use additional sheets if
necessary.)
Most SG members feel Tapirus terrestris is VULNERABLE across the entire range; most also feel the
population inhabiting the trans-Andean Colombian lowlands is Critically Endangered (CR).
Medici feels that we can list Tapirus terrestris as VU across the entire range, and list certain
populations in (Colombia) as CR, and in some ecosystems in Brazil as EN.
Torres feels LR is okay in a global context but in the north (Venezuela and Colombia), it should be
Vulnerable. Overall, DD may be appropriate (Torres) because little data is available for large portions
of range (Brazil, Peru, Bolivia).
In Brazil, Medici feels it should be EN (A1abcd + 3cd, B1a (ii, iii, iv) c (ii,iii)), noting that good
populations only exist in Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul states. In Amazonia, there currently is
abundant forest, but deforestation is increasing and she feels it will be only a matter of time before
that region experiences the same population fragmentation and reduction already experienced by
tapir habitats in other regions. This is especially true in the Atlantic Rainforest and Cerrado
Ecosystems.
In northwest Argentina, Chalukian feels that although they may be common in some areas, in
Argentina they are sensitive to deforestation and human activities, and have already disappeared in
many areas of transition between montane and Chaco forests in Anta (a department of Salta
Province). For this reason, she feels they should be listed as VU. Although control has been more
effective during the past year in this province, it is still not enough. Tapirs are still hunted, chased by
dogs, and negatively impacted by competition with cattle and illegal timber activities. Although
diurnal in protected areas, they become nocturnal in areas of human activity. Similar observations
have been noted in Brazil.
Constantino points out that CR status for lowland tapirs applies only to the subspecies T. t.
colombianus living in Colombia on the western side of the Andes in the Magdalena Medio, Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta, and upper Sinu River. The eastern subspecies of the Colombian Amazonia
and Llanos Orientalis should only be EN or VU.
In Guyana, Watkins points out that little concrete information is available but tapirs are not protected
at present and are hunted by subsistence hunters as well as by a developing bush-meat industry as
roads are cut into the forest for logging.
In Bolivia, Wallace reports that a recent IUCN meeting on Bolivian vertebrates felt that tapirs were
Vulnerable due to their susceptibility to hunting, habitat degradation, and ease of hunting around salt
licks. While they may well be more common than expected in protected areas, as was found out in
Costa Rica and elsewhere, they do not fare well in the presence of hunting. In Amazonian Bolivia, he
projects densities of 0.25 to 1.5 tapirs per sq. km in good habitat.
12
In French Guiana, Richard-Hansen notes that tapirs are regularly hunted and sold commercially for
meat in markets and restaurants. In the northern part of the country where most people live (and
hunt), evidence is still found as footprints although sightings are rare. (.005 - 02 individuals/km). In
central and southern French Guiana, the forest is undisturbed and tapirs are only hunted by
indigenous people. Populations are thought to be higher although illegal gold mining could induce a
growing impact as bush meat. Census programs are planned to study these remote areas.
In Venezuela, Naveda reports based mostly on tracks and droppings. Tapirus terrestris is present
throughout the country but is more common in the south (Bolivar and Amazona States). Local
people of Yaracuy State in the north report tapirs to be common, with two animals killed recently by
hunters in Las Cumraguas Mountain. Some hunting is also reported in Imataca forest (Bolivar State)
for local consumption. Populations in the mountains of the northern coast tend to be isolated and
overall, the principal risk is loss of habitat. Hunting is presently a low risk although commercialization
could acerbate the situation. VU is probably appropriate for Venezuelan populations. Salas agrees,
pointing out that they exist in very large numbers in some of the large, intact forest tracts south of
the Orinoco River (Bolivar and Amazonas States) totalling 5 million hectares. Population estimates
are well above 50,000, and likely are over one million. Other potentially large populations exist north
and west of the Orinoco in states adjacent to Colombia. Tapirs are only found in certain areas here
but guerrilla activities make surveying difficult. A third potentially large tapir population may exist
just north of the Orinoco Delta. No surveys have been done, but an estimate of 5,000 may be
reasonable. In the mountain range statues of Carabobo, Aragua and Miranda, tapirs have been
severely affected by deforestation and hunting and populations should at least be considered VU.
5. Reason for Change in Red List Assessment from that in the 2000 Red List (see
www.redlist.org), ticking at least one of the following:
 Genuine change in status of species
 New or better information available
 Incorrect information used previously  Taxonomic change affecting the species
 Previously incorrect application of the Red List Criteria
6. Current Population Trend (tick one of the following):
 Increasing  Decreasing  Stable  Unknown
7. Date of Assessment (day/month/year): Summer, 2001
……/………….…/……
…..
8. Name/s of the Assessor/s
Leonardo Salas, Patricia Medici, Denis Torres, Emilio Constantino, Silvia Chalukian, Graham
Watkins, Robert Wallace, Cecile Richard-Hansen, and Adrian Naveda Rodriguez
9. Names of the Evaluators (at least two, and the name of the Red List Authority)
Patricia Medici, Sheryl Todd and Alan Shoemaker (RLA)
13
10. Brief notes i.e. a short narrative, on the topics below to complement the information
entered on the Authority Files in Annex 1 (use additional sheets if required):
a. Taxonomy (any taxonomic notes of relevance - optional)
None
b. Range and Population (including mention of important sites, population size, number
and size of subpopulations if known)
Argentina, Bolivia (V), Brazil, Colombia (CR), Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru,
Suriname, Venezuela (V). Population estimates are not available.
c. Habitat and Ecology
1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3,1.6.7, 1.6.9, 1.6.15
d. Threats
1.1.2, 1.1.3,1.3.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.2
e. Conservation Measures
1.1 - needed, 1.2.1.1 - needed, 4.4 (all) - needed, 5.3.1 - need in Fr. Guiana
11. Any Literature References (cited in full) used for the assessment and documentation
Tapirus terrestris should be classified as VULNERABLE in Venezuela. [Rodríguez, J. P. & F. RojasSuárez. 1999. Libro Rojo de la Fauna Venezolana. 2da.
Caracas, Venezuela. 472 pp.]
edición. PROVITA, Fundación Polar.
See also Rodriguez, Jose Vicente, 1998. Listas preliminares de mamiferos colombianos con algun
riesgo a la extincion. Informe final presentado al Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biolgicos
Alexander von Humboldt. [on-line]. URL: http://www.humboldt.org.co/Listas_Preliminares.htm (The
lists in this source use the IUCN categories and criteria.)
14
RED LIST ASSESSMENT
Questionnaire
(Please complete one questionnaire per taxon)
1a. Scientific name (including authority details):
Tapirus bairdii
1b. Synonym/s (if there has been a taxonomic change in the last 5 years or if widely
used)
None
1c. English Common Name (if known)
Central American Tapir, Baird's Tapir (English)
1d. Other Common Names (if known and state language)
Tapir de Baird (French)
Anteburro, Danta, Tapir centroamericano (Spanish)
Macho de Monte (Panama, northwestern Colombia)
Danta del Choco', Dante, Danta, and Danto (elsewhere in Colombia)
2a. Order
PERISSODACTYLA
2b. Family
TAPIRIDAE
3. Distribution (describe the range in terms of countries of occurrence, subcountry units
e.g. states, provinces, etc.; for an inland water taxon use the name/s of the lakes, river
systems, etc. it occurs in; for a marine taxon use names of estuaries, territorial waters,
FAO fisheries areas)
Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, southern Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, western
Colombia (CR), El Salvador (ex), Ecuador (?)
Note: A distribution map showing the Extent of Occurrence MUST be included.
3a. Red List Assessment (using the revised 2001 IUCN system), ticking one of the
following:
 Extinct (EX)
 Extinct in the Wild (EW)
 Critically Endangered (CR)
 Endangered (EN)
 Vulnerable (VU)
 Near Threatened (NT)
 Least Concern (LC)
 Data Deficient (DD)
 Not Evaluated (NE)
15
Note: If one of the threatened categories is selected (i.e. CR, EN or VU) then ALL the
criteria, subcriteria and sub-subcriteria met for that category, must be listed in the box
provided.
3b. Red List Criteria (e.g. A2c+3c; B1ab(iii); D)
3b. Red List Criteria - A1abcd + 2bce A1abcd + 2bce
4. Rationale for the Red List Assessment (Including whatever population or range
information were used, inferences, assumptions, etc. For NT specify what criteria were
nearly met and for DD specify what little information is known. Use additional sheets if
necessary.)
Naranjo recommends we delete criterion C2a (N =< 2,500 individuals) because there are that
many in Mexico and Guatemala alone. Aldán and Naranjo feel there are more than 2,500 in SE
Mexico and Guatemala alone. The three huge Biosphere Reserves in Chiapas are thought to hold
1,000 tapirs themselves. In Guatemala, the Maya Biosphere Reserve should hold several hundred
more, as should other small parks in Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The
relatively small Corcovado National Park is thought to hold 300 tapirs. Matola is more
conservative and feels there are fewer in this region, noting that range-wide habitat change is
very deleterious to the species, which does not occupy all habitat types and suffers from
population fragmentation and persecution. She notes that the upcoming IBD-funded road through
the Maya Biosphere Road is likely to become a major problem for tapirs in that area. Aldán and
Naranjo suggest a population estimate of <2,500 for SE Mexico and Guatemala, and all, including
Matola, feel the overall population is <5,000.
Constantino’s recent fieldwork has convinced him there are no tapirs on the Gulf side of 67,643hectare Katios National Park, although there are at least six in the park itself. Guerrilla activity
makes work there difficult. Biologists in the park also feel there are a few tapirs between Katios
N.P. and the Pacific Ocean. Large fragments of jungles to the Pacific combined with the El Darien
region that is shared with Panama could have 160,000 ha of habitat for a total of 227,000 ha. If
each adult tapir requires 500 ha, a rough estimate is 450 animals. Hunting, warfare and habitat
fragmentation could impact this estimate. Tapirs further down the pacific coast amount to little
more than rumors and an occasional track or two, so the 450-population estimate may represent
the entire population. Castellanos, however, reports tracks of tapirs, presumably Tapirus bairdii,
in the Ecological Reserve Cotachi Cayapas which is located in the northwest of Ecuador. If Tapirus
bairdii, it would be a new distribution (south of Colombia); if Tapirus pinchaque, it would be a new
range extension into lower elevations for Ecuador.
5. Reason for Change in Red List Assessment from that in the 2000 Red List (see
www.redlist.org), ticking at least one of the following:
 Genuine change in status of species
 New or better information available
 Incorrect information used previously
 Taxonomic change affecting the species
 Previously incorrect application of the Red List Criteria
6. Current Population Trend (tick one of the following):
16
 Increasing  Decreasing  Stable  Unknown
7. Date of Assessment (day/month/year): Summer, 2001
……/………….…/……
…..
8. Name/s
of the Assessor/s
Cruz Aldan, Sharon Matola, Armando Castellanos, Emilio Constantino
9. Names of the Evaluators (at least two, and the name of the Red List Authority)
Alan Shoemaker (RLA), Patricia Medici, and Sheryl Todd
10. Brief notes i.e. a short narrative, on the topics below to complement the information
entered on the Authority Files in Annex 1 (use additional sheets if required):
a. Taxonomy (any taxonomic notes of relevance - optional)
None
b. Range and Population (including mention of important sites, population size, number
and size of subpopulations if known)
Belize, Costa Rica, Guatemala, southeastern Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, western
Colombia (CR), El Salvador (ex), Ecuador (?). Population in Ecuador not proven to date.
c. Habitat and Ecology
1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3,1.6.7, 1.6.9, 1.6.15
d. Threats
1.1.2, 1.1.3,1.3.3, 1.4.2, 1.4.4, 3.1.1
e. Conservation Measures
1.1 - needed, 1.2.1.1 - needed, 4.4 (all) - needed
11. Any Literature References (cited in full) used for the assessment and
documentation
17
RED LIST ASSESSMENT
Questionnaire
(Please complete one questionnaire per taxon)
1a. Scientific name (including authority details):
Tapirus indicus
1b. Synonym/s (if there has been a taxonomic change in the last 5 years or if widely
used)
None
1c. English Common Name (if known)
Indian tapir, Malayan tapir, Asian tapir
1d. Other Common Names (if known and state language)
Tapir à dos blanc, Tapir de l'Inde, Tapir malais, Tapir à chabraque (French)
Tapir de la India (Spanish), Badak Cipan (Malay)
2a. Order
PERISSODACTYLA
2b. Family
TAPIRIDAE
3. Distribution (describe the range in terms of countries of occurrence, subcountry units
e.g. states, provinces, etc.; for an inland water taxon use the name/s of the lakes, river
systems, etc. it occurs in; for a marine taxon use names of estuaries, territorial waters,
FAO fisheries areas)
Central and southern Sumatra, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma) south of latitude 18
degreees N., Laos (?)
Note: A distribution map showing the Extent of Occurrence MUST be included.
3a. Red List Assessment (using the revised 2001 IUCN system), ticking one of the
following:
 Extinct (EX)
 Extinct in the Wild (EW)
 Critically Endangered (CR)
 Endangered (EN)
 Vulnerable (VU)
 Near Threatened (NT)
 Least Concern (LC)
 Data Deficient (DD)
 Not Evaluated (NE)
Note: If one of the threatened categories is selected (i.e. CR, EN or VU) then ALL the
criteria, subcriteria and sub-subcriteria met for that category, must be listed in the box
provided.
18
3b. Red List Criteria - A1a-c + 4d, B1b(i-v), c(I-v), C2b
3b. Red List Criteria (e.g. A2c+3c; B1ab(iii); D)
A1c + 2c, B2cd + 3a, C1 + 2b
4. Rationale for the Red List Assessment (Including whatever population or range
information were used, inferences, assumptions, etc. For NT specify what criteria were
nearly met and for DD specify what little information is known. Use additional sheets if
necessary.)
Today a generation is probably 12 years so it will take a period of 36 years for a reduction in
population size (van Strien). In Sumatra, over 50% of the remaining forest is outside tapir
habitat; Thailand is the same or worse. All forest outside conservation areas will be lost over the
next few decades, and potentially lost by as early as 2005 (Science Magazine). Given that, EN
(A2c +3c +4c) may be in order (van Strien and Novarino).
Holden agrees, noting that most remaining habitat in central Sumatra is outside of any protected
area and given the uncontrolled illegal logging situation in Sumatra, their status should be
increased to EN. Localized hunting is also being reported. Overall, Holden feels tapirs are still
widespread and common in Kerinci at the moment, but their habitat is seriously threatened and
their population declining.
Also, several Indonesian zoos, especially Pekanbaru, have been trading in live tapirs for sale to
other Indonesian zoos or private collections, or for sale as meat in local markets to the nonMuslim community. Fifty tapirs are reported passing through the Pekanbaru Zoo since 1993.
Some of these animals are suspected of having originated from protected areas. If true, then A2d
+ 3d +4d may also be in order.
In peninsular Malaysia, their population is faring better (Kawanishi), with camera trappings
showing that tapirs are among the most abundant large mammals, along with barking deer and
wild boar. Here tapirs are found in virtually all types of forest: primary, logged, disturbed, small
pockets, plantations and even near major cities. The Malaysian economy is more stable than
other range countries, the cause of near-extinction facing many large mammals, including tapirs.
If the current forest coverage (45%) remains, and given their adaptability and lack of value to
local people, Kawanishi feels VU is more appropriate than EN. Othman reports tapirs occurring in
all areas surveyed and in many forest types, to include secondary forest and forest fringe areas
near human habitation. This is probably helped by the lack of interest of local people in hunting
tapirs for food. Land use could be a factor in the future but Malaysia has greatly reduced forest
loss. Overall they believe the population is easily over 3,000. While one 1997 report felt that only
369 tapirs remained in Peninsular Malaysia, Othman and Kawanishi both feel his calculations and
extrapolations were probably inaccurate.
Comments from Lynam on tapir status and distribution in Thailand and Myanmar: Thailand
supports one of the most comprehensive systems of protected areas in Southeast Asia. Over 200
National Parks, Marine National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Non-hunting areas cover 17% of
19
land area (Prayurasiddhi, Chaiwatana et al. 1999). Almost all remaining intact forest now lies
within protected areas, with mostly degraded lands outside. Since most existing tapir habitat is
already protected, the future for conservation of the species in Thailand is quite positive. In
contrast, Myanmar’s protected areas make up 3.2% of land area (Myanmar Forest Department)
and most tapir habitat lies outside these protected areas. In Myanmar, tapirs are entirely
restricted to rainforests in the Tenasserim Ranges on the Thai-Myanmar border (Yin, 1993). The
tenure of these lands on the Myanmar side of the border is disputed and due to civil unrest, has
been inaccessible for wildlife survey until now. Currently a team of Myanmar Forest Department
staff are surveying an area in the Tenasserims for tigers and other large mammals using cameratraps, and will likely gain insight into the status of tapirs when survey results are complete.
In Thailand Tapirus indicus is recorded from forest areas in the west and south of the country
(Lekagul and McNeely 1988), including transboundary forest areas in border areas, and large
isolated forest remnants. The transboundary forests represent the most extensive, contiguous
habitats for large mammals left in the country (Prayurasiddhi, Chaiwatana et al. 1999). They
include the Western Forest Complex (Thai-Myanmar border), which includes 12 protected areas,
and covers over 18,730 sq km including both dry and wet forests, and the Kaeng
Krachan/Chumpol complex which covers 4,373 sq km, mostly wet evergreen forest on the ThaiMyanmar border. The Balahala Forest is an expanse of 1,850 sq km of tropical rainforest on the
Thai-Malaysia border. All areas are contiguous with larger forest areas on opposite sides of the
country border. Recent survey efforts (Lynam 1999; Lynam 2000; WCS 2001; Kaewsirisuk 2001;
A. Pattanavibool personal communication) suggest that tapirs are present though uncommon in
each of these transboundary forest areas.
Tapirs are generally not hunted for subsistence or commercial trade in Thailand or Myanmar, since
their flesh is considered distasteful. Some hill tribes believe that killing a tapir brings bad luck, so
they are not hunted. Malaysian tapirs are shy animals and appear to be highly sensitive to forest
fragmentation. In Halabala Wildlife Sanctuary on the Thai-Malaysia border, Kaewsirisuk (2001)
found that the species does not venture within a few hundred meters of forest-plantation edges.
At Khao Sok National Park, tapirs are interior forest species that avoid forest edges (Lynam 1996).
While forest loss continues in Thailand, forests in protected areas remain relatively stable in size
and composition to other countries because of a ban on commercial logging that has been in place
since 1989. For this reason, while tapirs may indeed be endangered in general by forest loss,
populations in Thailand are probably more stable. The species has uncertain status and future in
Myanmar.
5. Reason for Change in Red List Assessment from that in the 2000 Red List (see
www.redlist.org), ticking at least one of the following:
 Genuine change in status of species
 New or better information available
 Incorrect information used previously
 Taxonomic change affecting the species
 Previously incorrect application of the Red List Criteria
6. Current Population Trend (tick one of the following):
 Increasing  Decreasing  Stable  Unknown
7. Date of Assessment (day/month/year): Summer, 2001
……/………….…/……
…..
20
8. Name/s of the Assessor/s
Carl Traeholt, Kae Kawanishi, Mike Chong, Nico van Strien, Sahir Othman, Budsabon
Kanchnasaka
9. Names of the Evaluators (at least two, and the name of the Red List Authority)
Alan Shoemaker (RLA), Patricia Medici, and Sheryl Todd
10. Brief notes i.e. a short narrative, on the topics below to complement the information
entered on the Authority Files in Annex 1 (use additional sheets if required):
a. Taxonomy (any taxonomic notes of relevance - optional)
None
b. Range and Population (including mention of important sites, population size, number
and size of subpopulations if known)
Central and southern Sumatra, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma) South of latitude 18
degrees N, Laos (?)
c. Habitat and Ecology
1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3,1.6.7, 1.6.9, 1.6.15
d. Threats
1.1.2, 1.1.3,1.3.3, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 9.2, 10.3
e. Conservation Measures
1.1 - needed, 1.2.1.1 - needed, 4.4 (all) – needed
11. Any Literature References (cited in full) used for the assessment and
documentation
Kaewsirisuk, S. (2001). Comparative study of habitat use of tapirs between edge and interior at Halabala
Wildlife Sanctuary, Waeng District, Narathiwat Province, Thailand. Bangkok, Royal Forest Department:
27pp.
Lekagul, B. and J. A. McNeely (1988). Mammals of Thailand. Bangkok, Darnsutha Press.
Lynam, A. J. (1996). Distributions of large fauna with respect to the edge of a Thailand protected area.
New York, Wildlife Conservation Society.
Lynam, A. J. (1999). “Transboundary expedition on Thai-Malaysia border reveals elephant and Sumatran
rhinoceros populations threatened by poaching.” Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society 47: 23-35.
Lynam, A. J. (2000). Effects of human landuse on faunal abundance in some Thai forest reserves. Final
Report to The National Research Council of Thailand. Bangkok, Wildlife Conservation Society: 49pp.
Prayurasiddhi, T., S. Chaiwatana, and S. Naporn (eds.) (1999). Forest Complexes in Thailand. Bangkok,
Royal Forest Department, Prueksirin Printing.
WCS (2001). Report on "Defining, estimating and conserving the tiger populations in Thailand's forest
complexes in the new millenium; A workshop for junior staff in protected areas" January 15-29th, 2001.
Bangkok, Wildlife Conservation Society 39pp
Yin, U. T. (1993). Wild Mammals of Myanmar. Yangon, Forest Department, Myanmar.
21
RED LIST ASSESSMENT
Questionnaire
(please complete one questionnaire per taxon)
1a. Scientific name (including authority details):
Tapirus pinchaque
1b. Synonym/s (if there has been a taxonomic change in the last 5 years or if
widely used)
None
1c. English Common Name (if known)
Woolly tapir, Mountain tapir, Andean tapir
1d. Other Common Names (if known and state language)
Tapir pinchaque, Tapir des Andes (French)
Danta cordillerana, Danta lanuda, Danta negra, Pinchaque, Tapir andino, Danta de montaña,
Danta del Páramo (Spanish)
Sacha Huagra (Quichua - northern Incan dialect spoken by many in Ecuador)
Sacha vaca (Peru) and for any tapir (S. Colombia)
2a. Order
PERISSODACTYLA
2b. Family
TAPIRIDAE
3. Distribution (describe the range in terms of countries of occurrence, subcountry
units e.g. states, provinces, etc.; for an inland water taxon use the name/s of the lakes,
river systems, etc. it occurs in; for a marine taxon use names of estuaries, territorial
waters, FAO fisheries areas)
Peru, Ecuador, Andean Colombia (eastern and central Andean Cordillaeras to 5 degrees
North L (CR)
Note: A distribution map showing the Extent of Occurrence MUST be included.
3a. Red List Assessment (using the revised 2001 IUCN system), ticking one of the
following:
 Extinct (EX)
 Extinct in the Wild (EW)
 Critically Endangered (CR)
 Endangered (EN)
 Vulnerable (VU)
 Near Threatened (NT)
 Least Concern (LC)
22
 Data Deficient (DD)
 Not Evaluated (NE)
Note: If one of the threatened categories is selected (i.e. CR, EN or VU) then ALL the
criteria, subcriteria and sub-subcriteria met for that category, must be listed in the box
provided.
3b. Red List Criteria - A1cd + 2cd, C1, E
3b. Red List Criteria (e.g. A2c+3c; B1ab(iii); D)
A1cd + 2cd, C1, E
4. Rationale for the Red List Assessment (Including whatever population or
range information were used, inferences, assumptions, etc. For NT specify what
criteria were nearly met and for DD specify what little information is known. Use
additional sheets if necessary.)
Add "A1d" to the list of criteria for classifying this species as fully endangered. There has
been and remains significant hunting pressure on this species, and it has been and remains
extremely rare (Downer) to encounter an area with mountain tapirs where they are not
being over-hunted. The new IUCN Listing would be EN (Endangered) A1cd+2cd, C1, E
(Downer).
Add "A1e and A2e” as further reasons for the mountain tapir's endangerment. Justification:
widespread cattle introduction into the last remaining mountain tapir refuges. Cattle
observed to be forming reproducing families in western Sangay National Park, causing
mountain tapirs to abandon areas in San Diego headwater area of park just to north of
Sangay Volcano. Visits to other legal refuges of the mountain tapir, i.e. Cayambe Coca
Ecological Reserved in Ecuador, and reports form Sanctuario Ecologico Tabaconas-Namalle
in Peru and parks in Colombia, indicate that the same problem with cattle invasion into
mountain tapir sanctuaries is occurring and negatively affecting the mountain tapirs as well
as increased hunting associated with vaquero roundups of the mountain tapirs. Reports of
mountain tapir killings in Cordillera de Las Lagunillas of northern Peru were received during
the summer, 2001, that substantiate that hunting is a major threat. Also, a mining project
in northern Peru threatens to destroy the headwater cloud forests and paramos of the
scant population of mountain tapirs there (Downer). According to Castellanos, mountain
tapirs should be considered EN due to population fragmentation caused by human
activities.
5. Reason for Change in Red List Assessment from that in the 2000 Red
List (see www.redlist.org), ticking at least one of the following:
 Genuine change in status of species
 New or better information available
 Incorrect information used previously
23
 Taxonomic change affecting the species
 Previously incorrect application of the Red List Criteria
6. Current Population Trend (tick one of the following):
 Increasing  Decreasing  Stable  Unknown
7. Date of Assessment (day/month/year): Summer, 2001
……/………….…/……
…..
8. Name/s of the Assessor/s
Emilio Constantino, Craig Downer, Armando Castellanos
9. Names of the Evaluators (at least two, and the name of the Red List
Authority)
Alan Shoemaker RLA), Patricia Medici, and Sheryl Todd
10. Brief notes i.e. a short narrative, on the topics below to complement the
information entered on the Authority Files in Annex 1 (use additional sheets if
required):
a. Taxonomy (any taxonomic notes of relevance - optional)
None
b. Range and Population (including mention of important sites, population size,
number and size of subpopulations if known)
Peru, Ecuador, Andean Colombia (eastern and central Andean Cordillaeras to 5 degrees North
L (CR). This is strictly a montane rainforest species.
c. Habitat and Ecology
1.1.5
d. Threats
1.1.2, 1.1.3,1.3.3, 1.1.4.2, 1.3.1, 3.1.1
e. Conservation Measures
1.1 - needed, 1.2.1.1 - needed, 4.4 (all) - needed
11. Any Literature References (cited in full) used for the assessment and
documentation
None
24
25