<p>Have the tiger numbers increased since the last government figures were put out in 2008? Answer to which was out under full media glare two weeks ago. ‘Tigers bounce back’ cried a newspaper on the cover page the next day. There were many responses to this. Many jumped to claim credit to the positive results including some media houses. <br /><br />Sadly few saw the results in a pragmatic, scientific manner. Do we really have higher numbers now? A closer scrutiny reveals that the results may not be big as hyped by the media.<br /><br />Results of wildlife studies are not as simple and straight forward to interpret. In fact small changes, 16 per cent in this case, do not make big differences. All wildlife including tigers will have minor fluctuations in numbers when compared over years. These variations depend upon various factors including the season of data collection, mortalities and so on.<br /><br />To give an exponential increase it is important to note that during the last published estimate results areas such as Sunderbans, North East India were left out. Additionally new areas such as Sahyadri Tiger Reserve have been added to the estimation results. <br /><br />Hence adding numbers from these areas will only depict an expansion of the sites studied rather than real increase in numbers. Some, including renowned tiger biologist K Ullas Karanth have raised basic questions. He has outlined the deficiencies in the methodology including lack of scientific rigour and importantly he has questioned the lack of published results in peer-reviewed journals from the previous exercise. <br /><br />Only one publication has been published from the previously carried out estimates. Karanth advocates more intensive, annual, source site population estimations rather than a country-wide four year estimates.<br /><br />Priority for conservation<br /><br />Union Minister Salman Khurshid rightly said at the tiger estimate release that “we came late on industrial revolution and need to ensure that a balance is maintained between development and environment”. He is so right. We need not commit blunders which western countries committed during their industrial revolution. Most industrialised countries lost their large, habitat specialist mammalian species in their zeal for economic growth. We need to follow their best practices and not mimic their mistakes.<br /><br />The threat to tigers, especially fragmentation and loss of habitat has been increasing and continue to be the most serious of the problems in a country which constantly aims at nine per cent economic growth. Everyone is interested in biting a chunk of the tiger’s habitat; there is no distinction between urban or rural dwellers, rich or poor. Miners, road builders, even ‘green’ energy proponents are all in the race to snatch the tigers’ home.<br />Cats do not have nine lives to survive these irreversible damages. Tigers are crouching to survive despite this onslaught. Focusing to reverse these threats is important to ensure its long-term survival.<br /><br />A recent publication by Joe Walston of Wildlife Conservation Society and others identified 18 important source sites for tigers in India. Of the identified 42 source sites across the world, India holds 43% of these sites. <br /><br />These areas need to be protected with the highest commitment if we are serious about saving the striped cat. We lost tigers in Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves and they precariously hold on in some. We need not construe that reintroduction of tigers to sites from where they have gone locally extinct is a solution to the problem. Emphasis on protection and enforcement are key to tiger’s survival and to develop tiger-permeable landscapes.<br /><br />Encouraging signs<br /><br />The other part of the celebrations during the release event was that Karnataka holds the highest tiger numbers tipping Madhya Pradesh from the top place. Do we need to celebrate that Karnataka holds the highest tiger numbers? Yes, we ought to be proud that we hold one of the largest tiger populations in the world. However in the larger perspective of tiger conservation, it is not encouraging that the other state has lost their tigers. If we had a sharp increase of tiger numbers in Karnataka it could have been a reason to celebrate.<br /><br />The state has always had a distinction of prioritising and advocating protection to save its wildlife. We need to continue this strategy to ensure that the curtains on one of the magnificent species human kind has ever seen are not brought down. <br /><br />SOURCE SITE<br /><br />* Biologists have described source sites with a few indicators. <br /><br />* Sites that have higher densities of tigers in the landscape and have the potential to maintain demographically viable cluster of over 25 reproducing tigresses embedded in a larger terrain that could hold over 50 breeding females.<br /><br />* The landscapes that also have political, social and bureaucratic commitment to the area for long-term protection of tigers.<br /><br />* A legal framework that will support protection of tigers and their prey from hunting. <br /><em>(Source: Walston et al, 2010)</em><br /><br /><em>(The writer is Member, State Board for Wildlife.)</em></p>
<p>Have the tiger numbers increased since the last government figures were put out in 2008? Answer to which was out under full media glare two weeks ago. ‘Tigers bounce back’ cried a newspaper on the cover page the next day. There were many responses to this. Many jumped to claim credit to the positive results including some media houses. <br /><br />Sadly few saw the results in a pragmatic, scientific manner. Do we really have higher numbers now? A closer scrutiny reveals that the results may not be big as hyped by the media.<br /><br />Results of wildlife studies are not as simple and straight forward to interpret. In fact small changes, 16 per cent in this case, do not make big differences. All wildlife including tigers will have minor fluctuations in numbers when compared over years. These variations depend upon various factors including the season of data collection, mortalities and so on.<br /><br />To give an exponential increase it is important to note that during the last published estimate results areas such as Sunderbans, North East India were left out. Additionally new areas such as Sahyadri Tiger Reserve have been added to the estimation results. <br /><br />Hence adding numbers from these areas will only depict an expansion of the sites studied rather than real increase in numbers. Some, including renowned tiger biologist K Ullas Karanth have raised basic questions. He has outlined the deficiencies in the methodology including lack of scientific rigour and importantly he has questioned the lack of published results in peer-reviewed journals from the previous exercise. <br /><br />Only one publication has been published from the previously carried out estimates. Karanth advocates more intensive, annual, source site population estimations rather than a country-wide four year estimates.<br /><br />Priority for conservation<br /><br />Union Minister Salman Khurshid rightly said at the tiger estimate release that “we came late on industrial revolution and need to ensure that a balance is maintained between development and environment”. He is so right. We need not commit blunders which western countries committed during their industrial revolution. Most industrialised countries lost their large, habitat specialist mammalian species in their zeal for economic growth. We need to follow their best practices and not mimic their mistakes.<br /><br />The threat to tigers, especially fragmentation and loss of habitat has been increasing and continue to be the most serious of the problems in a country which constantly aims at nine per cent economic growth. Everyone is interested in biting a chunk of the tiger’s habitat; there is no distinction between urban or rural dwellers, rich or poor. Miners, road builders, even ‘green’ energy proponents are all in the race to snatch the tigers’ home.<br />Cats do not have nine lives to survive these irreversible damages. Tigers are crouching to survive despite this onslaught. Focusing to reverse these threats is important to ensure its long-term survival.<br /><br />A recent publication by Joe Walston of Wildlife Conservation Society and others identified 18 important source sites for tigers in India. Of the identified 42 source sites across the world, India holds 43% of these sites. <br /><br />These areas need to be protected with the highest commitment if we are serious about saving the striped cat. We lost tigers in Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves and they precariously hold on in some. We need not construe that reintroduction of tigers to sites from where they have gone locally extinct is a solution to the problem. Emphasis on protection and enforcement are key to tiger’s survival and to develop tiger-permeable landscapes.<br /><br />Encouraging signs<br /><br />The other part of the celebrations during the release event was that Karnataka holds the highest tiger numbers tipping Madhya Pradesh from the top place. Do we need to celebrate that Karnataka holds the highest tiger numbers? Yes, we ought to be proud that we hold one of the largest tiger populations in the world. However in the larger perspective of tiger conservation, it is not encouraging that the other state has lost their tigers. If we had a sharp increase of tiger numbers in Karnataka it could have been a reason to celebrate.<br /><br />The state has always had a distinction of prioritising and advocating protection to save its wildlife. We need to continue this strategy to ensure that the curtains on one of the magnificent species human kind has ever seen are not brought down. <br /><br />SOURCE SITE<br /><br />* Biologists have described source sites with a few indicators. <br /><br />* Sites that have higher densities of tigers in the landscape and have the potential to maintain demographically viable cluster of over 25 reproducing tigresses embedded in a larger terrain that could hold over 50 breeding females.<br /><br />* The landscapes that also have political, social and bureaucratic commitment to the area for long-term protection of tigers.<br /><br />* A legal framework that will support protection of tigers and their prey from hunting. <br /><em>(Source: Walston et al, 2010)</em><br /><br /><em>(The writer is Member, State Board for Wildlife.)</em></p>
