The recent spurt in human deaths caused by tigers and the consequent farmer protests in the famed Bandipur Tiger Reserve have once again brought human-wildlife conflict into sharp focus. Tragically, three people lost their lives, and one suffered severe injuries, losing both eyes. In response to public protests, the Forest Department captured 14 tigers. Clearly, both people and wildlife are suffering from these unfortunate incidents.
Elephants, leopards, and tigers are the three species most commonly involved in fatal conflicts in Karnataka. The focus here is on tigers, as solutions differ across species and even vary geographically.
Government records show that Karnataka had 563 tigers in 2022. Of these, about 52% were in Bandipur and Nagarahole, and around 15% in the state’s other three tiger reserves. Ideal tiger habitats and four decades of strong protection efforts have contributed to these high concentrations in the two reserves. However, the steady rise in tiger numbers is also due to intensive habitat manipulation aimed at supporting large tiger populations. This includes digging waterholes to ensure year-round water availability, constructing check dams, and creating artificial grasslands to increase fodder for prey species. As a result, chital – tigers’ preferred prey – have increased in abundance, since they mostly feed on grass and their survival and reproduction improve under conditions of high water availability. This has, in turn, led to an increase in tiger numbers. Bandipur’s tigers, for example, have risen from 120 in 2014 to about 150 in 2025.
But while tiger numbers are growing, forest cover is not. Bandipur and Nagarahole likely support more tigers than their ecological carrying capacity. Tigers have no natural predators; their population is naturally regulated by resource scarcity, injuries, and conflicts with other tigers. These natural factors help keep their numbers within the ecological carrying capacity of an area.
When we artificially provide abundant water and prey, their populations exceed natural limits. Consequently, many tigers now wander outside forests into farmlands, plantations, and riverine patches in human-dominated landscapes. Today, over 50 tigers born in Bandipur or Nagarahole live in agricultural fields, coffee estates, or along rivulets. It is not scarcity of resources that pushes them out – it is overabundance within the reserves. The ecological carrying capacity of Bandipur and Nagarahole together may be around 200 tigers, but over 290 tigers currently survive there.
Why, then, are tiger numbers rising sharply only in these two reserves? One key reason is tourism – not because it directly enhances protection, but because of the revenue it generates. Earlier, tourism income from all protected areas was pooled and distributed based on need. However, an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act in 2006 mandated that tourism revenue must be retained and spent within the protected area where it is generated. This changed everything. Bandipur and Nagarahole now earn over Rs 40 crore annually from tourism, and much of this money goes into digging waterholes, building check dams, constructing arches, and other cement-and-concrete activities. This pattern of spending needs urgent rethinking.
Local communities living around these forests bear the brunt of rising wildlife numbers. Their crops are raided by wild pigs, elephants, chital, and peafowl. Their livestock are preyed upon by tigers and leopards. Except for a small group that depends on tourism for livelihoods, most residents gain no direct benefit from wildlife conservation. They experience only the costs.
At least 50% of tourism revenue should therefore be redirected towards community development, quick compensation for conflict losses, and welfare measures. The remaining 50% can support temporary staff salaries, enhancing their basic facilities, training, and protection work. To create more local employment opportunities, heavy construction machinery should be replaced with manual labour wherever possible. This would generate jobs and reduce the disturbance caused by large machines inside forests.
New conservation pathways
We need to challenge some long-held beliefs if we hope to reduce human-wildlife conflict. For over two decades, we have dug thousands of waterholes and lakhs of percolation pits, and installed numerous solar pumps under the assumption that wildlife are leaving forests due to a lack of water or fodder. If that were true, human-wildlife conflict should have been reduced in Bandipur and Nagarahole, not increased. The same goes for weed removal – if weeds were severely limiting fodder, how are prey species increasing? If deer depended mainly on crops, lakhs of chital should be grazing outside forests.
Social media has created another challenge. Injured wildlife, often harmed due to natural causes such as fights, falls, or thorns, are increasingly treated like pets or zoo animals. Tiger cubs are reared in captivity when their mothers go missing. This artificially pushes numbers higher. Apex predators need natural mortality for population regulation. We must stop treating naturally injured wildlife inside protected areas, and this requires scientific thinking rather than bowing to social media pressures of a few.
The time taken to provide ex gratia compensation for livestock loss often stretches beyond a year, creating deep resentment towards wildlife. The government must ensure compensation within two weeks, which would greatly reduce anger and frustration among farmers.
Although it is remarkable to see tigers surviving even in human-dominated landscapes, we must assess this also from the perspective of social carrying capacity. Otherwise, society may take matters into its own hands – as we have already seen in the case of elephants in Hassan district.
If we want to meaningfully reduce human-wildlife conflict, we must correct some fundamental mistakes. Taking firm, science-based decisions today can lead to positive change within a decade. If not, public anger, political pressure, and violence against forest staff will continue to escalate.
(The writer is a wildlife biologist and the author of Second Nature: Saving Tiger Landscapes in the 21st Century)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.