There is a boom in tiger numbers but where will they go?

At a time when global concerns on the long-term sustainability of tiger populations have led to stringent management protocols and an urgent action to save the remaining tigers, there are glimmers of success that shine above the rest. Karnataka is often referred to as one of the few successful case studies of conservation. The results of collaborative efforts are visible after three grueling decades, as the number of tigers in the state’s protected areas has increased.

However, Karnataka might soon be approaching the paradoxical threshold of the ‘problem of plenty’. Booming population and healthy litters have brought cheer to people but incidents of tigers straying out of park boundaries are increasing.

Human-wildlife conflict is rising as the tiger population thrives and the range of a tiger reduces. Recently, two persons were killed in tiger attacks in Kodagu in a span of 24 hours. This resulted in intense protests. Forest department officials had to face irate villagers who put the responsibility of the unfortunate tiger’s transgression upon the forest department.

In other parts of the country, such human-animal conflicts are seeing increasing acts of vengeance such as revenge killings, forest fires and arson, which are detrimental to wildlife population.

With a combined population of more than 300 tigers in Bandipur, Nagarahole and BRT tiger reserves, it is important that the issue is addressed immediately.

Possible measures

The forest department equipped with a Standard Operating Protocol under the mandate of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) needs to adapt to the current realities and act within the framework of the Wildlife Protection Act to innovatively respond to such situations. It is a fact that the boundaries of most tiger reserves have been declared based on available land area with scarcely an opportunity to increase the land under the reserve. Thus when the area under the tiger reserve always remains constant, it would bode well to define the ecological carrying capacity of the area.

Secondly, the authorities should define the ‘population management strategy’ whenever tiger numbers exceed. This information can be gleaned from the annual scientific estimation of tiger populations and a management strategy adopted to identify and focus on certain individual tigers which have established their territory along the periphery of forest with the potential to become conflict animals. It is to be noted that under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 Sec 12 (bb), the Chief Wildlife Warden has the powers to permit translocation of animals to an alternative suitable habitat or for the purpose of population management of wildlife without causing harm to the animal.

Thirdly, it is imperative to establish a national grid for identification of a suitable habitat for translocation of excess animals so that regions which have lost their erstwhile tiger populations or suffer from a low population density could benefit by absorbing additional tigers from tiger rich areas such as Karnataka. India has sufficient suitable habitats for tigers wherein the “excess population” from Tiger Reserves can be safely relocated.

Finally, there is a need to define measures for the management of ‘non-relocatable tigers’, especially with regard to — old, injured, and declared human-eating animals.

At a juncture in the nation’s history, when the survival of our natural heritage such as forests and wild animals are at stake, care should be taken to acknowledge that the cost of the natural heritage is not borne by those who live along the periphery of the forest.

It is the duty of the decision makers to ensure that while the dividends of the natural capital is reaped by all citizens, those currently bearing its cost are also insulated from it. Therefore, the State government and NTCA should create suitable conditions to reduce negative human-tiger interactions.

(The author is regional advisor for Wildlife Trust of India)