WildFact
Bigcats News - Printable Version

+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Information Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-information-section)
+--- Forum: Premier League (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-premier-league)
+--- Thread: Bigcats News (/topic-bigcats-news)



RE: Bigcats News - Pckts - 03-09-2016

Do you include Cubs in the Malaysian total?
They are estimated to be under 250 left in the wild unfortunately. (Adults)
Great news though. Tfs


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-09-2016

(03-09-2016, 09:00 PM)Pckts Wrote: Do you include Cubs in the Malaysian total?
They are estimated to be under 250 left in the wild unfortunately. (Adults)
Great news though. Tfs

No, adults (over 4 years are likely to be 250-300, sub-adults 2-4 years another 100-150 ) cubs are not included since high mortality rates will make including them pointless.
All in all Malaysian tigers are about 500, what we need to focus on is the number of breeding adults which is around 250.


RE: Bigcats News - Pckts - 03-09-2016

Is that what the IUCN means than?
Their number are listed as less than 250 adults remaining, do they only show the number of Tigers >4years of age?


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-11-2016

(03-09-2016, 10:54 PM)Pckts Wrote: Is that what the IUCN means than?
Their number are listed as less than 250 adults remaining, do they only show the number of Tigers >4years of age?

To highlight the urgent conservation needs of endangered animals the IUCN experts refer to the number of adults and more specifically the breeding adults when this can be reliably estimated.
Some authorities include large cubs and sub-adults for example the Indian government experts estimate all tigers over one year of age, so when they say for example 2200 tigers this translates to less than 1000 breeding tigers, large cubs and sub-adults ( especially males ) suffer higher mortality rates due to violent encounters with territorial males and humans, so including their numbers is misleading a bit.
Going back to the topic of Malaysian tigers I am very optimistic they will rebound in numbers, Malaysia is a developed country and is committed to tiger conservation, the country has large tracts of forests that if they house sufficient numbers of Sambar, wild boar, and muntjac , and the anti-poaching measures are strict and effective we can see 1000 tigers in Malaysia by 2050 ( and not by 2020 as envisioned earlier).


RE: Bigcats News - Shardul - 03-11-2016

http://projecttiger.nic.in/WriteReadData/LetestNews/Document/Tiger%20Status%20booklet_XPS170115212.pdf

Clearly mentions it's greater than 1.5 years, not 1 year. So only subadults and matures are counted, not cubs.

<1000 out of 2200 means almost 60% of Indian tigers are sub adults? While in case of malaysia, it is only 150 out of 450, i.e 33%? Why is that?

These so called Western "experts" and their predictions make me laugh. 20 years ago they would say how Thailand or Indonesia were the "future" of tigers, now it is Malaysia.

When Dr. Ulhas karanth gives his opinion about tigers in India, I take him seriously because:

1) He has spent his entire life studying tigers in India and their habitat. He has seen hundreds of tigers and knows the landscape inside out.
2) When he doubts the Indian government's census data, he gives very good reasons as to why he is doubting, and also gives alternative solutions. 
3) He doesn't go around making bombastic claims over the future of Grizzly bears in US for eg, because he has never studied them. He only talks about species (i.e the Bengal tiger) that he knows and has studied over years. In actual field conditions, which is what matters the most.
4) He is balanced in his opinions, not overly critical or extreme.


Now coming to the 2 ifs:

If Poaching is controlled
If prey numbers are increased

Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Well if it was, then most countries wouldn't struggle so much with protecting their wildlife. The demand for wildlife products isn't going down and Poachers are very smart nowadays, they know more about the animals and their habitat than most researchers, and it takes more than just commitment to stop them. Just look at what is happening to Rhinos in Kruger National Park, despite the forest rangers there operating some of the most advanced equipment available.

I agree Malaysia still has large tracts of intact forests, but we need to ask why did the population of tigers and their prey fall to so low in the first place. Was it just hunting or were there other reasons? Can the forests there support high density of ungulates? What do the There would be many such questions. Animals that occur at low densities in their home range are usually the toughest to save, and first to go extinct.

Most people don't realize that India also has a lot forested tracts, but a lot of it is fragmented, some of it is degraded, some have very little wildlife and some are completely devoid of any. Only a portion of it is suitable for tigers, and that too if managed properly. So there are a lot of factors at play.

Oh, and Muntjac are not tiger's prey item, they are too small and even if Malayan tigers did prey on them, it would be because of lack of large ungulates.

I am not attacking anyone here, but I feel that the discussions should move beyond the obvious copy pasting of information available on the internet. Don't just state the obvious, try to offer some real insight.


RE: Bigcats News - strana - 03-11-2016

(03-09-2016, 08:40 PM)Dr Panthera Wrote: 2 great news for tiger conservation:

1-Malaysia has effectively banned Sambar hunting for six years making the 1000 Malaysian Sambars fully available for the 300-350 Malaysian tigers, wild boar is not normally hunted by Muslim hunters ( the majority of Malaysians ), muntjac is plentiful so the major tiger prey base looks secure which bodes well for tigers.

2-The remote Chittagong Hills forests in Bangladesh seem to have healthy populations of sambar, gaur, and wild boar and 13 cm wide foot prints ( of tigers ) have been discovered to suggest a tiger population of about 15 adults ( M.Khan ) which is significant since there are only 2500 adult tigers left in the wild, every single tiger counts.

Dr Panthera,
 I would like to be optimist about Malaysia but I am not. In my opinion, it is just a matter of time to someone declare that the malaysian tiger is extinct, at least in wild.
Do you remember Myanmar ( Burma ) ?? This country proudly said in 2010 that they had established the world´s largest tiger reserve : Hukawng Valley Tiger Reserve. However, the truth is that Myanmar did not make anything to protect the reserve and there are people who say that there is not a single tiger anymore overthere  !!!! It is still worse when I think that the tigers in Hukawng were very specials, similar in size to those from Assam.
The situation in Thailand seems to be better. In a recent study, where Dr Ullas Karanth also participated, the census showed that the tiger population is increasing. In Huai Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, for example, 90 individual tigers were observed and the population of both tigers and prey seems to be increasing. It is also very good that the so called " Tiger Temple"  looks to be under serious pressure from the authorities.
By the way there are 3 good news and 1 very bad from India:
- last january was remarkable in Nagarahole, with 12 ( !! ) new tiger cubs,
- 2 new tiger cubs were sighted in Panna, the total number of big cats is now 32;
- in the last census, Madhya Pradesh announced substantial increase in tiger numbers, with  89  more being counted since  last census in 2014. Now the state has 397 tigers. If this is true, I think it is incredibly news...89 more tigers in a little more than a year !!!! I strongly suspect that the census in 2014 was too pessimistic or the 2015 census is too optimistic.
The terrible news is that there are already 2 confirmed cases of poaching in Valmiki Tiger Reserve this year. I think that it is specially bad because Valmiki is contiguous to Chitwan, so it is natural to believe that the same problem might be happening in that famous nepalese reserve. However, at least a good number of poachers were arrested.
By the way, in Russia the prey base looks to be improving. Russian scientists want to reintroduce the Amur leopard in southern  Sikhote Alin, believing that there are enough food for tigers and leopards. They are making a  study about prey numbers right now. An excellent example of how much russians seems interested in protecting both tigers and leopards is that in this winter they have bought more than 300 tons of forage to serve as supplementary food for the ungulates and vaccinated more than 2000 wild boars against hog plague.
 If this tendency continues, I believe we are going to see the old good days of Amur tiger back, although I still believe that there are 250kg + individuals in the wild. In the 2015 census, for example, the scientist have found many very big pugs and filmed tigers who look  very big indeed.


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-14-2016

Strana,
Hi my optimism for Malaysian tigers is due to the following reasons:

1-Malaysia is the most developed country in South East Asia after Singapore , with a fairly well educated population and a large middle class, the government is effective and is committed to conserving wild life particularly tigers. (Unlike say Myanmar ,Vietnam ,Laos , and Cambodia ), I believe that in South East Asia tigers will be extinct everywhere in our lifetimes except in the protected areas in Sumatra, the Central Spine Forest in Malaysia, and the Western Forest Complex in Thailand.

2-Malaysia has a contiguous forest area of about 49,000 KM2 where tiger gene flow and prey movement is possible (despite seven highways that bisect the area), this for example is larger than most contiguous tiger habitat except in Russia , decent habitat in Malaysia hold 2.2 adult tigers in 100 KM2 so there is a capacity for 1000 adult tigers should conservation measures are intensified and effective.

3-Unlike forests in most South East Asia where " Empty Forests " and " Muntjac-Only Scenarios" exist, Malaysian forests still have reasonable prey base, the country was not devastated by war and internal violent conflicts like most of the area, conservation measures started from the 1940's, muntjac is plentiful, and so are wild boar and bearded pigs (not hunted by the Muslim majority in Malaysia, perhaps just by the Orang Asli hunters ) , the recent full protection of sambar is of tremendous value given the importance of sambar for tigers throughout southern Asia.
Sambar,Serow, muntjac, wild boar, bearded pig, lesser mouse deer, greater mouse deer, and Malayian tapir are well distributed, Seladang ( Malayan gaur) is rare but it is not an important prey item and so is the even rarer Javan rhino.

Most of the doom and gloom you see on the internet and popular media is due to the persistence of old data giving a 500 tiger population since the 1990's where tiger numbers declined in the past 20 years to about 250-350 adults, so a reminder of the plight of tigers needed to be put back in the picture...but then again only India and Indonesia have more tigers, Russia (260-320 adults )and maybe Bangladesh are comparable .

As for the "comeback" of Amur tigers, the desolate prey-scarce area of the Russian far east is not optimal tiger habitat and 1000 tigers would be the absolute maximum capacity for the area...a number that would make us all happy.


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-14-2016

(03-11-2016, 08:21 AM)Shardul Wrote: http://projecttiger.nic.in/WriteReadData/LetestNews/Document/Tiger%20Status%20booklet_XPS170115212.pdf

Clearly mentions it's greater than 1.5 years, not 1 year. So only subadults and matures are counted, not cubs.

<1000 out of 2200 means almost 60% of Indian tigers are sub adults? While in case of malaysia, it is only 150 out of 450, i.e 33%? Why is that?

These so called Western "experts" and their predictions make me laugh. 20 years ago they would say how Thailand or Indonesia were the "future" of tigers, now it is Malaysia.

When Dr. Ulhas karanth gives his opinion about tigers in India, I take him seriously because:

1) He has spent his entire life studying tigers in India and their habitat. He has seen hundreds of tigers and knows the landscape inside out.
2) When he doubts the Indian government's census data, he gives very good reasons as to why he is doubting, and also gives alternative solutions. 
3) He doesn't go around making bombastic claims over the future of Grizzly bears in US for eg, because he has never studied them. He only talks about species (i.e the Bengal tiger) that he knows and has studied over years. In actual field conditions, which is what matters the most.
4) He is balanced in his opinions, not overly critical or extreme.


Now coming to the 2 ifs:

If Poaching is controlled
If prey numbers are increased

Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Well if it was, then most countries wouldn't struggle so much with protecting their wildlife. The demand for wildlife products isn't going down and Poachers are very smart nowadays, they know more about the animals and their habitat than most researchers, and it takes more than just commitment to stop them. Just look at what is happening to Rhinos in Kruger National Park, despite the forest rangers there operating some of the most advanced equipment available.

I agree Malaysia still has large tracts of intact forests, but we need to ask why did the population of tigers and their prey fall to so low in the first place. Was it just hunting or were there other reasons? Can the forests there support high density of ungulates? What do the  There would be many such questions. Animals that occur at low densities in their home range are usually the toughest to save, and first to go extinct.

Most people don't realize that India also has a lot forested tracts, but a lot of it is fragmented, some of it is degraded, some have very little wildlife and some are completely devoid of any. Only a portion of it is suitable for tigers, and that too if managed properly. So there are a lot of factors at play.

Oh, and Muntjac are not tiger's prey item, they are too small and even if Malayan tigers did prey on them, it would be because of lack of large ungulates.

I am not attacking anyone here, but I feel that the discussions should move beyond the obvious copy pasting of information available on the internet. Don't just state the obvious, try to offer some real insight.
India was and will always be the most important country in tiger range and excellent measures have been in place since the early 70's, the highest ungulate concentration in Asia is in the sub-Himalayan Terai arc in Nepal and Northern India and in the Indian Western Ghats so the highest concentrations of tigers are there and protecting them is paramount for tiger conservation.
South East Asian forests do not support more than 2 to 3 tigers per 100 KM2 less than  the Indian sub-continent, we still need to allocate research and conservation effort for tigers everywhere they exist.There is a lot of work to do everywhere.
As far as I know not a single western scientist has stated that Thailand or Malaysia or Indonesia is the future of tigers, Can you name one? And from publication? To ignore India and highlight smaller populations is like saying Tanzania is not important to lion protection and more effort should be allocated to Cameroon??!!!!???!!
The tiger demographic classification 0-1 year small cubs, 1-2 large cubs, 2-4 years sub-adult : 18 months so the census does include some large cubs ...cubs and sub-adults form close to 55-60% of large cats so tigers 1.5 to 4 years old is a substantial number, the IUCN number is for adult P.t.jacksoni,  breeding adults is what matters and if it is 1000-1200-1500  over a large country like India that is still very low...many of them are in isolated protected areas surrounded by millions of people so the risk of population fragmentation and inbreeding can not be underestimated.
Muntjac reported as tiger prey in Kawanishi (2003) Rabinowitz (1987) Smicharoen (2004) and Petdee (2005) the decline of sambar and the extinction of Eld's deer is pushing tigers to prey on Muntjac.

I by the way never quote popular media and internet everything I quote is from my 100 plus scientific books about carnivores, peer-reviewed studies, and data provided by international agencies like IUCN, the Cat Specialist Group, and Panthera.org And my own research and observation on the feeding ecology of lions in Kenya and Tanzania (in progress will publish in 2017 hopefully ).
To finish I hope the world would have more scientists as brilliant as Dr.Karanth his life work has enriched our knowledge of this great animal and I hope he will be renowned by naming the next Tiger Reserve in his honor, incidentally he underestimated the Sundarban density as low as 0.6 tigers/100 Km2 , a number corrected since by Barlow, Khan, and Mukherjee by successive studies with more accurate methods, but it was his work that showed that ridiculous estimates like 1500 tigers in the Sundarbans or 100,000 tigers a hundred years ago are put to scrutiny.


RE: Bigcats News - strana - 03-15-2016

Dr Panthera,
I think Russia is the second tiger country,not Malaysia. Last year census showed 562 tigers in Russia, with 100 cubs.
We all hope to see more tigers in Malaysia, but I am still cautious.
Unfortunately, I am afraid of indian tigers too. In the last 14 months there were, at least, 14 (!!!)  tigers poached in Valmiki-Chitwan, 6 in Nepal side. 
With human population still growing fast and strong economic development ( India might be the world´s 3rd largest economy in 2025), I believe indian tigers will be under very serious pressure in the future.
The future of the Amur tiger seems good . Thre are still  a lot of space for the animals in the complex Sikhote Alin- Lazovsky-Bikin-Zov Tigra-Bastak-Hunchun-Wangqing. Tigers numbers are increasing. Specially good is that ( for me a surprise ) China is also doing a good job and is interested in conservation; it is estimated that 28-32 tigers live in China. So, we have almost 600 wild Amur tigers.
With good management ( improving prey base, etc ) I believe that, including the chinese side of the  Sino- Russia border, much more than 1 000 tigers can live there.


RE: Bigcats News - Shardul - 03-15-2016

@Dr Panthera

Well, recently the number of tigers in ranthambhore was put at 30 adults and 15 subadults and cubs. So that fits in right at about 60-65% for adults, which is the same as that for what you mentioned for malaysia. A had read about a similar ratio for kanha. Let me explain why I thought the ratio you mentioned was very low.

Let's say a forest has 10 males and 10 females, all breeding adults. So to get a ratio of 60% cubs, it would mean all 10 females should be having a litter at exactly the same time, which is not really possible.(20 adults + 30 cubs @3cubs/female) Some females give  a litter every 3 years or so, some take even more than that.

But you're right that even with 1200-1500 adults, the future is far from secure. I also agree with you that the 2014 census was misleading, but for different reasons:

The 2014 census simply sampled more area, than the previous 2011 census. So there was not an increase in tiger population as was claimed, simply more tigers were known this time. Similar to the previous years when they changed the methodology from pugmarks to the more modern methodology. The number of tigers were reported to decrease, when in reality only the numbers had been overestimated earlier.

But the good news in the latest census was the confirmed presence of tigers in unprotected areas. It said that almost a third of india's tigers were outside the tiger reserves, which proves that tigers are dispering out since their numbers are increasing. Bad news being that current reserves are reaching their carrying capacity and more area needs to be brought under the PA network urgently.

The whole reason there is so much confusion and doubt over tiger numbers is because of the closed working nature of the Indian govt. They are the only ones with an authority to go inside the tiger's forests. Even genuine researchers have a hard time getting permits from the government. Tourists get to see only 10-20% area of the parks that are opened to tourism. Most of the area is out of bound for the common man. So unless another agency goes in and surveys all of the 370,000 km2 area and comes up with their own number, we have no other option but to believe the official figures, since they don't appear to be exaggerated anyway.

Coming to the "experts", I am basing my statement on the number of documentaries I've watched over the years, and I've watched a lot. I have seen documentaries shot in the 80s and 90s and also the more recent ones. The themes of those dealing with conservation were all similar; They would all feature some "Tiger Expert" or "Big Cat Expert" making proclaimations about the number of tigers in the world and how they were going to go extinct very soon. One was based on Huai Khaeng another was based on Sumatra and they all had some expert claiming how this place or some other was going to be the future for the world's tigers. There a very recent one on Bhutan where tigers were recorded at never before seen altitudes. As usual, they had to come to India to get some actual tiger footage. The "expert" in this case came to bandhavgarh and talked about how tigers were being fored to live in only 100 km2 area (he got the area absolutely wrong, it is more than 10 times that) and how only 1 tiger should live in that much area, which is bollocks since the tala zone (of Bandhavgarh) he was talking about has a very high prey density and hence supports more than 20 big cats.

You need to understand that channels like NGC and Discovery are the primary sources of information on wildlife and nature for the general public. For them, Dave Salmoni is as much of an expert as George Schaller. And the misinformation campaign that these people run makes me angry.

Regarding Dr karanth underestimating the sundarban tiger population, I think that proves my point. Even experienced researchers can get it wrong if they haven't actually studied the area for a good amount of time. And therein lies the problem. Only governments have the rights and resources over the world's wilderness. Common people cannot do anything unless the government is able and willing.


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-15-2016

(03-15-2016, 02:53 AM)strana Wrote: Dr Panthera,
I think Russia is the second tiger country,not Malaysia. Last year census showed 562 tigers in Russia, with 100 cubs.
We all hope to see more tigers in Malaysia, but I am still cautious.
Unfortunately, I am afraid of indian tigers too. In the last 14 months there were, at least, 14 (!!!)  tigers poached in Valmiki-Chitwan, 6 in Nepal side. 
With human population still growing fast and strong economic development ( India might be the world´s 3rd largest economy in 2025), I believe indian tigers will be under very serious pressure in the future.
The future of the Amur tiger seems good . Thre are still  a lot of space for the animals in the complex Sikhote Alin- Lazovsky-Bikin-Zov Tigra-Bastak-Hunchun-Wangqing. Tigers numbers are increasing. Specially good is that ( for me a surprise ) China is also doing a good job and is interested in conservation; it is estimated that 28-32 tigers live in China. So, we have almost 600 wild Amur tigers.
With good management ( improving prey base, etc ) I believe that, including the chinese side of the  Sino- Russia border, much more than 1 000 tigers can live there.

The IUCN account of P.t.altaica mentions 360 tigers in Russia including 100 cubs , a more recent Russian survey states the 562 with official review and adaption by the IUCN still to happen, the 360 number and the Malaysian number are a few years old and updating them will take place soon.
Sumatra incidentally is confirmed to have close to 680 tigers only India has more tigers.
I share your concern for Indian tigers, the explosive economic growth will drive tigers into more and more fragmented habitats and I fear that tigers may not persist outside protected areas which can be a huge blow.
The only 2 populations that are not likely to go extinct in the next 200 years are the Amur tigers and the Sundarban tigers, man is not likely to encroach more heavily on either habitat due to the harshness and remoteness.
The Amur tiger can realistically expand its range towards the interior westward until Lake Baikal and southward to reconquer Manchuria and North Korea, I am also pleased with the Chinese authorities effort for conserving the tigers, the problem is the low carrying capacity of large ungulates in the Amur tiger habitat, this means that a female Amur tiger will need a home range up to 500 km2 and males of over 1000 km2...at 0.3 tigers/100 KM2 or less and to reach 1000 tigers will require a vast range of undisturbed habitat...larger than Germany.
China could make that goal more possible by creating more protected areas along its borders with Russia and cooperating with the Russian authorities.
We really have a lot of work to do to protect tigers everywhere, great work from all tiger range countries but a lot of work to be done.


RE: Bigcats News - Dr Panthera - 03-15-2016

(03-15-2016, 05:15 AM)Shardul Wrote: @Dr Panthera

Well, recently the number of tigers in ranthambhore was put at 30 adults and 15 subadults and cubs. So that fits in right at about 60-65% for adults, which is the same as that for what you mentioned for malaysia. A had read about a similar ratio for kanha. Let me explain why I thought the ratio you mentioned was very low.

Let's say a forest has 10 males and 10 females, all breeding adults. So to get a ratio of 60% cubs, it would mean all 10 females should be having a litter at exactly the same time, which is not really possible.(20 adults + 30 cubs @3cubs/female) Some females give  a litter every 3 years or so, some take even more than that.

But you're right that even with 1200-1500 adults, the future is far from secure. I also agree with you that the 2014 census was misleading, but for different reasons:

The 2014 census simply sampled more area, than the previous 2011 census. So there was not an increase in tiger population as was claimed, simply more tigers were known this time. Similar to the previous years when they changed the methodology from pugmarks to the more modern methodology. The number of tigers were reported to decrease, when in reality only the numbers had been overestimated earlier.

But the good news in the latest census was the confirmed presence of tigers in unprotected areas. It said that almost a third of india's tigers were outside the tiger reserves, which proves that tigers are dispering out since their numbers are increasing. Bad news being that current reserves are reaching their carrying capacity and more area needs to be brought under the PA network urgently.

The whole reason there is so much confusion and doubt over tiger numbers is because of the closed working nature of the Indian govt. They are the only ones with an authority to go inside the tiger's forests. Even genuine researchers have a hard time getting permits from the government. Tourists get to see only 10-20% area of the parks that are opened to tourism. Most of the area is out of bound for the common man. So unless another agency goes in and surveys all of the 370,000 km2 area and comes up with their own number, we have no other option but to believe the official figures, since they don't appear to be exaggerated anyway.

Coming to the "experts", I am basing my statement on the number of documentaries I've watched over the years, and I've watched a lot. I have seen documentaries shot in the 80s and 90s and also the more recent ones. The themes of those dealing with conservation were all similar; They would all feature some "Tiger Expert" or "Big Cat Expert" making proclaimations about the number of tigers in the world and how they were going to go extinct very soon. One was based on Huai Khaeng another was based on Sumatra and they all had some expert claiming how this place or some other was going to be the future for the world's tigers. There a very recent one on Bhutan where tigers were recorded at never before seen altitudes. As usual, they had to come to India to get some actual tiger footage. The "expert" in this case came to bandhavgarh and talked about how tigers were being fored to live in only 100 km2 area (he got the area absolutely wrong, it is more than 10 times that) and how only 1 tiger should live in that much area, which is bollocks since the tala zone (of Bandhavgarh) he was talking about has a very high prey density and hence supports more than 20 big cats.

You need to understand that channels like NGC and Discovery are the primary sources of information on wildlife and nature for the general public. For them, Dave Salmoni is as much of an expert as George Schaller. And the misinformation campaign that these people run makes me angry.

Regarding Dr karanth underestimating the sundarban tiger population, I think that proves my point. Even experienced researchers can get it wrong if they haven't actually studied the area for a good amount of time. And therein lies the problem. Only governments have the rights and resources over the world's wilderness. Common people cannot do anything unless the government is able and willing.

I agree with you on most of what you stated and I value your input.
Some notes:
* In small reserves that are less likely to carry 25 breeding females or more the percentage of adults will be higher than sub-adults and all cubs , tigers will limit reproduction when the prospects for their cubs are poor and when they do they have less cubs in poor quality habitat for example most litters in the Sundarban are of 1-2 cubs, Sikhote-Alin 2 cubs on average, Chitwan close to three.
In large populations of tigers the percentages of cubs and sub-adults are higher and it is an index of a healthy population.
* For any population of a large mammal to persist you need a minimum of 250 breeding adults, it is imperative that we find ways of creating dispersal corridors and gene flow channels everywhere as most areas contain less than that.
* The persistence of tigers outside protected areas is good news, their future is far from secure among 1.5 billion people in the Sub-continent
* I am glad you clarified that these "Western experts" are not scientists but more conservationists or film makers....Miquelle, Clayton, Kerley, Seidensticker, Sunquist, Dinerstein, Schaller, Rabinowitz, Goodrich and Barlow are all western scientists that studied tigers in its Asian habitat and painted an accurate picture, tigers are at risk of extinction we lost four eco-types in less than 100 years but it is not too late to save them from extinction, they can rebound but it is a lot of work.
* Part of the problem I find is using "lion data" to extrapolate "tiger data" or tiger data from one locale to predict tiger data in another...many populations are distinct and deserve their own individual research and conservation.
* You are right in the sense that the average person recognizes Dave Salmoni but not Craig Packer , Valmik Thapar but not Ullas Karanth...etc but the advantage of this forum and its esteemed members is the quality of data and debate, we base our arguments in evidence supported science and we recognize updates, errors, and new knowledge.
* Finally the fate of wild tigers is not in the hands of western scientists nor governemts...it is in the hands of the Asian villagers and hunters that live next to tigers, their city-dwelling compatriots, and their governments ...I am happy that in the 21st century there is a collective will to protect tigers...may they roar proud forever!!


RE: Bigcats News - Pckts - 03-21-2016

Man-eating Tiger Killed in Gudalur, But No Lasting Solution Yet


*This image is copyright of its original author

The man-eater that was killed by a team from the Special Task Force and Armed Reserve Police at Gudalur in the Nilgiris on Saturday | Express

COIMBATORE: People living in Gudalur taluk and surrounding areas were relieved as the Special Task Force (STF) personnel killed a male tiger at Devashola in  the Nilgiris on Saturday.
The tiger had killed an estate worker hailing from Jharkhand last Saturday. Following the attack, a team had been tracking the movements of the tiger.
   >>Also Read: Tamil Nadu Records 24 Tiger Deaths in Two Years
“Last night, a cow was tied under a tree to lure the animal. The team stayed in a makeshift platform atop a tree to shoot and tranquilise the animal. Though the big cat killed the cow, we were unable to tranquilise it due to mist and low visibility,” said I Anwardin, Conservator of Forest, Coimbatore.
“We had no other option but to shoot the animal around 3 pm at Woodbriar Estate. A member from Special Task Force (STF) and another from the Armed Reserve Police were injured. As they were unable to escape from the tiger’s attack in the tea estate we had to shoot the animal,” he claimed.
“Two persons were injured in the stomach and shoulder. They are out of danger now. We have asked them to get medical treatment at Perinthalmanna in Kerala as reaching a hospital in Coimbatore will mean delay in getting treatment,” said Collector P Shankar.
With the man-eater shot dead, the workers at the tea estate are expected to be back at work on Monday, after almost a week.
Wildlife activist N Mohan Raj said man-animal conflicts should not be handled by the STF. “The Forest Department should not take credit for the tiger killing,” he said, adding that a case regarding retrieval of  forest land from private estate at Gudalur is still pending.


http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Man-eating-Tiger-Killed-in-Gudalur-But-No-Lasting-Solution-Yet/2016/03/20/article3336715.ece


RE: Bigcats News - Pckts - 03-22-2016

Hans Ndemo's video


"This invention by the young boy Richard Turere in Kenya, can be used to avoid conflicts between humans and animals in so many places all across India and around the world. But more so around the places near Tiger sanctuaries."
https://www.facebook.com/827224180712188/videos/828881993879740/

The world needs more kids like this, hopefully his invention proves to be very useful to all cultures living with big cats.


RE: Bigcats News - Pckts - 03-22-2016

Big cats need more space: Study
Jayashree Nandi | TNN | Mar 22, 2016, 06.38 AM IST



*This image is copyright of its original author
Environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan said that the amendment will also make sure that the rights of indigen... Read More
NEW DELHI: Tigers need much more space than our protected areas or tiger reserves provide for currently. While that's true for all wildlife, a recent study published this month in Biological Conservation journal has highlighted how lack of space could be linked to a fast disappearance of tigers from certain habitats, particularly tropical dry forest areas. Sariska and Panna tiger reserves, both tropical dry forests experienced complete extinction of tigers in 2004 and 2009; the study explains what may have led to their complete disappearance.

Some tigers have been re-introduced in Panna and Sariska.

The study documents the space requirements of tigers in Panna tiger reserve before the extinction of tigers only to find a major mismatch in scale of their ranges and the sanctuary size, which exposes tigers to various anthropogenic threats including poaching and retaliatory killings outside the boundary. The reason for such large home ranges of tigers in tropical dry forests is still being studied, authors said but could be linked to ecological factors like prey population, water or shade.

The study involved field studies between 1996 and 2005 that monitored tiger movement through radio telemetry and direct sightings in the 543 sqkm area of Panna. Annual home ranges of both male and female tigers were estimated and then overlaid on the sanctuary area boundary revealing how home ranges often breached the sanctuary boundary. According to the authors, this is the first comprehensive study of tiger home ranges in a tropical dry forest area and one of the longest studies on tiger in the sub-continent. The study documented detailed information on six radio-collared tigers over a period of nine years. While conducting the nine-year observations, the team also found some intriguing features. For instance, "Male tiger territories were not exclusive as generally believed. Instead, it was observed that females mated with several males in addition to the territorial tiger. But the role of these non-territorial males can be important but little is known about these tigers," said Raghu Singh Chundawat, lead author of the study.


*This image is copyright of its original author


The team concluded that home range of breeding or nursing tigers extended beyond the boundary of the sanctuary.

In fact what happened in Panna and Sariska are a part of a larger trend, researchers warned. The largest tiger habitat in India is in tropical dry forest category. But the probability of survival of tigers in these areas is much lower than in other habitats like tropical moist forests, alluvial grasslands or mangroves. Interestingly, more than 85% of the sanctuaries located in tropical dry forests are way smaller than Panna and have either lost the tigers already or sit with high risk of tiger extinction.
Top Comment
Big Cat-Big Area.Mansab

"The bottom line is that tigers need more space, and one may need to think out of the box, if tigers are to have a future in the already stressed landscapes," said Koustubh Sharma, co-author of the study.

The study recommends that a straight forward solution to the problem will be to protect larger forest areas but that's a difficult proposition in human dominated areas. "Small patches embedded in large landscapes can be conserved as a series of stepping stones to interconnect populations," the study said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Big-cats-need-more-space-Study/articleshow/51505129.cms