(07-17-2015, 08:34 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: This is disturbing, and still the Indian government insist that the tigers in the country are growing in numbers!!! Is like Dr Chundawat said: the government think that there are many tigers, but there is simply not enough space, so where are those tigers? Is like if they were living in buildings, not in a jungle.
 

Editut of 7,00,000 km2 forest only 70,000 km2 allocated to tigers reserves. 

(08-18-2015, 11:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @jeets, that is not true. Animals like tigers need large landscapes to live, even if there is supposedly large "wild" areas, in fact this normally lack the necessary prey densities or are heavily disturbed by human intervention. You can't "pack" large groups of tigers in a single area, because they are territorial and even protected areas have a finite space for a population.

Numbers alone can be tricky, the areas need to be secure and protected. According with the numbers that you posted, we can put wild animals in any part of those "thousands" of kilometers, but the REAL issue is that there is not space for them, as those areas are no longer "wild".

Check this map:


Only the red areas have "known" tiger populations, which are ridiculous small, and besides, you most take in count the densities of each area. For example, there are more tigers in one small red dot in India than in the large red patch in Sumatra. The yellow areas are proposed for tiger conservation and represent possible areas for reintroduction, but it need a real work in order to be prepared to have wild animal populations. Still, this yellow areas are even less than 20% of the Indian territory.

IF India want to save them tigers, they need to make a real compromise to save them AND its habitat. In this side, Russia and Nepal are making a better work.

*This image is copyright of its original author

(08-19-2015, 01:09 AM)jeets Wrote:

(08-18-2015, 11:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @jeets, that is not true. Animals like tigers need large landscapes to live, even if there is supposedly large "wild" areas, in fact this normally lack the necessary prey densities or are heavily disturbed by human intervention. You can't "pack" large groups of tigers in a single area, because they are territorial and even protected areas have a finite space for a population.

Numbers alone can be tricky, the areas need to be secure and protected. According with the numbers that you posted, we can put wild animals in any part of those "thousands" of kilometers, but the REAL issue is that there is not space for them, as those areas are no longer "wild".

Check this map:


Only the red areas have "known" tiger populations, which are ridiculous small, and besides, you most take in count the densities of each area. For example, there are more tigers in one small red dot in India than in the large red patch in Sumatra. The yellow areas are proposed for tiger conservation and represent possible areas for reintroduction, but it need a real work in order to be prepared to have wild animal populations. Still, this yellow areas are even less than 20% of the Indian territory.

IF India want to save them tigers, they need to make a real compromise to save them AND its habitat. In this side, Russia and Nepal are making a better work.

Thanks for your replay.That Map is total fake I mean Burma/Thailand/Viet hardly had 60 tigers showing huge Red areas where as 2226 Indians tigers showing small Red dots here and there.

OK I'm not expert in this matter but I put Ullas karanth (Tiger expert) opinion. 
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/h1N9LL6qa5p9P6qw5pYSQL/Im-confident-India-wont-let-the-tiger-go-extinct-Ullas-Ka.html 

The tiger numbers have recovered in parts of India where economic growth, wages are higher and transition to more urbanized life is well underway. Most of India’s larger tiger populations are here because of relatively effective protection against illegal hunting of tigers and prey. In contrast, even in more extensive forests of the tribal belts in Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and northeastern hill states, tiger populations have dwindled, largely because of uncontrolled hunting of prey species.

India still has 200,000 sq. km of potential tiger habitat left, and less than 25% of this area is currently reasonably well-protected. India can potentially hold 10,000 tigers

This is actual India's forest Map 

*This image is copyright of its original author

Do you know almost 20% India's land is not in India's (govt) control.Indians don't know what is happening there.It is controlled by Maoists/Communists/Naxals.You can see entire Dense forest in center-eastern side of India which is Ullas karanth mentioned is in Naxal's control.Naxals&Tribals hunted entire prey there so tiger population is nill.Once govt control the land then they will re introduces prey species from rest of country then TIGERS will follow,then India can hold not 2,000 but 20,000 tigers without any problem. Naxals attacks/causalities/recruitment is gradually decreasing every year, those yellow areas in your map once again occupied by wild tigers by another 3 or 4 years.

Even in 2015 these fu**** Communists exists in democratic India,thanks to China.Anyway another 3/4 years everything will be alright.  

PS Sorry for Bold&Capitals,they are necessary.We all know tigers are heavy breeders and their mortality rate is high.In controlled habituates mortality is low tigers population will grow rapidly. 

(08-20-2015, 08:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @"Jett" the map that I posted is not fake, you don't even read what I explained before. Those red dots indicate known tiger populations and the entire area are parks or reserves. What I clearly explained was also that those red dots don't explain the DENSITY of each one, so one little red dot in India can have more tigers than the large dots in Burma and Sumatra, for example. Also, there are large areas of forest in India, but they are empty now, a similar case is seen in Cambodia and Laos, where large forest areas are empty of any animal, caused by the human conflicts in the area.

Also, you have misunderstood the words of Dr Karanth. He say that the tiger recovery is possible, but like the says in his book "The Way of the tiger", that "potential habitat" areas most be prepared for tigers first. It most have plenty of wild prey and few humans as possible, only in that way there will be possible to breed tigers. But face it, there are very few areas in India with those characteristics. Can India support 10,000 tigers? Possible, but first those thousands of kilometers of forest most be ideal for tigers, if not, there will be another loss. Pckts show it very well with the problem of the roads, even in the well protected areas like the Western Ghats landscape, were Dr Karanth work.

About the problems with the nilgai and the wild boar, is like Pckts say, those are animals that learned to live near human settlements, but if a tiger go there in order to hunt them, the sure thing is that it will enter in conflict with the humans sooner or late, and like Dr Karanth say in an article of 2014: the tiger will be the sure looser in this fight.

If the situation of the forest of India were so "good" like you describe, don't you think that the table posted by Sanjay (in the first post of this topic) would not exist? In that case, tiger protectors like Belinda Wright, Valmik Thapar, Ullas Karanth and many other, will not be fighting for the few space available that is still capable of having tigers.

Instead of national "pride", we most have a more holistic point of view, about what is the reality of the forests and what solutions can be made.

(08-20-2015, 08:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @Pckts is right, there is not plenty of prey out there (apart from the domestic cattle) and believe it or not, poaching is not the greatest problem, is habitat loss and lack of prey. That has been the first problem, even Dr Karanth states that if the tiger populations were enough large, there will be possible for them to sustain some looses caused by poaching, but sadly there is not a single tiger population in India with at least 200 breeding adults. Sunquist et al. (1999) states also that it was the kill of the prey and the destruction of the habitat what really killed the Caspian and the Javanese tigers. Poaching is a terrible problem that most be eradicated, but the poaching of the tiger's prey can be even more deadlier for them.

The territory of a tiger depends of the prey density, that is true, but it also have an absolute number when no more tiger can live in an area. During the studies in Chitwan, there were no cases of man-eaters and intra-especific fights were uncommon until the beginning of the 80's. It seems that in that moment, the space available in the park was full, and the young ones could not manage to live there anymore. Fights arouse and the injured and/or old became in man-eaters. Dr Chundawat stated the same problem in Panna, when the low prey base don't allowed more tigers in the area. Kaziranga, despite its high prey density, is suffering this same problem right now, because tigers have a lower limit about how small a territory can be.

Other thing, who have told you that a dispersing tiger can travel safely trough India? This country is heavily populated and is practically no corner that is not populated by a human settlement, even the national "parks" and "reserves" suffer this. The case of most of the young tigers that travel outside of the parks and reserves is that are killed by poachers, by the same villagers or simple starve to death.

@"Jett" the map that I posted is not fake, you don't even read what I explained before. Those red dots indicate known tiger populations and the entire area are parks or reserves. What I clearly explained was also that those red dots don't explain the DENSITY of each one, so one little red dot in India can have more tigers than the large dots in Burma and Sumatra, for example. Also, there are large areas of forest in India, but they are empty now, a similar case is seen in Cambodia and Laos, where large forest areas are empty of any animal, caused by the human conflicts in the area.

Also, you have misunderstood the words of Dr Karanth. He say that the tiger recovery is possible, but like the says in his book "The Way of the tiger", that "potential habitat" areas most be prepared for tigers first. It most have plenty of wild prey and few humans as possible, only in that way there will be possible to breed tigers. But face it, there are very few areas in India with those characteristics. Can India support 10,000 tigers? Possible, but first those thousands of kilometers of forest most be ideal for tigers, if not, there will be another loss. Pckts show it very well with the problem of the roads, even in the well protected areas like the Western Ghats landscape, were Dr Karanth work.

About the problems with the nilgai and the wild boar, is like Pckts say, those are animals that learned to live near human settlements, but if a tiger go there in order to hunt them, the sure thing is that it will enter in conflict with the humans sooner or late, and like Dr Karanth say in an article of 2014: the tiger will be the sure looser in this fight.

If the situation of the forest of India were so "good" like you describe, don't you think that the table posted by Sanjay (in the first post of this topic) would not exist? In that case, tiger protectors like Belinda Wright, Valmik Thapar, Ullas Karanth and many other, will not be fighting for the few space available that is still capable of having tigers.

Instead of national "pride", we most have a more holistic point of view, about what is the reality of the forests and what solutions can be made.