WildFact
›
Nature & Conservation
›
Projects, Protected areas & Issues
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
|
Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project
|
@sanjay and @Pckts, yeah I know about Modi and the stubborness of Gujarat's Govt., this seems to be like an unmovable rock, wich blocks any ambitions in finding a second home for indian lions. It could last till the first fatal encounter's between human's and frequently man eating lion's, i guess. In that case, they strongly MUST find a second home for them somewhere else. Even if Sariska is naturally a tiger habitat, tiger's were whiped out there and the following relocation progress don't seems to be really successfull. I can understand the point of view of tiger reserve's being (originally) home to tigers, but there are far more things than "will of nature" to evaluate decisions and idea's. Avoiding unnecessary man - animal conflicts is one of them. The effectivness in case of protection and saving a species from extinction are also very important. If it's not guaranteed in one place, it's time to try new ways. I mean, what sounds better:
- 2 tiger reserves with one of them having a stable tiger population and god protection and the other with just a few tigers left and mediocre protection - in the best case or - 1 tiger reserve with a bigger focus on protection and enlarging the territory by adding a second place as potential corridor to expand and - In the same progress, the other former reserve as new home for lion's, with all the support and energy a new project needs Nature did make tiger's occupy Kuno, so this place belongs to them imo. BUT, the asiatic lion has also the right to expand and survive, Kuno isn't the best option anymore, due to the tiger's and the natural corridor to Ranthambore. Of course, not every tiger reserve with low numbers of tigers should be analyzed as potential new home for lion's, due to the habitat type (for example, Dampha and Namdapha in the indian far east). Tiger protection should have still the same value as lion protection. @ @Pantherinae, i agree with almost everything what you've described, except the part with the generalisation of lion's adapting open savannah type habitats. At species level it's true, no doubt. But in case of Gir lions, it's different. They live in dry forests combined with open fields, during and after monsoon, this place turn's pretty green. Because of that, i believe Gir lions could adapt to many places in northern - northwest india. The difficulty is, to find a place where tigers are absent. Good news, though: Asiatic lions number increased of 27% up to 523 indivduals! http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...ion-rising 
That's fantasic writeup Brehm, I agree most part of it. Lets wait and watch what Indian politics do about this.
Asiatic lions have rights to their home habitat, tigers have rights to theres.
Protection of either animal is strictly against human beings encroachment, the idea of "one animal had its chance now its time for another" isn't correct. (not that Im saying you are saying that @brehmji) Tigers deserve to be unmolested, if they are, they certainly shouldn't be forgotten if opportunities present themselves for their protection. They are so far destroyed in numbers that any and all scenarios to help them should be taken advantage of. Any land they once ruled, any corridor they once used, prey they hunted, etc. Should all be given the protection needed to help them survive. Asiatic lions deserve the same rights as long as it follows the same rules as tigers. One deserves no preferential treatment to the other, lands ruled by one should be made to where they can still be ruled by that animal if it is indeed destroyed by man.
@Shardul,
I think this thread is better place to discuss. I agree most of the point you made on (http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-bigcats-...0#pid19990), But my main concern is that lions may suffer interbreeding problem since entire lion population across Gujarat has risen from some small population of lions from Gir. There was time when lions used to roam many other places across India. I wants that lion should be given more space In India and should also be crossed with African lions (with those who are relative of Asiatic lions) to produce more healthy genes of lions. I may be wrong here, but at least what I think so far. 
The Kuno reintroduction project has nothing to do with inbreeding, more about having a back up population just in case something went horribly wrong with the original Gir population. In fact that would have created an even more inbred population, had the project gone through.
Genetic purity is something that people take very seriously, even when it comes to saving extremely rare species. You know when tigers vanished from Panna, they brought in tigers only from MP and not other areas, because they believe that tigers in that area are unique and it would not be proper to fill in tigers from other areas in order to maintain genetic purity. Same happened with Sariska. Using a very closely related subspecies to supplement the endangered population is an idea that can succeed in theory, but that would mean the other lion population has to be almost identical to the Indian lions, in order for this experiment to succeed. A related case would be of the Asiatic cheetah reintroduction project; the Indian govt was trying to recreate the extinct Indian cheetah by bringing in an Iranian cheetah pair. A deal couldn't be made with Iran because they asked for a pair of Asiatic lions in exchange for the cheetahs. Then after some time a study came up that showed that there was almost no difference between African and Iranian cheetahs and hence it was decided to use Namibian cheetahs for this project. I don't know what the current status is, but there were reports that a new habitat was being readied for the cheetahs. This was a few years back and I haven't heard anything about this project since then. 
@sanjay:
About #155: Warning ! Asiatic and african lions must be never crossed ! It comes to two different species... The experiment already tried has been desastrous. http://messybeast.com/genetics/hyb-lion-subspecies.htm  (04-07-2016, 09:16 AM)Spalea Wrote: @sanjay: They belong to the same species, but Asiatic lion's inbreeding gene pool is the main reason why those hybrid offsprings became unhealthy. The Asiatic lions descended from the African lions around 100,000 years ago, so normally they should have no problem to cross breed with the African lions. (04-07-2016, 09:46 AM)GrizzlyClaws Wrote:(04-07-2016, 09:16 AM)Spalea Wrote: @sanjay: Normally yes, but in fact ... No, I fear. The experiment has been already tried and was desatrous. It would be absurd to reiterate it. How do you want asiatic lion's gene pool to prevent no longer again the crossing and to become efficient ? Asiatic lion and african lion belonged perhaps to the same specie around 100.000 years ago. But perhaps too, since, the genes have diverged, making this crossing very problematic. I don't see any other explanation.
100kya wasn't enough to diverge them into two separated species, it would take at least 300kya to mutate into a brand new species.
That's why the Cave lion became genetically unbounded because of over million years of divergence and isolation from the African lion. Also, right now, most Asiatic lions are in fact hybrids who carry the gene of the African lions, so this makes them genetically re-bounded again.  (11-30-2014, 10:41 PM)chaos Wrote: ~~Lions are not as adapted to Indian terrain, hence why they are smaller, shorter manes and have smaller prides. leopards are found throughout africa to middle east to india to china to russia ... why can't lion's come naturally to india when they have vast open lands between africa and india (no natural barriers like himalayas aur very dense forests )?why there had been debates on are lions native to india or not? when we look at middle east to rajasthan,gujrat and middle indlia this is a continuous land strech of dry forest and open arid lands i think this journey was far easy for lions then leopards or tigers . and also these lands were not as deserted in history as they are today they were vast sawannah grasslands not very long before in history and were cradle of human society and farming. after middle india when you move to east and south in india dense forests starts . that ristricted lions move east till bengal and in south till kaveri river not furthur from there. this all native thing started because of one man "valmik thapar" who is so obsessed with tigers ,ranthambhore and rajasthan that not only lions but for humans themselves this journey from africa to india was most rewarding and prosporous one. not only lions and cheetah but many more animals moved far more distances like the wolves which are most widely spread species of land mammals after us.they also found ancient ostrich eggs in gujrat (search ). and fossils of huge hyneas were discovered in shivalik hills(india) which are though to be ancistors of moderns hynes in africa. there are countless examples like honey badger,caracal cat,spotted hyena etc which are found throuthout india and africa also. and also tigers were found from iran to china and from siberia to sumatra even when they have so many natural barriers . OMG i forgot why lions were wiped so fast from india if they were very well adapted and why we do not found much records of them ? Again very silly question ......see no. 1.india had always been very densly populated land infact higest density of people in the world. no. 2. lions live in small prides and open forests so easy to track and hunt 3. lions are far less shy than a tiger again easy to get in conflict with humans. on other hand tigers preffer dense forests and live solo so they were and today also very hard to find not like gir lions which can easily be seen roaming near people in open dry forests of gir in groups of 4-5 individuals. they are far more easy to hunt and wipe out seriously far more easy than a tiger or leopard. so tigers and leopards still wide spread throughout india in small isolated populations and lions are found only in a single forest with very peace loving maldari people of gujrat.
one more thing . i read something on this thread that says "look at the size of asiatic lions they are so small .it certainly means they are not adapted to indian habitat like tigers they do not grow to their full potential and it means they are not native here". ....... can any wildlife enthusiast think this sort of crap.
dear friend are you trying to say that tigers of sunderbans in india and bangladesh which are even smaller than asiatic lions and very much smaller than tigers of other parts of india are not native to sunderbans which have higest tiger population in the world in a single streach of forest.(note i m talking about a tiger population within center of other tiger populations which are huge in sizes in adjoining regions of assam and trai. this small size is due to small prey size that is chital and humans.not more than five hundred kilometers from sunderbans u will see biggest tigers in the world which are as big as siberian tiger and cetainly defeat siberians tigers on averages coz there are huge prey like water bufflao,elephant and indian rhino. and asiatic lions are far far away from african lions .they pery on small antilopes in small prides even a single lion for every prey type in gir is enough to hunt. always remember survival of fittest " a very small group of not very huge lions is fittest for survival in gir" ...............size dosenot mean u are not a native . most indians are sorter than europeans would u say they are not natives of india. they came naturally to india as lions and adapted accordingly 
If you read through the whole thread you should be able to get some answers to the questions you're asking.
I used to agree with valmik but probably not so much anymore. I have pretty much defended lions in being as adaptable as any big cat. (See the Congo lion thread) But still, the lack of hunting records or stories of Asiatic lions being hunted compared to tigers from times past beg some questions. Why aren't they as documented nor as many individuals measured? In regards to tigers of the Sunderbans, let's remove the fact that they live in the largest mangrove system in the world and suffer massive amounts of deforestation, tigers show a much wider variety of size throughout sub species compared to lions which generally don't have such size disparities between subspecies. 
Nice posts @Ravisingh
I like to add few info and points 1) The lion's impact on ancient history, culture and art is significant. The major civlizations from vedic to biblical times originated in lands ruled by lions. If you take vedas and epics like Ramayana, Mahabharatha all were written in Sanskrit. Sanskrit never originated in India. These are written by Aryans who were migrated to India from Europe and Persia. In their culture Lions played an integral part. 2) Indus valley civilization originated in the North western region of the Indian subcontinent, which is lion country. The Asiatic Lion (Panthera leo persica) roamed over a swathe of Asia, from Turkey in the west to Bihar in the east, and from the Caucusus in the north to the Narmada river in the south. In the Indian subcontinent, the lion lorded over Punjab (Pakistan and India), Sindh, Baluchistan, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and Jharkhand. This is where aryans settled, ruled and then started conquering other parts of India. These are the areas where sankrit thrived. For these people lions are the King. The lion's impact on South Asian history, culture and art is significant. Mahesh Rangarajan notes in his paper 'From princely symbol to conservation icon: A political history of the lion in India': "It (the lion) was perhaps only rivalled in its power over the human imagination in India by the tiger." Adds Divyabhanusinh Chavda, author of The Story of Asia's Lions: "In the Vedic period, you had Narasimha ("Man-Lion"), the fourth of the Dashavatara of Lord Vishnu. The Buddha was known as 'Shakya Simha', the Lion of the Shakyas. His first sermon at Sarnath has been likened to (and is known as) by Buddhists as 'Simhanada' (Lion Roar). The lion is also the symbol of Mahavira. And we, of course, know of Emperor Ashoka's association with the lion." According to legend, 2,500 years ago, Vijaya, a disinherited Indian prince migrated to the island of Lanka with 700 followers. Vijaya's grandfather was a lion. His descendants, the Sinhala ('Lion people'), are today the majority ethnic group on the island, the flag of which is emblazoned with a lion too. 3) When these people migrated and started ruling other parts of the Indian sub-continent, they started spreading there culture. From 500 AD, Rajput princes across India started adopting the title Simha instead of the classical Varman. Today, we know this surname as 'Singh', most commonly associated with Rajputs and Sikhs. Lions find constant reference in the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal periods too. Sher Shah Suri, the Afghan warlord from Bihar who dethroned Humayun, reportedly acquired the name 'Sher' after killing a lion with his bare hands. The Mughals, Persianised Turko-Mongols from Central Asia, used the regal Persian Sher-o-Khurshid ('Lion and Sun') as their personal coat-of-arms. 4) Lions largely inhabited dry, tree-covered Savannah and low-scrub jungle, this is where people settlements were mostly found. Asiatic lions were not a man-eater (in-general), they shared the land with humans in India. Spotting lions is far easy and people respected there strength and the pride style of living. Bengal Tiger which inhabited mature-tree forests, lived in dense forests. These areas are not so suitable for human settlements. The most important thing here is, it is very very hard to spot a tiger, even in these present days most of the villagers in the outskirts of the tiger reserve never seen a tiger. Bengal tigers are notorious man-eaters, people feared them. Regarding Indian Lion Hunting 1) Colonel James Skinner (1778 -1841), the famous founder of Skinner's Horse and builder of Delhi's St James' Church, is recorded as shooting lions on horseback. Another officer, Andrew Fraser killed 84 lions 2) In 1810, a General Mundy shot a lion near Hansi (modern Haryana). In the first half of the 1800s, British soldiers stationed at a cantonment in Deesa (North Gujarat) are recorded as spearing lions. And the all-time record in lion hunting in India goes to George Acland Smith, an officer who shot 300 lions near Delhi in 1857. 3) Soldiers of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh sovereign of the Punjab, are recorded killing lions with bayonets in Lahore in the 1830s. In Patiala, hunting lions was an annual affair in which "400 horsemen beat vast plains teeming with antelope and Nilgai. All this killing eventually did its job. Region after region recorded local extinctions: Bahawalpur (1800), Palamau (1814), Haryana, Baroda and Ahmedabad (1830), Sindh (1842) and Gwalior (1872). By 1890, when Prince Victor Albert visited India, the only place where he could find lions was the Gir forest in Kathiawar, where politics between three feuding princely states (Junagadh, Bhavnagar and Baroda) and the British Government in Bombay ensured safety for lions. Later, the Nawabs of Junagadh took on the task of preserving lions in Gir, where they survive till today. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |