There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-15-2016, 07:08 AM( This post was last modified: 04-15-2016, 07:18 AM by Dr Panthera )
(04-15-2016, 06:16 AM)Shardul Wrote: @Dr Panthera
I don't understand why you deliberately keep ignoring my main point. In India's case the % of breeding adults is higher because the Indian tiger census does NOT COUNT SMALL CUBS. Let me repeat it again INDIAN TIGER CENSUS DOES NOT COUNT SMALL CUBS. IT ONLY COUNTS TIGERS >1.5 YEARS OF AGE .
The Chitwan study you quoted actually supports my assertion. It says in an entire tiger population, the % of breeding adults is 42% WHEN COUNTING SMALL CUBS WHICH MAKE UP 30%.
Resident males per population 0-15% Mean 7 %
Resident females 23-67% Mean 35% Cubs 0-65% Mean 30%
Large Cubs 0-55% Mean 18%
Transients ( pre and post-territorial) 0-40% Mean 10%
So based on the Chitwan study that YOU QUOTED, % of breeding adults in a healthy tiger population is 60% WHEN NOT COUNTING SMALL CUBS. Let me repeat: [b]60% WHEN NOT COUNTING SMALL CUBS.[/b]
So 60% of 2200 is 1320.
Now,
Tigers are not doing well all over India. Let me give you some examples:
Chitwan-Parsa-Valmiki landscape. One contiguous forest patch in eastern Terai. However, Chitwan has almost a 100 tigers while Valmiki has less than 20, Both cover similar area.
Corbett Tiger reserve in Western Terai: 200+ tigers in 2000 km2
Rajaji in Western Terai: <40 tigers in 900 km2
Dudhwa & Pilibhit in Central Terai: <100 tigers in 1600 km2
Simlipal in Eastern India: <30 tigers in 3000 km2
Kaziranga in Assam: 120 tigers in 800 km2
Manas in Assam: <30 tigers in 3000 km2
The Gist: India's tiger population is divided in a lot of fragmented small habitats, not all of which are doing well. Some areas have high prey density and protection, others have sub-optimal prey density and low protection. Some have high poaching incidents , some have low. Others are in between. So some will have more % of cubs and subadults, others will have low. So considering this scenario and atleast some transient breeding males, the % is higher than 60. i.e >1320 breeding adult tigers.
To the Mods: Sorry for the caps and bold text, I didn't know what else to do.
Precisely the point !! Some habitat are great and the juvenile population will outnumber the adults significantly and in others there are virtually no young animals.
The census figure is made up of juvenile tigers between 18 months and 4 years ( non-breeding) post-prime adults (non-breeding) and resident prime aged animals (breeding) altogether 2200 animals, depending on condition between a third to two thirds of these older animals MAY HOLD A TERRITORY AND HAVE ENOUGH PREY TO BREED so we can have 750 breeding animals and we can have 1500 animals. As you know in many poor habitat resident tigers are not breeding tigers.
So you are an optimist and I salute you for that, accept 1320 or 1500 or more, I would like us to be able of dealing with the worst case scenario for wildlife because it is credible and dangerous, and I have seen in my lifetime the extinction of three tiger ecotypes while government officials and safari operators are trumpeting success.
Real tiger numbers are less than 3800 and not 7000, lions are likely to be closer to 20000 than 39000 and leopards are definitely below 100000 it is a grim fact.
My main point again is that we can not put a price on a breeding female of an endangered species.
