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.
In my opinion, it comes down necessity. In modern times what do we need. Morphology is done with some say, finding out the tiger's size in 2014 won't be anything novel, we've a good idea from the records of the 20th century. On the same token, there's the argument that modern sizes are more reliable and can help detect inbreeding, it can.
To find morphology we obviously need to immobilize the animal. Here, the methods matter the most. The methods used in India and Nepal have turned out trivial death rates. But now we need to question, what were the few deaths for. Did we get any further from the hunting records? Applying a hypothesis test says no. Thus, the mathematically supported conclusion is that immobilization in the 21st century for the sole sake of morphology isn't necessary, at least for the Bengal form. Modern sizes are no more reliable than accepted hunter weights. Nevertheless, to come to this conclusion, we had to have examined modern specimens anyhow. See how leaving be and interfering are always connected? To decide one, we have to tamper with the other.
Applying the same logic to the modern Amur tiger. The Amur region, in my opinion, has been handled very poorly. Snares are not the way to go. Losing specimens just for "size" is a step and two backward. Ignoring poor method, did the size give us any novel, significant? Hypothesis testing says yes, there's a difference between modern and hunter weights. Sure, a possible simple conclusion is that we have proof that modern weights are more reliable. Is this only possible conclusion? No way. Another more probable conclusion is genetic proof of inbreeding. The indication of inbreeding is pivotal, it's our alarm call, one new disease and we could lose the entire populous due to lack of genetic resistance. But, was size the only to come to the inbreeding conclusion? Not so much, having 20-30 as ancestors to the modern forms is evidence enough for the deductive mind. So here, I'd say morphology data in its self was slightly helpful evidence, but the cost of the data was not worth it.
All in all, superficial morphology in the 21st century is complete. But we still need direct genetic data to truly prove inbreeding effects, etc. This can save a species from the brink or even clone what we need if we ever need it. For this, I feel careful, Indian/Nepali methods are justified. I'd go as far as to say that immobilizing as much as we can for the sake of blood may be the way to go, we'd have a more complete understanding of genomes. Though, before we go on a blood rampage, we should compare a few captive and wild specimens and see if the genomes are the same. If they are, leave the wild alone.
Moving on to ecology and behavior. In my mind, these two factors are what matter most in the modern, dire situation. Collaring helps here. We get to see migratory patterns and expansion of individuals in to human-conflict zones. Collaring can get us into the mind of the tiger in a way. It can sometimes (I say sometimes because a poached animal will certainly not be left with its collar as well as the fact a collared animal can only be tracked if its within a certain vicinity of the receiver) explain those unexplained disappearances by leading to the body. Migratory patterns could be analyzed with camera traps as well, and traps may even be more effective in some aspects, such as increased number of individuals scored. Collaring is more of a case study, camera trapping a population study, both complement each other. But a praise to our modern tiger trackers. Even without collaring, they've given us just as good information on the behavior at least.
Immobilizing and collaring have lead to a few freak accidents, and I'm sure the specimen does not appreciate it either. That's why it's all about method, method, and some more method. Immobilizing accidents that have occurred could have been avoided, but the problem is man is a reactive learner, not so much a proactive one. So in this aspect, just take all the stops to prevent any immobilization complications. This is the first accident I've read that was due to collaring and not immobilization. Now we need to learn to from this tragedy and use it as encouragement to find better methods. I say we start downsizing the technology. For now, with the resources we have, collars should be lightened and thinned down. Under-skin tags utilized in marine biology are one possibility that could be looked into. The mechanism is similar to the collar and receiver, a signal is sent out, the receiver gets it, you play a game of hot and cold. It's smaller but at the same internally invasive, so again we need testing. Another drawback is that a piece of machinery will be sticking out of the animal, and that could lead to just as much trouble.
As I started, I'll end, the decision comes down to necessity. If the status quo is well, leave it be. If we're having trouble, we need to interfere some to find out more.
Well said Tigerluver,
To truly save cats from inbreeding you need to stop closing off their corridors to reach other areas. Tigers travel great distances but when fenced in to a specific area, they are no longer aloud to roam. Same with lions, india has forced Elephants into specific areas due to fencing same with Africa, if we want a genetic population to thrive we must allow it to roam free. Look at the Gir, they can't even agree on where to move some of their lions yet the population is obviously growing and could easily move on its own if they would allow them to do so freely.
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
