Tigers of Central India

[Pckts]

(06-25-2021, 01:46 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: Except, as I said before, this isn’t the first research to come to the conclusion that Pench has a better prey density than Kanha. Your remark that there were more herds recorded in Kanha as per the study was off the mark as Pench being smaller has more herds when you count both the areas, clearly showing better density.

The forest department added watering hole in parts of Pench because of human degradation. If you look up the history of that area when Kanha-Pench was one big forest, you will see the insane deforestation that went on from 17th century by the Gonds to mid 1890s in Pench, whereas Kanha has stayed pristine much longer. With conservation giving the forest a chance to grow back, the animal numbers have also rebounded (this is also noticeable in tiger numbers). Plus, Brander and Sankhala are from the 60s-70s, contemporary sources should take precedence.

And, why would a prey base depend on what trees are commonly found in a reserve. Grassland would be way more pertinent in determining prey base. Trees don’t make up any part of any herbivores’ diet.

Also, I have been to Pench and Nagzira. Was supposed to go to Kanha-Bandhavgarh, but the pandemic has ruined that trip.

I said more large ungulates, i.e. Sambar, Barasingha, Gaur 
And no, my remark on more herds isn't off the mark since we don't know the comparison of the other side. And since it's an extrapolation we don't know what that would entail. So making the claim that one side is the same as the other isn't correct not to mention the immense size of Kanha and dense foliage and  hilly terrain. Where as Pench has man made water holes and pools that animals will congregate in but that isn't the case in Kanha. 

The claim that they added watering holes in pench due to human degradation isn't backed by visual evidence. Where they are has nothing to do with man, they are in the middle of the forests with no human fingerprint around them, they are simply added to keep tourists in those areas during the summer months so they can generate revenue. If they weren't there, Turiya for instance would be barren of big cats. Also, both Kanha and Pench have suffered deforestation but regardless of that, the forest itself tells a story. And Kanha's forest is more lush, green, cooler and produces bigger animals, generally. Pench can also produce large cats, definitely larger than Tadoba but it's not quite as advantageous as Kanha.  And I certainly wouldn't discount Brander or Sankhala who both spent their lives in these forests, whether from a Hunters perspective or a Biologists perspective, both opinions carry weight.

Lastly, that's a bummer about your 2nd trip, I really hope you get a chance to go to Kanha-Bandhavgarh. I would be very interested to know your opinion when you came back. I've heard Bandhavgarh is a smaller Kanha.
And since Kanha sent some of their Gaur to Bandhavgarh, there should be some chances to see some of them as well.

Also, in regards to Pench. Did you see any Gaur there? We saw one the entire time and in comparison to Kanha, we saw many herds and bachelors every day.

Edit:
Sorry, didn't see this question

"And, why would a prey base depend on what trees are commonly found in a reserve. Grassland would be way more pertinent in determining prey base. Trees don’t make up any part of any herbivores’ diet."

Kanha again has more grassland as well, the sal trees offer cooler temps, more shade and the plants around them are greener. My guess is that Sal trees require cooler temps and more water since they are heavier and more dense as well. Reply