B2 and Other Great Tiger Pics from India

[Rishi]

(04-16-2019, 05:00 PM)Pckts Wrote: And if they take an educated approach and not look to embellish for political gain then you'd have to assume that any estimate would be on the conservative side and most likely the real # should be much higher. 
The forest are too big and dense for a spot on census.

They take the mean (don't know if they have any statistical formulae taking in variables)... Those pervious numbers of 1411,1706, 2226 were all averaged values of a highest & lowest estimated value.

For even a single forest unit they may get a number like "5-7 tigers". That gap increases as many such units' add up. 
Previous report on Sundarban, for example, had stated the value as 76 ranging from 62 to 96. Then others said that WII & WWF skipped all Reverse Forests west of the tiger reserves & true number could be above 100.

Ultimately the final report gave a range of more than 5 hundred last time, 2226 (1945-2491) with 1540 unique adults photographed, individuals younger than 18 months are not counted. So basically the number they give out is horseshit to be fed to the media, that range is what should interest you. 

I expect this year's to be something like 28XX to 34XX... Let's see. Reply