|
Bigcats News
|
7 tigers moved to Kuno after 2010: Study
AHMEDABAD: The news that the tiger, T-71, from Ranthambore National Park (a tiger reserve) in Rajasthan, was sighted on the periphery of Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Madhya Pradesh (MP) has again proved that a natural corridor for the big cat exists between the two sanctuaries. Further, a research paper, 'Tiger dispersals in the semi-arid landscape of north-west,' authored by Sunny Shah, Sailaja Nayaki and Jimmy Borahi has revealed that since 1998-99 as many as 11 tigers had moved from Ranthambore reserve to wildlife sanctuaries in MP, including Kuno-Palpur. The research paper says that only four tigers had moved to MP between 1989-99 and 2010 but their dispersal had increased after August 2010. In the five years after 2010, seven tigers had migrated to MP. The tiger, T-38, had migrated to Kuno in 2010 passing through Banas River, the Karanpur range of Keladevi Wildlife Sanctuary and the tributaries of Chambal River, says the research paper. This tiger reached Kuno-Palpur and has been thriving in the area where there are currently no other big cats. In 2013, another tiger had reached Kuno, but it stayed there only for 35 days. It then moved to Dantia. The eleventh tiger, a sub-adult from Ranthambore, was captured on camera in Kuno-Palpur sanctuary. It too had used the same route via Keladevi Wildlife Sanctuary and the Chambal River to reach Kuno-Palpur, says the research paper. It argues that fragmentation of habitat could lead to a loss of connectivity and these tiger populations could become isolated as had been noticed in Ranthambore. Maintaining the gene flow between isolated tiger populations is important in order to avoid harmful effects of low genetic diversity and inbreeding. Officials in Gujarat forest department, however, said that this is not the first research paper to prove that Kuno was an important sanctuary for movement of tigers from Ranthambore. Sources in the forest department said that Gujarat has been emphasizing that Kuno was an important tiger habitat and that it cannot coexist with Gir lions if any of them are shifted to Kuno-Palpur. The officials said that the issue would again be raised in the 12-member committee and even during hearing of the petition pending in the Supreme Court. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/...s?from=mdr 
Only 100 tigers left in Bangladesh's famed Sundarbans forest
Agence France-Presse Monday 27 July 2015 07.30 BST Only around 100 tigers remain in Bangladesh’s famed Sundarbans forest, far fewer of the endangered animals than previously thought, according to a census. Some 440 tigers were recorded during the previous census in 2004 in the Sundarbans, the world’s largest mangrove forest and one of the last remaining habitats for the big cats. But experts said better methodology was the reason for the huge drop in the numbers, saying hidden cameras used this time around, rather than pugmarks, gave a much more accurate figure. Tapan Kumar Dey, the government’s wildlife conservator, said analysis of camera footage from the year-long survey that ended in April found numbers ranged between 83 and 130, giving an average of 106. “So plus or minus we have around 106 tigers in our parts of the Sundarbans. It’s a more accurate figure,” Dey told Agence France-Presse about the survey, which has not yet been publicly released. About 74 tigers have previously been counted on the Indian side of the Sundarbans, which makes up nearly 40% of the forest straddling both countries over 10,000 sq km (3,860 sq m). Bengal tigers live mainly in India, where nationwide there are 2,226, with smaller populations in Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, China and Myanmar. Monirul Khan, a zoology professor at Bangladesh’s Jahangirnagar University and the nation’s foremost tiger expert, said the survey confirmed his worst fears. “It seems the population has declined more than we had feared,” Khan said, saying his studies showed the figure was no more than 200. Khan said the government needed to do more to protect the animals, whose numbers were shrinking because of poaching and rapid development on the edge of the forest. The World Wildlife Fund says tigers worldwide are in serious danger of becoming extinct in the wild. Their numbers have fallen from 100,000 in 1900 to around 3,200 now. Officials have conceded that the pugmark tracking system used in 2004 was unreliable and cameras were installed in trees throughout the forest for the latest survey. YV Jhala, professor at the Wildlife Institute of India, told AFP the new figure was the “reality”. “The 440 figure was a myth and an imagination. Bangladesh parts of the Sundarbans with its prey size can support up to 200 tigers,” he said, also urging authorities to act to better protect the cats. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...ans-forest Fact, the popular idea that the Sundarbans have the largest tiger population is a MYTH and this is something that Dr Karanth had say since the year 2000!!! Some tiger-haters used this against the tiger, well, now they can see the true. Sadly, this is also a hard-bad fact for tiger conservation. 
Not just Sundarbans, but the entire tiger population of India was being overestimated (more than 3000!) when the pugmark method was being used to measure tiger population. When this flawed methodology was replaced with the more reliable camera trap method, the actual figure came to be half of what was being previously estimated. Some media reported it as a decrease in tiger population, when in fact there simply weren't as many tigers before as were being claimed.
Remember the old queen and star of the Ranthombore national park ?, Machli ?
Forest official and local expert says, She is 18 year old and still doing fine because of her experience and tricks not due to her strength (which she lost due to old age). At her prime she has dare to fight and kill a 14 feet long deadly crocodile. Now she silently follow the Leopards and as soon as they make a kill she chase them away and drag the kill in some safe place behind the bush eat it and hide it to return  (08-31-2015, 09:43 AM)sanjay Wrote: Remember the old queen and star of the Ranthombore national park ?, Machli ? LOL ,always thought leopards are more cunning&secretive than tigers now it's official The top cunning CAT in the world is one &only TIGER. (08-31-2015, 04:42 PM)jeets Wrote:(08-31-2015, 09:43 AM)sanjay Wrote: Remember the old queen and star of the Ranthombore national park ?, Machli ? One has nothing to do with the other. This wont last, she has to be lucky enough to be in the exact place a kill happens at the exact time. If not, she isn't getting the kill and the prey killed is only large enough for a leopard, not a Tiger. The real reason she has lasted this long is really due to the forest officials. They have been giving her food for quite some time, she makes kills from time to time, but they bring her food often. (08-28-2015, 06:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: Not just Sundarbans, but the entire tiger population of India was being overestimated (more than 3000!) when the pugmark method was being used to measure tiger population. When this flawed methodology was replaced with the more reliable camera trap method, the actual figure came to be half of what was being previously estimated. Some media reported it as a decrease in tiger population, when in fact there simply weren't as many tigers before as were being claimed. The 3000 estimate came mostly from camera traps. The pug mark estimate hasn't been used from some time, I have been reading some trying to claim the 3000 estimate is far off but I haven't seen any real evidence to back that claim. Any links or evidence supporting this would be appreciated. Regards (09-01-2015, 01:00 AM)Pckts Wrote:"The 3000 estimate came mostly from camera traps."(08-28-2015, 06:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: Not just Sundarbans, but the entire tiger population of India was being overestimated (more than 3000!) when the pugmark method was being used to measure tiger population. When this flawed methodology was replaced with the more reliable camera trap method, the actual figure came to be half of what was being previously estimated. Some media reported it as a decrease in tiger population, when in fact there simply weren't as many tigers before as were being claimed. I am not sure where you got this from? The 3000+ figure came from the pugmark method, which was last used in 2003. From 2007 onwards, the new method was used which then pegged the number at 1411. It involved camera traps, scat analysis and other complex formulas. In India, there was a lot of controversy regarding this figure, which was maintained through the 90s, when poaching was at its peak and tigers were disappearing fast. The pugmark method had a lot of critics and was consequently dumped. Sorry, I can't find links dating back to the late 90s and early 2000s. Even if there were any, they would involve a lot of revisionism. (09-01-2015, 02:12 AM)Shardul Wrote:(09-01-2015, 01:00 AM)Pckts Wrote:"The 3000 estimate came mostly from camera traps."(08-28-2015, 06:50 PM)Shardul Wrote: Not just Sundarbans, but the entire tiger population of India was being overestimated (more than 3000!) when the pugmark method was being used to measure tiger population. When this flawed methodology was replaced with the more reliable camera trap method, the actual figure came to be half of what was being previously estimated. Some media reported it as a decrease in tiger population, when in fact there simply weren't as many tigers before as were being claimed. "Since then, three ‘national tiger estimation’ surveys have been completed (in 2006, 2010, and 2014). Each involved 90,000 man-days of labour spread over 400,000 sq km of forests and at a cost of 120m rupees (£1.2m) to Indian taxpayers. Armies of poorly trained foot soldiers collected a bewildering array of data, including tiger photos from automated camera traps, as well as counts of tiger tracks and droppings." http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...misleading It looks like all methods were used, but the camera traps have been the new method for quite some time and seem to be becoming more and more popular. But it still leaves many holes to be answered, that is for sure.
@Pckts,
That article by Dr. Karanth says 3000 for the whole world, not India. India has 2226 tigers as per the 2015 census, which is 70% of 3000. The last time the 3000 figure was used for Indian tigers was in early 2000s. At that time, the world wide population estimates were pegged at 5000, out of which 60% were supposed to be in India. No one knows how reliable those figures were, but they were widely quoted then and often questioned. Thats when sundarbans were believed to have more than 400 tigers, the largest single population in the world. Out of these 200 were supposed to be in Indian side and the rest in bangladeshi side. The new methodology came into place in the 2007 census and onwards. It calculated 1411 tigers, of which only 70 were in sunderbans (India side). Then in 2011, its was 1706 and in 2015, 2226.
@Shardul
Here is the new numbers for Indias Tigers (Allegedly) "Wild tigers are surging back in India according to the latest tiger estimation released by India’s National Tiger Conservation Authority. The population of wild tigers in the country increased to 2,226 in 2014 from 1,706 in 2010 (and only 1,411 in 2006), according to the new report. This growth is largely due to better management and improved protection. The Status of Tigers in India, 2014 report also underscores the importance of tigers maintaining core habitats for breeding, habitat connectivity and protection from poaching." http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/ind...population "Helping tigers recover and thrive The survey covered more than 115,800 square miles across 18 states and analyzed images from thousands of camera trap locations across tiger landscapes. For the first time, areas outside tiger reserves were also included in the study. WWF was part of this unprecedented effort led by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, state Forest Departments and the Wildlife Institute of India, as well as other conservation organizations." But how they came across these #s are still muddy, I agree with you. How many are from camera traps, pug marks, droppings, etc? They really need to be more clear on their findings.
Thats the same number, 2226, that I mentioned in my last post.
The census happens every 4 years, so we won't get another figure till 2019 at least. From what I know, they identify individual tigers through camera traps, and DNA tests from scats. Pugmarks, scratch marks and other indications are only used to gauge presence of tigers in a certain location. Based on this, they get the least number of tigers in that location, which represents the lower end of the range. Then they use similar data collected from all other locations and based on certain complex equations, the number is extrapolated. The numbers are presented in a range, although the media mostly reports the median value. Important to note, they only include individuals >3 years in the census.
That figure of 2226 include cubs and sub-adults of less than 2 years old, is correct?
If sub adults are not included, I truly think that is a promising #.
It seems as though many cubs/sub adults are thriving at the moment. Its funny, reading Dr. Pantheras post about the "problems" of having large male tigers or large coalition of lions rule for too long, one of his points was that they rule for so long that the genetic diversity is upset because that same ruling male/coalition will mate with its daughters or even granddaughters but at the same time, a perfect example is Waghdoh, he has many cubs, all healthy and happy, unchallenged and will soon disperse to find their own territory. So speaking to that specific article, I don't necessary agree with his conclusion. Sometimes, yes, it can be problematic but others times it seems to be a benefit to all tigers. Just look at T72, T24s son, once thought of being poached or lost, he has just been sighted showing that these cubs when unable to rule their home will truly find new territories as long as its possible to do so that is. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |