WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
|
Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference
|
That's be paranoid. It just TWO cases in several (OVER 80 CASES) of successful radiocollared tigers. [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
In fact, we don't know how the tigers get those wounds, they just blame the radiocollars, but they don't show the wide background. They could be wounds of intraespecific conflicts, or even a bite of an insect that the animal could not clean... Camera traps only shows tiger and prey density, that serves for Conservation of course, but are useless if you want to know the life, single behavior, ecology, intraspecific behaviour and morphology of tigers. People like Dr Sunquist, Dr Karanth and Dr Chundawatt agree with this. Even when Dr Karanth invented the camera trap method, he agree that where the radiocollar studies which bring over 70% of the knowledge of the life of the tiger. Yes, direct observations like those of Valmik Thapar are also reliable, but it takes over three times the time, and by that time, tiger will die in other parts, do to ignorance in its behavior and ecological needs.  (09-22-2014, 03:29 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: That's be paranoid. It just TWO cases in several (OVER 80 CASES) of successful radiocollared tigers. [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]Radio collars serve no purpose for morphology, ecology or behavior. Its good for tracking individual tigers movements throughout a year or preferred areas to frequent. Which can also be viewed through camera traps with far less stress. This is another case, more than "2" like you stated. The collar was also proven to be responsible from the post mortem report. Lastly, how in the world does capturing a tiger and putting a collar on it, benefit the tiger in any way? You want to save tigers, stop putting unneccassary stress on them, protect them, moniter them from a distance, save their forrests and prey. All of the information you gain from a collar is easily gained from camera traps. You can monitor a entire forrest with enough camera traps if they really wanted to.
Wrong again, for morphology we need to capture the tiger itself (this is obvious [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]), and these captures are used also to get blood samples that can be used in further studies. In fact, in this form it was discovered in Russia that there was the menace of canine distemper in that population, and was avoided.
Trough radiocollar studies are the ONLY way that you can know the ecology of the tiger. Dr Karanth in his book “The Way of the Tiger” of 2003 clearly states that it is NOT possible to know the social relations and needs of the tigers with cameras only, it is simply IMPOSIBLE to know how those animals are related, are they of the same family, are they just transients, which is the dominant male??? All this answers can be answered only through direct studies in the population, and as Dr Chundawat states, radiocollaring in the BEST way. Again, the news quoted here (which are also sensationalist and exaggerated) state that they are only TWO tigers. Together with the other two from Nepal, we can state that less than FIVE tigers have died from radiocollaring, in fact, a tiger is more safe during this process than in the wild, were mortality is way higher, maybe up to 30%. Camera traps are good for conservation in the order that we know how many tigers are in a particular area, and I think this is your point. But is useless for other purposes, this is a FACT that you are denying right now. The BEST studies on tigers came from Nepal, Nagarahole and Russia, and guess what? ALL those studies used radiocollared tigers. You are stuck with “Conservation”, but we need even more than just that, after all, Conservation is part of the "Tiger Science", but not ALL of it. It is IMPOSIBLE to leave the tigers “alone” just like that, we don’t know what ecological situations influence the tigers from the entire area of East India, for example, and Radiocollar studies are the best way to study them. Quoting Dr Chundawat, most (if not all) modern studies are only of tiger density (camera traps) and prey selection (scats study). This is good in the sense that we can estimate how many tigers are in an area and what a tiger eat, but we don’t know what social situations drive the behavior of the tigers in those areas, or which preys are preferred by males and which are for females (scats can’t answer this). Tiger conservation is useless if we only have pictures, like Dr Karanth said: they know how many tigers are in Nagarahole, but we don’t know the social relations, the family orders, how many of them are residents, transients or why some of them disappear. Although is possible to answer those questions inferring from the pictures (and with a LOOOOOOOT of time), it is necessary a deep knowledge of tiger behavior to understand why a tiger is there and what it needs. The Nepal Tiger Ecology Project is my best example, they studied tigers for about 10 years, radiocollared over 50 tigers (only TWO – c.4 % died) and now all modern tiger books base mostly of its ecology section in this project. Finally, there is little stress for a captured tiger, IF the capture is done by an expert, those from Nepal even returned to the baits to eat, those in Nagarahole-Panna-Sariska expressed no problems after they captures. 
If camera traps are exclusively used in lieu of capturing/examining/collaring, researchers would not only be able to interpret the photos objectively. Without REALLY knowing the dimensions of individual cats, people would use terms like "monster" to describe average sized individuals. While it could be argued that the process of capturing/examining/collaring no doubt stresses the individual animal, the benefit to the species as a whole far outweighs (IMHO) the dangers to the individual. Also, first aid can be performed on injuries during these captures which has the potential of benefiting the individual.
(09-22-2014, 10:56 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Wrong again, for morphology we need to capture the tiger itself (this is obvious [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]), and these captures are used also to get blood samples that can be used in further studies. In fact, in this form it was discovered in Russia that there was the menace of canine distemper in that population, and was avoided. Once again, morphology has nothing to do with collaring. " canine distemper" is a disease that is easily noticeable without collaring, if cats are becoming sick, than you can tranq the sick cat and blood test it, still don't need a collar. Tiger relations is easily seen by stripe pattern, you can tell witch tiger is which from their stripes, which of course is used now because of camera traps. How can you say there is little stress from collaring? This cats are "hunted and tranq'ed" then wake up with a foreign collar that they cannot remove around their necks, and in one case has killed the cat from the collar. As well as the discomfort it causes them and the stress they obviously go through from it. Perfect example is T24 who has not forgiven the Forrest Department for doing that to him. Sorry but there the stress far out weighs the benefits to these cats. What is the goal, conserve big cats, correct? How is that achieved -Protect their Forrests -Protect their prey -Stop Poaching Thats it. 
Regarding canine distemper, I'm sure some have read of this controversial take:
http://bigcats-ru.livejournal.com/125951.html 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. (09-22-2014, 03:42 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: If camera traps are exclusively used in lieu of capturing/examining/collaring, researchers would not only be able to interpret the photos objectively. Without REALLY knowing the dimensions of individual cats, people would use terms like "monster" to describe average sized individuals. While it could be argued that the process of capturing/examining/collaring no doubt stresses the individual animal, the benefit to the species as a whole far outweighs (IMHO) the dangers to the individual. Also, first aid can be performed on injuries during these captures which has the potential of benefiting the individual. What does it matter how large a cat is? How does knowing a cats size matter to the cat? Injuries can and are detected visually, if a cat is injured it should be left a lone, in all honesty. Unless the cat is injured due to human intereferrence. Also, camera traps can absolutely tell size, its called scaling. They will use a human to scale the size of the area the camera is photographing, than compare the cat to the human and get a fairly good estimate, but once again, its serves no conservational purpose to know the size of a cat. That is humans curiosity not animal conservation. (09-22-2014, 10:25 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Regarding canine distemper, I'm sure some have read of this controversial take: 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.
Pckts, that is NOT what Tigerluver said. In fact, his statement is very ambiguous as it leaves an open idea about collaring: "If the status quo is well, leave it be. If we're having trouble, we need to interfere some to find out more". This is his conclusion, pretty ambiguous to me.
You are only focusing to conservation and this is NOT science at all. Science is knowledge and capture of tigers have shown to be the most effective form to study tigers. Your method only show the biased ideas that have affected scientists in India for so long time. For people like you, scientists have been blamed for deaths of tigers, have been banned from parks and worst of all, the idea of "leave the tiger alone" has allowed poaching cases, like in Sariska and Panna, where scientists warned the personal of an imminent disaster, but they were ignored. (09-22-2014, 10:24 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Once again, morphology has nothing to do with collaring.Sorry dude, but you NEED to capture a tiger to measure it, it is LOGIC. The example of the canine distemper is perfect, scientists in Russia found it during they studies and was the perfect moment to stop the spread. If they have not captured tigers, they will not have evidence to support they claim. Independent of they methods, capture tiger in Russia have provided over 70% of tiger knowledge in that area, previous studies were based only in track studies and a lot of inference. Stripe patterns are good to identified individual tigers, but are useless to know the social relations. How many tigers arise from "no were" in camera traps? I have read many times "this tiger came from an unknown area". This is silly, as Nepal studies have show how sub-adults from different areas travel trough large areas and it was possible to know the sociability of tigers. Observations if Ranthambore are good, but those are just QUALITATIVE information, good but at the end, anecdotal and even biased, as they just capture single moments in tiger life and have NO form to know (or even understand) if those events are "normal" or just "random". Again, SCIENTISTS are my help here, as Dr Karanth states that just using QUANTITATIVE data, given by radio-collared tigers, it is possible to found enough events and trough statistical analysis, is possible to get a scientific statement about tiger behavior. READ the scientific documents, don't stick to the retrograded ideas of "ecologist" and park rangers than have made more damage than good in tiger ecology. When an animal is captured, there is stress, but not as high as you claim. The animal is treated very carefully, its eyes covered and the noise in the area is close to "0". The collars don't cause discomfort, in fact, collared tigers have an EXCELLENT life, they hunt and breed normally. Where do you get this biased idea? Just because ONE tiger showed discomfort, doesn't mean that ALL showed the same, which is NOT the case. Again, all this thing of "stress" and "discomfort" is just paranoia, nothing more. The goal is not just protect the big cat in a park, is to "know" it as it really is. Conservation is just a part of "Tiger Science", interestingly is the last part in any book, while Biology, Ecology, Sociability are always the first ones, showing that they are fundamental to save the tiger. Your idea of Conservation is too simple and although help to save the tigers in a broad way, they ignore the ecological factors of each area. You most remember that each region have its own characteristics and the idea of just "Protect forest" and "Protect prey" are useless if you don't know HOW to protect those specifically forest and those preys. Collaring tigers have opened the door the the REAL knowledge of tiger and you can't denied this fact. If tigers had not been radiocollared in Nepal and many parts of India, REAL knowledge of tiger would be much less than in present. Like I told you before, those testimonies of photographers in Ranthambore are good, but are no more relevant than the old reports in the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society. From my point of view and the scientists, only the reports of Valmik Thapar are reliable, and hust because he spend about 30 years in Ranthambore watching tigers. Finally, you most drop this idea of "leave the tiger alone". This is not "Jurassic Park", this is a different world when this "idea" originally created National Parks that now are isolated because no one used Science to know that corridors are necessary. But guess what, where do you get that people get to know that corridors are necessary? From radiocollar studies. I support my statements by evidence and by every single serious scientists that have actually studied tigers, what more do I need? Radiocollaring is good and necessary in the unstudied areas, but most be carried out by professionals in the field, not just park rangers. I don't know who collared that tigress in Panna, but from the scientific studies in Nepal-Nagarahole-Panna-Kanha-Sariska, just 2 tigers died and no one showed problems with its radiocollar (apart from malfunctioning, but that is irrelevant for the tiger itself). Interestingly, this PARANOIA from India is not shared in America and Africa, where cougars, jaguars and lions are normally captured and radiocollared, and for that, the lion and the cougar information outweigh by a lot, the data of the tiger, and in the case fo the jaguar, magnificent information have came to light about this also elusive and forest-living great cat. (09-23-2014, 08:03 PM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(09-22-2014, 10:24 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Once again, morphology has nothing to do with collaring.Sorry dude, but you NEED to capture a tiger to measure it, it is LOGIC. If a tiger is sick, it should be captured and blood should be drawn to make sure there is no outbreak of disease. Nothing to do with radiocollaring, yet again. "Sorry dude, but you NEED to capture a tiger to measure it, it is LOGIC." Logic means, you don't capture a tiger to measure it, period! Its logical that a measurement of a tiger or tigers is useless for conservasation. "I support my statements by evidence and by every single serious scientists that have actually studied tigers, what more do I need?" What evidence? Evidence shows that tigers are caused stress and have died from capture. That is evidence. Evidence shows that tigers #'s can be monitored by camera traps and camera traps are solely responsible for the most common way of ID, stripe pattern. Evidence shows that a tigers prey densisty, areas traveled, family members can all be monitored by camera traps. So once again, I am still waiting for any purpose of radio collaring that helps a tiger. Conservation is protecting a animal, its prey and its habitat. Not sure how anything else can benefit a tiger other than that. Look at any animal that is thriving after being on the brink of extinction, it has nothing to do with "radio collars" and everything to do with protection of the animal, its habitat and its food source. Wolves in yellowstone, storks, Flamingos, Tigers in India, bison, cougar etc. All animals need one thing, to be left alone, if humans stop poaching them, destroying their habitat and their prey source, everything else will fall into place. Like it did long before humans where on this planet and like it will long after humans are gone. (09-23-2014, 09:57 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: If a tiger is sick, it should be captured and blood should be drawn to make sure there is no outbreak of disease. Nothing to do with radiocollaring, yet again. Again, your words look like a paranoid park ranger, like the crazy one that banned ANY scientific study in Nagarahole in 2013. I really felt sorry for this, because you were a science lover, but now, it seems that you act like a zealot of those people that created havoc in “Tiger science” in India. For that reason, at 2014, Scientists and Park rangers have more or less good relations, but not the ideal ones, sadly. About your “logic” issue, sorry but HOW you are going to measure a tiger if you don’t capture it? Besides, measurements are important for conservations, if not, check how this have shown the bad state of the Amur tigers through the beginning of the 20 century. So, your logic is incorrect, like all your statements about collaring. About the “Evidence” issue. Check that I have the backup of EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST, but what do you have? Just your “opinions”, nothing more. 1. There is little stress to capture tigers and less than five tigers (4%) of ALL the captured tigers have died, you are just been paranoid here too. 2. Yes, tiger numbers can be monitored by cameras, but what about ALL the other scientific points of investigation? Cameras can’t do that alone. 3. Prey density is NOT monitored by cameras, but by transects studies; learn a little more, ok? Now about areas traveled and family members, it is just too subjective at this point. Evidence of that is that tigers travel great distances and the tigers that go out of the camera areas are simple lost, but if you take the time to read books like “The Face of the tiger”, or “Tiger moon” or even “Tiger: the ultimate guide” (check that I have buy all those books now), you should learn how important was for science the use of radiocollarings. IF you are still waiting for any purpose of radiocollaring tigers, then you are very ignorant of what the “Tiger science” is. Again, Dr Karanth in his magnificent book “The Way of the Tiger” state how important was the use of scientific methods to understand the life of such a cryptic mammal like the tiger. Of course the camera traps are excellent for conservation purposes (he create them!), but the next step is to study use radiocollaring studies in the areas that have not been studied, like for example Kaziranga in India or Sumatra, where the cameras abound but the information on tigers is incredible scarce, despite the existence of cameras all over the place. I dare you to show me one scientific study of Sumatran tiger behavior and ecology, despite the HUGE amount of pictures and camera trap studies. Conservation is important, of course, but when tigers will be stable (let’s hope so, soon), then the studies like that of Chitwan must be developed in all available areas. Your examples of other mammals are better for me. Wolves in Yellowstone were radiocollared, bears of several species are been radiocollared, every single predator is been radiocollared in any part of the world, only you are in a stubborn attitude about this. Check that radiocollaring projects are all over the world. It is funny how the scientific work on animals shows how wrong you are, no offense, but is true. Finally, I have said many times here that we CAN’T leave animals alone now. It is simple, tiger conservation (that you, apparently defend) MOST take in count that tigers and humans live and will live together and this is impossible to avoid now. Check that tiger sanctuaries like Ranthambore and Bandhavgarh have human pilgrims in the land every year, it is not possible to just left them alone. Conservation is more complex than you think. Valmik Thapar said that there was NOT a “golden age” where tigers and humans lived in peace, which is just a fantasy. Modern conservation most takes in count several factors like human populations and its needs. It is a deep and complex theme. I will end this debate now here, I will just leave the "Big Cat News 2" alone, but IF you want to continue, I could create a topic specifically about radiocollaring techniques. Quote:'GuateGojira' pid='5433' dateline='1411877204' You resort to name calling because you are wrong. I am absolutely a lover of science, you're correct. Its from years and years of research that I have learned that no "science" protects these cats. The ONLY protection they need is from our selves. Poaching, deforestation, habitat loss, encroachment, all done by HUMAN BEINGS. All controlled by HUMAN BEINGS, the only cause........you guessed it, HUMAN BEINGS! Who can stop it............HUMAN BEINGS! None of this has to do with tigers or any other animal. Nature will go on, animals will live their lives, forrests will regrow as long as WE let it. Now on to camera traps, Prey densisty can absolutely be monitored by camera traps, forrests can completely be monitored by traps if we wanted. Now please enlightlen me on how tiger measurements, help tigers? We don't know if Amur tigers where any larger or smaller than they are today, hunting measurements show most to be the same size as they are now, some extroidanary claims, but the highest % are equal to or similar to now. Just like Bengals. Humans have coexisted with wild animals for thousands of years, its not the lonely villager who is killing the tiger, its the poachers (outsiders), deforestation for big corporate Lumber companies, territory loss for outrageous buildings that will be vacant or torn down and built bigger and bigger. All for corparate pigs who can never have enough. Even a farmer who poisons a tiger for killing his cattle, why does he have cattle? Because he is selling it to corporate grocery stores to sell to the masses. Humans take far more than they need, nothing will change until they do. Hence why I say, the only conservation that exists is us leaving nature alone. 
So radio collars apparently cause the death of tigers but they are just fine on lions, leopards and jaguars? That is bizarre.
Good question Richardlri, besides it seems that those sensationalist news always avoid the fact that LESS than 5 tigers have died by radiocollaring in India, Nepal and Bangladesh, together.
Like you say, radiocollars do a very good job on lions, jaguars, leopards, cougars, lynx, elephants, donkeys, etc. etc. etc. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |