Eyes on or hands on? A discussion of human interference

[Pckts]

(10-30-2014, 11:08 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:

(10-24-2014, 04:47 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: The saurah male will eventually loose its territory, survival of the fittest. While we like to make the argument that a dominant male will not change the gene pool, tigers always go look for other territories and a dominant male will produce other strong dominant males that will travel to other territories to spread their genes, same with dominant males from other lands. Unless of course we block of their mode of travel, then there can be a problem. But that is a unnatural occurence, just like the death of 105. Which is why its unnecessary and would of never happened if they would of just observed from a distance, but to be fair, at the time, camera traps where not as prevelent as they are now, and the technology wasn't as good. 


 

It was just an accident and before to judge we most know which was the situation and what was the mistake in that particular capture. Dr Sunquist captured that tiger two times and nothing happened, so there was something more -human error- for example. Even then, many other tigers were re-captured after that, and none of them died or get injured (i.e. the large male M126).

About the cameras issue, even with modern technology, most scientists are still willing to capture and radiocollar tigers. Why? Simple, because although camera traps are not-invasive and cheaper, they are not the correct method to study tiger behavior. Cameras are for numbers and identification, but not for sociability and behavior. Other problem is logistic and time of identification, in this case, radiocollaring was proved to be more reliable at short therm, while cameras are excellent in the long therm. At the end, the only way to get a real scientific point of view (the "tiger science" as I call it) is to use the TWO methods together: direct data from few radiocollared specimens and statistical inference with the overall population based on photographs.

Check this example: Interestingly, the knowledge of tiger numbers in Nagarahole is one of the best in India, but the knowledge of tiger society and behavior is just "average". Guess why? Simple, the radiocollaring study of Dr Karanth was abruptly stooped in 1995 and in his document and book of 2003, he states that it is still a mystery if the tigers of Nagarahole are territorial or not, contrary for example, with those of Nepal, from which we have a complete ecological point of view. More information on this last part (territoriality) to come in other topics, with special focus on Kanha.
 

 

While some prefer collars, that is by no means, all. And many prefer not to do it, so that is up to the biologist. But a biologist doesn't always have the interest of the species or nature in mind, and human inquires may or may not serve a purpose in cosnervation. And while logistics may not always allow camera traps to be placed all over, they can usually still be placed in abundance in the areas that allow it. We have learned far more about tiger society due to video and camera trap than we ever have learned from radio collars. Think about all the new tiger fathers we now have documented living with their family, hunting together, protecting their young etc. We wouldn't have learned that from a collar, only from visual proof. I am not saying that collars can't offer some good information, I am saying that camera traps and video can offer just as much with a far less invasive means of doing so and with out any tiger dying from unatural causes. While you may be willing to accept a few tiger deaths as long as science is involved, I am not. 1 tiger death or 100, its far to high of a price to pay.

  Reply