WildFact
›
Nature & Conservation
›
Projects, Protected areas & Issues
Indian wildlife sanctuary, information data and its condition
Indian wildlife sanctuary, information data and its condition
|
Indian wildlife sanctuary, information data and its condition
|
The real story behind the growth of India's Wildlife Sanctuaries
Take a look at the table below that shows Indian states which have reported an increase in the number of wildlife sanctuaries but a reduction in the total area covered by them (from 2006 to 2014). Thanks to my friend Raval Haresh for this information  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Below is the source: http://www.rediff.com/news/report/rediff...150602.htm its an alarm for indian wildlife sanctuaries 
This is disturbing, and still the Indian government insist that the tigers in the country are growing in numbers!!! Is like Dr Chundawat said: the government think that there are many tigers, but there is simply not enough space, so where are those tigers? Is like if they were living in buildings, not in a jungle.
 (07-17-2015, 08:34 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: This is disturbing, and still the Indian government insist that the tigers in the country are growing in numbers!!! Is like Dr Chundawat said: the government think that there are many tigers, but there is simply not enough space, so where are those tigers? Is like if they were living in buildings, not in a jungle. Actually there is enough space for wild animals in India .India's forest cover 21% of geographical area.From that 21%, only 10% area reserved for Tigers.In past Tigers are ruled length and breath of India, in two decades they will occupy 30% of India's jungles.(I guess) http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/india-s-forest-cover-21-percent-of-geographical-area-115080601647_1.html Edit  ut of 7,00,000 km2 forest only 70,000 km2 allocated to tigers reserves.
@
Numbers alone can be tricky, the areas need to be secure and protected. According with the numbers that you posted, we can put wild animals in any part of those "thousands" of kilometers, but the REAL issue is that there is not space for them, as those areas are no longer "wild". Check this map:  *This image is copyright of its original author Only the red areas have "known" tiger populations, which are ridiculous small, and besides, you most take in count the densities of each area. For example, there are more tigers in one small red dot in India than in the large red patch in Sumatra. The yellow areas are proposed for tiger conservation and represent possible areas for reintroduction, but it need a real work in order to be prepared to have wild animal populations. Still, this yellow areas are even less than 20% of the Indian territory. IF India want to save them tigers, they need to make a real compromise to save them AND its habitat. In this side, Russia and Nepal are making a better work. 
Not only do large protected areas need to be available but corridors must be kept protected to make sure genetic bottle necking doesn't occur as well.
Deforestation is happening all over the world, all habitats and animals will suffer from this. Same with roads that travel through dense forest that will contribute to the growing death tolls occurring via road kills. http://www.asiannature.org/sites/default...20JoTT.pdf (08-18-2015, 11:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @ Thanks for your replay.That Map is total fake I mean Burma/Thailand/Viet hardly had 60 tigers showing huge Red areas where as 2226 Indians tigers showing small Red dots here and there. OK I'm not expert in this matter but I put Ullas karanth (Tiger expert) opinion. http://www.livemint.com/Politics/h1N9LL6...as-Ka.html The tiger numbers have recovered in parts of India where economic growth, wages are higher and transition to more urbanized life is well underway. Most of India’s larger tiger populations are here because of relatively effective protection against illegal hunting of tigers and prey. In contrast, even in more extensive forests of the tribal belts in Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and northeastern hill states, tiger populations have dwindled, largely because of uncontrolled hunting of prey species. India still has 200,000 sq. km of potential tiger habitat left, and less than 25% of this area is currently reasonably well-protected. India can potentially hold 10,000 tigers This is actual India's forest Map  *This image is copyright of its original author Do you know almost 20% India's land is not in India's (govt) control.Indians don't know what is happening there.It is controlled by Maoists/Communists/Naxals.You can see entire Dense forest in center-eastern side of India which is Ullas karanth mentioned is in Naxal's control.Naxals&Tribals hunted entire prey there so tiger population is nill.Once govt control the land then they will re introduces prey species from rest of country then TIGERS will follow,then India can hold not 2,000 but 20,000 tigers without any problem. Naxals attacks/causalities/recruitment is gradually decreasing every year, those yellow areas in your map once again occupied by wild tigers by another 3 or 4 years. Even in 2015 these fu**** Communists exists in democratic India,thanks to China.Anyway another 3/4 years everything will be alright. PS Sorry for Bold&Capitals,they are necessary.We all know tigers are heavy breeders and their mortality rate is high.In controlled habituates mortality is low tigers population will grow rapidly.
The tiger numbers have definitely recovered in some parts but the problem is that where they are recovering is overcrowded and their corridors are heavily poached and unprotected as well as the ever growing population that will continue to demand more land.
I have been reading many unhappy residents in regards to the prime ministers actions as of late "Urging hon'ble Mr. Prime Minister to please re-consider the proposal to widen highway NH7 that cuts through the critical Pench and Kanha tiger reserve corridor - the last in Central India - and consider the alternative routes recommended, with the option for the Prime Minister even calling on the nation's nature defenders to fund the additional cost of the road diversion. Thanking you, sir." http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/n...t-frontier  (08-19-2015, 01:09 AM)jeets Wrote:(08-18-2015, 11:25 PM)GuateGojira Wrote: @ Absolutely agree with you. It's amazing that a country that supports 70% of the world's tigers despite having a 1.2 billion strong population gets so much flak. And countries with barely 200 tigers are supposed to be role models. People are largely ignorant regarding the wildlife situation in India. They look at Ranthambhore and Bandhavgarh and assume that's the case for the whole of India. Central and eastern India have some huge swathes of forest. When I travelled by road from Nagpur to Jabalpur (on the way to Kanha), I was amazed to see miles after miles of dense forest with not a person in sight. India's forest network extends much beyond protected areas. If Dr. Karanth says India can support 10,000 tigers, I have no reason to doubt him. Regarding prey base, ever wondered how Kaziranga with only 1000 km2 supports 100 tigers and 2000 rhinos? And Corbett with more than 200 tigers and 1000 elephants in 2000 km2? The amount of space a tiger needs is completely dependent on the prey density. And India has it more than any other tiger range country. In fact, even outside protected areas, India has huge number of nilgai, wild boar and the biggest population of feral cattle in the world. Thats why dispersing tigers don't have problem finding food to support themselves. Some Indian states are even considering issuing hunting permits for Nilgai and wild boar since their population is so large that it threatens farmlands. The problem is that very little research is being done on tigers outside reserves, where and how they travel. More areas are being added to the protected network as the tiger population disperses out of reserves. Of course, in some areas, more could be done but the situation is definitely not as bad as it is made out to be.
Kaziranga also has the highest mortality rate of tiger death's due to infighting, showing that they need more space.
But I agree that India can absolutely support more tigers, but what does that mean? It means they need to make more protected forests but if they do that then they cannot build industrial buildings and communities to support the ever growing population. They have already seen the success of creating protected wild life reserves and the money contributed by them, but if they thought they could make more money from reserves over industrial growth, then it would of already happened. But the trend is going the other way, there are far less animals now than ever before, less forest now than before, more people now than ever etc. Because there is land to the naked eye, it may not all be Tiger terrain. Some may be more suited to other creatures, I assume tigers need specific type of terrain and prey. If Nilgai and Wild Boar populations are out of control and eating farm land, that means they are "intruding" on human made habitat and that certainly would not be safe for tiger population growth nor is a good gauge on whether that area could support tigers.
@Pckts
As usual, you missed the point. Any area with a healthy carnivore population will have high mortality rates. Mortality rates are high among african lions as well. Doesn't mean they don't have space. If an area can support 100 tigers, it will only have 100, you won't be able to cram 200 inside it. Also, Indian government doesn't make anything out of tiger tourism, it has to invest far more money in tiger conservation. My other point was about dispersing tigers needing prey before they manage to find a forest patch they can own. Tigers travel through farmlands and villages in search of territory, they don't make it their permanent home. It might take them months before they can find a suitable habitat, hence its important that they find enough prey to sustain themselves during that time. Poaching is the biggest threat to tigers currently. They have prey, they have habitat, but what they lack is protection outside the reserves.
@Pckts is right, there is not plenty of prey out there (apart from the domestic cattle) and believe it or not, poaching is not the greatest problem, is habitat loss and lack of prey. That has been the first problem, even Dr Karanth states that if the tiger populations were enough large, there will be possible for them to sustain some looses caused by poaching, but sadly there is not a single tiger population in India with at least 200 breeding adults. Sunquist et al. (1999) states also that it was the kill of the prey and the destruction of the habitat what really killed the Caspian and the Javanese tigers. Poaching is a terrible problem that most be eradicated, but the poaching of the tiger's prey can be even more deadlier for them.
The territory of a tiger depends of the prey density, that is true, but it also have an absolute number when no more tiger can live in an area. During the studies in Chitwan, there were no cases of man-eaters and intra-especific fights were uncommon until the beginning of the 80's. It seems that in that moment, the space available in the park was full, and the young ones could not manage to live there anymore. Fights arouse and the injured and/or old became in man-eaters. Dr Chundawat stated the same problem in Panna, when the low prey base don't allowed more tigers in the area. Kaziranga, despite its high prey density, is suffering this same problem right now, because tigers have a lower limit about how small a territory can be. Other thing, who have told you that a dispersing tiger can travel safely trough India? This country is heavily populated and is practically no corner that is not populated by a human settlement, even the national "parks" and "reserves" suffer this. The case of most of the young tigers that travel outside of the parks and reserves is that are killed by poachers, by the same villagers or simple starve to death. @"Jett" the map that I posted is not fake, you don't even read what I explained before. Those red dots indicate known tiger populations and the entire area are parks or reserves. What I clearly explained was also that those red dots don't explain the DENSITY of each one, so one little red dot in India can have more tigers than the large dots in Burma and Sumatra, for example. Also, there are large areas of forest in India, but they are empty now, a similar case is seen in Cambodia and Laos, where large forest areas are empty of any animal, caused by the human conflicts in the area. Also, you have misunderstood the words of Dr Karanth. He say that the tiger recovery is possible, but like the says in his book "The Way of the tiger", that "potential habitat" areas most be prepared for tigers first. It most have plenty of wild prey and few humans as possible, only in that way there will be possible to breed tigers. But face it, there are very few areas in India with those characteristics. Can India support 10,000 tigers? Possible, but first those thousands of kilometers of forest most be ideal for tigers, if not, there will be another loss. Pckts show it very well with the problem of the roads, even in the well protected areas like the Western Ghats landscape, were Dr Karanth work. About the problems with the nilgai and the wild boar, is like Pckts say, those are animals that learned to live near human settlements, but if a tiger go there in order to hunt them, the sure thing is that it will enter in conflict with the humans sooner or late, and like Dr Karanth say in an article of 2014: the tiger will be the sure looser in this fight. If the situation of the forest of India were so "good" like you describe, don't you think that the table posted by Sanjay (in the first post of this topic) would not exist? In that case, tiger protectors like Belinda Wright, Valmik Thapar, Ullas Karanth and many other, will not be fighting for the few space available that is still capable of having tigers. Instead of national "pride", we most have a more holistic point of view, about what is the reality of the forests and what solutions can be made. (08-20-2015, 08:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @"Jett" the map that I posted is not fake, you don't even read what I explained before. Those red dots indicate known tiger populations and the entire area are parks or reserves. What I clearly explained was also that those red dots don't explain the DENSITY of each one, so one little red dot in India can have more tigers than the large dots in Burma and Sumatra, for example. Also, there are large areas of forest in India, but they are empty now, a similar case is seen in Cambodia and Laos, where large forest areas are empty of any animal, caused by the human conflicts in the area. I read it clearly but why they show red dots for India (2226) but patches in case of 60 tigers in thai/burma/viet etc.It is totally unacceptable for me.Why can't they show same dots for other areas too. 2.Again,Chital,Nilgai&Wild boar's are nothing but PEST.Villagers/farmers hate these animals more than Lions/leopards/tigers.They breed like PIGS.I hate hunting (animals) but these animals must be culled or Tigers/leopards are must to control them. India from million-um has 60-70% wild Tigers/Asian elephants/Leopards/Asian lions still SAME PERCENTAGE EXISTS in India and they will in future. But why 3.For that you must understand Indian psychology/culture , from past 200 years all cultures changed but Indians won't change much we tolerate animals that is why in every street corner you found dogs/pigs/goats/cows in India.And add Monkey/elephants/camels in some areas.This is the main reason when ever tigers/leopards come near humans they hunt or eat cows/dogs/pigs/goats etc so people know their presence and call the forest officials ...tranquilizers...soon. Now come to the connecting the dots. For example: Take Lions they are limited to gir forest 5,000 km2 slowly they regain now they occupied 20,000 km2 area,Same will happen to tigers slowly we connect these habituates with land passes. Yup I know tigers are not lions humans&Tigers won't tolerate each other but I mentioned already 'coz of culture they will survive.Even after killing/eating humans no Indian ever said kill tigers(some exceptions are there) Conclusion:Tigers are independent&intelligent animals and they survive roads/trains etc etc (1-2% may die or collateral damage) but most important thing is we must maintain their PREY.The prey are Chital,Nilgai&wild boar are considered as Pest (08-20-2015, 08:39 AM)GuateGojira Wrote: @Pckts is right, there is not plenty of prey out there (apart from the domestic cattle) and believe it or not, poaching is not the greatest problem, is habitat loss and lack of prey. That has been the first problem, even Dr Karanth states that if the tiger populations were enough large, there will be possible for them to sustain some looses caused by poaching, but sadly there is not a single tiger population in India with at least 200 breeding adults. Sunquist et al. (1999) states also that it was the kill of the prey and the destruction of the habitat what really killed the Caspian and the Javanese tigers. Poaching is a terrible problem that most be eradicated, but the poaching of the tiger's prey can be even more deadlier for them. It's not about national pride @GuateGojira, otherwise I wouldn't have spoken about poaching. It's about lack of knowledge regarding the ground situation in India. You cannot judge a country's efforts without understanding it's problems. Russia with the second largest land area in the world and a miniscule population should have a 100,000 tigers. But it doesn't. In fact, it only has 400. OTOH, India is the opposite. With a huge population, a lot of which is poor, and a relatively smaller area, it shouldn't hold any wildlife. But it does. Most of Asia has lost its wildlife, but not India. All other Asian nations are in a better position to conserve their animals than India, but they don't. India still holds the largest population of tigers, elephants, rhinos, gaurs, deers, birds, the only population of the Asian lion and numerous other creatures. No other country would displace people from their homes to make space for tigers, but India. India has more lions than Russia has tigers. And you are telling me that India should learn from Russia? Those conservationists you are talking about are only speaking because they know India is the only country that has demonstrated the will to protect its wildlife, and has a history of doing so, often at the cost of people. Any other country in India's place would have let go of its wildlife long time back. Why don't conservationists speak about China? Because they know China doesn't give a damn. You have no idea how many human wildlife conflicts happen all around India. Most of it isn't even reported. Yet, the Indian people show a lot of restraint and don't go around killing animals in retaliation. But you only hear about the ones where people do retaliate. Elephants go on a rampage killing people, destroying their homes, their crops, yet the people don't kill them. They just try to shoo them away. Tigers like T-24 are given the longest rope possible. In any other country, he would have been shot a long time ago. Now, your point regarding empty forests. It's true in some areas, especially the Naxal infested ones, but not all. The thing is, India is not homogenous. Some areas are very well managed, some are poor. That map looks fake. And true data regarding Indian forests is only available with the forest department, because they are the ones who have access to all areas. But one thing is for sure, lack of prey is not the biggest threat to the tiger's survival, nor is habitat destruction. They might be long term concerns, but definitely not immediate, that is poaching. Till recently, most of India's reserves were not carrying tigers to their full capacity because of poaching. Once a reserve reaches its carrying capacity, the extra animals disperse, trying to find new homes. Now with increased protection, we have seen tigers travelling to places using routes no one expected them to. But once they move out of the reserve, they have no protection. They are ripe targets for poachers, who happen to be very smart people that have a deep knowledge of the forests and animal behaviour. As you said, a large enough population can sustain some poaching losses. but how will the population become large if poaching isn't contained? 
@Shardul makes a good point on how people coexist better than the rest of the world with wildlife in India. For example, in the USA, I don't expect to see any bears in my backyard. If we did, the government would remove it, not us. India, at least in some occasions, has done the opposite.
The issues presented by all parties in this discussion are pertinent to the topic. Though, I must ask. How is corporate culture coming along in India? Wherever that goes, bad results follow for the wildlife. We're on the outside looking in, thus those inside would have a much better grasp of the situation.
@tigerluver
I assume by corporate culture you mean industrialization. I am not really sure if its going to be as bad as it sounds. When India became independent, the biggest priority was preventing the frequent famines and malnutrition among the population. The Indian leaders aimed at making India self sufficient in food grain & milk production. This gave birth to India's agrarian economy. A lot of forests were cut to make way for farmland. Till the 1980s, 70% of India's GDP came from agriculture. India has the largest amount of arable land in the world, I think, which has also played a part. With liberalization kicking in, we are moving towards industrialization with a shift away from agriculture. If that means more and more people abandoning agriculture as their primary source of income, then the abandoned land could be reclaimed for afforestation. People who live around tiger reserves depend totally on farming. If Industrialization gives them better jobs, then they have no reason to live there and can move to cities for a better life. I am sure they don't like to live the way they do, living on minimal resources. The bad effects of industrialization are pollution of environment and exploitation of natural resources. So we have the pros and the cons. Interestingly, the space created by villages that were moved out of Kanha core in 1970s, were never reclaimed by the forest. Even after 4 decades they are still grasslands. On the positive side, we can see herds of deer and gaur grazing since grasslands tend to support a higher density of herbivores. Plus, it makes tiger viewing easier :) |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |