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
|
 (08-20-2015, 07:09 AM)Shardul Wrote: @Pckts I missed no point here, High mortality rates happen but its no coincidence that the highest density of tigers also has the highest mortality rate. Space creates escape route and territories for big cats, simple as that. The indian gov't makes millions and millions from big cat/safari tourism. " Then, the Indian government decided to ban tourists from the central parts of more than 40 tiger reserves in response to allegations that some Indian states had permitted the construction of hotels and shops inside the reserves. Conservationists feared that removing tourists from parks would leave the animals more at risk of poaching and their environment more at risk from loggers. “Today, as these figures conclusively prove, this industry is providing the invaluable economic imperative, the myriad of local jobs, and the millions of passionate advocates for the parks that still harbour the greatest densities of tigers in India,” he said. Nature tourism is a fast-growing industry, Mr Matthews contends, with wild heritage tours increasing by up to 25 per cent each year in parts of India, with more than 3 million people a year taking part. He added that a study conducted by the charity in 2010 showed that a single tiger in a well-visited reserve is now worth an estimated $750,000 per year in tourism revenues. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destin...urism.html "These “over-loved” parks have the best habitats and the highest tiger densities. Corbett, the most visited park, still has the highest number of tigers in India (according to the NTCA’s 2008 census). Bandavgarh has the heaviest densities of tigers in its main tourism zone, with five breeding females and 14 cubs, and it receives 45,000 visitors a year. " "Travel Operators for Tigers (TOFT) estimated that one Ranthambhore tigress generated some $130 million (£90m) in direct tourism revenue in the 10 years of her adult life. Take this away, and the forests will again have no economic value to those living nearby or to local politicians – and they will be sacrificed to farming, mining, industry or logging, as is happening in most unloved forests. " "Tourism makes forest personnel highly accountable and generates millions of dollars for conservation. Tiger tourism has the best anti-poaching units, operating vehicles with keen guides eight hours a day. On the borders of parks, tourism offers alternative livelihoods to hundreds, who might now resort to marginal farming, illegal logging, poaching and cattle grazing. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/safari...e-for.html Poaching is absolutely not even close to the biggest threat to tigers in the wild. Deforestation is so far past it as a threat, its not even close. Poaching is simply a bi product from logging and deforestation, human encroachment etc. No forest, no were to hide, easier to track etc. "With 700,000- 850,000 hectares being destroyed each year, thousands of different species are becoming increasingly threatened. The Sumatran tiger, a critically endangered species, is just one animal feeling the heat from a loss of habitat and all of the negative effects that come with it. When rainforests are cleared, it becomes increasingly easier for poachers to track and kill tigers, which are considered prized trophies for any hunters." http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsand...indonesia/ http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation Threats to Tigers As climate change continues to warm the planet, tigers are feeling the heat. As we see ocean levels rise, tigers are losing habitat due to costal erosion in areas like India's Sundarban islands. As rising sea levels claim more habitat and sea water moves up river, naturally fresh water is becoming more saline, or more highly concentrated with salt. These factors are forcing the tigers to move northward towards areas more heavily populated by humans and increasing the likelihood of animal/human conflicts. Tigers are also facing many other threats. They are illegally killed or poached because their pelts are valuable in the black market trade, their body parts are used in traditional Asian medicines and they are seen as threats to human communities. There is also large scale habitat loss due to human population growth and expansion. Human encroachment into tiger habitat also decreases prey animals. Reasons for Hope Despite losing around 93% of their historical habitat and dwindling numbers, a recent study shows that tigers in the India sub-continent retain much of their genetic viability. These genes are critically important to the recovery and survival of tigers and this is giving the Indian government even more incentive to preserve this magnificent animal. http://www.defenders.org/tiger/threats Tigers already live on top of human beings. There isn't a camera trap you can post where you don't see humans in the same area that you see tigers, or at least not most I have seen. Its amazing how forced out they are and its not getting better but worse. So don't say that I have "missed the point, as usual" when I have absolutely shown the proof of everything that is being discussed. Only one person here is "missing the point" and its certainly not me. 
@Pckts
Chill, dude. No need to get so worked up. I meant you missed the point of my reply, which was about prey and habitat. If tigers don't have prey, how are they able to live outside reserves for months before finding another habitat? And how many famished tigers have you seen? Even broken tail was in a very good condition, being in Rajasthan which doesn't have much forest cover. And please don't bring Sunderbans here, since they are isolated from mainland and don't have prey in abundance even though the area is largest mangrove delta in the world today with little human interference. Sorry, you have not shown me any proof. All you have done is provide a bunch of links from telegraph claiming that some indian reserves are worth so and so dollars, not telling where they got the data from and who gets the money. The only money forest dept gets from tourists is park entrance fees. The expensive hotels and resorts surrounding the reserves are the ones raking in profit, not the forest dept and certainly not the villagers. There is a limited number of vehicles allowed inside the forest, which means even if there are more tourists visiting, its not going to translate into more revenue. And this is about the 'star' reserves. The forest dept has to take care of its hundreds of rangers, other support staff, their salaries and accomodation and anti poaching equipment and patrols. The indian govt has to take care of 48 such tiger reserves and only a handful of them make any money. In the end they spend more than they earn. And seeing the amount of rubbish posted by western media and NGOs, I am not going to believe any source other than the official Indian government document. Show me a .gov.in link stating the revenue earned is greater than that spent and I'll believe you. One of the links you posted itself lists poaching as a threat and same about deforestation, not which is greater. And if poaching wasn't the biggest threat, then all the tiger reserves should be carrying tigers to their full capacity. You keep bringing up Kaziranga. Then tell me why does Kaziranga have so many more tigers, rhinos and elephants than the three times bigger Manas? After all, tigers have so much more space in Manas, no? Also, why are you bringing sumatran tigers here? My point was about India, not Sumatra.
Ok, it sounded like you were attacking.
My links have specific quotations attached and the entire articles are there for your reading. You can see where the #s are received from and how they got them. They aren't hard to find, you can look all over and find mass information regarding any of it. I absolutely agree with this "The only money forest dept gets from tourists is park entrance fees" But that is not what was said, you said Indian Gov't. Which is why these parks are so underfunded, the large revenue they generate never gets redistributed to the parks until everybody else takes their share. But they certainly generate massive revenue, but they will never generate the type of revenue commercial buildings will but they need to be protected far more than the importance of sky scrapers that will be half vacant and huge homes that steal all the natural resources. "There is a limited number of vehicles allowed inside the forest, which means even if there are more tourists visiting, its not going to translate into more revenue." That is the alleged case, but Ranth, Kahna, Tadoba and tons of others allow "VIP" jeeps to be there on the premise. There are tons of images especially in the Ustaad thread where you can see them pictured with the photographers specifically stating how bad it is. "One of the links you posted itself lists poaching as a threat and same about deforestation, not which is greater. And if poaching wasn't the biggest threat, then all the tiger reserves should be carrying tigers to their full capacity. You keep bringing up Kaziranga. Then tell me why does Kaziranga have so many more tigers, rhinos and elephants than the three times bigger Manas?" Poaching is a huge problem, but it doesn't come close to the world wide threat that deforestation does. Sumatra is shown as a prime example of what deforestation has done. For palm oil, coffee and other non sense. Check out the green peace photos on it, they bike around the entire area getting overhead shots showing you how horrible it is. Kaziranga is a protected park inside of Assam, Im not sure how many tigers Manas has, but protected areas are obviously going to hold better numbers than others. Corbett is a protected area and has the highest tiger population in the world I believe, not sure about their elephant population, but Im sure its more as well, they don't come close to the number of tigers per sq. mile that Kazi has though. Nobody is saying poaching isn't a serious problem, unchecked it will decimate any creature, but its a small problem compared to the loss of habitat. You are talking about implications of mass extinction for all creatures, including human beings. Climate change, radiation increase, oxygen depletion, tide raising devastation etc. Poaching is a by product, if we protect forests we protect the animals in side of them. Why wouldn't a logger kill a big cat or other rare animal if he knew he was going to get more money on the side? Both are horrible, I certainly would never disagree with that.
@Pckts
Let us agree to disagree with respect to poaching vis a vis deforestation. Also, my opinion is only about India, not the rest of the world. Regarding revenue, It doesn't matter if I say forest department or Indian govt, since the forest dept is an arm of the Indian govt. I am not going to read those links. Like I said previously, only way I will change my opinion is if someone provides me with a link to the government revenue figures from tiger reserves and its expenditure on tiger conservation. I'll treat the rest as bogus. "Kaziranga is a protected park inside of Assam, Im not sure how many tigers Manas has, but protected areas are obviously going to hold better numbers than others. Corbett is a protected area and has the highest tiger population in the world I believe, not sure about their elephant population, but Im sure its more as well, they don't come close to the number of tigers per sq. mile that Kazi has though." Ok, now I need to explain you how protected areas are defined in India. 1) Tiger Reserves - Highest protection and maximum funding. They are the only areas to have the concept of core and buffer zones. No human activity in core, some activity allowed in buffer. 2) National parks - Intermediate protection- No human activity allowed 3) Wildlife Sanctuaries- Intermediate protection - some human activity allowed 4) Reserved Forest - low protection - some human activity may be allowed 5) Revenue forest- no protection - maybe used for timber felling Then you have elephant reserves, biosphere reserves which are somewhat similar to sanctuaries but I am not going to discuss them. I will focus on tiger reserves. Under the Project Tiger, several key areas were identified for long term protection. They were called tiger reserves. These were formerly national park and wildlife sanctuaries which held promise as far as tiger survival was concerned. They were combined with surrounding reserve forests to form tiger reserves. For eg, Kanha Tiger reserve = Kanha National Park + Resrved forests + Phen sanctuary Corbett Tiger reserve = Corbett National Park + Sonanadi Wildlife sanctuary + reserve forests There are now 48 tiger reserves in India, starting from an inital 9 in 1972. Kanha, Corbett, Kaziranga, Manas, Ranthambhore, Bandhavgarh, Kabini, Bandipur, Sariska, Panna, Satpura, Tadoba, Pench, Periyar and plenty of others. They are all tiger reserves and have the same level of protection on paper. But the difference is in the way these areas are managed. Each tiger reserve comes under a park management team headed by a Field Director. And its often the performance of the park authorities and a combination of other factors that decide how that particular tiger reserve performs. Manas and Kaziranga, both are tiger reserves (Kazi got it pretty recently actually) in Assam, but Kaziranga management has done an amazing job by their strict dealing with poachers. Manas on the other hand, has not fared well due to militants occupying it through the 2000s. Consequently, it lost all its rhinos and most of its tigers along with its world heritage status. It is now slowly recuperating. Manas is perhaps the most beautiful park in all of India, and has a tremendous potential for long term tiger and rhino conservation due to its size and habitat. But it wasn't given the same level of protection as Kaziranga and now there are barely any tigers surviving there. We don't even know if they are resident tigers or transient ones from the Bhutan side. Same is the story of Simlipal and Srisailam. Both very large tiger reserves, 3000 km2 or more, but not many tigers. Panna and Sariska, also tiger reserves, lost all of their tigers to poachers. The biggest tragedy is that some of the largest tiger reserves in India are the least well managed, since they come under relatively poor Central & Eastern states. So there is habitat, but poaching has made it impossible for tigers to claim them. Effective protection is the need of the hour. Btw, you are wrong about Corbett. Not only has it got the largest tiger population in India, it also has the highest density per km2. Kazi comes a close second. When Project Tiger was initiated in 1972, India only had an estimated 1700 tigers left. Obviously, there was much more forest cover in India then, but that didn't save the tigers from being hunted to near extinction.
"Regarding revenue, It doesn't matter if I say forest department or Indian govt, since the forest dept is an arm of the Indian govt. I am not going to read those links. Like I said previously, only way I will change my opinion is if someone provides me with a link to the government revenue figures from tiger reserves and its expenditure on tiger conservation. I'll treat the rest as bogus."
The indian gov't is a massive operation, the forest department is one tiny part of it. The funding is dictated by the gov't, simple as that. Thats how it works, when you pay taxes, they don't go back to you, they are redistributed to fix other problems, where they are redistributed is suppose to be voted on, but thats not the case always. The gov't allocates how much funding any branch within itself gets. You refusing to actual read the links, the references used and the information given is on you. You can do the research and confirm or disprove any number you would like if you have the desire to do so. This is the National Tiger Conservation Authority (this is the direct indian gov't sector of tiger conservation) http://projecttiger.nic.in/content/37_1_...tives.aspx Here you can see how finances are dictating and distributed. "48. Economic Valuation of some tiger reserves initiated in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Forest Management." That is how the revenue of these tiger reserves are determined. They aren't just some meaningless numbers just because you refuse to believe them.  *This image is copyright of its original author https://tigernation.org/blog/tigers-up-n...-than-dead (I suggest you read that) That link specifically speaks about the successful reserves compared to the unsuccessful and it specifically talks about the need for tourism and protection for the tigers to survive in those places. "Today, as these figures conclusively prove, nature tourism is providing much of the invaluable economic imperative, the majority of local jobs, and the millions of passionate advocates for the parks that still harbour the greatest densities of tigers in India." Next point "So there is habitat, but poaching has made it impossible for tigers to claim them. Effective protection is the need of the hour." I absolutely agree here, its sad that Tigers need protection by us from us, but that is the way it is. But habitat loss is the largest destroyer of any species. Tigers included, "There are more tigers in India, but disturbing news hangs over reports of rebounding numbers: It comes at a time when conservation is under serious attack and poaching remains a pervasive threat. The country was at a similar juncture a few decades back. In 1971, only 1,800 tigers remained. Two years later, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi launched “Project Tiger” which remains the world’s most comprehensive tiger conservation initiative. At the time of her assassination in 1984, tiger numbers topped 4,000. “Tigers flourished beyond our wildest dreams,” said Wright. But then, during the 1990s, tigers vanished from across the Indian subcontinent in alarming numbers. The seizure of 2,200 pounds of tiger bone (from about 80 tigers) in Delhi in August 1993 made it obvious what was happening: Poaching for the Chinese medicinal trade (that used tigers parts as prime ingredients) had hit the subcontinent. But it was worse than that. This hunting bonanza coincided with a period of unbridled development after Indira’s son, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was voted out of office in 1991. “The plunder of India’s forests was in full swing,” remembers Valmik Thapar, one of the country’s premier tiger experts. “Laws, or no laws…it was all about greed.” Forests were razed, degraded and submerged beneath dam floodwaters, pillaged by mining projects and converted for industry and agriculture. Over the past two decades, the country lost a quarter of its wild lands."  *This image is copyright of its original author Coal mine in the heart of the Central Indian Tiger Landscape, near Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve. (Photograph by Sharon Guynup) http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/201...nary-tale/ Now this: "Btw, you are wrong about Corbett. Not only has it got the largest tiger population in India, it also has the highest density per km2. Kazi comes a close second." “The population has also stabilised in the Sunderbans with 76 tiger estimated,” said Jhala said. He added that the highest tiger density was found in Uttarakhand’S Corbett National Park in and Assam’s Kaziranga National Park." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news...08706.aspx We don't know which is larger but either way, in 2010 when tiger density was highest in Kaziranga, they also had the highest death rate from infighting. Since I have seen no such study for corbett since its density has grown to rival Kazi, I don't know what their infighting death % is. But i would guess that it would rival Kazi as well. Which of course is more proof that Tigers need more land as oppose to more #s. The land needs to be protected even if it isn't a easy tourism zone, the gov't needs to offer far more benefits to those areas than the ones that are booming with tourism.
First, You completely ignored the vast majority of my post. I explained you the difference between 'Protected areas' and unprotected areas of India, which was important for this discussion. You said Kaziranga was a 'protected area' and Manas wasn't, which was completely wrong. In this sense the definition is important.
Secondly, the Project tiger link that you provided isn't opening. "That link specifically speaks about the successful reserves compared to the unsuccessful and it specifically talks about the need for tourism and protection for the tigers to survive in those places." And where did I claim that tourism isn't needed? My whole post was about the need for effective protection. "But then, during the 1990s, tigers vanished from across the Indian subcontinent in alarming numbers. The seizure of 2,200 pounds of tiger bone (from about 80 tigers) in Delhi in August 1993 made it obvious what was happening: Poaching for the Chinese medicinal trade (that used tigers parts as prime ingredients) had hit the subcontinent. But it was worse than that. This hunting bonanza coincided with a period of unbridled development after Indira’s son, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was voted out of office in 1991. “The plunder of India’s forests was in full swing,” remembers Valmik Thapar, one of the country’s premier tiger experts. “Laws, or no laws…it was all about greed.” Forests were razed, degraded and submerged beneath dam floodwaters, pillaged by mining projects and converted for industry and agriculture. Over the past two decades, the country lost a quarter of its wild lands." How is this even contesting what I am saying? Where did I claim that habitat destruction wasn't a threat? All I am saying is that poaching is a more immediate one (which your quote above corroborates) while habitat destruction a more long term. That's why I gave you the example of Manas and Simlipal and other unprotected 'protected areas', tiger habitats devoid of tigers. My point was simple- tigers will die long before their habitat is completely destroyed, if they aren't given proper protection. That in no way implies that habitat isn't being destroyed. You didn't anwser my question- Manas has more space than kazi, why doesn't it have more tigers then? Russia has even more space, why does it only have 400 tigers? What drove the siberian tiger to the brink of extinction? Why were wolves pushed to near extinction in the US? Was it because their habitat was destroyed or because they were hunted incessantly? Ideally, we would want to protect tigers and their habitat in equal measure, but we don't live in an ideal world. The immediate concerns always take priority. And Why won't I read those articles? Simple. I have been reading them ever since I was a kid. I have read them before and I am not going to read them again. These appeared regularly in Indian media, far before the western media and long before the dawn of the internet. In the era of print media. When the quality of reporting was better. There are some good India based environmental media outlets, like the down to earth and sanctuary asia magazines. You should check them out if you want to learn more about issues facing nature and wildlife in India. My last post on this topic.
Project Tiger Link
http://projecttiger.nic.in/ "You didn't anwser my question- Manas has more space than kazi, why doesn't it have more tigers then? Russia has even more space, why does it only have 400 tigers? What drove the siberian tiger to the brink of extinction?" Once again, you don't know the tiger #'s in Manas, do you? 2ndly, what does that have to do with anything, what point are you trying to make? Kazi has a shoot on site rule, more guards, more visitors and more tigers. Hence what the entire articles are about, more tigers = more money. Doesn't mean they have enough space. Russia has tons of space and it also has massive deforestation. Space doesn't mean cover, just means parcels of land. Amurs also cover far more territory than bengals, they live completely different types of lives in completely different habitats. They are the perfect example of what deforestation has done to them. I follow sanctuary asia, I love their page. Here are a couple of articles about whats going on in India right now with coal mining and deforestation that were posted on Sanctuary asia "Maharashtra: Tadoba tiger reserve faces coal mine threat" In what will be seen as a setback for another critical tiger corridor in the country, the environment ministry's forest advisory committee has recommended clearance for the extension of the Durgapur open cast mine, run by Western Coalfields, near the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR) in Chandrapur, Maharashtra. The Tadoba national park is Maharashtra's oldest and biggest national park. The ministry's decision is significant as, just this May, a study carried out by the Wildlife Conservation Trust revealed that 48 tigers inhabited forests outside of the protected areas in Chandrapur district. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mah...at-2119970 "India: No country for wild tigers? " http://www.theguardian.com/environment/i...ild-tigers Both of these are posted at Sanctuary Asias page and show exactly what deforestation, man made roads and financial greed are doing to the jungles and its inhabitants. "How is this even contesting what I am saying? Where did I claim that habitat destruction wasn't a threat? All I am saying is that poaching is a more immediate one (which your quote above corroborates) while habitat destruction a more long term." That is where I disagree, I think the more immediate threat is deforestation. Poaching is a by product of it, not the other way around. Deforestation is the head of the snake, its what needs to be "chopped off." "Why were wolves pushed to near extinction in the US? Was it because their habitat was destroyed or because they were hunted incessantly?" Both, but why do they take to killing livestock, considered pests and hunted that way? Because they are intruded on, forest are destroyed, prey #s decreased, etc. You can take any animals #s and say this, but the end of the day, it will always come down to territory. We both want to protect tigers obviously, I have made my points, you yours. At least we are passionate about our ideas of protection and that can't be a bad thing. Regards,  (08-18-2015, 11:37 PM)Pckts Wrote: 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. I always dreamt of a tiger corridor linking tigers from Nepal to Rajasthan to the southern tip of Malaysia , if we can achieve this and keep up the efforts in Russia and Sumatra then the tigers stand a good chance. The sad reality is that we lost balica, sondaica, virgata, and amoyensis...and we could lose corbetti soon and possibly jacksoni...only Bengal tigers in the best protected reserves and the tigers in the desolate Russian Far East look secure for now. (10-24-2015, 12:08 AM)Dr Panthera Wrote:(08-18-2015, 11:37 PM)Pckts Wrote: 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. I like to think that humans are evolving to understand the need for protected, unmolested Forrest, obviously it is taking a very, very long time for all humans to get behind this idea, but change doesn't happen over night. I just hope that when/IF all humans finally get behind this idea, it isn't too late. 
Presently the amount of land area in India, designated as Tiger Reserve (or its buffer) is some 71,000 km²s, to be expanded to 75k by 2020 if all the proposed ones are cleared of red-tapes in time & ongoing paperwork goes smoothly.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |