Send tigers for Sariska: Jairam to Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra

Hindustan Times, 15 July, 2010

Conceding that the tigers of Ranthambhore may not be able to ensure "genetic vigour" in the new population being raised in Sariska, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh has written to the chief ministers of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, requesting them for a few tigers for Sariska.

A Hindustan Times investigation (June 29, 2009) exposed how siblings were sent from Ranthambhore to repopulate Sariska and stressed that tigers be sourced from adjoining tiger reserves to avoid a genetic bottleneck. Following the report, the tiger relocation process was put on hold, a DNA analysis of Ranthambhore tigers was ordered and genetic tests eventually proved that the tigers sent to Sariska were indeed siblings.

However, the forest and the wildlife establishment had so far resisted the demand for sourcing tigers from outside Rajasthan. While some argued that the purity of Rajasthan tigers was at stake, others felt inter-state negotiations on shifting tigers would invariably hit roadblocks.

Not any more. In his letters sent earlier this week to chief ministers Ashok Chavan and Shivraj Singh, Ramesh wrote: “To bring in genetic vigour, we need a few wild-caught tigers (males as well as females) for Sariska from other adjoining states…I would very much appreciate if two straying males are provided at the outset To Rajasthan… A positive gesture from your end could go a long way in ensuring a viable gene pool for our wild tigers… ”

Welcoming the decision, conservationist Valmik Thapar said, "This is a highly positive move by the minister and we hope the states respond positively. We can also look at an exchange as the male that has so far failed to breed with his siblings in Sariska should now be sent to Panna (Madhya Pradesh) to give him a fair chance.”

Meanwhile, Sariska may get its fourth tiger much sooner if any of the three Ranthambhore tigers shortlisted for relocation is found to be genetically compatible. Authorities are keeping their fingers crossed as the DNA report of these tigers is expected from Bangalore-based National Centre for Biological Sciences this Friday. If the tests return negative, Ramesh, and Sariska, may have to wait for a favourable response from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

The Myth of Sunderbans Maneaters

Given the conflict in Sunderbans, it is time to look beyond the stock paradigm of habitat loss and a shrinking prey base

Bengal Post, 7 July, 2010

Restoring the creepy mangrove forests to their erstwhile impregnability, we are told, would stop tigers from straying. Allowing the prey base of the delta to bounce back to abundance, we are assured, would discipline the big cats to a wild-only diet. Till then, we have no option but to catch and throw every tiger we find back to forests (or zoos) and firefight conflict.

Sounds logical? But there are too many holes in this bucket.

Habitat and prey base restoration are two imperatives of conservation. But even if tigers are offered undisturbed wilderness in Sunderbans (an ecological impossibility, given the population density), some animals will still be walking out to the fringes. If people south of Canning suddenly give up fish and wild meat and each tiger gets a thousand choices every time it feels hungry, some will still target cattle for the ease of hunting.

We must understand that a wild animal does not stray – a verb popular with the media to describe forays outside forests. Animals move as purposefully as we do. So elephants walk long distance between forests and explore new areas when traditional routes are blocked. Tigers look for areas unoccupied by other tigers to mark individual territories, or simply set out looking for easy food, even following potential mates.

Wild animals are not supposed to follow the boundaries we draw to demarcate sanctuaries or national parks. One way of minimizing their movements is to connect pocket habitats into a vast landscape. But even the best managed mangrove tiger reserve in Sunderbans will always be hemmed by villages in the north and the west.

However, unlike what we are given to believe, carnivores do not prey on humans. Most attacks happen accidentally or in self-defence. Data (1984-2006) available from Bangladesh shows that of all the Sunderbans tigers that killed people, about 50 per cent killed only one person each. For a tiger population possibly in excess of 350, the number of repeated offenders was less than 4 a year, an insignificant 1 per cent of the lot.

Clearly, contrary to its unpopular image, even the lean, mean Sunderbans tiger does not consider us food. In 23 years between 1984 and 2006, tigers killed 490 people in Bangladesh. At an annual average of 21 casualties, it is far below the number of deaths caused by snake or dog bites. Even road accidents claim lives more frequently.

Significantly, the conflict has been less pronounced in our part of Sunderbans. Between 1994 and 2002, tigers entered villages this side of the border just 25 times, at an annual average of about 3 cases. But then, we panicked and started capturing any tiger spotted in and around habitations to dump them back where we thought they belonged or packed them to zoos. So the annual average of “tiger-straying” cases increased to 7 in the next 3 years. The number of human casualties came down initially but as we continued to capture and shuffle the tigers around, the conflict only worsened.

Removing an animal from its territory only allows the young of the species to fill in. During the capture, the animals confront menacing crowds and are often chased around. The traumatised animals are released in unfamiliar territory far away from the capture site. If you have ever tried to get rid of domestic cats by dropping them a few blocks away, you will know the futility of the exercise. Animals have strong homing tendencies and they invariably come back.

Now imagine stressed wild animals trying to home back, moving long distances through densely populated areas. There are records of a leopard travelling 100 km and an elephant trudging 180 km to return to their native territory. While the leopard killed six people and mauled 12 on her way, the bull killed one and injured two.


When an animal endangers human lives, it should be put to sleep. But we cannot keep shuffling animals in the pretext of perceived danger and, in the process, create conflict. A random sampling of my notes shows that Sunderbans tigers have been repeatedly sent from Jharkhali to Dhulibhasani, or from Gosaba to Netidhopani. Were they monitored for territorial conflict (given that some of these animals were males) or further displacement or homing records or abnormally aggressive behaviour?

Bangladesh forest department has not tried routinely shifting tigers but, surprisingly, recent data show that the western segment of Bangladeshi Sunderbans, including Talapati island bordering India, has recorded the maximum conflict. Last month, it was learnt that a tiger released close to the border had since moved into Bangladesh. We need to monitor the cumulative cross-border impact of translocation since we have released quite a few tigers in Katuajhuri forests and the Harinbhanga river next to the border.

Could it be possible that the frequently displaced tigers of Sunderbans are getting increasingly disturbed on both sides of the border due to our needless intervention? We do not yet know. Fortunately, the tigers of Sunderbans are now in the hands of a few very able scientists working on either side of the border. Hopefully, sound science and meticulous studies will soon be able to influence management more meaningfully.

Till then, let’s remember the basics. We cannot keep animals in the wild away from us, at least not in a country as crowded as ours. But we need not panic at the mere sight or presence of the wild since they are not looking for us. A certain degree of damage – crop raiding, livestock lifting or even occasional attacks on humans – is inevitable.

Knowing this, we are free to make the choice if we want wildlife around. The choice may not be equally obvious for a marginalised Sunderbans villager and a city wildlifer. Between them, all of us can join the jury. But we have no right to brand a species as maneater because we want to justify the gun.

Mazoomdaar is a conservation journalist and filmmaker

Slipping On The Ground

Without course correction, the village relocation drive may not secure our best tiger forests

The Times Of India, 1 July, 2010

I met Foranti at her sisters' wedding sometime ago. Nanha and Moti were getting married in a modest function around a few ramshackle tents Foranti called her parental home near Roshanpura village, about 20 km from Sawai Madhopur and possibly a few hundred yards inside Ranthambhore tiger reserve. Unlike other encroachers there, Foranti's six brothers did not decimate the dry forest vegetation. A hunting tribe, Moghiyas do not believe in farming. So amid bushes of thorny juliflora separating the makeshift kitchen from the 'reception area', the celebration was a riot of colours. Foranti posed for photographs with her husband Chotmal. She was proud he had come upon a windfall.

More recently, I met Foranti again. The proud eyes were hollow. She said her husband got a compensation package -- Rs 10 lakh -- for leaving Hindwar, one of many Ranthambhore villages being evacuated. He had demolished their Hindwar hutment and now wanted to marry his brother's widow who had also got the package. He beat Foranti because she refused to be dumped. Her last resort was to move court to stave off destitution. Foranti's is not the only case and gender not the only issue that threatens to backfire on the Centre's milestone initiative to free core tiger forests across the country from human disturbance through a voluntary relocation scheme.

The initiative is ambitious even on paper. Out of an estimated 65,000 families, so far, 40,000 have been identified for the scheme. At Rs 10 lakh per family, the budget has already touched Rs 4,000 crore; Rs 267 crore has been released to nine states.

Uprooting people is not easy, resettling them even more difficult. Little wonder only 3,000 families could be relocated since the inception of Project Tiger in 1973. So the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has enhanced the compensation package 10 times from Rs 1 lakh but it has no role in ground implementation. The success of this mega-initiative depends, to quote an NTCA guideline, "on performance by states".

But the early lessons are worrying. Under the Tenth Plan, beneficiaries could take Rs 10 lakh each and move out on their own, or take up to 30 per cent of the amount while the forest department used the rest for their rehabilitation. But some states offer only the cash option of Rs 10 lakh, which does not appeal to big landholders. In most revenue villages, the 70-80 per cent families moving out are mostly marginal landholders and together own just 30-40 per cent of the fields. So a lot of money is being spent to actually free very little land.

Even this may not be of any use to wildlife because the freed plots fall between the fields of those staying back. It is a matter of time before these plots are encroached by the latter.

A policy of equitable, rather than equal, compensation could avoid such traps. For example, the Madhya Pradesh forest department is using the central compensation funds as a common pool to settle the rights of families as per the actual value of their property. If there is any money left, it is distributed equally among beneficiaries or used for developing infrastructure at relocation sites. If there is a shortfall, the state finance department chips in.

Again, authorities are confused if unmarried girls above 18 are eligible for compensation, like their brothers. In Ranthambhore, only boys above 18 are getting the package in Sawai Man Singh sanctuary. In the same reserve's Kela Devi sanctuary, officials maintain the cut-off age is 21, and that both boys and girls are eligible.

Technically, the package is modelled on the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, which does not recognise the right of unmarried daughters for benefits. But the policy meant for project-affected people may not be appropriate for those relocating voluntarily. The latter are forfeiting their right over property through a deal. Since sons and daughters have equal inheritance rights, the consent of only the men in the family may not be legally tenable.

NTCA guidelines talk of 'handholding' after relocation through different agencies, but such assistance has been sought in few places so far. Forget skill development for alternative livelihood, families shifted from one village are unwittingly settling down in another that is also due for relocation.

Lack of transparency, however, is the most crucial factor dogging this scheme. In Ranthambhore, villagers have no access to the list of beneficiaries. In some villages, there are 25-40 per cent more beneficiaries than the tally on electoral rolls. While many allege outsiders are buying their way into the list, others complain bona fide claims are ignored.

I recently visited Hindwar, 25 km from Sawai Madhopur, a seemingly war-torn village where people neither discuss missing neighbours nor notice the demolished houses they left behind. But one abandoned structure was drawing a lot of attention. Madho Lal's three sons were rebuilding the house their two brothers tore down. After Hanuman and Rameshar took the compensation and left Hindwar, their brothers who were denied compensation because they had moved to Sawai Madhopur a few years ago, returned to stake claim to their ancestral property. Last heard, suspension of a forest guard who apparently failed to report the reconstruction has been revoked.

A Fund To Relocate Corbett's Gujjars

OPEN magazine, 26 June, 2010

OPEN IMPACT | During a visit to Corbett National Park last week, Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Environment and Forests (MoEF), announced that an allocation of Rs 25 crore was being made for relocation of 181 Gujjar families from the core areas of the tiger reserve “to reduce man-animal conflict”.

The decision comes four months after an Open investigation (Who’s Killing Corbett’s Tigers, February 13-19) into the mysterious deaths of four big cats in the tiger reserve highlighted the issue of man-animal conflict and sought speedy relocation and rehabilitation of the Gujjar families.

The Open report noted: “With the onset of summer every year, a number of Gujjars from up north move in with buffaloes to join their brethren inside the reserve and make the best use of the Ramganga reservoir. This summer is going to be particularly tough due to scanty rainfall last monsoon. The Corbett management is anticipating a strong influx. With these Gujjars, fresh herds of abandoned cows will also move in towards the Corbett core, lure more tigers and, in turn, trigger retribution. This potential crisis can be averted if the park management implements a longstanding plan for relocating Gujjar families outside Corbett.”

Referring to the 2005 Tiger Task Force report, the ministry said that an urgent and sensitive approach would be taken towards relocation. While 181 Gujjar families will be shifted outside the reserve in the initial round, an MoEF release last week said a total of around 400 Gujjar families would be relocated soon.

Proved: Siblings sent to mate in Sariska

State officials distort report, push for another blind selection

Hindustan Times, 22 June, 2010


Almost a year after the Hindustan Times expose (Rajasthan govt sent tiger siblings to repopulate Sariska, June 29, 2009), a National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) report has finally admitted that DNA tests conducted by Bangalore-based National Centre of Biological Sciences (NCBS) found the big cats to be siblings.

The HT investigation exposed how, between June 2008 and February 2009, two sisters and their half-brother were picked up arbitrarily from Ranthambore and sent to Sariska. Siblings often find it difficult to breed and when they do, it leads to acute inbreeding depression. In spite of regular mating, the Sariska tigers have so far failed to breed.

This January, the NTCA ordered DNA tests on tigers of Ranthambore and Sariska, to ascertain breeding compatibility before shifting any more of them and commissioned a field study by Aparajita Datta, member, NTCA, and AJT Johnsingh, former professor, Wildlife Institute of India.

Referring to the Hindustan Times investigation in their report submitted earlier this month, Datta and Johnsingh observed: "The media report is correct in saying the genetic analysis should have been conducted prior translocation to assess the relatedness of the animals when establishing a new population."

The report further noted: "From the three scat samples meant to be of the three different individual tigers now in Sariska…male and female have been found to be highly related suggesting that they are…siblings."

Rajasthan forest department has all along claimed that the two Sariska tigresses were half-siblings born to the same mother but the male tiger sent to Sariska was unrelated to them.

Meanwhile, though NCBS received scat sample for DNA tests from Ranthambhore only last week, the NTCA has decided to translocate two big cats that have moved out of the national park to adjoining under-protected forests.
“The scientific studies will continue but we need to urgently shift these two tigers -- a male in Kela Devi sanctuary and a female near Kota. Their future is anyway uncertain in these disturbed forests and they will get a second chance in Sariska," said Dr Rajesh Gopal, member-secretary, NTCA.

However, as Sariska is scheduled to receive its fourth tiger on July 4, after a 15 month moratorium, the state forest officials are again looking to take the easy way out.

"The NTCA plan is commendable. But the field officers have been trying to tranquilize those two tigers for quite some time without success. Wary, now they are seeking to widen their options by randomly targeting easy tigers from inside the national park," said Fateh Singh Rathore, ex-conservator, Ranthambhore.

An agency report on Sunday quoted a senior state forest official as saying that NTCA-appointed experts Datta and Johnsingh had submitted a list of 10 probable tigers in Ranthambore, of which two would be picked for translocation. "As only two tigers have to be shifted, the wide choice of ten tigers would prevent a delay in executing the big cat relocation plan," the official was quoted anonymously.

However, the report submitted by Datta and Johnsingh noted that the state forest officials themselves furnished a list of 9-12 tigers they deemed fit for relocation. The experts explicitly pointed out that they were "unable to comment on the suitability of most of these animals" and that there was "limited scientific information available…to make decisions based on objective scientific criteria".

Their report, therefore, recommended capturing only the two animals outside the national park and warned against selecting any other individual without determining their (genetic) relatedness.

ALSO IN OPEN MAGAZINE