Bengal Post, 25 August, 2010
In a country where most people have an argument on most things, the list of subjects immune to opinion mongering is getting shorter by the day. Where even rather complex issues like the nuclear deal or the Kashmir problem are frequently “settled” on socialist cafes and social networking sites, little wonder the conservation broth has also found too many cooks eager to stir.
Granted, no amount of awareness is enough for the cause of biodiversity protection. But activism has a tendency to go on auto pilot. In conservation, such chances are twice stronger. It is not difficult to see why.
Wildlife biology is complex science, but not rocket science. A lay person understands little of both. But because he has never ventured to the space, he may not dare suggest how best to design a PSLV. However, a few forest safaris surprisingly qualify him to have his say on how best to fix the country’s conservation mess.
If you dare question these opinionated tourists, they are likely to stump you by quoting some “expert” or the other. Frighteningly, almost none of India’s popular green icons ever had anything do with wildlife or conservation sciences. Some of them are glorified wildlife tourists themselves; some others’ ex officio expertise materialised while holding key positions with the government or big NGOs. Only under such tutelage, the tradition of quick-fix activism could have flourished.
Over the last week, I have had three experiences that have left me a little shaken. First, I heard from Kolkata how wildlife activists hailed the state government’s decision to release 24 captive-bred spotted deer in Sunderbans so that tigers did not “drift into human settlements” looking for food. Then, a message from the heartland of the country told me how the green community, outraged by a decision of Andhra Pradesh forest department to cull wild boars, were looking for foolproof methods, like electric fencing, to stop crop raiding.
Finally, I read how one of the most able and dedicated forest officer in Rajasthan was mauled by a “straying” Ranthambhore tiger because the department did not care to ensure safety measures necessary for tranquilisation.
These cases immediately triggered frenetic parleys on social networking sites, blogs and media headlines, but the fundamentals were lost in each instance. To understand how, let us ask a simple question: why man-animal conflict? The simple answer: either over security or food.
Animals attack in self-defence when surprised or confronted by people (who panic at the sight of animals). This can happen either when people enter forests or when animals move close to habitations looking for crops or cattle (food). While such attacks – goring by a boar or mauling by a tiger -- can sometimes be blamed on people trespassing inside forests, conflict over security is usually accidental.
But ungulates do not target crops – or carnivores seek out cattle -- accidentally. So why do animals go after non-forest food? Either because there is insufficient food in forests or non-forest food seems more attractive.
Assume the first scenario when animals are raiding crops or cattle because there is little food inside forests. If we stop their access to such non-forest food by electric fences etc, what will we achieve so different from culling? No food inside forest and no access to food outside will eventually bring down the population. If we are fine with death by starvation, what is the fuss over culling?
Moreover, it is very difficult to keep animals away with contraptions like electric fencing. If used locally, it diverts animals to the next village. If used extensively, it creates a fenced in natural zoo -- not exactly what conservation parameters demand.
Thankfully, it is not any forest famine but a better buffet outside that draws animals more often to foray close to human habitations. A cow is an easier hunt than a blue bull. Foraging in forests cannot offer tastier and more nutrient alternatives like sugarcane or maize.
The only solution to reduce such conflict is to reduce the availability of attractive food options. This requires change in land use and creation of a buffer zone so that crops do not stand, or cattle graze, at the edge of the forest. Promotion of non-edible crops also helps. Such measures will minimise but still not stop conflict. A few stray cases will still have to be taken care of by effective compensation schemes.
So where do these basics put the three cases mentioned above?
First, when we release 24 (or 240) deer in Sunderbans, where 400-plus cattle are available per square kilometer, and expect tigers to “stray” less frequently, even the big cats may not find it easy to maintain a straight face.
The move is clearly to dump surplus animals in Sunderbans in the garb of a conservation effort after failing to manage deer populations in captivity. The next lot of deer will come from squalid zoos and invariably carry tuberculosis infection. I do not know how many of these captive-bred cheetals will actually be taken by tigers, but bereft of any fear of humans, they will surely boost Sunderbans’ flourishing bush meat trade.
Second, if culling orders in certain states have shocked us, we better take a deep look within. Starving may not necessarily be a less clumsy solution than culling. Besides, we routinely tweak the natural order by mindlessly creating water holes etc to “help” animals and artificially boost numbers. The weak and infirm are supposed to die during the summer to maintain a naturally sustainable population. Animal welfare and wildlife conservation are two different things and we will be naïve to forget that.
Third, when we keep harping on why a Ranthambhore ranger was made to attempt darting without adequate safety, do we mean it would have been just fine if the tiger was wrapped up in a cage without any blood spilled anywhere? Or do we ask why one should at all consider tranquilising a tiger for killing a cow at the edge of the forest?
Do we ask why Ranthambhore animals still do not have some breathing space in an effective buffer? Or why an effective compensation scheme is not in place to take the villagers into confidence? Or why the forest department, the police and NGOs could not develop a system over so many years to manage angry mobs during such eventualities?
We either do not care to understand about the scientific imperatives of conservation or are wary of the challenges of implementing those basics on ground. For example, it is indeed not easy controlling mobs during a crisis. But look at Jammu and Kashmir, one of worst conflict affected states. Have we taken note of the state forest department’s initiative to engage local youth in Primary Reaction Teams (PRTs) in 150 villages to ensure that emotions do not boil over?
Instead, we are just content echoing the stereotype and hear ourselves echoed. “And I am you and what I see is me”…Pink Floyd would not be amused.
2 comments:
hello Jay!
A nice and thought provoking read!
Always short sighted and going by the majority rule, our govt and people miss the minutiae that make life complete.
As Larry Flynt once said "The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper"
After all, wild life doesn't constitute vote bank does it?
Aravind Jay.
Dear Sir,
I enjoy the results of your investigations and sober views you express in your blog very much. Here too, you have raised some very good points, especially about the need to maintain effective buffer zones, and the need to effectively screen deer for diseases before reintroductions.
However, I disagree with the notion that waterholes are "mindlessly created". In the natural landscape, that may well be true, but nowadays most protected areas are little more than islands inside a matrix of human-dominated landscapes. The best habitats - riverine valleys, lowland forests and plains with year-long access to water, have been converted to agricultural fields, human habitation, roads or hydroelectric reservoirs long ago; what is left now are mostly marginal habitats on higher ground, with large parts without perennial water supply. In the past, during dry spells, animals (especially large herbivores) could migrate from those fringe habitats to the rivers and swamps, but now they are effectively stranded. Without artificial water supply, there would be little prey, and relatively few tigers, in many protected areas. Most central Indian forests, such as Ranthambhore, Tadoba, Pench, Nagzira, Achanakmar, Melghat and Satpura are such examples, but even in other areas, there are occasional water shortages, and they will happen again as climatic patterns change. Those artificial waterholes help maintain the prey base, and consequently good tiger numbers, in otherwise small and isolated reserves.
Post a Comment