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
No comments:
Post a Comment