Re-census: ‘Numbers absurd, we were asked not to intervene in the process’
30 March, 2005
Prodded by The Sunday Express report on depleting tiger numbers in Madhya Pradesh’s ‘showpiece’ sanctuary, Panna, officials there conducted a fresh census recently and came up with a bizarre finding.There was no problem in Panna, they said, and the tiger population stays at 34—the same number claimed in the previous census before the Express report.But a careful study of the tiger map prepared along with the new census calls their bluff, reveal independent tiger experts who were present in Panna during the latest census last week.
One of them even alleges that the experts were asked not to intervene in the process at it might ‘‘unnerve the officials’’.
‘‘I know officials tend to claim higher numbers but these people went overboard. It is not possible to show 34 tigers when there are not more than 10-12. If you count different tigers for each different pugmark of the same tiger, you are bound to throw up this absurd tiger density in small pockets,’’ says Fateh Singh Rathore, tiger expert and former field director, Ranthambhore, who joined the census at Panna.
Consider these:
= Official figures released last weekend show that 24 of 34 tigers counted are present in an area less than 100 sq km. Even in India’s best reserves like Kanha, tiger density is not half as high. If you consider the male tigers alone, 11 in less than 100 sq km throws up a density unmatched even in Kaziranga that boasts India’s highest tiger density. Besides, why should so many tigers fight it out in such a small pocket when there are no tigers, as per census data, in half of the 550 sq km National Park?
= In a particular pocket of about 12 sq km, the census claims the presence of as many as eight tigers. ‘‘Absurd,’’ says P K Sen, WWF-India tiger programme chief and former director, Project Tiger. ‘‘Tigers are not social animals. Such concentration is not possible.’’
= In spite of preparing an unusually high number of PIPs (pugmark impression pads made by preparing soft soil beds on the jungle floor), only 31 of 2,200 pads registered tiger imprints during the seven-day census. Another 33 were collected outside PIPs. Says Nitin Desia of Wildlife Protection Society of India who took part in the census: ‘‘All they had were 64 pugmarks and they claimed 34 tigers. During pugmark analysis, Fateh Singhji, and Panna Tiger Research Project chief Raghunandan Singh Chundawat and I were told not to intervene as it might ‘unnerve the officials’. We sat and watched how they finished the analysis in a matter of hours and declared the figure they wanted to in the afternoon.’’
The Sunday Express had on March 6 highlighted a report on Panna by Chundawat, which claimed that 30 tigers were missing due to a ‘‘total system failure’’.
Sen points out the absurdity of the official tiger distribution map in terms of prey base sustenance.
‘‘A tiger needs at least 35 kg meat per week, 24 tigers would need 43,680 kg a year. A spotted deer means 15 kg meat and since tigers usually consume only half the kill, it would take 5,824 animals to sustain 24 tigers. Then again, 5,824 spotted deer would require at least over 1,20,00,000 kg bio-mass as feed every year,’’ he says.
‘‘Even in wet evergreen forest, such availability of bio-mass is next to impossible,’’ says Sen.
‘‘In Panna, it is just absurd. Even if we theoretically accept 24 tigers in less than 100 sq km, they would either starve or the jungle would disappear,’’ he says.
For the record, a dry tropical forest like Panna doesn’t have more than 900 kg/hectare per year. So in 100 sq km, maximum bio-mass available would be just about 90,00,000 kg.
Panna field director Sanjay Mukharia, however, is defiant: ‘‘We have not fudged anything. Whatever pugmarks we found, we compared and got the figure. External experts were there. We didn’t restrict anyone. I am open to any probe or fresh census. How can you prove there are not that many tigers here?’’
Asked to explain the tiger density, he says five tigers were seen together in Panna a few years ago. ‘‘It may seem unusual. But how do I know why they prefer that zone?’’
No comments:
Post a Comment