As we head into the
new year, we have to brace ourselves for more man-animal conflicts in the
periphery of all tiger reserves in Karnataka. We are bound to have more tiger
trouble.
The recent man-eating
incident near the Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary is just the beginning of what is
to come. We could attribute this grim situation to an increase in tiger
population in our reserves, fragmented corridors (which facilitate the movement
of transient animals into adjoining habitats), prey depletion through poaching
and lack of political will to address critical wildlife management issues.
It is worrisome that
in a span of 18 months the Karnataka forest department has captured ten tigers
from Nagarhole and Bandipur. At the last enumeration in our tiger
reserves, there were 100 to 110 tigers in Bandipur, 60 to 80 in Nagarhole, 50
to 55 in BRT, 30 to 35 in Bhadra, 30-35 in Dandeli and Anshi.
There is a viable
population in MM Hills. Also tigers have been frequently spotted in Cauvery
Wildlife Sanctuary. There are a few in our reserve forests as well. It
might interest you that a transient female had briefly forayed into the
Bannerghatta national park, barely 22 km from Bengaluru, in 2012.
All put together there
are over 400 tigers in Karnataka, making it the number one tiger state in the
country. But with the increase in numbers we have had an increase in man-animal
conflicts as well, reflected in frequent capture of tigers in Bandipur and
Nagarhole. There have been stray man-eating incidents in BRT and Cauvery
Wildlife Sanctuary in recent times.
The situation can get
worse. A demoralized forest force, pre-historic ammunition, foisting of false
cases against staff who confront poachers, lack of cooperation and support from
local populace and the political establishment makes a heady cocktail of
wildlife trouble.
In hindsight,
decisions taken by the forest department has also been baffling. Instead of
winning the confidence of people who live in the vicinity of the forests, we
are infuriating them to revolt against our dwindling wildlife population. The
decision to relocate the tiger that was captured from Chikmagaluru was
imprudent.
The very fact that the
tiger had killed a woman in a coffee estate should have been a deterrent
against its release. It should have wisely been kept in captivity at a zoo. But
the urge to save it and allow it to propagate in its natural habitat seemed
more appealing at the time of decision-making. It was taken in the interest of
the tiger.
Now that the same
tiger has killed and devoured a pregnant woman should caution the authorities
from releasing captured animals into the wild again. As history reflects,
either they are killed by resident tigers or they prey on vulnerable men and
women.
So what is the
solution then? Considering that more injured, hungry and weary tigers are
expected to be captured in the future and that there is no space for them in
zoos, the department has to identify an area where these wild-caught tigers can
be rehabilitated. But then…
No comments:
Post a Comment