With cases of man-animal conflict rising and forests shrinking in Karnataka, noted tiger biologist and conservationist Dr K Ullas Karanth from the Centre for Wildlife Studies says it is time to reset our conservation priorities. In an interaction with the editors and staff of The New Sunday Express, he said Karnataka in the past had taken the lead in resettling forest dwellers who sought it voluntarily, but now lags behind states like Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Stressing that science, more than emotions, plays an important role in wildlife management, he said in the past decade both state officials and political leaders have ignored this vital measure that substantially prevents conflicts, expands wildlife habitats, as well as improves life and livelihood of families suffering from lack of development and perennial conflict with wildlife. Excerpts …
Why are cases of human-tiger conflict rising? Is it because their numbers are increasing or because their habitats are shrinking?
First this is a very localised problem confined to a few reserves that cover less than 1 per cent of India’s land area. These emerging conflicts ironically are in parts of India where forests are less expansive, but better protected from human impacts as well as where there is more economic development in regions like the Western Ghats and parts of MP and Uttarakhand. In contrast, across much more extensive forests of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and North Eastern hill states, there is very little conflict. The prey and tiger populations have been decimated there by rampant local hunting because of poor protection. In pockets where such conflicts exist, we must view it as a price we pay for our success in bringing back wildlife over the past 50 years. So, you cannot say that wildlife has come back everywhere and that is the biggest problem.
So why has conflict increased?
One reason is that in some places, animal densities have increased. For example, in the 1960s there were less than 100 wild tigers in Malnad landscape of Karnataka, today there are over 300. A common misunderstanding is that animals are coming and we need to keep them in their natural habitats by feeding them and providing water etc. They don’t need to be fed; they are not domestic animals. Occasionally elephants are attracted to water or crops like sugarcane. The causes are not the same everywhere. In other places because connections and habitats are broken and there is greater interface with encroachments, especially after the Forest Rights Act was enacted and has gone well beyond its original deadline with no end in sight. Conflict is also because of developmental projects intruding into wildlife areas bringing an influx of people.
Why do you say the human-wildlife conflict is not being effectively managed?
This is partly because the government officials are caught in a bind in these situations. On one hand there is pressure from local people to quickly kill the problem tigers. For example, we had a few incidents of man-eating tigers recently. This problem is very different from tigers getting cornered by a mob and attacking them. That tiger no longer poses danger if you let it go. But when a tiger loses its instinctive fear of humans, like in the case of a sub-adult which was translocated from coffee estates in Chikkamagaluru after it had stalked and killed a woman, and translocated to Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary, where it killed more livestock and people. In these specific incidents of tigers that hunt humans, you must immediately kill that animal by whatever means you have. There is no other solution. But the officials are reluctant, partly as they are not trained biologists and partly because they come under tremendous pressure from urban animal rights groups who are not at risk from the maneater as the local people are. There is no place to release man-eating tigers elsewhere. In fact, moving them is even worse, because it wanders even more widely in unfamiliar terrain. Also, if you take such conflict tigers into captivity as Karnataka is planning to, then how many can you hold? Holding animals in zoos is not a solution given the scale of the problem and because tigers over a year in age simply do not adapt to captivity well. The other problem with quick elimination of conflict tigers is that people go to court out of misguided kindness. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has also issued orders that the local officials should first try to tranquilise the tiger, and only if that fails then kill it. This is impractical. Such NTCA guidelines and court orders hamper the local officers. It is a complex issue which has to be solved through science, not emotion.
Where does Karnataka stand in wildlife population and management?
We are a very gifted land. There is the Western Ghats and the coastline. But management is a problem. However I still have hope there is need to use science for management, not emotions.
How do you define a maneater tiger? Are you saying they should be shot down?
A normal tiger is afraid of humans on foot and at best it will make a mock charge. Normal tigers are afraid of people, a man-eater starts to stalk humans as a species of prey animal. A maneater is an animal that has stalked humans. Once it starts viewing humans as prey, it is a very dangerous sign. I am saying this because I want the species to survive. The logic is to save the species. Otherwise, the local public sentiment builds up against conservation. Today you cannot declare a new wildlife a protected area because local people oppose that and political leaders reflect that view. Today, there is such resistance to the creation of protected areas, whether it is for tigers or any other species, because management of conflict has been poor and unscientific in the past.
Are we in a position to say we have enough protected areas, and we don’t need any more?
Not at all. Only 4% of our land in India is reserved for wildlife. If we freeze this area because of local people’s hostility, we will lose many more wild species. We are at this juncture because of trying to save a few problem tigers every year across India, ignoring the fact that natural mortalities account for several hundred tigers each year in a population of 3,000 or so tigers.
Every time any wild animal attacks a human, there is chaos in the legislature and many demand permission to shoot the problem animals. How do you respond?
Wildlife conservation is very different from animal rights or loving individual animals. From a scientific perspective when you eliminate a problem animal, you are helping the species overall. The Wildlife Protection Act, in fact, gives powers to the state chief wildlife warden (CWW) to order shooting a tiger or any animal that poses immediate threat to humans. The law is very clear. But officers are afraid to use that power. Even before such demands arise, the CWW and staff on ground can assess whether further human life is threatened and they should take the decision on the ground.
Is there a need for simple protocols and laws for handling such situations?
The law is very clear. If human life is threatened or there is a maneater, you can kill it. But the officers are afraid to use that power because of the repercussions they think they will face from different groups of the public.
Urban animal welfare groups or wildlife groups look at problems more emotionally. Is that a lobby against conservation?
No, they are not a lobby. They are well-meaning people. It is just a misplaced sentiment that every individual tiger has to be saved and can be saved. That is just not possible. India can potentially harbour 10,000- 15,000 wild tigers. We have only 3,000, but we cannot increase tiger numbers without expanding more protected areas.
Did the pandemic play a part in the rise in animal population, more so tigers?
No. In fact, patrolling and protection came down because of the pandemic. Tiger population has increased over time because we have protected the prey base well in a few areas. In fact there is one thing that has gone out of hand. Forests have a natural tiger density and a prey density. When Project Tiger started, the goal was to maintain what is natural for that area. But over time, excessive zeal and the desire to spend money, has led to problems over excessive ‘management’. For example, lack of water holes is a natural stress that regulates prey populations periodically. When there is a lack of water in dry year cycles, there is greater mortality of prey species. The natural prey density is around 20-30 deer sized animals per square kilometre, but their number in these overmanaged reserves is 3-4 times higher. Two things we have been doing systematically for 30 years: One is indiscriminately building more water holes, and in summer, bringing tankers to fill the water holes; and two, clearing forests and creating grasslands and meadows. This leads to a rise in population of two common species, spotted deer and wild pigs. A supermarket for tigers has been created. Normally, a tigress will be able to bring up 1-2 cubs in a litter of 3-4. But with this kind of super-abundance of prey, we are repeatedly seeing 3-4 cubs reaching adulthood. The density of tigers, which should be 5-6 per 100 sq km, is now 15- 20 in some overmanaged reserves. All this leads to more interspecies conflict. We are creating a situation that is aggravating human-wildlife conflicts.
So, are you saying that tiger numbers are high and should be brought down?
No. I am not saying that. Stop putting money into wrong things. We have 20,000 sqkm of habitat in Karnataka, where tigers can live. Why is the investment and protection concentration only on 2-3 parks that cover 3,000-4,000 sqkm? Spread it out. Spread out the staff. Remove the excessive habitat manipulation. Right now, there are many forests with no tigers, or there are very few. This shows lack of science-based management.
There is a staff imbalance and the Forest department is top heavy and ground staff numbers are low. Is that a matter of concern?
Yes, it is. In other countries, like the USA or Africa, when you become a wildlife official you are already trained for 4-5 years in wildlife science and management. Just like a doctor, engineer or agricultural scientist is. But here we have the UPSC (Union Public Services Commission) kind of recruitment of people who do not have similar professional training. So ensure that there is basic knowledge capacity to train people in wildlife sciences before they start managing wildlife. That is a fundamental long-term issue. The top-heavy structure is a different problem and it got aggravated after 1969 when the Indian Forest Service was recreated. The British had scrapped it in 1938 and made it a state service with grassroots connections to the land and language. But once it was brought on par with IAS and IPS, it led to the endless seeking of parity in numbers with other all-India Services that catered to a larger and larger population. On ground, the forests had shrunk, even adverse pressures declined due to development, and conservation had more public support. This situation did not demand a top-heavy structure for forest and wildlife management.
So what is the solution?
You need more people on the ground and they should be trained wildlife professionals. There is a need for basic training in wildlife sciences before recruitment. Here we need people who have ties with the land and have the capability of understanding local issues. In 1973, after Project Tiger started, the people who recovered wild tigers of India were state-level officers. Stalwarts like Kailash Sankhala, HS Panwar, Sanjoy Debroy, PK Sen were such people.
Recently, (noted Indian ecologist) Prof Madhav Gadgil said tigers should be hunted under licence system as in the British Raj, as their population is rising, leading to conflicts. What is your opinion?
Such a drastic move is not necessary and will not work easily with big cats because of their social systems. Even in Africa where a hunting system is in place there are major problems, which the Professor (Gadgil) may not be familiar with. In the case of herbivores on extensive agricultural lands away from forests more nuanced calls need to be taken, when there is a severe crop loss, how it is to be managed in a specific context including crop insurance, and perhaps some damage control via hunting, etc. Interestingly, in India, compared to any other Asian country, there is a genuine traditional belief that other species have a right to survive too. Even if there is a death caused by a wild elephant, if you ask villagers if elephants should be killed, they say, ‘No, they too have a right to live, but not in my backyard’. My worry is that if allowed, hunting will disrupt this unique empathy that is quite foundational to building a modern wildlife conservation system based on science.
There is unverified news doing the rounds that leopards are infected with some kind of virus that has made them more aggressive. Is there any basis to that?
No. This is all a fairy tale. Leopards are very different. A leopard is very adaptable and is one-fourth the size of a tiger. It can live on small prey. Disposable garbage dumped has increased the stray dog population incredibly. This has been studied in Maharashtra also where leopards were radio collared and it showed that 80% of their diet consisted of street dogs and cats. They rested in sugarcane fields during the day and entered small towns and villages at night. So a stable food base for leopards has been created completely out of the forests. They are not eating deer, but domestic animals. So leopards have learnt to adapt and hide very effectively. But a wild leopard will not be able to make it.
Do you think the government has been successful in forest management? Is it doing enough?
Compared to any other Asian country, we are doing a better job as we have a vocal lobby of conservationists pressuring the government from the 1960s and 70s. The media is also covering issues. India has put far more money for conservation when compared to other countries. However, there are deficiencies that have been pointed out. Also some states have done better and this depends upon political leadership and officers who are working. Karnataka was at its best in the 1970s and 80s. One of the greatest conservationists India has produced was KH Patil, then forest minister, who came from Gadag. But now no one is interested. Now there is less interest in wildlife. Same is the case with NGOs.
What is your view on bringing cheetahs to India?
The vision is a very good one, but the way this project is being done, it will not succeed. There is a need for at least 15,000–20,000 sqkm area without leopards and tigers, and without people, besides putting in 20-30 years of effort to create such a space and then bring the cheetahs. Here it is cart before the horse. The 700 sqkm sanctuary was meant for creating a second home for lions from Gir. But that idea was given up and cheetahs were brought there. So getting a viable wild cheetah population will be difficult as the present ones are still in enclosure. This is not re-wilding. This is a zoo.
Watch the full interview on our YouTube channel