8 ms·
India's tiger population sees 30% increase
- josefresco 12y agoWould like to know some of the methods that caused the turn-around. "Conservation" doesn't tell me much. Great new though, are these tigers truly "wild"?
- avemuri 12y agoThey're wild alright. One 'method' that's widely credited is the unofficial policy of shooting poachers on sight. Oldish article, but there's some more detail and context on the situation at Kaziranga (today used as a role model at other parks) here: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/nature/Number-One-With-a-Bullet.html http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/nature/Number...
- Gracana 12y agoFascinating read. At the start I figured it was as simple as "poachers are bad people," that they're just profiteers, but the situation is far more deep-rooted and complex, involving war in neighboring areas and the funding of the park coming from conservation of tigers, which the locals hate. So much could be solved if the people living there just had a legal way to make money.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- neindanke 12y ago> Would like to know some of the methods that caused the turn-around. I would have liked to see the raw numbers for each conservation area and the methodology used for the estimation. I am sceptical of the forestry officials as at least some of them were in cahoots with poachers and the trafficking of tiger parts to East Asia. Also, India needs corridors rather than isolated wildlife islands which is what results in lack of genetic diversity. If I recall, there was an Indian biologist who proposed a 50 year plan to slowly connect the remaining wildlife parks together with thin corridors that ran between populated areas. It would permit animals to safely traverse long routes and thus increase genetic diversity.
- linuskendall 12y agoApparently above 1500 individuals (out of some 2200) have been photographed using automated cameras and the rest extrapolated from there. Extrapolation methods were one of the reasons for wildly fluctuating numbers in some reserves previously. If you're in India you probably could get access to the actual photos via a request to the right department (Ministry of Forest and Environment for a start) or in a pinch RTI.
- brianbreslin 12y agoIt's because they ended the previously controversial "Trojans for Tigers" campaign... j/k
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- hessenwolf 12y agoThe article says that the numbers increased from "1,706 in 2011 to 2,226 in 2014". So, 520 baby tigers in 3 years? How many baby tigers per birth? What is the mortality rate on those babies? Is this definitely not just greater efforts to count tigers?
- DrJokepu 12y agoIt's 520 (baby tigers - dead tigers).
- philh 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Reproduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Reproduction says usually 2-3 cubs per birth, mortality rate 50% in two years. They separate after two years. If the tigress only has one litter on the go at a time, that puts a limit of about half a cub per year. The reported numbers come to about 1/10 of a cub per tiger per year, or 1/5 of a cub per tigress assuming equal numbers. If two thirds of them are sexually mature, then 0.3 cubs/year each. That's close enough to the upper bound that it seems implausible to me, but these numbers aren't reliable enough for strong conclusions.
- shashwatak 12y agoA number of the tigers are on nature preserves, with help from scientists/conservationists. That would reduce the infant mortality rate since these tigers aren't really "in the wild".
- colechristensen 12y ago> How many baby tigers per birth? 1-6, usually 2,3. If unsuccessful (all cubs die) the female can give birth about twice a year. If successful (raised cubs live) the female gives birth every 2 to 2.5 years. > What is the mortality rate on those babies? > 50% before two years, but the female reproduces faster if she loses her cubs compensating for some of the loss. > Is this definitely not just greater efforts to count tigers? It would require about 60 successful litters per year.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
- rikacomet 12y agoThough there is an increase in certain pockets, there is no attitude change in the Indian government towards forest/wildlife conservation in aggregate (at all!), as evident by the deforestation activities on the outskirt of Sundarban.In fact as we speak two important areas are being bulldozed: Mangarbani (South-West of Capital Delhi) http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news-video/av-india/mangarbani-the-fight-to-keep-delhi-s-last-sacred-forest-alive/article2-1307516.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news-video/av-india/mang... And http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/protest-planned-in-delhi-over-land-acquisition-for-ap-capital/article6804599.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/protest-pl... This little increase in the population of tigers is almost just a facade for the actual mentality of Indian Government (Bureaucracy in particular) towards Environment which is often viewed as "Just a formality"
- mousa 12y agoGreat news unless you are living in a village near the tigers. These are not animals I would want living near me. There are an estimated 270 tigers in Sunderbans National Park. They kill 100-250 people a year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundarbans#Fauna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundarbans#Fauna
- wnevets 12y agoHow many of those exist? 3?
- icebraining 12y agoI'm sure the tigers have no particular interest in having you living near them either.
- blumkvist 12y agoI'm sure they don't have a particular interest in conservation of the human kind too.
- majestic1211 12y agoThe source you provide gives a number of 0-50 a year, not 100-250.
- mousa 12y ago
- interesting_guy 12y agothere used to be tigers where I live around 70 years ago. They were all killed.
- DanBC 12y agoWhenever I read about successful conservation efforts I'm reminded of the Northern Hairy Nose Wombat. There are very few of these animals left - just 163 at the last census. One year a single dingo breached a fence and killed 10% of the population. They all used to be in a single location, but a second location has been set up and some animals seem okay there. Populations are gradually increasing. The numbers dropped to about 90 animals, and that seems like a severe bottle-neck. I'm curious whether that'll contribute to genetic flaws in later populations. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/l-krefftii/pubs/l-krefftii.pdf http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/public... http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=9 http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=9 http://www.arkive.org/northern-hairy-nosed-wombat/lasiorhinus-krefftii/ http://www.arkive.org/northern-hairy-nosed-wombat/lasiorhinu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_hairy-nosed_wombat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_hairy-nosed_wombat
- sremani 12y agoTigers are spread through out India from North to South. About 50% of world's tiger population is in India (based on numbers in 90s) so a 30% increase in the population in India bodes very well for the over all tiger population.
- Sanddancer 12y agoA lot of animals have had severe bottlenecks like that in the past. Cheetahs, for example, have so very little genetic diversity that they're all essentially cousins; cheetahs will accept skin grafts from any other cheetah with no fear of rejection. Humans have also had a pretty extreme bottleneck in our history, with estimates that there were no more than about a thousand alive at one point, which is why we don't have the diversity many other animals have. If we manage the remaining population carefully, even a small population can rebound with few fears of later genetic problems.
- saalweachter 12y agoNitpick: a historical population bottleneck does not necessarily mean that only that many individuals were left alive at a single time; it only means that that many individuals from a single time successfully contributed to today's population. Simple example: imagine you have two groups of humans, A and B, living in two neighboring valleys. Group A consists of 1000 individuals, group B a million. Over the next several hundred or thousand years, group A thrives and slowly increases to a million people. Meanwhile, group B declines to extinction at an even pace. At no time were there fewer than a million people, but there was a population bottleneck of 1000 people.
- ende 12y agoGood news? Thhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's grrRRRREATTT!!!
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- acd 12y agoGlad the tiger population are doing better! Was a proud WWF supporter on saving tigers until I found out that their VP took out million salary($100k+) not exactly wellfare.
- j-b 12y agoI think a lot of charity's function this way. You could argue that paying towards the VP salary is helpful because of his potential ability to increase revenue through fund raisers which eventually provides even more support to the WWF. Some charity's also mention that a certain % is guaranteed to directly support the cause. Not sure what % that is for the WWF though.
- neindanke 12y agoI used to donate to WWF. I stopped after I watched the ARD greenwashing documentary which alleged that WWF accepted money from large corporations in return for certifying their activities as "sustainable". I visited Kaziranga in Assam, India which has the highest density of tigers. The local rangers said they don't get any help from these aid organizations. Looking at WWF activities in detail suggests they do almost nothing for the local people. The WWF leadership ( http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership ) has no representation of people who actually live in the areas which are key to survival of these species. In my opinion, that dooms it to failure. My belief is that to save tigers, you have to provide the people who are poaching tigers with a viable financial alternative. I would much rather the person taking a photo of a tiger in the jungle be a genuine local rather than a corporate employee doing greenwashing. http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-jiang-joins-wwfs-tiger-team/ http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-jiang-joins-wwfs-tiger...
- wnevets 12y agoIsn't this the same issue as CEOs of private enterprises making millions? If that is the market rate of someone with those skills, shouldn't that be what they're paid?
- juliangregorian 12y agoIs more than 100k USD somehow exorbitant? I would expect a VP (in Switzerland, no less!) to make at least that much.
- discardorama 12y agoCall me skeptical, but I think the underlying explanation most likely is a change in counting methods (or, more probably, an error). With the rise of China, the demand for tiger bones has only increased. For a local villager, one tiger's bones are more than what he'd earn in several years, so it provides a tremendous economic incentive to kill tigers. The easiest (for the killer) methods are to poison them or electrocute them at the watering hole. It is really sad.
- jtzhou 12y agoPerhaps, but China has also made great strides in the preservation of animal species, like the giant panda and golden monkey. True, there are still some small segment of the population, mostly in villages, which desire rare animal parts. However, these are the exception in China and the preservation of these animals contribute greatly to tourism.
- cheepin 12y agoDoes China do anything to stop the import of poached animal products? They protect their own native species (nowadays, anyways... their native tiger is likely extinct in the wild), but don't make similar efforts species from other areas. Their ivory and tiger trade are huge international problems for modern conservation efforts.
- Intermernet 12y agoI hope to see China as a role model for preservation of animal species. The recent(ish) loss of the Baiji[1] hopefully sent a wake-up call to the Chinese government. Here in Australia we've historically had a terrible track record for this ("There are 23 birds, 78 frogs, and 27 mammal species or subspecies strongly believed to have become extinct since European settlement of Australia."[2]), but we're hopefully getting better. I recently visited some of the Tasmanian Devils who are being bred on the mainland, in isolation from the Tasmanian population, due to [3]. They seem hale and hearty (and very cute, though I wouldn't want to cuddle one) [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Aust... [3]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease
- fubarred 12y ago2 Qs: How have tiger-human relations/(co/non)existence changed in the last few decades? Are there more/different interactions in rural, suburban, urban (?) settings? (Anyone from/in India or the nearby area know?)
- techgeek1 12y agoGlad the tiger population are doing better