Subject: Tigers Census: The Numbers Game March 29, 1997 The Tiger's Trauma I saw Belinda Wright's very sensible note and agree with what she says about the estimation of tigers. I have witnessed how various State Forest Departments continue to concoct census figures to cover up tiger deaths in their respective areas. It is common knowledge, for instance, that the Madhya Pradesh "Tiger State" Government, which is poised to conduct a census in April 1997 has already issued verbal "instructions" to its officers "Not to let the figures be less than last year." This foolish attitude is the rule, not the exception in India. Until more conservation-oriented scientists such as Dr. Ullas Karanth assert themselves nothing will change and no one will really be able to make an assessment of the status of tigers, other than by counting the number of skins and bones siezed. Regarding Madhusudan Katti's query about how the estimate "40,000 tigers at the beginning of the century" came to be accepted, I would like to contribute one possibility: In my interactions with the late Mr. Kailash Sankhala, the first director of Project Tiger, I picked up the impression that though others had made such estimates in the past this figure was put forward as an "intelligent guesstimate" for the benefit of the Prime Minister's Office in 1970-71 when a case was being made out for Project Tiger). The basis was the projected density of tigers in nine proposed tiger reserves. The rationale ran something like this: Forests such as these once extended across India in the past 60 years. The vast bulk have been cut down. Had these forests still been standing it is reasonable to expect that the total number of tiger in India would have been 40,000." I am afraid that is all I can offer at this point because I have not come across any detailed calculation in terms of the actual area of forest lost, multiplied by the estimated tiger density of the day. I expect that the best person to give us more information on this might be Hemu Panwar, who is currently on an FAO assignment in Sri Lanka. But the following statements which are part of the Lok Sabha records seems to suggest that this strategy was then considered to be the most effective way to save the Indian wilderness: Extract of the minutes of the Estimates Committee (1968-69)of the Fourth Lok Sabha: "11 Lakh hectares under forests has been lost since 1951 for cultivation and other devleopment projects. etc." Extract of he minutes of the Estimates Committee ((1973-75) of the Fifth Lok Sabha: "There has been continuous inroads into the forest area and there has been shrinkage of three million hectare of forest area since 1952... during the period of last three years ending 1972-73 an area of 1.71 million hectares has been allowed to be deforested in diffenent States... no further shrinkage should be allowed to take place" It is interesting to note that the subject of environment was then handled by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is little surprise, therefore, that in spite of such categoric instructions and Mrs. Indira Gandhi's known support for Project Tiger, in August 1974 the Agriculture Ministry set up a committee to examine the feasibility of leasing out forest blanks to farmers to grow crops! When I see what is going on in 'liberalised' India today it occurs to me that nothing really changes. Money does indeed grow on trees! -- Bittu Sahgal, Editor, Sanctuary Magazine, 602, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Fax:022-2874380 Email: bittu@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in ============================================ When the trees saw the axe enter the forest they said: "Look! The handle is one of us" ============================================ -- Bittu Sahgal, Editor, Sanctuary Magazine, 602, Maker Chambers V, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Fax:022-2874380 Email: bittu@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in ============================================ When the trees saw the axe enter the forest they said: "The handle is one of us" ============================================