I first saw a tiger in Buxa in West Bengal in 1983. It was dusk and I had confused it for a village cow. The cat leapt away from us.
It was an exhilarating experience to see the king of the jungle right in front of me. Before then, I wasn’t sure if tigers existed in the forests. I was now curious to know how many tigers existed in the wild and whether we could save them.
Next year, we conducted a tiger census in Buxa. We were taught how to pinpoint a tiger from its ‘track’ (shape, size, and position of a pugmark and its movement pattern). This was the method Corbett and other hunters had used to identify the tigers.
They had the experience that we didn’t.
The conditions were completely different on the forest floor. Except on a few particular patches, the pugmarks would disappear after a step or two. Secondly, in a large forest tract we had to depend on the staff on the frontline, who were mostly illiterate. They essentially submitted separate pugmark impressions and locations. Technically, it was a futile exercise.
How Could One Even Identify Tigers?
It was still possible to differentiate tigers from their pugmarks. We estimated that there were about 30 tigers in the area. We were very happy to have a matching figure of 29 recorded in the last census through same method, and with similar chances of errors.
Then, a senior officer suggested that we take tiger behaviour into account. A tiger does not allow another tiger in its territory. Thus, we had to rule out more than one tiger in an area unless they were of the opposite sex (or a female with cubs). We plotted the data on the map and found that it was likely that no more than sixteen tigers existed at that point.
The findings brought with it a new set of worries. New excuses were discovered for the decrease in population. Thereafter, many officers discarded this mapping exercise, in a bid to avoid unnecessary controversy.
The pugmark method was not accepted by scientists. Subsequently, to bring transparency, the forest department involved reputed NGOs and scientists. Yet, the controversy remained.
New Methods, New Problems
The pugmark method supposedly worked throughout the country. But the Sundarbans was a different world. Tides washed away the footprints. The soft clay soil distorted the shape and size of the pugmarks. Human errors magnified the inbuilt mistakes.
Yet in 1979, the authorities estimated the presence of 205 tigers. Many enthusiastic officers tried to innovate the method from time to time. In addition to shape and size, they also considered the orientation of toes with respect to one another. In a race to outsmart each other, all kinds of formulas were projected. But nothing seemed to make a difference.
In 2004, the population of tigers rose to 274. This number was unpalatable to many critics. During a personal trip or two, some wildlife experts evaluated that there were not more than 50 tigers in the mangroves. Many echoed what they said.
Was the Statistical Analysis a Farce?
To avoid controversies, the forest authorities handed over the 2004 survey data for statistical analysis to a government department dealing with statistical analysis. However, instead of adopting scientific procedures, the department published the report without consulting the forest officers.
They concluded that there were not more than 70 tigers in the mangroves. The statistical analysis was farce. But that was ammunition enough to criticise forest officers.
The findings were full of errors. For example, a tiger cannot be simultaneously present at two locations at a distance of hundred kilometres. But no one cared. To get rid of unnecessary criticism, the foresters invited specialists to take up the census. But no one came forward.
Under pressure from the experts, the government of India, in 2006, instructed the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), Dehradun, to submit a report in three months.
Through a computerised analysis of the data received from the forest departments of the country, they estimated that excluding Sundarbans, there were 1,411 tigers in India.
They did not disclose the technique. The consequence of a hurried analysis was evident when they deduced the presence of two tigers in Gorumara forest of north Bengal – a place where no tiger had been recorded in about half a century.
How Helpful Were the ‘Experts’?
In 2008, the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad was roped in to identify various unknown aspects of tiger behaviour. However, a new problem arose. Instead of restricting themselves to the task at hand, they began to dictate terms.
They demanded that faecal samples be sent in bulk to make it cost effective. But they ignored the many samples that had already been sent. They insisted on collecting samples on the same day with mention of latitude/longitude of the collection point. DNA does not change with time and place. But to satisfy their need, money and time was lost in a pointless exercise in the Sundarbans.
In contrast, the results in Buxa were encouraging and helped silence critics. In 2010-11, they confirmed the presence of 15 tigers. Next year, five more male tigers were found. However, their findings had contradicted the basics of tiger behaviour. For the 16 males in Buxa, there should have been at least 24 females and not just four. Second, a male tiger never allows another male within its territory. But as shown in the map, the report showed that males were living in harmony with one another. It was quite likely that the CCMB lacked expertise in identifying individual tigers.
The report raised eyebrows. But how could one question the findings of the most reputed institute of the country?
However, we sought information that could be used to improve the management of the Tiger Reserve. We wanted to know the identity of the individual tigers, the relationship between them and a comparison of the findings of the two years.
They did not reply. Later, they claimed it was their patented right. It was difficult to understand what ‘right’ would have been violated had they disclosed whether two tigers were brothers or not.
The DNA Fingerprinting Method
In 2007, the WII used DNA fingerprinting to confirm the presence of 13 tigers in Buxa. In 2010, they forgot their own irrefutable estimate by saying there were no tigers in the region.
This time, they evaluated the Sundarbans population on the basis of satellite telemetry and sign surveys. Their figure of 70 in 2010, and 76 in 2014, put another question mark on the estimation of forest department. It looks like results of the WII are in contradiction to their own methodology. Therefore, their technique needs a scrutiny.
The institute used the camera trap and identified the individual tigers from the stripe pattern through a software. Through this, they declared the presence of 22 tigers in the West Sundarban Range.
Manually, such identification is not possible if there are a large number of photographs. The Forest Department adopted this method in collaboration with the WWF in the rest of the Sundarbans.
Eighty one different tigers were photographed in that area. Within a month two, more tigers were photographed by the staff. Adding all that to the WII counts, there were not less than 105 tigers in the Reserve. The camera trap has apparently worked well in Sundarbans, but is completely ineffective in dense forest areas of Buxa and other North East forests.
The Path Ahead
I personally feel there are about 150 tigers in Sundarbans. But there aren’t more than 20 tigers in north Bengal. From what I have gathered from other forest officers, there should be around 2,000 tigers in the country.
But is it really that important for us to know how many tigers we have? Is it not sufficient to know whether the population is stable or not? Does the marginal increase over the years indicate stability? Certainly not, mostly due to our faulty policies.
Currently, the emphasis is on protection and not conservation of tigers. The tigers’ habitat may not be shrinking but environmental degradation around the forests has touched dangerous levels.
Politicians are encouraging anti-conservation activities in the name of eco-tourism. Instead of helping the tribal population, the Forest Right Act has created an opportunity for new forms of encroachment. A shortage of forest staff has handicapped almost all the states.
Therefore, despite what the census figure may tell us, the tiger continues to exist. But perhaps, the focus should be on conservation rather than numbers.
(NC Bahuguna is a retired IFS officer and author. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
Also Read: 100 & Counting: Tiger Deaths in India This Year Exceed 2015 Toll
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)