Monday, March 28, 2011

1636 or 1706

The latest tiger census says that India now has 12% more tigers. One hopes that it is an accurate figure. If it is so, then this is news worth rejoicing. Specially if this is the beginning of a trend.

One was also glad to know that along with the pug-mark profiling, photographic census was done in many places. Pug-mark census is not a reliable method in itself. Too many variables come into play - the ground needs to be soft and not rocky to capture the imprint; the animal needs to be walking normally and not with a large kill in the mouth; if the ground is sandy then the pug can appear smaller or indistinct; a short burst of speed may distort the distance of the stride...and many such variables. However, pug-statistics are invaluable when the animal is being tracked and monitored on a continuous basis. The pattern that gets created with numerous separate data-points reduce the errors.

To do this exercise as a one-off is not a good idea. And that is what happens in our counting. Volunteers are recruited every 2 years - they have no details of the behaviour of the individual animals and hence record data mechanically and without much insight.

This can change if our tiger reserves are monitored 24x7. This way the observers can get to know the individual animals, gradually build the pug-profiles, correlate them to pictures (it is impossible to get the pictures of all the tigers in an eco-system in the few months that a typical census takes to complete) and, most importantly, build the DNA profiles of each animal. The DNA profiles need to be verified using cross sampling: fur, scat, saliva, urine, etc. This becomes a crucial data-point for monitoring cubs as they grow. It also ensures that cub losses are recorded and no mistake is made of either double counting or missing out, for example when the male-cub uses jungle corridors to occupy new habitats after it separates from the mother.

If all this is done, the actual census would be like taking the freeze-frame of any one particular period's count of animals. It would still need to be painstaking, but it would be far more accurate.

We would continue to face challenges in some areas - like Sundarbans. Not only is it difficult to spot the tigers, the habitat is spread between two countries where the animals move freely, completely oblivious to the man-made geographical boundaries. Here, as they do now, statistical algorithms will need to get used. However, continuous monitoring will ensure that the profile records help in calculating more accurate error compensators. Sundarbans has an additional problem because when the animal spots our intrepid observer he does not think, 'Good Lord! Man!!! Let me melt into the jungle'. Instead he says, 'Ah! Dinner!!!' Yes, they are all maneaters in Sundarban.

Jairam Ramesh has done a commendable job by improving the census methodology. It would be great if he invests in adequate personnel to provide expert and scientific monitoring; and invests in laboratories to ensure that even better processes are sustained across all tiger habitats. Without reliable and continuous data it is impossible to save the tiger. Or indeed, any endangered species.

However, today, it is time to celebrate and congratulate the minister, the ministry, the fantastic guardians of many of our sanctuaries, our IFS officers and the villagers who live in the jungles and support it. Well done, all! A big thank you for saving this magnificent beast and its habitat!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Drop in a line, I'd like to hear from you.
Pat