[msdivy]

The discussion is focussed on 2 conclusions:
1) Let the tiger live and risk lives of people in surrounding villages
2) Kill the tiger and make safe the lives of people in surrounding villages.

One post it was mentioned man-eater tiger cannot be caged since it is a daily risk for the care-taker. Aren't there any other alternatives to the man-eater tiger story?

PS: Just to give perspective on the numbers, there are 8 billion humans on earth. The number of wild tigers is around 3,800. The number of tigers as pets (mostly in the USA & some in Gulf) is around 5,000. So there is 1 tiger for every 8 million humans.

[anjan_c2007]

An update from today which mentions the post-mortem report saying the tigress had not eaten for a week. Its imperative that her cubs too may have been starving for a week ( and also thereafter) till the date their mother was brutally shot. :

https://www.timesnownews.com/india/a...antiwar/310856

Another update:

https://theprint.in/governance/autop...theory/146622/

In the pipeline are new court cases to rake up the issue seeking a thorough inquiry in the coming weeks and maybe the truth will come out with more facts about the killing.

[digitalnirvana]

The cubs are already condemned to death for all intents and purposes. They cannot hunt, and will most likely not be captured in time.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

It is a very well written emotional article. We are talking about cold heartless logic

Cold heartless logic would also eliminate half the human population to save the other half. I am sure that won't be acceptable.

[C300]

Originally Posted by JayKis

This is what one of my friends (Paresh Deshmukh), an avid traveller and tiger watcher, had to say on this issue. Pretty detailed.

https://www.facebook.com/paresh.desh...50933321603333

Originally Posted by Samurai

Thanks JayKris for sharing Paresh Deshmukh's post. I am always wary of social media campaigns about rural/forest issues, knowing it is usually based on emotions and not facts. I grew up around forests and farms until my teens, so I know that city dwellers know next to nothing about forests. But most of the social media outrage comes from the cities.

+1. I grew up in a village near Pandharkawda next to Tipeshwar Wildlife Sactuary. I have been talking to my friends and relatives in the area and most of them support the actions of Forest officials. Its a sad outcome. Unfortunately us city dwellers are out of touch with reality on the ground.

[gkveda]

I do not support either human beings killing tigers OR Tigers killing human beings. But, it is the law of nature to kill and survive when it comes to survival.

In my personal view, this case, it is just Darwin's theory that has been executed. Struggle for existence and survival of the fittest.

When the human beings(Deliberately, not calling them as Forest officers) see a threat to their life, they have used their power and killed the Tiger. If they had not done this, probably, tiger would have killed them and eaten

There is no RIGHT OR WRONG here. It is just Darwin's theory.

[maddy42]

Originally Posted by C300

+1. I grew up in a village near Pandharkawda next to Tipeshwar Wildlife Sactuary. I have been talking to my friends and relatives in the area and most of them support the actions of Forest officials. Its a sad outcome. Unfortunately us city dwellers are out of touch with reality on the ground.

+1 to this. Live in the vicinty of a national park and have constant property damage from elephants and gaurs which we have to bear. When it comes to a maneater being in the vicinity i support what was done by the dept. Every person killed by the man eaters was a Parent or a child of someone. Spare a thought and put yourself in the shoes of those killed by the tigers for a moment.


Maddy

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by maddy42

Every person killed by the man eaters was a Parent or a child of someone. Spare a thought and put yourself in the shoes of those killed by the tigers for a moment.


Maddy

You have to spare a thought about the dead and also for the people living around the place. Because the post-mortem reveals that Avni may not be a man-eater. This means there may be another man eater around this area and the killings may continue. Sad

https://www.mid-day.com/articles/tig...uK2dh4WKdnjiKY

[superbad]

Originally Posted by JayKis

This is what one of my friends (Paresh Deshmukh), an avid traveller and tiger watcher, had to say on this issue. Pretty detailed.

Superbly worded & balanced article. This should be on the front page of every newspaper rather than the rabid tabloid type reporting which paints a blood thirsty story. This is exactly what I also feel about the killing of Avni. Have all the facts. Check ground realities. Then paint a picture. I also would like to add a couple of more discussion points to this raging debate :-

1) Every year, a few thousand of our farmers commit suicide. Why no hullabaloo by the media on that? Why does the media give selective coverage to some stories? I think the answer lies in the fact - it's all about "grabbing more eyeballs". Today, we have all become so much immune to farmer suicides, that it has been ingrained subconsciously in our minds that "yeh to hota hi he, inko to marna hi he". If they are happening by the dozen, what's one more news like that? We'll just glance over the farmer death headline, & continue having tea nonchalantly. Point for comparison - one Tiger death, so much media coverage; THOUSANDS of farmer deaths - no reaction.

2) As has already been bought out in the article quoted, sitting on armchairs in AC rooms, sipping a cup of coffee, it is the easiest thing in the world to condemn the killing. Were any of you armchairs enthusiasts out in the field to experience the conditions? Do you know what it is like to cover dozens of km on foot, in jungles with the shadow of death ever hanging over your head? Do you even know how heavy is the rifle or shotgun which is to be lugged all the time, loaded & cocked? Do you know how mind numbingly mundane, uncomfortable & difficult it is to sit still in a hideout machan on top of a tree for hours on end, just hoping for a glimpse of your target? And do you know what it is to do this day after day, week after week, for months on end? Have you dealt with angry locals, who you are duty bound to protect from wildlife, yet whose livelihoods have been threatened or stopped completely, because they were too afraid to venture out of their homes? If you have the answer to EVEN ONE of these questions, then maybe you are qualified to have a judgement. Otherwise you are just a misinformed soul who media has made a *******.

[KMT]

I am really surprised how ignorant (or selfish) some educated urban elite folk are.

They love visiting rural areas and demand all sorts of creature comforts during their trip, this makes a whole lot of business people set up mega resorts in ecologically fragile areas.
They come by the bus/innova load and need wide smooth roads to be cut through forests.
HT power lines come up all over the countryside.
This visiting population creates a lot of wet waste/garbage/sanitation problems.

Now the poor wild animals have even less space to live and hence stray into populated areas feeding from garbage dumps etc.

An unfortunate villager now and then gets trampled or eaten and retaliates against the animal as he is powerless against the cash rich tourisim developer.

Now the same educated urban elite is mighty upset that the poor villager killed the poor tiger.

Why dont this same crowd stop visiting such places in huge numbers and perhaps we can turn back the clock.

PS I consider myself knowledgeable on this because I have seen the terrible price the ecology and local population is paying due to unchecked increase in tourisim in Coorg over the past 15 yrs.

Yes the tiger is our national animal and if we really want to protect it people can start by (1) having one kid and reducing our human footprint (2) become vegeterians and stop killing all animals(3) stop visiting ecologically sensitive areas (4) stop staying in big resorts.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by KMT

They love visiting rural areas and demand all sorts of creature comforts during their trip, this makes a whole lot of business people set up mega resorts in ecologically fragile areas.

(3) stop visiting ecologically sensitive areas (4) stop staying in big resorts.

Since there's no 'thanks' button in this section, logged in to thank your post this way. Ultimately all of us urban and armchair wildlife experts/lovers/photographers/enthusiasts/bloggers/Instagramers/etc (*me included) need to realize that the biggest problem is basically us visiting in such large numbers to see wildlife. Even in the so called 'eco-resorts' with whatever claims they make towards 're-investing profits into conservation' or 'sustainable tourism'.

[digitalnirvana]

I didn't want to wade in to the debate, lest I lose my calm so let me preface that I post this in peace .... but people who claim that only armchair experts are condemning the killing are sadly misinformed. I am an animal rights activist ON THE GROUND - admittedly for strays (canines and felines) and not big cats. I spend my money, my time, my effort and my heart in saving those that need help. And whenever I cannot save one, I lose a bit of my soul forever. That's how involved I am, that's the anguish I feel. Do I feel the same for human life? Yes! Do I try to help them too? Yes! But I connect with the speechless in a deeper bond and I feel an obligation to them (due to reasons I won't go into this thread).

That's a lot of "I"s isn't it? But it is important to demonstrate that this pain is not something detached from me, or the others who are angered or sad or frustrated or lost, or perhaps like me, a mix of all of these.

I cannot speak for all who are in uproar against the killing, but surely there are some who do care, and they do care with all their everything. All that I wish of people is not to paint everyone with the same broad brush strokes. Even if we don't get along, and we don't agree, let's respect the sense of loss and mourning.

It doesn't matter whether you support the killing (and the means) or not. This one isolated death DOESN'T matter - but what matters is that we, as a developing society, are sounding the death knell for flora and fauna in an unparalleled speed. We are in the middle of a great extinction not seen since the last ice age ... and the facts that prove it are indisputable.

Instead of name calling each other, ponder for a while if you really are ok with these majestic animals (and birds, and bees, and whales, and rhinos, and elephants, the list goes on....) to be part of fables in 30 years? If you are at peace with it, good for you. I am not, and it is but natural to voice that anguish through this topic.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by digitalnirvana

I didn't want to wade in to the debate […] I am an animal rights activist ON THE GROUND[…]. I spend my money, my time, my effort and my heart in saving those that need help.

Mate, you should have spoken up sooner, you are more qualified than most of us Good to hear from you on this topic.

Originally Posted by KMT

urban elite folk […] love visiting rural areas and demand all sorts of creature comforts during their trip, this makes a whole lot of business people set up mega resorts in ecologically fragile areas.

I was born and brought up in a hill station, and having spent my adult life in urban environs I have gained a better appreciation of the flora and fauna of my place of birth. I have also seen how it has deteriorated with the arrival of tourists.

It is easy for us "natives" to point a finger at the tourists who come and mess up a place (and trust me, they're not angels either). I had this mindset in my younger days as well, looking down on tourists, and considering us "natives" as the upholders of the standards of our town/district of residence. But, in hindsight, it is also wrong.

People will have desires and aspirations. They might wish to visit hill stations and beaches, and desire to own homes and cars. If everyone could fulfil their desire, then this planet would be a (bigger) mess.

So, why isn't it a mess? It's simple supply and demand. As the demand for a resource increases, the market adjusts the supply price upwards, known that a market willing to pay exists. The nice thing about this is that it is self-levelling - the market adjusts in a way that it maximizes profit, at the cost of cutting off some people from availing that service.

Now, when it comes to hill stations, there are various rules around development of commercial enterprises, based on the sensitivity/fragility of an areas ecosystem. If those rules are adhered to, then there wouldn't be as many resorts and hotels. With lesser supply, and a fixed demand, the price would increase, which would balance off demand.

Sadly, those rules aren't adhered to. Greed, shortsightedness, and lack of ownership of a common resource (i.e. nature is for all, not to be exploited by a few) all result in resorts and hotels popping up all over the place, perched precariously on hillsides (but offering fantastic views!) in connivance with the authorities meant to enforce the rules.

And as the supply of lodging increases, prices drop, with the result that it can no longer throttle demand. Madness ensues.

This may sound anti-poor, and it is, because we're using capitalistic means to regulate something. It's the same reason I cannot afford a fancy car (for a specific definition of "fancy").

The alternative means is governmental regulation - each family gets a pass for a 3 day visit to a specific hill station once a year. We really don't want to go down that route, do we?

So, going back to the lines from your post that I've quoted, let me ask this:

• Are these urban folk doing something illegal in wanting to visit beautiful areas, and having an expectation of certain amenities?
• Or, have (some of) the business people who set up resorts made use of illegal means to get their resorts operational in these places?

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to who shoulders the bigger share of the blame.

[digitalnirvana]

@arunphilip sorry, I didn't mean to come across as doing something in a large scale. And am certainly not overqualified. In fact, I don't consider myself an activist. I am just a run of the mill guy who works on his own to helps strays, most of the work is done by a few gold-hearted friends and acquaintances and I help from the shadows. Not a part of a NGO or anything.

[kovilkalai]

I thought I'd attempt to tackle a different aspect of this topic. Why are there so many man-animal conflicts? Because we quite clearly have been easing into their space. But, do we understand why?

When the British ruled India, they started the practice of clearing forests for tea, coffee and spice estates. If you travel to Munnar, you can listen to the history of the Kanan Devan plantations. This was a time when land demarcations were not clear and non-existent in places far away from human habitation. So, you could just walk in, plant a flag and claim the land for the Queen (or yourself). In many cases, the ruling king couldn't care less about the wilderness and would sign on the British taking over the land.

This is not the case today. You and I can't walk into Nagarhole national park and or its periphery and take over land. You will be picked up and prosecuted quickly. Most encroachment is by people who have no other option but to look for sustenance from the land because they have no other alternatives. Imagine a poor, uneducated person from a remote village. What opportunities does the modern economy provide to him? We have all but cut off means of sustenance for him through land misuse. Any land that is not a forest is either government land or private land. So, what is a person without resources to do for survival? They eke out a living at the edges of the forest. Forest officials understand this problem and cut them some slack unless there is conflict. Fixing this requires some serious rethinking of land ownership and land management.

Even if forests grow, there will be man-animal conflict. Every forest (however large) has to have a boundary and on the other side of the boundary, there are humans. A larger forest will support more tigers, but as the tiger population grows, some will move to edges of the forest where they will run into people (no matter what the size of the forest is). Countries like Canada and the USA continue to have human-animal conflicts even today.
Conflict has always been there. We just have newspapers and social media today to debate this stuff.

Finally, I think while we are justifiably concerned about decline in forest cover, the government has quietly been doing something about it. A forest cover survey is conducted every two years using satellite data. In 2017, there was actually a small increase in land area under forest cover. In fact, "very dense" forest cover showed the most increase. See the link below.

http://fsi.nic.in/isfr2017/isfr-forest-cover-2017.pdf