Wildlife biologist Ullas Karanth pioneered the use of radiotelemetry to track tigers for population density studies in the country. The former US-based Wildlife Conservation Society’s India programme director believes India took the “wrong approach when conducting censuses for tiger, elephant and prey populations in the 1970s”. In an interview with Asha Prakash, Karanth, who has authored 150 scientific publications and books on wildlife, his latest being, ‘Among Tigers: Fighting to Bring Back Asia’s Big Cats’, speaks about the issues with censuses. Excerpts: Tamil Nadu’s wild elephant population crossing 3,000 made headlines a few months ago. Is there really a reason to celebrate?In wildlife science, where the objective is to assess the status of free-ranging populations, conducting a complete census is virtually impossible. The scale of landscapes, difficult terrain, uneven distribution of animals, and the problem of many animals going undetected make total counts impractical. The accepted scientific approach is to “sample” populations and derive statistically sound “estimates” of population density and “numbers” (population size).India took the wrong approach of conducting censuses for tiger, elephant and prey populations in the 1970s, because the people involved, including forest managers and laboratory scientists, were not trained in modern wildlife biology, a discipline that has developed sophisticated sampling-based methods. What are the flaws in these census numbers and approaches used officially?Because surveys cover thousands of sqkm, it is impossible to be everywhere and count every animal. Second, there is the field problem of “imperfect detection”: not every animal present in an area will be detected and counted. Animal densities are also unevenly distributed across large areas, and researchers must statistically select areas to sample, representative to size of the population in the larger landscape.Some species may require different methods depending on biology, behavior and response to human counters. Elephants and deer, which can be seen and counted can be studied using distance sampling, which does not demand recognition of individual animals, while the more elusive tigers and leopards may require capture-recapture sampling in which individuals are identified by unique coat markings through photographs or DNA from dung. Both methods do not assume all animals are counted. My criticism is that such fundamental methodological principles were not incorporated into India’s wildlife population assessments in the beginning. Even now, they are not fully and correctly being applied.In the case of tigers, prey species and elephants the protocols are flawed. Tiger populations with 20% annual losses are not systematically sampled using annual capture-recapture surveys in combination with multi-year open model surveys, which we researchers have been doing for decades. Instead of using advanced distance sampling, elephants are counted using block count censuses and such other obsolete methods. The poor quality of skills, training and data are covered up in glossy govt reports while the data collected and analyses performed are hidden in Wildlife Institute of India, with no access for scientists. How much does a lack of training among frontline forest officers affect results?Those designing and conducting wildlife population surveys should have training, ideally including postgraduate-level education in wildlife biology, statistical ecology and quantitative methods. Even forest staff or good naturalists conducting field count surveys need to follow the particular sampling methodology used in the survey design. In India, because of govt monopolizing wildlife monitoring, unqualified and untrained people often design and implement field surveys.Monitoring of wildlife populations should not be controlled by agencies responsible for managing wildlife. There is an inherent conflict of interest when managers are responsible for conservation outcomes. Population monitoring should be independently audited by a scientific authority. The presence of wildlife in human-animal conflict zones is often equated with an increase in their population. Is this misleading?It is often assumed that conflict increases because wildlife populations have increased. But conflict can also result from increasing human intrusion into wildlife habitats, new roads and settlements inside protected areas, expanded cultivation, livestock or other infrastructure. Our protected parks are 4% of India’s land. In many cases, relocating human settlements situated deep inside critical wildlife habitat could prevent conflict. Often, communities are willing to move to areas offering better access to employment, education, healthcare and modern amenities. Such voluntary resettlement could create more contiguous wildlife habitat while also improving human quality of life. This scarcely gets attention or funding.Human activities can also create new conflicts. Leopards, for example, were once relatively uncommon in agricultural landscapes, but their numbers in such areas have increased because people feed large populations of free-ranging dogs, creating an artificial prey base. Such changes in human behaviour contribute to human-animal conflict. What proportion of actual budgets sanctioned by National Tiger Conservation Authority or Project Elephant should be allocated for population estimation without compromising on science?There is concern about how conservation funds are allocated. Considerable amounts are being spent on needless or harmful activities such as creating artificial waterholes, removing lantana or artificially creating grasslands, while major requirements such as voluntary relocation receive inadequate funding. There is sufficient money in the system now, but it is not always being used where it can produce the greatest conservation benefit. For example, the way the money is spent on some parks is disproportionate to what is needed there. Parks that need more money don’t get it. Tasks that require relocation, where people are demanding relocation, don’t get money.Perhaps the most serious problem is the lack of transparency surrounding the underlying data and analyses. If these are only with authorities and are not made available for independent scientific scrutiny, unlike our various national sample survey data for industry or health, it is impossible to assess what is going on. I worry it is because of a fear that loopholes will be exposed with such transparency. Do flawed or missing population estimates lead to poor conservation outcomes?Bad science leads to poor conservation outcomes and is a colossal waste of public funds. India has substantial remaining forest habitat of about 400,000sqkm capable of supporting much larger wildlife populations. We can easily have 20,000 tigers. After 70 years of effort, we gloat about having 4,000.Rather than congratulating ourselves all the time we should ask whether we are using the best science, expertise and financial resources available. India has demonstrated its ability to develop world-class expertise in fields such as information technology. Wildlife conservation deserves the same scientific rigour and honesty. The real challenge is not counting animals, but developing a credible, transparent and scientifically independent system for understanding how we can manage our surviving wildlife populations, unique to us, our natural heritage of millions of years.
