Avni’s killing: A challenge to wildlife mgmt
After reading the news titled “Outrage as tigress Avni shot dead in Maha” in Hindustan Times, I was rather worried about the future course of wildlife management in the country.
I cannot help expressing my views on the issue as I have devoted my entire career in forest service for the cause of wildlife conservation, starting in early sixties and even post retirement at PAN India level.
Avni, as reported in the media, had killed 13 people (a heavy toll by any standard) inhabiting the villages around forest area. The victims were either poor farmers or daily wagers. May I ask the overenthusiastic conservationists how would have they felt if they were part of victim’s family? I also dare them to swap their homes and belongings with those of families of victims and live their lives. It is only then they would realize their relationship with wild animals and understand the philosophy of conservation enshrined in the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.
Not a single word of sympathy has been spoken by any activists to assuage the feelings of bereaved families while criticism has been showered on those who took measures to save further loss of human lives.
This kind of scenario infuriates the public, which turns hostile against wild animals and forest department, eroding public cooperation and empathy.
Ultimately it turns in to public outrage, emboldening them to break law, opening floodgates to poaching and murdering animals like recent killing of a tiger in Kishanpur sanctuary in UP. Another carcass of leopard has been found on November 8, 2018 in Pilibhit Tiger Reserve pointing to retaliatory killing by locals. These are not the sole incidents, as mob killings of lesser carnivores like leopards, hyenas and wolves, straying in to villages, have happened in the past.
Thus, those who oppose legally permissible culling (selective killing) of aberrant animals, (man eaters, cattle lifters and crop raiders) indeed, inflict more harm to the cause of wildlife conservation than doing any good. Culling, whenever warranted by extraordinary situation, is an effective and accepted tool of wildlife management, practised all over the world.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, does not mandate one sided management of wildlife; instead, foreseeing such man-animal conflicts, the lawmakers provided safeguards for the lives and properties of the people by enacting remedial measures under section 11 of the Act, to be acted upon by the chief wildlife warden (CWLW) of the state.
Under the same section, the act also recognizes the sanctity and superiority of human life vis-a-vis animal life by providing exemption from punishment to anybody
AVNI, AS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA, HAD KILLED 13 PEOPLE INHABITING THE VILLAGES AROUND FOREST AREA
who kills an animal in self or anybody else’s defence.
Ironically, the activists do not agree with this view, because they do not have to face wild animals.
I remember in one of the meetings of chief wildlife wardens, Maneka Gandhi (then minister of environment and forests) had proposed to omit section 11 from the act.
It was I who had opposed the move. I was supported by all others present in the meeting and she relented.
Though omission of section 11 from the act was averted that time, but in early 2003 again under pressure from wildlifers & un-professionals, section 11 of the act was amended in a way that binds the hands of CWLW to an extent that he is forced to wait for several days after the first incident of man killing to decide the safest course of action.
Section 11 of the act mandates only two options either killing or trapping by tranquilizing.
Leaving aside shooting option and resorting to tranquilizing and trapping, let us examine what happens to the trapped/rescued animal.
Tranquilization is expert’s job and is time consuming process because of cunning behaviour of man-eater.
Moreover, extra precautions are required right from sedating to caging and handling in transit.
Once the animal reaches a nearby zoo hospital or rescue centre, it is governed by the rules of Central Zoo Authority (CZA), which puts last nail in the coffin of rescued animal by mandating that rescued animals can neither be displayed in the zoo nor exchanged with any other Indian or foreign zoo.
Wherever such animals are kept that area becomes beyond the reach of public.
Therefore, such trapped and rescued animals are piling up in zoos or rescue centres, leading a condemned life and proving a burden on state exchequer by way of costly diet and maintenance expenses.
Relocation of trapped maneaters in other areas is neither advisable nor allowed therefore they remain caged for life under awful conditions.
Thus before deciding for trapping a man eater, the CWLW has to ensure its immediate lodging facility, with budgetary support for maintenance.
Moreover, most of the lodging facilities remain cramped to full and creating appropriate new facility requires land, money and time thus forcing the animal to remain caged in transport cages only, which again invites wrath of animal lovers, citing Cruelty to Animal Act.
To be continued…