
India's tiger population sees 30% increase - SimplyUseless
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30896028
======
DanBC
Whenever I read about successful conservation efforts I'm reminded of the
Northern Hairy Nose Wombat.

There are very few of these animals left - just 163 at the last census. One
year a single dingo breached a fence and killed 10% of the population.

They all used to be in a single location, but a second location has been set
up and some animals seem okay there. Populations are gradually increasing. The
numbers dropped to about 90 animals, and that seems like a severe bottle-neck.
I'm curious whether that'll contribute to genetic flaws in later populations.

[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/public...](http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/l-krefftii/pubs/l-krefftii.pdf)

[http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=9](http://www.edgeofexistence.org/mammals/species_info.php?id=9)

[http://www.arkive.org/northern-hairy-nosed-
wombat/lasiorhinu...](http://www.arkive.org/northern-hairy-nosed-
wombat/lasiorhinus-krefftii/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_hairy-
nosed_wombat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_hairy-nosed_wombat)

~~~
Sanddancer
A lot of animals have had severe bottlenecks like that in the past. Cheetahs,
for example, have so very little genetic diversity that they're all
essentially cousins; cheetahs will accept skin grafts from any other cheetah
with no fear of rejection. Humans have also had a pretty extreme bottleneck in
our history, with estimates that there were no more than about a thousand
alive at one point, which is why we don't have the diversity many other
animals have. If we manage the remaining population carefully, even a small
population can rebound with few fears of later genetic problems.

~~~
saalweachter
Nitpick: a historical population bottleneck does not necessarily mean that
only that many individuals were left alive at a single time; it only means
that that many individuals from a single time successfully contributed to
today's population.

Simple example: imagine you have two groups of humans, A and B, living in two
neighboring valleys. Group A consists of 1000 individuals, group B a million.
Over the next several hundred or thousand years, group A thrives and slowly
increases to a million people. Meanwhile, group B declines to extinction at an
even pace.

At no time were there fewer than a million people, but there was a population
bottleneck of 1000 people.

~~~
Dylan16807
In that scenario you could make a pretty good argument that group B were not
modern humans but instead a dead race. (Assuming they had all these unique
genes that disappeared.)

I'm not sure the nitpick makes things more accurate.

~~~
duaneb
> were not modern humans but instead a dead race.

"Race" is not really a recognized concept outside of social interaction. I
believe "sub-species" is preferred on the level that you're indicating—think
neanderthals and denisovans. Even then, it's a measure of phylogenetic
distance, not of any quality that directly "matters" (like fertility of
offspring).

Anyway, they're all humans in terms of having active sex with humans.

~~~
Dylan16807
But all the ones they mated with died out.

Unless you mean they were capable of but never did?

~~~
duaneb
There are humans all over the world with neanderthal and denisovan ancestry.
They may have gone extinct, but their relatives definitely live on.

~~~
Dylan16807
I don't understand where you're going with this in relation to saalweachter's
imaginary groups A and B. Neanderthal genes have nothing to do with population
bottlenecks.

------
rikacomet
Though there is an increase in certain pockets, there is no attitude change in
the Indian government towards forest/wildlife conservation in aggregate (at
all!), as evident by the deforestation activities on the outskirt of
Sundarban.In fact as we speak two important areas are being bulldozed:

Mangarbani (South-West of Capital Delhi)

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news-video/av-
india/mang...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news-video/av-
india/mangarbani-the-fight-to-keep-delhi-s-last-sacred-forest-
alive/article2-1307516.aspx)

And

[http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/protest-
pl...](http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/protest-planned-in-
delhi-over-land-acquisition-for-ap-capital/article6804599.ece)

This little increase in the population of tigers is almost just a facade for
the actual mentality of Indian Government (Bureaucracy in particular) towards
Environment which is often viewed as "Just a formality"

------
mousa
Great news unless you are living in a village near the tigers. These are not
animals I would want living near me. There are an estimated 270 tigers in
Sunderbans National Park. They kill 100-250 people a year.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundarbans#Fauna](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundarbans#Fauna)

~~~
dded
> Great news unless you are living in a village near the tigers.

This fear that people have of nearby predators is, in fact, a real problem
with conservation efforts to preserve those predators. David Quammen addresses
this aspect of conservation in his book "Monster of God". He believes the fear
of predators is more deep-seated in our psyche than most other fears.

I suspect your 100-250 number is high (perhaps way high?) but it only takes
one in a village where everyone knows everyone to ratchet-up fear. If a
neighbor kid were taken by a bear, I'd sure want the authorities to do
something about that bear.

~~~
wavefunction
Just trying to figure out the circumstances where a bear could "take a child"
that don't involve some serious negligence on whoever is supposed to be
responsible for the kid. I grew up in a part of the US that is rife with bears
and spent my childhood running around in wild areas with coyotes and
rattlesnakes and never had any sorts of issues.

------
josefresco
Would like to know some of the methods that caused the turn-around.
"Conservation" doesn't tell me much. Great new though, are these tigers truly
"wild"?

~~~
avemuri
They're wild alright. One 'method' that's widely credited is the unofficial
policy of shooting poachers on sight. Oldish article, but there's some more
detail and context on the situation at Kaziranga (today used as a role model
at other parks) here:

[http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-
adventure/nature/Number...](http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-
adventure/nature/Number-One-With-a-Bullet.html)

~~~
Gracana
Fascinating read. At the start I figured it was as simple as "poachers are bad
people," that they're just profiteers, but the situation is far more deep-
rooted and complex, involving war in neighboring areas and the funding of the
park coming from conservation of tigers, which the locals hate. So much could
be solved if the people living there just had a legal way to make money.

------
hessenwolf
The article says that the numbers increased from "1,706 in 2011 to 2,226 in
2014". So, 520 baby tigers in 3 years?

How many baby tigers per birth?

What is the mortality rate on those babies?

Is this definitely not just greater efforts to count tigers?

~~~
philh
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Reproduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Reproduction)
says usually 2-3 cubs per birth, mortality rate 50% in two years. They
separate after two years. If the tigress only has one litter on the go at a
time, that puts a limit of about half a cub per year.

The reported numbers come to about 1/10 of a cub per tiger per year, or 1/5 of
a cub per tigress assuming equal numbers. If two thirds of them are sexually
mature, then 0.3 cubs/year each.

That's close enough to the upper bound that it seems implausible to me, but
these numbers aren't reliable enough for strong conclusions.

~~~
shashwatak
A number of the tigers are on nature preserves, with help from
scientists/conservationists. That would reduce the infant mortality rate since
these tigers aren't really "in the wild".

------
discardorama
Call me skeptical, but I think the underlying explanation most likely is a
change in counting methods (or, more probably, an error). With the rise of
China, the demand for tiger bones has only increased. For a local villager,
one tiger's bones are more than what he'd earn in several years, so it
provides a tremendous economic incentive to kill tigers. The easiest (for the
killer) methods are to poison them or electrocute them at the watering hole.
It is really sad.

~~~
jtzhou
Perhaps, but China has also made great strides in the preservation of animal
species, like the giant panda and golden monkey. True, there are still some
small segment of the population, mostly in villages, which desire rare animal
parts. However, these are the exception in China and the preservation of these
animals contribute greatly to tourism.

~~~
Intermernet
I hope to see China as a role model for preservation of animal species. The
recent(ish) loss of the Baiji[1] hopefully sent a wake-up call to the Chinese
government.

Here in Australia we've historically had a terrible track record for this
("There are 23 birds, 78 frogs, and 27 mammal species or subspecies strongly
believed to have become extinct since European settlement of Australia."[2]),
but we're _hopefully_ getting better. I recently visited some of the Tasmanian
Devils who are being bred on the mainland, in isolation from the Tasmanian
population, due to [3]. They seem hale and hearty (and very cute, though I
wouldn't want to cuddle one)

[1]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji)

[2]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Aust...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia)

[3]:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease)

------
acd
Glad the tiger population are doing better! Was a proud WWF supporter on
saving tigers until I found out that their VP took out million salary($100k+)
not exactly wellfare.

~~~
j-b
I think a lot of charity's function this way. You could argue that paying
towards the VP salary is helpful because of his potential ability to increase
revenue through fund raisers which eventually provides even more support to
the WWF. Some charity's also mention that a certain % is guaranteed to
directly support the cause. Not sure what % that is for the WWF though.

~~~
neindanke
I used to donate to WWF. I stopped after I watched the ARD greenwashing
documentary which alleged that WWF accepted money from large corporations in
return for certifying their activities as "sustainable".

I visited Kaziranga in Assam, India which has the highest density of tigers.
The local rangers said they don't get any help from these aid organizations.
Looking at WWF activities in detail suggests they do almost nothing for the
local people. The WWF leadership (
[http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership](http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership)
) has no representation of people who actually live in the areas which are key
to survival of these species. In my opinion, that dooms it to failure. My
belief is that to save tigers, you have to provide the people who are poaching
tigers with a viable financial alternative. I would much rather the person
taking a photo of a tiger in the jungle be a genuine local rather than a
corporate employee doing greenwashing. [http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-
jiang-joins-wwfs-tiger...](http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-jiang-joins-
wwfs-tiger-team/)

------
fubarred
2 Qs: How have tiger-human relations/(co/non)existence changed in the last few
decades? Are there more/different interactions in rural, suburban, urban (?)
settings?

(Anyone from/in India or the nearby area know?)

------
ende
Good news? Thhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's grrRRRREATTT!!!

