Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:50:55.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Science deficiency in conservation practice: the monitoring of tiger populations in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2003

K. Ullas Karanth
Affiliation:
Wildlife Conservation Society (International Programs), 2300, Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10460, USA
James D. Nichols
Affiliation:
US Geological Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland 20708, USA
John Seidenstricker
Affiliation:
Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC 20008, USA
Eric Dinerstein
Affiliation:
World Wildlife Fund - US, 1250 NW 24th Street, Washington DC 20037, USA
James L. David Smith
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 200, Hodson Hall, 1980, Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
Charles McDougal
Affiliation:
Tiger Tops, PO Box 242, Kathmandu, Nepal
A. J. T. Johnsingh
Affiliation:
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttaranchal 248 001, India
Raghunandan S. Chundawat
Affiliation:
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttaranchal 248 001, India
Valmik Thapar
Affiliation:
19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi 110 021, India
Get access

Abstract

Conservation practices are supposed to get refined by advancing scientific knowledge. We study this phenomenon in the context of monitoring tiger populations in India, by evaluating the ‘pugmark census method’ employed by wildlife managers for three decades. We use an analytical framework of modern animal population sampling to test the efficacy of the pugmark censuses using scientific data on tigers and our field observations. We identify three critical goals for monitoring tiger populations, in order of increasing sophistication: (1) distribution mapping, (2) tracking relative abundance, (3) estimation of absolute abundance. We demonstrate that the present census-based paradigm does not work because it ignores the first two simpler goals, and targets, but fails to achieve, the most difficult third goal. We point out the utility and ready availability of alternative monitoring paradigms that deal with the central problems of spatial sampling and observability. We propose an alternative sampling-based approach that can be tailored to meet practical needs of tiger monitoring at different levels of refinement.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2003 The Zoological Society of London

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)