A FEW months ago, mornings at the Kanha national park beganwith mahouts loping off to scout the area around park headquarters for tiger spoor. After a tiger was spotted and made tosettle in one spot, tourists would be brought in, 4 at a time, fora "dekho" at the striped felines. The Madhya Pradesh government banned these shows at Kanha and the Bandhavgarhnational park, effective May 14, 1994, with 20-minute jumbojoyrides to replace them. What is the basis of this decision?How does it serve the cause of tiger conservation?
At Kanha, where I spent 10 months between 1992 and1994, park visitors and staff alike are split down the middleconcerning the pros and cons ofthe tiger show. But let us marsball the facts. Tiger tracking within Kanba was restricted toonly 5- 10 sq km. Again, from January to May 1994, only 7tigers were located. Of these, only I was previously unidentified. This amounts to a minuscule proportion ofthe estimatedpark population of tigers. Finally, tiger shows were not heldevery day; in 1993-94, mahouts had a 57 per cent success ratein locating tigers. In sum, the ban is valid iftaken in the interests of tiger conservation as a whole rather than for the welfareof 6-7 tigers. For this very reason, it must be supported withsound scientific research.
That is to say, what are the short- and long-term effects ofthe shows on tiger behaviour? The former would includechanges in normal movement, hunting, mating and rearinghabits. Long-term effects would be reduced survival andreproductive potential. And although Kanha's feral "stars"were arguably the most observed wild tigers in the world, therehas been no systematic analysis of tiger ecology and behavioursince the shows began in the early '70s. There is no quantitative evidence regarding negative effects, only the anecdo -talobservations of the mahouts that these are minimal or absent.They recount - surprise! surprise! - how the tiger Bourra,his mother and his brother have used the elephants as screenswhile stalking prey. When asked about long-term effects, theymay mention Bari Mata, the mother of almost all the tigershow stars, who, at 16 years of age, has successfully reared8 litters.
There is a theory that habituated tigers may be more susceptible to poaching. This may have been a factor in thepoaching incidents in Ranthambhore in 1991-92. It's a realrisk, but only if the poacher is using a vehicle or an elephant,where both the human form and smell may get masked.Another wild assumption is that familiarity with humans willresult in more man-eating tigers. If so, 20 years of tiger showsshould have produced a veritable horde! A tiger whose territory lies partly or wholly outside a park, or 'whose kill has beenstolen by locals, is likelier to turn man-eater these days.
So we are saddled with anecdotes and unproven theories. Icame to Kanha again in December 1993 to record in de:behaviour and identity of the striped stars. Howeverpermission took so long in coming that the show was bshortly after I obtained my permit. Neither the state ment nor the park management evinced interest in obbehavioural data; which makes you think whether the was the result ofbureaucratic powergames: Rajesh Gopa.field director at Kanha, claims that the ban was orderedProject Tiger steering committee. But Project TigerArin Ghosh says that it was a state government order,bly to prevent harassment of tigers.
Almost as important as the decision itself is its imp1ttation. By dropping the ban into the lap of the tourist with nary a hint, the Madhya Pradesh government has itself of a massive public relations bloomer. Like it or tiger is probably why many tourists come to Kanhawarned is less disgruntled.
Perhaps the show was destined to fail, given the sertaint of a circus act. But the ban typifies a universal goment attitude - the "Let's scrap it before we have to doinnovative thinking" approach to wildlife and park ment. In some cases, park management problems were ly attributed to the tiger show, such as the crowdingKanha car park.
Since April 1992, 1 have attended some 45 tiger shows. ForMe,it is thrilling to find a wild animal trusting enough to actuin the presence of its mortal enemy. Granted thatmav hanker for the gambol or the snarl, but one can'ne cats at anything: fighting, feeding, hunting or (why.eeping. And for all its real and imagined drawbacks, thegreatest gain is.the cathartic value of a tiger sighting: itpower to turn a viewer into a crusader for the species.
In these times of waning tiger populations and poaching atInle high in Madhya Pradesh, park managers mustlie costs of potential disturbance to a small proportion with the benefits of increased vigilance and monitor Kanha tiger population. Ecotourism lays conserva i- the average Indian family's doorstep. Instead of ng on its supposed negative effects, ecotourism should -,idered an integral part of the conservation process.
The ban brings to mind the old adage, "Out of sight, out of The show was convincing proof that tigers are alivekc fteil in Kariba National Park. We can be dead certain thatpr ins were not amongst those recovered from the town ofota- Ln early May, 1994. Now, will we ever be so certain oftheir fate again?