WRCS denies allegations of irregularities in owl conservation efforts

Wildlife Research and Conservation Society (henceforward WRCS) is a reputed organisation having several eminent personalities in the field of wildlife conservation and social research on its governing body. Our owl ecology project at Melghat has been going from 2017 and has been highly acclaimed on various forums. Our findings have been published in various national and international journals, which speaks highly of the quality of the research. The findings are very useful for conservation of the Forest owlet and other owls.

However, the article on your website has been deliberately written so as to denigrate the research on the Forest Owlet and other owls being carried out by WRCS. The journalist has ignored the contribution to knowledge on owls made by our project. He has ignored positive statements about the project made by senior Forest Officers of the Maharashtra Forest Department. We had provided considerable amount of information to him explaining various aspects of our research. He has ignored this and, instead, chosen to write his conclusions in a one-sided manner, based on the malicious propaganda being spread by Badratiye and Thakre, who have no knowledge or credentials about owl research. It is very clear that the Journalist has written the article in a biased and motivated manner. The title and the accompanying photograph are deliberately sensational and don’t do justice to the good research being done by WRCS.

Dr. Prachi Mehta is an acclaimed scientist on owls, who has dedicated several years to research on owls. She has several publications on owls in national and international journals. She has written an erudite book on techniques of studying owl pellets. She is often called to speak on owls at various forums. Several eminent scientists and officers have condemned the malicious attack on our work by the complainants. Considering this we are disappointed that Down to Earth did not contact us or try find out our side of the story.

We are giving below our rebuttal about various points in your article.

1. Badratiye was an employee in WRCS, but he was not an employee on the owl research project. He was working on the community project. He is no longer employed with us. Though your article calls Thakre a co-worker, he was never an employee of WRCS. In fact we have never seen him till date. By no stretch of imagination can he be called a co-worker. Thakre does not have any knowledge about the owl research project. Yet he has been quoted extensively in your article.
2. As per the conditions of Badratiye’s appointment, all data collected during the project, including images, belong to WRCS. He has downloaded and copied data belonging to WRCS in an unauthorised manner and is sharing the same to newspapers and on social media, which is illegal. He is using our project photos and claiming it as evidence against us. There is nothing secret about these photos and we have shared the same photographs with the Forest Department.
3. Colour banding is a standard technique for identification of individual birds. It is widely used all over the world for study of birds. The institutes directors have received training in colour banding in USA, and also from Mr Ali Hussain, who is an expert in banding. We are using all the standard techniques and materials for banding. The birds are released in 12 to 15 minutes, and not 30 to 45 minutes as alleged by Thakre in your article. However, your article is creating the wrong impression that banding is harmful to birds.
4. The article claims that the banded birds have disappeared from the study area. This is completely false. The banded birds are seen regularly in the same area. Several visitors have photographed the banded birds.
5. At the beginning of the project, the Forest Department asked to carry out the study in Chourakund Range, which is a buffer Range. Since birds are mobile we need to follow them wherever they go in Chourakund Range. All the study locations have been informed to the Forest Department. We have never worked in Semadoh and Raipur, which are the Core Ranges. Badratiye and Thakre are deliberately spreading misinformation by stating that we carried out the study in the core zone. The journalist has chosen to ignore our clarification, and instead chosen to sensationalise this issue.
6. The article says that WRCS carried out banding and tagging without permission. This is completely false. We have always worked with permission from the Forest Department. We have permission to radio tag eight species of owls. Banding and tagging is part of mark-recapture technique and we are following this in our study.
7. Manish Dhakulkar and Shubham Giri, who have worked on the project, have given a factual description of techniques used in banding and nest monitoring. These are standard techniques used all over the world and there is nothing harmful about them. Your article has misrepresented the facts by stating that these techniques are harmful.
8. The article claims that banding was carried out without any expert. This is false as Dr. Prachi Mehta is an expert in banding. She has banded more than 60 owls so far.  All researchers and the local Korku assistants are trained by her.
9. The article states that colour banding was carried out at night. This is completely false. It is not possible to carry out colour banding at night because the birds are inside their nest cavities at that time. The picture of the banded owl in your article is of evening and not night.
10. The article says that owl pellets were collected in an unauthorised manner. Owl pellets are composed of undigested food regurgitated by owls. They are very useful for studying diet composition of owls. Collection of owl pellets was part of the project methodology approved by the Research Advisory Committee of the Forest Department. Dr. Mehta and Mr. Kulkarni have published papers on owl diet based on research on owl pellets. They have written a technical manual on identification of prey remains from pellets. It is the first manual of its kind in the country, and was released during World Owl Conference in 2019. Your article is trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.
11. Laughable statements are made in the article about shoot at sight orders in Kaziranga, equating our research with poaching of rhinos in Kaziranga. Moreover, there are no such policies in the Satpudas as claimed in the article. These dubious statements are attributed to an anonymous Forest officer and appear to be fabricated.
12. Badratiye and Thakre are claiming to make the allegations out of concern for wildlife. This is farthest from the truth. They are doing this with aim of defaming the research on owls being carried out by WRCS. Unfortunately, your article has given them a platform to defame good research. If there was any merit in their allegations, the Forest Department would have taken prompt action.

Media plays an importance role in creating awareness about research. Good research should be highlighted by the media. Unfortunately, your article is undermining the hard work being done on wildlife research by WRCS.

We hope you will publish this rebuttal on your website, so that it clears the wrong impression about our owl research project created by your article.

We also request that the defamotry article and photograph  published by you should be taken down from your website  as it false, malicious and defamotry.

Thank you.

Jayant Kulkarni                                             Dr. Prachi Mehta

Executive Director, Conservation                 Executive Director, Research