Man Animal Interaction in special reference to Protected areas including Gir NP

 

                       Satya Priya Sinha and Bitapi.C.Sinha

 

  In the last five decades, the exponential increase in human and livestock population and the resultant imbalance in land: people ratio, besides changes in land use pattern, have placed a tremendous pressure on natural resources like the forests and the wildlife. In order to meet increased demands of the human population, vast areas of forests, marginal lands, pastures and wastelands have been brought under cultivation, with the result that even the protected areas have become fragmented and disturbed from human activities, cattle grazing and exploitation of natural resources on a large scale. The process of encroachment on forestland is still continuing (The State of Forest Report, 1993). The situation in rural areas is very much characterized by irrational and unsustainable land use pattern. Add to these, industrialization and other developmental activities such as irrigation and hydro-electricity projects, mining and other developmental activities, which have caused drastic impact on protected areas.

 Such human related disturbances in wilderness areas have, over a period of time, ecologically dislocated some of the wildlife species. While a few of these, in due course, are able to adapt to man-altered habitat successfully, others stray out of protected areas and cause damage to human life (at times fatal) and property. At the same time, man too enters wilderness areas for his own needs, and there too a different dimension of the conflict begins.  Thus the interface of wildlife habitats and human-use dominated landscape become ground for a wide range of man-wildlife conflicts. Improvement in agricultural technology and integrated rural community development programmes in such areas seek to contain the conflict, but still they provide only a short-term solution.

 India’s National Forest Policy, 1988 states that the basic objective of the maintenance of environmental stability would be achieved through preservation of natural forest with a variety of flora and fauna and, wherever necessary, through restoration of the ecological balance. To achieve this, a network of protected areas (PA) has been established. IUCN recognizes different kinds of PA’s, but in India, under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (updated in 1991) only two categories - National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries - are recognized. The distinction between these two has been limited to the authority to permit grazing and the continuation of any other private rights in a Wildlife Sanctuary whereas no such rights can be permitted to continue once an area has been declared a National Park. The PA network in India consists of 85 national parks and around 450 sanctuaries encompassing 18.8 % of the forest area and 4.6 % of the total geographical area of the country (Rodger and Panwar, 1988; National Data Base, WII, 1999).

Important places to visit in Gir NP/WLS Gujarat By Dr SPSinha

                               

 

Last March, 2020, after attending COP 13, workshop held in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, had opportunity to visit both the temple Kankai maa and Banej my favourite places in Gir. This time lots of changes seen in both the places as compared to earlier years of 80. No comparison but improved a lot. Because of rain road conditions was badly hampered and in some place tree also encroached towards road on the way to Banej. At Banej temple area river was flowing and new thing which I observed was the wild animals were observed quite close to the temple steps. This area had number Sambar deer, Crocodiles and Python which we observed. It seems wilderness and tree cover has increased which is good. Sambar deer seems to be quite familiar to presence of visitors and not shy of camera clicks.

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN FOR PROPOSED MITHIYALA WILDLIFESANCTUARY A SATELLITE OF GIR PROTECTED AREA Dr SP Sinha

 

 

                                                               

INTRODUCTION

Mithiyala Forest was under the Bhavnagar State before the Independence and has a long historical account in the field of Wildlife Conservation and its management specifically in lion conservation during that period. Due to keen interests and loves for the wildlife and its conservation, Maharaja of Bhavnagar State, H.H. Shri Krishankumar Sinhji,

 

Conserved this area known as Mithiyala Forest. Although due to number of development activities and encroachments most of peripheral forest corridor link between Gir and other areas are no more existing which once happened to be there. Existing area is degraded due lack of management inputs and protection. During that period efforts made by the then State Forest Officer Shri Dalip Sinhji extensively planted local variety of plant species, palatable grasses and fruit bearing trees by considering the preferences of wild animals found in this area. Due to less rain fall and terrain and frequent droughts water conservation measures like construction of series of check dams, reservoirs and gully traps still exists in this area and becomes the historical land marks for present days to learn and follow. Most of them are still existing and functioning after 100 year except in some area because of poor maintenance earthen boundaries started seepage and needs fresh construction.

 

H.E.Dhramakumar Sinhji, a well know wildlife conservationist and naturalist in his famous book ‘ Birds of Saurashtra’ mentioned about the distribution of lessor florican and other rare and endangered birds visiting the area. Shri P.C.Desai in his book ‘Kudarat Ni Kedeyo’ has elaborately mentioned about wildlife and other information’s of Mithiyala forest in the past years.

 

On a hilltop a well designed and fully furnished Rest House along with number of peripheral infrastructures was constructed inside the Mythiyala forest three kms from Khambha Village. These complexes were used for resting, during hunting of lion, wild boar and other wildlife with other guests and dignitaries. These complexes in recent years despite of long years of service are still standing with same dignity. Although in present day’s it is maintained well but care must be taken while repairing so that the original structure is not altered. Still a metallic measuring scale and two water tanks exist which indicates that after hunting operation wild animals were measured and pelt was processed and cleaned in these tanks. These are important spots to be preserved for the future generations.

 

The Proposed Introduction of the Great One Horned Rhinoceros in Corbett Tiger Reserve Uttarakhand. How far advisable?

 

Shri V.B.Sawarker, IFS (Retd) , Former Director of Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun

and Dr SP Sinha,

 

 

Genesis

 

The Great one horned rhinoceros, hereinafter referred to as rhino was Red Listed by IUCN as an endangered species since 1986. In 2008 it was downgraded to the status vulnerable. It however widely continues to be considered endangered in the country owing to its restricted geographical distribution, the unabated threat of poaching and now shifts in the climate, consequently the hydrological regimes. Rhino is listed under Schedule I of India’s Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, thus providing the species the highest degree of protection and conservation priority under the law.

 

On 26^th November 2019 during the 14^th Meeting of the Uttarakhand State Board for Wildlife (UKSBWL) a decision was taken to ‘reintroduce’ the rhino in the Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR). As per the set procedure the proposal would have to go to the Indian Board for Wildlife (IBWL), Government of India for its consideration and decision.

 

Sources of six newspapers viz. the PTI, Hindustan Times, Pioneer, the Times of India, Express News Service and Dailyhunt mention among other aspects of the decision of the UKSBWL about reintroduction of the rhino, that it stands to ‘boost tourism’ in CTR as one of the outcomes. It needs to be stated that wildlife tourism in the country although commonly referred to as Eco-tourism is nowhere near the accepted definition of the term—being unquestionably run as mass tourism and money making industry as its sole purpose. The tourism industry has a powerful clout and there are signs of the times that it has started dictating unethical management practices within the protected areas and tiger reserves, precisely in those that are the most popular visitor destinations. Another example besides the one under discussion is the proposal in Madhya Pradesh to reintroduce the highly zoo inbred white tiger into the Sanjay Dubri tiger reserve to pander to visitor curiosity and attraction with conservation ethics taking a back seat. Records indicate that the first white tiger was found in this area during 1915. But the celebrated example pertains to the orphaned (?) white tiger cub found by the Maharaja of Rewa in 1951 that was named Mohan. The white tigers in zoos are descendants of Mohan. This reintroduction has no conservation value at all and such influence by the tourism lobby and those others who are intent to support it are setting very dangerous portents.

 Four out of the six newspapers cited above have referred to the decision of UKSBWL as being considered an ‘Experimental Reintroduction’, something that does not exist in any guideline for the purpose, especially in case of a Red Listed species and those listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 that carry the highest conservation priority.