India's tiger population sees 30% increase

Tigers are spread through out India from North to South. About 50% of world's tiger population is in India (based on numbers in 90s) so a 30% increase in the population in India bodes very well for the over all tiger population.

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.

The Tasmanian devil population is expected to crash over the next five years as well. However researchers are not worried about lack of diversity because I think they are already all seriously inbred. The strategy against devil facial tumour is to let the wild population die out and reintroduce from breeding programs established on Islands and the Tasman peninsular.

How many of those exist? 3?

I'm sure the tigers have no particular interest in having you living near them either.

The source you provide gives a number of 0-50 a year, not 100-250.

> 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.

That's an unpopular opinion of course, but it's important to understand the attitude of the people living around them. The Outside Online article linked by avemuri elsewhere in this thread gets into the issue. Wildlife conservation is important, but I can't help but empathize with the people living in the surrounding area. With very little work and very little money to go around, and with tigers killing their livestock and rhinos getting into their crops, what are they supposed to do? It doesn't even have to happen often for it to become quite a contentious issue.

On a tangent, this is pretty great article about wild honey gathering in the Sunderbans (including some stories about tigers): http://blog.longreads.com/2014/09/28/the-honey-hunters/

You wont live in a village close to them, as Indian government dislodged the Adivasi of Baiga and Gond tribes, who traditionally lived in the area, that is now a wild life reservation in Kanha, Similipal and Odisha Gondwana.

Those people got some pennies for the eviction, barely enough to buy a few days food in big city, but nowhere enough to buy land to live on.

See: http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/10488

I can really understand that those people join the Naxalite Maoist Army to fight Indian government to get their country back from investors, tourist and other western parasites.

I have watched a few documentaries on this topic. I know it sends you spine chills even thinking about it, but many of the attacks are because the men go and gather honey and fish in the Tiger territory because they have almost exhausted them on their side.

I wonder many a times, we simply cannot co-exist to create an ecological balance with anything.

To quote Agent Smith in the movie Matrix:

"It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

Questions of conservation vs livelihoods are incredibly complex, not least in the Sundarbans area (have worked with farmers in this region) - complex in a way you don't see with human-animal conflict in other parts of the world. We are not talking about a few hundred french farmers and wolves here, but rather livelihood of hundreds of thousands.

It is probably one of the most densely populated areas lying so close to a tiger reserve. The population around the reserve are some of the most climate stressed farmers in the world (facing soil salinity and monsoon variability due to climate change) and areas inside the forest reserve have traditionally been an important source for additional livelihood (honey collection, fishing, etc.). Farmers settled in these areas were also in part displaced during the colonial era from Bihar and other parts of West Bengal, in essence forced to live in the delta - now of course these are their villages and home towns.

To add to the challenge there is an incredible scarcity of food sources for tigers in the Sundarban reserve, with few other large animals, which is put forward as part of the reason they have (unlike tigers elsewhere) have made it a practice to treat humans as food sources. They are adept swimmers and do attack people in boats meaning that even fishing can be a risky endeavour for farmers.

All in all, the conflict between people and the tigers living in Sundarban is pretty complex and in no small part caused by people outside of the delta (including the British, the increased urban population of Kolkata and surrounding districts, etc.).

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...

> Would like to know some of the methods that caused the turn-around.

I would have liked to see the raw numbers for each conservation area and the methodology used for the estimation. I am sceptical of the forestry officials as at least some of them were in cahoots with poachers and the trafficking of tiger parts to East Asia.

Also, India needs corridors rather than isolated wildlife islands which is what results in lack of genetic diversity. If I recall, there was an Indian biologist who proposed a 50 year plan to slowly connect the remaining wildlife parks together with thin corridors that ran between populated areas. It would permit animals to safely traverse long routes and thus increase genetic diversity.

It's because they ended the previously controversial "Trojans for Tigers" campaign... j/k

It's 520 (baby tigers - dead tigers).

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.

> How many baby tigers per birth?

1-6, usually 2,3. If unsuccessful (all cubs die) the female can give birth about twice a year. If successful (raised cubs live) the female gives birth every 2 to 2.5 years.

> What is the mortality rate on those babies?

> 50% before two years, but the female reproduces faster if she loses her cubs compensating for some of the loss.

> Is this definitely not just greater efforts to count tigers?

It would require about 60 successful litters per year.

>So, 520 baby tigers in 3 years?

No, its 520 babies after you subtract the dead during those three years. Its 520 more tigers total.

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.

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.

Isn't this the same issue as CEOs of private enterprises making millions? If that is the market rate of someone with those skills, shouldn't that be what they're paid?

Is more than 100k USD somehow exorbitant? I would expect a VP (in Switzerland, no less!) to make at least that much.

It's very simple : never donate to a charity that can afford TV campaigns and appear at all the big conferences around the world.

Keep it local and real. Charities for sick/underprivileged children in your local region are everywhere and do much good in the world.

If you want to help children in far-flung countries do it by always pushing for free trade laws and speak out against barbaric religious practices.