Protected ?

[Vikram Nanjappa]

Most people feel or think that the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve is one place where the long term survival of the Asian Elephant is more or less assured. After all it is 5520 sq km in size , most if not all of it is healthy forest ( not degraded ) has a healthy elephant population and the level of conflict is low in comparison to other elephant holding areas in India.

Well a few days ago as I was running my eyes over my books I noticed a book on elephants which I had not re – read for sometime. Suddenly I remembered that in it there was a scientific paper dealing with Elephant Home Ranges in the Niligiri Bio-sphere Reserve which I had bookmarked to read later but had somehow not got down to doing.

I pulled out the book and glanced through the paper and thought that I would share the gist of what I understood.
The study was conducted in the Niligiri Biosphere Reserve (between Feb 91 and Apr 93) which was constituted on 1st Sep 1986 under UNESCO’S Man and Biosphere Programme. It is the first Biosphere Reserve in India. The Biosphere lies between 11o 36' to 12o 00' N Latitude and 76o 00' to 77o 15' E Longitude. The reserve encompasses 5,520 km² spread across the states of Karnataka (1527.4 km²), Kerala (1455.4 km²), and Tamil Nadu (2537.6 km²). The reserve is one of the best remaining habitats for the Asian Elephants.
Three clans of elephants and were monitored by radio collaring one of its members. A clan is defined as a group of elephants that are supposedly related, which associate regularly and show coordinated movement. Two males were also radio collared and monitored.
I will leave out the technical jargon and scientific methods etc and cut to the findings.
The home ranges of the clans were found to be as follows.
Clan – 1 – 623.4 sq km.
Clan – 2 – 530.5 sq km
Clan – 3 – 799.5 sq km

Male – 1 – 374 .5 sq km
Male -2 - 210.6 sq km.
It was found that the home ranges of clans were much larger than what was earlier supposed. The relatively lower home ranges of the males were found to be not representative as none of the males came into musth during the study period. (they tend to roam over larger distances when in musth).
However what I found most disturbing was that parts of the home ranges were outside the Protected Areas. (Protected areas are National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries).
Clan – 1 – 16 .3 % of home range outside Protected Areas.
Clan – 2 – 12.9 % of home range outside Protected Areas.
Clan – 3- 95.7 % of home range outside Protected Areas.
Male – 1 – 0.3 % of home range outside Protected Areas.
Male – 2 – 23.5 % of home range outside Protected Areas.
The areas outside the Protected Area are Reserved Forests and Revenue Lands. In these areas Wildlife is not a priority. Revenue Lands are both forested and agricultural. It is no wonder then that they (the elephants) come into conflict with man.
This just goes to show that under no circumstances can we consider these clans as “Protected “especially Clan 3. It also shows that Reserves need to be based on ecological boundaries rather than geographical boundaries.
It is a shame that Field Biologists in India (barring a few) do not write and publish their experiences and findings in a “popular “format for the general public. Most well know Field Biologist in the West do so. If they did we would get to know a lot more about our wildlife.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Vikram,
In India, most of our wildlife live in areas outside our Sanctuaries and Protected Areas. These poorly documented places are often the first to fall victims to the so called "development". In a lot of cases, the Collector of the district thinks that clearing up trees and constructing houses etc in the revenue lands would drive away the elephants and reduce human-animal conflict. We need to make our planners and bureaucrats sensitive about the needs of our wildlife and the importance of our wilderness areas.

I agree that field biologist only publish in a few scientific journals. One of the reasons is that helps in colouring their CV. They boast of paper publications in a few journals abroad. Writing in mass media is not their focus. The most important reason for this is that most of the field biologists lack the writing skils to publish in mass media. It is important to write in a lucid manner, else the common man won't read beyond the first few lines.

The field biologists also need to have the overall perspective to write on topics other than their specialised technique or narrowly defined research topic.

Cheers,
Sabyasachi

[AB Apana]

I agree that much of our biodiversity falls beyond the boundaries of our parks and that we will pay a heavt price for 'development.'

With regard to field biologists writing for scientific journals, the acadamy has a publish or perish culture. Still further, are they mainstream lay media which are ready to give space to elephants when we have bollywood?

Apana