The conservation paradox

Akham Bonbirdhwaja *

National Zoo, New Delhi in October 2008 :: Pix - Jinendra Maibam

Conservationist Mindset ?

I remember an incident. Some thirty years back, there was a man by the name of Sarkar. He was not a government employee but he played an important role in establishing the Manipur Zoological Garden. One day I was going to the Zoo and near the second bend of the approach road from Iroishemba, I saw Mr. Sarkar at a distance having some argument with local boys, four of them.

After a few seconds, all of them started beating Mr. Sarkar with bamboo branch whips. When I drove near them and got down, the boys left the place. There were a number of people around, some coming back from visiting zoo, some passersby, but no one helped Mr. Sarkar. His fault was that he intervened when the boys were about to kill a king cobra. King Cobra, as you know, is a Schedule I species under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

It is common incident that a person who as a chief guest spoke so well about necessity of wildlife and conservation of wildlife. But by the evening he enjoyed the meat of the deer his nephew had shot in the morning given as his share. You can guess many public leaders like that. Many responsible persons at one point of time or the other got some gift of a trophy or wild meats or dried meat, for which we are sometimes proud of that we have tasted Deer Meat (Schedule I & III), Wild Boar Meat (Schedule III), Serow's Meat (Schedule I), Wild Fowls Meat (Schedule IV) and so on.

I know a few friends of mine who boast of having tasted Python's Meat, Elephant's Meat, and Porcupine's Meat etc. These animals as you know are also all listed in the Schedule I to IV of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA). Killing these animals, selling meat or trophy or any part of the animal, keeping the live animals anywhere even inside our houses is an offence. Love of the animal and respect for the law are needed.

Interference and Human Imprint

A story goes like this. A small boy and a girl feeling sorry that the eggs were lying over a few strands of grasses replaced the grasses with nice pads of cloths and cotton and placed eggs over that. By the evening the mother bird came back and threw away the eggs. That has to be a lesson for many of us.

In the name of saving an animal, we capture them by chasing and beating and by using maximum force. Then a huge gathering is there of local people and press, camera and flash and all. The animal is shocked and tired and frightened. Ultimately by the time they are brought to safe place the shock is too much that most of them succumb to that. It is particularly common if the animal strays out of their areas.

The animals hardly understand the imaginary boundaries created by humans, because not too long back the entire landscape belonged to them. If they are brought back to life also, we caress them, feed them out of hand and then human imprint becomes so clear that wild instinct is lost, at least partially. In the wild of course, all the senses and instincts have to be intact to survive, so they become unworthy of wild. Best way should be to drive the animal back to the nearest forest or PA as far as possible. Regarding collection of specimens of rare flora, which we have many in the state of Manipur, we may sometimes remove last few wild specimens available.

Habitat Fragmentation

Already there has been tremendous pressure on the forest and protected areas. But with the giving away of more land in the Forests and PAs there is bound to be more fragmentation of the already fragmented habitats and dwindled wildlife areas. The wild animals and birds have their definite home range and all land has its carrying capacity depending on the type of animal associated and the vegetation of the land.

If the animal is getting less area than its home range, the gene flow will stop and due to inbreeding and stagnation in evolution, the animal will perish in near future. The carrying capacity also gets reduced due to fragmentation. An area of 400 sqkm may support 30 tigers, but if the area is divided in to two parts of 200 sqkm. each, it wouldn't support 15 tigers each, in place of that it would support only 8 animals each, but a unit of 8 tigers is not a viable population.

It is just an example, but such is the complexity of population dynamics of wild animals. This dynamics applies both to PA s and other forest areas, because we have quite a large number of wild animals in Forest areas outside like we have in the PA s. Such is the damage that the fragmentation does to the ecosystem. It is alright that the original inhabitants be given due rights the existing rights, but the point now is that of those rich peoples who are well off, government employees, other elites who have encroached in search of more land are to be benefitted.

It is known fact that fresh encroachments have always been with a lot of backings and the people who are instigating will have a lion's share later on when they are successful in dodging the forest or government officials. There are people who are more than happy to give new documents without ascertaining facts on ground. There has been encroachment in khas lands, Government quarters even, not to talk of forest land. Giving away chunks of land for whatever reason may be, is not going to be good for any conservation effort and it could be the greatest historical blunder in terms of environmental protection.

It can be seen that fragmentation has to have a limit to have a viable population of wild animals. Now that so much of fragmentation has happened and now that a lot honeycombing is happening, there is slim chance that there can be any improvement in the habitat condition of the wild animals. There can be hundreds of examples. Therefore, there should be attempts to limit the fragmentation to the minimum and limit the rights to those who had actually suffered historical injustice, if there were any.

The original inhabitants may get a right, but in their name, unscrupulous elements should not get undue advantage. We should be mindful of who we are robbing to pay whom, robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Human Population & Wildlife Habitat

We humans are also animals, social animal. We have evolved a few thousand years back. Our brethrens are still in the wild. Some of us came out first and led settled life, some came out late, but we all have been there together. When we talk of our rights over land and forests, we never bother for their rights. If I have a claim, why not they?

They were enjoying a vast tract of land not so long back. We have gone to their land, in search of better land or due to population explosion, then, why should they share land with us. The Indian population as it stands today is beyond the carrying capacity of the land. The population of the world crossing seven billions, from where they will get more land.

The population of India is 125 crores today, and it is estimated to be above 140 crores in 2025. Then there will be more attempts to usurp nature area and wildlife land in future also on some pretext or other. The new demands may be called by any name, but demands shall be there, and there shall be no end in the current trend. So, reducing the population has to be the first step towards conservation. It may not be possible to strike a balance between human need and nature conservation if the population is not checked. No system shall be sustainable if demand is more than the carrying capacity. Should the wild brethrens bear the brunt of the population increase of humans?

India's decadal population growth is 18 %. The life expectancy also stands at 65 years, for the whole country. If, we try to give away the PAN areas for this increased population, will it be enough? The PAN areas at present occupy only 4.90% of forest land (1.65 mill sqkm), then can it hold the additional 18% population? No, it cannot hold the population. There shall be resistance from the wildlife lovers and managers, but some areas shall be taken away if we have some enterprising people.

Hypocritical attitude

It is time to act now, the conservation movement is now facing a hard time. The wildlife and nature areas are fragmented more and more and as on today the scenario is quite bad. Whatever little hope that was there is also now diminishing. Only during wildlife week, people will congregate and take pledges and oaths, but when it comes down to concrete business nobody is ready to sacrifice anything for our wild denizens.

We talk of nation's ecological integrity, but we are not sparing any more land for nature and wild habitats. Why the wildlife articles should find a market? Let us be frank. The meat and birds are sold at local market, because we buy them. Nobody shall bring these items if there is no buyer. Now, the population of wild life is so low, any further killing will render the population unviable.

Is there any sanction by any religion to kill them or are such permissions inviolable? Now the wildlife is in smallest possible habitats and further fragmenting their habitats shall prove to be disastrous. If we are really committed to protect them, let us ask a question to ourselves, who has more rights over the forests?

Though we talk of conservation, we are not our feelings towards them have not been that friendly. We are also highly intolerant to them. Most of the times, the man-animal conflicts are manifestation of dislikes. Whenever, a snake or a wild cat or a jackal is killed in a locality, everybody feel relieved. But we have forgotten that they are our friends.

The concerns of biodiversity conservation, climate change, environmental protection, wildlife protection are quite familiar with many of us. We all talk quite a lot on these issues. Even the wildlife criminals and smugglers are aware of legal provision. But the question is how many of us are serious on real terms of conservation. How many times we think before felling a tree growing in my backyard? Have we ever thought that if we kill all the owls and eagles, the rodents will create havoc?

Do we really compare the environmental need and material need before felling a tree? Could we do a little sacrifice for the sake of environment? Shall we end up by blaming somebody instead of putting in our mite? Did any of us bothered to stop a group of boys with catapult trying to kill an owlet by the roadside bush? Is there anybody who stopped a boy from killing a pond heron in your neighborhood?

Judicial Prejudice

In spite of famous judgment of Justice Markandey Katju in the Apex Court, in connection with the famous Sansarchand Case, the sentiments of the Learned Justice has not percolated down to trial courts. The penalties prescribed in the Act for that of hunting and smuggling is imprisonment are quite heavy. For second and subsequent offence in PAs it could be up to seven years imprisonment and minimum of twentyfive thousand rupees fine without upper limit.

But, many a times, these penalties are considered too ridiculously high and many wildlife offenders get away with minimum penalty, so minimum that it does not carry deterrent value. The vehicles used in carrying smuggling items are also seldom confiscated though there is provision for the same under Sec 51(2) of WLPA.

Conclusion

Now, with the current status of these sanctum sanctorum and people's regard of our PAN areas, they have become very vulnerable. When the habitat is so fragmented, can they be safe? It is a paradox, that driven away from home by humans, they are straying out of home and falling prey to humans again. It is really shocking that those innocent animals, their homes snatched away, are run over by speeding vehicles and trains.

Whatever we are crying over the death of a herd of elephant struck by speeding train, we are wasting our tear, or is it crocodile's tear? The wildlife are wild denizens, simple, beautiful, and independent. They are born free; they have a right to die free. What they deserve is honest love from all of us, which can only save them. We all can join hands and find out ways of saving them.