IT is an utterly misplaced management procedure, apparently dictated by the skewed political ambitions of CP Yogeswar, forest minister of Karnataka. A herd of 25 wild elephants will be tranquillised and relocated far away from their original habitat. It has been claimed that some of these elephants have become habitual crop-raiders, resulting in sleep disorder for the very rich and powerful owners of coffee plantations and tourist resorts that have come up on the transit paths of these elephants in Hossur district. The minister's atrocious plan, if executed, will inevitably result in the death of many of these highly endangered animals. Several technical as well as ethical questions remain unanswered.
This particular herd is composed of two or more family groups of different sex and age structure. Asian elephants are known to be socially cohesive with extremely strong family bondage. Severance of a link at any stage in their social order may even lead to the death for some of these elephants. It can also cause utter confusion among the ones that survive, resulting in unpredictable and occasionally aggressive behaviour towards man.
Not that those who have evolved this reckless plan in Karnataka are unaware of such possibilities; but for unknown and possibly dubious reasons, it is being pursued vigorously. This flies in the face of the accepted tenets of conservation.
Even if we overlook the moral questions related to such action, are we aware of the effects of these highly potent chemicals on the physiology of wild elephants? Rather hideously, the chemical is fired from a gun. I personally feel that we still do not have a definite answer to either of these issues that are fraught with risk. Far from being a foolproof option, the targeted elephant fails to recover after being tranquillised. Shots, correctly aimed at captive elephants, have however, proved successful. Results from such 'clinical trials' under controlled conditions are being publicised as success stories and followed up on "wild targets".
While attempting to chemically immobilise elephants in Indian jungles, the target is often awkwardly positioned in difficult terrain. The person handling the tranquiliser gun may not be able to fire what they call a "clean shot". Assuming that the shot hits the target, it is virtually impossible to drive a large truck to the location and upload the 3-4 ton deadweight. I have seen the agony of a dying captive elephant which suffered a poorly- aimed tranquiliser dart that got embedded in the underbelly, although it was shot from a distance of 15 metres. In the jungles of India, such close-proximity approach always remains an elusive experience for anyone trying to get close, unannounced.
Some believe that relocating the Asian elephant should be as easy as in Africa. They forget that in the Dark Continent, such efforts are made in the grasslands where visibility is clear. An unhindered approach is possible unlike in the Indian jungles where the forest topography makes the use of the tranquiliser gun difficult. I am not saying that no wild elephant has ever been successfully tranquillised in India. But the risk of losing these precious animals is substantial particularly when the Karnataka government proposes to shoot a herd of 25 elephants in one fell swoop.
Those who have formulated this appalling plan must reflect. When one elephant is felled, the others will panic and disappear from that part of the forest. And an elephant being an elephant, it will not afford another opportunity even to apply a syringe in future. The forest officers will have no option but to relocate the immobilised elephant. This will result in the fragmentation of the family group, resulting in severe trauma for the survivors.
The elephant may yet receive justice. The country's most oppressed animal has at last been favoured with the blessings from a very unlikely source ~ a benevolent judge of Karnataka High Court. Mr Justice Vikramjit Sen, taking suo motu notice of the recent rise in incidents of human-elephant conflicts in the state, has ordered the Union government to seek the opinion of elephant experts in India and Africa, and ascertain the reasons for the recent rise in cases of death and injury on both sides. The court has directed the formulation of action plans to mitigate the conflicts. The Bench has ordered that the 25 elephants must not be relocated before securing the considered opinion of a task force made up of elephant experts.
In an earlier affidavit filed with the Ccurt, the Chief Wildlife Warden of Karnataka had accepted the unpleasant fact that coffee plantations and tourist resorts established on elephant transit paths (ETPs) have dislocated the transit corridors with haphazard installation of elephant-repellent electric fences. This has further "disjointed" the traditional elephant-use areas. After hearing his submission, Justice Sen observed: "You said that a resort has come up at Bandipur on the corridors. Have you recommended the removal of the resort or the elephants? You should be protecting the animals, not people".
Expressing his disgust over the way in which the so-called experts operate in our country, the Acting Chief Justice had once observed that the elephant experts are not helping the court settle the matter. "They are not here for conservation. They are here for something else". The concern is justified. Elephant experts in India are members of a very close-knit and elite "syndicate" comprising forest officials ~ who are responsible for the present state of affairs ~, desk-top scientists comfortable with tongue-twister jargon and resort owners who are largely tiger experts in northern India. The common trait is their reluctance to work under difficult field conditions. They are careful not to antagonise the powerful ministers. While finalising recommendations they depend wholly on secondary information gathered from DFOs who, in turn, are fed by Range Officers eager to please the boss with what he wants to hear.
While planning for an action plan in a sensitive wildlife habitat, a very senior forest officer refused to agree with me that primary information secured from the field should form the basis for designing proper wildlife management plans. He preferred to prepare a report based on data secured through unconfirmed sources. In the case of elephants, their use-area is spread over a very large geographical space. The reason for conflict in one place may be connected with the dislocation at another place, far away from this site of occurrence. Before making any suggestion, the habitat status, the pattern of usage and the impact of other man-induced impediments should be assessed dispassionately.
The intervention of Karnataka High Court raises hope in a world full of self-seekers. That hope must persist.
The writer is a bio-geographer and Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, London