Who killed how many tigers in India

[shooter]

i have been writing the wrong info on this hread.

the thread says "who killed how many tigers in india"

This may be interpreted in many ways.

Does it include a time span?

(In 1800s or 1600s)

Does it include kills with a gun only (making of dam in UP killed a few thousand barasingha in one day for eg. do such things count?)

Does it include poachers?

Does this list include the professional tiger killers who used (very impressive) methods to kill tigers.

Does this only include royalty only? if so does it have to be internet verifiable? For e.g. many royals kept game diaries many didnt. Even those who kept it didnt necessarily share it with people who have access to making website.
Also when calling it a "kill" when the professional' shikari on the groundputs a bullet to end the suffering of the beast shot down a man on the machan, who gets the credit?

Traditionally it has been the man on the machan.

So if it has to be verified by internet links then sarguja.

Else i stand as before, reva datia gwalior. Difficult to count exact number as diff people had dif methods of counting. and diff people filling game books.

The british officers commonly shot pregnant tigresses so the unborn cubs could count as "kills".

Also the professional tiger killers arent mentioned neither are the poachers. Maybe because they didnt keep record books.

There have been professional hunter castes in india who hunt animals for a profession.
Why arent their actions being studied? I mean this in a god way as this is our history and we will lose it if we do not recognise it or acknowledge it.

How many people know how to make a machaan?
To arrange a haaka?

To make various traps to kill a tiger.

Or, better still, make tiger specific traps which only kill tigers and not other animals or humans?

or the names of these tribes and what their purpose was.

In UK the use of snares and traps is banned but there are museums where they are kept as it is a part of poachers' history.
Similar there are museums in the USA where slavery related memorabilia is kept.

Similarly, rather than just saying "they were butchers" , we should compile old record books, tiger killing rate bounties, their variotion with historical events (which will give us valuable input about economic conditions)., the places where the bounties became more can oint towards the clearing of forests for farmland. (although many of the payments for bulk killing of tigers wasnt by the govt. but by villagers or village zamindar/headman)

How about discussing tiger nuicance reports in the kachehris where aplications were sent about man eaters/cattle lifters and hunters sent to dispatch the nuicance animals.

How about discussing the impact of british imperealism and the change in sporting pratice.

How about looking at british shooting history?

The british did not become "butchers" in india.

Huge game bags were shot in europe which they couldnt even dream of in india.

Todays shoots of 600 birds a day is nothing compared to then.

Wild birds (not released) were shot by thousands at the turn of the century ditto for rabbits, hares and ducks.

No effect of on numbers.
Mainland europe wild rabbit and hare shoots have documented bags of up to 30000 a day (yes i checked the zeroes).

All the hunting did not have a really big effect on numbers. Not as much as poaching, professional killing etc. And the biggest killer habitat destruction.

Do you know nehru's tiger bag was very impressive but due to numbers not recorded, we will never know the exact number.



About the train: A british lord (name witheld) was the first person to have a train in his estate so he could go from his palace (manor house) to the shoot and shoot from the moving train. This idea was copied in india.

Big bags, big shoots, shooting all the time, big game hunting, display of hunting trophies, hunting trophies, are many old british traditions copied in India in the name of being civilised.

Yes, I expect the answer " yes these @$$h01£$ were @$$ 11ck£r$ copying anything the british did".
Maybe they were. Maybe they werent. Study abut the indoctrination they went through. Study why rajkumar college, Daly college, Mayo college were set up (even today premier institutions in the country). Read what was taught there before making judgement.

Is India free from the western "trophy acquisition" and copying even today?

Of course we are as we are so high and mighty.

We go after "brands" not trophies. "titan and HMT" arent good enough.
We have to celebrate halloween, play golf, have country club memberships.

But this is "Global village", not copying other cultures.

All in all its a slippery slope and its easier as humans to criticise others to feel better about ourselves and not realise that human nature hasnt changed much over generations.

[rns188]

As far as my knowledge goes, surguja maharaj has killed the most tigers till date among the others rajas amd maharajas of erstwhile native princely states of india. He shot them tigers from machans, elephant back,jack lighting (sitting in a jeep) as well as in hakas (beat). His own records state that he shot over 1500 tigers but that is not verified by the then government records. He was my mother's grandfather so I can say that what I am saying is not all what I've read on the internet.

[prashantsingh]

Shooter . I doubt as many tigers were hunted in the 1600 or even the 1800s. It is a known fact that tiger hunting increased with the advent of firearms, modern rifles,motor vehicles and forest roads which made our jungles more accessible and the tiger more vulnerable.
Undoubtedly, as you have correctly mentioned. Loss of habitat has been a major cause for their drop in numbers.
Dear rns188. Isn't the maharaja also known for hunting down the last three cheetahs in Wild?

[shooter]

Dear prashantsingh

Please read my post. I made the same mistake as you are making.
The topic is very clear. It is nothing about hunting or firearms.
In olden times before bulldozers and chainsaws. Setting a fire to the forest was an effective way to clear forests for making new cities or for agricultural land.
Such a practice would have resulted in a far more bigger " kill" number than with a gun.
This was an example.

Similarly the professional tribal killers. Would also kill many tigers.
Again there were many tribal people who made a living by selling tiger skins. In their lifetime one can only speculate the numbers.

What you are doing is just reading the topic as " which maharaja or viceroy had the largest number of recorded tiger kills".

The last cheetah hunt was a very celebrated event. Letters were sent out informing people about the great achievement and how, essentially a record was made which can never be broken.

[shooter]

Also I didn't literally give 3 choices of 1400, 1600 or 21 century.
This was making a point about how we define kills and time span.

Pandit Nehru killed a lot of tigers. It is not in any game book so we will never know. Maybe less than his highness sarguja, maybe more. But hard to be sure.

[prashantsingh]

You always come up with some interesting arguments shooter. I have only talked about hunting tigers in an age gone by. But if we talk about killing tigers. I will say the same. Indian population has grown exponentially over the last century. From less than a quarter in the early 1930 to our 120 crore today. The rich terrai jungles which extended from the United provinces to Assam and was considered an unexhaustable source of tigers were destroyed to give space to agriculture. I believe that the tiger has suffered most in this region which has now been reduced to localised green pockets here and there. So , i still stand by what i said. the maximum tigers were killed in the 20th century. Be it due to habitat loss or due to hunting.

[shooter]

Good one bhai.
I agree with u.
The last 100 yrs have seen the world ecosystem change like never before.
Now that we are getting answers to "when" , the question remains about "who".

[rns188]

Shooter . I doubt as many tigers were hunted in the 1600 or even the 1800s. It is a known fact that tiger hunting increased with the advent of firearms, modern rifles,motor vehicles and forest roads which made our jungles more accessible and the tiger more vulnerable.
Undoubtedly, as you have correctly mentioned. Loss of habitat has been a major cause for their drop in numbers.
Dear rns188. Isn't the maharaja also known for hunting down the last three cheetahs in Wild?

Sir I'm sure of that but one more interesting thing I can tell you is that he shot 14 leopards in one night driving from ambikapur to daltongunj.

[prashantsingh]

Sir I'm sure of that but one more interesting thing I can tell you is that he shot 14 leopards in one night driving from ambikapur to daltongunj.[/quote]

That's another record of sorts.
I have heard that the Maharaja had tents made out of tiger skins. Is that true?

[JWD]

If one was to hazard an educated guess the biggest killer of tigers was the Wildlife Protection Act 1972. In 1972 there were an estimated 40,000 tigers in the wild in India and despite the total ban on hunting numbers have plummeted to levels that will likely see wild tigers disappear totally within a generation. Although somewhat counterintuitive, it has been proved that throughout the world that the banning of hunting has a massively detrimental effect on wildlife numbers.

Leaving the situation in India aside for now, and looking at similar bans in African nations, it can be seen that to ensure a stable and healthy wildlife numbers in the long term. It both generates vital revenue for wildlife services and protection as well as a sustainable infrastructure to the areas that benefit from it. Here are some figure to illustrate the point from PH Robin Hurt's letter to the USFW:

"Tanzania in 1973 – at that time there were an estimated 380,000- elephant , and 18,000- black rhino . By the time the Government reopened hunting in 1983 , the elephant population had declined to about 80,000- and rhino to less than 100 animals . The Tanzanian Government realised that the ban was a mistake , leaving the wilderness wide open to commercial poaching , and reopened safari hunting in 1983 . The elephant population immediately started to recover , increasing up to an estimated 130,000- animals in 2009.

Kenya in 1977 – at that time there were an estimated 176,000- elephant , and over 8000- black rhino . Today there are various estimates , but probably an accurate one would be somewhere in the region of 20,000 + – elephant , and about 500 + – rhino . Kenya remains closed to Safari Hunting , and has the embarrassment of loosing over 150,000- elephant and 7,500- black rhino ! All in a period of no legal hunting . Poaching is , and continues to be , rife .

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO – ( FORMALLY ZAIRE ) - formally the largest strong hold of the forest elephant , Safari Hunting was banned in 1984 . It remains closed to this day . Since that closure the northern white rhino has completely disappeared , and is probably extinct . Forest elephant are now a rarity in that country . Again all in a period of NO legal hunting ."

These examples a the tragedies that define the reality of banning hunting in todays ever growing world. If one looks at the situation prior to the '72 ban in India the very same is true. Those who hunted did so on what were in effect concession lands, much the same as is done in the present day in many of the southern African countries where legal hunting takes place. Those concession lands were paid for and as such the 'lessee's' had a vested interest to ensure that the game within those areas were protected. For a healthy tiger population, you need sufficient game to sustain it. To have sufficient game you need to ensure that those living within or near such areas do not decimate populations of game and the only way to do so is to provide another source of meat free of cost (for that is what the game presents itself as to those living in the vicinity) which is what was done by the majority of those lessee's.

Now, when you place a blanket ban on hunting, those who were formally protectors of such areas, namely those lessee's are not going to continue to provide such assistance. So naturally, the result is that those living within the vicinity turn to other sources, namely the existing game, which provides a free source of meat easily trapped or shot. Now the meat becomes, not merely a meal but a source of revenue to be sold. The game numbers plummet and with it the natural source of food for tigers. In turn and quite naturally they turn to domesticated animals as there source, and as such naturally become a pest to those living within the vicinity, necessitating there destruction.

Much of the debate regarding nature conservation in India is focused on tigers, but if one takes a trip into what is left of the wilderness in India perhaps the most striking thing is the total lack of animals of any kind. Granted you will see the odd buck or deer in certain areas, but not the large numbers that would have inhabited the forests and savannah areas in times past. It is these animals that provides much of the diet of the big cats and with it gone so must the apex predators.

If one takes a different track and looks at biodiversity, a similar situation can also be levelled in favour of legalised hunting. In the UK, where bird shooting is very popular in the country side, and indeed thousands of birds are bred and released for such purposes, it is the areas where this is done that see the greatest biodiversity. There is a strong lobby against such hunting practices by bird groups, etc, who focus primarily on the protection of birds of prey. These groups ignore the fact almost entirely that areas where hunting takes place have significantly higher numbers of both birds of prey and other native birds and animals, well above the numbers that are present on there numerous pilot protection areas. In fact the RSPB, perhaps the most well known of the advocates against bird hunting in the UK, who's own large scale protection areas were named as having the worst biodiversity of any rural area in Britain by the body they themselves set up to monitor the project. The fact remains that where legalised bird hunting takes place, the onus to keep predator numbers at a sustainable level is financially viable and the is to the benefit of the ecosystem at large, both birds of prey, native birds, as well as small mammals of all kinds. There is also benefit felt directly by those employed within the 'industry' with over 1600 crores injected into the economy as a result of bird hunting in the UK alone ever year.

Admittedly, none of these examples tackle the issue of poaching for skins, bone, p*n*s's etc that are favoured by our friends over the border. However, with such a lucrative commodity presenting a nuisance to people living in the vicinity of tigers, and with those wholly prepared to facilitate the tigers demise for profit, and in turn paying a stipend to such people living close by for information and assistance it seems a losing battle to prevent such activities taking place without considerable government intervention in the form of both man power and financially.

In summation, it appears very clear that by banning hunting the '72 Act not only saw to the great killing of tigers, but also all variety of game throughout the sub-continent. I don't suggest that hunting in India be re-opened for there really isn't much left to hunt, but to ensure the continued survival of the species in the wild significant action would need to be taken, and the causes of the drastic reduction in numbers be frankly admitted instead of levelling the blame on those hunters of the past who in many ways were protectors of the animals rather than destroyers of them. You only need to look to the hunting practices employed in countries such as South Africa and Namibia where hunting provides massive employment and much needed financially injection into the economy to see how beneficial well controlled hunting can be. It is worth mentioning that in these countries hunting of any kind and all permits for the same are issued by the respective wildlife protection bodies.

[Pradyumna]

No.. The estimated 40000 tigers left in India was at the turn of the last century, not in 1972.

[prashantsingh]

No.. The estimated 40000 tigers left in India was at the turn of the last century, not in 1972.

] True. There were an estimated 3000 odd. but these figures may be rather conservative. Since the habitat was in a better state.
. Else I agree with what JWD has written

[rns188]

Sir I'm sure of that but one more interesting thing I can tell you is that he shot 14 leopards in one night driving from ambikapur to daltongunj.

That's another record of sorts.
I have heard that the Maharaja had tents made out of tiger skins. Is that true?[/quote]
Sir, I'm not sure of that, people in those days got a lot of things made....he might have got that made. Though I've seen a carpet made out of 14 leopard skins and the pattern of each skin is so similar and emmacuately combined that one cannot make out where one skin ends and the other starts.

[JWD]

No.. The estimated 40000 tigers left in India was at the turn of the last century, not in 1972.

] True. There were an estimated 3000 odd. but these figures may be rather conservative. Since the habitat was in a better state.
. Else I agree with what JWD has written

Forgive me, my mistake, it was the global population based on some WWF census figures I a while back. Still I think the figure of 3000 odd would seem rather low as you say, given that the presence of them has upheld a poaching 'industry' for 40 years. It will be a very sad day when they no longer roam wild. Sadly, successive governments don't see the value in 'eco/wildlife' tourism as has shown so much success elsewhere, but I suppose a politicians job is to be re-elected and the small pockets that currently benefit from the 'tourist dollar' that tigers bring is not a vote bank.

What also amazes me is the numbers shot by the maharajas. They must have been hunting almost daily to rack up those numbers, though I suppose if you charge around on an elephant flushing game multiples per day would not be uncommon. Pretty unsporting though.