Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***

Hunting >> Hunting in Asia

Pages: 1
Sportingbookworm
.224 member


Reged: 10/05/17
Posts: 40
Loc: Samara, Russia
Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37
      #303626 - 04/08/17 05:39 PM

No matter how much I admire Sri Nripendra Narayana, the Maharaja of Cooch-Behar... what's not to admire about him? To hunt like he did, to live in a princely life in general, from coctails with Edward VII to Oriental splendour at home - AND to go down as the best ruler of his state of all times! In a story published in the Russian edition of Sports Afield, I dubbed him "the man who defied Kipling" - East and West met very comfortably and fruitfully within this person.

But, no matter how much I admire the man, the book "Thirty-Seven Years of Big-Game Shooting" is mostly boring. 80% of the text is nothing but accounting: went here, shot a tiger, went there, jumped a rhino, rhino gored an elephant and got away. The other 20%, when Nripendra can or would give details, however, are fast and exciting, and you can see easily how he held old sports at coctail parties in London and Paris spellbound.

And yet accounting is precisely what makes "37 years" so valuable today. You know the official version for the hunting ban in India: that it was a white man's thing, the evil colonizers taught the poor innocent Indians to hunt for sport, and thus they between them destroyed the subcontinent's fauna. Normally, such claims are difficult to refute, as there's little or no data. But Sri Nripendra's book provides evidence that at least in one kingdom these princely hunts were perfectly sustainable.

So,

H0: Maharaja Cooch-Behar's hunts were destructive.
H1: Maharaja Cooch-Behar's hunts were sustainable.

If H0 is true, then the number or size of animals bagged would decrease over time, especially since we're talking about 40-year period. But the size and number of trophies over the years does not show an upward or downward trend, when considered against time spent hunting. Therefore, H0 is wrong, and H1 is correct.

I'm a bit sorry I didn't do a proper stat analysis, but the numbers are really pretty clear.

Below is a link to a story I wrote about it for BookYourHunt, it dwells on this in more detail, and also gives a couple of extracts from "Thirty-Seven Years..." Maharaja Cooch-Behar, or, Why is there no hunting in India?

--------------------
https://sportingbookworm.wordpress.com/


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 26983
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: Sportingbookworm]
      #303628 - 04/08/17 06:56 PM

Sustainability was far more damaged by a population increasing 50 times to a billion people, forestry changing from say 60% of land area to 3%. And still declining.

And a complete lack of understanding by the authorities of wildlife and also any idea of sustainable conservation methods. A pretty much widespread system of corruption. A hatred of "old" ways as "colonialism" and class hatred of the old royalty and masters .... and their cultures including hunting.

The locals starving or very poor see wildlife as a competing influence for farm and grazing land, a source of meat, and animals which destroy their crops and kill their family members. With ZERO benefit returned to the locals from wildlife why support it?

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"


Edited by NitroX (04/08/17 07:08 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bidgee
.375 member


Reged: 08/04/15
Posts: 701
Loc: Slightly west of Dubvegas, NSW
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: NitroX]
      #303990 - 12/08/17 08:43 PM

Too many people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40899987

Members of the Paharia tribe living in the upper hill regions of India's Jharkhand state have been spending sleepless nights.
A marauding elephant has trampled at least 15 local people to death in the past few months.
Further north, villagers living around the Pilibhit Tiger reserve in Uttar Pradesh are up in arms after three people were killed by a tiger within a week. At least 16 people have been killed in tiger attacks near the reserve since last October.
"We have sent in teams to tranquilise the animal and relocate it inside the reserve," said VK Singh, a senior Uttar Pradesh forest department official. "We understand that people are also afraid. It is challenging."
There are similar stories in southern and eastern India where animal sanctuaries are located. It is not just forested areas that are affected - even people in suburban areas and small towns have started encountering animals like leopards.
According to the Indian environment ministry, 1,144 people were killed in elephant and tiger attacks between April 2014 and May 2017. Experts say the numbers could be much higher if attacks by leopards and other wild animals were included in the list.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cordite
.300 member


Reged: 29/01/07
Posts: 225
Loc: NW Montana
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: Bidgee]
      #304068 - 15/08/17 09:23 AM

I have read quite a few of the old books about hunting in india. Sad to think that is all in the past because of over population. I suppose Africa is moving in the same direction.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 26983
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: cordite]
      #304263 - 19/08/17 10:04 PM

When visiting two or three "tiger" parks in India, there is CONSTANTLY local people intruding into the consveration area. Cutting reeds, grass, grazing, collecting firework etc etc.

All this has a big effect on the wildlife and the forests and environment.

Just simply WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE. And no serious attempts to reduce population increases let alone reduce the population to sustainable levels.

Unless a gov't had strong policies and actions to conserve wildlife, and the willingness and resources to enforce controls, especially population encroachment into wildlife areas, the wildlife is ultimiately doomed.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: Sportingbookworm]
      #304280 - 20/08/17 01:00 AM

Quote:

..... these princely hunts were perfectly sustainable.

So,

H0: Maharaja Cooch-Behar's hunts were destructive.
H1: Maharaja Cooch-Behar's hunts were sustainable.

If H0 is true, then the number or size of animals bagged would decrease over time, especially since we're talking about 40-year period. But the size and number of trophies over the years does not show an upward or downward trend, when considered against time spent hunting. Therefore, H0 is wrong, and H1 is correct.


I think you have reached the proper conclusion, the hunting was sustainable --- in the time of Maharaja Jitendra Narayan Bhup Bahadur.

For 150 years before WW-II the population of India was fairly constant at approximately 250-300 million. After WW-II, the human population increased radically. It rose to 350 million by 1950, 600 million by 1975, 1 billion by 2000, and is currently over 1.3 billion. (historical population of India)

Jim Corbett was born in India in 1875 and lived there until his retirement to Kenya in 1947. Jim Corbett must have watched what was happening to the wildlife of India. Surely, he observed the increasing trend of habitat being destroyed and the encroachment of human population, a wholesale conversion of jungles into farms and cities. Corbett was not only a well known hunter but also a notable conservationist and a lifelong naturalist. The timing of his most ardent conservation efforts and the establishment of the India's first national park in 1936 correspond to the beginning of India's population explosion.

Maybe that's your next article.

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NitroXAdministrator
.700 member


Reged: 25/12/02
Posts: 26983
Loc: Barossa Valley, South Australi...
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: Grenadier]
      #304283 - 20/08/17 01:41 AM

Quote:



For 150 years before WW-II the population of India was fairly constant at approximately 250-300 million. After WW-II, the human population increased radically. It rose to 350 million by 1950, 600 million by 1975, 1 billion by 2000, and is currently over 1.3 billion. (historical population of India)





I'm surprised the earlier population numbers are so high. I expected far fewer persons. With large population explosions in the 1900's.

It should be noted the chart's numbers are not comparable. Prior to 1900, the number included Burma and Pakistan. After that some time these populations were excluded (?). Pakistan probably includes Bangladesh as well. If one compares 1900 to 1930, the population is very similar, perhaps because some regions are now excluded.

But I am surprised by the 1800's population numbers. Unexpected. I have trouble believing those numbers.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Grenadier
.375 member


Reged: 20/02/08
Posts: 570
Loc: North of the Columbia, USA
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: NitroX]
      #304289 - 20/08/17 03:00 AM

The difference applies to "Some of the data prior to 1902", not all of it. It is a footnote that goes with the asterisk for the 1901 listing of 295,215,000 but a second look reveals a second, additional, listing for 1901 of 270,183,000.

Regardless, what the chart does reveal is that the population appears to be relatively stable until after WW-II. The population growth trajectory goes skyward after that. It's no wonder India passed the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. By then the population was more than double what it was in the days Corbett shot the Champawat Tiger and the Panar Leopard.

To put it into more perspective consider India has added a billion people over the past century. Those billion people have to live somewhere, eat something, create SOME waste, and travel on roads that go nearly everywhere.

--------------------
~


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bidgee
.375 member


Reged: 08/04/15
Posts: 701
Loc: Slightly west of Dubvegas, NSW
Re: Was princely hunting in the Raj sustainable? Answer from "37 [Re: Grenadier]
      #304295 - 20/08/17 07:01 AM

It is more convenient to blame the white hunters and Rajahs than face the truth of over population and human greed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-india-38925014/on-night-patrol-with-india-s-park-guards

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40579567

Wildlife activists have accused Indian authorities of a culture of secrecy around steadily rising tiger deaths.
At least 67 tigers have died this year - many as a result of conflict with humans, including poachers, they say.
"There is no transparency in these matters," Theodore Baskaran, a former trustee of WWF-India, told the BBC.
India is home to 60% of the world's tigers but they face increasing habitat loss and demand for their body parts in China and other parts of Asia.
Senior officials of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) confirmed to the BBC that the bodies of 58 tigers had been recovered between January and June this year, as well as body parts from nine other tiger fatalities.
Karnataka state in the south recorded 14 deaths, more than any other, while the central state of Madhya Pradesh accounted for 13.
"Wildlife activists are alarmed mainly because of the secrecy surrounding the deaths. Also there is no co-ordination between researchers and the forest department," Theodore Baskaran said.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1



Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  mehulkamdar 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 642

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved