Vidya Athreya - Session 04, 2020-07-14

File 1

(00:00) Human-Leopard Conflict Management Guidelines Athreya elaborates on the management guidelines developed by her and Aniruddha Belsare for the Maharashtra Forest Department in 2007, discussing how the idea came about, and how it was developed by her and Belsare with the involvement and interest of the then-Chief Wildlife Warden Majumdar [B. Majumdar]. Talks about the aims of the guidelines, which were meant for range forest officers (RFOs), and recounts some of her and Belsare’s experiences and observations working with forest officers in the field that informed their formulation. Explains that the guidelines were focussed on changing how animals were handled by correcting misinformation about leopards, leopard trapping, tranquilizing, and care in captivity. Athreya mentions that the guidelines were initially published in English and Marathi, before being translated into Hindi for use in Himachal Pradesh. Recounts several instances where she encountered people using the book without knowing that she was the author.

(06:45) Pause in recording. End of session.

File 2 (00:00) Collaring leopards [Archivist’s Note: Recording starts mid sentence.] Athreya recalls several stories from her time collaring leopards. Talks about making a distinction between animals that had ‘collided’ with humans and those that had purposefully attacked them, and why she refused to collar the latter. Delves into the motivation behind collaring leopards, which was to see ‘how they lived amongst humans’. Shares her opinion of the study, and reflects on the reasons why she felt it fell short of its potential.

In this context, also briefly discusses how human dominated landscapes require researchers skilled at interacting with people. Athreya discusses her disinterest in ‘unidimensional’ studies of wildlife after having worked in human dominated landscapes, explaining that she enjoys the complexity of studies that deal with the interactions between humans and animals. Elaborates that she does not see humans as distinct from other species, and they are equally subjects of observation for her.

Athreya discusses her learnings from the collaring program by recounting several incidents where leopards behaved in previously unexpected ways; talks about how leopards were living much closer to humans than people were aware of, and yet were much more likely to avoid contact with humans despite ample opportunity for attack; also discusses how they observed leopard lives and [dynamics of care in familial units] in human landscapes.

[00:01:40 - 00:01:46 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(07:29) Impact of the study; sources of fear and conflict Athreya also deliberates on the impact of her findings, suggesting that the information itself was already available to local forest department officials, and it was more so the presence of an individual with an alternative narrative on the animal that was impactful in reducing the fear of leopards, further helped by their involvement in tranquilising and microchipping leopards. Athreya says that ‘fear and understanding are two sides of the same coin’, adding that conflict is caused by a lack of understanding/exposure. Discusses the importance of the personal conduct of researchers for conflict redressal in rural India.

(12:44) Working with the Wildlife Conservation Society Athreya talks about working with the Centre for Wildlife Studies at the invitation of Ullas Karanth, her PhD guide, and joining the Wildlife Conservation Society; talks about continuing her research work while taking on more students and projects; says that she was given free reign over her own work, and that in her opinion she works better that way than when she is micromanaged.

Athreya also deliberates on the differences between her and WCS’s viewpoint; says that protected areas are the ‘dominant model’ of conservation in the United States, and used to be the dominant model in India conservation as well, and given the WCS’s origins in the US, it is the model the WCS emphasises; explains her own perspective regarding India’s unique position in having a large wildlife presence outside of protected areas; she says that India is resistant to ‘dichotomies’ in viewing the world and in her opinion the philosophy of ‘land sharing and land sparing’, rather than one or the other, is what works in the Indian context.

Athreya further discusses her experiences working with Karanth and his shift in perspective on wild cats in urban spaces; she says ‘he understands cats really well’, and recounts an incident where they collared a tigress in the city that Karanth thought was unlikely to survive outside protected areas, but she was eventually caught on camera traps with cubs; says ‘everything is a learning journey’. She goes on to talk about how despite this some philosophies are deeply rooted, for people from within as well as outside the Indian context, talking about the difficulty she faced at a talk in explaining the nuanced difference between wildlife living in urban contexts as opposed to wildlife and tribal people coexisting in a protected area; goes on to speak about the necessity of adapting with the times as Karanth did.

(19:48) Conservation measures for livestock losses Athreya goes on to elaborate on the collared tigress, discussing the presence of wild prey in urban spaces, as well as the preponderance of livestock; also discusses specific cases like Akole where high mortality at birth of livestock means that hyenas and foxes are able to feed on their discarded remains, or Gujarat where there are lots of feral cattle that feed lions; discusses alternative conservation interventions from this understanding of the rural Indian context, such as reducing livestock mortality due to disease to counter the livestock killed by wild carnivores and reduce the overall suffering of the people.

Recounts her own initial impulse from her training as a wildlife biologist to work with a veterinarian to treat goats attacked by wildlife at Akole, and talks about being warned by John Linnell to wait for results before carrying out any intervention; references Andrew Loveridge’s research positing that only a small percent of livestock deaths are due to predators. Says that even though diseases are far deadlier, biologists are encouraged only to focus on predators; deliberates on the viability of countering diseases through vaccination, or alternatively community owned pools of livestock to replace losses as more effective measures.

Athreya goes on to reflect on the necessity of ‘...[planning] an exit strategy for our work’; interventions like veterinary service require funds and the continued presence of an NGO, but an effective conservation strategy is one that is designed to enable the community to address the issue on its own; talks about the end of her own work at Akole and Bombay; says that ‘most landscapes need only a little bit of intervention’; briefly mentions not wanting to work at Junnar because it is too political.

(27:28) Work since 2012 Athreya says she had been working part time since 2012 as she needed more time for herself and her family, and was mostly involved in mentoring students; discusses how her work has expanded from leopards to wolves and elephants as well; says that she does not see much difference in the issues of wildlife in human use landscapes regardless of the species being discussed. Discusses her project on wolves in Pune with her student, Iravatee Majgaonkar, who was a graduate student at NCBS, and with Sunil Limaye - the work in Pune was cut short due to the difficulty of working in Pune and Limaye’s exit; mentions that Majgaonkar secured more funding and moved to Karnataka to carry out a similar project on the losses caused by wolves. Briefly discusses Majgaonkar’s work at Pune interviewing forest guards and daily labour to map out the presence of wolves in the landscape to indicate the extent to which they are present outside protected areas; says the scale at which wild animals use human landscapes is vital for policy.