S. S. Bisht

Abstract

Efforts for the conservation of the Elephant (Elephas maximus) in India were initiated in 1873 with the promulgation of the Madras Wild Elephant Preservation Act, 1873. But the earlier laws were quite liberal as regards capturing of elephants and permitted their killing under the pretext of protecting crop and public property. No attempt was made to control the ivory trade and protect habitat of elephants. As a result, elephant population in the country continued to decline. The elephant was included in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 on 5.10.1977. A number oflegislative measures were taken in the subsequent years which resulted in controlling the process of deforestation of elephant habitat and prohibiting ivory trade. Attempts for the conservation of elephants got a big boost in February 1992 when Government of India launched Project Elephant. As a result of various conservation measures, elephants now enjoy a comprehensive legal support and their population has gone up from 15,627 in 1980 to 28,274 in 2001. There has also been some reduction in the cases of human deaths caused by elephants. But the overall status of elephants and their habitat continues to be precarious. Incidences of killing of elephants by poachers for ivory and by farmers in retaliation to crop damage, are on the increase. Habitats and corridors of elephants are under tremendous pressure in many States on account of deforestation, encroachment and other biotic factors. In some regions, poaching of tuskers has disturbed the sex-ratio in elephant populations to alarming proportions. Human-elephant conflict has become a serious issue and the people are turning hostile to elephants and the forest staff. Status of domesticated elephants in India is also not satisfactory. The veterinary support for elephants is not adequate. It is necessary to make systematic and sustained efforts to deal with various problems concerning conservation of elephants. Tbe conservation strategies should also strive to nature and encourage the love and sympathy that a large number of people in India still have for elephants.

Full Text

     

S. S. Bisht

Abstract

Scientific forest management started in Bengal on August 3, 1864 when the forest Department was established. But wildlife management was not a priority with the foresters in the beginning the British looked upon wild animals, birds and fish as 'game' or 'source of revenue'. They framed their early laws to protect the interests of the 'sportsmen' and the 'exchequer'. Some of the wildlife laws extended to areas outside the forests. Experience gained in the enforcement of these laws led to their amendment or replacement from time to time. Over the years the philosophy of wildlife management has changed and now principles of conservation, rather than those of sport and economics, govern the management of wild animals. This change has also influenced the laws pertaining to wildlife. Although most of the wildlife laws were framed by the Central Government, yet a notable exception remains the Rhinoceros Preservation Act passed by the Bengal Government in 1932. Enforcement of wildlife laws, particularly in areas outside the forests, is still a problem in West Bengal. The hunting and fishing rules framed in West Bengal under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 have not been updated.

Full Text

     

S. S. Bisht , Tapan Katham

Abstract

Buxa Tiger Reserve (West Bengal) is very rich in orchids. The survey conducted by the authors during 1994 and 1995 revealed the existence of at least 144 species (including 5 varieties) of orchids many of which are rare and endangered. 34 species of orchids were found over plantations. 6 species of orchids were also seen over shrubs. As many as 109 species of orchids have been found to be uncommon or scarce within the Reserve. Part of the Reserve notified as Sanctuary and National Park provides protection to only 44 species. Wet Hill Forests provide shelter to 63% of orchid species though these are mostly unprotected and affected badly by dolomite mining and illegal cultivation of oranges. Existing forestry practices in the buffer zone also harm orchids. Suitable suggestions have been made for the long term management and conservation of orchids in the Reserve.

Full Text

     

S. S. Bisht

Abstract

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 provides protection to different species of wild animals and plants by assigning them to six schedules, each enjoying a different level oflegal protection. Non-inclusion or wrong inclusion of a species in the schedules may have an adverse impact on its future. Efficient implementation of the Act depends upon a careful organisation and management of the schedules. In the original Act the schedules were organised on the basis of the importance enjoyed by various species as 'Game'. But four amendments later, the schedules have lost their direction and thrust. The amendments in the schedules have not followed any criteria and resulted in making the schedules unwieldy and unstable. The schedules do not bear scrutiny with regard to their coverage of biodiversity or representation of threatened species. There are also contradictions between the schedules and the appendices of the CITES and the Export Policy of h~dia. The schedules also suffer from a number of taxonomic defects. Some suggestions for improving the organisation and management of the schedules have been made in this paper.

Full Text

     

S. S. Bisht

Abstract

One of the salient features of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 is the concept of 'Government Property'. This term has a specific connotation in the Act different from what a layman would understand it to be. This term holds the key to a complete understanding of many important provisions of the Act - particularly those relating to seizure of animals and other items involved in offences (Section 51) and composition of offences (Section 54). Erroneous decisions are sometimes taken by the wildlife authorities while dealing with offences against the Act owing to a misunderstanding of the term. The concept of Government Property.as envisaged in the original Act of 1972 led to a number of anomalies and problems in the enforcement of the Act as described in this paper. Some of these anomalies and problems have since been rectified through the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act of 1991, but there is still a scope for rationalization of the whole concept of Government Property.

Full Text