• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Shocking Amur Falcon Massacre in Nagaland, India (1 Viewer)

dacol

Well-known member
Shocking Amur Falcon Massacre in Nagaland
by Shashank Dalvi and Ramki Sreenivasan

"This is a documentation of the shocking massacre of tens of thousands of migratory Amur falcons (Falco amurensis) in the remote state of Nagaland in India’s northeast. We estimate that during the peak migration 12,000 – 14,000 birds are being hunted for consumption and commercial sale everyday. We further estimate that a mind-boggling 120,000 to 140,000 birds are being slaughtered in Nagaland every year during their passage through the state."
 
Shocking indeed. Remember, though, that it's likely that those involved are probably desperately poor and the modest income that they derive from this trade may well be disproportionately important to them. However, given that rather few people appear to make a profit from this 'harvest' I wonder if the long term answer might be well organised and targetted eco-tourism which could bring in more money than the short-sighted hunting.
 
Burning a river of jet fuel to fly "eco-tourists" halfway around the world surely isn't the answer.

I am only making a brief comment on this because it is off-topic but I deplore cheap shots of this kind (I have even pulled up Mark Avery ex-RSPB about it). The information is clearly illustrated on the Internet so it only needs a little bit of searching to find that air travel contributes one-third to one-quarter of the emissions compared to car/vehicle travel depending on the particular nation. The global picture is more or less the same despite the many countries that do not contribute to air travel or have extensive roads. However, that is not the end of the matter because the figures clearly show that industry creates the most emissions (up to 90% in some cases) and I am not sure you would want to stand and debate that one BK.
 
Bkrownd, if these eco-tourists travelled by boat (or car in some circumstances), how much more would they consume in food and other 'necessities'. The falcons being killed utilizes flight as it's by far the most efficient means to move quickly...many times a bird's only defense from our guns. The fact that we have learned this flight skill from them is in a way the ultimate homage to another animal. Birds 'taught us' how to fly. Using flight to aid them (eco-tourism is both non-comsumptive and educational) is appropriate. Without us being there, many massacres would never be witnessed, and we'd have no idea why a certain bird is waning towards extinction. Knowledge is power. (jmho)
 
Shocking indeed. Remember, though, that it's likely that those involved are probably desperately poor and the modest income that they derive from this trade may well be disproportionately important to them. However, given that rather few people appear to make a profit from this 'harvest' I wonder if the long term answer might be well organised and targetted eco-tourism which could bring in more money than the short-sighted hunting.

just seen this video, how terrible.

This is 2012 not the 1800s. No amount of reasoning will ever make this right in my eyes, truly shocking and however desperatly poor they are they should use their well kept fishing boats and fishing nets for a far better use in .... erm, how about fishing.

Uncivilised bastards
 
Complete rubbish, without tourism the future of almost all of India's most important wildlife areas would be short.

This is a hollow excuse for self-indulgence. If you believe your money is so vital then why not avoid the massive waste of energy and material involved in "eco-tourism", and just send the thousands of dollars per head such a trip costs directly towards the conservation effort? Better yet, fund a legitimate scientist or conservationist to do field work there in your place. They certainly need the funding! Your presence is not required.
 
This is a hollow excuse for self-indulgence. If you believe your money is so vital then why not avoid the massive waste of energy and material involved in "eco-tourism", and just send the thousands of dollars per head such a trip costs directly towards the conservation effort? Better yet, fund a legitimate scientist or conservationist to do field work there in your place. They certainly need the funding! Your presence is not required.


Presence is more vital than the money. Quite simple - it doesn't matter how much money you throw at some of these problems, as unfortunately too much money gets left in back-pockets.

The actual presence of tourists is a big deterrent to poaching, and in particular the kind of highly-organised poaching for wildlife-trade we are seeing today.

Quite easy to see how this works. An example:
Five of India's reserves with the highest density and numbers of Tiger are at the following five reserves: Kaziranga, Kahna, Ranthambor, Bandavghar and Corbett.
Without tourism into these reserves they would end up like much of Indochina, and suffer from 'Empty forest Syndrome'. There are some huge reserves in India that no longer have a viable population of Tigers, ie Melghat, Yawal, Nameri, Pakke - these reserves get similar funding to the above in terms of law-enforcement and research yet they get very very little tourism and are more difficult to access - coincidence?

In short 'Burning a river of jet fuel to fly "eco-tourists" halfway around the world' maybe is the answer in Nagaland. Imagine having a platform for tourists to see this wonderful migration spectacle each year, whereby the local community earn a living from showing tourists these birds and their culture, and they become proud of receiving all these people from around the world to see 'their' birds. You would be surprised, it just might help...

An article worth reading on a similar, past experience - http://www.wcs.org/conservation-cha.../ecotourism/the-giant-ibises-of-tmatboey.aspx

James
 
This is a hollow excuse for self-indulgence. If you believe your money is so vital then why not avoid the massive waste of energy and material involved in "eco-tourism", and just send the thousands of dollars per head such a trip costs directly towards the conservation effort? Better yet, fund a legitimate scientist or conservationist to do field work there in your place. They certainly need the funding! Your presence is not required.

Presence is more vital than the money. Quite simple - it doesn't matter how much money you throw at some of these problems, as unfortunately too much money gets left in back-pockets.

The actual presence of tourists is a big deterrent to poaching, and in particular the kind of highly-organised poaching for wildlife-trade we are seeing today.

Quite easy to see how this works. An example:
Five of India's reserves with the highest density and numbers of Tiger are at the following five reserves: Kaziranga, Kahna, Ranthambor, Bandavghar and Corbett.
Without tourism into these reserves they would end up like much of Indochina, and suffer from 'Empty forest Syndrome'. There are some huge reserves in India that no longer have a viable population of Tigers, ie Melghat, Yawal, Nameri, Pakke - these reserves get similar funding to the above in terms of law-enforcement and research yet they get very very little tourism and are more difficult to access - coincidence?

In short 'Burning a river of jet fuel to fly "eco-tourists" halfway around the world' maybe is the answer in Nagaland. Imagine having a platform for tourists to see this wonderful migration spectacle each year, whereby the local community earn a living from showing tourists these birds and their culture, and they become proud of receiving all these people from around the world to see 'their' birds. You would be surprised, it just might help...

An article worth reading on a similar, past experience - http://www.wcs.org/conservation-cha.../ecotourism/the-giant-ibises-of-tmatboey.aspx

James

:t:

"Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for one day - Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for life"*

*(well, at least as long as the population doesn't exceed the sustainable resource base ...... =)

.......... might be a good idea to teach him how to control his breeding too, and stop overpopulating .........

Any per capita increase in CO2e emissions pales into insignificance, compared to the devastation of unsustainable population growth ...... besides, you can always walk, take a sailing boat, etc ;)



Chosun :gh:
 
"Cheap shots"? I'm pointing out an obvious fact about the wastefulness of long distance travel.

Obviously you are not going to follow-up on the pointers I gave you, in which case, this is not a fact at all it is just an opinion. Anyway, this thread is not about air travel so it is my last comment on the subject here although you are welcome to start another thread under conservation and I will gladly discuss it with you.

Any per capita increase in CO2e emissions pales into insignificance, compared to the devastation of unsustainable population growth ...... besides, you can always walk, take a sailing boat, etc ;)

I could not agree more but it is important to realise that surface travel and air travel together make up less than 10% of CO2 emissions with industry making up more than 90%. Air travel makes up around 3% of the proportion although it varies slightly from country to country yet it is seen as the easiest target for criticism despite being awfully vulnerable to world affairs such as terrorism in terms of popularity. Even an event such as the Iraq War managed to put off many travellers leading to the collapse of independent airlines and 9/11 coupled with the global recession brought utter carnage to even moderately sized charter companies. I have no wish to get into a slanging match but I do not understand how someone can jump in with a comment like BK has done and yet not criticise their own nations policies towards industry and emissions targets. I am not saying the UK is innocent either.
 
Last edited:
This is a hollow excuse for self-indulgence.

I don't need excuses, I will self indulge if I so wish, and would not see reason to seek an excuse.


If you believe your money is so vital then why not avoid the massive waste of energy and material involved in "eco-tourism", and just send the thousands of dollars per head such a trip costs directly towards the conservation effort?

Yes, but there is something called the real world. Tourists travelling to national parks and other areas of wildlife importance put their money into local communities, the local communities and their governments see the value of such resources and chances are far higher they survive. You will never get the same sums donated regardless of the importance, it is the real world. As already pointed out by others, it also adds a thousand eyes to the ground, a very valuable point to consider in many areas.

Also, who would you like me to send the money to? To the governments who decree the areas protected, to the commercial tour companies and hotels that frequently lobby for the areas to receive protection, to the land owners that have spent vast sums to enhance the wildlife appeal to encourage eco-tourism, to the conservation bodies that do the work, to the small scale local hotel owners, restaurants and other providers who exist off independent travellers to the regions (without whose support, encroachment and poaching almost certainly occur) or to who? Tourism supports all, tourism equals survival for many of the best wildlife areas, that is no hollow excuse, it is fact, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
It says he's from the UK, right?...cause North Americans would spell it 'Uncivilized'

Is that what you meant?
(ok....time to lighten up please)
 
Tourism supports all, tourism equals survival for many of the best wildlife areas, that is no hollow excuse, it is fact, like it or not.

Most of the money spent on tourism goes to transportation companies, hotels, etc and the industries that support them. Why not put 100% of that money towards actual conservation work and community improvement, instead of the tiny fraction that ever trickles down to it though tourism? The money wasted on air fares and fuel etc could instead go directly towards local conservation jobs and investment and building stable local economies. Instead you're giving the lion's share to airlines, oil companies, etc.
 
I could not agree more but it is important to realise that surface travel and air travel together make up less than 10% of CO2 emissions with industry making up more than 90%. Air travel makes up around 3% of the proportion

Apples and oranges. "Industry" is (presumably) doing something useful, not jetting around the world on holiday. Your arguement is that since someone else is consuming more fuel for something, your own waste is irrelevant? Everyone can play that game.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top