Camera traps as a valuable tool in patrolling

Most protected areas in India demand that guards patrol the forest daily on foot as a means of protection. Each forest guard is specified a ‘beat’, an area which is supposed to be patrolled every day, and systematically record observations on sightings and signs of wildlife. Many such beats comprise a ‘range’; the number of beats may vary depending on the size of each range, and several such administrative ranges subsequently comprise a protected area and/or a forest division. Information gathered systematically across beats on the presence of wildlife can be very valuable to reserve managers, such that it can help them understand, perhaps crudely, the presence or absence of wildlife at the smallest scale of the administrative reserve.  However, this information becomes all the more useful when speculations are ruled out, and hard evidence in the form of photographs is obtained on a regular basis on the presence of wildlife.  A good example in this case is the Ranthambore tiger reserve, where forest guards have been allotted camera-traps (remote cameras) to be deployed in their respective beats, so as to obtain photographs of tigers (and other wildlife) that use those areas. Prima facie, this seems to be a better patrolling initiative than the archaic ‘pugmark guessing’ of individual tigers, their sex, number and age of cubs present. This also appears to have given the forest guards a sense of heightened responsibility to report the genuine presence of tigers in their respective beats.

Although such activities will strictly not come under the scientific umbrella of monitoring, given the absence of a lack of a rigorous sampling framework of such ad hoc approaches, it nevertheless seems a much warranted inclusion in daily patrolling. It, in no way, undermines systematic monitoring to be taken up, such as intensive monitoring of source populations of tigers annually as endorsed by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA). However, the use of camera-traps in identifying individuals by their photographs, rather than pugmarks improves the quality of patrolling one notch higher. It enables managers to regularly keep a check on presence of tigers in source tiger areas and identify individuals present in the reserve by matching them to those identified during annual systematic monitoring of reserve. However, one must express deep caution by not regarding such secondary camera-trapping activities as ‘monitoring’, since they can only be used to validate observations in the respective beats. Such approaches do not provide any truthful estimate of population parameters nor would they be effective in measuring management effectiveness.

As such patrolling largely focuses on ‘protection’; this includes keeping a check on extractive activities of humans. However, observations on the presence of wildlife while patrolling are very useful for managers in day-to-day administrative activities, and remote cameras may be a helpful tool to aid regular patrolling. The use of remote cameras in patrolling will help managers to validate information collected by beat guards. Even today, guards are made to make plaster casts as ‘proof’ for detection of tiger pugmarks in their beats. Such casts are made every other day and stockpiled, and after a while many break and most others are forgotten. Instead, a digital photo is so much more informative an alternative. Cameras also enable managers to understand the presence of species which, otherwise being elusive, are rarely reported in daily patrols. Caution should be employed though, not to misuse this information for ‘estimation’ of population parameters, unless done in a scientific framework. Camera-traps are a valuable addition to patrolling, and a definite improvement from age-old pugmark guessing exercises.