high-altitude tigers in Bhutan

Chlidonias

Moderator
Staff member
15+ year member
I saw this on the news yesterday and knew it would be interesting to many on here (videos on the link):
BBC - Earth News - Lost tiger population discovered in Bhutan mountains
A "lost" population of tigers has been filmed living in the Himalayas.

The discovery has stunned experts, as the tigers are living at a higher altitude than any others known and appear to be successfully breeding.

Their presence in the Bhutan highlands has been confirmed by footage taken by a BBC natural history camera crew.

Creating a nature reserve around the tigers could connect up fragmented populations across Asia, preventing the extinction of the world's biggest cat.

Tigers are known to live in the Himalayan foothills of Bhutan, though little is known about them, or how many there are.


The fact they can live here is just so important, for tigers in the wild, for their future

However, leading tiger expert Dr Alan Rabinowitz, formerly of the World Conservation Society and now President of Panthera, a conservation organisation dedicated to safeguarding big cat species, suspected that tigers may also be living at higher altitude, following anecdotal reports by villagers suggesting that some were roaming as high as 4000m (13,000ft).

So, together with a BBC film crew, he decided to investigate by journeying to Bhutan to seek proof that such mountain tigers did indeed exist.

Dr Rabinowitz enlisted the help of BBC wildlife cameraman Gordon Buchanan, who has filmed wild cats worldwide for more than 10 years.

Under Dr Rabinowitz's direction, Mr Buchanan trekked up into the mountains, where he then set a series of camera traps, that would automatically film any creature moving in front.

Cameras also recorded a big cat prowling at night

The team left the traps at an altitude of between 3,000m and 4,100m, above which trees start being unable to survive.

Three months later, he returned to see what they had caught on camera.

The cameras recorded a wealth of wildlife, including red foxes, jungle cats, monkeys, leopards, Himalayan black bear, tarkin, serow, musk deer and even a red panda.

This is the only place on earth known to have tigers, leopard and snow leopards all sharing the same valley.

It is remarkable to have these three big cats sharing their range.

Most extraordinarily, the cameras took footage of two wild tigers, one male and one female, a discovery that moved Mr Buchanan to tears.

Tigers may be more ancient and distinct than we thought, having evolved with snow leopards 3.2 million years ago.

The world's largest cat, the Amur tiger, is down to an effective wild population of fewer than 35 individuals.

Once found across much of Asia, tigers have disappeared from over 90% of their historic range over the past century.

The images are the first known footage of tigers in the remote mountains of Bhutan and the first hard evidence that tigers are capable of living at that altitude.

This find was made in close collaboration with Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, with help and guidance from forest guard Phup Tshering.

"The fact they can live here is just so important, for tigers in the wild, for their future," said Mr Buchanan, on seeing the footage for the first time.

The large male tiger, sighted at an altitude of 4,100m is recorded scent-marking, confirming that the tiger pair are living within their own territory, and not just passing through.

The female tiger, sighted at the same altitude, can also be seen to be lactating, strongly suggesting the tigers are breeding at that altitude.

Further footage shows tigers living lower at an altitude of 3000m.

The discovery, which is broadcast this week as part of the BBC One programme Lost Land of the Tiger was made by the same BBC team that discovered a new species of giant rat living on the slopes of a remote volcano deep inside the jungle of Papua New Guinea.

The highest living tigers in the world endure snowy conditions

Dr Rabinowitz and the BBC team are not revealing the exact location of the tigers, in order to prevent them being found by poachers.

Tigers used to roam across Asia, now only pockets remain. There are estimated to be as few as 3,000 left in the wild, due to poaching and habitat loss.

The discovery of tigers living at altitude in Bhutan could be crucial to one scheme proposed to help save the species from extinction.

Known as a "tiger corridor", the idea is to connect up many of these surviving isolated and fragmented groups.

That would allow individual tigers to move between populations, allowing them to breed more widely, bolstering the genetic diversity of those surviving.

It would also offer some tigers sanctuary from human towns and villages and the increasing pressures they bring.

The Tiger Corridor Initiative, promoted by the conservation organisation Panthera, hopes one such major corridor could extend along the foothills of the Himalayas from Nepal into Bhutan and northern India, then through to Myanmar, stretching across 2000km with an area of 120,000 sq km. The ambition would then be to connect it to another corridor spanning Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, terminating in Malaysia.

"The significance of finding tigers living so high in Bhutan is that it means that huge areas of Himalayas, that people didn't think were natural places for tigers to live, can now be included in the tiger corridor," says Jonny Keeling, a BBC producer who helped track and film the big cats.

"Bhutan could act as tiger nursery from which tigers could breed safely and spread out to re-populate forests of some of the surrounding countries."

Lost Land of the Tiger will be broadcast on BBC One at 21.00BST on Tuesday 21st, Wednesday 22nd and Thursday 23rd September.

then while doing a search for a good article to post, I came across this earlier one from 2008, so not as "new" news as it is publicised, but very interesting nevertheless:
Wildlife Extra News - Tigers moving to higher altitude in Bhutan
May 2008.
Evidence from Bhutan shows that tigers have expanded their range to higher altitudes than ever before, and their territories now overlap with Snow leopards. Pictures and pugmarks from the Jigme Dorji National Park show that royal Bengal tigers in Bhutan are being found at altitudes never seen before.

"We've realized that Bhutan is now officially the only country in the world to have tigers at such high altitudes and also the only country where the habitat of the snow leopard and the tiger are overlapping," said Tiger Sangay of the Nature Conservation Division. Sources say that pugmarks and pictures have been spotted at between 3,700 to 4,300 metres in the latest study.

The study, which started in April 2008, is using 38 strategically placed GPS-marked and infrared-trigger cameras to find out the total number of tigers in the country. At the moment, the study is focused in Jigme Dorji National Park and will move to other parks. According to Tiger Sangay, each tiger has a unique stripe.

The study hopes to get a photographic record and a clear idea of the total number of snow leopards in the country. The previous estimate was around 100 animals and there is now confirmed data that can support this guesstimate. These cats have been found at heights of up to 5,500 metres, migrating down to 2,000 metres in winter.

The implications and reasons for tigers being found at such high altitudes will hopefully emerge from the study. "We may also get data on how the overlapping of territory of these two big cats may be affecting each other, if at all," said Sangay.

"Global warming with warmer temperatures in the higher reaches is a logical but as yet unconfirmed explanation," said animal specialist Dr. Sangay Wangchuk of the Nature Conservation Division.

Another possible explanation could also be habitat pressure on tigers forcing them to extend their hunting area upwards with growing habitat disruption at the lower reaches. The data may be an indication of the good health of Bhutan's forests because they allow the tiger to reach high places due to continuous forest cover in a diverse landscape.

Another possible explanation could be that Bhutan's tigers have always roamed at high altitudes, but, until now, have not been recorded there.

"We're also hoping to see if tigers at these altitudes have developed any extra features by which we can classify them as being different from their cousins in the plains," said Sangay. "We're looking for features like if they're bigger than the plains version or if they have more fur to deal with the cold."
 
Certainly, a most interesting find. It shows that endangered species can be more resilient than we come to expect or assume. However, no note for complacency here ....

Bengal tigers - by virtue of the most numerous ssp. - have over the last decade or so exponentially declined more drastically than the other more critical ssp. - Sumatran and Siberian.

One question here: I would NOW assume that Bengals will come to be found across the Himalayan arc from perhaps the Darjeeling-Sikkim range in India towards Nepal and on to the foothills into Myanmar.
 
Well, they used to be. For example, in the beginning of the 20th century Jim Corbett was hunting tigers in the Kumaon hills of India. However, due to relatively low prey base, the Himalayas are a marginal habitat for tigers. The expansion of settlements and overhunting of tiger prey by human hunters have put an end to tigers throughout most of the high altitude habitats.

Bhutan is undoubtedly a very special place, and the good people and its government deserve praise for preserving their unique wildlife and forests.
 
Wild Tiger Conservation

Brilliant news, although i don't see why it is so surprising. Given enough space, prey and genetic diversity, tigers can thrive anywhere. It's only human beings who have become rather obsessed with preserving a sub-species in the last place where it has been almost driven to extinction, I personally think that tigers shouldn't be limited to these areas and should be able to roam throughout any area given plenty of space, prey, genetic diversity and of course an area already lacking in a top appex predator, whether it's India, Africa or North America. Man has taken over every inch of this planet, so why do tigers, and all other predators have to be bound to one tiny habitat?
It's the fact that conservationists are trying to preserve tigers in India/China which is why the species is still facing extinction. With close to 2 billion people between these two countries, many of whom are in poverty and could care less about wildlife; many more who see Tigers as trophies, or quick money making schemes, how the hell do you expect to save them.
I honestly believe releasing tigers, theoretically, into areas with low human population, under a government willing to protect them and under an eco system that is prepared to take them (Bhutan being a perfect example) is the only way to preserve wild tigers at least in the short run. This way if ever India/China/Sumatra etc: decide to really get serious about tiger conservation, they will actually HAVE some tigers to work with.
 
I see where you are coming from. North Australia could be such a place - there are few people there, and the area is now also home to millions of feral pigs, hundreds of thousands of Asian buffaloes, feral horses and donkeys, even thousands of banteng and rusa deer. It could potentially hold more tigers than is left in the whole of Asia. Most of those herbivores have multiplied to the point that they are damaging native vegetation, so many thousands are culled every year and left to rot anyway; the culls are difficult and expensive (especially of wild pigs).

There are two problems, though. First is the possible reaction of the local people. The second is that the main reason for saving wild tigers in Asia is not necessarily because of the tigers themselves, but because tigers are an "umbrella" species, whose preservation in the wild also means saving large tracts of remaining forests and wetlands, along with the thousands of less attractive species that live in them.
 
North Australia is an excellent example, the country in general is very wildlife friendly, and as you stated, the current food chain throughout most of that area is in chaos. Releasing Tigers and or leopards could provide much needed stability to the land.

I agree, if we were to start taking endangered animals from their natural eco-systems it would leave little incentive for the people to maintain those habitats at all, which would be disastrous in many ways. If the tiger was removed from India and preserved elsewhere it would most likely mean the extinction of most of India's natural eco-systems. Only those animals who have adapted to living in human settlements would thrive, such as monkeys, various bird species, snakes etc:

I think, however, that releasing predators such as tigers into areas where they are not originally native, would have a positive effect on a vast majority of people. The tiger has been voted as the world's favourite animal numerous times, and studies show that given enough prey and space you are more likely to get attacked by a dog, as tigers avoid humans whenever possible. The only people who i think would be entirely negative about the situation would of course be farmers, but they usually seem to think they own all the land in the world and they hate all predators down to red foxes, so who cares what they think :P. Bare in mind also that a project as new and as bold as this would probably take place in a large, fenced area, and by law, would probably not go any further, so the tiger would never really be a threat to anyone outside of a fenced up reserve.
 
Yeah, release more non-natives into Australia, it worked out great in the past...:rolleyes:

Or leave an eco-system to slowly destroy itself, that's always a better option...:confused:

Most non-native animals released into Australia, were released accidentally i.e. feral pets/tag alongs on ships etc: or with the intention for sport such as the red fox. What we were debating was a well planned trial run alternative conservation project which could restore balance to an eco-system and save a species in the process. It could work, it could fail, but its better than doing nothing.
 
Recently, Scientific American published a very interesting article about predator-herbivore-vegetation interactions and trophic cascades in different settings:
Here is a link:
Living in a Landscape of Fear: How Predators Impact an Ecosystem: Scientific American


Also, studies conducted in tropical Asia indicate that wild pig densities at sites with large predators differ from sites with no large predators by more than ten times.
http://www.forestry.toronto.edu/thomas/Ickes.et.al.Ecology.2005.pdf
http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/nis/bulletin2010/2010nis227-237.pdf

I'm not advocating anything yet. However, introduced herbivores already exist in Australia, and numbers are often unchecked. Large carnivores, along with (albeit different) large herbivores, were a part of the mammalian assemblage of Australia until late Pleistocene.


Here is a link to official Aussie Northern Territory page about feral wild pigs:
Wild Boar - Feral Animals - Wildlife - Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts

A few excerpts:

"Predation, habitat destruction, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs is listed as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Feral pigs are particularly destructive to the natural environment because they engage in ‘rooting’ behaviour to locate food. This rooting disrupts the seed bank, disturbs surface vegetation, alters soil composition, increases the growth of weeds, disperses the seeds of exotic plants, and destroys habitat utilised by native species. In addition, pigs are omnivorous, meaning that they eat a wide and varied diet including small animals and invertebrates. This reduces the availability of food for native species. Their rooting behaviour also increases soil erosion and increases siltation of rivers."


"Today, it is estimated that there are between 13 million and 23 million feral pigs spread across approximately half of the continent."

Periodical efforts to control wild buffalo numbers, though expensive, have been successful. Horses are more problematic, as there is more public pressure against culling. Wild pigs are pretty much impossible to control (same as in the United States).
Here is a government document about horses:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/feral-horse.pdf

"Australia has an estimated 300 000 feral horses and up to five million feral donkeys. Both species cause erosion, spread weeds and compete for pasture with native animals and livestock."
 
Or leave an eco-system to slowly destroy itself, that's always a better option...:confused:

Or - if we follow your suggestion - accelerate the process.

What makes you think that tigers would instinctively go for the introduced species and ignore all the native fauna?

I can't believe I even had to ask that question.
 
Or - if we follow your suggestion - accelerate the process.

What makes you think that tigers would instinctively go for the introduced species and ignore all the native fauna?

I can't believe I even had to ask that question.

You should have seen the reaction of Australian tourists in Costa Rica when our guide pointed out a wild cane toad to them :)
 
Can we get back on-topic please?

Tigers in Bhutan ...

I agree with the notion that tigers in Asia can live virtually anywhere. However, I DO totally disagree with the paraphrasing that if we leave tiger populations in highly populated nations to die out thanks to habitat destruction and human overpopulation - the final and only REAL taboo subject ever - and relocate them into vacated habitat in non native countries is a solution .... A bit much by my standards.

We perhaps need to re-think our approach to tiger conservation. Which is exactly what Al Rabinowitz et al are trying to achieve here.

In the case of Bengal tigers do not forget the govt. bureacracy, govt. inadequate funding, incompetence of govt. officials within the Ministries involved and deliberate cover up of tiger declines and numbers.
 
Can we get back on-topic please?

Tigers in Bhutan ...

Sorry, but I just wanted to add a little bit more off topic.

About 5 years ago one government minister in Victoria was pushing the problem of Sambar deer there. Someone told them that Tigers were their natural predator, and the release of tigers was talked about, until someone mentioned bushwalkers being eaten. That plan was quickly removed.

I dont think it would be an ecological disaster to release Tigers in northern Australia as the damage done by Pigs and Buffalo is already severe. The problem would be the liability when calttle or people are killed.

I have also read about suggestions of releasing Snow Leopards in NZ to deal with Tahr.
 
Or - if we follow your suggestion - accelerate the process.

What makes you think that tigers would instinctively go for the introduced species and ignore all the native fauna?

I can't believe I even had to ask that question.

Like i said previously it was a suggestion into a ''controlled'' experiment. I wasn't suggesting darting a wild tiger from Ranthambore national park then just plonking it thousands of miles away in North Australia hoping that everything would sort itself out. It's a situation that would have to be dealt with delicately and thoroughly, yet as always when someone suggests something new and daring which could actually be a huge step forward in conservation, it's the very people who should be willing to take all factors into consideration who shoot these ideas down before they've even been tried and do nothing themselves. (Nothing that works anyway) You would be better proving me wrong if you actually had solid proof that careful, predatory introduction projects had caused catastrophe to eco-systems in the past, i'd be more than willing to assess my ideas and other findings if there was concrete evidence that i was talking rubbish..
In my own personal opinion i believe that the tiger/lion and leopard do not and probably never will have a secure future in India. That was the point i was making, and was just brainstorming with others trying to think of other solutions into tiger conservation.

Anyway as Kifaru Bwana stated we're gettin a little off topic. I saw the 'Lost Tiger' documentary and heard that the tigers found in Bhutan could create a corridor throughout Asia joining up isolated tiger populations and preventing inbreeding. Do they have an estimation as to how many tigers live in Bhutan?
 
Sorry, but I just wanted to add a little bit more off topic.

About 5 years ago one government minister in Victoria was pushing the problem of Sambar deer there. Someone told them that Tigers were their natural predator, and the release of tigers was talked about, until someone mentioned bushwalkers being eaten. That plan was quickly removed.

I dont think it would be an ecological disaster to release Tigers in northern Australia as the damage done by Pigs and Buffalo is already severe. The problem would be the liability when calttle or people are killed.

I have also read about suggestions of releasing Snow Leopards in NZ to deal with Tahr.

P.S. Monty completely agree, the main problem is predator/human/cattle conflict. This has and always will be a sore area. Again the Bhutan tigers have it far easier, there're far less people and plenty or space and natural prey so conflict is minimal. In fact i remember one of the farmers from Bhutan was interviewed and asked if he has lost any of his livestock to tigers and leopards in the past and he answered yes but there is no point hunting the tigers as ''you'll never find them''.
 
This is very interesting as these Tigers were never lost in the first place
Great bit of PR though to make people aware of them again including poachers

Found this on the news zoo digest sight please read

Tiger Conservation Enhancement in Bhutan
Final report submitted July 2001

Read the paper with interest. Link at bottom of comment

You will find the following quote:


Tigers at 3400 meters altitude!
"Rumors of tiger sightings in the high mountain altitudes were reported but never substantiated until a camera trap placed by a team conducting a wildlife survey in ThrumshingLa National Park captured a tiger on film at 3400 meters. The picture and news of the tiger at ThrumshingLa spread quickly both within and outside the country. WWF-Bhutan received many questions and requests from abroad asking for more information. The report on wildlife survey will be made available on request."

http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8695

Many thanks for taking the time to read my reply
 
They did something similar before the New Guinea series where they 'discovered' the Giant Rat, making it a BBC 'news story' as way of trailing the forthcoming series/programme.

I don't think a BBC film team would risk the expense of going all the way to Bhutan unless they were fairly certain that high altitude tigers were there to be filmed. Making it a 'rediscovery' is their way of making it more sensational for the viewers.
 
Scientific discovery more or less ALWAYS supercedes a declaration of a discovery. If you are not confident of the facts why bring in the media? This is even more important when dealing with television or video footage to be aired worldwide ....
 
Back
Top