You are on page 1of 14


Suhas Kumar, July 4, 2016

Please, look at these headlines1.Maneka takes on Javadekar over animal CullingHT, June 10, 2016
2.Most hunting permission cleared without scientific study HT, June 10, 2016
Culling is a drastic intervention to bring down the population of a species by selective
extermination. The word selective is intended to give a semblance of scientific sanctity
to the slaughter of animals. The word selective here means determining the
populations size, reproductive rate, Male:Female, Female:offspring ratios, offspring
survival rate, health condition etc. to conclude how many, how old, what sex needs to be
culled to bring down the population of the targeted species to a level that it would not

damage the habitats that support a myriad of other native species thriving there . But
such studies are either done perfunctorily or never done at all.
Several African countries, Australia and the USA have been practicing the culling
operations on animals but not basically for the benefit of the habitats that ensures the
continuity of other native species but because these animals have become pests. In
natural ecosystem unaltered by humans the Nature used to take care of imbalances but
now humans have begun playing natures role in areas already ruined by the human
interventions. As I said, today Culling of wild animals is not for benefit of other wild
creatures but for the benefit of humans, therefore, only those animals are targeted that
humans consider as pests forgetting that this planet has one single pest species that
has altered and disfigured the face of this planet- mankind . I wonder, why then the
governments are shying away from culling human populations especially those who are
usurping the resources meant for other humans.
Coming away from the moral and ethical arguments against culling let us examine what
the scientists have found out about culling operations:
In a recently concluded study, some Australian scientists have concluded that culling
may be counterproductive as it may instead lead to a sudden explosion in the population
of the species (Billie T. Lazenby A B D, Nicholas J. Mooney C and Christopher
R.Dickman A .2014). Another study on the culling of ferrets on a British Island revealed
that trapping and removal resulted in a doubling of the size of the ferret population over
pre-culling levels (Thomas, W. Bodey Stuart Bearhop, Robbie A. McDonald,2011 ).
Ecosystems and living creatures have a formidable adaptability to changing
environmental and biological conditions. I believe these results are the manifestation of
that ability when an animal population is under threat it finds ways to recover in
these two cases the removal of animals from the populations resulted in the availability
of space and food to even those offspring that would have perished otherwise naturally.
Secondly, when a population is threatened with rapid loss of individuals from it, the
populations react by producing more offspring. Today in many of the MP tiger reserves
most of the tiger cubs are weaned off at the age of 13-16 months so that the mothers can
again get into estrus, mate and bring up a new litter.
Isnt it an irony that first we launch an onslaught and exterminate certain species and
when they are gone, we want them back . A glaring example of human folly may be
found in the case of extermination of American grey wolf in the 1960s after the US
government declared them a beast of waste and destruction. By 1970s, the Americans
had wiped out the entire population that once was around 3-5 lakhs. When the howl of
wolves was no more to be heard, Americans suffered a deep sense of loss and in 1974 the
grey wolves were declared protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Later
from 1995 onwards some grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National
Park and Idaho. But these wolves were brought from Canada and were not the same
northern grey wolves that used to roam the Yellowstone park some 60 years ago.

Interestingly, these wolves are now credited with restoring of Yellowstones ecosystem.
Pl read this article wolf changes ecosystem
The question then is should humans play god? Another question is if culling is not a
solution to the problem of crop depredation. - What is? I can assure you that there are
solutions but nobody wants to give them a try.
The Law and its interpretation
Yesterday, in the news I read with great amusement a reply allegedly given by a
spokesperson of the ministry to the media regarding the hot topic of issuance of hunting
permission to the state government. Clarifying the circumstances in which the central
government has agreed to the proposal of hunting problematic wild animals, he said
that the central government had only agreed to the proposals for the scientific
management of certain species submitted to it t by certain aggrieved states where some
species of wild animals have become a serious problem to the farmers. He added that
according to the wildlife (protection) Act the power to Cull (hunt) wild animals rests
with the state government.
I see serious flaw in this explanation. The issue of scientific management of wild
population is dealt with under section 12 of the Wildlife (protection) Act. Under this
section hunting for the purpose of scientific management includes physical or chemical
capture of wild animals. Culling or killing is not included here.

Under section 12 (bb)Scientific Management means

(i) Translocation of any wild animal to an alternative suitable habitat; or
(ii) Population management of wild life without killing or poisoning or destroying any
Under this section permission to hunt a wild animal is subject to the approval of the
central government where the animal to be captured belongs to schedule I of the Act and
for animals belonging to other schedules concurrence of the state government is
Order to hunt ( kill) a wild animal or a group of wild animal is an exclusive power vested
in the Chief wildlife warden of the state under section 11 of the WL(P) Act . But this
power is underlined with a caveat . The Section 11 reads as follows:
11. Hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force
and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV,
(2) (a) the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal
specified in Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or
diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons
therefor, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be
hunted: 1[Provided that no wild animal shall be ordered to be killed unless the
Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be captured,
tranquillised or translocated: Provided further that no such captured animal shall
be kept in captivity unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such
animal cannot be rehabilitated in the wild and the reasons for the same are
recorded in writing. Explanation.For the purposes of clause (a), the process of
capture or translocation, as the case may be, of such animal shall be made in such
manner as to cause minimum trauma to the said animal.]
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer may, if he is satisfied that
any wild animal specified in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV, has
become dangerous to human life or to property (including standing crops on any
land) or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing
and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt [such animal or
group of animals in a specified area or cause such animal or group of animals in
that specified area to be hunted].
Obviously, as per the extant provision of the Act no culling (killing) can be
ordered under section 12(bb) ii, but the chief wildlife warden may order killing of
an individual or a group of wild animals if an animal or a group of animals is
found to have become dangerous to human life or to property under section 11 (b)
for wild animals belonging to schedule II, III and IV. Before issuing such an order
the Chief wildlife warden is law-bound to provide unambiguous reasons for such
an writing. Such orders must be site specific with a time frame for
execution and cannot be used as a blanket order.
Though we have a law that justifies killing of a wild animal or a group of animals
found to be a threat to the life and property of homo sapiens, I dont see any
benefit of exterminating small groups of animals here and there as it would not
achieve the purpose i.e. a marked reduction in crop loss. And as some scientific
studies indicate such removal might trigger a sudden rise in the population of the
target species. Therefore, killing of wild animals will be futile as it wouldnt yield
the desired result and may be counterproductive.
Before we delve further into finding a solution to the issue of crop depredation by
wild animals, we must examine the history of human development and think
whether the problem of crop loss or the shrinking agriculture base is only
attributable to the wild animals? And is this problem so acute that the poor
animals must get death penalty and others who are destroying the farmlands or
reducing the ability of farmers to grow crops on their lands go scot-free?

Some point to ponder
India is a democracy with a great constitution that not only enshrines principles and
directives to safeguard human dignity and freedom but also includes principles and
duties for Indians to protect nature and all other living creature that inhabit here.
Following those mandates, India and Indians have strived hard to protect natural areas
to safeguard the interests of wild creatures as well as to provide security to the
environment and ecology of this country. By 2013 India had expanded its protected area
network to 102 national parks, 526 sanctuaries, 57 conservation reserves, and 4
community reserve covering 5.06 % of the countrys geographical areas across different
biogeographic zones.
Then, why is it that we couldnt do enough to consolidate our efforts and tackle serious
issues like human-wild animal conflict and wildlife conservation beyond protected area
boundaries. The reason lies in the fact that despite much hype about India being a
mega-biodiversity country and the last bastion of the tiger, wildlife conservation has
remained a low priority task for the central as well as the state governments. Most of the
protected areas are funded by the central government while the states only support the
salary of staff and a portion of the maintenance expenditure.
The budgetary allocation to the Ministry of Environment and forests by the Planning
commission is dismally low and it is getting sparser and sparser every year. In the 12th
Plan Rs. 2,000 crore is allocated to MoEF which is only 0.012 per cent of Gross the GDP
and less than 0.25 percent of the annual national budget ( source MoEF website) and
from this allocation only a small fraction is available for wildlife conservation.
The central government is unable to provide funds for wildlife management outside PAs
where most conflicts occur and poaching as well as the retaliatory killing of wild animals
takes place. Among the state governments, I know of only one state (Madhya Pradesh)
that has created a separate budget head in 2011 for managing wildlife beyond PAs.
For 642 protected areas (excluding the tiger reserves) the annual allocation in the 12 the
plan is a mere Rs.75 crore per annum around 12 lakh /annum to each PA. The
allocation to the 47 tiger reserves is around Rs.168 crore/ annum
And there is nothing for managing wildlife outside protected areas where the funds
are urgrntly needed for effectively combating wildlife crime, rescuing wildlife, erecting
crop protection fences, compensating people for loss of life, injury and crop depredation

expeditiously, experimenting with mass capture and translocation of problem animals

to other suitable habitats and for funding research to create sterility vaccine that could
be administered en mass.
Here, it would be useful to know how much a country like the USA spends on conserving
their endangered species. An article published in 2012 by the Scientific American
reports as follows:
The U.S. federal and state governments spent just more than $1.7 billion to conserve
endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in fiscal
year (FY) 2012 (from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012), according to an
accounting recently published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). That's up
from $1.59 billion in FY 2011 and $1.45 billion in FY 2010. Last year's expenses included
about $307 million to acquire conservation-critical habitats. The remaining outlay went
to activities such as research, law enforcement, population censuses, transplanting
animals or plants and any other activities performed by the federal or state governments
"on behalf of threatened or endangered species" listed under the ESA. The vast majority
of the spending came on the federal level; only $85.3 million came from the states. State
spending, however, was up from $58.4 million in FY 2011. (Many states have their own
endangered species laws and lists, expenses for which would not necessarily be counted
in this report.)..There are many different ways to look at these numbers, but here's
one that may put them in some perspective: the U.S. human population stood at 314,
542,177 at the end of FY 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The ESA
expenditure of $1.7 billion translates to just $5.40 per person.

In comparison, our efforts in implementing Indias wildlife Conservation strategy is

abysmally substandarad. The suggestion like culling off the problem animals is a
manifestation of a mindset that believes in finding easier and irresponsible ways to solve
a serious problem without even trying recommended solutions and without ascertaining
whether such a drastic intervention would yield the desired result or not. The issue of
Human : wild animal conflict in its aggravated form is already several decades old and
has been discussed on various forums and therefore, there is no dearth of good
recommendations. These recommendations remained within the pages of workshop
reports and were never implemented in a systematic and planned manner as there was
no political will that could motivate the bureaucrats to go out of the way to find
resources and nudge the sleeping field officerss to implement those recommendations.
The Killing Fields

The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without
destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized.
Rachel Carson
A December 2012 report of the expert group on pulses noted that blue bull menace was
widespread in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, and
that there was no viable strategy available in the country to effectively counter the
On 15 December, 2015 the Economic Times wrote : As per the December 1 notification,
the Bihar government has reported "harm to life and property including large scale
destruction of agriculture due to overpopulation of Nilgai and wild pig in areas outside
forests. As many as 31 districts in Bihar will now be able to get rid of the crop-devouring
Nilgai, or blue bull, and 10 districts will be able to cull wild pigs. The animals are
currently under Schedule III of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. They have been
brought under Schedule V for a year to enable the cull. The environment ministry had
earlier this year asked states to send proposals on any animal other than endangered
ones that are seen as vermin. Stating that the Centre considered it necessary to
"balance local population of these species to mitigate the damage to human life, crop
and other properties of the state", the ministry has under Section 62 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972, declared the Nilgai and wild pig vermin. The 31 districts where
Nilgai is regarded as persona non grata include Patna, Nalanda, Madhubani, Siwan,
Rohtas, Buxar and Gaya, among others. The wild pig will find itself unwelcome in 10
districts, including Motihari, Muzaffarpur, Rohtas, Nawada, Vaishali and Saran.
An animal listed as vermin in the Wildlife (Protection) Act has no legal protection
whatsoever and may be killed at will outside a protected area; inside aPA all lifeforms
are wildlife hence get the protection under section 29 and 35(6).. So here, by ordering
shooting of Nilgai in several districts the government t. is not practicing scientific
culling but free for all killing.
The order was recently challenged but the court refused to interfere as the law has no
ambiguity the state governments have powers to shift any animal listed in schedule I
to IV of the Act to list V (vermin) with prior permission of the central government.
Though, the state of Bihar now has listed blue bull and wild pig as vermin it is playing
very safe by allowing only small numbers of blue bull to be killed by a professional
hunter. For wild pig the state or the farmers have no strategy the reason is simple the
wild pig is a prolific breeder and a tenacious animal that refuses to die easily- once hit by
pellets and even bullet a wild pig is capable of running several miles and sometimes
even surviving the pellets or the bullet. Following the December 15, approximately 250
bluebull were killed in the past six months by professional hunters. I had a personal

discussion with Nawab Safat Ali Khan who has been assigned to kill blue bulls in Bihar.
He explained that he only targets the old and the weak animals. When I asked him how
such a strategy would bring down the blue bull population to a level that the crop
damage is mitigated/eliminated, he gave me an unconvincing answer he said that
killing of the old and the weak ones deter the herds from coming back to the area for a
few months. It is quite obvious that exterminating a few bluebulls or wild pigs,
therefore, is not going to help the as would it would never produce the desired
goal of eliminating /mitigating crop damage:
Similarily, in March 2016, the State of Himachal Pradesh declared rhesus macaque as
vermin for a year but not a single monkey has been killed by anyone. Local leaders and
farmers are averse to killing monkeys and they are demanding their capture and shifting
to natuarl habitats.( source-
Now the question is - will this killing spree really help the farmers? The answer is a big
NO. Crop damage by blue bull and wild pig can be significantly mitigated only when the
population of these animals is either exterminated in the problem areas or the
population is brought down drastically either by killing or removing a large part of it to a
level that it would take years to recover sp as to become a threat to crops.
Obviously the current strategy of killing few animals here and there-which the MoEF
and the newspapers are wrongly calling culling- is useless as such an exercise may
trigger a sudden rise in blue bull population in those area where these killings are taking
place. In my view such decisions are political stratagem to befool the people.
The issue of Human: wildlife conflict is not a new development. In fact it is a worldwide
phenomenon. Different countries have their own way of handling this conflict. The
easiest has been exterminating the pest species. In India, Indians are divided on the
issue of killing wild animals. Indian culture has inculcated those values that deter us
from destroying life. This is the reason why people in India, compared to the people in
the western world, have been relatively tolerant to the wild animals despite the losses
they suffer from them.
The number and magnitude of the incidents of crop raiding, loss of human life, livestock
depredation and injury to humans has increased significantly over the last 2 decades in
India precipitating a decline in these values and we have seen several instances of
brutality against animals that had strayed into human habitations in search of
food,water.or shelter. The recent decision to kill monkeys, blue bull and wildpig is a
manifestation of that changing values as well as aversion to accept the fact that
unmindful, lopsided and myopic development activities are the sole reason for this
impasse. Though the conflict with wildlife has increased in the present times owing to
our own actions and inactions , there are options available to mitigate conflicts with
wildlife if the government is willing to spend time and money on those strategies.

To get a grip on the solutions, It would be worthwhile first to understand what has
triggered aggravation in the human: wildlife conflict today :
1. Loss, fragmentation and pollution of wild habitats:
According to a report based on MoEF data (published in, over the last 30 years
around 15,000 sq kms of forest land were usurped by encroachers and about 14000
square kms were diverted for 23,716 industrial projects including mining projects..
Currently, up to 25,000 hectares of forests 250 sq km are handed over every year for
non-forestry activities, including defence projects, dams, mining, power plants,
industries and roads, The rate of diversion, as the process is called, varies across
states. Madhya Pradesh has diverted 2,477 sq kms of its rich forests to non-forest use
that includes the mining projects. A major part of the forest land- an elephant corridorwas diverted in Singrauli for coal mining. The Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Govt. of India in one of its publication: (2006): Forest Cover in Tiger Reserves of India
Status and Changes, reports that the forest cover in the outer surround (10 km radial
distance from the periphery) has decreased in 21 tiger reserves, increased in 2 reserves
and remained unchanged in rest five. Thus between 1997 and 2002 in a short span of
5 years 124 sq km forest cover was lost in the outer surround of the 28 tiger reserves.
2. Expanding cities are destroying natural habitats and corridors;
Last 2 decades have seen a rapid expansion of small cities into mega cities- for example
the town of Bhopal has expanded in all directions eating into wildlife habitats and
riparian and scrub corridors- resulting in increased conflict with wild animals especially
dispersing and resident tigers of Ratapani sanctuary ( for details please visit
3. Poorly planned expansion of roads and construction of large dams and canals without
providing ecological safeguards through retrofitting have fragmented wildlife habitats :
The disruption of elephant corridor from Motichur, Dehradun to Corbett national park
is an example of ill conceived development that has created serious human: elephant
conflict in the region.
4. Degradation of wildlife habitats in forests outside PAs owing to competitive exclusion
of herbivores by rapidly growing livestock population:
India has about one fifth of the worlds total number of cattle, the largest number of
cattle in the world. In 1997, the total livestock population in 1951 was only around 293
million but by 2012 the total livestock population consisting of Cattle, Buffalo, Sheep,
Goat, pig, Horses & Ponies, Mules, Donkeys, Camels, Mithun and Yak in the country
reache 512.05 million. According to 2012 count rural livestock population in Madhya
Pradesh the stands at 34.73million. Out of 51527 villages there are 22000 villages in
Madhya Pradesh in close proximity of forests or within the forests therefore half of the
livestock population directly depends on the forests and compete with the herbivores.
Grazing by cattle leaves almost nothing for the herbivores compelling them to leave
forests and raid crop fields.

5. The other interesting fact is that the wild animals like blue bull, blackbuck and wild
pig have become adapted to rural habitats and live in scrub forests and crop fields
permanently Chandla in Chhattarpur district and several villages in Rewa are examples
where blue bull are resident in rural habitats. In some areas cultivation of sugarcane and
corn provides habitats to both herbivores and carnivores. Buffer of Dhudwa tiger reserve
in UP ( sugar cane fields) and buffer of Pench in M.P ( maize and sugarcane fields) are
examples of such rural habitats.
6. Diminishing availability of water and food within non-PA forests over the years is also
a major factor that drives wild animals to rural and urban habitations
7. Latest enactment that has granted rights to people to cultivate and live within wildlife
habitats is another factor that brings people in direct conflict with wildlife as both
people and wildlife compete for the same resources.
8. Wildlife reserves are like islands where wild animals are protected and are thriving
but beyond the boundaries of protected areas the forest habitats are depleted and at
several locations the PAs are directly juxtaposed to crop fields and human habitations
( example Bandhavgarh Tiger reserve) -such areas are high conflict zones.

Possible solutions
The fact is, both the central and the state governments have paid only lip service to the
issue of managing human: wildlife conflict as they have failed to allocate funds to
implement recommendations and proposals of the CWLWs and NGOs.
There are both long- term and short term solutions available and if implemented
meticulously may yield results. The best results will come from beginning the
implementation of both the long and short-term solutions together. For long ranging
animals like elephants and tigers there are no short-term solutions.
The short-term solution for mitigating crop damage by bluebull and
blackbuck :

Mass capture and translocation to prey deficient tiger habitat

Electric fencing,

For wild pig :

Effective combination fences - using fine mesh wire underground and electric fencing

For monkey and langur:
Steriliztion, mass capture and rehab in semi-wild facilities where a little hand holding by
humans will be necessary for the current generation.
The long-term solutions would require preserving corridors by compulsorily
incorporating retrofiiting measures in development projects, improving condition of
forests and water availability within non-PA forests and lands within critical corridors.
I would write in detail about each solution suggested above. I am posting this note in a
hurry as I had promised you all to post it within 15 days. Thanks for your patience,
Possible non-lethal ways to tackle crop-depredation by Blue bull and other
wild animals.
1. Mesh-wire fence
This is the most common method deployed to create physical barrier between the wild herbivores
and crop fields. But to ensure that such fences are effective and safe, following points must be
taken care of i. Blue bull have been seen jumping 7 feet fences easily therefore the height of
the fence must be more than 7 feet. ii. The wild animals cant see these fences from a distances
and they dash against it injuring themselves therefore the mesh-wire fence must be covered with
thatch from 2 feet above ground to the top of the fence. Such addition to the fence will help in
two ways the animals will stop dashing against the fence and the ocular barrier created by the
thatch will prevent animals from seeing the standing crop and thereby reduce their urge to raid
crop. Though such a design of the fence will create an effective barrier and reduce crop damage
the cost of the fence is prohibitive for large scale implementation. Today a good quality fence
will cost anything around 15-18 lakh/km.
2. Wildlife proof rubble wall : M.P has developed a design for wildlife and cattle-proof
rubble (loose-boulder) wall (1.80mX1.50mX0.90m) which is very effective and cheap in areas
where surface boulders are easily available.

3. Solar power Fence : This was once a very popular physical barrier used against wild
animals all over the world but was never implemented on large scale in India. Compared to the
mesh-wire fence it is much cheaper to erect and can be modified to suit the local topography and
the species of animals that needs to be restrained from entering crop fields or human habitations.

A simple 4 strand electric fence costs around 1.25 lakh to 1.5 lakh. Though the electric fences
that uses imported energizers may cost more (almost double) but they are the safest. Care needs
to be taken to use the best quality wires, earthings and energizers to avoid fatal accidents. The
critical part of the maintenance work is to keep the electric fence leak-proof (tripping).
4. Mass Capture by deploying Boma technique and relocation to prey
deficient habitats:

The South African experts involved in Guar capture and transportation from Kanha to
Bandhavgarh had exposed the wildlife managers in M.P to the Boma technique. Though
the Boma technique was not entirely useful in the wooded area of Kanha therefore the
gaur had to be captured deploying a restraint drug Meditomedine, successfully.
We continued experimenting with the boma technique at Van Vihar and by 2013 our
team began capturing and transporting chital to various prey deficient PAs without a
single mortality. After gaining confidence we deployed this technique to capture
Brasingha- a species considered extremely sensitive to human handling and stress- we
were immensely successful. The wildlife wing of Madhya Pradesh forest department is
now capable of modifying the boma technique to capture even a larger and small herd
forming animals like blue-bull. The team of Bandhavgarh involved in capturing chital
for Sanjay tiger reserve has demonstrated that they could easily capture blue bull. This is
good news and the Wildlife wing should capitalize on this success and do more
experiments. I suggest that a pilot project may be initiated forthwith in the crop fields of

high problem areas like Chandla village of Chhattarpur to mass- capture bluebull. I have
already suggested to the CWLW that the 645 sq km village free proposed Onkareshwar
national park is waiting to receive both herbivores and carnivores besides the Sanjay
tiger reserve, where there is a growing tiger population, is also a suitable area for
releasing captured blue bulls. Even Kuno may be considered a suitable release area. It is
heartening to learn that the wildlife wing of Madhya Pradesh has already begun mass
capture of bluebulls from fram fields. The first successful operation was completed in
December in the month of Decemeber, 2015
5. Sterilization:
Sterilization is another non-lethal method to control population of herd forming
animals and it still is in experimental stage. Steriliztion of wild animals especially those
who live in large herds is a difficult task. In USA Traditional immunocontraceptive
research in mammals has concentrated on the use of a vaccine called porcine zona
pellucida (PZP) (Miller et al. 1999). Animals that are immunocontracepted with PZP
continue to cycle and may copulate, but do not become pregnant due to the PZP
antibody coating the egg. In polyestrous animals, such as deer, that continue to cycle
throughout the breeding season, PZP contraception may introduce physiological stress
due to an extended breeding season (Miller and Killian 2000). This prolonged estrous
cycling results in increased activity during early winter, a time when conservation of
calories is essential. Increased activity may also contribute to increased collisions with
automobiles. Due to the concerns associated with prolonged estrous cycling, NWRC
developed a second contraceptive that reduces reproductive behavior (Miller et al.
2004). [Source: GnRH Single-Injection Immunocontraception of Black-Tailed Deer Kelly R. Perry
and Wendy M. Arjo USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Olympia Field
Station, Olympia Washington Kimberly S. Bynum and Lowell A. Miller USDA APHIS Wildlife Services,
National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins Colorado-]

The Cetral government, through its research institutions, should pursue research in this
field. The state of M.P may explore the possibility of facilitating a collaborative research
project with University of California and Nanavati Veterinary Science University. With
growing expertise in the deployment of Boma technique to restrain ungulates, the


delivery of vaccine during the study will not be difficult even in the free-rangingpopulations.
6. Chemical repellents:
In USA some repellents have been used to reduce deer browsing, but it is effective for a
few months only (Wagner and Nolte 2001).As far as I know the chemical repellents have
never been tried in India. We can explore the possibility of using these in crop fields if
they are non-toxic.


Billie T. Lazenby A B D, Nicholas J. Mooney C and Christopher

R.Dickman,2014. : Effects of low-level culling of feral cats in open populations: a
case study from the forests of southern Tasmania,
Miller, L. A., B.
E. Johns, and G. J. KIillain . 2000. Immunocontraception
of white-tailed deer with GnRH vaccine. Am. J. Reprod. Immun. 44:266-274.
Miller, L. A., J. Rhyan, AND G. Killian. 2004. GonaCon, a versatile GnRH
contraceptive for a large variety of pest animal problems. Proc. Vertebr. Pest
Conf. 21:269-273
Thomas, W.Bodey ,Biological Invasions December 2011: Localised control of an
introduced predator: creating problems for the future? Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 28172828.