Context:

In recent years, India's tiger conservation practices have come under scrutiny due to the continued use of live baiting, particularly for feeding injured or aging tigers. While originally a hunting tactic used by British colonialists—placing prey like buffalo or goats to lure tigers for easy shooting—live baiting found new life in post-independence India as a tourism tool in reserves like Sariska. This practice was officially banned in 1982 by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, yet it persists in conflict scenarios and as a means of care for ailing tigers.

National Policy and Ecological Concerns

According to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), live baiting for tourism is prohibited, and its use for injured or old tigers is “not advisable.” The SOP emphasizes minimal human intervention, underscoring that wildlife conservation must adhere to the principle of survival of the fittest. Artificial feeding undermines this, fostering dependency, disrupting natural selection, and increasing the risk of human-wildlife conflict.

Despite these guidelines, many reserves continue the practice under humanitarian or public pressure. Feeding wild tigers, even as an emergency measure, is permitted only in exceptional cases—such as when an injured tigress with dependent cubs cannot hunt. Experts like Valmik Thapar recommend baiting no more than once every two weeks and only for a short duration of up to three months.

Case Studies Highlighting Consequences

The tragic case of Kankati, a 23-month-old tigress in Ranthambore, illustrates the dangers of early habituation. Raised on live bait after her mother, Arrowhead, fell ill, Kankati and her siblings lost their fear of humans. She has since killed two people, raising alarms about human safety in reserves.

Similar outcomes have been observed in the cases of T36, T37, and Simba—young tigers raised on bait following the deaths of their mothers. Without learning essential hunting skills, these tigers either perished prematurely or became threats to others. Even aging icons like Machhli and T2 were kept alive unnaturally with bait; while Machhli survived on human-provided food for seven years, T2 died too weak to kill.

The Cultural Shift Toward Over-Intervention

A growing culture of emotional overreach is increasingly shaping wildlife management. Tourists now demand treatment for limping or injured tigers, triggering unnecessary tranquilizations and medical interventions. From transporting prey animals to creating artificial water sources during dry spells, reserves like Corbett, Kanha, Bandipur, and Pench are altering ecosystems to sustain tigers artificially.

This overmanagement leads to unnatural survival of weaker individuals, overcrowding, and territorial conflicts—not just between tigers but also between tigers and humans. Experts caution that such interference only weakens the ecological integrity of tiger populations.

Conclusion: Let Nature Lead

Veteran conservationists argue that wild tigers do not require pet-like care. The most effective conservation strategy remains the preservation of natural habitats and prey bases, with minimal human interference. Misplaced kindness, though emotionally compelling, endangers both tiger and human populations by disrupting nature’s balance.

For India to achieve sustainable tiger conservation, it must resist populist interventions and re-anchor policies in ecological wisdom—protect, don’t pamper.