Kaziranga’s Tiger Boom: Between Roar and Reckoning

Kaziranga National Park is roaring—but is that roar a sign of success or a warning cry?

According to the NTCA census, Kaziranga is now home to 148 tigers. This translates to an annual consumption of approximately 5.88 lakh kilograms of biomass, or around 23,000 hog deer. Is the success of tiger conservation now putting the ecosystem at risk?

But the rising numbers have sparked an unexpected paradox. Dr. Abhijit Rabha, IFS (Retd), flagged this first in a widely circulated note—asking how Kaziranga could support such a high number of apex predators without a proportionate prey base.

Drawing attention to this ecological mismatch, he questioned whether the celebrated success may be masking deeper systemic stress. This provocation opened the floodgates to a wider debate among some of Assam’s foremost conservationists.

The Prey Puzzle

Dr. Rabha’s concerns are rooted in basic but critical math. Based on Dr. Ullas Karanth’s estimates, each tiger needs around 4,000 kg of meat annually. Multiply that by 147, and the park’s tigers alone require close to 5.88 lakh kg of biomass per year. If hog deer (average 25 kg) are the main prey, over 23,000 deer annually would be needed to sustain them. Kaziranga has 40,000 hog deer, as per last census, informs KNP Director Sonali Ghosh.

Dr. Bibhab Talukdar (Aaranyak) supported this view, calling for a scientific prey base audit. “Kaziranga may look wildlife-rich, but do we have up-to-date seasonal data? These questions are not alarmist—they’re essential,” he said, urging greater attention to prey stress and seasonal variations in availability.

But Dr. Rathin Barman of the Wildlife Trust of India offered a counter-narrative. According to him, Kaziranga operates on a unique ecological model, where tigers aren’t solely reliant on hunting.

“Scavenging plays a big role,” he noted. Tigers often feed on carcasses of rhinos, elephants, and buffaloes, which naturally die in the flood-prone terrain. “We’ve seen multiple tigers feed for days on a single rhino carcass. This reduces energy expenditure and increases food intake.”

Still, Rabha urged caution. “There’s little field-level data to confirm this. We don’t know how many rhino calves are predated or how frequent scavenging actually is. Without documentation, it remains anecdotal.”

Clustering and Golden Tigers

Kaushik Barua, Director of the Assam Elephant Foundation, added another layer of concern—tiger clustering. He pointed to a noticeable concentration of tigers around Mihimukh–Daflang–Baruntika, possibly due to tourism-related waste attracting prey and predators alike.

Barua also raised alarms about the emergence of golden tigers—rare colour morphs caused by recessive genes. “While they capture public imagination, they might signal genetic bottlenecks due to inbreeding,” he warned.

With corridors like Karbi Anglong disrupted, gene flow has suffered. “We’ve even seen misaligned jaws and ear deformities. These aren’t cosmetic—they may reflect real evolutionary risks.”

Dr. Barman agreed: “Too many tigers in too little space, with no escape corridors, is a perfect recipe for the rise of recessive traits.”

The Landscape Isolated

In his notes, Dr. Rabha expanded the argument to landscape history. Kaziranga, he stressed, was never meant to be an isolated reserve. Historically, it was part of a vast forest continuum stretching across the Mikir Hills, Karbi Anglong, and into Nagaland.

This connectivity was lost due to colonial-era land-use changes. Over 10,000 sq km of forests were turned into tea plantations and revenue villages, permanently fragmenting the habitat. Later attempts to reconnect Kaziranga—like the 1984 plan to acquire 37 sq km of refuge habitat—were shelved or blocked.

“Kaziranga’s real handicap is its ecological isolation,” Rabha wrote. “We cheer tiger numbers, but forget that without corridors, populations can’t move, mix, or survive over the long term.”

He also lamented the decline in ground intelligence that once made Kaziranga unique. “There was a time when rangers knew if a fish left a beel. Now even tiger kills often go unrecorded.”

A Broader Evolutionary View

Dr. Anupam Sharma of WWF added a philosophical layer to the debate. He acknowledged concerns over golden tigers and clustering but urged a measured perspective.

“Not all mutations are harmful,” he said. “Some are nature’s way of testing adaptations. Evolution works through anomalies.” He cautioned against applying straight-line logic to non-linear ecosystems, emphasizing that ecology is dynamic, and what appears flawed now might be future-fit.

What Must Be Done

Despite diverging views, all experts converge on one truth: conservation cannot stop at headcounts. They call for:

• A full prey base and carcass audit

• Better field-level documentation

• Monitoring of genetic patterns

• Control of tourism-related waste

• Most critically, revival of landscape-level corridors

Kaziranga’s tiger numbers are indeed cause for celebration—but without genetic flow, prey equilibrium, and habitat connectivity, the boom could backfire.

Kaziranga is roaring. But we must ask—is it the roar of a thriving forest, or one cornered into fragility?

The tiger boom is not just a statistic—it’s a paradox. And perhaps, more than anything, it’s a reminder to look beyond numbers—to rewild our thinking on what true conservation really means.

Also Read: Kaziranga Roars Louder: Third Highest Tiger Density in the World, Says New Report