Late DNA report reveals K'taka Forest Department captured wrong tiger after fatal mauling

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The DNA report from Hyderabad's Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology has confirmed a grave error by the Karnataka Forest Department in capturing the wrong tiger at the Mettikupe range within the Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, where a tragic mauling incident occurred, leading to a young boy's death.

According to the report submitted to the forest department recently, the seven-year-old boy lost his life on September 4 in Kallahatti village, HD Kote taluk, Mysuru, due to an attack by a female tiger.

However, the forest officials apprehended an eight-yearold male tiger on September 19. Local residents had informed the department that the tiger responsible for the tragedy was significantly smaller than the one they captured later.

Sources within the department suggested that the female tiger might have attacked because she was pregnant and seeking easier prey.

Adding to the complication, during the transportation of the male tiger from Nagarahole to Shivamogga's Tyavarekoppa Lion and Tiger Safari Zoo on September 21, it lost two of its four canine teeth.

In accordance with the guidelines set by the National Tiger Conservation Authority, any tiger that has lost a canine tooth or nail cannot be released back into the wild due to the heightened risk of it becoming a maneater.

A senior forest department official, speaking anonymously, expressed regret over the situation, pointing out that the male tiger would now spend its life in captivity while the female tiger that had killed the boy and tasted human blood remained at large.

He attributed the blame to the officials who ordered the capture and transfer of the tiger without confirming its identity as the killer. The delayed DNA report, which arrived on October 7, was identified as a contributing factor to the wrongful capture.

Sources indicated that undue pressure from villagers, and elected representatives influenced the forest department's actions. An officer involved in the operation defended their efforts, stating that they had acted under intense public pressure to ensure safety.

Had they received the DNA report sooner, they might have avoided this unfortunate incident.