In response...
I am writing in response to the letter (April 2, 2008) from Dan Rees.
I firmly stand by my previous letter and reiterate what Rees claims to be gross inaccuracies. According to the letter, there is no evidence. My answer to the readers is that they should take a closer look at this film and decide for themselves.
Freeze the frame where Mr. Adam shoots the dart gun; look closely around the tiger's neck. Why is a radio collar already hanging if he is trying to collar this tiger for the first time, as claimed in the film? The collar is supposed to come off on its own. So what made Adam re-dart this tiger? Check the section where the film shows him trying to resuscitate a very frail and emancipated tiger after tranquilizing, which tiger, according to the film, is a problem tiger that is going to be collared so it can be observed. But this is the collared tiger that has become a problem tiger after collaring and look at the appalling condition this once magnificent animal is in.
Mr. Rees claims this is a different tiger and says in this letter he does not show the collar being removed and my claim is not true in point 3. I urge the readers to compare the two head patterns from the same film and decide. I again say Mr. Adam is removing the collar where he says, “I am not going to collar her”. Point 2 - suggests that we filmed a dead tiger?
I never said a dead tiger was filmed, but the second part about the tiger being dead is a speculation? Exactly! This was the reason for removing the collar, so the parties involved could claim this. Again I urge the forest department to initiate an inquiry into the death of the two collared tigers. We want to know how the tigers died before any further collaring permission is granted.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments