Furore Over Female Urine: Karnataka's Controversial Leopard Capture Method Sparks Outcry

A storm of controversy is brewing in Karnataka as the Forest Department employs a highly contentious method to capture leopards: spraying female leopard urine. This 'innovative' approach, intended to lure male leopards into traps, has ignited outrage among environmentalists, wildlife activists, and legal experts, who decry it as cruel, unscientific, and potentially illegal.

The epicentre of this dispute lies in villages bordering the Bannerghatta National Park (BNP), such as Kurubarahalli, Doddamaralawadi, and Chikkathimmanahalli.

Following a harrowing incident where a child was attacked by a leopard in Kurubarahalli, residents have been living in fear. In response, the Forest Department has intensified its efforts to trap the elusive big cats, leading to the deployment of this unusual tactic.

Environmental groups, led by prominent figures like Joseph Hoover of the United Conservation Movement and FIAPO, are vehemently opposing the practice.

Hoover asserts that this method is not only unethical but also a direct violation of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, specifically Sections 9 and 39. These sections strictly prohibit the hunting, capturing, or using wild animals or their parts – and activists argue that obtaining urine from a captive female leopard, likely under duress, falls squarely under this prohibition.

The concerns extend beyond legalities.

Critics question the very scientific foundation of spraying female urine. Is there peer-reviewed evidence to support its effectiveness as a capture tool? Wildlife experts warn that such a method could profoundly disrupt the natural behaviour of leopards, leading to increased stress, heightened aggression, and even habituating these apex predators to human proximity.

Furthermore, it could inadvertently attract leopards from surrounding areas, exacerbating the human-animal conflict rather than resolving it.

Activists highlight the inhumane implications for the female leopard whose urine is collected. What mental and physical trauma does she endure? They also fear the broader ecological impact, speculating on how such an artificial lure might affect other wildlife in the region.

Instead of what they deem as desperate and ill-conceived measures, environmentalists advocate for tried-and-tested alternatives.

These include the strategic deployment of traditional cage traps, the judicious use of tranquilizer guns by skilled veterinary teams, and robust public awareness campaigns to educate villagers on safe practices when living alongside wildlife. Long-term solutions, they argue, must focus on habitat improvement, addressing human encroachment into forest areas, and fostering a more harmonious coexistence rather than resorting to methods that could inflict further harm on already embattled species.

The debate underscores a critical challenge: how to effectively mitigate human-leopard conflict while upholding ethical standards and scientific integrity.

As the Forest Department defends its innovative approach, activists demand a halt to the practice, calling for a return to humane, legally compliant, and ecologically sound wildlife management strategies.