Conservationists have urged the government to establish a centralised DNA repository of animal samples to track the origins of wildlife derivatives.
This follows the State government’s decision to constitute a special task force to investigate celebrities in possession of wildlife artefacts like tiger claws, pendant made of tiger parts etc.
The issue gained traction following the arrest of Vartur Santosh who participated in a reality show with a pendant containing tiger claw. Subsequently, other actors from the Kannada film industry have also come under the gaze of the government and some of them were questioned and their houses raided.
Activists said that it would be difficult for the authorities to prove in a court of law the origin of the wildlife derivative and artefacts unless they are subjected to DNA analysis as the owners can make fake claims that they were procured abroad.
Supporting the view, H.S. Prayag, Chief Veterinary Officer (Mobile & Extension), Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science said establishing a DNA repository of wildlife would not cost much. He said tiger scats were collected and subjected to DNA analysis especially during census operations. Besides, students of conservation biology also engage themselves in data collection and analysis which could be stored in a centralised repository.
Dr. Prayag said the repository would come in handy in such cases where wildlife artefacts were seized but the source was unknown or the species of the animal is not clear. The material can be subjected to DNA analysis to ascertain the species, he added.
‘’While it may not be possible to have the DNA samples of every tiger, the data is maintained with respect to a majority of them and are being constantly updated. One can easily track down the source of the artefact in case the data matches with that of the samples stored in the DNA repository,” said Dr. Prayag.
Activists said such a move could be on lines of DNA face matching systems proposed to be introduced at police stations across the country.
Senior officials in the Forest Department supportive of the DNA repository cited a few examples in which individuals in possession of artefacts tried to mislead the forest department that they were artificial. In one such case the artefact was sent to the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad and the analysis proved that the samples belonged to tiger.
This itself was enough to file a case against the owner as possessing any tiger part is illegal under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Dr. Prayag said Karnataka is credited with introducing many best practices in the field of conservation and as the country’s leading hub for IT and BT, it should take measures to establish such a repository within the department.
