Documentary Review: Tiger 24 - The Making of a Man-Eater

Warren Pereira set out to make a straightforward nature documentary about tigers.  Little did he know that his star subject was about to hijack the plot and steer it towards the true crime genre.

For years, the undisputed king of India's Ranthambhore National Park was Tiger- 24.   Known to the rangers and local people as Ustad, the male Bengal tiger occupied a swath of territory that bordered the park and included a trail which local people used to access a temple for worship.  A tiger is an intimidating animal under any circumstance, but park rangers and villagers alike had good reason to be extra fearful of Ustad.  The animal had already been implicated in the deaths of three humans.

After Ustad was deemed to be responsible for the killing of a fourth human in five years, park guard Rampal Saini, the local authorities decided enough was enough.  Historically, this would have been the point at which a hunter was drafted to go out and slay the tiger.  Mindful of the tiger's status as both an endangered species and as the national animal of India, a different approach was taken.  Ustad was instead captured and relocated to a zoo in India.  If he had been shot and killed, the story, while upsetting, would have ended then and there.  With the animal still alive, however, there remained the possibility of undoing his removal.  A vocal group of activists dedicated themselves to having the tiger returned to Ranthambhore.

Tiger 24: The Making of a Man-Eater is a fascinating case study of man's relationship with apex predators.  On the one hand you have idealistic folks who want this individual tiger to have the quality of life that he always had, who argue that fatalities such as that of Rampal Saini are the price of living alongside large carnivores, or who question whether Ustad could be definitively pinned to the attack.  On the other hand, you have local people who wonder how many times that they are expected to sacrifice friends or family to the same cat (note: I did feel slightly icky with the scenes of Pereira interviewing the family of the latest victim - it just felt somewhat exploitative).  

I will give Pereira credit for trying to balance the documentary by bringing in both sides for (heated) discussions, though I do feel that he is somewhat biased towards the pro-release side.  Maybe it's the zookeeper in me being a little defensive, but I did find the pro-release side to be somewhat lacking in their arguments, showing a considerable amount of naivety.  I got something of a chuckle when one tiger biologist, upon hearing that the activists were upset that a full forensic analysis wasn't done of Rampal Saini's remains to 100% conclusively prove that Ustad was the killer, went on an irate tirade about the ridiculousness of expecting such a thing from the underfunded, understaffed Forest Department.  More irritatingly, it just didn't seem like they really understood tiger biology.  To me, when I heard that another male tiger had moved into Ustad's territory and paired up with his mate, that was the end of the matter.  The longer that Ustad was out of his habitat, the less likely he would have a place to return to.

Pereira is correct, in the end, when he states that it is possible for different people to look at the same information and come to different conclusions, all while wanting what is best both for Ustad, Ranthambhore, and the local peoples.  Conservation, animal rights, and human safety are all very emotional topics, and it can be impossible to leave emotion out of any discussions pertaining to them.  I'm not surprised that things got heated.