Appeal of national parks?

Hi everyone,

This is just something that's been floating around in the back of my head - I know that here, in the United States, the National Park system protects our most pristine, wild, and scenic land. When I think about where I'd like to trek, or car-camp here in the United States, the National Parks are always at the top of my list. They really can't be beat.
My question is: Does it work the same way in India? If I'm looking to find untouched wilderness areas, that are rich in scenic beauty and bountiful wildlife, are the National Parks the place to be? From reading through the trekking forum, it seems that, for the most part, people are staying out of the National Parks. Maybe overnight camping isn't allowed inside the National Park boundaries?

Thanks everyone!

-Dave

Very few parks if any, will allow you to camp unless you get special permission. The other alternative is staying in the so called Forestry Department lodge or bungelow. Again you need to get permission for this but as far as I'm aware it's not too difficult.
You will also have to pay for a guide whilst in the park I think!!

If memory serves me right, there are (or used to be) some parks where you can arrange to spend the/a couple of night(s) in a tree hut kind of affair, the kind of platforms used by the forest guards and conservationists themselves to observe wildlife. If this sounds romantic, it's absolutely basic & you usually need to provide your own bedding & provisions I think. You get brought there and are picked up again later, and you're expected to keep quiet & keep the place tidy of course, and I don't suppose you can leave the platform at any time.

You'd have to arrange this in advance and I can't tell you which parks do this and which don't. Might be worth reading around some more though.

btw Staying just outside of these parks doesn't necessarily mean the surroundings will be any less appealing, would depend on where you are again I guess. Combined with trips into the park proper it can be just as nice I think.

Poaching is a major issue with national parks. So no night camping. But there are quite a few parks that have resorts built close to them or maybe within. Bandhavgarh, Ranthambore, etc.

That's kind of what I expected. Maybe we could learn from the Indians....here in America, our National Parks are still beautiful, but are an extremely endangered resource. There's lots of people that don't think twice about littering, stepping off the paths (where not permitted) and trodding on fragile grounds, hassling wildlife, etc. etc. Maybe this is the answer I was looking for afterall Thanks everyone,

-Dave

In this regard, I don't think the Americans have anything to learn from the Indians.

for what it's worth, my own research, including that done here on IM disclosed a lodge and some bungalows within the actual boundary of the jaldapara wildlife sanctuary (and several others close by). no, it's not "parks american style," but at least you're within the forest itself.

reservations can generally be made only through specified govt tourist department offices, which you can identify in any guidebook. after dozens of reconstituted google searches, i manage to find an email address for the hoolong forest reserve lodge, where i hope to stay one night in february.

maitl@ dte.vsnl.net.in

(of course, like so many of my emails to india, it may go unacknowledged, but it seemed a good first stab before trying to call or waiting until i get to india.)

as for camping, i'm a bit more wary of india's creatures than i am of those i grew up learning about at home, and am not sure i'd want to pitch my tent in what could well be the territory of something with paws the size of my head.

Good point Janice. I haven't yet looked into the potential wildlife that I may encounter while in India. I'll mostly be in the north, and I know there are lots of hungry predators lurking about. In the United States (and in my time spent in Alaska), I'm only accustomed to thinking about black and brown bears.....and in India, they are just one of many on what seems a fairly large list of dangerous wildlife!

-Dave

exactly! me too! those we can deal with - we've learned how to hang our stuff from trees in bear bags and whatnot. in india, who knows? regarding precautions, i read in a guidebook about men who work in tiger territory who wear masks on the backs of their heads with faces painted on them because tigers are less likely to attack when they're being...looked at! and it's news (again, i get this only from a guidebook, so who knows?) that the number of annual deaths from tiger attacks is down to 34 annually - from 200! i don't know how many bear deaths we have here each year (setting aside that poor mentally ill young man that herzog documented who thought he had a spiritual communion with grizzlies!), but i reckon it's not anywhere near 34. yikes!

Yikes! indeed. Before I get out there, I hope to fully educate myself about the -real- danger associated with wild animals in the Himalayas, and take the neccessary precautions to keep myself safe (even if it means wearing a mask on the back of my head, much to the humor of the locals!). Emphasis on the real, rather than imaginary - the latter of which is sure to increase the more we educate ourselves. Then again, reported deaths are nothing imaginary....I imagine many of the 'techniques' for safety are much the same though - mostly a reflection of common sense and awareness of your environment. And you're right, I don't think there is anywhere near 34 deaths related to bear attacks per year here in the United States. Even at the heart of brown bear country, Denali National Park still has yet to experience is first bear-related casuality. I can't say I'm not worried!

-Dave

I think you've been advised before that wild animals let alone dangerous ones in the Himalayas or most other places shouldn't be a big deal, they generally shy away from human populations anyway. You'll probably have a hard time getting so far away from civilization as to make it a real problem. These parks however were set up to conserve and breed and generally concentrate them as you can imagine, so there'll... well, be more animals. Or ideally anyway, success rates seem to vary. Anyway I guess that's why there'll generally be no camping, these forest guards aren't fond of visitors getting eaten all the time & the accompanying bad press They have enough on their minds already keeping the peace with surrounding villages etc.

nb To put those numbers in perspective, India is currently said to have a population of around 1 billion, as opposed to 300 million in the US. So you'd have to get very unlucky indeed... In fact many visitors seem to be more obsessed about getting to see a tiger at all

A valid point - Thanks for helping to at least partially berid us of our unrealistic, imaginary fears of getting eaten!

-Dave

oh, i harbor no delusions about that, machadinha. remember? jaldapara's all about my elephant ride !

Yes, now that you mention... best thing of the whole experience I think. There was a little baby elephant trundling around between Mama Ollie's legs back in the camp... cutest thing in the world. <sigh>

btw These rides are something else too, quite a bit higher than it might look from the ground. I was kind of disappointed you get to sit in a silly basket kind of affair (howdah) with a few others instead of doing your own cowboy thing like I had romantically envisaged, so at least now you don't have to be

For others: I don't know about Jaldhapara today, but anyway I hear in general these elephant rides are getting few and far between. Too bad if it's so.

actually, i saw a photo somewhere during my obsessive research depicting tourists four-deep on what appeared to be an improvised blanket-like saddle. (so i'd already been divested of my own cowboy fantasy.) the tourists were sort of "spooning", one behind the other. inasmuch as i am traveling alone, it's a given that i will not know my elephant-mates and, it follows, will be "spooning" with strangers. i may just find myself wishing for the ol' basket affair.