No tourism in core areas of tiger reserves: SC

Reply
#16 Jul 25th, 2012, 15:25
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
India
Posts:
19
  • Ajay44001 is offline
#16
I think Govt should take some other steps instead of Ban Of Tiger Tourism areas.
#17 Jul 25th, 2012, 15:29
Join Date:
Jul 2012
Location:
India
Posts:
2
  • adios is offline
#17
Well as a would be traveler to these reserves, I guess I would need to think long and hard before going now, since the allure of getting to see a tiger is gone.
I understand that most tourists are not conservationists and hence they may create nuisance, but to make this movement self-sustaining, some parts need to remain open too. A necessarily cautious approach is needed, and I believe that SC has done a fair job...
#18 Jul 25th, 2012, 15:44
Join Date:
Feb 2012
Location:
New Delhi & New Jersey
Posts:
7
  • namasteindia is offline
#18
I wouldn't be surprised to learn if someone from the illegal animal trade lobby has offered crores of rupees to give such DISASTROUS direction to this ruling. Clearly this ruling will only benefit the poachers because now they can do their work with full freedom without being watched at all.
#19 Jul 25th, 2012, 16:59
Join Date:
Oct 2004
Location:
Chennai, India
Posts:
68,625
  • Nick-H is offline
#19
Quote:
Either, we, the decent civil society support the rule of the law, totally and unequivocally even if it means having decisions we don't like
Clearly, judges, whatever their qualification, are not infallible. Sometimes they work with common sense, sometimes they work against excesses and foolishness of government --- and sometimes they talk utter bollocks. Isn't this true in all "democratic" countries?

Refuge from the law should, perhaps, be sought through the law/constitution rather than defying or going against it.

Confession: I am, currently, "defying" an order of the Indian court. I am driving a car with sunfilm on the glass. This is an order which, although clearly applying to all sunfilm, has been interpreted and enforced completely differently by the police/governments of different cities/states. Mine is of the almost-clear variety, and can easily be seen thorough, both in and out. It seems that that is the criteria that the police here are currently using in enforcing it --- but by the letter of the law, yes, I am breaking it.
~
Life gets aadhar every day.
.
#20 Jul 25th, 2012, 17:27
Join Date:
Jan 2009
Location:
Perth, Western Australia
Posts:
806
  • Keith H is offline
#20
"Clearly, judges, whatever their qualification, are not infallible"
I don't know about you guys but where I live seems to be a different place to where our local judges live - they are totally out of touch with those who they purport to serve/ protect.
While on the one hand it seems as though this ruling seeks to protect the tigers it may serve to do the exact opposite; where there are less people about (less tourists and their support industries) the less eyes there are on the poachers.
If I was a tiger I might well be heading for the hills about now.
#21 Jul 25th, 2012, 17:50
Join Date:
Apr 2009
Location:
Almora
Posts:
6,401
  • jituyadav is offline
#21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith H View Post While on the one hand it seems as though this ruling seeks to protect the tigers it may serve to do the exact opposite; where there are less people about (less tourists and their support industries) the less eyes there are on the poachers.
If I was a tiger I might well be heading for the hills about now.
We Indians are good at looking the other way even when most heinous crime is committed on another human, forget about what happens to poor animals in Jungles. Majority of criminal cases are closed because no eyewitness comes ahead, even if hundreds have watched the crime.

No entry in core zone means that anybody present there can be arrested and interrogated. It will make poaching difficult because they cannot disguise as tourist or anyone else.

The issue is more about properly equipped personals who are serious about their responsibility. It is this area that needs to be overhauled, because if this is lacking, nothing can work.

The ruling also makes it compulsory for all states to declare and mark a core zone, which I think was absent in some parks.
If you find my posts confrontationist, please bear, I am an old frustrated guy who has nothing better to do than sit on rocking chair and curse the world whole day
#22 Jul 25th, 2012, 19:03
Join Date:
Sep 2001
Location:
Canada
Posts:
1,316
  • abracax is offline
#22
I nominate post #13 for Rant of the Month. Brilliant!
New home for my photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/abracax/
#23 Jul 25th, 2012, 19:19
Join Date:
Jun 2010
Location:
26 11' 0" N / 91 44' 0" E
Posts:
549
Send a message via Yahoo to style_guru Send a message via Skype™ to style_guru
  • style_guru is offline
#23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jituyadav View Post
No entry in core zone means that anybody present there can be arrested and interrogated. It will make poaching difficult because they cannot disguise as tourist or anyone else.
Err I am sorry Jitu bhai, but I have a different take on that, having grown up near to Kaziranga National Park, which has seen a ridiculously large no. of Animals being poached.

I have a feeling that with no tourists in the core area, there'll be no security cover in the core area. Because Animal's wont complain about lack of security

We must also not forget that we as tourists are bound to abide by the honorable SC's judgement, but poachers are not.

Infact what this ruling may do is that, since there'll be no tourists/outsiders in the core area, there'll be a lot of poaching incidents which shall be brushed inside the carpet.

P.S:- The SC has given this judgement in the right spirit, but this wont make any difference. As the danger to the Animals is not from the tourists, but from the unholy nexus between the authorities and the poachers.
I am only responsible for what I say, and not what you understand
#24 Jul 25th, 2012, 19:31
Join Date:
Mar 2009
Location:
somewhere quiet away from nosey buggers
Posts:
291
  • FUGLY is offline
#24
Does nobody grasp the concept of "Core area" ?
It is something created by a human being, but I cannot fathom out why, man would create something like that.
It should be called a prohibited area, or better still, what about the name " Tiger reserve " A place for tigers to live, not humans.

If someone then invented a system, whereby, people jumped on a vehicle, lets call it a "jeep", and took trips into the "Tiger reserve" and then leave afterwards, would that not be a good idea ? They could pay for the visit, and then tigers, and people looking after the tigers, would benefit.


Why I cannot understand "Core area" ?
If every tiger park has a core centre, or area, how many tigers will that area contain, assuming the animals are not in cages ?

Do those tigers, that dwell in that core area, not breed ?
Do they not send forth their offspring, to create territories of their own ?
Do the Supreme court judges, or anyone else, believe that the number of cats within that core area, will actually increase ?
The number of cats within any area, will not change by more than one or two, in 10, 20, even 30 years time
Do they think that the tiger in charge of his/her territory would for one second permit that to happen. Not bloody likely !
The tigers themselves, ensure that any other striped trespassers are quickly moved on, and in the process, the trespassers eventually carve out and create a territory of their own.
The one and only problem is, that takes them ever closer to human life.
Bottom line then becomes, too many people live too close to tigers. Those people then kick off when tigers kill their livestock, or the people themselves. That triggers, a local catastrophe, and the tigers get shot, and its not always the guilty tiger that gets shot. Sometimes many tigers are shot, just to make sure.
Why ??

Because too many people are living somewhere, they just should not be living.

A last thought to consider...

If tourists are such a menace to tigers, why is it, that the Lions of Sasan Gir are now doing so well ?
#25 Jul 25th, 2012, 20:44
Join Date:
Apr 2009
Location:
Almora
Posts:
6,401
  • jituyadav is offline
#25
Quote:
Originally Posted by style_guru View Post I have a feeling that with no tourists in the core area, there'll be no security cover in the core area. Because Animal's wont complain about lack of security
Security cover to animals is irrespective of tourists, its a job people get paid for. And therein lies the problem, guards don't have any proper equipment and weapons, neither are they counselled on regular basis about the seriousness of the job they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGLY View Post Why I cannot understand "Core area" ?
Nothing much to understand there i guess. If animals get an area that is truly theirs, what's the harm?

Wild animals usually move away from places human frequent. It would help a lot if there is some place where there is minimal human interference.

And we are talking about at least an average of 500 sq Kms here, big enough for animals to move around and propagate.

About other aspects of tigers, yes they are territorial and will eventually try to increase the territory. But until we can find a solution to decrease human activity around national parks, which is an impossible task, the present system is good enough.
#26 Jul 25th, 2012, 20:58
Join Date:
Oct 2005
Location:
Abode of Glooscap
Posts:
10,517
  • PeakXV is offline
#26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGLY View Post Does nobody grasp the concept of "Core area" ?
I'll take an uneducated stab at it. It's the area, most likely based on radio-collar tracking, that makes up the majority of the animal's movements & time spent. Their home within their home. With that in mind, I really don't think it's a bad idea to reduce the human 'peep show' in these specific areas. One can still get the tiger experience & occasional sightings from the perimeter & when they are out and about - roaming & hunting.

As an analogy, I have an area on my property where the deer bed down & have their fawning grounds. Although, I'm free to traverse through this 'core' habitat area - I choose not to, for fear of putting undue consternation & pressure on their daily lives. And so I only circle this area & view the animals as they venture out to feed & drink. That's good enough for me - although some days I see them, some days not.

I believe this is the same sort of idea that is being implemented in India. It's certainly no different than what is already presented in the Sunderbans - where tiger viewing is only available via the buffered areas cum water channel routes ....... & with no major complaints I believe.
We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. ~
T. S. Eliot

http://www.derekgrantdigital.com
#27 Jul 25th, 2012, 21:47
Join Date:
Mar 2009
Location:
somewhere quiet away from nosey buggers
Posts:
291
  • FUGLY is offline
#27
" Nothing much to understand there i guess. If animals get an area that is truly theirs, what's the harm? "

"I'll take a stab at it. It's the area, most likely based on radio-collar tracking, that makes up the majority of their movements & time spent. Their home within their home."

Sorry, but you both completely missed my point. If a core area is 1,000 sq km's, and has 50 tigers resident (assuming sufficient prey is available)that number will not increase by more than a few, no matter how long you waited.


"But until we can find a solution to decrease human activity around national parks"

There you go, you managed to hit the head on the nail, that is the only solution, and its not impossible, maybe expensive. But compared to loss of tiger dollars, its small fry, especially when you total up over the next 50, or hopefully more years. Remember each tiger is going to be generating over $1m USD, at todays rates
#28 Jul 25th, 2012, 21:54
Join Date:
Oct 2005
Location:
Abode of Glooscap
Posts:
10,517
  • PeakXV is offline
#28
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGLY View Post
Sorry, but you both completely missed my point.
If a core area is 1,000 sq km's, and has 50 tigers resident (assuming sufficient prey is available)that number will not increase by more than a few, no matter how long you waited.
Most likely not but it certainly might decrease it. For example, how would people with binoculars & cameras passing through your bedroom - affect 'your' mating instincts/rituals? I think you might have missed the tiger's point(of view).
#29 Jul 25th, 2012, 22:11
Join Date:
Aug 2006
Location:
Homeless
Posts:
19,073
  • nycank is offline
#29
Quote:
Originally Posted by abracax View Post I nominate post #13 for Rant of the Month. Brilliant!
#30 Jul 25th, 2012, 22:15
Join Date:
Oct 2004
Location:
Chennai, India
Posts:
68,625
  • Nick-H is offline
#30
The only place I have ever been where there just might possibly be a tiger somewhere within miles is Periyar. As I understand it, Periyar reserve has a core area, which is actually the vast majority of it, where no tourists are allowed, and tourism is restricted to what is actually a minute proportion on the edge of the reserve.

I don't know anything about those places in the North, from which we see amazing photographs from members here (and on Team-BHP). Question for people who do know those places: do they not also have such "core" areas?
Reply

Similar Threads

Title, Username, & Date Last Post Replies Views Forum
The Magic of Monsoons in Tiger reserves May 19th, 2016 22:50 34 13812 Indian Wildlife and National Parks
Safari drives in Todoba, Pench & Kanha tiger reserves in Nov 2011 Mar 21st, 2012 14:29 2 1398 India Travel Partners
India to stop tiger tourism May 10th, 2010 23:09 33 5048 Indian Wildlife and National Parks


Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules»
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
© IndiaMike.com 2018
Page Load Success