No tourism in core areas of tiger reserves: SC

The Indian High Court has temporarily banned tourists from core areas within its tiger reserves in a bid to protect the threatened species.

There are 40 tiger reserves across India that were set up to protect the animals. Earlier this year, the government asked all reserves to divide the land into 'core' and 'buffer' areas.

Following the ruling on Tuesday (July 24), the 'core area' is now where the tigers can live without any disturbances from tourists and the 'buffer area' is where tourists can visit. The buffer area is around 10km away from the tigers.

The Indian High Court made this ruling following a claim from a local environmentalist that ecotourism is damaging the breeding grounds of the tigers.

============================== ==============

Full story here:
http://www.dotwnews.com/focus/india-...tiger-reserves

Tim, currently in Lijiang, China.


Moderator Note: Merged with existing thread.

Again, my apologies PeakX.
I have been wondering like crazy, how this tiger"Charger" had eluded me.

I recall a famous tiger at Ranthambore in the 80's, called "Genghis". He was the first to be filmed chasing the deer into the water, in order to catch them.

The Supreme Court had not chosen to pay attention to the disruptive role of religious tourism and its adverse impact to wildlife.

From next week, more than one million people will enter Ranthambore for the Ganesh mela. In the same way, over one lakh tourists enter Sariska every Tuesday to pray at the Hanuman temple. Their presence is much more disruptive whereas the presence of 40 vehicles inside the sanctuary for a six- hour period in a day has been found to be detrimental to wildlife.

Around the world, parks are trying to do both conservation and tourism in a complementary manner but we are doing the opposite.

Court should allow “responsible tourism” across tiger reserves so that nature lovers can get a chance to see animals in their natural habitat.

I tried to get some photos for you to share but my better half was having none of it.

So, as a very poor second choice, I quickly ( well, less time than it took to prepare for the olympic games)knocked up a movie for you all to laugh at, and mock, and uploaded it to Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKBtH2FXg0

It is my belief, that to deny me, or anyone else(they wish)for that matter, moments such as this, is nothing short of a crime against humanity !

Thanks for sharing this video, Fugly! Amazing tiger footage!

My pleasure, treasure

Thanks Fugly, simply beautiful! Really want to see cubs now......enough of the big daddies! Not that I am complaining!

Tourism ban will not help the Big Cat

"The Supreme Court’s decision banning tourism in core areas of tiger habitats overlooks several critical considerations. It will harm, rather then help, the cause of tiger conservation.

For a start, it gives way too much power to the forest department. The ban will mean only one agency will both implement the tiger protection agenda, and audit that process.

The various forest and environment officials at the Centre and at the State level have a terrible record of tiger protection."

Monkey see - Monkey Do.

There you go. Push the tourism and business argument, and all the special interest groups come out of the woodworks. Just like here, we have lobbyists and influence peddlers that have on their rolodex list of media types under their thumbs; so does India.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...cle3687215.ece


I still do not understand this argument.In the past, lodge/resort owners have flouted the environmental norms the most (at least around the park, which I know closely).

In my view, in the best case scenario, tourists bring in money, much needed for the upkeep of parks, without causing any adverse impact on the local environment. Nothing more nothing less.

However, money whets greed, and greed nurtures corruption. That is how the things work out in India.

I feel that just to strengthen his argument, the writer has ignored the proportionally high number of poaching-related deaths in the peak tourist season.

Appears to be a valid argument but the number of tourists is still regulated in national parks (prior to the court's intervention). And, by suggesting the regulation of the number of tourists, is the writer conceding that a large number of tourists hamper the tiger conservation efforts.

If I am correct then forest is a state subject in India with national parks under the state government's control in the respective states. Only a proportion of the revenues (very small portion in some cases) earned through national parks is channelized back for their maintenance.

So, in all likelihood, increased revenues will be used to fund schemes (perhaps populist schemes) in other sectors, with the condition of national parks remaining largely as it is.

The business section of a newspaper, and it did little or no number crunching. No economic validation. All economic newspapers, or Business section of big newspaper back their articles with compelling numbers. This lacked all.

This report gives an interesting insight into the likely impact on reserves. http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2...s-tiger-parks/

The article focuses on the loss of revenues to the national parks, which is rather inconsequent as these parks are managed through the annual budget allocations by their respective state governments. People employed at the park are state-government employees with secured employment and pensions to follow post their retirement.

However, it would be interesting (and perhaps a matter of concern) to know the impact of ban (if it finally turns out to be permanent) on the people dependent on tiger tourism, such as those working in resorts around national parks.

Some 30,000 individuals of the local community are likely to lose their jobs around Kanha and Bandhavgarh alone. Will this decision not push these locals into poaching?

I am extremely surprised by the views of people here regarding ban on tiger tourism. I guess the reason could be they have a limited vision or insufficient knowledge of this subject. Scenario earlier, (before tourism flourished in the National Parks) Tiger population has declined sharply due to poaching. Now, the question arises who does the poaching? Its the LOCALS not TOURISTS. Why do they kill tigers? because they did not have any other source of income. Scenario today, Now, LOCALS play a vital role in conservation of wildlife. Reason they earn through the resorts & tourism activities. The resort owners and managers further educate them the importance of wildlife. Scenario tomorrow, these same Locals will start engaging themselves in poaching because they will have no means of income. This is what their ancestors have done in the past. Agriculture is not possible even in buffer zones (where human activity is permitted) because herbivorous animals eat there produce. Even if they return to agriculture they can't earn as much as they earn now. I think Guidelines should be formulated to regulate the tourism. It is very important and I agree in many parks tourist go crazy but it is the JOB of PARK MANAGEMENT. It significantly varies from one national park to another. There is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF of adverse effect on tigers or wildlife due to tourism. On, the contrary it helps to vigil the forest. Tourism further keeps the forest officials on toes to be alert. POACHERS will be benefited the most by SC's decision. PLEASE RAISE YOUR VOICE AGAINST THIS DECISION. IN ORDER TO SAVE ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL CREATION OF GOD. TIGERS!!

Thank you so much for sharing your treasure with all of us here. It has certainly made my day. How I wish I could be there with you. Ramesh really knows the lie of the land well enough. I wanted to do a safari with him this summer but when I called him he was already overbooked. I was so looking forward to do it this November and now this.

Please provide the source of this information

I hope you are not claiming to be a subject-matter expert

What is the definition of "Locals" here.

Poaching is a crime (an organized crime rather),which should be dealt with as per the provisions of the law. Going by your argument, the government will have to work overtime to provide employment to every thief, dacoit, and terrorist to eradicate crime.

If banning tourist movement in core areas is the way forward (though I am not sure about it) then so be it. Of course, unfortunately this will affect some people but it can not be used as a threat.

Again, which locals and which ancestors are you talking about...please specify

Please check your facts again

Do you have results of any comparative analysis to suggest this.

First let us look at the chronology of the events:

1. National Tiger Coservation Authority (NTCA) formulates guidelines (which are not binding but recommendatory in nature) with a suggestion to limit tourism to buffer areas.

2. An NGO files a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) for the implementation of NTCA recommendations

3. In response to the petition, the SC directs the concerned state governments to notify core and buffer areas within in a stipulated time but they failed to do so

4. Consequent to it, the SC gives three weeks of time to comply with its orders and bans tourism in the interim

So as of now, even the honorable court has not given any final verdict on banning tiger tourism from core areas.

Till the verdict comes, these is no empirical evidence either to suggest that tourism helps in tiger conservation.

Are you suggesting that tigers will only survive if tourists are allowed in to the parks. Your argument presumes that the forest officials would be most active only when tourists are there to keep an eye on them.

If such is the case....If forest officials (and the government) are not strong-willed and passionate towards tiger conservation, and IF corruption is deep ingrained then tigers will disappear sooner or later...tourism or no tourism