Market Economy At Its Best (or Worst?)

Someones Grief is an advertisement for Others

I was just going through the websites related to the Jim Corbett National Park. Some of them appear to be the official website for the park but invariably lead to information about one of the resorts in its periphery. I am really susprised why the concerned department is not doing anything about it.

In one of such websites, I came across an advertisement for a resort and was amazed (rather amused) to see how they were trying to attract potential customers.

"If you want to spend your weekend at Corbett National Park and also wants to enjoy your evenings as well , you can book your cottage at XXXXX on the bank of Kosi River ( nearby to place, where an tiger attacked & killed a women on 12 Nov-2010) & go for full day Wildlife safaris."

May be I am over-reacting...May be it is a normal practice...The jury is out

Tiger, tiger...

I can't speak for the commercial aspect of the websites but why are you citing the resort where a tiger killed a woman in 2010 particularly as a negative? You think tigers are congregating near that resort to ambush people? If so I'd like to stay there as there is a certain chance of tiger spotting. But I am not sure why you cite the location of an accident as a negative in this instance.

Man and Tiger conflicts happen in many places in India and that does not mean people should avoid businesses around them.

He's not citing the incident as negative: he is citing the the use of it as advertising.

No, he is citing the use of national park websites to lead to private businesses as a negative.

Obviously the resort did not advertise 'Come stay with us. We just had a lady attacked and killed by a tiger in 2010' as its highlight.

The OP made it a point to mention it to show the resort in bad light and I am questioning the motive behind it.

As for the commercial aspect itself, I had no opinion and it was a disclaimer in my earlier post. I suppose people will try to make a buck out of any opportunity on the web is all I can say.

ok... I see the comment amazed/amused. Not sure what Photofreak is getting at.

It doesn't surprise me that websites about a public attraction should have information as to local accommodation.

There is no motive (obvious or ulterior) behind whatever I have written. Neither I am trying to take a morally high position.

Please pay attention to my last sentence

"May be I am over-reacting...May be it is a normal practice...The jury is out"

As far as the man-tiger conflict and taking commercial benefits (from resort's point of view) out of it is concerned. That is entirely a separate issue, which can be debated in some other forum or a separate thread. However, a resort (I am not pointing out a particular resort if you have objection to that. There are others as well) very close to where a tiger made a kill, in itself tells a lot. If you want to know more, just sift through the newspapers (local ones in Uttarakhand) of the time when some of these resorts were springing up close to Jim Corbett park.

@Nick-H, you were correct here:

"He's not citing the incident as negative: he is citing the the use of it as advertising."

However, I think I need to rephrase/remove certain words/sentences to eliminate the semblance of subjectivity.

You did not go through "official website", You are over-reacting.

The Official Site is different from what you assume to be official site.

The official site is "developed by the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun under the WII-USFWS project Planning and Development of Interpretive Facilities in Corbett National Park." while the one you allude to/snookered by is run by Raj Singh of Camp & Treks, located in Delhi.

Thanks for your reply Sir,appreciate your opinion.

Did you know by looking at the url, which one is developed by Wildlife Institute?

I understand when you google for the corbett national park, the wildlife institute website says "the official website". May be forced to do so, just as some shops in India put in advertisement "Naqualon se Saawdhan, Asli Samaan Humaari Dukaan Mein hi Milta Hai

Anyways! thanks again for your views

Well maybe 'motive' is not the right operating word I should have used but I did find it interesting that you mentioned the location of the incident and its proximity to the resort as a negative. But tiger attacks are not uncommon in India and every year 100-200 people are killed by tigers because people live too close or right smack in the tiger territory. And lot of these people are economically disadvantaged to move anywhere and they depend on the jungle for their livelihood.

Anyways, the point I was trying to make was your specific mention of the tiger attack near the Kosi river where the resort is located and my point being a tiger can attack anywhere if you are in its territory.

As for the commercialization aspect, well, they are trying to make a buck using sites that sound official. Actually this phenomenon is not unique to India and in the US, most national park name sites with the 'dot com' extension are commercial sites. The official US national park sites have a 'dot nps' and 'dot gov' in the URL. Since the official names of NP sites were not grabbed by the National Park Service, the commercial people grabbed them.

I suppose you are overreacting is all I can conclude from the OP.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your opinion.

You have a valid argument.

In my personal view, people (and their ancestors) jostling for same space with tigers and getting killed in the process is different from the presence a resort in the same locality. Though there is a debate going on if the co-existence of human and tiger is jeopardizing tiger conservation efforts. This has given rise to the idea of the relocation of villages from around/inside national parks.

I am not generalising and painting all commercial eastablishments with the same brush (some eco-tourism-oriented ones are doing excellent job) but the presence of commercial establishments close to (or inside buffer zone) can supposedly hinder tiger movement, which is essential for maintaining genetic diversity. Again a controversial issue open for debate.

Photofreak, tigers are highly territorial animals and each tiger needs a considerably large territory than what Tiger reserves in India offer. That is what leads to man and tiger conflicts. If you look at smaller reserves like Bandavgarh or Ranthambore where there is high tiger density, each tiger's share of the territory is much smaller than what a tiger needs. So most lodging and resorts in those areas are all in tiger territory and there could be potentially tiger attacks in almost all tiger reserves in India on the visitors. Lack of territory is also why tigers usually stray into the fringe villages and kill people and cattle. So the idea of a safe zone for a resort in a tiger reserve is an illusion though in reality tigers avoid human habitats when they have adequate prey unless we are talking man eaters.

Unless you want the resorts and lodging located 50 or 100 mi away from the Tiger reserves, all of them are potentially in a tiger's territory. Most tiger reserves in India are too small to give adequate territory to a tiger and that is the harsh reality of the situation.

No, that is not possible, but a quick bit of internet detective work (whois and google are your friends) has some interesting results.

What should certainly not be allowed is a private organisation passing itself off as official. They may say they don't, but do they mind if people make that mistake? No idea about that or their motives: a quick bit of detective work is not enough to condemn!

I get what you're trying to say, and I say you're not over-reacting, it is despicable of the resorts to 1) try fake officialdom (but with invisible CYA's to wriggle out later) and 2) use someone's death to promote their business (again with the invisible CYA's). But it's precisely because of those CYA's that they can't be touched. Having said that, I'd avoid such businesses any day.

@Matka...thanks for your reply, appreciate your opinion...atleast I have someone supporting me

@Nick-H...They don't have to say anything if their motive is wrong. Secondly, Why to waste money and time on search engine optimization like others are doing ethically.

@carcorodoncarcharias
Let’s take the example of Jim Corbett National Park (JCNP), which has an area of 1,320 sq. km (500 sq.km. of core area and 800 sq.km. of buffer area) and a tiger population of about 160.
On an average, a tiger needs 10 sq. km. of territory, which means JCNP has about 30 tigers more than its capacity currently., the tiger density increases significantly, if you do not consider the buffer zone. So, tigers need buffer zone like never before, in fact a trouble -free buffer zone for unhindered movement of tiger and its prey, even if it requires shifting resorts 100 miles (if it helps in tiger conservation at all).
As of now, core area is out of bound for tourists and definitely there is a rational behind it. About 20 years back the tourists who could not get accommodation at Ramnagar (a small town nearJCNP) and/or in Forest Rest Houses used to put up at towns 50/100 km away from JCNP. If I remember correctly, an idea was mooted to stop tourist flow (thereby taking resorts out of picture) completely for smooth tiger conservation efforts. Thankfully it was not implemented (or did not find any takers), as I personally believe that the tourist traffic deters poachers (at least to some extent) and brings in much needed funds.
Coming back to the capacity constraints in India’s national parks, if I am correct than the government is planning to create a tiger corridor linking all tiger habitats wherever possible. This would primarily include national parks in the northern and north-east region.

Now, Man-Tiger conflict!
The case of a tiger straying in to a village is different from a human killed while venturing in to the jungle. Tigers/leopards used to stray in to villages/human-habitations 100 years back also (at least the jungle literature suggests that) and would continue to do so. Though the frequency has increased due to dwindling population of their natural prey especially in the areas/zones where human movement is more.
Human deaths at the hands of tiger are a result of chance encounters. Tigers typically avoid confrontation with humans unless it is a cub-rearing tigress or a mating tiger couple.