Amit Bhattacharya | The Times of India | 24 August 2012, 05:22 PM IST
Are tourists bad for our tigers? Recent Supreme Court orders — the latest coming on Wednesday, extending the ban on tourists in core zones of India’s tiger reserves till August 29 — give the impression that wildlife tourism is an indulgence of the rich and middle-class Indians at the cost of the wildlife.
That’s a narrow way of looking at conservation and isn’t supported by evidence. On the contrary, it’s in the long term interest of India’s tigers — and biodiversity hotspots in general — that tourism is allowed in our national parks.
One of the most compelling arguments in favour allowing visitors inside our national parks was provided by a wildlife biologist. You would imagine that wildlife scientists, as a community, would favour a ban on people visiting the core areas of our most rich forests. But in the course of a conversation with me on the subject, Wildlife Institute of India’s Qamar Qureshi, a senior scientist involved in numerous tiger projects (including the census), had a different take altogether.
“Wildlife tourism is a very important tool for conservation,” he said. “Most of us, the wildlife scientists, were inspired to take up this profession after watching plants and animals in the wild. By placing a ban on tourism, we would be robbing an entire generation of that experience — and a chance to take up conservation as a profession. That would be tragic," he said.
Qureshi’s point is often missed in the debate on eco-tourism. The best forests in the country — certainly the ones that attract and enthral visitors — are the core tiger reserves. The buffer zones of most parks are degraded forests, marked with human habitations. That’s why no one wants to spend a vacation in these places.
On the other hand, the core zones of most of our tiger reserves have been more or less protected forests from much before the launch of Project Tiger. It was for their natural beauty, along with the potential for game-hunting, that these forests were conserved by princely rulers in the British era.
Take these forests out of the tourist map and you would have effectively killed eco-tourism in the country.
Of course, that doesn’t mean wildlife tourism should be allowed to go on with scant regard for regulations, as is happening today. Today, many wildlife reserves are venues for marriage celebrations and parties. There are no norms on lighting, noise and the number of storeys these structures can have. This needs to change.
And if need be, curbs on the number of tourists visiting a forest should be brought in. But please, do not miss the woods for the trees— for the sake of the forests as well as our children.
Are tourists bad for our tigers? Recent Supreme Court orders — the latest coming on Wednesday, extending the ban on tourists in core zones of India’s tiger reserves till August 29 — give the impression that wildlife tourism is an indulgence of the rich and middle-class Indians at the cost of the wildlife.
That’s a narrow way of looking at conservation and isn’t supported by evidence. On the contrary, it’s in the long term interest of India’s tigers — and biodiversity hotspots in general — that tourism is allowed in our national parks.
“Wildlife tourism is a very important tool for conservation,” he said. “Most of us, the wildlife scientists, were inspired to take up this profession after watching plants and animals in the wild. By placing a ban on tourism, we would be robbing an entire generation of that experience — and a chance to take up conservation as a profession. That would be tragic," he said.
Qureshi’s point is often missed in the debate on eco-tourism. The best forests in the country — certainly the ones that attract and enthral visitors — are the core tiger reserves. The buffer zones of most parks are degraded forests, marked with human habitations. That’s why no one wants to spend a vacation in these places.
On the other hand, the core zones of most of our tiger reserves have been more or less protected forests from much before the launch of Project Tiger. It was for their natural beauty, along with the potential for game-hunting, that these forests were conserved by princely rulers in the British era.
Take these forests out of the tourist map and you would have effectively killed eco-tourism in the country.
Of course, that doesn’t mean wildlife tourism should be allowed to go on with scant regard for regulations, as is happening today. Today, many wildlife reserves are venues for marriage celebrations and parties. There are no norms on lighting, noise and the number of storeys these structures can have. This needs to change.
And if need be, curbs on the number of tourists visiting a forest should be brought in. But please, do not miss the woods for the trees— for the sake of the forests as well as our children.